Talk:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom

Structure

Is moving the enquiries under the "group-based child sexual exploitation" deliberate or the result of an edit conflict? Also your changes broke one of the refs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict. I was trying to move the "Categories" section down but you made two edits close together, so when I pasted the text over, there was too much for the clipboard and only part of the text copied over. I started again and have hopefully fixed it now. Lewisguile (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. Your edits have significantly improved the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm hoping we can remove the "Multiple issues" tag shortly. It feels like there's more substance here now, hopefully. Lewisguile (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Weasel words and non-balance

Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Media response

I have discussed this at length of the edit warring report logs. I am claiming that tags need to be added to this section due to weasel wording and non-balance. I went line by line in my reasoning on another user's talkpage which they immediately reverted. I can show that here if needs be again. NotQualified (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Just because you proclaim something is "biased" doesn't mean it is. Given your previous editing history, if you claim something is "biased" I'm more inclined to think it's fair and factual, as I think it is in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Ad hominem and hypocrisy from a user with repeated history of bad faith editing on child sex abuse articles.

Furthermore, I'm going through the so-called consensus discussion and I'd like clarification here:

"That section however needs to be re-written, given its over-emphasis on the opinion of a few authors, particularly from The Guardian (which would be worse when this article is merged because the cited sources were written by the author of the paper that proposes the "moral panic" argument)."

How many independent authors do we actually have claiming 'moral panic' here? NotQualified (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've read through it all, there is no consensus here on the specific topics of the article per se, there is consensus it should be merged. Do not kid me with this again. This was a talk discussion on merging, there's multiple Support comments that say they've issue with the contents. NotQualified (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"Your idea of "bias" is Wikipedia not conforming to your right-wing agenda. We have seen with earlier discussion about "grooming gangs" on Wikipedia that the majority opinion is not on your side, and I would advise you to find something better to do with your time"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hemiauchenia&diff=prev&oldid=1268286035

"Just because you proclaim something is "biased" doesn't mean it is."

Just to be clear to other users, this account has called me biased. Which is again hypocrisy. Furthermore, I am here to get consensus that it is biased unlike you claiming a merge discussion was somehow an unquestionable proof that it isn't (discussed on edit warring). Actually the contrary, most users seem to disagree on all the talk discussions with this terminology and it's getting worrying now that it's becoming more clear a single author is being cited across publications, which if true I am immediately taking it down (I knew I was right to call out weaselwording and I knew it was odd at how quickly you tried to cover it up) and replacing it with the far more common opinions being written across the journalistic world (please refer to my numerous Oldham sources Talk:Oldham Council#Child Sexual Exploitation) right now that it is not a moral panic and if not I would like clarified by you. This writing definitely has a phrasing and framing that makes it out that data around disproportionate child sexual abuse committed by racial and religious minorities is just a hoax and it cherrypicks accusations that turned out to be false despite them being the vast minority.

Talk:Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom/Archive 1#Requested move 3 September 2024

Let me be clear, I do not believe at this point you are a good faith operator and I've written extensively on why that is. Regardless, we can discuss here. NotQualified (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@NotQualified: If you think there is problematic wording, please list them here rather than just tagging the section. To both you and Hemiauchenia please try to stay focussed on content, not what has happened before, or what perceived biases you have. SmartSE (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, I looked at that section and I didn't see any weasel wording. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I went over it again and I don't think it has any either. I may be biased, since I wrote the text, but it was based on a draft developed with others over at Racism in the United Kingdom#Grooming gangs (since the text developed there was actually a better fit for the expanded section here). Without specifically listing any issues, I don't think there's any justification for tags. Lewisguile (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

this is verbatim what i put on their talk page, it wasn't completed because i was editing through after my initial post and they reverted it. you can see the inline templates

== Prevention of edit war. This writing has numerous issues and I have tagged some here ==

