Jump to content

Talk:Tommy Robinson/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

British or English

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

He can be both, so lets go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
So I guess that's going to be non-UK RS, as UK sources typically don't need to use either? Or are perhaps just too embarrassed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Whoever. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
NYT calls him British as does CNN. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Then so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Quite a small sample there. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
True, but its down to anyone who disagrees to find counter examples. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. We'll see what happens. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Always best to use nationality, so British. Though, didn't I read that he had Irish background....? Emeraude (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
"He says that his parents were Irish immigrants"? If we believe him, then that might open up a whole new fresh can of nationality worms? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
If he was born in the UK, he is a British citizen. I would avoid the term English because it is ambiguous. He doesn't meet the definition of English that he supports. TFD (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Martin - are you trying to say he is not British because his mother* (not father) is Irish? That sounds racist - can you clear that up? Ohok1 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
"Ohok1", how does one "clear up" an unsubstantiated claim made by someone like Yaxley-Lennon? Why should he not be British? Is that January 2010 interview with Victoria Derbyshire, on BBC Radio 5 Live, still available online somewhere, or even a transcript? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

His dad was English

It says in 'Early life' "He says that his parents were Irish immigrants." He doesn't, he says his mother was Irish, and his father was English; https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10389954/Who-is-the-real-Tommy-Robinson.html, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCCioFzgpSs timestamp; 21:15 "my mums an immigrant." Ohok1 (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I've used that Telegraph source to replace the Victoria Derbyshire interview one and changed the claim. This YouTube video interview is not as useful as he just says "My Mum's an immigrant". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The interview is must see viewing though - the whole video just destroys the lefts argument that "tommys a racist!" he talks pure truth, and I think everyone is starting to see that. Islamisation is destroying this country. God bless Tommy Robinson. Ohok1 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I managed a good 40 seconds. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
He's changed his story over the years. I'll change the wording. TFD (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hoolignaism

Copsey makes it clear that drew on football hooligans, and this has now been removed, why? Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem I have broadly with this article (and many others like it) is that it frequently uses juxtaposition and category labels to create a tone that doesn't reflect the articles it sources from.
The original version of that claim said something in the form of "Robinson said it's not anti-muslim, but its members include hooligans and anti-muslim people". This way of phrasing things creates a juxtaposition of Robinson's statements against a statement from a source that emphasises that Robinson is an unreliable narrator. This is probably true, extremists aren't generally known for being reliable sources on their own beliefs when trying to make themselves look presentable to a mainstream audience, but it's not encyclopaedic to create this juxtaposition without it being presented this way in reliable sources.
I've put this back in as an attributed claim, but I'm intending to give the rest of the article a similar shakedown. If there are specific things you think I should keep in mind while doing this, would appreciate it in advance. BrigadierG (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
ANd we had a source for just that claim. And yes, you need to keep in mind do not to remove sourced content without discussion, and you need to self revert. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a very dismissive response and I don't have a reply. BrigadierG (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Which part, that we had a source for this content, that you choose to remove the cite to? Or the request to not remove sourced content without asking first? The fact you have already removed cite content means you really need to get permission to remove anything (per wp:brd) that might (as this was) get reverted. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
This is good, I would much rather have someone watching over my shoulder to make sure my edits are not problematic. I am doing my best to work with you collaboratively on this and come to compromises about contested content (eg mentioning being barred from the US in the lede), and I think it is only reasonable to go back and forth to some degree when a significant change is implemented.
My intent is generally not to add many new sources, nor remove many, just to try end edit the content to better reflect the sources in question and remove cases of WP:SYNTH and WP:LABEL. BrigadierG (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The problem with that is wp:3rr, we may well end up having an edit war (this is why I have not reverted your last edit). YOu did not remove WP:SYNTH , as stated we had a source that explicitly stated both the claims (and they do not violate label) you removed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
All I've done is shift them from statements in wikivoice to attributions and removed the juxtaposition. What changes would you make to my edits? BrigadierG (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
No you did not, you removed the claim he wore a mask, you removed the text about how some of its members were football hooligans. Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2024

