Talk:Derby child sex abuse ring

Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper

...Though you might think it was, from the tone of this article. It is sensationalist, and seems overly concerned with stressing the ethnic background of the offenders. Given these issues, I have asked for outside input via the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that the BBC produced a documentary that investigated "the controversial subject of on-street grooming of young girls for sex by Pakistani men in the UK." which featured footage of the Derby gang grooming girls, Channel 4 commissioned a similar documentary, the former home secretary spoke of a "specific problem" within the British Pakistani community, the Children's minister spoke of "Asian communities hampering child sex inquiries", I think mentioning the assailants' ethnicity is the lead is appropriate. Ankh.Morpork 12:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Asian" isn't an ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to cite a scholarly journal entitled 'Asian Ethnicity' for the statement that 'Asian is an ethnicity'? Please provide the necessary citations - issue, page number etc. Or preferably, stop wasting our time with such mind-numbingly moronic bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Asian isn't an ethnicity" - a perfect example of "mind-numbingly moronic bollocks". Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Origin and religion of gang members

AndyTheGrump removed 'Asian' from the intro [1]. I reverted him, saying "Fact is origin/religion of the men is a big factor in this". AndyTheGrump then reverted, saying "Your opinion is irrelevant - we go by sources, and WP:NPOV". But the fact that the men were all Asian and Muslim is supported by numerous cited refs in the article, and that this is a key part of the events is also obvious from the article. AndyTheGrump chooses to ignore this.

My point is that I think the introduction should say the men were all "Muslim Asian men" as it is an important factor. The reason we should say Muslim (apart from them being Muslim) is so as not to smear all Asians (Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains etc.). We could say they were all of Pakistani origin instead of Asian, but would need a good source to verify that. Actually I think the PC term is 'South Asian'. Having a PC POV and refusing to say Muslim Asian men did this is to do a disservice to the victims - women - who where victimised by the gange because of the gang's attitude to women. But this is controversial, so I thought it best to bring it up on talk. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• None of the sources emphasize the religion of the men, and it would therefore be undue for us to do so in the lead. However, many describe the the ethnicity of the assailants and some even comment on its role in the crimes. As such, I think it should be included in the lead. Ankh.Morpork 12:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the sources all mention the ethnicity of the rapists and this certainly should be mentioned in the lede. Given the sheer amount of girls being abused by similar gangs it surprises me that it was removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We also have this [2] "The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim." and Mohammed Shafiq says "Although there have been some cases of white men being involved in this sexual exploitation of young girls, most of the perpetrators are Muslim. There are some Muslims who think that as long as these sex gangs aren't targeting their own sisters and daughters the issue doesn't affect them... but the vast majority of Muslims find these actions abhorrent and disgusting," Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And this [3] "The chief executive of Rochdale Council has been summoned before MPs to explain why his social workers failed to protect dozens of children who were sexually exploited by Asian men."

A simple question for AnkhMorpork: why did your table violate WP:BLP policy by including men from, an Asian background who hadn't been convicted of any sex-related crimes, while excluding a man not from an Asian background, "a convicted sex offender and the only non-Asian defendant, got three years for two breaches of Sexual Offender Prevention Order which banned him from contact with under 18s"? [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That you for spotting that omission. If you can find the details of the other two defendants not included in the table, I would be most appreciative. Ankh.Morpork 18:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you removed them. Ankh.Morpork 18:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Gross violation of WP:BLP policy

I have removed the names of three individuals not convicted of sex-related crimes from the table - their inclusion in the table (in an article entitled 'Derby sex gang') was a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

They were convicted at the same time as the rest and from the same trial, it is not a BLP violation to say what they were convicted of. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation to imply that they were part of a 'sex gang' without any sources to back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC on WP:BLP policy

Do you support describing all nine people convicted as part of the sex gang? Ankh.Morpork 18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - All sources mention them in that context. BBC states in article called Derby sex gang convicted of grooming and abusing girls: Of the original 13, a total of nine have been convicted of offences against vulnerable girls ranging from rape to false imprisonment. Telegraph states in article titled Asian gang prowled streets searching for rape victims: "The 28-year-olds were at the head of a 13-strong gang" Ankh.Morpork 18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The sources name them all as one group when reporting the outcome of the trial. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is stupid. One cannot have a RfC on whether policy is applicable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

