Talk:Grooming gangs scandal#Requested move 1 July 2025

I intend over the coming days and weeks to expand the section on the abuse with descriptions of the offending which has been most covered by the media. I also intend to merge the political and media sections into the 'Initial reports, denials and exposure' section. This is a two-part scandal. The occurrence and continuity of the abuse is part one. The coverup (from both the media and government) is part two. Riposte97 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

: This was entirely unneccessary. An article on this topic already existed and was merged by consensus. There was consensus at Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Thoughts_about_merging_into_Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom#Group_based_child_sexual_exploitation that this should be covered in the Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom article because an article dedicated to the grooming gangs specifically would inevitably become a POV battleground. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, this article is pretty obviously a POV fork. I've started a deletion discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::The fact that the article is contentious is not a very good reason to delete it. In any case, the 'moral panic' article did not cover the same ground. UK politics has revolved around this issue for days now, with the release of the Casey Report and the Labour backflip on a public enquiry. Seeking to ice this article is not best wiki-practice imo. Riposte97 (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|In any case, the 'moral panic' article did not cover the same ground}} is disingenuous horseshit. It's exactly the same topic, you just don't agree with the framing. {{tq|UK politics has revolved around this issue for days now}} ever heard of WP:NOTNEWS? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:You do realize that an AfD puts a big red box at the top of the page showing that it is subject to an AfD. You do you, I guess, but this page didn't really need a notification of its own AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::I edit on my phone. This is the first I’m hearing about the red box. There's no need to be snarky. Riposte97 (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Should the Casey Report and the newly-announced inquiry have their own section? I know it's early days, but these are the only official probes to exclusively examine the 'grooming gangs' issue. It might help contextualise for readers that earlier Government reports had different focuses, and gave fodder to the 'cut and thrust' of the competing narratives on this issue. Riposte97 (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:No, per WP:RECENTISM. The reviews (all of them) can be covered, but they must each receive their WP:DUE weight. I have recommended that this gets merged back into the other article, since it covers a lot of the same ground, but if there's a consensus to keep, this should probably either be broadened to the wider issue of group-based CSE in general, or should focus on the upcoming national inquiry and use that as the article title. The current title is mostly used by media headlines and WP has an WP:ACADEMICBIAS, which means it's not a neutral presentation of the issue. Framing around the "scandal" is quite weak as a result, because there aren't sufficient RSes to actually describe this in objective terms. Lewisguile (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Fair enough re the separate section. Re the rest...this article covers the scandal. ACADEMICBIAS does not mean that we don't cover things that academic sources don't cover, is they are covered by other RS. It is an essay (not policy), and it means we defer to academics of questions of subject matter expertise. If academics criticise the media or politicians' framing of an issue, we can (and indeed, do) include that. However, for a range of reasons, that essay is not directly relevant to the question of the existence of the current framing of this issue. Riposte97 (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:WPISNOT applies. Wikipedia means WP:NOTEVERYTHING is covered. If there aren't scholarly sources, then we should think twice. In this case there are, but they appear to overwhelming contradict the main angle of the article. That's an issue. Lewisguile (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::There are dozens of RS covering this, with high-quality journalistic sources covering the Casey Report. I understand that this is a sensitive topic, but I don't believe that means it's appropriate to impose an artificially high standard for source inclusion. The absence of scholarly sources says nothing about the appropriateness of this articles existence. That said, where academic sources deal with the subject matter, they should obviously be included. I would counsel against blind deference, however, as all existing academic sources predate the Casey Report, in which the data on which many conclusions were based (and some of those conclusions themselves) were sharply criticised. Riposte97 (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Casey criticising academics is irrelevant to what counts as a useful source for Wikipedia. Media coverage may indicate notability, I have said elsewhere, but that's not the same as saying it's reliable for our purposes. The sensitivity of a subject means we should take more care, not less. There's WP:NORUSH to get articles up just because something is currently in the news cycle—in fact, that's often a sign it's better to wait. We should also avoid duplicating material covered elsewhere if we can.

:::::At present, the Casey audit wouldn't be notable enough for a whole section of its own. It could be included in a section on the inquiries in general. I'm happy for us to wait for the AfD for this also, however. Lewisguile (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I have drafted a very rudimentary template for this article here. Assistance welcome before we add it to the page! Riposte97 (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think you should really hold off for the results of the AfD. Otherwise, this could all get deleted again anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Riposte97. I think we need to do some considerable work on the lede. The problem we currently have is that it's trying to define something that hasn't been adequately defined by independent, reliable sources (at least, as far as the sourcing shows). Any attempt to describe it based on what we think it is counts as WP:OR, and leads to the conclusion that this is probably a WP:COATRACK. To avoid that, we should probably first clarify what the actual scope of the article is, and find all the relevant sources that support its existence as a unique topic (distinct from the topic of group-based CSE itself). Do you have any sources that define this in clear terms?

In addition, I suggest brushing up on WP:LEDE in general. The title doesn't need to be in bold (especially as there isn't consensus that this is the academic or WP:COMMONNAME for the proposed topic), and we should present original research. Everything should be backed up by sources in the body first before it goes in the lede. Lewisguile (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Another thing, {{ping|LeChatiliers Pupper|Riposte97}}, if you’re going to edit in this topic can you please use scholarly sources per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:ACADEMICBIAS, media is seriously junk for this bar some of the political reporting. You can find sources on Google scholar and access through WP:Wikipedia Library. Kowal2701 (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. Lewisguile (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Some academic sources were explicitly critiqued as poor by the Casey report I really cant see any way that would help them be seen in any light as an indisputably "best source". Moral panic is also dealt with by Casey. I consider that the best source, until we have a national inquiry. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Baroness Casey has no academic credentials, all she has is an undergraduate degree in history; she's a politician. The report wasn't even peer-reviewed, and is probably WP:PRIMARY. Frankly that's the sort of anti-intellectual argument that has gotten people tbanned from this topic in the past. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I mean she has real world experience of government handling of judicial and CSE matters.

::::Peer review by every media institution in the country? the use of these reputable news sources that comment on Casey prevent WP:Primary but you want to exclude them too no wonder!

::::If you had your way the only sources would be cherry picked dated academic sources that focus exclusively on moral panic to minimise CSE!

::::Should I now call for you to be banned? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Pfft, you should probably strike that personal attack Kowal2701 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::The only personal attack is yours I never claimed you intentionally cherrypicked only that is the result, you are free to withdraw your accusation that I am anti-intellectual simply for questioning some dubious academic sources. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It is anti-intellectual because your response to me asking you to use academic sources was that a couple academic sources had been criticised for something by a politician. It appears what you're referring to is {{tq|One 2020 article published in a newspaper and written by academics said the report meant that “a powerful modern racial myth has been exploded” by quoting the paper and going on to say that “research has found that group-based offenders are most commonly White”186}}, so one newspaper article, not even an academic source, which was in reaction to a government-published report. That does not warrant dismissal or even scepticism of all academic sources. I was genuinely trying to give you advice because to others it may look like you're relying on less reliable sources because they support your POV. We're an encyclopedia with academic bias. We can start a discussion at WP:RSN on what can be considered BESTSOURCES if you like Kowal2701 (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Also, media coverage is not "peer review", so it might make sense to re-read WP:RS. For contentious topics, it's always best to go to the best info we can find. Lewisguile (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::And the best source as you keep saying is decades old from a handful of academics. That in turn is deeply susceptible to bias. Not even considering [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:OLDSOURCES&redirect=no WP:OLDSOURCES] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP&redirect=no WP:SCHOLARSHIP] that tells us explicitly to do the opposite of what you are tying to foist on the article. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::There is currently no consensus agreeing with you here (quite the opposite). If you believe the existing sources should not be used, then you should seek consensus for that change or take it to WP:RSN. I'm not sure many people will agree with you that Casey herself invalidates the actual scholarly sources. (Previous discussions on government-funded reports like this suggest that they should generally be treated with caution because they are susceptible to political bias.) Lewisguile (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Riposte97 clearly didnt think any of your "additions" were needed or they would have edited it in in the first place

:::::::::::Im not removing your dreadful sources from the article just removing the most objectionable ones from the lead - ideally the lead should have no sources but you keep adding them LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I see you are now engaging in edit warring, @LeChatiliers Pupper and, again, are making personal attacks. I would suggest you self-revert and withdraw your comments. In either case, "they didn't add it first so don't support your edits" is not how it works. Please read WP:NOTHERE.

:::::::::::A lede doesn't need sources where content is clearly sourced in the body, but where content is likely to be challenged, it should be. Also, if part of the lede is sourced, all of it should be, in general. Lewisguile (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::In your edit summary you said {{tq|scholars of questioned credability to not be in the lede}}, where has the credibility of these scholars been questioned? I hope you're not taking the quote from Casey above to dismiss all academic sources, because that would be really silly. You also said {{tq|per talk lewis likes WP:oldsources and WP:scholar sources very much against policy}}, as if using academic sources is against policy. 10 years is not that old, although I'm sure we can find more recent ones. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The general rule is that older sources shouldn't be used if newer and better/equally good sources exist. These are in peer-reviewed journals. The source @LeChatiliers Pupper added isn't, so even if it's more recent, it doesn't override the better, older sources. Ditto the Casey report. Lewisguile (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::There's [https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003200871-12/child-sexual-exploitation-scapegoating-minority-communities-aisha-gill Child sexual exploitation and scapegoating minority communities (Gill 2023)] and [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552600.2019.1673493 Perpetrators of organised child sexual exploitation (CSE) in the UK: a review of current research: Journal of Sexual Aggression: Vol 25, No 3 (Colley 2019)], but there will probably be more sources coming out in the next few months Kowal2701 (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I would be much happier using Colley than Cockbain and Tufair's older papers.

