Talk:Sikhism in the United Kingdom

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


 * [Quote]However the organization [i.e. the SAS] 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. [end quote]


 * 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. 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)


 * I don't appreciate edits like this. You're not reading the sources correctly and the citations used by Faith Matters. Therefore I've added a reference from Hope Not Hate magazine. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well it still seems to me that your reading of that particular source is POV. Perhaps you know more background which persuades you to read it the way you do: but the hurdle that has to be negotiated is the policy WP:NOR. A relevant quote from that policy is "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." In other words, you really need to find a source which explicitly supports the wording you put in the article. Alfietucker (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, how would you word it then? Because I cannot see what's so out of context. It comes to a conclusion saying that it's a common consensus. If this needs to be put in then we'll put it in. StuffandTruth (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The claim it's "common consensus" is the entire justification for the claim that there's a link between EDL and SAS - and very flimsy justification it is. The fact it was peer reviewed by a Dr does not improve this "logic". If we're going to include Faith Matters' claim, then we should spell out its basis. Certainly it is not substantiated by the Mail on Sunday - to claim this, even on the basis of the Faith Matters report alone, let alone from the article itself, is a prime case of WP:OR. Your claim that the article I've linked above (here it is again) is not the Mail on Sunday article referred to by Faith Matters is contradicted elsewhere - see here. Your only possible reply to this is to source the printed edition of the Mail on Sunday article and to demonstrate that a) it is the same as the article cited by Faith Matters; b) that it differs from the article I linked. Alfietucker (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "If we're going to include Faith Matters' claim, then we should spell out its basis" - I am not against this. Please write how you would write the Faith Matters bit here. That's a first step. Because you're now questioning the reliability of the source which I find difficult to comprehend, you say it's flimsy, but they have an entire paragraph discussing the consensus. The difficulty here is that there are two newspapers and a website and a report. Newspapers write multiple articles on one subject from different perspectives (that's a possiblity) and the one you're pointing to may not actually be the one that Faith Matters looked into (you're assuming it's this article or that article without proving a definitive link). We should at the very least say it is alleged by Faith Matters, instead of representing it as absolute truth - which is what you think I was trying to do, correct? There is no argument that it shouldn't be here. But the wording does need work, so I ask, please write how you would write it. I would just say it alleges x because it alleges this evidence appears in y or z, and then give SAS's rebuttal to the claims. The section is thereby balanced with the correct wording. StuffandTruth (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * StuffandTruth - you wrote: "Newspapers write multiple articles on one subject from different perspectives (that's a possiblity) and the one you're pointing to may not actually be the one that Faith Matters looked into (you're assuming it's this article or that article without proving a definitive link)." OK, let me walk you through this: I found the article in the first place by Googling the exact phrase quoted by Faith Matters - "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". This is specific enough to be unlikely to reappear (unless quoted) in any article other than the one it originated from. It's a pity you didn't check for yourself that the quote appears, word for word, in the article published in Mail Online I've linked to (see fourth paragraph/sentence beneath the second row of photographs). And as I've tried to explain, and demonstrated with the Questia link, it is definitely a Mail on Sunday article (indeed, *the* article - see the identifying quote).


 * Suggested rewrite to follow (I see that another editor in the meantime has totally removed the relevant paragraph!). I didn't respond to your earlier suggestion to rewrite because it wasn't altogether clear what you meant by "Well, how would you word it then?" (I thought that a) you meant the Faith Matters source; b) it was possibly a rhetorical question). Alfietucker (talk) 08:04, 7 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)


 * Hope Not Hate is government backed. The peer review is by Dr. Matthew Feldman for that article. He's got credentials as linked to above. The source cannot be biased since it's been checked for it (as this is what academics do). Faith Matters is also a charity backed by the government. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph suggestion
OK - here's what I suggest:


