Talk:Intersex rights in New Zealand

Advocacy on this page
Again, much like the Intersex rights in Australia article, there appears to have been a degree of violation of the advocacy policy on this page. I have tried to improve it with recent changes. Please keep in mind other people may not share your views about what is "harmful" or what is "unnecessary". Stick to the facts and adhere to NPOV. - Knowledgeorder (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct quoting and paraphrasing of sources, particularly those like the Human Rights Commission (New Zealand) is acceptable. Please also ensure you do not ascribe claims to statements, per WP:CLAIM. Trankuility (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the statement was not written as a quote at all. It simply said "Action to eliminate unnecessary intersex medical interventions is hampered by a lack of political will" with no introductory wording saying that it was the HRC saying so. I see you have now fixed that, though I have adjusted that to make it slightly more accurate. Knowledgeorder (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede is a summary. Trankuility (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that addresses my point. Obviously you cannot take a particular (non-NPOV) view in a claim, and add it to the introduction without making clear it is a claim. - Knowledgeorder (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles are stronger for having multiple contributions, but there remain questions about the nature of NPOV. This is a human rights article. Every human rights institution that has looked at intersex medical interventions this decade has reached similar conclusions. An earlier 2009 Australian human rights paper now carries a disclaimer. Those perspectives are not advocacy or non-NPOV. Minority opinions are more obviously WP:UNDUE. Trankuility (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a proposition in an article is advocacy or NPOV depends usually on the way it is expressed. It is not possible for me to respond in the abstract as to whether, in general, the positions taken by human rights organisations on this topic are or are not NPOV. I would note, however, that human rights topics are often lightning rods for controversy, because they often conflict with one another. It is better to describe things factually, rather than using ambiguous or value-laden terms. Knowledgeorder (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Norms change over time, female circumcision is now female genital mutilation, because of associated human rights concerns, and the term is not controversial. The treatment of transgender children remains controversial, but the human rights perspective is not. The issues raised by harmful practices, to use the term in multiple UN reports, are not unique. In this case, "intersex genital mutilation" would probably be non-NPOV. But talk pages are not forums. Trankuility (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is relevant to this discussion regarding the nature of advocacy that the United Nations Office of Geneva issued a press statement on February 21 stating, "Germany was asked to explain what was being done to prohibit the practice of intersex genital mutilation on infants – still carried on some 1,700 children every year - and postpone this irreversible surgery until the child was old enough to give consent." The term is mentioned several times, including, The [German] delegation said that Germany was still discussing whether to establish a fund for the compensation of victims of intersex genital mutilation. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women was questioning Germany on its implementation of the Convention. The press statement is described as "For use of the information media; not an official record" Trankuility (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigation. Trankuility (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)