Talk:Tommy Robinson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Stephen Christopher Yaxley's Religion/Ethnicity?

I keep seeing statements online that Yaxley/Robinson is, or was (depending on how you define the word) of "jewish descent", in an obvious attempt at influencing people's opinions (How or why, I have no idea.) I find no online reference that resolves the issue, and came here and find nothing here, either. It would be constructive to add this information if/when it becomes available.2605:6000:6947:AB00:754E:2206:73F3:22BB (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Only if RS have said anything about this. And quite frankly dilberts on Twitter are not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018

Change "activist" to "white supremacist". Wsoto59 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide citations to reliable, mainstream sources that describe Robinson as a "white supremacist". Yunshui ^雲_水 14:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

21 police officers

21 police officers were injured in violence at the rally after scaffolding and glass bottles were thrown at police.

I removed it per WP:UNDUE. Since Robinson was in jail at the time, he has nothing to do with the incidents. The quote serves no other purpose than to paint a violent picture end hence directly contravenes WP:NPOV. Remember that the article is on Robinson, not his supporters. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

By that logic, if Robinson was is jail at the time, why mention the rally at all? Of course it has to be mentioned, but it pointless to not mention what his supporters did there. Emeraude (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If we talk about the demos we need to say what happened.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

In some other article, perhaps. There was a demo, Wikipedia mentions it, case closed. The article is on Robinson, not the demonstration. Kleuske (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Why, it is not about the demo it is about him, so what his supported do is irrelevant. Either we removes specific references to specific incidents or we give outlines as to what happened.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Why it's not about the demo? See the title. Moreover WP:BLP: Wikipedia cannot imply any responsibility on Robinsons part, unless sources say he was, and that blurb implies he was somehow responsible for the actions of other people. WP:COATRACK: details on a riot do not belong in a biography. unless the subject was directly involved. Kleuske (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

How does it, it says there was violence. And no the case is not closed, that is why we are having this discussion (one in which you appear to be in a minority). There is no BLP violation as we do not say he was responsible (or imply it) we say his supporters were.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I have pointed you to several policies that are violated with the inclusion as proposed. Do I really need to point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy? And yeah... It mentioning that newsitem in a biography does imply some responsability on Robinsons part. If not, why mention it in a biography? Also WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK apply. Kleuske (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Do I need to point out to you the disagreement is over whether or not this violates policy. Undue covers significant viewpoints, well a lot of significant viewpoints have commented on the violence, no have said this has nothing to do with Mr Harris. Nor is it easy to see how a few lines in this article coattracks it into being about the demos when the vast bulk of the artifice; is still about Mr Harris.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

References

It's relevant the people protested, and so is who protested and how they protested. What makes any subject of a biographical article notable is the effect they have on other people. If Robinson had had no effect on other people then there would be no article. TFD (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Kleuske is right to remind us that "Wikipedia is not a democracy". But neither is it a dictatorship which only takes note of his/her views. Emeraude (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Policy? Kleuske (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

WP: IGNORE? In this case there is a direct link between TR, his supporters, and their behaviour. Mentioning this is within the broader context of this article. Not doing would suggest that TR and his supporters are somehow disconnected. doktorb _words^deeds 11:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Please reread WP:IGNORE. You seem to have missed the point. Using an article as a WP:COATRACK is not the same as improving it. Kleuske (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

"A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." There is no one one or two lines about violence at the demos coatracks this article into one that focuses (focus "the main or central point of something") on violence at demos in support of him. This is a gross misapplication of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

If it focuses on a demonstration the subject of the BLP did not take part in, did not organize and did not approve (and various numbnuts fighting the police) it's a very correct interpretation of policy, unless, of course, you have a source that Robinson is somehow responsible for the injuries of those officers. Apart from COATRACK, there's UNDUE and BLP to contend with. Kleuske (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

And as I have already explained, undue means we do not give viewpoints undue prominence, lots of RS covered the violence thus Undue is not applicable. Thus all you have left is a possible BLP violation. But (as I have said) RS have covered the violence, so as long as we only say what the RS say there is no BLP violation (we are not saying he is linked directly the violence). This is in a section about his jailing, so we either remove all mention of anything not directly related to him himself or we accept that material of this nature is linked, which is it? he is not Gerard Batten, not is he the United States Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, so if we are not going to include material about what his supporters are doing then we we remove all information about what his supporters are doing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You explaining stuff means exactly zilch, nada, niente. Please reread WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP since you seem to have missed the point, too. Robinson is not responsble for what other people do and the article should not insinuate that. If you want to write an article on the riot, feel free to insert it there. This article is about Robinson, who had no part in it. Kleuske (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Then I will remove all material not about Mr Harris.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Also read WP:POINT and WP:PRAM. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Either this article is only about him, and no anyone elses views or actions or we include material about how people are reacting to him (and his actions), which is it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Well... Be WP:BOLD, then we'll discuss your changes. I may even agree. But since you're reduced to an "or else" and general WP:POINTyness, I'll consider this discussion as having run its course. Kleuske (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Reboot: do we or don't we have multiple reliable sources linking the demonstration etc to Robinson's imprisonment?

