Talk:Disappearance of Charlene Downes/Archive 1

Archive 1

BNP demonstration

Please note that we cannot use a BNP website as a source for claims regarding a demonstration held by them - we need third-party sourcing for such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have rewrited the section now. For the record, though, I would think that the BNP website was a sufficient source for citing their approval or disapproval or something. But I hope that is no longer in issue here anyway. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless third-party sources have commented on it, the BNP's 'approval or disapproval' of something doesn't belong in any article, except possibly one on the BNP itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Whilst that'll be true for the very fact of approval or disapproval, I don't think it'll be true in every case that details that appears in the BNP's official statement will not be worth adding to third party coverage. Anyway, that will be on a case-by-case basis and there seem little point discussing it now, if you're satisified that this article is suitable referenced. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Naming suspects

The guidance is quite clear:WP:CRIMINAL: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law", also WP:BLPCRIME; "...editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured."_Overagainst (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree. However now a more formal statement about the accused's nationalities (or, in the alternative, something about the nature of sexual abuse in the area's link to particular backgrounds) should be reconsidered. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything to suggest that the accused weren't of British nationality? I think you may be thinking of ethnicity, rather than nationality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think they're foreign nationals. See here and similar sites which suggest the co-accused was originally from Iran. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't aware of that. Still, WP:BLP policy seems clear enough - we don't identify the individuals concerned - and stating that they are of this or that nationality would seem to constitute identifying information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

EDL ect

There was far too much about various back and forth between political rivals. I don't think this stuff really belongs in the article. I think for it to go in it would need to be condensed'_Overagainst (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "There was far too much about various back and forth between political rivals." - the use of the case is a really important part of the article, because it's central to the role of the Downes' disappearance in the history books. Once deleted, I reverted in with WP:BRD and I do feel the material should stand pending any further input from other editors. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The BNP are a political party with an MEP so it may be what they said is about the case is noteworthy. Of course, once they're mentioned then criticism of the BNP involvement with the issue has to be included for balance. How about this article on the grooming issue generally, by Sean Thomas in which he says the BNP have made political captital of grooming, and may have made it difficult for others to tackle the issue.

What the EDL and the BNP say about each other is not notable just because it is in relation to their respective activities publicising the disappearance of Downes; and mentioning the back and forth between the EDL and BNP isn't balance as they are both expounding from what are generally considered extreme standpoints that hardly differ from each other relative to the mainstream. If the article was to mention those 2 very similar partisan views, it would be necessary to bring in 'Unite Against Fascism' and give them equal weight (which they are not given in the current edit) for some semblance of balance. Overagainst (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think NPOV can be read in this way. It would be unbalanced if we were using their interpretations of the attack and nobody else's, but we aren't. The issue is what the case was used to do, and the EDL and BNP represent two important parts of that. UAF's view of the case would be balance if the article engaged the first of my propositions, but it does in fact consider the second and hence the current part about UAF's views on this matter. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Overagainst. The bickering between the BNP and EDL really isn't significant. At most, the article needs to note that these far-right organisations have held demonstrations, and have been criticised for doing so. Their petty issues with each other have no significance to the article topic - the disappearance of Downes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be condensed. Criticism of the EDL by the BNP and of both by the UAF isn't a balanced sampling of views on the topic. Mainstream opinion should be more represented, ideally using newspapers and similar sources._Overagainst (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of the passage doesn't relate to EDL/BNP bickering, but, in any case, I've removed what there was. I don't understand what it means for "mainstream opinion should be more represented", since I don't see an argument that the BNP/EDL are on one side of and anyone else the other. The UAF is currently given, but mostly what the "mainstream" thinks is simply not opposed to the BNP/EDL position in an identifiable way to me. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The way you have a full section prominently name checking an obscure Blackpool website and the English Defence League is skewing the article, and associating the subject with political agitation. It's not about that. I think would be better to just say something along the lines of "Some members of the Downes family have taken part in public protests to demand re-prosecution of the men acquitted at trial._Overagainst (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture?

Any chance that a picture of Charlene Downes can be added to the article? 68.46.9.6 (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Jordanian Mob

Funny Boyz sounds like a front for illegal operations in the town likely the two men were ordered to do it --Owen1983 (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Quote - how much should be included?

The article has a quote from a Guardian article:

"endemic child sexual abuse"

I didn't miss that the underlying quote included the word "prostitution". I'm also cognizant of the fact that I'm in the US and this involves an incident in England and perhaps styles differ, but in the US if a 14-year-old were engaged in exchange of sex for money as a result of child sexual exploitation, I think we would avoid using the term prostitution. In my opinion it's inflammatory and misleading. The article is linked, so any reader can see the term in the underlying article but I disagree that it belongs in the article. Let's discuss.S Philbrick(Talk) 16:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Agree. Prostitution is a loaded term and I think—whether we like it or not—it implies a degree of agency which a non-adult cannot have. And if there was an element of prostitution involved it was as a result of the child exploitaion, not on parity with it. ——SerialNumber54129 17:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)