Talk:Tommy Robinson

Made edit, how does one provide a 'reliable' source, when a fascist government makes it illegal to report on the facts?

Completely new to this. Had to correct a glaring factual error on the disappearance of Tommy Robinson at Leeds today. There is no 'reliable' mainstream source as the media has been gagged on reporting the facts. As far as I could tell, seems Wikipedia suffers a glaring weakness when it comes to fascist states interfering with media reporting on it's doings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.199.147 (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The reporting restrictions refer to the case being heard inside the court not his arrest.

There are reputable sources reporting on his arrest. Refer to the referenced article for the Independent, for example.Phantomsnake (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I stand corrected. There was a ban on reporting this case according to a supposed picture of the judge's order and the court listings as appearing on thelawpages website. There do remain existing reputable sources however. Phantomsnake (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Policy says that articles should be based on reliable sources, as generally understood. The objective is that the article will summarize key information contained in mainstream news sources and academic writing. Indeed, Wikipedia articles will only be as reliable as those sources. It would require a change to policy to add information to this article that has not been covered in the media. Readers who dislike that policy have a wide range of options for alternative information. Mind you, the media is reporting this.[1] TFD (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You can use several sources in the USA, or even other language sources. The problem is though that many sources in Wikipedias reliable sources list would be opinionated, and opposing Tommy Robinson views. But there are several American conservative media reporting on this that could pass the judgement by Wikipedia. Fox News for example is already used in the article. (I understand your frustration though.) AntonHogervorst (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I received an email this morning from a news organization I subscribe to about this person. I haven't screened this source for reliability, or anything else really (I actually haven't even read it), but you might find this to be useful if you are looking to give a more sympathetic perspective its due weight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Amongst developed, and generally considered civilised nations, the UK stands out by lacking a conventional constitution, that would guarantee for instance freedom of speech, while at the same time having a courtroom tradition of imposing reporting restrictions, that can be extremely restrictive, and that can frustrate proper public scrutiny of court cases. Combined with Robinson's own allegations, that the UK authorities have repeatedly abused these powers to intimidate him, and try to shut him up, bringing charges against him, that were later dropped, time and time again, all makes it extremely difficult to weigh what is published about him, and to weigh primary (his own accounts, and those of his collaborators) and secondary sources... --GeeTeeBee (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

But that's not what Wikipedia is for. We summarise what's published in secondary sources (those that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). That's it. If it can't be verified in a high-quality reliable source, it does't belong in the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're doing Wikipedia proper justice with such a categorical (dare I say simplistic) response ? — WP policies prefer the use of secondary sources, and for good reasons, but don't categorically reject the use of primary of or tertiary sources, nor the use of common sense — on the contrary: many WP policy pages explicitly reserve a caveat for application of common sense. Never forget WP:5P5 — No rule is cast in concrete. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Edits

I admit I was too hasty with the revert button there. I scanned a couple of sentences in the entire edit, felt them undue, and reverted the whole batch. I apologize for that. However, there does seem to be perennial debate about whether Robinson is a far-right activist or merely right-wing. I have no opinion, but I think people who do have opinions need to discuss this below instead of changing it back and forth multiple times per day. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

what is the truth about his new imprisonment?

right, yep that’s what I thought. Not a forum. Cheers
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Edaham (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Other sources say that on May 25th he was sentenced to 13 months in prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.228.131 (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC) what sources? And sign your posts please. Edaham (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC) From what Rebel Media says it seems that he has been lynched by the UK Government, and that this same fascist government has made it a criminal offence to talk about it in the UK. Most likely this also means that any foreigner known to have the facts about the lynching will be detained upon attempted entry, and either thrown in jail or kicked out of the country, as happened to Lauren Southern and friends. Btw, what do you call a state that lynches its own citizens? --Koppadasao (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Btw, for the people who support the UK government, the reason why I didn’t provide a link is because people like you who doesn’t like the truth to become common knowledge, are known to report any such sources with the intention of having facts silenced. Just seach YouTube for Rebel Media or Lauren Southern for the facts in both cases. Whether or not this should be added to the page remains to see. As further sources becomes available they’ll have to be added as required --Koppadasao (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC) LOL, hilarious.Heliotom (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC) This will never get added to Wikipedia, even if everything you wrote becomes axiomatic through numerous written and video evidence, because Wikipedia relies exclusively on official media, and what is and isn't official media is determined by the people who pretty much sentenced Robinson to death while still trying their best to cover up for the mass child rape throughout the UK. 178.1.247.226 (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC) No, I don't think so either. Anyhow, I would suggest that you create a user, and if you have any further comments on this side of the topic, please place them on my private talk page. --Koppadasao (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Indeed, Wikipedia relies on official media, that is a clearly stated policy. If you don't like that policy then get it changed, but this is not the place to do it. You are free to open a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and if you are successful then all editors here will be bound to consider your sources. Or you can create an article in a rival Wiki such as Conservapedia. TFD (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Wait is it the alien lizards or the Illuminati who have sentence brave Tommy Robinson to death? Are the Masons involved. Is there a youtube channel that can help? Even Tomi Lauren's Pinterest?Heliotom (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Just food for thought, as I don't know what is the policy regarding quoting wikileaks, but they reported on twitter https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1000409146007568389 , that article on Breitbart was put down (inb4, Breitbard is biased). Here is the archived version of it https://archive.fo/nC2ev. (Hypothetical question) If "gag order" was put on the arrest, is it possible for Wikipedia to mention it? I mean, how to find official source, if court denied to publish it? Cheers, -- 20:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.201.73 (talk) No reliable sources being added to this closed discussion. Please use sources along with verifiable material to propose article improvements in threads below. Cheers Edaham (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Arrest and conviction sources

I assume we are not bound by brit gag orders, are we?

Here's an article from The Independent, which apparently purposefully disregards the gag.

This is from Rebel Media about the insta-sentenceing. They are a conservative site and probably on someone's shitlist, but IMO that disgusting gag order justifies some leeway here.

