Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist)

Tommy Robinson is not far right.

To Whom it May Concern.

Your Wikipedia page referring to Tommy Robinson describes him as a far-right activist. Tommy is an activist but is not far-right. I have tried to access the Tommy Robinson Wikipedia page to remove this adjective but am prevented from doing so to ‘prevent vandalism’. Please will you consider removing this description of Tommy Robinson as it is not an accurate description and I will give you my reasons for this. Far right is used to describe people who are either racist, fascist but Tommy Robinson is neither of these. Racism is discriminating against people because of their genetic background, often because the colour of their skin is different. Tommy has many black friends and when he naively attended a BNP talk with some of his black and white friends, his black friends were refused admission. Tommy remained loyal to his black friends and left without attending the meeting. His view of the BNP from this point changed as he realised the BNP are clearly racist, an attitude that he strongly opposes. Fascists suppress freedom of speech, do not agree with democracy, have authoritarian tendencies. White nationalist organisations (BNP, KKK, Nazi) can also be described as fascist. Tommy stands up for free speech and democracy, he believes people should not be condemned for expressing their concerns. With regard to white nationalist organisations Tommy has shown his contempt for groups that follow these doctrines, he publicly burned the Nazi flag to prove he is against their ideology and turned against the BNP when he discovered their internal racism. Tommy Robinson campaigns for the preservation of our culture, freedom of speech, justice in the legal system, integrity in law enforcement and honest reporting by the media. He believes all people should be treated equally unless they support oppression within our community or terrorise our population. Sadly, many Muslim followers of Islam fall into this category, Tommy works hard to raise awareness of the problems we face, often being persecuted as a result. He also works with the Muslim organisations such as Quilliam, working to expose the problems experienced by many individuals at the hands of hard-core followers of Islam. I would appreciate your views on the points I have raised and request that you consider changing the description of Tommy Robinson by removing the words far right. The media (including Wikipedia) have a responsibility to be factual and accurate, to do otherwise is a form of propaganda. Thank you for taking the time to consider my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PureHeaven (talk • contribs) 12:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Find an RS that disputes it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Pity about the rude answer that you got PureHeaven. But this is the Wikipedia.195.11.204.67 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

-If he does not self-identify as “far Right” then you cannot objectively label him as that. A more balanced way to put it would be “he has been labelled as Far Right by some of his critics but does not self-identify with the label”. Here is the best possible source you can find, which is Tommy Robinson himself on video rejecting that label: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBTEbwKz3RI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.6.72.88 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Whilst (ironically) I personally agree that no label should be stated as fact if the target as not self identified policy is that if RS say it so do we. But also (and by the same token) someone is not really an RS for what they are not, after all no one ever breaks the law, or ever lies or ever...well you get my point.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The lede paragraph of the article contains citations in which Robinson is called "far right" in the very headlines. We've had this discussion before and the consensus was clearly supporting the characterization of "Robinson" as "far-right." Activist (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Activist, exactly. ^^^ People, read the comment above ^^^ and please don't comment if you have nothing substantive to add. Zazpot (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson is not 'far right'. If some 'reliable source' calls him that then they are not an reliable source, they are then a biased defamatory source.95.34.198.196 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, reliable sources include articles written in popular newspapers. Making conclusions based on political science and the subject's own views and actions would be considered original research. Therefore, Tommy Robinson is a far-right activist. Miyamoto Hachimaro (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The label "far right" is an opinion, not a fact. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias should present facts, not opinions. Furthermore, if the RS's opinion is to carry any weight for applying this label, it should justify the label and say WHY it thinks Tommy Robinson is "far right". In the absence of any such justification, the use of this label is a smear and should be removed. Please provide an RS that JUSTIFIES the use of this pejorative term or remove it from the article. LoftyR (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying I agree with the way Mr. Robinson is being presented, but in my opinion it is consistent with how other people are described in their respective articles. The way the sources treat him is unfortunate to say the least (the claim isn't justified in any way), but 1) there's no reliable source disagreeing with it, 2) there are plenty supporting it. The consensus is everything, and Wikipedia isn't a place for doing research or judging if a reliable source is being unreasonable in one particular instance. Thus, there's very little one can do to change the article. Miyamoto Hachimaro (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Miyamoto Hachimaro, to say "therefore Tommy Robinson is a far-right activist" is not good reasoning, as it depends on everything in what you call "popular newspapers" being an undoubted fact. And that isn't so. In fact, the main source being relied on is here, drawn from Associated Press, and it is offering a journalistic opinion, but this is a common opinion in sources the English Wikipedia treats as reliable. I don't see it being removed from the page unless LoftyR or someone else can beat it with different opinions from more reliable sources, such as distinguished political scientists. I have to say, Tommy R doesn't strike me as "far right", in any meaningful sense of the term, but our personal opinions are neither here nor there in a matter like this. Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

