Talk:Jayda Fransen

Trump retweets

An editor has claimed that the two sentences on Trump retweets were undue. As posted above, there was an AfD to delete this article in 2016 and it was changed to a redirect. The retweetings of Trump have brought Fransen's postings publicity. As far as I can tell, the ensuing international furore is at the moment the only reason for the article to have been restored. Untangling current police proceedings against Fransen is an ongoing matter for editors. In contrast to the concise content in this article on Twitter postings, there is a lengthy section in the Trump-related article on social media [1]. Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. While the situation may be one-off, it did create a furore and was notable. It is better that the section is expanded and does not remain a very short one. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The content of the three random videos seems irrelevant for this BLP. If a wikipedian was prepared to write content based on WP:RS about Britain First videos depicting Fransen wandering through the streets of Luton (or other towns in the UK) with a white wooden cross, confronting and haranguing bystanders (including Muslims), it could be argued that those might be relevant. Videos like that are about Fransen's real life activities. I am the second editor to remove this kind of content, inserted on both occasions by Monsterhunter32. Mathsci (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Mathsci I created a separate section as this is a separate discussion. Hope you don't mind. Anyway, the videos you are talking about are the ones retweeted by trump, these videos caused the controversy. they have also been noted by the media for the controversy they created and their veracity. I have not mentioned any "random videos", they aren't about Fransen. There is nothing "UNDUE". Next time instead of removing notable content that is reliably sourced, please try to finish the discussion first. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The content you inserted here is poorly written and lacks context. The videos are not notable as far as Fransen is concerned, as they are random repostings amongst her many postings. I reiterate my point above: the detail you supplied about the videos is irrelevant in the context of this BLP. Why not find information on other videos featuring Fransen herself that would be relevant? At the moment, instead of adding content to give a balanced account of this individual, your additions seem to use the article as a WP:COATRACK for matters regarding Donald Trump. But the videos are well explained in other articles, that are more appropriate places for such content. In Britain First, I used the consensus account in Donald Trump on social media to describe the videos, including a discussion of the general unreliability and misleading nature of videos posted on websites associated with Britain First. Mathsci (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I gave a brief title. If you had a problem, you can change the title. This discussion is not connected with the AfD. Also, I don't how you claim they are not notable. The three videos I mentioned are the ones that were retweeted from Fransen. They were the ones that caused the controversy. Even the fact that some of them do not tell the reality has been noted by the media. You did the same thing earlier at Britain First by removing them. These are notable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please don't create new sections here if I was replying to a previous comment, which I was: it changes the sense of my comments.

Fransen's reactions to Trump's tweets were already recorded in the first paragraph. The text you added recently duplicated that content. Other views of Fransen have been reported, e.g. in the Guardian, she is reported as saying, “The biggest threat to civilization across the world is Islam. We are at war with Islam”; and similar comments, made in an LBC interview following the Trump incident, have been reported in the Evening Standard. All this hate-speech is most conveniently summarised in "Islamophobia", which is already mentioned in the rest of the BLP. Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You know well your "reply" had nothing do with the original issue of the AfD that you had mentioned. So others do not get confused I suggest you reseparate this entirely different issue.

Back to the article. I didn't read the first para properly and didn't completely notice the reactions. Sorry for the mistake, had I noticed I wouldn't have added it. But the praise by her is not there in the first para, the praise by her has been noted by the media. The addition needs to be only three words "she praised Trump".

Also lastly I request you remove your undue tag. The videos were the ones retweeted. They and their veracity has been noted by many news outlets. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You removed the WP:UNDUE tag, claiming in an edit summary that I had not discussed it here. That is not correct. My previous remarks still apply. In a week's time, there will probably be media reports on what happens in the Belfast Magistrates' Court. On 29 January 2018 she will go on trial in Kent and that will almost certainly be reported in the press. Those reports would certainly be relevant to this BLP. Compared with the rest of the article—which, because of the nature of the material, will always be flimsy—the overly detailed description of the retweets seems out of proportion, lacks the readability/context of the corresponding segment in Britain First and smacks of WP:RECENTISM. Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Mathsci What i actually said was you offered no legitimate reason for adding the undue tag. Don't twist my words. All your claims didn't cut ice or make sense. Besides, their details have been noted by the media. They are the ones retweeted by Trump. There is no contradicting that. So calling it undue, is contrary to facts. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

