Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal/Archive 3

Suspicious circumstances re: demography of victims, reference link, WP:SYNTH
I refer to the following sentence from the article's lead:

In August 2014 the Jay report concluded that an estimated 1,400 children, most of them white British girls,[15] had been sexually abused in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 by predominantly British-Pakistani men (Kurdish and Kosovar men were also involved).[16][13]

I am specifically concerned with the statement "an estimated 1,400 children, most of them white British girls". Note that the link in reference [15] is rotten, taking us to a .pdf file for a Bramley Parish Council election result:

http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

Here is the current link to the Jay report:

https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/download/31/independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham-1997---2013

This 150 page report mentions the word "white" 12 times. I will start by quoting the first, most relevant use of it (p. 35, 5.5):

'''In this part of the report, we have not specified the ethnicity of the victims or the﻿ perpetrators. In a large number of the historic cases in particular, most of the victims﻿ in the cases we sampled were white British children, and the majority of the﻿ perpetrators were from minority ethnic communities. They were described﻿ generically in the files as ‘Asian males’ without precise reference being made to their﻿ ethnicity. "'''

So the report does not specify that most of the estimated 1,400 victims were white British, nor does it specify the ethnicity of their abusers. It merely states that, in a large number of the notorious cases, out of 66 samples (see p. 35, 5.1), most victims were white British.

We cannot conclude that the estimated 1,400 victims in Rotherdam were mostly white British based on anything in this report.

Veering off topic a bit, many of the cases mentioned in the report did not even take place in Rotherham. For example, one of them is from Derby:

"November 2010, a Derby court case, in which 9 men were convicted of grooming and abuse in three separate trials. "Operation Retriever", involving more than 100 police officers, identified 27 victims. 22 were white, three black and two Asian."

^ I would like to note that in this sample, the percentage of white victims (81%) is roughly proportionate to the white population of Derby (80.3% as of 2011). The three black victims, representing 11% of the total, are more over-represented relative to their share of Derby's population (just 3.0%)

Jay's recent samples also include cases from Oldham, Rockdale, Carlile, Brierville, etc... without mentioning the race of the victims.

The report does however mention that the majority of the perpetrators in Rotherham were Pakistani by heritage, as mentioned in the Wiki article. From p.92:

"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, with a steady increase in the number of child protection cases involving Roma children, though mainly in the category of neglect. Work with Roma families was one of the six priorities of the Child Sexual Exploitation sub-group of the Safeguarding Board in 2012. The Roma population in Rotherham was proportionately much larger than in bigger areas such as Bradford and Manchester."

[...]

"Dr Heal, in her 2003 report, stated that 'In Rotherham the local Asian community are﻿ reported to rarely speak about them [the perpetrators].' The subject was taboo and﻿ local people were probably equally frightened of the violent tendencies of the﻿ perpetrators as the young women they were abusing. In her 2006 report she﻿ described how the appeal of organised sexual exploitation for Asian gangs had﻿ changed. In the past, it had been for their personal gratification, whereas now it﻿ offered 'career and financial opportunities to young Asian men who got involved’. ﻿ She also noted that Iraqi Kurds and Kosovan men were participating in organised﻿ activities against young women."

The report does also note that violence against Asian girls is underreported:

(p. 94-95)

"The Home Affairs Select Committee quoted witnesses saying that cases﻿ of Asian men grooming Asian girls did not come to light because victims 'are often﻿ alienated and ostracised by their own families and by the whole community, if they go﻿ public with allegations of abuse."

[...]

"With hindsight, it is clear that women and girls in the Pakistani community in Rotherham should have been encouraged and empowered by the authorities to speak out about perpetrators and their own experiences as victims of sexual exploitation, so often hidden from sight. The Safeguarding Board has recently received a presentation from a local Pakistani women's group about abuse within their community. The Board should address as a priority the under-reporting of exploitation and abuse in minority ethnic communities. We recommend that the relevant agencies immediately initiate dialogue about CSE with minority ethnic communities, and in particular with the Pakistani-heritage community. This should be done in consultation with local women's groups, and should develop strategies that support young women and girls from the community to participate without fear or threat."

