Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre Wikipedia page - please help write and improve this article with your knowledge about the centre's history and recent legal issues as well as Mridul Wadha

[AlphariusOmegron]

ERCC didn't have a wikipedia page, so I created one. It needs improving and filling in, especially with well sourced references to reputable news sources

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

The wiki page for Mridul is woeful and entirely captured by wiki editors who only give him a positive spin. the ERCC wiki page is an opportunity to have a fairer and more balanced article that comes up when people google ERCC.

Anyone can add to and edit a wikipedia page, remember to be neutral, cite your sources etc and make it better!

It's a great idea, will be interested to see how long it lasts without being brigaded by those same TRAs.

I don't have time to do any editing but some history of the centre would be good.

As in I wonder if there are any older interviews about its founding etc.

The better and more detailed it is the less likely it will be that anyone can steamroller it!

Does Wikipedia have a page on Wikipedia? If it does, or doesn't yet, perhaps that could be edited to highlight the site's misogyny.

Wikipedia has a page on everything, including Mumsnet :)

If anyone can lend an eye or a hand to add anything it really will help!

Why does it say that beras place is for cis gender? it's not its for biological women

How about links to any relevant news articles as references? Here are some thrown up by Google. I'm not any good at editing wiki, but perhaps these could be useful?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/19/a-politically-toxic-issue-the-legal-battles-over-gender-critical-beliefs

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-age-of-outrage-has-arrived/

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jk-rowlings-rape-crisis-centre-30252467

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/trans-scotland-mridul-wadhwa-for-women-scotland/

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/maggie-chapman-broke-msps-code-of-conduct-over-financial-interest-scottish-parliament-committee-finds

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19509343.outcry-plan-educate-bigoted-rape-survivors-trans-rights/

And some more. Apologies if this is not useful....

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/7133029/trans-mridul-wadhwa-edinburgh-rape-crisis-snp/

https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2021/05/new-boss-for-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre/

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,green-msp-maggie-chapman-censured-for-rules-breach-during-meeting-on-gender-reform

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/dec/12/jk-rowling-launches-support-centre-for-female-victims-of-sexual-violence

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19511699.scottish-greens-defend-rape-centre-boss-mridul-wadhwa-bigoted-survivors-row/

You can jump in there and change it, please do! It needs lots of people to keep the momentum going so we get good stuff in there (I didn't put Cis in there)

No no they are all useful absolutely - but really they need to be woven into the page as part of the narrative, rather than just dropped on the end of the article. Sorry to ask people to do some editing of their own but I really think the article would stand a better chance of being well written if it's more people than just me on it!

I'll try to get to it tomorrow, @AlphariusOmegron , I have an old Wiki editing persona I can dust off.
Thankyou SO MUCH for braving the slough of misogynistic despond. I find it exhausting just thinking about it.

Pleasure, I do like a fight - to note, there have already been "reverts" on the page (you can look under "history") to previous versions, an editor must have taken exception to something written.

If we keep it balanced, impartial and very well referenced the edits will stand and they can't be easily removed, so we have to be the bigger people

Someone also edited it to say protestors were "transphobic groups" but that has now been amended

This particular thread was called out in the editing, whoever added the phrase "Transphobic groups" has read this thread and is making edits from a TRA perspective.

It's all so very petty. Username is a female one as well.

It's all so very petty. Username is a female one as well.

I'm guessing they might not necessarily be female though.

🥁

I get what you're trying to do, and I'd love a factual and unbiased Wikipedia but I think you'll find it's more pointless than herding cats while blindfolded. Wikipedia is loaded to the gills with people with agendas over everything imaginable. Wikipedia is just a pointless timesink. If you read any of the edit wars stuff you realise how futile it is. Small people who'll fight untill their dying day giddily intoxicated with the ephemeral power they have over a few articles or subject. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, instead it is infested with activists and couldn't be more biased on every subject.
At the beginning it was a great idea. Now it's just a effort and time sink riddled with the very worst of fools using their keyboards to batter each other in a never ending war. No one pays any attention to Wikipedia apart from the combatants of the forever edit wars, no one sane has any faith in its accuracy or neutrality.
None of the inherent issues of Wikipedia has ever been addressed. e.g. The circular nature of lazy journalists using it as a source, and Wikipedia using those articles as confirmation their information is correct makes it almost impossible to get errors corrected. It has a conflicting set of rules for editing and admins where people endlessly cherry pick the one rule that supports their right to be a biased activist on their chosen subject, and ignore all the other rules and context. Wikipedia is a decomposing corpse, the small movements are the result of the maggots infesting the corpse not signs the corpse is still alive.

We've had a number of legal rulings e.g. tribunals really make huge gains for gender critical beliefs. There's many still in progress. This is where real progress is being made. Celebrate this. Make sure people know far and wide how this is going in the legal system. Fund raise for women's rights.
Do not see getting involved in forever edit wars with Wikipedia activist "lawyers"as constructive, it will just waste your time and you will come out of the experience a lesser person.

I do find it hard to disagree with anything you've said, but, since the article was created, it's now top gf google for any ERCC searches, and if I can have any influence on the page, thats a positive - but I totally, totally get not killing yourself over some things!

@AlphariusOmegron
Thanks for taking my comment in the spirit it was intended :) Everyone can do what they think is best.

I always think of edit wars on Wikipedia as a group of people getting together with fire and courage in their hearts to go off a wage a righteous holy war in the Simpsons like glowing green radioactive noxious gas toxic waste dump/sewage slime farm that dissolves your clothes as you wade waist high into it. No matter who's in the right, everyone is coming out far worse off for even venturing into it.

I see Wikipedia like discovery made by WOPR computer in the movie WarGames.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

I see on the "Talk" page that the article has been designated "Contentious":

"The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page."

Also . . .

"This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Scotland - Low importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale."

Talk:Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edinburgh_Rape_Crisis_Centre

I think "Scotland - Low Importance" is rather wishful thinking!

Implications of an article being designated a "Contentious Topic":

Wikipedia:Contentious topics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics

I have no idea how articles get assigned to WikiProjects but "Vancouver Rape Relief & Women's Shelter" has been assigned to both "Feminism" and "Canada":

Talk:Vancouver Rape Relief & Women's Shelter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vancouver_Rape_Relief_%26_Women%27s_Shelter

Wiki Editors might also be interested in the debate about whether or not various court cases ought to be included in the article "Gender-critical feminism":

Talk:Gender-critical feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender-critical_feminism

Yeah, "Kate" who has been reading this thread. Hiya! Their edit didn't last long.

The article has since been padlocked blue, meaning only editors with 500 plus edits can change it (think you triggered this OP...lol). That padlock is usually reserved for highly contentious subjects such as the Israel Arab conflict (almost every article related to that is padlocked blue), so the Trans subject is obviously contentious too.

This probably is hopelessly naive, but there anything we can do to bump another, more accurate, site up the Google search results hierarchy?

How very annoying. I was hoping we could get it far enough before it was locked.

it’s lost all the important stuff about the CEO appointment being contentious because it was a female short list and he’s a fella.

not to mention the reason why JK set up an alternative is because they really treat sec as non existent and declared gender the only filter about who sees who.

you can see in the edit listing people saying they just didn’t believe that claim.

despite is being said in court last week.