Talk:Dick Schoof

Start date

The starting date is a prediction. A lot can happen between then. So its better to wait until 2 July Dajasj (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This date has been added to many more pages. It has been announced verbally by Schoof to journalists, but I agree it should be excluded as it is more a targeted/planned date rather than a certainty. (formation processes are indeed often messy and have no legally mandated timelines (such as 20 January for US presidents)) - Tristan Surtel (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Member of the House

Is he not a member of the house, if so how is he able to become Prime Minister, is that allowed in The Netherlands? Faronnorth (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

He is nominated by the formateur and the four coalition parties. There is no requirement that a PM must have been a member of parliament. Dajasj (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

How can he be PM if he's not a member of parliament, is he a member of their senate? Faronnorth (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope, there is simply no requirement Dajasj (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Dajasj is right. For the PM appointment process see:

• Dutch_cabinet_formation#Formation_phase
• Dick_Schoof#Political_career
• 2023–2024_Dutch_cabinet_formation#Formateur_Van_Zwol.

In the Netherlands politicians can not run for PM. Voters can not select a PM.

After general elections the leader of the biggest coalition party usually becomes PM, but Wilders was not an acceptable PM for other coalition parties. Wilders approached several candidates. None of them made it.

Schoof is not a member of the house or senate, is not even a member of a political party, has no experience as politician, did not aspire to be politician. Oddly, his neutrality made him acceptable for all 4 coalition parties. It is unclear who nominated Schoof. Uwappa (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Important to note that only the last three PMs in the Netherlands were always the lead candidate of the largest coalition party. We used to have a rich tradition of people outside parliament or outside the largest party becoming PM. Dajasj (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't say it's a good advert for their more rigid form of PR TBF, this is why I advocate for STV. Faronnorth (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

STV for parliament or PM? Neither would change the fact that a PM does not have to be MP, just like in France for example. There simply has to be a majority in parliament with confidence in the PM. Dajasj (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If the PM turns out to be someone not even on the ballot then personally, I'd use STV over a more rigid form of PR. The Dutch system seems to assume that being as proportional as possible at a party level is the fairest result. The result is normally deeply fragmented and lacks local representation. I'd also make it so the PM has to be an MP so that they can answer questions in parliament etc. Faronnorth (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, STV for parliament wouldn't change the fact that the PM doesn't have to be member of parliament. And there are al sorts of downsides to electoral districts. And despite not being MP, the PM (and all ministers) have to answer questions in parliament. Anyway, if we want to continue this discussion (I very much like discussing electoral systems), let's do that on one of our own talk pages. Dajasj (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

STV is a wonderful electoral system, but yeah, it's completely unrelated to the relationship between PM and parliament. You can have all sorts of arrangements irrespective of the electoral system. Luxorr (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I should have been clearer, I'm not saying a change to STV would inherently mean the PM has to be an MP, I'm suggesting both things should change. Faronnorth (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Update

@TDKR Chicago 101, can you be more specific what information you think is missing? He's a lot in the news, but it hard to judge what will and won't be relevant for an encyclopedia. Dajasj (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the template, since no further clarification was provided. I agree it is unclear what information should have been added in the meantime. The cabinet was installed only a few months ago, and I'm not sure which events have occurred since that merit inclusion. (disagreements about the declaration of an asylum crisis in the Netherlands currently receive much attention in the media, but the Schoof cabinet still has to decide which action to take) - Tristan Surtel (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Explanation

I cannot divine, despite the edit summary, why an editor felt a deletion was required here ... https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Dick_Schoof&diff=prev&oldid=1256536396 184.153.21.19 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw no reason under the guidelines for external linka to incluse that link Dajasj (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's classic at the Project. It's a writing by the person who is the subject of the Wikipedia article. There can't be any proper objection to that - you will see it all over the project, perhaps on other articles that you have edited that are about people who have written articles. Such as David H. Rosenbloom, where it was placed under Further Reading -- another option, but ELs are equally fine. Or look at the ELs under Obama. Really, it should be quite non-controversial. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Further reading should be about the topic, not by the topic. So that's wrong on Rosenbloom. The Obama article also has too many external links. WP:EL states that generally there is only one external link; the official website. This appears to be a small inconsequential lecture by Schoof. We are not a directory of every related link. I don't see where it fits under any exception under the WP:EL guideline. Dajasj (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is how it is done all across the Project. I would suggest that if you do not want to look at G and F articles yourself to verify this, that you perhaps delete the links from the Obama article that you maintain are improper as well. No doubt editors will respond to you with their view, which I expect will be the opposite of yours. Or you can link to this discussion at the talk page on ELs. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)