Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Number of victims

Merged/copied from Talk:Independent_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_in_Rotherham#Number_of_victims after article merge. See Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Merge_talk_pages_after_article_merge

The report says:

• Page 1, first paragraph: "No one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1400 children were sexually exploited over the full Inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013."
• Page 29, first paragraph: "No one knows the true scale of sexual exploitation in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that there were more than 1400 victims in the period covered by the Inquiry, and an unknown number who were at risk of being exploited."
• Page 30, 4.7: "Taking all these sources together, the Inquiry concluded that at least 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013. This is likely to be a conservative estimate of the true scale of the problem. We are unable to assess the numbers of other children who may have been at risk of exploitation, or those who were exploited but not known to any agency. This includes some who were forced to witness other children being assaulted and abused."

At the moment the article says: "It reports the sexual exploitation of as many as 1,400 children in the Rotherham area in the period between 1997 and 2013.". English is not my native language. Maybe I misunderstand something, but it seems to me like the article downplays the number by more or less interpreting 1400 as the number or worse the maximum number of victims. The report uses terms like "conservative estimate", "more than 1400 victims", "at least 1400 children were sexually exploited", "unable to assess the numbers of other children [...] not known to any agency". I interpret the report as it is higly likely that there are (much) more victims than 1400. The article should be true to the report which is the primary source.
--Ohedland (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Offensive page history

An IP address vandalised this page to say that the crime was set up in order to cover up a white rape gang. Surely this revision should be hidden for its gross defamation and paedophile apologism? '''tAD''' (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure: who exactly was it defaming? If the entire white race, then I'd think to hide the revision is to treat it with far more seriousness than it deserves, surely? Alfietucker (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm more worried that it's kiddy gloving the actual criminals' offences, which I'm sure is against Wikipedia policy on child protection '''tAD''' (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I'm not entirely sure I see your point. It seems to me that it was a viciously-minded but really rather silly edit which did not effectively defame anyone; nor do I see how it concerns Wikipedia:Child protection. But of course, do report the edit if you feel strongly that it should be hidden. Perhaps you could put my mind at rest (and possibly yours) by e-mailing me to explain your point. Alfietucker (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On re-evaluation, as it didn't name anybody, I conclude it was just everyday vandalism. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Essentially I concur. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Shorten/prune article

Copy from Talk:Rotherham_sex_grooming_case#Proposed_merger (I added article links)

Now that much of the material in this article has been copied across to the Inquiry article, I think that this article should be cut back to cover specifically the 2010 case, with a much shorter "Aftermath" section linking across to the Inquiry article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
--Ohedland (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Independent_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_in_Rotherham#A_set_of_articles
--Ohedland (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Logo: Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council - Where Everyone Matters

Merged/copied from Talk:Independent_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_in_Rotherham#Logo:_Rotherham_Metropolitan_Borough_Council_-_Where_Everyone_Matters after article merge. See Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Merge_talk_pages_after_article_merge

I just visited the webpage of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council . Their logo states "Where Everyone Matters". That seems like appalling tragicomedy. For how much of the period since 1997 have they used this logo text?
--Ohedland (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you expecting someone else to do that research for you, or are you just trying to make a point? Anyhow, it's not really relevant to improving this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume someone in England may know more about this and how to find it than I do. It's not a major point, but it may indicate that Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council care more about appearance than substance. The report seems to indicate that Rotherham has downplayed the community's problems instead of mending them. The report definately indicate that some people responsible didn't care (enough) about the victims. They probably didn't matter (enough).
--Ohedland (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ohedland, I think I understand your point, but as far as WP is concerned it's not really pertinent to the article unless it's a point which has already been made by a reliable source: i.e. one that actually makes the link between the logo and the council's actual actions during that period. Alfietucker (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. We have enough material without any need for original research. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Community cohesion

Merged/copied from Talk:Independent_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_in_Rotherham#Community_cohesion after article merge. See Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Merge_talk_pages_after_article_merge

Community cohesion seems to be an important subject (my bolds):
BBC Katie Hall "Real or imagined: Racism 'fear' over Rotherham child abuse": "
A "taboo" subject, "ignoring a politically inconvenient truth", threatening "community cohesion", "fear of being thought racist". [...] "Several councillors interviewed believed that by opening up these issues they could be 'giving oxygen' to racist perspectives that might in turn attract extremist political groups and threaten community cohesion." [...] "In the name of what community cohesion and political correctness? Not in the name of my community," said Muhbeen Hussain, founder of British Muslim Youth."
The Guradian Haroon Siddique and Mark Tran "Rotherham abuse: report finds 1,400 children were victims":
"[...] concern that the ethnic element could damage community cohesion, [...]"
--Ohedland (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A set of articles

Merged/copied from Talk:Independent_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_in_Rotherham#A_set_of_articles after article merge. See Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Merge_talk_pages_after_article_merge

Copy from Talk:Rotherham_sex_grooming_case#Proposed_merger

Now that much of the material in this article has been copied across to the Inquiry article, I think that this article should be cut back to cover specifically the 2010 case, with a much shorter "Aftermath" section linking across to the Inquiry article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Or (Plan B) we simply go back to merging the articles and titling it Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

---

I am not familiar with what's considered good Wikipedia practice in similar circumstances. There's obviously a problem complex which may be called the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. It seems like parts of it became public because of the Rotherham sex grooming case. The Times made some investigations and others followed up as well, including the Home Affairs Select Committee. Then the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham took place and published its (initial) report. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham and the Rotherham sex grooming case is obviously only (important) parts of the larger Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal.

