Talk:Jacinda Ardern/Archive 1

Archive 1

Prime Minister Elect?

In what sense is Ardern Prime Minister Elect? She will be the next PM, but hasn't been elected. Perhaps Prime Minister Designate, but that's only by analogy. I just don't think the terminology makes sense in this case. I didn't her page, as I'm sure it will be moot anyway by the time this can be clarified. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed it to "Designate". 09:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2017

The 'Personal Life' section of this article refers to Jacinda as being a male. Please correct this. Please also do not begin this section by referring to her partner... please consider starting it with other details about her personal life. Thank you. Mahuabaral (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: The gendered pronouns in the personal life section have already been corrected by another user. The other portion of your request is too vague; please propose it in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I've reordered the Personal Life section to be roughly chronological.-gadfium 20:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Image of Jacinda Ardern

1

2

There is some changing of Ardern's photo taking place. I changed from the first image to the second because the first, although uploaded in 2011, has no description of when the photo was taken. It could date from much earlier, and would therefore not be a true representation of the subject. There are currently very few photos on file for Ardern, none of them showing her clearly. It kind of boils down to choosing between these two. I would like some discussion of this topic. Akld guy (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I prefer 1. Jacinda looks no different now to that photo and it is a good angle and resolution. The other is a bit blurry, taken from far away with a podium and microphones slightly obscuring the subject. Kiwichris (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems the decision is beyond any possible consensus discussed here as another photo has been uploaded. I don't object to it though as it is a good image. Kiwichris (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a new photo has been uploaded and inserted into the article. I'm happy with it. It was ridiculous that a photo uploaded in 2011 and probably much older was being used for a person who could be prime minister in 8 weeks. Akld guy (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Should we put so much scrutiny on the date of a photo though? Even if that photo is 5 years old she looks exactly the same today.

It's 6 years old at least, because it was uploaded in 2011. Saying this for the 3rd time now. Akld guy (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

My query isn't the age of the photo itself (which is obviously part of the files metadata), but why the age of it is so important. Kiwichris (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Somehow an image of Jacinda Ardern vanished from Wikipedia. I've replaced it for now, if anyway has the original file they're welcome to change it back.User:Clesam11 (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the above discussion there are some new photos on commons. Why not one of these three:

3. Jacinda Ardern at the University of Auckland

4. Jacinda Ardern at the University of Auckland - 36148499793

5. Jacinda Ardern plus guy

----dannycas (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Still prefer 1. Ardern looks the same now as she does in that photo, regardless of the dubious date. It is also at a good angle and resolution. Kiwichris (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You describe yourself on your page as a Labour supporter. Your bias is showing. That photo looks like she is no more than about 23 years old. Stop misrepresenting it as a good recent likeness. Akld guy (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If I were you I would avoid accusing other editors of such things. They can be interpreted as a personal attack, which is not acceptable. Kiwichris (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

hmm,u guys are funny.the picture of when she in the university looks different from the one posted above, check before arguing. Silver baby (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I like that one - nice caption too --dannycas (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Photo caption

In the caption of the current infobox photo, should we state that the photo of Ardern is undated? Or that it's a pre-2011 photo? There seems to be some disagreement over which of these is preferable. Would it not be better to just not have a caption at all? The article is about her, and because of Wikipedia;s manual of style, anyone looking at the picture in the infobox is almost certainly going to know who they're looking at. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

To further confuse everyone, whoever added her image to WP:ITN thinks it was taken in 2011. This is Paul (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I also think having a caption describing that the exact date is unknown is strange. Kiwichris (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It's the only way we can point out that the photo is nowhere near recent. It's many years old. Akld guy (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is out of date, although if it was taken in 2011 I don't think that is too far in the past. Certainly, there can be no doubt that it is obviously her. I also agree that having 'undated' underneath does look odd, too. My preference is to have no wording. There will soon be a current photo released for free use so we can change it then. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It was NOT necessarily taken in 2011. That's the date it was uploaded. It looks like it was taken many years before that. Akld guy (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

I'm undoing these changes to the introductory sentence. I've based the style of my edit on the introductory sentences of the article on Theresa May, which I think is both clear and acceptable. We don't need to say up front that she is the 40th PM. — Hugh (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the "...40th and current Prime Minister of New Zealand..." intro. Unlike the United Kingdom, New Zealand numbers its prime ministers. Showing the numbering in country leaders' intro (where sourced) is the common practice on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"Under her leadership, the Labour Party polled ahead of its traditional rival, the National Party, for the first time in twelve years."

The introduction of this article (3rd paragraph) says "Under [Jacinda Ardern's] leadership, the Labour Party polled ahead of its traditional rival, the National Party, for the first time in twelve years." I think this is misleading. Upon first reading it, I thought it said that Labour won more votes than National at the election, which is blatantly false. However, it is only referring to opinion polls -- the opinion polls were all over the place and were likely inaccurate.

I think this statement should be removed, as it is confusing/unclear and doesn't really add anything. At the very least it should be clarified and citations added; it needs to be made clear that it refers to opinion polls (and only some of them). 198.4.83.52 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Changing the photo.....

I have noticed the photo of Ms Ardern on the page has been changing. I have noticed some debate on this matter. From my view, the image that keeps being changed to does not have the best lighting nor angle. I do not think that the date on an image constitutes the change. And I also believe that all people on Wikipedia in their photographs should look nice, regardless of them. Personally, I support changing it back because of the old image, undated, has a nicer view, lighting and angle of Ms Ardern, and hating to use slang she isn't mid speaking so her face does not look 'goofy'. -TravisD on 09:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

New photo

Proposal. --ElisonSeg (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

GGNZ Swearing of new Cabinet - Jacinda Ardern 2 (cropped).jpg

Image Proposal

There is a lot of issues with the Image of Jacinda Ardern. Here is my proposal. The image is derived from the one found on the Governor General's website (which allows reuse of the image as long as they are credited). It also fixes the dating issues and shows her on the day she becomes Prime Minister. The lighting and angle are good. Therefore I recommend this as the image to be used. TravisD (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

(TravisD Proposal) GGNZ Dame Patsy with PM-designate Jacinda Ardern and Deputy PM-designate Rt Hon Winston Peters before the Swearing-in (cropped) October 26 2017.

I think that it is a good image to have until an official image is released by the Beehive. AlexKnight (talk) 8:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree we should go with this one. It's a good representation of her, and is current. This is Paul (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I also concur. Both of those look fine and are recent enough to (hopefully) prevent any more bickering over dates. Kiwichris (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Clarke Gayford

Honestly, I don't think Clarke should redirect here. What happens if Jacinda and the First "Lady" separate or end their relationship? Clarke has been in the public eye longer than Jacinda when he was a contestant of a reality show back in 1998 to later become a VJ for C4 and Juice TV and a spokesmodel for (what was formerly men's clothing store) Hallensteins to having his travel/fishing vlog show. 49.224.197.73 (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

More image bickering

I've just reverted Jvfmgnlllj for the second time this evening after they restored a previous image (I think we all know the one I'm talking about). It seems they do not like the current picture, though no reason is given. Also I had the following message posted on my talk page: Can you show me the proof of the debate. Then I will not change the image. Thanks. I've directed them to this page, and added a note about it here. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that image deleted image copyright? The current one, taken as a cut out from the official photo with thee GG, is not ideal but it is at least free to use. A better official one will be available soon no doubt.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Stance on National's Tax Cuts

From the lead-in:

(1) "she opposes tax cuts for high-income earners as supported by the National Party,"

From the political views section:

(2) "In 2017, she opposed the National Party's plans for income tax cuts for high-income earners"

In both cases it's slightly misleading, as it implies the National party policy only cut taxes for high-income earners, whereas the actual policy raised the thresholds for the bottom two tax brackets. See:

https://www.national.org.nz/family_incomes_package

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11863043

I also don't think the "not-National" stance in (1) is particularly indicative or illuminating of her ideological positions for the lead-in. In fact, the whole lead-in is a bit clunky --- do any other political leaders or figures have such lead-ins summarising their ideology? I can't find any. If the lead-in about her ideology is to stay, I think this point should be removed, but kept and expanded slightly in the political views section.

