This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand: Politics Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Hi there,

I made this page because I felt that Ardern's resignation was enough of an internationally recognised event to warrant one. I compare this to the pages for the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, the pages entailing the Truss ministry and the subsequent crisis (which extensively covers her resignation), and the July 2022 United Kingdom government crisis, which covered Boris Johnson's resignation. I feel a concise article on Jacinda's resignation, the response and its implications (which are potentially widespread, given her international profile and the impending election) would be of benefit. I think it goes without saying that having too much detail on her page about all the different responses would constitute undue length, so it would be rather useful to contain the necessary ones seperately. Aubernas (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aubernas, we can't put a URL into a citation template under the parameter title; it causes a citation error. You've done that for a couple of tweets. Please use Template:Cite tweet instead. Schwede66 02:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, will do Aubernas (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Chris Hipkins is sworn in as Prime Minister.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The file should be replaced by one of these available at [1] which have more chance to be properly licenced. Maungapohatu (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those files have already been uploaded to Commons. Schwede66 22:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Aubernas (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is made at the end of the lead section that "Ardern is the most recent New Zealand prime minister to have never lost an election since John Key". The source calls her "undefeated", by which I think they mean she resigned voluntarily rather than by losing an election or caucus challenge. Electoral history of Jacinda Ardern make it clear that she failed to win elections from 2008 to 2014 in Waikato and Auckland Central, while becoming an MP on the party list. John Key did indeed win every election (for Parliament) he stood in. I think the wording should be changed to "retired voluntarily" or similar.-gadfium 02:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise she lost an election for Auckland Central. You can get rid of this if you like Aubernas (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording in the article.-gadfium 02:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this image has been deleted from this article several times, without consensus. So I've added it back in and changed the caption to tie it into the article.

A photograph of Ardern wearing a hijab at a community centre in Christchurch in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks there. The photo came to symbolise her empathetic style of leadership, which also made her the target of organised online attacks from the far-right.

The response to ChCh was Ardern's first encounter with the far-right as PM, and made her vulnerable to their vitriol. When I wrote this article I included this news story which elaborated further; it's still cited in the article under reactions>domestic. The deluge of hatred towards her specifically (which was speculated to have contributed to her burnout) was most visible at the 2022 Wellington protest, but had its roots on her response to the 15 of March. That image's significance to this of the beginning of the online opposition against her personally, and I believe we should keep it in the article. Aubernas (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think you have consensus to add the image (it has been reverted several times with only you reinstating it, this is not the definition of consensus I know). Your argument above is purely WP:SYNTHESIS. Please try to avoid your own train of logic when trying to justify things on Wikipedia that trend tends to be counter productive. This article is about the resignation it should concentrate, and in my view conservatively concentrate, on the resignation only without duplicating much of the detail in other articles. Maungapohatu (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several IP users supported keeping it there? And it's not synthesis. I can't make you read the article I cited that supports my argument. I'm the only one who's taken it to talk instead of edit warring. Aubernas (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I despair - how can an article from 2019 say something pertinent and meaningful about the resignation without it being WP:SYNTHESIS. Maungapohatu (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary it all and should not be on this page. This is article about her resignation and the whole article needs to be trimmed in accordance on staying on the subject. The photo is already used on the main article Jacinda Ardern.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can cut the image seeing as there’s relative consensus, but we won’t trim the article. It’s got important information about her premiership that gives context to her resignation. It’s a well-fleshed out article and I have had more than a handful of users back me up on this. Aubernas (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this was ignored. A bit pathetic, to be honest. Aubernas (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I largely agree with it, the language used when describing events seem to treat certain views of it as fact, and convey to much emotion. Such as:

"A rise in anti-vaccine hysteria, fuelled by external right-wing influences, demonised Ardern"

"and Ardern personally was scapegoated by some in its wake"

I think the article would benefit from having some of the more emotional language stripped from it. 1mikeymouse1 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this. While I understand your viewpoint, respectfully I'm inclined to disagree somewhat. I suppose "hysteria" is emotive but the protestors were intense and extremely aggressive, and we have considerable empirical evidence for this. It's known and cited that they were supported externally by the fringe right overseas, in Canada and by Steve Bannon for example. "Demonised" is, again, arguably emotive- you have a point there- but they did intend to literally portray Ardern as a Hitler figure or as a "witch". I detailed that part when I wrote this article shortly after the resignation. "Scapegoated" is a tricky one. I'll replace it with "blamed", as they did single her out personally. Aubernas (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's been nearly four months since this complaint was raised and the Neutrality Template was posted, and upon taking up the editor's concerns and making several changes (to which there has been no further comment), I have decided to remove said template. This is for the reasons below as follows;

When the issue has been adequately addressed;

Upon determining that the issue has been resolved (perhaps by someone else);

You may remove a template when according to your best judgment the lack of edits and/or talk page discussion should be interpreted as the issue not worth fixing (as a form of "silent consensus"). Please note there is currently no consensus for general age-related removal of maintenance templates – that is, removing a template purely or chiefly because it is old is not considered a sufficient argument. Exception: removing POV-related templates whose discussions have gone dormant is encouraged, as addressed in the bullet point immediately above;

I appear to have addressed said grievances adequately, and the conversation has gone dormant. Should anyone reading this feel as though the concern was not handled correctly, feel free to reinstate the template. Aubernas (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except there is no evidence in your edit history that you did any such thing. Maybe you could point out the edits you refer to above. Maungapohatu (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarded as one of New Zealand's most important and popular leaders in recent history"

During the end of her term she was not well regarded with her approval ratings being in the high 20s because of this I feel like it should be mentioned in said sentence that well she was popular at the start of her term in the end she widely disliked Scarlet Immortal (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed that to an extent. It needs more balance that's for sure. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Ardern's resignation is notable as a standalone topic. The vast majority of the article is devoted to other events (Ardern's premiership and the resulting leadership election). The portions that relate to the resignation consist of a lengthy quote from Ardern (#Resignation) and then a series of quotes from political commentators and other national leaders which are WP:ROUTINE. Resignations by New Zealand prime ministers are hardly unprecedented; by way of comparison, I note we don't even have a standalone article for Richard Nixon's resignation. I think 2023 New Zealand Labour Party leadership election is the best target for most of the content that is not incorporated elsewhere, with other content to be merged into the main article on Ardern. I T B F 📢 07:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. I don't see enough secondary sources to justify a standalone article. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support this article seems to have been a case of recentism. 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:ADC4:8F85:6EEA:F323 (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is me, didn't realize I wasn't signed in. Rolluik (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don’t think it’s necessary, it should be kept separate Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]