Is it normal Wikipedia practice to handle these subjects using an article about an inquiry (report) as the pivoting point? Obviously a lot has happened before the inquiry and hopefully a lot will happen afterwards. Or is it normal to have a main subject article (Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal) with sections for all important subjects and steps and separate detailed articles about the larger, more important sub-subjects like the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham and the Rotherham sex grooming case?
--Ohedland (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Having now worked a bit on both articles, I must admit I'm increasingly inclined to think combining it all into Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, as originally suggested by Ghmyrtle, makes sense. What do other editors think? Alfietucker (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree (with myself, for once. :-)). There's no need for duplication of material between the two existing articles, and in this case I think it would be much clearer if the full story was all contained in one article - the 2010 case, the build-up of pressure, this week's report, and what happens next. See Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, North Wales child abuse scandal, Elm Guest House child abuse scandal, for rough parallels. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In view of the fact that we need to present a clear overview of this topic, and recognising the discussions above, I've been exceptionally and uncharacteristically bold and merged the two articles, renaming them as Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. Happy to discuss further, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I propose that Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham be merged into Rotherham sex grooming case. There is already at least as much text about the Inquiry in the latter article as in the Inquiry article itself. There may be a case for renaming this article but that's for a later date - merge first, then consider renaming. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Don't merge. The inquiry and subsequent report are far wider than just the single case of CSE prosecuted in 2010. It deserves to be explored in its own article rather than tagged on almost as an appendix to the a/m trial. I'm fairly sure there will be no shortage of commentary and analysis available over the next few days, also. Keri (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case, would it be better if the merge was in the other direction? This article's title refers just to the single case in 2010, but most of the article itself covers the wider issues identified in 2012 and addressed in the 2014 Inquiry. The main article should surely be on the wider issues covered in the 2014 Inquiry (which I recognise is the opposite of what I was thinking a few hours ago). An alternative approach might be to remove that material from this article, and add it to the Inquiry article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've now done that - basically, copy-pasting much of this article (with some editing) into that Inquiry article. Views welcome, and further work needed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Don't merge - but there needs to be coherence in this article just being on this case in 2010, and only mentioning in the inquiry in relation to this case. The inquiry investigated from 1997 to 2013, and thus goes above and beyond this case. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't merge - as per reasons given by tAD, and which I've previously outlined (rather less coherently, perhaps) here. Alfietucker (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that much of the material in this article has been copied across to the Inquiry article, I think that this article should be cut back to cover specifically the 2010 case, with a much shorter "Aftermath" section linking across to the Inquiry article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Or (Plan B} we simply go back to merging the articles and titling it Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove merge article flag

Merged/copied from Talk:Independent_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_in_Rotherham#Remove_merge_article_flag after article merge. See Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Merge_talk_pages_after_article_merge

I belive the merge article flag should be removed (from both articles). The subject is mainly discussed in Talk:Rotherham_sex_grooming_case#Proposed merger.
--Ohedland (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no rush to do that. Other editors may wish to contribute - we should give them a few days - and in any case a merger seems to be what several editors are now suggesting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles merged

On 29 August 2014 19:12-19:13 Ghmyrtle merged the articles Rotherham sex grooming case and Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham into Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. See Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Merge_talk_pages_after_article_merge.
--Ohedland (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#A_set_of_articles including Ghmyrtle 19:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
--Ohedland (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge talk pages after article merge

On 29 August 2014 19:12-19:13 Ghmyrtle merged the articles Rotherham sex grooming case and Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. It seems like Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham was incorporated in Rotherham sex grooming case and then Rotherham sex grooming case was renamed to Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. This is fine, but it seems like the merged article only keeps the contents from the Talk:Rotherham sex grooming case while the Talk:Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham exists on a sidetrack only really interested readers will find.

The contents of the talk pages should be merged as well. A secondary solution would be to incorporate a link to Talk:Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham in Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal (this talk page), preferably in a separate section at the top explaining/mentioning the article merge.

Are the (editing) history of articles and talk pages saved/taken care of when merging articles?
--Ohedland (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have compared Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal with Talk:Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham and at the best of my ability merged/copied missing/uncovered information from the latter to the former. I have tried to follow date and time. The sections have been marked with a text like this at the top right beneath the section title:
Merged/copied from Talk:Independent_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_in_Rotherham#A set of articles after article merge. See Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Merge_talk_pages_after_article_merge
--Ohedland (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Confusing use of the word Asian

I started reading about this case this afternoon after hearing about it on Norwegian radio following the report published 26 August 2014. Some sources write or talk about most of the perpetrators being people of Pakistani or Asian heritage. This was confusing/obfuscating to me as a non-British because Asia includes everything from Israel, Lebanon and vast parts of Turkey via India and Russia east of the Ural Mountains to Japan and the Philippines to name a few.

If I say Asian (asiatisk) in Norway, I suspect many/most people first will think of people from the eastern parts of Asia/Mongoloid_race or all people from Asia/of Asian heritage (Asian_people#Norway). It's normal practice in Norway to refer to people and immigrants by their country of origin. Sometimes we may use a regional term like Desi, Arab or Latin American. We wouldn't normally lump together immigrants of for example Pakistani and Vietnamese origin (except for purposes like high level statistics, i.e. by continent). For example they have different cultures and different (initial) Norwegian immigration history (seeking work vs. boat refugees).

There's an article about British Asian which states that "British Asians are British citizens of South Asian descent [...] In British English usage, the term 'Asian' usually does not include East Asians, North Asians, or Southeast Asians.". This use of Asian seems to be a British phenomenon (Asian_people#United_Kingdom). Other countries and sources use the term Asian differently (Asian_people).

This article is about a British subject, but the English language Wikipedia is read by people from all over the world without knowledge of British specifics. Either the article's first use of the word Asian should link to the article British Asian or it should instead use Pakistani as some sources being more specific do.
--Ohedland (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me a totally fair point. Bearing in mind we have to go by reliable sources, I'll see if it can be reworded to avoid such ambiguity. Alfietucker (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking a bit further. I suspect just linking Asian may be too little. Many readers may very well think day understand without checking the link and hence end up misunderstanding because they assume/interpret a broader meaning of Asian than British Asian. Hence your suggestion to rephrase is better than just linking.
--Ohedland (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood and agree - so long as a reliable source can be found to support any such rewording. I'm trying to find such a source, but would welcome any suggestions/offers on that front. Alfietucker (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The report itself (para.11.2) says: "In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010. The file reading carried out by the Inquiry also confirmed that the ethnic origin of many perpetrators was ‘Asian’. In one major case in the mid-2000s, the convicted perpetrator was Afghan. Latterly, some child victims of CSE and some perpetrators had originated from the Roma Slovak community". This BBC report refers to " predominantly Asian criminal gangs". So, there is not one simple answer. We should refer to "[[British Asian|Asian]]" where that is what the sources indicate, and to "[[British Pakistanis|Pakistani heritage]]" where that is what the sources indicate. It's more important in this case to reflect precisely what the sources say, avoid stereotyping, and provide appropriate links, than to worry unduly about how readers interpret specific words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I've done some digging as well and documented my findings in Talk:Independent_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_in_Rotherham#Confusing_use_of_the_word_Asian.
--Ohedland (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Pakistani or British Asian

Merged/copied from Talk:Independent_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_in_Rotherham#Pakistani_or_British_Asian after article merge. See Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Merge_talk_pages_after_article_merge

Forked/extracted from Confusing use of the word Asian

Possible sources or maybe starting points to find the underlying sources (my bolds):
1: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28934963
"In the other cases, overwhelmingly, they were men of Pakistani origin and we need to understand why this has been happening," said Mr Norfolk.

He described a previous report into gang exploitation as a "missed opportunity" because of its failure to look at the proportion of men of Pakistani origin committing such offences.

2: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28942986
The majority of those behind the abuse were described as Asian, while the victims were young white girls.

Yet the report found that councillors failed to engage with the town's Pakistani-heritage community during the inquiry period.
--Ohedland (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume the the actual report should be considered a reliable source. I downloaded it and performed a search for "pakistan" getting 22 occurrences. Examples from chapter 11 (my bolds):
page 92, in first paragraph: "In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010."
page 93-94, last/first paragraph: "He was one of the elected members who said they thought the criminal convictions in 2010 were 'a one-off, isolated case', and not an example of a more deep-rooted problem of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators targeting young white girls."
page 94, 11.15: "This description mirrors the abuse committed by Pakistani-heritage perpetrators on white girls in Rotherham."
--Ohedland (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The quotation from p. 92 is most pertinent to Rotherham sex grooming case - I'll make that change accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Although the 2010 trial was of men of Pakistani heritage, the 2014 Inquiry ranged more widely. As I said on the other talk page: The report itself (para.11.2) says: "In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010. The file reading carried out by the Inquiry also confirmed that the ethnic origin of many perpetrators was ‘Asian’. In one major case in the mid-2000s, the convicted perpetrator was Afghan. Latterly, some child victims of CSE and some perpetrators had originated from the Roma Slovak community". This BBC report refers to " predominantly Asian criminal gangs". So, there is not one simple answer. We should refer to "[[British Asian|Asian]]" where that is what the sources indicate, and to "[[British Pakistanis|Pakistani heritage]]" where that is what the sources indicate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

BBC Mark Easton, Home editor "When we look, we find": http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28949538 (my bold):
"The grooming and violent sexual abuse of hundreds of children in Rotherham by groups of predominantly Pakistani men led other local authorities to check whether something similar was happening in their area."
--Ohedland (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

BBC Katie Hall "Real or imagined: Racism 'fear' over Rotherham child abuse" http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28951612 (my bolds):
"The report which revealed the abuse of more than 1,400 children in Rotherham - mainly by men of Pakistani heritage - found many reasons why the shocking scale of child sexual exploitation in the South Yorkshire town remained hidden."
""The fact these guys were predominantly Pakistani heritage men should not be a reason for providing a cloak of invisibility” Muhbeen Hussain, founder of British Muslim Youth"
"Most of the victims in the cases examined were white British girls, but the report found the abuse of Asian girls was not necessarily reported. [...] Zlakha Ahmed, from the organisation Apna Haq which supports Asian women and children facing violence in the home, said there has been a long-standing problem of Asian girls suffering abuse. [...] "They follow the exact same model as the report that's been released; the difference is that the victims are Asian Muslim young girls and the perpetrators have been Muslim Pakistani men.""
"Dr Heal also noted [in the 2006 report] that Iraqi Kurds and Kosovan men were participating in organised activities against young women."
My comment: "Iraqi Kurds" are from Asia (Asian in the more global meaning of the word) but "Kosovan men" are Europeans.
--Ohedland (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with referring to the issue as relating predominantly (but by no means exclusively) to men of Pakistani heritage. But, in British English, "Asian" is a term regularly used for people of Indian or Pakistani background, and if it is linked to British Asian it is not a problem. We should certainly not refer to their religious background, any more than we refer to "Jewish Israelis" or "Christian Norwegians". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This was written in parallell with Ghmyrtle's most recent post.
The Guardian Suzanne Moore "Poor children are seen as worthless, as Rotherham's abuse scandal" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/27/poor-children-seen-as-worthless-rotherham-abuse-scandal (my bold):
"The report on Rotherham is clear-eyed about who targeted the girls: men of Pakistani and Kashmiri descent, working in gangs to rape and torture girls. The men called the girls "white trash", but white girls were not their only victims. They also abused women in their own community who had pressure put on them never to name names."
--Ohedland (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to Ghmyrtle: "Predominantly men of Pakistani heritage" (with link to British Pakistani) seems like a good solution. I also agree that religion doesn't seem to be a relevant factor.
--Ohedland (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian, Helen Pidd, Northern editor "Failures in Rotherham led to sexual abuse of 1,400 children" http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/26/rotherham-sexual-abuse-children (my bolds):
"Sometimes they were afraid of being accused of racism if they talked openly about the perpetrators in the town mostly being Pakistani taxi drivers."
"Jahangir Akhtar, the former deputy leader of the council, is accused in the report of naivety and potentially "ignoring a politically inconvenient truth" by insisting there was not a deep-rooted problem of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators targeting young white girls. Police told the inquiry that some influential Pakistani councillors in Rotherham acted as barriers to communication on grooming issues."
--Ohedland (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

BBC accused of censorship

"Don't use the A-word: BBC accused of censorship over Rotherham child abuse by failing to mention that gangs were Asian" by Mia De Graaf for MailOnline 27 August 2014:

"The BBC has enraged licence fee-payers by allegedly downplaying the role of Pakistani gangs in Rotherham's sex abuse scandal.
Yesterday's landmark report singled out Pakistani men as the main perpetrators in the sexual exploitation of at least 1,400 children over 16 years - and warned council staff's fear of acknowledging their race compounded the scandal.
But this morning, four of BBC News Online's seven articles on the report made no reference to Pakistani men."

"Readers took to social media in anger accusing the Corporation of sanitising its online coverage.
Reference was made to Pakistani men in the BBC's evening news broadcasts and this morning's radio.
However, the lead articles online this morning simply referred to the perpetrators as 'criminal gangs'."

