Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal

Offensive use of the word Asian

The use of the word ″Asian″ to refer to these monsters should be avoided unless used in direct quotes of careless individuals. According to studies, the perpetrators were Muslim [1]. Referring to them as ″Asians″ might offend law-abiding Hindus and Sikh people. We must be very sensitive in such matters. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your personal feelings are not as important as reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Be aware that Lokalkosmopolit has an agenda here. On there user page they have a user box stating 'This user supports the EDL (linked as English Defense League, lol) in their fight for human rights and against islamization (Islamisation?) of Britain.' LordFixit (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Pakistani peoples are generally muslims, so the issue of calling them asians is hair splitting irrelevance , although perhaps upsetting to Hindus, everyone understands they are all muslim anyway. Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not everyone understands that is a matter of dispute, if we consider how good the cartel media is at obfuscating the matter. The point is, Hindus and Sikhs have officially requested the media to end this kind of smearing and Wikipedia should accept this kind request. Also, it's really telling if a user reverts to obfuscating nonsense with the edit summary Per sources while the source actually does not use the (non-)word 'Asians' but calls them Muslims. For Roscelese, al-Qaida is apparently also 'Asian fundamentalist' group, for you can't say anything negative about the holy Islam, now can you?Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is in the source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-20951491. 'Mr Vaz told Mr Kimber not enough had been done since five Asian men from Rotherham were jailed in 2010 after being found guilty of grooming young girls for sex.' (Mr Vaz refers to Keith Vaz, an Asian MP!) LordFixit (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The original source for the quotation ″in Lancashire there were 100 prosecutions the year before last″ [2] does not feature the word 'Asian', so I see no reason to use this misleading designation. It's just as unacceptable as using the term ″Polish concentration camps″ when referring to Auschwitz. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making. We are going to have to have a more detailed discussion with input from other editors I think as this is disputed by several editors such as Roscelese LordFixit (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we should be relying more on reliable sources and relying less on Lokalkosmopolit's personal vendetta against Muslims. The parliamentary publication he cites as incontrovertible evidence that we can't use "Asian" doesn't use "Muslim" either, while a number of sources refer to "Asian," including the source about Lord Ahmed calling on mosques to speak up. Evidently this is being seen as a racial issue and not a religion issue. Lokalkosmopolit has more or less admitted that he doesn't value RS as a guideline, so I'm not sure why we're still having this conversation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I had to say "Asian" in the report I just added to the article because it said Asian in the BBC article. If I can get hold of a copy of the actual report, I will use the word they had in there. --Bluejay Young (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the nearest we can go is that in this case, many sources (from watching BBC tonight) mention "Pakistani", which these criminals were. There was never any source that they practice Islam, and this can't be garnered from their names just the same as a "John" or "Jacob" is not necessarily a Christian '''tAD''' (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Pakistani heritage" is the best description IMHO. "Asian" is a British euphemism referring to Central Asian, especially Pakistani, heritage, which is understandably used in newspaper language but Wikipedia should only use the most accurate information available and avoid euphemisms as they are not NPOV. 94.101.2.145 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, for a start it is used for South Asians. The two terms are almost interchangeable in news items for the simple fact that these criminals were "Asians" and "Pakistanis". It's not a euphemism, as euphemisms would be avoiding the relevance of ethnicity to the investigation of this crime altogether. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The report is available here: ([3]). I've parsed it and there's no mention of the perpetrators being Muslim. Most perpetrators are Pakistani-origin, but there is no mention of Islam in the report. There are only five or so instances of the word "muslim" and none having to do with the criminals. The Mirror does say "all of them will have been brought up in Muslim households", but that info is not from the report. I do think the absence of any mention of Islam in the report is conspicuous, but that's just my personal observation. -- Veggies (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I propose that Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham be merged into Rotherham sex grooming case. There is already at least as much text about the Inquiry in the latter article as in the Inquiry article itself. There may be a case for renaming this article but that's for a later date - merge first, then consider renaming. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Don't merge. The inquiry and subsequent report are far wider than just the single case of CSE prosecuted in 2010. It deserves to be explored in its own article rather than tagged on almost as an appendix to the a/m trial. I'm fairly sure there will be no shortage of commentary and analysis available over the next few days, also. Keri (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case, would it be better if the merge was in the other direction? This article's title refers just to the single case in 2010, but most of the article itself covers the wider issues identified in 2012 and addressed in the 2014 Inquiry. The main article should surely be on the wider issues covered in the 2014 Inquiry (which I recognise is the opposite of what I was thinking a few hours ago). An alternative approach might be to remove that material from this article, and add it to the Inquiry article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've now done that - basically, copy-pasting much of this article (with some editing) into that Inquiry article. Views welcome, and further work needed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Don't merge - but there needs to be coherence in this article just being on this case in 2010, and only mentioning in the inquiry in relation to this case. The inquiry investigated from 1997 to 2013, and thus goes above and beyond this case. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't merge - as per reasons given by tAD, and which I've previously outlined (rather less coherently, perhaps) here. Alfietucker (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that much of the material in this article has been copied across to the Inquiry article, I think that this article should be cut back to cover specifically the 2010 case, with a much shorter "Aftermath" section linking across to the Inquiry article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Or (Plan B} we simply go back to merging the articles and titling it Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles merged