the main source being relied on is here, drawn from Associated Press The article cites multiple WP:RS that call Robinson far-right, including The Times, Time, and Newsweek. None of these is "the main source". They are all valid sources. There is no shortage of other potential sources. Zazpot (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please forgive my unfortunate wording. I agree, our opinions don't matter as long as the standards of Wikipedia are being met. These are the obvious consequences of considering journalists to be reliable sources, and unless the policies change, Mr. Robinson shall retain the "far right" label. Miyamoto Hachimaro (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Where did my comments go? LoftyR (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Robinson himself left the group in 2013, saying its form of protest was "no longer productive," and urged others to do the same.

"I acknowledge the dangers of far-right extremism and the ongoing need to counter Islamist ideology not with violence but with better, democratic ideas," he said in a press release at the time.

LoftyR (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The quote above is from a CBC article. LoftyR (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

For some reason the link refuses to display. LoftyR (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Trying again: www.cbc.ca/news/world/tommy-robinson-views-islam-1.4839120 LoftyR (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Re-typing my long original reply which seems to have vanished into cyberspace. LoftyR (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Miyamoto Hachimaro, thank you for your very fair reply. Full disclosure, I am a Tommy Robinson supporter but I also hope that I am fair minded. My concern for the inaccurate "far right" label on Tommy Robinson's wikipedia page is actually for the credibility of wikipedia rather than for Tommy Robinson. I agree that its use on his wikipedia page will do him no harm, particularly since the left biased mainstream media will continue to use it. LoftyR (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to politics, the mainstream media is extremely left wing biased and wikipedia will inevitably be tainted by this bias if it continues to regard these perhaps otherwise reliable sources as reliable in the area of politics. It is my hope that at least wikipedia can provide relatively unbiased information. LoftyR (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Robinsons words and actions alone determine whether he is "far right". They are the only primary source. The so called RS that is used to support the characterization of Tommy Robinson as "far right" is NOT a primary source as it does not justify this label with any words or actions attributed to Tommy Robinson himself. It is an opinion -- at best a secondary source. LoftyR (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The following is from a CBC article and it quotes Tommy Robinson directly and is therefore a PRIMARY source. This quote clearly shows that Tommy Robinson refutes the tenets of the "far right", and consequently that this label is not accurate: "Robinson himself left the group in 2013, saying its form of protest was "no longer productive," and urged others to do the same.

"I acknowledge the dangers of far-right extremism and the ongoing need to counter Islamist ideology not with violence but with better, democratic ideas," he said in a press release at the time."

