Talk:Polder model

message: is Colignatus's beef with the Netherlands?
Seriously, if his English were better I would know what his angle was, but as it stands I'm willing to chalk it up to another dumb European tribal rivalry. Considering that the 'polder model' is actually a fairly well-observed historical attitude, more criticism on the subject than actual explanation of what it is / what it means seems fairly uncalled-for; in addition, the 'criticism' section is seemingly inchohate with rage that the bloody Dutch are so much as considered.
The criticism section is supported by a single link, which is original research, as it's a Wikireason page (what the hell is Wikireason - where the Objectivists among you go to masturbate?) created solely by Colignatus himself -- and itself inspiredly incoherent.
Note that the criticisms are not at all of the 'polder method' itself, but seem to prefer to snipe at the Dutch people. And while I'm not Dutch, I find overt bigotry against them fairly silly.
Especially when it gets in the way of valid history/economics.
68.104.94.68 20:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Please don't hide behind a URL or nickname, but give your full name and address so that everyone can note that you reason and talk like this. (2) Check out wikireason before you judge. (3) The polder model is NOT a "fairly well-observed historical attitude". There are only people who tell stories like that, which can be recorded but needs to be treated cautiously. PM. I am an economist, what are you ? (4) I don't have anything about the Dutch people, just want this issue to be straight. (5) My English is fine, don't mix up your lack of understanding with my English. (6) For readers of Dutch: a recent article by Wouter van Dieren points to another problem in Dutch society - which shows that there is no polder model. See http://www.imsa.nl/Publicaties____pagina26_168.html (7) To be sure: This page must be developed into a decent entry. Colignatus 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Colignatus, I did not write the previous entry but I see one problem with your last entry. A wikipedia-article should not be discussion between two side on the merit of some social phenomenon, instead it should be a neutral point of view presentation of some social phenomenon. I agree with you that this page should be developed into a decent entry. I will try to change the article as soon as I can. C mon 07:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've radically revised this article, atleast hoping that it is no longer the worst article on wikipedia.C mon 21:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the shit 

message: I fail to see how Fortuyn's murder and election results are important parts of this article. Even the mention of Fortuyn is somewhat dubious. I have therefore removed those parts. Of course, if anyone disagree, I'd be happy to polder. ;) Kevinklop (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Other uses

message: As already stated on this talk page, there is no criticism at all of the Polder Model.  For example, decisions take much longer than with a more hierarchical structure and no individual necessarily is responsible (though whether that is a problem is debateable).  Finally, the article says that the model is "international acclaimed". Really? Citation?  --Robinson weijman (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism