Jump to content

Talk:Tommy Robinson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Convicted criminal" in the first sentence

[edit]

I'm sure I'm probably about to be reverted, but searching, I don't see a long discussion on this, so I'm gonna start one because I don't think this is relevant enough to deserve the prominence it has. There are all kinds of people who have, at one point or another, been convicted of a crime, justly or unjustly. There's a whole paragraph about the actual things he was convicted of further down in the lede, and I would also like to discuss moving these further down. While they're undoubtedly essential to his character, I don't think they're >50% of the reason he's notable (which current word counts in the lede would seem to imply). We don't afford people notability based on the crimes they commit per WP:PERP, so these things are only notable because he is, already, for other reasons, a notable figure.

I'm not out to make a martyr of the guy, obviously he's a rather unpleasant fellow for a number of reasons, but I can't help but think his criminal convictions are a backdrop for his notability, rather than a leading cause of them. This edit to the first sentence is in my opinion a first step in the right direction. BrigadierG (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree the first sentence is WP:UNDUE, especially when it's mentioned again later in the lead. I agree that it's not >50% of the reason he's notable; I suspect it is there for PoV reasons. — Czello (music) 13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
upon first reading the lead to the article, it does strike me as odd "Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982), better known as Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam campaigner and activist."
i believe he is far better known for his work on exposing child rape grooming gangs than he is for being an "anti-islam activist", not to say that he isnt one. in my opinion, it should read:
""Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982), better known as Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam and anti-child grooming campaigner and activist."
i have to agree with User:Czello and User:BrigadierG, the lead being largely just about him being a criminal seems ideologically motivated, and clearly WP:Undue. NotQualified (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's known by most people as a racist who spreads lies to stir up hate like what we're seeing now. Only his supporters think he's actually an anti-grooming guy. 31.185.168.251 (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously question the description given to him as an "activist" since he's more of an agitator and an instigator. Activist loses it's meaning if it's allowed to be bestowed on this individual. 2600:1700:D970:3370:680C:9F2C:61DE:1002 (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it should say stochastic terrorist in the parentheses 194.127.105.107 (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has been convicted of more than one, throughout his life, and goes back to before he was notable as an activist. So it is very much part of his imager in the media. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has been involved in numerous scrapes that have led to criminal convictions, and some of them are notable because they relate to his career as an activist. However, I agree that the wording in the opening sentence is rather clunky. Since this is already dealt with in the lead with more context, I've removed it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Scrapes'? Interesting choice of words... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no ones denying that, but it is a bit absurd to dedicate so much of the lead to it, especially as it is duplication. NotQualified (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and made an attempt at tightening up the lede to focus primarily on crimes that lend to his notability - such as his recent jailing for contempt of court. Happy to discuss/compromise on how to approach this. BrigadierG (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more than a little concerning that the lede said he was convicted of stalking when the actual outcome was a civil order. BrigadierG (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But not that he is in fact an international criminal? Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a relatively unimportant backdrop to him already having existing convictions and being the leader of a far-right extremist group - ultimately, that's the reason why he used false documents in the first place. BrigadierG (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it makes him an international criminal, he has broke the law in more than one country. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we already have enough information in the article to conclude that he committed a crime internationally. What's up with the insistence on that label in particular? Could it possibly be that the term "international criminal" calls into mind big threatening drug cartels and the like? The archetypal "criminal" is a loaded stereotype.BrigadierG (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It puts his call for asylum there into perspective? Nor do we say "international criminal" in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I think it is relevant and should be mentioned in the article body, but the question I'd put to you is this - is the reason he was travelling on a false passport a factor of:
1. His previous imprisonment for assaulting an off-duty police officer or
2. His leadership of the EDL
3. Something else
My current perception is that it's a product of 1 - something otherwise mostly unrelated to the reason for his notability. I would be convinced that it has a place in the lede if it can be shown the reason he needed to travel on false documents is because of his political affiliation (or because of some outcome or legal status connected to his political affiliation). BrigadierG (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the fact he was asking for asylum in a country he is not even allowed to legally enter needs to be in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that its crimes in multiple countries are considered terrorism, a better start to the article would be.
<Convicted international terrorist Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982), better known as Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam campaigner and one of the UK’s most dangerous far-right terrorists.>
We cannot deny that it has committed some serious offences. And even if a reliable source for its terrorist atrocities doesn't currently exist, then one can be made to cite the article after it is edited to make such a declaration. Then we'd have a reliable source to cite, improving the validity of the assertion. It's not like anyone can prove it isn't a terrorist, so that's good enough to strengthen the article. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no one listen to this user, they have violated many wikipedia rules in other talk issues. this is frankly crazy. in this, they also argue they do not need to cite sources. this is blatant libel and im reporting this immediately NotQualified (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in lieu of this, i have requested mr robinsons article to have a further upgraded protection and it further re-affirms User:Czello's suspicion that the lead was written in violation of PoV and UNDUE and needs to be urgently re-written. i hope we have consensus on this. i am hoping that a higher up moderator will see my report and write it themself so we can close this issue ticket. NotQualified (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scrape, "a difficult or slightly dangerous situation that you cause by your own silly behaviour".[1] It was pretty silly of Robinson to attempt to enter the USA with someone else's passport, but I'm not denying that he has committed some serious offences.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a statement of fact - he is a convicted criminal. 92.233.82.113 (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's clearly notable for his criminal acts and convictions. From where I see it, it's one of the main reasons for his notability. So I'd say that yes it should be in the first sentence of the lead. TarnishedPathtalk 02:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He may now even be a fugitive. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Convicted criminal" is a bit wishy-washy. That could cover anything from driving without a licence to murder. I'd prefer a more precise description, though there doesn't seem to be a coherent theme to his convictions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is kind of the point, he is a serial criminal, but has no pattern of offenses. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robinson constantly seems to be involved in some legal controversy. However, he is primarily known as a far right activist and this is what causes the legal problems.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i agree, i dont think it should be in the first sentence. it isnt what he is known for, hes known for his activism largely speaking. NotQualified (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
punching a nazi, illegal entry into america, recording and shaming child rapists outside a court, libel (which he contends as judicial malpractice?!?!). agreed, his offenses are not repeats but random and sporadic NotQualified (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That he chooses to engage in criminal behaviour in a variety of ways, is immaterial. The fact is that he has been convicted for quite a number of serious crimes and it is a long running part of his history. It is part of the main reason why he's notable as attested to by numerous WP:RS which have covered his crimes and convictions. TarnishedPathtalk 03:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is he? i believe hes on bail and he doesnt have to be in britain as of now? source? NotQualified (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly [[2]], an arrest warrant has been issued. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, but at the end of the day a criminal is a criminal. Now that being said I don't know why this guy has been created badly. He stands up for Britain and he is a good man. 49.184.197.124 (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record i fully support the removal of «Convicted criminal» in the first sentence of the article. This is not his most know characteristic currently. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I first heard about him not as a "criminal", but his anti-islam ideology. A lot of blp articles are about people with felonys etc., but they don't mention it in the first lead. The lead is to show why is this person mainly notable for. I think criminality comes pretty last in his notables. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Robinson is not "far right"