This is Fox New's take on the matter. They also have the 13 months, so that should be basically sourced by now. Wefa (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This Breitbart Article might not be a reliable secondary source on the matter - but it certainly is an interesting and drastic primary source on how a partisan news organization comments on the gag order. Wefa (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Two of those sources (Breitbart and rebel) are not useful for verifying articles as they are not reliable (in this case as secondary sources). The Fox News site, if it were reliable doesn’t actually say anything which could be used in the article. It is full of doubtful commentary and actually says that the events subsequent to his arrest are “murky”. The independent is similarly vague about what happened to him after being put into a police van. We can’t add info which may or may not be true about a person’s criminal convictions. If the piece of information is simply that he was removed from a court scene for disturbing the peace, then based on the subject’s typical antics it seems fairly trivial. My advice is to wait until there is concrete verifiable information about what happened to the subject. We don’t have a deadline to work to and we might as well wait for something concrete. Edaham (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to say I disagree with you here. Fox News is considered a reliable source per Wikipedia policy, and the article is good enough. The claims I'd like to put in the article is a) Robinmson was arrested for filming on a public street in Leeds in the vicinity of a court house, on a claim of disturbing the peace, and b) he was subsequently sentenced to 13 Months of Jail for Criminal Contempt of Court within hours. I think the Fox article carries both claims, and the Independent Article carries a.). Wefa (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn’t state that any source should be used without discretion. I’m not sure what you are disagreing with. The fox statement is not reliable because it is (by their own words) not verifiable. It quotes an unnamed source stating: “But shortly after his arrest, a source with knowledge of the case told Fox News that he had been jailed for 13 months on a contempt-of-court charge.” And goes on to explicitly say that they were unable to find further verification. In this case if you wish to include the information, I would include it with attribution: i.e. Fox News quoted an unnamed source who stated that he had been jailed for 13 months. Otherwise you risk accusing him of a crime for which he may not actually have been charged. I don’t have a problem with you including point (a), but like I said it seems trivial to me. The subject seems to make a point of turning up at such events and documenting all of them makes the article look like a blog. I’ll leave it up to you. Thanks for taking the time to actually dig up sources and put together a proposal. Edaham (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

So in other words, the man disappeared and Wikipedia is as clueless as ever, despite there actually being verifiable info in the open. Well done, Wikipedia, well done. 178.1.247.226 (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

He has not disappeared, and there is still reporting of it going on.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

So in other words, the man disappeared and Wikipedia is as clueless as ever - no; in other words two editors above are spending time considering the subject and writing an encyclopedia article not parroting a news report. We're making assessments about the importance of the information being added and evaluating whether or not it might change over time and therefore potentially be redundant if left in the article. What we aren't doing is pandering to people who wish to eschew this process in order to advocate their viewpoints. The article may well end up looking the way you want it to look, but it will be due to an editorial process, not because we managed to carve a piece of text into something which appears factual, based on a bunch of vague breaking news and some documents cobbled together off of someone's twitter feed. Please read the above exchange in which myself and another editor managed to work toward an agreement and try to ascertain why the effort to collaborate is succeeding despite our different opinions as opposed to just whining at each other for not agreeing. Edaham (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Arreset.195.11.204.67 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981

I saw the original statement copied on the twitter account of several right wing reporters. I could copy that, since it needs a source, but if you would just delete it again as 'no reliable source', I would kindly save myself the trouble. AntonHogervorst (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be deleted as such, so I wouldn't bother to do it if you would like to keep your editing rights --Koppadasao (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I thought so. Anyway, I can still copy it here: https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1000112150201884672 AntonHogervorst (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but even posting it here on the talk page may be enough for some admins to feel the need to rattle their swords--Koppadasao (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. But do not worry! If they would use that 'sword' again and again, it will 'cut themselves'. Readers already know that Wikipedia is somewhat leaning liberal. If they make it worse by banning other opinions, people will just take Wikipedia less serious on political controversial subjects. I can see that happening already. AntonHogervorst (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m continuing this on your talk page--Koppadasao (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, asking people not to use the talk pages of articles to post links to user-generated content (which cannot be used to verify article text) isn’t “rattling swords”. It’s perfectly in keeping with our policies on reliability and verifiably. You may be talking to a less experienced user or other users who are new to Wikipedia. They can see what you are writing and may erroneously be led to believe that Wikipedia policies exist in order to censor content. What you are saying is fundamentally at odds with our philosophy and is (as has been remarked upon several times) a huge disruption, waste of time and bad example to new editors on our pages. Unless this and other threads like it start containing actionable proposals to edit the article text accompanied by usable source material, you disruptive behavior will be reported and you will almost certainly be restricted from editing in this field. Thanks. Edaham (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you for being the third admin to confirm that this is a left wing propaganda site. If you had checked the "illegal" source you would've found that the source was actually the United Kingdom's court, which we now know not to be valid source of information for Wikipedia, if that source support anything barely right wing. Again, thank you for confirming that Wikipedia is a left wing propaganda site. --Koppadasao (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

its quite an intersting read. It's somewhat sad we can not use it. Hopefully we'll see better situated takes on that in the future Wefa (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a weird and wonderful situation if it is true, but British judges can and do ban reporting of certain things during a trial if they believe it is likely to prejudice a trial. I don't know how long the trial in Leeds is scheduled to last, and UK Wikipedians would have to be careful. As ever though, in the age of the Internet, people are going to find out about what has happened anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