"A BBC spokesman said: 'Any suggestion we’ve sanitised our reporting is nonsense.
'Our coverage on BBC News, including online, has made it clear that the abusers were predominately Asian and that council staff feared being labelled racist.
'Stories on the website are constantly evolving but all have clear links to articles which explain the full context.
'We spoke to members of the Pakistani community in Rotherham on Today, BBC Radio 5 live, the BBC News Channel and more reaction is expected online later.
'As the story has evolved we have covered other key developments such as the resignation of the council leader and calls for the resignation of South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner and we’ll continue to explore all the different angles.'"
--Ohedland (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Denis MacShane MP

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11063885/Rotherham-and-the-toxic-legacy-of-multiculturalism.html admitted he knew about it but ignored it for cultural reasons. Worth mentioning? '''tAD''' (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, if we have good sources. But, a Telegraph commentary, a brief BBC piece, and a piece in the Mirror (apparently the basis of the other reports), are not really what we can call reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much the Mirror as a BBC interview which is now the basis of most reports. There's also a Daily Telegraph report, and The Week, and has also been picked up by Australia's The Age. I think The Telegraph report is a solid enough source, surely. Alfietucker (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I failed to find the Telegraph report. I would have thought a sentence in the Reactions section would be fine. How about: "Denis McShane, the MP for Rotherham between 1994 and his resignation in 2012, said that no-one had come to him with child abuse allegations during that time, but commented that he should have "burrowed into" the issue." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've added a bit more, since otherwise it's not clear why he didn't "burrow into" the issue. Alfietucker (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Table of convictions

I don't like the table under "2010 case", and would like to replace it by prose - per MOS:TABLE, in my view. I'm also not sure whether the names of those convicted should be in the article at all. Any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that MOS:TABLE presents an argument against such a table, and similar tables have been long established at the Rochdale sex trafficking gang and the Derby sex gang articles concerning similar crimes. The advantage of using a table, I think, is that it makes clear the scope and nature of the convictions. In any case, I don't see why the names of those convicted of such a serious crime should be omitted. Alfietucker (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Peter Frost source

Add this Peter Frost article as another citation please.74.14.75.158 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Employment

"Nazir Afzal... claimed "Where you have Pakistani men, Asian men, disproportionately employed in the night-time economy, they are going to be more involved in this kind of activity than perhaps white men are." Would it not be clearer if the article explained that the men were taxi drivers? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but using what source? Neither of the articles currently used to support the info on the 2010 case give details of their employment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I only know this from listening to a radio discussion about the topic. So unsure what could be used. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

""Jay’s report highlighted the prominent role taxi drivers played in the exploitation of young girls in the town, and children’s home managers reported drivers ferrying victims to assignations with men that ended in rape." See the Jay report, p.71-74. "One of the common threads running through child sexual exploitation across England has been the prominent role of taxi drivers in being directly linked to children who were abused. This was the case in Rotherham from a very early stage....".. etc. But obviously we need to be careful as to the wording, and I think it's fair to say that, in general, media reports have not made much of their employment - and so perhaps we shouldn't either. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. Was it because they were British Pakistanis, was it because they were taxi drivers, was it an interaction of these two factors? The community leader I heard on the radio thought it was the latter. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added a sentence citing the Guardian article. Will that do? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think so. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

More commentary

Again, this edit adds nothing of substance to the article. We are really not interested in what any one particular journalist thinks. I've removed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and so far this article has done a good job in limiting the reaction to politicians, legal professionals, community leaders and related parties. I think this is much more encyclopedic than a plethora of journos of differing repute and quality '''tAD''' (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Censorship

Why are the comments of unnamed "members of the British-Pakistani community" allowed to stand while fully sourced comments by a Labour MP and prominent campaigner against child sex abuse not allowed to stand? Do I detect a desire to continue the cover-up?

Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, stated that an "unhealthy brand of politics 'imported' from Pakistan" was "partly to blame for the cover-up of mass child abuse in Rotherham":

Mr Danczuk said the elements of Pakistani political culture itself were partly to blame for the cover-up. “There are cultural issues around the way politics are done in the Asian community which have to change,” he said. He said he had personally come under pressure from Asian councillors and members of the community for speaking out [about abuse in Rochdale] as well as being warned by prominent figures in his party.

Danczuk also described the abuse and threats he had received in his own constituency of Rochdale for refusing to support Muslim men found guilty of child sex abuse: "'These girls are prostitutes,' one man shouted at me, and warned that I would pay a heavy price for not supporting him. He’d get thousands of people not to vote for me." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurrentUK (talk • contribs) 09:54, 6 September 2014‎

No, you detect a desire to write a proper encyclopedia article about the Rotherham scandal, not what happened in Rochdale. Danczuk's comments may be relevant in so far as they relate to Rotherham, but they were made in 2014 not 2012 - so they needed to be moved to another section - and they mostly related to Rochdale, so most of his comments needed to be removed. And please remember to sign your posts using four of these: ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just to assure you, no - you are not facing a "cover-up" (I have, on several other articles dealing with what might be called "sensitive" Muslim topics, fought against censorship). But if you could remind yourself of the Wikipedia policy of Due and undue weight: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Danczuk himself says an "unhealthy brand of politics 'imported' from Pakistan" is "partly to blame for the cover-up of mass child abuse in Rotherham" (emphasis added): so to place that one element of his statement in the lead is clearly giving it undue prominence. Alfietucker (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I withdraw the allegation and apologize. I hope it's ok to add further political responses before the bit about "members of the British-Pakistani community" condemning the abuse. It's hardly likely that they would publicly welcome what went on, so that bit has "low information content" compared to what e.g. Danczuk says. CurrentUK (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

My view is that it's right to include Theresa May's comments in the lead, and those of community leaders and perhaps MacShane, but not those of Danczuk as his views are less central and should be (and are) covered in the main text. There is no need to include references in the lead, so long as they are not there to justify contentious statements and so long as they are included in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "less central". He's talking directly about Rotherham based on his experience as Labour MP and campaigner against CSE. He's not biased or partisan, because he's also campaigning against people like Cyril Smith. CurrentUK (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but he's one of many. We are now getting far, far too much commentary being added to the article. We need to include the thoughts of the local community, local MPs, national political leaders... Not random newspaper commentators who are paid to comment on matters like this. Their views add little or nothing to any readers' understanding of the topic. I'll remove some of them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that the "royal we"? Tell me (not that I expect an honest answer): what expertise do you have on this topic compared to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and British Muslims for Secular Democracy? In what way are they "random"? "Their views add little or nothing to any readers' understanding of the topic." That looks like an ex cathedra statement to me. I've certainly had my "understanding" of the topic improved by the comments -- which aren't paid in the case of Ophelia Benson et al -- of people who actually live in Muslim communities, actually speak Urdu, Punjabi and other community languages and have even -- so the rumour runs -- spoken once or twice to real Muslims. How "ironic" that a scandal caused by politically correct censorship should have you working on it. CurrentUK (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"We" = the community of Wikipedia editors, to which you are a fairly new recruit (and incidentally, also what "we" call an SPA). We have many hundreds of pages of guidelines as to what is and is not appropriate to be included in articles. I suggest you read them, and WP:NPA at the same time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I notice you didn't answer the question about your expertise on this topic. I repeat the question. I also ask this: Have you actually read the report issued by Professor Jay? Or do you just rely on your PC instincts to know what We-The-Community "need" in the article? There a male Muslim perspective from Nazir Afzal and when I tried to add some comments by female Muslims, what do you do? Delete them on nonsensical grounds. So there is not one comment by a female Muslim in the article. Again, how "ironic". BTW: I'm on Wikipedia because I heard it was paradise for authoritarian autistics who like little kingdoms to rule and loadsa regulations to absorb and apply against non-autistics. That sounded great to me (seeing as I'm an authoritarian autistic who wants a little kingdom to rule etc). So far it's not working out. Perhaps it isn't paradise for the authoritarian-autistic community after all. CurrentUK (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles like this are often better written by those without "expertise", to avoid conflicts of interest, use clear language, and present a neutral point of view. And please avoid commenting on your perception of editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

