Jump to content

Talk:Jacinda Ardern

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Panamitsu (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 1 April 2024 (fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleJacinda Ardern was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2021Good article nomineeListed
May 4, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 20, 2017, October 17, 2020, and January 20, 2023.
Current status: Delisted good article

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources to support your claim? HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@HiLo48 Is conspiracy theories a civil topic here? —Panamitsu (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've fixed Markbassett's link to the second Guardian article. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]