Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist)

British or English

Should he be described as "British" or "English"? He has had affiliations with the British National Party and the British Freedom Party, but also with the English Defence League. The Categories predominantly use "English", as those are more specific. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

He can be both, so lets go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

So I guess that's going to be non-UK RS, as UK sources typically don't need to use either? Or are perhaps just too embarrassed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Whoever. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

NYT calls him British as does CNN. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Then so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Quite a small sample there. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

True, but its down to anyone who disagrees to find counter examples. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll see what happens. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Always best to use nationality, so British. Though, didn't I read that he had Irish background....? Emeraude (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"He says that his parents were Irish immigrants"? If we believe him, then that might open up a whole new fresh can of nationality worms? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

If he was born in the UK, he is a British citizen. I would avoid the term English because it is ambiguous. He doesn't meet the definition of English that he supports. TFD (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Martin - are you trying to say he is not British because his mother* (not father) is Irish? That sounds racist - can you clear that up? Ohok1 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

"Ohok1", how does one "clear up" an unsubstantiated claim made by someone like Yaxley-Lennon? Why should he not be British? Is that January 2010 interview with Victoria Derbyshire, on BBC Radio 5 Live, still available online somewhere, or even a transcript? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Completely Biased

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page is completely bias and may as well have been written by mainstream media. You clearly have not read any of his books or watched any of his documentaries. You have written nothing positive whatsoever despite the incredible investigative work he has done. You have failed to detail the times he has been unlawfully arrested, how his human rights were taken away from him and how he has been cancelled for saying many things which were later proven to be true. You have not spoken about the complete lies told about him or fabricated evidence by police. This page is proof that Wikipedia cannot be trusted! Appalling! He is not “far right” at all, he is anti Islamic extremism (as we all should be), he is NOT anti Muslim, nor is he anti immigration or anti black/asian, (in fact he is pro all of the above). Just because you don’t like his views doesn’t make him “far right”. You knew your agenda from the off and ignored everything that went against it! Shame on you. Do some real research instead of just watching the mainstream news before writing “facts” on the internet! 2A00:23C6:970C:FA01:4571:A89F:C731:176C (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as a matter of policy, arrived at through consensus very many years ago, bases its content on published reliable sources. Feel free to start your own online encyclopaedia which instead bases content on whatever 'research' some random bloke from the internet considers correct. And then see who gets the most views... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said previously, if you still think mainstream “published sources” are reliable then you are delusional. The fact this page ignored every good thing Tommy has ever done (and there is a lot of it) proves it is completely biased and lacking of any real research. They have followed the mainstream narrative to cancel him because they know he speaks the truth! He is NOT “far right” and has NEVER said anything even remotely racist or violent! 2A00:23C6:970C:FA01:4571:A89F:C731:176C (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If it "may as well have been written by mainstream media," then if fully meets Wikipedia policy of reflecting the weight in reliable sources, in this case mainstream media. TFD (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If you still believe that the mainstream media is a reliable source then you are delusional. There is more and more evidence that they have lied to us time and time again. Do some research behind what they say and it’s very clear! If that’s all Wikipedia needs then that again proves just why it isn’t reliable or accurate! You keep pushing their agenda and see what happens to the world. I hope it isn’t to late when you finally wake up. 2A00:23C6:970C:FA01:4571:A89F:C731:176C (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, then you should take your point to the policy pages. TFD (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

And I will. But it also the personal responsibility of those publishing to ensure what they put out there is correct and this page is full of lies with no real research or evidence. An “encyclopaedia” should be factual and this page is proof it is not! 2A00:23C6:970C:FA01:4571:A89F:C731:176C (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

IP 2A00, you write: "The fact this page ignored every good thing Tommy has ever done (and there is a lot of it) proves it is completely biased and lacking of any real research." I wonder could you provide a list? If these things are all supported by WP:RS sources, then they should be be added to the article. If it's a really big list, we might have to create a separate stand-alone article. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

His dad was English

It says in 'Early life' "He says that his parents were Irish immigrants." He doesn't, he says his mother was Irish, and his father was English; https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10389954/Who-is-the-real-Tommy-Robinson.html, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCCioFzgpSs timestamp; 21:15 "my mums an immigrant." Ohok1 (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I've used that Telegraph source to replace the Victoria Derbyshire interview one and changed the claim. This YouTube video interview is not as useful as he just says "My Mum's an immigrant". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The interview is must see viewing though - the whole video just destroys the lefts argument that "tommys a racist!" he talks pure truth, and I think everyone is starting to see that. Islamisation is destroying this country. God bless Tommy Robinson. Ohok1 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I managed a good 40 seconds. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

He's changed his story over the years. I'll change the wording. TFD (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"Convicted criminal" in the first sentence

I'm sure I'm probably about to be reverted, but searching, I don't see a long discussion on this, so I'm gonna start one because I don't think this is relevant enough to deserve the prominence it has. There are all kinds of people who have, at one point or another, been convicted of a crime, justly or unjustly. There's a whole paragraph about the actual things he was convicted of further down in the lede, and I would also like to discuss moving these further down. While they're undoubtedly essential to his character, I don't think they're >50% of the reason he's notable (which current word counts in the lede would seem to imply). We don't afford people notability based on the crimes they commit per WP:PERP, so these things are only notable because he is, already, for other reasons, a notable figure.

