Talk:Beira's Place/Archives/2024/January

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)

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)