:::::::::::::I agree better sources will come out in the next few months and years its such as shame that both of you voted to delete this article instead of allowing it to develop.

:::::::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP&redirect=no WP:SCHOLARSHIP] still very much applies - "Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible."

:::::::::::::There is an incredible amount of secondary sources on the Casey report and commentary on it, utilising these serve the article best and would prevent fringe POVs dominating. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I !voted keep initially but changed to draftify so we can work on quality. There is irony in you citing WP:SCHOLARSHIP but talking about secondary sources in the media. These sources don't make for good encyclopedia articles, and given how much criticism the UK media's received I wouldn't say they're best equipped to keep fringe POVs out. But we're probably wasting our time here since it looks like a WP:SNOW delete/merge. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::LCP, I have spent some time bringing the article up to a higher standard than it was, despite my !vote. The issue, for me, is primarily one of framing. "Grooming gangs scandal" is not well attested among good sources and is less than clearly defined. You'll note that I made a suggestion to have an article on the new inquiry when there are sufficient sources to do so, and I stand by that. The page on the Casey audit doesn't have some of the same issues as we have here, because it has a much clearer scope. Lewisguile (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I'd note in passing that some excellent RS have defined the 'Grooming Gangs Scandal', both directly and indirectly. The Economist this week described it as 'the long-ignored group-based sexual abuse of children'. That may be a good place to start. Riposte97 (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Media sources have their uses, but Wikipedia is not primarily a news site. We don't cover things just because they're common, or popular, or well covered in the headlines. As an encyclopaedia, we have an WP:ACADEMICBIAS, meaning we prefer to include things which are notable and verifiable according to what scholars say. Non-scholarly experts can be acceptable, depending on the context. Analysis in The Economist (I'm assuming it's [https://archive.ph/qlYrK this article]) is okay among other sources, but there's no expert's name attached to it, and the paper tends to mix factual reporting with opinion, so we should treat it as an op-ed (WP:RSOPINION) per WP:THEECONOMIST. That means we shouldn't cite it without attribution and it probably isn't sufficient to outline the scope in the lede. Lewisguile (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@LeChatiliers Pupper ummmm, one non-academic publishing a grey paper does not invalidate previous, peer-reviewed sources.

:::You do not appear to understand the sourcing policies you are linking in this Talk section, and you appear to be engaged in an edit war. I suggest that you slow down. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Lewisguile your point about article scope is well taken. I agree we’d do well to nail that down, and thank you for your help on the lead. However, I don’t necessarily agree that we need a source that says ‘the grooming gangs scandal is defined as x’. We have plenty of sources that deal with the scandal. There is a level of artifice in saying we need an explicit definition, and cannot simply include the content in various media them summarise in the lead. @LeChatiliers Pupper and @Kowal2701, I think you both make valid points, but why don’t we put this dispute on ice until the AfD is closed? Once it is (and I expect it will go the same way as the previous discussion) we can have the sourcing debate. Riposte97 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grooming_gangs_scandal#c-Lewisguile-20250622135100-Riposte97-20250622122500 my prior post on media coverage]. Opinion shouldn't generally provide the basis for the scope, since opinion should be attributed. Unless we were writing, say, an article on The Economist's view on this issue, then their view isn't something we should use in the lede. Per WP:SYNTH, we also shouldn't combine multiple sources to say something that no source says individually. Which leaves us in a tricky spot. Now, Kowal2701 may be right that we end up merging this article back into the other one, but I think it's still worth pinning down what it is we're writing about here so that if and when we need to write this or a similar article again, we can marshall the key facts.

::At present, I think there's a much stronger case for first writing an article on "group-based CSE" (as scholars refer to it), and if there was a need to expand on the particular complaints outside of that article, then we would look at something concrete within that. We could, for instance, write an article about the new inquiry once it's begun, or we could have an article about political or media responses to group-based CSE. Those are much less fraught and far more neutral starting points, and they allow for us to cover a full range of the topics raised, rather than starting with a particular assumption that we then have to justify despite a lack of clear sourcing. There is, of course, no rush. We can do this after the AfD closes. Lewisguile (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. Also the Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom article is very bloated with group-based given that most sources (and cases) are on individuals, such that it violates WP:PROPORTION. An article on the broader scope of group-based/organised CSA seems like the way to go, it can then have sections on media coverage and political reaction. Gonna list some more academic sources with the broader scope below (in addition to Colley and Gill above and the ones already in the article). There are plenty of journal articles and scholarly books on CSA in general that will probably also discuss group-based/organised. Agreed there's no rush

:::* [https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-113 Organized Child Sexual Abuse in the Media (Saltzer 2017)] (ORE, tertiary)

:::* [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/car.2215 The Role of Ritual in the Organised Abuse of Children (Salter 2012)]

:::* [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022018319879013 Preventing the Criminalisation of Children Who Have Been Victims of Group-Based Sexual Exploitation Involving Grooming Tactics—Understanding Child Sexual Exploitation as Enslavement (Arthur 2019)]

:::* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13552600.2013.791730#abstract Towards a common framework for assessing the activity and associations of groups who sexually abuse children (Cockbain 2013)]

:::* [https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/chilflq25&div=36&id=&page= Group Localised Grooming: What Is It and What Challenges Does It Pose for Society and Law (Mooney and Ost 2013)]

:::Kowal2701 (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Nonsense RS focus on what they think is important your pushing your POV of what you think CSA coverage in RS should be you might not like the British media, government, politicians and academic's but broadly this is what they are overwhelmingly writing about.

::::If you want less grooming gang content in the CSA article let me see how about a crazy idea of starting a new article. Someone should probably try that. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::You really need to stop with the personal attacks. I was literally providing sources and suggesting a new article. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::> article is very bloated with group-based given that most sources (and cases) are on individuals, such that it violates...

::::::Dont pov push I wont point it out the list of sources is fine,

::::::I would suggest you read Wp:bestsources and the link there to what a secondary source is;

::::::> For example, a review article that analyses research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context.

::::::Hence everything I have said e.g Colley being very acceptable vs your other individually picked academic sources are less ideal -> I shouldn't have to spell this out LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Has this article actually been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet? [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3248665 The version we used] was hosted at SSRN, which is a repository for early research, not a journal. The [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338984495_Group_Localised_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_Offenders_Who_and_Why/citations listing at ResearchGate] indicates it's a preprint with zero citations. [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kish-Bhatti-Sinclair-2 Bhatti-Sinclair] at least specialises in racism and social work. [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Charles-Sutcliffe Sutcliffe apparently specialises in financial economics], with most of his work about crypto. Bhatti-Sinclair seems a suitable expert if she has published on this in her 2019 book or elsewhere?

At the moment, this seems to be non-notable as it is, but I don't want to remove it without also flagging that there may be something relevant out there by at least one of these authors. Anyone know? Lewisguile (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I've found this version: https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/93302/9/GLCSE%20article.pdf (and an identical version hosted by another university). It indicates it was first published in a professional magazine, Seen and Heard, which is [https://www.nagalro.com/journal/default.aspx this one published by Nagalro], "The Professional Association for Children's Guardians, Family Court Advisers and Independent Social Workers". [https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1744-1072 The ISSN indicates this is the same publication.] There is no indication this is peer-reviewed, but it's definitely not a scholarly journal anyway. So while the preprint is an WP:SPS, this one seems to be a non-notable primary source, at least. Do secondary sources mention this at all? (Republication or hosting the article itself wouldn't make this a secondary source, but papers that reflect on/discuss/respond to this one would count.) Lewisguile (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:FYI I knew it was cited and they worked in related fields, I used the preprint because it was open access. But thank you for looking at your concerns objectively.

:[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328203092_Group_Localised_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_Identifying_Those_Who_Have_Been_Prosecuted Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation: Identifying Those Who Have Been Prosecuted | Request PDF]

:Re Sutcliffe and if he is an "expert" this is not uncommon in academia for example a polymer chemical research group might have a couple of people who make the polymers then a specialist in crystallography or soft matter physics to support the rest of the team.

:In this case if you read the paper it seems reasonable to me that Sinclair is supporting Bhatti's work using economic and statistical analysis.

