Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:00, 23 January 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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 Crime and Criminal Biography 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. 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 Sexology and sexuality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid newspaper.

...Though you might think it was, from the tone of this article. It is sensationalist, and seems overly concerned with stressing the ethnic background of the offenders. Given these issues, I have asked for outside input via the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that the BBC produced a documentary that investigated "the controversial subject of on-street grooming of young girls for sex by Pakistani men in the UK." which featured footage of the Derby gang grooming girls, Channel 4 commissioned a similar documentary, the former home secretary spoke of a "specific problem" within the British Pakistani community, the Children's minister spoke of "Asian communities hampering child sex inquiries", I think mentioning the assailants' ethnicity is the lead is appropriate. Ankh.Morpork 12:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Asian" isn't an ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to cite a scholarly journal entitled 'Asian Ethnicity' for the statement that 'Asian is an ethnicity'? Please provide the necessary citations - issue, page number etc. Or preferably, stop wasting our time with such mind-numbingly moronic bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Asian isn't an ethnicity" - a perfect example of "mind-numbingly moronic bollocks". Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Origin and religion of gang members

AndyTheGrump removed 'Asian' from the intro . I reverted him, saying "Fact is origin/religion of the men is a big factor in this". AndyTheGrump then reverted, saying "Your opinion is irrelevant - we go by sources, and WP:NPOV". But the fact that the men were all Asian and Muslim is supported by numerous cited refs in the article, and that this is a key part of the events is also obvious from the article. AndyTheGrump chooses to ignore this.

My point is that I think the introduction should say the men were all "Muslim Asian men" as it is an important factor. The reason we should say Muslim (apart from them being Muslim) is so as not to smear all Asians (Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains etc.). We could say they were all of Pakistani origin instead of Asian, but would need a good source to verify that. Actually I think the PC term is 'South Asian'. Having a PC POV and refusing to say Muslim Asian men did this is to do a disservice to the victims - women - who where victimised by the gange because of the gang's attitude to women. But this is controversial, so I thought it best to bring it up on talk. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• None of the sources emphasize the religion of the men, and it would therefore be undue for us to do so in the lead. However, many describe the the ethnicity of the assailants and some even comment on its role in the crimes. As such, I think it should be included in the lead. Ankh.Morpork 12:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the sources all mention the ethnicity of the rapists and this certainly should be mentioned in the lede. Given the sheer amount of girls being abused by similar gangs it surprises me that it was removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We also have this "The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim." and Mohammed Shafiq says "Although there have been some cases of white men being involved in this sexual exploitation of young girls, most of the perpetrators are Muslim. There are some Muslims who think that as long as these sex gangs aren't targeting their own sisters and daughters the issue doesn't affect them... but the vast majority of Muslims find these actions abhorrent and disgusting," Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And this "The chief executive of Rochdale Council has been summoned before MPs to explain why his social workers failed to protect dozens of children who were sexually exploited by Asian men."

A simple question for AnkhMorpork: why did your table violate WP:BLP policy by including men from, an Asian background who hadn't been convicted of any sex-related crimes, while excluding a man not from an Asian background, "a convicted sex offender and the only non-Asian defendant, got three years for two breaches of Sexual Offender Prevention Order which banned him from contact with under 18s"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That you for spotting that omission. If you can find the details of the other two defendants not included in the table, I would be most appreciative. Ankh.Morpork 18:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you removed them. Ankh.Morpork 18:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Gross violation of WP:BLP policy

I have removed the names of three individuals not convicted of sex-related crimes from the table - their inclusion in the table (in an article entitled 'Derby sex gang') was a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

They were convicted at the same time as the rest and from the same trial, it is not a BLP violation to say what they were convicted of. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation to imply that they were part of a 'sex gang' without any sources to back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC on WP:BLP policy

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Do you support describing all nine people convicted as part of the sex gang? Ankh.Morpork 18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - All sources mention them in that context. BBC states in article called Derby sex gang convicted of grooming and abusing girls: Of the original 13, a total of nine have been convicted of offences against vulnerable girls ranging from rape to false imprisonment. Telegraph states in article titled Asian gang prowled streets searching for rape victims: "The 28-year-olds were at the head of a 13-strong gang" Ankh.Morpork 18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The sources name them all as one group when reporting the outcome of the trial. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is stupid. One cannot have a RfC on whether policy is applicable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

