Talk:2022 Leicester unrest

Editorialized note

The sixth footnote in this article, starting "The British press", is a mess of WP:OR. It is not repeating or paraphrasing statements contained in the sources at all, but creating a new, anecdotal narrative about the coverage based on certain sources. It is pure WP:SYNTH, aside from, among other things, also referencing the not just unreliable but deprecated Press TV as a source - ye gads! Iskandar323 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I've sorted out that mess, which included both WP:EDITORIAL words like "however", and a narrative structure overlaying the sources, describing the media as "playing up" and "ignoring" things - unencyclopedic, pure WP:SYNTH additions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to find sources that make those comments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

As for PressTV, I said that it was being used as a WP:PRIMARY source. Do you understand what that means? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If you mean using it as a primary source where a secondary source already mentions it, then you don't need the deprecated source; if you mean using it as a primary source on its own, then weight has not been established. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What I "need" to do is a separate issue. Please state the policy issue that you claimed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Really? This is standard community practice and a basic WP:DUE issue - weight being apportioned according to prevalence in reliable sources. Also WP:COMMONSENSE. How about you point to the part of WP:DEPRECATED that justifies the use of a deprecated source in this instance? The WP:BURDEN here is on the use of deprecated content. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Struggling to understand why an Iranian media outlet is even important here. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It is a UK-based, Iranian-owned, news outlet [1]. It lost its TV broadcasting license several years ago, but it is nevertheless active online. Roshan Salih, who currently runs 5Pillars, is its former news editor [2]. It seems to have had a reporter stationed in Leicester pretty much throughout the saga.[3] We are mentioning it by name in the article, and providing evidence. This is how WP:PRIMARY sources, which may or may not be RS, are treated. Whether they are deprecated or not makes no difference. Deprecation only applies to sources used as RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

As you will now have seen, not even the Press TV page cites Press TV, only features it as an external link. I can't see what purpose you think Press TV has here except to show the views of an unreliable source, which we obviously routinely avoid. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Hindutva vigilantism

What is the MOS:INFOBOX problem with "Anti-Hindutva vigilantism"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a novel term not found anywhere on the page, and the infobox is a summary of the contents of the page. More generally, the term is meaningless nonsense. Vigilantism is the act of enforcing laws or punishing perceived crimes or offenses without legal authority: the subject here is not about a law or crime (perceived or otherwise), so there is nothing for any of the involved to be "vigilantes" about. Last time I checked, Hindutva was an ideology, not a crime, and "vigilantism" against an ideology is just a meaningless concept, aside from the aforementioned MOS:INFOBOX issues. In the absence of any sources even mentioning the term, it also has all the current appearance of WP:OR, and, frankly, even if some intellectually stunted sources do use the term, it would be doubtful if such a nonsensical phrase would be a useful means of summarizing anything in the infobox. On a final note, while this story might overlap with/involve some individuals who might be 'Hindutva' in their ideology, "Hindutva" is more generally minority language in the current content relative to just "Hindu". Iskandar323 (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

When you revert some content on policy grounds, and when that revert is questioned, you are required to establish that policy issue. You can argue about other disagreements later.

MOS:INFOBOX says that the infobox "summarises" the content. It doesn't say anywhere that the term have to be "found" on the page. You made a bombastic double-revert claiming: no basis for restoring this stuff: I repeat, MOS:INFOBOX violation. Where is the violation?

Yes, summaries don't tend to conjure up novel OR terms; that's invention, not summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want to contest whether that is an accurate summarisation or not, that is perfectly fine. But don't call it a violation of MOS:INFOBOX. (In general, don't dress up content disputes or disagreements as policy violations.)

On the term itself, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a reliable souce. If you look through the examples of vigilantism on the page, you will find plenty of examples of anti-Nazi and anti-Fascist groups/activities. The OED also gives similar examples.

The Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the meaning of vigilante as "a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)".

The Collins Dictionary says, "Vigilantes are people who organize themselves into an unofficial group to protect their community and to catch and punish criminals." Vigilante in British English is supposed to mean, "one of an organized group of citizens who take upon themselves the protection of their district, properties, etc.