:At least that is how I see it and yes the article was published. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::SSRN Electronic Journal is for pre-prints. That is not actually evidence of it having been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Simonm223 (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I know what a pre-print is thank you and did check it was published before adding it if you want to change the reference go ahead. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::So which peer reviewed journal has published it? Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::sorry no it has not been published - apologies research gate listed it as an article "Article", it is also listed as a pre-print a couple of times but the article is in SSRN. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@LeChatiliers Pupper The whole article is about the downplaying and covering up of this serious issue at every possible level. What makes anyone think it wont happen here if its happening at governmental level? The same will 1000% happen on this page too. People will go to any lengths to cover it up or at least dilute it by using vague terms like 'Asian' or 'South Asian,' as if it's some shared heritage with other communities and nationalities of South Asia. You need to be careful. You’ll definitely be outnumbered. All the best. 2409:40C1:35:4935:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, @LeChatiliers Pupper. I appreciate your help here. It appears the article has at least three listings on ResearchGate? I only found two on my own. So, I can see one of the sources citing Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe is Cockbain and Tufail. One is a systematic review: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jip.1580. I would suggest we cite the systematic review, as that's the highest quality source? It summarises info on contact CSE more generally, but it does mention specific issues around group-based CSE as well. Lewisguile (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean this article is going to be deleted but sure review articles are in most cases ideal LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There's also this one: https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2024.2374076. It's open access, and from last year. If makes some interesting points that align with the systematic review above—namely that groups are resistant to interventions, so targeting on victims and potential victims may be more fruitful. It reanalyses case data and police interviews.

:::This one from Colley reiterates significant caveats about the Quilliam research and the Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe paper: https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2019.1673493 (they say the Quilliam one is so bad they had to exclude it; for the B-S&S paper, they just restate that the data is based on media reports, and so is subject to bias).

:::Even if this article gets deleted, I suspect all of this information is relevant for whatever comes next. I'll make sure save these sources for my own use later on. Lewisguile (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I gather from other papers I have read that the Quilliam paper is not popular with academics as it did not disclose a methodology. Casey does mention it I would have to look it up for what exactly she says. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

[https://capx.co/keir-starmer-uturns-on-grooming-gangs This grooming gangs inquiry must put people behind bars - CapX]

For editors not aware CapX is a centre right (leaning libertarian with a strong emphasis on free trade and markets) its fairly policy heavy focused outfit too. I wouldnt see issues with it qualifying as a RS.

Then secondly you have other secondary sources picking this up too;

[https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/06/17/the-grooming-gangs-deniers-are-now-utterly-exposed/ The grooming-gangs deniers are now utterly exposed - spiked]

[https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/01/08/academias-shameful-role-in-minimising-the-grooming-gangs/ Academia’s shameful role in minimising the grooming gangs - spiked] (from jan this year does not mention cockbain) and written by an academic specialised in the experiences of working class women.

Migrationwatch and unherd too give explicit mention, not sure if they would qualify as RS but spiked certainly I would ask for people to look at.

This is all in addition to Casey.

LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:@LeChatiliers Pupper I don't know that either the CapX source or Spiked are usable. The latter is a culture war outlet currently aligned with the libertarian right, and the CapX source you cite is by a former GBNews journo. I don't see how either would be reliable on these issues, except for its own opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Spiked absolutely is not usable as a source. It isn't on WP:RSP yet but it'll probably be there soon because it's raised regularly at WP:RS/N [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+the+noticeboard+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&search=Spiked&ns0=1] the general perception of it is that it is just a clearing house for contrarian opinion pieces. As such it is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I have no prior experience with CapX and it has not previously been discussed at RS/N but the link you shared is to an obvious opinion article that is not labeled as opinion. The author is a senior researcher on "nationhood" at the Prosperity Institute which was heavily involved in Brexit and has very poor financial transparency and his entire ouevre at CapX are opinion pieces complaining about immigration or worrying that reductions in immigration might reverse. This does not look like a "centre right" publication. It looks rather farther to the right than that. Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::But more importantly it is a publication that blends reportage with opinion and that does not clearly label opinion articles - which is a much bigger reliability failure than being obviously anti-immigration. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::CapX was founded by Dan Hannan and Tim Montgomery (in his one nation phase), frankly this seems more to me like what I have seen typically on wiki a trend against good faith right wing POVs

::::Spiked may well be contrarian but so is the guardian and Al-Jazeera is cited in nearly every single Israel vs Iran (+ proxies article)

::::Quite honestly I despair... LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

disregard -> [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12968583/The-heroes-helped-bring-Rochdale-grooming-gangs-former-detective-chief-prosecutor-local-councillor-battled-establishment-expose-shocking-abuse-young-schoolgirls-gangs-predatory-older-men.html The heroes who helped bring down the Rochdale grooming gangs: How former detective, chief prosecutor and local councillor battled the establishment to expose shocking abuse of young schoolgirls by gangs of predatory older men | Daily Mail Online]

--

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/24/tazeen-ahmad-obituary Tazeen Ahmad obituary | Investigative journalism | The Guardian] LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:@LeChatiliers Pupper under what circumstances can the WP:DAILYMAIL be credited as offering? It isn't a generally reliable source. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::maybe the dailymail is considered uncreditable (why similar tabloids like the mirror and the i arent we may wonder)

::https://www.nazirafzal.co.uk/bio/

::https://www.law.ac.uk/about/press-releases/january-2025-honorary-doctorate-nazir-afzal-obe/

::https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/aug/12/nazir-afzal-on-riots-racism-and-the-far-right-these-people-are-so-stupid-they-tell-you-they-are-coming

::https://www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/what-to-see/nazir-afzal-bbc-interview/

::https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/northern-towns-in-denial-historic-24732840

::https://news.sky.com/story/grooming-gangs-scandal-timeline-what-happened-what-inquiries-there-were-and-how-starmer-was-involved-after-elon-musks-accusations-13285021

::But as we cant use the mail please do take your pick that's just some sources for the same claims made that Nazir made the decision to prosecute in Rochdale -> hardly a controversial claim LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Following on from the AfD closure, I thought I'd raise the issues of scope and title again so we can move on with tightening this article up. It seems off to me that we now have a dedicated article for the "scandal", but not the abuse itself. Per WP:CRITICISM, this runs the risk of POV issues and has resulted in parts of the article feeling like a WP:COATRACK.

I suggest unmerging the content from Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Group-based child sexual exploitation into this article, and retitling it "Group-based child sexual exploitation". This will clarify the scope as well, since the article is currently defined primarily by op-eds, rather than experts. Importantly, it also means we can properly define group-based CSE here, rather than on another article, with sections for research, statistics, the full history of events, and a section for the political and media coverage that has ensued. We can later spin off any sections if they need more space, but at least we'd have all the basics in one place.

Any thoughts on this, @Kowal2701, @LeChatiliers Pupper, @Simonm2223, @Hemiauchenia?

ETA: Removed two misspelled usernames. Apologies for the ping, if these are actual editors! Lewisguile (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:I meant to tag @Newimpartial and @Riposte97, but tagged the wrong names. Lewisguile (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:I agree, when the inquiry comes out and we have good quality coverage of it would be the time to have an article on the politics of this. But for now it’s well within the domain of sociology and criminology. If this scope is to be kept, then there should probably be a title change, both aspects of the title "grooming gangs" and "scandal" fall under WP:POVTITLE and there’s no indication it’s the WP:COMMONNAME, but what to idk. In the broader scope, this issue would still get good coverage per WP:DUE Kowal2701 (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::Tbf "grooming gangs scandal" is used by the FT, Economist, Independent, Sky UK, and [https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22grooming+gangs+scandal%22&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1751362459968&u=%23p%3DMBRwJ29_ZaYJ Hayton 2025]. I think a case could be made for both articles existing, but we should work on the broad-view first, then fork off a subsection/s Kowal2701 (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:{{Agree}}, if this had been proposed in the AfD, I probably would of supported it as an alternative. Then there can be a WP:BALANCED article without undue focus. Naturally at present, it presents an undue focus. For now, this scandal can be a section within a broader scope as proposed, given the quantity of content that can support it from the other article. CNC (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, I said the AfD should have focussed on scope and NPOV rather than, as it ended up being, notability. The notability isn't in doubt. Lewisguile (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:{{small|Talk:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom has been notified of this discussion. CNC (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)}}

