Jump to content

Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Suspicious circumstances re: demography of victims, reference link, WP:SYNTH

I refer to the following sentence from the article's lead:

In August 2014 the Jay report concluded that an estimated 1,400 children, most of them white British girls,[15] had been sexually abused in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 by predominantly British-Pakistani men (Kurdish and Kosovar men were also involved).[16][13]


I am specifically concerned with the statement "an estimated 1,400 children, most of them white British girls". Note that the link in reference [15] is rotten, taking us to a .pdf file for a Bramley Parish Council election result:

http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham


Here is the current link to the Jay report:

https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/download/31/independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham-1997---2013

This 150 page report mentions the word "white" 12 times. I will start by quoting the first, most relevant use of it (p. 35, 5.5):


In this part of the report, we have not specified the ethnicity of the victims or the perpetrators. In a large number of the historic cases in particular, most of the victims in the cases we sampled were white British children, and the majority of the perpetrators were from minority ethnic communities. They were described generically in the files as ‘Asian males’ without precise reference being made to their ethnicity."


So the report does not specify that most of the estimated 1,400 victims were white British, nor does it specify the ethnicity of their abusers. It merely states that, in a large number of the notorious cases, out of 66 samples (see p. 35, 5.1), most victims were white British.


We cannot conclude that the estimated 1,400 victims in Rotherdam were mostly white British based on anything in this report.

Veering off topic a bit, many of the cases mentioned in the report did not even take place in Rotherham. For example, one of them is from Derby:


"November 2010, a Derby court case, in which 9 men were convicted of grooming and abuse in three separate trials. "Operation Retriever", involving more than 100 police officers, identified 27 victims. 22 were white, three black and two Asian."


^ I would like to note that in this sample, the percentage of white victims (81%) is roughly proportionate to the white population of Derby (80.3% as of 2011). The three black victims, representing 11% of the total, are more over-represented relative to their share of Derby's population (just 3.0%)


Jay's recent samples also include cases from Oldham, Rockdale, Carlile, Brierville, etc... without mentioning the race of the victims.

The report does however mention that the majority of the perpetrators in Rotherham were Pakistani by heritage, as mentioned in the Wiki article. From p.92:

"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, with a steady increase in the number of child protection cases involving Roma children, though mainly in the category of neglect. Work with Roma families was one of the six priorities of the Child Sexual Exploitation sub-group of the Safeguarding Board in 2012. The Roma population in Rotherham was proportionately much larger than in bigger areas such as Bradford and Manchester."

[...]

"Dr Heal, in her 2003 report, stated that 'In Rotherham the local Asian community are reported to rarely speak about them [the perpetrators].' The subject was taboo and local people were probably equally frightened of the violent tendencies of the perpetrators as the young women they were abusing. In her 2006 report she described how the appeal of organised sexual exploitation for Asian gangs had changed. In the past, it had been for their personal gratification, whereas now it offered 'career and financial opportunities to young Asian men who got involved’.  She also noted that Iraqi Kurds and Kosovan men were participating in organised activities against young women."


The report does also note that violence against Asian girls is underreported:

(p. 94-95)


"The Home Affairs Select Committee quoted witnesses saying that cases of Asian men grooming Asian girls did not come to light because victims 'are often alienated and ostracised by their own families and by the whole community, if they go public with allegations of abuse."

[...]

"With hindsight, it is clear that women and girls in the Pakistani community in Rotherham should have been encouraged and empowered by the authorities to speak out about perpetrators and their own experiences as victims of sexual exploitation, so often hidden from sight. The Safeguarding Board has recently received a presentation from a local Pakistani women's group about abuse within their community. The Board should address as a priority the under-reporting of exploitation and abuse in minority ethnic communities. We recommend that the relevant agencies immediately initiate dialogue about CSE with minority ethnic communities, and in particular with the Pakistani-heritage community. This should be done in consultation with local women's groups, and should develop strategies that support young women and girls from the community to participate without fear or threat."