LoftyR (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a link to the RS: www.cbc.ca/news/world/tommy-robinson-views-islam-1.4839120 LoftyR (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

This PRIMARY RS clearly shows that Tommy Robinson is not "far right", contrary to the SECONDARY RS upon which use of the label is based. This clearly shows that use of the label "far right" is inaccurate. I think it would be fair to characterize Tommy Robinson as an "anti-Islam" activist. There are plenty of PRIMARY sources to support this. And I submit that the Tommy Robinson wikipedia entry should be modified accordingly. LoftyR (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

LoftyR, this is really a matter of opinion, not fact. Wikipedia policy prefers secondary sources to primary sources, because they assess the facts. For what it's worth, so far as I can see the only thing that causes a certain kind of journalist to call TR "far-right" is his opposition to Islam, and that used to be just as common on the left as on the right. It's an odd development in the western world since the fall of Soviet communism, which of course was against Islam, that most people on the left are now in favour of the spread of it and call any opposition to that "far right", but there we are, that's where we have got to. If you were to look, you could probably find something in the work of a conservative academic, such as Roger Scruton, that puts this better than I can. But realistically I do not think you are going to get this popular left-wing point of view removed from a page of Wikipedia, which has a broadly left-wing culture. (For instance, the English Wikipedia has banned any reliance on articles in the Daily Mail, whoever they are written by, but it has no such position on any Marxist or Trotskyist publications.) Moonraker (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

LoftyR, I agree with this, "anti-Islam activist" would describe what he is accurately. "Far-right activist" is a broad term and largely subjective. Indeed, opposition towards a religion does not fall into the definition of "far-right" which is currently present on Wikipedia, so describing him as "far-right" is factually incorrect regardless of how many sources repeat it. My suggestion here is to change "far-right activist" to "anti-Islam activist" and create a section on the allegations made towards him of being "far-right", all of which he has publicly refuted. Jdee4 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I was asked for aa RS that contradicted the assertion that Tommy Robinson is "far right". I have done so, the CBC no less. I hope this new RS will be acted on to update the Wikipedia page. LoftyR (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I was asked for an RS that contradicted the assertion that Tommy Robinson is "far right". I have now provided one, the CBC no less. I hope this new RS will be acted on to update the Wikipedia page. LoftyR (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, LoftyR, and in fact the quotation you suggested was already in the section Tommy Robinson (activist)#Leaving the EDL, but a little cut down. I have added the version above and the CBC citation you supplied for it. Moonraker (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The CBC source does not say he is not far right, it says he has said he is not far right (actually it does not in fact even do that , it says he acknowledges the dangers of the Far right, and implies that is why he left the EDL). It also includes (equally) a quote form someone saying he is.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there an RS which actually justifies the label Far Right that can be added. The only RS on this article are opinion pieces. JacobTheAmish (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This far-right thing is an an ongoing problem with Wikipedia; and editors seem to gang up to ensure that the label gets applied to anyone with a viewpoint counter to the "convention wisdom" carried out by the media. Labels - whether they are far-left, left, centrist, right, or far-right are inherently opinion-based and biased in their very nature - and when the media assigns them to someone, that label carries with it an inherent opinion based on the judgement and biases of the person assigning it. In my view, the appropriate way to write entries about individuals, especially activists, is to discuss solely their actions and organizational affiliations, and drop all political labels about the organization and the person in question. For example, in Robinson's case, focus on what he has done regarding his reporting of the Rotheram scandal, his criminal convictions, what he has said about them, and what the court transcripts (if they are available) have to say. Don't apply any political label to him or his organization at all, and allow the reader to form their own opinion about the person themselves. That is what is known as critical thinking, and that is how an encyclopedia of any kind should operate. Steven Britton - The World Wouldn't be the Same Without Me (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This might well be a good idea, but this is not the place to change Wikipedias policy, WP:PUMP is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia policy, you're right, of course. However that wouldn't preclude editors from agreeing to start somewhere and agree to apply the idea on an ad hoc basis to articles where the use of the term "far right" causes controversy and dispute. I suggest that using the term, "far right" (or "far left", etc) are reasonable grounds to put a "neutrality disputed" flag on an article. Ultimately, I think that removing political labels would significantly improve the Tommy Robinson by making it neutral in tone while preserving the material which is significant and actually important. Steven Britton - The World Wouldn't be the Same Without Me (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I dislike ad hoc solutions. However taging is a different issue, yes you can tag it, but we cannot change policies based on an article by article basis. After all I have fought to keep "Nasty football hooligan" (or variants of) of this page as a BLP violation. But if we adopt "but we can ignore rules if we think we should" then BLP can also go out of the window, as can RS and god knows what else. We have rules so no can can "noruleslawyer" to include whatever crap they like, as long as enough people can come forward to defend it. This is not just about Yaxley-Lennon (lets not use labels, lets call him by his real name) its about Choudry, its about Corbyn, its about Boris, its about all BLP's about figures who are (or can be seen as) controversial.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A good reason for avoiding terms such as far left, center-right etc. is that we have more precise descriptions such as liberal, conservative, socialist etc. However, with the exception of Nazis and fascists, there are no better descriptions for the ideology of Tommy Robinson and similar characters except by reference to their place in the political spectrum. It seems correct though to place them to the right of the Conservatives. rather than say somewhere between the Greens and Labour, or between the LibDems and the Socialist Workers Party. TFD (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A better reason, and I have argued before we should not say he is, only that he has been described as "far-right" (in fact I have argued he is not "far-right" but only uses politics as an excuse for his behavior). The problem is that in the case of Yaxley-Lennon (as far as I can tell) he really only has one political issue, "MUSLIMS!!!!". Generally any form of bigotry is put in the far-right, right or wrong. As such we have to go with what RS say, as we cannot use out own understanding of his politics (which to me goes no further then "kicking someones head in on a yesterday night").Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

