Talk:Beira's Place

Archives (Index)

2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2024/January 2024/February 2024/April 2026/May

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Reason for "fury"

This reversion is odd. The text was changed on 30 March 2024 as per my edsum, and my version was the status quo. More importantly, it is perfectly clear from sources that the impetus for creating the centre was very much that it was a trans woman delivering the care, who, when asked about those who wanted to restrict such centres to people assigned female at birth, gave the line about reframing their trauma. By removing that piece of context, we have an article that now says:

Victims of sexual abuse "holding prejudice" toward transgender people may need to "reframe their trauma"

This reads like the fury is entirely divorced from the context of the centre itself, and is just a general admonition to any service user that they must not hold prejudice against transgender people. That is not an accurate summary of the issue.

Critics of Scotland’s gender recognition changes, which culminate next week in a final vote by MSPs on a bill to introduce new self-declaration rules for trans people, believe that appointment dissuaded some female survivors of male sexual violence from using Edinburgh’s centre.

That source also gives a good summary, that it is as much about views on the delivery of care as the users of it:

In line with a longstanding policy of trans inclusion by the country’s official network, Edinburgh rape crisis centre has been run by a trans woman, Mridul Wadhwa, since May 2021.

Rowling said: “As a survivor of sexual assault myself, I know how important it is that survivors have the option of women-centred and women-delivered care at such a vulnerable time.”

So this page needs to explain that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The Telegraph source that we have supporting this text reads:

She said she was furious after hearing it claimed that female survivors needed to “reframe their trauma” if they took issue with being dealt with by a trans woman, which led to her setting up Beira’s Place.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

So, a couple things. First, since this article was written, The Telegraph is no longer considered a reliable source on trans issues, so we shouldn't be framing the information based on what they say. As for The National, it quotes "reframe" but doesn't actually say that "reframe their trauma" is a direct quote. "expect to be challenged on [their] prejudices" is perhaps a better one. Otherwise, I'm fine with putting trans back in so long as we keep her name Snokalok (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

There is actually "no consensus" on the reliability of the Telegraph on trans topics , which is not the same as it being considered unreliable. However, it is a suitable caution so I have quoted as per the second source and your suggestion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted the change to thwe quote to that which the National source says Rowling objected to - it's specific that it's the "reframe trauma" bit. Molikog (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't make a big deal of it, as the alternative is okay too, but both sources have reframe, and Rowling is clear that her fury was over the word "reframe". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Yep. Same thinking. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Amnesty report discussion

To all who are interested, there's a discussion being held at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amnesty_International#Amnesty_report_on_anti-trans_lobbyist_groups regarding when and how to deploy the report on various relevant pages, including potentially this one. Snokalok2 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of the result, this new coverage of Beira's Place should certainly be included in the article, since it's short and missing some very important information pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 03:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing important about Beira's Place missing. The story is about Amnesty international. When secondary sources start showing why this matter is relevant to Beira's Place, we will have something to say. Until then, WP:NOTNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

You don’t think that Amnesty posting a report calling out Beira’s place, Beira’s place’s famously transphobic billionaire owner threatening a lawsuit, and Annesty immediately pulling the report has anything to do with Beira’s place? Snokalok2 (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

As wikipedia editors, we aim to take a balanced view. In order to show relevance, please can you explain exactly what Amnesty said to 'call out' Beira's Place specifically? Mattymmoo (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

We take balance, not falsebalance. Wikipedia is under no obligation to censor itself to make a terf group look good.

On page 20 of the report, archive link here [https://web.archive.org/web/20260709084603/https://media.amnesty.org.uk/documents/Report_-_A_growing_threat__the_anti-rights_movement_in_the_UK_July_2026.pdf] you see Beira's Group listed as as an anti-rights group of the subcategory "gender-critical", confirming that yes, this is about their anti-trans advocacy. Snokalok2 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

What you describe is part of the news cycle. This, of course, is the latest, with Amnesty regretting the publishing of a report that had not gone through "the established internal review processes". Again, we are writing encyclopaedic articles, not volunteer journalism. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and everything we write is intended to be part of a (notional) final article. It is clear there is news here about Amnesty - although I think you have prematurely rushed to place it there too. We don't know what the final information is here, because the internal review is ongoing, and the news cycle may not be over. Premature but not wrong per se, because the story is very much about Amnesty (and that article is already full of WP:PROSELINE anyway). The problem, of course, is that when articles are framed and supported mid-news cycle, the sources gained are all from the moment of peak news-salience, and an anchoring effect emerges. Articles all over the encyclopaedia show that anchoring effect, and Wikipedia relies on ridiculous amounts of news reporting, considering these, in terms of the actual historiography, will be treated as primary sources.