So, to reiterate... This report does not state that the majority of an estimated 1,400 Rotherham victims are white British. In fact, it specifically says it does not specify. It does mention white British, Asian and Roma Slovak victims in Rotherham, without specifying numbers or percentages, plus black victims elsewhere. It does state that the known Rotherham perps are of Pakistani heritage, and some Kosovan and Iraqi Kurd suspects. It also notes that Asian victims are likely underreported. Hunan201p (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Have reverted this for the time being. First of all, that was a longstanding version, and consensus should be establish before making changes.
Regardless of that, I agree that he source is a bit ambivalent about this. By this I do not mean to say that I agree with the proposed change, just that the source is not clear about this. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Good evening, @Debresser: In your recent revision of the article, you said that my revert contradicts page 35 of the Jay report. Can you explain how, please? I agree that the report is ambivalent -- in contrast to the very bold Wiki passages that I changed. All I see on page 35 of the Jay report is that the Inquiry team looked at 66 case files and determined that a large number of the "historic" cases involved White Britsh girls. Whatever that means. I saw nothing to indicate that the "estimated" 1,400 Rotherdam victims were majority white British, nor even that the majority of victims in the 66 case files were British. Only "a large number of the historic cases in particlar". Hunan201p (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that you wrote that above. How is The Sun as a source? Because in that article it says "It revealed that at least 1,400 children, most of them white girls aged 11–15, had been sexually abused in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 by predominantly British-Pakistani men." Debresser (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for my hamfisted response to you, Debresser. With regards to The Sun, it is apparently a deprecated source on Wikipedia. I suspect this is due to its right-wing bias. I personally feel the current entry on the Wiki reflects a right-wing bias, as well, as I've seen it propagated on far-right and racial nationalist websites. Certainly, the "1,400 white girls raped" interpretation has been a popular rallying cry among white nationalists, and it would be a shame if Wikipedia had bolstered this interpretation of the report, especially if it wasn't actually in the report itself. But I digress. Hunan201p (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I see. Let me put it this way: if the information is correct, as I suspect it to be, it would be a shame if we had to remove it just because one source is not conclusive and the other deprecated. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
What evidence for we have that the information is correct? The sources that parrot “majority” white are using the same report we are all looking at, it seems that they have completely misinterpreted it, we cannot use sources that are based on falsities, it is not just that one source is not conclusive, it is that the sources making the claims are based on misinterpretations. I agree with Hunan201p, it should be removed from the article as there is no supporting evidence for it, and the only hard evidence is the report, which does not say what the right wing tabloids say it does.AllSaintsNext (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
There does not appear to be any argument that the original source (Alexis Jay) does not state that the estimated 1400 victims were white. Hunan201p (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
myself and Hunan201p are clearly in agreement that the corresponding edit removing statements alluding to the misrepresentation of “mostly white” should be made, a consensus needs to be agreed, and 2 are clearly in favour, is anyone against, and if so, why? AllSaintsNext (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit appalled that users openly claim to want to remove content that has been sourced here for years because they find that it is used as arguments by rights wingers. It's akin to users suddenly wanting to remove content from the Chernobyl's page because it's used by opponents of nuclear energy. We've got sources about the majority of the victims being White childrens [1], [2]. Erasing that info only bolster the right wingers who claim there's censorship.--Aréat (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I’m even more appalled that you haven’t even seemed to read the beginning of this talk section. In fact, your own “source about the majority of victims being white children” the Jay report, is broken down by Hunan201p above, and actually shows that the Jay report does NOT say this. Have you actually read the talk page discussion as I asked you to repeatedly? It doesn’t say that the majority of victims were white children at all. Stating “erasing that information will only bolster right wingers” is nonsense, it’s entirely correct to say in the article what the jay report says, and it does NOT say anything about the majority being white. So I ask again, does anyone who has actually READ the information, object to removal of clearly false statements from the article? It still remains 2 Ayes, 0 against. AllSaintsNext (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I provided both sources, which point to the victims being white. The report as well as the other course point to victim overall being majority chite, and doesn't affirm that the Rotherham ones weren't as well, it just doesn't confirm it. The other source provide data. What are your sources of them not being so? I haven't seen you back your point.--Aréat (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
