Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal/Archive 2

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

"Daily Express" claims

The Express has claimed that sexual exploitation in Rotherham is continuing on an "industrial scale". Here is the report and a summary. My view is that we can perhaps report the claims as claims but should not treat the Express as a reliable source on matters of fact. What do others think? An interesting side point for consideration is that "Express.co.uk has chosen to refer to the abusers as Kashmiri or Mirpuri after hearing how many mainstream British Pakistanis are disgusted by the actions of a few men from those communities." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Racism

Since Wikipedia is against racism, I believe this article should be deleted, since it portrays Muslim men negatively and may estimulate racism. Specially now that the world is falling dangerously into nazism after the election of Trump, and this may lead people to believe that all immigrants are rapists, whereas the truth is that white male are the greatest rapists in the world, since they don't rape only women and children, but also the planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F4:C480:BD47:8DD7:B2DA:CBAF:9C76 (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@2804:7F4:C480:BD47:8DD7:B2DA:CBAF:9C76: Hi, please make a formal deletion request at WP:AFD. I disagree with you, though. It would be racist to delete it merely because the criminals happened to be Muslims. No sensible reader would conclude that all British Muslims are rapists by reading this article. Protecting a reader from their own insensibilities is not Wikipedia's job. Please suggest ways to improve the article instead. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 10:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Links to similar cases reinstated

Those cases are regularly linked in the UK, due to the issue of fear of being branded as racists affecting police and local authority action in them. It seems odd to just link to a far more general grouping that includes cases from other countries and ones in the UK that do not have that common thread.

For example, see this BBC article http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28934963 with the relevant paragraph "Rotherham was not the only community in the North and the Midlands to have uncovered such abuse. There have also been arrests or prosecutions of groups of men in 11 towns and cities, including Oldham, Rochdale and Derby."

These cases as a whole created a huge scandal in the UK, as it stands the page does not reflect that, with only a link to the Rochdale case left.

The links reinstated are as follows:


DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's rather an exhaustive list of cases that are not directly related. WP:SEEALSO and WP:NOTSEEALSO are the policies here. What do others think? As already pointed out, List of sexual abuses perpetrated by groups includes these cases, so it isn't really necessary and the article could live without them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
They are linked in the British press and by the British Government. The suggested list is of a variety of cases that are often abroad, with no indication that there was a scandal in the UK concerning these incidents as a whole. DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
What the British press and government do is irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. I agree with Ian.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Can someone explain why Wikipedia editors are more of an authority on what is relevent to this case than the British press and Government? The BBC linked them, are they not a reliable source? Not having the information on Wikipedia that these cases formed part of a larger scandal is ridiculous. DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The links to British Muslim sex abuse rings should be linked together as they are a specific problem that users should be able to investigate via links. There is a clear attempt on wikipedia by some editors to disguise the fact that all these abusers are Muslims. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I assumed it was editors being pedantic about Wikipedia rules, regardless of the negative effect they may have on articles, but the political angle makes more sense. Such a shame if that is true, as the same mindset of not wanting to offend played a part in the sexual abuse. DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I think something like Child Grooming Gang Phenomenon in the UK, as per the above conversation from 2015, would be more appropriate DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Do reliable sources refer to it as a muslim sex ring? If not, you're conducting original research. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • DoubleDoubleDouble, you revert again and I will block you. Govindaharihari, you are smearing Muslims in these allegations; do it again and I will block you. We do not do "Perverted scandals perpetrated by trusted white men", and we do not do this. Claiming censorship will not help either one of you; and triple double, "due to the issue of fear of being branded as racists affecting police and local authority action in them" is ungrammatical and weaselish, but I think we all understand what you are trying to say. Unless you can provide some serious evidence from some seriously reliable sources, sources that you are welcome to present here on the talk page in neutral language, drop these accusations--and do not stick these racist allegations in any of our articles. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Would the independent inquiry into the Rotherham case count as serious evidence? That stated "By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to dicuss how best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of the perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so." What I wrote was a summary of that. I have already linked a BBC article showing these cases formed part of a larger scandal DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I am going to leave that to other editors to ponder; I am just urging you to be really careful in your wording, and that "these cases formed..." etc is simply not accurate: the article says there were similar cases, which is something entirely different. Your suggestion is made, perhaps, by a journalist cited in the article, but it is not therefore factual. Besides, linked in the article also is this guy, yet I don't see you trying to expand your categorization to include "white old former mayors". Drmies (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The gangs were primarily Asian, I did not say they were entirely Asian, these cases were notable due to how the fear of racism played a part in authorities not taking action earlier. Why would I care what colour the former mayor is? What an odd thing for you to bring up DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
"these cases were notable due to how the fear of racism blah blah" is ridiculous. You don't think this case was notable because over 1400 children were abused? Seriously, try to answer that question. As for the mayor, he is mentioned in the same breath as the gangs in the very article you cite, but you conveniently leave him out. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so now per BLP it's okay to cite people who are "facing claims"? What? You need to step a long way away from this. P.S. Reality. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, these cases were notable as a whole due to the failure of the authorities in dealing with the situation, out of fear they would be called racist. Nobody in the UK is going to call someone racist for prosecuting a white bloke. You seem to be trying to level an accusation of racism against me, without coming out with it, but this is about the failings of the authorities in doing their duty DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@DoubleDoubleDouble and Govindaharihari: Without proper reliable sources you cannot create such articles stating Muslims did this. WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The independent report, BBC, etc. are not reliable sources? This case in Rotherham was part of a wider series of similar events that caused a huge scandal, yet the article does not mention that. Anybody clicking on the "See Also" link would be led to a series of completely unrelated cases that are not part of the wider scandal. How would you know about the rest of the cases that made up this scandal from the article as it stands? DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If you have gathered good number of reliable sources then work on it, but don't comment as Govindharihari did:
The links to British Muslim sex abuse rings should be linked together as they are a specific problem that users should be able to investigate via links. There is a clear attempt on wikipedia by some editors to disguise the fact that all these abusers are Muslims. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC). Marvellous Spider-Man 14:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I do not really see the need to create a new article when it would be simpler to just list the relevant ones in the "See Also" section, which is why I reinstated them to the article in the first place DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Last sentence of third paragraph of lead should be split

There should be a period, not a comma, after "institutionalised political correctness", and the following "and" should not be there. Otherwise, the complex sentence structure (the comma-separated explanation of who MacShane is is mostly responsible for this) makes it look like May was blaming it on political correctness and also on MacShane. It's a minor stylistic quibble that I would deal with myself and likely face no opposition if it wasn't for the page-protection, but I have no interest in wading into this article any more than I have to, and waiting for protection to expire counts, so I'm leaving this note here in the hopes someone else will do it either now or later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Any objections? El_C 04:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the sentence reads perfectly well the way it is. If altered as Hijri88 suggests, the resulting two sentences would be choppier, which is not desirable, but the information would still be perfectly understandable. Hijiri88 is correct that if the article wasn't locked and he made the change, I probably wouldn't bother to change it back. So... take that as you will. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Note that I'm not saying the article actually implies, deliberately or by mistake, that May blamed it on MacShane. I recognize that my proposed change would make it choppier, but at present the sentence is already extremely long and unwieldy, which IMO is even less desirable than choppiness, especially when, as the sentence is currently structured, one has to read down to the very end to know that we are not saying May blamed it on MacShane. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • How about; Home Secretary, Theresa May, blamed "institutionalised political correctness" for the failure of the authorities to act in Rotherham; Denis MacShane, the former MP for Rotherham during the period covered by the report, admitted that he had been "guilty of doing too little" to investigate the extent of the sex crimes being committed in his constituency. Alternatively, to my knowledge, you could just replace "," with ";" and remove the "and" without making any other change. Semi-colons separate clauses that can stand alone as sentences, but, denote a shorter pause then a ".". I think. Punctuation was never my strong suit. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, both of those work just as well as my solution. As for choppiness and general awkwardness, I'm not sure "with" would be any better; I'm partial to the semicolon, but I suspect others might feel differently. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Semi-colon works for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done. El_C 09:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oral sex during the lunch hour

"including for oral sex during the lunch hour." Can someone rewrite this phrase? The source is the Jay report, which is quoted in full in footnotes. It refers to girls being collected from school during the school lunch hour to provide oral sex to men during the men's lunch hour, as reported by (more than one) secondary school head teachers. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Reasons: a) it reads like a bad joke b) I edited it, but the edit was 1) unsatisfactory as it repeated info in the footnote 2) reverted. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Xanthomelanoussprog, I can't see a problem with it, or why you want to add that it was the taxi drivers' lunch hour. (The source doesn't say that.) It was the schools' lunch hour. See the footnote. SarahSV (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "In the early 2000s some secondary school heads were reporting girls being picked up at lunchtime at the school gates and being taken away to provide oral sex to men in the lunch break." (from the pdf of the report). I didn't mention taxi drivers; it's the phrasing in the article that's probably given you that impression. It appears from the phrasing in the report that it's not the taxi drivers who are receiving the oral sex. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not following your point. Taxi drivers were abusing the girls. One of the things the drivers did was to pick children up from school during the schools' lunch hour, and make the children give them oral sex. I added the footnote to make it clearer for you. SarahSV (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Section 8:16 of the report is pretty sloppy writing, e.g. the use of "lunchtime" and "lunch break" in the same sentence. I suspect you're correct that the two refer to the schools' lunch hour. Your rewriting of the article has improved it immensely. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that. Yes, the repetition in the report of lunchtime and lunch break wasn't necessary. SarahSV (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Altered Angie Heal's job description to "strategic drugs analyst"- her background was as psychiatric nurse, drugs worker and researcher in crime and social policy. The SDA job was funded by four Drug Action Teams, and she worked in a Drug Strategy Unit with two police officers. The unit was disbanded in 2006. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. SarahSV (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

May

FreeKnowledgeCreator, you've restored this twice now to the lead: "Theresa May, then home secretary, blamed, along other things, "institutionalised political correctness".

