Talk:Jacinda Ardern

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Grey aliens?

Hi, it seems that there was a meeting between the PM and representatives of the "Reticulan Unity" a few years back. Interestingly the hypothesis about science fiction being used to prepare us for eventual first contact is correct, though in some cases embellished for mass consumption because the truth is just too strange.

Also they aren't grey, they are a very light blue. They only look grey when in poor health, due to copper based circulation. They seem to have far longer lives though as others have mentioned require higher oxygen levels than we would consider normal, and have cybernetic components in the form of implanted neural network based on room-temperature superconductors using chemical elements and components not native to Earth and a quantum link which supplements their cognitive functions and permits them to exist as a meta-consciousness where each individual is part of a larger network but has some level of autonomy.