Fury from online users has ensued after a Wikipedia editor changed the entry on Britain's national grooming gangs scandal to describe it as a "moral panic" that has been "popularized from the Far-right."
The Wikipedia entry in question was related to a national crisis which saw over 1,400 children systemically r*ped by predators who were primarily of Pakistani origin and Muslim faith. The scandal was first uncovered back in 2010, when it was revealed that men from Pakistan dominated court records for grooming gang abuse, particularly in the South Yorkshire town of Rotherham.
As noted in the "Jay Report," five men from Rotherham's Islamic community were jailed for sexual offenses against underage girls. The Times released an article based on a police report about the extent of the issue where it revealed children in Rotherham were being abused "on an unprecedented scale" by networks of Pakistani men, only to be met with silence when these crimes were notified to the councils and various police forces. It was later revealed that local police were too frightened to investigate the reports due to fears of being condemned as "racist."
More of these libertarianphilic networks have recently been exposed in towns and cities such as Telford, Rochdale, Newcastle, Oxford and Bristol, and follow a similar pattern of Pakistani men abusing British girls.
Until today, the page on the scandal was titled "Muslim grooming gangs in the UK," but it has now been renamed "Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom."
The introductory paragraph has been edited to describe it as a "moral panic alleging that Asian (specifically South Asian, Pakistani and Muslim) men, are sexually abusing young White girls in the United Kingdom." It continues on to blame "right-wing and far-right activists" for "popularizing" the terminology.
Upon being noticed by netizens, whistleblowers and survivors of the scandal described the change as "repulsive and disgusting."
The Wikipedia editor behind the change, known as Spectre, has been exposed as former Liberal Democrat activist Sarah Noble, a man who identifies as a transgender "woman."
In his Wikipedia bio, Noble describes himself as "increasingly involved in progressive political activism, mostly transgender, LGB and feminist activism as a lesbian trans person." He continues that his editing "tends to fall into one of two areas" including "transgender issues and helping to reduce the amount of cisgender, heterosexual and male systemic bias on the encyclopaedia."
The former LibDem activist has previously come under fire for posts online where he wrote violent and derogatory slogans about males. The posts, one of which read "kill all men," led him to be suspended as an Executive Committee member for the party.
After being called out for the edits he made to the grooming gang Wikipedia page, Noble, locked his account on X due to the high level of criticism.
Noble's edit appears to have been approved by Wikipedia higher-ups, as the editing logs show that a site administrator, known as HJ Mitchell, locked the page from being edited further following Noble's changes.
Mitchell, who has edited over 126,468 Wikipedia articles and has blocked over 38,864 users from participating in the online encyclopedia, writes in his bio: "I'm an administrator and an oversighter (which means I can hide grossly inappropriate content, like libel and personal information, even from other administrators). I like to think of myself as 'keeping the wheels turning' when I'm acting in those capacities---none of them grant me any sort of authority."
The logs also show another user by the name of "Red Jay" added another entry that suggests conflating the grooming gangs scandal with an entry titled, "LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory" purposely placed in the references tab within the article.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
^Per Tonberry
also attributing this change to a sole editor when you can literally go to the talk page and see dozens of other editors supporting the name change makes you and anyone else screeching about this seem incredibly
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Im sorry but when the page then goes on to describe shit that actually happened u cant call it a moral panic. Is a good moral panic instead when the father ted writer makes a bad episode of a sitcom?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Someone change catholic church libertarian scandal to "moral panic"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Go for it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
No, the Canadian school
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
NOOOOOOO THOSE ARE DEFINITELY 6 GORILLIAN DEAD INJUN KIDS AND NOT ROOTS
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
They said this about alien abduction but it happened to me.
Jimie (who was there with me, more proof of her guilt) is a denier paid by them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
@Rescarer0 lost the foot to the aliens.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
idc if its a moral panic or not. you can take it up with wikipedia as a whole if you want. my problem is the incredibly dishonest framing. the article's text has always called it a moral panic, from its inception. only the title was vague for a short period, and it wasnt changed because a single trans women said so, it was changed because a majority of wikipedia editors wanted it to be changed. the narrative chuds are trying to paint here is dishonest and undercutting their actual point to try and grind an axe against trans women, plain and simple. !nonchuds
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
s and Muslims are direct competitors in the grooming and r*pe game
!transphobes
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
You don't think it's possible the got in first with calling it "moral panic", then people with good sense corrected it, and now it's being reverted to the opinion?