On 29 August 2014 19:12-19:13 Ghmyrtle merged the articles Rotherham sex grooming case and Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham into Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. See Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Merge_talk_pages_after_article_merge.
--Ohedland (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Confusing use of the word Asian

I started reading about this case this afternoon after hearing about it on Norwegian radio following the report published 26 August 2014. Some sources write or talk about most of the perpetrators being people of Pakistani or Asian heritage. This was confusing/obfuscating to me as a non-British because Asia includes everything from Israel, Lebanon and vast parts of Turkey via India and Russia east of the Ural Mountains to Japan and the Philippines to name a few.

If I say Asian (asiatisk) in Norway, I suspect many/most people first will think of people from the eastern parts of Asia/Mongoloid_race or all people from Asia/of Asian heritage (Asian_people#Norway). It's normal practice in Norway to refer to people and immigrants by their country of origin. Sometimes we may use a regional term like Desi, Arab or Latin American. We wouldn't normally lump together immigrants of for example Pakistani and Vietnamese origin (except for purposes like high level statistics, i.e. by continent). For example they have different cultures and different (initial) Norwegian immigration history (seeking work vs. boat refugees).

There's an article about British Asian which states that "British Asians are British citizens of South Asian descent [...] In British English usage, the term 'Asian' usually does not include East Asians, North Asians, or Southeast Asians.". This use of Asian seems to be a British phenomenon (Asian_people#United_Kingdom). Other countries and sources use the term Asian differently (Asian_people).

This article is about a British subject, but the English language Wikipedia is read by people from all over the world without knowledge of British specifics. Either the article's first use of the word Asian should link to the article British Asian or it should instead use Pakistani as some sources being more specific do.
--Ohedland (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me a totally fair point. Bearing in mind we have to go by reliable sources, I'll see if it can be reworded to avoid such ambiguity. Alfietucker (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking a bit further. I suspect just linking Asian may be too little. Many readers may very well think day understand without checking the link and hence end up misunderstanding because they assume/interpret a broader meaning of Asian than British Asian. Hence your suggestion to rephrase is better than just linking.
--Ohedland (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood and agree - so long as a reliable source can be found to support any such rewording. I'm trying to find such a source, but would welcome any suggestions/offers on that front. Alfietucker (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The report itself (para.11.2) says: "In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010. The file reading carried out by the Inquiry also confirmed that the ethnic origin of many perpetrators was ‘Asian’. In one major case in the mid-2000s, the convicted perpetrator was Afghan. Latterly, some child victims of CSE and some perpetrators had originated from the Roma Slovak community". This BBC report refers to " predominantly Asian criminal gangs". So, there is not one simple answer. We should refer to "[[British Asian|Asian]]" where that is what the sources indicate, and to "[[British Pakistanis|Pakistani heritage]]" where that is what the sources indicate. It's more important in this case to reflect precisely what the sources say, avoid stereotyping, and provide appropriate links, than to worry unduly about how readers interpret specific words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I've done some digging as well and documented my findings in Talk:Independent_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_in_Rotherham#Confusing_use_of_the_word_Asian.
--Ohedland (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Pakistani or British Asian

Merged/copied from Talk:Independent_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_in_Rotherham#Pakistani_or_British_Asian after article merge. See Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Merge_talk_pages_after_article_merge

Forked/extracted from Confusing use of the word Asian

Possible sources or maybe starting points to find the underlying sources (my bolds):
1: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28934963
"In the other cases, overwhelmingly, they were men of Pakistani origin and we need to understand why this has been happening," said Mr Norfolk.

