Jacinda 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.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Text and/or other creative content from Jacindamania was copied or moved into Jacinda Ardern with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
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]
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]
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
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]
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]
HiLo48Lets 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.
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]
Are you sure? Now I'm just getting "This site can’t be reached". HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. hereand here).
More affordable housing
Child poverty and general poverty or wealth inequalities
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
An editor altered that “plummeted” to “fell considerably” with edit remark “less tabloid”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.JPG)
.svg){kind=small}
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)