Wikipedia

Talk:Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

< Talk:Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Sceptre in topic Requested move 3 September 2024
Archive 1

Requested move 16 August 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago9 comments6 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 12:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic → Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom – As discussed above, "South Asian" is not commonly used by sources. I don't think "moral panic" is unanimous/sourced enough to meet WP:NPOVTITLE. Taking a cue from this BBC article on the topic: "Grooming gangs and ethnicity: What does the evidence say?" Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this. Whilst I think the title is a step in the right direction, I am not sure it captures the religious element that has been reported to take place across numerous cases. I understand the controversy surrounding the term 'Asian grooming gangs' - on one end, the perception that it is a 'dog whistle' term that will only stoke community tensions and on the other by Sikh and Hindu groups who feel that it paints their entire demographic in a negative light when perpetrators are mostly neither Sikh or Hindu. However, one reason why the phenomenon has gained so much coverage is due to the perception that there is an over-representation of a certain demographic in the crime, and I do not believe the proposed title of 'Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom' accurately captures this. The 'moral panic' claim has also not received widespread adoption so I would not be in favour of it being included in a page title.
Multiple inquiries, investigations and victims have publicly spoken out that fears of linking race and religion to grooming gangs have prevented public discourse on this topic and I hope that we can learn from their failures. Therefore, I propose the title of 'Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom'. This would capture the phenomenon of the over-representation with most of the Asian perpetrators involved in the numerous cases hailing from Pakistan as well as other Muslim-majority countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Bangladesh etc., and is supported by the Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe study.
If the title is renamed as so, a new section can be created to stress that Muslim organisations in the United Kingdom have spoken out against the practice. Kioj156 (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Support any of the suggestions so far as better than current. The current title is a rather egregious framing that doesn't accurately reflect either the coverage in RS or, for that matter, the reality in the UK. Both the grooming gangs and the panic that they triggered are real phenomena, though one is clearly a consequence of the other, and it doesn't make sense to frame the article just in terms of the reaction. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Support for Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom or simply Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom, the ''panic'' part is an egregious POV issue. Killuminator (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert by M.Bitton

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

My edit was reverted, even though I provided an inline quotation from the sources that are being misrepresented in the opening statement. The user claimed there is an RFC on this matter, but the only RFC I see pertains to a title change, not the article body. First of all, why mention South Asia and Pakistan separately, and then 'Muslim' again separately? Is Pakistan not in South Asia? Or is 'Muslim' a geographic region? This is nonsense. We cannot vilify the entire South Asian community when all the sources specifically refer to 'Muslims' or 'Pakistanis' in the context of South Asians. No other South Asian community has even been "alleged." You may choose to identify as South Asian, Pakistani, or Muslim as per your convenience, but there is no rule that justifies changing the info in sources for the sake of political correctness. Other communities exist too. I was polite enough to mention 'predominantly Pakistani,'. There is no other nationality indicated.I hope responsible admins will look into this. I do not engage in edit wars, especially when I know I am going to be the target of a mob revert attack. I hope responsible editors and admins will take note of what's going on in here. But considering the support above whitewashing rfc is getting, i understand if my request is ignored. DangalOh (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

the way this works is even if its pakistanis in particular , everyone will get lumped in.
much of the sourcing talks about asian and south asian and often muslim and pakistani after that fact. the conflation is a key part of the panic. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Sources are extremely specific, and that’s why I used the term 'South Asian Muslims.' South Asia is rarely used without context. No other South Asian community has ever been accused of grooming gangs. The POV of the editors in favor of removing 'Muslim' and keeping only 'South Asian' is — 'In this scenario, I will identify as a South Asian, neither Pakistani nor Muslim. And if I’m going down, I’m taking everyone from South Asia down with me. Either it’s for the entire South Asian community or for no one.' And this isn’t a one-off issue where this logic has been applied. Hopeless Wikipedia. As I said, if there is any rational human admin left on Wikipedia, they will see through this. Otherwise, what’s one more whitewashed article on Wikipedia? Not like it will be anything unique. I dont wish to argue anymore or explain one thing again and again. I am not getting paid for acting as a representative of non pakistani south asian community. I’m out of here. Happy editing. DangalOh (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Another article created for the sole purpose of pushing a biased POV

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Whether you agree with this article or not, this article's title contains the biased premise that concerns about immigrant rape is "moral panic". This article asserts that "White perpetrators have been shown to be more represented in sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes than any other ethnicity in the United Kingdom." This statement as well as all of the news sources fail to make it clear whether whites in the United Kingdom commit more sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes in total, or per capita.