As I have written several times before—apparently it still has not registered with you—your poorly written content concentrated on a tiny piece of Fransen's activities without making any attempt to provide context. That context has now been provided by describing more comprehensively what has been reported about her online activities in WP:RS. Those activities cannot be understood by the reader solely through Donald Trump's three randomly chosen retweets and that is what was WP:UNDUE. Her account and some other associated accounts have now been permanently shut down by Twitter. Mathsci (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It was you who started a section against the article's deletion was offset because of the publicity the three tweets gave her. As for poorly written, it is intelligible so your problem doesn't seem real. And their contents have been noted too. I am not choosing any random tweets. Only the tweets that have been noted and whose detail have been noted as well, are mentioned. Calling them "randomly chosen" is prima facie false. Making misleading or false statements will not help anyone. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The many excellent news reports provide plenty of context concerning Fransen's activities—online and on the streets—and that material has been carefully added to her BLP. It was missing before and made part of the article hard to unravel (from the point of view of Fransen's biography). The three tweets chosen by Trump are certainly random as far as the BLP of Fransen is concerned. They are 3 amongst over 15,000 tweets. Describing them also required context, which was again provided in WP:RS. Are you discussing anything relevant to the editing of the article at the moment? Mathsci (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No one would have likely bothered with rest of her activities if it was not for Trump retweeting her and those retweets and their content receiving attention. Only 3 tweets gave her major media limelight. I added those relevant to her receiving major attention. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There's a case for WP:GLOBAL here. She is, unfortunately, quite well known in the United Kingdom. The Trump retweets have brought her to global attention, but for someone such as myself here in the UK I don't see any real change in her levels of exposure. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That is likely a personal opinion as she is British. I didn't hear about her except once in my life before in tabloid Daily Mail and that too was one article. I never found her important. But that's a personal opinion as well. But to be honest, it does seem that she was reported way more than in past. Her followers before she was suspened was increased, and likely the people who knew her as well.

Well, it is a personal opinion, but one that's supported by my observation that her infamy is predominantly restricted to the United Kingdom - where I reside, so it's logical that I should have heard of her and hold an opinion. A google search for "Jayda Fransen" brings back multiple results, (1.3 million) and the vast majority and certainly the first few pages are predominantly British (English/UK/British) sources such as The Sun, BBC website, The Guardian, The Independent, Sky News, LBC etc. Even the apparent American site Huffington Post is in fact the UK edition. However, as soon as I google "jayda fransen trump tweets" I pick up results from NY Times, CNN, Fortune, CBS and the Washington Post.

I don't really see the point that's being attempted here, all I'm trying to assert is that her notablility hasn't changed here in the UK due to her tweets being used by Trump, but it has increased elsewhere - specifically the US - due to said tweets. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not talking about specific regions especially where I don't live. But my point is this: The tweets have been widely noted. Of course this article has lot of reliable information added. But this article was recreated because of the tweets. It doesn't mean other acts of Jayda are irrelevant. But the tweets and the controversy are highly noted as well. And highly notable and relevant content is not undue. That's all I am saying. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

To prove my point that her three tweets retweeted by Trump have given her way more notability, see the interest over time on Google Trends. (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=GB&q=Jayda%20Fransen) She had some interest since 2015, but there was a very huge rise in interest when Trump retweeted her tweets in Nov. 2017. This never happened earlier to her.

It was similar even in UK, there was some interest since 2015 but there was a never-before-seen sharp rise in interest after Trump retweets in Nov. 2017. (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Jayda%20Fransen)

