Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Tommy Robinson article fails to uphold Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" standard.

The Depiction of Tommy Robinson on this site is clearly biased and full of half truth and untruths. He is not far right just because this site says so. Why is he still being reported as far right ?

He clearly isn't....unfortunately I can't link the video , if you check out his speech recently in Denmark he goes through it ... seems the main article can't be edited either, a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danmacalister (talk • contribs) 11:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

For example, it seems that writers/web sites are labeled as "conspiracy theorists" simply for expressing views contrary to those of whoever controls the Wikipedia page.

This (in my opinion) hurts Wikipedia's credibility.

Tomaten (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but we cannot tell other sites what to do, and we have to go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! CambridgeshireNews is RS. Daily Mail is not. Says something about the state of Wikipedia today. (O'Sullivans først law, I guess.) Tomaten (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does, you are correct.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The state of Wikipedia today is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:540B:3B56:E9CF:F383:79E5:B114 (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

All my previous edits (other than the one on 13/11/2019) have been either removed or altered because I cited The Rebel Media or had a pro-Tommy stance such as his illegal trial at Leeds County Court about after only an hour after his live-stream on Facebook all under the name of the contempt of court act 1981. This page definitely has an anti-Tommy stance although I think that's because practically all media sources that are generally accepted as reliable media are run by a bunch of liberals who happen to hate Tommy because of his dislike of Islamism; these media outlets also probably hate the statement from the [Dalai Lama] "Europe should be for Europeans". User:wclifton968

I agree that this article is biased. Robinson does not describe himself as 'far right', and a biographical article should at least give due respect to the subject's own view of themselves. This is the case for other, less controversial subjects, so it should be the same principles applied to this person. Mekinna1 (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, but your political stance is not a matter of self-description. He can call himself whatever he wants, but whether our artilce describes him as right or alt-right or whatever is up to what reliable sources say. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact is though, that Tommy is most certainly not "far right". He has repeatedly said this. He even hates the true far right. I'd link you to the video but no doubt it's already been censpred. And you wikipedia "editors" can edit the page as many times as you like, but until you actually listen to Tommy speak, you won't know will you? Unfortunately most lefties (and I was one) are unwilling to do that. I think it's absolutely disgraceful that other people can slander this man in the way that is happening today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintessentquirk (talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Many people say many thing, Weinstein said he was not a sex pest. We go with what third party RS say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.85.17 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Ghostghostghost 000 (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No edit requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Add racist criminal to his list. He has no job he's just a angry piece of shit. That manages to rile up the other turds that jump when he barks. He's no better than the pigs in blankets he condemned and he's an ant being burned in comparison to normal humans that evolved their brains to be capable of opening dialogue and finding common ground. If we were on the Neolithic era he would be one of the last neanderthals getting his head caved in. Funny as I hope that actually happens to him this year. 82.24.25.47 (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Isn’t far right

Here is a link to the bbc one of the main stream media Saying he isn’t far right https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-47926338/gerard-batten-tommy-robinson-not-far-right Keyesie (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Keyesie: The BBC isn't saying Tommy Robinson isn't far right in that video... it's the UKIP leader Gerard Batten (not a reliable source and UKIP have been labelled far right themselves) saying it. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

But you saying he is far right? But there a video on YouTube were I can’t link due wiki, with him and a Muslim holding hands Keyesie (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Keyesie: The reliable sources cited in the article say he is far right. Holding hands with a Muslim person doesn't determine whether or not someone is far right. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, I was looking at articles saying he isn’t far right and you have read articles he is. So word against words at this stage Keyesie (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Keyesie: Where are these reliable sources that say he isn't far right? You haven't presented any. You've only presented a video of Gerard Batten (not a reliable source). Bennv3771 (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

What sourced have your You saying the times said he is which isn’t a reliable source? Keyesie (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Keyesie: There are 7 sources cited in the very first sentence of the article. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

7 sources in are the article are unreliable sources Keyesie (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Keyesie: How so? Wikipedia considers them to be generally reliable sources. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

But anyone could like on the then source suit themselves and their readers, I advise looking at videos of him, not trust A non reliable news source Keyesie (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Keyesie: How are those sources "non reliable"? They are mainstream news media without no connections to Tommy Robinson (i.e. no conflict of interest). Wikipedia accepts them as generally reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, which means that watching a video of Tommy Robinson holding hands with a Muslim person and concluding on your own that this makes him not far right doesn't count as a reliable source. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Watch videos of him on Denmark free press YouTube Chanel Keyesie (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That is still wp:or. Moreover just because he likes Muslims who know their place does not mean he is not Far Right.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"Tommy Robinson is not far right" is one of the recurring themes of this talk page. As I said over at User talk:Keyesie, the opening sentence gives numerous sources for this, including Reuters, The Times and Newsweek. It isn't enough to say that multiple reliable sources are wrong, inaccurate etc because this runs into problems with WP:NOTTRUTH.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Source for denying racism and anti-semitism doesn't back the statement

In fact I think it may be useless for anything.[1] Doug Weller talk 14:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

I really don't have this much energy, forget it. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edits, due to my edits being reverted by Beyond_My_Ken.

• Remove | residence = Luton from the infobox as it is an unused param
• Remove I got an apprenticeship 600 people applied for, and they took four people on from the page. I discussed this at User_talk:Slatersteven#Tommy_Robinson_(activist) after they also reverted my edit - the result was that they "No strong view either way".
• Move a paragraph about the subject leaving the EDL to a new line
• Remove He said, "I regain my freedom of speech on the 22 July 2015". The article already states Robinson told the audience he was not allowed to talk about certain issues because he was out on prison licence, in my view there's no need to reiterate.

May I ask anyone contesting these the above edits to do so here and explain why?

Thank you! -OXYLYPSE (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"Residence" is still listed at "Template:infobox criminal" as a parameter, and is still in the code. Why it's not showing up I don't know, but we should leave it there until they fix that problem. I see no justification for removing the two quotes, which does not improve the article. Re: Slatersteven, a private discussion on another user's talk page is not controlling here, especially considering that Slatersteven didn't exactly give you agreement, more like an "I don't care"; get consensus on this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, thank you for your input. May I just point out that WP:DONTREVERT states that for a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit(s) must actually make the article worse. I assume you view all of my edits to this article to be damaging?

* Infobox: I may be wrong. I've mentioned this on the talk page so we'll see where that goes.

* Quotes: I feel the article flows better without the quotes. I feel the article should summarise whatever happened, not quote it word for word. I'll wait for others to weigh in.

* Newline: Again, I feel the article flows better with a line break here. You didn't mention this in your reply?

* Slatersteven: Nobody is "controlling" this article. Nobody owns this article. I simply dropped him a message as he reverted my edits. Again, Slatersteven stated he had no strong view either way, which I view as accepting the edits as not being damaging to the article. But I'm happy to keep discussions on the talk page now.

Thanks for your time. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Do not revert is an essay, we do not have to obey it or event take it into consideration.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It'd be nice to though, right? -OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

No, as an edit may not make an article worse, it may still harm it. Indeed that does "must actually make the article worse" even mean? Does "Tommy has a enormous and sexy knob" make the article worse? What about "Tommy once blew up a cuts bum"? It is too open to massively subjective interpretation. One mans "useful edit" is another mans "worthless tripe".Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven I'm not sure whether a reasonable person would believe those edits were made in good faith, or that they were appropriate for an encyclopedia. Clearly you're not open to discuss this. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"made in good faith" and "not making the article worse" are not synonymous. A user might well think whilst made in good faith not allowing Harris to have his say makes the article unrepresentative of his stated views (for example). As I said I have no issue with adding them or excluding them, but I do take issue with using dodgy reasons for not having your edits undone (especially, as by inference, removing something is also undoing others work, so why does including this "actually make the article worse"?).Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes (by the way) Ken is right about my views. I do not (personally) consider this an issue, I suspected others might so felt you should have taken it here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, and at no point did you mention this. Reverting on the behalf of others seems very pointless. Either way, we're here now. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I was saying he was right in his assumption.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename this wikipedia article

As stated on the first line of this article, his name is actually Stephen Christopher Yaxley-lennon. His use of Tommy Robinson is a political tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isevery (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

except his name may also be Harris, thus we go with the one is is most commonly known by.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I've always thought "EDL Hooligan Yob" had a certain ring to it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I agree, that would not be sourceable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

We use the name he is normally known by, per guidelines. The reasoning is that readers are more likely to type that in. TFD (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It's down to WP:COMMONNAME again. And his real/legal name is far from clear, as the talk page archive shows.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Convictions

Is a long list of Convictions needed in the infobox? It looks like an attempt to push an agenda, they should at least be in a Collapsible List. --Tyrroi (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. An agenda of facts, perhaps. But there may be examples in the articles for other criminals. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Previously discussed here. As I've said before, there is a risk of tendentious editing by dragging up all of the convictions and putting them in the infobox which is supposed to be a summary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

They don't belong there. Robinson is known for his political activism rather than his criminal career. It is tendentious: Robinson has a criminal record therefore he's wrong on immigration. Historically the right-wing has used this type of tactic to discredit it's opponents. There is no equivalent information in the info-box for Nelson Mandela, Joseph Stalin or Dostoevsky, although they all served lengthy prison terms. TFD (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