UKIP should be removed from the political party section on the infobox as Robinson was never actually a member. While he was an adviser to party leader Gerard Batten, he was never a member as the party's constitution barred former members of far-right groups like the EDL and BNP. This is stated in the article body under 'Political activities'. No exception was made for him and UKIP kept this ban on far-right group members until 2023. 148.252.147.61 (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, as having this in the infobox gives the impression that he was a member of UKIP, which he wasn't. What do others think?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree. So I have removed it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Quotation punctuation

@Emeraude: Hello! Regarding this edit to the punctuation of quotes: could you please point me to the MOS guideline that says to punctuate this way? I've only been able to find guidelines that say to only have the original closing punctuation within quotes and, given that this is speech in a written source that is then being quoted here, it feels that following the logical quotation rule would be the right move. Aligning with this, the BBC News source actually uses logical quotation when it quotes Robinson: ...chanted "EDL till I die", as... (notice the comma outside the quotation marks). Either way, though, the "I'll drown you" quote (§ Almondbury Community School assault and legal action against Robinson should definitely not have a comma both before and after the quotation mark as it currently does: ...attacker, "I'll drown you,", while.... Again, correct me (w/ guideline) if I'm wrong! – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 13:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The words EDL till I die were spoken by Robinson. We are quoting him - he said it. We know he said it because the BBC reported he said it. We are quoting Robinson's own words, so the full stop belongs in the quote marks. The BBC is our source, we are not quoting the BBC. Emeraude (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, okay. That still doesn't explain the double commas on I'll drown you, though. – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 12:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2024

DUPLICATE REQUEST
The discussion is already taking place in topic Early Life (Birthplace & Ethnicity). Edit request has otherwise been answered. CNC (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Request to change place of birth information to :

Claimed : Luton, UK Court Documents: Ireland

He posted his own documents in his Canadian immigration case

https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/1806144770995372436?t=DXDXs1u6lk0MCJM-RCUq_g&s=19 23.17.38.62 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

See talk page thread above. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
This is also similar to Peter O'Toole, who often said that he was born in Ireland, although his birth certificate said that he was born in Leeds. There are WP:AUTO problems if a person's recollection of events is not matched by official documents that would be recognised in court.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Birth name

ARTICLE UPDATED
Closing discussion to avoid further duplicate discussions occurring here that belong in Early Life (Birthplace & Ethnicity). CNC (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Born Stephen Yaxley-Lennon [1][2][3] from RS. He says he was born Stephen Yaxley [4]. I assume the BBC interview ref in the body is him saying he was born Stephen Christopher Yaxley? Not gonna watch it as no time reference.[5] Meanwhile WP:METRO is generally unreliable. So should we go by what Stephen says he was born as, or what RS say? The wordiness of the first sentence could be avoided here, if he was simply born as Yaxley-Lennon, per RS. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the fact he has gone under many names what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done CNC (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, it has been established that Tommy Robinson also known as Stephen Yaxley Lennon i'm various other aliases was in fact born in the Republic of Ireland.
Not Luton! This is important because he has boasted of being an English patriot. We clearly saw from his Canadian immigration documents and his birth certificate that he was born in the Republic of Ireland. I have tried to edit the article but it seems I can't. Can someone please edit the article to reflect that he was actually born in the Republic of Ireland and although he has campaign for Brexit, being an Irish citizen the impact for him was not felt as it was for the rest of the population. BritishGrammar (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, it has been established that Tommy Robinson also known as Stephen Yaxley Lennon & various other aliases was in fact born in the Republic of Ireland.
Not Luton! This is important because he has boasted of being an English patriot. We clearly saw from his Canadian immigration documents and his birth certificate that he was born in the Republic of Ireland. I have tried to edit the article but it seems I can't. Can someone please edit the article to reflect that he was actually born in the Republic of Ireland and although he has campaign for Brexit, being an Irish citizen the impact for him was not felt as it was for the rest of the population. BritishGrammar (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Please see the discussions in the section entitled 'Birthplace and ethnicity' below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conspiracy Theories