You appear to be seriously struggling with reading comprehension. You provided sources that DONT support what you’re saying. The Jay report NO WHERE says that the victims were “overall majority white” - can you show me where it says this? P35, 5.1 refers to “notorious cases” and says no such conclusion that the “majority were white british”. As stated by Hunan201p at 15:47, 25 December, the report does not that state that the majority of an estimated 1400 victims were white british, it “specifically says it does not specify”. Your sources disprove your own claim, it’s quite pertinent you have not read them and have copied and pasted to your own downfall. If you don’t have any evidence showing that the jay report says the overall majority of victims are white british, I will make the edits as per Hunan201p’s revision again as we have consensus. AllSaintsNext (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The November 2012 report clearly state that the majority of victims of Child sexual exploitation in Gangs and groups are white, on page 94. The Jay Report also clearly state that Most of the victims sampled were white children on page 35. Now, do you have a source that point out that Rotheram's victims weren't white as usual? Because I havent seen you provide one. Don't think belittling me here make for an argument or a source.--Aréat (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, you’re going to need to start to read what’s infront of you before replying. As I stated, p35 of the Jay report is referring to “notorious” cases, seconded by Hunan201p, it does NOT say that the overall 1400 victims were majority white, in fact it “specicically says it does not specify”. The November 2012 report is irrelevant to the statement that of the 1400 children the majority were white british, when the source in the article is the Jay report, which doesn’t say this at all. Saying “do I have a source that the victims weren’t white as usual?” Is nonsense, it is up to YOU to prove that the majority were white, and the Jay report does not say this. AllSaintsNext (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Your conclusions are off. We do have sources that point out that most victims are white, as provided above. The Jay Report reinstate that fact, then explain that as for itself it won't specify it. There's source pointing out that white whildren make a majority of victims. You at best take out a part of a source that then say it won't talk about whether the victims it will go on in details are white. That doesn't mean they aren't. We've got a "positive" and a "neutral". If you want to make the change we're talking about, you need to provide a source that goes against the other and specify the victims here weren't mostly white as usual. I don't see your "negative".--Aréat (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Lets make this very simple. Show me where the Jay report says that the majority of the 1400 estimated victims were White British. Show me where it actually makes this statement. You don’t have any sources whatsoever that state this, the Jay report certainly does not. Therefore, you dont add things to an article because you think they “might be true” you add things that are supported by sources, and if you can’t show me exactly where the Jay report says this, then unfortunately you haven’t a leg to stand on, and the edit will be made. AllSaintsNext (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Neither you nor I have the Jay report saying that, as you know very well it say it doesn't specify ethnicity. It stay neutral. It does however say most of the sampled were white. The other report I provided as a source show a majority of victims as white. Here's [3] another source showing on page 23 that a majority of victims are white. Now, do you have a source that say the victims were not majority white? Notice how I provide sources, and the only thing you're doing is point out that one of the report say it doesn't develop that question, and try to focus the discussion on that single report. Do notice as well that the Jay report isn't the only report on this matter.--Aréat (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about me not providing sources? My source is the Jay report. It’s in black and white. Per WP:VER “ All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]” it is up to YOU and only you, to support the following statement “ In August 2014 the Jay report concluded that an estimated 1,400 children, most of them white British girls,” with an inline citation showing that the Jay Report says this. If you cannot do this, then it will be removed from the article per WP:PROVEIT. The rest of your comment can be dismissed, as it does not provide a direct source to the statement you are arguing is supported. AllSaintsNext (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What you're doing is wiping out all mention of white girls being the majority of the victim. Editing the page should be done accordingly to say the Jay report specifically doesn't mention the ethnicity, all while acknowledging a majority were white, with the others sources doing so.--Aréat (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
No, what I’m doing is asking you to follow basic Wikipedia policy. “Wiping out” inaccurate information is exactly why WP:VER exists. It’s quite simple, can you provide an inline citation from the Jay report that supports the statement “ In August 2014 the Jay report concluded that an estimated 1,400 children, most of them white British girls,” - if you cannot, then per WP:VER it must be removed, as it cannot be proven, and you can only restore it once you have found an inline citation that supports the statement. It doesnt matter what “other sources” say so, what matters is can you provide an inline citation. If not, as stated, I’ll remove the content until you can WP:PROVEIT. AllSaintsNext (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Arèat has not only failed to provide a source to support the claim that the victims were mostly white British, he has flat out lied by suggesting the Jay report says the majority of sampled victims were white British. In fact, it says nothing of the sort.
Since neither Arèat nor Debresser have offered any argument against this, the statement must go. All Wiki statements must be verifiable in the cited reference material, and at present this statement makes boldly specific claims that aren't in the original report. Hunan201p (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