This article indirectly cites "Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation: Characteristics of Offending". This paper cites CEOP (2011), which finds 30% of offenders were of unknown ethnicity, 30% of offenders were white and 28% were "Asian" (likely South Asian). Since there are more whites than Asians in Britain, this would indicate that "Asians" commit more sexual assault per capita than whites. CEOP (2013) finds that of the 52 groups where data provided was useable, half of the groups consisted of all Asian offenders, 11 were all White offenders, 4 were all Black, and 2 were exclusively Arab. There were nine groups where offenders came from a mix of ethnic backgrounds. Looking at the offenders across all groups, of the 306 offenders 75% were Asian. This suggests that "Asians" commit 10.71x the rate of group sexual assault. The Children’s Commissioner for England carried out work in 2014 looking at police data on CSE offenders (Berelowitz et al., 2015). Data was provided by 19 out of 43 police forces, showing nearly 4,000 offenders, 1,200 of whom were involved in group-based CSE. This study found that 42% were White or White British, 17% were Black or Black British, 14% were Asian or Asian British, and 4% had another ethnicity. No data on ethnicity was recorded in 22% of cases. This would suggest that "Asians" commit sexual assault at twice the rate you'd expect given their share of the population. Lastly, the Police Foundation (Skidmore, 2016) looked at group-based CSE in Bristol, and found that those from ethnic minority backgrounds were overrepresented compared to the local area.

This article directly cites Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation Offenders: Who and Why? which finds that Muslims made up 83% of prosecutions for Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation, with Pakistani origin being a better statistical predictor of GLCSE than Muslim religious belief. This contradicts the statement made in the second paragraph of this article, that British whites are the "most represented" in sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes. Noobnubcakes (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. Also, a single article sourcing a primary source from the Anti-Asian Quillam institute isn't worth much. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Quilliam was, by no reasonable definition, "anti-Asian". It was explicitly "anti-Islamism"—which you might be able to convincingly argue ended up being "anti-Islam", but that certainly isn't just the entire British Asian identity.
Besides, where even is the Quilliam article here? Hoixw1 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2024

Latest comment: 1 month ago95 comments46 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. To Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom. There is a consensus that, if the article is to be kept (and for the meanwhile, it is to be kept), that "moral panic" should be included in the article title to reflect how the subject is dealt with in reliable sources.

There was a late discussion about the possible title of "Ethnicity and…", but concerns relating to WP:AND (as brought up by User:Sirfurboy and the comparative lack of input means I cannot find a consensus for that inclusion yet. Nor can I find a consensus for the inclusion of the word "Muslim". However, if after informal – and possible formal – discussion such a consensus emerges, that can easily be revisited.

The move as proposed runs issues with WP:TITLEFORMAT, so I've gone with a format that, to my reckoning, is unlikely to be objectionable to those in the discussion who form the consensus for the move.