Is there any need to give far right conspiracy theories legitimacy while describing the behaviour of vermin? It's like one of its subhuman supporters got to this page and edited those in just to protect a fellow member of its kind. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

See wp:blp and wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
The latter of those includes WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTSCANDAL.
The subject of the article is meant to be presented from a neutral point of view, not portrayed as a paragon of justice and defender of children. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
> The subject of the article is meant to be presented from a neutral point of view
practice what you preach...
"...while describing the behaviour of vermin?" NotQualified (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
There you go again, attempting to portray him as the victim. 89.240.226.91 (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
So you're claiming that the Telford child sexual exploitation scandal, the Rochdale child sex abuse ring and the Huddersfield grooming gang are presented in this article as having been just invented? Exactly which text do you object to? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Present any video evidence you have in your possession or sources that have indisputable proof, things that nobody could possibly argue were doctored, or stop spreading conspiracy theories as fact. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
that is not the bar of evidence for wikipedia. the sources above all found dozens of men to be found guilty of child rape on a massive scale in uk courthouses. you do not get to make arbitrary goal postsWP: POV railroad because you dont like the fact that tommy was demonstrably important to bringing these cases of children being murdered and gang raped to international attention. yes, tommy is not a savory person, that doesnt mean you get to remove anything positive about him on those grounds. if you believe otherwise, please never edit a wikipedia article again. NotQualified (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
i am concerned this is a request for pedophilic video material of children being gangraped. i hope i am somehow misinterpreting this. i am not sure how it could be argued a UK court room is not sufficient proof but videos being personally provided to the user in question of the crimes is sufficient. this is extremely worrying. NotQualified (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
it is possible the user in question genuinely misspoke or didnt think their thought through, and is genuinely in good faith, but this needs to be investigated. NotQualified (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
UK court rooms are not evidence, they are a places where evidence is presented as part of a case against persons on trial.
Let's just assume that you do have this "proof" on your person/computer and "just don't feel like showing it." Don't worry, I believe you. 89.240.226.91 (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
reported again for obvious ban evading NotQualified (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Let me show you something regarding IP Addresses.
It's incredible, really. You can stop doing stuff for three weeks and then you could have a different IP Address. 89.240.226.91 (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
this talk discussion is in total violation of wikipedia rules and this user should not be permitted to edit wp:blp. NotQualified (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Robinson arrested in Canada

See [6][7] Seems to concern an alleged immigration offence. Don't see any urgency in adding it to the article until we get more details. It may turn out to be a nothingburger, but we should probably be aware, and make sure that if anything is added it is properly sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

yes, lets wait to see where this goes, and whose passport he used. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. ("nothingburger" - love it.) Emeraude (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I find it quite ironic that he's for strong border protection in his own country of Britain but has absolutely no problem with violating the immigration laws of other country. TarnishedPathtalk 09:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Not a reliable source, but amusing anyway: "Scientists reclassify the shortest measurable unit of time as that which occurs between a Tommy Robinson arrest and the launch of his fundraising page".Emeraude (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
We have a similar character in Australia named Avi Yemini who has modelled himself after Robinson somewhat. Every time he's denied something by some government or has some brush up with the law you know there's a grift coming (I think I'm safe using the term as RS do, see https://www.smh.com.au/national/he-s-exploiting-people-who-are-genuinely-scared-avi-yemini-and-the-art-of-outrage-20220922-p5bk9o.html for details). TarnishedPathtalk 07:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems significant for inclusion. Unfortunately the alleged infraction committed by Robinson has not been disclosed. TFD (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
an article in yahoo says "Tommy Robinson has been arrested in Canada on suspicion of an immigration offence after giving a speech in Calgary" 107.171.251.81 (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we've seen that. It doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
It's very clear to me that he lied to immigration or border security about his criminal record on entering Canada which is probably a chargable offence. 107.171.251.81 (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Did he, or did he arrive without a visa, or in violation of ban or...well there are many things it could be. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
We base articles on published reliable sources, and not on what contributors think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
It's too soon to say if this has any long term value. If he is simply sent back to the UK without any charges being filed, it is not of great long term notability.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it is significant enough for inclusion, given that he has form for immigration fraud. TarnishedPathtalk 07:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME applies here. If the Canadian authorities bring charges then it can be added, but if they don't it will fail WP:10YT.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Debatable. The fact of his arrest is reliably sourced, whether of not he is charged, and then whether he's acquitted or convicted. Certainly he and his supporters are kicking up a fuss about it. I still think it would be better to wait and see. Emeraude (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Covering the arrest is not accusing him of a crime. Covering the arrest is merely covering RS and per WP:BLPPUBLIC we can do so. TarnishedPathtalk 11:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes it’s significant as wicki likes to paint him in a bad light, far right? The evidence sited is two anti Tommy sites that don’t bother having the author in their article. Having recently started to listen to his interviews cant find far right beliefs just anti Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56B:BC51:6B00:45FE:A012:6713:FE25 (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