That quote was cherry-picked by the press. May said a lot of things in that speech. And it isn't true that political correctness was to blame more than anything else, if at all. The Casey report:

"When Professor Jay’s report came out, the one thing that we found funny, that had us in stitches, was the idea that those old bunch of politicians could have a problem with political correctness! Ha ha! They couldn’t be further from politically correct. They were bullies, they were sexist.” A senior officer

If you read the Jay report and Casey report, you'll see that things were significantly more complex than that phrase implies. Some of the causes are dealt with in the paragraph as a whole, and that's only some. There are also issues of relationships between councillors, police and perpetrators, which I don't want to mention in the lead because it's complex and involves living people. SarahSV (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I restored it twice, SlimVirgin? You removed it twice. As I said the second time I restored it, we don't repeat everything someone says. There is nothing wrong with taking one particular comment in a speech and mentioning it in the article, if the comment was an important one. If the press singled out that comment for attention, as you claim, then that is a strong case for including it in the lead, not removing it. The truth or lack of it of May's claim that political correctness was to blame is irrelevant, as you should well know. We don't remove article content based on disagreement with it! Wikipedia is not a debating site, and we are not meant to be arguing over the correctness of May's observation. If I did want to debate this (which I don't) I would be saying that if that officer knew anything about political correctness, he would know that being politically correct is perfectly compatible with both bullying and sexism. It just has to be the right kind of bullying and sexism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It is your opinion that, of all the things May said, and of all the things Jay and Casey wrote, that is the one soundbite that must be quoted in the lead, even though it almost contradicts the paragraph it ends. Please read the sources. Here is May's speech. SarahSV (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I never used the word "must". Do not attribute to me something I didn't say. I simply noted that if the press gave attention to that comment, as you yourself suggested, that is a splendid reason for mentioning it in the lead. Or would you remove the mention of May's comment because you personally disagree with May? We aren't supposed to do things like that. I see no contradiction whatever between the quotation and the rest of the paragraph of which it is part. However, I do not, per se, care where in the lead May's comment is mentioned. Perhaps it could be moved to a different location within the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The press gave attention to lots of issues. Please explain why you want to highlight that one soundbite, and whether you've read Jay and Casey. SarahSV (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If there are some other issues that the press gave attention to, but are not mentioned in the lead, perhaps we could consider mentioning them in the lead also? That they are not currently mentioned does not seem to be a reason for removing the quotation from the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which looks important to me. Alternatively, perhaps you should try asking for a third opinion, SlimVirgin? It might be more useful than trying to patronize me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Your contributions to the article have been to restore British-Pakistani to the top of the lead, add a link to "political correctness", and restore the "political correctness" quote twice. That suggests a limited focus.
This is a difficult article to write well. It has a thousand arms and legs, and whenever I think I've understood it, I read something else that makes me rethink it yet again. I'm not trying to patronize you. I'm just asking that you inform yourself. Reading the Jay and Casey reports are the minimum. SarahSV (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I had not been under the impression that I had to make a certain number of edits in order to be allowed to take part in talk page discussion. Or that my edits had to be of a certain type in order for me to be allowed to take part in talk page discussion. Rather than listing the number and types of edits I have made, and doing so in a (yes) patronizing fashion, perhaps you could address the substantive issues? Do you, in fact, object to "British-Pakistani" being mentioned at the top of the lead and the linking of "political correctness" (why would not linking it be an advantage?) You are quite free to lecture me about what you see as my ignorance, SlimVirgin. Rest assured that it does not hurt my feelings. However, neither does it amount to a meaningful response to the points I've made. Asking for a third opinion, or simply waiting to see what other editors say, would make sense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

May's not "blaming political correctness"; that section of her reply refers to failings by the council that have been identified, among which is "institutionalised political correctness". If it was reported in news media that she blamed PC then the sentence should be rewritten to reflect that, otherwise it's incorrect because she's stating that she shares concerns about an identified catalogue of failings, i.e. the idea that "institutionalised political correctness" was to blame came from the report, not some preconception on her part. It could also be written "Theresa May, then home secretary, blamed, among other things, "a complete dereliction of duty". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The sentence in question reads, "Theresa May, then home secretary, blamed, among other things, "institutionalised political correctness"." I do not understand what you think is incorrect about it. It is from a larger paragraph reading, in part, "My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government shares my concerns over the failings by Rotherham council that have been identified. This includes the inadequate scrutiny by councillors, institutionalised political correctness, the covering up of information and the failure to take action against gross misconduct." That it was someone else who initially identified "institutionalised political correctness" as a problem doesn't mean that May didn't also identify as a problem; it seems obvious that she did. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • So… "Theresa May, then home secretary, blamed, among other things, "inadequate scrutiny by councillors"." There's a choice of four failings explicitly referenced by May. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It was SlimVirgin who pointed out that May's reference to political correctness was "was cherry-picked by the press." If the press really gave as much attention to it as SlimVirgin suggests, then it is reasonable to mention it in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That the press highlighted the "institutionalised political correctness"? I think that would be confusing to the reader, and also raises the question- who cherry-picked it? Spin doctor or editor? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If the media gives attention to something - like May's comment about political correctness - then Wikipedia can do likewise. There is nothing confusing about it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but it's the media who were abstracting one part of a sentence and highlighting it. If you can explain that in a concise paragraph, go ahead. The contentious sentence- "Theresa May, then home secretary, blamed, among other things, "institutionalised political correctness"- is Wikipedian cherry-picking. She also blamed "difficult behaviour by children" for masking the abuse. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no need at all to explain that in the lead. An explanation could go somewhere else in the article, perhaps. What you refer to as "Wikipedian cherry-picking" is actually Wikipedia editors using their own independent judgment about what content is most important or worthwhile. Did it ever occur to you that it is completely impossible to write an encyclopedia without doing that? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "It was widely reported that Home Secretary Theresa May blamed "institutionalised political correctness"." Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Also "ad hominen" doesn't work on me. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • May's mention of "institutionalised political correctness" was part of a response to a question in Parliament. The full text of the response indicates that she did not single out "institutionalised political correctness" as a major cause. If the media report that it was, then the article should reflect that it was the media, not May, who highlighted that. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The other problem with picking out that soundbite is that May was referring to Rotherham Council alone.

The quote is a relic from the previous version of the article, some of it written by drive-by editors responding to headlines, so it was a quote farm in places. That quote was added in September 2014 by an SPA whose focus was the localised-grooming rings. His source was a Guardian article that had placed that phrase in the headline.

The lead has been rewritten since then. The quote is out of place. It's misleading because it refers only to the council; May didn't single out political correctness; and it doesn't reflect the preponderance of high-quality sources. SarahSV (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Ah, right. The journalist introduces "dereliction of duty" in the first paragraph, and "institutionalised political correctness" in the second, and the subeditor led with the second. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Xanthomelanoussprog offered a third opinion and FreeKnowledgeCreator didn't respond, so I've removed the sentence. May's response to the Jay inquiry is in the "Other responses" sub-section (second paragraph). SarahSV (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm responding now. Xanthomelanoussprog's opinion is poorly judged, and SlimVirgin should not have removed that quotation, having already indicated that she removed it based partly on her personal disagreement with May's comments. I assume that a relatively large number of editors are interested in this article. Two editors indicating that they disagree with including that quotation in the lead does not amount to a consensus for removing it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
You were the one who suggested seeking a third opinion. The quote was added years ago by a drive-by editor. It was cherry-picked from several points that May made in the same speech. It was directed at Rotherham Council only, rather than at other parties, but lifting the phrase out of context doesn't make that clear. If you'd like to restore it, the onus is on you to gain consensus and explain why these points don't matter. SarahSV (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The fact that it was "added years ago by a drive-by editor" does not matter because it is irrelevant who added the material or when. The only point we should be concerned about is article quality, not who makes which edit or at what time. Edits made by "drive-by editors" are not automatically bad edits, and edits made "years ago" are not automatically bad edits either. That it was only one of numerous points that May made is unimportant if the media singled it out for attention, as you yourself suggested. Was any of that controversial or difficult to explain? You may be on better ground in pointing out that it was "directed at Rotherham Council only", but presumably some necessary explanation can be added? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Xanthomelanoussprog made the point elsewhere that, based on the distribution of the phrase, it may have come from a briefing. It isn't good to have political soundbites in the lead, and the reason I mentioned a drive-by editor adding it years ago is that this is what drive-by editors do. People hear something in the news, and in it goes to the lead. As articles mature, those things get ironed out. SarahSV (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Phrase is used by May in responding to a question from Yvette Cooper, a short time after 12.30 pm, Sep 12. Second on the list of identified failings as published in Hansard, it's picked out by Mark Tran in an article in the Guardian, bylined 14.25 (i.e. two hours later) and used in the "blame" headline. At that point May's reported as saying Eric Pickles minded to order an investigation into Rotherham and whether it's complying with its best practice duty. At 18.19 this investigation becomes an "'Institutional political correctness' probe ordered by Theresa May into Rotherham child abuse scandal" in the Telegraph. In the PoliticsHome blog (same day, no timestamp) the headline is "May: Govt to carry out political correctness inquiry after Rotherham scandal. The Government is set to launch a probe into “institutionalised political correctness” in the wake of the Rotherham child abuse scandal, Theresa May revealed today." Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on placement of "British-Pakistani" in the lede