There might be too much detail in the info box. But mightily surprised that anyone would choose to compare Robinson with any one of those three individuals. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The list would be shorter if he had committed fewer crimes..... Emeraude (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not an answer. Various people have raised the concern that listing all of the convictions in the infobox is tendentious. As stated previously, some of these convictions are considered to be spent under the law of England and Wales.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And RS have repeatably mentioned them, I would argue he gets as much (if not more) coverage for his crimes then he does for anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And the issue of "spent" convictions is a moot point. The Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act does not apply to Wikipedia, based in the US, but in any case the Act makes provision for repeated habitual offending (it can only be spent if no offences are committed during the relevant timescale) and gives a specific exemption for people like politicians where there is a public interest in knowing of previous lack of good character. Every one of his convictions was available to the last court that heard the case against him, and that is NOT spent. Emeraude (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

While I can think of quite a few p-words that I might use to describe Robinson, "politician" is not really one of them. But fair point. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, not sure why you are surprised that I should compare a minor figure who has a minor criminal record with major figures who have major criminal records. Policy and guidelines don't change based on the degree of someone's notability. TFD (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of Wikipedia's laudable encyclopedic democracy, thanks. I meant in general terms, as human beings. Although admittedly Uncle Joe did have his moments. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tyrroi: The long list is not needed there. — Vlakovod (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm uncertain but I think you'll find that due to the UK data protection act, that you can't publicly post Stephen's criminal record without his consent. HardeeHar (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a new one. I wonder do you have a link to the relevant legislation? I don't think I'd be the best person to ask him. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I am certain - you won't find this. It's nonsense. First of all, Wikipedia is based in the US so the UK's Data Protection Act does not apply. But, in any case, convictions are a matter of public record. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act deems some convictions to have been "spent" after a specified period of time, depending on the sentence and the actual offence. This means that spent convictions, in effect, no longer exist for most purposes, but they do remain on the subject's criminal record. It is not allowed to mention spent convictions, subject to possible charges of defmation, though any publication made before the spending remains OK. Section 8 of the Act ("Defamation proceedings") provides a defence against an action for defamation "of justification or fair comment", which adequately covers this. Emeraude (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

An editor complained that Robinson could not be compared with Mandela, Stalin or Dostoevski. But there are lots of celebrities who have had brushes with the law resulting in imprisonment: Martha Stewart, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Robert Downey, Jr., Mark Wahlberg, Mike Tyson, Sean Penn and I could go on. But it is not mentioned in their info-boxes.

If you don't want to compare Robinson to them, what about other far right activists who have been jailed: Adolph Hitler, Eugène Terre'Blanche, Ernst Zündel, David Duke, Lyndon LaRouche. Their criminal records are not mentioned in their info-boxes either, although they were more serious.

TFD (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

For me the issue is that almost all coverage of him mentions (or is about) his criminal activities. Hell a sizeable chunk of our article is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Who or what counts as coverage? Surely it depends on what news channels you decide to follow? The BBC probably doesn't talk about him much except for when he is convicted of something, Breitbart however may report on anything he says. Tyrroi (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Its easy, wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. While his convictions should be mentioned, them being in the infobox strikes me as slightly WP:UNDUE. — Czello 15:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the editor who opened this thread should just remove the information with an edit summary saying: "Removed list of convictions from Info Box after little objection on the Talk Page..." Do we need to have a formal WP:RfC here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

As was also stated in the edit summery "all convictions are still mentioned further down in the article" so I don't think it is really that big of a deal, but I will leave it for more experienced editors to discuss. Tyrroi (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is the only fair and easiest! way forward. Edmund Patrick – confer 15:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Althought I do not see it as a big deal keeping the convictions in the infobox, I think it is best to remove them from the infobox otherwise we risk having a very big infobox if he happens to get any more convictions in the future. Furthermore it is not essential information to have in an infobox of a person. And yes to all new editors, please wait until clear agreement has been reached as we don't want an edit war :D All the best, J. --James Richards (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a Rfc so i'll leave it too more experienced editors, I don't quite understand why we have to go to such lengths to remove something that wasn't added with any consensus in the first place, surely something should have to be added with consensus rather than removed with unanimity, but i'll leave it to others to decide. Tyrroi (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You can't possibly say it "wasn't added with any consensus" when it has been here for at least 18 months! Emeraude (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The Convictions were added by a single user (Zazpot, a user with an obvious progressive bias) in February of 2019, as far as I can tell there was no discussion about it being added, unless no one taking issue with it at the time is seen as consensus in and of itself? Tyrroi (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Be careful: accusing an editor of "obvious progressive bias" is rather naughty. And you may well be right: "no one taking issue with it at the time [or for 18 months after] is seen as consensus". Emeraude (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with some of the concerns expressed by other editors about the long list of convictions in the info box. Clearly, Robinson isn't an angel and has been guilty of a number of unpleasant crimes. But any personal feelings about him should be put to one side and the article edited in a neutral way, as per WP:BLP. Are there any other political activists who have an info box on Wikipedia like this, with a list of convictions, or is Robinson unique in this respect? Away from politics, some well-known British people who have various criminal convictions and have served time in prison, such as the late George Michael or the living Boy George – convicted of falsely reporting a burglary and a couple of years later of assault and false imprisonment – don't have their criminal convictions in the info box. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Rfc regarding list of criminal convictions in infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus against including a full list of convictions in the infobox. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the info box contain a list of Robinsons criminal history. Multiple discussions have been had regarding this, here, and multiple revisions have been attempted and reverted here, here and here

Against users argue that highlighting a long list of convictions is contrary to the info box's purpose of being a summery and is WP:TENDENTIOUS, and WP:UNDUE and highlight that other notable figures with criminal history do not have their convictions listed and that he is more notable for his Activism than his Criminal activities.

For users argue that a significant amount of the coverage in WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS relates to Robinson's criminal convictions so it is notable enough to feature in the infobox, and his criminal history could even warrant it's own article WP:GNG. 11:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

His criminal nature needs to be there in some way, but whether it should be a list or just selected highlights I have no opinion. In another era, we would have labelled him a 'Blackshirt' but hey. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: As I've said many times, having all of the convictions in the infobox - every single one of them - is WP:TENDENTIOUS and against infobox guidelines as the infobox is a summary, not a laundry list of information. The main body of the article is the right place to point out that he has a controversial past.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Not oppose: But come on, "controversial"? Criminal! "Past"? Present! Let's not minimise this. Emeraude (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Bad idea Info boxes are a very short list of factoids, not a place to give more prominence to good or bad stuff about a person. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons above others said. Also repeating what I said above: While his convictions should be mentioned, them being in the infobox strikes me as slightly WP:UNDUE. Also agree this is WP:TENDENTIOUS. — Czello 20:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: (Summoned by bot) per ianmacm "having all of the convictions in the infobox - every single one of them - is WP:TENDENTIOUS and against infobox guidelines". However no objection in principle to briefly noting that he has a criminal record, per Roxy the dog above, how that could be achieved I don't know. Pincrete (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral, lean yes Frankly Mr Harris is almost as well know for his criminal activities as his activism (which often are inseparable anyway). His criminal background takes up half the article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Not oppose Mr Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is almost as well known, and criticially defined, by his criminal activities as his activism. Edmund Patrick – confer 12:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Further comment We could solve this issue in one simple stroke by deleting the ifnobox. There is no obligation in policy to have one, they make the page look atrocious, this one in particular, and his criminality is well covered in the article. It would be a really good improvement. Yes? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: For some of the reasons others have stated. His convictions should be mentioned in the article, but to have a long list in the infobox seems WP:UNDUE. However, I don't think the basic information of his full name and birthdate needs to be removed from the infobox. — Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose — his criminal convictions can be listed in the article, but should not be in the infobox, based on BLP principles. Called by bot. -Darouet (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: The info box should not contain the list of Robinson's criminal history. Can't see any reason for having Infobox criminal here. It does not improve quality of the article. The list is not complete. No other wiki language mutation does so. No similar cases proposed. — Vlakovod (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is now ended as there is a clear consensus and there have been no replies for over 10 days, thank you for contributing.13:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Tyrroi: Per WP:RFCCLOSE, you do not get to close an RfC that you started, and you certainly do not get to weigh the consensus. Please undo your reversion. Pinging other participants: @Roxy the dog, Ianmacm, North8000, Czello, Pincrete, Slatersteven, Edmund Patrick, and Kind Tennis Fan:.
  Also, Tyrroi, please use four tildes to sign your name (~~~~), not five, as you have been doing. (Only telling us the date is lesss than helpful.) 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:F809:745C:2A64:D2BD (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RFCCLOSE "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the template." also I used the tilde with no name as I thought that would be the most unbiased way to post it, I had good intentions. I must say Slater that you seem awfully to want to make this revision as hard as possible even though there is a clear consensus that that is it undue. But I will re-add the Rfc and allow another contributor to remove it when they decide, with your permission, to do so. Yours sincerely Tyrroi (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you link to the right page, as no such text exists where you linked to?Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way, where you did link to is where you can requests a close (and no I do not agree that a more or less 50/50 spilt is clear consensus, especially as some of the opinions are not quite as clear cut as the "vote" indicates.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me, fixed the link, meant to send it to the same page you did, first bullet point. Tyrroi (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Then read what WP:SNOW means "If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.", this is not unanimous.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect I do not think we need to wait weeks in order to get an admin to close a discussion which has clearly come to an end, if this was a larger discussion of more importance I could understand, but all this is is removing a list from the infobox, which was not added with consensus in the first place, while keeping it as part of the greater article, information is not being removed or changed, simply moved from one part of the article to the next and to be honest I think you are purposefully complicating and obfuscating this reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrroi (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Then you can ask for it to be closed where you originally linked to. But you cannot close it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