:I should add, as well, there was a lot of work done on the Grooming gangs moral panic page before that was merged too, so we can look across the history of any related pages to develop the one we end up with here. Lewisguile (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• As per my thoughts at the AfD, there will be a notable subject around the inquiry, but that will not be called this. If the article is kept with this name, it should probably be looking at WP:BESTSOURCES to discuss how the scandal has been weaponised and politicised. That is, it is not about the cases at all, but about the politicisation of a subset of cases, and the suggestions that (a) where victims are older children, the suggestion is that police and prosecutors pursued lesser charges than rape in such cases and (b) that the police have been reluctant to record the ethnicity of offenders. However, both of those will be better treated by the inquiry article. This title, if pursued under that topic, will require merger into the inquiry article (or rename this one, perhaps, if it is possible to do it properly).{{pb}}The alternative of renaming to Group-based child sexual exploitation will treat such group based cases as a spin-out of Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom. We can do that, but there is less that can be encyclopaedically said about this than people suppose. It is the politicisation of specific cases (in ignorance of others) that has led to this point, including inspiring the flood of voters who came to the AfD following X and Breitbart articles advertising the discussion. That those voters parroted the Breitbart line ("it's not fringe") was unhelpful, because what they did not do is to take account of the discussion in the AfD about what the subject is. I expect a reader looking for this article needs to know something encylopaedic and neutral about what the heck Elon Musk is wittering about this time, and not looking for a spin-out of the general issue of child abuse, specifically about cases where paedophiles have acted together.{{pb}}So in essence, I certainly support a repurposing of content, I expect a page move is required, but I am not convinced Group-based child sexual exploitation is quite correct. I'll ping in {{U|Yngvadottir}} at this point, as someone whose (brief) keep !vote did consider content, and who I find is usually a thoroughly neutral and analytic editor. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• :IMO it would be best for the article on the Casey Report to address the inquiry, as they are closer conceptual bedfellows. This article is about the phenomenon itself, not individual investigations or assessments of it.
• :Your proposal that the weaponisation of allegations of CSE should be included has huge merit. I believe it should have its own heading on this page, but that (like this whole page) it should include high-quality (especially recent) sources. Part of the trouble editors will face is that the factual ground on which the cultural/political battle has been fought has changed and will continue to change.
• :Otherwise, I encourage you to stop 'fighting the last war' as it were, and accept the result of the AfD. Insofar as your arguments to change the scope are, in effect, that you don't think the article should exist at all, I don't think that's in keeping with the spirit of consensus. Riposte97 (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::I don't think you can have read my comment very well if that is how you summarise it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::Thanks for pinging me, but I doubt my ability to thread the needle on this topic. Like Riposte97, I agree that weaponisation of the cases/issue should be included; but I believe we're in COMMONNAME territory with "grooming gangs", and that alternate titles about "groups" risk sounding as if they're not specifically about this British topic. FWIW I think "moral panic" tips over into POV, although the viewpoint that that's what it is should take up a lot of the article real estate. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• :::Thanks for your input. I don't disagree. I'm less happy with the word scandal but that, too, may be warranted by sources. I haven't done all the reading yet though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:@Lewisguile I certainly think that some broader context around GBCSE may be warranted to contextualise the offending which gave rise to this article, but I would have to oppose any change in the article's scope. This article was created specifically to address the Grooming Gangs Scandal, as that term has been used in numerous RS. I see that topic as having two limbs:

:1) the sexual abuse of children by grooming gangs operating primarily in the North of England; and

:2) the long-running failure of British institutions to respond, or even acknowledge, the problem.

:It may be the case that GBCSE is a noteworthy topic in its own right, but that's an argument for starting a new page, not changing the scope of this one. I can see now, reading back, that we may have been at crossed purposes at times due to a fundamental difference in thinking about what this article should be about. I'm sorry that I've failed to address that until now. I've certainly always seen the page as referring to the Grooming Gangs Scandal discretely, but would be more than happy to collaborate on the creation of a broader GBCSE page with you! Riposte97 (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::Any page here must be led by the sources. What WP:BESTSOURCES frame the topic in this way? Note, we are not looking for newspaper coverage now. This is an encyclopaedia, not a news aggregator. Let's find the sources and start with those, and that will show how the subject should be framed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:::A short selection of good sources:

:::- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/01/the-grooming-scandal-abuse-today/

:::- https://theweek.com/crime/the-grooming-gangs-scandal-explained

:::- https://theconversation.com/the-uk-failed-grooming-gang-victims-by-not-seeing-children-as-children-259098

:::- https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/06/18/the-grooming-gangs-scandal-is-a-stain-on-the-british-state

:::- https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2025/4/5/the-uks-grooming-gang-scandal-is-about-race-class-and-misogyny

:::- https://news.sky.com/story/grooming-gangs-scandal-timeline-what-happened-what-inquiries-there-were-and-how-starmer-was-involved-after-elon-musks-accusations-13285021

:::- https://madrascourier.com/opinion/how-political-correctness-shielded-pakistani-grooming-gangs-in-britain/ Riposte97 (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::::Again, did you see where I wrote {{tq|Note, we are not looking for newspaper coverage now}}? Look, here's something better:

::::* {{cite book |title=Feminist Responses to Injustices of the State and its Institutions: Politics, Intervention, Resistance |date=2023 |publisher=Bristol University Press |isbn=978-1-5292-0728-6 |edition=1 |chapter=At the Limits of ‘Acceptable’ Speech: A Feminist Analysis of Official Discourse on Child Sexual Abuse|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv31zqc9m.8}}

::::Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::You may not be looking for newspaper sources, but they are appropriate for the article scope as it stands. I’m not entirely sure what the contents of that chapter you have linked are (you aren't going to expand on that?) but if it fits the scope, have at it. Riposte97 (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::Have a read of WP:BESTSOURCES. I have only skimmed that chapter and read its conclusion. At this point we are in source discovery. We are looking for the best sources that exist. Others, like that one, which are in scope need to be found and we need to read them. Having read them, we will have a better idea of what the notable subject(s) is/are. The question we are trying to answer is this: what does someone searching for encyclopaedic information on the "grooming gangs scandal" (with or without the word scandal in there) need to know that is not encapsulated in National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse or Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Group-based child sexual exploitation? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Sirfurboy are you asking a serious question? To me it seems very unlikely that the high-quality scholarship on this article's topic will be encompassed in those two locations. Newimpartial (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, I agree, which is why my view was that this page is a POVFORK. As we have kept the page, I think we need to ascertain what it is that the page should be saying that is a separate subject from the existing pages. I don't think the AfD established that, because it was heavily influenced by outside coverage, and most of the keeps did not grapple with that question at all but merely stated it is not fringe and is notable. So we are left with an article we must write, whilst not duplicating the two articles that we have. Grooming gangs will be a search term. What are the BESTSOURCES saying about grooming gangs specifically that we can say encyclopaedically to fulfill the information requirement of the information seeker? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::There are loads of academic sources linked in the above discussions. Kowal2701 (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::Would it be possible to list them here? Perhaps we should create a sources table? But either way, having all the sources we need to read in one place would be helpful. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:[https://www.ft.com/content/3c276d59-f6c6-4476-941e-003de72c501d Grooming gangs scandal: what has the UK government done so far?]

:That's the FT using the phrase grooming gang scandal,

:Broadly people know what is meant by grooming gang scandal - making the title too broad would mean we would eventually get to a point where the grooming gang coverage once again needs to be split out all in all it would be best to have a reasonable conversion about it now. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::I think I’m leaning towards having both articles, and rewrite this article once we get decent sources. I think it’s best this one is mostly on the political response, rather than covering everything from the phenomena to media coverage and politics. Idk, I’m just wary that by having the racial scope were just mimicking exactly what the UK media has been so strongly criticised for, ie. giving more coverage to these cases because the perpetrators were brown. Framing this is so difficult, imo for this article it’s between having the scope on the whole shebang, or limiting it to an aspect like media coverage or political response (or both). Kowal2701 (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Having both articles would be fine;

:::> ie. giving more coverage to these cases because the perpetrators were brown.

:::I agree this is not good to simply repeat that but my alternative concern is that we would go "too far the other way" the shutting down of reliable news sources does not bode well for being able to balance two deeply entwinned but not necessarily contradictory perspectives.

:::Especially when the two perspectives are held in very different spaces (academia vs centre <-> centre right institutions and media) LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed. See what others think. But it's worth saying that it can be true that British-Pakistani men are overrepresented in statistics for this, and that the media have disproportionately highlighted the cases, they're not mutually exclusive, and if we can get the article to communicate that nuance neutrally I think we'd have done well. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::Exactly. And even the best evidence regarding that is that British Pakistani men are overrepresented in some areas and in specific time periods. The Casey audit clarifies that this cannot be assumed to apply more generally and in other areas yet. More information is needed to prove that, so that's what we should say. Lewisguile (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::Wonderful I think there is some agreement here, could you expand on your idea to cover media and political responses.

:::::How would it change the scope of the article?

:::::If such an approach was taken I would be in favour of using as little wikivoice as possible simply;

:::::This is what X source says

:::::This is what Y source says

:::::With care taken in what sources are used.