There is a consensus to mention the ethnicity/nationality of the men in the first paragraph of the lede as in this version.The point that the ethnicity of the perpetrator is emphasized in all public discussion of the matter and hence may be assumed to be a central part of the entire incident looks a good argument.While the opposers have stated concerns of undue cum over-emphasis and a mis-attribution of the ethnicity; they have been primarily outvoted. Winged Blades Godric 16:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Amended at 07:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Should the ethnicity/nationality of the men involved in these crimes be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lede (as in this version) or further down in the lede (as in this version)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note: This RfC asks for comments on a specific question about the lede section, and is not designed or intended for general discussion on the issue or the article. Please keep your responses focused on the specific question asked, and your reasons for your response. Discussion on the question asked should go in the "Threaded discussion" section, and general comments should be placed elsewhere on this page. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please keep relevant threaded discussion in the section below. This section is for a survey only.Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes because it's fundamental to the fabric of the article, given its social context. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes basic information relevant to the topic of the article that there is no reason to exclude. It is not racist and does not violate WP:BLP. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No, but mention of ethnicity must appear in the first paragraphYes, in the first paragraph. I don't care how it is mentioned (e.g. "five British-Pakistani men were found guilty" vs "British-Pakistani ethnicity of the men was seen in the investigations as a central motivation for the cover-up"), but The authorities' reaction to the criminals' ethnicity is central to the scandal, which is what I see as the subject of this article (moreso than the crimes committed) and, as the article details, the reason for the scandal's existence. This justifies first-, rather than second-, paragraph mention. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 03:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I edited my vote after clarification from the person who opened this RfC. My intention is that mention of ethnicity should be focused on the subject of the article, that is, the scandal of the crime, not the crime itself. An early mention of ethnicity ensures that the reader has enough context to interpret the rest of the lede (the response from British Pakistani groups, etc). That means I support this version of the first paragraph text and no other pre-RfC version. Discussions about trends in sex abuse rings in the UK is a subject for other articles. The reason for my confusion is mainly because there are three versions, and this RfC is only voting on two (the second version and a compromise) - clearly not intended to resolve the dispute of whether first-paragraph mention is necessary. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 04:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No (further down) - I read the "further down" version expecting that it would feel as if something was missing from the beginning of the lede section by not mentioning the criminal's nationality and ethnicity, but was rather surprised to find that this wasn't the case, that the lede read perfectly naturally and did not feel forced into being "PC". On the other hand, the mentioning of the nationality/ethnicity of the criminals in the second sentence of the first paragraph seems to be implying that these crimes are in some way connected to that attribute, while mentioning them later provides the information that the reader needs and deserves to get, without making a value judgment on the relationship between their ethnicity and the crimes. It's the difference between saying "The bodega was robbed by a Hispanic man" and "The bodega was robbed. The criminal was an Hispanic man." Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - Let's be clear. 1) The crimes were committed almost entirely by British-Pakistani people (bar 1 person);[1]. Now, this might not normally need mentioning if it were not for 2) that Councillors and council staff in particular were criticised for "avoiding public discussion"; some through fear of being thought racist, and some through "wholesale denial" of the problem and moreover "the general view that ethnic considerations had influenced the policy response of the council and the police" which was expressed by interviewees over the course of the IPCC investigation. And since we're mentioning the response British-Pakistanis had to this event in the lede; 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 it only makes sense to clarify why we're doing that. Like I said in my first comment, there's no point bringing up fears of racism and wholesale condemnation of councillors and police by the British-Pakistani community in the lede of the article without giving the context that these issues were brought up in. That context being the issue of council and police ignoring significant sexual abuse of children being perpetrated by some minority members of the British-Pakistani community. All of this deserves mentioning in the lede in logical order; Members of the British-Pakistani community committed criminal offences, the police and councillors ignored the issue because of "ethnic considerations", when the extent of the scandal was revealed, everybody, including the British-Pakistani community, was outraged at this dereliction of duty. This was news enough that Theresa May commented on it; I am clear that cultural concerns – both the fear of being seen as racist, and the frankly disdainful attitude to some of our most vulnerable children – must never stand in the way of child protection. Guess what, she said the same thing everybody else did. Bazooka is correct, this issue is even more about the police reluctance to do their job and council's willful ignorance of the issue than it is even about the people who committed the crime. But the identity of the perpetrators is the cause for all the rest. I haven't looked at this issue in a long while, but, I find that new papers are still being published about it; At least 1,400 children has been sexually exploited ... largely, by men of Pakistani backgrounds. This last paper is just two months old. Tl;dr If it were Scottish gangs I'd hope that we'd mention it in the lede, if it were the IRA I'd hope we'd mention it in the lede, if it were goddamn Silverback Gorilla's I'd hope we'd mention it in the lede. It's British-Pakistani gangs, and it ought to be mentioned in the lede. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes in first paragraph because it reflects the sources used and this is needed per WP:DUE. While I do not like the focus, the sources do make that focus and thus the article should as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's significant and one of the more unusual features of the case (it's normally Catholics). Guy (Help!) 07:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No. The premise of the RfC is somewhat misleading, in that part of the issue is simply a matter of good writing. We are being asked to consider a wording that uses the words "British-Pakistani" twice in the opening two paragraphs, against a wording that uses the term three times in those first two paragraphs. The latter suggestion gives an undue over-emphasis on the perpetrators' ethnicity, which could lead readers to perceive racist overtones to the article. The perpetrators' ethnicity is important, and I do not accept BMK's case that "the mentioning of the nationality/ethnicity of the criminals in the second sentence of the first paragraph seems to be implying that these crimes are in some way connected to that attribute". However, adding the words "British-Pakistani" in the second sentence of the lede does over-emphasise their ethnicity. Of course, my point would not apply if the term was at the same time removed from the fifth sentence of the opening paragraph, so that it would read: "The ethnicity of the men was seen...". Unfortunately, that option has not been considered as part of this RfC, and so the "(further down)" option is preferable of the two options under consideration. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
To make my concern even clearer.... Part of the confusion evident in this discussion is that the words "British-Pakistani" are present in the first paragraph in both of the versions cited in the RfC – in one version once (in the fifth sentence), and in the other version twice (in both the third and fifth sentences). I have no problem in including the term in the third sentence so long as it is removed from the fifth sentence to remove the duplication. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't the first time that the article has had to find a middle way between those who are wary of any mention of the ethnicity of the offenders, and those who say that it is a key part of the case. I think that the argument over whether it should be in the first or second paragraph is somewhat artificial, because the reader is going to have to be told sooner or later. I'm not happy about the use of the word "cover-up" in the current (protected) version of the lead, as it implies some sort of conspiracy when sloppiness or incompetence is a more likely cause. The Rotherham case isn't directly linked to similar cases and the article should not imply that it is. The recurring theme is one of authorities running into the problem of being wary of being seen as racist/culturally insensitive, a potentially career killing allegation in the public sector.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes- I don't get it what is the problem of mentioning the ethnicity of the criminals if they are sourced from WP:RS. If you talk about NPOV, then you must have found some large number of sources which says they are white people with make-up of British Pakistanis, or they are Antarctican impersonating as British-Pakistanis. Wikipedia is not censored. Question is that why didn't they rape a single Pakistani girl? Also why did the brave Rotherham police allowed the rapes to continue? Answer- because they (Rotherham police) were afraid of being branded as racists and Islamophobic. I think some Wikipedians are trying to emulate Rotherham cops. A woman who tried to uncover this rapes was branded as racists. These series of gang-rapes would have stopped, much before if the accused were White males/Black males. Majority of people will watch news channels and read newspapers. Comments that Wikipedia will create hatred is like WP:CRYSTAL. Quoting Mr rnddude;

    Drmies, I did take into account how we treat other ethnicities on various articles. In response to this; We can't have different measures for different races, where whiteness is somehow transparent - We don't. Shooting of Alton Sterling first sentence; "two white ... officers". I treated these pages equally. I never removed, nor advocated the removal of that sentence. So, before you accuse me of something I never came close to doing, I'd urge you to take your "racism" glasses off and look at what I did and said. No, they did not do it cause they were British-Pakistani's, they did it because they were criminals. What is of consequence is that police neglected to do their duty "because they [the criminals] were British-Pakistani's". I don't like racists, and I don't like cowards. It is what it is, and what it is, is what Theresa May termed "institutionalized political correctness". Oh, and Dylann Roof? first sentence of the lede; ... is an American mass murderer and white supremacist <- would you care to explain this. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