[edit]
This thread it has devolved into off-topic ranting and soapboxing. The original question, insofar as there was one, has been asked and answered so let's move on.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Tommy Robinson is not "far right". Wikipedia needs to try harder at grappling with current political realities and stop using mainstream ideological distortions as "reliable sources". I suspect some member of the old guard will try and censor or sanction this comment. — Epipelagic (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wp:agf, and wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you — Epipelagic (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no, you will not be censored for a genuine talk comment but please do assume good faith of editors. regardless, tommy is "far-right". however, please do express why you dont consider that, you cite "current political realities", please elaborate.
> stop using mainstream ideological distortions as "reliable sources".
here is a list of source Wikipedia uses, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. if you can find a source in there that disputes him being far right, please provide it. if you know of a source but it isnt listed, you are free to try to make the argument to moderators for it to be judged and verified.
> I suspect some member of the old guard will try and censor or sanction this comment.
as long as you follow wikipedia guidelines that wont happen NotQualified (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about a video of Tommy Robinson literally taking the Political Compass test? Would that be a sufficiently reliable source? Spoiler alert: his results were 0.13 to the right (out of 10), 1.49 libertarian (again, out of 10). You'd be extremely hard pressed to find someone closer to the Political Compass origin point than him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dq9-W75MII Results can be clearly seen at 14:58. 24.69.168.156 (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly that! Why is it wrong to celebrate being British?!?! It’s NOT far right at all!!!! 86.4.90.190 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See wp:soap, no one has said it is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's a seld-admitted Nazi - that's Far Right in anyone's view 92.233.82.113 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where has he admitted he's a Nazi? (Not that I'm against calling him far-right, because he is, but this seems unlikely). — Czello (music) 14:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source that claim immediately or it's libel yet again. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10123375/I-am-not-a-Nazi-says-EDL-leader-Tommy-Robinson.html NotQualified (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
robinson literally headbutted a nazi. just because you dont like him does not justify claiming hes a 'nazi', it is quite literally libel if you cant prove it. has he ever endorsed hitler? called for jewish / lgbt / slavic genocide? https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/tommy-robinson-grooming-gangs-britain-persecutes-journalist/ NotQualified (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
repeatedly. It's not hard to find. 2601:1C0:717E:4C0:65EC:2BF9:B3AB:6C5A (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HItler had the SA attacked, was he not far right? Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A read wp:nlt, B its not liable unless a court says so. So until the sources that call him a nazi are successfully sued is not liable. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it isn't true. I was censored by Wikipedia admin for saying that "it's OK to be white" isn't "white supremacy" and the inverse, the idea that "it's NOT OK to be white," is racism because the statement is condemning an entire race on nothing but it's race. So the admins very much will ban you here if you don't toe the far left line.