In this edit, Caius G. reinstated the words "of diverse origins". Perfectly good-faith edit, but... As far as I can tell, the only source we have for the ethnicity of the victims are the reports cited by Hunan201p (thanks!). I read the quotes from these reports, and I don't think they support the claim "of diverse origins". Maybe the victims in Rotherham were 99% white, maybe they were 99% Asian. Either case is unlikely, but we just don't know. I think we simply shouldn't mention the ethnicity of the victims at all until we find new sources. We should also delete the words "of diverse origins". — Chrisahn (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, good point, I'll self revert. Caius G. (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "diverse ethnic backgrounds"

Should the 1,400 cases in the Jay report be described as being of "diverse ethnic backgrounds"? As of time of writing, the sentence reads:

The Jay inquiry estimated that there may be 1,400 victims, of diverse ethnic backgrounds.

I propose we remove the "of diverse ethnic backgrounds", since we do not have whole statistical information in the Jay report regarding the ethnicites of the 1,400 victims (although I could be wrong). For us to describe the cases as being from "diverse ethnic backgrounds" would mean roughly equal ratios of victim ethnicities, when we have no information of the sort.

Paging @Chrisahn and @Caius G since they seem to agree (above) on the removal of this specific part of the sentence. Colgated (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I notice you didn't see my support earlier, but only in regards to not mentioning any race of the victims at all. As pointed out though, "diverse" was a long standing edit due to it's accuracy.80.6.178.12 (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"Diverse ethnic backgrounds" does not imply any specific numerical ratios, merely that their ethnic backgrounds were varied across a range of significant variation. Roughly equal numbers is not implied at all. 1400 victims of which 20 were of significantly different ethnic bacgrounds to each other and the other 1380 all the same would still be accurately described by "diverse ethnic backgrounds" whereas 700 of one ethnic background and the other 700 of another different ethnic background would display little diversity. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Sure, so you're saying that it's about the number of different ethnicities, rather than each of their amount? I would still oppose, citing basically the same reasons as the consensus above (top of page): I think we simply shouldn't mention the ethnicity of the victims at all until we find new sources. We should also delete the words "of diverse origins". It would also be much preferred if we didn't do original research here, a quote from the report about "diverse ethnic backgrounds" would justify its inclusion. User 80.6.178.12 said in an edit on 09:19, 21 February 2022 that this phrase was "in the report", so maybe somebody could provide a page number? Colgated (talk)
That is a lie, and also a blatant red herring.
The edit summary is: Diverse ethnic backgrounds is within the report, and long standing correct text,
This is correct, as the above user points out, diverse ethnic backgrounds are within the report, there’s even specific sections relating to Asian victims.
I later said: The statement of "diverse ethnic backgrounds" is not only correct, given that there were victims who were Asian, but it has also never been a "quote" so does not need a direct quote, it is a summary of the facts.
The above is a response on this very talk page, one that you even replied to directly. Why are you arguing in bad faith? My position has been more than clear, it is a red herring. You are trying to shift the focus to "find me a page number" away from "is this summary statement accurate?" Of which, it is. Even the user above agrees it's factually accurate.
Please do not try and mislead people when it is easily readable what I said.80.6.178.12 (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Edit summary could be read both ways, sorry for the confusion. I still think it is original research. Perhaps there is a source that describes the victims as from diverse ethnic backgrounds that we could use to back up this statement directly? Colgated (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
It can’t be read both ways, as no quote marks have ever been used, either in the edit summary or the article itself. The source that describes the victims as from diverse backgrounds is literally the jay report, as users have already pointed out, it discusses Asian victims as well as others, this is the very definition of “diversity”. Also, if you have an alt (as you clearly do) you should make it clear that this account is an alt of that main one, per WP rules.80.6.178.12 (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I assumed it was a rephrasing of something from the report at the time, not original research as it seems to be. Indeed, I was logged in on the old account by mistake on another computer. I don't think I have to declare a "fresh start" account, I'll check though, thanks for pointing that out. Colgated (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
You assumed multiple times? After I explicitly explained and you even replied to it within this very talk page? Give over. Red herring is obvious. It’s also funny you call it an “old account” despite the fact it’s been used regularly since February 5th. So much for a “fresh start” on this account that’s much older than that date.80.6.178.12 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I said I assumed that at the time of the edit, it was simply a misinterpretation of your edit summary which I misinterpted again when I brought it up again - it's only a red herring if we continue to talk about it, I suppose. It's an old account since this account started on the 20th, not sure what the 5th has to do with it. Colgated (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
It’s not an old account if you’ve been using it regularly since February 5th. You even used it twice on the 20th, the 21st and 4 times today. You’ve been caught out, and now have to backtrack. It’s as plain as day. You should also be fully aware of the WP rules regarding alts since on your other alts you’ve been using them for some time and are fully aware of WP policies. Acting coy won’t help what is clearly you messing up and revealing your alt account.80.6.178.12 (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
It's an old account from the 20th onwards, since I started editing with this new account on the 20th. Using it on the days succeeding was a technical mistake, as I explained. I only made three edits on the old account by mistake, at 08:53, 21 February 2022, 01:45, 23 February 2022 and at 10:53, 23 February 2022 (on this page). Retiring the account obviously does not count as a mistaken edit. If you want to continue we should do that elsewhere. Thanks, Colgated (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding various issues

Some content is under dispute, with me, @AllSaintsNext and @80.6.178.12 disagreeing on various sentences, as per discussions above. The proposed content has been slightly modified for readability and suggestions made above.

  1. Should the section "Issues of ethnicity" contain the following sentence, with a reference to the Jay report, p. 147? Original removal diff
    The inquiry's report stated that "agencies should acknowledge the suspected model of localised grooming of young white girls by men of Pakistani heritage, instead of being inhibited by the fear of affecting community relations."
  2. Should the section "The Times investigation", subsection "Background" contain the following, with a reference to this 2014 Times article (non-paywall link)?
    Groups of men would flatter young girls in public places, offering them alcohol, cigarettes and lifts in fancy cars. One man would become the "boyfriend", and soon the girls were expected to have sex with the whole group, including contacts out of town. Norfolk writes that most sex offenders in the UK are white men and lone offenders; according to Norfolk, these cases were distinctive because most of the men had "Muslim names" and were working in groups.
  3. Should the section "The Times investigation", subsection "Background" contain the following, with a reference to the same 2014 Times article?
    The cases involved two or more men who had groomed young girls they had met on the street. Several cases resembled Rotherham, with girls being passed around groups. According to Norfolk, of the 56 perpetrators, 53 were Asian, with 50 of those having "Muslim names" and mostly Pakistani heritage - the other three were white.

