Talk:2006 Dutch general election

message: "At the moment, the Partij van de Arbeid (labour party) is the largest party in the polls, but the CDA is gaining ground. The recent coalition government of CDA (christian democrats), VVD (liberals) and D66 (social liberals) is unable to keep a majority in recent polls." And the campaiging has only been going on since Friday? A bit too early I think; and unsourced, so I'm cutting it. (The wiki is not a crystal ball.)  Jon 13:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make the statement, but it is a reality. See http://www.politiekebarometer.nl and http://www.peil.nl. The left wing parties lost ground in the last months. BTW, D^^ is not part of the coalition anymore. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess you are missing the point that those kind of polls are always held in the Netherlands. If there are elections or not. 128.141.130.199 01:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A bit too early for this statement

message: Isn't it also a bit early to put 'possible coalitions' into the polls-table. The combinations are endless and at this point most anything is possible. I happen to work in this field and I know for a fact that almost no combination is excluded at this point. Maybe a small section with a brief description of possibilities that are entertained in the media would be nice, but I feel this is too much. I will wait a few days and if no one comes up with a good argument to keep it, I will remove the possible coalition from the table.--Dengo 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: also a bit early

message: Let us get a few things straight here. This controversy or whatever it is, has less to do with historical fact and more to do with the marginalisation and humiliation of a minority.
There is a lot of anti-turkish and anti-muslim prejudice in the netherlands and these are just the first glimpses of it coming out in the 2 major parties. The SS stormtroopers of the netherlands cant stand the fact that a Turk is going to become a high level minister and possibly in the future the prime minister. It is clearly aimed at kicking out minorities, namely the Turkish minority out of political power. Every member of the Dutch Turkish minority should boycott these jokes called "political parties" like pvda and cda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mertel (talk • contribs) 
:While your conspiracy theory is certainly amusing, it has no place in the Wikipedia article. We have policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability which determine what is appropriate content for articles. jaco♫plane 17:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please only add English texts to English wiki. Also - the comments in this article are not about the Armenian Genocide Issue, not even about issues whether Dutch government has anything to say about it; it is about the upheaval that surrounded this issue in relation to the 2006 election; this upheaval undeniably occurred (regardless of whatever happened in 1915). Arnoutf 08:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geno-lies controversy

message: PvdA-SP-GL-CU ? Sure theoretically it's possible but is it realistic? CU: anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-gay marriage in a single cabinet with GL. I can't see it happening. On the other hand, it looks like the Dutch voters are going to make it extremely difficult to form any sort of coalition.146.50.208.168 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been discussed from time-to-time as CU has caring for the poor and weak; and care for the environment in common with the Left wing parties. On the other hand the issues above seem indeed deal-breakers. We'll see nov 22nd is yet a long way of ;-) Arnoutf 12:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: IIRC, André Rouvoet has said during several interviews that the CU was more likely to come to an agreement with PvdA, SP and GL than with CDA and VVD. And it's very well possible that the four parties can reach an agreement. PvdA, SP, GL and CU share roughly the same views on the economy and on the welfare state. The two main differences are foreign policy (SP is more isolationist, PvdA and GL tend towards Europe and CU towards the US) and ethical issues (PvdA, SP and GL liberal, CU conservative). Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 12:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This interview with Rouvoet (mp3, interview starts around 6 minutes in to the mp3) is interesting with regard to this topic. The interviewer keeps asking him what the breaking points are for him in coalition negotiations, and he keeps saying that there are no breaking points and that he's pretty much willing to negotiate about everything. jaco♫plane 13:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible coalitions 