:::::Perhaps under some headings like;

:::::- Lead

:::::- (Brief very fact based) background on what the actual events are

:::::- Academic research

:::::- Media coverage

:::::- Political response

:::::--

:::::Or do I have your idea wrong? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think we could merge the background and media coverage sections, and just have another one on political response which would include subsections summarising our inquiry articles (and start by discussing lack of response). AFAIK there aren't academic studies answering the big question so no need for that section? Imo criminology and sociology are best left to the broad article. I completely agree about WP:ATTRIBUTE. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Seems like a sensible way forward. Riposte97 (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, I think we're inching closer to a consensus. Good work, everyone! Lewisguile (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Let's go where the consensus leads then. CNC (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::So I am still not convinced we are presenting the scandal properly. If the title remains as Grooming gangs scandal, then the Casey Audit is pretty clear that the scandal here is the way the British state approached the issue, that they didn't treat victims as innocent children, but saw them in some sense as complicit, and that sensitivities around collecting ethnic data prevented them from quoshing a moral panic regarding the Asian narrative. {{tq|This does no one any favours at all, and least of all those in the Asian, Pakistani or Muslim communities who needlessly suffer as those with malicious intent use this obfuscation to sow and spread hatred.}} This was politically weaponised by the far right - both by establishment and non establishment parties (Bhattacharyya et al., 2021), and that is the actual scandal. {{pb}}If the page is about the scandal, with that in the title, the background must be the background of the moral panic, and not of group based abuse generally. If we drop the word scandal from the title, we have a general article about group based child exploitation, and we should probably start with its historical origins. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::AFAICT there are two narratives, the one you said, and the one that concern for community cohesion and political correctness caused inaction/inefficient practices. Does the Casey validate the second narrative in any way? The [https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/06/18/the-grooming-gangs-scandal-is-a-stain-on-the-british-state Economist article] favours the second one which is unusual. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::So I suggested there were two parts in my comment. (1) not treating children as children and (2) misguided sensitivity around the data collection that meant we cannot combat malicious intent and obfuscation because we lack data. That seems to be what the Economist says too. Their subheading reads: {{tqb|It involved a toxic combination of victim-blaming and misguided political correctness.}} Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2r2ejlvm1o BBC] implies that failure to collect data on ethnicity inhibited {{tq|research into the cultural and social drivers of the issue}}. One of Casey's recommendations is {{tq|The government should commission research into the drivers for group-based child sexual exploitation, including online offending, cultural factors and the role of the group}}. Might we be able to present both narratives? Kowal2701 (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Yes, but note that cultural factors are not limited to ethnicity here. Casey says {{tq|As a key part of the nighttime economy, taxis have historically been identified as a way children can be at risk of sexual exploitation}} (page 10). That is, she takes seriously the fact (noted by others) that one of the driving factors here was that the night-time economy contains poorly regulated risks - and the fact that the night-time economies in her focus areas were dominated by an ethnic group in those areas could explain correlations that malicious parties have presented as causative, whilst ignoring the more likely causative correlation (that they were taxi drivers). It is clear that she would like better data to untangle this, but that her primary concern is that the night-time economy be better regulated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Sirfur, you are clearly misreading the sources, and potentially letting your POV get in the way. There are, as you say, two parts to the scandal. The first is that the British Government (and local and devolved governments) failed to properly address the issue. The second is that, for reasons of politics, the ethnoreligious aspect of the issue was covered up. It is difficult to support your assertion that the 'scandal' refers to a failure to dispel the 'myth' that there is an ethnoreligious aspect to the issue. On the contrary, your assertion would seem to run directly counter to the point RS are trying to convey when referring to the scandal. Riposte97 (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::agree there isnt any tension between including secondary sources saying ethnicity data has not been properly collected by the state

::::::::::::::::and secondly other and the same secondary sources saying the night time economy needs less loopholes. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I am not sure anyone said otherwise, did they? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Interesting. What is my POV? You say I am misreading sources. In fact, I am reading sources. See the list below. Are you? Can you help with the summaries please? Note that in addition to the Economist, mentioned above, the Casey Audit that I have quoted and Bhattacharyya (2021), we also have the likes of The Conversation [https://theconversation.com/the-uk-failed-grooming-gang-victims-by-not-seeing-children-as-children-259098https://theconversation.com/the-uk-failed-grooming-gang-victims-by-not-seeing-children-as-children-259098] posted above by you, which headlines with "The UK failed grooming gang victims by not seeing ‘children as children’", which you have omitted in your summary of what you think this is about. The BBC news at one just had a full report making the same remarks. Is your summary that omits this therefore perhaps, rather, your point of view? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::@Riposte97, I think there is a slight issue with your framing in that, generally speaking, most of the RSes conclude it wasn't a "cover-up" (which implies intentional conspiracy to suppress or hide information), but rather a "fear" of being branded racist (i.e., self-censorship, avoidance of the issue) and a failure of local authorities/police to properly help the victims/treat them seriously. The language of a "cover-up" doesn't come from the RSes, but from tabloids and the same people Casey says have been using this to play politics and stir up "hatred". There are isolated incidents where people may have been told not to look into something, as in one of the local inquiries, but there isn't evidence that this was widespread or common. It's more "incompetence rather than malice", as the saying goes. Framing it as a "cover-up" is, then, not supported by the WP:BESTSOURCES.

::::::::::::::::As such, @Sirfurboy's summary seems an accurate summary of the evidence, based on the sources. I imagine where we will have the most disagreement is on what the emphasis is within the factors listed above, but so long as we bear in mind the caveats of the data so far (e.g., that conclusions can't necessarily be drawn about ethnicity) then we should be fine. Lewisguile (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I agree with Sirfurboy's summary of the scandal, except that there are two POVs tacked onto the lack of data on ethnicity. I think we do have to include the POV regarding potential cultural factors (which I don't think Casey meant to refer to night-time economy) to maintain NPOV, but only as an aspect in the broader picture, rather than a hyperfixation on it.

:::::::::::::::::* [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552600.2019.1673493 Colley 2019] says

:::::::::::::::::{{tq2|Many of the SCRs have called for further research into ethnic and cultural patterns to establish if there is an actual over-representation of ethnic minority offenders in organised CSE.}}and{{tq2|it is also clear that the debate over the reported over-representation of certain ethnicities within organised CSE is not going to disappear, but that there needs to be further empirical research conducted and more open debates held.}}

:::::::::::::::::* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3248665 Bhatti and Sinclair 2018] are in the minority for discussing cultural factors.

:::::::::::::::::Kowal2701 (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::What do you mean by "POV regarding potential cultural factors"? I think we're at risk of confusing correlation/causation if we're not clear. Per that quote, Colley is saying cultural and ethnic patterns should be examined to establish if the disproportionate number of Pakistani men is accurate. Cultural factors are specifically related to numbers in that quote.

::::::::::::::::::The B&S quote doesn't go further than that. It is again related to "over-representation" related to ethnicity. Neither of these are making causative claims, but are saying we need more data to clarify the numbers.

::::::::::::::::::Any perspective on why numbers might be higher than expected would fall into the "responses" section, and is all effectively conjecture at this point. Lewisguile (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Casey suggests cultural factors as one of the possible {{tq|drivers of the issue}} which means causal. Bhatti and Sinclair conclude (emphasis mine) {{tq2| First, it is possible they are linked to GLCSE through media reporting, and this may explain why more police resources are used to target the areas where they live. Second, media reports may have systematically ignored GLCSE cases not involving Pakistanis. Third, those originating from traditional cultures (e.g. the Mirpur region of Pakistan) may be particularly attracted to GLCSE. Fourth, the formation of groups of like-minded Pakistani offenders is more likely than for other Muslims because there are two-and-a-half times more Pakistanis than the next largest Muslim group (Bangladeshis), making it easier to generate a critical mass. The process of group formation and solidarity may be assisted by the caste and biradari systems practiced by some Pakistanis. Finally, it is possible that Pakistanis are more likely to work in the night-time economy with its opportunities for GLCSE.}}, it appears to be this sort of uncomfortable inductive reasoning (because we have no information to work with) that Colley means when she says {{tq|more open debates held}}? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but thankfully it's not our job to interpret anything, we can just report what the government said and wait for better analytical sources. I do think we shouldn't make assumptions, ie. be agnostic on ethnicity being a correlation/causal in some way. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::+1 to this LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If not media response - civil society perhaps

:::::::If this article is to be balanced I would stress I strongly feel there needs to be some RS perspectives that seems to be saying oh wait have the institutions dropped the ball on this one and fail to protect children. Similar to your comment lower down with the BBC. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::Again, this is news coverage, not scholarship. That's the problem we keep running into. At the moment I'm seeing two in favour of keeping the current scope and title, four for broadening, and one that agrees with "grooming gangs" but is unclear on the rest. Is that about right so far? Lewisguile (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:I think you might do well to ping everyone from the AFD too to ensure a well balanced discission. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::If you know of any experienced editors that would approach this thoughtfully feel free to ping per WP:APPNOTE. Issue with pinging everyone is that we’d just get knee jerk supports or opposes which isn’t terribly helpful Kowal2701 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::There's also the canvassing issue. Lewisguile (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:Agree, the last article was merged into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Group-based child sexual exploitation - so if the article is now going to be kept it only makes sense to unmerged the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that Group-based child sexual exploitation in the UK is a valid topic for an article which would cover the history of such abuse and make use of sources such as Child Sexual Abuse in Victorian England by Louise A. A. Jackson. It would also deal with the cases mentioned by u:Astaire in the RM discussion below. I also think that the current scandal is a notable topic by itself, both because of the abuse itself and because of the reaction to it and its impact, all of which have been extensively covered in RS.

Considering that the article as is deals exclusively with the events that took place in the last ~30 years, the right question is what course of action would cause the least amount of disruption and produce articles that the clear for the general reader.

1. Keep this article as it and create an article Group-based child sexual exploitation in the UK with the history of group-based exploitation and abuse of children in the UK.
2. Re-name this article to Group-based child sexual exploitation in the UK. A lot of new content would have to be added while the content related to the "grooming gang scandal" would have to be pruned. A new article would be created to deal with it.