He described a previous report into gang exploitation as a "missed opportunity" because of its failure to look at the proportion of men of Pakistani origin committing such offences.

2: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28942986
The majority of those behind the abuse were described as Asian, while the victims were young white girls.

Yet the report found that councillors failed to engage with the town's Pakistani-heritage community during the inquiry period.
--Ohedland (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume the the actual report should be considered a reliable source. I downloaded it and performed a search for "pakistan" getting 22 occurrences. Examples from chapter 11 (my bolds):
page 92, in first paragraph: "In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010."
page 93-94, last/first paragraph: "He was one of the elected members who said they thought the criminal convictions in 2010 were 'a one-off, isolated case', and not an example of a more deep-rooted problem of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators targeting young white girls."
page 94, 11.15: "This description mirrors the abuse committed by Pakistani-heritage perpetrators on white girls in Rotherham."
--Ohedland (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The quotation from p. 92 is most pertinent to Rotherham sex grooming case - I'll make that change accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Although the 2010 trial was of men of Pakistani heritage, the 2014 Inquiry ranged more widely. As I said on the other talk page: The report itself (para.11.2) says: "In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010. The file reading carried out by the Inquiry also confirmed that the ethnic origin of many perpetrators was ‘Asian’. In one major case in the mid-2000s, the convicted perpetrator was Afghan. Latterly, some child victims of CSE and some perpetrators had originated from the Roma Slovak community". This BBC report refers to " predominantly Asian criminal gangs". So, there is not one simple answer. We should refer to "[[British Asian|Asian]]" where that is what the sources indicate, and to "[[British Pakistanis|Pakistani heritage]]" where that is what the sources indicate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

BBC Mark Easton, Home editor "When we look, we find": http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28949538 (my bold):
"The grooming and violent sexual abuse of hundreds of children in Rotherham by groups of predominantly Pakistani men led other local authorities to check whether something similar was happening in their area."
--Ohedland (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

BBC Katie Hall "Real or imagined: Racism 'fear' over Rotherham child abuse" http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28951612 (my bolds):
"The report which revealed the abuse of more than 1,400 children in Rotherham - mainly by men of Pakistani heritage - found many reasons why the shocking scale of child sexual exploitation in the South Yorkshire town remained hidden."
""The fact these guys were predominantly Pakistani heritage men should not be a reason for providing a cloak of invisibility” Muhbeen Hussain, founder of British Muslim Youth"
"Most of the victims in the cases examined were white British girls, but the report found the abuse of Asian girls was not necessarily reported. [...] Zlakha Ahmed, from the organisation Apna Haq which supports Asian women and children facing violence in the home, said there has been a long-standing problem of Asian girls suffering abuse. [...] "They follow the exact same model as the report that's been released; the difference is that the victims are Asian Muslim young girls and the perpetrators have been Muslim Pakistani men.""
"Dr Heal also noted [in the 2006 report] that Iraqi Kurds and Kosovan men were participating in organised activities against young women."
My comment: "Iraqi Kurds" are from Asia (Asian in the more global meaning of the word) but "Kosovan men" are Europeans.
--Ohedland (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with referring to the issue as relating predominantly (but by no means exclusively) to men of Pakistani heritage. But, in British English, "Asian" is a term regularly used for people of Indian or Pakistani background, and if it is linked to British Asian it is not a problem. We should certainly not refer to their religious background, any more than we refer to "Jewish Israelis" or "Christian Norwegians". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This was written in parallell with Ghmyrtle's most recent post.
The Guardian Suzanne Moore "Poor children are seen as worthless, as Rotherham's abuse scandal" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/27/poor-children-seen-as-worthless-rotherham-abuse-scandal (my bold):
"The report on Rotherham is clear-eyed about who targeted the girls: men of Pakistani and Kashmiri descent, working in gangs to rape and torture girls. The men called the girls "white trash", but white girls were not their only victims. They also abused women in their own community who had pressure put on them never to name names."
--Ohedland (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to Ghmyrtle: "Predominantly men of Pakistani heritage" (with link to British Pakistani) seems like a good solution. I also agree that religion doesn't seem to be a relevant factor.
--Ohedland (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian, Helen Pidd, Northern editor "Failures in Rotherham led to sexual abuse of 1,400 children" http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/26/rotherham-sexual-abuse-children (my bolds):
"Sometimes they were afraid of being accused of racism if they talked openly about the perpetrators in the town mostly being Pakistani taxi drivers."
"Jahangir Akhtar, the former deputy leader of the council, is accused in the report of naivety and potentially "ignoring a politically inconvenient truth" by insisting there was not a deep-rooted problem of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators targeting young white girls. Police told the inquiry that some influential Pakistani councillors in Rotherham acted as barriers to communication on grooming issues."
--Ohedland (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Logo: Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council - Where Everyone Matters

