Talk:Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Roz Adams Employment Tribunal ruling[edit]

This is an important case affecting ERCC and its management and needs to be added to the article: Victory for worker in rape centre gender row Zeno27 (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: This case outcome and the details behind it urgently needs adding to this article but as it is protected, most of us cannot - https://archive.ph/ZCsFI

Agreed. Can anyone explain why this article has extended protection yet the Talk page is completely blank (other than this new section)? Zeno27 (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because those with a political agenda (supporting gender ideology) and power (the ability to soft lock articles) are doing so with impunity. I created this page and was locked out of it within 24 hours. 82.10.58.36 (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mridul Wadhwa article is far worse and also protected. 82.10.58.36 (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is atrocious and needs to be reversed. Parking another useful reference here: Gender critical claim: Roz Adams wins constructive dismissal case https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/gender-critical-roz-adams-belief-discrimination/ Zeno27 (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to this page material on this case which I have copied from what I added to the Mridul Wadhwa article. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feels like it's a bit of a bigger issue than a footnote? 82.10.58.36 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The material I have added is not a footnote. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the defining event of the existence of the ERCC and you added a paragraph that glossed over most of the details 82.10.58.36 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the protection status, this article's current protection level allows registered users with at least 500 edits and at least 30 days tenure to edit the article, so it's not a tiny cabal that is allowed this privilege; many editors of many viewpoints qualify. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]