They're not "anti Tommy sites", they're just regular news sites. — Czello (music) 18:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The article is just reflecting what rs publish about Tommy Robinson, which is overwhelmingly negative. We can infer his identification with the far right by his description of the political center as the "far left." While his focus is Islam, he allies only with people on the Right. TFD (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2024

"An online petition for his release had more than 500,000 signatures.[162] The anti-fascist advocacy group Hope not Hate said its analysis showed that 68.1% of the signatures were from the UK, with 9.7% from Australia, and the remaining 9.3% from the US, Canada, Germany, France, New Zealand, Netherlands, Sweden and Ireland combined.[163]"

This portion is unclear. It should say:

...its analysis showed that 68.1% of the signatures were from the UK, 9.7% from Australia, 9.3% from the US, and the rest from Canada, Germany, France, New Zealand, Netherlands, Sweden and Ireland combined.

This aligns with what the source actually says. H6xy (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Neiltonks (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Early Life (Birthplace & Ethnicity)

According to [8] picture of Canada Immigration documents, Tommy Robinson was and is not legally British but Irish and that he was born in Ireland not in England as he has previously stated.

The article needs to be rectified to call him Irish instead of British and that his birthplace is Ireland, not England Marinne2004 (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOCIALMEDIA is generally not a reliable source. Requires a secondary source for claim. CNC (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Even if social media was generally reliable this would still be covered by WP:BLPPRIMARY and as you state we need secondary sources. TarnishedPathtalk 00:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Given that Robinson/Lennon has a prior conviction for travelling under a false passport, it might also be reasonable to be a little sceptical as to whether the place of birth stated was in fact accurate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. TarnishedPathtalk 01:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
It's interesting and now we are getting somewhere. If he did state on his travel documents that he was born in Ireland this would have set off suspicions, because he was born in England. The date of birth is correct though.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
To avoid confusion, there is no reason why a UK citizen born in the UK cannot also have Irish citizenship (and a passport) if they have a parent or grandparent born in Ireland. Robinson clearly qualifies. (In addition, citizens of Northern Ireland - part of the UK - can also have an Irish passport if they wish.)Emeraude (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The (non-WP:RS) source says that Robinson/Lennon was born in Ireland, which is contrary to what other sources have stated. Clearly it is possible that these sources are wrong. We just don't know, which is why we need to wait for proper sourcing. And avoid speculation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
It's easy for Robinson to have Irish citizenship through his mother. The actual place of birth is more of an issue, but we'll have to wait and see what comes of this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
As official documents published by Robinson himself (here) state his place of birth is Ireland, I think any reference to a place of birth in the article should be removed. It can be reinstated when a definitive answer can be agreed upon. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Disagree, see the comment about Peter O'Toole below.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
In 2013 he said he was born in London,[9] despite being born in Luton.[10] I'm not convinced adding further claims from an SM source of where he was born adds any value to article. CNC (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. BritishGrammar (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore, documents posted to social media are not "official documents". CNC (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay, well, can you show us evidence that he was born in Luton? Because as of yet we don't have any. It's clear that Wikipedia should be a place of fact. Where is the evidence he was born in Luton? The whole point of editing a page is when evidence comes to light.
To say that this evidence is somehow fake? When this would be Mr Robinson's detriment is laughable. BritishGrammar (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I provided a list of reliable sources further down. CNC (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Here Here!! There is great debate now about Wikipedia and it's inaccuracies? Social media is a wash with people saying " Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia and its content is added by people all over the world some of the times this is inaccurate" vibes. BritishGrammar (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Excuse me, the official documentation clearly states he was born in Ireland. I am half Irish and I am half English. I'm not bothered about anyone's ethnicity but I am bothered about the truth. BritishGrammar (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