    Marvellous Spider-Man 11:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Shooting of Michael Brown- The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a northern suburb of St. Louis. Brown, an 18-year-old black man, was fatally shot by Darren Wilson, 28, a white Ferguson police officer, after reportedly robbing a convenience store.
  • Shooting of Trayvon Martin- On the night of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, United States, George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African American high school student. Zimmerman, a 28-year-old mixed race Hispanic man
  • Murder of Hannah Foster- Hannah Foster (31 August 1985 – 14 March 2003) was a 17-year-old British student who was kidnapped, raped and murdered after a night out in Southampton in March 2003. Foster was murdered by an Indian immigrant named Maninder Pal Singh Kohli. --Marvellous Spider-Man 04:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Marvellous Spider-Man: Can you please edit this comment to make it more obvious which is your comment and which is Mr rndude's, and not end the section by Mr rndude with a direct copy of his signature? I can't make head or tail of what is yours and what is his, so I'm confused, and I've spent some time trying to unravel it, possibly more than the closer of the RfC will. Thanks, please feel to delete this once you have clarified the comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I've adjusted the formatting to what I believe you intend, please revert if I'm mistaken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, obviously. This is an article about a child sex ring run by, and serving, men of a particular ethnicity that went on for so long particularly because of the social context surrounding their ethnicity. The Pakistani origin of the perpetrators is front and center in every RS and this article should represent that. Capeo (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, obviously. This is discussed extensively in the article, and is clearly WP:DUE. The ethnicity of the perpetrators was significant in the way the case was handled, and in the media commentary which surrounded the case. I would suggest that one of the users who has voted "no", given the reasons they have supplied, is not familiar with the details of the case. To a British audience, this particular detail, if left out, would be very conspicuous in its absence. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Edit: Apologies, I didn't read the description properly. Still yes: Though both versions are a mess, nobody has convincingly explained why mention of the ethnicity of the perpetrators, given its significance in the case, should be left unmentioned until the final line of the first paragraph, or even later as some are apparently suggesting. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No Both versions mention the ethnicity in the first para of the lead but the second version is more appropriate since the ethnicity is mentioned in the context of the allegations of cover up (which is, apparently, the main point re the ethnicity issue). I don't see any advantage in labeling the rapists with their ethnicity. Since the label "British-Pakistani" appears numerous times in the first three paras of the lead, the reader would have to be particularly dense to overlook that ethnicity, so all the above arguments about ethnicity being "front and center" or whatever are moot anyway. --regentspark (comment) 21:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    Reading some of the comments above, I think it is worth pointing out that there is a difference between Dylan Roof and these British-Pakistani rapists. In the case of Roof, he was driven by white supremacist ideas so it makes sense to include "white supremacist" in the first place. Unless we have reliable sources that the Roth'erham rapists were driven by some sort of "British-Pakistani" philosophy, it doesn't make sense to identify their ethnicity other than in the context in which it is relevant. It is also worth pointing out that white supremacist is not an ethnic group and that all white supremacists believe in the supremacy of white people whereas British-Pakistani is an ethnic group and that, hopefully, most British-Pakistanis are not believers in seducing, exploiting and raping young girls. Given that the entire lead makes more than enough references to the ethnicity of the attackers (as I say above, only a particularly blind reader will end up puzzling over "I wonder what the ethnicity of these people was?") identifying their ethnicity in the main sentence is unnecessary and undue. --regentspark (comment) 16:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No (add new first sentence to third paragraph) The third paragraph of the lead would make no sense unless the reader knows the ethnicity of the perpetrators, but it needs to be properly contextualized. I find Drmies's BLP argument (on ANI -- I haven't read the other comments here, and am only responding to the RFC question): members of the non-Pakistani segment of the local community are almost certainly coming to Wikipedia and getting their information on the incident from us, but very few are carefully studying the article to find out what the majority of Pakistano-Britons felt about it. Not contextualizing properly is dangerous, and is likely to incite hatred and violence, or at the very least bullying. I'm an educator (of sorts), and have worked in a school district in Japan with large Chinese and Korean communities, and I went to school in Ireland so I know we are no better; I have precisely zero reason to believe white children in Rotherham are any more enlightened and tolerant than children anywhere else. We can still mention the ethnicity in the lead, but directly follow it with the bit about how 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. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes Significant, due and appropriate.VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes Ethnicity is important in these cases and has been reported, it is not actually the only correct focus, religion is also, Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, said race and religion were inextricably linked to the recent spate of grooming rings in which Muslim men have targeted under-age white girls. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10061217/Imams-promote-grooming-rings-Muslim-leader-claims.html - Govindaharihari (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes The point is emphasized in all public discussion of the matter, in the media and elsewhere. It is essential to understanding the incident and the reaction to it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes in this case, for this series of events, but only because the racial identity of the perpetrators was central to the whole fiasco that ensued. But I don't think the wording of the linked lede is great; the sentence "The British-Pakistani ethnicity of the men was seen in the investigations as a central motivation for the cover-up" is unclear, ambiguous, and extremely misleading, and adds to the whole problem. Instead it should indicate that a prime motivator for the cover-up was the desire not to appear racist (in a country where prejudice against Pakistanis is strong). Softlavender (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. Absolutely central to the case and not a BLP violation. Politically correct erasure doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. DoubleCross (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There is still no satisfactory answer as to why so many of Rotherham’s institutions behaved so badly. (...) One understands that those at fault would prefer to be damned as liberals rather than bigots, but both of the official reports state that the council, social services and local police failed to act because the blame was placed on the girls – some as young as 11 – who were thought to be responsible for their own fates."
My reading is that the ethnicity of the perpetrators was not the main reason for the cover up. The review even suggests that the blaming it on the ethnicity may be just an excuse for the cover up. It's thus WP:UNDUE to include ethnicity so prominently. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. After thinking it over, I think that the ethnicity of the individuals is inextricably linked to the reason why it has become such a big story. Yes, that is due to the accusations of political correctness in the response rather than the crimes. I would prefer if that critical part were moved close to the top of the first paragraph. Preferably moving the fourth sentence to be after the second. But between the two versions presented, I would prefer the ethnicity be mentioned up front given how critical it is to the reason why it has generated so much coverage. -Obsidi (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Further down. this is a far superior version to the one above, because it presents the ethnicity of the guilty men where it is relevant; ie, with the coverup. The sources clearly demonstrate that their ethnicity was relevant to the coverup. The sources do not demonstrate that their ethnicity was relevant to the crime; and by placing the ethnicity in the second sentence, we are implying that it was. The comparisons to Dylan Roof are complete non sequiturs. Roof's ethnicity, and his ideology, was very obviously linked to his crime, by reliable sources. We do not, on the other hand, highlight the ethnicity of the average sexual criminal. Vanamonde (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Not relevant to the question I asked for comments on. Start another thread elsewhere if you insist, but this is not the place for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • This is more a fundamental discussion over what should and should not appear in paragraph number one of the lead of any article. Are we to now assume that anything deemed politically incorrect by some should not appear in the first para of the lead, but is fine for the second para of the lead? We simply cannot create a general answer to this, and more importantly, anyone working in this RFC will need to know that it will impact each and every article on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
To me this is just a question of proper WP:WEIGHT, and the question is how central to this story do the reliable sources hold the individual's ethnicity. It shouldn't be a general question of what is "politically incorrect" should appear in the lead or not. -Obsidi (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and one of the principal issues of the article is the ethnicity of those involved. The PC push to place in para 2 rather than para 1 is somewhat odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If you feel that it is that central, then please vote that way and not accuse other editors of just trying to be PC. -Obsidi (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't "accuse other editors of just trying to be PC", what's happened here is much worse than that, including accusations of racism and odd proposals that we now need a style guide for what appears in para 1 of the lead vs para 2 of the lead. This isn't just about this article, it's a Wikipedia-wide issue. This RFC will be mind-numbing and will achieve little, but while we have admins out there mandating what can and cannot appear in the first para of the lead of an article, we have serious editorial issues. Admins aren't here to govern editorial issues, they're here to enforce policy. Suddenly declaring that content issues are under their purview is a massive instruction creep. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't like either the claims of PC motivation or the claims of racism. No admin, or other editor, has ownership of what will be in the lead. That is for this community to decide in this RfC. -Obsidi (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Then take it up with the admin who accused me of being racist. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I already did say what he did was wrong [2] -Obsidi (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
No, that doesn't cover the accusations. But it was a worthwhile effort. As I noted, if we have to, then we'll have a separate ANI relating to Drmies' accusations of racism. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
As the person who opened the RfC, I have not asked for comments on whether anyone is a racist, or whether anyone accused anyone else of being a racist. As such, I am hatting this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This is an attempt to censor what goes in the first paragraph and what goes in the second para of an article. It goes way beyond this single article. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The following comment, which was addressed to me, was moved from the "Survey" section. Please keep threaded discussion in this section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • The point is that the crime and its "see also" crimes are very much related. The lead doesn't do anything beside your second claim. We can keep it that way, "the criminals were of British-Pakistani origin" is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)'

