Talk:Tommy Robinson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Infobox Criminal

What's us with this page using the infobox criminal? I'd not seen it before, and it looks like it's been used here to deliberately draw attention to his criminal record in a way in which it wasn't designed for. From the template:

"Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies.

This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. It is also appropriately used in Nolle prosequi cases of perpetrators dying during the commission of the act or shortly thereafter, common in a suicide attack or Murder–suicide. Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_criminal

(a) BLP applies. Of course, BLP applies to serial killers too, but it means we err on side of caution.
(b) NPOV. I'd lay money on the motivation for its inclusion being less than pure.That may be the case, but let's pretend I didn't say that, as it equally may be an error.
(c) Examples. Political activists with records do not really fit with the examples given.
(d) Nolle prosequi. N/A
(e) "rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal" - anyone want to try to make the case that we know about Robinson because of mortgage fraud or travelling on the wrong passport, rather than because of the EDL etc?

Anyone want to argue for keeping this template, rather than using a standard one? Bromley86 (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No but I am going to point out how much of (if not all of his) recent notoriety has been due to a couple of court cases and the controversy surrounding them (indeed at a guess around a third of the article is devoted to it).Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The article should not use infobox criminal per the guidelines for its use. Robinson is a controversial figure, but it is misleading to imply that he is notable solely for being a criminal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The article should not use infobox criminal per the guidelines for its use. I have re-read those guidelines, and can see nothing in them precluding the template's use for this article.

it is misleading to imply that he is notable solely for being a criminal Yes, it would be, if anyone were doing that. But they aren't. As such, this is a straw man. Zazpot (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I am going to point out how much of (if not all of his) recent notoriety has been due to a couple of court cases. Thank you. "Recent" is understating it, though. A substantial amount of the coverage in WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS relates to Robinson's numerous criminal trials and convictions. These are similarly notable to, say, Robinson's appointment to UKIP, and likewise merit WP:DUE presence in the infobox. Zazpot (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Robinson's notability does not derive from his criminal activities; while they should be mentioned, they do not belong in the info-box. TFD (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Robinson's notability does not derive from his criminal activities This is playing somewhat loose with the truth. A substantial amount of the coverage in WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS relates to Robinson's numerous criminal trials and convictions, and as such these form a substantial part of his notability. Zazpot (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

So you think that if Robinson had never had any involvement in political activism, he would be notable for his criminal activities? TFD (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

So you think that if Robinson had never had any involvement in political activism, he would be notable for his criminal activities? This seems to be a request for counterfactual speculation, which is hardly constructive. Let us stay on-topic. Zazpot (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

So if you think it is speculation whether Robinson would be notable, then logically you should agree the infobox is unwarranted. The onus is on you to show that he has notability as a criminal. I think the example provided in Wikipedia:Categorization of people may provide some guidance: "Categorizing a politician involved in a scandal as a "criminal" would create much more controversy than categorizing a behaviour or act as "criminal"." TFD (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You wrote:

• So if you think it is speculation whether Robinson would be notable, then logically you should agree the infobox is unwarranted. No. That is a non-sequitur. Please stop with the tendentious arguments.
• The onus is on you to show that he has notability as a criminal. I'm not so sure it is, but regardless, the citations added to the infobox in these edits provide WP:VERIFIABILITY and collectively meet WP:GNG.
• "Categorizing a politician involved in a scandal as a "criminal" would create much more controversy than categorizing a behaviour or act as "criminal"." Maybe so, but if the politician has a lengthy criminal record, some or all of which is pertinent to his political activities, and these facts are cited from WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS, then the categorisation is warranted. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.

Zazpot (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You wrote:

• BLP applies Yes, but BLP was adhered to in the use of the template on this article, so this is a non-issue.
• I'd lay money on the motivation for its inclusion being less than pure. This seems rather a breach of WP:AGF.
• Political activists with records do not really fit with the examples given [in the template]. If an activist has a record due to some long-ago minor crime that received little or no coverage in WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS, then indeed the record should probably not be mentioned in Wikipedia. Robinson is not such an activist. According to multiple WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS, he has a lengthy criminal record, new additions to which have likewise received detailed coverage in WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS. Since coverage in WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS is the basis of notability, Robinson's criminal record is notable. It literally meets WP:GNG and would warrant its own article, if editors were so inclined.
• "rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal" I am unsure how much of the early media coverage of Robinson that established WP:GNG mentioned his criminal record. Some of it did. It wasn't every day that someone convicted of assaulting a policeman formed a protest group and drew a crowd. That was then. Today, Robinson's convictions are a key aspect of his notability; they are mentioned in (almost?) every article about him that emerges in WP:RS. But even if you somehow manage to overlook all this, there remains the key word rarely, which does not mean "never", and therefore does not preclude the use of this template for this article.
• Anyone want to argue for keeping this template, rather than using a standard one? I already did. Twice.