outdent. I have to admit that "wierd and wonderful" are just about the least probably words I would use to describe this situation. Wefa (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, let's say that it is bizarre and somewhat kafkaesque. Even by the standards of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 this would be unusual, but in previous situations of this type, most major foreign news organisations have gone along with it to keep the UK government happy. What Wikipedia can't do is to use blogs, tweets etc to get around the court ruling. It would have to be a blue chip source and not use weasel wording such as "it is understood that/ sources said" which is never ideal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue (as I see it) is that anyone can wrote a blog or tweet and claim it is true, that does not mean they are.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Also it is a very odd gag order, as no one seems to be taking notice of it. All looks very made up.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Gag orders by nature are the sort of thig that if you are taking notice, then no one may hear about it. This particular alleged order may be unusual, but orders to protect trials are a common part of proceedings in the UK and in several other Commonwealth countries. They are generally removed once the trial and perhaps immediate appeals are over. And I think this case does actually illustrate why we don't use Twitter. The above tweet gives a name for the judge. Except that the Tweet itself describes the judge as female and the order uses "his". The order also calls the judge a QC and AFAICT the person the tweet names is not a QC. I'm not saying the order is made up. I was easily able to find someone who would likely fit the order (including being from the right specific court) with some very quick research and knowing only a little about the UK court system. (Really only from the similarities to NZ.) In other words, this is very basic research which any decent source should have done. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The words from Judge Heather Norton quoted in the article come from May 2017, when Robinson was asked not to hang around outside courtrooms making comments that implied that a person was guilty before the trial was finished. What is happening right now is confusing, and the sourcing from Twitter/blogs etc may be inaccurate. We'll have to wait and see.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the fact the tweet [2] named the judge Denise Marson and the tweet itself called her a 'she'. However the very court order the tweet was relying upon use the word 'his' ('his honour') and also called the judge a QC. It was fairly easy to find it seemed fairly unlikely Denise Marson was a QC and as the tweet itself said, she's a she. So the court order should have used her and should not have called her a QC if she was the judge in question. With this basic evidence I didn't bother to look at her location. However it was also very easy to find there did exist a Geoffrey Marson who is a 'his' and a 'QC' and is also based at the Crown Court at Leeds where the court order came from. So there was still a fair chance the court order was genuine despite this contradiction, the person who wrote the tweet was just wrong about the name of the judge and this seems to have indeed been the case. As I said, this was very basic research which any decent source could have and should have done probably in under 30 minutes even if they knew very little about the court systems of England and Wales. (I think I spent less than 30 minutes.) I mean the first part wasn't even really research, just common sense that when the court order say 'his' and the person you're claiming made the order is likely to use 'her' there's probably something wrong. This is IMO good illustration of why we shouldn't rely on tweets or other poor quality sources. Anyway this is basically a repetition of what I was saying in my first reply, but clearer now that I don't have to obscure the details. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have used as resource a reliable and even left winged liberal news paper. NRC. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/05/28/britse-anti-islamactivist-tommy-robinson-de-cel-in-a1604472 If I may translate for you people: "Anti-islamactivist en oprichter van English Defence League (EDL) Tommy Robinson (35) is vrijdag in Leeds aangehouden en vastgezet. Dat werd pas in de loop van het afgelopen weekend duidelijk, omdat de rechter in zijn vonnis een publicatieverbod over de zaak had opgenomen." Would be translated to English: "Anti islam activist and founder of the English Defece League (EDL) Tommy Robinson (35) has been arrested in Leeds on Friday and taken into custody. This slowly became clear this weekend, because the judge in his case has issued a publication ban about this case". And if you now say this source is also not okay, and will again delete my contribution, I have lost my believe in the neutrality of Wikipedia, .. even more. AntonHogervorst (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not about the arrest.Slatersteven (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Occupation

OK, can we have a source that says what he does for a living?Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It also does not matter if he is notable for it, in occupation we put what his actual job is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Tanning salon owner

@Emeraude: please add a reference, or revert yourself. Christian75 (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I found various sources saying that he was a former tanning salon owner, but it's unclear whether he is doing this currently. So it should not be re-added without a source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Same here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

My rationale was quite simple - "activist" is not an occupation and no one seriously thinks Robinson is a journalist on the basis of a few blog posts, apart from Robinson himself. Salon owner was edited unnoticed during a spate of unaccepted edits and somehow escaped notice. He has reliably been sourced as a salon owner; best to keep that until something else is reliably sourced. Emeraude (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell most of the ore recent sources that mention this say he used to by one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson was until recently employed as a journalist for Rebel Media by Ezra Levant.[3] NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And he is no longer one of those either.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Emeraude, I find it peculiar that you disagree with describing TR as an activist "and a writer" in the lead, on the basis that he is not primarily known as a writer, and then immediately proceed to list his profession primarily (or solely ?) as "tanning salon owner" ? He has stated that leading the EDL provided him with income in the past, so in those days you could have called him a career- or professional activist. I think nowadays he derives more income from his books than from anything else. But I don't have a source yet. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Also as far as I can tell he is a former Salon owner.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This is silly - does anyone see current sources describing him as such? Just about every source I've seen using "(something)-right activist" (or "citizen journalist" for those sources that but into Robinson's narrative which are generally not RS, though when he was employed by Rebel Media that was some coverage calling him a journalist of some sort (usually with a /activist)) - this seems to be his main occupation. There are plenty of activists who do their activism full-time - they typically make ends meet financially through their activism (donations, support for their organizations, and I suppose in some cases (maybe here per coverage) income from YouTube commercials).Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

..or from a tanning salon. No source says he is a former tanning salon owner. Emeraude (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

UK Jailing for 13 months and censorship

Following reporting by Haaretz, de Volkskrant, Do Rzeczy, Fox, and a number of other outlets of this "secret" (or rather gagged) imprisonment of 13 months - I added the jail sentence and the (even more notable) gag order to the article - this level of sourcing is sufficient. UK gag orders do not, to the best of my knowledge, affect the English Wikipedia (as for individual editors - I guess that would depend on her majesty's reach - offering no advice).Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, "notable", in Wikipedia contexts, means "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", not an individual editor's opinion of what's important. The lack of reliable sources is the reason we're having these conversations. Second, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news outlet, so there's no hurry to include unconfirmed information. So let's write what we have rock-solid sourcing for, and wait until the sources become available for the rest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Heliotom: - re this revert - inaccurate? How so? This is what is being reported in accurate sources outside of the UK - the text entered was a fairly straightforward translation of this Haaretz piece which is considered a top-notch RS. This is beyond unconfirmed - several world-wide media sources, many non-English - but premier sources, are reporting on this.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