In the present context, we have:

A gathering of young Muslims in the city was in response to the impromptu march, Freeman added. “That’s when the Muslim community came out and said: ‘We can’t trust the police, we’re going to defend our community ourselves.’”

My usage is in line with normal English. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOX isn't policy, it's a guideline. On the definition of vigilantism, it is overwhelmingly associated with punishing criminals without legal backing - a meaning that carries negative connotations and aspersions for both parties, the targets of it as supposed 'criminals'; the participants of it as taking the law into their own hands - in this sense, without support in sourcing, it's an almost double-edged BLP issue. If the reliable sources had meant vigilantism, they would say it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not true. See this detailed paper [4], p. 228-229, where "crime control" and "social control" are mentioned as two goals of vigilantism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Without sourcing using these terms in this context, it remains WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Meaningless line

Since 2014, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) coming to power in India, with Narendra Modi as the prime minister, is expected to have generated high levels of support [for what ?] among the Hindus in UK.

TrangaBellam (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, not exactly clear how this, or hindutva in general, is relevant here. Even if there are protestors that are ideologically Hindu nationalists, it's not like they have a specifically Hindu nationalist issue to protest within the UK. This is just generic intercommunal violence, with people bringing their bullshit bigoted baggage along from elsewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

But the newspapers were all convinced that it was because of Hindutva, as well as the participants themselves. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Which newspapers? Taking the first two BBC sources [5], [6], I don't see the term at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

BBC was quite resposible. They also seem to have had local staff and covered all the developments on a day-to-day basis. Other media weren't so. Guardian wrote a long "explainer" [7] and linked it from practically every Leicester-related page published online. Some others used code words like "subcontinental politics spilling over to Britain".[8]. The Mayor, Peter Soulsby, himself said this.[9] The police described the "Pakistan Murdabad" slogan as "racist and hateful chanting". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe the causes were quite local to Leicester. There was some Hindu gang in East Leicester that attacked a Muslim man in May, pretty badly. There was more stuff that came out in tabloids, but it could be true. The police don't seem to have handled these things with alacrity. As a result, the Muslims lost confidence in the police. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Page lacks context on actual communities in Leicester

As someone from Leicester - I feel this page (and other sources tbf) gives too much focus on the national context (which is fine) but there is not enough focus on the local Leicester context e.g. that most Muslims in Leicester in are of Indians origins (mainly Gujarati's via the subcontinent as well as east Africa) - for example the 1983 survey of Leicester reported 40 percentage of muslims speak Gujarati as the main language - 2021 census notes that there are also around 40,000 Indians Muslims compared to around 12,000 Pakistanis Junkie12345 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

what the violence so suprising was the city has weathered similar storms of tensions before -

"Finally, the Federation[ of Muslim Orgsnation] has sought to act as a bridge for interacting with other religious and ethnic communities in Leicester. Perhaps its greatest success in this sphere followed the destruction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya, India, when Hindu-Muslim tensions ran high in the city throughout the end of 1992 into 1993. Although no mosques or temples were burned, as elsewhere in Britain, a pig's head was thrown in front of one mosque. Executives of the Federation, one of them recalls, met with Hindu leaders in order to work together and try to cool 'hot heads on both sides': this culminated in a successful public conference organized by the Federation in February 1993." 

Another relevant passage i feel - Among Muslims, Gujaratis tend to be Deobandis while Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are mostly Barelwis, although usually with traditions focused on different pirs or saints. And among Sikhs, although religious practice and orientations perhaps do not differ as much as among other faiths, there is a strong social distinction between Jat (farmer caste), Bhatia (peddler) and Ramgharia (craftsman) Sikhs —the latter being especially prevalent among East Africans. Geographically, however, Leicester is characterized by a major divide between Hindus and Muslims: both the 1983 Survey of Leicester and the study by Phillips point to Highfields as a mostly Muslim area and Belgrave as a predominantly Hindu one, while Sikhs are dispersed throughout both.

