Talk:Helen Clark

There is some dispute as to when Harry Holland assumed leadership of the Labour Party and this, in turn caused confusion as to when Helen Clark passed his record of longest serving Labour leader. The figures below show that Clark passed Holland's maximum possible term on 26 October 2008, and had passed his minimum term on 8 Feb. 2008.

The beginning of Holland's leadership is given variously as from the death of Alfred Hindmarsh (13 Nov. 1918) or upon his election as "chairman" of the party in August 1919.^[2].

Fanx (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is planned to mention every year I dont see why the 2006 "ranking" keeps getting put back in. Gacole (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it was the peak figure. If she rises to a higher position in a new job in the next few years, then that will replace the 2006 ranking.-gadfium 19:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than just revert the change made by Avala I will open a discussio here.

I think the point made by the anon poster is absolutely correct - there is no "election" for prime minister. New Zealand elects parties (de facto) and while it is probable that the leader of the party with the most seats in the house will be PM there is no constitutional requirement (any more than we "elect" cabinet ministers, which is where the "prime" part of "prime minister" comes from). Frankly I think the particular insistance that Clark was the first "elected" PM is symptiomatic of a broader lack of neutrality in this article. Gacole (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

True. Also, her notability now is for having been PM, not because she is a politician, and that's what the intro should say first. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Voters in New Zealand vote for their electorate MP, and for a party. No one votes for the Prime Minister directly, although a shaky argument might be made that voters in Mount Albert/Helensville electorates do so. A more sensible argument is that the party caucus elects the party leader and therefore the PM. The difference between Clark and Shipley becoming PM is explained in the appropriate section of this article. There is no need to explain it in the lead section as well.-118.93.6.200 (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually on a re-read the first paragraph of the "Prime Minister" section perpetuates the "elected Primie Minister" mythology and needds to be tided to reflect the above discussion. Gacole (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I can agree with you guys. There is a real distinction between someone whose leadership of the government (and thus the nation) has been mandated by the people (via an election), and someone whose leadership of the government has been mandated only by the caucus of their party. Whether the people choose to elect a party to government DOES depend on whom the leader is. There is a non-negligible difference between Clark's role as a the first woman mandated by a general election to be the leader of New Zealand, and Shipley's role as the first woman to be mandated by her caucus to be the leader of New Zealand. Boxter1977 (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was nearly going to revert the "see also" addition of communism by an anon poster as vandalism but I guess I'm not entirely sure it isnt at least debateble. Gacole (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No: WP:BLP. Need a source to show any connection with Communism, Lenin and Stalin. XLerate (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The section which discusses her term as prime minister I think is too much in bias of Helen Clark. Most of the information is uncited. Do not remove the neutrality banner, discuss your thoughts here instead. Wipkipkedia (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the overall article is more hagiographic than biographic. Recent edits (e.g. "greatest living New Zealander") are part of that trend. Adding references to unfavourable sources (like Wishart's book) are pretty much immediately deleted. THe whole pice on the last Labour government, even if accurate, doesn't really beling in her biography - it should be cross referenced to the erelevant article. Gacole (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would refer people to WP:UNDUE if they want to source Wishart. Bactoid (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Given I have yet to see any material assertions he has made disproved, I dont think that is the same as claiming the earth is flat. Gacole (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you would have a hard time quoting Wishart on this page, it would be like rewriting the John Key article with citations from Mike Williams. Basically you're not going to get a fair and unbiased view from either source on each subject respectively. If you're disputing the neutrality of this article because Wishart is not included in it I will be removing the neutrality flag altogether. Bactoid (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is no further comment I will be removing the NPOV in 24 hours. Bactoid (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is still considerable questions as to whether the section on her role as prime minister is slanted. To me, it looks more liks a Labour Party advertisement than a Wikipedia article. For example, there is no rebuttal to any of the "good things" that happened and even if there is (such as in the economic section) there is a counter-argument (beneficiaries) which provides a "final-say". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.160.126 (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The latest post above was made two minutes before an NPOV tag was added to that section. I'm not sure if I agree with the points made in this post or not, but I don't think it's good to summarily remove the tag without at least trying to address these concerns, so I've put it back. -- Avenue (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaaarrrghhh. I noted the tag placed by User:Wipkipkedia, without explanatory edit summary. So I went to the talk page, and there was no post from Wipkipkedia there, so I removed it. It never occurred to me that a previous anon poster might be Wipkipkedi. Anyway, I checked his contributions and saw he added a POV tag back in November which was removed by User:Gadfium with the edit summary "(rv, no explanation provided on talk page.)". On January 19 Wipkipkedia placed a POV tag on the article. On January 28, User:Bactoid moved it to the Prime Minister section, with the edit summary "Shifted box to Prime Minister section which was mentioned as the piece being biased. I'm of the opinion that this article has no striking bias and was flagged by someone with their own "vendetta".)", and he removed the tag two days later. Back comes Wipkipkedia yesterday to replace the tag without stating a reason either in edit summary or on the talk page, so I removed it. Wipkipkedia has made only four edits to Wikipedia in the past four and a bit months, two to Helen Clark and one to her talk. I agree with Bactoid regarding vendetta. So here we go again. Wikipedia looks stupid because a hit and run editor puts up a tag, doesn't say what the problem is, and doesn't try to rectify it. And when his bullshit is removed by another editor, it is replaced. WTF. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