""Reaching consensus in a group often is confused with finding the right answer."" —Maier, Norman R. F. (1967). "Assets and liabilities in group problem solving" Psychological Review, 74 (4): 239–249. doi:10.1037/h0024737.... It's amazing what some folk will do to have a consensus override reality! - never under-estimate! P^) --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I don't get the purpose of this RfC; it's not well-composed. Describing them how? Their appearance? Scent? The sound of their voices? The Editorial Voice (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I didn't get the point of this either until I read AndyTheGrumps comments in the section below [5]: "None of the sources cited state that all of the men convicted were part of a 'sex gang'". I think that's wrong and the sources clearly support the statement that all nine people convicted were part of a sex gang. Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• NOT Support - Conditional - it is not clear if editors are fully aware of all the issues that make drawing conclusions from UK media reports quite a complex and relevant issue. 1st it is a British legal case and subject to a number of reporting restrictions which come from two different areas and applying anything other than a British legal and media lens is a fail. There are very relevant cultural/legal factors which all editors are required to respect (Systemic Bias). Due to (a) those targeted being children and (b) the issue is sexual offences, it is not possible for the media to make any explicit statements concerning 13 people or 9 people being in a gang. Because the guilty and acquitted may have yet further links to other children and other potential cases the media have to be very careful as to what they say about any individual - and any implication that endangers the welfare of any known or unknown child is verbotten. Because of reporting restrictions it is not possible to say that a person was a member of a gang unless any report ""Specifically"" says so - and here there are extra layers of protection which extend to the guilty and acquitted to protect any vulnerable child and so you can't conclude that any reference to a gang means a person. The rules of "Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius" and "Interpretatio Cessat in Claris" apply legally and the media keep attempting to play with them and get round them. I have looked at the sources given - and whilst it is implied that all were in a gang it is not specifically made clear - that does meet all UK legal requirements and also meets the limits imposed under the Human Rights Act articles 6 - 7 - 8 - 10 -18. So when you know your law - media law - human rights law - and even basic court reporting restrictions around sexual abuse cases with a minor .... anyone taking media coverage which manages ambiguously to imply a relationship is synthesising fact rather than reporting fact. You end up with WP:SYNTH and WP:OP - sticks in my craw, but it's how the law of the land works. Any mention of a specific number should only be given as a "QUOTATION" from a source and no inference should be made from the quotation. All language outside of quotes should be scrupulous in avoiding inference ... as that will be near impossible to maintain it's best to remove the issue. - For many reasons The Raising of WP:BLP is 100% valid. The BBC have been very careful in their report of 24 November 2010 - the report mentions that a gang existed - is written to have 4 people linked to that word - and then goes on to mention 5 others where the findings of guilt are very ambiguous as to how they relate to the word gang and conspiracy. Being found guilty of perverting the course of justice is a fact in law - synthesising that to being a member of a gang and acting for that gang when it is not stated is a big issue - ANY unstated and sourced link should not be implied! There is a great deal of passion around this subject and case and those should not be allowed to rule content - Scrupulous following of wiki standards is required. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at Derby sex gang: the charge sheet? Surely, it presents more than a weak implication that all 9 belonged to the gang? Ankh.Morpork 20:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not bound by UK law. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources cited are - and they do not state that all the individuals convicted were members of any 'gang'. Incidentally, UK law also applies to any UK-based contributors - and I'm fairly sure that this includes more than just me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well AndyTheGrump I too am in the UK - and to top it off I have some 25+ years experience in the field of Sexual abuse - crime and media!

Not Pulling rank - but I detect the need to slam down a few Credentials to subdue some evidently unruly types who don't like having their world views and demands curtailed. The Whiff of US Centric "Systemic Bias" is also overpowering!

