Talk:Women's Rights Party

Restricted Editing

This page contains inaccuracies. The Women's Rights Party NZ is not "transphobic". This is a slur used to silence women who call for accurate data collection on sex and a review of sex self identification in policy and legislation. Why has the editing function on this page been restricted? 6Bluedoves (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"A slur used to silence women" is transphobic propaganda pure and simple. These people are not victims...the language of that manner is like saying that calling the KKK racist is a slur used to silence white people. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@6Bluedoves I have just removed it. I have not seen any source describe it this way so it appears to be WP:OR. If anyone could provide a source that would be great; older versions of this article did not have transphobia as a listed ideology. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The party supports full and open expression of gender and identity but defends the need for single sex spaces in prisons, refuges, rape crisis centres and sports to ensure fairness, dignity and safety for women and girls who make up 85% of victims of sexual assault - 98% of which are committed by male perpetrators. 6Bluedoves (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The page is still describing the party as transphobic. The page is generally written in a polemical tone with several defamatory statements. It omits major contextual information around the events that lead to the formation of the party after New Zealand effectively erased the identity of women by passing self-ID legislation giving any man the right to enter women and girls' private spaces. This is not controversial but a matter of record. I request permission to edit the page to remove the defamation and supply appropriate factual context. ChrisPook (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have an extreme interpretation of the law. For you to edit the article would not be appropriate.-gadfium 21:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's telling that you are hurling around accusations of extremism. I'm not hiding behind an anonymous identity here. I'm an actual scientist biologist with an interest in equity. The Womens' Rights Party was set up to advance the interests of an oppressed class and they are legally allowed to pursue those rights under the Human Rights Act 1993. Claiming that they are 'phobic for doing so is the extreme, misogynist position. 2404:4408:8786:600:B82:C3E2:8EF4:3319 (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Whoops. Didn't realise I wasn't logged in. Here's my reply to Gadfium: I think it's telling that you are hurling around accusations of extremism. I'm not hiding behind an anonymous identity here. I'm an actual scientist, a biologist, with an interest in equity. The Womens' Rights Party was set up to advance the interests of an oppressed class and they are legally allowed to pursue those rights under the Human Rights Act 1993. Claiming that they are 'phobic for doing so is the extreme, misogynist position. ChrisPook (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to go into this detail about this in the talk page, it should be more about improving the article. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be engaged in the Dunning–Kruger effect and Argument from authority fallacy. "I'm an actual scientist, a biologist" comments and claims of this nature are not relevant on Wikipedia. It is an argument from authority attempting to give more weight to your contributions and diminish the weight of other users contributions. No single user acting in good faith and within the policies of Wikipedia has any more of less weight just because it is being 'said by an expert'. Secondly there is no way of verifying what you are saying without you giving out personal identifying information, which Wikipedia strongly discourages. The content of the comments, not who the user is, determines the weight given to comments. The Dunning-Kruger effect is you saying you are an expert in one field and then inferring that because of that expertise, you are an expert in another area. In this case inferring expertise in the law and political science. This is seen with the claims "they are legally allowed to pursue those rights under the Human Rights Act 1993". The comments you are stating also seem to be from someone very close to the party "The Womens'[sic] Rights Party was set up to advance the interests of an oppressed class". This is a potential conflict of interest; and specific rules surrounding that apply.

Finally you are making personal attacks and not assuming good faith which are core principles of Wikipedia. Comments such as "Claiming that they are 'phobic for doing so is the extreme, misogynist position". This is making assertions that those who are using a term you disagree with are doing so rooted in negative stereotypes and are doing so deliberately. In this case, calling those describing the party as 'transphobic' as 'extreme' and 'misogynist'. Wikipedia is not a battle ground and must not devolve into one.

The above is not a personal attack but an analysis of the comments and why they do not carry the weight or influence more or less than anyone else simply because. It is also designed to point out and show the flaws in making such comments, as they do not benefit Wikipedia particularly on contentious and political topics. It generally entrenches positions and reduces the ability to resolve the content issues at hand. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@ChrisPook How about if you want to make changes, you make edit requests in the talk page. As you have certain views, it may constitute a conflict of interest which may introduce bias (ignoring any potential bias on the article, I have not read it properly). —Panamitsu (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to work out how to do that. It's not intuitive. ChrisPook (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Just write in this talk page "change x to y", making sure to provide sources. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is also not a soap box for the general positions of the party. Discussions of this kind need to be avoided.

I would also like to point out these edits have been made shortly after the following was released by the party itself. It seems more than coincidental that the edits have started all of a sudden after this was released. womens rights party press release on Wikiepdia

The closeness of this release and these edits is strong evidence of a conflict of interest and the subject of an article directing the content of an article PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• @User:Kiwichris: Please be aware of 1RR in effect on the contentious topic area. Could you explain why you consider Substack a reliable source in this case? Fermiboson (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  In that vein please justify the inclusion of the dog whistle part platform language ‘erosion of sex based rights’ and the inclusion of a sideshow film by a us bigot being shown in NZ where the party jumped on the bandwagon of synthetic outrage. I shall give a 3 day deadline here otherwise I will consider the reverts to be without justification and the discussion not engaged with and will remove the content. The content will not get to stay through non-engagement. That would subvert the purpose of Wikipedia and override the 1RR requirements and those are not designed to be perverse and retain content that is not agreed upon, contentious, overtly promotion or biased in its coverage. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)