The following comment was moved from the "Survey" section. Please keep threaded discussion in this section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • If we're concerned with over-emphasis on ethnicity may I offer up this sentence with possible re-write to omit "British-Pakistani"; The British-Pakistani ethnicity of the men was seen in the investigations as a central motivation for the cover-up. It wouldn't, I don't think, make the sentence any less clear as; The ethnicity of the men was seen in the investigations as a central motivation for the cover-up. The fourth instance is vital to balancing the article and the third instance is... plain true even if negative. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This RfC's question isn't completely clear. Some people are voting "no" when they want the mention of ethnicity to appear in the first paragraph in the lede (just in a different place, like this compromise version where it still appears in the first paragraph, counter to the implication in the RfC's question). But others are voting "yes" for the same thing, because they were involved in the conversation since before the content dispute started and before the compromise was proposed (this vs this (diff)). In other words, there are three versions, and some people are voting on two, and not the same two. The interpretation of the votes isn't clear to the people voting. I hope whatever version is enforced as consensus, we look at the comments after each person's vote, rather than just whether it says yes/no. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 23:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see any misunderstandings evident in the survey above. What the editors are saying seems quite clear to me, and in accord with the bolded words that start each comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: I think you missed User:regentspark's vote. He voted "no", but supported the second version you linked which still includes mention of ethnicity in (at the end of) the first paragraph. I myself voted "yes", but didn't care if it was either of the versions you linked (just as long as it is not this version which doesn't mention ethnicity in the context of investigations at all in the first paragraph - one of the two pre-RfC disputed versions). You yourself appear confused, because your question implies that one version does contain mention of ethnicity in the first paragraph, and the second one does not. In fact, they both have mention of it in the first paragraph. I thought the purpose of this RfC is to solve that dispute. Is it? --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 03:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "No" is the correct response for those advocating that the first mention of "British-Pakistani" should be down in the lede and not in the initial description of the crime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Just pointing out that my comment matches that of RegentsPark. Part of the issue, which the RfC does not directly address, is whether the words "British-Pakistani" should appear twice in the opening paragraph (as in BMK's preferred wording), or only once. If only once (which seems correct to me), there is then the question of where in the paragraph it should go. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, the two examples I cited in the RfC query were just that, possible examples (the most recent ones) which illustrated the two viewpoints of how to go about providing the information needed by the reader. I wasn't thinking of it as a hard choice between A and B, but more on the order of: "Should the article do it THIS way or more like THIS way." In other words, I'm not married to anything except the idea that the men's ethnicity is more pertinent to the response to the crimes then it is to the crimes per se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In response to Mr rndude's comment in the survey above, I think there's a confusion evident there between the crimes and the response to the crimes. It's my view that the response to the crime is where the nationality/ethnicity of the criminals is most important, and where it should be placed. As has been said elsewhere, the placement of the nationality/ethnicity of the criminals in the description of the crime presents to the reader the decidedly non-neutral viewpoint that it is in some way an intrinsic part of the crime, which I don't believe is the case. This is why I support the placement of that information where the response is being described, and nbot where the crime is being described.
    Let me give an example. In the Associated Press article about the Detroit doctor arrested for performing genital mutilation on young girls [3], the fact that the doctor involved "is a member of a cultural community that believes in the practice", a fact that presumably has a strong relevance -- in the same way that some people are claiming that being British-Pakistani is relevant to the crimes in this article -- to why she would perform the mutilation (if she did) isn't mentioned until the 6th paragraph. The tabloid Daily Mail, on the other hand [4], screams in its headline "Detroit Muslim doctor performed female genital mutilation", and one of their bullet points is "Nagarwala is reportedly Muslim and speaks Gujarati" (while the article is the AP one with addition by a staffer from the newspaper). So this is kind of the crux of the question: are we attempting to be as WP:NPOV as possible and emulate the AP, or are we going to be the tabloid version of an encyclopedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree to some extent. Yes, the ethnicity is important for the "response to the crimes" not the crimes themselves. I said as much at the start of my comment. A lot of this to me is simply a matter of order. Option 1; Five British-Pakistani men were found guilty of sexual offences. Subsequent investigations found there was a cover-up orchestrated by police. This cover-up was due to the ethnicity of the men. Option 2; Five men were found guilty of sexual offences. Subsequent investigations found there was a cover-up orchestrated by police. This cover-up was motivated by the men committing the crime being British-Pakistani. And my thought is; You know you could have told me their ethnicity in the first (second in Article) sentence and omitted it completely from the third (fourth in Article) sentence. Although to be quite frank, that entire lede is annoying for me to read. Maybe I'm trying to hard to read it, or maybe it's just stunted throughout. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree that the ethnicity of the perps is only important to the response of the crimes. An imam from the OIC noted after the Oxford case that these crimes were impossible to separate from the race and religion of the perpetrators due to the deeply conservative and misogynistic style of Islam that is promoted by imams in these extremely isolated communities. Teachings that consider white women in particular as less than human and not afforded the protections against rape and abuse that are given to properly humble Muslim women. This op-ed from Sarfraz Manzoor [5] that speaks to just how isolated many British-Pakistani communities are. Now, I'm not saying there doesn't need to nuance here. Rape, first and foremost, is always about asserting dominance no matter the ethnic background of the perpetrator but in these cases the culture surrounding the abuse played a substantial part in the selection of the victims. I think Manzoor sums up well how complex the issues surrounding all these cases are, from the socio-economic and cultural standpoints of both the perpetrators and the victims, not least of which is the wildly ineffectual response from law enforcement and child protection service. That said, the ethnic and cultural background of these isolated communities played no small role in why these rings were so prolific. Capeo (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a flaw in your thinking Capeo. You are not citing their ethnicity as a factor for the crime, but, their religion. Put it another way, let's grant you that "isolated British Pakistani" communities operate with "deeply conservative and misognystic" beliefs towards women and that this played a significant role to the crime. Remove the ideology. Now all you have is "isolated British Pakistani" communities. Do you expect the same thing to happen if they hold a deeply liberal and anti-misogynistic ideology? if the answer is no, then, ethnicity is not the cause for the crime. If you answer yes, then what about their ethnicity (specifically) is causing this. Other way around; remove the "isloated British Pakistani" from the equation (replace it with whatever ethnicity) and keep the ideology. Do you expect the same thing to happen? if yes, then again, ideology not ethnicity. If no, what's so special about the new ethnicity that it is impervious to the ideology? tl;dr - You're citing isolated Muslim British-Pakistani communities, not simply British-Pakistani people. Not all British-Pakistani's are Muslims, though the majority are, about 3% are also (according to 2011 Census of England and Wales [6]) Christian (17,118), Non-religious (12,041) or Hindu (3,879) with another 5% having chosen to not state any religions affiliation. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Closure

This RFC has had little-to-no input for ten days now, it's time to call it a day and ask a neutral admin to close it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken you raised this RFC, I think it's run stale now, will you request its closure or do you want someone else to do that? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, no problem: would a neutral admin please close this RfC? (I'll post at the board as well.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Essential - I think so

As I mentioned in my edit summary to reverting this. The ethnicity of the perpetrators is centrally linked to the case and (more importantly) the entire lede falls apart without this clarification at the beginning. One; The report estimated that 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men. Why mention this at all if it isn't immediately obvious who commited the crime? And Two; Members of the British-Pakistani Muslim community condemned both the sexual abuse makes zero sense without the first clarification. Why do we care that British-Pakistani's condemned it if we don't specify that, again, members of their community committed the crime? Drmies, hope that makes sense to you and explains my revert. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be kept in the lede for consistency. There is no good reason not to. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 21:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It's fundamental to the article that this information is in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I also want to add that that in the context of the United Kingdom, it is significant and acceptable to label criminal groups based on what they have in common (for example, political beliefs or ethnicity). This is one of the primary ways how organised crime networks are formed and identified in the UK. See Gangs in the United Kingdom. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 21:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Mr rndude, please show me where "white Christian" is an "essential" part of any lede, just for the sake of comparison. Have you heard of Dylann Roof? BurritoBazooka, I think you should consider that what these men primarily had in common is that they were child rapists and traffickers. Unless you wish to argue, as The Rambling Man seems to think also, that their ethnicity is essential to the crime. And I would like for all of you to explain how that is not racist. The Rambling Man, you seem to have missed the point that I have merely moved it; I had not deleted it or removed it from the lead, but nice diversion.) Dylann Roof isn't "white" until ten paragraphs into his article, as if somehow his race is unimportant to the deeds that gave him his notability--a ridiculous proposition. So, again, y'all please explain how these men's ethnicity is essential to their crime. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Well the BBC article here shows that amongst the many such similar cases, "overwhelmingly, they were men of Pakistani origin and we need to understand why this has been happening", so it's an absolutely fundamental aspect of the crime. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The Rambling Man, since you are a former admin you should know well enough that a. you are reverting as much as I am b. you seem to be goading me c. BLP trumps 3R. I'll stop, but I think you know what I think of you now. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Not goading, please drop that immediately and start acting like an admin, you know you need to discuss it here before continually reverting to the version you prefer. Am I wrong that you suddenly decided to remove this from the lead? I would have thought you know about BRD. I've provided one source, here's another which indicates the significance of the ethnicity of those involved. It's fundamental to the article. "I think you know what I think of you now"? Really? Do we really need to resort to that? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's a Forbes article which seems to hit this on the head, too much about PC, not enough about facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • And one from The Daily Telegraph, the ethnic issues are absolutely 100% important to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Drmies please stop reverting, you'll hit 3RR soon. Please contribute to the discussion here, you appear to be in the minority in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It's significant simply because these are gangs composed of minority group members who are not pulling in 1) other minority groups or 2) many from the majority groups of the UK into their gangs. It's not racist to point it out. Please become familiar with the context of this article. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 22:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
BurritoBazooka, please read what I actually said, and how I edited. I didn't remove it: I moved it from its prominent place which states "they did it because they were Pakis". `Drmies (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The article never said "they did it because they were pakis". Wikipedia can't protect a user from their own insensibilities if they interpret it that way. See here --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 22:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
That's perhaps the most ignorant thing I've read here today. It doesn't say anything like "they did it because they were Pakis". Tripe. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, since you can't make yourself familiar with the context, I will try to help. The UK has a problem with social cohesion. This article is about one of the symptoms of that problem. That's why it's significant, that is why the lede needs to be consistent with mainstream Muslim and British Pakistani groups condemning this symptom. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 22:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I can and I have. Your personal political analysis is charming but irrelevant. TRM, eh...your privilege is showing, I think. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid your "privilege" is showing too much. This is fundamentally linked to the ethnicity of the perps, and you've been shown way enough evidence for that. Your claims here are bizarre and untrue, so perhaps a timesink at ANI is just about the only thing left here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with you that the perpetrators' ethnicity is "not essential to the crime" -- but this article is not only about the crime. Their ethnicity is essential to the scandal as a whole (chiefly, how it was treated by the police and other authorities), which is what the article is about first and foremost. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 22:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If this pops up again, I suggest opening an RFC, since the main dissenting user has made this about how to balance WP:BLP with other arguments. I think that is actually sensible. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 22:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

But what we mustn't do is what the British Police did, and fall foul of PC as a compromise to encyclopedic value. New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, for example, is another place to visit should we need to strip the facts from the lead. I guess RFC would be appropriate but actually, in many cases, it's the intricate detail of each case that would determine whether the ethnicity/origins of the perps belongs in the lead. Context is relevant and creating a generic rule would probably be disadvantageous to Wikipedia and its readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