As for "notable". Sorry - I'll be precise - quite WP:DUE. This is significant information in regards to the BLP, and it is quite well sourced. Haaretz wasn't reporting rumoers - it was doing so in its own voice - as are other sources.Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

One source was in Dutch and one was in Hebrew, but I wonder if they are accurate or are simply repeating Internet rumours about this affair. According to The Independent, he was arrested outside Leeds Crown Court on 25 May 2018 [4] but beyond that it starts to get murky. The whole 13 month sentence thing is completely lacking in reliable sourcing beyond what people have said on Twitter and in the blogs. So it isn't suitable for the article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

They are doing the reporting in their own voice. As is [5] Do Rzeczy. Hebrew, Dutch, and Polish - all in their own voices - and not via rumors. Haaretz is left leaning (to say the least) - not a sympathetic outlet to Robinson - and it does have legs on the ground in London. 3 sources of this caliber are well beyond what is required for BLP content. Lack of UK sources is... Understandable given the censorship issue in the UK - and given that worldwide RSes are reporting that the UK sources are censored, we actually probably have a problem in using UK sources.Icewhiz (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This UK source (again The Independent) from 27 May 2018 says "He currently remains in custody". There was also a protest in Downing Street which the UK media has reported. As for the 13 month sentence, I'm holding off on this, not because of any alleged gag order, but because it will be hard to report this reliably until there is further sourcing. WP:DEADLINE applies here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Independent can not report due to UK censorship - and as such - is irrelevant to this situation. If this were in Iran or Russia (countries in which people are routinely sent to jail and the press is censored) - we would have this in the article based on this level of sourcing. The 3 sources I presented would pass any RSN discussion (and have passed, in the past) - they are reliable. There are further international news hits (in Dutch, Polish, Hebrew, and a few other languages) - around 10-20 - that I am not sure of RS wise (though some probably would pass). Haaretz, de Volkskrant, and Do Rzeczy are well beyond what is sufficient here. Per WP:NOENG - there is absolutely no problem in using non-English sources - while we prefer English, non-English is perfectly acceptable if no English is available.Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

As for reliability - the way this is "typically" leaked from a democratic (or even a semi-free) country is that the gagged journalists typically pass on the information to foreign journalists - who then report. It is also possible, in this day and age, to do all sorts of interviews remotely. Haaretz (as well as de Volkskrant and Do Rzeczy) are able to fact-check events in the UK.Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Valeurs actuelles - https://www.valeursactuelles.com/monde/scandale-tommy-robinson-le-fondateur-de-lenglish-defence-league-arrete-et-emprisonne-95925.Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

UTC)

I’m getting a bit of de... je.. v.. sorry I don’t speak French, but you know what I mean. There’s probably enough to make a mention with attribution (to the papers which are currently speculating on his status), but in-text it’s going to sound like a lot of words for a fairly trivial issue. An editor did pull some sources earlier and there’s actually a sentence or two of verifiable text to be pulled, but wp:deadline, doesn’t just advise us to wait because we need to pander to preferential sourcing policies, it actually means we’ll get a more factually accurate article if we wait. That’s why everyone’s here right? To patiently make sure our articles are as factually accurate as possible? Edaham (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm also worried about churnalism here. The Fox News cite says "shortly after his arrest, a source with knowledge of the case told Fox News that he had been jailed for 13 months on a contempt-of-court charge" which is journalistic shorthand for "we don't know if this is true, but this is what we were told", which is a form of hearsay. I suspect that the other foreign language sources are no further forward than Fox News, even if they haven't made this clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The initial Fox report was hedging its bets - the current reporting is doing so in its own voice. There is little reason to suspect non-UK journalists - these are capable outlets - and they are able to speak with the family of the jailed individual, with people who were present at court, and with all the gagged UK journalists, etc. There plenty of ways to verify this. This is an event of the caliber - that is possibly Wikipedia ITN material.Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• hi all - no-one in the UK is jailed overnight without court appearances, nothing happens at the weekend - tuesday we will get some action - also imo, to add, no one in the uk is imprisoned for thirteen months for videoing outside a courthouse. (Govindaharihari (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  First off - never say never. In this particular case - he was reportedly arrested, hauled before the judge inside the court (outside of which he was protesting), sentenced on the spot, a gag order issued, and sent to jail. So he was in court - on Friday - per the reports. Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  ok ice, let's see tomorrow when all the legal outlets are open Govindaharihari (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources for 13-months -

1. De Telegraaf - [6].
2. Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie - [7].

I think this is wide enough that we can at least say it was reported he was sentenced to 13 months - it seems every news outlet outside of the UK (that has picked this up) is reporting this in conjunction with the protests (and it seems this is what is being protested - both inside and outside of the UK).Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Leeds live - [8] - supposedly got the gag lifted. However, I have no idea, personally, whether they would be considered reliable.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  They are claiming - In a rare move, he was arrested, charged and sentenced within five hours. - which is quite interesting. I thought up to now this was was a contempt of court ruling of some sort.Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  That's impossible, to the point of being ludicrous. It's more likely that it was dealt with as a breach of the suspended sentence or as contempt of court (especially since the article says he was held in the court cells), in which case there's no need for the charging and indictment/committal process. Leeds Live is probably a borderline reliable source but if it's true that the reporting restrictions were lifted, we should see more and better sources in the next few hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much wrong with the Leeds Live sourcing, as it is a website driven by local newspaper content. Also, it is now in The Independent [9] so it's official. Personally, I think it was a mistake to impose reporting restrictions over the weekend as this allowed Robinson to play the freedom of speech martyrdom card in the foreign media, after violating the suspended sentence in Canterbury where he was clearly told not to harass people outside courtrooms or imply that they were guilty. This risked causing a retrial and is not covered by the laws on freedom of speech.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Outside of the UK, this is quite permissible (i.e. US 1st amendment - gags in the US only apply to parties to the case)... It will be interesting how this will play out going forward.Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The full Facebook livestream is on YouTube, but I'm not going to link to it here. This clearly shows him harassing people arriving at Leeds Crown Court and implying that they were guilty, which is exactly what he was told not to do in Canterbury. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

