Talk:Thorbjørn Jagland

Source doesn't support articles claim

Irishpunktom, please quote from the article and point out to me where he compares islamophobia to Nazism of the 1930s. Otherwise, stop reverting. -- Karl Meier 16:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Cabinet

Can I suggest that we set up separate articles for the cabinets of various prime ministers? This gives us an opportunity to write about the events and legacies of these cabinets as well. --Leifern 23:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Such pages now exist. Cabinet Jagland. Punkmorten (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

NRK news

This article is currently on the frontpage of nrk.no (Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation): http://nrk.no/nyheter/1.3364975

A few minutes ago, this article claimed Jagland was a pedophile. Appearantly, wikipedia vandalism is frontpage-news worthy. Here is a translation of what Odd Erik Stende, Norwegian Labour Partys representative, had to say about it: - We will take any step necessary to remove this.

Any step except editing the goddamn wikipedia page, it seems, as this was up until a few minutes ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.55.71 (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article for 48 hours. That should stop the recent vandalism to the article. Rettetast 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think we need better sourcing for the AUF scandal, especially since it seems to implicate Jagland and Stoltenberg somehow. --Leifern 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved the section here per WP:BLP. Rettetast 18:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has expressed interest in the section I have removed it. See the history. Rettetast (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Insignificant information

Shouldn't we simply leave out the replacements for his seat in the Storting during his tenures as Prime Minister? __meco (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ready for GA?

I do not think this article is ready for GA. While it probably meets most of the criteria, it fails on 3(a), namely "it addresses the main aspects of the topic"; this must be understood within the context that Wikipedia articles have an "ideal" length, and that as far as possible, articles should strive to reach these. There is no length requirement in GA, but if more could be said about the topic, the article should be increased up to the ideal length. Such an ideal length is probably four time the current.

I also fear that many vital parts of Jagland's life are missing. For instance, the article has more on the AUF membership scandal, than it does on his period as Prime Minister (the "highlight" of his career). Can we not say more than one paragraph about him leading a government for a year? (Okay, maybe all we remember ten years afterwards is the Norwegian house, but at the time there must have been many important isues that we have forgotten now.) Also, during his nineteen months as Minister of Foreign Affairs, he must have been to more countries than just Sri Lanka and China. On top of this, the article is spending one sentence on his birth and education, one on his local political activity, one on his four years as leader of AUF, one on being general secretary of Norway's largest party for six years, one of being a MP for seven years, and one on his ten years of leadership in Norway's largest party (save the event of not being reelected in 2002).

Another area of importance is that of his ideology. He is generally considered to be on the right wing of the Labour Party, and a very keen supporter of EU membership. Neither of these are mentioned by a word. To be more precise, the article does not take up a single political opinion, except that of Australia's denial of refugees. My point here is that when the GA nominator comes in a week or four, they will probably point out this (plus a bucket of other stuff in my experience), so it would be best to start working on the expansion now, so the article is put on hold insted of just failed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is beginning to look better and better. There is a master thesis at UiO about how the press perceived Jagland during the summer months of 1997. Perhaps an interesting source... Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, thanks. And by the way great job on the AUF scandal, and again thanks.... --This Feels Right (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is beginning to look a lot more like a GA article now. A few general comments:

• Avoid just pasting the date from the news source; it looks terrible. Instead, write it out in full, plain English, e.g. 10 February 2009
• There is nothing about what he did between 1997 and 2000. Though this was a "dead period" for him, it still deserves some prose. He must have voiced his oppinions on something in that period. Done
• Unless in direct quotes, do not use spring etc. For readers from New Zealand, they may consider September–October spring, and readers from India perceive two seasons: wet and dry. This rule of course does not apply to biological or climatological subject (such as "chiropractors have more business during winter due to people shoveling too much heavy snow".)
• I have removed all three external links, since none of them are about Jagland as such, but just cover minor aspects of the articles. They could, however, be used as references (if you need to retrieve them, just click on "history" and choose an old version of the article").
• He was parliamentary leader for the Labour Party, both in 1993–96 and 1997–2000. He also has sat in Europautvalget (got to find the English name for that), and the delegations to the European Parliament and the Nordic Council. In 2005–09, he has sat in the Standing Committee on Defense. He has also sat a lot in Valgkomiteen, and is currently the leader for it. (ref. BIO)

Europe Committe, do you know how many Europe Committees there is??? cause theres alot

• No need to cite a source once per sentence. If the whole paragraph is referenced from one place, one will do. If there are two or more sources, they made be used more often to make clear where the claims come from. So if there are three sentences in a row from the same source, just cite it once at the end of the last.
• There are many places were the chronology of the article is illogical. Personally, I would have preferred it if the article was split up in sections, corresponding to 1993–96, 1996–97, 1997–2000, 2000–01, 2001–05 and 2005–09, plus perhaps post-parliamentarism. These periods can of course be named Presidency, Premiership, Minister of Foreign Affairs, where applicable.
• In my opinion, the AUF scandal is way out of proportion to the rest of the article. I think one paragraph, and no header, will do. After all, Jagland was never anything save a witness.
• No matter what your English teacher said; never write contractions (e.g. don't; can't). While most dialects of oral English use them, it is not considered proper prose (at least not in an encyclopædia).
• Never introduce something by its abbreviation, even if it is "common" stuff like SV or LO. While "everyone" in Norway knows what they are, not a soul outside does.
• There needs more substance for the period 1997–2000. As parliamentary leader of the main oposition party, surely he must have made some statements. Done still working!!!
• Dates are to be ing the format 10 February 2009 (UK) or February 10, 2009 (US), and nothing else. Choose one formatting for each article. If only a month and year are stated, there is never a comma in between.
• In English (and unlike in Norwegian), ethicity is capitalized.

