Talk:Tommy Robinson

Tommy Robinson
Tommy Robinson
	Robinson in 2023
Born	Stephen Christopher Yaxley; 27 November 1982 (age 41); Luton, England
Other names	Andrew McMaster; Paul Harris; Wayne King; Stephen Lennon;
Known for	English Defence League; Far-right activism;
Political party	BNP (2004–2005); BFP (2012);
Movement	Anti-Islam; far-right;
Spouse	Jenna Vowles (m. 2011; div. 2021)
Children	3
Criminal charge	Contempt of court; assault; public order; false identity; mortgage fraud; stalking;
Penalty	Prison sentences: 15 months (2005); 12 months (2013); 18 months (2014); 10 months (2018); 9 months (2019); 18 months (2024); Suspended sentences: 12 weeks (2011); 3 months (2018, activated);

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tommy Robinson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 30 days

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bedfordshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bedfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bedfordshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BedfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject BedfordshireTemplate:WikiProject BedfordshireBedfordshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Jason Wilson (14 June 2017). "Mark Latham is working with Rebel Media. Can he also work at the Daily Telegraph?". The Guardian. None of this is secret. Most of it is right there on Robinson's Wikipedia page.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

On 18 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Tommy Robinson (activist) to Tommy Robinson. The result of the discussion was moved.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

This edit request to Tommy Robinson (activist) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article provides a false information about Tommy Robinson. He is not anti Islam, he is anti extremists Jihadists. He was wrongly accused and then was released from prison without the charge! Facts are available and proper journalists can allocate it. Do your research and provide facts before publishing such a gross misinformation! 194.223.185.245 (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Wikipedia presents a neutral point of view based on how the subject is described in reliable sources. Do you have reliable sources that can corroborate the idea that he is not anti Islam or at least evidence a proportionate viewpoint that counters this view? CloakedFerret (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this interview with Jordan Peterson he describes growing up a multi faith community. From approx. 36:40 onwards he make it clear that he is anti islamist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnhwBoFxaDI

This article quotes him specifically stating he not anti islam:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/i-am-not-racist-or-anti-muslim-tommy-robinson-tells-high-court-in-libel-case/ 81.77.105.184 (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he denies it, that does not mean he is telling the truth. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't prioritise his own views on the matter; we say what reliable sources say. Also see WP:MANDY. — Czello ^(music) 16:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral point of view" is it?

I call your attention to paragraph 1, stating that Tommy is a far-right activist.

This is NOT a neutral point of view, it is one solely held by left-wing politicians and followers. 92.13.86.180 (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@92.13.86.180 it's actually the view of reliable sources. — Czello ^(music) 09:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unproductive discussion that devolved into disruptive kvetching

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To say a “reliable source” is any more reliable than a persons personal view of themself or third parties view of that view as yours is an exercise of opinion and nothing more. As this page(Tommy Robinson)is accusing or rather labelling the subject far-right based on opinions that can also be fairly accused or labeled as those of a far-left biased nature.

Unauthentic and amateur publishing is hard to read from an unbiased perspective and disappointingly this is the perfect example of bias for the sake of being biased. Rubbish 110.20.151.138 (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this isn't the Tommy Robinson fan club page. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested it was or is. Are you informing me it’s the tommy Robinson haters club page? If not the fan club page or haters club page then what page is it? Madewikid (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the page for reporting what reliable sources have said about Robinson. If you want to go and read what he thinks about himself, that's your prerogative. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know who Tommy Robinson was until today after viewing a recent YouTube upload the popped up in my feed. Though I’d check wiki for information after seeing unjustified bias and hate in the comments. Surprisingly it seems as though wiki has fallen foul of the low standards club. Thank you for your time. Madewikid (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you know this is biased? Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No where does it say those are the views of are those of far-left. To know far-right is to know far-left, they are one and the same and one cannot exist without the other. An unbiased article would include onions from both or none, simple. The fact the page has been semi-protected along with comments such as your own indicate that is the case. It is what it is n Madewikid (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What?, and read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, and, with a No, thank you. Madewikid (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shallots, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Madewikid (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me why I should consider your word as reliable any more than the pages authors word or the word of the reliable sources you claim of?

What is the criteria for a source to be confirmed as reliable exactly? Madewikid (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has a reputation for fact checking or is regarded as authoritative by other RS. Now what sources have you read that indicate we are wrong? Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We, who’s we? Madewikid (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, and with that refusal to give a straight answer I am out of here with a NO to actioning this. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I neither refused or asked you to action anything on my behalf.