Still, that is the Amnesty article. That is one thing. But before pasting the same story all over the encyclopaedia, it really needs to be clear that a mention of this will indeed find its way into the historiography of the article subject. If it won't, and if this is just a news story, then no, per WP:NOTNEWS, which is policy, we should not cover it. Will it be salient in 10 years time? If not, the information is not encyclopaedic. If the answer is maybe then we are too soon, and the article will be better if we follow policy and wait for secondary sources to discuss this in terms of the article itself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you considered perhaps that, it's not like we have a limited amount of edits we can make? If new info comes out, we can add it accordingly. The only thing we really need to reserve specifically for the later-than-sooner is how much text to allocate to each facet of the matter. But like, we are allowed to just update an ongoing situation. There's nothing wrong with that, and given that Beira's Place themselves threatened to sue Lawyers acting for Beira’s Place have accused Amnesty of defaming the organisation and have threatened legal action unless it apologises, permanently withdraws the report and commissions an external review into why it was published., and Amnesty subsequently threw themselves on the Charity Commission's mercy seemingly in compliance with that, I think that upgrades Beira's Place's role in this from passively listed to being actively one of the central players.

In other words, this becomes the most notable thing Beira's Place has done in the last year at least. Snokalok2 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

In other words this may become the most notable thing. Primary news reports do not make it so. Indeed, we specifically do not use primary sources for establishing any kind of notability, per policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Everything in this article is sourced to primary news reports. Why is this where you draw the line, I ask? Snokalok2 (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not like I'm happy about the other news reports either. I consistently argue against the use of primary news reports to create articles (I'm surprised you haven't noticed), and the reason is the same. As I've said elsewhere, the writing of encyclopaedia articles based on news reports is peculiarly Wikipedian. I can't stop people doing it, but it is a mistake. Tertiary encyclopaedia articles cannot be written without secondary sourcing, but you can't stop people from writing about something they just watched on the news. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Nothing in this is SYNTH, it's all directly cited and relevant fact, and is the consensus text over on the Amnesty page - a discussion which you were a part of, and which was explicitly said to cover all pages where the text might be relevant @Sirfurboy Snokalok2 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Amnesty don't say they took it down because of the legal threats. That is our synthesis from the reportage of the threats. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

And we didn't say that either. We said the founder of Beira's Place offered to bankroll legal threats, and then we say in the sentence after that that it was taken down. Then in the sentence after that, we say that Beira's Place themselves made legal threats. Would you like to remove the sentence where we say it was taken down? That's the only one I can think of that doesn't directly touch the subject matter. Snokalok2 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

This is clearly choosing a narrative to run with. Note that the BBC report , for instance, doesn't invite the reader to join dots between a threat and a decision to take down. Instead they quote Amnesty who say the report had not gon through the established checks and balances, which your text didn't have. But I'm not arguing for keeping the BBC framing over yours. I have said consistently that we ought to get better sourcing - sourcing that is not just primary news reporting. We don't have to cover it now, at a point where it is not clear whether Amnesty will re-issue, or will issue an apology, or will speak further on the matter. I don't think we should cover it at all, but if we do, we should certainly not be adding a disputable interpretive layer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

While one can quibble about the details, I think it's very much worth including the text, with suitable changes to remove synth. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 19:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

One of the problems of trying to put today's tabloid headline into a Wikipedia article is that it becomes fossilized, even though by tomorrow morning it may be clear it's non-notable. Let's watch and see how this plays out. At present, all we have is that a rogue Amnesty employee posted something without permission and had to take it down, and the offended party made the obvious complaint. If there are no further repercussions, that is very much a flash in the pan. If a lawsuit does ensue, we should certainly cover it, but people make legal threats all the time, even here on Wikipedia talk pages (you might be surprised!) and if they're bluffing it truly isn't a story. Doric Loon (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Good point - and dare I say it - well made :o) Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

You realise the subject is Beira's Place, right? We don't have articles on every women's shelter in the world. We have... well, the categories are hard to read, but maybe a hundred articles tops, of which probably single digit numbers of these only serve a single city. Beira's only really notable for being founded in an act of opposition to a different one accepting trans women as women. This isn't a subject that's going to be constantly in the news. If we have an article on it at all, any reports are probably going to hit notability. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 02:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly! Just a quick follow-up here. Publicly, Amnesty apologized, yesterday, to Beira's Place (and other groups) for the report *AND* they took down another related report in May, which wasn't mentioned in news reports! There's some coverage in BBC News and The Independent about this, plus in International Business Times. In addition, this in The Telegraph seems to be about them too, although obviously on the side of Beira's Place. The same can be said for articles in The Herald and Tech Times. So, we should restart this discussion. For the record, I completely support adding a section about this now-withdrawn report and Beira's Place. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

POV

The article frames itself primarily using the language presented by Rowling and Beira's Place. Despite the main source of its notability being that it was opened in reaction to Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre accepting trans women, this does not appear until paragraph 4.