If anyone wants this closed ask an uninvolved admin.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be closed by an uninvolved person, but we are more or less at a stage where there is a consensus for removal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Slatersteven and others: while I don't think you should put his criminal convictions in the infobox, I do think you should list something like "far-right politics" there. This is common for far-right political figures and is not a BLP concern, so long as the far-right designation is well sourced. -Darouet (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Summarize - Infoboxes should contain short summaries. Instead of including details about the convictions, which are appropriate elsewhere in the article, the infobox could say "X criminal convictions between 2005 and 2017, resulting in Y years of imprisonment", or something similar.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I still feel that whilst of course his convictions should be mentioned in the article, to have a long list in the infobox seems WP:UNDUE. Whether people like or loathe Tommy Robinson is not important. Any personal views should be put to one side and the article edited in a neutral way as per WP:BLP – biographies of living persons should be written conservatively. I'm not aware of any other British political activists or UK politicians / former UK MPs who have criminal convictions listed in the infobox. For example, former Liberal Democrat MP Chris Huhne who was sentenced to eight months in prison in 2013 for perverting the course of justice and former Labour MP Eric Joyce who has multiple criminal convictions including for drink driving in 2010, assault in 2012, common assault and criminal damage in 2014, and in 2020 given a suspended prison sentence after pleading guilty to making a Category–A indecent film of a child said to be 12 months old – neither Huhne nor Joyce currently have their criminal convictions listed in their infoboxes. I don't see why Tommy Robinson should be treated differently from somebody like Eric Joyce. – Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose We don't normally list convictions unless someone's notability derives from their criminality, such as mafia bosses and serial killers. Robinson isn't known as the guy who once tried to get into the U.S. by using a fake passport or the guy who got a suspended sentence for common assault. TFD (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose For this not to be WP:UNDUE, the convictions would need to be all this person was notable for. A WP:BEFORE check demonstrates this isn't the case.Tonyinman (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As stated above by Tonyinman and others, most of his notability does not come from his convictions but his roles in politics. Furthermore I worry that if he gets more convictions in the future that we will have one very tall infobox. Instead we can simply move it under a 'Convictions' subheading in the body of the article. --James Richards (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2020 (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.

This page needs ditching and redoing. TR/SYL IS an activist...but he is not far right and Im sick of hearing it. Those who are intelligent enough to keep an open mind have seen this man be almost destroyed by the lies and libel of the press and the government for his views and popularity. I am sick of this. Id like to know who the gatekeeper is on this page... because they are certainly not unbiased. TR/SYL did the Political Compass Test a year ago. Its on his website, filmed live. He is centrist libertarian. There are real far righters in the UK like Nick Griffin and Mark Collett. Dont make the term "far-right" so loose that it means anyone who isnt far-left. Real far-righters dont deny what they are. They are proud of it. TR/SYL criticises extremism in islam. There is nothing wrong with that....Unless you are a secret terrorist or a member of a lucrative hate group who purports to be against hate...and are funded by extremists. Sort it out Wikipedia. You have a dodgy enough reputation as it is. I wont be donating until this is sorted. Im sick of the bourgeois self-righteous far-left authoritarian press dominating and so affecting our lives in the UK when most Brits are not like them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmOgy (talk • contribs) 07:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

See the talk page archive. He is described as far right because numerous reliable sources say this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Possibly non-neutrally written

The article is possibly non-neutrally written. From my point of view, and with all due respect and disrespect, a person's activism doesn't consist from only belonging to neo-nazis and committing crimes Tabdiukov (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

Hello, would you add this semi-protection template {{pp-blp}} at the top? 2001:4452:493:9400:A414:FF7F:9971:B405 (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW not moved—lack of evidence that this is the long-run primary topic (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

---

• Tommy Robinson (activist) → Tommy Robinson
• Tommy Robinson → Tommy Robinson (disambiguation)

– This title is more likely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, likely not a disambiguation page. 2001:4452:493:9400:D50F:E34:44BD:CCD (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – Too soon despite high stats, I would say. Additionally, reading the whole article, the person hasn't done anything that would make him more historically significant than any other people using similar names like Thomas Robinson (or Tom) who have had their own careers in sports, music, politics, etc. He's been receiving attention for his criminal activities and extreme beliefs and rhetorics, but that's much about it to me. George Ho (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Having no disamb marker is a big deal. This Tommy Robinson is an activist, both within and beyond mainstream politics, so the title is accurate. Moving the page would cause significant disruption to existing links without any benefit. doktorb _words^deeds 06:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Although he is probably the best known person with the name Tommy Robinson, the use of a disambig for people with similar names is standard practice on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Which is amongst high rate of views, so this would likely a common name. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Makes no sense!! I've looked at this for ten minutes to try to understand the logic of the proposal, and I think perhaps this may be a new unheard of logic system. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It does make sense, if so that is a good understanding, without using parentheses. --2001:4452:493:9400:D50F:E34:44BD:CCD (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

... and that makes no sense, either !! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a rather common name. While the subject has been in the news lately, there doesn't seem to be justification for making this the primary topic. gobonobo ^{+ c} 12:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The other people with the name are of sufficient (and in some cases comparable) notability so disambiguation as the primary target is justified. Anybody looking for this particular Tommy Robinson will be delayed by only a few seconds picking from the disambiguation options and this minor inconvenience is greatly outweighed by the benefit to readers looking for any of the others. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I changed that explanation. --2001:4452:493:9400:D50F:E34:44BD:CCD (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support. Just only a pseudonym. Not just "Thomas Robinson", but he was born as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. --2001:4452:493:9400:D50F:E34:44BD:CCD (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC) This is the nominator's vote (or double vote?). George Ho (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not sure (apart form criminal activity) he is note for anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

But it's true about his criminal activity, such as racial hatred against Muslims, and also clash between police officers (alongside with the EDL). --2001:4452:493:9400:D50F:E34:44BD:CCD (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Please explain further why those elements make this activist more significant than anyone else of the same (or similar) name. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean about WP:NPOVTITLE? --2001:4452:493:9400:D50F:E34:44BD:CCD (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson is a pseudonym of Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. He is a British far-right and anti-Islam activist, but the name "Tommy Robinson" are the most popular among right-wing extremists, especially for football hooligans. Within association with Britain First, they opposed against the Black Lives Matter movement. --2001:4452:493:9400:D50F:E34:44BD:CCD (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

A pseudonym doesn't make him more significant. Neither do his beliefs, especially against the movement. Neither does being the most popular amongst those extremists to this date. Furthermore, he's not in the same league as Oswald Mosley out of all Mosley baronets using the same name. Moreover, I've not seen him win an election to this date. Do you think those reactions are, if not recentism, more like first-run reaction (or reactions to current events)? George Ho (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I can sure that reason why this name is changed, but his birth name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, according to his birth certificate. Later, his name changed to Tommy Robinson from a deed poll. --2001:4452:493:9400:D50F:E34:44BD:CCD (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

NO his birth name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley, his passport says Paul Harris. So in fact his "real" name is a matter of confusion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Because hew only get publicity for political activism or crime. These are what he is known for.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2020 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

please remove "far-right" please change "anti-Islam" to "against Islam as an ideology" 81.170.113.68 (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The citations support the current labels. — Czello 12:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Change "far-right" and "anti-Islam"

Tommy Robinson should not be labeled as "far-right" in this article, no part of his campaign is fascist or far-right in any way. Additionally, calling hm anti-Islam is true to a certain extent, however if you hover over "anti-Islam" it talks about a dislike of Muslims in general which is not true to Robinson's beliefs: he's stated in interviews that he is against Islam as an ideaology, not against its believers, "I make a differentiation between Muslims and Islam" he says in a Good Morning Britain interview. Wether you agree with him or not is irrelevant: he is not far-right or a xenophobe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.113.68 (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done We have to follow what reliable sources say. We can note how he describes himself but we are not required to credulously give it parity of esteem with what the sources say about him. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

"HM Prison Onley in Warwickshire" is wrong HM Prison Onley is in Northamptonshire. 86.142.126.221 (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done From the gov.uk website, "Onley Prison is a men’s prison in Rugby, Warwickshire." Emeraude (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Though it seems in this case Wikipedia is the reliable source! Emeraude (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

We may have discussed this before. But I am going to restore to Warwickshire as the government says it is. What we may have is a location for post that does not match its geographic location, but I am not sure which we go with.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I have raised this at wp:rsn as we seem to have some confusion among sources.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking on Google Maps, it does seem to be over the border in Northamptonshire. Emeraude (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Known for political violence

I don't dispute that the EDL is a violent group but according to this article, Robinson's violent convictions were for violence against the police in a domestic setting, and for football hooliganism. Wouldn't it be more inline with the sources to say he is known for "violence" in general or for "crime", as the latter would highlight his contempt of court as well? Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would say yes, he is known far more for his criminal endeavors (of one kind or another) than for anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2021

Tommy Robinson is quoted in this publication as Anti Muslim. He has declared and there's publicly available video and audio evidence of him stating he is Anti Muslim Extremists. 2A02:C7D:8A53:AB00:1C8C:D5AB:B3D4:819C (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. Please provide the sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Also please read wp:rs and wp:sps.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Content fork?