In this particular case, ignoring him would've been the better course of action - this imprisonment probably advances his cause/PR quite a bit - playing right into his message of "silencing" and "suppression". But I'm sliding into OR/Soapboxing.Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a good article in the Financial Times today.[10] This shows that the Streisand effect has occurred, as the attempt to prevent the media from reporting the fact that he had been jailed led to far more publicity than if it had been reported openly in the first place.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"The jailing of Robinson drew condemnation from right wing circles.[76]" What are right wing circles? This term only has meaning inside the writer's mind. The jailing of Tommy Robinson was drew concerned comments from many quarters.213.205.241.1 (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Care to provide a link or source for one?Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete 2

How is this minor football hooligan in any way notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page? All he has done is participate in some crimes and talked on TV about it. This article should be deleted due to not meeting notability criteria. Aigarius (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, he easily meets WP:GNG. More a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It will probably turn out that he is in fact some kind of Beuysian art installation created by Banksy. In any case; notable. Edaham (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Whilst I agree, sadly the press do not and so he gets a page.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Mangled idiom

"I thought Mo Ansar was being built as the acceptable face of Islam" should be "billed as the etc", as it means "promoted". You don't build a product or person as something; you bill them as something, as in a playbill.  Done-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

A Denial without an Allegation, re: Breivik

It terms of style and/or readability, it seems to me that a standalone statement of a "denial" is incomplete without an allegation. In it's present form, it feels more like an attempt to associate Robinson (a right-wing activist) with Anders Breivik, a mass-murderer, based on the vague assertion that some of the EDL were "friends" with Breivik. It's a concrete response to an ambiguous rumor with no substantiation besides an apparent denial. It leaves to the Reader's imagination why Robinson denied a connection to a mass-murder that this article, in it's present form, doesn't even allege. It feels wrong, looks wrong and causes the Reader to wonder if the fact's inclusion was solely for casting Robinson in as negative light as possible. In effect saying "We think he's a friend of a mass-murderer, but he denies it." I think the Article should either report the allegation, and it's denial, or scrub the denial until an RS allegation can be found. This is the sentence I'm referring to:

"In 2011, Robinson denied having links to Anders Breivik. Breivik was alleged to have several friends among followers of the EDL."

I also think that the fact that a single Judge can block the reporting of an entire country calls into question the reliability of the totality of that country's media, and I think that idea should be considered when assessing the reliability of the sources in this article. IMO, you can't be "reliable" and controlled by the State, both. It's one or the other. And yes, I mean the BBC too. In particular, even.2605:6000:6947:AB00:C4C5:C9EE:D9CC:FC12 (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Removed. If there is a credible source alleging a connection between Robinson and Breivik - it could be added and this response would be relevant. As-is - Robinson (and others) would deny any number of things.Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Err it is still being reported, here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

As to links to Brevik [11], [12], [13], [14] there are more.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Then write it up prior to placing the denial itself - it also seems this is more EDL related (the allegation being on the EDL at large or an associated blogger) and not Robinson - but if it is tied in here, we need to make the allegation first.Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree on the removing the Breivik angle. Despite the BBC sourcing, where Robinson denies the link, there has never been a firm link between Breivik and Robinson. The allegations never went further than some EDL members possibly having links to Breivik, which did not involve Robinson personally.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted the BLP violation, weasel words, opinion "far-right"

Instead of throwing out the pejorative "far-right" to describe the gentleman (for which there lacks a reliable source, as if a negative opinion had a reliable source -- unless the topic is "opinions"), objective terms should be used. If one is going to call him an activist, then give at least the main issue about which he is active instead of a BLP violation slur phrase. For example, instead of labeling a person a far-left activist, one might say "animal-rights activist," "global-warming activist," or "communism activist." For the right, one might say, "an extermination of Jews activist," "a Hitler-system activist," "a pro-slavery" activist, or a "pro-sharia activist" if one has reliable sources. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC))

"Muslim-bashing thug" would be pejorative. "Far right" is not a slur or pejorative or a BLP violation any more than terms like "conservative" and "liberal" are. There are no fewer than six sources right next to the claim, and a random sample of the references shows that it's a common description of him. Your complaint sounds more like "I don't like it" than anything based in policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We have multiple RS saying this. And what else would we call him, what label applies (supported by RS of course)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"far-right" is not a BLP violation or a slur: there are several very reliable sources that describe him as such (The Times, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Times (again), Business Insider and The Guardian) – and this is just from a very quick search of reliable sources, and without taking into account the FIVE citations in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't take much to be called a far-right activist by The Guardian. Its a description that means different things to different people, so I'd suggest you say he's been called or widely described as a far-right activist. 212.35.8.114 (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't take much for anyone on the far right to be called far right by anyone, largely because they are far right! Why pick on The Guardian when multiple other sources do the same. Do I detect some bias here? Emeraude (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If this is about the number of Outlets slandering the man, why then not do as I suggested and write that "he's been widely described as a far-right activist". He's also been widely described as a hero to the British Working Class, just probably not by the people you consider to be Reliable Sources like "The Guardian". Its a shame you refuse to maintain that standard of Neutrality, "far right" is a value judgement not a job description like "leader of the EDL", and the fact that it matters who has been describing him as "far right" does not change just because "enough people that we like said it" . Talking about bias. --212.35.8.114 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:Weasel. If there are reliable sources that dispute the far-right label, please share them with us. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes the term far-right is used by several reliable sources, but one being described as far-right is an opinion based on this persons association with people who were actually far-right, I can't find any reliable sources that can claim him alone as far-right without mentioning the EDL which again wasn't far right but had people who decided to follow it that are far-right and there is reliable sources that report that Tommy Robinson left the EDL because of too many Neo-Nazis had joined so he wanted to distance himself as the EDL had been taken over by them. User:Wikizard1991 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

[15], [16].Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

David Coburn MEP's words at the #FreeTommy rally

At the #FreeTommy rally that took place outside 10 Downing Street on 26th May 2018, David Coburn MEP for Scotland attended and spoke several times to the crowd. In his first address he expressed deep concern over the way Tommy Robinson's situation had been handled by the authorities, and what that treatment means for the freedom of the individual and freedom of speech, stating:

"We must be equal under the law, we can’t have exceptions and we can’t have journalists arrested. It is absolutely unspeakable, it cannot be done and it’s good that some people are at least standing up for the freedom of the individual.