Zazpot (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat my comments. Look, lots of political activists have criminal records. Eugene Debs, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela. In fact their time in prison is central to their biographies, but no one suggests we use the criminal template for them. TFD (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

lots of political activists have criminal records... Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela. [Their] time in prison is central to their biographies, but no one suggests we use the criminal template for them. First, are you seriously equating Robinson with Mandela or MLK? Secondly, your argument reduces to WP:SSEFAR. I have two replies to that: (1) it would be reasonable to use that template on those pages, and I do not know why the community has not done so; (2) its use on this page remains justified, for the reasons to which I have already pointed. Zazpot (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:SSEFAR says, "Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." And while I don't like bringing the nazis into discussions, we don't use the criminal info=box for Adolf Hitler, Adolf Eichmann or numerous other far right politicians who were guilty of far worse crimes than Robinson.}} While precedent is not conclusive, you need to provide a reason why you think the criminal info-box is useful in this article. TFD (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Godwin wins again. AFAICT, Hitler had only one criminal conviction, whereas WP:RS describe Robinson as having several. Though as Hitler's was for treason and was notable, its omission from his infobox is incomprehensible. As for Eichmann, whose trial and conviction were arguably the most notable things about him, the omission from his infobox is inexcusable. Thank you for spotting these oversights, which ought to be rectified. Zazpot (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, user:Zazpot is the only person who really wants this and insists on having it. The previous discussion shows a clear lack of consensus for having it. Since I don't want to get the article fully protected, who else actually likes the use of Infobox criminal with its lavish list of his most obscure past convictions?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Not me. Bromley86 (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Nor me. A few years ago it may have been appropriate, but not now - his notability now is of a (thankfully quite minor) political figure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

To those responding to this query, a polite reminder: WP:VOTE. Zazpot (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

One obvious problem is that the WP:LEAD says correctly that he is best known as a far-right activist, not a criminal. As I said on my talk page, "a person would not normally meet WP:GNG simply because they had been convicted of common assault some years ago. Any third rate football hooligan would have a Wikipedia article if this happened." The current version of the infobox is bogged down with cruft (do we really need to know that he was convicted of common assault circa 2005?) He wasn't a very notable figure at this point, and it simply seems to be a way of blackening his name. I am tempted to go back to the more obvious and traditional use of Infobox person, but don't wan't to risk further reverts over this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Although I don't like to get legal here, if a person receives a prison sentence of between 6 and 30 months, it is considered spent after four years and does not have to be declared on job application forms.[1] An exception is being made for Robinson, because the current version of the infobox is still mentioning convictions for common assault from 2005 and 2011. While Robinson undoubtedly has a controversial past, these prison sentences would not have to be declared on a job application form today. This leads to a problem with WP:NPOV. Also, they are not what he is best known for, and the infobox is meant to be a summary of important points, not a laundry list.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I must admit that I had not noticed this format/addition. It is correct there is no need for this information to be listed in an info box, as part of the article about the person it would be correct. In terms of spent criminal past this is also correct until one applies for a position within the UK that would require a DBSrecord, (such as teaching / child care / care for the vulnerable people). As part of an encyclopedia the information should be removed from the info box, the info box template changed, and the facts remain in the article. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It is correct there is no need for this information to be listed in an info box, as part of the article about the person it would be correct. Thanks, but if, as you say, the material is appropriate in the body text, then why do you say it should not be summarised in the infobox? Zazpot (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

a prison sentence of [6-30] months... is considered spent after four years and does not have to be declared on job application forms... the infobox [mentions sentences] from 2005 and 2011... This leads to a problem with WP:NPOV. AFAICT, the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV makes no mention of, and is wholly unrelated to, the English concept of a "spent conviction". Also, a Wikipedia article is not a job application.