Unless anyone objects, I will probably make such changes to the article.

Craigthelinguist (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Most, if not all of that paragraph should be removed from the lead, if not from the article. It is irrelevant in the wider scene and fails 10YT. A labour politician supports a welfare state?..Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sweet as. I've deleted the lead-in about her ideological positions, and cut down a large amount of the faff in the political views section. A lot of it shouldn't have been there. For example, her 5 minute discussion with Duterte at APEC is not really notable; I wouldn't call "opposes Duterte" a political view or an ideological stance. And even arguably her position on National's tax cuts (her issue is not with tax cuts or raising income thresholds per se, but rather that National's policy disproportionately benefited those with high incomes, and that wasn't wanted or needed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigthelinguist (talk • contribs) 16:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I certainly think the Duterte paragraph should be removed. It would fail WP:10YT. There seems to have been a temptation to report this as one of the first international policy comments by the new PM, ie. in violation of WP:NOTNEWS too. Akld guy (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Should the article mention Ardern's stance on cannabis? That is, her vocal support of decriminalising cannabis for medical usage and proposal to hold a referendum on legalising the drug for personal usage. This isn't an example of a passing comment that won't be relevant in a couple months time. --Hazhk (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I agree actually. I think what's important is that she is voicing support for it in her personal capacity, *as well as* wanting a referendum (I don't think the latter alone would be significant enough to put in her political views section). So having re-read the articles and changed the wording to emphasise her personal support of the matter, I've gone and put it back in :) Craigthelinguist (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

That photo again

Unless I have missed something, nobody has mentioned the fact that the latest 2011 photo in the infobox is not of The Right Honorable Jacinda Ardern, as stated above the image. One has to go: the RH bit or the photo. I know which I think should go and which should stay. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this comment was premature; a user took it upon himself to change the photograph and his change was quickly reverted. The 2017 photo should not be removed without a discussion first. However, I'm not sure I accept your premise that the granting of the style "The Right Honourable" is tantamount to some kind of ontological change, and that Ardern cannot possibly be depicted using a photograph taken from before this transformation! I agree on principle that the more recent the photograph the better; I'm in favour of using her official portrait (right), but I note that it's not precisely dated, so that may be an issue. --Hazhk (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hazhk: If you're referring to me, I did not change the photo. I reverted it after a user with a Germanic-type name changed it to the pin-up photo of a 23-year-old (or thereabouts) Ardern that we're all familiar with. All I did was set it back to the swearing-in photo that had been there for weeks. Akld guy (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to User:Brigitte Neuschwander-Kasselordner. I should have said "she". --Hazhk (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. Yes she's the one who changed the swearing-in photo to the pinup photo. Akld guy (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Hazhk, a grey area, I agree; that's why I did not play around with changing anything myself. Off topic perhaps, but Brigitte could be man? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Could be a man, but Brigitte is a female name. Akld guy (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"the first prime minister of New Zealand to march in a gay pride parade"

The 'Political views' section now includes the claim that Ardern "became the first prime minister of New Zealand to march in a gay pride parade." However, Jenny Shipley attended the Hero Parade in 1998,[1] and one source states that Helen Clark first attended a pride parade (as Leader of the Opposition) before Shipley.[2] I don't know if either "marched" as such, but I think that's a rather inconsequential distinction to make — the symbolism of attended a pride parade is ground that was broken long before Ardern. I propose removing the sentence.--Hazhk (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

John Key (as Prime Minister) and Andrew Little also attended the Big Gay Out event of February 2015. Attending is one thing, marching in a parade is something else entirely, because it shows a greater degree of solidarity with the movement. The claim that Ardern is the first PM to march is cited in The Guardian article. The sentence should stay. Akld guy (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Akld guy. Schwede66 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't push the point.Hazhk (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"brought into politics by her aunt"

Does that aunt also have a name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:4211:E200:8C19:426F:9C4D:B37A (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added the aunt's name. It was in the reference. You are welcome to add such information yourself.-gadfium 21:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Abortion - illegal or not?

@Roger 8 Roger: You said, in your most recent revert, "Abortion is not illegal but has restrictions". That is not true. According to this legal definition, abortion is illegal in New Zealand unless one of the conditions stated is met (my emphasis). That is, abortion is illegal unless there are extenuating circumstances that permit it. Therefore, in the sentence Ardern expressed her support for decriminalising abortion by removing it from the Crimes Act 1961, it is incorrect to change "decriminalising" to "easing restrictions on". Akld guy (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

An interesting point of interpretation. It would then be perfectly correct I think to say "Abortion is legal if ..." There will be a legal reason for phrasing the act the way it is. I think it allows greater penalties for a breach (Someone has committed an illegal act (go to gaol) rather than not complying with the conditions of a legally allowed act (fined)). I note that on the article Abortion in New Zealand it clearly states that abortion is legal. To me to be illegal is pretty absolute, much like Ireland used to be. As far as I know all countries that allow abortion place conditions on it, such as 28 weeks etc. About the two phrases you quote, I think neither is wrong, they simply place a different emphasis on the issue. On reflection though I agree with you that they do not mean exactly the same and the first one is more accurate so it should be put back. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Abortion has remained illegal, but in the last few decades in practice the law has been liberally interpreted. It's become so diluted that we now virtually have abortion on demand, and many people think that that is the status quo. But technically it's not, and Ardern's support for removing it from the law is simply a recognition that since nobody is being prosecuted we might as well remove it from the books. Can anyone remember the last time an abortionist was charged? Akld guy (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems like it's just a matter of framing and politics. Yes, the law says that an abortion is "unlawful but for ...". However, "lawful when..." and "unlawful but for..." can mean the exact same thing depending on what conditions are set down. For instance, familyplanning.org.nz uses the "abortion is lawful when" formulation. So it's mostly a matter of what (lack of) conditions are needed for you to consider the action (il)legal, which is a somewhat subjective matter. I think the most accurate, balanced wording is to drop the "support for decriminalising"/"easing restrictions" part and just say "Ardern believes abortion is a health issue and supports removing it from the Crimes Act", which is exactly her stated belief on the matter. Craigthelinguist (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Pregnancy gossip

@Schwede66: Many things make world news but they are not included in Wikipedia because it is not newspaper. Please how encyclopedic and relevant is pregnancy story to encyclopedia article? –Ammarpad (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Quite Relevant