Today it’s this gentleman, tomorrow it could me, the day after it could be you!"

References

DomGiuliano (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what edit you wish us to make.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@DomGiuliano: If you can come up with an independent source (like a news report), he can have a mention like the others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The article already makes clear that Robinson's contempt of court was not about freedom of speech, but about the rule of law concerning the reporting of on-going trials. JezGrove (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please remember this is not a forum to discus the rights or wrongs of Mr Yaxleys arrest.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Structure

This article is confused and contains a lot of unnecessary duplication (some of which I've removed in my recent series of edits). It also seems to be using section headers to highlight themes rather than to organise content. It really needs to be restructured into a chronological biography, both for coherence and to avoid giving undue weight to any particular aspect of his life. And while I'm here, can we for heaven's sake summarise things, rather than pasting in large quotes for every minor controversy? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

sounds like you’ve got a great plan there. Carry on. Edaham (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

oh wait I’ve just worked out that you are talking to other editors. I’ll see what I can do then. You do know that as an oversighter you can nominate specific editors to act autonomously as drones on your behalf? (You need to add twenty or so lines of JS to your script page) Edaham (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If only that were true! ;) I was hoping that somebody else would do the work but expecting that I'd get bored of my current projects again in a few days and end up doing it myself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

What headings/subheadings would you suggest? I can see three chronological phases

• Early life and Football stuff*
• EDL
• Later

...In that order. There doesn't need to be subsections on "arrests" Those are just things which happened to him during the course of his career, and these sections invite breaking coherent chronology in order to catalogue a criminal career. He's not a career criminal like Ronnie Biggs is he? he doesn't really need separate sections on his arrests and convictions - they can just be interspersed according to when they happened within each section. Is that kind of what you mean?

*I'd bung early life and football stuff into one section because he's predominantly notable for what he's been doing in the last few years.

Edaham (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson convicted of contempt of court

On 29th May 2018, Tommy Robinson was convicted in a UK court of law and sentenced to 13 months imprisonment for contempt of court, after admitting the offence, following Facebook broadcast. In the video, he made comments that risked causing a trial to collapse. Last year, Robinson was given a suspended sentence for committing contempt during a rape trial in Canterbury, after he attempted to film the defendants. He had been told that he would go to prison if he broke the law again.

References

Yes, we know. It's in the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There you go see - patience is a virtue. Edit away. Edaham (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this was something else I was thinking of when writing my reply above. Another thing about suppression orders is not only does the media paying attention mean you may not hear about them, but it also doesn't mean nothing is happening. Very often it is behind the scenes, as the media appeals. Simple patience tends to resolve stuff and since we're a tertiary source we can only wait. (Of course in this case it was particularly irrelevant. Realisticly, the main reason why people would be visiting this article was because the Streisand effect meant they'd already heard how he'd been "secretly jailed" or something. So us not mentioning it made little difference, other than perhaps to reenforce their view about the "evils" of how he was treated.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Due weight and section headers

@Patchen: Please read this page, and read WP:DUE. It's important not to give undue weight to any particular part of a subject, especially when it's negative and concerns a living person. That's why we try to structure biographies chronologically and avoid headers like "criminal convictions" and "fraud" (I know the first was there before you got here, which is why I eliminated it, because it's an invitation for people to add material not in keeping with our policies). Please don't revert again after the protection expires. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 June 2018: "alternative ways of tackling extremism"?

This sentence seems poorly formulated:

He led the EDL from 2009 until 8 October 2013, when he was persuaded to leave the organisation and discuss alternative ways of tackling extremism with the think tank Quilliam

As I understand it, this says that the EDL was a "way of tackling extremism". Considering that the EDL is an extremist organization that uses violence to achieve its racist goals, this seems a bit ironic.

It also seems POV to represent "tackling extremism" as the main goal of Robinson.

I suggest to remove this part. the sentence could look like this:

He led the EDL from 2009 until 8 October 2013, when he was persuaded to leave the organisation for the think tank Quilliam

Zukorrom (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

NO it says he left it to find ways of tackling extremism".Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Might it be an idea just to remove "alternative"? Emeraude (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really, as it seems that they talked to him as an example of an extremist to see what (if anything) he could think of that would help to address the attitudes he held.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 04:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

QUESTION: Geoffrey Marson or Denise Marson??

There apparently are two English judges with same not very common surname (married?) -- according to this, the judge that issued the controversial reporting ban is Denise Marson, but according to the article and other sources, it is Geoffrey Marson. Anyone have any idea what is going on here? Thanks. Quis separabit? 07:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What happened is the guy on twitter got it wrong and then the echo chamber latched on to it. All the reliable sources, and also Russia Today, say Geoffrey.

Why on earth do you think they're married? Heliotom (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The judge in the trial in Leeds is Geoffrey Marson QC, the tweet is wrong. However, there is a Judge Denise Marson.[17] As to whether they are married, I couldn't find any sourcing on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes it was fairly obvious the tweet was wrong. As I pointed out, the leaked court order it was using said 'his' despite the tweet calling the judge female. And the court order also said the judge was a QC something which didn't seem to apply to Denise Marson. But both of these could have applied to Geoffrey Marson (and he was also from the right court) as it turned out was the case. As I also pointed, this was very basic fact checking which any source should have done, I mean part of it was simply common sense (that if you're referring to the judge as 'her' and the court order says 'his' there seems to be something wrong). Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Article is biased.

