Talk:Beira's Place/Archives/2022/December

Criticism

Hi

Edit summary: /* Public reception */ Two opinion pieces do not really qualify as 'has been criticised". If there were quotes from public figures or organisations, then is would be justified, but these are just opinion pieces.

It's true that pretty much anything said on this subject is going to be opinion but that can still contribute to the Article.

It isn't just 'special interest' sites like Pink News , Twitter etc. that are covering this. If The Independent is happy to publish an article "JK Rowling criticised for launching ‘discriminatory’ women-only service for sex abuse victims" then mention of the criticism in a section headed "Public reception" seems perfectly justified.

Let me know if you feel otherwise. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You can't just say a thing 'has been criticised', it need to be specified who is criticising it in order for it to carry weight. In this instance, you have included three sources. If you are classifying Pink News as 'special interest' The Advocate very much qualifies as the same. Amongst a broader range of opinions, that would have its place, but these are not present. The first Independent piece is entirely an opinion piece, presented as such and should not be included in the article at all (in fact I have removed it as it is not appropriate for the article.) Finally, the news piece by the Independent includes three anonymous criticisms from Twitter. This pretty much sums up why some editors advise caution over the use of the Independent since it moved to online only WP:RSP. That is not journalism. It is tweet mining for clicks. And it is not in anyway the same as a print newspaper publishing an article discussing criticisms. If any of the pieces were substantiating their opinions with criticism from public figures, or from other third-sector organisations, that would add weight, and should be mentioned in the article. But as of now, there is no such criticism. Inclusion is WP:UNDUE at this point. 109.144.213.18 (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the very full reply. I do appreciate that.

If you are comfortable with 'criticism' line staying and the references you have left in situ that's good enough for me. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you seem to have misunderstood my reply. I do not believe that the criticism line should be in the article, hence why I stated it was WP:UNDUE. If you look at that policy there are several pertinent reasons why this content is unsuitable, not least the emphasis on naming prominent proponents of a viewpoint, which the content you are requesting to be included does not. I removed the one source on the grounds that it had no business in a Wikipedia article, but did not remove the rest in order to avoid edit warring, and to attempt to achieve consensus. However, on re-reading WP:STATUSQUO, I note that the onus is to remove contentious material during discussions for WP:BLP's. Although the article itself is not a BLP, the content is, at it is specifically about Rowling. I have therefore removed it whilst this discussion is ongoing. 2A00:23C8:2C97:1D01:719D:87E6:116:59EE (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I am familiar with Wikipedia:UNDUE and to try and put my point in a nutshell - one line in a "Public reception" section doesn't require the same level of support as, say, a statement of fact about a medical treatment.

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

It's the proportionality that for me means the information that there is some critical views in "Public perception" is fair to include.

Therefore the only thing that needs to be demonstrated to include our debated paragraph is that some of the "Public reception" is critical.

The sources I cite represent a part (and I agree a small part) of public perception.

That's what the editor who originally included is must have thought. The status quo means that it stays until there is some consensus that it goes or is modified. That isn't what you did. I would like to reach a consensus with you so I haven't reinstated the line concerned but I think you may agree, in hindsight, that the status quo was as it was when it was originally included. Not as it became after you removed it.

Twitter isn't the place to go for much in the way support for any argument - but it's certainly a place to experience some "Public reception".

Ditto the Independant, Pink News etc.

Here's another that tells me the conversation has crossed the Atlantic.

Broadcaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Willoughby

Criticises in https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/j-k-rowling-attacked-sexual-violence-support-charity-women-only

Just FYI I am totally supportive or Rowling and her efforts and activities with Beira's Place. But objectivity means I think the line should be included. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I have posted a reply to DMVHistroaian's suggestion below, but I would just like to point out that this is not about whether or not editors support or criticise Rowling, but about proportionality of inclusion. Secondly, I did not claim to be reverting to status quo, but was referencing the exception in that policy to material about living persons living persons – Always remove unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious. Which is why I removed it until the discussion is resolved. 2A00:23C8:2C97:1D01:C50D:D1A6:630E:AA88 (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Lukewarmbeer and @109.144.213.18 - I read through the above discussion and have drafted some revised language for the 'public reception' section of the article. Please take a look at the below and let me know your feedback/thoughts.

Public reception

After the founding of Beira's Place, numerous public figures and organisations expressed their support for the service. Rape Crisis Scotland publicly welcomed the new services while noting rape crisis centres in Scotland had served trans and non-binary people without incident. British author and feminist Julie Bindel wrote, "Beira’s Place will be an oasis, and hopefully signal the beginning of a new feminist revolution." Woman's Place UK released a statement of solidarity and support for the new organisation. UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women Reem Alsalem welcomed the new service, stating "the prevention and response to violence against women requires an all-society approach, so it is great to see different actors who have the means, including private individuals, play their part." The Scottish Government stated, "we welcome any initiative that will support women and girls who have experienced sexual violence."

The organisation has been criticized by supporters of the transgender rights movement for being exclusionary towards transgender women. British transgender television personality India Willoughby wrote that the center represented "an opportunity to ban trans people."

Sources
Notes References

~~DMVHistorian (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that gives due weight to the both the support and the criticism - and please the latter nicely in context. I'd be very happy to see that replace the existing section.

109.144.213.18 may wish to comment so can I suggest waiting to see if any thoughts are forthcoming.

Many thanks. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that DMVHistorian's is a significant improvement, as it highlights where the criticism is coming from. Personally, I am not particularly keen on the inclusion of direct quotes from Twitter, as they don't feel very encyclopaedic, and it would be better if there was actually properly published criticism, however I have no desire to fight that batter, so bow to the consensus to include. Many thanks. 2A00:23C8:2C97:1D01:C50D:D1A6:630E:AA88 (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback - I will add in the new content now. DMVHistorian (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Edited for accuracy

Trans Women are women, Beira's does not provide support to all women and is explicitly trans exclusive. I simply added these markers. You'd think GC TERFs who literally celebrate Christmas would be proud of their exclusion. Bizarre that they try to hide the whole point of the space with obtuse language and insincere arguments. 89.14.172.208 (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't disagree that the opening should reflect the service's desire to exclude people, but vandalism is not the way to go about fixing that. If you read the talk page, you would see that changes to the first sentence are already being discussed, and there's a good chance they will be implemented. In the future, if you have a problem with the content of the article, you are encouraged to voice your concerns in the discussions on the talk page rather than resorting to vandalism.

For the discussion so far, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beira%27s_Place#“…_[cisgender]_women_who_are_victims_of_sexual_violence” and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beira%27s_Place#Request_for_comment Maivea (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Jk rowling context

Can someone add the widely reported and saliently controversial reason for opening this space, jk rowlings fear of trans people? It feels like whoever wrote this is doing pr for Beira's instead of zn actual article covering important facets. I mean this space literally exists for a subset of women who are afraid of trans people. 89.14.172.208 (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)