This Prime Minister, though charming, articulate and competent, is strikingly atypical of the world's leaders in the sense that she is young, relatively inexperienced, unmarried yet pregnant, a former Mormon (germane due to the intense psycho-cognitive programming she underwent during her formative years) and degreed, not in economics, political science, public administration or international relations, but in the Communications Arts, unfairly facilitating her ability to exercise disproportionate leverage over the public. So, yes, the pregnancy issue is relevant as it further boosts the world's perception of N.Z. as an avant-garde, new-wave nation, ... reaching idealistically for the stars. Which, on balance, is perhaps not a bad thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.92.8.162 (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ammarpad, here's a selection of world news compiled by Radio New Zealand. What those international media outlets are reporting on doesn't seem to be gossip to me, but they attach some deeper meaning to it all. If you can't see that for yourself, then please don't make that other editors' problem. When somebody will eventually write a biographical book about Ardern, my guess would be that the pregnancy and then birth during her prime ministership will be portrayed as a defining topic. Schwede66 20:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Schwede66: It seems you think by "gossip" I mean the story is not true, but that's not what I mean. Any information about private life of famous people is inherently gossip, it doesn't mean the story is not true. And as I said earlier, many number of media houses talking about someone's private life as petty as pregnancy cannot automatically make it encyclopedia worthy. It was duly reported where it is worthy already; radio shows, fashion magazines and tabloids. I am not trying to make you accept this necessarily. The content is already there, no need for further debate. Thanks for your reply. P.S, Just to note that here is another trivia gossip removed by another editor despite being in the news –Ammarpad (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning her pregnancy in the article is not gossip, if that's the point you're trying to make. Very few female heads of state have found themselves pregnant while in office, so that in itself is a reason to at least record the fact. Come to think of it, the list of heads of government who've become parents while in office is not an exhaustive one. In terms of the UK, for example, both Tony Blair and David Cameron became parents while in office, a fact mentioned in both articles. This is Paul (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"first female prime minister to be pregnant whilst in office" might suggest that NZ has had a male prime minister who was pregnant while in office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.53.24 (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yet another image change request

Ardern in 2018

A more up to date photo (right) has been uploaded and I suggest using it for the infobox. It might need a bit of retouching to make it clearer though.

Also, I'm not sure if this file [now unlinked; file has been deleted] can be used on Wikipedia as it is claimed to have cc-by-sa-4.0, though in the permissions listed here it says under the Content not covered by the Creative Commons licence heading that Current and former MPs’ pages (where it is from) are not covered. Kiwichris (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that this photo should be used for the infobox. Clesam11 (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding copyright, what it says on the parliamentary website is not unambiguous. I've thus checked with them and they confirmed your suspicion, Kiwichris, that the photo is not free:

content on MPs’ pages is not licensed by the general copyright statement. The photos of individual MPs on their pages are provided by the MPs themselves, so neither Parliamentary Service nor the Office of the Clerk can license re-use of these photos

I'll tag the photo for deletion. Schwede66 00:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence Schwede66. There are a few other photos taken from www.parliament.nz floating around as well that should also be marked:

File:Simon Bridges 2.jpg

File:Tabuteau-fletcher2.DmxLBw.jpg

File:Ball-darroch.DmxLkw.jpg

File:Smith-stuart.DmxLBg.jpg

Unfortunately those can't be used here either. Kiwichris (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this in the first instance, Kiwichris. I've tagged the four remaining files for deletion, too. Schwede66 18:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• One of New Zealand’s darkest days Jacinda Ardern condemns Christchurch mass shooting.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jacinda Ardern (Mohammedan veil).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Paddles

People keep removing the mention of Ardern's cat from the Personal Life section, even though it is has received sufficient media coverage to be included. Further other articles on politicians such as the one for Jeremy Corbyn or Vladimir Putin mention their pets. I am going to revert the changes unless consensus here points otherwise. Hamish Paul Wilson (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Chargh: Thank you for adding those two extra sources. — Hugh (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a bloody cat we're talking about. This stuff is ridiculously trivial, just a stupid twitter gossip thing. It's embarrassing that it appeared in "respectable" publications and even more so that it appears in wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia not a gossip mag. Don't we have any standards for the quality of the information we choose to include anymore? Just because something appears on stuff.co.nz doesn't mean it belongs on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and while news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Coronavirus pandemic

I am not sure how best to incorporate media coverage of Jacinda Ardern's handling of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in New Zealand. The section which I wrote admittedly doesn't sit well with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Any ideas of how to write that section in an objective way?

This is the passage below:

During the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, on 16 April 2020, Jacinda was highly praised by several media for her swift action and containing the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand. The Washington Post's Anna Fifield praised her for taking decisive action including a four-week lockdown, clear communication, and described her use of interviews, press conferences and social media as a "masterclass in crisis communication." British journalist and former campaign manager Alastair Campbell also praised Jacinda for addressing both the human and economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. It certainly needs a lot of reworking to make it less of a hagiography. Any advice? Andykatib 11:05, April 25, 2020 (UTC)

References

Some suggestions:

• address people by their surname
• avoid words like "highly"
• maybe passive voice could be preferable, e.g. "[national and] international media gave praise to the government response led by Ardern"

Does that help? Schwede66 02:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Schwede66. Will reword it later and submit here before incorporating it into the article. Have a Happy Anzac Day. Andykatib 03:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

How about this?:

During the coronavirus pandemic, national and international media covered the government response led by Ardern, praising her leadership and swift response to the outbreak in New Zealand. The Washington Post's Fifield described her regular use of interviews, press conferences and social media as a "masterclass in crisis communication." Alastair Campbell, a journalist and adviser in Tony Blair's British government, commended Ardern for addressing both the human and economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. Andykatib 00:02, April 26, 2020 (UTC)

I’ve done a very light copy edit of the above text. Wait another day and see whether other editors want to comment. If nothing’s forthcoming, this text will do. Schwede66 05:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks, this sounds good. Will add it to the article later. If more material comes up, I'll make changes. Andykatib 05:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"40th Prime Minister"

Since Ardern was appointed prime minister in October 2017 the opening sentence has introduced her as "40th Prime Minister of New Zealand". This revision shortened that to simply "Prime Minister of New Zealand". As far as I can tell, every previous prime minister of New Zealand is described as "Xth Prime Minister" in their article, which I take to be a precedent to be followed. I note that other articles about Ardern, such as Jacindamania, describe her as the "40th Prime Minister". For these reasons I have restored the description. However, if other editors object then I am happy to revert my edit. --Hazhk (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring this. It’s appropriate. Schwede66 16:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Image Caption

In the section Prime Minister of New Zealand > subsection Foreign affairs there is an image with Ardern, South Korean President, Philippines President, and Myanmar State Counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi. Aung San Suu Kyi's title/office as Myanmar State Counsellor is omitted. I propose the caption be edited to include Aung San Suu Kyi's title/office. Kimdorris (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I made the proposed change to the image caption. I'm still relatively new, so if any more experienced editors disagree, please comment here or on my talk page. Kimdorris (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

File:NZ PM Jacinda Ardern - Kirk HargreavesCCC.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:NZ PM Jacinda Ardern - Kirk HargreavesCCC.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 26, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-07-26. Any improvements or maintenance to this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Jacinda Ardern (born 26 July 1980) is a New Zealand politician who has served as the 40th prime minister of New Zealand and the leader of the Labour Party since 2017, when she became the world's youngest female head of government.

In March 2019, Ardern led the country through the aftermath of mass shootings at two mosques in Christchurch, rapidly introducing strict gun laws in response. This photograph, taken through a glass window, shows her visiting members of the Muslim community at a community centre in Phillipstown less than 24 hours after the attacks, which had left 50 people dead (one more would die later). Widely circulated at the time, the photograph was described by The Guardian as an "image of hope".

Photograph credit: Kirk Hargreaves

Recently featured:

• Ixion
• Goldcrest
• Eileen Collins

New York Times projection

I've added the news from the NY Times that they've projected that Labour has won a majority in the election. I also noticed that there is almost nothing about the election in the current article. Surely something more should be added. I'm not sure that I, a non-Kiwi, should be adding much and somehow, this being Wikipedia, somebody is going to revert or change my edit.