So, to reiterate... This report does not state that the majority of an estimated 1,400 Rotherham victims are white British. In fact, it specifically says it does not specify. It does mention white British, Asian and Roma Slovak victims in Rotherham, without specifying numbers or percentages, plus black victims elsewhere. It does state that the known Rotherham perps are of Pakistani heritage, and some Kosovan and Iraqi Kurd suspects. It also notes that Asian victims are likely underreported. Hunan201p (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Have reverted this for the time being. First of all, that was a longstanding version, and consensus should be establish before making changes.
 * Regardless of that, I agree that he source is a bit ambivalent about this. By this I do not mean to say that I agree with the proposed change, just that the source is not clear about this. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good evening, In your recent revision of the article, you said that my revert contradicts page 35 of the Jay report. Can you explain how, please? I agree that the report is ambivalent -- in contrast to the very bold Wiki passages that I changed. All I see on page 35 of the Jay report is that the Inquiry team looked at 66 case files and determined that a large number of the "historic" cases involved White Britsh girls. Whatever that means. I saw nothing to indicate that the "estimated" 1,400 Rotherdam victims were majority white British, nor even that the majority of victims in the 66 case files were British. Only "a large number of the historic cases in particlar". Hunan201p (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that you wrote that above. How is The Sun as a source? Because in that article it says "It revealed that at least 1,400 children, most of them white girls aged 11–15, had been sexually abused in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 by predominantly British-Pakistani men." Debresser (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my hamfisted response to you, Debresser. With regards to The Sun, it is apparently a deprecated source on Wikipedia. I suspect this is due to its right-wing bias. I personally feel the current entry on the Wiki reflects a right-wing bias, as well, as I've seen it propagated on far-right and racial nationalist websites. Certainly, the "1,400 white girls raped" interpretation has been a popular rallying cry among white nationalists, and it would be a shame if Wikipedia had bolstered this interpretation of the report, especially if it wasn't actually in the report itself. But I digress. Hunan201p (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Let me put it this way: if the information is correct, as I suspect it to be, it would be a shame if we had to remove it just because one source is not conclusive and the other deprecated. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What evidence for we have that the information is correct? The sources that parrot “majority” white are using the same report we are all looking at, it seems that they have completely misinterpreted it, we cannot use sources that are based on falsities, it is not just that one source is not conclusive, it is that the sources making the claims are based on misinterpretations. I agree with Hunan201p, it should be removed from the article as there is no supporting evidence for it, and the only hard evidence is the report, which does not say what the right wing tabloids say it does.AllSaintsNext (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There does not appear to be any argument that the original source (Alexis Jay) does not state that the estimated 1400 victims were white. Hunan201p (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * myself and Hunan201p are clearly in agreement that the corresponding edit removing statements alluding to the misrepresentation of “mostly white” should be made, a consensus needs to be agreed, and 2 are clearly in favour, is anyone against, and if so, why? AllSaintsNext (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit appalled that users openly claim to want to remove content that has been sourced here for years because they find that it is used as arguments by rights wingers. It's akin to users suddenly wanting to remove content from the Chernobyl's page because it's used by opponents of nuclear energy. We've got sources about the majority of the victims being White childrens, . Erasing that info only bolster the right wingers who claim there's censorship.--Aréat (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m even more appalled that you haven’t even seemed to read the beginning of this talk section. In fact, your own “source about the majority of victims being white children” the Jay report, is broken down by Hunan201p above, and actually shows that the Jay report does NOT say this. Have you actually read the talk page discussion as I asked you to repeatedly? It doesn’t say that the majority of victims were white children at all. Stating “erasing that information will only bolster right wingers” is nonsense, it’s entirely correct to say in the article what the jay report says, and it does NOT say anything about the majority being white. So I ask again, does anyone who has actually READ the information, object to removal of clearly false statements from the article? It still remains 2 Ayes, 0 against. AllSaintsNext (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I provided both sources, which point to the victims being white. The report as well as the other course point to victim overall being majority chite, and doesn't affirm that the Rotherham ones weren't as well, it just doesn't confirm it. The other source provide data. What are your sources of them not being so? I haven't seen you back your point.