![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I cut the following passage a few days ago from this article because it appears problematic:
This has today been reinstated, I assume in good faith: hence my explanation here why IMHO it has no business in this article.
Basically we've got a report presented by Faith Matters, which has been itself reported/echoed by Huffington Post with little or no elaboration. The Mail on Sunday only features because a quotation from that paper appears in the Faith Matters report as follows: "Sikhs and EDL members held a secret meeting in Luton to discuss a joint response to the problem. Both sides are said to have favoured acts of vigilantism". Notice that it doesn't specify that this involved a Sikh organization, let alone name one. The only evidence the Faith Matters report offers that SAS was involved is "common consensus" - which is basically not fact but hearsay.
Unless a reliable source can be found which states as a matter of fact (rather than reporting hearsay) that there was a meeting between SAS and EDL members, then we have no business repeating it. Rather, the SAS has since proved itself an organization not only to be taken seriously but to respect - witness the conviction just this past August of six men at Leicester Crown Court for paying a "vulnerable and damaged" 16-year-old Sikh girl for sex, on evidence gathered by the SAS (as reported by the BBC: see [5] BBC Inside Out London, 02/09/2013 from 24:10). Alfietucker ( talk) 16:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
"Coverage by a BBC Inside Out programme in September 2013 showed several alleged cases of young Sikh women being groomed by Muslim men, with one alleged ex-groomer even admitting that they specifically targeted Sikh girls. Bhai Mohan Singh working for the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS), was at that time allegedly investigating 19 cases where Sikh girls were allegedly being groomed by older Muslim men, of which only one eventually ended up with a conviction, and that privately by Bhai Mohan Singh himself. [3] [4] In August 2013 four Muslims and two Hindus, [5] were convicted at Leicester Crown Court of paying a "vulnerable and damaged" 16-year-old Sikh girl for sex, based on the men's admission to the crime. [6] Bhai Mohan Singh gathered evidence himself privately, that lead to the investigation being opened up by police according to the programme. [7] However the Sikh Awareness Society is known to have radical anti-Muslim Sikh elements according to the Mail on Sunday and Huffington Post; [1] [2] Faith Matters, a charity based on interfaith cohesion, notes that the group have ties with the English Defence League (EDL) and have even set up secret meetings at demonstrations in the past. [1] [2] The SAS however deny the allegations and have sought to distance themselves with the organisation. [1] [2] The BBC Nihal Show on the Asian Network also discussed the issue and debated the merits of the grooming claims in September 2013. [8]"
StuffandTruth ( talk) 00:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I apologise if you are offended but there is ample evidence to suggest that you are not following neutrality. It seems like censorship from you. You do not get to decide if an academic's work is wrong or right because that is original research. I am an academic too, a lawyer to be precise. Nevertheless, I am currently satisfied with the way it reads now after your edit. However you should note that you are wrong when you assert that the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday are two of the same newspapers and hence that article you link to backs up your argument. It does not. I am puzzled that for an academic, you missed this given how obvious it was that the two names are different (see seperate articles beforehand on the Wiki and then page 29 of the report). The Mail on Sunday is a separate newspaper and Faith Matters makes that quite clear (page 29) (they do not cite the Daily Mail as you mistakenly have suggested) and have no link to that paper on page 29 of their report, as it clearly says they are quoting the Mail on Sunday. Thus the claim does have merit and deserves inclusion. Further, Faith Matters also quotes Hope Not Hate magazine as a reference ( the magazine can be bought from here or from your local library). Again, because Dr. Matthew Feldman has reviewed the article too, the sources are entirely reliable, and thus yes, infallible. StuffandTruth ( talk) 15:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Well I apologise nonetheless. But the fact that now you have stated that "Faith Matters claims" instead of trying to delete it leads me to believe that you at least are considering it's inclusion - as it rightfully should be included. It's omission does seem like non-neutrality and original research as well as censorship. Faith Matters refer to the Mail on Sunday, you cannot claim they are same article unless you have proof for it, not assumption. They don't directly quote the website of Mail Online, and we can only say what the sources say. Further still, not everything is published on Mail Online (which is why Faith Matters quoted Mail on Sunday as they have a hard copy newspaper too). Further still, Hope Not Hate, a charity dedicated to fighting fascism first wrote about the SAS and EDL link in their magazine (see your library for a hard copy or order one yourself). They clearly discuss the article on Mail on Sunday which includes the SAS and EDL links. Faith Matters, in addition, does not pull short of making the link, as a consensus a universal agreement, which is what they reported. StuffandTruth ( talk) 16:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
What credentials does H.S Lane's, author of the Faith Matters source have? Does anyone know who she/he is? I am suspicious of this source, as it is part of Hope not Hate, making it very bias.-- Loomspicker ( talk) 20:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
OK - here's what I suggest:
I've rewritten a fair bit of this since the last version to improve its flow, precision and clarity. But here's the most important edits as to what I've cut, what I've instated and what I've reworded: 1) I've reworded the first sentence to be more precise about what the programme showed; 2) Re. the six convicted at Leicester, brought to trial through evidence gathered by Bhai Mohan Singh: I've cut the fact they all (eventually) pleaded guilty which, although true, is beside the point; 3) Though it seems Bhai Mohan Singh gathered evidence on his own initiative, the programme did not state he did this "privately" (i.e. independently of SAS). To say so here is WP:OR, so I've cut this; 4) It is not at all clear from the citations given that Faith Matters based its allegation of a link between EDL and SAS on reports by MoS and Hate not Hope: the MoS does not even mention the SAS, and all the Faith Matters report quotes from the Hope not Hate article is a denial from a spokesperson of SAS that they have had any dealings with EDL. If there really is something in the Hope not Hate magazine which claims an actual connection, then I suggest you present some of the relevant text in the article. Otherwise, it should stay out. Hence my cutting the claim that the allegation is based on reports by the MoS and Hope not Hate. 5) I've included the quote from the SAS spokesperson, as it clarifies the organization's position re EDL, and also - it seems to me - is the only justification (in the absence of any other info about the Hope not Hate article) to cite the Hope not Hate magazine.
Hope that's all clear. If there are no substantive objections to this, I will go ahead and put this paragraph into the article. Alfietucker ( talk) 09:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)
Should the Kirpan section be under controversies section or left in the law section? There is much debate about the Kirpan and people have recently tried to ban it in recent years in certain workplaces which is worrysome. StuffandTruth ( talk) 15:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The following section seems to be causing some problems:
The link for one is dead, to The Times article, and it cannot be found anywhere else, and the second citation seems unreliable since it says it was actually published in "The Sikh Times" and not the Times article. According to an archive [6] the Sikh Times is an unreliable source. It appears that the Times article in fact doesn't exist (unless someone can find it in a an archive depository). StuffandTruth ( talk) 17:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
A page on Sikhism in the UK should not become an advert for the views of Katy Sian the same as an article on Britain's Blacks, Jews or Muslims should not focus on the views of their opponents. See http://www.ces.uc.pt/projectos/tolerace/media/Working%20paper%205/The%20Media%20and%20Muslims%20in%20the%20UK.pdf page 252 here, where Sian says that newspaper coverage of a story whereby a gang of nominal Muslims avoided a custodial sentence for racial assault was "unsympathetic" and "one-sided" against the perpetrators. She also criticised that the newspapers reprinted statements from the criminals saying they were "happy" at avoiding custody, and that newspapers featured CCTV of the assault and pictures of the victims' injuries! Somebody who says that a newspaper item on Muslims being convicted of attacking a white woman is problematic because it " frames the Muslim women as criminals", or portrays the criminals as "dangerous thugs and the white lady as the victim" is clearly writing with an acute bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leicester25 ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The introduction refers to data from the 2021 Census. However, that data has not yet been released. 194.34.204.36 ( talk) 11:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I cut the following passage a few days ago from this article because it appears problematic:
This has today been reinstated, I assume in good faith: hence my explanation here why IMHO it has no business in this article.
Basically we've got a report presented by Faith Matters, which has been itself reported/echoed by Huffington Post with little or no elaboration. The Mail on Sunday only features because a quotation from that paper appears in the Faith Matters report as follows: "Sikhs and EDL members held a secret meeting in Luton to discuss a joint response to the problem. Both sides are said to have favoured acts of vigilantism". Notice that it doesn't specify that this involved a Sikh organization, let alone name one. The only evidence the Faith Matters report offers that SAS was involved is "common consensus" - which is basically not fact but hearsay.
Unless a reliable source can be found which states as a matter of fact (rather than reporting hearsay) that there was a meeting between SAS and EDL members, then we have no business repeating it. Rather, the SAS has since proved itself an organization not only to be taken seriously but to respect - witness the conviction just this past August of six men at Leicester Crown Court for paying a "vulnerable and damaged" 16-year-old Sikh girl for sex, on evidence gathered by the SAS (as reported by the BBC: see [5] BBC Inside Out London, 02/09/2013 from 24:10). Alfietucker ( talk) 16:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
"Coverage by a BBC Inside Out programme in September 2013 showed several alleged cases of young Sikh women being groomed by Muslim men, with one alleged ex-groomer even admitting that they specifically targeted Sikh girls. Bhai Mohan Singh working for the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS), was at that time allegedly investigating 19 cases where Sikh girls were allegedly being groomed by older Muslim men, of which only one eventually ended up with a conviction, and that privately by Bhai Mohan Singh himself. [3] [4] In August 2013 four Muslims and two Hindus, [5] were convicted at Leicester Crown Court of paying a "vulnerable and damaged" 16-year-old Sikh girl for sex, based on the men's admission to the crime. [6] Bhai Mohan Singh gathered evidence himself privately, that lead to the investigation being opened up by police according to the programme. [7] However the Sikh Awareness Society is known to have radical anti-Muslim Sikh elements according to the Mail on Sunday and Huffington Post; [1] [2] Faith Matters, a charity based on interfaith cohesion, notes that the group have ties with the English Defence League (EDL) and have even set up secret meetings at demonstrations in the past. [1] [2] The SAS however deny the allegations and have sought to distance themselves with the organisation. [1] [2] The BBC Nihal Show on the Asian Network also discussed the issue and debated the merits of the grooming claims in September 2013. [8]"
StuffandTruth ( talk) 00:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I apologise if you are offended but there is ample evidence to suggest that you are not following neutrality. It seems like censorship from you. You do not get to decide if an academic's work is wrong or right because that is original research. I am an academic too, a lawyer to be precise. Nevertheless, I am currently satisfied with the way it reads now after your edit. However you should note that you are wrong when you assert that the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday are two of the same newspapers and hence that article you link to backs up your argument. It does not. I am puzzled that for an academic, you missed this given how obvious it was that the two names are different (see seperate articles beforehand on the Wiki and then page 29 of the report). The Mail on Sunday is a separate newspaper and Faith Matters makes that quite clear (page 29) (they do not cite the Daily Mail as you mistakenly have suggested) and have no link to that paper on page 29 of their report, as it clearly says they are quoting the Mail on Sunday. Thus the claim does have merit and deserves inclusion. Further, Faith Matters also quotes Hope Not Hate magazine as a reference ( the magazine can be bought from here or from your local library). Again, because Dr. Matthew Feldman has reviewed the article too, the sources are entirely reliable, and thus yes, infallible. StuffandTruth ( talk) 15:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Well I apologise nonetheless. But the fact that now you have stated that "Faith Matters claims" instead of trying to delete it leads me to believe that you at least are considering it's inclusion - as it rightfully should be included. It's omission does seem like non-neutrality and original research as well as censorship. Faith Matters refer to the Mail on Sunday, you cannot claim they are same article unless you have proof for it, not assumption. They don't directly quote the website of Mail Online, and we can only say what the sources say. Further still, not everything is published on Mail Online (which is why Faith Matters quoted Mail on Sunday as they have a hard copy newspaper too). Further still, Hope Not Hate, a charity dedicated to fighting fascism first wrote about the SAS and EDL link in their magazine (see your library for a hard copy or order one yourself). They clearly discuss the article on Mail on Sunday which includes the SAS and EDL links. Faith Matters, in addition, does not pull short of making the link, as a consensus a universal agreement, which is what they reported. StuffandTruth ( talk) 16:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