As for the comment " Wikipedia is not bound by UK law. Darkness Shines" I fear that some could do with a lamp to guide them through the legal minefields...and to prevent silly claims such as that being made! Such a claim Truly requires more than than any average number of citations to prove it - and actually only one case is needed to prove the claim totally false! Now which of the dozens should I quote?

I do fear that some are very Woozley (See Woozle Effect) in their views and also the "Backfire Effect" is in play due to confirmation bias and people doing and saying anything to defend the indefensible! They evidently need some Five Pillars! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the Wikimedia foundation are not subject to UK law. The WMF is headquartered in San Francisco, and was organized under Florida law, where Wikipedia's servers are also located. Huff and puff all you like, legalese and patronization won't change the facts. —Rutebega (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

...The facts being that the sources cited do not state that the individuals convicted were all part of a 'gang', and on that basis it would be a violation of WP:BLP policy to state that they were. And yes, UK law applies to Wikipedia contributors based in the UK, regardless of where the servers are located. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear —Rutebega - do have a look at some well written, researched and even referenced wiki content such as Godfrey v Demon Internet Service - "Ruling on a pre-trial motion, the court found that an Internet service provider can be sued for libel, and that any transmission by a service provider of a defamatory posting constituted a publication under defamation law." ISP as defined under the original case now extends to Wikiville ... and It don't matter where Wiki is based in the world, a plaintiff can still raise a legal action in the UK for defamation and get it enforced in the USA! So sorry for the lawyering, but I do find it preferential to plain ignorance served with wings and prayers with option reality sauce. - and the Systemic bias does need to go. It's a shocking idea, but the Internet is global and not just for the USA. That Constitution thing and mendicants are also not a global escape form reality free card. Some will have to learn how to play nice with the other 6.5 Billion children in the school yard. Everyone has points of view with inherent cultural biases - recognition is the first step to achieving NPOV. Reality then gets easy! Just think that Wiki has assets in the UK and Europe - such as money to pay for Wiki projects, and it can be seized under court order.... so no more Wikiettes in residence and getting paid. Time to wake up smell some Jo and get with reality as a global concept and not a 10 cent dinner cup-full! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

While I freely acknowledge a systemic bias towards Amero-centrism, Wikipedia does not fall within UK jurisdiction, and the UK could never take direct action against it, at least not without the support of the United States Federal Government. That's pointless though, because on Wikipedia, Wikipedia policy is law, and the rest is just noise. If you're merely insinuating that the papers in the UK aren't even legally allowed to explicitly make certain claims, and therefore some WP:SYNTHESIS is required to include them, then I think you're right (but the question then becomes how big of a leap is it, really, because most of those articles are pretty damned implicit). However, if you're saying that including the information in the encyclopedia would be illegal under UK law, then it's nothing but a legal threat, which is unacceptable. Oh, and in which universe is Wikipedia an Internet Service Provider? —Rutebega (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are proposing that we engage in synthesis to include what you think UK sources would have said if there weren't laws stopping them, I suggest you forget it. As for the rest, I'm no lawyer - but I know for a fact that if you post from the UK, you are responsible for your postings under UK law - and anyone posting here from the UK needs to bear this in mind. This isn't a legal threat, it is a statement of the obvious - one that has on occasion been brought to readers attention via talk-page templates (see the example at Talk:Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority which warns about sub judice issues etc). Frankly, if some of the contributors here want to ignore my advice and get hauled up before the beak, it will be no skin off my nose anyway. And back to the issue of this bogus 'RfC' about ignoring WP:BLP policy, the sources still don't state that all those convicted were part of a 'sex gang' so we can't do so either... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"A gang of men from Derby has been convicted of systematically grooming and sexually abusing teenage girls ... [two sentences not quoted] ... The nine men were convicted during three separate trials" [6] from a BBC report. The report then goes on to name all nine men. I don't understand the weird interpretation of AndyTheGrump and Media-Hound, but I'm reading that as all the individuals convicted were members of the gang? Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I did a rather poor quality quick and dirty search of the net using just one name and found this rather interesting sources:

Men convicted in shocking sex abuse case - 24/11/2010

Five men have been convicted of a string of sexual offences against young, vulnerable teenage girls and women in a case described as one of 'shocking and persistent abuse' by Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Samantha Shallow. Three other men were found guilty of related offences.

