Talk:Halifax child sex abuse ring

Legal charges

Legal charges laid out against accused can be sourced and ennumerated, as can outcomes outcommes of those charges. Withe highly publicized crimes, we do not conceal the charges.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Origin of perpetrators

There's recently been an edit war around whether the perpetrators in this case should be called "British Asian" or "British Pakistani" in the lead of the article. There's now an extended-confirmed protection in place for a few weeks to halt this, but I've a feeling the issue won't go away, so we need to try to reach a consensus.

The sources in the article mainly don't allude to the background of the criminals at all, just referring to them as "men", though one does use the term "Asian" to describe them. If sources don't refer to them as having Pakistani origins, describing them as such in the article is just speculation, or at best WP:OR.

Some other articles about similar cases (Derby child sex abuse ring, Keighley child sex abuse ring for example) don't mention the background of those involved in the lead, while others (Newcastle sex abuse ring, Bristol child sex abuse ring) do give this a mention, so there's no real consistency.

The issue is clouded by there being a perception in the UK that this type of crime generally involves perpetrators from ethnic minorities and white victims, and that there's consequently a racial motive. However the sources quoted in this article don't actually say this is the case, they just report the jailing of a group of criminals who sexually abused underage girls.

My personal view is that the ethnicity of criminals doesn't belong in the lead at all unless the crime is unambiguously related to it.

Comments?? Neiltonks (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Description in the lead

I think at this point it is best to avoid having any descriptor in the lead. I understand that it may seem reasonable from your perspective, however it can be seen as prejudiced. In addition nowhere in the article does it state that the perpetrators are muslim, simply being asian and having asian animus does not mean they are practicing muslims. Dmartin969 (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, indeed. Most Asians are not Muslim, after all (China and India, the two largest nations by population in Asia, have non-Muslim majorities, and so on). Reliable sources do comment on cases where terrorists -- as opposed to child sex abusers -- have been regular attendees at mosque or at a particular mosque, but reliable sources for such in these different cases, seems to be absent. MPS1992 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well yeah why dont you guys have your cup of tea and talk about how your perfect little world is after blocking every single person that oppose you.. why cant you have a discourse without having the need to block people off. Anyway, tell me the harm in mentioning the actuality of the situation where the majority of the consensus were indeed muslim, I have seen many other articles going on to elaborate much on the perpetrator's origins, but why not only on this one? whats the bias here? why dont you just stick to being neutral as a place providing objective knowledge and not letting your own arbitrary decisions shadowing over factual information being portrayed. And do not block and send me private messages if you want to "talk" talk here out in the open and see what the out come is.. Plus why dont you just stop contradicting yourself by rambling on about how most Asians are not muslim when your people (meaning the editors) were trying to protect this assertion of the perpetrators being "British Asian" WTF? get your damn act together please.. so according your previous comrade the perpetrators were British Asians who were in fact muslims, Jesus man, now you guys started contradicting each other.. but i do agree with you regarding this one, most Asians are not muslims so why call them British Asians, call them god damn muslims for crying out loud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightershade93 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

And dude your imperturbable response sent to my "talk" after blocking me when I was asking you a question that was quite a bit sensitive and a bit sentimental to, say, the victim and her family in this case, is truth be told utterly deplorable and detestable and now I have no qualm in suspecting your moral ground regarding this matter for defending these filthy pigs.. answer me this little man.. if it was truly your daughter, wouldnt you want this case to be given proper coverage and given adamant justice? please answer this question with proper reverence and without your nonchalant disdain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightershade93 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Pigs are considered unclean in my religion, so the only pigs I defend on this encyclopedia are those helped out by this nice lady. But thank you for the tea. MPS1992 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

nobody was inquirying about your religious faith, and i simply dont care what you believe in and what you dont, why are you running away from any confrontations and digressing from the conversation? Please answer my questions if you have nothing to fear and you dont condone these pigs actions.. remember all your answers will be seeing here by anyone, so dont answer absent-minded, like you did on my talk, thank god i took a sceen shot of your outrageous response — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightershade93 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

In any case it appears that the consensus of this discussion appears to point towards leaving it out, and it will remain as such. Dmartin969 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

dude you look like you make a little bit more sense here, can you please read my comment below, and consider the request one more time, just make a rightious decision here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightershade93 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Well anyway im not here blame anyone here, just want the information to be represented in the most accurate manner. First of all if your were stuck in irresolute and your scruples were not being exactly sure whether these men were infact muslims; if you see the majority of convicts contain 'muhamed' in their names and you dont need birth certificates to corroborate whether the rest of the named were muslim as well, use your inner gut, this is something that should come to you empirically that they were muslim, come on dudes lets be realistic here, you know and i know and so does everelse know thag they were muslims, why dont you just amend it to what it truly is.. its not only me asking you to do this, you had this request from many others as well, you blocked them all.. now this little girl lost everything, basically her whole life ahead of her, stop defending these perpetrators and do the girl some justice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightershade93 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

While it may appear that many of the individuals listed are muslim, that is not how wikipedia works. All content we post must be verifiable. As you say many names do give a particular appearance, though without a citation we must allow readers to make their own conclusion, as this Synthesis violates wikipedia's rules against original research. Dmartin969 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore we have to be especially careful as this does refer to living persons, we must be sure to adhere to WP:BLP Dmartin969 (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

+

Furthermore we have to be especially careful as this does refer to living persons, we must be sure to adhere to WP:BLP Dmartin969 (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

−

right, well i do have to say, i do agree with you for letting the readers come to their own conclusion without a verified source corrobarating that they were indeed muslim and everything else you say. I think i agreed with you on this one since yesterday, but what im suggesting is to at least put some indicator on the signal sentense, that these men had some sort of a commonality, cause trust me man, this request is gonna keep on coming to you, from each and every new reader who gets to this article, if you dont neutralize it, and keep it on this volatile state. And also do remember the little girl is also still alive and living, so at least show her some respect aye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightershade93 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone is still watching this, per WP:BOLD I found a credible source and added the the ethnicity of the perpetrators to the lead, as this is information that other articles on similar topics devote a great deal of attention to and national media coverage at the time did too. Feel free (of course) to come with constructive criticism and change it, but please don't just revert the whole thing. Hentheden (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Halifax child sex abuse ring

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Halifax child sex abuse ring's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Grierson":

• From Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal: Grierson, Jamie (15 December 2020). "Most child sexual abuse gangs made up of white men, Home Office report says". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 December 2020.
• From Greville Janner: Grierson, Jamie (28 August 2015). "Lord Janner will not be forced to attend court to face child abuse charges". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 August 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)