My perception of your grasp of logic is that it needs improving. You deleted comments by female Muslims on the grounds that they were "random" and "added little or nothing" to readers' understanding of the topic. If you are less familiar with the topic than they are, you are clearly wrong to state this. Below you say: "I'm surprised by the Independent article, which strikes me as the usual Islamophobia." So you're an expert on Islamophobia and how to detect it. Your agenda is apparently to delete anything you find ideologically offensive, not to maintain NOP or include a balance of views. CurrentUK (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

CurrentUK, comments such as "not that I expect an honest answer" and "My perception of your grasp of logic is that it needs improving" come quite close to personal attacks. Please try and restrict your comments to a discussion article content. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

But I didn't get an honest answer, Marty. And Myzza's grasp of logic is weak. Is it because I'm using English rather than Ovine? And note how Myzza fails to live up to Myzza's own rule: "any such comments from journalists or others without any authority over the matter are irrelevant." Except when they're ideologically acceptable to the herd. CurrentUK (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the comments not because they were from female Muslims, but because any such comments from journalists or others without any authority over the matter are irrelevant. I've removed another one (white male, by the way) today. This is an encyclopedia article about the scandal. We (collectively) should not allow it to be dominated by paid (or unpaid) columnists' pontifications about who is to blame for it. We report what inquiries say, and what reliable news sources (and academic sources, in due course) report. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, We-the-Community delete anything that We find ideologically offensive. For example, Nazir Afzal's comments are standard-issue PC denial of the kind that led to the scandal in the first place. But We-the-Community like standard-issue PC denial, so they stay in. If female Muslims were saying Islam and Pakistani culture played no role, you'd be happy to have their comments here. In time, you plan to delete Simon Danczuk's comments too. I know how people like you operate. There were (and are) 100s of them in Rotherham. CurrentUK (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle - I'll book you a taxi. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's almost as tho' authoritarian autistics operate in herds. CurrentUK (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use "autistic" as a term of abuse. It's a highly offensive use of the word. Autism is a recognised condition (which, incidentally, I don't have. Nor am I authoritarian.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Where do I use it as a term of abuse? It's a fascinating psychological phenomenon with which I'm pretty familiar, for reasons already explained. And if I use the term, would that not suggest to you that I already know that it's a "recognized condition"? It's that pesky logic again, I'm afraid. So if you ever feel the need to point out next that authoritarianism is a political (and philosophical) concept/stance, please think again. "Nor am I authoritarian." Sometimes we're the last to know these things, Myzza. CurrentUK (talk)

A-hem! Rather than have you, all valued editors, continue bickering about alleged censorship, perhaps you could have a look at the edits I've just done to the contested section. As it was, the information did not seem to be presented in a particularly logical or even chronological sequence: I've reordered it accordingly and I believe it now reads more clearly and NPOV. Alfietucker (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me, tho' whether it looks good to the others is another matter. CurrentUK (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care whether Abbott is included or not, and the material about the demonstrations is fine. But I'm not happy about the paragraph order, which strikes me as less, not more, logical than the previous version.

Previous version:

1. British-Pakistani community inc. Afzal
2. Local council - Stone and Kimber
3. PCC Wright - sub-dispute in its own right
4. National politician - May
5. Former MP MacShane
6. Others - Danczuk.

Current version:

1. British-Pakistani community and MacShane
2. Others - Danczuk
3. National politician - May
4. CPS - Afzal
5. Local council - Stone and Kimber
6. PCC Wright

The new order gives no weight to the order in which things happened - e.g. we should recognise that May commented after the local comments and the argument over whether Wright should resign - and gives too much priority/precedence to Danczuk - who is a backbench MP from another area. I think we should revert to the earlier paragraph order, for clarity and to give better balance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I take your point about placing May's comments after the resignations and Wright's non-resignation. But otherwise, I'm afraid if you look at the section before I reordered it the order was not chronological and appeared open to the charge of POV ordering. I really feel this must be avoided for the sake of NPOV. Alfietucker (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

p.s. I've now shunted the paragraphs about resignations and Wright's hanging onto the PCC post to an appropriate part of the section. Since MacShane was giving a first-hand account of how and why he acted as he did during the time covered by the report, I've left this in the first paragraph. Alfietucker (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've shuffled things around a little more - the first couple of paras now cover the issue of the relationship between the abuse and the British-Pakistani community, and then it goes on to cover the organisational response and May's overall comments. I didn't see a good reason for Danczuk and May's comments to be combined in one paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added more to Danczuk, which overlaps rather interestingly with what Afzal said a bit later; plus I've replaced some apparently unsound paraphrasing of Afzal with an actual quotation. Alfietucker (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a general comment - the section on the reactions is now rather longer than the section on the report itself - which doesn't seem right. Just because people "react", it's not necessary to report it here. This article should be more about the abuse, and its cover-up, than current reactions to it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A fair point, though this is work in progress. I'd suggest we have another look at how the report itself is covered first, then revisit "Reactions" and see whether it still looks imbalanced; though perhaps we should also bear in mind that the reactions are not just to the report, but to the subject it deals with, the evidence and its implications. Alfietucker (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Female Muslim perspective?