The article is far-left biased. it begins: "Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982 [3] ), known by the pseudonym Tommy Robinson, and previously as Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris".

No other articles do this. Gary Grant's article doesn't start by naming him as Archibald Leach known by the pseudonym, John Wayne's doesn't start Marion Whatever known by the pseudonym ... etc.

And also calling him Yaxley etc. is the latest scam to attack Robinson, used only by far-left activists.213.205.241.128 (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is using his real name a scam? Oh and one reason wehy we do it in this order is Yaxley-Lennon is his legal name, he has not legally changed it to Tommy RobinsonSlatersteven (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The bias is further shown by the Biography section, which begins: "Robinson was born Stephen Christopher Yaxley [14] in Luton . In an interview with Victoria Derbyshire on BBC Radio Five live in 2010, he said that his parents "were Irish immigrants to this country".[15] His mother, who worked at a local bakery, [16] remarried when Robinson was still young; his stepfather, Thomas Lennon, [1] whose surname Robinson took,..." i.e. using Robinson now as his name.

In addition re "still young" we need to know how young he was when his mother remarried. If under 18 he would legally take his step-father's name.213.205.241.128 (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)213.205.241.128 (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet in court he uses Yaxley-Lennon, thus this is still his legal name.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think your reading comprehension is up to scratch. Granted the sentence is confused by the use of the name Robinson. He was born "Yaxley" and adopted the surname "Lennon" after his mother remarried. "Robinson" is a pseudonym he adopted at the time he founded the EDL. Incidentally, I don't think that stating facts is 'bias'; unlike the article you cited, his legal name remains "Stephen Yaxley-Lennon". --Hazhk (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"Robinson claims his friends include both black and Muslim people. " - This should be changed to 'says' as it's biased to call him a liar.213.205.241.0 (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"According to Robinson, after he left school he applied to study aircraft engineering at Luton Airport." - This needs to be changed as it's a fact.213.205.241.0 (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it a fact, can you provide the evidence?Slatersteven (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. The "sources" claimed here are where it is reported.213.205.241.0 (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

And they are quoting him, they are not saying it "in their voice". So do you have a source that has checked this and found it to be true?Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

An article in the Daily Mail says that his "real name" is Stephen Christopher Yaxley.[18] Do you think that anyone who doesn't support the EDL is by definition "far left?" TFD (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you say this to me. But in any I have been informed by someone called Clay something or other, that such "discussion is not allowed.213.205.241.0 (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's absurd to claim that listing his real name and pseudonyms is 'far-left bias'. If you have found other pages on people who have changed their name, by all means edit those articles to include the relevant (sourced) information. Devgirl (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually if you try to do that on the Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu articles you will probably be quickly blocked or topic banned. It is a fair point that the OP makes. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

So are they not their names?Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a long story with Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, and it is WP:OTHERCONTENT. The various names given to Tommy Robinson have appeared in reliable media and court cases. I agree that it is all rather confusing and would prefer to leave Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris out of the WP:LEAD and mention them later on in the article in the context of the passport case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Misleading sentence

"and previously as Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris" is a misleading sentence, as this happened once, so it's not true that he is known by this two pseudonymous, as they were used only once. Therefore i ask for the removal of the misleading sentence from the incipit. This information can instead be (as it is as of now) in the body of the article as it is notable.93.36.190.141 (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

totally agree, he was never known under these names, his wp:common name is tommy robinson.Govindaharihari (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Broadly agree. It's uncontroversial that Tommy Robinson isn't his legal name, but Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris are not all that relevant or notable per WP:LEAD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not exactly hard to find solid sources that explicitly address this, and indeed that one of these names is on his passport, this, and the use of pseudonyms is relevant. Sources added.Heliotom (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is a summary and it isn't all that notable that he has used the names Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris in the past. As others have said, this could be left to the main body of the text without any great loss of context. It doesn't really need to be in the opening paragraph as it may give the impression that he used these names regularly when he didn't. The specific context is that he used false documents because he knew that he was banned from travelling to the USA.[19] It's not quite the same thing as a pseudonym. The BBC source is also interesting, because "Judge Alistair McCreath told him: "I am going to sentence you under the name of Stephen Lennon although I suspect that is not actually your true name, in the sense that it is not the name that appears on your passport." Meanwhile in Leeds, his legal name was given as Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to move it from the lede to a more appropriate place if that's the consensus, but it shouldn't be removed completely, which is what happened.Heliotom (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is common practice to list all possible names in the lead of a subject with more then one name.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS:MULTIPLENAMES offers guidance: "In other cases, subjects have changed their full name multiple times in accordance to customs, corrective measure, or personal preference. One may bold or otherwise list multiple name changes if they were notably known by them as 'sign posts' in the lead. For example, it is not necessary to list previous names of subjects when they are not notably known by them." It's questionable whether Tommy Robinson has ever been "notably known" as Andrew McMaster or Paul Harris, which is why I recommended removing it from the WP:LEAD and having this information later on in the article, with the context about the passport case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

AndrewMcMaster [20], [21], [22]. So not only have these aliases (and they have been called just that) been noted, his tactic of making up different personas to conceal his activities is very much a subject of note.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's notable because he knew that he was banned from travelling to the USA. However, without giving this context it doesn't help to explain things for the reader. Andrew McMaster is a real person, but Robinson/Lennon borrowed his passport, a silly thing to do, because the ruse was rumbled by customs officials in the USA.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That is what the body is for, but these are all notable aliases, and thus have a place in the lead. He has used all of them for "official" purposes. And a number of sources say this is a deliberate act to create separate identities to separate different aspects of his life. Multiple RS have drawn this conclusion, and mentioned all of these false ID's (at least two of which are legal ID's He uses Yaxley-Lennon in court but his passport is in the name of Harris.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the point more that the court uses Yaxlety Lennon about him? I don't think he gets to choose there.Heliotom (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit odd because he was Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon in Leeds Crown Court in 2018. A judge previously expressed doubts about whether the Paul Harris passport was held in his his legal name, but it is all rather murky.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Which (at least) one of the sources I have used mentions. There is a degree of confusion over what is his real name. You can change you legal name, and your current name is the one that appears on passports (it is a legal form of ID). Thus this shifting identity is clear notable enough for the lead as is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who has read The Day of the Jackal knows how to obtain a false passport, although this method is supposed to be impossible nowadays.[23] It's unclear whether Paul Harris was Robinson's bona fide legal name at the time that he applied for the passport, and I'm still not sure if we know his correct legal name, although the court in Leeds in 2018 seemed happy with Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