Colgated (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  • To add my opinion: the objection to number 1 is that this sentence belongs in a non-existent "Conclusions" [of the report] section, and not the "Issues of ethnicity" section. This is despite the "Issues of ethnicity" section being largely comprised of conclusions from the report, and despite the sentence being about an issue of ethnicity. I support the inclusion of 1, 2, 3 as listed. For 2 and 3: the rest of the "Background" section is about cases that are not directly related to Rotherham, but that "resembled" later Rotherham cases - clearly this is giving context for The Times' investigation, as stated in the Times article. Colgated (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment- I believe Colgated is here to WP: Right Great Wrongs. Grooming snd muslims appears to a penchant and his attempted protection of the Telford article is telling, as well as the obvious decision to not ping me but other users. AllSaintsNext (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    To respond and explain how I came across this article; I saw one of 80.6.178.12's changes to the Telford article while patrolling recent changes, and decided to look at their other contributions. That's how this dispute started - nothing to do with ideology or bias. I responded above as to why I did not ping you in the discussion between me and 80.6.178.12. I've also moved your response below since you had put your response within the RfC text. Thanks, Colgated (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • 1. No: the section is quite clearly talking about overlooked victims, how Pakistani women and children were also targeted, and that despite the latching of the fat-right that Asian girls were victims of grooming too. The sentence belongs in a different section, and at the same time it is also explained in several other sections already, such as the ones discussing the council and risky business. AllSaintsNext (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • 2. Yes. This section is fine as it comes with a disclaimer and quotes. AllSaintsNext (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • 3. No. The background section should reflect Rotherham, the councils issues, the issues with how police perceived victims, that is what is core to the scandal, not other cases with the shoehorning of “Muslims” AllSaintsNext (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • 1. No, doesn't belong here, the section talks about the reactions of the social workers, and the fact british asian girls were targetted to, it's literally the only section that speaks about this issue while the report conclusions should be mentioned elsewhere.
  • 2. No, this is already mentioned in the "Risky Business" section - eg "ow the girls were younger and came from Rotherham. Girls as young as 10 were being befriended, perhaps by children their own age, before being passed to older men who would rape them and become their "boyfriends"." It would be duplicating.
  • 3. No, the cases have nothing to do with Rotherham.80.6.178.12 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No to all. These seem like relatively tangential asides in the sources that would be WP:UNDUE for the kind of weight being talked about here; and all three are already better-covered by existing things already in the article. We have no need to pull sentences from the Jay report (a primary source) when we are already adequately covering those concerns via secondary sources; likewise, we have no need to put excessive focus on Norfolk's interpretation when later sources have covered this so extensively (and are already in the article.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Aquillion: I don't mean to start a massive thread here, but for one: how is the first proposal a 'tangential aside' when it directly relates to "issues of ethnicity"? Furthermore, an entire BBC article about the report entitled "The fear of being seen as racist" talks about this very "issue" that the Jay report raised. Hardly a "tangential aside" or an issue of WP:DUE if this part of the report was covered in a major newspaper's article. I'm happy to use this BBC secondary source instead if that's the issue, but where is the first proposal covered by "existing things already in the article", for example? Thanks, Colgated (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No to all 3 isn't about Rotherham, and for 1 I would prefer to see a secondary source discussing the report; it's 159 pages long, why did you pull out this one specific sentence of it? I have zero problems with the text of 2, but I'm not sure why that detail would go in that section. Perhaps it can supplement some of the detail on the way these gangs operated somewhere else in the article? Endwise (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    To answer: I didn't come up with these sentences myself but I do propose adding them back after they were (IMO unjustly) removed - the first sentence was pulled from the report presumably because it clearly directly relates to the section "Issues of ethnicity". The text of 2 would go in that section because the section is giving background information on the investigations/crime patterns that led to the discovery of the scandal, so I'm not sure where else it could go since it isn't directly related to the Rotherham cases. 3 isn't about Rotherham cases but it is directly related to the background of the investigation, just like in the case of 2 - information on similar cases that led to the discovery of the Rotherham cases. We should remove the whole Background subsection if this rationale was correct... Colgated (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • 1. Comment. The addition, which references the same Jay report, contradicts what is written now about no evidence being found that the concerns about the ethnicity of the perps played any role. I would suggest to re-check the source and write one sentence summarizing the findings. Btw do we need this section at all? It seems to be about *other* victims not directly related to this scandal. Alaexis¿question? 19:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • 2. Question. As far as I understand, this refers to a more general phenomenon and not to the Rotherham events. Why do we need additional details regarding the modus operandi in this article? Alaexis¿question? 19:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • 3. Yes Otherwise it's not clear how this is related. Alaexis¿question? 19:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    I think the ethnicity section is still relevant, it gives (or is meant to give) 'both sides' of the controversy over whether ethnicity played a part. I don't think we should remove it, it's clearly a major part of the response to the cases. As to whether proposal 1 is contradicted by the existing sentence - found no evidence of children's social care staff being influenced by concerns about the ethnic origins of suspected perpetrators when dealing with individual child protection cases, including CSE. - I don't think it is contradictory at all. Note that this excerpt on the article does not include the first part of the sentence, that the report limited this "lack of influence" to "Within the Council" (p. 91). Furthermore, the report gave evidence of CSE staff being influenced by the 'fear of being racist', contradicting that - Other staff in children’s social care said that when writing reports on CSE cases, they were advised by their managers to be cautious about referring to the ethnicity of the perpetrators (p. 92). Clearly it's more complicated - social care staff could still not be influenced while other agencies could be. Is it our place to editorialise the report anyway? If we don't want to overuse quotes from the report, we could use articles such as this which talk about it. Colgated (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the answer. In that case I'd support including 1. in some form. Using the BBC's summary sounds like a good idea. Alaexis¿question? 11:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

@80.6.178.12: Because of the 3 revert rule, we'll take this to the talk page.

"Menshendelweb" does exist, it was deprecated but I have replaced it with the archive.org link, which is a backup of it. You can find that link here, which I had included. I am assuming you didn't see the un-deprecated link I added for some reason, as this is the only explanation for your reversions, unless you were confused by the incorrect spelling of the website name (mensenhandelweb.nl) as "Menshendelweb".

There is zero reason to remove According to the inquiry, a "large number of the historic cases" involved victims who were "white British children", since this is a direct quote. Yet you have done so. I had rephrased this statement which previously said the majority of the 1,400 cases were white British children, when the report does not directly say that. It would be understable to revert an edit that said that, but my inclusion does not make this link.

You have not provided a page number for the statement that the 1,400 cases were "of diverse ethnic origin". You have provided me with page 94, which simply sums up some cases that have happened to "Pakistani-heritage Women and Girls". This is not an appropriate source for the statement that the 1,400 were [mostly] of diverse ethnic origins, which seems to contradict the inquiry's statement that a "large number of the historic cases" involved victims who were "white British children".

