Talk:Oxford child sex abuse ring

Additional Issues
Is there an elephant in the room here? I understand that the common denominator of all or most of the victims and the alleged or convicted perpetrators is that the victims were non-Muslim, and the perpetrators were mostly Muslims Gcjblack (talk)

Proposed renaming
16:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: MOVED — UY Scuti Talk  14:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

– This proposal concerns a group of articles with similar naming issues. The articles all concern recent child sex abuse cases in England. Common factors include that all concern more than one perpetrator and more than one under-age victim (sometimes large numbers of both). The articles were all created by the same editor.
 * Oxford sex gang → Oxford child sex abuse ring
 * Telford sex gang → Telford child sex abuse ring
 * Rochdale sex trafficking gang → Rochdale child sex abuse ring
 * Derby sex gang → Derby child sex abuse ring
 * Banbury sex gang → Banbury child sex abuse ring
 * Aylesbury sex gang → Aylesbury child sex abuse ring
 * Keighley sex gang → Keighley child sex abuse ring
 * Bristol sex gang → Bristol child sex abuse ring

The naming issues are two-fold, firstly since the articles are typically about the investigations, victims, crimes, trials and 'reactions' to the cases, rather than simply the perpetrators ('gangs'), the titles do not properly identify the subject.

Secondly, whilst in several instances, the sources refer to the perpetrators as 'gangs', 'rings' or similar, there is no indication that &#39;nameoftown sex gang' is the WP:COMMONNAME for any of these cases, and it even unclear in several instances whether the perpetrators were known to each other. In some instances, some of the victims were over-age, however in every instance the majority were not, therefore the use of 'child' in the title is IMO legitimate, since child sex abuse is the defining factor of each case. I've added the year to the proposed titles for clarity, but would be happy to follow whatever is the norm on crime articles.

Given the sensitivity of the topic and my own unfamiliarity with naming conventions in this topic area, I would appreciate others' input on the proposed renamings. Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Brad  v  15:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)  --Relisting. --  Dane  talk  04:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. "Foo child sexual abuse case" is too vague - there were probably more than one such cases in each Foo, every year, and the defining feature of most of these cases is the existence of a coordinated group of adult perpetrators.  Other possibilities -  "Foo child sexual abuse gang" or "Foo child sexual abuse ring".    The year should only be included if there is a risk of confusion with another article.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In some instances, 'coordinated' only in the sense of one or two individuals 'pimping' the victims. I would support 'ring' if others think this apt as being more accurate than 'gang'. Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ghmyrtle, В²C, would you support the modified proposal? Pincrete (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support ".... child sex abuse ring".   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Gang" is commonly used to refer to these topics and for good reason. While nameoftown sex gang may not be the WP:COMMONNAME for these topics, name of town child sex abuse case (year) most certainly is not.  As an aside, even if the proposal was to go forward, the year in parentheses should not be added unless there are other articles about child sex abuse cases from that city.  --В²C ☎ 23:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * nb proposal modified in the light of comments about 'case' and (year).Pincrete (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support revised proposal with "ring" rather than "case" the current titles are imitation of tabloid style, not precise, and are not what are or would be found in reputable legal sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support revised proposal with "ring" rather than "case" since this isn't focused on legal proceedings.  I agree that "Foo sex gang" is headline-ese, and it also fails WP:PRECISE; all of these things where sexual-abuse-of-children rings in particular, not various other things that might be described as sex gangs, rings, clubs, whatever. They also do not qualify as "gangs" in most usages of that word.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Use "sex abuse ring" for now. No prejudice to make another RM after six or twelve months. George Ho (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. Bertdrunk (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Oxford 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 Oxford 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 Greville Janner:  From Huddersfield grooming gang:  

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 ⚡ 23:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Reports
I don't know why reports that are only partly related to the Oxford case is given prominence in the lead. It covered practically half the lead, this is WP:UNDUE when it is a side issue. It can given the main body of the text, but side issue should not be such prominence in the article. Hzh (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of sources on the page
The page cites the recent report "Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation: Characteristics of Offending". Home Office. December 2020, in several places in the article. Actually it really is a key ctitation in the article. I don't think it should be the report pertains to cases prior to Oxford and doesn't add anything to this Oxford case. Arguably you might refer to this report in the main text but it certianly shouldnt be included in the introduction. This is why I deleted it from the introduction. Anyway I can let that pass. The article says the A Home Office report in December 2020, however, found no evidence that Asians are disproportionately involved in child sexual exploitation.[5] later on the article states

In December 2017, Quilliam released a report entitled "Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation – Dissecting Grooming Gangs", concluding that 84% of offenders were of South Asian heritage.[33] This review was criticised for its poor methodology by Ella Cockbain and Waqas Tufail, in their paper "Failing victims, fuelling hate: challenging the harms of the 'Muslim grooming gangs' narrative" which was published in January 2020.[34] In December that year, a further report by the Home Office was released, stating that the majority of CSE gangs were composed of white men, and that it is not possible to conclude that Asian men are disproportionately engaged in such crimes.[5][35]