The ethnicity / nationality is included in the 2nd para of the lead, and seems like an appropriate place to include this information; pls see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ordinarily, once disputed, we restore the status quo and discuss until conclusion. But I can see you aren't interested in that. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Clearly this isn't going to end, someone's always going to have an issue with it. So can I suggest a compromise?:
In 2010, five men were found guilty of a series of sexual offences against girls as young as twelve.[... and at the end of the paragraph:]A subsequent investigation by The Times reported that the child sex exploitation was much more widespread, and the Home Affairs Select Committee criticised the South Yorkshire Police force and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council for their handling and covering up of the abuse. All five men were British-Pakistani, seen in the investigations as a motivation for the cover-up.
(edit: I've added this now, to the first paragraph (see below for reasoning for change): "The British-Pakistani ethnicity of the men was seen in the investigations as a motivation for the cover-up." --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 00:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC) )
This satisfies:
  • It isn't established that ethnicity was essential to the individuals' decision to commit the crime
  • Ethnicity was essential to the scandal (the subject of the article) and the reasons for the coverup, and why the investigations concluded they got away with it.
What do people think? --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 23:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It's fine, it says precisely the same thing, but I guess I'm not seeing the existing issue. It would also be useful, if not there explicitly enough already, to include some commentary on the British-Pakistani community's outrage and condemnation of this too. That might give some of the balance that Drmies was attempting to achieve. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the addition would be more suitable for the 2nd para, as in:
  • ...The report estimated that 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men. Abuses described included abduction, rape, torture and sex trafficking of children. All five perpetrators convicted in the case were British-Pakistani, seen in the investigations as a motivation for the cover-up.
I still don't see a compelling reason to include the information in the very 1st para, as if the abuses are not sufficient enough for the case to be a big deal. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Is there suddenly a "first para of the lead" vs "second para of the lead" style guide with which we need to comply? If something's notable enough for the lead, why should it matter if it's in para 1 or para 2? How bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Gangs vs ring

BTW, what are "gangs of British-Pakistani men"? This seems like an odd turn of phrase. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Organised criminal groups are commonly called gangs. I think it is important to mention it next to the mention of investigations, the coverup because of their ethnicity is an essential cause of the scandal (which is the subject of the article, the crime is not the subject of the article). --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 23:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Like TRM I don't see the established wording as problematic, though BurritoBazooka's proposed wording is perhaps better in the sense that it explicitly describes the reason for the cover-up - at the moment the first paragraph doesn't do that, so readers might be wondering why there was one (a cover-up). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@BurritoBazooka: Less colloquial version could be "... children had been sexually abused (...) by members of British-Pakistani gangs...". They were not abused by "gangs of (...) men" (hopefully, as the latter suggests gang rape, etc). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Maybe, but a quick look at the sources (just searched for "gang" with Ctrl+F) suggests that these were gangs specifically set up for the purpose of committing these crimes (at one point they are referred to as "grooming gangs"). --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 23:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I've added this now, since it didn't make sense to me to use past tense "were" (the men are still alive): "The British-Pakistani ethnicity of the men was seen in the investigations as a motivation for the cover-up." --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 23:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@BurritoBazooka: It appears that "(child) sex abuse ring" would be clearer and more common: sample coverage; "gangs of men" conjures images of gangs roaming the streets abusing children. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 00:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor origins

I suspect strongly this will boil down to the ethnicity of the editors in question. For those of us from the UK who have seen the recurrence of sex abuse from such ethnic minorities in the north of England, high profile cases like Rotherham, it's pretty obvious that the origins of the perpetrators is important. It's not racist, although Drmies has done their best to accuse me of such, it's simply reporting the facts. It's statistically extremely significant. And much like those New Year assaults in Germany, the ethnicity is core to the article. Outside the UK, this can simply be dismissed as racist, or undue weight. It needs careful handling, because a generic "one size fits all" approach here will not serve the readers well. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • What an odd comment. Are you suggesting non-white editors can't edit neutrally? Or--gasp--are you insinuating IM NOT WHITE? 😂 Drmies (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    You've clearly got a thing going on here, I don't know what it is you're on about, I explained that it was pertinent to UK editors, you don't get that, and you want to call me racist but you won't back it up. You need to work harder, you're an admin, and yet your posts are far below what we'd expect from someone in that position. Continuation of this kind of odd pursuit will see you ANI, this time in a properly formed case where you can explain your odd edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    By the way, and I know it's probably a waste of time since you're full tilt, but ethnicity: "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition." Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
BTW, it appears that not all perpetrators were British-Pakistani: "...eight men of Pakistani origin and two white women have been convicted of abuse...". There's apparently a book out on the topic: "Rotherham whistleblower explains why sex abuse ring was covered up", The Telegraph. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is simple to expand the lead to include that two white women were involved as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Can be done, but the two women were convicted only in 2016 (not in 2010 when the chronology of the scandal began). I don't think the other trials have to be covered in the lead (I think it should focus on the scandal of the authorities instead, and its causes), but if it has to, something like this at the end of the lead could suffice: "Further trials were held from 2015 up until February 2017, resulting in a total of 20 convictions in that time." --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Worthwhile, especially to incorporate the collaboration of those women. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
TRM, if my memory serves, this is not the first time you've used editors' presumed I was thinking of Spacecowboy420's edits on Talk:Cultural appropriation don't presume ethnic or racial identities to cast doubts on their abilities to edit. This must stop. It's casting aspersions based on presumptions at best, and amounts to prejudiced dog whistling under normal circumstances. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I said at all. In fact if you read below, one of the Yes votes makes my point again, that to UK readers the fact is highly pertinent, probably more so than to others. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP Claims

I don’t have an opinion on the content dispute, but I do have an opinion on the process. As far as I can tell the status quo was established in December [7], and Drmies has removed this claiming “BLP reasons.” [8] As far as I am aware the only BLP policy that trumps WP:EDITCONSENSUS is WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which requires that any unsourced or poorly sourced content about BLP’s or non-neutral language be removed and stay removed until consensus is obtained to add it back in. As far as I can tell, the facts of this content dispute are properly sourced by reputable organizations. Is that incorrect? How is the fact that identifying them as British-Pakistani, if they are in fact British-Pakistani, not neutral? We are not accusing them of any wrongful conduct in identifying them as British-Pakistani. If it is properly sourced and neutrally worded, then I don’t see the BLP policy that requires trumping the normal WP:BRD policies. @Drmies: can you please explain the BLP issue as you see it? (There might be an WP:RFC on this topic soon, that’s fine, but we need to establish what the status quo position is while discussion and/or an WP:RFC is ongoing). -Obsidi (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the disputed content got added back in before it got protected. Still we should resolve the BLP claim, as if there is agreement that this is a potential BLP issue than it should be removed through the protection (ideally by an uninvolved admin, not Drmies). -Obsidi (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Image sizes