Because if we do, it seems very odd that it isn't mentioned here. If he hadn't been jailed, the demonstration wouldn't have taken place. Stating the facts is not stating that he was directly responsible or could have forseen everything that would happen. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes we do, and we have multiple sources linking the violence as well to it. The violence is as linked as are the demos to his imprisonment (and his supporters view of the police). Thus either we mention it all or none of it, rather then saying "people support him" and not explain how.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

As to its links to Mr Harris [[1]] thus makes direct links are being made between the imprisonment and street violence.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 June 2018: "alternative ways of tackling extremism"?

This sentence seems poorly formulated:

He led the EDL from 2009 until 8 October 2013, when he was persuaded to leave the organisation and discuss alternative ways of tackling extremism with the think tank Quilliam

As I understand it, this says that the EDL was a "way of tackling extremism". Considering that the EDL is an extremist organization that uses violence to achieve its racist goals, this seems a bit ironic.

It also seems POV to represent "tackling extremism" as the main goal of Robinson.

I suggest to remove this part. the sentence could look like this:

He led the EDL from 2009 until 8 October 2013, when he was persuaded to leave the organisation for the think tank Quilliam

Zukorrom (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

NO it says he left it to find ways of tackling extremism".Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Might it be an idea just to remove "alternative"? Emeraude (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really, as it seems that they talked to him as an example of an extremist to see what (if anything) he could think of that would help to address the attitudes he held.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 04:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018

Please revert this addition made on 12 June. His passport related conviction is already covered in the final paragraph of the English Defence League section. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:20B4:D63C:EE6B:CE83 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This article, is about him, and this edit was a result of questions about his name.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry misunderstood, I'll remover one of the mentions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Already done I trust Slatersteven's edits took care of this. Sam Sailor 16:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

He's out

He's out and his conviction has been overturned. That isn't so quickly put on here. And all the edits of the article that succeed will be lying about the overturning.195.11.204.67 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

He's out for the time being, but "Robinson will now be released on bail on condition that he attend a retrial before the recorder of London at a future date."[2] So it doesn't look like the end of the road for this particular saga.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yaxley was released early this morning and was ambushed by newsmedia reporters and cameracrews, as a life-peer chief justice allowed part of his appeal. "Tommy" did not wish to be interviewed, and said, "I have a lot to say, only not to you.", referring to the abnoxious "reporter". Why the article does not reflect this fact despite the dozens of newsreports escapes me. About time to sort this mess out.

Included that he was released on bail based on the source. SWL36 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It's impossible to be released on bail on condition you attend a re-trial. He's been released because the conviction has been overturned. He may be re-tried.213.205.241.128 (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing says that "the court of appeal ordered that he should be retried on a contempt of court charge".[3] WP:IANAL, but the article should stick with the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of Appeal

@Slatersteven It is not just about one case and I think you were wrong to revert. Please read it a little more slowly. It is about a contempt in Cantebury, another alleged contempt in Leeds yet to be tried, and about significant misunderstandings of the proceedings. These misunderstandings have been expressed on the street and in the media both in the UK and abroad. And on this page. Those have enabled erronious statements about freedom of speach, gagging, solitary confinement to be bandied about. I am very happy to discuss and do not want an edit war. This matter has tet more to run.Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Err, this was (and is) about his jailing, and the reaction. Thus (yes) it is one case. Moreover I am not sure what untried case in Leeds you refer to. This is just a small part of him and his life and should not take up as much room as it dos now, let alone get expanded.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I could see how we could expand the appeal. However the proposed text is overly detailed and long and relies on a court verdict which per BLP policy - WP:BLPPRIMARY is forbidden.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Mine was a good faith edit, yours was a revert. There was nothing about my edit that could remotely be described as vandalism. That is not so of your rapid revert. I took great care to ensure nothing was removed. Its complete removal within a few moments of its posting was unwarranted. I will accept it was a good faith reversion if you insist that it was, as I'm sure you do, because I have no desire to impune you. It looked like vandalism. Your only complaint appears to be that it was too long. Wikipedia has an editing remedy for that and it is not wholesale removal. You did not make any attempt to deal with it properly. Your sentence beginning "Moreover ..." is truely staggering. I have urged you politely to read the matter properly and I do so again if you are able to after yout total obliteration. It seems to me that your understanding reflects the need for the page to be improvrd. If that sentence was meant to be anything other than factious please explain. Jacksoncowes (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

We do not discus eds here, we discus the article. And I did not wholesale remove the material, just your additions, which made it too long. There is no untried Leeds case, there is a case that is going to be retried (in other words it has been tried and it was overturned, it is not a new case).Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.Jacksoncowes (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksoncowes (talk • contribs)

See WP:BLPPRIMARY which introduces a higher bar - and specifically bars court transcripts for BLPs.Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Sorry about the unsigned bit above. I was replying to you and got interupted. Thank you. With respect I think you misunderstand WP:BLPPRIMARY. I quote it below and will comment after.

"Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

I have not used a trial transcript (or any other document) to support any assertions or that include any personal details. There is no violation of that policy.

