Jump to content

Talk:Oldham Council

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this council has a history of grooming / rape gang controversy which isnt mentioned

[edit]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-61863603 https://news.sky.com/story/oldham-grooming-report-finds-police-and-councils-failed-to-protect-some-children-from-sexual-exploitation-12637246 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-61968760 NotQualified (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have added a small paragraph for this NotQualified (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Section title is too long and should be shortened. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section name should be: Oldham child sexual exploitation scandal
since we have a similar title for the related child abuse cases in Rotherham
Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal
Thanks. RogerYg (talk) RogerYg (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once we have enough content in the section, we can split it into a separate page. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reverted edits

[edit]

'I'm reverting this for lack of neutrality - it is clearly cherry-picking the sources to project a particular POV. Please discuss on the article talk page before restoring.'


so my earlier edits were taken down because of 'misrepresentation', now theyre down because of 'cherrypicking' when i instead virtually copy paste verbatim text from multiple sources. i disagree but the editor says i should post here. what i wrote is objectively true, all the quotes were made, labour did block investigations. i am not going to commit WP false balance to make labour look reasonable, they werent. every other party voted against it, and by quotes shown their disgust verbatim. the entirety of my edit was removed, which i find lazy and unreasonable. i have little to say here, i just need input from what other editors think.


" I'm reverting this for lack of neutrality - it is clearly cherry-picking the sources to project a particular POV "


what POV is appropriate? they did literally everything, condemned by every other party. what am i missing? what POV do you suggest? removing everything doesnt provide me with any info on what you expect or want? i, again, am not going to commit false balance, labour was universally slammed by the other parties for a reason, it was wrong.