By far most of the East Africans and subcontinental Indians in Leicester have their backgrounds in Gujarat (with a lesser number, in Punjab). Therefore, we see the very high number of first language Gujarati speakers in Table 6 (followed by Punjabi speakers). Most Gujaratis, whether from India or East Africa, are Hindus. Most Muslims in Leicester, too, have their origins in Gujarat as shown by the number of Gujarati and Kutchi speakers (the latter being the major tongue in the northern part of the Indian state of Gujarat): this is in marked contrast to the other large concentrations of Muslims in Britain, such as Bradford, Birmingham and Manchester where most are Pakistani, and Tower Hamlets where Bangladeshis predominate. Not surprisingly, in terms of first language or mother tongue most Bangladeshis are Muslim and Bengali speaking, most Pakistanis are Muslim and Urdu or Punjabi speaking, and Sikhs are mainly Punjabi speaking (while members of each group, of course, may speak more than one South Asian language, as well as English).

Throughout Britain there is a stereotype of success and wealth equated with Gujaratis. However, although both are Gujarati speaking, once again in Leicester there is an important distinction between East Africans and subcontinental Indians. East African Gujarati speakers tend to have full competence in English language (again, connected with their urban, largely middle-class, business-oriented background in British African colonies). Many from the state of Gujarat in India, who come from rural backgrounds (especially the Muslims), do not have an equal command of English. This trait, combined with a kind of geographical-cum-social encapsulation in Highfields, has had serious ramifications for Leicester Asians born in Britain: as evidenced at Moat Community College in Highfields, many who have reached their teenage years still do not have a good command of English. Since English language competence is widely considered to be a key to employment and occupational success, this is a feature which is likely serving to reproduce low socio-economic indicators among Gujaratis in Highfields in comparison with the high indicators among East Africans in Belgrave.

via Multicultural, Multi-Asian, Multi-Muslim leicester: Dimensions of social complexity, ethnic organization and local government interface Vertovec, Steven Innovation (Abingdon, England), 1994, Vol.7 (3), p.259-276

[Although] both [Hindu and Muslim] communities are originally from Gujarat, most have never seen India; they came to England from East Africa . . . They are used to being migrants. Also, because they were brought to Africa by the British to serve as a buffer between them and the Africans whom the British didn't trust . . . they also know how to handle the British. They are cosmopolitan, sophisticated. . . They were politically [and] economically active [and] controlled a lot of the economic resources [in East Africa, and] they have a lot of political power in Leicester today

- Asaf Hussain via Apurba Kundu (1994) The Ayodhya aftermath: Hindu versus Muslim violence in Britain, Immigrants & Minorities:

The Gujarati Hindu communities in Britain are differentiated not only by class and caste but also by their history of migration. Some who migrated in the early 1960s were directly from peasant families in Gujarat, others came from urban backgrounds in East Africa, migrating as refugees between 1968 and 1975. This latter group were themselves differentiated by class before they came to Britain. A few had set up thriving businesses in East Africa and had become extremely wealthy. When they migrated, a small number of these well-off business families were able to bring their assets with them to Britain.

Another much larger group of refugees were those who had been used by the British to form a middle strata between Africans and whites and had absorbed notions of racial superiority characteristic of middle-status groups in racist societies. In general, they arrived in Britain with no money and few possessions.

Other Gujaratis who fl ed East Africa, however, were from a very different background. Taken there as indentured labourers, they were part of East Africa’s emerging working class. They were neither welloff, nor when they arrived, did they have middle-class aspirations. Yet others, also living on the edge of poverty, were traders in small towns in East Africa. By and large, all these groups except the very rich, worked in factories and foundries when they first arrived in Britain.

However within a decade their class differentials in Africa reemerged in Britain. Many of those who had been labourers or impoverished traders in East Africa, like those who came directly from the peasant communities in India, did less well – some have remained poverty-stricken over several generations in Britain. The contrast between different parts of Leicester reveal these stark inequalities among Gujarati Hindus.

Those who had been middle class in East Africa, have, in general, done much better.