""Reaching consensus in a group often is confused with finding the right answer."" —Maier, Norman R. F. (1967). "Assets and liabilities in group problem solving" Psychological Review, 74 (4): 239–249. doi:10.1037/h0024737.... It's amazing what some folk will do to have a consensus override reality! - never under-estimate! P^) --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I don't get the purpose of this RfC; it's not well-composed. Describing them how? Their appearance? Scent? The sound of their voices? The Editorial Voice (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I didn't get the point of this either until I read AndyTheGrumps comments in the section below : "None of the sources cited state that all of the men convicted were part of a 'sex gang'". I think that's wrong and the sources clearly support the statement that all nine people convicted were part of a sex gang. Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• NOT Support - Conditional - it is not clear if editors are fully aware of all the issues that make drawing conclusions from UK media reports quite a complex and relevant issue. 1st it is a British legal case and subject to a number of reporting restrictions which come from two different areas and applying anything other than a British legal and media lens is a fail. There are very relevant cultural/legal factors which all editors are required to respect (Systemic Bias). Due to (a) those targeted being children and (b) the issue is sexual offences, it is not possible for the media to make any explicit statements concerning 13 people or 9 people being in a gang. Because the guilty and acquitted may have yet further links to other children and other potential cases the media have to be very careful as to what they say about any individual - and any implication that endangers the welfare of any known or unknown child is verbotten. Because of reporting restrictions it is not possible to say that a person was a member of a gang unless any report ""Specifically"" says so - and here there are extra layers of protection which extend to the guilty and acquitted to protect any vulnerable child and so you can't conclude that any reference to a gang means a person. The rules of "Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius" and "Interpretatio Cessat in Claris" apply legally and the media keep attempting to play with them and get round them. I have looked at the sources given - and whilst it is implied that all were in a gang it is not specifically made clear - that does meet all UK legal requirements and also meets the limits imposed under the Human Rights Act articles 6 - 7 - 8 - 10 -18. So when you know your law - media law - human rights law - and even basic court reporting restrictions around sexual abuse cases with a minor .... anyone taking media coverage which manages ambiguously to imply a relationship is synthesising fact rather than reporting fact. You end up with WP:SYNTH and WP:OP - sticks in my craw, but it's how the law of the land works. Any mention of a specific number should only be given as a "QUOTATION" from a source and no inference should be made from the quotation. All language outside of quotes should be scrupulous in avoiding inference ... as that will be near impossible to maintain it's best to remove the issue. - For many reasons The Raising of WP:BLP is 100% valid. The BBC have been very careful in their report of 24 November 2010 - the report mentions that a gang existed - is written to have 4 people linked to that word - and then goes on to mention 5 others where the findings of guilt are very ambiguous as to how they relate to the word gang and conspiracy. Being found guilty of perverting the course of justice is a fact in law - synthesising that to being a member of a gang and acting for that gang when it is not stated is a big issue - ANY unstated and sourced link should not be implied! There is a great deal of passion around this subject and case and those should not be allowed to rule content - Scrupulous following of wiki standards is required. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at Derby sex gang: the charge sheet? Surely, it presents more than a weak implication that all 9 belonged to the gang? Ankh.Morpork 20:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not bound by UK law. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources cited are - and they do not state that all the individuals convicted were members of any 'gang'. Incidentally, UK law also applies to any UK-based contributors - and I'm fairly sure that this includes more than just me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well AndyTheGrump I too am in the UK - and to top it off I have some 25+ years experience in the field of Sexual abuse - crime and media!

Not Pulling rank - but I detect the need to slam down a few Credentials to subdue some evidently unruly types who don't like having their world views and demands curtailed. The Whiff of US Centric "Systemic Bias" is also overpowering!

As for the comment " Misplaced Pages is not bound by UK law. Darkness Shines" I fear that some could do with a lamp to guide them through the legal minefields...and to prevent silly claims such as that being made! Such a claim Truly requires more than than any average number of citations to prove it - and actually only one case is needed to prove the claim totally false! Now which of the dozens should I quote?

I do fear that some are very Woozley (See Woozle Effect) in their views and also the "Backfire Effect" is in play due to confirmation bias and people doing and saying anything to defend the indefensible! They evidently need some Five Pillars! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and the Wikimedia foundation are not subject to UK law. The WMF is headquartered in San Francisco, and was organized under Florida law, where Misplaced Pages's servers are also located. Huff and puff all you like, legalese and patronization won't change the facts. —Rutebega (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