Ms Shallow, Crown Advocate in the East Midlands Complex Casework Unit said: "This is a shocking case of persistent targeting and sexual abuse of young, vulnerable girls and women over a sustained period by a group of criminals.(Sic)
THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

Better still I found a rather interesting comment form THE JUDGE:

However Judge Head told Saddique and 28-year-old Liaqat: ‘It was never the Crown’s case that these offences were racially motivated or aggravated. I have considered this myself but I have concluded that your overwhelming aim was to secure as much sex as possible.’ SOURCE

First the number of convicts being reported by the BBC seem to be wrong CPS say 8 BBC say 9 - so throw away that source! Until some can do basic math they can't be quoted or relied upon as a source of anything but error and bad media!

The judge made it clear that race was not an issue - so nay content leading to that implication is not WP:NPOV and also brings up WP:BLP all over again!

This RFC is null and Void and should be shut immediately! - there are far more basic issues to address and get right such as facts and not nuance of meaning! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Pass a Method talk 02:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support This source seems to be good enough for me. It seems quite clear that they were all arrested as a group. Silverseren^C 08:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Is this discussion still ongoing or have we moved on? Dreambeaver(talk) 16:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

"Nine of the 13-strong gang were convicted of grooming and raping girls between 12 and 18 years old". Sourced to [7] and [8]. Neither source states that all 13 men were part of any gang. This is a misrepresentation of the sources, and a gross WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it fuck. "Of the original 13, a total of nine have been convicted of offences against vulnerable girls ranging from rape to false imprisonment." And what is that article titled? O ya Derby sex gang convicted of grooming and abusing girls. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it fuck. "The 28-year-olds were at the head of a 13-strong gang"

Secondly, the sources that you cite here are NOT the sources used to support that sentence. You omitted the Telegraph and replaced it with the Independent for some odd reason.

Both of the cited sources supported the content that you removed. You even misrepresented the sources that were used for that sentence. Please be more careful. Ankh.Morpork 18:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The BBC, doesn't state that the 13 charged were all part of any gang. The Telegraph doesn't state that the '13 men' were the same men it refers to as a 'gang' were those convicted either -but then it wasn't one of the sources cited anyway. The simple fact here is that the article is representing three individuals as being part of a 'sex gang', in spite of the lack of any conviction. This is a violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've redacted my comment re Telegraph - but this makes no difference. The three men concerned were not convicted of any sex-related crimes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And the Indy says "The men were ringleaders of a gang who befriended girls as young as 12 in the Derby area and groomed them for sex." Darkness Shines (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What the heck does that have to do with anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That is the second of the two sources you stated did not support the content. Obviously both do. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources cited state that all thirteen nine of the men convicted were part of a 'sex gang'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they do. As has already been pointed out to you. In fact just about all the sources have "sex gang" in them. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy - 13 people were not convicted. You seem confused. Ankh.Morpork 18:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup - true, but irrelevant. None of the sources cited state that all of the men convicted were part of a 'sex gang'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And s you seem to have missed it Derby sex gang convicted of grooming and abusing girls And yes, the BBC names them all. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And this source is even more explicit: Derby sex gang: the charge sheet Ankh.Morpork 23:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

BAD References and The Woozle effect

The CPS have a press release

Men convicted in shocking sex abuse case - 24/11/2010

Five men have been convicted of a string of sexual offences against young, vulnerable teenage girls and women in a case described as one of 'shocking and persistent abuse' by Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Samantha Shallow. Three other men were found guilty of related offences.

Ms Shallow, Crown Advocate in the East Midlands Complex Casework Unit said: "This is a shocking case of persistent targeting and sexual abuse of young, vulnerable girls and women over a sustained period by a group of criminals.(Sic)
THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

The numbers of people convicted are given by the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE as 8 - all of the media sources being quoted give the number 9. It appears that either there is a 9th convict who can;'t be identified in any way to protect a child victim - else number of Journalist and media Editors at the BBC - the Independent - the Telegraph have been negligent, can't count and have simply been reporting a factoid and this is a clear case of The Woozle Effect.

