Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit warring[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Awaiting your prompt response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC regarding various issues[edit]

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

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

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

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

Overloading of "Diversity"[edit]

Regarding the section here,

> The victims were ethnically diverse; with British Asian girls in Rotherham also suffering, despite the myth that the victims were only white.

At this time in the United States, which is a very common source of wikipedia readers, the differing political factions use differing implicit definitions of the term "diversity." While "the victims were of diverse ethnic origins" would work using a pre-2014 implicit definition, in which even a very small number of victims from a second or third ethnic group would be sufficient ('wide' diversity), the position of US progressives, as established in major outlets such as NPR since 2014 [2] is that if a subset (such as tech engineers) does not match the broader population quite closely, this constitutes a lack of diversity ('narrow' diversity).

While the current text would not be confusing to conservative readers due to their typical definition of "diversity," it may be confusing to progressive readers, who might come away with misleading conclusions which reinforce racial, ethnic, and religious bias, such as the myth that it is "impossible" for some racial, ethnic, or religious groups to suffer harms relating to their race, ethnicity, or religion, "because they hold power."

If Rotherham is truly a case of what would qualify, in the United States, as disparate impact, then the text should reflect this so that the article is more culturally accessible to contemporary US progressive readers. If insufficient information about the victims is available to establish 'narrow' diversity according to the standards used by contemporary US progressives, such that it cannot be established whether it would qualify as a case of disparate impact, then the article should be clarified to reflect that. ThomasMakewright (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal&oldid=1208742845"