Secondly, Tommy Robinson embraces traditional liberalism, in the US in the 80s, 90s, and 00s he would be considered leftwing. However, the Overton Window has shifted to such an extreme that liberal values are now "alt right." For instance, once being a "Socialist" meant that you were against big corporations, but now if you criticize the practices of big tech, big pharma, and corporate monopolies you are "alt-right." The same can be said about Antisemitism, as where it was once a leftist idea to reject it, now antiSemetic actions to Jews in America and Europe are very left wing as attacks on the religion and it's followers are equated by the left as protesting Israel, despite the people being attacked not being Israeli. Free Speech, Due Process, Free practice of religion, self determination, anti-war, anti-corporation, anti-segregation, anti-discrimination, pro-working class, these are all "alt-right" values that were traditionally liberal values until the Overton Window moved so dramatically that the left now calls free speech "hate speech."

Wikipedia has embraced the alt-left and is no longer unbiased, it has become extremely bias in the past decade to the point where it has changed definitions of words like "Depression," and "Recession" and rewritten history to back an alt-left narrative. this should be unacceptable, but it's common practice. And feel free to argue that, but the evidence of Wikipedia's extreme and one-sided bias is overwhelming. res ipsa loquitur. The bias speaks for itself and no sane person will deny it.

However, because of the Overton Window shift, things that were once liberal are now considered "alt-right" and thus Tommy is "alt-Right" by the modern definition. Just because the left has shifted to such an extreme doesn't mean that the definition doesn't change with it, it most certainly does. And that is regardless of Wikipedia's extreme bias 2601:246:5A83:D090:903F:201B:2C14:8722 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what RS say, and RS says he is far-right. And use of terms like "alt-left" hardly do your credibility any good. 15:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
Thanks for putting it so simply and directly. This was the only answer that was ever needed here. Now that we have it, I'll close the thread so we can avoid wasting any more of anybody's time. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "alt-Left" as you say "hardly do me credibility," but terms like "alt-right" are acceptable to label anyone that isn't currently left. As I said, the bias speaks for itself and is endemic to Wikipedia. 2601:246:5A83:D090:903F:201B:2C14:8722 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, right there you are arguing for a double standard in verbiage in an attempt to claim a lack of bias. But then I have seen Wikipedia call Jews "Nazis" and Black people "White Supremacists" and, lets face it, that doesn't do much to defend the credibility of with Admins on Wikipedia 2601:246:5A83:D090:903F:201B:2C14:8722 (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

award in lede

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slatersteven#why_did_you_revert_the_robinson_edits?

so i had a discussion with this user about tommy receiving a free speech award and they said:

"No, as it needs to be a major part of the article, and this is just one award, so at most needs a line or two (or what you in fact added to the lede (more or less). And this is not the place for this discussion, take it to the articles talk page."


