- Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
TL;DR: I believe the closer has erroneously entirely excluded at least 12 of the 17 delete !votes to arrive at a "keep" consensus where none existed.
This AfD was clearly contentious but also trending delete, with a raw, unconsidered count of !votes showing 17 deletes, 2 redirects and 11 keeps (plus a couple of others). We don’t just count !votes, but as redirects are “do somethings” too, it is always a surprise if a near 2:1 majority to do something is closed as “keep”.
In seeking to understand how the close statement could suggest there was initially a rough consensus to keep, the closer explained to me that they hade determined the rough consensus after discarding non P&G !votes and found only 5 valid deletes but 11 valid keeps [1]
Note that this was taken as “rough consensus” and that further discarding votes that suggested we should “delete unless” was given as a reason to formulate a solid consensus to keep per this in the closing statement: Things like, "Delete unless we revert to revision so-and-so", or "Delete unless we rename it", or "Delete because it's a POV mess right now". To remind you, we are here to decide whether the topic justifies inclusion, not whether the current content or title are suitable. If the subject - under some title and with some content - should be kept, according to that participant, then this !vote should be counted as a Keep. Once we do that, the rough consensus to keep becomes a very clear consensus.
I note that an early contribution from Hydrangeans cited WP:BESTSOURCES and then presented academic sources that show that the majority of grooming gangs are white, and that this is an invented narrative. It is not the job of DRV to further evaluate the argument made, but it is clear that this !vote was solidly policy based. I then note that AndyTheGrump, myself, Iggy pop goes the weasel and BrocadeRiverPoems all explicitly included “per Hydrangeans” in our !votes. That is five policy based !votes, and not one of us was a “delete unless”, so the numbers don’t add up here.
I also think the suggestion that so many !votes could be discarded as non policy is in error. Of the remaining 12 keep votes, 5 of these mention WP:NPOV. That is a policy. 6 then argued that sources do not bear out the framing/that the premise is false/that we are asserting something that does not exist. These are source based arguments that don’t specifically mention Hydrangeans, but clearly follow the discussion and sources, which is P&G based. Only one !vote clearly should be discarded. The !vote that the article had been emasculated by an editor and thus should not exist was clearly spurious. But it certainly appears to me that 16 of the 17 keep votes were based in policy.
Further, looking at these 16 P&G based !votes, I cannot see what would then be discarded as a delete unless. There are two !votes that were to delete or to rename (failing deletion). These were from memphisto and Chaotic Enby. The rename view was also expressed by Austronesier and Bluethricecreamman, but without the delete preference. These delete votes, where it is delete or should not be excluded as "delete unless".
M.Bitton !voted delete but suggested we could salvage non POV to Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom#Group_based_child_sexual_exploitation. This one could be read as a !vite to merge. Salvaging information to another target is a merge outcome, even though the delete vote might imply they would be unhappy with the resulting redirect. Counting it as merge is still a valid "do something" and again, should not be summarily discarded.
So we have 15 valid deletes, 1 new merge, the 2 redirects. What of the keeps? Well 6 of the keep votes claimed the article was well sourced. It was not until Alaexis commented that any sources were brought to AfD and Jonathan Deamer cited 3 more. All newspapers. None of the arguments addressed the WP:BESTSOURCES argument but they are policy based and should not be summarily excluded. Of the remaining, PARAKANYAA mentioned sources but noted they focus on ethnicity and not race. That is probably P&G based as it is also considering sources. Necrosthesp claimed it is a major thing and "the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith" - which was shown to be false. The majority are white. jtrainor mereley claimed it "exists and clearly notable" which is claerly not P&G based. DanielRigal said we should have it because it covers perennial allegations, which is not P&G based. Biohistorian15 said it is an established term "I have personally heard”, which is clearly subjective and not P&G based. So I believe it would be generous to say that 7 of those are P&G based.
