Talk:Dutch childcare benefits scandal

Editing seriously needed

This article desperately needs editing as well as updating. It's filled with overly literal translations and is difficult to understand in places. It's poorly written.Schildewaert (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to edit ;) Dajasj (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Name change?

The title of the article was from an earlier reference that used that name. But it is a weird translation from Dutch, and the page Third Rutte cabinet calls it childcare allowance affair. The current name also suggests that there was fraud, but the whole point was that there was no fraud. So I personally think it would be better to change it, to for example Netherlands childcare allowance affair or even shorter Netherlands allowance affair. Dajasj (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it might also be a good idea to use "Dutch" instead of "Netherlands", provided you can phrase it so it doesn't sound awkward. Alternatively, you could simply put "(Netherlands)" at the end. I know using brackets for disambiguation is usually discouraged, but it seems like the best solution in this case. How about "Childcare allowances affair (Netherlands)" or just "Allowances affair (Netherlands)"?

Actually, if no other countries have had an "allowances affair", maybe the name of the country could just be omitted from the title? --Un assiolo (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Childcare allowance affair sounds better (singular allowance). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be renamed, because the current title is somewhat misleading. Also, looking at other Wikipedia articles on political scandals, it doesn't seem to be necessary to include the country name in the title. Therefore, I'd suggest renaming the article to Childcare benefits scandal. This phrase is used by major English-language news outlets, such as The Guardian and CNBC. "Childcare benefit" is also the English translation used by the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration. Lastly, I think the event is most accurately described as a "scandal" and I don't support changing it to "affair" just because it's similar to the Dutch word "affaire". ― Ætoms ^[talk] 22:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support moving the article to Childcare benefits scandal per WP:COMMONNAME as it's the term used in English-language media. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I also support Childcare benefits scandal. Aivin G. (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I moved the page, seemed to be a clear consensus here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Which will be reversed as this is not THE childcare benefits scandal, certainly not the only childcare benefits scandal in the world! Kind of embarrassing when you reflect on it, right? Shenme (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a need for disambiguation currently? If so, it will be moved, otherwise, it won't. There's no reason to have unnecessary disambiguation here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond the need for disambiguation, titles should be WP:PRECISE. I don't have a strong opinion about this but I think the qualified name might be more future-proof. Note that it's not necessary to use the exact article title in the lead sentence per MOS:REDUNDANCY. AnonQuixote (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Childcare benefits scandal" strikes me as imprecise as well, since it is more descriptive than proper (i.e. it's not the "Childcare Benefits scandal", ala "Teapot Dome scandal"). I suggest "Dutch childcare benefits scandal" or "Netherlands childcare benefits scandal". WP:CONCISE says The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. "Childcare benefits scandal" fails this, IMO, while "Dutch childcare benefits scandal" succeeds. — Goszei (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree Netherlands or Dutch childcare benefits scandal would be better. Aivin G. (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Venice Commission calls it the "Childcare Allowance Case" btw. See here. Dajasj (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Government by algorithm

Dear @Kaihsu:, I believe the prominent place of the template "Government by Algorithm" places too much emphasis on the algorithm aspect of this scandal. The scandal is far more complex, and the impact of algorithms remains vague and is subject of parliamentary investigations. I would suggest to keep the category, but leave out the template. Otherwise, include the template in the section that discusses this (which can be updated). Kind regards, Dajasj (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. I’ll find a better place in the article for the template. Kaihsu (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)