If you reference his own words, it isn't "MUSLIMS!!!" as you suggest, but Islam as an ideology. There is a distinction, as the former is about people, the second is about an ideology. But that's a bit of a sidebar. The main point here is the term "far-right" carries a connotation with it that I, and many others, believe to be a very biased and unreasonable label to apply. I would put the same argument to a discussion over whether Stalin was far-left, or whether Hitler was far-right, because I think it is far more useful to remove those labels and focus entirely on the individual's actions. Far-left and far-right are weasel-words, if you think about it. Steven Britton - The World Wouldn't be the Same Without Me (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

New section for online restriction targeting him (Twitter, Facebook, and Paypal bans, removal of his book from Amazon)

While some of these events are covered within the "Aftermath of imprisonment" section, this isn't adequate IMO since they aren't consequences of his imprisonment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Han O'Neem (talk • contribs) 10:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Robinson has been subject to various online bans and restrictions, eg in the past few days he has been banned from livestreaming on YouTube.[1] It is hard to keep up with all of these restrictions and mention them all, but the new YouTube restrictions should be mentioned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

Remove the label "far-right" from this page.

Remove any "far-right" label connected to Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson on this page.

Leave "far-right" only as it reflects instances Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson has fought the far right, has been threatened by the far right or has clearly removed far right participants from groups he founded, then left, like the EDL.

The primary reason Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson left the EDL was his self proclaimed inability to stem right wing activity in the group, so when he couldn't remove it all himself, he left.

Suggestion, read #enemyofthestate, rewrite this page, your reputation depends upon it. Wikipedia is supposed to be factual. A far right label is not only false, it has potential to cause harm to an individual and his family.