Please just keep the reference <ref name="NYT projects">{{cite news |last1=Cave |first1=Damien |title=Jacinda Ardern, Hero to Liberals Abroad, Is Validated at Home |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/17/world/asia/jacinda-ardern-election-new-zealand.html |accessdate=17 October 2020 |publisher=New York Times |date=17 October 2020}}</ref>

It's not the perfect article, I suppose. Actually it's hagiographic and it quotes the Financial Times as calling her "Saint Jacinda". In any case, it reflects an international view of the Prime Minister which should be noted in the article, and both the New York Times and the Financial Times are very good newspapers. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones and I support keeping this reference in the article. Adding an international perspective is important to paint a complete picture. As Wikipedia is a source for the world, this source has a place in this article, even if it is a bit hagiographic. Jurisdicta (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Replaced with BBC News source. It is more objective and concerns the facts, not pushing a narrative. --Hazhk (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

New photo of Ardern

Hi team,

The photo has been a bone of contention, so I uploaded one that I took myself. This can be used if all else fails:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_Zealand_Prime_Minister_Jacinda_Ardern_in_2018.jpg

Newzild (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thats a great photo Newzild! Thanks for taking the time to do that. Eruditess (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback, Eruditess. Much appreciated.

Merge proposal

The following is a closed discussion of a proposed merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a close review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the merge request was: Overall, I find consensus to merge. As pointed out by supporters of the merge, it is not just WP:GNG but also WP:NOPAGE that has to be considered when deciding to have a standalone article on a certain topic. "Oppose" !voters haven't given a solid argument why this topic is better covered as its own article. (t · c) buidhe 16:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

---

I am proposing that we merge the contents of Jacindamania into a section on this article (Jacinda Ardern), the Jacindamania article is very small and it seems quite unnecessary to have a separate article on it. Additionally Jacindamania could easily be merged into this article with some very minor formatting changes. Cairo2k18 • (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed Much interest in the topic (at least in New Zealand, but that is a good enough reason to leave it alone); there are heaps of reliable sources for it to stand on its own. Schwede66 21:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, it just seemed like quite a small article and something that could easily be merged into the main article. Cairo2k18 • (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed The topic is still relevant and term is still being used. Favour expansion of Jacindamania article rather than merging it here. Kiwichris (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

How would it be expanded, and what information would be able to be added to it? Cairo2k18 • (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The article could probably have a bit more about the context and her becoming leader - at the moment it's just a single sentence as a preamble to something else. There's currently nothing talking about arguably the main aspect of Jacindamania, being that Labour rose ~15% in polls basically overnight when she took over and were able to strongly contend an election which prior to her taking over had seemed like it would have a foregone outcome. Turnagra (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That could easily be merged into another article and cleaning up the parts that aren't very relevant to Jacindamania. Cairo2k18 • (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed for reasons already mentioned. Seems distinct enough a phenomenon to warrant its own article (also noting that Trudeaumania is a separate article too), but would agree that the article can and should be expanded. Turnagra (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Merge while I think there is merit in covering this topic, I don't think it will stand the test of time apart from Jacinda Ardern. NealeFamily (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Merge It's certainly a term used in media headlines to refer to her popularity but I'm not sure that warrants a Wikipedia article (it can be covered adequately within the Jacinda Ardern article). I'm also not sure it's comparable to something like Trumpism, which is a certain political philosophy which arguably replaced a lot of prior republican doctrine. Please see "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary" - I think that would provide support for merging. Sxologist (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per above. Sean Stephens (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. ‘Jacindamania’ set to return Jacinda Ardern as New Zealand PM. Here's yet another example of the term being accepted and still being used worldwide by media outlets. This headline is from today -- election day in NZ -- in Al Jazeera. Moriori (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

No one denies that the term is in use--that is not even remotely the issue at hand.--72.194.4.183 (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: it has room for further growth in its own right.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Merge I support this merge. This article is much too short to be encyclopedic. Who knows what Jacindamania will be like in her next term but as it stands, it’s best served in her own article. Trillfendi (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Opposed I believe the merge should not take place; the topic is notable enough for it to have its own independent article. R. J. Dockery (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support The fandom, appreciation, or informal community associated with a political figure is not independently notable from the figure. KidAd talk 00:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Merge! I think this article should be merged into Jacinda Andern. It is the opinion of the political figure, so I believe it can be added to the article. At the moment, it can't really stand on its own two feet and it'd be more useful for people reading the main Jacinda Andern article to get this context.belwine (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not "the opinion of the political figure". Jacindamania describes the widespread enthusiastic support for Arden, a term that is widely used internationally. Moriori (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I still think the article doesn't currently stand up on its own two feet and that it'd be much better in the article. I don't, at least currently, think that there is enough content in the article for it to be an independent article. belwine (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose It is notable as an independent topic. ~ HAL333([3]) 20:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Notable separate incident. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree with many of the "oppose" comments that a popular movement supporting a politician can sometimes pass WP:GNG but I do not think this standard has been met. There is nothing in the article as it stands to indicate that "Jacindamania" refers to anything more than Ardern being popular; as such, it isn't comparable with other subculture-like aspects like Milifandom which have acquired substance in their own right. At the moment, there is nothing to indicate independent notability under WP:GNG and it seems a good example of WP:RECENTISM. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge. There is too much recentism in political articles here. US is worse, but we don't have to stoop to this level. A mention in her article and an expanded mention at the election article are all that is needed. If it becomes a more deep rooted aspect then we can always split it out again. Otherwise we just have a bloated permistub. AIRcorn (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge per Brigade Piron above. — HTGS (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge. I agree with Brigade Piron. Xx78900 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• [Merge]: i too agree with Brigade Piron and think that this article should be merged. Aleyuma (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge. Enlarge and strengthen the Jacinda Ardern article. That's the perfect article to cover Ardern's popularity and its effect, just as Corbynmania was merged into Jeremy Corbyn. Once the Jacinda Ardern article gets so big that it needs to be split, we'll see whether Jacindamania or some other aspect of Ardern is best to be split off. It's not about the number of reliable sources, or public interest in Jacindamania – it's that it's a minor topic, the article is small and easily accommodated within Jacinda Ardern. I find the argument that Jacindamania can be expanded lacking in evidence. But even if it doubled from 4 paragraphs to 8 or even 12, Jacinda Ardern could still accommodate it. Nurg (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge - I agree with the reasoning above. The notability of Ardern's popularity is worthy of mention on her Wikipedia page, but not enough to have a page of its own. AThousandPaperCranes (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add the New Zealand pronunciation of Ardern??