If you wish to add that the report said "1,400 cases" or "most cases" were of "diverse ethnic origin", you'll need a direct quote or you'll need to rephrase a section in the report that says exactly that.

Awaiting your prompt response.

Colgated (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Mcloughlin's "Easy Meat" not only fails verifiability, it is an opinion book. Sections "6.2 Muslims, not “Asians”" the publisher of the book, The Law and Freedom Foundation is "run by Gavin Boby, a planning permission lawyer, who specialises in opposing mosque applications." - Which tells you all you need to know. It is opinion, not fact, and therefore is not suitable to be included in an encylopedia.
The statement of "diverse ethnic backgrounds" is not only correct, given that there were victims who were Asian, but it has also never been a "quote" so does not need a direct quote, it is a summary of the facts. It is also, if you read this very talk page, the longstanding consensus of what should remain, you will find it is you who will need consensus to change it otherwise.80.6.178.12 (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@80.6.178.12: These objections make more sense than "depreciation" of sources. However, it appears McLoughlin is simply citing a Times article. So point 1 - here is the 2nd lot of text that you removed:
The cases involved two or more men who had groomed young girls they had met on the street. Several cases resembled Rotherham, with girls being passed around groups. Of the 56, 53 were Asian, with 50 of those being Muslim (with mostly Pakistani heritage, although Kurdish and Kosovar men were also involved, and three were white.
And here is the supporting text from the Times article:
An extensive three-month trawl through court records and local library newspaper archives eventually produced some startling figures. Since 1997 there had been 17 court cases from 13 towns and cities in which two or more men had been convicted of sexual offences linked to the street-grooming exploitation of young teenage girls. Of the 56 men convicted, three were white and 53 were Asian. Of those 53 men, 50 had Muslim names and the vast majority were members of the Pakistani community.
I don't see any reason to remove it if we cite the existing ref "Norfolk28Aug2014". We do not even need McLoughlin. If you wish to remove the parts about "Kurdish" and "Kosovar" men, we can.
Point 2 - with regards to the first text (flashy cars), there's also no reason to remove this. Please state your objections to this text you removed, which cites Norfolk:
Groups of men would flatter young girls in public places, offering them alcohol, cigarettes and lifts in fancy cars. One man would become the "boyfriend", and soon the girls were expected to have sex with the whole group, including contacts out of town. Norfolk writes that most sex offenders in the UK are white men and lone offenders; these cases were distinctive because most of the men had Muslim names and were working in groups
This is the corresponding excerpt from Norfolk28August2014:
The victims were always aged 12-15, the first contact was in a public place — a shopping mall, a town centre, a bus or train station — and a grooming process developed in which girls were initially flattered and excited by the attentions of young men a few years older than them who took an interest, offered the adult thrills of cigarettes, alcohol and rides in flashy cars, then wanted to become their boyfriends...A sexual relationship developed in which the girl was sooner or later asked to prove her love by sleeping with his best friend, then with more friends. In the worst cases, girls were being taken to “parties” in house and flats, or put in cars and driven to locations across the country. Always for sex; often violent sex.
Finally point 3 - with regards to the diverse comment - I would challenge it by pointing out that this is total original research and the statement does not exist in the report. However, we can compromise for now (I may bring it up in another section) - please tell me what your objections would be to this compromise version, which is close to what I had just with diverse added in:
The Jay inquiry estimated that there may be 1,400 victims of diverse ethnic backgrounds. According to the inquiry, a "large number of the [66] cases sampled" involved victims who were "white British children".
Also, it looks like the last 'consensus' on the page re: diverse is that it should be removed. "We should also delete the words "of diverse origins"" above from Chrisahn. So I'm not sure about your consensus comment...
Colgated (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
It is entirely irrelevant who Mcloughlin is quoting, WP does not include sources that fail on these grounds. To "diminish in value over a period of time" applies fine to this. Secondly, stating "50 were Muslim" is impossible to determine, did they ask them each personally? Were they practicing? Is there any verifiable source for this statement? Not to mention that Kosovar, and Kurdish just seems entirely made up.
Thirdly, that text is OR, and still doesn't accurately describe Norfolk.
Fourthly, your attempts to change this won't work. It is not OR, it is very much a summary of the victims. As the section expands on. Can you show me where a consensus was gained on including the phrase you want? If you would like, I could remove "of diverse ethnic backgrounds" and just have no ethnicity mentioned at all. Though you'd still need a consensus to add your phrase into it.80.6.178.12 (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@80.6.178.12: Firstly, I simply mentioned McLoughlin to show that we don't need him at all for the statement, my intention was to remove him. The verifiable source is Norfolk28Aug2014 (link: [4]), which I thought I just made extremely clear. Are you claiming that the Times is not a reliable source? I agree that we can remove Kurdish/Kosovar (though it probably is in a source somewhere online).
Secondly, what exactly is OR about the "flashy cars" comment? What aspect of it is not sourced from Norfolk28Aug2014? OR is not simply when you paraphrase a source.
Thirdly, we can have the OR discussion regarding "diverse" elsewhere. There is no consensus on this statement because this is an entirely new quote of the report - the purpose of this conversation is to reach consensus. What are your problems with it? I edited the proposal just before you responded by the way (and just now after making this reply to ensure a direct quote) - please tell me your specific objection to it:
The Jay inquiry estimated that there may be 1,400 victims of diverse ethnic backgrounds. According to the inquiry, "most of the [66] cases sampled" involved victims who were "white British children".
Colgated (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The Times certainly has had it's verifiability questioned over time, even here on WP. Are you suggesting you know someones religion just by their name? That's awfully presumptuous if so. You say there is a source somewhere online for Kurdish/Kosovar, so show me?