You can confirm the date of the sharp rise with data of last 90 days from Google Trends about interest in her. Worldwide interest (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=Jayda%20Fransen) and UK interest (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&geo=GB&q=Jayda%20Fransen). They clearly show this sharp rise is during and after 29 November when Trump retweeted her. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This only shows how some online news media function within a period of less than a month after an "event". Britain First, with its leader and deputy leader, have a certain notoriety in the UK (there was a documentary "We Want Our Country Back" on BBC Three in 2015). They have been in the UK news because of criminal hearings in December. Jayda Fransen was mentioned in the House of Commons by MPs, during an official statement by the Home Secretary Amber Rudd (who said she could not comment on her because of impending court cases). Representatives from Twitter, Facebook and Google/YouTube appeared before the parliamentary Home Affairs Committee (chaired by Yvette Cooper) in early December; amongst other items, such as harassment of MPs, the onlne activities of Britain First were discussed. Please stop using this talk page as a WP:FORUM: in the UK the retweeting has simply reminded MPs of the hate speech, illegal activities and online presence of a group that many MPs have asked to be proscribed. Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Google Trends is actually about how often a term is searched and the interest in a subject. And it is clear - the interest is substantially higher since those three tweets. I don't say she was "invisible" before, there were reports about her earlier too. But it is clear her notability has increased way more after those three tweets. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of thing on the Wikipedia are obscure. Jayda Fransen is certainly not an obscure topic.195.11.204.67 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Some points with sources

Since us poor IPs are currently prohibited from editing for some reason, here are some points that could be added with sources.

• She was a member of the English Defence League.[SKY]
• But left due to its "reputation for drink-fueled violence".[Telegraph]
• The infobox is wrong. She was deputy leader of Britain First by October 2014 at the latest.[Independent]
• She lives in Penge, and has four children.[Telegraph]

Some better sources are needed, but it seems her paternal grandfather was Dutch, and escaped to the UK to serve with the Royal Netherlands Navy during the Second World War; he married his wife in a Catholic church in London, and it seems she was of first or second generation Irish descent. On the maternal side, more research is needed, but it appears her family may be of Jewish descent.[HuffPo]

And then a couple of points mentioned in some sources, which other sources have disputed:

• She is said to have studied for a law degree, but it is not clear where she studied (possibly a course with the Open University) or when or if she graduated. (But for some internet archaeology, see this.)
• She is said to be a member of the Catholic church, but it is not clear if she is a regular member of the congregation at amy particular place of worship.

Also could be source problems with this: through predominantly Muslim districts of British towns. Who defines and how a Muslim area. B.F. campaign in British towns and cities. Could fall foul of claims of racism if saying Muslims own or are segregated in these "areas".86.187.161.179 (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Biographical informaiton might be nice

Can anyone add any biographical information on the subject? In the following documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srvGGlAaQmQ she states that her grandparents were immigrants to the U.K. Does anyone know from where? What her ethnic background is? Thanks.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

D.o.B?

Date of birth please. Valetude (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

So long as it's reliably sourced and meets WP:DOB: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Concern about description.

"Leadership of Britain First

"Britain First is a British fascist political party..."

Fascist is an extreme word, describing, for example, Hitler and Mussolini. Britain First isn't fascist. It's never described as fascist. The 'mainstream media' and politicians describe it as "far-right". 213.205.241.1 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's be honest: the word fascist has been used deliberately yet again as a defamatory political label - for the left, anything to the right of Jeremy Corbyn is a Nazi or a fascist - or both. I'm going to change fascist to "right-of-centre". Maelli (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The article should only refer to Britain First as "fascist" if there are political scientists who have described it as such in academic, peer-reviewed publications. If said sources do not use this word, then neither should Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong article for this discussion. The conservative newspaper The Telegraph says "Britain First, the neo-fascist organisation,"[2] so it's not true they are never described as fascist. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Maelli: that's silly comment and obviously untrue. And the place to start is not here but at the main article Britain First. Which is definitely not simply "right-of-centre". The UK Prime Minister is right-of-centre but definitely left of Britain First. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Silly" and "obviously untrue" both sound just a little like labels you want to attach to an opinion you don't agree with - your subjective evaluation of them - well try it with someone else. The question is: do BF behave like the only fascists we have any knowledge of - Mussolini's regime, the Nazis amd quite a number of South American juntas. And they don't - they don't use strong-arm tactics and they don't discriminate against all minorities - they protest against one specific toxic ideology. Maelli (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter labels what we editors use to describe Britain First - we use labels, terms and words that reliable mainstream media use to describe them - and in this case they are described as "fascist" frequently enough to make it an accurate depiction, even if they themselves (and you) don't wish for them to be described as such.