Thank you for the warning on my talk page. I have read wp:BRD. I wont quote it all here - just a couple "This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy,..." "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. ..." And so many more. Please understand that mine was the Edit, what followed was the revert. By all means edit to improve what I added, in what IMO was a much needed attempt to improve the page. I assumed that was what you meant in your first entry here and why I started with thank you. Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It was a wp:coatrack that made this article more about this appeal then about the rest of his life. Ohh and I think it was impossible to improve because we have all the detail we need on the case. We have just enough information now, we do not (as I have said) any more, not one sentence. In fact (as I have said already) I am not sure we need as much detail as we do now. Adding more does not improve anything.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

only 68.1% of the signatures

SlaterSteven and I have a discussion about the following phrase:

Hope not hate said its analysis showed that only 68.1% of the signatures were from the UK, with 9.7% from Australia, and 9.3% from the US. Canada, Germany, France, New Zealand, Netherlands, Sweden and Ireland accounted for the remainder.

I think this sentence is not in neutral voice. The 'only' would implicitly tell the reader that this fact is negative. It can be seen both ways in my opinion. You can also state that the Tommy Robinson case had international response. I do not doubt that the facts Hope not Hate publish be accurate, but that does not mean we have to copy their wording. Hope not Hate hates Tommy Robinson. Therefore I think copying the 'only' is unnecessary and would compromise Wikipedia's neutral voice. I changed it to

The petition showed that Tommy Robinson also had many sympathisers outside of the UK. Hope not hate said its analysis showed that 68.1% of the signatures...

But I am open for other suggestions AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

That is OR, the source does not say that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you write out what OR means, for us humble foot soldiers that do not know all Wikipedias abbreviations? Anyway, you would not have to copy my exact sentence. I do state that the 'only' is unnecessarily guiding the reader and not neutral voice.AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

wp:or. As I said (in my edit summery) we say what RS say. Nor did we say this in wikpedias voice, we made it clear this was hope not hates opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I could for a part agree that 'Hope not hate sáid' somewhat mitigates the guiding of the reader, but still the 'only' is an unnecessary 'emotional value word' that does not add any information. Skip it! By the way, should it not be 'the Netherlands' instead of 'Netherlands'? You can erase the 'The petition showed that Tommy Robinson also had many sympathisers outside of the UK.' for my part by the way. The 'only' was the incentive why I wanted that sentence changed.AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually have found a source that shows that Tommy Robinson's international support is growing and added the link. The specific article is about more then just the petition, but it also takes that as an example: "Meanwhile a change.org petition calling from his release received almost 10 per cent of its signatures from the US and another 10 per cent from Australia". So from the sympathisers point of view it is just the way you look at it. Tommy Robinson has more and more international recognition. I think he is happy with that. But well that is no OR of course. ;-) AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This does not indicate that his international support is 'growing'. If you have actual polling data from those countries from multiple reliable sources, that would constitute evidence. Until you can provide that, it does not fulfill wikipedia's rigorous sourcing requirements. Devgirl (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Well the link Tommy Robinson is richer and has more international support after two-month imprisonment, research showsshows more than just this figure to support its claim. It is only one source though that is right. But maybe more will follow. Nevertheless it does not really matter. The main thing I wanted to show it that this figure has twó sides of a coin, and one should not copy 'Hope not hate' its bias about it. I have said it more often: reliable for facts does not mean an encyclopedia should copy a source its opinion.AntonHogervorst (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Not far-right

I looked at all the sources present that can be construed as supporting the claim that he is far-right. However, all of the sources calling him far-right actually say that he inherits "being far-right" from leading far-right parties like the English Defence League. He actually resigned from the far-right party when it became far-right. To say that he is far-right, because he was once a leader of a party that is now far-right (which he himself denounces), is a logical fallacy called moving the goalposts. wumbolo ^^^ 21:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The EDL was considered a far right group when Robinson, a former member of the far right BNP, founded it. Robinson is now involved in Pegida UK, which he founded and is also considered far right. It could be that he ceased to be a far right activist when he was with Quilliam, although that is debatable. TFD (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

How about the sources presented in the earlier discussion: Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist)/Archive 1#Deleted the BLP violation, weasel words, opinion "far-right"? Most of those reliable sources outright label him as far-right, rather than "inherit[ing] "being far-right" from leading far-right parties". Perhaps the sources currently cited should be replaced with those. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and replaced the previous sources in the article with ones that explicitly call him, not just his parties, a "far-right activist". Most of those sources were taken from the previous discussion, so credit should go to those editors for finding the sources. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

not sure which sources Wumbolo read, but the Vice articles clearly demonstrate that he is far-right, why have these source been removed? the guy is far-right, in the UK that's incontrovertible.The only logical fallacy here is taking a jailed far-right activist on his word. Acousmana (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources were just replaced with ones that explicitly state he is a "far-right activist". If you want to add them all the Vice article back in, go ahead, but it's WP:OVERKILL at this point with 5 cited sources already. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

on contested issues like this overkill is sometimes necessary, the rate of change on this descriptor is remarkably high, also consolidating the cites under a single footnote might not be the best idea in this instance. Acousmana (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Another editor bundled the cites, I have no preference on that issue. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

---

I made an edit to the article, which (1) pointed out that Robinson has denied that he is far right and (2) presented some supporting evidence. The edit included reliable sources. My edit, however, was undone, with the above discussion cited as justification. I do not see how the above justifies undoing my edit. I have therefore reverted the article to after I edited it. If someone believes that my reversion is in appropriate, please explain why, here. EllieTea (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