We're not bothered about WP:TRUTH here, only WP:V from WP:RS. CNC (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I am as your citizen. What you say is correct, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. He was born in Ireland. That is the truth of the matter. As others have said if new evidence comes to light the fact he was born in England, then we can correct the page Page. But as of yet the evidence to the contrary. BritishGrammar (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
It is when there is a photograph of an official document clearly stating he was born in Ireland. Do we actually have proof he was born in Luton? Or was that just added because of common folklore? I suggest that now we actually have some evidence Wikipedia should edit this page to reflect the evidence we have. Should any evidence come to light contradicting this, which I doubt they will. Then we can edit the page again, but at the moment the evidence is clear. BritishGrammar (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Not folklore, he was born in Luton per reliable sources: [11][12][13][14][15] CNC (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Folklore? Wikipedia isn't about folklore it's about fact. Show me evidence he was born in Luton? Or are you just relying on folklore? BritishGrammar (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm . Did you not see the list of sources I just provided? CNC (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
In the UK your birth certificate tells you where you were born, that is the only "evidance" that counts. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I also respectfully request that the truth should be on Wikipedia it should a place of facts. The facts are he was born in Ireland. I find it reprehensible that we are locked out of this page and cannot edit. I have edited successfully many Wikipedia pages, maybe I've logged into the wrong account on Wikipedia because I'm sure I should have some privileges.
Regardless if someone does have privileges, can they please edit this page ASAP. BritishGrammar (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia bases article content on published reliable sources. And with regard to biographies of living persons, we have specific requirements regarding sourcing. As of now, we have no sources at all for the claim that he was born in Ireland, beyond a couple of images posted on social media, the authenticity of which could not be determined even if they were acceptable under policy (they aren't, since we don't cite court documents etc). As of now, all we know is that sources have previously stated that Robinson was born in Luton, England, that he has used multiple aliases, and that he has previously been convicted for travelling under a false passport. WE don't know if the forms are genuine. We don't know if the information on them is correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Sources? Unreliable sources high disagree strongly. I'm going to have to try to find someone higher up the Wikipedia food chain unless you can show me evidence contrary to the ones we have seen for ourselves, then I'm not going to agree. This man is dishonest he said several aliases, he has a criminal record, so the sources that state he was born in Luton need to be scrutinised. Show me the evidence? Because we have evidence to the contrary. Why would someone post a fake document which is actually his extreme detriment? His whole ideology is about being an English patriot? BritishGrammar (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I can assure you that you will find nobody 'higher up the Wikipedia food chain' that will support the violations of core Wikipedia policy that you seem to be proposing. We require proper sourcing for content for very good reasons, and we don't abandon them for political convenience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
We shall see. Because I keep asking you to show me evidence of the sources that he was born in Luton? And you fell to do so. So I will respectfully exit this conversation and I will attempt to contact someone who can show me evidence he was born in Lew and not just reply with blanket responses devoid of any substance. BritishGrammar (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I provided the sources above in this comment (the numbers are linked). CNC (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
You're giving some misplaced importance to a social media post over more credible sources.
It's not his birth certificate, it's just some document from immgiration - how do you know, for example, that a mistake hasn't been made there.
If he's traveled on an Irish passport then maybe an immigration officer accidentally wrote Ireland as his place of birth, easy mistake to make. It doesn't make it fact just because it's written on one "official" document. 2A01:4B00:C018:AE00:A47F:3975:73A:1E0 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Its always possible this is what he was arrested for, lying on his immigration forms. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Discussion ongoing: at the Teahouse.
CNC (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