i am confused at why they got rid of what i wrote as they clarified "(or what you in fact added to the lede (more or less)" is a reasonable size for a lede. im adding stuff back but if this needs discussion talk here. NotQualified (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, they got rid of it cause it was too big but then said it was a fair size. thats why it's back now :D! NotQualified (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A, read wp:lede it is a summary of our article and not a newspaper-style leader. B, what I meant was that what you had written should not have been in the lede, but may have been suitable for the body, but no more than that (Or, it does not deserve more than a line or two in the body, which is not enough to justify adding it to the lede, even if added to the body"). So no I did not say that. Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
miscommunication then, will look into it NotQualified (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" no you make a case at talk" just to be clear i made a case with you and we just miscommunicated. NotQualified (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you then need to get wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
doing that now yeah...
heres what i wrote in the lede:
In 2019, Robinson was awarded The Sappho Award by the Danish Free Press Society for his decades of work on exposing child grooming gangs throughout Britain in Landstingssalen at Christiansborg Palace, the seat of the Danish Parliament, in Copenhagen, Denmark. [1] He received the award in 2020 however due to incarceration after recording outside a court room illegally, and was described as "a British freedom of speech activist and street journalist". [2]
it's a pretty prestigious award so i think it warrants a mention, at least the first line in the lede "In 2019, Robinson was awarded The Sappho Award by the Danish Free Press Society for his decades of work on exposing child grooming gangs throughout Britain in Landstingssalen at Christiansborg Palace." theres another discussion going on about WP:balance (or whatever it's called, being impartial and stuff) and i think this is a fair enough impartial balance, but even then it's still noteworthy enough to be mentioned as tommy is known for his work on grooming gangs throughout the article and this is recognition of it by a respected body. NotQualified (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.trykkefrihed.dk/blog/2516/the-sappho-award-2019-tommy-robinsons-speech.htm
  2. ^ https://www.trykkefrihed.dk/sappho-award.htm
I don't see how an award that is not independently notable and doesn't have its own article is notable enough to belong in the lede of as high-profile an activist as Robinson. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
define "not independently notable" NotQualified (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not independently notable, i.e. very little coverage exists about this particular award, and nowhere near enough to deem it important enough for the lede. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter how notable it is, it is not a major part of this article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what it was awarded for is however notable to the article, combatting grooming gangs. i think at least a one line mention is warranted and then have the paragraph in the body. NotQualified (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said this deserves a line or two in the body at most. There really is no pointt in replying anymore as you have made no new arguments, and seem to not be reading what is biueng said to you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, i'll let other users add input. NotQualified (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
«it's a pretty prestigious award» => It is not. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph on the award currently in the article is far from neutrally written. It asserts as objective fact the characterisations of Robinson by the 'Danish Free Press Society', a right-wing 'counterjihad' pressure group. The claim that Robinson has spent "decades of work on exposing child grooming gangs throughout Britain" is unsupported by any independent source, and is deeply controversial, given his convictions for contempt of court etc.
If the award merits inclusion at all, it should be based around what independent sources have to say about it, and not on the partisan boosting of an award from an organisation which seems to be based around Robinson sharing their controversial views. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the sourcing is more or less WP:PRIMARY, and it would be better coming from an independent news source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> "decades of work on exposing child grooming gangs throughout Britain" is unsupported by any independent source, and is deeply controversial, given his convictions for contempt of court etc.
if needs be i can get rid of it from the article.
> If the award merits inclusion at all, it should be based around what independent sources have to say about it, and not on the partisan boosting of an award from an organisation which seems to be based around Robinson sharing their controversial views.
this is fair NotQualified (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False quotation

[edit]

Article says ‘Appearing the next morning on Good Morning Britain, Robinson held up the Quran and described it as a "violent and cursed book".’

- Incorrect. This was not his own description but rather a quote. He actually says ‘if I hold up this book up and say “there will never be peace on this earth so long as we have this book. It is a violent and cursed book”. Can I tell you who said that? Sir William Gladstone.’