Additionally, I would like to remind editors that accusing others of wanting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS may be construed as a failure to assume other editors are operating in good faith. There are major issues with this article as it stands that are evident to any reader, and I would like to assume we all want to work together to fix those however much we can. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom → Grooming Gang Moral Panic in UK – Last RM was a mess, had only three folks discussing a POV mess of an article. Now that we reverted back before all these POV edits, and more folks have their eyes on this, we should consider appropriate, less inflammatory, names Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 16:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there are actually two topics here and the way to carve the subject at the joints is to write separate articles about each.
Firstly, there's a need for an umbrella topic covering the Rotherham CSE scandal, the Rochdale CSE scandal, the Banbury child sex abuse ring, the Bristol child sex abuse ring, the Peterborough sex abuse case, the Telford child sexual exploitation scandal, the Derby child sex abuse ring, the Halifax child sex abuse ring, the Huddersfield grooming gang, the Newcastle sex abuse ring, and the Oxford child sex abuse ring, where the common factor is that the perpetrators were (not exclusively, but overwhelmingly) British-Pakistani men with recognizably Muslim names, which plays into narratives that the far right want to promote to you. Those were separate events, but they were taking place either concurrently or else with significant overlap in time. An article about them collectively should be given a title that includes the phrases "UK" and "grooming gang" (or preferably "paedophile ring", which is what these were). The title of this umbrella topic should not include the phrase "moral panic", because they weren't moral panics. They were catastrophic failings of police and social workers leading to an appalling amount of child rape, including rape of pre-teens.
Secondly, there's also an article to be written about the media coverage of the first topic. Journalists in general, and Andrew Norfolk in particular, said things about the crime statistics which were inaccurate, unhelpful, misleading, and promoted far right narratives. People like Tommy Robinson are chuffed that the Times published all that rubbish. There are academic sources about this too (for example here, here, and here). This second article is the one that needs a title including all the phrases "UK", "grooming gang"/"paedophile ring", and "moral panic". I'm relaxed about what order to put those phrases in.
It's possible that thirdly, there's also an article to be written about the whole sorry history of paedophilia in the UK in the early 2000s. This article would take a higher-level view of the connections between the South Asian grooming gangs, Jimmy Savile, various care homes for children, and a disgustingly large number of Christian priests. We might be able to accomplish that within Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom, though.
Anyway, I commend this multi-article structure to you all.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Islam, WikiProject Discrimination, and WikiProject United Kingdom have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 03:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose move - I've read the support votes with great interest, and also noticed that this article was previously nominated for deletion. It seems to me that, I don't like it or it's too offensive to me/others (i.e., trying to be politically correct so not to offend certain groups) are at play here, and I ask the community to be weary of changing the article's title on those grounds. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We report on what reliable and verifiable secondary sources say. Trying to change the title or inserting our own POV in order to appease a certain community is nothing more than WP:Original research in my opinion. If sources say "Muslim/Asian grooming gangs", then we should leave it as is. It is irrelevant what the far-right groups say or how it might or might not play into their narrative. I see this as a major reason for these requests to move/delete. We report on WP:RS secondary sources for the general reader. Far-right groups/individuals are also members of the general reader. Provided we have done our job as editors as per Wiki policy, what they chose to do with the informantion contained in the article is up to them. We are a community of editors, and not activists trying to sanitize information for political correctness or to appease certain communities. I assume Black people do not appreciate the article Nigger, Mexicans do not appreciate the Mexican Mafia article, and Germans do not appreciate the Nazi Germany article, etc... yet we have articles on them as they are in RS secondary sources. Playing activism on Wikipedia would defeat the whole purpose of this project and questions the credibility of this article and others. I also oppose the use of the term "moral panic". That is not in any credible sources (save 1) as stated above on this talk page. Using the term would be nothing more than original research. We also have to remember that there are true victims of these abuses/phenomenon. Trying to minimise/sugar coat this article so not to offend would be a disservice to the facts, and the actual victims - which are not based on hearsay or our biased opinions but from reliable and verifiable sources. I hope the person closing this request would take these into account. The article has already been so severely edited and sanitized that it makes this article meaningless to the general reader. More effort, it seems, has been spent trying to sanitize/discredit the article than reporting the facts as per our WP:NPOV policy. That is a topic for another day. Tamsier (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
    If sources say "Muslim/Asian grooming gangs", then we should leave it as is. But the best sources don't say that. The best sources—academic sources—say that it's sensationalist Orientalism, that it's a 'folk devil' narrative, that it is, plainly, a moral panic. It is not original research, as you accuse, to summarize what trained scholars have said. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
    Open-access articles with few citations in journals which allow (if not encourage) biased content—eg pro racial justice (in flagrant violation of WP:NPOV) are not the best sources available.
    This is consistently referred to in ways similar, or identical to the title in reputable media outlets. It should stay, and whether it is "sensationalist Orientalism" is for discussion in the body. H6xy (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Our reliable sources guideline holds that reliable sources are not required to be neutral or unbiased and may at times be the best sources. Academic, peer-reviewed sources are the best sources for this topic involving sociology and the sociology of race, religion, etc. Journalistic sources can be reliable for many topics, but for this topic they lack the discipline-specific training of sociology, media studies, etc. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

::Ironically, the original POV mess was indeed trying to rightgreatwrongs. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Support The current title is clearly not what the article is about, this is an obvious problem which needs fixing. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NPOV. The proposed title is neutral and consistent with the article content. The suggested minor variations would also be okay. NightHeron (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support I was the one who started the now wrongly closed as "keep" AFD. Personally I find it incredible that Owenx - a long standing editor and admin, could dismiss delete votes with this comment: "A few !votes were discarded as irrelevant, mostly those that called for deletion based solely on the content being offensive; the article doesn't qualify as an "attack page"."