Sources:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l72m8heICBk&t=347s (TR interview with Sargon of Akkad) Sources:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oYHnUCTVHo&t=115s (Panodrama Documentary) Sources: "Enemy of the State" by Tommy Robinson 2017 66.223.183.90 (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

See the numerous previous discussions on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't think Tommy Robinson is far right? Which planet do you reside on may I ask? He's a racist, anti-Muslim, peadophile supporter who wants to cause a race war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.111.50.111 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No RS do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2019

Mr Robinson should be referred to as a racist extremist and provocateur. This man is a threat to the peace and stability of the united kingdom of great Britain and northern Ireland and should be treated as such. 2A00:23C5:9507:D400:944D:D562:32CA:A020 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

We do, we call him far right.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Or to be more precise, we report the consensus of reliable external sources (that call him far right). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

removed milkshake section! Suggestion

On May 2 2019, Robinson was struck in the face with a cup of [[milkshake]]s by a counterprotester, while on his "volatile" campaign tour for [[North West England (European Parliament constituency)|North West England]] [[Member of the European Parliament|MEP]]. Robinson approached the Danyaal Mahmud, who is a Muslim, asking if Mahmud believed he was racist, and said "Do you know 80% of [[child grooming|grooming]] gangs are Muslim?", to which Mahmud replied that it was a false statistic. Robinson and his supporter then shouted racial slurs and shoved Mahmud, with some supporters calling Mahmud a paedophile and terrorist. After reporting the incident to a police constable, Robinson followed Mahmud to the local train station along with his supporters and accused Mahmud of raping women and being aggressive and useless, at which point Mahmud decided to threw the cup of [[McDonald's]] milkshake he was holding onto Robinson's face. In a video footage that [[viral video|went viral]] on social media, Robinson was recorded to have punched Mahmud's head multiple times before being pulled back after being hit with milkshakes. Cheshire police escorted Mahmud to the train station and launched an investigation of assault into Robinson. Robinson claimed that he was victim of "political target[ing]" and called Mahmud a "young Muslim agitator" in a subsequent video. Mahmud said he was worried that Robinson would "have a chance getting elected given the current climate", and that he would avoid fame he attracted, as he received death threats on social media and was worried about the safety of his family.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/05/death-threats-man-threw-milkshake-over-tommy-robinson|title=‘I’m getting death threats,’ says man who threw milkshake on Tommy Robinson|last=Iqbal|first=Nosheen|date=2019-05-05|work=The Observer|access-date=2019-05-07|language=en-GB|issn=0029-7712}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-48152238|title=Assault investigation after Robinson visit|date=2019-05-03|work=BBC|access-date=2019-05-07|language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://news.yahoo.com/tommy-robinson-man-threw-milkshake-110117447.html|title=Tommy Robinson: Man who threw milkshake at EDL founder ‘fears for safety’ after death threats|work=The Independent|last=Dearden|first=Lizzie|date=May 2, 2019|language=en-US|access-date=2019-05-07}}</ref>

I have placed the above in a nowiki for the moment. This is too long and needs to be tidied up, but it is a valid entry , which was widely reported. If editors want to change please do so, and the result can be reinserted. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 07:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Edmund Patrick: It could be summed up in a single sentence viz, something like
  On 2 May 2019, while campaigning in North West England, Robinson was struck on the head by a McDonald's milkshake during a heated discussion on paedophilia by a Muslim youth. Mobile-phone footage of the incident subsequently went viral on social media.
  Or something along those lines; but that's all there is to it, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Add links, refs where appropriate. I agree that, as an assault on a standing candidate, it's probably a notable incident, but all that detail was completely unnecessary per WP:NOTNEWS. ——SerialNumber54129 08:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure it should be, its not as if they were knifed.Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