The quote is questionable but, in any case, it is certainly a quote or misquote and not an opinion. Poor writing to attribute quotes as personal opinions. A lot of bias on this page. 2A02:C7C:BD1D:E500:79E7:EE5B:4A26:C35F (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're acknowledging he said "it is a violent and cursed book", but it's omitted who said it first? Right. CNC (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
citing someone else as saying as such versus him believing it are two different things NotQualified (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you cite sources then? Its not like he said '"... violent and cursed book", now he was extreme and objectively incorrect, but...' he just quoted it. 82.17.16.77 (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that is what Robinson mentioned Gladstone? TFD (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Met police did not arrest Tommy Robinson

[edit]

Met tweet "Met officers are not involved in the alleged arrest of Tommy Robinson and we are not aware of any links with the demonstration held yesterday in London. This matter involves another force and we hope that further information will be released soon." 2A0A:EF40:E29:C01:9D1C:59E0:49C0:873B (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was posted by me bit not logged in. I am a journalist that believes in truth. WatfordHertsLondon (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited says the Kent Police, not the met. I have reworded the section accordingly, adding more detail. As of whether this really merits inclusion in the article, I'm inclined to think not unless it goes anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an arrest, no its undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference sake, my previous edit was based on what the source cited at the time that made no mention of Kent Police.[3] Thanks for updating with the new information, it's questionable if it's due I agree. My only reason to keep it would be that other editors will likely continue to return the content if it's removed, which isn't the best reason but worth considering. CNC (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is what PP and blocks are for. We should not keep content just to appease users. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes fair point, however PP is only for vandalism, disruption and abuse. I'm not convinced added relevant content (against talk page consensus) inherently covers it. It'd just require "revert per talk consensus" actions instead. I recommend for now it's left for a few days and see if anything comes of it, otherwise can be removed if not. I generally agree it's a "nothing burger", he was arrested for obstructing (or intending to obstruct) a search and likely get's a fine at worst. CNC (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, if he was not arrested by police then why was he taken to court and why did the police withdraw all charges? 49.184.197.124 (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2024

[edit]

Change activist in title to Far Right activist 2.97.71.206 (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Already in the following sentence — Czello (music) 14:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2024

[edit]

Remove the word ‘activist’ in brackets. 95.144.37.98 (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about «(activist)» in the title of the article Tommy Robinson (activist) then it is required for disambiguation. See
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: As noted this is necessary to make the page title unique. If you think a different term would be more appropriate you can start a move discussion with an argument for why it should be changed. Jamedeus (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2024

[edit]

Change “activist” to “far right wing agitator and fugitive” 2603:8001:CDF0:8D30:34B4:966:3A67:93AF (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Czello (music) 20:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2024

[edit]

Tommy Robinson is not an "activist" he is a "far-right figure", in the most reasonable and honest definition. To give a far-right perpetrator of hate and violence the title of "activist" gives far too much credit to what is simply a man stoking the fire of a racist minorities violent and hateful actions.

Change "activist" to "far-right figure" 82.17.16.77 (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please discuss the matter here and establish a consensus among other active editors on this article subject with the best change to make with this content. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2024 (2)

[edit]

Please remove (activist) from title. Tommy Robinson is not an activist, he is a racist criminal. 80.252.121.205 (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. See Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy if you have questions. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

faq

[edit]

Do we need a FAQ? Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because in my experience the idiots/trolls never read them anyway. But it might be useful to have some FAQs like "Why does the article say that he is far right?"--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we can just reposehnd with See FAQ, or even just delete them. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per numerous repetitive requests. CNC (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2024 (3)

[edit]

You need to remove (activist) from this page. TOMMY ROBINSON is not an activist he is an agitator at best and a terrorist at worst. 92.28.169.253 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See umpteen threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2024 (4)

[edit]

Tommy Robinson has a forged Irish passport,the Irish government have never supplied one to him .... 2A02:C7C:4A0A:C000:9079:DA66:96C7:D126 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

[edit]
Dementrius Rex (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Robinson throughout the article when his name is Yaxley-Lennon

[edit]