We also have this [[4]]. We have multiple RS calling him far right.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, there are multiple RS, all in the media, calling him far right. And the edit that I made began the paragraph with this: "Robinson has often been described in the media as being "far-right"." Thus, the paragraph and your statement are consistent. The point of my edit is that Robinson himself claims that the characterization is wrong, and there is independent evidence to back him up; that is surely worth noting in the article. Do you know of evidence that contradicts Robinson's claim? If so, then I would strongly support discussing that. EllieTea (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Which of your independent RS say he is not far right? The fact he got into a fight with a nazi?Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@EllieTea: Tommy Robinson is not an independent unbiased source on the subject of Tommy Robinson. Why should we take his word over that of independent reliable sources? Unless there are reliable sources that say he is not far-right, collecting "evidence" on our own is original research. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW has Robinson actually denied being far-right? The source you provided in your original edit doesn't verify this. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yaxley membership of the antimuslim/antisemitic BNP

It is well known that he was a member of the British Nationalist Party, and should be of note in the article.

Is he still a member, source please.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Make sure to mention he left because it didn't allow his black mate to join, and has only spoken poorly of them in post. 95.16.126.75 (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Did somebody have a stroke when writing this.

"The court had wrongly recorded that Robinson had been sentenced to three months imprisonment suspended for 18 months. In fact he had been committed to prison for three months suspended for 18 months." Datboywithmeme (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the problem?Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no problem. There is a legal difference between "committed to" and "sentenced to", though to the average lay reader it must seem very pedantic. However, lawyers make a good living from being pedantic! Emeraude (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I know, that is why I was asking the OP.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I got it. I was trying to explain it to them. Incidentally, a summary of the official judgement is here. Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sub judice

Important notice: The topic of this article may be the subject of sub judice concerns in the United Kingdom due to active criminal proceedings. (Sub judice rules apply during the time period defined in Contempt of Court Act 1981, schedule 1.) All editors should exercise caution in editing or commenting on the topic of this article. That only applies if the Wikipedia has a registered office in the UK which I don't think it has, not to foreign based organisations.86.187.161.179 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about Wikipedia as an organization, but Wikipedia editors in UK jurisdictions, such as IP addresses in London, may wish to consider any personal legal implications. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Leeds trial is over

The trial that Robinson was accused of disrupting is over.[5] This makes clear why he was arrested outside Leeds Crown Court, because he was allegedly doing what he was asked not to do in Canterbury, which was jumping the gun on the verdict in a court case and trying to "interview" people as they arrived at the courthouse.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

So?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

So we at last get to know details of the trial that led to Robinson's imprisonment. Unsurprisingly it was an Asian grooming gang trial. I'm not sure if this has an immediate need to be added to the article, but it may be needed if Robinson is charged and convicted again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Why? I fail to see the relevance of this. Contempt of court is not determined by the guilt of the accused at the trial.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The Huddersfield child sex abuse ring now has its own rather brief article. It is notable because it had some of the most draconian reporting restrictions ever seen in a trial in Britain. It was effectively sub rosa as nothing could be said about it while it was ongoing. Hence people in Britain had to find out from Fox News, Geert Wilders etc that Robinson had been arrested and imprisoned. This was far from ideal, but Judge Geoffrey Marson's reporting restrictions made it impossible for people in Britain to know what it was that Robinson had done that led to his arrest and imprisonment. Only now do we know what the trial involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

None of which would have changed whatever the verdict. By the way the trial was reported [[6]][[7]]. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The cites relate to the hearing at which they were charged in May 2017. During the trial in 2018 there was a complete news blackout until all of the trials were complete, which led to Robinson's disappearance in a way that the British media could not explain until reporting restrictions were lifted on 29 May.[8] This said that he had been jailed for contempt of court, but says "a trial was ongoing" without giving any details of what it involved. Robinson would have known from openly available media reports that the men had been charged in May 2017, but the media could not report the 2018 trial while it was ongoing. There is some more detail on the exact sequence of events here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source which says "some of the most draconian reporting restrictions ever seen in a trial in Britain", that were in place before Yaxlley-Lennon showed up? [9].Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

What caused the problem was that the Huddersfield grooming gang trial was split up into several trials over a period of months. Robinson was arrested when he disrupted the second trial in May 2018. In theory, none of it could be reported until all of the trials were finished, so Judge Geoffrey Marson initially banned the media from reporting the fact that Robinson had been arrested and imprisoned, causing it to leak via the foreign media. This gave Robinson probably the best publicity he has ever had by setting off the Streisand effect and making him known internationally.[10] Reporting restrictions are nothing unusual in the UK, but it was the initial decision to ban the media from reporting the fact that he had been arrested and imprisoned that gave him widespread publicity. Perhaps it wasn't draconian (Marson's desire for the trial not to get screwed up while it was in progress was understandable), but the Court of Appeal ruled that Robinson's jailing for contempt had "procedural flaws".[11] I've mentioned all of this as there needs to be a clearer understanding of why Robinson was imprisoned in May 2018. People in the USA have received misleading reports about this, and there is even a Snopes article dealing with it.[12] There is more to come on this, because he is facing a fresh hearing and could still end up back in prison for contempt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I am still not getting what it is you think we need to add, what has this to do with our article?Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It is more on topic at Huddersfield child sex abuse ring where it could be made clearer why he was imprisoned. I'll expand the article when there is time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the discussion that warrants adding anything that is already not there. In fact the article already spends too much time on the matter. The sentencing judge was wrong to order the media not to report Robinson's arrest and conviction, and they rushed the decision unnecessarily leading to procedural errors, according to the Court of Appeal. But there was no finding that Robinson was entitled to report the sub judice court because the defendants would be found guilty. And while it is unusual to have a media blackout during trials, it is standard during juvenile cases and frequent in committal hearings. TFD (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