Any particular reason for the eccentric and random image sizes? --John (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This could do with a cleanup. Personally, I prefer to stick to standard thumbnails and avoid left/right placement unless it is necessary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
John, you reduced several to upright, which meant postage-stamp size. SarahSV (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I gave the upright ones the "upright" parameter, which is the normal default. I've seen people emphasise one or two images because they were difficult to read at thumbnail size (e.g. a map) or because they were particularly important aesthetically (e.g. on the Van Gogh article I worked on). I'm not sure either reason applies to, for example, File:Rotherham High Street with All Saints Church, 9 September 2008.jpeg, which is a somewhat nondescript picture of a church. Am I missing something? --John (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The "church" image shows a young girl and boy and a bus advertising "wellKid""- maybe this should be replaced as the individuals may be recognisable. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The default is thumb size, not upright. I changed some here because the thumb was tiny or too large. I've been slowly expanding it and wondering whether to take it to FAC, something I haven't done for a while. It isn't ready yet, but I've been trying to take it in that direction. I didn't understand the point about the High Street image. It's a typical Rotherham scene. I like the juxtaposition of the bingo and the church. SarahSV (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The default for upright images is "upright". You can occasionally use a larger size one to emphasise or clarify a particular picture. Making them all larger (and not even all the same degree larger) looks messy and overwhelms the text. There's nothing wrong with the images you've chosen but it's better just to leave them at default thumbnail size. Readers can click on them if they want to see the full-size picture. Logged-in readers (or editors) can adjust the size they see thumbnails at in their preferences; is it possible yours are set too small? It will also depend on the size of monitor you are viewing on. I use three different screens to test images and how they look; my desktop, my laptop and my computer at work which is in between in size. It's an excellent article and should be a strong candidate at FAC. Let me know if you are going there with it. --John (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What happens if someone recognises the individual? There's enough distinguishing characteristics. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose we should be careful on an article like this. SlimVirgin, is there another pic which would illustrate this subject, but without identifiable people? Alternatively, would you mind if I prepared an altered one which would make the people unidentifiable? --John (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Returning to this article after some time away from it, I am astounded by the large number - 16!! - of (mostly) barely relevant photos of places and people, which add nothing helpful to understanding the article's subject matter. It seems completely bizarre. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid magazine. Is there a good explanation, or can I remove them all? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree here. Some of the photos are eye candy and aren't really adding to the article per WP:PERTINENCE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd rather have some well-chosen pictures to illustrate the locales mentioned in the story, as long as they are formatted so as not to overwhelm the text and do not show identifiable people. --John (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
One or two (or perhaps three or four) well-chosen images directly relevant to the issue would be fine - but not the plethora of tangentially-related images that we have currently. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It is similar to WP:TOPIC. An article doesn't need to have photos of everything and everyone mentioned when there are already separate wikilinked articles available. Look at it this way: would a reader's understanding of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal be seriously damaged if they did not know what the bingo hall in Rochdale looks like, or what Michael Gove looks like? We are not doing Ladybird books or a magazine article here, images need a serious encyclopedic purpose.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggest "Town centre" in infobox (improves look of infobox), Jayne Senior, Nazir Afzal and Dennis MacShane (some of the principal actors) and the map should be retained. Not sure about images of official buildings, and I think images of the town will be problematic (that panorama is made up of stitched-together photos with the colours ramped up). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
What about the Times front page image? That seems more relevant to me than some of the images of people involved, which can readily be accessed by readers clicking on their links. I agree with including one or two images of the town, so long as they show relevant areas mentioned in the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It would be good if @SlimVirgin: contributed to this discussion, as I believe she added many of the images. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Ten days later, I have restored the image sizes and removed the bingo one and Gove. --John (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that a few more should be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I've made a slight further trim. What do you think? --John (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement - thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop reducing all the image sizes. With all at upright, some look tiny and others enormous. Upright is not the default; thumb is the default. John, you do this at so many articles, regardless of the issues. It leaves articles looking aesthetically very poor. SarahSV (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you are still following this. Great. I do this at all articles, because that is the default way images are formatted at Wikipedia. Upright is the default for images that are upright. It isn't hard to understand. --John (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • To me the thumb version looks more balanced between text and image. The views of the paving stones council offices and canal towpath have really strong diagonals which are distracting. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I've restored the defaults. It would be fine if everyone agrees to emphasise one or two by making them larger, but I don't see consensus here to do that. I also think that if anything these images are somewhat decorative and inessential. If anything, we might want to get rid of some more rather than emphasise them. Of course I'll be guided by what others say. --John (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I removed the photo of the paving slabs. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm. As somebody who spends a lot of time on wiki messing around with images, I rarely use upright, and have strong preference for thumb which is much easier to control. Also, tend to leave the final decision to the incumbents, who had built the article and considered the image choices and placements in the first place. Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Interesting to have your view, Ceoil. WP:THUMB is thataway, Wikipedia doesn't work on "incumbency", and if it did we'd have to enhance Ghmyrtle's !vote. But we don't. Please don't make this civilised discussion into a battle zone. For now, I think we have a consensus to use fewer images formatted correctly, rather than many images formatted randomly. --John (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
My rationale was in my edit summary, very simply. "this civilised discussion into a battle zone"? Battle? Zone? The hell? You should reflect before this escalating language. I dont understand why Ghmyrtle is suddenly a person of interest, whose feelings I have now have to be aware of, suddenly, and after the fact. Ceoil (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Your argument is based on personal preference, and on "leave the final decision to the incumbents, who had built the article", but if we look on the page history, SlimVirgin has 182 edits and Ghmyrtle has 118. I don't particularly agree with this argument, which is contradicted by WP:OWN, but if you do, you have to give Ghmyrtle's voice some weight too. Now, can we go back to building an article that will be of use to our readers? Working on the consensus here will be of more value than personal preference and red herrings about incumbency. --John (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • If you lot are going to mess around with the images, can you make sure to restore textual edits that might have been reverted? Also the council moved to Riverside House at the end of November 2011.Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not a part of "You lot". I'm not the adgitator here, the sum of my contribution here thus far - one carefully considered edit, for which it seems I should be strung up. John is the one counting edits and making passive aggressive insinuations. Ghmyrtle's voice; never heard of him. He seems strangley silent in all this mess, so can only assume his presence is represented in back channels. Pff. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Can you keep me out of this please? I don't have any particular interest in the scaling of images, either way. I'm interested in the overall content of the article, and in making sure that the images used are appropriate ones and not included simply for "decoration". That's it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Presumably your addressing John who dragged up your name. I don't know who you are and could care less. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm addressing both of you, as both of you have mentioned me for some reason, and you claimed I was "strangley [sic] silent". Don't mention me again. And it's "you're", by the way. Pff. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
You are totally twisting the sequence of facts here. I'll stop addressing you in response to John mentioning you, if he stops emailing me about about you. You are who and why should I care? Clear enough about whats going on now? Pff. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

British Asian girls

It was confirmed in the Jay Report that British Asian girls were also abused in Rotherham to a great degree and yet they do not feature within the article whatsoever.

I proposed in the lede of the article to state "..most of them white girls, but also British Asian girls whose abuse mirrored the other victims".

But was promptly removed, which I feel is unfair on the demographic which historically is forgotten and goes so often unreported.

As per the Jay Report 11.16 p94

The Deputy Children's Commissioner’s report reached a similar conclusion to the Muslim Women's Network research, stating 'one of these myths was that only white girls are victims of sexual exploitation by Asian or Muslim males, as if these men only abuse outside of their own community, driven by hatred and contempt for white females. This belief flies in the face of evidence that shows that those who violate children are most likely to target those who are closest to them and most easily accessible.' 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.'

I see nothing wrong with amending the proposed sentence, as British Asian girls are overlooked within the article as they are so often also within the press.

"The UK Muslim Women's Network produced a report on CSE in September 2013 which drew on 35 case studies of women from across the UK who were victims, the majority of whom were Muslim. It highlighted that Asian girls were being sexually exploited where authorities were failing to identify or support them. They were most vulnerable to men from their own communities who manipulated cultural norms to prevent them from reporting their abuse. It described how this abuse was being carried out. 'Offending behaviour mostly involved men operating in groups . . . The victim was being passed around and prostituted amongst many other men. Our research also showed that complex grooming ‘hierarchies’ were at play. The physical abuse included oral, anal and vaginal rape; role play; insertion of objects into the vagina; severe beatings; burning with cigarettes; tying down; enacting rape that included ripping clothes off and sexual activity over the webcam.'

Confirming that muslim girls were indeed being groomed and abused just as others were, and as the Jay report notes that "Asian men grooming Asian girls did not come to light because victims are often alienated and ostracised" it should be noted in the article that Asian girls were abused, otherwise they are again ignored just like their communities. Americatcp (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is in the Jay report as a general comment on CSE. There is nothing in those sources to support your assertion that it occurred specifically in this case and therefore deserves a mention in the lede. You are veering into the territory of original research. Incidentally, I agree with you that the coverage of non-caucasian victims is woefully poor, however we are not here to right great wrongs, we are here to create an encyclopaedia which contains material which is supported by reliable sources --Jack Frost (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Have you got links to support your claims? Govindaharihari (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/shame-keeping-asian-girls-in-rotherham-silent-on-abuse-1-6936020 - “Shame ‘keeping Asian girls in Rotherham silent on abuse”

"This is being played up as a racial crime, that it is Asian men on white girls, but there are girls from their own community also involved. That shows very clearly that they don't differentiate and they will try and get their hands on any girl they can," said Gomir.

"These girls have specific vulnerabilities because there is still a tendency to hold girls responsible for the honour of the family. The number of Asian girls involved could well be a lot higher but they will not be reporting it because they don't want to bring dishonour on their families." - Shaista Gomir, chair of the Muslim Women's Network UK

And possibly the best source the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29794729 - “Asian girls 'also victims of sex grooming' in Rotherham”

Now it should be absolutely agreed upon thag my edit should stand.Americatcp (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that editors often focus on changing the introductory paragraphs without apparently considering whether the changes reflect the content of the whole article. See WP:LEAD : "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points,... Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." There is no dispute that most of the reported victims were white girls. Does the main article deal sufficiently with the fact that a minority of reported cases were not white girls, or with the possibility that many other cases may not have been reported? That is where efforts should be made to improve the article, based on what reliable sources say, rather than in making changes to the lead first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The article doesn’t acknowledge that there were even Asian girls as victims, when we know from my sources provided that they were indeed victims and according to the BBC were not included upon peoples estimates due to lack of reporting. Time and time again they are overlooked and ignored when it is a fact they were victims too, and the total number unknown. Do you suggest I add a section on Asian victims? Or is the sentence I suggest really not that difficult to accept, it is really stating “British Asian girls were also targeted for abuse that mirrored the other victims.”
it does nothing to distract from the article, but reminds people that they were victims too. There’s nothing wrong with that, unless of course everyone wishes to pretend that wasn’t the case, for whatever personal reason.Americatcp (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
What I am suggesting is that you look at the article as a whole, and if there is insufficient information in the main text you then add it, based on reliable sources, making sure that you get the correct overall balance. If the existing article "doesn’t acknowledge that there were even Asian girls as victims", as you suggest, it needs to be added in to the main text - and then an appropriate summary can be added to the lead. Don't try to change the lead first without changing the body of the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