:Not a single one of those votes were "based solely on the content being offensive" - not a single one. To dismiss those votes but not have a comment on the various bad-faith "keep" votes is suspect to me, and reeks of some personal bias.

The subject is particularly charged and even on this page here we have people trying to claim censorship without evidence as they did on the AFD. It is likely that the page after the move will need to also be protected to stop the absolute mess of a POV article that recently existed from existing again. In any case, support the name change since a moral panic is exactly what reliable sources say it is, but a TNT is still better in my opinion. Thank you to Hydrangeans and Black Kite for their dillegent attention here.TwinkleStarzz (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Support: Per the other replies. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolf (He/Him | Talk! • Contributions) 14:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Support The proposed title (or minor proposed variations) is a much better match for the article. BrightVamp (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support renaming to a title that is more in line with WP:NPOV and actually represents the contents of the article, i.e, that it is a moral panic.
Brocade River Poems 00:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment moral panic heavily implies irrationality and paints a pejorative picture, therefore being POV
Kowal2701 (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the members of the public consuming those media and reacting angrily aren’t acting irrationally, it’s a rational and understandable reaction based on the impression they’re given. Moving to Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom would allow us to inform broadly rather than just document and refute, which would turn many readers off as it looks apologetic Kowal2701 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
It's only an understandable reaction if you assume they have been exposed to morally-questionable systemic racism, to even think such an absurd thing was a possibility. One could have an article about "BBC grooming gangs in the UK" - and we KNOW it's happened. But it still doesn't mean it's a thing. Nfitz (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Journal article on the media narrative. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I suggest we have a section on Media coverage which includes a count of the headlines on the main cases per publication, and contrast that with the abundance of cases given by the Home Office in the lede Kowal2701 (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Support move due to WP:SPADE, WP:NPOV and WP:PRECISION. The title should use sentence case and "in the United Kingdom" is better than "in the UK", but otherwise, it's fine. Scholarly consensus reflects that there's a media panic, moral panic, or scapegoating of Muslim men going on. Most RSes approach the topic through this lens.
This shouldn't prejudice any potential future decision to cover the issue of grooming by gangs (of any ethnic or racial background) in the UK, if someone decides to write an article on that. But the focus in this article, with its specific and narrow attention to Muslim men, should reflect what RSes have to say on that, otherwise the entire article risks being WP:UNDUE and WP:BIAS. Lewisguile (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, echoing most issues above.
Just10A (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposal as is, but strongly support renaming this article. The current article title and proposed renaming are both highly problematic and violate WP:POVTITLE. The simple solution is to remove any qualification and simply move the article to something like Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom. Then the article is not held hostage to issues around religion, ethnicity or morality, but these issues can be freely covered in the article body subject to the usual editing discussions, and reader can draw their own conclusions from there. The article would also fit more logically among the other articles within Category:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom - notice there are many articles about crimes committed by white guys, without the need to focus on religion or ethnicity in the article title. Cnbrb (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisted to give time for closure of the deletion review which will affect this move, and looks like it could go either way as of now. Discussion appears to be torn on whether to use the words "moral panic" or expand the scope of the article to avoid its use. ASUKITE 16:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose the completely bigoted title needs to be renamed for sure - and preferably immediately. But "moral panic"? That's a phrase that's unfamiliar to most of the English-speaking world, that only comes up if you dig into technical literature. We are supposed to use commonly-used (and understandable) titles. The equivlent of that would be Fear about Muslim grooming gangs in the UK or Paranoia about Muslim grooming gangs in the UK or Conspiracy Theories about Muslim grooming gangs in the UK. Also, what type of grooming - with Muslim in the title, my thought is about radicalization (grooming to be terrorists). But this is actually about sex (WTAF?) (the paranoia and racism to think that this is actually a Muslim thing is beyond me). My suggestion is Fear about pedophilic sexual grooming by gangs in the UK. Nfitz (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    What is and isn’t a Muslim thing is not for us to decide or assume. We only note what is observed and noted by reliable sources. DangalOh (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Would anyone have a major objection if I moved the article to "Grooming gangs in the UK" as a temporary measure, just to get rid of this racist title while the discussion continues? It's been here far too long. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I have significant objections. Additionally, 'Muslim' is not a race. If you still choose to remove it, feel free to do so, but please refrain from using the misguided argument of racism—no one buys it anymore. Most South Asians belong to three racial groups: Indo-Aryan, Iranian, and Dravidian. Any of these racial groups can include Muslims. Moreover, most sources here specifically refer to Pakistani South Asians. And if your argument is for racism against Muslim Indo-Aryans, but not Hindu, Buddhist, or Sikh Indo-Aryans, then it still would not be valid, as it would still fall under religious discrimination. Otherwise, racism doesn't apply here. You could only remove it on the grounds that it might contribute to the already rampant Islamophobia, but would that justify censorship? I'm not sure. Whatever you decide DangalOh (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Muslim is not a race. Jewish is not a race. You know what else is not a race? All of the alleged "races". The point in calling this racism is not to claim that race is real. Race is a set of theoretical abstractions often built on top of (at best) half understood concepts of ethnicity for various political purposes, none of them good. The point is that people who think that race is real discriminate on that basis. Racism is real even though race isn't. Islamophobia and antisemitism are both racism, even if the false racial theories that they are built on are even more obviously nonsensical than those of the average false racial theory. So, is this moral panic aimed at Muslims, Pakistanis or south Asian people in general? Yes! All three! The emphasis shifts depending on the need to rouse the uneducated to simple anger or to split hairs in order to confuse the more educated into thinking that this is more complicated than it is. We will be removing "Muslim" from the article title because it does serve to legitimise racism. And with that, I return you to our regularly scheduled programming discussing how best to achieve that. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about this. I feel that there might be a completely separate article that should exist at "Grooming gangs in the UK". Despite the racist moral panic, there have been some examples of grooming gangs in the UK. We probably should have an article about that at that or a similar title. It is a topic that goes back further than people realise, certainly far further back than the UK has had a significant Pakistani population. Whether we have the sources to write that yet is unclear. Britain isn't great at excavating its past misdeeds. Look at the way the National Trust gets it head bitten off every time it tries.
I don't object to the proposed temporary move but we need to make sure that this article doesn't get stuck there. We will also have to fend off even more people blustering that we should take "moral panic" out of the article because grooming gangs are sometimes real. I am very disappointed that this discussion has taken so long that a temporary measure is seen as necessary. As such I think I can cautiously support the temporary move. -- DanielRigal (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
We probably should have an article about that We do. Three of them. Telford child sexual exploitation scandal, Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, Rochdale child sex abuse ring, but strangely not the Camborne grooming gang, nor the Glasgow grooming gang nor any of the other grooming gangs that have not been exploited by media induced moral panic (because the perpetrators were white). We don't need any more pages that pander to this false narrative. The pages we have describe the ring. Anything else there is to say about this is about moral panic and racism. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Part of the issue is the scale of reporting, the level of reporting on the grooming gang case doesn't match it's significance matched to the statistics. For instance the 539 perpetrators of abuse in the Jesus Army that was reported earlier this week[2] that basically didn't move the needle amongst most news outlets.
That there has been actual real events and analysis of how those events have been reported need to be in the same article. The scale of reporting on this horrific events just isn't replicated in other equally horrific events. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I came to this article to understand generalities of child abuse in the last 2 decades. The numbers of victims and perpetrators and the causes. Are any groups overrepresented in the victims or the perpetrators. If Pakistani or Muslim men are then there is a difficult but very valuable role to be played by Wikipedia.