message: this was imho a non-issue, so i took the libery to delete it. Aleichem 03:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A non-issue? It got descent press coverage. I'll restore it. Intangible 11:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It did not influence the debates, the expected election results and political strategies as did the Armenian genocide question or the voting computer issue. I support removal, to expand the section we might consider including the AOW-row (senior citizens' tax) and the renewed urgency of the debate on the environment following Gore's movie (maybe including a small reference to GreenPeace's presence on the CDA congress). C mon 12:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is included not because political parties found it an issue to be debated, but because   this organization interfered with the right to free (political) assembly and association of citizens in a democratic country. Interior minister Remkes called this organization's action 'maatschappelijk volstrekt onverantwoord gedrag'. Intangible 13:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Maatschappelijk volstrekt onverantwoord gedrag' still has to be notable. I'm not sure this got enough independent third-party coverage from reliable sources. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 14:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The interference with the CDA congress was covered widely by the media (e.g.   ). Intangible 15:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are so much other issues with more importance that could be covered here instead of an incident wich took place some months ago. Aleichem 15:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as "tax on pensions"? This is an issue between political parties, not an issue about the election itself. These kind of issues between political parties are indeed innumerable. Intangible 17:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the taxes on pensions section either. I think if we include this dispute then we should also include other major disputes between the parties, otherwise the article gives the impression that the election was mainly about this issue. What about the introduction of the new law banning the burqa ... a few days before the election? Surely that was related to the campaign? Perhaps we should make a list of missing issues here and then expand them into the article. jaco♫plane 18:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues between parties (say tax on pensions) should be separated from those related to run up to the election, not? There are many issues (i.e. mortgage deductions, child-care benefits, etc.) between parties, and I'm not sure if this can be covered in a NPOV way. Intangible 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that these plans were launched as issues at stake (maybe better section) for these elections. Arnoutf 17:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe make a new section? "Issues at stake". I've added the story about possible mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, which is actually more about the election, then actually an issue at stake. Intangible 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I came up with this with the idea as sub-sections of the existing first section which is already issues at stake. Let's wait with reorganising untill tomorrow, after the elections, when we can start working on the (more or less) final version of the article. Arnoutf 19:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted section ===Greenpeace interference with CDA party congress=== 

message: I just wanted to say "good job" to everyone who has worked on this article, and on related articles. I don't think I've ever seen an article on an election that was this good before the election took place. This article will probably be one of the most read sources for this election in the international community, and having this level of quality definitely helps foreigners understand Dutch politics better. Next up, let's make an effort to make this a featured article after the election! jaco♫plane 20:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pat on the back 

message: I'm not too sure about this section. The only source  dates from 2004. I think we need some more recent confirmation that these experiments are taking place, personally I haven't really read anything about it in the media. jaco♫plane 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I voted at a random polling booth today, so that experiment is certainly going on. I'm not sure about the second experiment though the information I found here seems quite old. C mon 18:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election experiments 

message: === TNS NIPO exit poll ===
EENNL 1
PVDD 2
SGP 2
D66 2
GL 6
CU 7
PVV 8
VVD 20
SP 30
PVDA 34
CDA 38
Intangible 19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amsterdam is using the old pencil system again, so the definite results should come in really late tonight. Intangible 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, 99.8% of the votes have been counted. IIRC the remaining .2% are votes from abroad. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  These may be of impact on split seats that have to be rounded up or down. So we need to keep track of these (may differ one seat somewhere) Arnoutf 10:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''DISCUSSION OF TOPICS / EDITS AFTER THE ELECTIONS'''

message: EENNL 1
PVDD 2
SGP 2
D66 2
GL 6
CU 7
PVV 8
VVD 20
SP 30
PVDA 34
CDA 38
Intangible 19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNS NIPO exit poll [http://www.rtl.nl/(/actueel/rtlnieuws/)/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2006/11_november/22/binnenland/1122_2050_porgnose_RTL_Nieuws.xml]

message: EENNL 1
D66 2
SGP 2
PVDD 3
CU 5
PVV 6
GL 8
VVD 21
SP 24
PVDA 35
CDA 43
Intangible 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amsterdam is using the old pencil system again, so the definite results should come in really late tonight. Intangible 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, 99.8% of the votes have been counted. IIRC the remaining .2% are votes from abroad. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  These may be of impact on split seats that have to be rounded up or down. So we need to keep track of these (may differ one seat somewhere) Arnoutf 10:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Hond / NOS exit poll / ANP [http://www.peil.nl/?2175]

message: The coalitions table uses 'Christian left' twice, both for CDA-PvdA, which makes perfect sense, and PvdA-SP-GL-CU, which makes little sense because the christian part (CU) consitutes only about 8% of the coalition. I don't recall now if this term was used in the media or that I only read it here. Also, why is 'christian' written with a capital 'C'? DirkvdM 09:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about left+. And Christian is capitalized because those are English spelling rules. C mon 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian left 