...The facts being that the sources cited do not state that the individuals convicted were all part of a 'gang', and on that basis it would be a violation of WP:BLP policy to state that they were. And yes, UK law applies to Misplaced Pages contributors based in the UK, regardless of where the servers are located. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear —Rutebega - do have a look at some well written, researched and even referenced wiki content such as Godfrey v Demon Internet Service - "Ruling on a pre-trial motion, the court found that an Internet service provider can be sued for libel, and that any transmission by a service provider of a defamatory posting constituted a publication under defamation law." ISP as defined under the original case now extends to Wikiville ... and It don't matter where Wiki is based in the world, a plaintiff can still raise a legal action in the UK for defamation and get it enforced in the USA! So sorry for the lawyering, but I do find it preferential to plain ignorance served with wings and prayers with option reality sauce. - and the Systemic bias does need to go. It's a shocking idea, but the Internet is global and not just for the USA. That Constitution thing and mendicants are also not a global escape form reality free card. Some will have to learn how to play nice with the other 6.5 Billion children in the school yard. Everyone has points of view with inherent cultural biases - recognition is the first step to achieving NPOV. Reality then gets easy! Just think that Wiki has assets in the UK and Europe - such as money to pay for Wiki projects, and it can be seized under court order.... so no more Wikiettes in residence and getting paid. Time to wake up smell some Jo and get with reality as a global concept and not a 10 cent dinner cup-full! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

While I freely acknowledge a systemic bias towards Amero-centrism, Misplaced Pages does not fall within UK jurisdiction, and the UK could never take direct action against it, at least not without the support of the United States Federal Government. That's pointless though, because on Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages policy is law, and the rest is just noise. If you're merely insinuating that the papers in the UK aren't even legally allowed to explicitly make certain claims, and therefore some WP:SYNTHESIS is required to include them, then I think you're right (but the question then becomes how big of a leap is it, really, because most of those articles are pretty damned implicit). However, if you're saying that including the information in the encyclopedia would be illegal under UK law, then it's nothing but a legal threat, which is unacceptable. Oh, and in which universe is Misplaced Pages an Internet Service Provider? —Rutebega (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are proposing that we engage in synthesis to include what you think UK sources would have said if there weren't laws stopping them, I suggest you forget it. As for the rest, I'm no lawyer - but I know for a fact that if you post from the UK, you are responsible for your postings under UK law - and anyone posting here from the UK needs to bear this in mind. This isn't a legal threat, it is a statement of the obvious - one that has on occasion been brought to readers attention via talk-page templates (see the example at Talk:Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority which warns about sub judice issues etc). Frankly, if some of the contributors here want to ignore my advice and get hauled up before the beak, it will be no skin off my nose anyway. And back to the issue of this bogus 'RfC' about ignoring WP:BLP policy, the sources still don't state that all those convicted were part of a 'sex gang' so we can't do so either... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"A gang of men from Derby has been convicted of systematically grooming and sexually abusing teenage girls ... ... The nine men were convicted during three separate trials" from a BBC report. The report then goes on to name all nine men. I don't understand the weird interpretation of AndyTheGrump and Media-Hound, but I'm reading that as all the individuals convicted were members of the gang? Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I did a rather poor quality quick and dirty search of the net using just one name and found this rather interesting sources:

Men convicted in shocking sex abuse case - 24/11/2010

Five men have been convicted of a string of sexual offences against young, vulnerable teenage girls and women in a case described as one of 'shocking and persistent abuse' by Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Samantha Shallow. Three other men were found guilty of related offences.

Ms Shallow, Crown Advocate in the East Midlands Complex Casework Unit said: "This is a shocking case of persistent targeting and sexual abuse of young, vulnerable girls and women over a sustained period by a group of criminals.(Sic)
THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

Better still I found a rather interesting comment form THE JUDGE:

However Judge Head told Saddique and 28-year-old Liaqat: ‘It was never the Crown’s case that these offences were racially motivated or aggravated. I have considered this myself but I have concluded that your overwhelming aim was to secure as much sex as possible.’ SOURCE

First the number of convicts being reported by the BBC seem to be wrong CPS say 8 BBC say 9 - so throw away that source! Until some can do basic math they can't be quoted or relied upon as a source of anything but error and bad media!

The judge made it clear that race was not an issue - so nay content leading to that implication is not WP:NPOV and also brings up WP:BLP all over again!

This RFC is null and Void and should be shut immediately! - there are far more basic issues to address and get right such as facts and not nuance of meaning! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Pass a Method talk 02:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

"Nine of the 13-strong gang were convicted of grooming and raping girls between 12 and 18 years old". Sourced to and . Neither source states that all 13 men were part of any gang. This is a misrepresentation of the sources, and a gross WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it fuck. "Of the original 13, a total of nine have been convicted of offences against vulnerable girls ranging from rape to false imprisonment." And what is that article titled? O ya Derby sex gang convicted of grooming and abusing girls. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it fuck. "The 28-year-olds were at the head of a 13-strong gang"

Secondly, the sources that you cite here are NOT the sources used to support that sentence. You omitted the Telegraph and replaced it with the Independent for some odd reason.