Why do the article reference his alias when his real name should be used throughout? 92.207.152.36 (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We refer to actors by their stage name, it's the same principle doktorb wordsdeeds 08:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or is his real name Paul Harris, simple fact is this is the name he is known by. Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of news articles point out that his real name (or at least his name in up to date legal documents such as here) is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. However, this may not be the name on his birth certificate as discussed previously. Anyway, the article is bound by WP:COMMONNAME and so he is referred to as Robinson throughout the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is increasingly being referred to in mainstream media as Yaxley-Lennon, but not in headlines, so alas WP:COMMONNAME still applies. However, WP calling him by his own chosen monicker is not a good look. COMMONNAME is an article-naming policy, and does not necessarily apply to uses in the article. I think there's a good case to be made for changing most of the uses of "Robinson" in the article to "Yaxley-Lennon". — The Anome (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for addition in relation to Canadian issues

[edit]

In the "Other Legal Issues" section it may be helpful to mention his detainment in Calgary, Alberta https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tommy-robinson-arrested-canada-what-we-know-112159321.html 76.11.96.64 (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this meets WP:10YT. Although he was arrested in Canada in June 2024, nothing seems to have come of it, so it is not one of his major controversies.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, arrests are not important, convictions are. Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2024

[edit]

Misleading sourcing: Article states" Robinson has received over £2 million in donations and sponsorship, much of it from foreign sources tied to governments in Russia and Israel.[158]". The source links to NYT article "https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/23/world/europe/uk-far-right-tommy-robinson-russia.html" which does not mention Israel. Bongo1982 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There might well be some synthases here, this seems to fail, V, any care to explain? Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the claim refers to the donation by Robert Shillman, who is on the board of Friends of the Israel Defense Forces. I think that, it being a US founded organization and not part of the Israeli government itself, tied to might give a misleading impression that he has some role directly established by the Israeli government. I’ve been unable to find alternate sourcing for the claim. Is there a better way to word this sentence, or should Israel be removed from this particular sentence as undue? CloakedFerret (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The full text is here on the Wayback Machine. I would agree that funding by Robert J. Shillman (who is an American businessman) does not equal funding by the Israeli government. The wording in the article needs to be improved here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Procedurally closing out edit request per template instructions given the above discussion and opposition to request due to alleged WP:FAIL. —Sirdog (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

[edit]

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]

Chanting «f***» [sic!]?

[edit]

Subsection 2024 United Kingdom riots currently mentions

This seems to signify that the rioters actually used «f***» per-se rather than the f-word in their chants. However that seems highly unlikely to me, as I can't quite imagine how that would be pronounced when changing. «eff-star-star-star»? Much more likely seems that they actually used the f-word and that The Independent (which is given as the source for this sentence) rendered it as «f***» in its written news coverage. Das-g (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Das-g, Now what is your point?
–– kemel49(connect)(contri) 17:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the « [sic]» usage here is misleading. However I'm unsure how to deal with that (or I would have suggested an edit.) Some possibilities I see:
  • Simply remove the « [sic]»?
  • Remove the « [sic]» and spell out the F-word?
  • Cite the source in a way (how, though?) that makes clear that the « [sic]» refers to the news report source, not to the actual chanting.
(All of these options assuming that the chanting actually contained the F-word rather than whatever pronunciation of «f***» with actual three asterisks. How to verify that (short of finding clearer news reporting or audio recordings of the chants, which might not exist) I don't know.)
What would be most appropriate? Das-g (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Defamation League

[edit]

The article calls this a “mainstream” organization without justification. It is not. It is a leftist organization through and through. This should be modified. 73.5.219.200 (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

according to weho? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed to "Jewish civil rights organization" per source. They are not described by the source as leftist, nor as mainstream. The previous wording "while also being denounced by mainstream ones like the Anti-Defamation League" was clearly editorialised, as well as badly worded. CNC (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

[edit]

Remove ‘activist’ from the title as that is misleading. Brightjontimes (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this many times, and you have added no new argument. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 August 2024

[edit]
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: moved. With a general consensus to move as the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– This Tommy Robinson, is, I think, the WP:PTOPIC for the title. Tommy F. Robinson is disambiguated by his middle initial and Tommy Robinson (hooligan) redirects to a section of a different article, so the main "competition" for primary topic is Tommy Robinson (footballer), who seems to have done reasonably well in the early 20th century. However, Tommy Robinson (activist) is the WP:PTOPIC. As a high-profile criminal and fascist politician and activist, who has been accused of inciting the 2024 riots, he is a major (and controversial) UK political figure. He has more long-term notability than the footballer. Even in 2015, the pageviews of this article were a hundred times higher than that of the footballer; this year the article has a daily average of 6563 views, compared to the footballer's average of just four. Cremastra (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Overwhelming primary topic. Bruno pnm ars (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - absolutely the primary interest of readers. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 15:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
luke warm support I think this is true for now but it is hard to say if it will be true in years from now... but we can discuss it again later if need be Jorahm (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

No Mention of Milkshaking?

