Talk:National unity government

step one: define your terms

this article gives some examples of national governments, but never gets around to explaining precisely what that means. if i had any idea, i would. --dan (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's only because, about a month ago, someone apparently deleted the intro to the article (without any explanation) and nobody noticed it. I am going to restore it now. The explanatory intro (with its disambiguation line) is especially important to those of us in the United States, where the term "National government" would never be understood to mean what it means in this article. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the substantive difference between a national unity government and a grand coalition? The grand coalition page provides a significantly more comprehensive definition, and if there is a real difference it needs be be articulated here. On the talk page for grand coaltion, one contributor states "There are clear differences between a national government and a grand coalition. National governments are formed to see a nation through a time of crisis (usually a war), whereas grand coalitions are formed out of political necessity or expediency. National governments usually include all parties in parliament, whereas grand coalitions only include the two largest parties and exclude others. Grand Coalitions are often 'caretaker' governments which make few policy changes, whereas national governments address major crises. The differences go on and on. The ideal solution would be to cross-link the two articles" Chalky (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 facts about Local, State, and National Government

nyone know 3 facts about Local, State, and National Governments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.214.197.59 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to rename this page

The term "national government" is inherently ambiguous, and since "national unity government" is used regularly in the press (eg re: Zimbabwe) as a consise but clear term, I would suggest that this article be renamed as such. Chalky (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by strong consensus. Andrewa (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National government → National unity government — The term "national unity goverment" is common in the press (eg re: Yemen, and both more precise and less ambiguous than "national government" without being overly so. The best alternative, "government of national unity" is more descriptive but also more (and unnecessarily) verbose than the proposed title Chalky (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm inclined to support this since I agree that "National government" is not very descriptive and in fact quite ambiguous, since the term can also simply mean government at the national level. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the current name is ambiguous. Park3r (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the ambiguity. In fact, I'd say there's a fair case for moving Central government to National government. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

36 Government of Israel

How is it a national unity government if it only passed by a single vote? My understanding from the article is that a national unity government requires all parties to be involved, which would presumably require a unanimous (?) vote. Forgive me if I'm wrong, I don't live in a parliamentary democracy. Owlblocks (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]