--Aréat (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear to be seriously struggling with reading comprehension. You provided sources that DONT support what you’re saying. The Jay report NO WHERE says that the victims were “overall majority white” - can you show me where it says this? P35, 5.1 refers to “notorious cases” and says no such conclusion that the “majority were white british”. As stated by Hunan201p at 15:47, 25 December, the report does not that state that the majority of an estimated 1400 victims were white british, it “specifically says it does not specify”. Your sources disprove your own claim, it’s quite pertinent you have not read them and have copied and pasted to your own downfall. If you don’t have any evidence showing that the jay report says the overall majority of victims are white british, I will make the edits as per Hunan201p’s revision again as we have consensus. AllSaintsNext (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The November 2012 report clearly state that the majority of victims of Child sexual exploitation in Gangs and groups are white, on page 94. The Jay Report also clearly state that Most of the victims sampled were white children on page 35. Now, do you have a source that point out that Rotheram's victims weren't white as usual? Because I havent seen you provide one. Don't think belittling me here make for an argument or a source.--Aréat (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, you’re going to need to start to read what’s infront of you before replying. As I stated, p35 of the Jay report is referring to “notorious” cases, seconded by Hunan201p, it does NOT say that the overall 1400 victims were majority white, in fact it “specicically says it does not specify”. The November 2012 report is irrelevant to the statement that of the 1400 children the majority were white british, when the source in the article is the Jay report, which doesn’t say this at all. Saying “do I have a source that the victims weren’t white as usual?” Is nonsense, it is up to YOU to prove that the majority were white, and the Jay report does not say this. AllSaintsNext (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your conclusions are off. We do have sources that point out that most victims are white, as provided above. The Jay Report reinstate that fact, then explain that as for itself it won't specify it. There's source pointing out that white whildren make a majority of victims. You at best take out a part of a source that then say it won't talk about whether the victims it will go on in details are white. That doesn't mean they aren't. We've got a "positive" and a "neutral". If you want to make the change we're talking about, you need to provide a source that goes against the other and specify the victims here weren't mostly white as usual. I don't see your "negative".--Aréat (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Lets make this very simple. Show me where the Jay report says that the majority of the 1400 estimated victims were White British. Show me where it actually makes this statement. You don’t have any sources whatsoever that state this, the Jay report certainly does not. Therefore, you dont add things to an article because you think they “might be true” you add things that are supported by sources, and if you can’t show me exactly where the Jay report says this, then unfortunately you haven’t a leg to stand on, and the edit will be made. AllSaintsNext (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Neither you nor I have the Jay report saying that, as you know very well it say it doesn't specify ethnicity. It stay neutral. It does however say most of the sampled were white. The other report I provided as a source show a majority of victims as white. Here's another source showing on page 23 that a majority of victims are white. Now, do you have a source that say the victims were not majority white? Notice how I provide sources, and the only thing you're doing is point out that one of the report say it doesn't develop that question, and try to focus the discussion on that single report. Do notice as well that the Jay report isn't the only report on this matter.--Aréat (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about me not providing sources? My source is the Jay report. It’s in black and white. Per WP:VER “ All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]” it is up to YOU and only you, to support the following statement “ In August 2014 the Jay report concluded that an estimated 1,400 children, most of them white British girls,” with an inline citation showing that the Jay Report says this. If you cannot do this, then it will be removed from the article per WP:PROVEIT. The rest of your comment can be dismissed, as it does not provide a direct source to the statement you are arguing is supported. AllSaintsNext (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What you're doing is wiping out all mention of white girls being the majority of the victim. Editing the page should be done accordingly to say the Jay report specifically doesn't mention the ethnicity, all while acknowledging a majority were white, with the others sources doing so.--Aréat (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, what I’m doing is asking you to follow basic Wikipedia policy. “Wiping out” inaccurate information is exactly why WP:VER exists. It’s quite simple, can you provide an inline citation from the Jay report that supports the statement “ In August 2014 the Jay report concluded that an estimated 1,400 children, most of them white British girls,” - if you cannot, then per WP:VER it must be removed, as it cannot be proven, and you can only restore it once you have found an inline citation that supports the statement. It doesnt matter what “other sources” say so, what matters is can you provide an inline citation. If not, as stated, I’ll remove the content until you can WP:PROVEIT. AllSaintsNext (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Arèat has not only failed to provide a source to support the claim that the victims were mostly white British, he has flat out lied by suggesting the Jay report says the majority of sampled victims were white British. In fact, it says nothing of the sort.
 * Since neither Arèat nor Debresser have offered any argument against this, the statement must go. All Wiki statements must be verifiable in the cited reference material, and at present this statement makes boldly specific claims that aren't in the original report. Hunan201p (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