Both of the cited sources supported the content that you removed. You even misrepresented the sources that were used for that sentence. Please be more careful. Ankh.Morpork 18:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The BBC, doesn't state that the 13 charged were all part of any gang. The Telegraph doesn't state that the '13 men' were the same men it refers to as a 'gang' were those convicted either -but then it wasn't one of the sources cited anyway. The simple fact here is that the article is representing three individuals as being part of a 'sex gang', in spite of the lack of any conviction. This is a violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've redacted my comment re Telegraph - but this makes no difference. The three men concerned were not convicted of any sex-related crimes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And the Indy says "The men were ringleaders of a gang who befriended girls as young as 12 in the Derby area and groomed them for sex." Darkness Shines (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What the heck does that have to do with anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That is the second of the two sources you stated did not support the content. Obviously both do. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources cited state that all thirteen nine of the men convicted were part of a 'sex gang'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they do. As has already been pointed out to you. In fact just about all the sources have "sex gang" in them. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy - 13 people were not convicted. You seem confused. Ankh.Morpork 18:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup - true, but irrelevant. None of the sources cited state that all of the men convicted were part of a 'sex gang'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And s you seem to have missed it Derby sex gang convicted of grooming and abusing girls And yes, the BBC names them all. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And this source is even more explicit: Derby sex gang: the charge sheet Ankh.Morpork 23:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

BAD References and The Woozle effect

The CPS have a press release

Men convicted in shocking sex abuse case - 24/11/2010

Five men have been convicted of a string of sexual offences against young, vulnerable teenage girls and women in a case described as one of 'shocking and persistent abuse' by Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Samantha Shallow. Three other men were found guilty of related offences.

Ms Shallow, Crown Advocate in the East Midlands Complex Casework Unit said: "This is a shocking case of persistent targeting and sexual abuse of young, vulnerable girls and women over a sustained period by a group of criminals.(Sic)
THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

The numbers of people convicted are given by the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE as 8 - all of the media sources being quoted give the number 9. It appears that either there is a 9th convict who can;'t be identified in any way to protect a child victim - else number of Journalist and media Editors at the BBC - the Independent - the Telegraph have been negligent, can't count and have simply been reporting a factoid and this is a clear case of The Woozle Effect.

Until such time as the number of people convicted can be reconciled with the CPS source (You can't get much better) any source which which is linked to the number 9 (That is all BBC - Independent and Telegraph 100% of teh sources used ) have to be treated as not meeting NPOV standards and Quality Requirements.

This page is being tagged for NPOV - POV lede and Multiple_issues.

There is far more here than just WP:BLP - there are basic facts being ignored and basic errors in logic and reason. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The CPS report is a primary source, and what makes you think the CPS did not make a mistake but every major news organization in the UK did? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear darkness You Do need a candle! it can be very simple - you call and ask - courts and CPS quote 8 as the number .... and the next excuse and avoidance tactic is?

Kindly deal in facts and leave idol (sic) speculation outside of Wikiville. If you have a source that says the CPS are wrong and negligent produce it! It does seem that some ion the CPS press office may well be tired of the Tsunami of Ignorant Factoids caused by lazy journalists using google for a Primary and lazy Source.

If necessary I will issue a FOI request via www.whatdotheyknow.com - but as already advised by the CPS, as the info is in the public domain and on their website it will just be a waste of time and they will have to say look at the website on the link already given! They have looked at this page and and are a little Peed off at the fact that basic reality is being ignored. Should you need to verify please call Tel: 020 7796 8000 the CPS do like to help!

It's time to stop seeking excuses - It's time to seek QUALITY SOURCES

--TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, it is far more probable that the CPS has made a mistake rather than every major news organization in the UK, and I hate to have to point out the obvious but a phone call to the criminal protection service does not meet WP:RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW with them making mistakes with one in fifteen cases I would not say their all that accurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Darkness Shines - Your PERSONAL Views and retreat into your opinion as to what is more probable are NOT relevant. Do You have A Source that says there is a Higher Probability? You point to the Telegraph and not the original report - Both will need to be checked to make sure that the Telegraph is reporting matters with accuracy. Does either say that the CPS Press Office get 1 in 15 Press Releases wrong? If Not you are doing WP:ORIGINALSYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."! Again - It's time to stop seeking excuses - It's time to seek QUALITY SOURCES and not making sources fit agendas - just reality. Do you have a reason to not wish to use verified and high quality sources ... and even quote some people such as The Judge? There are such odd attitudes round here! Can You Explain it? It's not positive for Wiki..... what is it positive for? --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

God you do waffle on. It is not my personal view nor opinion. You claimed the CPS are a good source (though they fall afoul of WP:PRIMARY) I showed they do make mistakes, a lot of mistakes in fact. Here is the reality, all the sources say nine were convicted, only one says eight. My cash would go on the CPS being in error other than every news agency in the UK. You are of course more than welcome to go to the RSN board and get all the sources are junk as you claim. And please do not accuse editors of having "agendas" it can be seen as a personal attack. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A)The judge's views are already included in the article.