It is entirely right that closers have discretion to weigh arguments when closing an AfD, but I believe that the closer has erred in this case. It is not clear how so many of the delete !votes could be discarded and 11 keep votes be found based on P&G arguments alone. I think a good faith and careful analysis of the discussion shows most of the participants engaged with policy based reasons, and having their views summarily excluded is an unfair representation of the time and effort participants put into understanding this topic and expressing their views. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Endorse the original closing decision. My "
I have personally heard " is clearly relevant, insofar as people have (including in the comments beneath that statement) suggested it to be a wholly artificial controversy. As the term "(Muslim) Grooming gang(s)" has entered standard political vocabulary, this by itself becomes a highly dubious claim. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Sirfurboy has summed up the issues with the close very well. The comment about 'righteous indignation' in particular is indicative, problematic, and arguably offensive. And perhaps more to the point, apparently based on a rather strange interpretation of Wikipedia policies which would imply that actually caring about how the encyclopaedia covers a sensitive topic is a bad thing. The closure, written around finding ways to eliminate as many comments as possible, looks far too much like a supervote to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse. Keep was an okay close. No consensus would have been a good close, and possibly a better close, but there is no practical difference between the two in terms of retaining the article. Many of the delete/ATD arguments are based on the page being offensive and POV, which the closer correctly dismissed as AFD is not clean-up. Discussions on content and the article title are not the subject of AFD and can be discussed on the talk page. Frank Anchor 13:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The second sentence at WP:AFD, User:Frank Anchor, literally says Common outcomes are that the article is kept … renamed/moved to another title …. How then is not discussion of such an offensive and biased title not the subject of AFD? Nfitz (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as closer. Addressing the appellant's specific concerns:
- The Delete views from Hydrangeans and AndyTheGrump were given full weight, as were other P&G-based arguments.
- WP:NPOV is indeed a policy, but it is a content policy, not a deletion one. If an article about a notable topic violates NPOV, it is cleaned up, not deleted.
- The !votes for redirect were all valid, P&G-based ones, and given full weight as such. Alas, they failed to attain consensus. Had consensus trended toward deletion, these views would contribute to a potential ATD, but that was not the case. Counting those Redirect views as supporting deletion would still not have tipped the balance towards a Delete outcome, or even a No consensus.
- I acknowledge that some sources cast doubt on the validity of sorting grooming gangs by religion or ethnicity. Such criticism should certainly make its way to a Criticism section in the article, but cannot be used as justification to delete the page, if there is sufficient sourcing for the concept. But as I explained to the appellant, my job as a closer is to assess consensus among those reviewing the sources, not to add my own weight as a source reviewer.
- As for the rest of the appeal, I don't understand the obsession with counting votes. That's not how AfD works. If one hundred additional "Delete because the title is offensive" votes turned up on that AfD, the result would still be the same. I went out of my way to explain this in the closing rationale. If the topic is encyclopedic, according to the consensus among participants, then we keep the page, and fix the title and content if needed.
- I get the sense the appellant is trying to relitigate the AfD, while relying on straw-poll numbers for support. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Where you appear to have failed, is that according to WP:AFD one of the 7 possible outcomes of an AFD is moving to a different title. How did you factor that, User:OwenX into your decision? I also don't see how you dealt with the policy violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:NDESC in the title. Nfitz (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the close. I think discarding arguments to delete as per WP:TNT as being outside policy for deletion is a bit strange, but as the article had been changed to a previous version, the article is probably fine to keep and its fine to throw away WP:TNT deletes. Also agree that WP:TNTing an article for claims of a POV mess would not mean the article could never be recreated, only that we would need to start over with a new article, as WP:TNT is not an argument about notability or that the article should never exist again.
- Deleting an article for fear it may be vandalized or attract contention is not a valid argument. There is no WP:CENSORSHIP, we are all able to deal with random vandals.
- The article def is notable for all its attention, even if some of the attention is in quite biased and often horrible presentations.
- Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. There are various issues with the close, invredibly well put together here. I also personally find it incredible that Owenx - a long standing editor and admin, could dismiss delete votes with this comment: "A few !votes were discarded as irrelevant, mostly those that called for deletion based solely on the content being offensive; the article doesn't qualify as an "attack page"."
- Not a single one of those votes were "based solely on the content being offensive" - not a single one. To dismiss those votes but not have a comment on the various bad-faith "keep" votes is suspect to me, and reeks of some personal bias.TwinkleStarzz (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an observation that it looks like you created an account a week ago, TwinkleStarzz, just to participate in this AFD and you haven't edited on any other subject. I find it surprising that in a few days you could develop an opinion on OwenX's abilities as a closer as well as have an opinion on AFD protocol. And if you judge my observation to be out-of-order, then I suggest you strike your comments about OwenX having some sort of 'bias" (what do you mean, he's pro-grooming gangs?). Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. You can't discard "a few !votes" as irrelevant/WP:IDONTLIKEIT just because you disagree with their policy-based arguments, and the vast majority of the delete !votes were based in policy. The closer can personally disagree with some of the arguments, but shouldn't discard the !votes based on this when determining consensus.
Additionally, if many votes are "delete or rescope", and you consider that the AfD shouldn't discuss rescoping, then these votes should be counted as delete, not discarded. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What the community decided to "keep" was different content with a different title, so you have to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics to get a keep outcome out of that discussion. But there should be one or more articles with titles and content not unadjacent to this, so you also have to do some mental gymnastics to get to "delete". This needed a nuanced close.—S Marshall T/C 14:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Delete/redirect votes discarded seemingly out of hand? The purpose of a closer is to evaluate the arguments and weigh them, not toss out the ones they don't like. Closer's rationale displays a lack of sensitivity to the topic and therefore, inability to objectively weigh the arguments. Referring to !votes simply as "righteous indignation" is offensive, especially after acknowledging the topic is controversial. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No Redirect !vote was discarded. The discarded Delete votes were not discarded "out of hand". They received a weight based on their reliance on P&G, which in this case was zero. I understand you are unhappy with the outcome, but it sounds like you find our deletion policy objectionable. !Votes are routinely discarded when they aren't based in policy. Sensitivity to the topic does not mean abandoning our guiding principles. Owen× ☎ 16:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that 'guiding principles' included not allowing the platform to be used for advocacy. Which is exactly what any discussion of organised child abuse must inevitably become, when it is centred around a discourse that selects particular ethnoreligious minorities as its focus, in the face of evidence which demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that said ethnoreligious group does not participate in such abuse in any proportion larger than its numbers would suggest. Still, if the object of an AfD closure is to adhere to some abstract 'principle' that only contributions employing the exact wording the closer demands get considered, then maybe the 'principles' need revising. Or maybe it is the closer's understanding of them, which I'd have to suggest, may be at odds with those of the current community at least partly due to an almost complete absence of substantive editing history over many years.[2] Supposed 'principles' that prioritise rule-mongering over perpetuating unfounded and deeply offensive stereotypes should have no place in any responsible project with aspirations to being an 'encyclopaedia. Proper coverage of serious topics like child abuse should not be framed around newspaper headlines and moral panic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete I think the closer's rationale (described here is problematic. There are some circumstances for delete !votes to be discarded, but substantiative and policy-based comments should rarely be discarded. As for the information, it could be included in a larger article about "journalists misrepresenting patterns in crime." --Enos733 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete. I'm involved insofar as I voted to delete based on a well reasoned policy based argument, and I voted to overturn on Sirfurboy's well-reasoned objections. Brocade River Poems 18:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Frankly, I don't believe the nomination was in good faith in the first place, considering that a) the person who nominated it is an SPA who registered just to target this article, b) there was coordinated off-wiki activity to try to get more delete votes, and c) the article was heavily edited during the AfD to make it worse, presumably to increase the chances of it's removal. As far as the merits of the Keep, Owen said them far better than I ever could. Jtrainor (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding a) - I have been editing for some time via IP, and had to create an account in order to create the AFD, that in of itself isn't a particularly good reason to dismiss it. b) what evidence do you have that there was "coordinated off-wiki activity to try to get more delete votes"? And even if so - in what way does that discount the delete votes based on wiki policy? c) how can the article be worse now, compared to the POV mess it was prior to the AFD? TwinkleStarzz (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am particularly interested in hearing about the allegations around B.