He was at a rally in London today [16] so he has obviously returned from his trip to Canada. But we still don't know what he did to upset the immigration officials in Canada, or whether any charges were brought. Maybe the matter was dropped, and we will never know exactly what led to this incident.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

tommys documentaries

following in wikipedia due weight protocol, i believe there should be a section given listing his documentaries off. consensus? NotQualified (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Not without independent sources. And I very much doubt that such sources will describe anything Robinson is responsible for as a 'documentary'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
right what do i call them then, films? i could probably find a source saying as such but if i cant what are they? NotQualified (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Shite? 92.233.82.113 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
this is the forth troll ip account this month on this page NotQualified (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth comments like that can be deleted pretty much instantly per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX if they're not related to improving the article. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
the frequency is what concerns me. a week ago someone called him an 'international terrorist', now hes a 'nazi'? NotQualified (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
multiple sources calling them documentaries on a quick google search:
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/other/tommy-robinson-arrested-for-frustration-of-police-counter-terrorism-powers/ar-BB1qOjwC
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/tommy-robinson-flees-uk-hours-before-he-was-due-in-high-court/ar-BB1qOI8f
https://www.malaysiasun.com/news/274472361/patriots-hold-huge-rally-in-central-london
i can find more and i can verify if the above links are valid wikipedia sources if needed from you NotQualified (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The sources all refer to a single video, and none of them discuss its significance as a 'documentary'. It is only being discussed at all in relation to an apparent breach of a court order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
this is a moved goal post, you said sources wouldnt declare robinsons work a documentary, which is untrue, now it's shifted to it being a "significant" documentary? this article is not on the documentary, it's on robinson. if you make a 2 hour long documentary, it is significant to the person in question enough to mention.
> The sources all refer to a single video
i can provide more, i just did a google search and it was just recent results NotQualified (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure MSN is an RS. Slatersteven (talk)
The Malaysia Sun piece is via RT.com, which is definitely deprecated. And no, how significant Robinson considers his own videos is of precisely zero relevance to this article. 14:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not even MSN, it's Irish Examiner and Metro, neither of which are considered generally reliable as far as I'm aware. Definitely not WP:METRO in any case CNC (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:THEINDEPENDENT https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tommy-robinson-supporters-gather-ahead-of-parliament-square-screening/ar-BB1nroiF
there, a verified source referring to a video as his as a documentary. i can find more sources for all of them NotQualified (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
So we can say "He made a documentary called LAwfare, in which he laid out his claims about "what he sees as a two-tier policing system."". Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
i will go find a verified source referring to each video as a documentary, then i can list them as such without hassle? is that consensus NotQualified (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, But I dislike such lists unless that is what the person if primarily noted for (such as an actor). Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
bad format for this then? NotQualified (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
If you mean a list yes, we should mention (as we in fact already do) those videos of his that have attracted wide attention. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Given this BBC article, [17], it may possibly prove relevant to discuss Robinsons video - not as a 'documentary' but as a video making false allegations regarding a Syrian teenager, screened in violation of a court order. An earlier breach of which seems to have led to him being due in court on Monday, and possibly to him leaving the country. An arrest warrant has now been issued. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Do we not already cover this? Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
to my knowledge not the new parts
"An earlier breach of which seems to have led to him being due in court on Monday, and possibly to him leaving the country. An arrest warrant has now been issued."
this seems fitting to add to the 2024 july arrest section NotQualified (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
What has this to do with documentaries? Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
not much but someone went a little bit off-topic NotQualified (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Who? as we are discussing his videos, and we mention this one. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
andy wanted to more talk about his legal ramifications around the "docs" while i just wanted to list them NotQualified (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Andy (assuming you are right) is correct, as this is what makes them noteworthy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
and nothing else, not their contents? just legal ramifications? NotQualified (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
No we mention what RS considers important about them, what makes them noteworthy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Based on RS coverage, they are only notable due to the legal ramifications. Unless there are sources discussing the films contents with significant coverage. CNC (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
> with significant coverage.
as in within the source itself or the source was significantly viewed? NotQualified (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Both, the coverage within the RS has to be significant (or, about the video) and it has to be a wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

is the claim that tommy was the first british journalist jailed for contempt of court since the 1940s verifiable?

im watching a rebel news video and wish to add this to the article but i am finding it hard to find a better source for it


if you wish to see, go to youtube and find at 1 minutes and 10 seconds in: Tommy Robinson is winning the world’s leading FREE SPEECH PRIZE — and Rebel News is going!