However it is described in RS has his legal passport, and that implies that it is not a fraudulent one (given he was tried for using a fraudulent one as well, and this was not added to the charge).Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It was his legally held passport at the time, but the judge sentenced him under the name of Stephen Lennon, possibly because of concerns about whether Paul Harris was his correct legal name. He was never charged with having a false passport in the name of Paul Harris, although the judge seemed to believe that it was a grey area. Some detail on this here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Which makes it all the more relevant to the lead, even the courts are not sure.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a note on legal processes. In all cases, the police and/or Crown Prosecution Service make the charge and the name they use there will appear on the court list. Before sentencing, the judge will have had a copy of "Robinson"'s criminal record - one of the first sections will be all of his alias names (and alias d.o.b.s) known to the police. The judge will normally use whatever name appears in the charge. It can be presumed that the judge said "Stephen Lennon" because that is how he was charged. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing what appears on the criminal record presented to the judge, but it's safe to assume that all of the names mentioned here were on it. Emeraude (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018

Please revert this addition made on 12 June. His passport related conviction is already covered in the final paragraph of the English Defence League section. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:20B4:D63C:EE6B:CE83 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This article, is about him, and this edit was a result of questions about his name.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry misunderstood, I'll remover one of the mentions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Already done I trust Slatersteven's edits took care of this. Sam Sailor 16:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Where has the section on his criminal convictions gone?

Mr Robinson has a list of criminal convictions - mortgage fraud, illegal immigration into the United States as well as his recent double contempt of court convictions. These were on the page for quite some time but seem to have been removed. They should be re-instated. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Robinson_(activist)&oldid=843474728#Arrests and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Robinson_(activist)&oldid=843474728#Imprisonment_for_mortgage_fraud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.23.16 (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Not far-right

I looked at all the sources present that can be construed as supporting the claim that he is far-right. However, all of the sources calling him far-right actually say that he inherits "being far-right" from leading far-right parties like the English Defence League. He actually resigned from the far-right party when it became far-right. To say that he is far-right, because he was once a leader of a party that is now far-right (which he himself denounces), is a logical fallacy called moving the goalposts. wumbolo ^^^ 21:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The EDL was considered a far right group when Robinson, a former member of the far right BNP, founded it. Robinson is now involved in Pegida UK, which he founded and is also considered far right. It could be that he ceased to be a far right activist when he was with Quilliam, although that is debatable. TFD (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

How about the sources presented in the earlier discussion: Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist)#Deleted the BLP violation, weasel words, opinion "far-right"? Most of those reliable sources outright label him as far-right, rather than "inherit[ing] "being far-right" from leading far-right parties". Perhaps the sources currently cited should be replaced with those. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and replaced the previous sources in the article with ones that explicitly call him, not just his parties, a "far-right activist". Most of those sources were taken from the previous discussion, so credit should go to those editors for finding the sources. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

not sure which sources Wumbolo read, but the Vice articles clearly demonstrate that he is far-right, why have these source been removed? the guy is far-right, in the UK that's incontrovertible.The only logical fallacy here is taking a jailed far-right activist on his word. Acousmana (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources were just replaced with ones that explicitly state he is a "far-right activist". If you want to add them all the Vice article back in, go ahead, but it's WP:OVERKILL at this point with 5 cited sources already. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

on contested issues like this overkill is sometimes necessary, the rate of change on this descriptor is remarkably high, also consolidating the cites under a single footnote might not be the best idea in this instance. Acousmana (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Another editor bundled the cites, I have no preference on that issue. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Protesters

@Heliotom: yes, the protests were in support of him in the sense that they disagreed with his prison sentence. However, the protesters did not necessarily support him before, or supported his policies, as written in The Guardian:

The Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who was previously banned from visiting Britain, was among the speakers calling for Robinson’s freedom. He shared a platform with For Britain Movement’s Anne Marie Waters, Gerard Batten of Ukip, and former Breitbart London editor Raheem Kassam. Kassam claimed he had received a text of support from Stephen Bannon, formerly chief strategist to the US president, Donald Trump.

[...] Robinson’s supporters came from around the UK for Saturday’s march. They included a football supporters’ group mobilised under the banner of the Football Lads Alliance, protesters inspired by the online “alt-right” movement, elements of smaller hard-right groups, as well as what remains of Ukip – which, since Brexit, has sought to reposition itself and regain relevance – and the newer, more extreme, For Britain Movement.

In conclusion, there were multiple British political parties that spoke in support of him (these definitely don't support his political positions), and various different far-right groups. It wasn't only "people who'd support him in an election", to put it like that. wumbolo ^^^ 20:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

there has been a plethora of news stories in the last week concerning Tommy Robinson's "supporters" and their rioting, we should proably start a new paragraph to detail all of this.Acousmana (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

BBC News video

Who is Tommy Robinson and why is he in jail? is on the BBC News website today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Christopher Yaxley's Religion/Ethnicity?

I keep seeing statements online that Yaxley/Robinson is, or was (depending on how you define the word) of "jewish descent", in an obvious attempt at influencing people's opinions (How or why, I have no idea.) I find no online reference that resolves the issue, and came here and find nothing here, either. It would be constructive to add this information if/when it becomes available.2605:6000:6947:AB00:754E:2206:73F3:22BB (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)