: The userless post was by me, sorry for the confusion. Please don't write huge paragraphs of user complaints as it doesn't actually help solve the problems in the article.

I think the "Prime Minister" section does lack criticism, but that's because any negative statements are in the section on Controversies. I'd like to see a rewrite which combines the two sections into a more balanced account of her term as PM. Some of the existing material in both sections is more relevant to Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand than to this article, as it deals with the achievements/criticisms of the Government, rather than of Clark.-gadfium 06:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I think a rewrite is necessary focussing on the Prime Minister herself rather than her government's policies.

In some sections (at least in the Stable government section), present tense is used (e.g. the current government). This is not true as (unfortunately) Clark is no longer in power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adabow (talk • contribs)

...and people wonder why this article is repeatedly tagged NPOV Gacole (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No. They will all migrate to the John Key article as start rubbishing that. Pathetic init. Wallie (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what relevance this has for an encyclopedia. Could we not shorten it a little?... or a lot?

The article should concentrate on what she did that was relevent to her job as Prime Minister, not on "how Ms. Clark's mother in law was suspected of parking illegally in Ekatahuna by a Mrs. McCrindle..." or some other total irrelevance.

Kindly add comments...

Wallie (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are no comments, I will remove the entire section, as it is just gossip and detracts from the article. Wallie (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The section is referenced (with one exception), and much of the material is about valid and widely publicised controversies in which Clark was the central figure. The paragraphs on the election funding, and Electoral Finance Act, appear less relevant to Clark and have their own articles, so I think they could be removed. The remainder, as I have suggested before, can eventually be merged into the "Prime Minister" section, which currently contains much material which is not directly relevant to Clark and needs a substantial rewrite.-gadfium 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you fell that way. Gadfium. I'll be blunt. This is a totally POV attack on Helen Clark. No other world leader attracts such a blatant travesty. Have a look at John Howard or George W Bush as an example. Neither of these men men have a "Controversies" section. Even Robert Muldoon escapes this fate. This section should be removed, as it is has been added to somehow smear her as a person. Wallie (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to gain any consensus for the removal of this section. I will restore it later today unless I see some evidence that others support your views. However, I will begin the process of integrating it with the "Prime Minister" section, so it will no longer appear as a stand-alone section.-gadfium 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. That is preferable to having a stand-alone "Controversies" section. Still, if you look at the articles on most other world leaders, there is a certain reverence about them. The article on Helen looks as if it has been assembled by a tabloid newspaper or from some gossip blog. Wallie (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made an initial attempt to merge the controversy and Prime Minister sections, as I have explained above. In doing so, I removed material which appeared to be about the achievements or controversies of the government as a whole, rather than specific to Clark and her leadership. Some of that material may be useful in Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand.

The result of my edit is somewhat awkward, but perhaps it can be improved over time.

The sentence

Even though some commentators^{[citation needed]} saw stable government within the relatively new MMP electoral system as unlikely, Clark's supporters^{[citation needed]} credit her with maintaining three terms of stable MMP government.

needs to be rewritten and sources found. I think there is truth in the sentence and it is worth saying, but at present it is one of the poorest quality parts of the section.

I've left the paragraph on Jiang Zemin in, but it doesn't add much to the section. However, it does show, along with the photo of Clark at the Pentagon, some of the role she played internationally. It might be worth adding more material about her personal role in international relations and meetings with foreign leaders.

The paragraph beginning

Clark's term in office saw a number of alleged moves towards a republic...

is not about Clark but about her government. I left it as an anchor point for the quote "I think it's inevitable...". It should be rewritten to deal more with Clark's views and actions.

