Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal

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)

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)