Until such time as the number of people convicted can be reconciled with the CPS source (You can't get much better) any source which which is linked to the number 9 (That is all BBC - Independent and Telegraph 100% of teh sources used ) have to be treated as not meeting NPOV standards and Quality Requirements.

This page is being tagged for NPOV - POV lede and Multiple_issues.

There is far more here than just WP:BLP - there are basic facts being ignored and basic errors in logic and reason. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The CPS report is a primary source, and what makes you think the CPS did not make a mistake but every major news organization in the UK did? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear darkness You Do need a candle! it can be very simple - you call and ask - courts and CPS quote 8 as the number .... and the next excuse and avoidance tactic is?

Kindly deal in facts and leave idol (sic) speculation outside of Wikiville. If you have a source that says the CPS are wrong and negligent produce it! It does seem that some ion the CPS press office may well be tired of the Tsunami of Ignorant Factoids caused by lazy journalists using google for a Primary and lazy Source.

If necessary I will issue a FOI request via www.whatdotheyknow.com - but as already advised by the CPS, as the info is in the public domain and on their website it will just be a waste of time and they will have to say look at the website on the link already given! They have looked at this page and and are a little Peed off at the fact that basic reality is being ignored. Should you need to verify please call Tel: 020 7796 8000 the CPS do like to help!

It's time to stop seeking excuses - It's time to seek QUALITY SOURCES

--TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, it is far more probable that the CPS has made a mistake rather than every major news organization in the UK, and I hate to have to point out the obvious but a phone call to the criminal protection service does not meet WP:RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW with them making mistakes with one in fifteen cases I would not say their all that accurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Darkness Shines - Your PERSONAL Views and retreat into your opinion as to what is more probable are NOT relevant. Do You have A Source that says there is a Higher Probability? You point to the Telegraph and not the original report - Both will need to be checked to make sure that the Telegraph is reporting matters with accuracy. Does either say that the CPS Press Office get 1 in 15 Press Releases wrong? If Not you are doing WP:ORIGINALSYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."! Again - It's time to stop seeking excuses - It's time to seek QUALITY SOURCES and not making sources fit agendas - just reality. Do you have a reason to not wish to use verified and high quality sources ... and even quote some people such as The Judge? There are such odd attitudes round here! Can You Explain it? It's not positive for Wiki..... what is it positive for? --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

God you do waffle on. It is not my personal view nor opinion. You claimed the CPS are a good source (though they fall afoul of WP:PRIMARY) I showed they do make mistakes, a lot of mistakes in fact. Here is the reality, all the sources say nine were convicted, only one says eight. My cash would go on the CPS being in error other than every news agency in the UK. You are of course more than welcome to go to the RSN board and get all the sources are junk as you claim. And please do not accuse editors of having "agendas" it can be seen as a personal attack. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A)The judge's views are already included in the article.

B) The CPS is referring to those convicted of "sexual offences" and "related offences". It notes further down a 9th person, Ziafat Yasin, who pleaded guilty to being concerned in the supply of cocaine. He was still part of the gang as several sources observe.Ankh.Morpork 14:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with AnkhMorpork. There is the Derby sex gang, nine members of whom were convicted: eight of those for sexual offences and one on drugs charges. So all sources are correct and agree if you read beyond the headlines. Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So how many were in this gang and who defines gang membership? Is Possession of cocaine the same as a sexual offence? Why is there a discrepancy in article space between the number of people named and the number 9? "The gang of thirteen men, ...." where does that 13 come from if you can only make up 9 and 4 are still missing? The names in a table in article space are 7 and not 8 or 9 or 13... so why are there so many missing "6" unaccounted for? These BASIC DISCREPANCIES all need to be resolved... and it need to be ensured that person are not being linked to activity or situations that they are legally not guilty of at this time! Do some notes need to be added to clarify why sources do not agree - or have different numbers etc? I'm also fascinated as to why so many are wedded to the word GANG which is indeterminate and are not seeking or using a more valid and less fluid and poorly defined term ? --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As the sources say: 13 men were charged with offences committed by the gang, 9 were convicted (8 for sexual offences and one on drugs charges), so the article quite properly uses the number 9 as the number of men in the gang - taking the definition of who is in the gang to be those convicted of committing offences associated with the gang. To answer your question about why so many are wedded to the word GANG, that would be because many of the reliable secondary sources use the term. And it is a perfectly respectable word, and it is indeterminate because you make it a determinate phrase by giving the number of people in a gang - English not having separate words for 'gang of four', 'gang of five', etc. And I don't think any notes need to be added because the sources all agree (if you read beyond the headlines). Aarghdvaark (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Source for '<-redacted->'