It seems like the second option would be much more contentious and in the end would not produce better encyclopaedic content, therefore I'd favour the first option. I'm not against renaming it but personally I can't think of names that would satisfy the NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME policies better than the current name. Alaexis_¿question? 08:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:"Responses to group-based child sexual exploitation in the United Kingdom" would seem to better apply to both policies, but also to the suggestions in WP:CRITS. "Group-based CSE" continues to be the preferred term among policymakers, academics and the police. "Grooming gangs scandal" is more popular in the media, but WP has an WP:ACADEMICBIAS. "Scandal" or "criticism" in a title rarely supports NPOV, as by its nature it focuses on one perspective on this issue.

:Either way, I think there's a consensus for a "main" article, which should hopefully prevent this one from becoming a WP:COATRACK and any issues of WP:UNDUE in the general CSA article. Lewisguile (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552600.2019.1673493 Perpetrators of organised child sexual exploitation (CSE) in the UK: a review of current research (Colley 2019)]
• [https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-113 Organized Child Sexual Abuse in the Media (Saltzer 2017)] (ORE, tertiary)
• [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022018319879013 Preventing the Criminalisation of Children Who Have Been Victims of Group-Based Sexual Exploitation Involving Grooming Tactics—Understanding Child Sexual Exploitation as Enslavement (Arthur 2019)]
• [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13552600.2013.791730#abstract Towards a common framework for assessing the activity and associations of groups who sexually abuse children (Cockbain 2013)]
• [https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/chilflq25&div=36&id=&page= Group Localised Grooming: What Is It and What Challenges Does It Pose for Society and Law (Mooney and Ost 2013)]
• [https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/crsw/13/2/article-p148.xml Race, class and the weaponisation of child safety (Wroe & Vaughn 2025)]
• [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306396819895727 Failing victims, fuelling hate: challenging the harms of the ‘Muslim grooming gangs’ narrative (Cockbain 2023)]
• [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jip.1580 A systematic review of the United Kingdom's contact child sexual exploitation perpetrator literature: Pointing a way forward for future research and practice (Mooney 2021)]
• [https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-83867-781-720201011/full/html Moral Panic in the Media: Scapegoating South Asian Men in Cases of Sexual Exploitation and Grooming (Gill &Day 2020)]
• [https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1876955/FULLTEXT02.pdf Moral Panics in a Globalised Media Landscape: Case Studies and Implications for Society and Policy (Karastanchev 2024)]
• [https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/lglhizns2021&div=37&id=&page= Grooming as a Modern Form of Sexual Violence (Pahomov et al 2021)]
• [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14680777.2019.1690021 Child sexual exploitation: a comparative frame analysis of news-media coverage over time (Elliot 2019)]
• [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-71776-0_3 Cultural Repertoires and Modern Menaces: The Media’s Racialised Coverage of Child Sexual Exploitation (Patel 2018)]
• [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01419870.2018.1467030 Challenging the racialization of child sexual exploitation: Muslim men, racism and belonging in Rotherham (Britton 2018)]
• [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3248665 Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation Offenders: Who and Why? (Bhatti-Sinclair & Sutcliffe 2018)]
• [https://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/6937/ Exploring the gap between media and practice: a feminist analysis of media representations and practitioner perspectives on sexual exploitation of girls and young women (Elliot 2021)]

Feel free to ignore WP:TPG and annotate, add sources, or replace links with WP:TWL ones. There are a few more from 2015 and earlier. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:Good work. Thanks for laying the groundwork here. I'm convinced we can make a good article here, we just need to get the scope right. Lewisguile (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• {{cite book |last1=Bhattacharyya |first1=Gargi |last2=Elliott-Cooper |first2=Adam |last3=Balani |first3=Sita |last4=Ni?anc?o?lu |first4=Kerem |last5=Koram |first5=Kojo |last6=Gebrial |first6=Dalia |last7=El-Enany |first7=Nadine |last8=de Noronha |first8=Luke |title=Empire's Endgame: Racism and the British State |chapter=Pakistani Grooming Gangs|date=2021 |publisher=Pluto Press |isbn=978-0-7453-4203-0 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1g6q8z4.13}}

::This source speaks of moral panic. {{tq|The ‘Pakistani grooming gangs’ have been leveraged for Islamophobic purposes by both state and non-state actors with remarkable success.}} It shows how and why the narrative was moved to ethnicity whilst also speaking to the major issue that the state did not treat the victims as victims. It frames this within a culture-war context, and finishes by coparing with the treatment of Shamima Begum. {{tq|While the white girls of Rochdale and Rotherham symbolised the (threatened) purity of the nation, the treacherous Begum became its antithesis}}.

• {{cite book |last=Tucker |first=Katie |title=Feminist Responses to Injustices of the State and its Institutions: Politics, Intervention, Resistance |date=2023 |publisher=Bristol University Press |isbn=978-1-5292-0728-6 |edition=1 |chapter=At the Limits of ‘Acceptable’ Speech: A Feminist Analysis of Official Discourse on Child Sexual Abuse|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv31zqc9m.8}}

::This source is critical of current approaches from a feminist perspective, arguing that the focus on race/ethnicity obscures that these are gendered crimes, with 92% of offenders being male. {{tq|Through the obvious omission of a critical discussion of masculinity, the official discourse here is shaped by the state’s inability to respond effectively to feminist concerns.}} page 90, and {{tq|the focus remains on ethnicity, communities, victim-blaming, troubled families and individual professions, yet nowhere is there a critical appraisal of gender.}} page 92. Secondary to the thesis, it discusses both race and also occupation and the night time economy - recognising these matters of discourse, but not about these. Their point is {{tq|‘Patriarchy is the most important contributor to child sexual abuse’ (Bolen, 2001: 34).}} page 79 and that {{tq|in a patriarchal power structure, [it is able] to dominate discourses and to disqualify and silence women and children’s experiences of violence, and that it is a critique of this dominance and avoidance of accountability that feminism must centralize.}} Page 80. Good points, but largely absent from the current narrative. (That is the point). Being absent, it is not clear how this can be included in the encyclopaedic article.

• {{cite book |last=Shackle |first=Samira |title=The Cunning of Gender Violence: Geopolitics and Feminism |chapter=Breaking the Frame|date=2023 |publisher=Duke University Press |isbn=978-1-4780-1995-4 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.3985462.17}}
• {{cite book |last1=Broad |first1=Rose |last2=Gadd |first2=David |title=Demystifying Modern Slavery |chapter=Child Sexual Exploitation |year=2022 |publisher=Routledge |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780429053986-9/child-sexual-exploitation-rose-broad-david-gadd?context=ubx&refId=03aeeb38-4c38-4593-a6e0-a9e86cc553fb}}
• {{cite book |last=Allen |first=Chris |title=The Palgrave Handbook of Gendered Islamophobia |chapter=From Terrorists to Paedophiles: Investigating the Experience and Encounter of Islamophobia on Muslim Men in Contemporary Britain |year=2024 |publisher=Springer |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-52022-8_9}}
• {{cite book |last=Gill |first=Aisha |title=The Routledge Companion to Gender, Media and Violence |chapter=Child sexual exploitation and scapegoating minority communities |year=2023 |publisher=Routledge |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003200871-12/child-sexual-exploitation-scapegoating-minority-communities-aisha-gill}}
• {{cite book |last=Alexander |first=Claire |title=The Asian Gang Revisited: Changing Muslim Masculinities |chapter=Revisiting 'The Asian Gang' |year=2024 |publisher=Bloomsbury |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t_PiEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false}}

I've now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grooming_gangs_scandal&diff=1298245798&oldid=1298241355 reorganised the lede and expanded it so that information flows a bit better]. Rather than jumping backwards and forwards, I've laid out the alleged failings first (the subject of the title); then the responses and discourse by the media, politicians and scholars; and then the recommendations of the Casey Review and the upcoming inquiry. Each of these areas is given its own short paragraph and hopefully, together, they WP:SUMMARISE the subject in its entirety. Lewisguile (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:The Casey review is this [https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/met/about-us/baroness-casey-review/update-march-2023/baroness-casey-review-march-2023a.pdf]. The 2025 publication is the Casey audit. The link does call it an audit, but people keep referring to the audit as a review, which is confusing and incorrect. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::I believe 'Casey Report' is the common name of the latter. Riposte97 (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Doubtful. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002dqpx] [https://napac.org.uk/napac-response-casey-audit/] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c6292x36d4pt] [https://theconversation.com/topics/casey-audit-into-grooming-gangs-175963] [https://www.mwnuk.co.uk//go_files/resources/972842-Louise%20Casey%20Audit%20on%20CSE.pdf] [https://fortherecord.blog.gov.wales/category/health-and-social-care/] [https://fortherecord.blog.gov.wales/2025/06/18/casey-audit/] [https://www.olliers.com/news/baroness-casey-audit-child-exploitation/] [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/jun/16/grooming-gangs-national-inquiry-keir-starmer-g7-uk-politics-live-news-updates] etc.. etc... etc... Calling the audit the Casey Review is sloppy and misleading and Casey Report is unclear as to which is referred. I know Breitbart got it wrong, but that's Breitbart for you. It is correctly and commonly the Casey Audit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::::You're being pedantic. Our own article calls it the Casey Report, but in any case, we all know what Lewisguile is referring to. Riposte97 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::The concept that Wikipedia might have it wrong being off the table? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think audit is more accurate. I left "Casey Review" in because someone else used that wording, but I felt uncomfortable about it at the time. Lewisguile (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