HM Onley prison

This is an incredible interview. Tommy says that he was intentionally moved to HM Onley prison and was purposely put in danger. He received constant death threats from prisoners and was forced to be in solitary confinement. Food was brought to him. He had reason to believe that the food would be poisoned and lived on a can of tuna a day & some fruit. (For the first week he did not eat anything) He did not have a television and excrement was thrown onto his window by prisoners. This contradicts claims by the prison services; that he was treated well. Tommy interview --Jane955 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing 'incredible' about Robinson making claims not backed up by other sources. He does it all the time. 86.148.84.151 (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The main stream media did say that he was moved to HM Onley prison, which is a much more dangerous prison compared with Hull prison. Now we know what happened inside the prison and this contradicts what the prison services are saying. You can also read his complaints to the prison.--Jane955 (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Where have the media stated that Onley is more dangerous than Hull? As for what happened to Robinson, again, we only have his word for what went on. And prisons the world over are full of people who insist that great injustices have been done against them. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia policy doesn't include an 'always take the word of prisoners' clause at present. Feel free to propose one, on an appropriate notice board (i.e. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)), if you think you will get anywhere with it... 86.148.84.151 (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

What Yaxley-Lennon says is not an RS for facts, do RS say it is more dangerous?Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If we quote the prison services (even though they are lying) there is no reason why we would not include this in the article.(What they say in not facts) Tommy was a political prisoner. And since he is a political prisoner we can assume that the British media will not be reporting the truth and we need to find more reliable articles for this page. HM Onley prison was extremely dangerous for Tommy, for obvious reasons.--Jane955 (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

We do not quote them, we quote an RS quoting them. And is there any evidence (beyond Yaxley-Lennon) that Onley is more dangerous than Hull?Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, this discussion about a British activist is being conducted with absolutely no sources, bar some daft youtube blog post. If it isn't resumed with some actual sources can we just end the forum style disruption. "We" don't need to run around trying to find anything. If you read something somewhere in a reliable secondary source, please supply it otherwise close this thread and stop using it as a press release for the subject of this article. Thanks Edaham (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations on the rudeness and abusiveness here to a perfectly reasonable comment, anti-Robinsons. You may believe your Wikipedia owners will be pleased'.195.11.204.67 (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Trump Jr. and Bannon support irrelevant?

Is the verbal support of Tommy Robinson by Trump Jr. and Bannon irrelevant? Seem pretty high-profile individuals and notable in their own right.

Brought up here since my edits were reverted. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It has to be more then just high profile. Steve Bannon is not even an editor or political assistant now. As for Trump Jnr, he is notable because of who his dad is (his dads views might well be notable, but not Juniors), he has (as far as I can tell) no clout in the UK.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it is relevant, but we would need a more detailed source to say how they supported him. A number of people across the political spectrum supported Robinson's release and he attracted support from others when he initially left the EDL. TFD (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This mighty ruling says that Donald Trump's son and Steve Bannon can not be mentioned on The Wikipedia. "he has (as far as I can tell) no clout in the UK." Strange comment.195.11.204.67 (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018

Remove category British Zionists. There is no evidence he is one, except his own claims - and as a leader of the Far Right there is every reason to believe he will not support a Jewish state. 213.205.194.230 (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: According to this reliable source, the has called himself a Zionist. Being a Zionist or not is decided by the person, not anyone else. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. It includes what people do or day. The way you talk to people is disgusting.213.205.241.0 (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda

"Yaxley-Lennon uses the alias Tommy Robinson," It's ridiculous and biased to use this name and talk this way about Robinson. Proof is it isn't done on *any other* person's Wikipedia article. In the U.K. you can go by any name you wish. And people in the public eye are called by the media by the names they are using. Few people in show business use their real name.195.11.204.67 (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

We have already discussed this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

SO WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!195.11.204.67 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

So read the reasons why, it might give you some idea how this will go.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You're dirt.213.205.241.0 (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. The lead section uses the word pseudonym and the word "alias" is used later on in the article. The Oxford dictionary definition of alias here gives the example of George Orwell (Eric Blair) while the Cambridge dictionary here says that it can be "a false name, especially one used by a criminal." It isn't illegal for him to be known as Tommy Robinson, and pseudonym is probably the most accurate overall term.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Which was all went through the last time as well as it may well be what is is most commonly known as, and that Yaxley-Lennon is also very much not his real name (and in fact we do not know what his real name is).Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