Getting an article up to GA standards is hard work, but should be in reach. There is still a fair amount of copyediting to do, and the article needs more stuff. As for the premiership section; could there be more stated on political matters during the period? I honestly cannot remember if there were any large plans launched, or if everything was just castles in the sky (they did like architectonical metaphores, did they not). Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There were no big plan launched, but i'll try to find more metaphores, okay. Should i add any information about his work with Brundtland in the early 90s????..... --This Feels Right (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Scandal?

Was the Synnøve Svabø case really a scandal? Punkmorten (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

When you touch a lady on here breasts on national television i would say it was a scandal, but if you its best to re-word it. Please do..... --This Feels Right (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help by the way :) ..... --This Feels Right (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Those of us who spend of spare time reading the Manual of Style, can of course quote the policy on any word another would like to include:

The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles on current affairs, except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g., Teapot Dome scandal, Dreyfus affair or Spygate).

Regards, Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Are there too many quotes; are all quotes in this article necessary? (I'm not thinking about his infamous quotes, but rather about people's reactions to different things.) What do others think? Punkmorten (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there is too much quoting. However, he has some infamous quotes that will remain in the history books. I removed a 'reflexion quote' today, and perhaps I will remove more. Thanks for the idea. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Restoring deleted stuff from Wikipedia

This piece of news was described in the article. I took the liberty to remove it, for the following reason: "I don't see why a reader interested in Jagland's career would want to read about this". Punkmorten (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In 2007, the English Wikipedia article for Thorbjørn Jagland was vandalized by an anonoumus user from Rogaland County Municipality, accusing him as being a pedophile and many other accusations. This spawned much attention in Norwegian media, especially from the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation news. Jagland said of the situation, "It is difficult to take the text seriously as it is now". The IT manager in Rogaland traced the IP addresses to Kopervik Upper Secondary School. The principal, Elmar Åserud, did not wish to comment on the case except to say, "I expect that the control mechanisms in the Wikipedia system catches up and fixes the issue as soon as possible".

This was removed recently, but I've restored it (and notified the person who removed it). I'm doing the GAN review for this and I had looked at this, but I think it warrants inclusion. (And as someone who knows little about Norwegian politics, I can honestly say I'm coming from a truly nonbiased perspective here.) This was something that appears to have received significant news coverage, which satisfies notability questions, and the sources appear legitimate. Any thoughts on this are welcome, but if it comes to it, I'd recommend we discuss it here and try to come to a consensus before simply removing it again. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, my view was that the news interest seemed more ephemeral. It had no impact on his career. Punkmorten (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree or disagree? Punkmorten (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Punkmorten here; when I first saw the paragraph, it seemed very trivial, especially the long explanation with where the vandalism came from. While it did create some news attention, it is just a parenthesis in his life, that no-one remembered a week later. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

He's not an economist / profession

I removed the incorrect claim that he is an "economist". An economist is someone who has a higher degree in economics and somehow works as an economist. Jagland studied economics for some time, passing the "1. avdeling" ("first division") exam, but quit his studies when he became too occupied with politics. He has never had a "civilian" (i.e. non-political) profession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiskandsoup (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

ICANN Strategy Panel

Some reference to his participation in ICANN strategy panel should perhaps be added

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-17nov13-en.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.105.196.158 (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Why was Stoltenberg appointed instead?

An issue the article does not make clear and out to be added: When Bondevik's first cabinet fell in 2000, why was Jens Stoltenberg appointed PM instead of Thorbjørn Jagland (who was still the party leader)? Anywikiuser (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is that Jagland did not enjoy the necessary respect, neither in the country as a whole nor within his own party, to become prime minister again (and four years later when Stoltenberg formed his second cabinet, Jagland did not even enjoy the necessary respect to become foreign minister again, which was a widely discussed topic in Norway in 2005). Jagland had been mercilessly attacked by the press since the mid 1990s, which had widely portrayed him as a fool, so this became the general perception of him in Norway. He had also made many unfortunate comments over the years; for example when he was foreign minister in Stoltenberg's cabinet, he went on a talkshow (Skavlan) where he ridiculed the name of Omar Bongo (the President of Gabon who was then on a state visit to Norway) in a racist way as "Bongo from Congo" and told the talkshow host that he had great difficulty in sitting still at the table at the banquet in Bongo's honour ("Bongo fra Kongo" was later used as the title of a book). The article used to discuss how Jagland's tenures as prime minister, foreign minister and Labour Party leader are generally seen in Norway, but the whole article had been "whitewashed" somehow. I agree that this material needs to be included in the article to properly explain how Jagland is seen in Norway in an historical context, and why his career moved in the direction that it did, from prime minister in the 1990s to merely foreign minister in 2001, to not being acceptable as a cabinet member at all in 2005. --Aleasjon (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There probably should be much more in this article about Jagland's rivalry with Stoltenberg from late 80's till at least when Jagland quit as party leader in 2002. Listening to political journalists their leadership fights was some of the nastiest we've seen here. Also, both Jagland and Reiulf Steen had previously been Labour party leaders while not simultaneously being prime minister, so it wasn't a new thing. --torstein (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thorbjørn Jagland. 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://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2743417.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203235734/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2803856.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2803856.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thorbjørn Jagland. 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/20131029194327/http://www.peres-center.org/honorary_board to http://www.peres-center.org/honorary_board

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Insufficient

I find this page to be somewhat misleading and lacking in not only detail but information in general. The author of the page seems to be part of the bully group of the 1990’s and the page is quite one sided. More information should either be added or the page should be marked as incomplete and possibly partial. 84.208.186.147 (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)