{{notavote}}

{{requested move/dated|Group-based child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}

:Grooming gangs scandal → {{no redirect|Group-based child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}} – The current title is not exactly ideal because it expresses a contentious political POV. I think "Group-based child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" is the most reasonable, neutral title for the topic, regardless of article content, because it reflects how academic sources refer to the topic (see Talk:Grooming_gangs_scandal#Scholarly_sources), and the current "Grooming gang scandal" title has an unclear scope that is being used to exclude relevant information from the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:We’re already in the middle of discussing this above at Scope/title. Please close this. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::No. You are free to propose alternative titles in the move req. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:The nom also doesn’t refer to any policies or sources, just invites people to !vote with personal opinion. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• okay that’s better, Support per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:ACADEMICBIAS, "Group-based" can be replaced by "Organised" or "Localised" as both are fairly common. Have no clue how we’re going to structure this, though obv this issue will still get good coverage per WP:DUE. Makes more sense to prioritise writing a sociology and criminology article before a political one. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• :If you're saying that the name should be changed so that the proposed article is written before one on the Grooming Gangs Scandal, I’m not sure of your reasoning. If that's not what you're saying, please clarify it for me. Riposte97 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::This is more about changing the scope, we don’t have high quality sources justifying a political focus Kowal2701 (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• :::Well, then, my concerns are justified. This topic was kept at AfD just a couple of days ago. It's hugely premature to be trying to argue again it's not worthy of an article. Riposte97 (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The closer said the article could stay because the general topic was notable, but explicitly said this didn't prejudice further discussions about the title. Lewisguile (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm now leaning towards having this article on the media coverage and political response, and have a broader article on group-based CSA, this way we wouldn't have to include subsections on media and politics in the broad one which would inevitably violate WP:PROPORTION like at Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom, we can just have a hatnote to this Kowal2701 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::That may work. It seems to be where the consensus is heading. Lewisguile (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - the two topics are obviously distinct. The scope of this article does not preclude the creation of your proposed article, but I am concerned that efforts to change the name and scope of this article are really just attempts to delete this article through the back door after the failure of the AfD. No one has given a good reason why they believe Group Based Child Exploitation in the United Kingdom and the Grooming Gangs Scandal actually refer to the same thing. That's probably because they clearly don't. Riposte97 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• :The "scandal" is the politicisation of the phenomenon of group-based child sexual exploitation. The demographics and ethnicity of the offenders have been central to the politicisation of the grooming gangs and have been the subject of academic study, not all of which has been supportive of a "moral panic" narrative e.g [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3248665]. It makes sense to have a single article that presents the context of 1. the broader prevalence relative to other kinds of child sexual abuse in the UK. 2. the research behind the demographics (both ethnicity and employment) of gang-based child sexual abuse in the UK. 3. the reaction of UK authorities to child sexual abuse and the reported lack of action, and the political response. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This changes the scope of the article. We just finished an AfD where it was decided to keep the article, this is a bad faith move request attempting to defacto delete the article by changing the scope after it was just decided we keep it. Ratgomery (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• :If you think this is bad faith, take me to ANI, I don't think people will be very impressed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• :This is an editor with 157 edits. This raises issues about off-site canvassing. Lewisguile (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::Most of editors who have replied to this discussion I would not consider to be "established users" (less than 1,000 edits or even 500 edits in most cases). Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• :::Agreed. This is a problem. Lewisguile (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Thanks for referencing, looks like an issue. Are these mainly/all !voters from the recent AfD that was canvassed? That would make sense here. I've had a look and didn't find any off-site for this yet. CNC (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::I was not canvassed. I watch and edit multiple articles relating to UK politics. Ratgomery (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• :::Ratgomery was involved in previous discussions. I don't believe it's appropriate to accuse them of being canvassed on the basis of a low edit count alone. Riposte97 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I saw this discussion mentioned at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Just skimming through this article, it does seem like "Grooming gangs scandal" (from the article: {{tq|Allegations of governmental and institutional failures to respond to the problem or to downplay or cover up the issue have been described as a grooming gangs scandal}}) is a distinct topic (with a different scope) from the proposed title. Maybe create the Group-based child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom article first, then see if this article should be merged to that article. Some1 (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - whether or not Group-based Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom is an appropriate article for Wikipedia, it is not this article. There does not cease to be a scandal whether or not there is another topic as well.

:To me, the proposed title presupposes that "what Wikipedia should be talking about" is real grooming gangs, rather than the wider issues this article addresses. I see no basis in policy or sources for this preference held by certain editors. Newimpartial (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Grooming gang" terminology is widely used in RS and is the popular name for this phenomenon. The proposed move changes the scope and makes the page less cognizable to users. Grooming gangs controversy might be a solution to acknowledge that some sources (thought not, evidently, the UK government) contest the phenomenon's significance as a meaningful sub-phenomenon of group-based sexual exploitation or of sexual exploitation itself.

:I have to say unfortunately that I share the concerns of {{u|Riposte97}} regarding this name change, which would seemingly significantly change the scope of the article, being proposed almost immediately after a consensus to keep an article specifically on the subject of the grooming gangs scandal. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::Only 284 edits. Lewisguile (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::...okay? I was not canvassed on or off Wikipedia, but was tagged in along with everyone else that participated in the prior AfD from 2024. I have made good faith contributions to the discussion here and elsewhere. In the recent AfD, I specifically made a note to the closer that off-Wiki attention was distorting the debate, despite that distortion being on the side of the argument that I supported. I resent the notion that my participation in this discussion is somehow improper or illegitimate and think you ought to clarify your meaning or apologize. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::True you were pinged into it. Lewisguile it's probably worth checking the previous AfD for future !vote noting (for users pinged in specifically), unless you were just referencing edit count as not WP:ECR. CNC (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was primarily noting this as the prior AfD's closer mentioned the media coverage of the issue and the risk of off-site canvassing. Note that there was also coverage in certain news outlets of the topic area in 2024 as well, so it's entirely possible people were canvassed back then and continue to be pinged after their prior contributions.

:::::But I also mentioned it because this is a contentious issue (though whether it's WP:ARBPAK, WP:CT/R-I or both is up for discussion), where off-site canvassing has occurred (alongside doxxing of WP editors), and so WP:ECR may be relevant to any closer or any possible future discussion of sock puppets, canvassing, etc . However, I take your point, @Woshiwaiguoren, that you were tagged in to this discussion and have taken part in good faith, so I apologise if my comment appears to be a personal attack or an assumption of bad faith. That was not my intention. I'm just trying to keep track (see the warning at the top of this discussion). Lewisguile (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi just to say your argument is well put no matter how many edits you have, I hope you are not put off wiki by this. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per reliable sources. Historyexpert2 (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• :Only 182 edits. Lewisguile (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose - discussion hasnt closed LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support per WP:BESTSOURCES and unclear scope of this article. Newspaper articles are not sufficient, on their own, to establish that the scope of this article is WP:DUE per WP:ACADEMICBIAS. The wider topic as a whole should be covered, though. Note that there was a previous decision to merge a similar articles ("Muslim grooming gangs" and "Muslim grooming gangs moral panic") into the Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom article, and this article also covers similar ground, but from a different POV (hence why so many are arguing it's a WP:POVFORK. Lewisguile (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:Note: There are several editors here with fewer than 500 edits at the time of !voting, and more with fewer than 1000. Is this page covered by any contentious topics policy? I think there are potentially issues with off-site canvassing. Lewisguile (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::Can get the talk page protected Kowal2701 (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think seeking page protection is really justifiable. The most parsimonious explanation for the presence of these editors is that they participated in the previous discussion and now follow the page. They are permitted to participate. Riposte97 (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

::::If they were canvassed to appear there (the closer noted this was a possibility), that doesn't really make it any better. If the article had extended protection, for example, we'd ignore !votes from accounts under 500 edits. As this is potentially within several contentious topics areas, that's not an outrageous suggestion. Lewisguile (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't think it's appropriate to seek to exclude !votes solely on the hunch that votes against your position may have been canvassed. This is particularly the case once an RM has been opened and seems to be failing. These editors are engaging in policy-based reasoning. There is no proper basis to believe they have been canvassed, and biting them is unduly harsh. Frankly, I expected a higher standard of conduct from you. Riposte97 (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::It’s not really best practice for new editors to dive into the most contentious articles anyway. Can we not do the grandstanding please, we know there’s been off-wiki canvassing in this topic and it’s not a good look defending or enabling it Kowal2701 (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It's not grandstanding to point out that we are not somehow better or more qualified than other editors because we have passed an arbitrary number of edits. Riposte97 (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::WP:CLUE begs to differ with that theory. CNC (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That essay doesn't seem to be directly relevant. Riposte97 (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It might be best to end discussion of this here as calling people grandstanders or enablers of canvassing is not going to productively improve the article or sort some consensus on scope if anything its only going to make this page more acrimonious.