I'm not out to make a martyr of the guy, obviously he's a rather unpleasant fellow for a number of reasons, but I can't help but think his criminal convictions are a backdrop for his notability, rather than a leading cause of them. This edit to the first sentence is in my opinion a first step in the right direction. BrigadierG (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree the first sentence is WP:UNDUE, especially when it's mentioned again later in the lead. I agree that it's not >50% of the reason he's notable; I suspect it is there for PoV reasons. — Czello ^(music) 13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

He has been convicted of more than one, throughout his life, and goes back to before he was notable as an activist. So it is very much part of his imager in the media. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

He has been involved in numerous scrapes that have led to criminal convictions, and some of them are notable because they relate to his career as an activist. However, I agree that the wording in the opening sentence is rather clunky. Since this is already dealt with in the lead with more context, I've removed it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

'Scrapes'? Interesting choice of words... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made an attempt at tightening up the lede to focus primarily on crimes that lend to his notability - such as his recent jailing for contempt of court. Happy to discuss/compromise on how to approach this. BrigadierG (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's more than a little concerning that the lede said he was convicted of stalking when the actual outcome was a civil order. BrigadierG (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

But not that he is in fact an international criminal? Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a relatively unimportant backdrop to him already having existing convictions and being the leader of a far-right extremist group - ultimately, that's the reason why he used false documents in the first place. BrigadierG (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

So, it makes him an international criminal, he has broke the law in more than one country. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we already have enough information in the article to conclude that he committed a crime internationally. What's up with the insistence on that label in particular? Could it possibly be that the term "international criminal" calls into mind big threatening drug cartels and the like? The archetypal "criminal" is a loaded stereotype.BrigadierG (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It puts his call for asylum there into perspective? Nor do we say "international criminal" in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think it is relevant and should be mentioned in the article body, but the question I'd put to you is this - is the reason he was travelling on a false passport a factor of:

1. His previous imprisonment for assaulting an off-duty police officer or

2. His leadership of the EDL

3. Something else

My current perception is that it's a product of 1 - something otherwise mostly unrelated to the reason for his notability. I would be convinced that it has a place in the lede if it can be shown the reason he needed to travel on false documents is because of his political affiliation (or because of some outcome or legal status connected to his political affiliation). BrigadierG (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said, the fact he was asking for asylum in a country he is not even allowed to legally enter needs to be in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Scrape, "a difficult or slightly dangerous situation that you cause by your own silly behaviour".[1] It was pretty silly of Robinson to attempt to enter the USA with someone else's passport, but I'm not denying that he has committed some serious offences.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Birth name

Born Stephen Yaxley-Lennon [2][3][4] from RS. He says he was born Stephen Yaxley [5]. I assume the BBC interview ref in the body is him saying he was born Stephen Christopher Yaxley? Not gonna watch it as no time reference.[6] Meanwhile WP:METRO is generally unreliable. So should we go by what Stephen says he was born as, or what RS say? The wordiness of the first sentence could be avoided here, if he was simply born as Yaxley-Lennon, per RS. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the fact he has gone under many names what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hoolignaism

Copsey makes it clear that drew on football hooligans, and this has now been removed, why? Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem I have broadly with this article (and many others like it) is that it frequently uses juxtaposition and category labels to create a tone that doesn't reflect the articles it sources from.

The original version of that claim said something in the form of "Robinson said it's not anti-muslim, but its members include hooligans and anti-muslim people". This way of phrasing things creates a juxtaposition of Robinson's statements against a statement from a source that emphasises that Robinson is an unreliable narrator. This is probably true, extremists aren't generally known for being reliable sources on their own beliefs when trying to make themselves look presentable to a mainstream audience, but it's not encyclopaedic to create this juxtaposition without it being presented this way in reliable sources.

I've put this back in as an attributed claim, but I'm intending to give the rest of the article a similar shakedown. If there are specific things you think I should keep in mind while doing this, would appreciate it in advance. BrigadierG (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

ANd we had a source for just that claim. And yes, you need to keep in mind do not to remove sourced content without discussion, and you need to self revert. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a very dismissive response and I don't have a reply. BrigadierG (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Which part, that we had a source for this content, that you choose to remove the cite to? Or the request to not remove sourced content without asking first? The fact you have already removed cite content means you really need to get permission to remove anything (per wp:brd) that might (as this was) get reverted. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

This is good, I would much rather have someone watching over my shoulder to make sure my edits are not problematic. I am doing my best to work with you collaboratively on this and come to compromises about contested content (eg mentioning being barred from the US in the lede), and I think it is only reasonable to go back and forth to some degree when a significant change is implemented.

My intent is generally not to add many new sources, nor remove many, just to try end edit the content to better reflect the sources in question and remove cases of WP:SYNTH and WP:LABEL. BrigadierG (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is wp:3rr, we may well end up having an edit war (this is why I have not reverted your last edit). YOu did not remove WP:SYNTH , as stated we had a source that explicitly stated both the claims (and they do not violate label) you removed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

All I've done is shift them from statements in wikivoice to attributions and removed the juxtaposition. What changes would you make to my edits? BrigadierG (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No you did not, you removed the claim he wore a mask, you removed the text about how some of its members were football hooligans. Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)