The pronunciation given on this page for Jacinda Ardern is an American English pronunciation. The usual New Zealand pronunciation is not only non-rhotic, but also places equal stress on the two syllables. This pronunciation should surely be indicated on the page, either instead of the American pronunciation or alongside it. The NZ pronunciation can be heard here: http://www.radiolive.co.nz/home/video/2017/08/jacinda-ardern-doesn-t-change-the-game---bill-english.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.69.229.110 (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The pronunciations given on Wikipedia are standardised - see Help:IPA/Conventions for English. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 21:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you missed the point and didn't understand the comment you're replying to: It's not about whether it's represented in standard form, it's literally just an incorrect pronunciation. So it is 'standardized but wrong'. In New Zealand English the "r"'s are not pronounced, and Jacinda Ardern is a New Zealander, her name is not pronounced in American English (look up rhoticity). 155.93.249.18 (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

What exactly does "standardised" mean? In any case, it is common practice on Wikipedia to give both a commonly used English pronunciation of proper names alongside the local pronunciation used in the country in question. That would seem to be appropriate in this case as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.104.79 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I just checked and it's true that the pronunciation does not reflect local (NZ) non-rhotic pronunciation. Would be good if this could be fixed.Newzild (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in IPA, but I think the pronunciation of her first name you've added /dʒəˈsəndə ˈɑːˈdɜːn/ is not correct. Do you say all three vowels in her first name the same? I think the other pronunciation /dʒəˈsɪndə ˈɑːrdɜːrn/ is correct for her first name. The reference you added only covers her surname.-gadfium 05:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

In en-nz our short i sound is a schwa, so that is correct.  Nixinova   T   C   01:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the short-i and the schwa are identical in NZE.115.188.228.232 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

NZ stressed short i is not identical to schwa in all or even, I suspect, the majority of New Zealanders' speech. It is pronounced further forward and higher in the mouth than schwa. Our word-initial schwa may be lower in the mouth than that of other English speakers: there is not much difference between the a of about and the u of but. Unstressed i is definitely a schwa - we pronounce patted and pattered identically. Our stressed short i is similar to that in German wissen or Ukrainian И. If you get most New Zealanders to say "bitter", you will hear two different vowels. Koro Neil (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

The infobox has featured three files in the past 24 hours (see below). Can we settle on one image? I suggest the 2018 image and reject the 2020 portrait from electoral material. There is no noticeable change in her appearance between 2018 and 2020. --Hazhk (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• 
  2018 photograph
• 
  2019 portrait
• 
  2020 portrait

--Hazhk (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• I concur with Hazhk: I think the 2018 image would be the best one to use currently. It is clear & sharp, and is much higher resolution than the other two photos. And from what I can tell the licensing for the 2020 portrait hasn't been cleared yet by the OTRS? -Air55- ^(Talk) 22:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • That's concerning. While we wait for permission to use this copyrighted image I will remove it from articles. The portrait is taken from campaign materials – I don't think it is suitable. --Hazhk (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

2018 is the best I think. The 2020 transparent one has an extremely annoying outline which stares me in the face every time I looked at the page, and the 2019 one is low quality.  Nixinova   T   C   00:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If there are no copywrite issues, I would support using the newest imagine. However, without QTRS clearance, we should continue to use the previous imagine. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the 2018 is the best one and 2019 is very poor quality and the 2020 one might be copyrighted Dq209 (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

2018 is best IMHO. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur that the current infobox image should remain. Lord Stephenson (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The Labour Party has gone silent on me regarding OTRS approval; had negotiated this with their acting general secretary. Does anyone know some high up officials who I could draw in for getting some action? If we don’t sort this out soon, we will have wasted many volunteer hours. Schwede66 17:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 one isn't appropriate anyway because it's been airbrushed and clear-cut.115.188.228.232 (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a professional photograph from election material and it's airbrushed/photoshopped. That said, it's not particularly high quality either, IMO; I note the sharp edges where the background has been removed. So I don't think we need to go to the trouble of gaining approval to use the image when there are several free files we might use. --Hazhk (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to close the loop on this part of the discussion. The OTRS approval did eventually come through, so the candidate photos can be used. But I agree that the Ardern photo is inferior to the 2018 photo that we have. Schwede66 18:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

For a political figure, the 2020 image is best. Trillfendi (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Why?Moriori (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It’s a simple, clean and clear, white-background image. That’s pretty straightforward and businesslike. The 2019 photo is too dim. Trillfendi (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Too much airbrushing on the 2020 one. Lets keep it real. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 is more recent compared to the others - we should be using newer official portraits. Ciaran.london (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Only if the newest one is the highest quality one. So far, the 2018 one wins in that regard. pcuser42 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Singapore FinTech Festival

Added the following content, here.

On December 9, 2020, Ardern delivered a speech virtually at the Singapore FinTech Festival, applauding the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA) among New Zealand, Chile and Singapore as “the first important steps” to achieve the regulatory alignment to facilitate businesses.Eesan1969 (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly much more succinct than this prior edit. Please note that we use dmy date format in this part of the world. Schwede66 00:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Schwede66, thanks.Eesan1969 (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

1997 aspiration

In 1997, Ardern seems to have expressed a wish to become prime minister, but I could not find good sources. I saw it here, also conveyed by Daily Hail. Also TV reported her success in reducing lawn fungus. TGCP (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The Cat

Does there really need to a whole separate section for the cat? It is hardly note worthy to be in the article at all, let alone have it's own section. --TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Revision history for discussion of subheading Cat

• Edit 23:19, 17 October 2020 by Tarnoob added subheading Varia under Personal life;
• Edit 02:10, 19 November 2020 by Snori changed subheading Varia to Cat; and
• Edit 03:44, 19 November 2020 by Gadfium added subheading Rugby union following Cat paragraph.

Kimdorris (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: Further comment for discussion of subheading Cat

• After I posted above revision history, user Tarnoob posted a comment on my user talk. See link for comment.

Kimdorris (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pre-GA review

I'm thinking about reviewing this article for GA if I manage to carve out some time. One of the major issues I have identified so far is a problem with prose called WP:Proseline: the repeated start of sentences with "On the 4th February / On 5 October". Do leave out dates when they aren't relevant to the point. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gone through the references and tidied those up. In particular, I've made sure that news uses the right citation template and that journalists, where they are named, appear in the reference. I shall leave the prose to others. Schwede66 23:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

More Recent Photo?

I'd like to propose another photo change. I think this one might be the best recent photo from 2020. I know there has been some controversy surrounding these photo changes so is there any consensus to changing the photo to this?

--Atmospherica (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the current image. Personal preference plays a large part, of course, but also the newer image has a busy background that detracts from the subject. I feel that a simpler image, with plain white background is striking and more suitable for the infobox. The proposed image (which I do think is a nice photograph) is a cropped version of a file that already appears in the article, under the Second term heading; I'm opposed to duplicating images within articles. In this case I don't think the dates of the images should be a determining factor since they were taken only two years apart and Ardern's appearance hasn't changed noticeably. --Hazhk (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support recent image It's a recent image of a current national leader and the image is not that bad in quality either. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support recent image There is no official portrait that I can find on the Commons, so it would be best to use this recent image in the infobox, just like how we do it on the Justin Trudeau article. 2A00:23C5:2C01:9501:10A1:B8B8:E33F:B5FD (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• leave as it is there is no real reason put forward to change. A slightly more recent photo is not a particularly good argument. The current image isn't exactly old.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: this image is used throughout the entire wiki on Jacinda Ardern pages, so this shouldn’t be any different. You’re right, it’s only three years old, but why use it when there’s a more recent high quality image suitable for use in the infobox? 2A00:23C5:2C01:9501:CDA2:94A:6D3F:6FE0 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I don't really understand your comment. Because it is used elsewhere (apparently the entire elsewhere!) that makes it better here? Is a strange way to look at it and again not a pertinent arguement. There needs to be a good reason to change it, if you have a good reason state it otherwise the staus quo should stay. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Quite strong POV

The article in its current is rather biased in favour of the subject. In particular, it discusses in detail actions that have won Ardern praise while it glosses over actions that have causes widespread criticism. In particular, Ardern has been criticised jn April and May 2021 first for her genocide denial related to Armenia, where critics (in major newspapers) have accused her of willingly denying the Armenian genocide to appease Turkey, in contrast with almost all democracies. Similarly, her refusal to condemn China over its treatment of the Uyghurs has also met with strong criticism, and again puts Ardern in conflict with democracies around the world. These policies have been widely covered in reliable sources yet are absent here. All in all, the article comes across as biased to paint Ardern in a positive light rather than to offer a neutral description in which both positive aspects (of which there are many) and negative aspects are both reflected. Jeppiz (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there any reason for no reference to the "comrades" video

Seemed quite a big thing and is on youtube of her yelling it about 10 times during who Socialist stint.