What credentials does H.S Lane's, author of the Faith Matters source have? Does anyone know who she/he is? I am suspicious of this source, as it is part of Hope not Hate, making it very bias.-- Loomspicker ( talk) 20:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
OK - here's what I suggest:
I've rewritten a fair bit of this since the last version to improve its flow, precision and clarity. But here's the most important edits as to what I've cut, what I've instated and what I've reworded: 1) I've reworded the first sentence to be more precise about what the programme showed; 2) Re. the six convicted at Leicester, brought to trial through evidence gathered by Bhai Mohan Singh: I've cut the fact they all (eventually) pleaded guilty which, although true, is beside the point; 3) Though it seems Bhai Mohan Singh gathered evidence on his own initiative, the programme did not state he did this "privately" (i.e. independently of SAS). To say so here is WP:OR, so I've cut this; 4) It is not at all clear from the citations given that Faith Matters based its allegation of a link between EDL and SAS on reports by MoS and Hate not Hope: the MoS does not even mention the SAS, and all the Faith Matters report quotes from the Hope not Hate article is a denial from a spokesperson of SAS that they have had any dealings with EDL. If there really is something in the Hope not Hate magazine which claims an actual connection, then I suggest you present some of the relevant text in the article. Otherwise, it should stay out. Hence my cutting the claim that the allegation is based on reports by the MoS and Hope not Hate. 5) I've included the quote from the SAS spokesperson, as it clarifies the organization's position re EDL, and also - it seems to me - is the only justification (in the absence of any other info about the Hope not Hate article) to cite the Hope not Hate magazine.
Hope that's all clear. If there are no substantive objections to this, I will go ahead and put this paragraph into the article. Alfietucker ( talk) 09:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)
Should the Kirpan section be under controversies section or left in the law section? There is much debate about the Kirpan and people have recently tried to ban it in recent years in certain workplaces which is worrysome. StuffandTruth ( talk) 15:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The following section seems to be causing some problems:
The link for one is dead, to The Times article, and it cannot be found anywhere else, and the second citation seems unreliable since it says it was actually published in "The Sikh Times" and not the Times article. According to an archive [6] the Sikh Times is an unreliable source. It appears that the Times article in fact doesn't exist (unless someone can find it in a an archive depository). StuffandTruth ( talk) 17:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
A page on Sikhism in the UK should not become an advert for the views of Katy Sian the same as an article on Britain's Blacks, Jews or Muslims should not focus on the views of their opponents. See http://www.ces.uc.pt/projectos/tolerace/media/Working%20paper%205/The%20Media%20and%20Muslims%20in%20the%20UK.pdf page 252 here, where Sian says that newspaper coverage of a story whereby a gang of nominal Muslims avoided a custodial sentence for racial assault was "unsympathetic" and "one-sided" against the perpetrators. She also criticised that the newspapers reprinted statements from the criminals saying they were "happy" at avoiding custody, and that newspapers featured CCTV of the assault and pictures of the victims' injuries! Somebody who says that a newspaper item on Muslims being convicted of attacking a white woman is problematic because it " frames the Muslim women as criminals", or portrays the criminals as "dangerous thugs and the white lady as the victim" is clearly writing with an acute bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leicester25 ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The introduction refers to data from the 2021 Census. However, that data has not yet been released. 194.34.204.36 ( talk) 11:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)