Talk:Huddersfield sex abuse ring

"Not possible to conclude that Asian men are disproportionately engaged in such crimes."

Isn't that statement a tad misleading given that there have been studies done that prove the opposite? See https://fullfact.org/crime/what-do-we-know-about-ethnicity-people-involved-sexual-offences-against-children/. Just wondering how we update this page to show that there is a majority of white people committing CSE, but per capita the number of people of Asian background doing it is still higher.--Phil of rel (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the latest conclusion of a Home Office report, if you have a newer report that says otherwise or gives specific figures, then you can add that. There was a report from 2017 that says many of the them were Asians, but it predates this Huddersfield court case, so it may not be useful here. Hzh (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The Jay report says almost all of Pakistani origin, and 1400 known victims. Rustygecko (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Only 15 to 21 children involved??

From another Wiki article

"Rotherham Council commissioned an independent inquiry led by Professor Alexis Jay. In August 2014 the Jay report concluded that an estimated 1,400 children".

So why only 15-21 victims? Rustygecko (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Huddersfield is not Rotherham. Hzh (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Not all crimes can be be identified to the level of person X raped person Y.108.20.180.22 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Collapseable table?

The table of convictions is a bit of an eye sore on the article. Can we fix it by making it collapsible or more better looking? Aesthetically it's a bit ugly having lists like this in articles. As per MOS:LONGSEQ they have to be as short as reasonably possible. NarSakSasLee (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:COLLAPSE, content should not be collapsed, that it doesn't look good is not good enough a reason to keep it collapsed. Hzh (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

These people don't look white

The article states that most members of grooming gangs are whites. The pictures of these convicts indicates that they are browns.

The last part of the article needs to show this as a counterpoint to the current language.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gang-rotherham-review-home-office-findings-a9344896.html108.20.180.22 (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The report talks about child sex exploitation gangs in general, not about this specific gang. Hzh (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Amere Singh Dhaliwal

Will people stop adding detail about the ring leader? Whether he is a Sikh or converted is irrelevant to the case. Unless it can be shown to have significant bearing on the issue (and it has none), keep it to a minimum. Don't distort its significance in this article or use it to fight other wars. Hzh (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Solved

Table

I'm not invested enough in this to get into a deep argument about whether it should be included, but if it should be included the table should be properly and clearly sourced. It's currently not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the sources given above give the names of those convicted, many also give the sentences they received. Should not be difficult to find sources where the sources are missing. Also you added "anti-Islam", that is editorializing or giving value-laden label when sources just say far-right, so that needed to be removed. Hzh (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Nationality of Sex abuse gang

discuss here. FoxtAl (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

There is zero citation for all of them being Pakistanis, which is what you implied by your edit. Please stop doing that.Hzh (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

citation stating the same are provided - The Huddersfield child sex abuse ring was a group of British men of Pakistani heritage

If you've difficulty finding those mentions, I'll quote it here.FoxtAl (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Pakistani heritage of the rapits; quoting sources -

• "During the three trials, jurors heard how the men - who are all British Asians mainly of Pakistani heritage - preyed on young, vulnerable girls, one of whom was described as having the mental age of a seven-year-old." BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-45918845)
• "The cases follow prosecutions in a number of other northern English towns, such as Rotherham and Rochdale, involving men of mostly Pakistani heritage." - DW News (https://www.dw.com/en/uk-grooming-gang-jailed-for-sexual-abuse-of-young-girls/a-45964194)
• "...an estimated 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town from 1997 to 2013, predominantly by Pakistani-British men... Groups of mostly Pakistani-British men would target vulnerable girls to sexually exploit them and pass them around among their friends and business associates for profit.... I had been pitching the article for some time but was told by several editors that there was a danger of “being accused of racism” because many of the suspects were of Pakistani heritage." - Al Jazeera (https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/2/23/the-uks-grooming-gangs-and-the-lessons-never-learned)FoxtAl (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

And you original edit was wrong. "Mostly", "mainly" and "predominantly" are not the same as all of them being Pakistanis. You should not use the article to give false information to attack one group of people. Why this interest in this article all of a sudden, many people (apparently many Indians by their IP addresses) suddenly want to change the word to "Pakistani". Hzh (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

My interest? Same as these journalists who wrote this. Can I ask you what's your interest here? You were seems to remove mention of "Pakistani" for some time (3 years or more). Why this cover up? Mentioning Pakistanis in a crime they obviously commited is somekind of a taboo? Why bringing men from 48 Asian country into shadow of doubt for a crime committed mostly by Pakistani men for more than a decade in their host country, when you can find explicit mention of pakistanis in news reports? - FoxtAl (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Those journalists wrote those long ago, why this sudden interest the last couple of days, many of them appear to be Indians? Did you read this on some social media platforms or forums, and which one was that? Since I created this article 6 years ago, any edit on the article would appear my watchlist. I have zero interest on the nationality of the perpetrators, since my original edit was "a group of men", which to me is the most neutral way of saying it (others may disagree, but as long as the information is correct, I don't mind it). Your edits, however, were factually wrong. You should take whatever war you want to fight elsewhere, and stop spreading falsehood on Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Hzh, it's undue in the opening sentence, especially when the ringleader was a Sikh. It looks like WP:POVPUSHING to me. Given both me and Hzh disagree there is currently no consensus to include the content and per WP:ONUS you should stop edit warring. If you continue to do so I will take you to ANI. As to Hzh's question of why so many foreigners have recently come out of the woodwork on this issue, the answer is that Elon Musk has been spouting on the issue on X/Twitter, and many people in India intensely dislike Pakistan and see this issue as a way of attacking them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Going through your previous edits on this article, you both seems to have vested interest in removing "Pakistani" mention.

• Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs)'s previous edits - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], Clear example of WP:POVPUSH without even citation -[6] etc
• Hzh - diffs [7], [8], [9] etc.

So I advice you both not to unilaterally change this article. Let other editors chip in. Until then I'm restoring this article to the state when this discussion was initiated. FoxtAl (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It was just written as "a group of men" for the best part of 6 years, it's only the lot of you from whichever social media flatform/forum the last few days who are interested in saying Pakistani. Do let us know which site drives you here and why you are starting this. Hzh (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

As I said, it's Elon Musk and Twitter/X. According to this article in The Guardian [10], Musk tweeted about Pakistani-ancestry grooming gangs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I know about Elon Musk, but he wasn't talking about Huddersfield, rather it's mainly about Oxford/Rochdale/Jess Phillips/Keir Starmer/Tommy Robinson. Huddersfield is one of lesser-known cases which makes it odd. The interest in Huddersfield seems to be largely non-US since many editors appear to be Indians (by their IP addresses or pages edited), so I'm guessing it comes somewhere else (but perhaps inspired by Musk's posts). Anyway, I would suggest changing the wording back to "a group of men" as it was before the recent spate of activity. It's the most neutral way of saying it, and we are not sure of the ethnicity or even names of some of those more recently convicted (one has an English surname but uncertain origin). Hzh (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that it's Indian media organisations like Firstpost [11] and OpIndia [12] I agree with changing it back to just a "group of men". Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Pakistani heritage

I suggest that we change the lead from The Huddersfield child sex abuse ring was a group of British Asians who were convicted of sexual offences against girls in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom.

to

The Huddersfield child sex abuse ring was a group of British Asian men's mostly from Pakistani heritage, who were convicted of sexual offences against girls in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-45918845 https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/uk-court-jails-20-men-mostly-pakistanis-for-sexual-abuse-of-teenage-girls-118102000080_1.html https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-45618067 https://www.arabnews.com/node/1390781/amp https://www.dw.com/en/uk-grooming-gang-jailed-for-sexual-abuse-of-young-girls/a-45964194 Mohammad Latifa (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• No. 1) We shouldn't use an incoherent and ungrammatical sentence. 2) The sources don't say what you want to say ("mostly" and "mainly" don't mean the group are all Pakistanis), and those sources also refer only to the first group of people convicted (20 out of 41), the ethnic/national origins of many in later convictions are not clear or not mentioned. 3) Because of the sudden flurry of interest from IP and new editors, this looks like something orchestrated from outside Wikipedia to edit on ethnicity/nationality issues, let us know which website/forum/social media platform you are from and why it is so interested in Pakistanis. Care needs to be taken on contentious issues. Hzh (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding - it looks like the statement has been modified, but still no. As mentioned, the sources only refer to fewer than half of those convicted, the origins of most of the rest convicted weren't mentioned, and one of them was named Sholan James [13] (therefore possibly not Asian at all). The lead sentence should be concise and neutral, details can be given elsewhere in the text, and any statement that deliberately and needlessly target any group of people should be avoided. The suspicion remains that this is an externally orchestrated campaign to target a specific group of people, therefore any such request should be treated with care. The original wording was just "a group of men" with no mention of ethnicity or nationality, and that stayed mostly undisturbed for over 6 years until the last few days. The wording should go back to that. Hzh (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Hzh: Occurrences like this are current news in the UK, gaining attention mainly because of what Elon Musk has been saying about the current UK government, and what the government have (or have not) been doing about problems that existed before (in some case long before) the change of government in July 2024. In short: blame the incumbent government for not immediately sorting out all problems left by the previous government. We can turn it around: in two weeks time we can blame Trump for not fixing all of America's problems immediately. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's directly due to Elon Musk, probably some other sites inspired by Musk. The reason being that this is not one of the high profile cases (like Rotherham or Rochdale), and I don't think Musk even mentioned Huddersfield, but this has attracted more interest than Rochdale, and it was busier than the Rotherham article until this page got locked. If it was because of Musk, you would assume that those attracted to this page would be UK-based or US-based, instead many of the editors here appear to be from India (by their IP addresses or pages they edited), so I would assume it's some India-centric website/forum, and it's a spillover from Indian subcontinent politics. Hzh (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Mohammad Latifa: Please do not use imperative phrases such as "The lead shall be changed from ...". Wikipedia works on consensus, your opening statement reads like an order to action. Better phrasing could be "I suggest that we change the lead from ...". See also WP:RFCNEUTRAL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• No - (From WP:RFC/A) This is WP:UNDUE, unwieldy, confusing, and possibly in violation of WP:NPOV for the 1st sentence as it seems to be pushing an agenda. The lead already covers the pakistani heritage in better prose, clarity, and establishment of relevance later on, not in the 1st sentence. The 1st sentence of any article needs to have only the utmost definitional elements required to understand what is happening, and shoehorning in an ancillary fact is not warranted. Fieari (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)