There also seems to be no rerence of her apologising for doing a media PR selfie under Covid 19 lockdown, under her Covid section, or her ministers bike riding.

Quite a few other things tbf, Seems a very biased article towards the positive.

Will add unless people have a valid reason to not.

--TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Lower casing in infobox

A discussion is occurring at WP:AN, which may affect this article's subject & its predecessors. Input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Strange revert and edit comment

User:Andrewgprout with this edit reverted my (strictly factual and sourced) edit with a comment of "Reverted 1 edit by BushelCandle (talk): Why is that important for sedition here?"

This was in the context that it had been pointed out by User:HiLo48 "‎Early life and education: The source doesn't actually mention the time of the year. Added another source" whereas reliable sources actually quote the current New Zealand prime minister as saying very recently that she was in the US at the time of the attack on the twin towers and was deeply affected by it. I simply do not understand the reference to "sedition" in the edit comment. Does anyone else? --08:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC) BushelCandle

@BushelCandle: Simple explaination - spellchecker made a freudian slip. sedition = addition. So my summary should have read "Why is that important for addition here?". My only question was why this had any importantance to anything here. Not every fact is important. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Andrewgprout!

(Either nobody else is watching this page or they are all as equally baffled as I was...)

Now, regarding your judgement call. I agree that Jacinda's US sojourn is not an important fact that should go in the lede. However, since this is not wholly a paper encyclopedia, I don't see why we should not attempt to factually describe that she was physically present in the United States at the time of the twin towers attack and her own quote that the event affected her. This is not so unusual after all, older generations exposed to television tend to remember where they were at the time of the J F Kennedy assassination and the same is true of the events of 9 September 2001. Unless you can come up with a powerful and cogent argument that we should censor the facts and dates of Jacinda's US sojourn, then I intend to counteract your reversion... --03:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC) BushelCandle

I love the business of the EC typo! Briefly, (1) I honestly think "censor" is the wrong verb here; to me it has connotations of a creepy motivation which I would long hesitate to ascribe to Andrewgprout, and (2) I also can't see why this fact is needed in the article, though I am worried that, rushing to start work, I may have missed the point somehow. I will try to look back later (much later) in the day. Best to all DBaK (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It does seem like a trivial detail, and not worth mentioning. --IdiotSavant (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

EBEs

In the rather unlikely event that she accepts this position, and the also unlikely event that the position becomes meaningful, I'm sure this will be added to the article. In the meantime, this serves only to promote an internet poll
The following discussion has been closed by gadfium. Please do not modify it.
Hi, just a heads up that Jacinda Ardern has been suggested and encouraged to put herself forwards as a potential elected choice for alien liason officer in the event of First Contact with extra terrestrials, by various people on the Internet. The poll also listed Seth Shostak (SETI and NASA), Alexander Panov (Rosatom, RAS) and others. It is possible that this would be carried out in parallel with her existing elected position as NZ PM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.68.174.170 (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC) This a little late for first contact isn't it? Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2021 (2)

NOTE: this supercedes earlier request with correct phonetic transcription here. Change the phonetic transcription of Jacinda Ardern from /dʒəˈsɪndə ˌɑːrˈdɜːrn/ to /dʒəˈsɪndə ˌɑ:ˈdɜːn/ The transcribed R sounds are not a part of the NZ accent and not the way Jacinda pronounces her surname nor the way anyone else in NZ with an NZ accent does. 119.224.62.86 (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The given source seems good enough; and the IPA matches with the given approximation ("AH-durn"), /ɑːr/ being indeed pretty much had it is pronounced in "far" [the comparison you get when you mouse over it] (in British English, at least? its also pretty much how I pronounce it too). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:DIAPHONEMIC, the ⟨r⟩ should stay in both syllables of the surname. Americans wouldn't dream of dropping it in either syllable. Also, the first syllable is clearly unstressed, and I sometimes hear the first vowel as /ʌ/ ([aˈdøːn]), especially in fast speech. In New Zealand and Australia, /ɑː(r)/ and /ʌ/ differ from each other purely by length, as they're both open central unrounded vowels (in contemporary General British English, they're also a long-short pair in the open(-mid) back region (so [ɑ(ː)ˈdɜːn, ʌ(ː)ˈdɜːn]), per Jack Windsor Lewis and Geoff Lindsey. That's why 'can't' pronounced with a short vowel sounds like 'c*nt' (what? It's a famous example of an EFL mispronunciation :P) not only in New Zealand and Australia but also in the UK, save for dialects without the foot-strut split where 'c*nt' is [kʊnt ~ kɔnt], with a entirely different vowel). JWL says that this length distinction can be lost in polysylabic words and in unstressed syllables, and I imagine the same is true of NZE and AuE - this would indeed render Ardern, phonemically /ɑːˈdɜːn/, phonetically [aːˈdøːn] in NZE, closer to or the same as a fictional surname Uddern [aˈdøːn]! Not in careful speech, though. Sol505000 (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The point here is that New Zealanders are not Canadians. We pronounce "far" as "faa". The point here is that New Zealanders are not Americans. Our language is non-rhotic. It doesn't sound like that at all. It sounds like 'kaant'. It sounds like you're not a New Zealander? I'm a phonics expert based in New Zealand and I can confirm that our language is non-rhotic. In other words, the 'r' should be removed. You asked for a source. Here's one - read the first paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhoticity_in_English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs)

Entry into politics

In the "Early life and education section" we see this statement: Ardern was brought into politics by her aunt, Marie Ardern, a longstanding member of the Labour Party, who recruited the teenaged Ardern to help her with campaigning for New Plymouth MP Harry Duynhoven during his re-election campaign at the 1999 general election. Ardern joined the Labour Party at the age of 17... She was 19 when the election happened (born July 1980, election happened November 1999), so she'd joined Labour a good deal more than a year before the election. Did Duynhoven start campaigning before July 1988 (sounds implausible), or did Marie Ardern bring her into politics when Jacinda was 17 and then later help with Duynhoven's campaign (if so, why mention Duynhoven at all?), or is there just an error here? 122.150.71.249 (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

From [4] seems to be half remembered family mythology worth including, but maybe not in Wiki voice. It does go with her starting before campaign rather than a part of it. Better person than me can sort. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that she joined the party but as the 1999 election was the first election campaign she took part in she was largely inactive beforehand. I am going to remove the assertion that she "was brought into politics". I will move the part about her campaigning for the New Plymouth MP. --Hazhk (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead image redux

I was looking for a more up to date image of Ardern and came across these. File:Jacinda Ardern - Waitangi 2022 (cropped).jpg is bang up to date, but doesn't look as good as the current image, while File:Jacinda Ardern 2021 (cropped).jpg from October 2021 does look like a reasonable main image for people looking for one. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Option A (2018; current)
• 
  Option B (2021)
• 
  Option C (2022)
• 
  Option D (2020; portrait)
• 
  Option E (2020)

