Talk:Derby child sex abuse ring

Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper.

...Though you might think it was, from the tone of this article. It is sensationalist, and seems overly concerned with stressing the ethnic background of the offenders. Given these issues, I have asked for outside input via the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that the BBC produced a documentary that investigated "the controversial subject of on-street grooming of young girls for sex by Pakistani men in the UK." which featured footage of the Derby gang grooming girls, Channel 4 commissioned a similar documentary, the former home secretary spoke of a "specific problem" within the British Pakistani community, the Children's minister spoke of "Asian communities hampering child sex inquiries", I think mentioning the assailants' ethnicity is the lead is appropriate. Ankh.Morpork 12:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Asian" isn't an ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to cite a scholarly journal entitled 'Asian Ethnicity' for the statement that 'Asian is an ethnicity'? Please provide the necessary citations - issue, page number etc. Or preferably, stop wasting our time with such mind-numbingly moronic bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Origin and religion of gang members

AndyTheGrump removed 'Asian' from the intro [1]. I reverted him, saying "Fact is origin/religion of the men is a big factor in this". AndyTheGrump then reverted, saying "Your opinion is irrelevant - we go by sources, and WP:NPOV". But the fact that the men were all Asian and Muslim is supported by numerous cited refs in the article, and that this is a key part of the events is also obvious from the article. AndyTheGrump chooses to ignore this.

My point is that I think the introduction should say the men were all "Muslim Asian men" as it is an important factor. The reason we should say Muslim (apart from them being Muslim) is so as not to smear all Asians (Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains etc.). We could say they were all of Pakistani origin instead of Asian, but would need a good source to verify that. Actually I think the PC term is 'South Asian'. Having a PC POV and refusing to say Muslim Asian men did this is to do a disservice to the victims - women - who where victimised by the gange because of the gang's attitude to women. But this is controversial, so I thought it best to bring it up on talk. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• None of the sources emphasize the religion of the men, and it would therefore be undue for us to do so in the lead. However, many describe the the ethnicity of the assailants and some even comment on its role in the crimes. As such, I think it should be included in the lead. Ankh.Morpork 12:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the sources all mention the ethnicity of the rapists and this certainly should be mentioned in the lede. Given the sheer amount of girls being abused by similar gangs it surprises me that it was removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We also have this [2] "The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim." and Mohammed Shafiq says "Although there have been some cases of white men being involved in this sexual exploitation of young girls, most of the perpetrators are Muslim. There are some Muslims who think that as long as these sex gangs aren't targeting their own sisters and daughters the issue doesn't affect them... but the vast majority of Muslims find these actions abhorrent and disgusting," Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And this [3] "The chief executive of Rochdale Council has been summoned before MPs to explain why his social workers failed to protect dozens of children who were sexually exploited by Asian men."

A simple question for AnkhMorpork: why did your table violate WP:BLP policy by including men from, an Asian background who hadn't been convicted of any sex-related crimes, while excluding a man not from an Asian background, "a convicted sex offender and the only non-Asian defendant, got three years for two breaches of Sexual Offender Prevention Order which banned him from contact with under 18s"? [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That you for spotting that omission. If you can find the details of the other two defendants not included in the table, I would be most appreciative. Ankh.Morpork 18:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you removed them. Ankh.Morpork 18:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Gross violation of WP:BLP policy

I have removed the names of three individuals not convicted of sex-related crimes from the table - their inclusion in the table (in an article entitled 'Derby sex gang') was a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

They were convicted at the same time as the rest and from the same trial, it is not a BLP violation to say what they were convicted of. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation to imply that they were part of a 'sex gang' without any sources to back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC on WP:BLP policy

Do you support describing all nine people convicted as part of the sex gang? Ankh.Morpork 18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - All sources mention them in that context. BBC states in article called Derby sex gang convicted of grooming and abusing girls: Of the original 13, a total of nine have been convicted of offences against vulnerable girls ranging from rape to false imprisonment. Telegraph states in article titled Asian gang prowled streets searching for rape victims: "The 28-year-olds were at the head of a 13-strong gang" Ankh.Morpork 18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The sources name them all as one group when reporting the outcome of the trial. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is stupid. One cannot have a RfC on whether policy is applicable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

"Nine of the 13-strong gang were convicted of grooming and raping girls between 12 and 18 years old". Sourced to [5] and [6]. Neither source states that all 13 men were part of any gang. This is a misrepresentation of the sources, and a gross WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it fuck. "Of the original 13, a total of nine have been convicted of offences against vulnerable girls ranging from rape to false imprisonment." And what is that article titled? O ya Derby sex gang convicted of grooming and abusing girls. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it fuck. "The 28-year-olds were at the head of a 13-strong gang"

Secondly, the sources that you cite here are NOT the sources used to support that sentence. You omitted the Telegraph and replaced it with the Independent for some odd reason.

Both of the cited sources supported the content that you removed. You even misrepresented the sources that were used for that sentence. Please be more careful. Ankh.Morpork 18:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The BBC, doesn't state that the 13 charged were all part of any gang. The Telegraph doesn't state that the '13 men' were the same men it refers to as a 'gang' were those convicted either -but then it wasn't one of the sources cited anyway. The simple fact here is that the article is representing three individuals as being part of a 'sex gang', in spite of the lack of any conviction. This is a violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've redacted my comment re Telegraph - but this makes no difference. The three men concerned were not convicted of any sex-related crimes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And the Indy says "The men were ringleaders of a gang who befriended girls as young as 12 in the Derby area and groomed them for sex." Darkness Shines (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What the heck does that have to do with anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That is the second of the two sources you stated did not support the content. Obviously both do. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources cited state that all thirteen nine of the men convicted were part of a 'sex gang'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they do. As has already been pointed out to you. In fact just about all the sources have "sex gang" in them. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy - 13 people were not convicted. You seem confused. Ankh.Morpork 18:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup - true, but irrelevant. None of the sources cited state that all of the men convicted were part of a 'sex gang'.