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[1]; Elgot, Jessica: "EDL Target Religious Groups Including Jews And Sikhs For Recruitment, Exploit Anti-Islam Tensions, Says Report" [2] 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 [3] 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. 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. The girl did. 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)