We clearly do know his real name, as per the infobox: "Stephen Christopher Yaxley 27 November 1982 (age 35) Luton, England." A cursory check of the publicly-accessible (e.g. via FreeBMD shows Stephen Christopher Yaxley (mother's maiden name Carroll) registered in the December quarter of 1982. It's not rocket science.... Nick Cooper (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, the OP says Yaxley-Lennon is his real name, not Yaxley. Second a person can change thier name by deed poll, thus a birth name may no longer be your real name and oddly Yaxley (or Yaxley-Lennon) has a a passport (which requires as legitimate birth certificate, or at least a change of name by deed poll) in the name of Harris. So I am not sure that just doing a search for birth deaths and marriages is enough, after all I can claim to be Slater, Steven Aran, Rigley, Nottingham, Mar 1972. You can find a record for that, so it must be me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not really, because Yaxley is by far a much less common name than Slater. If he is not the Stephen Christopher Yaxley born in Luton in 1972, we would have to descend into the depths of conspiracy theories, which obviously we're not going to do. That he modified his surname to include that of his stepfather is also uncontentious, especially since that's the variation he was jailed under. Changing his name by deed poll in order to get a passport seems odd unless you know about his previous criminal activity. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not really as a judge had made that very comment, that his real name is subject to doubt. One of the problems is that "real name" under English law is problematic. As long as you do not use it to avoid penalties (for example) you can in fact use any name you like (you do not have to even legally change it). The only time your name actually matters is for for things like passports or certain jobs, where you need a verifiable ID. Your your birth certificate (the original not a copy) is often used as proof of who "you really are".Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Oct 27, 2018: Tommy Robinson 'stands to make £1m' on US speaking tour

• https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/27/tommy-robinson-edl-stands-to-make-1-million-pounds-on-us-speaking-tour
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-jail-free-congress-us-republican-event-trump-visa-washington-speech-gosar-a8601866.html
• https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/tommy-robinson-invited-to-give-address-in-washington-by-members-of-us-congress-a3972206.html
• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-court-robinson/uk-judge-adjourns-contempt-case-against-far-right-activist-tommy-robinson-idUSKCN1M717W

69.181.23.220 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

A lot can yet happen, so lets wait.Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Saw this in the news the other day, but he would have to get a visa or similar before travelling to the USA. Following the Andrew McMaster false passport incident and with his other convictions, this might be difficult. There is an element of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS here, so unless it actually goes ahead, the article doesn't need to mention it--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." His tours are far from certain. Applicants can be denied a USA visa waver simply for having been arrested and criminal convictions usually disqualify someone from entry entirely. There is even a petition to stop him. Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not true that "criminal convictions usually disqualify someone from entry entirely"; there is considerable discretion and only serious offences are likely to result in a ban. It is the case that ALL dealings with the police and courts (even an acquittal) should be declared. (Check out the US Embassy website.) Regardless, as said above, this is all future gazing as yet. Emeraude (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

He didn't get a visa in time for the trip to Washington as planned.[13] It is worth mentioning in the article that he was invited, but given his record it seems unlikely that he will be visiting the USA any time soon.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Why, what does this tell us about him?Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It is perhaps more important that Robinson has also been banned from PayPal, like Alex Jones. Robinson was banned because "Striking the necessary balance between upholding free expression and open dialogue and protecting principles of tolerance, diversity and respect for all people is a challenge that many companies are grappling with today."[14] The US government has not commented directly on why Robinson did not get a visa, although his past record seems likely to be a factor. The article doesn't mention the PayPal ban and probably should.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Well it is far more relevant to his activities,.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It is a fact that Robinson "could make more than £1m from a potential trip to the US next month." IThe Gaurdian.] There is nothing crystal ballish about that. "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." The purpose of the policy is to stop editors making predictions, not to suppress predictions made in expert sources. TFD (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

No. It is a fact according to the sources that anti-fascist campaigners said that he could make 1 million. No paper will report his refutation that he was only asked to give two talks with no payment. If you want to make Wikipedia be as unbalanced as the UK press go ahead, but don't make it even more unbalanced by misquoting. Weburbia (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope it is not (and was not) a fact, it was pure speculation that proved erroneous. He may at some (unspecified) time be able to make that much money (assuming all the hurdles are cleared) on a US speaking tour, or he might not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Then say according to a spokesman for Hope not Hate. It is unfortunate that you are not an editor at the Guardian, otherwise you could stop them from reporting pure speculation. But until that happens, we have to accept that they can determine what is worth reporting. How did it prove erroneous? TFD (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

We are not required to include everything the Guardian says, especially not when it turns out to be wrong. It was a fact Hope not hate said it, it was not a fact that what they said was either true or even vaguely accurate prediction. Indeed I will go as far as to say this is exactly what Crystal ball is supposed to prevent, inclusion of wild and inaccurate speculation that ends up having to be removed or substantially altered in the light of actual (rather then predicted) event. I would point out that indeed those who said we should wait were right to say that, it did not occur. Thus I stand by my objection to the inclusion of what was a non event (literally).Slatersteven (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a fact that Robinson was invited to the USA to speak, but beyond that the Guardian article was WP:CRYSTAL-ish about what would happen next. It's notable that he didn't go, and this always seemed unlikely due to the difficulty in obtaining a visa with a substantial criminal record.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Fund raising speaking tour of Australia?