message: Msikma moved the article from Dutch general election, 2006 to 2006 Dutch general election. However, all (?) other 'Dutch general election' articles have the former format. If this is against waht is customary on Wikipedia then all those have to be moved as well. DirkvdM 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the move should be reversed. There are many articles, like United States general elections, 2006 and Austrian legislative election, 2006 that use the same title format. There is no Wikipedia guideline afaik (but maybe there should be one). Intangible 13:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Indeed, Msikma's move was incorrect. —Nightstallion (?) 14:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is a WP guideline for election naming at WP:NAME#Elections and it supports the name Dutch general election, 2006 AndrewRT(Talk) 21:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: I would suggest to remove or at least reduce the paragraph about climate change. Research results shown on NOS television on the day of election showed that they were not in the top 5 of issues that moved voters' decision. Also, some of the coalitions listed are extremely unlikely: GroenLinks for example has strongy agitated against CDA and VVD. They still might form a coalition with one of those parties, but definitely not with both of them. Sjoerd de Vries, 15.33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
:Someone removed one bit about it, but precisely the bit that should be kept, I'd say, so I put it back. The greenpeace action indeed receives too much attention, but I'll wait for reactions here before altering that. DirkvdM 19:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the coalitions, I didn't want to presume too much, so I tried to add all that are somewhat feasible. I'd sooner remove the ones that don't constitute a majority, except for the combinations of the last coalition (before and after the fall). DirkvdM 19:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue of climate change 

message: The comment with the foto is a bit strange, Only a few muncipalities used paper(5? i think, including a few with broken down machines), and only two parts of amsterdam. 80.57.243.174 18:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope 31!! (See voting controversy) - as the machines in these municipalities were not approved. Arnoutf 18:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not many indeed; I can go with some. It is a significant portion of the votes though as Amsterdam (about 5% of the votes) was one of the 31. Arnoutf 10:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: The above discussion seems to evolve around whether all possible coalitions should be in the table or only the most likely ones. The problem with the latter is that it is difficult to asses which are possible (without specific quotes it really is OR). Including all possibilities would generate a very long list, but that could be seen as making a point. And it would end the above discussion. Ultimately, when the coalition is formed, that whole section should be moved to a separate article anyway, so it's a thought. Any ideas? DirkvdM 14:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most neutral would be a list of coalitions as desired by the notable parties and that have been suggested by notable people. This would keep the list short and avoids OR. --Zero g 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with zero g's suggestion with the addition of historic coalitions (as I did already). On the other hand as far as I know there are 2 suggested before the election (CDA-VVD byCDA and VVD) and (PvdA, GL and SP by GL and SP). Both are lacking a majority at the moment. After the election I only heard CDA-PvdA-CU by several commentators, but nothing from the parties so far. I could live with listing only the historic ones and these three/two (CDA-VVD is also a historic one). Arnoutf 15:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would this qualify the CDA-PvdA-CU coalition as "openly favoured in the campaign"? jaco♫plane 17:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  would suggest another category; perhaps suggested by pol leader after election?Arnoutf 17:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That raises the issue who is notable and what can be seen as a suggestion. What if a newspaper reporter makes a suggestion? Or what if Wiegel mentions something? Are we to decide whether he is joking? And what about less known former politicians? Would there have to be a verifiable reference for every coalition? And all that over such a minor point? DirkvdM 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally notability isn't an issue until it becomes one. I guess it can be left as it is, though I'd personally remove the GL - VVD coalitions unless someone notable suggests one. Regarding this being a minor point, agreed, but I got nothing better to do really. --Zero g 19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we include all possible coalitions?

message: Do we need this section any more (Dutch_general_election%2C_2006#Parties_and_top_candidates)? Seems a bit redundant to me. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parties and top candidates 

message: Why don't we split the part about coalition talks off to 2006 Dutch cabinet formation: the article is getting very long and the formation talks are something different from the elections. C mon 08:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound like a great idea. Your suggestion also means we can now start finalising this article (or at least by monday when the final results are in). We could make a short section directing to that new article with a text like: Due to the representative voting system in practice Dutch cabinet are formed by a coalition of two or more parties to secure a majority in the tweede kamer. After elections it is not always clear which combination will provide the cabinet. This may be the focus of prolonged negotiations(needs some english improvement, but just as idea)... and leave it at that    Arnoutf 10:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I actually brought this up in a thread here-above. The sentence you propose, however, is too much about practise and too little about the basic theory. I'd suggest something more along the lines of "The Dutch system requires the formation of a government that consists of parties whose fractions together at least have a majority in the second chamber. With these results that requires a least three parties. As of 25 november 2006 negotiations are still under way and may last a long time due to a polarisation without a clear dominance for either the left or the right. Iin the meantime the Balkenende III government remains seated." Although that isn't strictly true because a minority cabinet is also possible. DirkvdM 11:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good suggestion - Let's do it. I will start copying that current paragraphs to the new page. Arnoutf 12:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The Dutch system doesn't require the government to have a majority in parliament. It's common practice, but there's no requirement. There are many instances of minority cabinets (e.g. the current interim government Balkenende-III) or extraparliamentary cabinets (e.g. Cort van der Linden, between 1913 and 1918). Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True. That is why I already a while age changed above sentence to Thus, this system requires the formation of a coalition government that consists of parties whose combined fractions can propose laws that can count on a majority in the second chamber. Ie the meaning now is that the proposed laws rather than the coalition need a majority. In practice a majroity coalition is the easy way for it. In modern politics (after WWII) there are only a few minority cabinets, and at least the latest van Agt (25 yrs ago) and Balkenende (current) minority coalitions were formed after the fall of a majority cabinet, and both had as main task to govern untill early elections; so it is fairly uncommon. Arnoutf 08:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coalition