- As the main editor who did much of the changes during the AfD, C seems incorrect.
- Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The only other possible outcome was "no consensus", which would have been fine too. This was never going to be deleted. The topic is obviously notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources. I don't want to criticise the nominator, who seems to be relatively new here, for seeing the terrible state of the article at the time it was nominated and sending it for deletion. Even so, it is almost certain that a more experienced editor would have realised that this was a valid subject which had been diverted in the wrong direction and tried to set it back on the right path rather than into the bit bucket. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I could have seen a way here to a No Consensus close (which of course defaults to keep) but the actual close and its rationale were really poor and actually didn't give any policy-based reason why the closer threw multiple Delete/Redirect !votes aside. I almost get the impression that the closer didn't read the AfD properly and/or didn't look at the history of the article, which may have given more clarity as to why a TNT delete was the best option in this circumstance. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (uninvolved). OwenX explained the reasoning clearly. There were several "delete" !votes that were not based on policy and were within the closer's discretion to discount. (This DRV is already getting sidetracked with editors' personal views about the subject matter, which is not helpful to the process.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Before I review the matter a second time and offer an opinion, I would like to be sure that I understand this correctly. It appears that the headcount was approximately 11 Keeps and 18 Deletes, and the closer has closed the discussion as Keep, based on strength of arguments, and discounting some of the Delete !votes. It appears that the appellant is saying that the closed erred in giving more weight to the Keep statements than the Delete statements, and for other reasons, such as that the closer supervoted. Do I understand the situation correctly? Have I counted the non-votes more or less correctly? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is 17 deletes, 2 redirects and 11 keeps. It is not a matter of weight to the arguments (although that would certainly be an additional concern). It is that in this explanation [3] it transpired that fully 12 of the delete votes were discarded to assess a rough consensus after which the weighting was applied. I do not see the weighting was properly applied either but it is the discard that does not add up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, I suppose, though to me it looks like the discussion reached no consensus, which would have been a preferable close. However, keep was also within administrative discretion. Maybe paradoxically, I think a close of delete would also have been acceptable. Over the years I have thought we are not well able to deal with the sort of situation where the topic and contents are unstable. I dare say we never can be. Thincat (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (involved). At the end of the day, it is irrelevant whether these gangs exist or whether they are predominantly Muslim or Asian or whatever. All that is relevant is that this is a huge media story in the UK and has been for years and therefore deserves an article. Too many of the delete votes were based on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:IDONTLIKEIT and cherrypicking sources to "prove" that this was all false and therefore should indeed have been treated with caution. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It reports what reliable sources report. It would be ridiculous not to have an article on something that is so significant in the British media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't a remark on what should happen with this closure but on the discussion occurring. I just want to remark that what offends me is some comments here that seem to imply that OwenX came to a decision and then worked backwards to justify that closure. I have good faith in OwenX's ability and integrity as a closer. What participants in the discussion might not realize is how many of our regular closers passed on closing this discussion because it was so divisive. This AFD discussion was bound to end up at DRV no matter what the closure was or what rationale was provided. Opinion was that divided. I applaud OwenX's willingness to take on assessing controversial AFDs which he did here and on other AFDs. We are lucky to have him spending time working on AFDs. That doesn't mean every closure is perfect and can't be challenged (they obvously can) but it's improper to accuse him of bias or having some other kind of motivation that resulted in him reaching his conclusion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- agreed. owenx took a difficult afd and gave a good enough close that seems