In this edit, reinstated the words "of diverse origins". Perfectly good-faith edit, but... As far as I can tell, the only source we have for the ethnicity of the victims are the reports cited by (thanks!). I read the quotes from these reports, and I don't think they support the claim "of diverse origins". Maybe the victims in Rotherham were 99% white, maybe they were 99% Asian. Either case is unlikely, but we just don't know. I think we simply shouldn't mention the ethnicity of the victims at all until we find new sources. We should also delete the words "of diverse origins". — Chrisahn (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , good point, I'll self revert. Caius G. (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "diverse ethnic backgrounds"
Should the 1,400 cases in the Jay report be described as being of "diverse ethnic backgrounds"? As of time of writing, the sentence reads:
 * The Jay inquiry estimated that there may be 1,400 victims, of diverse ethnic backgrounds.

I propose we remove the "of diverse ethnic backgrounds", since we do not have whole statistical information in the Jay report regarding the ethnicites of the 1,400 victims (although I could be wrong). For us to describe the cases as being from "diverse ethnic backgrounds" would mean roughly equal ratios of victim ethnicities, when we have no information of the sort.

Paging @Chrisahn and @Caius G since they seem to agree (above) on the removal of this specific part of the sentence. Colgated (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I notice you didn't see my support earlier, but only in regards to not mentioning any race of the victims at all. As pointed out though, "diverse" was a long standing edit due to it's accuracy.80.6.178.12 (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Diverse ethnic backgrounds" does not imply any specific numerical ratios, merely that their ethnic backgrounds were varied across a range of significant variation. Roughly equal numbers is not implied at all. 1400 victims of which 20 were of significantly different ethnic bacgrounds to each other and the other 1380 all the same would still be accurately described by "diverse ethnic backgrounds" whereas 700 of one ethnic background and the other 700 of another different ethnic background would display little diversity. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 13:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, so you're saying that it's about the number of different ethnicities, rather than each of their amount? I would still oppose, citing basically the same reasons as the consensus above (top of page): I think we simply shouldn't mention the ethnicity of the victims at all until we find new sources. We should also delete the words "of diverse origins". It would also be much preferred if we didn't do original research here, a quote from the report about "diverse ethnic backgrounds" would justify its inclusion. User 80.6.178.12 said in an edit on 09:19, 21 February 2022 that this phrase was "in the report", so maybe somebody could provide a page number? Colgated (talk)


 * That is a lie, and also a blatant red herring.
 * The edit summary is: Diverse ethnic backgrounds is within the report, and long standing correct text,
 * This is correct, as the above user points out, diverse ethnic backgrounds are within the report, there’s even specific sections relating to Asian victims.
 * I later said: The statement of "diverse ethnic backgrounds" is not only correct, given that there were victims who were Asian, but it has also never been a "quote" so does not need a direct quote, it is a summary of the facts.
 * The above is a response on this very talk page, one that you even replied to directly. Why are you arguing in bad faith? My position has been more than clear, it is a red herring. You are trying to shift the focus to "find me a page number" away from "is this summary statement accurate?" Of which, it is. Even the user above agrees it's factually accurate.
 * Please do not try and mislead people when it is easily readable what I said.80.6.178.12 (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit summary could be read both ways, sorry for the confusion. I still think it is original research. Perhaps there is a source that describes the victims as from diverse ethnic backgrounds that we could use to back up this statement directly? Colgated (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It can’t be read both ways, as no quote marks have ever been used, either in the edit summary or the article itself. The source that describes the victims as from diverse backgrounds is literally the jay report, as users have already pointed out, it discusses Asian victims as well as others, this is the very definition of “diversity”. Also, if you have an alt (as you clearly do) you should make it clear that this account is an alt of that main one, per WP rules.80.6.178.12 (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I assumed it was a rephrasing of something from the report at the time, not original research as it seems to be. Indeed, I was logged in on the old account by mistake on another computer. I don't think I have to declare a "fresh start" account, I'll check though, thanks for pointing that out. Colgated (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You assumed multiple times? After I explicitly explained and you even replied to it within this very talk page? Give over. Red herring is obvious. It’s also funny you call it an “old account” despite the fact it’s been used regularly since February 5th. So much for a “fresh start” on this account that’s much older than that date.80.6.178.12 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I said I assumed that at the time of the edit, it was simply a misinterpretation of your edit summary which I misinterpted again when I brought it up again - it's only a red herring if we continue to talk about it, I suppose. It's an old account since this account started on the 20th, not sure what the 5th has to do with it. Colgated (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not an old account if you’ve been using it regularly since February 5th. You even used it twice on the 20th, the 21st and 4 times today. You’ve been caught out, and now have to backtrack. It’s as plain as day. You should also be fully aware of the WP rules regarding alts since on your other alts you’ve been using them for some time and are fully aware of WP policies. Acting coy won’t help what is clearly you messing up and revealing your alt account.80.6.178.12 (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an old account from the 20th onwards, since I started editing with this new account on the 20th. Using it on the days succeeding was a technical mistake, as I explained. I only made three edits on the old account by mistake, at 08:53, 21 February 2022, 01:45, 23 February 2022 and at 10:53, 23 February 2022 (on this page). Retiring the account obviously does not count as a mistaken edit. If you want to continue we should do that elsewhere. Thanks, Colgated (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)