B) The CPS is referring to those convicted of "sexual offences" and "related offences". It notes further down a 9th person, Ziafat Yasin, who pleaded guilty to being concerned in the supply of cocaine. He was still part of the gang as several sources observe.Ankh.Morpork 14:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with AnkhMorpork. There is the Derby sex gang, nine members of whom were convicted: eight of those for sexual offences and one on drugs charges. So all sources are correct and agree if you read beyond the headlines. Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So how many were in this gang and who defines gang membership? Is Possession of cocaine the same as a sexual offence? Why is there a discrepancy in article space between the number of people named and the number 9? "The gang of thirteen men, ...." where does that 13 come from if you can only make up 9 and 4 are still missing? The names in a table in article space are 7 and not 8 or 9 or 13... so why are there so many missing "6" unaccounted for? These BASIC DISCREPANCIES all need to be resolved... and it need to be ensured that person are not being linked to activity or situations that they are legally not guilty of at this time! Do some notes need to be added to clarify why sources do not agree - or have different numbers etc? I'm also fascinated as to why so many are wedded to the word GANG which is indeterminate and are not seeking or using a more valid and less fluid and poorly defined term ? --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As the sources say: 13 men were charged with offences committed by the gang, 9 were convicted (8 for sexual offences and one on drugs charges), so the article quite properly uses the number 9 as the number of men in the gang - taking the definition of who is in the gang to be those convicted of committing offences associated with the gang. To answer your question about why so many are wedded to the word GANG, that would be because many of the reliable secondary sources use the term. And it is a perfectly respectable word, and it is indeterminate because you make it a determinate phrase by giving the number of people in a gang - English not having separate words for 'gang of four', 'gang of five', etc. And I don't think any notes need to be added because the sources all agree (if you read beyond the headlines). Aarghdvaark (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Source for '<-redacted->''-2013-01-23T18:23:00.000Z">

The table claims that a '<-redacted->' was convicted for "sexual activity with a child, conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child". Neither of the sources cited names this individual at all. I shall be removing this, raising this gross violation of WP:BLP policy at WP:BLPN, and will expect a clear and prompt explanation from the individual responsible for inserting it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)'"> '">

I see that AnkhMorpork has removed the name - after including it in the first version of the article. This is going to need admin attention, I suspect, if only to redact the name... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it. I must have got confused with <-redact link-> I was reading about in which the name was cited. This was an unfortunate error on my part, and I obviously will be more careful in the future. Ankh.Morpork 18:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That is utterly ridiculous, and unforgivable. I am going to report this at WP:ANI, and ask for substantial sanctions against you. First though, I am going to ask for the name to be redacted from the article and this talk page - I'd ask that individuals do not repeat it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have traced the name to being used by The Times - but that Source is not cited on the page and it's not clear if it has ever been cited (I'm Checking Diff By Diff If it;s there I will find it - If Not I'll find that out too). There are far too many discrepancies of this type coming to light. It is either bad editing - or WP:SYNTH - or WORSE! Admin oversight is required. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerning "I have removed it. I must have got confused with <-redact link-> I was reading about in which the name was cited. This was an unfortunate error on my part, and I obviously will be more careful in the future." - It may account for the name being used - but I can find no source that links that name to any listed activity as given in that Highly Dubious table! When and how did that linkage come about? There has to be either a source that can reasonable and rationally show the error providing an explanation (even if mitigation is not possible) ... so where is the source linking the name to the activities as give in that table? Are we dealing with Bad Source - Bad Edits - Synth - or Other? --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)'"> '">

Please do not make this worse than it is by making further links to the individual named. I have asked as a matter of urgency that the name be redacted - and making further links only compounds the problem. This will need admin attention - but ONLY AFTER the material is removed. 18:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, AnkMorpork made a mistake and corrected it. However AndyTheGrump has gone and put the name in big font on this page, despite complaining about it as a gross violation of WP:BLP. Not very concerned about WP:BLP then. Aarghdvaark (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)'"> '">

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Unassessed Sexology and sexuality articles
• Unknown-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment