Main Edition
US
FR
October 8, 2024 - 4:40pm
The title of the Wikipedia article about Muslim grooming gangs in Britain has this week been changed to include the phrase “moral panic”. Previously titled “Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom”, the name was altered on 7 October to “Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom”.
Every Wikipedia article has a “Talk” function which allows users to request and debate edits. The change was confirmed by a user named “Sceptre”, who wrote: “There is a consensus that, if the article is to be kept (and for the meanwhile, it is to be kept), that ‘moral panic’ should be included in the article title to reflect how the subject is dealt with in reliable sources.”
The grooming gangs scandal, which involved groups of mainly Pakistani-origin men sexually abusing young girls in many British towns and cities, often without facing prosecution, first came to public prominence in 2010 with the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal. This was quickly followed by reports of similar widespread networks of child sexual exploitation in Rochdale and Telford. In 2014, the landmark Jay report found that 1,400 girls were sexually abused by gangs of men, mainly of Pakistani heritage, in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013.
Almost 15 years since the scandal made national news, prosecutions are still ongoing. Last month, seven men of South Asian heritage who committed child sex abuse offences against two teenage girls in Rotherham were jailed for a total of 106 years.
The Wikipedia article states that “Right-wing and far-Right activists” popularised the term “Muslim grooming gangs”. Despite the majority of offenders being of Pakistani heritage, the article also refers to a 2020 Home Office report which found no links between ethnicity and child sexual abuse.
In the announcement of the article’s title change, the question of ethnicity is addressed. “There was a late discussion about the possible title of ‘Ethnicity and…’, but […] I cannot find a consensus for that inclusion yet,” writes the same user, Sceptre. “Nor can I find a consensus for the inclusion of the word ‘Muslim’. However, if after informal — and possible formal — discussion such a consensus emerges, that can easily be revisited.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe objecting user is pointing out the very reason why these crimes were allowed to happen and continue to happen in the first place. And why things like this will continue to happen if we can’t call a spade a spade.
Good God, you can’t make this up.
I’m not familiar with the protocol around editing on Wikipaedia, but could someone who is familiar with it expand on why it’s possible to edit an article using a pseudonym? Surely the point is that these articles at least attempt to be authoritative, yet if no-one can identify the credentials of those writing/editing, how can any article be taken seriously?
Almost all Wikipedia editors are anons – which is encouraged as there have been many cases of high profile editors being harassed in the real world. The articles are indeed supposed to authoritative – but as Wikipedians see it, the article derives its authority almost entirely from the “Reliable sources” (i.e. cites or references) on which it’s based. The credentials of the editor shouldn’t matter. They see things like books from Harvard or Oxford university press as among the most authoritative sources. ‘Broadsheet’ newspapers are sort of middle rank, and tabloids are among the least reliable. Not a terrible system, though far from perfect, e.g. they tend to be biased against conservative leaning sources, famously seeing Daily Mail as having no reliability at all.
Thanks Adam. The point you make about citations/references providing the context for authority, depending on how individuals might view the source, makes good sense.
I think it could be argued that Wikipedia itself, should rank lower than tabloids for accuracy/reliability.
I can appreciate that there maybe issues around the use of the words Asian or Muslim, not all Muslims come from Pakistan and Asia is a massive continent. However, the crimes are being prosecuted, they did happen so it’s more than a moral panic. The term “moral panic” sounds like the dismissive attitude that the authorities took to the complaints of the young people who came forward, something that was as much of a scandal than the grooming gangs themselves!
It’s about time for it to be renamed “Wokipedo”.
Wikipaedia is free at the point of use and it is less likely to be accurate than paid research; with the latter you have to read the document and know who is providing the money. I have contributed to Wikipaedia and offered corrections in my field of Corrosion Science. It is a great system but is very open to manipulation. What else can you expect?
…