You are who exactly and what is your position within wiki? Madewikid (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who’s our? Is that our as in ours as in yours and mine and anyone else who signs up to edit Wikipedia? I don’t know anyone who gets paid or has an authority other than having more stars next to their name. Anyone can contribute. There’s no gatekeepers here my friend. Madewikid (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fact check. Are these your words and your opinion of yourself? “He is not always 100% honest but he is an angel of fallacy. He has shown by logical argument that the sea is only alleged to be wet. He may be as dumb as some of you think he is”. Madewikid (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It came from a reliable source, very reliable apparently. Madewikid (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)— Madewikid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your sources are not reliable though. You cannot use the rantings of extremely biased left-wing journalists as a reliable source in this "impartial" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.160.225 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ranting extremely biased left-wing journalists like those at The Daily Telegraph? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Account and probably the IP are a single purpose account with an agenda. Ignore. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If people ask clueless questions then it is fair enough to give them a brief answer on the assumption that they might be asking in mistaken good faith, and might actually be interested in the answer, but there is no point in getting bogged down arguing back and forth with SPAs and trolls who are clearly only here to waste our time. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly knows his onions. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Change anti-islam to anti-illegal immigration"

"Change Far Right activist for Political activist" 00catkit (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RS do not support this. Slatersteven (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is he now

I think his current accommodation is better served in the first opening of the lead even though the details are repeated further down. Hausa warrior (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree. I think it frames the article in an appropriate way. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per MOS:FIRSTBIO. Serving a prison sentence provides context for notibility. CNC (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually lean to disagree. Being in prison isn't notable, it's WP:MILL, even more so because this isn't the subjects first time (or likely his last...). I think it being in the lead could be considered undue weight to the current events. We're not the daily mail, after all. OXYLYPSE (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the good old DM regards him as a national hero? I guess being in prison isn't notable for Robinson. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I did consider whether this sort of information was more "routine" than due for notability and context, and you're right that this could be considered run-of-the-mill based on recentisim. I'm not opposed to the sentence being removed. CNC (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal 'Career'

I noticed that a majority of the span of the article is on crimes committed by Robinson. I personally believe that it would benefit readers to include his criminal status in the infobox, such as span of crime, criminal penalty, imprisoned at. However, I am not sure whether the template should be used. The template is used to cover notorious criminal. It should not be used to cover someone whose notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal. Would you consider appropriate to apply this template to Robinson? Jeremy Hulber (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am tending more to agree to criminal status. But this question has recently proved contentious, e.g. this edit by FMSky. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently uses infobox person, and it is not recommended to use infobox criminal unless the person is known primarily as a criminal. Robinson's list of criminal convictions is becoming very long indeed, but he is best known as a far right activist.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, but I agree he is not mainly known as a criminal, I think, but it does seem to be that every story about him is about his crimes. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Robinson's notability derives from activism rather than crime, it would be tendentious to include his convictions. Similar articles don't do this. TFD (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other activists with as many convictions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on template documentation for infobox criminal (the infobox for such parameters), the argument would be that he comes under the category of "other notorious criminals" as to why his convictions should be listed. At least this is why I added this in December 2023 and it remained for many months prior to it's removal. If the question is whether he is known primarily for being a convicted criminal, then based on due content, I'd say just about, or at least it's 50/50. Template documentation is neither policy nor guidelines either, so there is that argument as well. This might be worth having another RfC over it, as it has been 4 years and there has been more convictions since then. They were also listed and remained the status quo for 8 months as well, so I get the impression the previous consensus is outdated already. CNC (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox example

Here is an example of how the infobox would look with criminal charges and penalties added based on reverted version with new information. Have removed the community service as seems irrelevant. CNC (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could also be simplified by not including penalties. CNC (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite reasonable to me. Use of {infobox criminal} is a bit of red herring, as {infobox person} takes those criminal parameters just as well? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, with the only difference being the spouse & children are listed below the criminal charges and penalties it seems. CNC (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article formatting

I suggest that the 'Imprisonment for contempt of court' section be incorporated into the 'Imprisonment for criminal offences' section (as what's the actual difference?), and the summary for 'Imprisonment for criminal offences' be updated to include these additional imprisonments. Also the 'Stalking' and 'Dispersal order' sub-sections in 'Imprisonment for contempt of court' definitely need to be moved elsewhere in the article. memphisto 13:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]