Rebel News NotQualified (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I doubt this is a wp:rs. So do not add it without a much much better source. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
of course thats why im asking NotQualified (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Rebel "News" is a far-right disinfo outlet/rage farm that should be redlisted at WP:RS/PS if it isn't already. It's unlikely that any reliable sources cover anything they do, except for when their journalists crisis actors get arrested for the umpteenth time. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
not what im asking, have any reliable sources backed the claim NotQualified (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
It's unlikely that any reliable sources cover anything they do... ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
No. CNC (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The article does not even classify him as a journalist so that makes this nice and simple. The claim is trivially verifiable as false irrespective of whether any actual journalists have, or nave not, been jailed for contempt. There is nothing to see here. It's just Rebel News being Rebel News. DanielRigal (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Actual UK journalists jailed for contempt of court? Reg Foster and Brendan Mulholland were both jailed in the 1960s for refusing to disclose sources regarding John Vassall, a Soviet spy, for a start: and I'm fairly sure there have been others. As always, anything Robinson says needs to be taken with an ocean of salt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
the reg brendan thing proves this is false NotQualified (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
He's not a journalist so I'd think not. TarnishedPathtalk 02:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2024

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

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

award in lede

https://wiki.riteme.site/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)

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)
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)
miscommunication then, will look into it NotQualified (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
" 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)
And you then need to get wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
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)

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)
define "not independently notable" NotQualified (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
fair enough, i'll let other users add input. NotQualified (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
«it's a pretty prestigious award» => It is not. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
> "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)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2024

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

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)
 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2024

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

 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)

False quotation

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)

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)
citing someone else as saying as such versus him believing it are two different things NotQualified (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
Do you have a source that is what Robinson mentioned Gladstone? TFD (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2024

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)

 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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

Dementrius Rex (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
 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)

faq

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

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)
But we can just reposehnd with See FAQ, or even just delete them. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, per numerous repetitive requests. CNC (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

We refer to actors by their stage name, it's the same principle doktorb wordsdeeds 08:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

Request for addition in relation to Canadian issues

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)

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)
Exactly, arrests are not important, convictions are. Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

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

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

Anti-Defamation League

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)

according to weho? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
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)

Chanting «f***» [sic!]?

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)

@Das-g, Now what is your point?
–– kemel49(connect)(contri) 17:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2024

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)

There might well be some synthases here, this seems to fail, V, any care to explain? Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

Tommy Robinson is not "far right"

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)

wp:agf, and wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you — Epipelagic (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
See wp:soap, no one has said it is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
repeatedly. It's not hard to find. 2601:1C0:717E:4C0:65EC:2BF9:B3AB:6C5A (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
HItler had the SA attacked, was he not far right? Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move 18 August 2024

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)

– 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)

Support Overwhelming primary topic. Bruno pnm ars (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Support - absolutely the primary interest of readers. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 15:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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.

"Convicted criminal" in the first sentence

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Agreed it should say stochastic terrorist in the parentheses 194.127.105.107 (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
'Scrapes'? Interesting choice of words... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
But not that he is in fact an international criminal? Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Scrape, "a difficult or slightly dangerous situation that you cause by your own silly behaviour".[18] 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)
It is a statement of fact - he is a convicted criminal. 92.233.82.113 (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
He may now even be a fugitive. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Possibly [[19]], an arrest warrant has been issued. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

Met police did not arrest Tommy Robinson

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)

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)
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)
Just an arrest, no its undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
For reference sake, my previous edit was based on what the source cited at the time that made no mention of Kent Police.[20] 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)
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)
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)
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)

No Mention of Milkshaking?