 * A BBC Inside Out programme in September 2013 interviewed several young Sikh women who were allegedly groomed and sexually abused 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), told the BBC he was investigating 19 cases where Sikh girls were allegedly being groomed by older Muslim men,[1] of which one ended with a successful conviction.[2][3] 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:[4] the investigation which had led to their being arrested and charged had been opened due to evidence Bhai Mohan Singh presented to the police.[4] However a report published in the previous year by Faith Matters (which runs the TELL MAMA anti-Muslim violence helpline and works closely with the Jewish Community Security Trust[5]) claimed that the Sikh Awareness Society included radical anti-Muslim elements among its members;[6][7] Faith Matters furthermore alleged that it was a matter of "common consensus" that the radical Sikhs said to have had secret meetings with the English Defence League were members of the SAS.[6][7] The SAS deny the allegations and have distanced themselves from the organization,[6][7] a spokesperson telling Hope not Hate: "We would have nothing to do with any racist or fascist group, certainly one that uses religion to divide people…I know nothing about this and no, we are not in any kind of talks and discussion with them".[8] The BBC Nihal Show on the Asian Network also discussed the issue and debated the merits of the grooming claims in September 2013.[9]


 * References/citations
 * 1) BBC Inside Out London, 02/09/2013: see from 06:00
 * 2) "Code of silence on sexual grooming?". http://bbc.co.uk. 2 Sep 2013.
 * 3) BBC Inside Out London, 02/09/2013: see from 24:10
 * 4) "Leicester child prostitution trial: Men admit paying girl, 16, for sex". BBC News. 1 August 2013. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
 * 5) Clegg, Nick. "Deputy Prime Minister extends funding to tackle hate crime against Muslims". Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Retrieved 06 October 2013.
 * 6) Lane, H.S.; Feldman, Matthew (September 2012). "A Study of the English Defence League". Faith Matters: 29.
 * 7) 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.
 * 8) Hope Not Hate magazine, July-August 2012, p.27 (cited by Faith Matters on page 29 of their report on the EDL)
 * 9) "Nihal". 02/09/2013. BBC Asian Network. Retrieved 5 September 2013.

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)


 * Brilliant. Lets go ahead with it. I have no qualms about this version. All views are represented with clarity and in context. The Mail on Sunday report is also not included/mentioned as it is unclear (currently) if it's the article you've cited or another that was similar - so good work on this version. If and when I do go to the library to find that copy of Hope Not Hate I'll take a photograph and upload it onto mediafire for all to see which Mail on Sunday article they refer to. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you - glad we've reached agreement. Alfietucker (talk) 16:25, 7 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)

The Times Report
The following section seems to be causing some problems:


 * The Times published a report on radical Muslims being accused of blackmailing young Hindu and Sikh women into changing religion in "groomed conversions" on campuses. The article pointed out that such abuses were rarely reported to the police since "the stigma of a child converting to Islam often silences Sikh and Hindu parents". Young Hindu and Sikh women were often "drugged and photographed in compromising positions" then blackmailed into converting to Islam. "Many comply because they are so afraid of shaming their parents or being rejected by their communities." In 2007 a Sikh girl's family claimed that she had been forcibly converted to Islam, and they received a police guard after being attacked by an armed gang.

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 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)


 * I see now that the paragraph has been removed. Thank you for seeing sense. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just about to post here, I think this source has been made up, I have now checked both The Times & Times on Sunday, Nicola Woolcock only had one story published in the month given in our article, and the date itself is wrong. This is why I removed that content. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure the source "has been made up". Part of the confusion is that the wrong publication date was listed in the citation (my fault - probably due to my overtyping another citation link I'd copied for format, and forgetting to change this either due to tiredness or distraction): in fact it was originally published (if this source is to be believed) on 3 March 2007. And no, I must admit I now can't find it on Times on-line either. Even so, the appearance of the story is not only widespread, but many of its reposts in 2007 provided a plausible link to the Times website, which is now dead. I suspect the story has since not simply been re-filed but has been conveniently lost, possibly because it was seen as too controversial and insufficiently sound to be kept on-line by The Times. My apologies for any concern caused. Alfietucker (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies Alfie, I had not realized that. I did not mean to imply you had done this on purpose. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries - I know you are doing as honest a job as I'm trying to. Alfietucker (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Katy Sian
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)


 * Her work is published in a peer reviewed article and it is not just her opinion. It means it was checked and verified. That's how journals work, It is not bias at all. It is her academic research which has lead her to draw that conclusion. It's also relevant to the section at hand. I've read the section on page 252, and she is correct; the articles are unsympathetic, meaning she notices there is no balance (she goes on to describe why). That is not bias either. NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Intro section
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)