Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist)

Anti Muslim Extremists not Anti Muslim

The Tommy Robinson Wikipedia page has a lot of serious mis information on it. 2A02:C7C:7870:F500:B4C4:6A8C:69C6:22E4 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Such as? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

British or English

Should he be described as "British" or "English"? He has had affiliations with the British National Party and the British Freedom Party, but also with the English Defence League. The Categories predominantly use "English", as those are more specific. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

He can be both, so lets go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

So I guess that's going to be non-UK RS, as UK sources typically don't need to use either? Or are perhaps just too embarrassed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Whoever. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

NYT calls him British as does CNN. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Then so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Quite a small sample there. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

True, but its down to anyone who disagrees to find counter examples. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll see what happens. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Always best to use nationality, so British. Though, didn't I read that he had Irish background....? Emeraude (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"He says that his parents were Irish immigrants"? If we believe him, then that might open up a whole new fresh can of nationality worms? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

If he was born in the UK, he is a British citizen. I would avoid the term English because it is ambiguous. He doesn't meet the definition of English that he supports. TFD (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Completely Biased

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page is completely bias and may as well have been written by mainstream media. You clearly have not read any of his books or watched any of his documentaries. You have written nothing positive whatsoever despite the incredible investigative work he has done. You have failed to detail the times he has been unlawfully arrested, how his human rights were taken away from him and how he has been cancelled for saying many things which were later proven to be true. You have not spoken about the complete lies told about him or fabricated evidence by police. This page is proof that Wikipedia cannot be trusted! Appalling! He is not “far right” at all, he is anti Islamic extremism (as we all should be), he is NOT anti Muslim, nor is he anti immigration or anti black/asian, (in fact he is pro all of the above). Just because you don’t like his views doesn’t make him “far right”. You knew your agenda from the off and ignored everything that went against it! Shame on you. Do some real research instead of just watching the mainstream news before writing “facts” on the internet! 2A00:23C6:970C:FA01:4571:A89F:C731:176C (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as a matter of policy, arrived at through consensus very many years ago, bases its content on published reliable sources. Feel free to start your own online encyclopaedia which instead bases content on whatever 'research' some random bloke from the internet considers correct. And then see who gets the most views... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said previously, if you still think mainstream “published sources” are reliable then you are delusional. The fact this page ignored every good thing Tommy has ever done (and there is a lot of it) proves it is completely biased and lacking of any real research. They have followed the mainstream narrative to cancel him because they know he speaks the truth! He is NOT “far right” and has NEVER said anything even remotely racist or violent! 2A00:23C6:970C:FA01:4571:A89F:C731:176C (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If it "may as well have been written by mainstream media," then if fully meets Wikipedia policy of reflecting the weight in reliable sources, in this case mainstream media. TFD (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If you still believe that the mainstream media is a reliable source then you are delusional. There is more and more evidence that they have lied to us time and time again. Do some research behind what they say and it’s very clear! If that’s all Wikipedia needs then that again proves just why it isn’t reliable or accurate! You keep pushing their agenda and see what happens to the world. I hope it isn’t to late when you finally wake up. 2A00:23C6:970C:FA01:4571:A89F:C731:176C (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, then you should take your point to the policy pages. TFD (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

And I will. But it also the personal responsibility of those publishing to ensure what they put out there is correct and this page is full of lies with no real research or evidence. An “encyclopaedia” should be factual and this page is proof it is not! 2A00:23C6:970C:FA01:4571:A89F:C731:176C (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

IP 2A00, you write: "The fact this page ignored every good thing Tommy has ever done (and there is a lot of it) proves it is completely biased and lacking of any real research." I wonder could you provide a list? If these things are all supported by WP:RS sources, then they should be be added to the article. If it's a really big list, we might have to create a separate stand-alone article. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.