The table claims that a '<-redacted->' was convicted for "sexual activity with a child, conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child". Neither of the sources cited names this individual at all. I shall be removing this, raising this gross violation of WP:BLP policy at WP:BLPN, and will expect a clear and prompt explanation from the individual responsible for inserting it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that AnkhMorpork has removed the name - after including it in the first version of the article. This is going to need admin attention, I suspect, if only to redact the name... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it. I must have got confused with <-redact link-> I was reading about in which the name was cited. This was an unfortunate error on my part, and I obviously will be more careful in the future. Ankh.Morpork 18:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That is utterly ridiculous, and unforgivable. I am going to report this at WP:ANI, and ask for substantial sanctions against you. First though, I am going to ask for the name to be redacted from the article and this talk page - I'd ask that individuals do not repeat it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have traced the name to being used by The Times - but that Source is not cited on the page and it's not clear if it has ever been cited (I'm Checking Diff By Diff If it;s there I will find it - If Not I'll find that out too). There are far too many discrepancies of this type coming to light. It is either bad editing - or WP:SYNTH - or WORSE! Admin oversight is required. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerning "I have removed it. I must have got confused with <-redact link-> I was reading about in which the name was cited. This was an unfortunate error on my part, and I obviously will be more careful in the future." - It may account for the name being used - but I can find no source that links that name to any listed activity as given in that Highly Dubious table! When and how did that linkage come about? There has to be either a source that can reasonable and rationally show the error providing an explanation (even if mitigation is not possible) ... so where is the source linking the name to the activities as give in that table? Are we dealing with Bad Source - Bad Edits - Synth - or Other? --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not make this worse than it is by making further links to the individual named. I have asked as a matter of urgency that the name be redacted - and making further links only compounds the problem. This will need admin attention - but ONLY AFTER the material is removed. 18:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, AnkMorpork made a mistake and corrected it. However AndyTheGrump has gone and put the name in big font on this page, despite complaining about it as a gross violation of WP:BLP. Not very concerned about WP:BLP then. Aarghdvaark (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That is in the process of being redacted too - please keep your sarcasm to yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This Article Needs A Full Overhall & Line By Line Verification.

Any Suggestions on where to start and how to avoid recurrence of past errors and comply fully with Wiki House Rules? --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Right - Whilst others seek to play power games and mess about else where, this page still needs attention and quality control.

I'm adding the sections below so that there can be focused editing by heading. Input is welcome, especially any additional and unused sources which can be used to verify content and aid clarity.

Lede

Presently the lede reads

The Derby sex gang was a group of men who sexually abused up to a hundred girls in Derby, England[1][2] in one of the most severe cases of sexual abuse in recent times.[3] In 2010 after an undercover investigation by Derbyshire police, members of the group were charged with 75 offences relating to 26 girls. Nine of the 13 accused were convicted of grooming and raping girls between 12 and 18 years old.[2][1] The attacks provoked fierce discussion about race and sexual exploitation.[4]

Are there any concerns as to neutrality, Pov or references?

--TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any issues though "in recent times" could become problematic wording. It should probably be more specific about the time period its referring to, because recent is relative. Silverseren^C 22:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Gang leaders

The section presently reads:

The gang of thirteen men, mainly from Asian backgrounds, lived throughout Derby and the police believed they met through a shared attraction for young girls.[1] The leaders of the gang were Abid Mohammed Saddique and Mohammed Romaan Liaqat, both married men with young children.[2] They were considered devout Muslims and family-orientated men,[1] but away from their homes, they would cruise around the streets of Derby in a BMW, wearing designer clothes, targeting young girls.[1] CCTV footage showed the gang leaders making repeated efforts to entice a pair of girls standing by the side of the road into their car.[3] The police later discovered vodka and plastic cups under the car seats.[3] Saddique was accused of having sexual activity with a 12-year-old in Darley Park, and Liaqat had sex with a 14-year-old in their vehicle.[1] After legal proceedings were launched against them, Saddique and Liaqat grew long beards and adopted Islamic dress.[1]

Evidently the line "The gang of thirteen men, mainly from Asian backgrounds, lived throughout Derby and the police believed they met through a shared attraction for young girls." is seen by some as contentious.

I would propose the following re-write "The 13 strong gang were from the Derby area and the police believed they met through a shared attraction for young girls. There were 12 Asian and one Caucasian men in the group."

I believe that as there is a limited number of people 13 - and there are specific numbers 12 and 1 it is not correct to use generic terms such as "mainly" - it lacks precision and also can be seen to encourage readers to take a mass perception and transfer it generically and even globally. Whilst wiki is not responsible for how people use content elsewhere, there is the responsibility for editors to present content so as to not promote bias. Accurate numbers are anti-bias and pro accuracy.

To This I would add a note that there are distinctions in sexual attraction to minors - Paedophilia vs Hebephilia vs Ephebophilia - there are ambiguities in sources with the word Paedophilia etc being used in ways that are not accurate and emotive. Wiki content should not allow such an imbalance to be be embedded here - so it's reasonable to assist readers with note.--TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Abuse

The victims, aged between 12-18, were predominantly vulnerable girls from a troubled backgrounds, and some of them were in care and known to social services.[1][3] The men would target girls at train stations, on estates, and walking home from school.[1] The gang would first befriend the girls inviting them out for a drive or a drink, and supplied them with alcohol and drugs.[3][1] The grooming process was then intensified and the girls were invited to parties and further meetings were arranged.[1] The girls were then driven to secluded areas and were sexually abused and raped.[3][1] The abuse took place in houses and hotels across the Midlands, parks and even the victims’ own homes.[1][2] Two victims were threatened with hammers while another was locked up before being raped.[5] Sometimes, up to six men would be involved in the often violent assaults which the gang would film on their mobile phones.[3] Three gang members were filmed having sex with a 14-year-old girl in a hotel room to the sound of noisy cheering.[1] Some of the girls were locked up to prevent them escaping.[3] A 16-year-old victim stated: "I will never ever understand what has made them so evil and ignorant that still to this day they think they've not done anything wrong."[3]

I see big problems in this section. A few points:

1. It needs to make clear that it is not exhaustive but only illustrative of events.
2. The language needs to emphasise the Behaviour and Modus Operandi of the Abusers against Victims.
3. The repeated insertion of "girls" actually shifts focus from facts to emotion and can affect POV and NPOV.
4. As the info can only be illustrative and there are legal reasons for full details not being public domain it is for me necessary to have comment that UK Court Rules prevent full disclosure of events to protect the victims of child sexual abuse or any victim of sexual assault. To my mind that will assist none UK readers and also address the risks of Systemic Bias

--TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not think the MO should go into detail, we do not want to create a "how to" or "how not to get caught" for perverts. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Very much agree that Wiki should not end up as a How to abuse guide. But there does need to be balance with detail of events. Any other suggestions? --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)