We've got the perspective of male Muslims like Nazir Afzal, so would some comments from female Muslims not be a good idea? I tried to add some, but Myzza deleted them because they were allegedly random, paid-for, etc. I later added the comments of respected Black British MP Diane Abbott and Myzza was fine with those, presumably because they weren't random or paid-for, etc. This is what I would like to add:

The British-Asian journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a prominent anti-racist commentator and activist, blamed the scandal on "apologists, misogyny and double standards" and said the "shocking new report exposes the dangerous attitudes that exist in some of the UK's Asian communities". She alleged that the failure of the authorities to end the abuse arose from distorted anti-racism, which induced a culpable reluctance to challenge criminal behaviour by ethnic minorities:

White experts and officers have for too long been reluctant to confront serious offences committed by black and Asian people. Such extreme tolerance is the result of specious morality, that credo that says investigating such crimes would encourage racism or enrage community activists and leaders, or, worse, make the professionals appear racist. So, instead of saving children who were being gang raped, drugged, assaulted, threatened and terrorised, they chose to protect rapists, abusers, traffickers and drug dealers. And themselves. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/rotherham-child-abuse-scandal-apologists-misogyny-and-double-standards-9692497.html

In a letter to The Independent Ophelia Benson of the Butterflies and Wheels blog and members of Inspire, British Muslims for Secular Democracy and the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation argued that there were "cultural, racial and even religious specifics in these crimes" that had to be faced by wider society. They continued:

Tribal mentalities have imported an honour code that labels women as either honourable or shameful. In some quarters this has developed into an underground “gangster” culture of exploiting and abusing girls who do not fit the honour code. In either case, abuse must be exposed and perpetrators brought before the law. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-tribal-honour-code-masks-sexual-abuse-9712782.html

Apparently there's also a big problem in Rotherham (and elsewhere) with rape of Muslim women by taxi-drivers, but I'm worried that Myzza will delete anything I add about that, on the ground that it's random and irrelevant. Why are female Muslim voices being excluded from the article? CurrentUK (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Any individual journalist's opinions are only "excluded" because we already have more than enough commentary on the scandal in the article. It is not the commentary that is important, however interesting it may be to read in the media. Encyclopedias do not exist to list people's opinions. It is the scandal that is important, and the subject of the article. The commentary/ reactions section should be limited to those closely involved in the scandal or those having responsibility for dealing with its aftermath. There have probably been hundreds of commentary pieces about this scandal, and we should give them all due weight - that is, relatively little weight. Incidentally, I'm not sure why you refer to me as "Myzza" - you can call me either ghmyrtle or look at my user page to find my real name - it's no secret (unlike, say, yours). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As a lifelong Guardian-reader, I have to be careful not to let my opinions become widely known, hence the need for secrecy. You haven't addressed the question of why female Muslim voices are excluded. Male Muslim voices are not peripheral to the topic and they are rightly included. However, as one might expect, male Muslims find excuses for the behaviour of the male Muslim criminals. Female Muslims offer a different perspective, one that you want excluded. Please explain why. ...we already have more more enough commentary... Then why did you accept Diane Abbott's commentary after excluding Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's? Because Abbott's was PC and Alibhai-Brown's wasn't. CurrentUK (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's because there are moments when I think I can't be bothered arguing with you over and over again over the same issue. I would be more than happy to remove Abbott's comments.

But you had a chance to delete them and didn't. Instead, you polished them and left them in place to support the PC comments of the male Muslim Nazir Afzal. The comments of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and other female Muslims, OTOH, you deleted entirely. CurrentUK (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, now you've suggested it, I will do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC) PS: Already done - not by me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Again you have evaded the issue. Here is a direct question: Why are you accepting the exculpatory PC comments of male Muslims and deleting the culpatory non-PC comments of female Muslims? This scandal is about the criminal behaviour of a group of male Muslims and the way in which the authorities refused to address it for ideological reasons. These males are also abusing female Muslims:

The extraordinary story of Ruzwana Bashir: the Oxford-educated entrepreneur brought up in a British-Pakistani community shares her own story to tear down the wall of silence around the exploitation of Asian girls. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/29/-sp-untold-story-culture-of-shame-ruzwana-bashir

But you don't want the comments of female Muslims on why they think some male Muslims behave like that towards women of all kinds. Why not? The only reason I can see is that you are seeking to exclude things you find ideologically unacceptable: "I'm surprised by the Independent article, which strikes me as the usual Islamophobia." So you're concerned about Islamophobia, but not about what female Muslims think about the behaviour of male Muslims. A crown is no doubt readied for you in PC heaven.

You've said that "we" need the article to include "what reliable news sources (and academic sources, in due course) report". Here is an academic source: http://www.unz.com/pfrost/a-nice-place-to-raise-your-kids/ http://www.unz.com/pfrost/rotherham-the-search-for-answers/ . But I suspect "we" won't want to include it, will "we"? CurrentUK (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Why are you accepting the exculpatory PC comments of male Muslims and deleting the culpatory non-PC comments of female Muslims?" As explained previously, I'm not. And, your source is not "an academic source" - it's an opinionated blog. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything. I'm not sure about the best way to ask for mediation about your ideologically driven censorship of this article, so what do we-the-community recommend? My complaint will be that you're deleting the commentary of female Muslims simply because you don't like what they say. If you'd been cunning, you would have deleted that Abbott quote as soon as I put it in. Something to remember for the future. Of course, Wikipedia is controlled by the PC police, so I don't expect much, but it'll be useful to see more [better not say] in action. "...it's an opinionated blog" -- written by an academic: http://pages.globetrotter.net/peter_frost61z/ . If he were saying something that you found ideologically acceptable, you'd have no problem at all with accepting it. CurrentUK (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to WP:RFC. You may also be interested in WP:BOOMERANG, given that anyone commenting there would inevitably look at your editing history (and mine). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's almost as though you've been through this before, Myzza, and know what happens next to lowly neophytes who challenge a Bishop. Note that this low neophyte explicitly noted that Wikipedia is controlled by the PC police. So why did you think the neophyte needed telling about "Da Boomerang"? Too many people here want to suppress information rather than liberationalize it. But it's interesting to observe them in action. CurrentUK (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never thought of you as a miser, Ghm. (Despite those very dark ears). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Marty, if there's a rule on Wikipedia against behaving like a 12-year-old supporting his/her clique, you may have broken it. But I suspect there isn't.