This is reported here in The Independent and is scheduled for December 2018. There is the same problem of WP:CRYSTAL. Watch this space.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree, this is not sop urgent we cannot wait until it goes ahead.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting that Robinson is going to be just as troubled getting to Australia as the US. The Australian government's Character requirements for visa state that a visa is likely to be denied if "you have a substantial criminal record, meaning you have been sentenced to 12 months or more in prison, or multiple sentences that add up to more than 12 months in prison. A suspended sentence is considered a prison sentence." Emeraude (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"UKIP leader defends hiring Tommy Robinson"

Although WP:NOTNEWS applies, I think it is notable enough to mention that he has been hired by the UKIP leader Gerard Batten.[15][16] Other UKIP members are not keen on Robinson becoming a party member, but this has not happened and current UKIP rules would prevent this.[17]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Not everything involving him is worthy of inclusion, and UKIP are pretty much a nothing now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Of more relevance in the ongoing discussion on how far to the right to classify UKIP. Emeraude (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

A discussion for another page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned it - Talk:UK Independence Party#UKIP: far-right Emeraude (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

remove FAR RIGHT as it is WRONG 185.65.166.83 (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

not according to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Finsbury Park attack mention

It's not made clear soon enough in this section that the attacker was Darren Osborne. Could go in the first sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.190.139 (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

How much more do you need then "attacker Darren Osborne"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Wayne King pseudonym

The only source that I could find with the "Wayne King" pseudonym was this Huffington Post article so there are worries about WP:V and WP:DUE to give this in the lead section. Is this OK?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:V means "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." HuffPost is a published source and is considered reliable because WP:V explicitly allows "mainstream newspapers".

WP:DUE is summarised as: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." There are no competing views. It was even reported that in 2009, the UPL/EDL had an organiser named Wayne King who seemed to have the power to personally call off a planned march. Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It's surprising that there are so few sources mentioning this pseudonym. The Huffington Post isn't one of my favourite sources for BLP material, but it is probably correct.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2018

change (activist) to (antagonist) Genericwannabe (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: Needs a reliable source supporting the change.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Funding sources

Some useful information on his sources of funding

• https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/07/tommy-robinson-global-support-brexit-march

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Mum baffled by 'Free Tommy Robinson' message on £10 note dispensed by cash point

This isn't suitable for the article, but it makes you wonder if some people ever read the newspapers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

No trivial nonsense.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019

I contest that Tommy Robinson is far right. Right wing is more appropriate. 92.1.37.236 (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: See my reply below.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Adopt list-defined references

This article has a number of citation issues that will be easier to clean up if it is migrated to list-defined referencing. I propose to do that, unless anybody either beats me to it, or raises objections that are substantive enough to indicate a lack of consensus within a reasonable period of time. Zazpot (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Moving 153 citations to the reflist may be unnecessary.

You wrote in one template message: "Also, some of the bundling breaches Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Nobreaks."

I'm not sure there's any breach when using <br /> to bundle citations if it's not in the article text itself. I see this bundling technique in a lot of articles, it seems extremely common. How exactly could moving these bundled citations into the reflist have any effect on their <br /> tags? Is there an alternative bundling technique you wanted to use? Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:CITEBUNDLE. The intention is to aid readability by avoiding a whole string of reference numbers in the text. This article has suffered from this enormously - see the version from 15 June 2018. It doesn't have to be done with <br /> - there are other ways but this is simplest - but it should be done. Emeraude (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Civilised Hatters Fan: thank you for your reply. (Also for your numerous recent edits to improve the refs, etc. I haven't looked at these closely yet, but at a glance it seems to be quite an improvement.)

Re: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Nobreaks, lots of Wikipedians occasionally use <br /> unthinkingly to separate list items, but it's still a mistake to do so. Please fix such instance when you see them. The guidance is quite clear: Do not separate list items with line breaks (<br>). Use {{plainlist}} / {{unbulleted list}} if the list is to remain vertical...