i am not suggesting bad faith in the other editor! NotQualified (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if needed, i can provide quotes from labour councilors explaining their reasoning? not sure what is wanted here NotQualified (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
' i am not going to commit WP false balance to make labour look reasonable'
(as in i wont lie or falsify info to hide what they did, not that i wont report fairly) NotQualified (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not base decisions on appropriate content on what we consider to be 'reasonable', or on what we consider 'wrong'. Your personal opinion on such matters is of no relevance whatsoever, and frankly, your suggestion that it is makes me seriously question whether you should be editing such topics at all.
Incidentally, one of the sources you cited, from gbnews.com not only doesn't support your wording, but is highly unlikely to be accepted as WP:RS: see this discussion on WP:RSN. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Your personal opinion on such matters is of no relevance whatsoever, and frankly, your suggestion that it is makes me seriously question whether you should be editing such topics at all.'
no i clarified this, it's not that i wont report fairly but i wont lie and commit false balance. im not writing on opinion, i stuck to the wording.
the gbnews quote was literally a one line near verbatim? NotQualified (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'We do not base decisions on appropriate content on what we consider to be 'reasonable', or on what we consider 'wrong'.'
no, we go off of what reptuable sources say, which is what you took down because in your personal opinion was it wasnt 'appropriate content'.
'Your personal opinion on such matters is of no relevance whatsoever, and frankly, your suggestion that it is makes me seriously question whether you should be editing such topics at all.'
what i wrote was sourced. if your issue was you wanted to hear what labour said then you shouldnt revert what i factually wrote but add what you want. i feel like the person with an opinion on this matter, is you. this issue is a balance / due weight issue, in which case you shouldnt just scrap entire paragraphs of factual content because you feel it doesnt 'fit a [neutral] POV'? this is literally just your opinion, youre railing me for writing 'opinions' and then espousing your own. if you want more to be added, then add it. what i wrote was covered by plenty of sources, the bbc even covered much of it. i didnt decide what was relevant, i went with the sources and stayed so razor sharp to them as not to be re-accused of misrepresenting them. do you know how frustrating it is trying to [fairly] document child abuse cases by people in power over and over and then being repeatedly shut down. if i source something, it's not fairly represented. if i paste it, suddenlty a verified reputable source is no longer valid. if i provide multiple, im now biased. what do you actually want me to say here that would make the POV 'neutral' in your eyes? adding a labour quote? explaining what they did (i did do that)? what do you want exactly here (that fits the sources). i will report fairly on what happened, im not trying to fix an agenda and im not going to commit wp unbalance because it's uncomfortable. NotQualified (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i do not have time to look into this right now, if i edit it later and it is re-scrapped with further lousy torturous logic i'll be utterly furious and go higher up immediately as that took me hours to write. i am going to write, to the best of my memory as it has been deleted from the archives, exactly what i previously wrote but without copying and pasting. thats all. NotQualified (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To pick up on your comment "when i instead virtually copy paste verbatim text from multiple sources" - this means that another editor has had to submit a request to have your contributions expunged from the article's history as clear copyright violation. You must not copy/paste anything from copyrighted sources. You should use them to support prose written in your own words. TBH you could use just the BBC source and sum up your whole contribution with a sentence such as "The council rejected an opposition demand to ask the government to hold a public enquiry." That's neutral, factual and concise. 10mmsocket (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'vitrually copy paste'. emphasis on 'virtually'. i have changed wording somewhat except for quotes. i was previously told i didnt properly represent sources so i stayed extremely close to what sources said, even now the same editor has said i misrepresented sources. youre putting me in a vice between saying i have not stayes true to sources and then that im too close to sources.
"The council rejected an opposition demand to ask the government to hold a public enquiry"
'neutral, factual and concise.'
what i wrote was factual.
conciseness needs to be justified by wp due weight, which it is not
if what i wrote seemed biased i need to see an alternative opinion, i will report fairly. this alternative opinion seems too small thats it's lying by omission to seem 'neutral'
i was told i cherry picked quotes to fit a narrative, but it appears what you wrote as well as my sources seem to agree with this 'narrative', cause it's just blatant fact. a public enquiry was repeatedly blocked and this was highly reported o by labour around child rape cases. now, if whats needed are labour quotes or reasonings, that can be provided. but saying 'The council rejected an opposition demand to ask the government to hold a public enquiry' is a good faith attempt at neutrality but obfuscates the reality. NotQualified (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you will see, your copyright violating copy/paste has now been fixed and is no longer visible in the article's history. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
were the block quotes a violation as well? surely those arent copyright? NotQualified (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who were the quotes from? How long were they? You can't just lift a couple of sentences out of a newspaper and put it in quotes to get around copyright. It would typically have to be quotes from a person. So you might paraphrase part of an article, and quote (as reported) what an individual actually said. It's also usual to quote from something like an official report, e.g. Burnham's investigation. There's more guidance and more authoritative at WP:QUOTE 10mmsocket (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
quotes from opposition leaders, not the newspaper. i dont see why theyre affected by this reverting? NotQualified (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything was reverted because it was tainted by the copyright violation. All your additions were reverted completely and then struck from the history. It doesn't mean they can't go back in, if appropriate. If you put the councillor quotes back in then obviously you'll need proper sourcing so what they said can be verified. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
right got it, if it's struck from history does that mean theres not even a hidden record where i can see what i wrote for reference so i can retrieve my sources? NotQualified (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Gone forever. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Child Sexual Exploitation

[edit]

Hi All, after reading over the section some of the wording seems to be very charged with some areas poorly written/explained, and sourcing is fairly patchy in parts, while of course this is a very important matter to be included in the article, we must ensure due to the importance of this topic that it is reported accurately and sourced with enough Primary and Secondary sources. for example there is reference in the paragraph to:

"The girl was then removed from the station and immediately gangraped in a car" - the source given gives no mention to a "gangrape" and the way it is written implies that this could have been by police officers.