Thanks "Cuzza". Your forgot to sign. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Re your message on my talk page -- I assumed English was your mother tongue. Foolish of me and I apologize. If you read what I said again, you'll see that I was making a hypothesis. I even expressed doubt that it was correct. Hope that helps. And please, don't let's be formal: call me "Cuz". CurrentUK (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ackshly, Marty, it was me whose reading-comprehension was bad: you understood what I said perfectly. Soz. I'll try n do better in foocha. And thanx for dropping the formality. CurrentUK (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ideologically motivated deletion

When I added comments by Diane Abbott, Ghmyrtle did not delete them for being "cherry-picked":

"Where you have Pakistani men, Asian men, disproportionately employed in the night-time economy, they are going to be more involved in this kind of activity than perhaps white men are."[24] Afzal was supported by the respected Black British Labour MP Diane Abbott, who said that "[i]ssues around gender and class were at the root of events in Rotherham", not political correctness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal&oldid=625635591

Ghmyrtle didn't delete them at all. Why not? Because he liked what Abbott said, despite Abbott having no expertise in child protection and no direct connection with Rotherham. When I added comments by Ian Thomas, a Black Briton who has both expertise in child protection and a direct connection with Rotherham, Ghmyrtle deleted them as "cherry-picked". Why? Because he didn't like what Thomas said. Ghmyrtle's agenda is blatantly obvious. He obviously agrees with the strategy adopted by the council in Rotherham for all those years. CurrentUK (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have posted on the user talk page, asking that these comments be withdrawn. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the web is being spun. The ideological purging is about to commence. Carry on, campers. CurrentUK (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

How would you like a spin over to AN/I for persoanl attacks? Perhaps you'd like a little camping trip over there? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There are several reasons why I made this edit, later reverted. Firstly, it's badly written. What is a "nocturnal theory"? Why use American rather than British spelling? Why are the words "incoming Rotherham children’s chief" in parentheses? The article makes clear (later) that he is the newly-appointed interim director of children's services. Why include the words "himself a Black Briton"? It may be, just about, relevant to state that he is from an ethnic minority (albeit a different minority from the abusers), but the rationale is not obvious, and there is absolutely no good reason to use a capital B for Black. Then there is the quote - simply a couple of sentences taken out of a longer interview, and seemingly cherry-picked purely to undermine the views of another commentator who has been quoted. It's not clear why his views on Rotherham's night-time economy are any more important than his views on other issues. As a more general point, there are far too many quotes and comments in the article already - they need to be culled, not added to. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Title: "exploitation" vs. "abuse"?

Why is the title of the article talking about "child sexual exploitation", instead of "child sexual abuse"? Most sources seem to use the term "abuse", from what I've seen and heard. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 00:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

One reason is that the first major report used the word "exploitation" in its title, not "abuse". But I'm not necessarily opposed to changing it - what do others think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it referenced in the article. But I'd say that the majority of reports surrounding the case use "abuse" – perhaps the report was trying to be more general by using the term "exploitation"? I was just wondering what the difference was between the two terms? – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This site says: "Child sexual exploitation (CSE) is a type of sexual abuse in which children are sexually exploited for money, power or status." That seems correct - exploitation is abuse for a material end. We should use the terms that the best independent sources use - it may be that because "abuse" is more widely understood than "exploitation", it is more widely used, but in my view that does not necessarily mean that we should use it in an article title here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I was suspecting it'd be something like that. And I'd also tend to agree with you, it also allows more content to be in the article which may not technically be child sexual abuse. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 01:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: An Article That Provides an Overview of the Child Grooming Gang Phenomenon in the UK

There ought to be some secondary sources discussing this issue as a whole, and if we can find some good ones, I propose we create an overview article. In the Rotherham article, for example, there are several "see also" links pointing to Rochdale sex trafficking gang, Derby sex gang, Oxford sex gang, Bristol sex gang, Telford sex gang, Peterborough sex abuse case, Banbury sex gang, Aylesbury sex gang.

Yet there is no single article that discusses the greater phenomenon encompassing all of the above listed cases. What I'm saying is "UK Grooming gangs" deserves an article unto itself. I would be interested in hearing what others think, but to me the pattern/similarities between the cases indicate that there is more to this story than a half a dozen or so isolated incidents. What we need is an article with a good synthesis (NOT WP:SYNTH of course hence my call for secondary sources in my initial statement) of these sex grooming cases, their common characteristics, the fallout, the coverups, the scandals, government response, public reaction, etc. etc.

(At the very least it deserves a section in Gangs in the United Kingdom—although I consider that a poor compromise because these grooming gangs are much different than the traditional "street gangs" that article covers.)

I'm afraid I don't have the wherewithal execute this task myself, but I wanted to put the idea on the table in case it might get the ball rolling with other editors. DrQuinnEskimoWoman (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea, so long as we have good sources as you say — clearly we should avoid the tabloids, blogs and politically motivated sites. Here are a few sources - others may be able to add more, not on specific cases but to give an overview. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Offensive use of the word Asian