See 9 June 2018 'free Tommy Robinson' protests. As I have stated on the talk page there, I think this may be an unnecessary content fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

AfD discussion for a related article

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9 June 2018 'free Tommy Robinson' protests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Odd category

The category "British Zionists" seems to be a joke.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:4e9f:d101:1987:6ad6:796e:f7e2 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:POVCAT seems to be a problem here, so I've removed it. Categories should be supported by text and citations in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

'Activist' is disengenous

The content of this page proves that he is just another bigot not an activist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The content of this page proves that Wikipedia is a captive, far-left mouthpiece with a NegPOV for non-left discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sadly there is a left wing bias on wikipedia. I wouldn't go as far as saying far-left wing bias, though. Masterhatch (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's two far from neutral comments, neither of them left wing. Emeraude (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Odd, how this is about not calling him a bigot. I would have thought (if we were all left-wing let alone far left) we would support calling him a bigot.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "Criminal" might be more accurate given his well documented history with the law Michaelcoyote (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I did suggest that in the thread "What should the page be called?" below. User:AndyTheGrump makes an interesting response. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree Wikipedia is infested with Wokes with an agenda. Tommy Robinson is a anti-islam and anti-moslem activist for sure, but I argue he is not right wing at all. The article needs urgent correction to move it form a WokePOV to a neutral one.

BuckleFace (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

What you argue is of no relevance to Wikipedia. What reliable sources say is. Emeraude (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources in the introduction then? 401 words and only one source in the first sentence. 86.23.218.87 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources in the body text, not needed in Lead, per policy. - Roxy the dog 20:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Libel victim

Yesterday I removed the name of the victim in the recent libel trail - a minor at the time of the incident, and not a person notable in our meaning. Their name has been restored with the edit summary "Name is a matter of public record (and cannot be removed from a direct quote anyway".

Being a "matter of public record" does not trump our BLP policies. Neither does being "from a direct quote", and we trim direct quotes all the time.

There is no need to name the victim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I half Agree.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Can sub judice still apply if Robinson has leave to appeal (which itself seems vanishingly unlikely)? Yes, he was a minor at the time, but thanks to the world's press, it's not like he's now being outed or compromised in any way, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. his name also appears in the headlines of two of the sources.

Still unsure we really gain anything from these, other than playing Harries's game.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding the name reduces the quality of the article, at least in the way it is done. Describing the victim is more useful, especially in the lede. For example (taking a deliberately neutral example) writing "X assaulted Y" is less informative than "X assaulted an opposition MP". Personally I think adding the victim name will, over time, become increasingly less useful as their name will not transmit the meaning of the text as the individual is not notable. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Right the important thing is at the time he was a minor, not who he was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair comment. He's not notable and is unlikely to become so. If he ever did, that could be easily be dealt with. Yes, he was just a schoolboy. It's a shame he will probably never see a penny of the damages? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Naming the libelled individual serves no great purpose to someone wishing to learn about Robinson. And see WP:BLPNAME: "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories". Robinson libelled a minor, was taken to court, and had to pay damages. That is what is significant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at the sourcing is going to see the name, but I still think that WP:BLPNAME applies here. It doesn't greatly add to the article to name the person involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. In cases like this, the BLP principles should be enacted very carefully. Is the victim notable in their own right? If not, leave their name out of the article. We can always direct people to sources. doktorb _words^deeds 16:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm - in my view it's finely balanced, but I would err on the side of including the name. Generally I would that respecting the privacy of someone who's come into the public eye only as a victim of crime (or in this case, both crime and defamation) is an important principle. But given the extensive media coverage, and that the fact that we have a whole article on the incident itself at Almondbury Community School bullying incident, and also that the victim seems happy to use his experience as part of a fight against racism that goes beyond the courtroom (e.g. this), I'd suggest including the name in the article (albeit not the lead section) is sensible. The Land (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

A further thought. To be honest I think that Jamal Hijazi would probably marginally meet the criteria of [[W{:BLP1E]], as the 'one event' he's been involved with has amassed very substantial coverage over a period of 3 years; is his role 'substantial' in a 'significant' event? Probably yes. So to my mind he certainly meets the lower threshold for being named in this article. WP:BLPNAME is of course written to cover a broad range of situations, but to my mind it's mainly a caution against leaping to including names of victims based on a few media mentions; this case by contrast has been covered by every serious news organisation in the UK, who have largely been covering the events leading to it for 3 years. There might be few or no non-media sources naming him, but we have to bear in mind the breadth and volume of the media coverage as well. The Land (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It was me who restored the boy's name. It is well-known, it appears in the title of the case, and is used by the judge countless times^* (well, they could be counted, but a lot) in his published judgment and has also been used in the newspaper reports of the case. But my main reason for reverting was that to replace his name repeatedly with "the refugee" was absolutely disgusting. Why not "the immigrant" or "the Syrian" or "the Muslim" or "the coloured kid"? Speaks volumes really. He is a real person, an individual, not someone to be summarily referred to solely by his status, and full marks to him for taking on Robinson and winning. As it happens, as it now stands after Martinevans123's edits I think it's about right. Emeraude (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with "the boy". But I certainly wouldn't suggest "the coloured kid". And I'd be very wary indeed of using "the immigrant", "the Syrian" or "the Muslim." I wouldn't object to use of his name once, in the relevant section. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "the boy" and I was definitely not suggesting any of the options that I put forward as being equally objectionable as "the refugee". However, "the boy" does appear rather a lot; how about changing some to "the claimant" as the judge does or "the victim"? Also worth noting is that the judge did not make an anonymity order (he could have), though he did for three of the witnessses, and he referred to "the former teacher" throughout rather than use a name. Emeraude (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

^*It's actually 87 times! Emeraude (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No objection to some variety, whether it's "elegant" or not. But that's a rather vital point you make about the judge's decision, which kind of suggests the name could be properly used here. I simply tried to "clear the decks" both here and at Almondbury Community School bullying incident (which may present more of a challenge?) Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You've made a good job of it too. Well done.Emeraude (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Muslim Grooming gang exposer

Helps to uncover the problems involving underage sexual abuse by predominantly Pakistani Muslim men in Telford and other areas of the UK. All incidents covered up by the police and local authorities. 2A02:C7E:3F04:6C00:1183:4B9E:1691:BD95 (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure he was the first to break the story, do you have a source for this? Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding information about Robinson's foreign funding

Edits by me were deleted 26 April 2021 by Doktorbuk with the summary "(Reverted 2 pending edits by Louis P. Boog to revision 1019903587 by RandomCanadian: A lot has been removed that needs discussion etc)".
I'm now back for discussion.

(Much of what I added is based on the article in a US newspaper the New York Times: Bradley, Jane; Schwirtz, Michael (23 April 2021). "U.K. Far Right, Lifted by Trump, Now Turns to Russia". New York Times. Vol. 170, no. 59038. pp. A1, A10. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 24 April 2021. )

Some of what was deleted:
The Middle East Forum also "helped to shape" Robinson's "message, seeking to steer him away from Brexit", and attempted to get him a visa to the U.S. for a speaking tour, according to "internal communications and interviews". By 2019, the group was reported to have become "impatient" with Robinson, emailing an associate, “Could you gently caution him that our continued support requires him to stay away from the nasties?”

[....]
In March 2021, Robinson declared bankruptcy as the libel trial against him by Jamal Hijazi's family (for accusing Jamal of violently attacking “young English girls”) began. Officials were reported to be "hunting for assets he may hold", while Robinson is known to drive "expensive cars", has been "pictured wearing clothes and watches worth thousands of pounds and had cosmetic dentistry" and wrote "I always wanted nice things,” in his 2015 autobiography, he has more recently been "cultivating" the image of being in danger of going penniless.

According to the New York Times, "none of the 10 companies linked" to Robinson in Britain "have ever filed financial statements, despite legal requirements. Only two remain active and Mr. Robinson used his wife’s name, or aliases, to run many of them."

He has been accused trying to frustrate this search for his assets by hiding his money in Russia. Andrew Edge, a former "top official in Britain First and the English Defence League", has claimed that this was the reason for his 2020 media tour of Russia. According to Edge, Robinson met with him and Paul Golding, "for a dinner in which they discussed how to move money to Russia" and also "paid £300 to a local accountant in Dartford, near London, who advised him on how to move assets offshore". “'He’s really worried about the Syrian boy getting his money,'” according to Edge. Robinson has denied "opening or discussing opening any bank accounts in Russia, or holding assets outside Britain", and also dismissed accusations against him as based on “'has-been rejects of the patriot force'”.

Any complaints about the additions?

--Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Court

He is in Westminster Magistrates on 13/10. https://www.courtserve.net/courtlists/viewcourtlist2014.php?courtlist=mgwestm_P211013.00.htm&type=maglists --Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

One has to register to use that service? I guess it will probably be reported openly in the press tomorrow anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes you have to register. I was putting it here as a heads up rather than for inclusion in the article.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What's he up for this time? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know what it's about? Otherwise we will just have to wait and see.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

No idea I was looking up Claudia Webbe and just found it. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBfvgIyXMAQrWpX?format=png&name=900x900--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You'll find it relates to an interim order before a full application for a stalking protection order after Robinson hired a private investigator to get an Independent journalist's personal details. The interim order expires tomorrow, when the stalking protection order may be finalised. Emeraude (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021

You need to check the facts! There is info on here that is wrong. 78.79.230.6 (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

How is that an edit request? If there is something wrong, tell us exactly what, and provide a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done You'd need to say what that info was. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes review

Slatersteven and Emeraude I see you reverted a pending change that I approved. Now I understand why. Pending changes review displayed Emeraude's edit as the addition of anti-Islamist with an edit explanation of adding date of birth. That looked suspicious to me. I did not know anything about the subject of the BLP but upon closer review, understand better now. FeralOink (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Death penalty

To a reader unfamiliar with the law of England and Wales (and we should never assume that our readers have such familiarity), Robinson's claim "I feel like I'm two days away from being sentenced to death in the U.K." could easily give the impression that such a penalty would be available to the judge. I have added a note that the UK does not have the death penalty, but it has been removed, most recently with the remarkably incorrect assertion that it is "off topic". If my choice of wording is not thought suitable, we should find some other suitable way of informing our readers on this point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure such Hyberbole is needed here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec) There is no hyperbole (other than Robinson's, as quoted) . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear, I mean it was his. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec)Totally unnecessary editorialising. It is absolutely clear from the quote that this is pure hyperbole from Robinson, though I'm not sure it merits inclusion. Why are we even providing a platform for such ludicrous claims? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Just remove it. DanielRigal (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of "Robinson", it's just hyperbole. Trimming it (and Andy's clarification) would be an improvement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Robinson may have been worried that he would be attacked or even killed while he was in prison, but the context does not mean that he was going to receive the death penalty.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Activist and leader of a street protest movement

You should remove the "among other things" phrase from the concluding sentence of the introductory paragraph. It appears you don't have the information to follow through with this line of description. Also, you should remove the description of Islamophobic (nobody 'fears' Islam, certainly not Robinson) and any references to the 'far right' out of respect for those do not share the views of the current UK government.

Also, you've neglected to mention Robinson's role as the leader of a street protest movement who has been instrumental in exposing the activities of the UK's grooming gangs. He has been quoted that it was his intention "to put pressure on the Muslim community and the government" to denounce on the actions of the "radicals". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lm8HyQfml8

Tommy Robinson's efforts have enabled the likes of Charlie Peters a platform to speak out on an issue that would have otherwise been silenced by the UK media. Please add these points as the biography at present is being used as a vehicle to demonise a legitimate activist who has provided a voice for the victims of grooming gangs in the UK. The Quiet Resistance (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Books written by Robinson

This article presently does not mention the books written by Tommy Robinson. सोनू (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

By all means, provide an RS discussing his works. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Reviews are sparse, and generally dismissive. I'm not sure there's much that could be said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a line or two "He has wroten a number of books (such as X and Y), which have recived negative reviews"? Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

We'd need a source stating that the reviews were negative, and frankly, given the lack of interest his books seem to have attracted, you'd probably have difficulty finding one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hence why I asked the OP for a source. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This guy can actually write? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not login regularly here. Here are the details of his books:

1. Silenced, ISBN 9781800687523.

2. Enemy of the State, ISBN 9780957096493.

3. He is also the co-author of a book titled Mohammed's Koran, along with Peter McLoughlin. ISBN 9780995584907. सोनू (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't need details of his books. What we need is citations of appropriate reliable sources discussing them: reviews, details of numbers sold, or other material suggesting that the books have been the subject of significant discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Most biographical articles provide a list of publications, whether or not the person has written them entirely themselves? But I agree citations of discussion, sales, etc., would be preferable. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is a news article:

Amazon bans book on the Koran co-authored by Tommy Robinson... सोनू (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DAILYMAIL - we rarely cite the Daily Mail, and I'd have to suggest that this article is as good as an example why as one could find. Commercial publishers don't 'ban' books - they have no legislative power, and accordingly aren't in any position to do so. Instead, they exercise choice over which products they sell, like any other business. A bullshit headline for a clickbait article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Rarely? Thanks in no small part to the erstwhile User:Hillbillyholiday, the Daily Mail is completely banned as per WP:DAILYMAIL? 22:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I live in India. Did not know much about DailyMail. But there are other newspapers too, which reported about this matter:

<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/amazon-ban-tommy-robinson-website-koran-a8812111.html>

<https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/amazon-bans-sale-of-tommy-robinson-book-one-day-after-he-was-removed-from-facebook_uk_5c768407e4b08c4f5555f501>

<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/24/amazon-refuses-to-end-sales-of-tommy-robinson-merchandise> सोनू (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Great. Now we can fully source the statement, "Robinson has written several books, all of which have been banned from sale on Amazon". Old Waxy-Lemon would love that. ——Serial 18:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The third source contradicts the first. And none of them amount to in-depth coverage of the books themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it says that Amazon removed one of Robinson’s books, Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill For Islam, from sale. But his autobiography remained on the site, along with books about Robinson, including one entitled Tommy Robinson and the Coming Civil War. It was also selling all sorts of other TR merchandise. But that was back in 2019. Not sure what the situation is now. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no contradiction among the three links I have quoted. Dear AndyTheGrump, you shoud read them again. Only the book about Qur'an has been banned. सोनू (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

He's not notable as an author. He's notable as a far-right anti-islam activist. TarnishedPath^talk 07:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Writing is a way of emanating one's thoughts. If his so-called "activism" is notable, then how could you set aside his books on the very subject of his activism? सोनू (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you any evidence that his writing is notable? Multiple critical reviews that can be referenced? TarnishedPath^talk 08:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I have only assumed that his "activism" his notable. सोनू (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that it necessarily follows that everything else he does is notable and worthy of inclusion in a encyclopedia. TarnishedPath^talk 09:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

But his writing is essentially his activism. Please be coherent. सोनू (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases article content on what published reliable sources have to say on a subject. Which, as far as Robinson's books go, is next to nothing. Your personal opinion on how 'essential' his writing is is of no relevance here, since it is clearly contrary to such sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, OK. If there is no consensus towards the notability of Robinson's book, I should not insist. But please explain how the news report of the Independent which I quoted above contradicts with the news report of the Guardian quoted with it. सोनू (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue here maybe wp:undue, not wp:n. Is this a significant part of who he is? Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What should the page be called?

Hi all

I thought it would be helpful to have a discussion about the name of this page, I personally don't think that 'activist' is a particularly accurate summary of the things he is known and notable for, or the main topics of the article, the main body of the article doesn't describe him as an activist, only 'activities'. What do others think? To help here is a list of the currect level 1 headings of the article, almost half of the body of the article by words covers his criminal convictions (contempt of court, assault, public order offence, false passport, fraud and stalking).

• Name
• Early life
• English Defence League
• Later activities
• Political activities
• Financial support
• Contempt proceedings
• Other criminal convictions
• Personal life

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"Tommy Robinson (criminal)" sounds about right. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with Mr Harris (as demonstated by the name issue) is he has constantly reinvented himself. From football Hoologan to political thugery to far right martyr. But (as with the above) it seems to be he is more famous for his crimes than for his "activism".Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Robinson meets Wikipedia notability criteria because his 'activism' (which sometimes involve criminality) attracts media attention. If he was an 'ordinary' criminal, he wouldn't get the media coverage and wouldn't merit an article. Furthermore, sources tend to describe him as an 'activist' of one form or another ('EDL leader' etc). Biography names should be based around sources, rather than our own personal opinions as to the merits of the individual concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my 'polite' suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

He is also called a far right or anti Islam activist, so why is that not the title Tommy Robinson (far right activist)?Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "far-right activist" is better than just "activist". —AFreshStart (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think 'anti-Islam activist' or' far right anti-Islam activist' is more accurate and specific than just 'far-right' it is also a common description in the sources. John Cummings (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The only reason for the bracketed term is to disambiguate this Tommy Robinson from other people of the same name. It isn't the purpose of the term to give a fair or accurate summary of what he is most known for. The term "(activist)" disambiguates him from, say, "Tommy Robinson (hooligan)", and I don't see any need to change it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson has five people listed, one of whom has no direct article. Is this one the primary use case? If he is, he should be moved to plain Tommy Robinson? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Martinevans123 thanks, that's a nice simple solution. John Cummings (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This long term analysis of page views suggests that Tommy Robinson (activist) should probably be the primary topic https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2022-01-31&pages=Tommy_Robinson_(activist)%7CTommy_Robinson_(footballer)%7CTommy_Robinson%7CTommy_F._Robinson%7CTommy_Robinson_(hooligan), while a recent analysis shows disambiguation page use peaking at the same time as activity on the Tommy Robinson (activist) article (suggesting that some users are having to negotiate the disambiguation page to get to the article they require) https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2022-01-15&end=2022-01-25&pages=Tommy_Robinson_(activist)%7CTommy_Robinson memphisto

Since Robinson's notability stems from his activism, that is how he should be described. If he steals the Crown Jewels or turns out to be the real Jack the Ripper, then that notability would supersede his notability as an activist. But his crimes (such as attempting to enter the U.S. with a false passport), would not have front page news if he were not already notable. The typical reader coming to this page would be interested in him as an activist. He's more likely to be written up in books about the far right in the UK than books about British criminals. In fact he is one of the most significant far right leaders, but ranks as a petty criminal. TFD (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you may be right. It's unfortunate that the term "activist" often has such positive connotations. How about Tommy Robinson (far right racist bigot)? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

What about Tommy Robinson (far right activist)? TFD (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be called Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon ( aka Tom Robinson) 2.42.157.53 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Question: what do sources actually call him and how can we survey them well? Just looking at the source headings and it appears by far the most common is 'former EDL leader' followed by far right activist and Anti Islam activist (which I perceive as a more specific version of far right activist). Thanks John Cummings (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Descriptions of Robinson across the titles of all references

Hi all

I've been through the titles of the article references and searched for the most common ways he is described, here is what I've found, over half of the descriptions are about his crimes. The popular choice 'far right activist' was the second least common description, just in front of 'activist' (Fox News only).