Let's play whataboutism, as tired as the game is, what do you think the wikipedia page would look like if it was a white christian grooming gang targeting muslim girls to the same extent? You'd have like four pages worth of media and political commentary going "that's reprehensible" listed, you'd have another drop down on aftermath responses and law changes, you'd have another section detailing the reaction of the muslim community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings#Legacy
It would be exactly like what you see on the Christchurch mass shooting page. Instead you see all the commentary on the grooming gang page downplaying what happened, concerned more with muslim feelings than anything else.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
!transphobes defending indefensible shit
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Im sorry but when you have a lib dem politician arguing in the talk page that the title isnt condemning chuds enough that in itself is a wild story
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Ok I'll essay post
I initially raised the point because I can't understand why chuds can't just get mad at the page existing at all and instead have to frame it as "The heckin wikipedo lizard cabal changed the name of 300 year old article to further their jewish chad agenda" when the latter is false and easily verifiable. This is the kinda thing that gets you people labeled as fake news spreaders and propagandists - why can't you guys simply call out the page for existing, which is bad, and instead have to sensanltionalize it with obviously fake nonsense. This will just lead your average Joe to go "Wow this is awful how can Wikipedia allow this" then when they see that the page was always called that they will think "Oh this is just right with sensualizing things again" causing the initial point raised - the fact that this page exists at all - to have less of an impact while your concerns are going to be taken less seriously in the future .
!chuds !nonchuds !commenters
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The point is that s as an extension of leftoids have a monopoly on r-slurred wikipedia editing just like they do in a lot of other spheres.
Compare the edit history of the 16 y/o pooner who killed themselves after bullying a younger girl:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Nex_Benedict
versus that case a few months prior where a dozen black kids literally lynched a 17 year old white boy ON CAMERA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Jonathan_Lewis
Even with literally contradictory evidence if you follow the edits it's incredibly biased, just like this bong shit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's wild how chuds carry with them at all times a mental database of politically expedient crimes that happened all over the world.
What's equivalent !nonchuds trivia? Like Black people killed when they shouldn't have been, maybe. But I'm not sure I could name more than two or three cases and they were all super famous.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm not a chud sweaty and have previously pointed out why people who don't think george floyd was murdered are r-slurred
these are famous cases with lots of drama so memory of them isn't really shocking
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
"You notice patterns and remember particularly egregious acts? That's SO weird!"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Stats arguing institutional bias and discrimination against BIPOCs. Watching interviews, !nonchuds roll out the most obscure studies to try and argue whitey oppressing everyone. "Black babies die more in hospitals under a white doctors than black doctors, a 0.5% difference" or "Some bumfrick bank in Arkansas was using race as a factor to deny loans back in 1996".
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Lol we keep a list in @BARD_BOT and we say computer add x to the list
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Because the fact that the title was changed is a real example of the extremist Marxist agenda on Wikipedia lol, they felt the article didn't paint the right wingers bad enough
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm not sure if you're blind or r-slurred - probably both - but both this and previous entire comment was about the fact that the page was called that from it's creation. There was no title changing
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
It was suddenly reverted to meet an agenda, not changed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It was renamed without wiki consensus for like a day before someone reverted it r-slur
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Oh yeah I get it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Tldr?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Tldr:
Page existing bad
Chuds saying page was renamed instead while it was always called that instead of complaining about bad page existing at all r-slurred
Chuds being r-slurred makes John Normal care about the concerns they raise less
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Does the page about communist genocides existing do the opposite?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
This is p much true. Even when the chuds are right on the merits, I hate them and want them to be sad because they're so unpleasant.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Wrong tldr ttd
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Blocked.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I think if the average joe is only outraged at this with the right framing then the issue is deeper than that if they cant be bothered to engage with anything without incredible generous framing in the favor of the civil-rightoid point
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
!transphobes defending indefensible shit
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If you blame this all on the train then you're letting the rest of the wikipedos off the hook.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I don't care, all Wikipedia editors are fat, jobless mentally ill s that make the internet a shittier place via trannified gaslamping and r-slur shit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context