This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bedfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bedfordshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BedfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject BedfordshireTemplate:WikiProject BedfordshireBedfordshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The article provides a false information about Tommy Robinson. He is not anti Islam, he is anti extremists Jihadists. He was wrongly accused and then was released from prison without the charge! Facts are available and proper journalists can allocate it. Do your research and provide facts before publishing such a gross misinformation! 194.223.185.245 (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Wikipedia presents a neutral point of view based on how the subject is described in reliable sources. Do you have reliable sources that can corroborate the idea that he is not anti Islam or at least evidence a proportionate viewpoint that counters this view? CloakedFerret (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this interview with Jordan Peterson he describes growing up a multi faith community. From approx. 36:40 onwards he make it clear that he is anti islamist.
Unproductive discussion that devolved into disruptive kvetching
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To say a “reliable source” is any more reliable than a persons personal view of themself or third parties view of that view as yours is an exercise of opinion and nothing more. As this page(Tommy Robinson)is accusing or rather labelling the subject far-right based on opinions that can also be fairly accused or labeled as those of a far-left biased nature.
Unauthentic and amateur publishing is hard to read from an unbiased perspective and disappointingly this is the perfect example of bias for the sake of being biased. Rubbish 110.20.151.138 (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested it was or is. Are you informing me it’s the tommy Robinson haters club page? If not the fan club page or haters club page then what page is it? Madewikid (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the page for reporting what reliable sources have said about Robinson. If you want to go and read what he thinks about himself, that's your prerogative. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t know who Tommy Robinson was until today after viewing a recent YouTube upload the popped up in my feed. Though I’d check wiki for information after seeing unjustified bias and hate in the comments. Surprisingly it seems as though wiki has fallen foul of the low standards club. Thank you for your time. Madewikid (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No where does it say those are the views of are those of far-left. To know far-right is to know far-left, they are one and the same and one cannot exist without the other. An unbiased article would include onions from both or none, simple. The fact the page has been semi-protected along with comments such as your own indicate that is the case. It is what it is n Madewikid (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain to me why I should consider your word as reliable any more than the pages authors word or the word of the reliable sources you claim of?
It has a reputation for fact checking or is regarded as authoritative by other RS. Now what sources have you read that indicate we are wrong? Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who’s our? Is that our as in ours as in yours and mine and anyone else who signs up to edit Wikipedia? I don’t know anyone who gets paid or has an authority other than having more stars next to their name. Anyone can contribute. There’s no gatekeepers here my friend. Madewikid (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick fact check. Are these your words and your opinion of yourself? “He is not always 100% honest but he is an angel of fallacy. He has shown by logical argument that the sea is only alleged to be wet. He may be as dumb as some of you think he is”. Madewikid (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are not reliable though. You cannot use the rantings of extremely biased left-wing journalists as a reliable source in this "impartial" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.160.225 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If people ask clueless questions then it is fair enough to give them a brief answer on the assumption that they might be asking in mistaken good faith, and might actually be interested in the answer, but there is no point in getting bogged down arguing back and forth with SPAs and trolls who are clearly only here to waste our time. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually lean to disagree. Being in prison isn't notable, it's WP:MILL, even more so because this isn't the subjects first time (or likely his last...). I think it being in the lead could be considered undue weight to the current events. We're not the daily mail, after all. OXYLYPSE (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I did consider whether this sort of information was more "routine" than due for notability and context, and you're right that this could be considered run-of-the-mill based on recentisim. I'm not opposed to the sentence being removed. CNC (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: Wikipedia presents a neutral point of view based on how the subject is described in reliable sources. Do you have reliable sources that can corroborate the idea that he is not anti Islam or at least evidence a proportionate viewpoint that counters this view? CloakedFerret (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