the infobox is meant to be a summary of important points, not a laundry list. All the convictions in the infobox received non-trivial coverage in one or more WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS. They are not "laundry". Zazpot (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

One obvious problem is that the WP:LEAD says correctly that he is best known as a far-right activist, not a criminal. This is not a problem. Being best known as a far-right provocateur does not exclude being notable for criminal convictions. Wikipedia can, does, and should, note facts about a person that are notable and non-trivial. It does not and should not restrict itself solely to a single topic for which a person is most notable. (Also, several of Robinson's convictions were related to his "work": threatening behaviour while leading EDL supporters; assault at an EDL rally; contempt of court.)

a person would not normally meet WP:GNG simply because they had been convicted of common assault some years ago. No-one is claiming that they would. (If someone here were trying to remove all other information from the article, and base it solely upon that conviction from c.2005, then your point would be sound; but they aren't, so it isn't.) So, this is a straw man.

The current version of the infobox is bogged down with cruft At your talk page, you put this differently, saying that the infobox was too long. I have condensed the way the information is presented, and it is now much more concise. The next step would be to bundle the citations, which I'll do if I get a chance but perhaps not for a few weeks.

[it] seems to be a way of blackening his name

• blackening: stating info that is unfavourable and untrue (and that would be non-trivial if it were true).
• whitewashing: withholding info that is unfavourable but true (and non-trivial).

Both blackening or whitewashing the name of a Wikipedia article's subject would be morally and editorially irresponsible. We should do neither. We should simply fill in the infobox parameters where the information is non-trivial and is WP:VERIFIABLE due to coverage in multiple WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS.

go back to the more obvious and traditional use of Infobox person Doesn't solve the problem. Infobox person has fields for criminal charges, but not for convictions. Many of Robinson's charges resulted in convictions, and so presenting them as simply "charges" would be at best confusing and at worst misleading. Zazpot (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

There is now a risk of WP:BLUDGEON here, because there is a clear consensus not to use Infobox criminal or to list all of the convictions. The convictions can go into the text of the article, but they do not need to be in the infobox. Time to move on.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

I have been adhering to WP:TPYES.

While I believe you and others have been acting in good faith, there has been a Gish gallop here of what WP:TPNO calls "contradiction", which warranted refutation. See illustration at right. Zazpot (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion between the two later protagonists has for the most part been a good one and I am grateful to them for it. I believe it has improved the quality of this talk page. There is merit in both their arguments. This has made it all the more difficult to resolve the matter. Yaxley-Lennon clearly is a criminal. He is also an activist. Some of his activities have crossed the boundary into crime and some have not. The linkage between those two aspects of Yaxley-Lennon is part of his notability. There is a third aspect, well noted in RS but not yet in this article, that of the provocateur. I think that the references show that over time he has tried, not always successfully, to operate more in that mode, perhaps a safer mode from the provocateur's point of view. I hope that this aspect of Y-L's activities will be brought to the fore as the article is tidied, improved and developed. In essence, it is wrong to say that he is an activist more than a criminal or vice versa. He is both, a provocateur, some of whose own activities have been criminal some of whose provocations might have led others. At this stage of the article's development, I don't think it matters much. I agree with IanMacM, Time to move on, but not on the basis of WP:BLUDGEON. At this stage, it is helpful to have the convictions listed. Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jacksoncowes that "it is wrong to say that he is an activist more than a criminal or vice versa. He is both". He qualifies for the infobox under "other notorious criminals".

The EDL was notorious for street disorder that sometimes escalated to criminality. Here's an excerpt from the article's section on the EDL:

Robinson reportedly led the group of Luton fans, and played an integral part in starting a 100-man brawl, during which he chanted "EDL till I die". He was sentenced to a 12-month community rehabilitation order with 150 hours' unpaid work and a three-year ban from attending football matches.

Robinson was arrested again after an EDL demonstration in Tower Hamlets in September 2011 for breach of bail conditions, as he had been banned from attending that demonstration. Robinson later began a hunger strike while on remand in HM Prison Bedford, saying that he was a "political prisoner of the state" ... A handful of EDL supporters protested outside the prison in support of Robinson during his incarceration; the support peaked at a turnout of 100 protesters on 10 September. ...

On 29 September 2011, Robinson was convicted of common assault after headbutting a fellow EDL member at a rally in Blackburn in April that year. He was sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.

He has more recently cast himself as an "enemy of the state" and his recurring imprisonments are perceived by his supporters as the main piece of evidence of exceptionally brave heroism in the face of brutal state oppression.

I fully support keeping the Infobox Criminal.

Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

He shouldn't be listed as/defined as a criminal, as several people have successfully shown. The only reason he's listed as a criminal is part of the leftwinger people here's political campaign against him. As others have said, if he's listed as a criminal then others, such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King must also be. Also John Lennon, Paul McCartney and all the long list of other musicians and stars and actors with drug busts and other convictions must be listed as criminals too.(FROM 22nd March, 2019, REPLACED DUE TO BEING WRONGFULLY  REMOVED.86.187.174.164 (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Yes, Martin Luther King and Gandhi were well known for fighting for social justice by committing mortgage fraud.

Release of real name

Should Wikipedia be in the habit of doxing people?

It's public knowledge that he's being harassed and stalked by a lot of people -- it hurts Wikipedia's credibility and neutrality to participate in that process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.71.108 (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Webster's defines doxing as to "to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge." Wikiepdia does not publish private information. However, this information is in the public realm and sourced to mainstream media. If you have a complaint, get all the media to erase his real name and then policy will require us to remove it here. TFD (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not doxing to say that he has appeared in court under the name of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon because it is in numerous reliable sources and does not violate WP:BLPPRIVACY. Whether this is his real name isn't so straightforward, as we've debated in the past. The "Christopher" part may be problematic, because his name in the 2018 court case documents was Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, not Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon.[2] At the moment the article is using a YouTube video to verify his name and date of birth as Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. This isn't ideal, the video is 17:54 long and looks as though it may well fail WP:YOUTUBE because the user account liarpoliticians2 is not an official BBC channel. Potential copyvio here, the entire liarpoliticians2 YouTube channel looks like a rip off of news broadcasts from BBC, Sky, RT etc. Also, I haven't watched the entire video and don't suppose that most people have either. Could someone point out the part where it says "Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon" and his date of birth?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 01:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The article attributes "Christopher" "to legal name as per Judge Marson's decision in Regina v Stephen Christopher Yaxley. Seeing as this case does not yet appear to have been published, it is reasonable to ask how its title is known with such certainty. It may be correct, it may not. Either way, it makes no difference: just delete "Christopher" and accept that we don't have to include the middle name(s) of every subject in Wikipedia. Worth noting that Robinson's appeal against the case, which has been published, is cited as IN RE: STEPHEN YAXLEY-LENNON (aka TOMMY ROBINSON). Emeraude (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

As noted previously, published birth registrations show "Stephen Christopher Yaxley" registered in Luton in the December quarter of 1982. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but as previously discussed, the name on his birth certificate is potentially misleading as he has used numerous names since then. The most up to date name for legal purposes is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (August 2018).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Its publicly available information, read out in court.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This Times story should be OK for the real name and the date of birth (it's questionable whether he is still the owner/operator of a sunbed shop, though).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible new section "Actions of supporters"

I see that several editors recently disagreed about whether or not to mention the action of a TR supporter that was reported in multiple WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS. I appreciate Ianmacm's concern that supporters' actions are not necessarily related to TR. I also appreciate the contrasting concern espoused by Jacksoncowes and Civilised Hatters Fan.

Here is a proposal that might accommodate both concerns, and reduce edit-warring on this sort of issue:

• if the actions concerned are reported as being connected to (esp. resulting from) the person's support of TR,
• and if the actions concerned have been reported in multiple WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS,

then they should be mentioned in the article, under a (new) section at the bottom of the article called "Actions of supporters".

(I have not checked whether the matter added to the article in the diffs I linked above meets those criteria. Needless to say: if it does, then I think it should be included as I have described; otherwise not.) Zazpot (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I would add a third criterion: that the actions receive widespread coverage in articles about Tommy Robinson. The implication of adding stories such as the guy in Worcester who threatened the Home Secretary is that he did it because he was a Robinson supporter. A newspaper article that we could use as a source would provide the evidence supporting that link, report what experts had to say and allow Robinson to reply. TFD (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I am worried about this, because if some random loony does something and mentions Tommy Robinson's name, it isn't directly his fault. When Mark Chapman killed John Lennon, he said that he was doing it for Jodie Foster, but this obviously wasn't Jodie Foster's fault. The article should be wary of using guilt by association.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Er.... so we shouldn't mention that Chapman said he did it for Jodie Foster??? Emeraude (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The problems with the Worcester case include WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. I'm also not sure why it needs six sources saying basically the same thing. There is no need to milk every negative piece of media coverage about Robinson. The Worcester News source [3] is plenty.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: When Mark Chapman killed John Lennon, he said that he was doing it for Jodie Foster. Did he? I can't see any evidence of that whatsoever. So, I don't think this is a true premise upon which one can build a sound argument.

If you are instead thinking of John Hinckley Jr., who attempted to assassinate the President of the USA, then note that his actions are mentioned on Foster's article, although not in a way that implies any kind of endorsement from her.

I appreciate your concern about the association fallacy, though. Incorporating TFD's suggestion I would add a third criterion... might be the best position, as long as allow Robinson to reply (my emphasis) does not mean Wikipedia must discount otherwise reliable sources simply because they do not quote Robinson or his spokespeople (e.g. his lawyer), and also does not mean that Wikipedia must repeat such quotes if present in a source. After all, as has already been mentioned elsewhere on this talk page and in Wikipedia guidance, biography subjects are not necessarily RS about themselves. Zazpot (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No, we do not have guilt by association. What his "supporters" do (how do we define this, some random bloke who goes "I support Lennon", or does it have to be part of some official organisation?) has nothing to do with him.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I do understand and respect the concerns expressed by Ianmacm and his helpful link.

To my mind the concept of 'fault' in the context of this discussion is misplaced. It is not the purpose of the article to apportion blame or to shield the subject from implications of blame. We set out his reported activities, the reported results of and the reported reactions to those activities. It must always be difficult to know what an activist has caused to happen; that is, surely, the benefit and the danger of political activism, more so for the Provocateur. S/he has the luxury of saying "I caused that" or "nothing to do with me" or to say nothing, as they see fit. The sentient observer may see and report the linkage. This article is not a sentient observer. It would not be respectable for this article to try to work those things out. That is for others - the RS. Further, it is surely a matter of degree. Ianmacm is right to say "...if some random loony does something and mentions Tommy Robinson's name,..." and to imply that it shouldn't go into the article. But, as well as RS, it should depend on what the 'something' was and what the 'mention' was. In a recently reported terror event 'Names' were reported. Without knowing much more than I do I would not argue that these should go into an article on that subject but I would strongly reject a blanket assertion that they shouldn't.

I think Zazpot's thoughtful edits have improved the structure of the article and I imply no criticism of him or others when I say that the structure - the headings and what goes where still needs a lot of work. The article is still developing.

I have some concern about the suggested (new) section at the bottom of the article called "Actions of supporters". The reported linkages between YL's activities and the reported reactions, by supporters, detractors, opponents and/or others need to be maintained.

I do not agree with the last two comments on this page Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The Christchurch mosque shootings obviously aren't the fault of PewDiePie either, but he is mentioned because the alleged gunman referred to him. In the Worcester case, the man was a troublemaker and made a threat against Sajid Javid. It isn't quite Robinson's fault that this happened, which is why some caution is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

a) its not about fault. b)I wasn't thinking of PewDiePie? I had much more notable name in mind! But still, it's not about fault. Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jacksoncowes: I think Zazpot's thoughtful edits have improved the structure of the article and I imply no criticism of him or others when I say that the structure - the headings and what goes where still needs a lot of work. The article is still developing. I would be grateful if you could avoid gendering me. That aside, I appreciate the kind words and agree that the article still needs much work. I hope that this "Actions of supporters" section proposal, if adopted and if its contents responsibly sourced and worded as discussed above, will allow for a clear distinction to be made about responsibility for the actions described within, compared to the rest of the article. I think the creation of such a section would address ianmacm's concern about implied guilt (as much as is practical, and anyhow more so than the current practice of not clearly delineating supporters' actions into their own sectionhaving such a section only in relation to one incident mentioned in the article, to which the actions might not exclusively relate), and thereby remove a stumbling block towards further improvement of the article. Again, thank you for the kind words. Zazpot (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC) 15:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zazpot: Please accept my apology. Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Robinson may bear responsibility. What I disagree with is implying a connection when none has been made in reliable sources. In a similar case, some people have accused Donald Trump's rhetoric for influencing far right killers. The accusation is out there made by actual people, eperts hsve weighed in and the White House has responded.[4] We have actual sources about Trump's connection to these mass killings. Maybe the media should write similar stories about Robinson, but until they do it is not our responsibility to correct the failings of secondary sources. Ifr however such sources exist, then we could consider them. TFD (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I do have concerns about having a separate section at the bottom of the article headed "Actions of supporters" but I understand the thinking behind it. I do not feel it a huge issue and I certainly wouldn't oppose it.

I am concerned that it would further fragment the article. Because in my view that this issue it not about guilt or blame I have to ask would we also need a separate section for the reported linked activities of his opponents? Does the reported fact that groups of supporters and opponents demonstrated and fought each other imply that it was his fault? Was he pleased? Was he upset? Who knows? To the best of my knowledge, he has not commented. It happened and the linkage or, as TFD puts it, the connection, with the activities of YL is clear. It was put into the article and I think properly so. The edit that started this thread was about the man sentenced for threatening to kill the Home Secretary. It was supported by several articles headlined 'supporter of Tommy Robinson Jailed' etc and all these articles reported the man's claim that he threatened in support of YL - If anything happens to Tommy you're dead - or words to that effect. Those press reports do not say YL is responsible but they do make clear that the man acted in support. They make the connection very clear. To that extent I think TFD is wrong. More importantly, I agree with the rest of those (his or her) comments.

I take the point made in the underlined section of Zazpot comments. If I have understood it properly the threats to kill were made in response to YL's imprisonment. However, I think Zazpot's underlined comments also suggest that any section headed "Actions of supporters" is problematic. Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not disagree that there is a connection, but that we should not say or imply there is one without a reliable source. Reliable sources about Bill Cosby for example say that he is an African American and a rapist and that rightly belongs in his biography, but the article on African Americans does not have a section about rapes committed by African Americans. For some people of course there is an obvious connection and if this information was included in the African American article readers might conclude that there was one. I imagine that editors who believe there is a connection between Robinson and the actions of his followers do not believe there is a connection between rape and race, and would therefore oppose including these details because it would falsely imply a connection existed. We should let the experts make that decision in Robinson's case and report what they say. TFD (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with every scintilla of your comment. My problem is simply that it seems to me that the RSs (collectively} quoted in support of the edit made the connection between YL, his activities, his imprisonment and the treats made as plain as a pikestaff. If I am shown to be wrong I promise I will retract fully and, I hope, with grace. I am not sure there is any water between us. Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Threats Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't read it properly and don't yet intend to (too old, too knackered, going to belle France tomorrow). Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2019/03/terror-new-zealand-borne-same-far-right-ideology-taking-hold-europe Jacksoncowes (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of this: "Mosque shooter reportedly ‘influenced’ by Stamford’s own Candace Owens." The article about the death threats by the Robinson's supporter merely says that he was a supporter.[5] The connection is clear to you because of your familiarity with Tommy Robinson and islamophobia in the UK. To a racist, the connection between Cosby's crimes and his race is pretty clear too. TFD (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Ta. Nuff said. Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zazpot: your use of the word "multiple" in your proposed criterion "if the actions concerned have been reported in multiple WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS" is actually causing edit warring. In this edit war, the number of citations is repeatedly reduced to one. Each time, I am pointed to a comment which says "The Worcester News source [6] is plenty", and which describes my good-faith attempt to show multiple sources as trying to "milk every negative piece of media coverage about Robinson". Clearly, the opposition to your use of the word "multiple" is vociferous. For the sake of preventing edit warring, I would respectfully suggest that you drop this proposal or replace it with one that says "one" rather than "multiple". Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:CITEKILL says that it is easy to find multiple reliable sources saying the same thing, and this does not add value to a cited statement. Instead, it says "it is better to cite a couple of great sources than a stack of decent or sub-par ones". This is a common mistake when a person is desperately trying to prove a point.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zazpot: Your use of the word "multiple" is risking a ridiculous situation where:

1. Citations are removed to avoid citation overkill (because one "is plenty"), then,
2. A sentence is removed because it appears to not have enough independent reliable sources.

Your proposed criterion for inclusion that "the actions concerned have been reported in multiple WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS" has caused an edit war of the type described in WP:CITEKILL:

One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring, which can lead to examples like "Garphism is the study of ...". Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit. Similar circumstances can also lead to overkill with legitimate sources, when existing sources have been repeatedly removed or disputed on spurious grounds or against consensus. See also this example illustrating an exaggerated case of citation overkill.

An edit war is the opposite of what you intended, so please clarify whether you agree that one reliable source is enough for something to be included in the section. Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ianmacm:, I note your concern to uphold WP:CITEKILL. However, you seem to have overlooked both the phrase a couple of good sources... in the passage you quoted, and also CITEKILL's advice that "Two or three [citations] may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations." Given that (almost?) everything noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the proposed section is contentions (due to BLP, and the criminal or political nature of the activities), please accept that according to CITEKILL, 2-3 citations is perfectly appropriate.

@Civilised Hatters Fan:, sorry it took me a while to reply to your pings. I hope that the above clarifies my position and helps to resolve the issue here. Zazpot (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It isn't particularly controversial that a man issued a death threat to Sajid David, there are numerous reliable sources saying this and one of them could be uploaded to WebCite if it is a problem. What concerns me is using an Uncle Tom Cobley approach to citations to show that something is verifiable or notable, which is discouraged by WP:CITEKILL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Re this edit: It really is hard to understand why the WP:CITEKILL is adding anything of value here. I never add more than two cites to a statement unless it is absolutely necessary. The Mirror cite is not a RS anyway, and Metro isn't fantastic either. A man was convicted of a death threat, one or two cites is adequate. Please pare this down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ianmacm:

• It isn't particularly controversial that a man issued a death threat to Sajid David. Yes, it is, because for Wikipedia to claim that a living or recently deceased person allegedly committed, or (as in this case) did commit and was imprisoned for, a crime, would be a clear WP:BLP violation, and potentially libellous, unless supported by WP:RS. (It would be likewise a BLP violation and potentially libellous for Wikipedia to claim without RS that a living or recently deceased person was a Tommy Robinson supporter.)
• What concerns me is using an Uncle Tom Cobley approach to citations to show that something is verifiable or notable, which is discouraged by WP:CITEKILL. If you are implying that an editor is attempting to insert material that is not notable, then clearly you are mistaken if that material is sourced from lengthy discussion in multiple RS. As for your (accidentally, I assume) selective reading of CITEKILL, I already addressed this above. To repeat, CITEKILL says: Two or three [citations] may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources'. So, please stop claiming that such citations are inappropriate.
• Re this edit ... The Mirror cite is not a RS anyway, and Metro isn't fantastic either. A man was convicted of a death threat, one or two cites is adequate. (My emphasis.) As pointed out above, one source is not necessarily adequate, especially if any editors are challenging the notability of the information. You can't have it both ways, so for the contentious matters that this section of the talk page is about, please do not reduce the number of cited RS that discuss the material in depth to less than two; lest someone mistakenly challenge the material's notability and attempt to delete it, causing a needless edit war.

I agree that the Mirror is not a particularly reliable source. I have pared down the citations for that sentence, and my edit summary gives the rationale. Zazpot (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This is now going round in circles. The reason why it isn't controversial is that it is easy to cite with various reliable sources. It would only fail WP:BLPSOURCES if it was difficult to cite in reliable sources. Surely this is simple enough to understand. We don't need five or six cites for every statement just because it involves Tommy Robinson. No additional value is gained by doing this sort of thing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You may be going in circles. I am not.

The contentiousness (or controversiality, if you prefer) of a claim may be related to things other than the ease of citing sources. For instance, a claim could be contentious because it impacts the reputation of a person; and I gave examples of this in my previous comment.