I do not imagine there was any bad faith by editors when writing this, but due to the sensitive nature of this, all comments, statements and narratives must be accurately sourced by reputable primary and secondary sources, and the way it is written must not be perceived to be misleading. I have changed the title of the section from Child Sexual Exploitation, to Controversy over Handling of Child Sexual Exploitation in Oldham as that title in of itself could be seen to potentially violate Wikipedia:Libel as it could be seen as slanderous implying the council committed child sexual exploitation. Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> "The girl was then removed from the station and immediately gangraped in a car" - the source given gives no mention to a "gangrape"
"raped multiple times by five different men." NotQualified (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oldham Council#Controversy over handling of child sexual exploitation in Oldham
Elon Musk#United Kingdom
Jess Phillips#Grooming gang inquiry
Greater_Manchester_Police#GMP_incidents_and_investigations
all four of these sections must be made accurate and in-line with one another. i think this scandal is big enough to warrant its own page but im currently just editing in these four places. NotQualified (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgework69, could you please help me write about this. I believe Jess Philips, Keir Starmer, and Elon Musk also need to be included at this point as this has blown up. Here are some sources I used before this article was wiped clean.

new links:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1877116312876437821
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLhPP32QxTA
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/07/labour-to-whip-mps-to-vote-against-grooming-gang-inquiry/+
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/07/jess-phillips-elon-musk-rape-genocide-apologist-attack/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3339241/Fury-Labour-s-segregated-rally-Sexism-row-men-women-segregated-party-rally-ahead-key-election.html
https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/1877088555509461409
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexual_abuses_perpetrated_by_groups#United_Kingdom

NotQualified (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you or someone else wouldn't mind helping through this too!
Talk:Law enforcement in the United Kingdom#failure to deal with grooming gangs and allegations of turning the blind eye based on race NotQualified (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Group-based child sexual exploitation
I am convinced that there needs to be a WIkipedia page dedicated to the mass rape scandal. NotQualified (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree need for full Wiki article on UK Grooming Gangs scandal, since WP:RS sources are now widely reporting using that term. See The New York Times
What Is the U.K. ‘Grooming Gang’ Scandal Seized On by Elon Musk?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/07/world/europe/uk-grooming-gangs-elon-musk.html
. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) RogerYg (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was. It was called Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom. It was merged into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom a few months ago because people felt that it was better served as a subsection of that article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have lot more Notability and media coverage in January 2025 which justifies a separate page, and we can raise a request to split Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom to have separate Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom again. Thanks for the information. RogerYg (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the near-unanimous consent to merge at the well-attended discussion Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom#Thoughts_about_merging_into_Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom#Group_based_child_sexual_exploitation, I see no reason to split out the article again at this time. The "grooming gang" controversy has received extensive coverage in the UK press for over a decade, so I don't see this current Musk-induced outrage as moving the needle. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the international media coverage is after January 2025 and call for national inquiry in UK is a new event in January 2025. The mentioned discussion is outdated as it did not take into account the wide new international media coverage and new events related to the issue, so deserves a new page per WP:Notability, which was not there before January 2025. Thanks. 10:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should have an article Oldham child sex abuse ring following the conventions in Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom#Notable_incidents where the whole topic can be covered holistically rather than across multiple articles. The section in this article is WP:UNDUE in the context of the council. The article should obviously mention the criticism they have faced, but not at the length it currently is. Anything about whether an article about the current brouhaha merits a new article would be best discussed at Talk:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom. SmartSE (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should have a separate article on Oldham child abuse, as it is the center of discussion regarding calls for national inquiry into grooming gangs.
The page name can be, as suggested: Oldham child sex abuse rings (I guess there were more than 1 ring) or Oldham child sex abuse gangs
else, we could name it: Oldham child sexual exploitation scandal
since we have a similar title for the related child abuse cases in Rotherham
Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal
Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that content from section "Oldham child sexual exploitation scandal" should be moved into a separate page. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NotQualified (talk) and SmartSE (talk)
Please feel free to start a new page on Oldham child sex abuse rings or
Oldham child sexual exploitation scandal
and I will be happy to contribute. Thanks 10:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into this NotQualified (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support that an independent Oldham sex ring article needs to be made and the information that was removed slimming it down should be added there NotQualified (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oldham_Council&oldid=1268410951"