This is misusing the source, because although that the Home Office report claimed most of this crime is caused by white men, it also states that asian men are disportionately represented. The key caveat that this report repeatedly makes is that data quality is not good, and that ethnicity is not always recorded and is sometimes recorded wrongly. So the article isn't its current form is having it both ways. This is wrong and will be deleted in the next few days Aerchasúr (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have restored the sourced content, which is right there in the linked report. Stop doing this. Read WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE and edit accordingly; or not at all. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We absolutely must use the information provided in the source. If we are to adhere to WP:NPOV, then we ought not amplify the spin the government put on the article. All of the studies examined were uniform in their conclusions. Furthermore, this fits with other data. 129.67.118.189 (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Then by all means add "A Home Office report in December 2020, however, found no evidence that Asians are disproportionately involved in child sexual exploitation." to the article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. If you're going to deliberately mis-quote parts of the report (such as "some" becoming "many"), your edits won't fly at all. If you want to cherry-pick some phrases (such as then NPOV demands inclusion of the full relevant quote, namely:   Bias and inaccuracies. Huh. Imagine that. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please put apply some academic integrity. Claiming to follow the editing policy does not constitute following the editing policy. The report also clearly states, "While there is therefore no evidence to suggest that efforts to identify and prevent group-based CSE offending should be limited to focusing on one particular community or culture, this does not mean that cultural characteristics of offender groups are irrelevant or should be ignored by local agencies."
 * We ought to include the quote from the article as the claim that "there is no evidence" is, at best, misleading; however, in actuality, it is literally false. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, we can absolutely include more of what the report is actually saying. Problem is, you're cherry-picking one side only, and removing the other - you can't do that. And you're also deliberately misquoting the source ("some" changed to "many", for example). So, yeah, what you're adding is literally false... Secondary issue, if you include both sides, that's too long for the lead. Propose an edit that satisfies WP:V, NPOV and BALANCE, and we can discuss where is most appropriate for it. But don't try and force a biased interpretation of sources into the lead. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my additional comment. I am taking the entire article into consideration including actually reading it. I am not cherry picking. You are taking the conclusion at face value despite the fact that it completely contradicts all of the primary research provided. The primary issue is that you must critically evaluate the sources as you synthesize and article. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The rational for their exclusion of their ethnicity data is as follows.
 * This analysis demonstrated that the existing data would not answer the question of the relationship between ethnicity and child sexual exploitation. First, it was not possible to use ethnicity data because of the amount of cases in which it is missing. Second, CSE offences can be recorded under a number of different offence codes (including more general offence codes, such as sexual assault) and so it was not possible to isolate these offences in the data. Third, the co-offending flag is only applied in a minority of cases, so when combined with ethnicity data, numbers were too small for meaningful analysis. While exploration of the nationality data was interesting, it did not address the relationship between group-based CSE offending and ethnicity and therefore adds little to our understanding. These shortcomings were in line with published data on ethnicity, as described above.
 * First, the absence of ethnicity data would only justify that conclusion if leaving out the ethnicity data biased the information in one way or another. Furthermore, even if all of the offenders belonged to other groups, Asian perpetrators may still disproportionately represented. This can be seen in publicly accessible statistics on crime on the police.uk website.
 * Second, the number of perpetrators in the studies listed in the articles were rather high. Therefore, the onus would be on the author to justify this editorialization.<\p>
 * Finally, the author even admits that it would be interesting to understand the relationship between the origins of the perpetrators but pretends that this is out of the scope of the article because nationality is not strictly equivalent to ethnicity.
 * By mischaracterizing the very evidence found in the article, you are promulgating disinformation from a government agency. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is always the potential for bias and the potential for inaccuracy. The question is whether you have sufficient evidence to say that the data are so biased that the conclusion drawn from those data could be the opposite of what appears to be the case. This is highly unlikely. I would ask you to look, as well, at the key findings: "A number of studies have indicated an over-representation of Asian and Black offenders in group-based CSE. Most of the same studies show that the majority of offenders are White."
 * I do not understand what your problem is. You do not get to pick and choose your sources depending on what suits you. The paper exclusively cites studies that support the conclusion that Asian and Black offenders are over-represented, and even if every case in which ethnicity were not reported were included in the White category, Asian and Black offenders would still have been found to be over-represented. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed it to be worded as clearly and accurately as possible based on our conversation. Please let me know if you would still like to change it back, and we can discuss it further. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

When you use the word "article" are you referring to this article or are you referring to the report cited in the lead? It's unclear. I am mischaracterising nothing. You, on the other hand, are literally changing words - e.g., "some" to "many" - and you're repeatedly failing to address that when called on it. I am not "picking and choosing sources." I am pointing out that the one source we're talking about says a lot more than - and quite often the opposite - of what you claim it says. As you yourself even point out above - that data is completely unreliable. Lastly, but importantly, "we" do not synthesise anything - we report neutrally on what the sources say. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)