On 2 May 2019, while campaigning in North West England, Robinson was struck on the head by a McDonald's [[milkshake]] during a heated discussion on [[Pedophilia|paedophilia]] by a Muslim youth. Mobile-phone footage of the incident subsequently went viral on social media. <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/05/death-threats-man-threw-milkshake-over-tommy-robinson|title=‘I’m getting death threats,’ says man who threw milkshake on Tommy Robinson|last=Iqbal|first=Nosheen|date=2019-05-05|work=The Observer|access-date=2019-05-07|language=en-GB|issn=0029-7712}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-48152238|title=Assault investigation after Robinson visit|date=2019-05-03|work=BBC|access-date=2019-05-07|language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://news.yahoo.com/tommy-robinson-man-threw-milkshake-110117447.html|title=Tommy Robinson: Man who threw milkshake at EDL founder ‘fears for safety’ after death threats|work=The Independent|last=Dearden|first=Lizzie|date=May 2, 2019|language=en-US|access-date=2019-05-07}}</ref> Edmund Patrick – confer 09:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It was two milkshakes, different days and places.[2] Warrington police are investigating one.[3] 11:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I can remember the time John Major had a egg thrown at him, and vividly recall John Prescott smacking a protester in the face after this happened. However, it may not be necessary to mention every incident of this kind, as it is one of the hazards of the campaign trail.[4] Makes a change if it is a milkshake.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, we do not mention every incident with other politicians, so why with Mr Lennon?Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yaxley-Lennon, surely  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually he was born Yaxley. Lennon is the name of his Sept father (which Yaxley adopted to become Yaxley-Lennon). He is also sometimes known as Stephen Lennon. So any name for him is as good as another, as he seems none too sure.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I still think this incident is a triviality. I was the first to remove the entry, but I was reversed by the colleague who put all these details back by another colleague. This tendency of giving importance to an instantaneous incident committed by a 5-minute publicity seeker, in this case, the milkshake thrower, and give it an extensive paragraph the same day on Wikipedia as a Tommy Robinson "activity" is not merited. We should recognize it as what it is. A publicity stunt of no consequence. Robinson is campaigning for a seat in the European Parliament, and all we get is a story about a milkshake. werldwayd (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

+1. This incident easily fails WP:10YT and WP:NOTNEWS, and this is a more general problem with the article. Every time Robinson is in the news, some people are adding it to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah this happens a lot. It's especially bad when the person seems to be mostly in the news in relation to some controversy, since when there is a lot of coverage of other stuff, it tends to be easier to see how irrelevant it is. It can be difficult in the moment to be sure whether something is significant or likely to be irrelevant in a few years, but level of coverage (both number of quality sources and depth) tends to be one guide. Unfortunately given the clickbaity/sensationalistic news media it can be difficult even then. Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The milkshake should definitely be at least mentioned in the paragraph about his the anti-racist protester being assaulted. 103.253.94.156 (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mirror