Since there is now both positive and negative material in the "Prime Minister" section, I have removed the two POV tags as having cancelled out. There needs to be a debate here on the talk page about whether the result is balanced, and what needs to be done to address remaining issues of balance. Removing all criticism, as Wallie did early, is not helpful.

Would it be helpful to remove the semi-protection on a trial basis so that anons can assist with the article directly?-gadfium 01:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work, I support the restoration of the content as above. I think protection can come off. XLerate (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the semi-protection.-gadfium 03:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Well done. I just didn't like that controversies section. You have now merged it into the main article, which is better. Wallie (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has certainly improved a lot. Well done everyone. Wallie (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That section on her as UNDP Administrator should be expanded. It only states how she was voted in.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I've proposed merging and redirecting the tiny stub on Paintergate into the first term section. If there any objections to this, please voice your concerns. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, I'll go ahead and do it. aprock (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In the first sentence, the word "was" should be replaced with the phrase "is the former", as Clark is still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.55.119 (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

First paragraph is misleading: "She was the first woman elected to that post in her own right..." - amend to "She was the 2nd female Prime Minister of New Zealand, (Jenny Shipley Jenny Shipley was the first female Prime Minister)" BoyFromAuckland (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I agree that it is a little misleading and I'll make a change to fix that. Helen Clark was the first female elected as the Prime Minister. The National Party was already in government when Jenny Shipley was selected at Prime Minister. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The facts here are not in dispute, but we've struggled to get the wording right. See also the earlier discussions:

• #Elected?
• Talk:Helen Clark/archive03#appointed or elected
• Talk:Helen Clark/archive02#Recent additions
• Talk:Helen Clark/archive01#Prime Minister and Elections.

-gadfium 19:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How about something like this: "She was the country's first woman to lead her party to victory in a general election, and the second female Prime Minister (after Jenny Shipley)." --Avenue (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That looks good.-gadfium 19:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Clark's government presided over nearly a decade of economic growth, while still maintaining a large internal government deficit."

The Clark government ran budget surpluses for 9 years, this is totally false and contains no citation. Should be removed or at least changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.213.252.73 (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the sentence may have confused the current account deficit (which did progressively worsen from 2002 - 2009) with the government running fiscal surpluses. I've removed the word "internal" as it doesn't make any sense referring to the government's budget. --LJ Holden 21:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Helen Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040627091539/http://uncorrectedtranscripts.clerk.govt.nz:80/Documents/20030409.htm to http://uncorrectedtranscripts.clerk.govt.nz/Documents/20030409.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060118203929/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn09.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn09.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Helen Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051103095301/http://medals.org.uk:80/solomons/solomons001.htm to http://medals.org.uk/solomons/solomons001.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The existing link to medals.org.uk worked, and the bot mangled it without adding the archive it says it did above. I've repaired the damage. The bot also correctly identified a couple of dead links but didn't attempt to fix them.-gadfium 23:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

When Helen Clark stood down as the leader of Labour after their election defeat in 2008, she was replaced by Phil Goff (now Mayor of Auckland), who went on to lead Labour to another defeat in the next election in 2011. Goff was then replaced by David Shearer. In the last paragraph of the intro to this article, and in the sidebar, it says that Clark was replaced by Shearer. This needs to be corrected. As it says in the sidebar of Shearer's own page it says "Preceded by Phil Goff" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shearer), see also the sidebar of Goff's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Goff). Danylstrype (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the intent was to say the Shearer won the byelection in her seat after she resigned, but this isn't important in the lead so I've removed it to avoid confusion.-gadfium 22:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Quadparty: has changed the date Clark was sworn-in as Prime Minister from 5 December 1999 to 10 December 1999, with the edit summary "Inconsistency between date Shipley ceased as PM and Clark started"; they made the same edit to the end of Shipley's term at Jenny Shipley, with the same edit summary, and made a similar change at List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand. I can find sources on the internet for both dates, for example and support 10 December, while and support 5 December. I suspect the two parliament.nz references are more authoritative than the nzhistory.govt.nz and New Zealand Herald references, but can anyone give a conclusive ref?