"Of diverse ethnic backgrounds" has long been the standard text, as it is an accurate summary, it does not need to be a direct quote. You can see how long it has been by checking the page edit archive. Again, I am happy to remove it and leave no ethnicity at all, but you will need consensus to add your wanted phrasing, which the talk page sets precedent against.80.6.178.12 (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@80.6.178.12: My proposal here is not really related to what has been discussed in the past (as far as I can tell), since these discussions were surrounding the statement "most of the 1,400 were white", which definitely isn't what the report says. My proposal is about the 66 cases sampled, not the 1,400 total. I know I need consensus, which is why I'm asking why/if you have problems with it. If you don't, I'll go ahead and add it and wait for an objection if there is one.
I'm not suggesting anything about how the Times got this information. Would you prefer the following so that we directly quote the Times instead of assuming 'Muslim name' = 'Muslim"?
The cases involved two or more men who had groomed young girls they had met on the street. Several cases resembled Rotherham, with girls being passed around groups. Of the 56, 53 were Asian, with 50 of those having "Muslim names" (and mostly Pakistani heritage) - the other three were white.
I don't see any response/objection to using Norfolk28Aug2014 for the "flashy cars" comment - you didn't explain what is OR about it.
Lastly, I don't see consensus for "diverse ethnic backgrounds", in fact I see people (Chrisahn and Caius G.) saying it should be removed in the discussion at the top of the page. But please don't respond here about "diverse ethnic backgrounds" - I'll make another section about it. Colgated (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This reads like you are an apologist, desperate to shield the fact that the vast preponderance of these offences were committed by people of one ethnic and religious background against another. This attitude was an obvious and direct contributor to the problem in the first place - investigators sent on Ethnicity sensitivity training courses with no interest in the substance of their findings. 118.209.244.20 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment- the “flashy cars” should be reinstated, however should stop at the “Norfolk writes..” as this isn’t related to background, and is writer speculation without showing a source within their claims in the article. The second paragraph regarding the 50/53, does not belong in “background” and should be removed, it involves cases that aren’t related to Rotherham, it even states directly that those cases aren’t regarding Rotherham, therefore they do not belong in the background section. AllSaintsNext (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why you think "muslim names" isn't OR, it doesn't even make sense from a logical standpoint, are all Johns and Matthews by default Christians? We of course know this isn't true, "muslim name" is not an encyclopaedic term, similarly to how pretending to know the religion of perps without evidence is also something that would fail verifiability. We see this all the time in articles on WP of live events after terror attacks with the motive remaining unknown. I'd be happy to compromise on adding the first point back, but the second is just nonsense.80.6.178.12 (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@AllSaintsNext: On what policy grounds do you want to remove the attribution "Norfolk writes"? The rest of the section uses similar language, since Norfolk's "background"/initiative as a journalist is totally relevant. Your statement that the cases is "writer speculation" on the part of Norfolk is original research, Wikipedia editors don't fact-check attributed sentences from sources like this. He presumambly got this information from statistics.
You say the cases that are "not related to" Rotherham do not belong to the Background subsection. Yet the rest of the Background subsection is also about cases that are not related to Rotherham. This subsection is clearly giving context to his later investigations and the purported 'silence' of authorities/the courts by using related cases. I quote: The final trigger for our investigation came in August 2010 - these earlier cases clearly led Norfolk onto investigating Rotherham. You would have to remove the whole 'Background' subsection if your objections were correct. You are also contradicting yourself by supporting inclusion of the "flashy cars" content, which is similarly not related to Rotherham.
@80.6.178.12: Muslim names is a direct quote from the article, it's not OR. You seemed to have an issue with assuming that Muslim names meant we could describe them as Muslims (i.e. religious), which is why I wanted to change it to quote from the Times. How is a direct quote from the article OR, and how does it fail verifiability? Verifiability is when we use a reliable source, which is the case here, no?
You didn't seem to object to my proposal regarding the 1,400 sentence, so I'll add it in.
Lastly, I noticed you removed The inquiry's report stated that "agencies should acknowledge the suspected model... with your reason being " fix what didn't make sense". What did not make sense about the inclusion of the inquiry's comments surroundings ethnicity? I'm close to assuming bad faith here. I've reverted the unexplained removal of content. Colgated (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
You say the 1,400 comment is "objected to", but you didn't put any objections in your last response. I'll await your objection. Colgated (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I literally did object to it, so no you won't. If you add "according to Norfolk, these men had "muslim names". Then that would be acceptable, but it needs a quotation, as right now it just claims without basis.80.6.178.12 (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
No, you did not object to the adding of the 1,400 comment in your latest response at 02:56, 22 February 2022. I have not touched the Norfolk Muslim-names content yet, so that's not related, but I would agree to the compromise, it makes sense. My previous response had the following, which you did not respond to at 2:56, 22 February 2022 - I'm asking why/if you have problems with it. If you don't, I'll go ahead and add it and wait for an objection if there is one. Go ahead and tell me the objection to the 1,400 comment now, though. Colgated (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@AllSaintsNext: your reason for removing that content was This is clearly a section which aims to bring attention to the overlooked victims, the removed text is a report conclusion, and does not belong in the section “issues of ethnicity”. It could be added in a conclusions section - I'm not sure what this means. The section is about issues of ethnicity in the cases (not "overlooked victims"?), which the content directly addresses. Yes, it is a conclusion, but there is no conclusions section that you speak of. There is no reason to remove content because it could fit in another section that does not even exist - that's bordering on vandalism. Colgated (talk)