To turn it on its head - we have multiple sources that call them fascist - can you find any sources that specifically state that they are not fascist? I mean sources that state "Britain First have been described as a fascist organisation, but they aren't." Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

We should never try to analyse someone or some organisation's political position ourselves, that's original research and forbidden by policy. In any case, this article must follow Britain First's article, we can't have a different description there. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There's obviously not much point in arguing with mini-intellects like these, but - just a quick question - don't you think, like any responsible historian, you owe it to literally everyone on the planet to check the facts before you stick your preferred label on them. "We have multiple sources" is not an argument, and citing the MSM is nowadays tantamout to saying "we have proven dimwit bias claiming that". And of course it matters what labels you stick on people, just BTW. Labelling people as "fascists" is clearly intended to dismiss the opinions of those people before you've even heard them. There have been many cases in history where it was necessary to face up to unpleasant facts - sometimes before it was too late, sometimes not. Crass ignorance never helped. Maelli (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"Labelling people as "fascists" is clearly intended to dismiss the opinions of those people before you've even heard them." Are you serious? Has no one heard their opinions? Do you not think that having heard their opinions, it is clearly appropriate to label them as fascist? Emeraude (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Do BF behave like "the only fascists we have any knowledge of - Mussolini's regime, the Nazis amd quite a number of South American juntas." Ignoring that these are NOT the only fascists we have knowledge of, and the fact that most S American juntas were NOT fascist, the question is meaningless, and not only because BF has never been in power, unlike Mussolini, the Nazis etc. How about comparing them with other fascist groups, and there's no need to even leave Britain? British Union of Fascists, National Socialist Movement, British Movement, BNP (in various iterations), National Front, Imperial Fascist League, etc etc etc. And given that most of BF's leading members are ex-BNP...... Also, there is no way that BF is going to be covered in peer-reviewed journals - it's just too new and too small to have attrected academic attention yet - so we need other reliable sources, and these are there in the BF article. Emeraude (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

What's fascist about Britain First?195.11.204.67 (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"Britain First,[1] a far-right British fascist[2][3][4] political " Garbage. It's general knowledge that 'fascist' means the far-left, Mussolini etc. He defined the term.

addressing some important personal family issues - presumably at the same time he was in the slammer.

I have issues with the following statement in the Leadership of Britain First section

"Golding handed over the leadership roles in Britain First to Fransen in November 2016. Fransen stated that Golding was taking 6 months leave as leader of the organisation "to address some important, personal family issues"."

This is just a euphemism for saying he's in chokey. Whilst it could be argued that going to prison is indeed a "personal issue", and he was only imprisoned for two months it's still an inaccurate representation of why he was unable to continue leadership - for somebody who doesn't follow references they may think that his Granny was ill.

I think this should be changed to say she took leadership at least partially because he was in prison, but at the same time Fransen's reason is so typically politican-speak it should also stay in.

I propose to change it to:

Golding handed over the leadership roles in Britain First to Fransen in November 2016 in part due to being sentenced to 2 months in prison for breaching a court order, although Fransen stated that the leave was in order "to address some important, personal family issues".

I could have just made the change but the rationale is a bit long winded, especially for a controversial article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that helps. Does anyone seriously believe that his family issues had anything to do with it, even "in part"? As you've worded it, it could be read that Fransen was inside. I would suggest that the text states what she said and then continues with something along the lines of: "in fact, he was in prison." Emeraude (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course nobody believes it, that's why it's worth keeping in - because it's so ridiculous. Fair point about who is being referred to:

Golding handed over the leadership roles in Britain First to Fransen in November 2016 in part due to him being sentenced to 2 months in prison for breaching a court order, although Fransen stated that the leave was in order "to address some important, personal family issues".

Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

But was it "in part"? Take that out - there's no relible source for that at all - and it's fine. (......in November 2016 when he was sentenced to 2 months.....). And I'm sorry if I wasn't clear - it should definitely be in. Emeraude (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Changes made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Ownership of page

Someone called "Chaheel Riens" is taking ownership of the page and undoing all my edits for no reason. Please can folks restore the edits so carefully justified. Tanks.195.11.204.67 (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edit here made me go back and check the only edit I didn't revert, because that one seemed reasonable. After checking the reference, I find that it says: Fransen banged on the windows and doors and screamed “paedophile” and “foreigner” - so that's another inaccurate edit on your part.

