Talk:Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham

Offender
Why we not have the perpetrator in the article? The perpetrators are Muslims. The ancestors of these men are from Pakistan. If this is to be concealed? BBC wrote about Police: "that "ethnic origin had been a factor" in its decisions".--Falkmart (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article needs a lot of expansion. No reason why you shouldn't do it, so long as you keep a neutral point of view.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ... or, support merging this article with Rotherham sex grooming case, which mentions the offenders' Pakistani heritage. That may be the better option, in my view.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Having been initially confused by the blurring of what is covered by both these articles, I'm in favour of keeping them separate, but of also transferring a good deal of what is said about the August 2014 report in the Rotherham sex grooming case article to this article. Alfietucker (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Confusing use of the word Asian
Copied from Talk:Rotherham_sex_grooming_case

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). 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). 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) 15:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just dealt with this at Rotherham sex grooming case, and have now - as there - linked Asian to British Asian as you suggested here. Alfietucker (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Pakistani or British Asian
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)

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)
 * 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):


 * 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 "Asian"  where that is what the sources indicate, and to "Pakistani heritage" where that is what the sources indicate.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"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 Mark Easton, Home editor "When we look, we find": http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28949538 (my bold):

"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)
 * BBC Katie Hall "Real or imagined: Racism 'fear' over Rotherham child abuse" http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28951612 (my bolds):


 * 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)

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)
 * This was written in parallell with Ghmyrtle's most recent post.

--Ohedland (talk) 21:31, 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.

"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)
 * 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):

Logo: Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council - Where Everyone Matters
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)

--Ohedland (talk) 16:28, 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, 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)

Remove merge article flag
I belive the merge article flag should be removed (from both articles). The subject is mainly discussed in Talk:Rotherham_sex_grooming_case.

--Ohedland (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no rush to do that. Other editors may wish to contribute - we should give them a few days - and in any case a merger seems to be what several editors are now suggesting.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Number of victims
The report says: At the moment the article says: "It reports the sexual exploitation of as many as 1,400 children in the Rotherham area in the period between 1997 and 2013.". English is not my native language. Maybe I misunderstand something, but it seems to me like the article downplays the number by more or less interpreting 1400 as the number or worse the maximum number of victims. The report uses terms like "conservative estimate", "more than 1400 victims", "at least 1400 children were sexually exploited", "unable to assess the numbers of other children [...] not known to any agency". I interpret the report as it is higly likely that there are (much) more victims than 1400. The article should be true to the report which is the primary source.
 * Page 1, first paragraph: "No one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1400 children were sexually exploited over the full Inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013."
 * Page 29, first paragraph: "No one knows the true scale of sexual exploitation in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that there were more than 1400 victims in the period covered by the Inquiry, and an unknown number who were at risk of being exploited."
 * Page 30, 4.7: "Taking all these sources together, the Inquiry concluded that at least 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013. This is likely to be a conservative estimate of the true scale of the problem. We are unable to assess the numbers of other children who may have been at risk of exploitation, or those who were exploited but not known to any agency. This includes some who were forced to witness other children being assaulted and abused."

--Ohedland (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A set of articles
Copy from Talk:Rotherham_sex_grooming_case

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)

--

I am not familiar with what's considered good Wikipedia practice in similar circumstances. There's obviously a problem complex which may be called the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. It seems like parts of it became public because of the Rotherham sex grooming case. The Times made some investigations and others followed up as well, including the Home Affairs Select Committee. Then the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham took place and published its (initial) report. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham and the Rotherham sex grooming case is obviously only (important) parts of the larger Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal.

Is it normal Wikipedia practice to handle these subjects using an article about an inquiry (report) as the pivoting point? Obviously a lot has happened before the inquiry and hopefully a lot will happen afterwards. Or is it normal to have a main subject article (Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal) with sections for all important subjects and steps and separate detailed articles about the larger, more important sub-subjects like the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham and the Rotherham sex grooming case?

--Ohedland (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Having now worked a bit on both articles, I must admit I'm increasingly inclined to think combining it all into Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, as originally suggested by Ghmyrtle, makes sense. What do other editors think? Alfietucker (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree (with myself, for once. :-)). There's no need for duplication of material between the two existing articles, and in this case I think it would be much clearer if the full story was all contained in one article - the 2010 case, the build-up of pressure, this week's report, and what happens next.  See Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, North Wales child abuse scandal, Elm Guest House child abuse scandal, for rough parallels. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In view of the fact that we need to present a clear overview of this topic, and recognising the discussions above, I've been exceptionally and uncharacteristically bold and merged the two articles, renaming them as Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. Happy to discuss further, of course.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Community cohesion
Community cohesion seems to be an important subject (my bolds):

BBC Katie Hall "Real or imagined: Racism 'fear' over Rotherham child abuse": "

A "taboo" subject, "ignoring a politically inconvenient truth", threatening "community cohesion", "fear of being thought racist". [...] "Several councillors interviewed believed that by opening up these issues they could be 'giving oxygen' to racist perspectives that might in turn attract extremist political groups and threaten community cohesion." [...] "In the name of what community cohesion and political correctness? Not in the name of my community," said Muhbeen Hussain, founder of British Muslim Youth."

The Guradian Haroon Siddique and Mark Tran "Rotherham abuse: report finds 1,400 children were victims":

"[...] concern that the ethnic element could damage community cohesion, [...]"

--Ohedland (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)