• 72 refer to him as a criminal or talk about his crimes e.g convicted (11) / sentenced (2) / prison (15) /fraud (6) / assault (9) / stalking (9) / passport (4) / contempt (16)
• 37 refer to him as former EDL Leader / EDL founder / EDL chief (thanks Andy for spotting the extra ones)
• 24 refer to him as an anti Islam activist or where he makes claims about Muslims/Islam taking over etc
• 8 refer to him as a far right activist
• 1 which calls him an activist without far right or anti muslim etc in front (Fox News)

Martinevans123, Slatersteven, AFreshStart just pinging you here as you've taken part in the discussion previously

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I also count 15 occurrences of 'EDL founder' along with 2 of 'EDL chief'. Perhaps more to the point though, there seem to be quite a few sources that just name him in the title cited, without giving a description. You can't really assess this properly without taking into consideration what the source body says too: see e.g. the Guardian [2], the BBC, [3] the Daily Telegraph, [4] the Independent, [5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi AndyTheGrump, thanks very much, I've added these to the tally. Agreed it would be better to read all 210 references to find the full descriptions but I'm certainly not going to spend the hours needed. I guess the thing that this survey of headlines points out to me is the almost complete lack of calling him the current title, an activist, and how little he is called a 'far right activist' compared to most commonly a 'criminal' (or a variation), 'former EDL leader' or 'anti Islam activist'. I understand why people have said 'far right activist' (if some asked me without looking at sources I'd say something similar) but from this initial survey of source titles that is not a common description of him in the sources used. John Cummings (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I guess "criminal" seems the best, given the sources. I'm not too fussed either way, but I agree that "activist" is too vague. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

agree, "activist" certainly doesn't seem to be the most helpful in terms of disambiguation, and looking at the sources. Lirazelf (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

One option we do have is to use more than one descriptor e.g 'former EDL leader and criminal', 'anti Islam activist and criminal', 'former EDL leader and anti-Islam activist' etc. Although I do feel quite uneasy with the idea of describing his invention and promotion of Islamophobic conspiracy theories as activism, as if Wikipedia is legitimising what he does by refering to it as activism. I think that's more of a criticism of his description in the British press though.... John Cummings (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Although he is often referred to as a Criminal, most of that well known Criminality is in relation to his Activism, for example his prosecution for filming ongoing court proceedings. I think Activist is fine and anything more is verging on bias. I don't think labels such as Far Right should be used because they are very open to interpretation. Tyrroi (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

What about "far-right activist?" A number of reliable sources have described him that way, including The Guardian , the New York Times, al Jazeera and CNN[6] TFD (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Leftistman: be my guest and make your case for your proposed changes to the lead. For my part I'll point to John's review above, which shows that criminal is the most common descriptor for the guy. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation John, but recent discussion here suggests that I should refrain from offering my suggestions for the most fitting description. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Biased?

Why is this section "On 22 July 2021, Robinson was found to have libelled a 15-year-old refugee at a school in Huddersfield and was ordered to pay £100,000 plus legal costs, although Robinson had filed for bankruptcy in March 2021. In October 2021, he was made subject to a five-year stalking order for harassing the journalist Lizzie Dearden and her partner." in the lead? Pegasussy (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Because reported in reliable sources, and of significance as a continuation of the legal troubles that make him the subject of the ongoing media coverage that justifies having an article on him in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

e/c Possibly because they were major new stories that involved serious criminal charges? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not important enough to be in the lead though. It should be further down the page. Pegasussy (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The material in question is covered in depth further down the page. The lede summarises article content. That is what a lede is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about his best-selling books, which have sold millions ? Pegasussy (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It's just profoundly biased and definitely written by left wing people Pegasussy (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

That is discussed in the thread above this one. Basically, nobody has bothered to review them. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If we had a source stating that 'millions' of Robinson's books had been sold, we could include it. Since we don't we won't. Wikipedia is biased against unverified claims - not sure if that counts as 'left wing'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Because he's not notable as an author. If you hadn't written that he's sold books, I wouldn't have known. His notability is derived from his far-right, anti-Islam activism. TarnishedPath^talk 05:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Becasue his criminality is a significant part of our article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to note: the OP has been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. and as a sockpuppet of BritishSpaniard. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:DNFTT, etc
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"best selling books, which have sold millions"?? hahahahahaha. He's an illiterate thug. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Mr Evans is clearly a very biased wokie and has a strong opinion of Tommy. He is not a "illiterate thug", he has 3 books which have sold millions and been best sellers. This is fact. You should be banned from this topic for not having a neutral point of view. Pegasussy (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Ban away. He's a hate-mongering pile of shit. Not sure if that counts as 'left wing'... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Is calling for jihad on the streets of London not hate mongering? Do you have this same energy towards them? Pegasussy (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Less "energy", more "nausea". But I think we can all see where you're coming from, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Do you think it's acceptable for you to be editing the Tommy Robinson page when you hold such strong views on him? Pegasussy (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Not how it works. I have strong views on some people, and I can edit their articles bias-free. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC) I have strong views on Pol Pot. I'm not sure I'd want to read an article on him by people who didn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Well, exactly. I have strong views on Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Mark Drakeford, Humza Yousaf, Keir Starmer, Sadiq Khan et al. Doesn't stop me editing them constructively (or taking them through FAC). What the editor above doesn't seem to be able to grasp is that you can have opinions on someone and yet edit their page without letting your personal biases seep through. It's not a disqualification from the editing process. It's called "being human". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC) If I have strong views on muslims, communists, and left wing people I can still edit their pages right? Pegasussy (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Yes, as long as you keep your edits neutral, although I'm worried about why you specify your list of enemies. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Oh no, they're strong positive views! You're assuming they are my enemies. Pegasussy (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Right. That seems, er, ... plausible. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC) What do you mean by this? Pegasussy (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) I think you can probably infer. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is there no Views section?

For every other political-based WP:BLP article I've seen a Views section. Maybe it could simply be summarised into a paragraph and that's why, but seems strange either way. I was otherwise thinking of working on a Notes list to reference his description as far-right as well as anti-Islam. I imagine there is enough WP:RS already but could be useful to batch refs, given he's reinventing himself, again. A lead with one source never looks convincing, even if it is the lead and doesn't require referencing. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Do we have secondary sources that describe his views beyond bog-standard anti-muslim hate? Based on the article, Tommy doesn't seem like much of an ideological visionary; he seems to mostly just go out and partake in fights and other actions; we don't have a section on the views of Horst Wessel either. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Just found it, it was in there under political activities. When he "joined" Quilliam [7] and performed a "100% u-turn" on his views, that was significant. Not convinced that's political activities either; a dinner, a documentary and a press conference. But would need featuring his current and prior believes that's for sure. You're right, he's not an ideological visionary, nor much of a political commentator it seems, even if I get the impression this is the direction he's trying to turn towards. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need a section? Do we not discuss his activities, which encompass his views? Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Need is a strong word, so I'll say no to that, it's just a suggestion. I think it would be beneficial to the reader, to be able to access a section more explicitly about his views (even if very brief), rather than have to skim through the entire article. The second paragraph does summarise his political affiliations, but not his views as such, even if they are one of the same. I'm only thinking about structure, the article is very detailed and well referenced, I'm not suggesting there is anything missing per say. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A 'views' section would likely only be beneficial if based around sources discussing the subject in depth - and I'm not really aware of any. What we need to avoid is synthesising a seemingly-coherent 'viewpoint' ourselves, by picking out isolated comments from Robinson and trying to piece them all together into some sort of overall worldview. Without independent analysis, going beyond broad-stroke terms like 'far-right' and 'Islamophobic' could not really be justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There's been enough over the past decade, particularly as I referenced his shift away from the anti-Islam & EDL, then straight back into it. That's notable enough, even if not strong enough on it's own for a stand-alone section. There are also enough references describing him as an "English nationlist", hence why he's categorised as the latter, but otherwise there is no reference in the article. I'm not talking about using odd quotes from him, but in-depth analysis of his views exclusively from WP:RSP, as is the standard. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me get sources together, in order to see if there's much to piece together with what's already available. There's no point in me explaining any further why a views section would be useful, especially if there's not the WP:RS to back it up. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As others have said, provide the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Expect nobody said that? That's what I suggested. Thanks. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Note in lead

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.