I welcome other editors to check the validity of my edits here - as indeed they should. Just as yours were checked and found wanting, mine are liable to the exact same scrutiny. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The person behind that IP was evading their block as 213.205.241.1 (talk · contribs). Doug Weller talk 19:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

And again with a new address. Doug Weller talk 20:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

No evasions no new address. It's all in your mind. I just use two computers. There's no rule to say you must use only one computer to edit Wikipedia or that you need to register. Quite the opposite. Many, perhaps most, internet providers, use static isp's, randomly assigned, and this is nothing to do with the customer.213.205.241.129 (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

If Chaheel Riens had checked he/she would have seen that I checked and most reports use 'shouted', not 'screamed', or they say nothing about this, and I stated this in the edit summary. I checked the relevant local newspaper, 9 mainstream newspapers, the BBC and Yahoo News. And only 2 out of 12 used 'screamed'. My edit was legitimate like all my edits were, and he/she deleted them for no reason.213.205.241.129 (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

How can I check to see if you've checked? You included no sources or contrary references to those used in the article - which state "screamed". I also clarified my reasoning in the edit summary. I hardly "deleted them for no reason"

And if one of your computer IP's has been blocked, then you cannot just use the other to carry on. That's called block evasion. But you already know that. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I've already told you how - you didn't read the Edit summary - you could have read the Edit summary - but you didn't did you? You shouldn't be trying to use this web-site if that's your level. And I haven't been blocked - I've already told you - hundreds of thousands of people use these computers - I ain't done nothing to be blocked for. I did some sensible edits and I was abused. I'm not blocked. and I've already told you. I didn't use different ISPs. In the real world ISPs are changed by the company every time you go on the browser, let alone log on. It had nothing to do with me. I don't give a damn about watching ISPs - the browser uses one and the company uses a different one at the same time even - grow up.213.205.241.1 (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

All the IPs in this section have been blocked (not by me) for a month for block evasion Doug Weller talk 17:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Silly "fascist" POV.

Removed "fascist" for a number of reasons. It's absurdly outdated, no one uses it except a few anorakky types. It's not applicable to Fransen etc. as it refers to leftwing extremism. It's never used by mainstream media academics or other writers in connection with Fransen etc.

An admin told me that opinion pieces are not regarded as legitimate sources, which covers the first two sources. In the third source 'fascist' is not used to describe them.109.144.209.156 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.109.144.209.156 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Out of date link

(External links Wikiquote has quotations related to: Jayda Fransen Research quoted in York, Chris (28 December 2015). "Someone Researched The Family Tree Of Britain First's Deputy Leader And It's A Bit Awkward" . HuffPost .) This is outdated. Wikiquote has been edited and no longer has this ethnic segregation of Jayda Fransen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.174.194 (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with Wikiquote. The link is to an article that still exists. Emeraude (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove middle name.

I think it's ridiculous to include her middle name. Biographies and encyclopedias don't usualy name people that way.Jylinn (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal problems.

The article says she's a leader of "a fascist party". Which implies she's a 'fascist'. Calling people 'fascist' is pretty serious, and offensive. It leaves the organisation publishing the acusations open to legal actions. She and Britain First have strongly denied it and Britain First is threatening legal action over it.

It's not how an encyclopedia would behave, to throw around the term 'fascist'. More like the behaviour of immature, and foolish, teens, writing a student pamphlet.

As has already been noted. The mainstream media don't call her or Britain First 'fascist', in Britain or America. And it's an outdated, old-fashioned term. Jylinn (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"Feeble fascist criminals Britain First finally banned from Facebook"

POV much? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Grammar problems

"On 18 December 2017, Twitter permanently suspended the accounts of Fransen and Golding, together with the official account of Britain First, as part of its general policy towards any groups which glorify violence or use hate-inciting imagery to fulfill their goals. The company's stated aim in enforcing such bans was to "reduce the amount of abusive behaviour and hateful conduct" on the web. Permanent suspension of an account would result whenever the profile contained "a violent threat or multiple slurs, epithets, racist or sexist tropes, incite[d] fear, or reduce[d] someone to less than human"." You can't permanently suspend something. suspension is a temporary state.195.11.204.67 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems a good point. Unfortunately, as the quoted sources make clear, this is Twitter's phrase, not Wikipedia's. Emeraude (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"Unusual" release of Mug Shots: What about the Rape Suspects?