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)

Its trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
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).
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)
That looks like OR. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
And he gets no more coverage than most of the targets, and maybe less than some. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

He’s not anti Islam?

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)

RS say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
What reliable source? EBONORy999 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
thank you i will look into it further EBONORy999 (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
And the kid he lied about in 2018? Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
So didn't arrive on a boat then is what you're saying? CNC (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Irish citizenship

It has been widely reported recently that he is an Irish national, his mother is Irish and he holds an Irish passport. He should be listed as "British-Irish national" 80.43.192.102 (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:NATIONALITY, the connection isn't strong enough to include in his description in the lead. TFD (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
There is a separate subjection on "Irish passport", which I think is enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Connection between a number of Russian stakeholders and Tommy Robinson

The connection between a number of Russian stakeholders and Tommy Robinson (real name: Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) is well established.

https://x.com/A_SHEKH0VTS0V/status/1831282591552479358 Sneuper (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure is a link to a single post on Planet Musk makes that claim "well established"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
We don't base article content on X/Twitter posts: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If and when this gets reported in the media, we can consider including something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson is a proud Zionist so not Far Right

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

I understand how this page came to this conclusion. This label of Far Right follows Tommy Robinson from common knowledge to Main stream media. However it's not correct. He has stuck up for Jewish people's rights for protection in the U.K. even before October 7 2023 and he's a proud Zionist as he himself has said in at least one more recent interview. This is also common knowledge to the point he is constantly accused of working for the Israeli government. As well as he is hated by actual far right groups for the same reason & also because he admits to having friends of all colors that he has known his whole life. I understand political terminology is not grounded in facts as much as it used to be but him being a proud Zionist should be enough to have Far Right removed. I'll do the work and list the links with time stamps if needed but if there was any unbiased research done in the first place you would know this already. Wikipedia used to represent truth based in factual evidence. What counts as proof for an edit these days? Weymouth77 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases content on what published reliable sources say, and not on the personal opinions' or 'research' of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Published reliable sources? How many of those reliable sources use Anonymous sources these days?Are they still all that reliable. The man did a documentary with the teachers and children involved with the liable case from the Syrian boy who was "waterboarded" If they don't count as reliable sources and the person who this page is based on own words don't count as reliable then what's the point? I bet if it was an admittion of guilt that would count. It's my fault I should've read the other edit requests first. I would've known I was wasting my time. And maybe since he is a proud Zionist that doesn't work in his favor here. Or maybe I'm wrong. Either way it's another one of life's learned experiences for me. Actual truth based in facts has no place in today's Wikipedia. One thing based in facts is if Wikipedia editors can't be unbiased then they shouldn't be anywhere near an editing gig on a site that claims to be based in facts.I really don't mean to come off like an a**hole. But every main stream media has it's own goals and political views. That's what used to make Wikipedia great. The people could show their proof and let the readers decide. You have better things to do than read my words. I don't envy your job. Not by today's rules. I hope you have a good night or day and wish you nothing but health and happiness. Thank you for your time and help. Weymouth77 (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2024

"Change anti-islam to anti-illegal immigration"

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

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

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)

Tend to agree. I think it frames the article in an appropriate way. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree per MOS:FIRSTBIO. Serving a prison sentence provides context for notibility. CNC (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

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)

 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)
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)
Of course he denies it, that does not mean he is telling the truth. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
"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)
@92.13.86.180 it's actually the view of reliable sources. — Czello (music) 09:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
Sorry, this isn't the Tommy Robinson fan club page. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Then how do you know this is biased? Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
What?, and read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Sincerely, and, with a No, thank you. Madewikid (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Shallots, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak Madewikid (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
We, who’s we? Madewikid (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Ranting extremely biased left-wing journalists like those at The Daily Telegraph? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Account and probably the IP are a single purpose account with an agenda. Ignore. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
He certainly knows his onions. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tommy_Robinson/Archive_6&oldid=1260435390"