---

@CommunityNotesContributor: not trolling you, just working my way through my morning watchlist and you happen to be on it multiple times (just FYI the majority of the 35 pages you've edited in your current wiki career are on my watch list). I think the note is excessive, another editor agrees... Can you explain why you think that the note is an improvement to the article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Got to agree, I can't see why this is necessary. The lede is supposed to summarise the article, not duplicate its entire content, and we already document Robinson's political history in the article body. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A reference note isn't duplicating content. Citations aren't the content. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, the lede is supposed to summarise the article body - which already contains ample citations for 'far right', and provides the context in which to properly do so. The note is superfluous clutter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The label far-right politics is arguably a WP:CONTENTIOUS label, given it's a buzz word for describing neo-fascism and neo-Nazism, among other contentious labels. Without using the suggested method of WP:INTEXT for contentious claims, which would be undesirable given the number of citations, it would ideally include a note of reference to support such a claim. It's quite common in WP:BLP of far-right figures to include footnotes to accomplish this for contentious labels, to avoid over-crowding with references. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Its also well sourced in the body, and (less well) the lede. We do not need even ore sources for it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly the list was better suited for him being "described" as far-right, for example in the first sentence, as opposed to him being "involved" in far-right politics, as co-founding a far-right group or joining others doesn't make you far-right (without applying WP:OR), daft I know but it is what it is. To make the claim that he is far-right it takes more than a non-WP:RSP to make that claim (ie Irish Times). But if a list isn't considered useful, then so be it. Also where does it actually say Robinson is a far-right activist in the body? Nowhere... CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Do sources use a description other than far right with any regularity? That seems to be the preferred description among most sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he's also been described as English nationalist, British nationalist, anti-Irish nationalist by WP:RS. But we haven't got to the point of more broadly describing his so-called views as we're stumbling at the first hurdle here, making sure his dominant views are well referenced as such. Don't worry I'm on the verge of giving up on this anyway :) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What would you think about adding something along those lines and using just "activist" in the list (dropping both far right and prominent)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You must be trolling. I literally produced a note list of references confirming he's far-right. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You're also insisting that the statement is a contentious label thus in-text attribution is required so color me confused, not trolling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Activist is the label in that sentence, far right just describes what sort of activism and it does so descriptively without any judgement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Far-right activist means he's far-right. Involved in far-right politics, does not mean he's far-right, it just means he's involved in the politics. Verbatim. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah yeah, the fact that he's involved in racism doesn't mean he's a racist. Maybe he's just got caught up in all this nasty bother and unpleasantness by mistake? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No offence but this is about how wikipedia works, not your personal opinion. If Tommy is described as far-right, he can be referenced as such (as is the case, hence a list of notes to undeniably prove that, in absence of a long inline). If references say he's involved in far-right politics, but not *explicitly* that he's far-right, you can't just apply WP:OR because you're smart and know better.

Take any other case on wikipedia. If someone was "involved in a racist incident", it's because sources didn't say he was racist. If sources say he was racist, WP:INTEXT or WP:NOTES would reference that as such.

I'm sorry I don't make the guidelines here, just trying to stick to them. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the difference between being involved in far-right politics and being involved in far right activism? Isn't the activism here political activism? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It's doesn't say involved in far-right activism, it says far-right activist. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the difference between a far right activist and someone involved in far-right activism? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There is none at all. And how about we stop this pointless bickering here? It's quite obvious there is no consensus for adding the note. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no consensus. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That note was overkill. The lede is already well supoorted, particly given my restructure, which part of I added in the Irish Times citation and whatever else is found in the body of the article. Please drop this @CommunityNotesContributor. WP:BLPUNDEL applies here. TarnishedPath^talk 01:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you not read the comment you were replying to? In response to stopping pointless arguments, I literally just said "Agreed, there is no consensus". Now you're tell me to drop it while pinging me? Seriously?

The lede is certainly well detailed, nobody is arguing against that. I agree with Andy (in hindsight) that documenting his involvement in far-right politics is probably enough to not have to over-cite a claim of Tommy being a far-right activist, as there is a lot of logic to that, even if I still think it's a bit WP:OR.

I still think the claim should be referenced using a WP:RSP, which Irish Times is not, but am also willing to drop that, because these discussions are clearly pointless. So please don't bring it back up anymore, if you actually want to drop it like I do. Thanks. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor, you need to WP:AGF. Most of this conversation occurred during my sleep because I'm in Australia. So consider that I might have been trying to read through many things at once while I was trying to catch up and didn't post the most appropriate comment to you. Apologies if it seemed like I went off at the bit when you had already conceded a point.

So regarding something being on WP:RSP the vast amount of reliable sources aren't there and can't be expected to be there because there is limited resources at WP:RSN. Have you interacted with RSN much? TarnishedPath^talk 12:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, as well pointing me to that reference, very useful. Will be using that more often. I just checked and found a reference to Irish Times being considered reliable (not conclusively, but supported at least). I personally have no doubt it's a reliable source, given it's a broadsheet over 150 years old, I've just always been more of a "fan" of WP:RSP usage to avoid any doubt in reliability of sources, especially when it's avoidable. FYI Tommy is also described as "prominent", not just for being far-right...

"one of the most prominent anti-Muslim activists": [8]

"one of Britain’s most prominent Islamophobes": [9]

So the first sentence could be combined to include his prominence as anti-Muslim and far-right for reference sake, even if not necessary. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand the appeal of wanting a catalogue so to speak, and how some might think WP:RSP fits that description. Unfortunately that's not how it works.

As for your suggestion, we'd potentially end up using the word prominent in the same sentence twice. TarnishedPath^talk 05:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

PS: You might want to consider reading WP:AAGF as well as WP:AOBF. I never assumed bad faith, as is the implication by my need to WP:AGF. I asked you questions, which you then provided answer for. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

So as we are all agreed we can close this now. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2023 (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.

Infobox type

He's a criminal. Am I allowed to say that on this page? Why should he get {{Infobox person}} instead of {{Infobox criminal}}? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see the referenced template, this is why I referenced it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_criminal

"This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals."'

I'm not convined we can call him a "notorious criminal", just because he's somewhat notorious and a criminal. Moreover, the template wasn't even being used as such (ie listing his convictions, penalties, etc), so was obsolete for it's purpose.

No-one is denying he is a criminal. This has nothing to do with referencing him as a criminal, just correct template usage. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, you are entitled to describe someone with multiple serious convictions as a criminal. As for the infobox, if Robinson was only a criminal, he almost certainly wouldn't merit an article. Since he does, we probably have to make do with what we have (or not have an infobox at all, but that is a can of worms for another place...). 'Criminals' are a subset of 'people', and accordingly we go with the one that fits best, rather than the one that we'd most like to shove him into. The article makes clear enough the habitual criminality of much of his political (and therefore 'notable') activity, and we don't need to treat our readers like idiots who can't figure it out for themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it makes no real difference to the casual reader. A bit like all (or most) of the Categories? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It makes no difference to the reader, only the editor. The categories are completely different, as it lists him into those categories which is very much visible for any reader who is looking. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure the average reader gives two hoots about the lists of Categories. It's all redundant information that should be in the text of the main body anyway? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless you're using wikipedia to search for categories, then it's 100% significant. But yes, realistically there should be a mention of his support/affiliation which "English nationalism" if he's categorised as such. Otherwise it's a lazy form of WP:OR, as being part of parties that are English nationlist is not the same as being a English nationalist. But as I said, there's not views section of this article where you'd expect to find that sort of information. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, I don't think it's really that important because it's a template name. It's only visible when editing. The name of the template is not visible the general public reading this article. @CommunityNotesContributor, is the editor who made the change though and he should probably be aware that there is consensus formed in a discussion at Talk:Tommy_Robinson_(activist)#What_should_the_page_be_called? that Robinson be referred to as a criminal in the first sentence of the lede, which should follow to the infobox type name. TarnishedPath^talk 12:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought. I just thought it might be best for the lead section and infobox to be consistent. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean "which should follow to the infobox type name". Infobox type name has nothing to do with the first sentence, only correct usage of the template. Unless you mean adding criminal convictions to under "known for" in the infobox? That would make sense. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If there is any sort of guideline or policy anywhere that even hints that the first sentence of an article lede should be structured according to the infobox used, there shouldn't be. That is getting everything entirely backwards. Prose describes, infoboxes summarise prose... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know/read, no there is isn't. It reflects the body, not the lead. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, I was saying it the other way around not that the lede should follow the infobox used but that the infobox type should follow the first sentence lede summary. I don't know if there is policy or not but I think it's common sense. I've seen many editors make the same arguments in regards to the short description. TarnishedPath^talk 12:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I see you reverted the infobox template to criminal, without referencing a revert in the edit summary, or this talk page, even though you say it's not that important? I find this is very dishonest behaviour, especially when there is a discussion ongoing and I'm not the only one who understands why the template would be person not criminal, as per the guidelines of usage, as well as that it makes zero difference to the reader. Whether the infobox info follows the lede, or does a tour around the article, it doesn't change how certain infobox templates should and shouldn't used. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I reverted on the basis of @Martinevans123's strong objection. You're correct that I don't think it's the most major thing on the planet but then none of our edits are going to solve world hunger or bring about world peace now are they? Now some free advice because I can see you have a very low edit count, if I were you I wouldn't go around accusing other people of very dishonest behaviour without some very serious evidence and my making that particular revert isn't it. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What's this got to do with world hunger or world peace?! Nothing. There was no strong objection, there was a question, followed by "Perhaps it makes no real difference to the casual reader.", and other question. Questioning is not a strong objection, so I believe you're being even more dishonest here by likely misrepresenting someone's questions and opinions as objections, so we should let the user clarify. It's not an accusation either, this is my opinion, and I've explained my reasoning.