Police investigation

Derby police were aware of rumours of a paedophile gang operating in the city.[1] On 30 December 2008, Staffordshire police stopped a car on suspicion of shoplifting, carrying three gang members and three young girls.[3] The girls had been reported missing from a care home in Derby.[3] The police drove the girls back to Derby, and during the journey, they told the officers about what had been taking place.[1] Derbyshire police force launched an undercover investigation called Operation Retriever, setting up surveillance and tailing the gang's BMW around Derby.[1] Detectives collected DNA samples from several of the crime scenes.[5] Siddique was wearing an electronic tag after a previous conviction for assaulting a woman.[1] On 24 April 2009, two distressed teenagers stumbled out of a flat that was under surveillance and said that they had been raped.[3] The police had been unaware of their presence. The victims told the police of other girls who had been assaulted, and the police soon discovered a campaign of systematic grooming and abuse within the city. Detective Inspector of Derbyshire police, Shaun Dawson, said, "When we arrested them, we had no idea of the scale of this. Once we had them locked up other victims spoke out and it snowballed from there."[1] Debbie Platt, who led the police investigation, said she was shocked at the extent of the abuse and said it was like "a campaign of rape against children."[3] The police stated that the abuse could have continued for a lot longer.[1]

I'll start with the line "Derby police were aware of rumours of a paedophile gang operating in the city." - which simply implies the past. I believe that there needs to be clarity of time frames - otherwise it can be taken to mean that there has always been some paedophile gang operating in the city since the dawn of time! Are there any sources which place the time frame before 30 December 2008 with any degree of certainty (Decade - year - first known event) which allow for an accurately constructed time line to be presented. A generic reference to the past is not really good enough.

--TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Trial

The crown prosecution service charged the gang with 75 charges relating to twenty six girls, ranging from rape to intimidating witnesses, though police believed there were many more victims. The men were charged in three separate trials.

Name	Conviction
Abid Mohammed Saddique	rape, sexual assault, sexual activity with a child, perverting the course of justice, aiding and abetting rape, false imprisonment, making child pornography
Romaan Liaqat	rape, sexual assault, aiding and abetting rape, affray, sexual activity with a child, making child pornography
Akshay Kumar	making child pornography
Faisal Mehmood	sexual activity with a child
Mohammed Imran Rehman	rape
Graham Blackham	breaches of Sexual Offender Prevention Order

I think that the following need to be made clear as the have quite an impact upon how content is presented and also perceived.

1. There were three trials over many months. Clarity needed.
2. The trails were covered by reporting restrictions - that affects what is reported here.
3. Full details of the trials are not public domain due to the need to protect victims - UK Law Applies.

Big Questions -

• Does the table give undue prominence?
• Who should be included - all accused - only the guilty - only those assessed as guilty of sexual offences - what are the criteria to be used?
• Should it list only charges found Guilty or should all charges including not guilty and dismissed be listed?
• The Jury were unable to reach verdicts in all charges and the judge ordered they were to be left lie on file for future retrial should new evidence arise - this needs to be addressed as it is a legal reality and on record.

Should the table address sentencing rather than charges? This may seem a cop out, but I have to point to the rights of Victims to use Wiki and not be abused by overly detailed content which does not add to overall reality. Footnotes can direct those who need full details to external sources.

Analysis

I'm not even going to quote this section.

I think there needs to be a basic question addressed - why is there need for this section at all? Who decides what is and what is not analysis of events?

It may be best to look at time lines again for factual accuracy and to maintain clarity of how things developed over time - pre trial - post trial - post sentencing etc. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre report

After this case, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) attempted a nationwide assessment of child grooming. The report found that police, social services and charities were failing to properly investigate this "hidden issue" and that a quarter of offenders reported for child grooming since 2008 were Asian, an apparently disproportionate figure, but Peter Davies, the head of Ceop, was quick to clarify that the findings did not provide a national picture because of incomplete data, and cautioned against extrapolating anything from the results. He added that "looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours."

Again - I'm not sure that this section needs to exist. Also from the outset it is misleading. CEOP constantly monitor for and act upon child grooming - they didn't suddenly decide to start after this case.

CEOP has existed since April 2006 and there has been a phased introduction of their work in conjuration with partners ever since - starting it's main recognised operations in 2009, by which time the police were acting. The wording implies that CEOP had not acted earlier to protect the victims - they could not act they did not exist! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

References

References

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Oxford sex gang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)