impartial. the personal attacks and claims of bias against owenx are disheartening Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to NC This was a very difficult AfD and I understand the closer's reasoning for the keeping (many delete !votes not being grounded in policy/guidelines). But I don't believe that outcome was within discretion. First, many (a majority?) of keep !votes agreed this can or should be renamed. A keep outcome doesn't even hint at the notion the title needs fixing. I could have endorsed a delete outcome, a rename outcome, or an NC outcome. But keep isn't in the cards with only ~20% of participants asking to keep without a rename. I'd rather see a NC close and an RfC on how to move forward. Such a close better reflects the discussion and IMO is the better way forward. Hobit (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a move discussion on Talk:Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom which seems to be headed towards success. I don't think adding a RfC on top of that is necessary, but I do agree that the focus should be on how to move forward with the article. Overturning this to NC doesn't seem to impact that either way. It's not that I object, I just don't really see the point. DanielRigal (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unaware of the move discussion. But the difference is that this could be relisted much sooner as a NC outcome. And I think that would be helpful here. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, I feel that closing this as delete was the best reading of the discussion, but I think NC was also within discretion and thus I think an overturn to NC best balances the discussion and the close intent. But I'm fine if we overturn this to delete. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (uninvolved). I understand the closer's rationale as it was clear many of the comments suggesting to delete the article were based on personal opinion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and from a perspective of wanting to delete a politically sensitive topic (in violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY). Frankly, I also totally understand the instinct to want to delete the article, but these arguments are not based in policy—we have a long tradition of policy and processes meant to explicitly avoid deleting articles because one political perspective finds the topic inconvenient. The policy-grounded comments pointed out (it seems correctly to me) that there has been significant coverage of this topic, meaning we should have an article on it (WP:GNG). There were concerns that the article was not written and titled from a neutral point of view, but as the closer pointed out, this can be addressed through editing and consensus building. I think this is a case where WP:DISCARD was applied correctly, but the lopsided number of comments on either side of the debate makes the closure contentious for people who do not understand how at Wikipedia, editors determine consensus based on arguments rather than on number of votes (see e.g., WP:XFD#CON). Malinaccier (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the discussion. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should delete a now valid article, on a significant topic, which has been improved beyond recognition since it was nominated for deletion, and force editors to start again from scratch at the new title which is currently being discussed on the Talk page? Why? Who would gain anything from that? Not the editors. Not the readers. Whatever mistakes may or may not have been made, surely it is better to focus on the best outcome for the encyclopaedia. If deleted, the article would almost certainly get refunded as a draft before being moved to its new title. Why make a load of extra hassle just to end up in the same place eventually? If it gets us to right place with less aggravation then we can, and should, avoid over-literal application of the rules per WP:IAR and just skip to the end. (Also, I strongly disagree that there was anything like a consensus to delete in the first place so, in my view, IAR doesn't even need to come into play.) DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but isn't a repurpose and move of the article a backdoor deletion? Doesn't a keep outcome prevent us from changing the content and the title to make the article about something else? Doesn't it say that the consensus confirms an article on muslim grooming gangs is the notable topic, not the topic this is being repurposed to? As S Marshall said, this needed a nuanced close. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been already changed. WP:TNT covers "repurpose", and i thought it was the appropriate reason to delete before looking through article history and realizing there was a useful version to change back to. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- TNT is a delete outcome. This was closed as keep. Now we can WP:IAR and essentially TNT the article that was nominated, and rename it to remove the problematic framing that was always there. That is backdoor deletion. But with an outcome of keep, what is to stop someone from simply re-creating this article after its backdoor deletion, with a COPYWITHIN of the problematic content, arguing that the AfD was closed as keep? I mean, that's what I would do if I really and strongly thought the article as existed at the time should still be here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete I simply have no idea how you get a "keep" from that discussion, especially given not all of the keep !votes were necessarily valid, or how you would ever change a delete !vote to a keep when doing a close. At worst you discount an incorrect !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to Delete - I'm baffled why any of the keep arguments basically saying such terms exist have any weight, given the highly prejudicial nature, and given the majority of such grooming in the UK isn't Muslim! We certainly don't need a child grooming article for every country by every religion, race, and skin colour. Nfitz (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not only that the term exists, it is that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. That's what defines notability. (They all say it is BS, which makes it notable BS.) The whole point of the article is to explain the racist moral panic around grooming gangs in the UK, i.e. to explain the prejudice not to promote it. Trust me, this is a topic that people are going to Google and part of Wikipedia's responsibility to the world is to give those people a solid article setting out the facts so that they get at least one high ranking search result that isn't promoting prejudice, hatred and lies. Maybe it is not clear to non-British people here, but this topic is effectively Britain's version of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. We need an article about it for the same reason that we need an article about that. I wish it wasn't so, but it is. I now wish that I had written a detailed essay saying all this in my !vote but it never occurred to me for a moment that it would be necessary. The content that got the article put up for deletion was already reverted by the time I got to the AfD so I assumed that this would be a borderline speedy keep situation. DanielRigal (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not pizzagate. Pizzagate is a bizarre fantasy with no factual basis. South Asian paedophile rings, on the other hand, do exist; and South Asian males really are overrepresented among perpetrators of child sexual exploitation on females. The right wing press has wildly exaggerated a genuine phenomenon.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd think (any ethnic group) pedophile rings exist, but I'd be surprised if the majority weren't white or Christian. And the only definitive reference in the article supporting otherwise is an opinion piece by a known racist (if Wikipedia can be believed)! Nfitz (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority are white; we don't know anything about their religion. There's a Home Office study from 2020 which contains a useful overview of the recent scholarly literature. It shows that information about perpetrators' ethnicity isn't gathered in a rigorous way and where it is gathered, depends on police officers assigning an ethnicity based on the police officer's opinion. Ella Cockbain thinks this ethnicity data is terrible and has to be jettisoned. Not everyone agrees with Ella Cockbain, and it's fair to say that limited and disputed data, but nevertheless the best available data, suggests that people of Asian (which in Britain mostly means South Asian) ethnicity are overrepresented among perpetrators in paedophile rings compared to their numbers in the general population.—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have linked the study, which is here. The ethnicity that's most overrepresented among victims is mixed white and black caribbean (see for example Office for national statistics, table 7b).—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The study you link does not state that "the best available data, suggests that people of Asian (which in Britain mostly means South Asian) ethnicity are overrepresented among perpetrators in paedophile rings compared to their numbers in the general population." On the contrary, it says that "Based on the existing evidence, and our understanding of the flaws in the existing data, it seems most likely that the ethnicity of group-based CSE offenders is in line with CSA more generally and with the general population, with the majority of offenders being White." (
p.25 p.27) AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- also we shoukd not be using that document directlh as per WP:PRIMARY. the originL pov editor had been using and misquoting from that document to help provide evidence that muslim grooming gangs were a significant problem. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While you were on page 25, Andy, did you read the bit that said "A number of studies have indicated an over-representation of Asian and Black offenders in group-based CSE"?