This article still includes the 5 December date in the third paragraph. Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand has 10 December in the infobox but 5 December in several places in the Ministers section. Jim Anderton has 5 December. December 5 mentions Clark being sworn-in. December 10 does not. I think we need to check the articles of all MPs before and after the 1999 election.-gadfium 04:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gadfium:

I made the change after checking in with the NZ Parliament twitter account . A query had come up as to how long Shipley had been PM because if it was under two years, she wouldn't qualify for retired PM's benefits (in her case about $20k pa). Wikipedia recorded her time in office as less than two years, and yet she receives the former PM's annuity. I didn't rule out a mistake, but I don't think that's something they'd stuff up, so wanted to check. The Parliamentary Twitter account (which I believe is run by the Parliamentary Library) confirmed by reference to their page, which you linked to. I think that is probably definitive. So I made the changes, though obviously not enough of them!

I note that the 1999 speech from the throne refers to the Coalition agreements being signed on 6 December. I consider it is likely that the decision was announced on the fifth, with coalition formalities on the sixth, and the formal swearing in as ministers on the 10th. I would head over to the Wellington Central Library to check the microfiche, but it's currently closed, however a Newztext search indicates cabinet announcement was 10 December (which would have to happen before Ministers are sworn in) and various news articles on 11 December record, for example:

"THE EVENING POST, 11 DEC 1999, Edition 3, Page 2.

Historic moment at Govt House

By: ESPINER Guyon

For outgoing Prime Minister Jenny Shipley, it was the last ride in CR1, the Crown car reserved for the nation's No 1 politician.

She will hope to ride in the car again one day, but leaving Government House yesterday marked the start of her journey as Leader of the Opposition.

Prime Minister Helen Clark was spirited on to the grounds in Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys' black Jaguar limousine, to begin a very different journey.

Sir Michael accepted the resignation of Mrs Shipley and less than an hour later had sworn in the new leader, reminding her of the gravity of her task.

..."

There are similar stories in the Press, NBR etc.

Quadparty (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your research! Given that there is a significant difference in how Shipley should be rewarded based on the dates, List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand by time in office would appear to be a high priority for modification.-gadfium 09:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Good work, Quadparty! Much appreciated. Schwede66 19:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

And yes, I'm aware that this isn't considered a "reliable source" but nevertheless... Schwede66 22:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The fifth was a Sunday? That should have given it away. No way would a swearing-in happen on a Sunday. Quadparty (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Assumably the rest of the cabinet were sworn in on the same day meaning these dates will also need changing on the pages for incoming/outgoing ministers as well? Kiwichris (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes - everyone will have been sworn in on the 10th. Quadparty (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Couple of days ago the Category:BBC 100 Women was removed from the article by @Rathfelder:. I restored the category, saying the removal of it was Unexplained, and inconsistent -- others have this category. Rathfelder reverted me, saying Moved to her eponymous category. For moved, read deleted, and what eponymous means in this context is a puzzle. Clark still appears in BBC 100 Women of course, among women who have this very category on their articles. Do other editors think the category should be in the article? Moriori (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

What Rathfelder means by that is that it now belongs to Category:Helen Clark. Why that particular category gets shifted there and none of the others is something that only Rathfelder appears to understand, or why you would have eponymous categories in the first instance. There are other editors who also have problems with Rathfelder's practice of creating eponymous categories; just have a look at their talk page: 1, 2, and 3. Schwede66 02:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I havent found category pages for the other BBC 100 Women so far. We can have the category on the article and on the page if you like, but I think for the people with an eponymous category it works better there, because the eponymous categories usually have articles associated with their achievements.Rathfelder (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A quick visit reveals that the first 10 women with articles at 100 Women (BBC) all have the Category:BBC 100 Women. I am restoring it to the Clark article. Moriori (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed they do, but I dont think any of them have their own eponymous categories. Rathfelder (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There is thorough information about the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response in the context of her role in it in the World Health Organization section, but since she's co-chair with Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and the info is as appropriate there as here, the details about the panel should probably go in a neutral article, like the WHO article, to centralize it. This is why I've left a redlink in that section. Mapsax (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

0mtwb9gd5wx, your edit has created a mess. Would you please self-revert? Schwede66 02:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

One cannot read this page on smaller than very wide screens ... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

This editor is uncooperative; their answer makes no sense. Would someone else please revert their edit? Schwede66 03:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Schwede66, better? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

When there is a table or photo placed (in wikitext) immediately below the infobox, any inline tables which would normally appear beside the infobox get forced to the bottom of it. I've moved the sidebar to be below the parlbox, which means it still appears in the output to be immediately below the infobox, but the parlbox appears where it's supposed to rather than be forced down to where it is overlapping the Cabinet Minister and Leader of the Opposition sections.-gadfium 04:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)