Agree it would be nice to have a newer photo, but the Waitangi one is not good and the mugshot looks noisey/pixelated when viewed on a large screen. Newzild (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of the 2022 image option. It's not that bad, pretty recent and quality is good for a lead image. I also wouldn't object to option D seeing how it's a portrait from 2020. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oooh- didn't see this until now. I edited this page and went to discuss it on the talk page. I chose this one purely out of convinience, but I agree with the user above that the 2022 one would be good too. Aubernas (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• <--- This image looks highly edited, strong oppose. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 09:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed, that's why I'm leaning towards option C. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Reassessment

This article was competently assessed in March, and I do not challenge the assessment at the time. Back then, Ardern was strongly praised and the article reflected that. Since then, Ardern has been at the centre of a number of controversies. Biden's recognition of the Armenian Genocide brought criticism of Ardern's genocide denial, with critics in major newspapers noting how Ardern places herself on the side of the Turkish regime in denying a genocide, in sharp contrast to most traditional NZ allies and democracies. Similarly, Ardern has been accused both at home and abroad of refusing to call out the Chinese genocide of the Uyghurs, yet again placing herself more in line with the regime in question than with traditional NZ allies and democracies around the world. In short, Ardern no longer enjoys nearly as popular press coverage as she did at the time of the assessment of the article, and the very positive tone (and absence of criticism) now comes across as being at odds with how Ardern's policies are discussed both home and abroad in reliable sources. Jeppiz (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Left a note at the New Zealand wikiproject as this ia an article that I imagine editors would be keen to get up to standard. Aircorn (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Jeppiz (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the issues raised above should be discussed and then incorporated into the article. I do not agree that a GA Reassessment is the right way of going about this. Seems heavy-handed. Why not just float the issue here and see what others think? Why tie down a GA reviewer? By all means, ask for a GA Reassessment after you tried to resolve this via a discussion and that approach failed. Schwede66 09:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Schwede66, that is a valid point, thanks. In the past, I've seen other Good Articles' editors be a bit defensive "This is a good article, no need to change". That's what I opted for this approach, but if edits about controversy and criticism can be included in some format, obviously sourced, without a reassessment, then all the better. Jeppiz (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Since this ended up on my watchlist I may as well opine. There is more wrong with this article than the potential NPOV issues raise. At the moment it has a lot of WP:Proseline. I count 26 paragraphs starting with On/In [date] in the "Prime minister (2017–present)" section alone. That's about two thirds of them, including one whole subsection. I know it gets like that when a currently active BLP is being edited, but GA's deserve better. Aircorn (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. At times it reads as something her press officer might put out about her activities. Not obviously biased, but with a positive tilt to tell her "daily" activities. Jeppiz (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I do think that the article could work harder to be NPOV and fix prose issues, but I'm not convinced that the Armenian genocide issue is WP:DUE here. NZ is just one of the many countries that doesn't have a position on it. Also I do not think it goes in line with WP:BLP to label Ardern a proponent of "genocide denial", as far as I can tell she never made any statements on it. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• I have worked on some of the prose issues, but unfortunately the issue is endemic. It probably should never have been passed in this state and given the lack of interest from other editors and my limited time I think delisting is probably the best course with this one. Aircorn (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jeppiz: Is this ready to be closed? Aircorn (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Aircorn: Apologies for the delay. If the article is delisted, this can be closed. I just reviewed the article again and I still believe it skews too much towards the positive (compared to articles about many other politicians). As I already mentioned, there is no deliberate bias nor do I think there's any one really major issue but - as you also said yourself - it probably should not have passed GA. The overall tone when reading it is that positive aspects are very much put forward while criticism is almost absent. Again, that is the impression when comparing the article to similar politicians serving as PMs (or similar) in other democratic countries. Probably not skewing positive enough to put a POV tag on it, but too much for it to be considered a 'good article'. Jeppiz (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
      • As the person opening an individual GA it is your decision to close it. If you want it to be closed as delist then I can do the technical side of it. Aircorn (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

      I can close this if you want. I feel it has had more than enough time Aircorn (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Jeppiz: I feel this has been abandoned. I am closing it as Delist mainly on the prose issues I identified. Aircorn (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Spilt article into 'Premiership of Jacinda Ardern'

A lot of world leaders have a premiership articles, Jacinda does but it's redirected to the Prime Minister section of this article. Would someone create Premiership of Jacinda Ardern from the section here and from the History section of Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand, to match other world leaders? Thanks!! 2A00:23C5:2C01:9501:D09B:85EB:A0BA:1265 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary - also, the phrase 'premiership' is not used in New Zealand in relation to its prime ministers. Newzild (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC).

I agree that a new and seperate page should be made with that title. She’s a significant world leader. Additionally, the word “premiership” has been used in New Zealand before. It would be wrong to assume that “prime ministership” would be a better alternative because we say Prime Minister rather than Premier- it’s too clunky. But yes, a new and separate article should be at least drafted at some point in the near future. Aubernas (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

New infobox image

Proposed image

How does this image look for the infobox? It's a new one from August 2022. Thoughts? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The current lead image is from 2018 and I agree that it’s time to update it. This one will do. Schwede66 20:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

“Monarchs”

Is there a reason the info-box lists “Monarchs” but not “Deputies” or “Governors-General”? Surely it should be consistently in the singular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jekrox (talk • contribs) 06:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be consistent, I have had a look on other PM’s wikis and there is a mixture of approaches (some pluralised for multiples, others not), but from a review of the others I think it looks best, requires the least upkeep, and still reads ok to keep it in the singular. Feel free to disagree and/or revert if you can come up with better reasons than mine Cbe46 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with both editors and their reasons above, and I would add that using plural can give the wrong impression that there were two monarchs on the throne simultaneously during Jacinda Ardern's term of office as PM of NZ. Bcmh (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Lede is way too long

This seems to be a trend on Wikipedia lately. Ledes ramble on and on with editorialising. It's a bad look for Wikipedia, honestly, never ending leads make me run away from the page. Tallard (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It could perhaps be trimmed a little, but major world leaders have always had quite long ledes and this does not seem out of line. --Pokelova (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2023

change "per cent" to "percent" 2806:2F0:5140:16C:58AF:4F8C:5714:22B6 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Either "per cent" or "percent" can be used depending on the national variety of English, according to MOS:PERCENT. Although New Zealanders understand and use both forms, "per cent" is the form used by the Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary (1979 edition).-gadfium 00:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Biased article, reads like propaganda

The article is not neutral or unbiased and reads like propaganda in favour of Ardern. I don't think it shows how unpopular she was and how many of her policies were heavily disliked domestically. 152.37.85.94 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources to support your claim? HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Out of personal observation, she did seem to be quite popular as described by the article, until near the end of the COVID-19 lockdowns and her tenure. The article has a passing mention of this, saying Whilst towards the end of her tenure Ardern faced decreased levels of popularity domestically and increased levels of criticism from across the political spectrum, she denied that these were factors in her decision to resign as prime minister, which is all I can find on opposition to her in a quick scan. No explanation is made on what this criticism is about, so it does read a bit like a hagiography. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

HiLo48 It is obvious that no political figure lacks criticism, and you could simply google. The Covid measures were protested by some, then inflation and deepening social inequality are blamed for wider criticisms. Whether one agrees or not with the criticisms, dissatisfaction with her grew so bad over time that eventually instead of her planned 3rd term run she resigned entirely from politics and her party may be thumped in the next elections. This seems a major point of biographical life change and legacy that is not as readily apparent in the article as would seem reasonable for the WP:WEIGHT of coverage and just to convey her life story - the article just has minor mention in Public image section and a bit more at the side article Resignation of Jacinda Ardern. Pretty much any search on her will show some more negative items -- try a search for example with the recent Sky News phrase the "long, bad dream of Jacinta Ardern". Results include