message: I moved this page to 2006 Dutch general election, which is the correct name. It was moved back to this name a while afterwards. I don't see why, seen as how all events tied to a specific year use this format. See, for example, the articles in Template:Arab-Israeli_Conflict. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage) { 09:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed under section Move. Wikipolicy for elections seems to support the current name - so please do not change again. Arnoutf 09:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I didn't know that this current name is actually supported by the manual of style. However, perhaps that rule should be changed, as the overwhelming majority of articles tied to a certain year use the -Year- -Event- notation. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 14:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to change it, as almost all people who regularily take care of election articles support this format as far as I know... Besides, it would be HELL to clean up now if you really want to change all the hundreds of election articles there are which follow the current naming convention. I really see no compelling reason to change... —Nightstallion (?) 14:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistency is a pretty big issue to me personally. I think that one common format would make more sense than two. It might take a lot of work to complete, but either a few dedicated admins or bots would be able to take care of that easily. I'll bring up the issue at the pump later. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this has to be discussed at the naming conventions forum rather than here. If (and only if) the name policies are changed I am pretty sure we will change the name of this article. Arnoutf 08:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, and please do notify me when you start the discussion -- also notify the respective WikiProjects. —Nightstallion (?) 12:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: Should a table be made that show the votes per candidate (or at least of those candidates who obtained a vote larger than the electoral quota)? Intangible 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  votes per candidates 

message: I would like to resurrect my previous idea to change the current naming convention for elections. The current convention is:
:Use the format "Demonym type election, date", for example "Canadian federal election, 1867"...  (WP:NAME#Elections}
I propose this is changed to allow two alternatives, as follows:
:Use either this form: political division type election, date, or this form: political division election of date. For example, Canadian federal election, 1867 or Canadian federal election of 1867.  Where an article has been created using one form, do not move the article to the other form.
This new option would make linking more natural and make the article names more encyclopedic.
Please comment on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#New elections proposal
Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention 

message: In different tables, graphs and articles the Dutch political parties are given different colors. I would like to propose a standard list of RGB colours to use consistently. Please react to my proposal for consistent RGB colour scheme discussed at Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands/colours. thanks for any input Arnoutf 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency party colour coding

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dutch general election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061028223056/http://news.moneycentral.msn.com:80/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=FT to http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=FT&Date=20060629&ID=5834370
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Dutch general election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=FT&Date=20060629&ID=5834370
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930201747/http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/laatste_24_uur/artikel/asp/artnr/127081/ to http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/laatste_24_uur/artikel/asp/artnr/127081/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208123456/http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/politiek/artikel/asp/artnr/127222/index.html to http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/politiek/artikel/asp/artnr/127222/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070126190628/http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/politiek/artikel/asp/artnr/136028/index.html to http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/politiek/artikel/asp/artnr/136028/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061106025013/http://www.nos.nl/nos/artikelen/2006/10/art000001C6FB4D6C2CF6EE.html to http://www.nos.nl/nos/artikelen/2006/10/art000001C6FB4D6C2CF6EE.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070318025202/http://www.nos.nl/jeugdjournaal/artikelen/2006/11/7/verkiezingsdebat1.html to http://www.nos.nl/jeugdjournaal/artikelen/2006/11/7/verkiezingsdebat1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930225856/http://www.nos.nl/jeugdjournaal/artikelen/2006/11/12/wouterbos.html to http://www.nos.nl/jeugdjournaal/artikelen/2006/11/12/wouterbos.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070318025458/http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/artikelen/2006/11/21/211106_laatstedagverkiezingen.html to http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/artikelen/2006/11/21/211106_laatstedagverkiezingen.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181318/http://www.nos.nl/nos/artikelen/2006/11/art000001C70F10824DCA01.html to http://www.nos.nl/nos/artikelen/2006/11/art000001C70F10824DCA01.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified