Jump to content

Talk:Tommy Robinson

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

[edit]

The article provides a false information about Tommy Robinson. He is not anti Islam, he is anti extremists Jihadists. He was wrongly accused and then was released from prison without the charge! Facts are available and proper journalists can allocate it. Do your research and provide facts before publishing such a gross misinformation! 194.223.185.245 (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Wikipedia presents a neutral point of view based on how the subject is described in reliable sources. Do you have reliable sources that can corroborate the idea that he is not anti Islam or at least evidence a proportionate viewpoint that counters this view? CloakedFerret (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this interview with Jordan Peterson he describes growing up a multi faith community. From approx. 36:40 onwards he make it clear that he is anti islamist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnhwBoFxaDI
This article quotes him specifically stating he not anti islam:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/i-am-not-racist-or-anti-muslim-tommy-robinson-tells-high-court-in-libel-case/ 81.77.105.184 (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he denies it, that does not mean he is telling the truth. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't prioritise his own views on the matter; we say what reliable sources say. Also see WP:MANDY. — Czello (music) 16:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Neutral point of view" is it?
I call your attention to paragraph 1, stating that Tommy is a far-right activist.
This is NOT a neutral point of view, it is one solely held by left-wing politicians and followers. 92.13.86.180 (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@92.13.86.180 it's actually the view of reliable sources. — Czello (music) 09:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive discussion that devolved into disruptive kvetching
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To say a “reliable source” is any more reliable than a persons personal view of themself or third parties view of that view as yours is an exercise of opinion and nothing more. As this page(Tommy Robinson)is accusing or rather labelling the subject far-right based on opinions that can also be fairly accused or labeled as those of a far-left biased nature.
Unauthentic and amateur publishing is hard to read from an unbiased perspective and disappointingly this is the perfect example of bias for the sake of being biased. Rubbish 110.20.151.138 (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this isn't the Tommy Robinson fan club page. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested it was or is. Are you informing me it’s the tommy Robinson haters club page? If not the fan club page or haters club page then what page is it? Madewikid (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the page for reporting what reliable sources have said about Robinson. If you want to go and read what he thinks about himself, that's your prerogative. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t know who Tommy Robinson was until today after viewing a recent YouTube upload the popped up in my feed. Though I’d check wiki for information after seeing unjustified bias and hate in the comments. Surprisingly it seems as though wiki has fallen foul of the low standards club. Thank you for your time. Madewikid (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you know this is biased? Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No where does it say those are the views of are those of far-left. To know far-right is to know far-left, they are one and the same and one cannot exist without the other. An unbiased article would include onions from both or none, simple. The fact the page has been semi-protected along with comments such as your own indicate that is the case. It is what it is n Madewikid (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What?, and read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sincerely, and, with a No, thank you. Madewikid (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shallots, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Madewikid (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain to me why I should consider your word as reliable any more than the pages authors word or the word of the reliable sources you claim of?
What is the criteria for a source to be confirmed as reliable exactly? Madewikid (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has a reputation for fact checking or is regarded as authoritative by other RS. Now what sources have you read that indicate we are wrong? Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We, who’s we? Madewikid (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our article, and with that refusal to give a straight answer I am out of here with a NO to actioning this. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I neither refused or asked you to action anything on my behalf.
You are who exactly and what is your position within wiki? Madewikid (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who’s our? Is that our as in ours as in yours and mine and anyone else who signs up to edit Wikipedia? I don’t know anyone who gets paid or has an authority other than having more stars next to their name. Anyone can contribute. There’s no gatekeepers here my friend. Madewikid (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick fact check. Are these your words and your opinion of yourself? “He is not always 100% honest but he is an angel of fallacy. He has shown by logical argument that the sea is only alleged to be wet. He may be as dumb as some of you think he is”. Madewikid (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It came from a reliable source, very reliable apparently. Madewikid (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)— Madewikid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Your sources are not reliable though. You cannot use the rantings of extremely biased left-wing journalists as a reliable source in this "impartial" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.160.225 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ranting extremely biased left-wing journalists like those at The Daily Telegraph? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Account and probably the IP are a single purpose account with an agenda. Ignore. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If people ask clueless questions then it is fair enough to give them a brief answer on the assumption that they might be asking in mistaken good faith, and might actually be interested in the answer, but there is no point in getting bogged down arguing back and forth with SPAs and trolls who are clearly only here to waste our time. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly knows his onions. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2024

[edit]

"Change anti-islam to anti-illegal immigration"

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

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

Where is he now

[edit]

I think his current accommodation is better served in the first opening of the lead even though the details are repeated further down. Hausa warrior (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree. I think it frames the article in an appropriate way. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per MOS:FIRSTBIO. Serving a prison sentence provides context for notibility. CNC (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually lean to disagree. Being in prison isn't notable, it's WP:MILL, even more so because this isn't the subjects first time (or likely his last...). I think it being in the lead could be considered undue weight to the current events. We're not the daily mail, after all. OXYLYPSE (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the good old DM regards him as a national hero? I guess being in prison isn't notable for Robinson. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I did consider whether this sort of information was more "routine" than due for notability and context, and you're right that this could be considered run-of-the-mill based on recentisim. I'm not opposed to the sentence being removed. CNC (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal 'Career'

[edit]

I noticed that a majority of the span of the article is on crimes committed by Robinson. I personally believe that it would benefit readers to include his criminal status in the infobox, such as span of crime, criminal penalty, imprisoned at. However, I am not sure whether the template should be used. The template is used to cover notorious criminal. It should not be used to cover someone whose notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal. Would you consider appropriate to apply this template to Robinson? Jeremy Hulber (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am tending more to agree to criminal status. But this question has recently proved contentious, e.g. this edit by FMSky. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently uses infobox person, and it is not recommended to use infobox criminal unless the person is known primarily as a criminal. Robinson's list of criminal convictions is becoming very long indeed, but he is best known as a far right activist.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree, but I agree he is not mainly known as a criminal, I think, but it does seem to be that every story about him is about his crimes. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Robinson's notability derives from activism rather than crime, it would be tendentious to include his convictions. Similar articles don't do this. TFD (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other activists with as many convictions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on template documentation for infobox criminal (the infobox for such parameters), the argument would be that he comes under the category of "other notorious criminals" as to why his convictions should be listed. At least this is why I added this in December 2023 and it remained for many months prior to it's removal. If the question is whether he is known primarily for being a convicted criminal, then based on due content, I'd say just about, or at least it's 50/50. Template documentation is neither policy nor guidelines either, so there is that argument as well. This might be worth having another RfC over it, as it has been 4 years and there has been more convictions since then. They were also listed and remained the status quo for 8 months as well, so I get the impression the previous consensus is outdated already. CNC (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was gone for a week. I have looked at worldwide Google Data to see the queries related to Tommy Robinson in the past year. The top related queries is 'riot', then followed by 'UK riots'.
I accept that there is legal restriction so that his political ideologies are not widely spread or reported on news. However, from an apolitical perspective, he seems to be more well-known for committing various criminal activities, rather than conducting political activities.
If Tommy Robinson falls under a category of politicians rather than other notorious criminals, it would be inappropriate for this wikipedia page to cover mainly his imprisonment, social media ban, bankruptcy and tax investigation. Most of the headings are focused on his background as a criminal, rather than as a politician.
Therefore, I believe we should find a new consensus to determine the style of the page and the use of the infobox, for which I appreciate the sample demonstrated below. However, I noticed that the discussion has not led to any consensus or conclusions yet. Jeremy Hulber (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really struggle to see Robinson as "a politician". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robinson is certainly not, in my view, a politician - but even if he were, it would not prevent inclusion of the things you mentioned. OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the focus of this page should be reflecting the reality of what Robinson is notable for. It seems to me that it points to criminal activity rather than politics or activism, as the criminal convictions certainly include offences that are completely unrelated to his so-called activism. Jeremy Hulber (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am now stuck with a mental image of a Venn diagram of British politicians with convicted criminals and racist thugs. Perhaps the Categories section can sort it all out. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The past year of notability is not how topics are described per WP:RECENTISM. We cover the full history of a subject, in this case about 20 years of content. What becomes clear over this timeframe is that he is most notable for; founding/leading the EDL, criminal charges, and being in prisons. He is otherwise not a politician; his "involvement in electoral politics" remains quite brief, went largely unnoticed (compared to EDL legacy), and otherwise he has never been involved in policy-making nor held a role in government. This isn't even an argument for WP:FALSEBALANCE as he's a political activist, not a politician. CNC (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I accept that he is not a politician. However, his notability and the coverage of this article is still mainly on his criminal records and legal complication, rather than his so-called activism. A lot of crimes covered here is unrelated to politics at all. These are offences like football hooliganism, drug possession, stalking, fraud, fake passport. These offences are committed as a part of his criminal career. It suggests that Robinson is primarily a criminal, not a political activist. The page should demonstrate these relevant information in infobox to certain extent, perhaps like the example you demonstrated below. Jeremy Hulber (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox example

[edit]
Tommy Robinson
Tommy Robinson on the "Anything Goes With James English" Podcast in 2023.
Robinson in 2023
Born
Stephen Christopher Yaxley

(1982-11-27) 27 November 1982 (age 41)
Luton, England
Other names
  • Andrew McMaster
  • Paul Harris
  • Wayne King
  • Stephen Lennon
Known for
Political party
Movement
Spouse
Jenna Vowles
​
​
(m. 2011; div. 2021)​
Children3
Criminal charge
PenaltyPrison sentences:
  • 15 months (2005)
  • 12 months (2013)
  • 18 months (2014)
  • 10 months (2018)
  • 9 months (2019)
  • 18 months (2024)
Suspended sentences:
  • 12 weeks (2011)
  • 3 months (2018, activated)

Here is an example of how the infobox would look with criminal charges and penalties added based on reverted version with new information. Have removed the community service as seems irrelevant. CNC (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could also be simplified by not including penalties. CNC (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks quite reasonable to me. Use of {infobox criminal} is a bit of red herring, as {infobox person} takes those criminal parameters just as well? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, with the only difference being the spouse & children are listed below the criminal charges and penalties it seems. CNC (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article formatting

[edit]

I suggest that the 'Imprisonment for contempt of court' section be incorporated into the 'Imprisonment for criminal offences' section (as what's the actual difference?), and the summary for 'Imprisonment for criminal offences' be updated to include these additional imprisonments. Also the 'Stalking' and 'Dispersal order' sub-sections in 'Imprisonment for contempt of court' definitely need to be moved elsewhere in the article. memphisto 13:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Robinson's latest imprisonment for contempt of court relates to a civil contempt (failure to comply with a court order, arising from a civil action for libel), so it would not be appropriate to simply add it to the 'criminal offences' section (unless that section was given a broader title). Paul W (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such as 'Criminal convictions and legal troubles'? Jeremy Hulber (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Legal affairs is the usual wording I think. CNC (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tommy_Robinson&oldid=1257148021"