• BBC Why Jacinda Ardern's star waned in New Zealand
• The Guardian Some of Jacinda Ardern’s legacy in New Zealand is safe. A lot of it isn’t
• AP News New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern, an icon to many, to step down
• The Guardian Support for Jacinda Ardern and NZ Labour sinks to lowest since 2017
• 1news How Dame Jacinda Ardern's profile went from saint to witch
• Britannica article on her Jacinda Ardern

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but you lost me when YOU told ME to Google things to support what is presumably YOUR position. That is what almost every conspiracy theorist and right wing nutter I've ever encountered does. That doesn't mean I necessarily believe you are a conspiracy theorist and/or right wing nutter, but it's not a good starting position. Then you lost me even more when you placed a strong emphasis on something from Sky News. When it comes to Labor governments, Sky News has no credibility at all. Perhaps you could extract some relevant remarks from the more credible sources in your list, such as the BBC and the Guardian. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@HiLo48 Is conspiracy theories a civil topic here? —Panamitsu (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I am simply trying to encourage a better level of discussion here. It just seems so fashionable, but useless, today to tell others to Google things. We are better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

HiLo48 Lets just talk edits. I will simply proceed to the guidance of WP:TALK#USE about cites and what edits might go where to suit the thread topic "shows how unpopular she was and how many of her policies were heavily disliked domestically". In general, I propose :

• start the last para of the lead with a sentence of declining popularity to her and her policies as suitable preface to the abrupt "On 19 January 2023, Ardern announced she would resign"
• and add one to three paragraphs in the body using my five links of AP/BBC/Guardian/1News -- winding up a bit closer to the coverage visible at the sixth link of Britannica.
• I would think that should be one in the Domestic Affairs section of her second term and one in her Resignation section rather than have a 'criticisms' section.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I've had a good look at those sources. Unfortunately, the one link there that would explicitly do what you say you want, simply describe her declining popularity, the second Guardian link, isn't working for me. I am still puzzled as to what really went wrong, and what were really the major factors. Obviously antivaxers and those opposed to vaccine mandates didn't like what she did. Others say that saved lives. Was that enough? HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed Markbassett's link to the second Guardian article. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure? Now I'm just getting "This site can’t be reached". HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes it works fine for me. The link has the title of the article so you can just Google it if the link does not work for you for some reason. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

OK. Got it now. Must have been a network glitch at my end. That's a good source, and it demonstrates the core fact that she and her party lost popularity. We could certainly write something based on that. But without a source based on proper surveying, I don't think we should try to say WHY that happened. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Showing unpopularity and disliked policies

User:Panamitsu and User:HiLo48 (Outdenting to a new subsection since there seems some agreement to add content that "shows how unpopular she was and how many of her policies were heavily disliked domestically".)

If the general approach proposed (one line in the lead and a couple paras in the body) is acceptable, perhaps we move toward specific edits and cites for that. Which of the following seem best to represent the thread of "shows how unpopular she was and how many of her policies were heavily disliked domestically"?

I think I would seek the body parts to have specifics and factual events at the end of 2022 and start of 2023. I think a coverage of how many things were disliked [e.g. here] would mean some content about the wider electorate concerns of projections of a recession, stubbornly high inflation, national fears over crime, grim polling and enduring pockets of anti-government conspiracists.

• Polling showing precise Labour popularity numbers decline to 33% with context of lowest since 2017 before she was PM.
• Polling on whether people “think the country is going in the right direction” started tracking down from a high of 70% in early 2021 to 30% at the end of 2022.
• Protesters occupied parliament’s lawns for weeks, with fires and clashes break out at New Zealand parliament as police move in to clear protest
• Ardern’s vehicle was chased and forced on to a curb by anti-vaccination protesters calling her a Nazi and yelling obscenities at a school visitation.
• An inflation rate of 7.2%, with petrol prices started spiking mid-year and grocery costs up 10.7% annually.
• Announced plans to engineer a “shallow recession” in 2023 to tame the inflation
• Hiked the official cash rate from 1% in 2019 to 4.25% at the end of 2022, with the context of drove up mortgage payments and median house prices dropped 7.5% year on year.

Then there are expressed views of campaign promises where time passed and people viewed these as Labour failed to deliver (e.g. here and here).

• More affordable housing
• Child poverty and general poverty or wealth inequalities
• Crime crisis
• Immigration issues

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It has been a few days without any comments on the above, so I think I will try some on the first couple parts above of a lede line and specifics in body content. I ran out of energy at the ‘failed promises’ part above, so won’t try that part at this time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Anything you write must be very carefully written. I personally see no problem with what Adern did. She refused to play populist politics, and made hard decisions that were in the best interests of her country. You can perhaps write words to the effect that "Some did not like her policies", and very thoroughly source that to good sources, but in no way can you even imply that they were bad policies. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• per TALK above, I have added a line to the lead, "In 2022, domestic popularity for Ardern and her policies plummeted. " just before the line saying resigned in 2023. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

An editor altered that “plummeted” to “fell considerably” with edit remark “less tabloid”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• per TALK above, I have added a line to second term section to mention the domestic popularity polls plummeting to 30%, with context of that is less than before she took office. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• per TALK above, in the Covid 19 section I have added text about the Covid protests camping on Parliament grounds, and on protestors chasing Ardern. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

An editor deleted the text about February 2022 Covid protests with edit note “Not about Ardern”. I’m dubious it conveys the situation - attitudes about her and her policies and this TALK thread "shows how unpopular she was and how many of her policies were heavily disliked domestically" - if it doesn’t include the more famous and large protests over the Covid policies stated as hers in the prior 4 paragraphs. The chasing of her van comes off a bit abruptly and puzzling without some the wider context of immediately before the date and “Covid” topic of protests. But I’ll maybe look for 5 or 6 individual incidents of directly protesting her and/or directly noting her policies as failed (e.g. child poverty barely moved, housing got worse noted here). The phrasing in Domestic section for example might need rework - it seems very short compared to lengthy touting of her efforts and the short phrasing “critics say rising housing costs are continuing” - seems incorrectly portraying a fact as a dubious claim. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid your own personal opinion is coming into play too much here - "directly noting her policies as failed". People protesting against something a politician has done does not mean their policies are wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 2024-04-20 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 The key word is "directly" -- since "Not about Ardern" was said for deleting the line of the most famous and huge protest then the alternative approach for the topic thread "shows how unpopular she was and how many of her policies were heavily disliked domestically" would seem to be provide a number of specifics that directly involve her, "5 or 6 individual incidents of directly protesting her and/or directly noting her policies as failed ". If you have some other notion for how to suit the topic "shows how unpopular she was and how many of her policies were heavily disliked domestically" then please suggest. That the approval rating was only 29% is a factual and decent start to showing that she was strongly and widely disliked -- but it is doesn't provide any detail as to what was disliked or how and why. I thought "shows how unpopular she was and how many of her policies were heavily disliked domestically" was illustrated by the massive protest at Parliament, and a single small incident wouldn't do the same unless it's one of many being shown. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

So long as reliable sources are used, it's fine for us to talk about the fact that some of her policies were unpopular, but we cannot say, or even imply, that those policies were wrong. Choosing to mention specific demonstrations is heading into dangerous territory. Most of the time, the number of people at a demonstration is minuscule compared with the number of voters, and we would be omitting other events where support for her was shown. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)