Understood, I will amend the article itself and then the lead.Americatcp (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The "ethnicity" section entirely sidelined the simple fact that most of the Rotherham victims are white. While a lengthy discussion of other victims may or may not have its place, especially if there are no convictions to cite, it was quite absurd that a section entitled "ethnicity of the victims" entire sidelined this basic fact. So I restored some balance to the section, but I think someone else needs to do additional cleanup. XavierItzm (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for “rebalancing” the entire article mentions ethnic victims once in the only section about them, the rest consistently mentions how white victims were “most”. There is no need for rebalancing, the section is fine, and reported by the BBC after the Jay Report came to light.Americatcp (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is not for you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In a section entitled "ethnicity of the victims" you need to at least state their ethnicity before you go into a discussion of possible other victims. Please reach consensus before again engaging in disruptive editing. XavierItzm (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The only user who is disruptively editing is XavierItzm, the most common ethnicity of victims is already mentioned in the lede. "In August 2014 the Jay report concluded that an estimated 1,400 children, most of them white girls," It does not need to be reiterated at the start of the section explaining there were other victims too. Note you have a strange history of editing also related to these pages.RomanskiRUS (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The lead must summarise and reflect the substance of the article. Material should not be included in the lead that is not also covered, more fully and with good sources, in the main text. From that perspective I see nothing wrong with XavierItzm's edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The lead Already reflects the substance of the article, however the section amended by XavierItzm does not need the introduction given, we do not need to "remind" the reader that the majority were white when the article heavily already states this, it is the only section explaining minority victims and is heavily sourced. As per previous edits there is nothing wrong with the section as is. RomanskiRUS (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
A section titled "ethnicity of victims" heavily suggests the ethnicity of victims (all victims) should be mentioned. I agree with Ghmyrtle, here. Kleuske (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with XavierItzm that the "Ethnicity of victims" section is deficient. It has one line stating that the majority of victims were white, then three paragraphs about asian girls. It also excessively refers to the Muslim Women's Network (MWN) report, which, unlike this article, is not confined to Rotherham. This article is about a particular scandal that occurred in the Rotherham area; it is not an article about child sexual exploitation in the UK generally. The MWN report is small-scale and qualitative, and explicitly states "our cases come from different geographical regions. To protect the identity of the victims, we do not specify towns or cities they are from" - so none might be from Rotherham. Although mention should be made in the article that asian victims are likely to have been under-reported, the text should not be constructed so as to create an impression of the specific scale of this in Rotherham. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hardly accurate, there are numerous sources cited that detail abuse within Rotherham itself, explicitly the BBC. It’s not about the wider issue, numerous reports and news articles explain the abuse occurring in Rotherham but still going under reported even with the Jay Teport coming to light.Americatcp (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Also, this is canvassing by Americatcp, and should not have been done. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The MWN report is also to give background to the issue of Asian girls being abused but going under reported. The report itself also details abuse occurring in Rotherham by Pakistani landlords for example, and to children. That as well as other news articles are cited. The text is fine as is. considering the entire article doesn’t brush up on Asian victims whatsoever, even when the BBC ran a report on Asian girls being abused in the town. There is nothing wrong with the section that is well sourced.Americatcp (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the article that states "They also cited cases in Rotherham where Pakistani landlords had befriended Pakistani women and girls on their own for purposes of sex, then passed on their name to other men who had then contacted them for sex". This sentence is cited to the MWN report. Americatcp, please direct me to the text in the MWN report that supports that sentence. I have scanned through the report myself but have not found any mention of Rotherham, though it is a long report and laborious to search through, and I might have missed something. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It is within the Jay report, the citation should include the Jay report too, as the report that the Jay report refers too is "The UK Muslim Women's Network produced a report on CSE in September 2013 which drew on 35 case studies of women from across the UK who were victims, the majority of whom were Muslim" section 11.4.Americatcp (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The Jay Report cannot be citing the MWN report for that statement, if the MWN report makes no reference to Rotherham. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
In the very next paragraph the Jay Report cites the MWN report for its comments, the Jay Report says a "local" womens group, meaning Rotherham. Perhaps adding the jay report as a citation for that sentence would suffice.Americatcp (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
In the very next paragraph of what - our article? How can the Jay Report conclude anything about the MWN report mentioning Rotherham when the MWN report doesn't mention Rotherham (as far as I can see in my scanning of it) and the MWN report specifically states, in its methodology, that "To protect the identity of the victims, we do not specify towns or cities they are from"? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
In the very next paragraph of the Jay Report. "The UK Muslim Women's Network produced a report on CSE in September 2013 which drew on 35 case studies of women from across the UK who were victims, the majority of whom were Muslim. It highlighted that Asian girls were being sexually exploited where authorities were failing to identify or support them. They were most vulnerable to men from their own communities who manipulated cultural norms to prevent them from reporting their abuse. " 11.5 AFTER it states that local womens groups in Rotherham "described how Pakistani-heritage girls were targeted by taxi drivers and on occasion by older men lying in wait outside school gates at dinner times and after school. They also cited cases in Rotherham where Pakistani landlords had befriended Pakistani women and girls on their own for purposes of sex, then passed on their name to other men who had then contacted them for sex. The women and girls feared reporting such incidents to the Police because it would affect their future marriage prospects. " 11.4. Perhaps the sentence should read that the Jay report concluded this, not the MWN.Americatcp (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Objection to unwarranted and unexplained reversions by Americatcp

Americatcp, you have repeatedly reverted my efforts to improve this article - efforts to which I have devoted no little time and attention - with inadequate or no explanation. Please note that I am reverting your latest reversion and hereby request that you discuss with me on this talk page whatever problems you find in my edits before further altering them. You're attention and courtesy in this matter will be appreciated. Dayirmiter (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You claim to wish to improve the article, and yet instead of just “removing a bad source” you are amending the rest of the text and other sourced information. I reverted your edit because not only did I explicitly explain why in the log (which you claim to have not seen) but because you’re not actually improving the article at all.Americatcp (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The WP:DAILYMAIL should not be outright banned as a source, but it should not be used as a source for anything controversial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Then remove just what is sourced by the DM, not the rest of the information that’s sourced from the actual report? This isn’t improving the article this is bias editing.Americatcp (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
All I'm trying to do here is ensure compliance with WP:V. There are also some other tabloid citations, eg Mirror, which should be replaced.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Understood, however that is not what Dayirmiter is doing, removing information cited from the report is not “trying to improve the Article” it is simply running his own narrative.Americatcp (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Re this edit, it is not up to us as editors to work out their ages at the time the crimes were committed. The source does not make it explicit and nor should we, per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. And the article does not claim that they were men at the time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


Americatcp and RomanskiRUS have been blocked as socks. --NeilN talk to me 04:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"biggest child protection scandal in UK history"

This is a quotation of a statement made by Angie Heal in her first-person introduction to Child Sexual Exploitation After Rotherham, which she coauthored with Adele Gladman. Each author had her own section of the Introduction. Dayirmiter (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

2007 conviction of lone male abuser of boys

This case has no relevance to the present article, which is about groups of men abusing girls and the scandal of that abuse being ignored. In the 2007 case, the abuse was not ignored but rather elicited a police operation that resulted in a conviction years before anything to do with this article came to light. The case might warrant inclusion in another article - or even its own article - but mention in this article, particularly in the lead, tends to blur this article's focus. Dayirmiter (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Primary source

this source is really good. --2001:8003:4023:D900:B5B1:A23B:FC77:6 (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity

It is quite odd for a section on the ethnicity of victims to focus almost entirely on a small minority (35 out of a reported 1,400, i.e. 2.5%). It would seem like whoever wrote it is trying to push a point of view, and it fails the policy on WP:WEIGHT. Hzh (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree, Hzh. The article is being manipulated and bowdlerized. The section on ethnicity, grotesque as it is, is merely the tip of the iceberg. XavierItzm (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This has been my concern for quite some time. I have made several efforts to re-balance the article, some of them very recently, though I don't really have the time or energy to be constantly policing the article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The focus might be justified by the fact that in the press coverage a racist motive was ascribed to the perpetrators. The criminals would not have simply been in it for money and sex, but be motivated by a desire to humiliate the "white race". The Jay report assumed that this was true, reproaching the police for not systematically taking the "race factor" into account. That Pakistani girls too were targeted, does not unproblematically corroborate the hypothesis and is thus potentially relevant.
It should also be pointed out that the number of Pakistani victim cases is not easily compared with the total number of 1400. The latter is an estimation only, apparently including all CSE cases in the widest definition, i.e. any case in which an under-age teenage girl had had sex, either in the home situation, or with white peers, non-white peers or white/non-white adults. Otherwise one would have to conclude that 15% of the young female population of Rotherham Borough has been forced into prostitution by gangs of Pakistani taxi-drivers, which would indeed be astounding. But the report nowhere claims this.--MWAK (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The question regarding information in the article is one of weight; currently the article has one line about white victims and then two paragraphs on British Asian, even though (as far as I'm aware) in no source is it suggested that anything other than white victims were the majority. Also there have been several attempts to construct an argument within the article using sources together in a way that contravenes WP:SYNTH—an example being the previously very lengthy explanation in the article of the Moslem Women's Network report, even though that report explicitly states that the geographical location of victims is not revealed, and so is of limited use—if indeed any—in an article dealing only with Rotherham. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I also have concerns regarding WP:WEIGHT. It seems like soem editors are trying to obfuscate the facts with exceptions and false equivalency. OrlandoCityFan (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
But how can there be a false equivalence between a Pakistani girl being raped and a white girl being raped? Unless you assume that the white girl was raped for racist reasons. But that very assumption is challenged by the existence of Pakistani victims, the importance of which thus goes beyond the sheer numerological weight. That weight again is hard to determine as the number of 1400 does not pertain to violent rape only, but to all forms of abuse — and not just by Pakistani men as the Jay report extrapolated from just thirty-eight individual cases and thus could not provide an exact percentage of their involvement.--MWAK (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
If the number of victims are the same for both white and Pakistani girls, would you argue that what's written in the section (one sentence vs two paragraphs) is proportionate? Hzh (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The assumption that there is one motive simplifies a complex issue with multiple participants who likely had diverse motives. We should report the facts, and it appears from what I've read that vulnerable young women were targeted and more than half of them were from a culture other than the culture of the perpetrators. OrlandoCityFan (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this discussion and made this edit. However, given the discussion, I would rather leave this to others. Yes, I can see how inclusion can be justified in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision

I think the last two revisions of this article should be hidden. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Case is the Ajmer rape case. While removal was appropriate, I am not performing revision deletion — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The revisions do not meet any of the criteria for redaction. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I beg to differ. IMHO it meets #2. And perhaps a bit of #3. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, I agree with Debresser, so I have done the revision deletion. The material was not just reporting of fact, it was an attempt to contaminate by association people on the basis of their family membership, name, or religion. That is grossly offensive and it is purely disruptive material unrelated to the aims of the project. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 22:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal/Archive_2&oldid=1137164273"