"2018 conviction" section

"Unusually, Kent Police released mugshots of Fransen and Golding, taken when they were originally in custody, because of "the nature of the offences committed and the impact they had on the wider community". The usual procedure is that only offenders sentenced to a year or more in custody have their mugshots released."

In terms of readability and reader interest, the Article puts the toe in the door with the "unusual" nature of the release of their mugshots, but doesn't address the ironic aspect that merely yelling some words and "approaching an address" results in this usual treatment by the British government, within the larger context of the more significant charges of rape. Did the British government also release the mug shots of those accused of rape? If not, this would be rather ironic, and therefore interesting to the Reader, however I also recognize that other Wikipedia Editors might consider "irony" to be non-encyclopedic, and possibly Original Research (the difference being whether or not a reliable source noted the irony, vs. it being created by Article Editors). All depending on whether or not the mug shots of the accused rapists were released. Either way, the inclusion of this information is still worth discussing, IMO.Tym Whittier (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not clear what you want to discuss or change. Please say what specific changes you think should be made. In the meantime, I'll make some general points.

What constitutes irony is a matter of opinion. It is not something you can look up at the Office for National Statistics. Unless there are reliable sources calling things "unusual" or "ironic" then it is best to leave such terms out. The reference says that it was "an exception". I feel that this is enough to support either the description "unusual" or a mention of how it differs from the usual although I don't think it needs to be included twice.

There is nothing in the reference about irony at all.

I have no idea what happened in the other case you mention but that is off-topic here anyway. This article about Fransen. This talk page is specifically for discussing how to improve the article not a general forum for chat about other issues that may be perceived to arise.

TBH, I think the whole mugshots thing is pretty trivial. If it wasn't for the fact that The Independent covered it we wouldn't be mentioning it at all. I certainly don't think we should expand our coverage of it beyond its current size.

I'll remove "Unusualy" as we don't need to say usual/unusual twice. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

That seems sensible. To return to the original posting, we must question the real motives of someone who writes that they were convicted of "merely yelling some words and approaching an address" and questions whether the rapists' mug shots were released: as the article makes clear, that is normal procedure. Emeraude (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

If anyone's bothered, their mugshots are in this Kent Online article and this BBC News report. Irony? Nah. Emeraude (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Photo?

There’s a mugshot that’s been released by Kent Police, or perhaps the Pacemaker photograph that the BBC uses? Naihreloe (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Freedom Movement Ltd

She is registered in UK Companies House as a director of Freedom Movement Ltd, see this. This company appears to be involved in the organisation of a number of protests in UK cities planned for Sat 16th May against and in deliberate violation of UK wide covid-19 emergency constraints on freedom of association involving mass gatherings. See also this. Posters being distributed widely to advertise these events offer membership of the so called "UK Freedom Movement" . Copsewood (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed mention of this from the article as it was being mixed up with some obviously incoherent nonsense about her being involved in the Labour Party in some way.

I have no objection to it being added back if we have good sources for this but the two above are no good. The YorkshireLive article doesn't even mention her and it is not for us to go digging up stuff at Companies House. If she really is involved in this then either she will make herself notorious enough that her involvement will be covered by reliable sources, in which case we can cover it too, or it will fizzle out quietly and we won't need to cover it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian has a fuller report at "Police vow to break up planned anti-lockdown protests in UK cities". Surely, though, it's better to wait until after, if it happens. Emeraude (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

religiously aggravated harassment

Obviously a conviction for this is notable enough for the lede, but currently this phrase is used both in the opening line and in the final paragraph. Is there a good way to rephrase this while retaining the gist? ValarianB (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Aside - Nature Journal uses this article as an example

I thought this might be of interest to editors. Nature had an article in 2022 Improving Wikipedia Verifiability which has the Jayda Fransen article as an example[3] Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)