Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:18, 6 October 2013

Sikhism Stub‑class

This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventionsSikhismWikipedia:WikiProject SikhismTemplate:WikiProject SikhismSikhism Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Sikh Awareness Society

I cut the following passage a few days ago from this article because it appears problematic:

However the organization is known to have radical anti-Muslim Sikh elements according to the Mail on Sunday and Huffington Post;* 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.* The SAS however deny the allegations and have sought to distance themselves with the organisation.

• Citations: Lane, H.S. & Feldman, Matthew: "A Study of the English Defence League", from Faith Matters; date=September 2012; pages=29; Elgot, Jessica: "EDL Target Religious Groups Including Jews And Sikhs For Recruitment, Exploit Anti-Islam Tensions, Says Report" The Huffington Post

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 BBC Inside Out London, 02/09/2013 from 24:10). Alfietucker (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm reinstating it because you're saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is entirely relevant to the section, backed up by sources, the main of which, faithmatters is scholarly. The fact that the SAS has a direct tie, according to consensus by scholars and academics, and other such reports, says that it deserves inclusion. Consensus is not "hearsay". Furthermore, in the case of neutrality it should be added, as it deserves a mention for context. Notice that Dr Matthew Feldman, an expert on fascist ideology and the contemporary far-right in Europe and the USA reviewed the faith matters article. I note from the Faith Matters homepage and general search history from the website, that he has worked with them in the past, as is mentioned on his profile. The fact that the report mentions the SAS tells us that the academic believes it deserves inclusion, otherwise he would have made no mention of it. I'm sorry but the fact that you say "the SAS has since proved itself an organization not only to be taken seriously but to respect" tells us that you are not following neutrality. Be that as it may the controversial aspects of the organisation should be mentioned. The BBC mentioned that the girl testified in court and that lead to their conviction. The SAS didn't actually prove it, they may have helped the girl but weren't a deciding factor as the documentary stated that the Bhai Singh founded the evidence himself privately at 24:10, and further the BBC says the men admitted to it leading to their conviction. Bhai Mohan Singh did gather alleged evidence himself according to the documentary (who make no mention of the SAS as they say this was a private ie lone investigation), that lead to the investigation being opened up by police - I've added this in for clarity because the entire organisation themselves weren't involved as the documentary says - only he personally was with this one case. StuffandTruth (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If this is unsatisfactory to you then let us perhaps go to the Administrators Noticeboard - I think that is where conflicts of this nature are solved. If we both disagree then perhaps that would be best. StuffandTruth (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made the section more neutral and in context of what occured:

"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. In August 2013 four Muslims and two Hindus, 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. Bhai Mohan Singh gathered evidence himself privately, that lead to the investigation being opened up by police according to the programme. However the Sikh Awareness Society is known to have radical anti-Muslim Sikh elements according to the Mail on Sunday and Huffington Post; 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. The SAS however deny the allegations and have sought to distance themselves with the organisation. The BBC Nihal Show on the Asian Network also discussed the issue and debated the merits of the grooming claims in September 2013."

StuffandTruth (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

StuffandTruth: I'm afraid you have manifestly failed to assume good faith by accusing me of removing material because "I don't like it", though I explained clearly enough the tenuous logic you have used and continue to use in interpreting the Faith Matters report. So in more detail: 1) the claim that the Mail on Sunday article indicates a link between EDL and SAS, even by implication, does not bear scrutiny. Here is the actual article, in which there is no mention anywhere of the SAS or any of its members. To claim otherwise is WP:OR. 2) I don't know about you, but I work a great deal in the academic community (to do with music), and know full well that even relatively sound papers can make an unsound generalization or two in passing. I do suggest that rather than assuming that because a paper is published by Faith Matters and concluding from this that every statement it makes is infallible that we should look at the quality of its statement, as I have done above. The claims it makes about the SAS are based, on the evidence of the article alone, on supposition rather than hard and credible evidence. So unless you or another editor can find another reliable source which gives hard evidence for such a link between the EDL and SAS, then I maintain it has no business in this article. I shall remove this material one more time and if you insist on reinstating it I shall have no hesitation to take the matter, as you suggest, to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Alfietucker (talk) 10:44, 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)

I'm not sure I can accept your apology, since you continue to effectively accuse me both of non-neutrality and original research. Just to rehearse the facts: I nowhere said that the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday are the same newspapers - though I will point out, in case it has escaped your notice, that they are both owned by Associated Newspapers Ltd, and both have their articles published on-line by Mail Online. So yes, that is indeed the text of the original Mail on Sunday article - the very one Faith Matters is referring to. Besides, as I've pointed out, the article nowhere makes the claim of a link between SAS and EDL. Even the Faith Matters report pulls short of claiming the article makes such a link. So the WP:OR was has been entirely committed by your edits - though I notice that since my last post you have refrained from trying to reinstate your reading of what the Mail on Sunday allegedly claimed. Alfietucker (talk) 15:48, 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. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Kirpan Section

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)

1. ^ Lane, H.S. (September 2012). "A Study of the English Defence League" (PDF). Faith Matters: 29. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
2. ^ Elgot, Jessica (2012-09-24). "EDL Target Religious Groups Including Jews And Sikhs For Recruitment, Exploit Anti-Islam Tensions, Says Report". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 7 September 2013.
3. "'Code of silence on sexual grooming?'". http://bbc.co.uk. 2 Sep 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
4. BBC Inside Out London.
5. BBC Inside Out London.
6. "Leicester child prostitution trial: Men admit paying girl, 16, for sex". BBC News. 1 August 2013. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
7. "Leicester child prostitution trial: Men admit paying girl, 16, for sex". BBC News. 1 August 2013. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
8. "Nihal". 02/09/2013. BBC Asian Network. Retrieved 5 September 2013. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)

• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Stub-Class Sikhism articles