Thanks for your "free advise", but I've been editing wikipedia as long as you have, since 2007, just with a break of 10+ years in between. One thing that hasn't changed - and never will - is following the guidelines, in this case for template usage.

What can I say, I'm a stickler for the rules. Let's de-escalate though and let others share their opinions on this subject? Given there seem to be a fair few contributors on this talk page already. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion is an accusation. Unless you're going to present evidence to back up your belief then you should keep it to yourself. TarnishedPath^talk 01:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologise if I offended you, that was not my intention. I already explained why I found the revert to be dishonest. Note, I'm not calling you dishonest "the user" I'm describing the action as dishonest "the revert", and my wording the first time around wasn't the best to separate criticising the action from the user, as per WP:PA, so again I apologise.

To elaborate, or "present evidence" as it were, it's all here in the talk and history pages. Myself and Andy tried to explain why the "criminal" infobox wasn't suitable (and still isn't), meanwhile there was weak support for it from one user. You then reverted the edit, without stating a revert (which isn't a transparent thing to do), but instead commenting "per talk", implying that there was consensus or strong support for such a revert, which wasn't the case. If you had just reverted the edit, and stated why, the revert itself wouldn't have been an issue, as it would have been done transparently.

Now more users have since explained and elaborated why using this type of infobox isn't appropriate, as per the guidelines, but you seem to have ignored them, whereas the right thing to do would probably be to undo your revert, given the support for using a person infobox over criminal. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, as did I thinking a notes list would be useful for example. Personally I think it's better just to own it and move on. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as I understand you want diff & policy references rather than commentary.

Policy: WP:ESDOS - "Be clear about what you did,".

Ref #1: [10]. Edit summary: "edit "far-right activities" to far-right activism" in infobox"

Action taken: Also removed "Leaving the EDL" sub heading 3, not mentioned

Issue: WP:SUMMARYNO - "Mentioning one change but not another one"

Ref #2: [11]. Edit summary: "per talk"

Action taken: changed infobox to criminal, not mentioned

Issue: WP:EDITSUMCITE - "Summarize the change, even if only briefly"

I do not plan to take this any further. I'm WP:AGF here, this is just a reference to avoid any future issues. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to make a clean start you can't trade on any former accounts, either disclose that account under which you have edited since 2007 or don't talk about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I must admit, by my own standards, that was a very weak objection. No objection at all to solving world hunger or bringing about world peace, however! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Although I am not a member of Robinson's fan club, he probably falls short of the guidelines required for the use of infobox criminal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

And perhaps more to the point, this isn't an article about 'a criminal'. It is an article about a significant figure in the English far right who's political activity has frequently involved criminality. As I have already stated, if he was just 'a criminal', he'd never have attracted the media coverage he has, and would accordingly not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines.

I get the distinct impression that some people may be trying to score some sort of political point through the infobox title. If so, it is severely misguided to say the least - doing so might give the impression that Robinson's politics and his criminality are somehow unconnected. Anyone at all familiar with the history of far-right politics on both Britain and elsewhere will understand how interlinked they almost inevitably are, and that experience has shown that dismissing far-right activism as 'just criminality' underplays its dangers. If you are going to play politics, at least look to history for a lesson or two on how to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your rational. I've made enough contributions to pages of far-right grifters and never found such politicisation over such tenuous and tedious things in the talk pages. Instead users are having in-depth discussions on how best to describe someone's politics. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As the guidelines say, "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." Robinson's far right agenda is well known and readily sourced, but to imply that he is best known for being a criminal isn't within the letter or spirit of the template guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone in this discussion is quite off track. The infobox we choose makes exactly zero difference to the text of the article. The only difference is the parameters that are made available. I do not think the parameters of {{Infobox criminal}} are useful here, since Tommy's more of a repeat brawler, than someone who did one big crime like Anders Behring Breivik. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

To play devils advocate here, it could certainly be useful to document his charges and convictions as a criminal within such an infobox, as is the purpose of such a template. Hence why I referenced the guidelines of using such a template, which is far more relevant. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This is something I had thought of, considering discussion in an above thread. People have decided that he is as notable for his ongoing criminal history as he is for his activism, hence it gets a mention in the first sentence of the lede and takes up and sizable portion of the rest of the lede. Would anyone consider putting some of his more serious convictions in the infobox, the passport fraud for example? TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

His history as a criminal being notable is not the same as being a "notorious criminal", as per the template wording. @Ianmacm and @AndyTheGrump tried to explain this above. To state the exact guideline "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal" [12].

Separate but related to this proposal, I think there would be an argument to move his affiliation with For Britain and Conservatives to "Other political affiliations", which isn't possible with the criminal infobox, as that parameter isn't available.

Political party

BNP (2004–2005)

UKIP (2018–2019)

BFP (2012)

Other political affiliations

For Britain (2019)

Conservative Party (2019)

---

Correct me if I'm wrong here, he claimed he was a Tory member, but this was denied. There is also no reference to him being a member of For Britain, only BNP, UKIP & BFP, so "political affiliation" appears more appropriate as a category.

Edit: Corrected as realise there is a reference to Robinson being a BFP member in EDL section, just not in "Political activities" section.

(Obviously I have no doubt that he was a member of For Britain, but this isn't Wikipedia-OR™) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I've edited the infobox to person. TarnishedPath^talk 05:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Czello Not sure why you removed Conservatives from "Other political affiliations", based on Tommy not being a member. This is what this category is for, as he identified which supporting them. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What are we calling "affiliations" here, because as far as I can see there are none. He declared his support for them briefly, lied about being a member, and that appears to be it. Calling him an "affiliate" seems to be WP:OR. — Czello ^(music) 13:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Good question. I was going by "political affiliation" rather than "affiliation" here. Specifically the concept of endorsement [13] I hadn't checked the source though, which is unreliable, will search for another, otherwise needs removing from body as well. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Per wp:brd WP:ONUS and wp:consensus, it is down to those who wish to make a change to get consensus, not down to those who do not wish a change. Thus the article should be reverted back to its earlier form. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The earlier form being {{Infobox criminal}}, I take it you mean? TarnishedPath^talk 11:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

If that is the earlier box, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Can we not confuse the matter by discussing other issues? Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the same issue: infobox usage and which infobox to use. Hopefully that shouldn't be confusing for users. While WP:AGF here, this topic is flirting with WP:WL and experiencing WP:NOTGETTINGIT issues. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Party affilations

Support and affiliation are not the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Just chiming in to agree with this, per my comment above. He doesn't appear to have been affiliated with the Conservative Party at all in 2019 other than falsely claiming he was a member, something that was rejected by several sources. Saying he was an affiliate appears to be WP:OR. — Czello ^(music) 13:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable source is here, have added to article: [14] This comes down to the definition of affiliation, that I referenced above and remains subjective, but ultimately I'm not that bothered either way. For Britain affiliation should also be discussed though, for same reason. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, recently told followers on the encrypted messaging service Telegram that he has become a paid-up member.", he is not an RS for a statement of fact. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This article seems to have the same issues, though – it says that Robinson (and others) claimed to have joined the party, but that's all. All other sources reject this. — Czello ^(music) 13:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's an RS confirming his endorsement. He is indeed not being used as an RS here, agreed. I don't think anyone's arguing he was a member, but rather whether political affiliation means being a member, or simply endorsement/identification. [15]

I don't believe being a member is synonymous with affiliation, but others are welcome to disagree here. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's what that field is intended for. A brief endorsement (<12 months) seems to be WP:UNDUE weight for inclusion in the infobox here. — Czello ^(music) 13:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

You are almost certainly right with this statement, this is a reason why I'm not bothered either way. But let's not downplay what "political affiliation" means, it appears to be a lot more abstract than merely "affiliation" (which is more based on reciprocation). CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd have thought it self-evident that we don't include party 'affiliations' that are not just unsupported by independent sources, but actively contradicted by them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Irish Times is not a appropriate source

Why are we again using the Irish times to smear English people? Would it be appropriate to smear Irish people with quotes from English newspapers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240f:ca:2ce5:1:395c:97e8:c483:6906 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think it's an unreliable source, take it to WP:RSN. Until such time that RSN has a RfC on it and there is consensus that it is unreliable it shows every sign of being reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 05:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in the Irish Times piece cited is even remotely a smear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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)