Via: Dreams, Questions, Struggles South Asian Women in Britain (2006) by Amrit Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkie12345 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"Hindus live in north Leicester (LE4 postcode), mainly in the St. Matthew's and Belgrave areas" Also I would not describe st matthews as a 'Hindu area' (see the new 2021 census map) - especially since it is not within LE 4 postcode area its in the LE1 postcode - 2021 census map notes the 'st Mathews Highfields north' MSOA is only 11 percent hindu v 74 muslim)- Rushey Mead would be a better example to give than st matthews - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkie12345 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Bonney-2/publication/233843235_Leicester%27s_Cultural_Diversity_in_the_Context_of_the_British_Debate_on_Multiculturalism/links/0fcfd50c09efa9f708000000/Leicesters-Cultural-Diversity-in-the-Context-of-the-British-Debate-on-Multiculturalism.pdf - a good source on leicester for those wanting context on the city by the early 2000s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkie12345 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Also low level violence does sometimes happen after indo-Pak cricket matches when winning fans celebrate but it has never lead to the wide spread unrest before and most celebrations remain (rowdy) but peaceful - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkie12345 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The following passages are from Joanna Herbert, Negotiating Boundaries in the City: Migration, Ethnicity and Gender in the City (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008)

page 18-19: "Moreover, evidence suggests, that the most meaningful and definitive criteria for community organisation and affiliation was not ethnic labels such as Indian or Pakistani, but caste for Hindus and sect for Muslims. The Patidar and Lohana castes dominated in Uganda and marriage ties have enabled the reproduction of these networks in Britain. 32 In short, the South Asian presence in Britain is highly complex and defies simple generalisation"

page 23-25: Overall, minority ethnic populations remained highly concentrated in the inner wards of the city, with seven out of the city’s twenty eight wards containing a minority ethnic population of 50 per cent or more in 1991. 60 Nevertheless, there were important changes within South Asian groups. The Indian population, originally congregated in the centre of the city, but had moved mainly to the north of the city by 1981 and to the more affluent wards to east of the city by 2001. 61 East African Asians followed a similar centrifugal pattern although initially they were more widely dispersed throughout the wards and later they shifted rather than dissipated, to the northern wards of the city Page 28: The 2001 census showed that the main inner-city ward of Spinney Hills contained the largest number of minority ethnic groups, with 82.5 per cent from a minority ethnic background. 63 Overall then, despite some changes, the South Asian and white population of Leicester was sharply divided. This was also evident in the working class estates on the outskirts of the city which were characterised by a prevalent white population. 64 In 1991 Eyres Monsell contained a black and minority ethnic (BME) population of only 1.9 per cent and the corresponding figure for North Brauntsone was 2.8 per cent. 65 Thus Leicester was typically viewed as a South Asian city, with an outer ‘white highlands’, a pattern that has emerged in other British cities. 66 Nevertheless, it would be erroneous to imply that the South Asian communities have simply supplanted the white population in Leicester, as this ignores the continued white presence in both Highfields and Belgrave

A salient facet of the spatial distribution within South Asian groups was the emergence of religious segregation between Hindus and Muslims in the city. Hindus have tended to reside in the north of the city whilst Muslims prevailed in the inner-city of Highfields. 68 The number of Muslims in Spinney Hills rose from 3,706 in 1983 to 11,886 in 2001; thus Highfields has evolved into a predominantly Muslim area which was largely self contained and autonomous. This was reflected not only in the proliferation of mosques, but in the commercial structure of the area, in driving schools and estate agents and the location of community organisations and Islamic schools

The reasons why religious groups have clustered in certain areas can be attributed to elements of both forced and voluntary segregation. The development of Belgrave involved a process of East African Hindus attempting to distance themselves from other South Asians by only selling property to members of their own sub-group, thus excluding Pakistani Muslims. 71 Other evidence suggests that religious spaces were carved into the city, because areas served as vital spaces where religious groups could express and cultivate their culture. This was particularly applicable to Muslims whose social and spatial ties were highly localised and dependent on the mosque

Leicester is also seen as a Hindu city. In contrast to the national profile in which the number of Muslims exceeds Hindus, Hinduism is the dominant South Asian religion. In 1983 Hindus represented 62.1 per cent of the religions, compared to 18.4 per cent Muslims and 16.7 per cent Sikhs. 73 By 2001, Leicester’s Hindu population of 41,248 people was the second largest in England and Wales. 74 In addition, the majority of Hindus and Muslims have their origins in Gujarat. 75 Gujarati speaking Hindus were therefore the main language and religious group with an estimated size of 36,100 in 1983 and some 46,000 in 1996. 76 This was the major group in the northern wards of the city and represented more than half of the total in population in some areas. In 1983, Gujarati Muslims numbered about 5,200 in and around Highfields and approximately 9,600 Punjabi Sikhs resided in the surrounding areas of Highfields. 77 Mirroring the national level, the majority of Bangladeshis were Bengali Muslim, whilst Pakistanis were either Punjabi or Urdu Muslim. 78 There were also smaller communities within these categories who followed different religious practices, including both Sunni and Shi-ite Muslims and the Mistrys and Patels were the main castes in Leicester. In 1978, 31 out of 56 Gujarati Asian organisations in Leicester were jati (sub-caste) specific and it has been claimed that caste associations were the most significant South Asian bodies in Leicester 