There is a major issue in that paragraph:

“ Rowling said the impetus to set up the centre was her fury on hearing that the trans CEO of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, Mridul Wadhwa, had said that victims of sexual abuse must "reframe" their trauma if they disagreed with being treated by a trans woman. ”

The source for that is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20221212164223/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/12/jk-rowling-says-rich-enough-take-flak-launches-women-only-support/

You will note that Mridul Wadhwa is not mentioned in that entire article. The text appears (in a rather "close paraphrase" sort of way), but as something that Rowling said she had heard someone or some people say. Attributing Rowling's words characterising a class of people to a specific person is a major BLP violation.

Secondly, allowing Rowling to characterise the views of her opponents is a POV violation. It's giving Rowling the right to frame her own opposition.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 01:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Apparently, however, the sentence or something like it is necessary, because people still persist in saying: it was opened in reaction to Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre accepting trans women. It was not. It was opened because the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre was being run by a trans woman. It would not be neutral point of view to reframe the text in such a way as to obscure that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Edinburgh Rape Crisis National Service Standards Report. This independent review of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre was clear that some survivors were harmed or deterred by the ERCC's policies and the CEO comments, and it had serious governance, cultural, and compliance failures against the Rape Crisis National Service Standards (NSS), particularly around women‑only provision and leadership culture, as well as data protection, and systematic quality assurance.
• Rowling said she set up the centre because of an "unmet need" for "women-delivered care.".
• Rape Crisis Scotland said, in response to the independent report, "We are extremely concerned that for around 16 months ERCC did not provide dedicated women only spaces, as required by the National Service Standards, while declaring to RCS that they were adhering to the standards."

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't actually cover any of the points raised: Rowling shouldn't be the only source for discussion of a different organisation. WP:SYNTH between Rowling's comments in 2022 and a statement two years later about ERCC really doesn't prove anything. Two reports from 2024, commissioned in May of that year, do not retroactively justify actions in 2022. If the 16 months is looking back from when the report was commissioned, it doesn't even reach 2022. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 21:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Your point that we are only sourcing to the Telegraph was made in ignorance that an editor had just a couple of weeks ago removed the reference to the National. I put the reference back. This answers your questions about Wadhwa not being named (the National does), and using Rowling's words. The national puts the word "reframe" in as a quote in context in its own voice.

We do probably need to include some of following information, and as no attempt has been made to do so yet, there can't be any synthesis. The information would sit chronologically after the establishment of the centre, as you note. We could expand or adapt the current text to describe what Rowling called an unmet need. The fact that an official inquiry found that there had indeed been an unmet need, and that ERCC did not meet National Service Standards is relevant information for editors here, whether that is what we put in the article or not. We should not be pretending there was no unmet need, and excising Rowling's description of that unmet need from the article, when the independent Review vindicated her position and found people had been harmed by the failure to meet the National Service Standards. That would surely be a failure of NPOV, no? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I like your thinking here. Are you up for putting something together? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's a good case for retroactively justifying it. It smacks heavily of WP:SYNTH. It's not like the articles about the ERCC state that Beira's Place was meeting the need. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.6% of all FPs.} 18:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not like the articles about the ERCC state that Beira's Place was meeting the need. Wrong.

• "If it were not for Beira’s Place, the female-only service set up by author JK Rowling two years ago, women survivors of sexual abuse in the Lothians would today have nowhere to go for support." - The Scotsman, 14 September 2024.
• "'We believe that Rape Crisis Scotland should, as a matter of urgency, confirm that Beira’s Place will be able to take on referrals. Beira’s Place should also be involved in restructuring both the local and national services. Only these measures will restore trust in this critical service.'" - North Edinburgh News, 13 September 2024.
• "Victory for JK Rowling as scandal-hit Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre must now refer survivors to Beira's Place.", Scottish Daily Express 6 November, 2024.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I expect so. Rowling's "unmet need" quote is all over the place. It may be that it is better to lead with that than her "fury" quote, and explain the context of the ERCC independent review. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'd have to agree with that. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)