- Bluethricecreamman, that document is not a primary source. It quotes and summarizes secondary sources. The fact that someone's misused it in the past doesn't mean I can't use it.—S Marshall T/C 15:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, I see I'd given the wrong page number: I meant P.27, not P.25. Apologies for that. As for what it says on P.25, 'a number of studies' does not equate to 'the best available data'. Particularly not when the source being cited goes on to explain in some detail why such studies may be relying on 'poor quality' data. The source cannot possibly be used to support claims regarding data it expressly questions the validity of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the figures they're doubting come from page 21 of this source, and I having dug it up, I stand by my description of that as "limited and disputed data". It's the best data that I've found yet, and I'm coming to think that Ella Cockbain &c, who doubt it, don't have any rigorous data of their own (because if they did they would surely have published it). It might be the only data. I'll keep digging though.—S Marshall T/C 22:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Data from a single year. In which "35% of forces did not provide any data and the ethnicity of many perpetrators within those which did provide data is often not recorded." I'd go with the null hypothesis on that one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that an article on a moral panic about South Asian paedophile rings, ought to say something about whether it's true that South Asians really are overrepresented among paedophiles. The only actual data we can find says yes, they are, and that's a fact that our lovely right wing friends are going to keep on adding into the article forever. This position, held by many people in the debate above, that it's entirely a hoax, is going to founder on the fact that the least bad data we can find, plus articles in the Times, both say it's a real phenomenon.—S Marshall T/C 07:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Page 21 of this source [4] that you refer to is the source I quoted in the AfD in answer to the erroneous claim made by one participant that the vast majority of these cases are by Asian muslim gangs. This source gives figures on page 21 that prove that to be nonsense. 42% are white, 17% black and 14% Asian. Is this an over-representation of Asians? Well yes. At the last UK census, the British Asian population stood at 9.3%, so it is a little over, but as Andythegrump points out, there are a lot of problems with these figures (that the paper is up front about). But there is another huge 🐘 elephant in the room. By that study the black population is way more over-represented. The UK black population is 4% but that study suggests 17% representation in gang and group based CSE. That is a massively bigger effect. Will we also keep the inevitable Black grooming gangs in the UK article? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Luckily the Times hasn't printed any articles about black grooming gangs, so that question is a lot easier than this one!—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultimately, this is going to be kept, primarily because it can be sourced to the well-known racist British media. Even though it breaks Wikipedia policies. Another fail for AFD ignoring Wikipedia policy. Nfitz (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to No Consensus, recognizing that this will leave the article standing. The dispute over the title of the article is illustrative. There is no consensus over what the subject of the article should be, whether it is gangs, or a moral panic about gangs. So there can be no consensus about whether to delete the article until there is rough consensus on the subject and title of the article. Neither the Keep nor the Delete cases were cogent, because of the uncertainty of the subject of the article, and neither the Keep nor the Delete cases addressed the weaknesses of the opposing case. There does appear to be rough consensus that reliable sources have provided significant coverage of something, maybe gangs, maybe a moral panic over gangs. The title and subject of the article should be resolved, and then a new nomination can be made on whether to delete the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. A large number of the delete comments boil down to "we shouldn't have an article because it platforms islamophobic misinformation". Granting that is a correct characterization of the material (I am not familiar enough with the sources to say so explicitly), it is undoubtedly notable islamophobic misinformation and should be covered as such on Wikipedia. Given that there are usable versions in the history of the article and that this title should certainly be a redirect if it is moved to a better title. Deletion per TNT is not supported by policy and such comments should be discounted. I could perhaps see a No Consensus close as reasonable, but certainly not Delete. For clearly notable topics, NPOV is rarely a good reason to delete and only when there is no usable version in the history. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: (uninvolved) The closer summed up the consensus correctly in my view as majority of !votes were concerned about how “POV mess” the entry was but deletion is not cleanup. And this DRV itself seems to be deviating to a “what-should-be opinion poll.” Best, Reading Beans 06:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There absolutely should be a page on this wider topic. The page has been worked on and there is an ongoing RM, deleting it would be very counterproductive, it is clearly being worked on. The votes that were based on POV issues have been addressed, and shouldn’t be given weight when assessing consensus. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the delete votes addressed the biased title. How has the blatant violation of WP:NDESC and [WP:UNDUE]] been addressed, User:Kowal2701. Nothing stops the subject being discussed in many of the suggested other articles. Or moved - which is a valid AFD outcome (according to the second sentence of WP:AFD, despite the false claims by User:OwenX when he closed it. How a close could survive such a fundamental flaw by the closer is beyond me, as it demonstrates their lack of competence in the AFD process. Nfitz (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