[edit]

Given the cultural significance of “Milkshaking” the topic itself having its own Wikipedia page, and Tommy Robinson being the first relevant target (This detail being mentioned on the Milkshaking Wikipedia page) I would have thought it was worthwhile mentioning it in this article too? Ghoulgamesh (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a Wikipedia article called List of food and drink items that have been thrown at Nigel Farage during election campaigns, although it would be quite a long one. But it is WP:NOTNEWS--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
It’s history no? I’ not sure what the consistency and logic is behind milkshaking having its own page and the person who is central to its origin not having that mentioned on their own page. If milkshaking is news or trivia then surely it shouldn’t have its own article. But if it’s significant enough to have it’s own article then shouldn’t it be worthy of mention in the article of the person connected to its very origin? Ghoulgamesh (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like OR. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia. And the claim that Robinson was the first 'major figure' to have a milkshake thrown at him isn't even supported by the citation in the Milkshaking article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And he gets no more coverage than most of the targets, and maybe less than some. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He’s not anti Islam?

[edit]
Please can we not feed the troll?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You can’t call him anti Islamic when he isn’t. He’s friends with Muslims and everything. He’s anti men raping and molesting our children. EBONORy999 (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RS say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable source? EBONORy999 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because anyone with any sense wouldn’t listen to just “reliable source” like sky news. BBC. Your meant to be impartial but your taking a side EBONORy999 (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its called wp:policy, now if you are not happy with it you can try and get it changed (but not here). Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you i will look into it further EBONORy999 (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EBONORy999, which are your WP:RS secondary sources that explicitly say he's "not anti-Islam"? I'm sure we would all like to see them. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This from only last week, or have you forgotten:
"On 29 July, the day of the attack on a group of young girls in Southport, far-right influencer Tommy Robinson repeated on X the false rumour that a Muslim asylum seeker who'd arrived on a Channel boat was the culprit. On the site, where he has nearly one million followers, he repeatedly linked the stabbings to the Muslim community, and said that the Government was "gaslighting" the public about the events. In the days after the attack, his X posts received an average of around 54 million daily views."
Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it was a second generation immigrant. in the jordan peterson interview from the 29th he legit talks about all this. EBONORy999 (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the kid he lied about in 2018? Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So didn't arrive on a boat then is what you're saying? CNC (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Axel Rudakubana, a 17-year-old British citizen born in Cardiff to parents from Rwanda." But I'd also like to hear what EBONORy999 is saying. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The father of Axel Rudakubana, who murdered killed three children with a knife in the 2024 Southport stabbing, was Christian and the family was heavily involved with the local church? What exactly did Robinson say in that interview? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid WP:BLPCRIME violations, even in talk pages ideally. There is no confirmation that Rudakubana murdered anyone, he is currently charged with such a crime and is due to face trial in 2025. Please strike your comment accusing a suspect of being guilty, thanks in advance for respecting policy. CNC (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, of course. My mistake. Perhaps it wasn't really murder at all? I wouldn't want to prejudice the jury's deliberations. So I have now adjusted my comment above. Or would you would like me strike out the whole comment entirely, CNC? What's your view on the subject of this discussion thread? We're waiting to hear about Tommy Robinson's view of this incident. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go watch silence by Tommy Robinson. Our churches are being burned. Kids being butchered and no one cares. The kid is second generation so he was born in uk but his parents weren’t. This site is pushing false information. EBONORy999 (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just a kid really. I’m scared and I’m fearful. For my dad. An ex military man who fought in the Middle East. I’m scared for my nieces. I’m scared and I can see the corruption. It scares me all. I don’t get if people don’t agree with Tommy why don’t they do something different and better EBONORy999 (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said above "This site is pushing false information." What exactly do you see as "false" in this article? "Silence by Tommy Robinson" sounds like an oxymoron. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tommy_Robinson&oldid=1243320709"