We don't need five or six cites for every statement just because it involves Tommy Robinson. I have not claimed that we do, so replying to my comment as though I have done is a straw man argument. I will however quote CITEKILL for you a third time: "Two or three [citations] may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations." Please let that sink in, and uphold it. Then we will all be on the same page. That is all we need to do. Thank you for your consideration, Zazpot (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Name error

"known as Tommy Robinson, is a British far-right activist[22] serving as a political adviser to the Leader of the ". - This is not correct. Under U.K. law a person's name is whatever they choose to go by/be known as. There is no requirement to register a name for approval by the state. Rather disrespectful to The U.K. and ignorant to say otherwise.86.187.165.253 (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

But he is known as Tommy Robinson. doktorb _words^deeds 22:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

True, but its not the name he appears in court under.Slatersteven (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. No point going over the same ground. Emeraude (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It isn't done for anyone else - for instance countless celebrities - it is being done only for Tommy Robinson and is obviously POV politically motivated campaigning.86.187.174.164 (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

boris Karlof.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson is his WP:COMMONNAME. This is pretty uncontroversial. As for his real/legal/birth name, that is another matter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Every article discloses someone's legal name and their stage name, alias, nom de plume, nom du guerre, or the name by which they are best known. TFD (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Robinson has been subject to various online bans and restrictions, eg in the past few days he has been banned from livestreaming on YouTube.[7] It is hard to keep up with all of these restrictions and mention them all, but the new YouTube restrictions should be mentioned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2019

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

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

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

Daily Mirror

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robinson is being sued by Jamal

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

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

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

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

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

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

removed milkshake section! Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

It was two milkshakes, different days and places.[8] Warrington police are investigating one.[9] 11:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I can remember the time John Major had a egg thrown at him, and vividly recall John Prescott smacking a protester in the face after this happened. However, it may not be necessary to mention every incident of this kind, as it is one of the hazards of the campaign trail.[10] Makes a change if it is a milkshake.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election

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

Tommy Robinson is not far right

To Whom it May Concern.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tommy Robinson's Release From Prison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Use of the word "operative"

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

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

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

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

Far-left

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

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

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

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

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

Fraud

Under the "Fraud" section it says Robinson's fraud amounted to £160,000 over a period of six months. Judge Andrew Bright QC described him as the "instigator, if not the architect" of a series of frauds totalling £640,000.

I assume the second instance of "fraud" is a typo, and supposed to read mortages? Here's what the referenced BBC article states: The fraud amounted to £160,000 over a period of six months. [...] The fraudulent mortgages she obtained came to a total of £640,000. 107.159.34.216 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No as there were multiple frauds involving multiple mortgages.Slatersteven (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson's Past Studies

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

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

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

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

I guess I don't understand the relevance of the comments. Sure, there are references for Robinson's claims, but his claims are incorrect. To reiterate, to study ENGINEERING requires attendance at a university, not an airport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1EAB:CA01:C7B:B5C7:A4E2:C8F0 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim Hatred

These Categories must be added on the Category List, Tommy Robinson is Very Anti-Muslim and Anti-Islam.

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment Subwayfan1998 (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed the category links, but I'll leave it for someone more familiar with this article and/or categorization to decide. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The Imam of Peace is supportive of Tommy Robinson. Robinson has a strong opinion on Islam and its prophet, but it doesn't mean he hates Muslims. He's made it very clear he opposes grooming gangsters (gangs of paedocriminals) as well as terrorists and extremists, Muslim or not (he also exposed White, non-Muslim paedocriminals). Many have a strong opinion on Christianity or more specifically, Roman Catholicism, but it doesn't mean they harbour hatred for all Christians or all Catholics. Same thing for Robinson. Israell (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

so... an opinion is published in an "authoritative news source", and everyone else then publishes the same opinionated claim about someone in their articles, and somehow, suddenly, magically, that opinion becomes fact, and is presented as fact on wikipedia, so much so that you now need "RS" to show that the false OPINION claim ISNT true. LMFAO. this is the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. reason why ill never support wikipedia. "RS". lool.10:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Xv929182 (talk)

Yes as we assume that if it is an RS it does not just regurgitate it published its own opinions or research (that is why it is an RS, it is reliable for what it says)). And yes, we need RS saying something is fake (see wp:or, because someone somewhere in the world someone think -s almost anything is fake, gravity, aids, that Tommy Robinson is really Mr Harris. But (and here we are discussing wp:fringe) just because Bert from down the pub thinks that The EU passed laws saying bananas must be straight does not mean we say it. We say it only if RS consider it a notable opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The irony is I actually agree with you, I do not think he is far-right, anti-Muslim or whatever. But I cannot say what I think he is because this is BLP, and my opinions are irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

References