The use of the word ″Asian″ to refer to these monsters should be avoided unless used in direct quotes of careless individuals. According to studies, the perpetrators were Muslim [8]. Referring to them as ″Asians″ might offend law-abiding Hindus and Sikh people. We must be very sensitive in such matters. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your personal feelings are not as important as reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Be aware that Lokalkosmopolit has an agenda here. On there user page they have a user box stating 'This user supports the EDL (linked as English Defense League, lol) in their fight for human rights and against islamization (Islamisation?) of Britain.' LordFixit (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Pakistani peoples are generally muslims, so the issue of calling them asians is hair splitting irrelevance , although perhaps upsetting to Hindus, everyone understands they are all muslim anyway. Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not everyone understands that is a matter of dispute, if we consider how good the cartel media is at obfuscating the matter. The point is, Hindus and Sikhs have officially requested the media to end this kind of smearing and Wikipedia should accept this kind request. Also, it's really telling if a user reverts to obfuscating nonsense with the edit summary Per sources while the source actually does not use the (non-)word 'Asians' but calls them Muslims. For Roscelese, al-Qaida is apparently also 'Asian fundamentalist' group, for you can't say anything negative about the holy Islam, now can you?Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is in the source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-20951491. 'Mr Vaz told Mr Kimber not enough had been done since five Asian men from Rotherham were jailed in 2010 after being found guilty of grooming young girls for sex.' (Mr Vaz refers to Keith Vaz, an Asian MP!) LordFixit (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The original source for the quotation ″in Lancashire there were 100 prosecutions the year before last″ [9] does not feature the word 'Asian', so I see no reason to use this misleading designation. It's just as unacceptable as using the term ″Polish concentration camps″ when referring to Auschwitz. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making. We are going to have to have a more detailed discussion with input from other editors I think as this is disputed by several editors such as Roscelese LordFixit (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we should be relying more on reliable sources and relying less on Lokalkosmopolit's personal vendetta against Muslims. The parliamentary publication he cites as incontrovertible evidence that we can't use "Asian" doesn't use "Muslim" either, while a number of sources refer to "Asian," including the source about Lord Ahmed calling on mosques to speak up. Evidently this is being seen as a racial issue and not a religion issue. Lokalkosmopolit has more or less admitted that he doesn't value RS as a guideline, so I'm not sure why we're still having this conversation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I had to say "Asian" in the report I just added to the article because it said Asian in the BBC article. If I can get hold of a copy of the actual report, I will use the word they had in there. --Bluejay Young (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the nearest we can go is that in this case, many sources (from watching BBC tonight) mention "Pakistani", which these criminals were. There was never any source that they practice Islam, and this can't be garnered from their names just the same as a "John" or "Jacob" is not necessarily a Christian '''tAD''' (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Pakistani heritage" is the best description IMHO. "Asian" is a British euphemism referring to Central Asian, especially Pakistani, heritage, which is understandably used in newspaper language but Wikipedia should only use the most accurate information available and avoid euphemisms as they are not NPOV. 94.101.2.145 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, for a start it is used for South Asians. The two terms are almost interchangeable in news items for the simple fact that these criminals were "Asians" and "Pakistanis". It's not a euphemism, as euphemisms would be avoiding the relevance of ethnicity to the investigation of this crime altogether. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The report is available here: ([10]). I've parsed it and there's no mention of the perpetrators being Muslim. Most perpetrators are Pakistani-origin, but there is no mention of Islam in the report. There are only five or so instances of the word "muslim" and none having to do with the criminals. The Mirror does say "all of them will have been brought up in Muslim households", but that info is not from the report. I do think the absence of any mention of Islam in the report is conspicuous, but that's just my personal observation. -- Veggies (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The OP does actually have a point and as a result I've been able to source a reliable citation that confirms the above. I like the piece for two reasons; the author is Iman Amrani, an Algerian British freelance journalist who happens to be a Muslim and secondly, although she confirms the perpetrators faith in relation to the abuse it follows on with the position that sexual violence in not inherent in Islam thereby moving us to neutrality, best wishes. Twobells^t@lk 13:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ashirgo^t@lk I think it would be best to either stay true to the sources and call them Asian if and when they are called Asian in the specific sources being quoted or they should really be called "people of Middle Eastern origin" or Pakistani or Middle Eastern. There is totally nothing offensive in properly identifying their ethnicity / country of origin. I hope you still can see the difference between the issue of origin vs. race. My point being that the proposed approach would be far from racist and yet much more precise. —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

IVF

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/647696/Rotherham-sex-gang-leader-impregnanted-CHILDREN-doctors-more-babies highlights how pursuit of fertility treatment for wife contrasted with claims of health problems by husband. Is this counter to the defense worth highlighting since it is about the alleged leader? Ranze (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The old religion chestnut...

I think there could be a case for mentioning Islam in this article even when we don't know that the criminals practised that religion, for the same reason as the murder of the Sikh man after 9/11 was Islamophobic - this Independent article http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rotherham-child-sex-abuse-scandal-labour-home-office-to-be-probed-over-what-tony-blairs-government-knew--and-when-9701861.html mentions the word Muslim 15 times in allegations that this was covered up to "pacify" Muslims. And this is the Indy, not the kind of crapola in the Daily Star or God forbid some people reference, Jihad Watch. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the Independent article, which strikes me as the usual Islamophobia. Unless it's shown that religious practice was important to the gang members, it seems to me that their religious background is immaterial. Referring to Muslim communities is fine, but "Muslim gangs" (or "Islamic gangs") seems to me to be offensive stereotyping. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: The source for the statement in the third para - "..gangs of British-Pakistani men..." says nothing about the men being "Islamic". It's accepted that they came from an Islamic Pakistani culture, but the source says nothing about the religious practices of the men themselves. As such, the word "Islamic" should not be included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The main thrust of the Independent article, as I read it, is the allegation that Blair's government, for the sake of "community cohesion", consciously buried or down-played the fact that a disproportionate number of gangs involved in the grooming and sexual assault of underage girls were made up of men from Muslim communities. If this allegation has any truth to it, and if there are further reports or revelations supporting this in reliable sources, then it seems to me this is possibly a legitimate subject for an article in itself. Perhaps we should wait and see before jumping to any conclusions. Alfietucker (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Pakistani ≠ Islamic. Most reliable sources have avoided falling into this trap. Unless a person's religion can be reliably sourced, it should not be mentioned. Even if a sexual abuser is a Muslim, it does not necessarily follow that his religion was the cause of the abuse. Plenty of supposed Christians are sexual abusers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:ianmacm: The point of the link I sent was that even though these men's religion can not be confirmed, The Independent allege that it was because these men were perceived to be Muslim that the crime was covered up. The Independent article is a bit thin on its sources and I admit, will need supporting sources if it is to ever be included in the article. '''tAD''' (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, I've removed the words "of the Muslim faith" from the lede. Any further discussion? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Further edit warring now ongoing over this. The perpetrators are clearly described as being of Pakistani cultural heritage. Their personal religious beliefs and practices are not mentioned in reliable sources and are not relevant to their criminal activities. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a question of due weight as much as anything else. The WP:LEAD says "Members of the British-Pakistani Muslim community condemned both the sexual abuse and the fact that it had been covered up for fear of "giving oxygen" to racism", citing BBC News here. I think this is adequate wording as it does not attempt to imply that the average Muslim man is more likely to sexually abuse children than members of other faiths. The article Bernard Madoff does not attempt to hide the fact that he is Jewish, but doesn't attempt to imply that he committed the crimes because he was Jewish. Charles Ponzi was not Jewish, and Wikipedia articles should not attempt to make this type of linkage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Footnote doesn't contain a quote in the article

I've never done this before so my apologies beforehand if I'm doing this wrong. And also English is not my native language so if my spelling is off I apologise for that as well.

But it seems the footnote nr 31 does not contain any support for the quote in this piece of text that is in the article under the Alexis Jay inquiry header:

"Because most of the perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage, several council staff described themselves as being nervous about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others, the report noted, "remembered clear direction from their managers" not to make such identification."

Also, while I haven't read the whole of Alexis Jay's report, in what I have read he actually says quite the opposite.

He may say this somewhere else in the report but it's not in the article from Sky News footnote 31 directs you to anyway. That article is found here: http://news.sky.com/story/horrific-cases-of-child-abuse-in-rotherham-10391876

Someone who knows how this works better then me might want to check on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.143.117 (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)