Talk:List of sexual abuses perpetrated by groups

3 red links

Made these next to the ones lacking the proper phrasing present in the other ones. Not sure if they are appropriate here or not.

It seems like there is a difference between a -sex gang- (a gang that goes around doing sex... I suppose we do not call them rape gang or something because rape might not be proven to all members or something... dunno) and a -sex trafficking gang- to point out the Rochdale example. One can be a sex trafficker (faciliating sex or rape for non gang members) without actually engaging in the sex yourself, which I believe is what is meant by the consistent use of sex gang in all the examples where this phrase appears uninterrupted in the other articles on this list.

Rotham and Peterborough I am also wondering about... are these sex gangs or sex trafficking gangs... I guess a gang could be both but stuff like -abuse case- does not even reflect a gang as being the main topic.

If a sex gang is present in one of these articles that do not reflect it in the title then please support it with a reliable source and create the appropriate redirect so we can link that. --174.92.135.167 (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

I wonder if sex gang is a redirect with possibilities other than informing people of this list. I am curious when this phrase first took hold. I expect the creation dates of these Wikipedia articles (or at least whenever they were moved to their present titles, if they previously existed under different ones) is a place to begin, and then in browsing the sources used for the articles to see if any news articles of preceding dates used the phrase.

Aside from the news I am curious if the phrase has taken hold in any larger volumes, such as in a book or something. The gangs profiled here all seem pretty recent. I do not think the concept of a sex gang is recent (seems like something bad guys must have been doing for centuries) but the phrase itself might be recent. Would be interesting to form an article scouring newsprints of decades ago to see if the phrase ever popped up.

I am aware of a game called Sex Gangsters (note: NSFW, would not recommend visiting it, two-dimensional nudity and depicted sexual intercourse on the homepage) which according to Wayback Machine archives has existed since at least 19 October 2013. I do not know if any other media (be it video games or television) makes reference to the concept though.

I do not know if this is a proper association as the idea of calling a gang member a -gangster- is not universal. Even if it (and similar mobster) originated with gangs (or mobs) it seems like it can refer to crime bosses who are not members of or managing a gang. --174.92.135.167 (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because... (your reason here) --David W. Ferguson (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, let me point out that contrary to what Wikipedia appears to believe, I did not create this page. I found it when I was searching Wikipedia for a comprehensive list of the court cases involving sex, rape, and grooming gangs which have been heard in the UK over the last several years. Since it was not my page, I hesitated to make major changes (for example to the title, which is not helpful to people searching for the content). I would be happy to update the entry and provide complete information, so that it complies with Wikipedia guidelines.

Here are the reasons why I think it should not be deleted:

1. I quote: "please note that articles must be on notable subjects..."

For more than a decade, possibly stretching back in to the 1990s, there was a epidemic of grooming gangs operating in many of Britain's towns and cities. These gangs shared many features in common, most notably that they generally targeted vulnerable under-age girls. On 21st May 2013 Attorney General Lord Morris reported to the House of Commons that 27 police forces were investigating 54 such cases, and that 2409 victims had been identified to date. Many more cases have been identified since then; the final number could approach 100. It is likely that there will be several hundred convictions, that the true number of perpetrators, which will never be known, could be thousands, and that the true number of victims, which will never be really known, could be tens of thousands. In the Aylesbury case, which involved 11 defendants and resulted in 6 convictions, one of the victims reported having been raped by approximately 60 men.

I would suggest that this is a notable subject that merits proper coverage in Wikipedia. I would question both the judgement and the motives of anyone who claims that this is not a notable subject, and should not be covered in Wikipedia.

2. I quote: "it is an article... whose contents consist only of external links..."

This is patently false. A cursory investigation of the page would show that it contains about a dozen links to other Wikipedia pages providing detailed information on individual cases - in some cases a considerable amount of information. These include the Aylesbury example I cited above, plus Derby, [[1]]and several more.

I would question the objectivity and the motives of whoever made this claim.

3. I quote: "it is an article with no content whatsoever..."

Structurally, the article is as I found it. Nobody had previously questioned its right to exist When I found the page it only contained about a dozen entries, but these did have links to other Wiki pages providing more detailed information on each individual case. I knew that there had been more than 30 cases at that point, so I took it upon myself to update the article, and spent a considerable amount of time doing so. I did not take it upon myself to change the structure of an article that I did not create.

I have not had time to create individual entries for the individual cases. I will be quite happy to do so, within a (reasonable) specified deadline if so required. I will also copy the individual case information across onto this page, so that there is both a central entry containing the information on all the cases, plus an individual page for each individual case. I trust that this will be to the satisfaction of the Wikipedia authorities.

4. Also please note that articles... should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Every single entry is linked to a reliable media source that verifies its content. Most are to mainstream media including the BBC, the Guardian, and the Independent. In a very small number of cases, there are links to detailed stories in local media. I would consider these to be "reliable sources" as well. Anyone who wishes to claim that they are not reliable sources is welcome to provide an explanation as to why the local media in question have decided to entirely fabricate a story about a Court Case involving a serious criminal offence. I would question such a person's motives in doing so.

5. In conclusion, I am more than happy to remedy all of the shortcomings of this article, although I did not create it. If there is someone out there who thinks they have a rational and sustainable argument as to why this should not be done, I am more than happy to enter into further discussions on the matter.

David W. Ferguson (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The speedy deletion request has been removed. I changed the name of the article as per WP:Neutral point of view, removed the external links as per WP:LINKFARM and WP:External links, and added several more links to articles. Also see WP:Stand-alone lists - I'm not sure if this list should exist. May as well be a category. Chrisahn (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, see WP:Be bold. Feel free to create new Wikipedia pages for the events described in the articles you linked to. I removed the external links, but you can easily find them in the history of the article, e.g. here. Chrisahn (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite happy with the new title, so if you find a better one, be bold. Chrisahn (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong listing

94.36.121.174 (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)I would just to point out that the Marocchinate case is erroneously listed under "Africa", whilst it occurred in Italy, NOT in Africa. See Marocchinate.

You're right. I fixed it. Chrisahn (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Chrisahn.94.36.83.89 (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)