I support Wikipedia to get accurate reflection, aggregation and assimilation of what reliable sources report. I would follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom#c-Tamsier-20240904033500-Bluethricecreamman-20240903162800 31.94.22.76 (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
If you want to understand the generalities of child abuse in the last two decades then you should understand that grooming by groups of Pakistani's or Muslim's is a small part of that. Unfortunately our media focuses on specific scandals and not the real horrific details. The most accurate reflection of sources is from the works highlighting this, and how over representing certain scandals only serves to hides the abuse going on elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support this move so that the title actually matches the content of the article (the only reason we have the current article name is because of historic POV edits to the article, and the debacle of the previous move). memphisto 11:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to Grooming Gang Moral Panic in UK, support move to Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom per Ham II. The title "Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" provides a balanced view, addressing the issue without focusing on a specific religion, while sidestepping the contentious term "moral panic," which can imply that the issue itself is not real or is being blown out of proportion. It allows for a more thorough discussion of the topic and aligns with the broader academic coverage on the whole subject.Mooonswimmer 12:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose this proposed move to Grooming Gang Moral Panic in UK - the title implies that the underlying phenomenon isn't real, which is false; there is clearly a real phenomenon here, as the article's body text acknowledges. Framing it was simply a moral panic is confusing and clearly POV. It is also currently frustrating that there's no article connecting the cases in Rotherham, Telford, Halifax, Rochdale, etc. There's like a dozen articles on this phenomenon and the premise of this article's proposed name is that it doesn't exist. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    What do you think of Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom per Ham II's suggestion? Mooonswimmer 23:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    I would be concerned about WP:AND with any "Ethnicity and..." formulation. If the article must exist, it is about the moral panic. That title is not more neutral, it makes the article actually about the relationship of ethnicity with grooming gangs, rather than about the media narrative of the same. It changes the article scope. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    I think there might be some confusion about policy/norms here, but I'd like to direct you towards WP:VNT and WP:NOTRIGHT. We are an encyclopedia. We have to go off of secondary sources and the media. The fact that you think there is a "media narrative" doesn't really play a part in the analysis I'm afraid. Now, of course we have to represent the entire range of views, and give everything due weight. But at the end of the day, reliable sources are reliable sources. And even if one half of "the media" says it's true, while the other half of "the media" says it's a moral panic/narrative, we still have to represent the entire media, which in that case would be split. We don't get to self-classify things as a "media narrative". We have to go off of what sources/"the media" says. Just10A (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    That true but not all sources are equal, and academic sources are preferred over news media. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    We are an encyclopedia. We have to go off of secondary sources splendid. We agree. and the media. Hmm. You misphrased that part. You probably meant "including media secondary sources", rather than suggesting we go of secondary sources and all media sources regardless. And even then, as above, we would still be looking for WP:BESTSOURCES. But in any case, that is meta, because the subject of this article is already the moral panic. That is how it was created, before it was subverted, and that is what the text has been restored to. And yes, that is what the best sources describe. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    I mean there does seem to be a real, widely-reported phenomenon of South Asian grooming gangs in England? There are hundreds of articles on the phenomenon and multiple government investigations and reports, and a dozen articles of city grooming rings on this site. "Moral Panic" frames the topic exclusively as an established falsity, when that's not the case. If anything, a middle ground would be something like Grooming gangs controversy in the United Kingdom. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    Widely reported, yes. Real, no.

    There are a significant proportion of perpetrators for whom ethnicity is either unknown or unrecorded.

    And other caveats about the data, but, for the very specific definition of gang based CSE

    42% of these were White or White British, 14% are Asian or Asian British, 17% are Black or Black British and 22% are of unrecorded ethnicity.

    and

    When perpetrators of all models of CSE are included in the analysis the picture is slightly different. In total, 25 police forces reported 3,968 perpetrators. 59% were White or White British, 10% are Asian or Asian British, 8% are Black or Black British, 2% are of another category and 20% are of unrecorded ethnicity.[3]: 21 

    This is broadly in line with the size of the British Asian population. So no, it is not real. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    Same issue as before. Refer to WP:NOTRIGHT and WP:OR in this specific instance. Just10A (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    Your issue before was that you said I think there might be some confusion about policy/norms here. I agree there is confusion. WP:NOTRIGHT is not a policy, it is an essay. The policy you cite, then, is WP:OR. This states Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. If you do not see how that policy precludes us from having an article about any of the formulations of "[south] asian [muslim] grooming gangs" then you have not paid sufficient attention to the sources, such as the one quoted above. Perhaps because you are confusing the primary sources (reporting, editorials, opinion, op-eds) with the secondary sources (analysis). The allegations do not have reliable sources. The subject that we have here is not the ethnicity of grooming gangs themselves, it is the media fuelled narrative and moral panic about the ethnicity of such gangs. So yes, you are confused about the policy/norms here, but in your defence, you are quite new here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    It is one of the many essays about norms as reflected right under it's title lol. It's why i said "policy/norms" instead of just "policy." WP:VNT and WP:NOTRIGHT are widely used by the community. I'm sorry but you're just incorrect.
    Secondly, your source cited (that you are using for OR, because it never states your conclusion) doesn't even support you:
    1.) I don't know how to tell you this, but "Asian/South Asian"≠ Muslim and "Not Asian/South Asian" ≠ Not Muslim. Many white people are muslim. Many people of all ethnicities are Muslim. Muslims are not addressed at all in the report. South Asians specifically are not even addressed in the report. The word "muslim" is only even mentioned twice, and its for a link to a totally different paper about how many muslim women are abused. However, you are clearly making jumps to use it to support your conclusion about Muslims or south asians. That is OR.
    2.) Even allowing your assumptions, your statement that "This is broadly in line with the size of the British Asian population." is laughably false based on your source. According to the the most recent census on wikipedia demographics [4], "Asian/Asian British" make up ~8% of the population, yet according to your own source, they make up ~14% of the gang cse cases. That is not "broadly in line with the size of the British Asian population." On the contrary, they are overrepresented by 75% in the cases, a giant number. Your own source doesn't even support your conclusion.
    Now, should any of what I said be in the article? Of course not, because its blatant WP:OR from a source that does not even address muslims in the first place. But if you're gonna try to do OR, at least make it somewhat correct. I've already explained numerous times why your position is contrary to policy/norms. If you don't want to listen, that's your prerogative. But don't get whiny when people dismiss your proposals then. Just10A (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    All the discussion above and in media reporting is about south Asian muslims. If you have read the sources, you should know that. The source states the actual figures, after the introduction that there remains a belief that these crimes are only being perpetrated by Asian men. I am not sure how it could be any clearer. It shows that this is false. The British Asian population is 9.3% of the total according to the ONS [5] which is broadly in line with the 10% figure there, and although 14% might appear slightly elevated for group based CSE (in those very highly caveated figures), there is a rather huge elephant in the room there that I chose not to highlight. Let me know when you spot it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    Cool, so the source you cited 1.) Does not even specifically address South Asians nor Muslims; and 2.) Never states anything close to your conclusion that "This is broadly in line with the size of the British Asian population". (because, by their own data, they are overrepresented) So your statement is OR. Good talk. Just10A (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    Personally I think the more important point is that 86% of cases aren't commited by South Asians/Muslims yet those cases receive little reporting. Why the media fails to report the vast majority of abuse but fixates on reporting these cases is the real question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    That's not a difficult one to work out when the major purveyors of the "evil asian gangs" stories are the Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph, GB News, etc etc. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    WP:NOTAFORUM but it gets people to vote for right wing parties which benefits the business interests of the media owners Kowal2701 (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    Similarly minorities make up 18.3% of the the UK's population, but only commit 11% of all child sex abuse. Meaning that the non-minority population is over represented in child sex offences, again under reported by our news media. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    So in general the majority of child sex offences are not commited by South Asians / Muslims, and in the specific case of grooming practices the majority are not commited by South Asians / Muslims. Mass media would have you believe the opposite was true, but that is a distortion introduces by unequal reporting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed, I really think Grooming gangs in the UK would be the best move because then we could talk about the phenomenon generally, and have a section on media coverage. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Christ this article title is bad. It's clearly WP:POV and I support a change to pretty much anything else. 'Grooming' is clearly a dogwhistle nowadays and I'm upset we're giving it wikivoice here. Sock-the-guy (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    Sad thing is that grooming is a real and very serious thing but the term has been taken up as a racist and homophobic dogwhistle so widely and aggressively that it is depriving the word of its impact when people need to use it to talk about real cases of grooming. DanielRigal (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed that grooming is the incorrect terminology.
    Support moving article to 'Muslim rape gangs in the United Kingdom' to better describe the topic at hand. 2A02:C7C:7CCC:7A00:1DF3:75AE:BF3E:D21C (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support and strongly support keeping Muslim in the title. That was a major aspect of the moral panic here.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I do think that Tommy Robinson and his lovely friends have made it about Muslims. In the case of the Rotherham and Rochdale gangs at least, the majority of the perpetrators had recognizably Muslim names, and that's a fact which helps the alt-right narrative.—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I started to close this (per the proposal but in sentence case), but I have a real problem with the lack of sources supporting the "moral panic" part of the title. So my first choice would be to move to Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom.
As a second choice I'd accept Grooming gang moral panic in UK as that is a huge improvement over the current title and from there we can discuss another rename as desired. Hobit (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1255970259"