This is the talk page for discussing Women's Rights Party and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This redirect 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.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This redirect 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
This redirect 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
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This redirect 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
This redirect is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this redirect, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This redirect is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This redirect 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
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@PicturePerfect666 You are not doing a particularly great job at explaining why you think that content on the film was a POV. I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a place for mind-reading. Please tell me why you think it is a POV and I'd be happy to cooperate —Panamitsu(talk)22:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a discussion and nothing was forthcoming from the user who added the content. The content which has been removed is simply promoting the party and is not encyclopaedic. You don't quote dog whistle political positions and every bandwagon a party jumps on. The foundation fo the party great you do that and it has been, but some film screening where they were also shouters as part of the outrage mob. That is puff and not encyclopaedic. It is designed to push the party narrative and nothing more which is why it is POV. it is biased and promotional towards their positions. That is not how Wikipeida works. Additionally cherry picking one line and stating that is breeching the policy os WP:NPOV
TL:DR
Selective quoting party positions and language is POV pushing.
Selecting specific events the party favours is POV pushing.
The context is not shown other than a promotional for the party and gives more weight to events than they carry.
I see here you've removed a statement I added about the party wanting to stop people from identifying as non-binary because Please do not cherry pick individual positions the party holds, please be broader. There are almost zero sources on what the party wants to do, so I'm not sure why you consider this to be "cherry picked". If you there were more political positions in said source that I missed, you should have added them. Simply removing the content is disruptive. —Panamitsu(talk)22:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a selective addition of only one position of the party which is POV pushing. There must be wider and broader inclusion of the party as a whole. For example. The party can be described fairly as wanting to remove legalisation in relation to Trans and non-binary rights and recognition, including the repealing of legislation which was passed to allow birth certificate to be changed. The party positions on a variety of topics should be included. It cannot be just non-binary recognition mentioned, or 'sex-based rights', etc. which gets mentioned. it must be broad. even though they are a single issue party, the points must show the whole of the issue they are single focused on.
It must include the party has been shown by x, y, z to focus on transgender rights in the context of gender critical feminism and has party positions which further this and examples of this are list some policies. The party denies it is single issue and this is disputed by others give examples.
Single sentences, and single events do nothing but push a POV of one side or the other. This is probably frustrating but NPOV is essential and cherrypicking must be avoided.
The fact there are almost zero publications on what the party wants to do demonstrates the party is not notable enough and does not pass the general notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia and is currently looking likely to be deleted for that reason. Wikipedia is not for everything and something are to soon to be included and something are not significant or notable enough to be included. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well certainly, but we can't include the whole range of their positions if they get removed in the first place. Editing takes time, although it might not be worth it seeing as consensus may be in favour of deleting the article. —Panamitsu(talk)23:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hold your comment in contempt please strike it as I consider it a personal attack that you are attempting to censor me here. If you had a genuine concern you are better off commenting on a user talk page. You have simply made a drive-by inflammatory comment which is unhelpful and a bad faith assumption.PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG)
.svg){kind=small}