It is (as far as I know) not been found to not be an RS, there can be no BLP issues as other sources discuss the same matter. There may be reasons to remove the Daily Mirror source, but BLP violation is not it. I mean of all the things to edit war over, really?Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• MarchOrDie, can you explain why you believe that having this source included in the article creates a BLP problem? I agree that it's redundant to better-quality RSes, so it's not adding much if anything, but I don't see any BLP issue here... BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I've said all I need to say at BLP/N. It's incredibly harmful to claim BLP concerns exist based on reasoning in no way supported by policy. If you truly care about BLP, make sure there are real BLP concerns, supported by policy. And especially explain yourself in existing discussing in appropriate places like article talk pages or BLPN. (I.E. Not in user talk pages.) So far, no policy supported BLP concerns have been outlined for the inclusion of this source. Its use could be considered for other reasons, but not BLP until and unless a credible policy supported BLP concern is outlined. Nil Einne (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any rs or blp issues. TFD (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mirror isn't disastrously bad, but it is one of several newspapers like Metro and HuffPost that I would not use if other sources were available. There is currently only one Mirror citation in the article: EDL leader Stephen Lennon given suspended sentence for headbutting fellow member and the same news story from 2011 is covered here on BBC News.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, that's the source of concern which resulted in an edit war. I'm fine with removing it because people feel it adds nothing to the article because of other sources but not for BLP reasons unsupported by our policies and guidelines. I would note other sources can sometimes be useful like in circumstances I outlined at BLPN. So the mere presence of another source doesn't guarantee the source is useless. (The situation for The Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Sun are a little different as they have been explicitly deprecated.) Actually there's IMO a contradiction here. If it's felt that including the source is a BLP problem because it mentions details not covered in better sources then the inclusion of the source isn't pointless duplication. If the source is a pointless duplication because it includes nothing not covered in the better sources then there's no meaningful argument that including it is a BLP problem. There is the wider question of whether WP:BLPSOURCES forbids the use of the Daily Mirror as the only source for something, a simplistic reading would suggest so since even Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources concurs it's a source noted for tabloid journalism but IMO based on my admittedly limited involvement in previous discussions this isn't how the policy is interpreted. And I found Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 39#Clarification question on the policy which seems to support my view (albeit predating the deprecation of Daily Mail etc) but that's a question best dealt with elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You maybe need to be less rule-based here and exercise editorial discretion. It's a shit source, Yaxley-Lennon is a living person, and whether you want to believe it's BLPSOURCES or something else, this source doesn't add anything and doesn't belong here. Talking of edit wars, anyone who restores material challenged in this way commits a crime against Wikipedia and against common sense. Well done Slatersteven for bringing this here instead of mindlessly reverting. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Explain why the source is a problem under BLPsources or give a legitimate reason for removing it or stop removing it. BTW, there was already an extensive discussion on BLPN before I reverted. I added to the discussion at the time I reverted. So far only one side has failed to discuss, and it isn't the side reverting the flawed removal of the source. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• As nobody here is actually arguing that the source adds anything to the article, and as BLPSOURCES bans use of sources like this, and as there is a far better BBC source available (thanks User:ianmacm), I've removed the shit source and now regard the matter as closed. Maybe some people need to reread WP:NOTBURO? --MarchOrDie (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the problem. You keep claiming no one is allowed to revert your removal because it's a BLP problem and that we, not you, have to provide a justification for our edits. But absolutely no one agree with you on that point. This is a problem, since you are effectively trying to overturn the normal rules of editing which is that both parties have to be able to explain give a reason for our edits. If someone were to remove the source for the reason it adds nothing to the article, then this is a reasonable discussion we can have. And from the discussion so far, there's a good chance we may come to consensus on that point. But again, this is quite different from claiming an absolute right to remove something with a reason no one agrees with. Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting to have your perspective. This edit is either deliberate vandalism or highly negligent. In a way it doesn't matter which. If you agree that it's a poor source but insist on restoring it to a BLP because you believe it was removed for the wrong reasons, that is playing silly games and wasting people's time. Which is why we're at AN/I now. Is there anybody here who seriously thinks the Mirror source is better than the BBC one? --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The reports are not directly comparable. The BBC's is a report on Robinson being found guilty, dated 29 September 2011. The Mirror article is about a later court appearance when he was sentenced, dated 4 November 2011. In terms of completeness, the Mirror article is therefore better. Emeraude (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

So it should be restored.09:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

(EC) I have self reverted as I did not notice that the source had now been replaced rather than simply removed. I apologise for that part. Although as I said at ANI, it would have been easier to notice if this had been explained in the edit summary rather than spurious claim of vandalism, or continuing to insist the source is forbidden by BLPsources. We can continue to discuss the which source is better, recognising that BLP does not forbid the source and no reasonable explanation has been provided for why it does so, so some explanation will need to be provided if there is disagreement on which source is better. And that BLP does generally prefer better quality sources if they are equal, which may not be the case here. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Glad we were able to sort this out. No hard feelings, from me at least. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Robinson is being sued by Jamal

Robinson is being sued by Jamal (the schoolboy) Guardian source here. I don't have time now to add the content. Pincrete (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought we already did cover it,.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Unless I'm looking in the wrong place, it reads as legal action was threatened "He was warned about legal action for defamation". A partial rewrite might be in order, which is why I thought it better left to someone who had 'the whole picture'. Pincrete (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Your right, that is what I was thinking of.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, if needed, it was previously reported that he was considering legal action. The latest report is that the case has been lodged with the court (i.e. no longer "threatened" but happening). Emeraude (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Added, overall text might need tweaking in view of the civil action.Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Ellection

