Talk:Stoltenberg's Second Cabinet

Second or third
The "new" Norwegian government SHOULD be considered the third Stoltenberg-cabinet. Actually I do see that it's the wikipedia way of doing it. It's alright but I think few political scientists would agree that this is Stoltenberg II still.
 * This is by far the first time a government has won an election (albeit the first time since 1993), therefore Norwegians just are not used to a cabinet continuing after an election. But if one looks at List of Norwegian governments, a new "number" is only made when either the prime minister changes or the parties making up the government changed (for instance Willoch I and Willoch II). If this is the third cabinet, then we would have to split Brundtland III into two (prior and post 1993-election), Willoch II in two, Nordli in two, Borten in two etc. The current system is the most logical and consistent since most members of the cabinet, the prime minister and the parties all continue after the election. Arsenikk (talk)  12:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, the same parties are represented and it is the way it is done at wikipedia, but it isn't any more logical than actually splitting it. The fact that a new election has actually led to a new session of the Storting would to many mean that the government a majority of it supports is in fact a new government, despite the lack of changes in parties or prime minister. Several government members changed, names of departments changed relatively radically and the list of ministers will simply end up being highly confusing. The goals of the government even differs from the last in a brand new declaration. In addition the media in Norway is already calling it Stoltenberg 3. You forgot that Gerharsen 3 would also have to be split. That government went from being a majority to minority government in 1961. That's significant change. It would mean that there would be Gerhardsen 1-7 though. PS: I would also argue that countries with parliamentarian systems should generally have the same "solution". Denmark is done the way I argue Norway should also be List of Danish Governments. 84.215.121.104 (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The government refers to itself as Stoltenberg II, see here and a chronology of cabinets from the official site. (English link). Arsenikk (talk)  21:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Government.no to which Arsenikk refers is an important source. I believe the website follows a book released in 1985: Trond Nordby (ed.) Storting og regjering 1945-1985, two volumes. So those are the authoritative sources upon which we build. Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that a source like regjeringen.no counts this way is interesting. Nordby is less interesting, however, since professor Rasch lists these as different governments in Kampen om regjeringsmakten (2004: 42 (fagbokforlaget)). There is general disagreement about this, but Rasch makes my point too when he asks the question of how to count governments. His answer is threefold: 1) change in composition of parties, 2) change of prime minister, 3) elections. He argues that the third point is necessary since elections can have profound consequences for the government's parliamentary foundation or it can change the opposition. I don't know if Nordby raises these questions, but it's normally not his thing.
 * In my opinion regjeringen.no cannot dictate choices made on Wikipedia and I would also not regard it as an authoritative source in this case. When facing a question of how to count governments, it should not be sufficient to simply present it the same way as some other source has done it. An authoritative source should be expected to actually offer a reason for why it should be done that way. Regjeringen.no offers no reason, it just offers a list. The reason appears to be clear, but only when the intention is interpreted. Is it really sufficient by wikipedia-standards to just mirror different information that lists no criteria and no reasoning? 84.215.121.104 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have Rasch's book in my hand right now, but don't see the relevance of his third criterion. All we do here is present the members of the cabinet. Rasch's book is about something different, he argues that "regjeringen blir møtt med helt ulike parlamentariske situasjoner". Either way, a new election does not in itself change the cabinet composition since Norway practices negative parliamentarism.
 * I also whole-heartedly disagree that the book for which Nordby was editor is "less interesting"; the team worked several years on parliament's salary with collecting data on politicians and cabinets, how can it not be interesting what names they used for cabinets?
 * Last, the criteria that lead to "more" cabinets have in no way shaped the general political knowledge. There is not a single reference to "Gerhardsens sjette regjering" in Atekst (newspaper archive) or even on the web as a whole, nor a single reference to "Nordlis andre regjering" or "Willochs tredje regjering". (For some reason Rasch doesn't count "our" Gerhardsen I (Samlingsregjeringen) and Gerhardsen II as separate cabinets, so..) Geschichte (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll never agree about this, but I stand by the point that I would like to see a set of criteria somewhere. If it's enough for wikipedia that the way it is done is common, then fine, but it still doesn't make any sense without some source that also dictates why it should be done this way. I'm still not sure what Nordby does list, but the reason why I say it is "less interesting", is due to my belief that Nordby does not usually deal with these things, and that it is just one example of how it is counted.
 * I also can't see why Rasch's criteria should be irrelevant here. I don't follow your logic at all actually. His criteria that the parliamentary reality changes is actually what is at the core here. It isn't that relevant for cabinet composition at the very moment, but imagine a 2013-reality where the left wins again, only this time it's Labor (19%), the Socialist Left (15%) and the Center (11%), with Red needed to tip the majority. The government would be highly changed, even in composition, but it would still be listed as "Stoltenberg's second term" on the Stoltenberg page on Wikipedia. But who in their right mind would still refer to it as that?
 * The problem with you trying to find Gerharden's sixth is that it is perhaps an unfair way to test it. There are in fact a multitude of reasons for this. First of all, it isn't likely that the governments back then would be perceived as all that different. People and the media's ability to analyze will always be highly limited. A change in the strength of coalition partners in a coalition government is much more likely to be perceived as change than the changes in the 50s and 60s. Those changes were likely perceived as stability and the idea that the Labor Party would "always" govern. The real test may thus be whether Stoltenberg's current government will be seen as Stoltenberg 2 or 3, or in the end, if a highly changed next cabinet would also be regarded as Stoltenberg 2. My bet would be against it. But well, while I'm positive that I have a good point, I also know how difficult it is to change the way things are done. I'll rather stop wasting my time and stop arguing a point that may become evident some day, but hasn't yet. There's no point in discussing this further unless someone else actually agrees with the point I'm making. PS: Rasch lists governments and their the parliamentary basis, not merely governments. Since Gerhardsen 1 had no parliamentary basis, it is perhaps to be expected that he does not list it. 84.215.121.104 (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Nordby was not alone in making the 1985 work, he only edited it. Regarding changes and stability under Labour: I also said that "Willochs tredje regjering" - which was both much newer, a coalition, and even lost its majority in 1985 - gets 0 references. Geschichte (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeline?
The section called "Timeline" is presented without an introduction or any sort of context whatsoever. What it appears to be is an entirely one-sided, POV-pushing criticism of the Norwegian government's decision to join the intervention in Libya. I'm gonna go ahead and remove it, feel free to reinstate it once it has a proper context and is written in a NPOV manner. Lampman (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At closer scrutiny, it seems the responsible editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Lampman (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

color coding of ministers
Two parties are now coded red, I would like to see more difference between them.Bancki (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)