Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. The entire article relates to the following contentious topics:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | The content of Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham was merged into Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal on 29 August 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Racism and Islamophobia are not the same thing.
editI just added the following:
Many of the teachers, social workers, police officers, government officials, and news reporters who were aware of these rapes did not report them because they were worried about being accused of Islamophobia.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]The truth about ‘grooming gangs’ is finally coming out , Telegraph, January 2, 2025, Archive</ref>
I am absolutely stunned and shocked that the word "Islamophobia" did not already appear anywhere in the entire article. The cover up of these rapes is a huge issue. The reason for the cover up needs to be in the introduction. This is highly notable, so I cited 9 sources.
Islam is not a race. It's a religion. Muslims come in all races.
Nicole Wallace from Australia (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Nicole Wallace from Australia (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Some seensationalist media are not reliable, as seen in WP:RSPSS, so WP:DAILYEXPRESS is in a very-red-coloured hard no. - Mhxursa (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I just removed it from the article. I had thought that wikipedia blocked unreliable sources. I'll be more careful in the future. Nicole Wallace from Australia (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- You shouldn't put so many citations in on Wikipedia to back a claim as it's considered excessive (citation overkill). Merging citations is possible too when a lot are needed. Might be better to have a dedicated section for the topic.
- I have issues with this addition's verifiability however:
- There are multiple sources focused on the Policy Exchange report. I haven't heard much about the reliability of Policy Exchange as a group, although their Wikipedia page notes their very opaque funding (although they are noted as taking money from ExxonMobil) and right-wing slant. This isn't neccessarily an issue but reduces the credibility and means that a few sources are unnecessary as they focus on claims already made. The focus is on the APPG's proposed Islamophobia definition in these sources, not the claim that has been added.
- The Magzter link is just the Daily Express so it isn't allowed (as mentioned by User:Mhxursa in the conversation). The archive link to [6] also sends you to the wrong article, and the citation itself also doesn't back the claim. Article [9]'s claim of false accusations of Islamophobia refers clearly to those doing investigations rather than those aware at the time as claimed, it also isn't sourced.
- None of the articles back the claim that many "who were aware of these rapes did not report them because they were worried about being accused of Islamophobia", and despite saying "Islam is not a race. It's a religion. Muslims come in all races." I haven't noticed anything in the sources that alleges potential whistleblowers remained silenced for concerns of accusations of Islamophobia, only for concerns of racism.
- To summarize: The articles cited only mention worries about accusations of racism from potential whistleblowers, not Islamophobia as claimed; or are about concerns regarding the APPG's proposed definition of Islamophobia. It would be better to use less sources that evidence the claim directly rather than those that (at best) subtly imply it indirectly without providing specific evidence.
- I am conflicted about whether or not to remove this addition, but it is a claim made with (as far as I have been able to tell) no evidence that risks misleading readers, so I have opted to edit and remove it. I welcome this change to be reversed if direct and reliable evidence for the claim can be added however. 5.133.46.4 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Duplicated references
editI've corrected duplicated references in some articles, but not this one. The following references appear to be duplicated:
https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/crime-threats/operation-stovewood-rotherham-child-sexual-abuse-investigation in refs: , (89%)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/south_yorkshire/4838000.stm in refs: , (100%)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-49511911 in refs: , (100%)
https://web.archive.org/web/20200329215704/https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/index.aspx/?page=news/view,rotherham-child-groomer-murdered-teenage-girl-in-nightclub_33359 in refs: , (100%)
https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/rotherham-child-abuser-trolled-his-victim-online in refs: , (100%)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/684ffae201d3b0e7b62da722/National_Audit_on_Group-based_Child_Sexual_Exploitation_and_Abuse.pdf in refs: , (81%)
- ↑ Islamophobia claims ‘used to suppress grooming gang reporting’, The Times, February 25 2025, Archive
- ↑ The Rotherham grooming scandal and the creators of the Islamophobia definition, Policy Exchange, February 2025
- ↑ Ministers urged not to adopt definition of 'Islamophobia' criminals could exploit, Express, February 25, 2025
- ↑ 'Grooming gangs not stopped over fears of being labelled racist', Magzter, February 26, 2025
- ↑ Keir Starmer urged to scrap controversial Islamophobia definition in wake of grooming gangs scandal, Telegraph, January 4, 2025, Archive
- ↑ Farage accuses Streeting of covering up ‘truth’ of grooming gangs, Telegraph, January 11, 2025, Archive
- ↑ ‘Islamophobia’ and the grooming gangs scandal, Spectator, January 12, 2025, Archive
- ↑ Does UK need another national inquiry into rape and sexual abuse gangs?, Guardian, January 8, 2025, Archive
- ↑ Cite error: The named reference
Telegraph Jan 2 2025</refwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
The lead is very bad
editThe lead has a number of issues. Firstly, it uses the phrase "grooming gangs". Not only is this term generally advised against by experts and academics, but the current article gives the false impression that "grooming gangs" abused 1400 children. In fact the 1400 figure is an estimate by the Jay report of the total number of children sexually exploited, with no criteria given regarding perperators, so this figure will include children who were not groomed or who were exploited by a single person, both of whom can definitely not be described as being abused by "grooming gangs". It also talks about "British Asian" girls - I think this places a bit too much distance between the victims and the perperators. It needs to be made clear that the Jay report specifically had concerns about abuse of Pakistani Muslim women and girls going underreported - a reader with certain biases could easily come away from the article with their belief that "grooming gangs" only targeted outside their ethnicity and religion reinforced. Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- About the 1400,
- The BBC:
It echoes Prof Alexis Jay's 2014 report that found 1,400 children in the town were targeted by grooming gangs during the period.
- The report:
No one knows the true scale of sexual exploitation in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that there were more than 1400 victims in the period covered by the Inquiry, and an unknown number who were at risk of being exploited.
- Notably the report doesn't attribute the 1400 figure to group abuse, so for the BBC to do so using the term "grooming gangs" (the report doesn't use this term), is really poor. (as a side note: maybe I'm out of depth here, but the report's methodology for deriving their estimate seems surprisingly non-rigorous, see page 30) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)