page 135: Notwithstanding the positive effects of social capital, it is also necessary to discuss the negative ramifications to avoid a simple romanticisation of ‘community’ life. One respondent discussed the growth in extreme right-wing religious organisations in Leicester since the 1980s, specifically Hindu nationalism. More typically, respondents claimed religious associations often generated demands for conformity and promoted social control. A few male respondents discussed the pressure to adhere to specific cultural styles to signify their religious affiliation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkie12345 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303569590_Discrepant_Representations_of_Multi-Asian_Leicester_Institutional_Discourse_and_Everyday_Life_in_the_'Model'_Multicultural_City - the most comprehensive (open access!) academic source on ethnic minorities in Leicester — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkie12345 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) https://www.academia.edu/27629837/2014_Discrepant_representations_of_multi_Asian_Leicester_Institutional_discourse_and_everyday_life_in_the_model_multicultural_city - alt version in case the above version doesnt work

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20120920001246mp_/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/1203727.pdf - a British gov;t report on indian muslims in britain - contains some info on leicester — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkie12345 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Junkie12345, thank you for your keen interest in this topic. I understand that the majority of Leicester Mulsims are of Gujarati origin. Hence I removed the mention of "British Pakistanis", which used to be in the lead earlier.

However, in a globalised world, the larger national and international context can trump the local conditions. If the Leicester Muslims are third or fourth generation settlers, they are going to be influenced more by the current happenings rather than the lands their ancestors had left behind a century ago. The two NCRI reports (see the Bibliography section) are key to understanding how the present conflict developed. Contributions to this have been made by the British Muslim press (5Pillars, PressTV, Middle East Eye etc.) as well as the national left-liberal press (The Guardian, The Statesman etc.) The local Muslims were convinced that the recent Hindu and Christian arrivals from Diu and Daman were "Hindutva-inspired" and that they needed to fight them.

Also relevant is the influence of Birmingham, whose Muslims are dominated by Mirpuri Kashmiris, many of whom are direct or indirect participants in the Kashmir conflict. (Remember that the JKLF was founded in Birmingham, and the murder of the Indian consul in Birmingham was in a way the beginning of the Kashmir insurgency.)

I have looked in detail at the major riot in front of the Shiva temple and came to the conclusion that the main perpetrators were out-of-town Muslims, mostly from Birmingham. All this information will come to light only after the public enquiry is concluded. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes Thank you for your edit, - i hope my edits/suggestions come across as fair to both communities, as i believe most press reports have given a caricatured view of both communities. Regarding the JKLF Mhatre body was dumbed in farm in Leicestershire making the front page story of the local newspaper (Leicester Mercury), but there no suggestion it was done by Leicester Pakistanis, the local press interviewed a local leader of a Kashmir organization in Leicester stating that he had never heard of the JKLF and that he rejected violence. But the problem is there still many unknown about the actual background of the people involved in the unrest last year for example, if it was 3rd Generation British East African Indian Hindu + Muslims were fighting each other, it perhaps something even more worrying given how strong community bounds were in east Africa, given they should in theory less at risk adopting extremist ideologies (but i would say its a sort of 'unspoken thing' that some in both communities may hold some prejudice against the other, but it has never led into widespread violence) - But in general there has always been worries even back in the 1960s/70s that communal tensions in south asia would spill over among the diaspora in Britain - it also worrying that the two communities do not trust the leaders of the official enquiry (the central gov't and city council) Junkie12345 (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The Henry Jackson Society report gives the background of a number of the leading individuals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as this page is concerned, we can only include in the Background section, what the reliable sources about this topic present as the background. We cannot insert other material that we think is relevant based on our own judgement. That would be considered WP:Original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374372265_Hindu-Muslim_disorder_in_Leicester_2022

PPTX of a lecture given by Professor Gurharpal Singh for the Leicester Secular Society in Oct 2023. He's a professor of Sikh and Punjabi studies who also written about multiculturalism in Leicester before + he grew up in Leicester (I think I should able to get a link to his earlier work if you want, but the pptx give a quick summary of his previous work). Unfortunately the lecture wasn't recorded so the ppt might not give the full context of arguments, however I do think its worth incorporating some of the points into the main page (especially since I believe this is one of the first talk given about the unrest by someone who done work on Leicester + Multiculturalism before). Junkie12345 (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Introduction violates WP:NPOV?

I just came across this page and the intro section does not seem neutral at all to me. Does anyone agree with me that it should be rewritten? GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 03:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's miles beyond acceptable and clearly has a strong bias. Needs to be totally replaced to reverted to a more neutral version. MutualBear (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@MutualBear @GlobeGores

Specifically state the lines here that seems to violate Neutral point of View. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. It seems terribly one-sided, and it is staggering that the posturing seems to rely so much on US neocon and Indian sources. I note that one of the cited NCRI/Rutgers University "sources" is inevitably focused on the United States, and does not mention the UK/England in general, let along Leicester specifically. This has a massive whiff of synthesis and political bias to it. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The article should be rewritten. There is a lot of original research. There are places an original analysis is made with source cited as a primary source for the analysis. There is also a preponderance of the more dodgy sort of Indian sources. The UK based mainstream press is more disregarded and it uses think tanks including even a Hindu nationalist one: [10] Insight UK. MrMkG (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The think-tanks have done in-depth studies and produced reports. They get higher weight than the news media, which only cover day-to-day events, as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS etc. If you read the reports and find something questionable, you are welcome to raise the issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the other two major sources have some issues. The Henry Jackson Society (HJS) is considered right-wing/neoconserative and has been criticised for Islamophobia. The "Centre for Democracy Pluralism and Human Rights" in particular seems to be very problematic. It uses InisghtUK posts as references and extensively cites the HJS report. Interestingly, there is a link to a Youtube video of an interview with the HJS study author on GB News (a network criticized as right wing) where a comparison is made to the Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. The report characterizes the exodus as an ethnic cleansing, a categorization rejected by scholars but promoted by Hindu nationalists. On a broader scale, it seems to be rather biased in the human rights violations that it covers (note that it has mostly produced reports for Muslim-majority countries, except for Tibet and the US). The organization's report on US human rights is bizarre, with claims that "The coalition of Roman Catholics and European Jews has... have stitched up a majority by controlling and using Blacks, Hispanics, and Sunni Muslims as pawns who are permanently kept in a state of despair." (pg. 23), a religious discrimination section that almost exclusively discusses anti-Hindu discrimination while ignoring issues faced by members of other religions (pg. 40-47), and accusing the US of orchestrating the Yugoslav Wars against Serbia while failing to mention the Bosnian genocide (69-70), among other qualms. MSG17 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there is a report from Georgetown University's "Bridge Initiative" against Islamophobia (linked in the Scroll.in article on INSIGHT UK) further critiquing these sources (HJS 17-20, Centre for Democracy, Pluralism and Human Rights pg. 28-30). MSG17 (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@MSG17 Just being right wing and accusation of Islamophobia doesn't make any sources straightaway unreliable as per Wikipedia reliable sources guidelines.

Reading upon your further allegations about the source, it is better to start a discussion on the reliability of that source at RSN(Reliable sources noticeboard)(check if it was a subject of debate in RSN before posting) അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the HJS at least is a well established think tank in British politics, so perhaps a discussion could be had there, although I don't really see it mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia on the RSN except for discussion of it's neocon/arguably Islamophobic advocacy. On the other hand, the "Centre for Democracy, Pluralism and Human Rights" is right out. I am not sure we need a discussion about a relatively unknown source with such blatantly shoddy work, especially as it is only referenced in this article and INSIGHT UK. MSG17 (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no section called "Introduction". Do you mean the lead? As per MOS:LEAD, it summarises the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)