If you are going to mention ethnicity, then I will re-add the preemptive sentence "of diverse ethnic backgrounds" since that is an accurate summary, if you wish to bring up race, then we can do, but it will not be a one way street, and would also need consensus, which you seemingly certainly won't get.80.6.178.12 (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Is this a response to my 1,400 proposal or agencies should acknowledge the suspected model? You seem to be responding to a message that was not meant for you. If it's about the 1,400 proposal, I agree to the compromise. Colgated (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
If you are going to add "According to the inquiry, "most of the [66] cases sampled" involved victims who were "white British children"." to the end of the section, I will add "of diverse ethnic backgrounds" to the preemptive sentence.80.6.178.12 (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
No issues with the compromise, I'll go ahead and add it. But I haven't had any other input on the section regarding "diverse" below, so that is pending. Colgated (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@80.6.178.12: where did you change your mind on the above compromise? There's nothing in the RfC about it, so what are you talking about? The sentence isn't even included in the RfC proposals. Colgated (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
In the very next edit where I changed "::Happy to change it to "The Jay inquiry estimated that there may be 1,400 " to "I notice you didn't see my support earlier, but only in regards to not mentioning any race of the victims at all. As pointed out though, "diverse" was a long standing edit due to it's accuracy." 21:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC) It's also mentioned in a reply to your obvious red herring. Thanks.80.6.178.12 (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't really understand what that sentence ("but only in regards to not mentioning any race of the victims at all") means at all, or how that's evidence of you backtracking on the compromise. But whatever, let's cut to the chase: what is your reason, supported by policy, for opposing this text? I can't think of a single reason why this obviously relevant text from the report shouldn't be included in that section, besides some vague non-encyclopedic paranoia that including it would be racist. Again, still happy to let you include "diverse backgrounds" in a compromise... Colgated (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment- Colgated appears to be here to WP Right Great Wrongs, and seems to be on a crusade to mention Muslims as often as possible, their edit history reflects this. I also question why despite me being in the earlier discussion in this page, they chose to not ping me, and only ping the other users who would seemingly agree with them. A bias is clear. Background should be background on the scandal, whether it’s the council, the local area, or more, not other cases. We don’t include “this mass shooting is very similar to this one from 2005” to mass shooting article backgrounds. AllSaintsNext (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not ping you because this 'edit war' was with user 80.6.178.12. You are welcome to join in. I'm not on a "crusade", I'm against unexplained content removal. If you want to remove the "background" section (for reasons I cannot fathom), please make another section about it, because this one is convoluted. Colgated (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Nonsense. You had no problem pinging Caius G and Chrisahn in regards to the exact same discussion, but chose not to ping me despite you obviously needing to read through our entire conversation to get there. I do believe you are here to WP Right Great Wrongs and your edit history seems hell bent on doing so. The content removal was explained, we don’t add things to sections they do not belong, if you think their SHOULD be a section, then create it, don’t add it to another. That indeed would be vandalism. AllSaintsNext (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I pinged them because that section was specifically about reaching a consensus. There is no reason to accuse me of bad faith because I fail to ping somebody. The content DOES belong to the section "Issues of ethnicity", because it is about the Jay inquiry's conclusions about ethnicity and the cases - there is no section FOR "conclusions" for the content to be moved to. I think we should get a third opinion here - how about we collate the content proposals that we disagree on in another section on the talk page? Colgated (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Of which I was a part of that consensus, and the entire discussion prior that came to a conclusion on removing the content in question. It does not belong in the section, and you will need consensus to add it, it is a report conclusion, which belongs in a conclusion or reports findings section. Do not add it without consensus as it clearly does not belong, if you want to add a new section then do so, but it must include the other reports conclusions also. AllSaintsNext (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I imagined that it was non-controversial that a conclusion reached by the main report concerning ethnicities would go in the "Issues of ethnicity" section. The rest of the section is literally just quoting from the Jay report, so your reason to remove this specific part of the paragraph, which is similar to the rest of the paragraph, does not make sense. I will bring this up in a RfC below since it seems to be controversial.
However, with regards to "consensus", you are mixing up issues for reasons I cannot fathom. The discussion you participated in was regarding "1,400 cases were white British" (a statement which isn't supported by the report and shouldn't be included in the article), which is not the same as the completely different sentence we seem to disagree on: The inquiry's report stated that "agencies should acknowledge the suspected model of localised grooming of young white girls by men of Pakistani heritage, instead of being inhibited by the fear of affecting community relations".. So I'm not in error here regarding consensus at all. That sentence was only removed on the 7th of January with the reason "uncited", despite the sentence being directly quoted from the Jay report. Colgated (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal/Archive_3&oldid=1244053449"