It would be best if all the materiel relating to his (lack of) candidacy was in one place.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson's Release From Prison

Some readers only read the lead, and the lead must contain the essential. Robinson was released on bail pending a new appeal of the case. It is crucial it be mentioned in the lead lest readers be misled to think he served that full sentence. The Court of Appeal ruled that there had been procedural errors in the original decision to jail Robinson for 13 months, and this is why the lead must specify he was released on bail. Not mentioning it gives the impression that decision was ironclad. Israell (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No that is not what the lede is for, it is a summery of the main parts of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That's what I explained. The Court of Appeal ruled that there had been 'procedural errors in the original decision to jail Robinson for 13 months. That was a flawed decision, and the lead must refer to it somehow. Israell (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Why, how much space does it take up in the article?Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Do we really need a vote? I therefore vote "support". I've already explained why above. I disagree w/ your explanation. Israell (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not a vote, not is it an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. The fact Robinson was released on appeal must be in the lead. No one owns an article, and this is my input.Israell (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want, we can work on rephrasing that part of the lead so it reflects Robinson's release. Israell (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There were procedural ERRORS, the decision was FLAWED, not my opinion but what the Court of Appeal decided. It is one of the main points. It does not make sense for the lead to mention he was sentenced but not mention he was released on appeal due to procedural errors! It is very serious and relevant to the lead, just as much as that sentence.Israell (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read wp:lede.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Use of the word "operative"

I propose the word "operative" in the first sentence be removed, and the phrase be conjoined to the antecedent phrase, as the word "operative" appears biased and seems to further an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XanderXylona (talk • contribs) 20:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that the use of the word "operative" in the opening sentence is odd. He is a political activist and the "operative" part could be dropped. Do any of the sources given for this (there are six which is WP:CITEKILL again) actually use the word "operative"?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Not even sure when they was changed, I'm sure it used to say activist. Yes it is nonsensical.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It was added in this edit on 4 June 2019.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson's Past Studies

On the Wikipedia page it states that “according to Robinson, after leaving school he applied to study aircraft engineering at Luton Airport.” From the context, it is clear that he did not apply to study aircraft engineering, but that he applied for an aircraft fitter apprenticeship. The study of “aircraft engineering” (aeronautical engineering) requires good A-levels in a minimum of Maths, Physics and English, and is undertaken at a university, not at an airport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SemperContendo (talk • contribs) 11:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That does not preclude him from applying, just getting.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Another possibility is WP:PRIMARY from Robinson. Here are some great ways to describe jobs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

We do attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Far-left

Didn’t realise the far left where able to post here unchecked I have to check that all their pages are equally incorrect, this man TR has refuted that he is far right. I can only assume you have been unable to read any thing the far left media (bbc) and associated papers. I can no longer tell the difference between nazi’s and the people like the person who wrote this. Silence a group of people and make their people scared to express their thoughts, leftist/nazi? Attack them when they do leftist/nazi? If that doesn’t work go after their livelihoods leftist/nazi ? If that doesn’t work in-prison them leftist/ nazi? If that doesn’t work kill them leftist/ nazi?

Make your view heard but don’t try and put them down as fact when we all know different Peter0603986 (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

can we have an RS where it quotes his denial?Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: this editor is calling other editors leftist/Nazis (which he sees as the same thing). I would have deleted this and asked the editor to rephrase it as it's unacceptable and harassment, even if foolish. I have to laugh at the idea that the BBC is far-left - it's pretty establishment. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I did not read to the end, I did not see the point. All I felt was needed was to point out the obvious fact about RS. However (reading it again and again) I do not think it is a death threat so much as a play on "when they came for", a cry of "so weer do you end up with this, killing those you disagree with". It is a PA, but not a death threat.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)