Talk:Beira's Place

Archives (Index)

2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Who criticised them?

Reading the Advocate, who exactly is criticising Beira's Place? Headline says they are "slammed" but doesn't say by whom.

Also, is there evidence that the Advocate is a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking? It's not listed on WP:RSP. I think we'd be better off relying on the PinkNews article that the Advocate quotes. AndyGordon (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The Advocate has all the trappings of a reliable source, but I do agree that it's use here is sub-optimal. The cited article does not support "The organisation has been criticized by supporters of transgender rights ..." and its other use is redundant to other sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

SEE IT: J.K. Rowling attacked for sexual violence support charity for women only - Washington Examiner

Maybe we can us this source to quote India W as a critic. WP:RSP says: "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims." AndyGordon (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Purpose

Hi @John Cummings, your edit to change the purpose field in the infobox ("Sexual violence support for women (excluding transgender women as staff and service users)") is still introducing the heart of the contention into a place ill-suited to explain its context and nuance. Infoboxes are rarely the place to put anything even slightly controversial. In this case, it's particularly unnecessary because the issue is tackled in the lead and in the first section, both of which sit right next to the box. I am going to revert to the previous wording of Sexual violence support which is concise and, I believe, about as NPOV as things get in this topic area. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Police Scotland referrals

Given the sensitivity that surrounds Articles that touch in the trans issue I thought I'd get some feedback rather than being bold.

Planning to add...

Police Scotland is to create a direct referral system for assault survivors to Beira’s Place. This will be similar to the procedures they have in place for Rape Crisis Scotland.

In a 2023 quarterly performance report Police Scotland stated: “Beira’s Place is a newly opened support agency run by women, for women over 16 only, based in Edinburgh and provides support to victims of sexual crime in the Lothians. We aim to create a direct referral procedure similar to the Rape Crisis Scotland (RCS) process and expand to obtain feedback from women supported by Beira’s Place. The majority of feedback received from survivors who have engaged with RCS support is positive.”

Scottish Daily Express

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rape-victims-will-be-referred-to-rowlings-women-only-centre-tcb0vfpg3

Thoughts?

BTW - There may be some interest in including part of the Scottish Daily Express article in our Rape Crisis Scotland article? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it a significant piece of information? It sounds like business as usual for such an organisation. Also, I think the Scottish Daily Express would fall under WP:DAILYEXPRESS. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, agreed we cannot use Scottish Daily Express. I think it's WP:DUE to mention something along lines suggested by @Lukewarmbeer especially as Times is WP:GREL. Would suggest starting "In June 2023, Police Scotland created...". Warm regards all. AndyGordon (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Just stick with the Times then and probably add the Police Scotland Performance Report? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lukewarmbeer I'd suggest keeping to the new info about BP, that police Scotland said they would make referrals to BP alongside referrals to RCS. No need for long quote from report. Just need to cite the Times source, and not the original report, a primary source - we're just summarising the new info re BP in the Times report. Thanks for asking. Warm regards. AndyGordon (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of opinions of non-notable people

@DanielRigal, you have reverted a change with rationale If it was in the Independent (which is RS) then the writer probably does not need to be individually notable. The source in question is an opinion piece[1]. The author is not notable, as evidenced by them not having a Wikipedia article. It is undue to include the opinions of non-notable people, even if those opinions can be verified through being published in a reliable source. To do otherwise would be to open the floodgates to including every opinion that can be reliably sourced. Would you think it a good idea to include this one?: [2] Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The article soft pedals the criticism of this highly controversial organisation to the point that it is close to needing a POV tag on it. It gives quite a lot of coverage to support from organisations which are little more than Twitter accounts (albeit notable Twitter accounts with articles). I'm not going to argue to exclude those but we do need to include coverage of the other side of this too.

If you will permit me a short digression here... An example of how one-sided this article is can be seen where the article says "The organization uses the definition of woman as a 'female of any age' from the Equality Act 2010, and does not serve transgender women." which is taking a literally nonsensical claim at face value and republishing it in wikivoice. We can report that they claim that this is based in wording of the Equality Act but, so far as I am aware, every single time this interpretation of the law has been brought up court it has been rejected. If they have a legal right to exclude trans women (which they quite possibly do) it would be based in the "reasonable exceptions" clause of the EA, not its definition of women. We do not need to comment that they are misrepresenting the law, unless there is RS coverage of people pointing this out, but we certainly should not be misrepresenting it on their behalf. Sorry, that digression turned out longer than I intended, lets back on topic.

We need to cover the controversies, not sweep them under the carpet. We need to do so proportionally, not in a way that favours the other side either.

We need to include coverage of the notable criticism as well. Note that I said notable criticism not notable critics. If we are going to include supportive comments from very minor organisations, some of which are little more than Twitter accounts, then we should balance that with critical comments published in Reliable Sources. The opinion piece in the Independent seems like a plausible source to use for soucing an opinion. Yes, it is opinion, as are all the supportive comments. Maybe it's not ideal but it does not seem any worse than some of the supportive comments in the article. So long as we don't misrepresent it as more than it is, I think it is worth retaining.

So, is this particular comment a hill I am prepared to die on? Not really. The hill worth defending is NPOV in general, which means neutral coverage of the controversy. If we can find better sources for that then maybe this comment can be replaced with those. I think it should be retained in the meantime though, mostly because there is so little coverage of the other side of the controversy here that, without it, a reader unfamiliar with the subject would have very little idea that there even was a controversy at all. I'd be interested to hear other people's views, particularly if they have suggestions for a better replacement for this content which might keep everybody happy. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

If there is criticism coming from notable people and organizations, let's include it. But I could only find blog/twitter type commentary from people whose opinions carry no more weight than yours or mine. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Ryan Coogan's opinion needs to go. I we allow this to stay we may as well cast about for opinion for people on the bus. If nothing else this is WP:Coat

There are many articles like THIS (also from they Independent) out there. I wouldn't suggest we include them.

The PM is a far more notable person and has backed Rowling but we wouldn't include this ARTICLE (would we?). It's very relevant but doesn't mention Beira's Place directly.

We have to take care with what we plaster our articles with. Coogan adds nothing.

So I'd like to remove. Please explain any strong objections.

Thanks. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll be removing Coogan's view shortly if no response as above.

I think we should also have a 'Reactions' section and move some bits to there. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)