:::::::On the substance I would say 200+ edits is not brand new and the argument made is original, canvassing is a real problem I'm sure you didnt mean to say that @Riposte97 is enabling it. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I approve of snow at this point per WP:WASTEOFTIME, the discussion above is a lot more production and moving forward with progress. I didn't !vote so that is my vote if not clear, and after a fair amount of participants in 24hr none are supportive, so might as well just wrap this up already and move on. CNC (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::This is covered by WP:ARBPAK so have added appropriate talk and edit page notices as necessary, not sure how I didn't see that before. As for page protection, that would require disruptive editing, which I don't see yet. CNC (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Is it not also covered by WP:CT/R-I ("the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour", broadly construed)? Not so much the "abilities" part but the "behaviour" part. Either way, the CT policy is the same for both. Lewisguile (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::Have never seen that one around on race-based articles, so I'm assuming not per "Race and Intelligence", implying the intersection of both. Also not a ctop expert here and broad is usually very broad I find. CNC (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, so the page ws originally titled "Race and intelligence" but the description refers to the intersection of "race/ethnicity" and "ability or behaviour", so seems to have been broadened to cover all topics where a behaviour or ability is attributed to/associated with particular ethnicities. I believe the prior topics in this area already had an WP:ECR warning in place, so one consequence of this article being created as opposed to those old articles being reinstated is that the ECR hasn't carried across (but probably should). Is this something worth raising at arbitration enforcement, just for guidance/clarification? Lewisguile (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::Probably, I'm not very familar with AE but was going to recommend along those lines on your tp as had a suspicion based on the canvassing that occurred it would benefit from some sort of preventative protection. Whether canvassing is considered disruptive, even if editors are not identified as being disruptive, is where I'm a bit lost on the subject. Pinging ScottishFinnishRadish in the hope of some clarity on this in the meantime, as a bit clueless on the race/ethnicity ctop as well, let alone whether there is a case for ECP among other things. CNC (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Take a look at ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page. I don't think this article is covered under those but have asked specifically what is required to start the discussion to get it designated as a contentious topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::As a follow-up to this, as the recent edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grooming_gangs_scandal#c-Historyexpert2-20250704025000-LeChatiliers_Pupper-20250703140900 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grooming_gangs_scandal#c-Tamsier-20250704083900-LeChatiliers_Pupper-20250703140900 here] suggest, some editors appear to be issuing blanket "oppose" votes against any sort of change (and that thread isn't calling for the deletion or renaming of this article, but is following up on the consensus emerging among editors to clarify the scope of this article and develop a "main" article to cover the topic more broadly). Lewisguile (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Are we really doing this again? The AFD closer found consensus to keep this article, at this title, three days ago. "Group-based child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" is not an adequate rename for this article because there are plenty of incidents of organized child sex abuse in the UK that are not part of the "grooming gang scandal". See e.g. Kincora Boys' Home, Medomsley Detention Centre, Kidwelly sex cult, etc. While "scandal" may seem POV, media sources in the UK and US are indeed calling it a "scandal" in article voice, as I demonstrated in this comment. And I don't actually see most of the academic sources above as all that relevant to this article. The "scandal" refers to UK institutions covering up the abuse and failing to pursue justice, while the academic sources either analyze the general phenomenon of organized sex abuse in the UK or counteract narratives about "Muslim grooming gangs" roaming the English countryside. Thus they don't really cover the "scandal" as such. Astaire (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• :The last close was about deletion, and the closer specifically said they didn't make a decision about the right title. I did raise a thread above to avoid jumping into another official process so soon, but also, it is fine to raise the topic of the title and scope following the keep decision. Lewisguile (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: My position about this whole issue was made clear in the original discussion. I think "Pakistani Muslims" should be included in the title for scope and specificity, which is what this article and the 'scandal' is mainly about - i.e., Pakistani Muslims grooming children and girls for sexual abuse. As Wikipedia editors, our role is to report notable and verifiable subjects as per RS. We try to be specific especially with titles. It is not our job to sanitise the title and hid what the subject is all about in the article's body - which I believe is what's going on here. The article's title should tell the reader what the article is about before they even get to read it. I'm not happy with the current title either, but would rather accept it as per community consensus than the proposed one. On that bases, I oppose the proposed title, and I'm inclined to agree with Riposte97. Wikipedia is not the type of project where we censor things just because they are controversial and/or may offend certain religious beliefs or ethnic groups. If that was the case, many of our articles will be pulled down. No religion or ethnic group gets special treatment here. We report on what RS say rather than use our own biases or fears to sanitise/censor articles/titles - which in the end, cheats the reader. A reader who is not familiar with the subject will not be able to tell specifically what the article is about by just reading the title, because the title itself is vague. Notwithstanding, I rather settle for this than the proposed one. Tamsier (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• :RS frequently refer to the matter as "grooming gangs," with no ethnic or religious qualifier in the name. Also, plenty of participants and some entire rings that fit the pattern are not Pakistani. Doesn't seem justified to add that to the title, nor is sanitization the only reason to exclude it. Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::+1 to this, additionally there does not appear to be a consensus in RS
• ::Some eg Casey, and media reporting on it highlight -> that poor ethnicity data complicates this question, eg ethnicity data even where it is recorded is assigned by a police officer and not self reported often to broad categories eg Asian.
• ::Some others specifically argue it isn't a broadly British Pakistani issue but hyper localised to Kashmiri Pakistanis.
• ::[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/17/grooming-gangs-rapists-from-sub-communities-kemi-right/ The grooming gangs are rapists from sub-communities – Kemi is right to say so] LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• :I remain on the fence about this title, but I think this comment is a prime example of why the proposal does, in fact, have merit. No, Pakistani Muslims should not be in the title. No, that is not what the scandal is actually about. Rather, the ethnic element is a right-wing dogwhistle from the current title. The actual scandal lies in how the police and British state have dealt with the issue. The single greatest failing was in not seeing older children as children [https://theconversation.com/the-uk-failed-grooming-gang-victims-by-not-seeing-children-as-children-259098]. Another failing is that we cannot tell anything about the ethnicity for certain because that was not recorded. All the evidence we have suggests that there is not an ethnic element to this and the largest ethnic group involved is white British, BUT that we cannot know anything for sure, because the data was not collected over misplaced sensitivities. There are other recommendations too, but it is clear that the scandal is not about a single ethnic group. The scandal (and I would prefer a more neutral word, but it does get reported in news sources as a scandal) is the way the British state has prosecuted the trafficking of older children by organised criminal gangs. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• "the largest ethnic group involved is white British" I thought that White British are the main group responsible for nearly all crime in the United Kingdom. Are there exceptions to the rule? Dimadick (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• :They are. The Casey audit complicates things when it talks about a "majority" (as do most other sources). What she really means is "disproportionate". So, the majority of offenders are indeed white British, but in at least three regions there are a disproportionate number of South Asian perpetrators among the 2/3 where ethnicity was recorded. It's also true that other national data has previously suggested white offenders were a majority and disproportionately large (so above the ~85% or so expected). There are a bunch of caveats to all this, such as differing definitions of what's being recorded, incomplete data, ethnicity being recorded by the police instead of by the offenders themselves, flaws in research methods (or reliance on flawed data), etc. Lewisguile (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• :> A previous piece of research from 2015 found that of 1,231 perpetrators of "group and gang-based child sexual exploitation", 42% were white, 14% were defined as Asian or Asian British and 17% black.
• :> The problem is that the data is from only 19 out of more than 40 police forces and nearly a decade old.
• :> Another issue is that the ethnicity of the offender is recorded by police officers rather than self-assessed, and uses broad definitions, such as "Asian".
• :> The 2020 Home Office report found this could result in offenders being classed as "Asian" while being from other backgrounds.
• :> In 2022 the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse [https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/investigation/cs-organised-networks investigated abuse in six cities, external] which had not experienced a high profile grooming case.
• :> It found evidence that gang-based abuse was happening, and of widespread failures by the police to record the ethnicity of perpetrators.
• :[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65174096 Grooming gangs and ethnicity: What does the evidence say? - BBC News]
• :I'm really not sure there is strong evidence to be making any sweeping statement about ethnicity, the best secondary sources seem to agree that ethnicity data is poorly recorded and fraught with problems in its interpretation. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• :That's probably something that should be kept an eye on as the cover-up is investigated.Halbared (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:Support, articles should be named for the subject not newspaper hradlines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose as this is about the specific scandal and the proposed title is too broad. I don't think we should be going through a repeat of what happened last time (one of the more embarrassing things on this site). Also see Astaire's comment, and I would also agree with Tamsier. — Czello ^(music) 09:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

So based on Kowals suggestion;

Talk:Grooming gangs scandal - Wikipedia

--

I would tentatively propose we take each section one at a time (doing the lead last)

So if this sparkles -> lets start with the proposed background section;

what is good / bad / missing from the current "Initial reports" and "Scale" sections? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::What are you even opposing? It's unclear what your response means in this context. Lewisguile (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis that this is a path way to introduce OR and sanitise the article contrary to RS. Tamsier (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• :What do you think constitutes WP:OR? Which WP:RS do you think are being contradicted? Have you read the discussion above which we were all engaged in? There is broad consensus to move ahead with changes to strengthen this article on the basis of political and other responses, and develop a new one that covers the basics and broader history. Lewisguile (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• ::Just WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING Kowal2701 (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment requesting clarification regarding contentious topics. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)