British media has been accused of perpetuating [[Islamophobia]] by "conflating the faith of Islam with criminality {{Lopsided}}, such as the headlines 'Muslim sex grooming'", as well as pursuing sensationalist coverage.<ref>{{Cite web |date=4 April 2016 |title=Why the British media is responsible for the rise in Islamophobia in Britain |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-the-british-media-is-responsible-for-the-rise-in-islamophobia-in-britain-a6967546.html |access-date=3 September 2024 |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref> A number of academics {{Who}} have described the controversy as a [[moral panic]].<ref name="GillDay2020">{{Citation |last1=Gill |first1=Aisha K. |title=Moral Panic in the Media: Scapegoating South Asian Men in Cases of Sexual Exploitation and Grooming |date=30 November 2020 |work=Gendered Domestic Violence and Abuse in Popular Culture |pages=171–197 |editor-last=Ramon |editor-first=Shulamit |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-83867-781-720201011/full/html |access-date=27 June 2024 |publisher=Emerald Publishing Limited |doi=10.1108/978-1-83867-781-720201011 |isbn=978-1-83867-782-4 |last2=Day |first2=Aviah Sarah |editor2-last=Lloyd |editor2-first=Michele |editor3-last=Penhale |editor3-first=Bridget |mode=cs1}}</ref> In one academic paper {{Who}}, media outlets, including ''[[The Times]]'', [[Daily Mail|''The Daily Mail'']]'s [[MailOnline|''Mail Online'']], ''[[The Guardian]]'' and [[The Daily Telegraph|''The Telegraph'']], were accused of boosting the moral panic by portraying young South Asian men as "[[folk devil]]s" {{Dubious}}.<ref name="GillHarrison2015">{{Cite journal |last1=Gill |first1=Aisha K |last2=Harrison |first2=Karen |date=1 July 2015 |title=Child Grooming and Sexual Exploitation: Are South Asian Men the UK Media's New Folk Devils? |url=https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/756 |journal=International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=34–49 |doi=10.5204/ijcjsd.v4i2.214 |issn=2202-8005 |quote=The British media's construction of a specifically South Asian notion of hegemonic masculinity began long before the recent spate of high-profile cases of child sexual exploitation and grooming. The Ouseley report on the Bradford race riots (Ouseley 2001),and the Cantle Report on the Oldham, Burnley and Bradford riots (Cantle 2001), focused on cultural difference as the primary causal factor for these events, maintaining that British South Asians and white Britons led 'parallel lives'. Media coverage of the riots described angry young men who were alienated from society and their own communities, and had become entangled in a life of crime and violence, a vision that provided the bedrock for the construction of what Claire Alexander calls the 'new Asian folk devil' (2000).}}</ref> [[The Muslim Council of Britain]] has called on investigations to "adhere to the facts of the matter, rather than deploying deeply divisive, racially charged rhetoric that amplifies far-right narratives and demonises an entire community".<ref name="Sky20232">{{Cite web |date=20 April 2023 |title=Suella Braverman describes grooming gang comments as 'unfashionable facts' after backlash |url=https://news.sky.com/story/suella-braverman-describes-grooming-gang-comments-as-unfashionable-facts-after-backlash-12861676 |access-date=31 August 2024 |website=Sky News |language=en}}</ref> NotQualified (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You can repeatedly see me tag {{Who}} for example, I also tag {{Lopsided}} and {{Dubious}} amongst other things. I did not go through the second half, just the first. Both have problems. NotQualified (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If you verbatim put that on my talk page I'd probably not be very favorably inclined toward you. That's a mess of nowiki infodump. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't realise it didn't change to regularly wikipedia mode. It's not pleasant, sure, but it shows issues.

It is increasingly more worrying where on the aforementioned infamous merge request they cited https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1268289467 (which in fairness to them does make light of the term "moral panic" but not weasel words) there is a comment which shows that the sources provided cite only a limited amount of authors (across publications), potentially even one, for the justification, which is insane and I can provide 100 sources showing it isn't just a hoax moral panic.

Talk:Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom/Archive 1#Requested move 3 September 2024

Regardless, that discussion has nothing on weasel words. NotQualified (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to truly clarify again that in fairness to them the merge does specifically make light of the term "moral panic" but not weasel words, and furthermore I believe the section has a overall bias and I went in-line line by line to show that, it's not just "moral panic". NotQualified (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

So, some of these are your opinion, but the weasel words should all be taken care of per the tags above. I've added names and attribution. You'll see there are an extensive number of sources backing up these comments now, so we may need to bundle some of the info back up anyway. But it's all there in case you want to check it. Lewisguile (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

THANK YOU, the weasel words were extremely aggravating and I'm glad they're being changed after all this effort.

I will look into checking it and ensuring sourcing, and framing and phrasing are fair. NotQualified (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• The tags above are not extensive NotQualified (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)