Merged/copied from Talk:Independent_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_in_Rotherham#Logo:_Rotherham_Metropolitan_Borough_Council_-_Where_Everyone_Matters after article merge. See Talk:Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Merge_talk_pages_after_article_merge

I just visited the webpage of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council . Their logo states "Where Everyone Matters". That seems like appalling tragicomedy. For how much of the period since 1997 have they used this logo text?
--Ohedland (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you expecting someone else to do that research for you, or are you just trying to make a point? Anyhow, it's not really relevant to improving this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume someone in England may know more about this and how to find it than I do. It's not a major point, but it may indicate that Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council care more about appearance than substance. The report seems to indicate that Rotherham has downplayed the community's problems instead of mending them. The report definately indicate that some people responsible didn't care (enough) about the victims. They probably didn't matter (enough).
--Ohedland (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ohedland, I think I understand your point, but as far as WP is concerned it's not really pertinent to the article unless it's a point which has already been made by a reliable source: i.e. one that actually makes the link between the logo and the council's actual actions during that period. Alfietucker (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. We have enough material without any need for original research. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Offensive page history

An IP address vandalised this page to say that the crime was set up in order to cover up a white rape gang. Surely this revision should be hidden for its gross defamation and paedophile apologism? '''tAD''' (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure: who exactly was it defaming? If the entire white race, then I'd think to hide the revision is to treat it with far more seriousness than it deserves, surely? Alfietucker (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm more worried that it's kiddy gloving the actual criminals' offences, which I'm sure is against Wikipedia policy on child protection '''tAD''' (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I'm not entirely sure I see your point. It seems to me that it was a viciously-minded but really rather silly edit which did not effectively defame anyone; nor do I see how it concerns Wikipedia:Child protection. But of course, do report the edit if you feel strongly that it should be hidden. Perhaps you could put my mind at rest (and possibly yours) by e-mailing me to explain your point. Alfietucker (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On re-evaluation, as it didn't name anybody, I conclude it was just everyday vandalism. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Essentially I concur. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Shorten/prune article

Copy from Talk:Rotherham_sex_grooming_case#Proposed_merger (I added article links)

Now that much of the material in this article has been copied across to the Inquiry article, I think that this article should be cut back to cover specifically the 2010 case, with a much shorter "Aftermath" section linking across to the Inquiry article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
--Ohedland (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Independent_Inquiry_into_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_in_Rotherham#A_set_of_articles
--Ohedland (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge talk pages after article merge

On 29 August 2014 19:12-19:13 Ghmyrtle merged the articles Rotherham sex grooming case and Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. It seems like Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham was incorporated in Rotherham sex grooming case and then Rotherham sex grooming case was renamed to Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. This is fine, but it seems like the merged article only keeps the contents from the Talk:Rotherham sex grooming case while the Talk:Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham exists on a sidetrack only really interested readers will find.

The contents of the talk pages should be merged as well. A secondary solution would be to incorporate a link to Talk:Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham in Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal (this talk page), preferably in a separate section at the top explaining/mentioning the article merge.

Are the (editing) history of articles and talk pages saved/taken care of when merging articles?
--Ohedland (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)