Talk:Bristol child sex abuse ring

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.

Bristol Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

British crime (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily Mail[edit]

The Daily Mail is not usually regarded as a reliable source on matters where ethnicity may be a factor. Can the sourcing of the information be improved? If not, tabloid-sourced material should be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not regarded as a reliable source by decent persons of goodthinkfulness and ideological purity, but that's why I've been so careful to rely on that paragon of reliability where issues around ethnicity are a factor: the Guardian. You'll not need reminding that the Guardian was campaigning ferociously to rescue the vulnerable victims of Bristol, Rotherham, Oxford, etc, etc, while the patriarchy covered it all up for decade after decade. CurrentUK (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question of why this source is included. A better source should be found. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer the question, but you needed to read between the lines. By "unreliable", you seem to mean "prone to stating unpalatable facts". If not, please explain what you did mean. Given that you have complained about the Independent's "Islamophobic" treatment of a similar case, I would suggest that your heresy-sniffing apparatus is returning false positives. It might be the cold weather. CurrentUK (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just me who questions the reliability of the Mail - it is the WP community at large. See this archive of discussions, and WP:BLPSOURCES, which states: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Where are the more reliable sources in this case? The idea that the Mail only reports "facts" seems to be somewhat... eccentric. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

This passage in the lede sets the context and has done so from the beginning of the article:

As in the strikingly similar Oxford, Derby, Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford prosecutions, the abused girls were almost all white and the gang were of Muslim heritage, but were Somali rather than Pakistani.

After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, I thought people would start to recognize the evils of censorship. Apparently not. CurrentUK (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SYNTH. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed Wikipedia expressing concern about why so few women edit here. I'll tell you one core reason: because there are waaaaay too many arrogant white males like you deploying their privilege to crush perspectives they disagree with. This is from the Guardian:

The report called on the government to research why the perpetrators of this type of child abuse – which has been seen in Rochdale, Rotherham, Derby, Bristol and Oxfordshire – were predominantly from a Pakistani and/or Muslim heritage.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/03/professionals-blamed-oxfordshire-girls-for-their-sexual-abuse-report-finds

IOW, it's not "original research" or "synthesis": the pattern is recognized by the British authorities themselves. But I am sure you will continue to demonstrate why Wikipedia is a hostile environment for women (particularly Muslim women) and other under-represented demographics. CurrentUK (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All you needed to do was to add that source, showing that the cases had been compared with each other. Simples. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting the lede. However, it's not "simples" when one is subject to a hostile environment. CurrentUK (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11554944/Bristol-paedophile-gang-admit-abusing-babies-and-toddlers.html Seven White men - aged between 30 and 51 and including three convicted sex offenders - were brought to justice following an investigation led by the National Crime Agency.Wednesday 22 April 2015 They also used the "dark web" - a way of hiding online activity - to communicate with each other on sites such as The Onion Router, known as TOR. 90.244.81.223 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

I am wondering if anyone knows when the events took place prior to November 2014 when the conviction happened. This kind of data is present on Aylesbury sex gang and Banbury sex gang but not here. --174.92.135.167 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Oxford sex gang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]