Re: LDR, I find it a helpful first step towards rationalising references and performing other tidyups. With LDR, the citations would no longer be scattered piecemeal throughout the wikitext. LDR allows the prose and the citations to be considered separately. This makes it easier to do things like: group citations; identify and eliminate duplication within the wikitext while still being able to edit single sections rather than the whole article; etc. The answers to questions such as how/whether to bundle the footnotes would become clearer (to me, at least) with LDR implemented. Zazpot (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Nobreaks is about lists, not the display of refs. Emeraude (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Emeraude: indeed. WP:CITEBUNDLE, however, is about refs. It, in turn, references Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Nobreaks: When formatting multiple citations in a footnote, there are several layouts available... However, using line breaks to separate list items breaches WP:Accessibility § Nobreaks: "Do not separate list items with line breaks (<br>). Use {{plainlist}} / {{unbulleted list}} ...". Unless I am mistaken, my remarks above were entirely consistent with that guidance. Zazpot (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Emeraude: I'm hoping that addressed your concern about my earlier comments, but if it didn't, please let me know. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Civilised Hatters Fan, Emeraude, and Grayfell: you have all been active on the article recently, and a couple of you commented above on my proposal to adopt LDR. To help clarify whether consensus exists, please could you (and anyone else reading this who wishes to) consider !voting on my proposal, with your reasons for/against? Or if you have any remaining questions about LDR, please ask away. Thank you, Zazpot (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zazpot: I support your proposal to use list-defined-referencing. I suggest trying to arrange the list in chronological order, with the earliest published items first, to ease detection of duplicate citations, which will end up next to each other (although this may be less straightforward with bundles). Having gone through the process of finding and eliminating all the duplicates myself, I have come round to the view that list-defined-referencing would make the job rather less tedious. Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I support LDR, but I will add that from past experience, it is similar to Harvard in that it works best for stable articles with mostly experienced editors. I still think it's a good idea here, as long as everyone's on-board for the maintenance work. For bundled references, in the past I have used template:efn and template:notelist for multiple citations in a single ref tag (typically specifically controversial points in the lede) and standard refs for everything else. This approach can also be list-defined. Faith Goldy is one examples of this approach, where there are seven citations for two closely-overlapping points. This helps keep information tidy, and prevents the ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][etc.]} problem. It is non-standard, and also usually introduces redundant refs in the footer, but not in the article itself. I do not know if this would be a good fit here, and do not have a strong opinion about it, but if others think it helps, perhaps it's worth considering. Grayfell (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation edit reversions

Hi @Zazpot:, @Emeraude:, Some of my recent citation improvements are being undone for spurious reasons, reintroducing the very problems we are trying to fix. We need to diligently explain to the offender that links to expired broadcasts do not magically fix themselves and that if you cannot watch the broadcast either on the original site or on an archive page, then you cannot verify the material. We need to stop our necessary work from being frustrated and dragged backwards. Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Not too sure about that. My understanding is that material has to be verifiable, not that you have to be able to verify it. See WP:Verifiability#Accessibility Emeraude (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Civilised Hatters Fan:. Please do not talk past people as though they were not capable of joining the conversation. That is not how WP:CONSENSUS works. I specifically started a new talk page section for this precise issue below. To expand on that, citations do not have to be available online for info to meet WP:V. This is also explained at Wikipedia:Offline sources, which is an explanatory supplement to WP:V. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, Wikipedia:Offline sources is unvetted and not a policy. The page says it is "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, Please see below. Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Civilised Hatters Fan: I see that one or two of your edits were reverted. Again, I haven't had time to scrutinise them closely, but Grayfell's recent edits seem reasonable to me at a glance. Please do not call another editor an "offender"; see WP:AGF. It looks to me as though both of you were editing in good faith, though Grayfell was adhering a bit more closely to Wikipedia's guidance documents, particularly about removing cited material. The net result of your edits and Grayfell's edits still seems to me to be an improvement upon the prior state, so thank you both! Zazpot (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Linkrot

@Civilised Hatters Fan: Hello. Do you have some reason to believe the sourced info you have removed is not accurate? Please review WP:LINKROT. Being offline is doesn't make a source inherently less reliable, and doesn't mean that information is not WP:V. Information from the BBC is presumed reliable, even if it is not convenient. Please discuss here before removing more sources which lack working links. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, WP:LINKROT and WP:OFFLINE are unvetted and not a policy. Each of those two pages says it is "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.".

You asked "Do you have some reason to believe the sourced info you have removed is not accurate?". I don't need a reason. As the restorer, it is you who has to prove its verifiability. Please carefully study WP:PROVEIT which says:

• "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", and
• "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people".

You republished statements about Tommy Robinson alleging that he associated with a neo-Nazi and giving the impression that he was so unpopular as to require a bullet proof vest, (me calling you an "offender" is trivial by comparison), and even demanded that I "discuss here before removing" such statements.

I do not have to discuss anything here because WP:BLP requires that such statements "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" if their sources fall short of the very high verifiability standards for biographies of living persons.

WP:BLP requires us to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources", and does not mention any allowance for difficult to access sources. In any event, accessing a dead link to an expired broadcast isn't just difficult, it's impossible.

Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I am confused about why you are so aggressively lecturing me on policy. At no point prior to this did you cite BLP, and prior to this you have not even challenged the legitimacy of this content. If you believe these sources are unreliable, explain why. You are the one changing established content, so the burden is on you to establish consensus. Grayfell (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

As an innocent bystander, I have to agree with CHF. You should not need to be reminded about BLP. I suspect you also know of Britain's stringent libel laws and the presumption of innocence, even for odious people like Robinson. If a statement cannot be verified, it must be deleted until such time as it can be verified. The content that you are defending certainly can be in the article when, and only when, it is supported by testable citation. We don't know why the Beeb removed the material, it could well have been on legal advice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

So many suppositions there..... Do not confuse and conflate Wikipedia's BLP and libel laws (which is highly speculative anyway when Wikipedia is outside English law jurisdiction). "Presumption of innocence" is a concept which is applied to defendants appearing in court; it is totally irrelevant in this context. Regardless, Robinson did not sue the BBC. The BBC regularly removes online content after a period (for reasons of coyright, contract, performing rights etc.) so you have absolutely no grounds for saying "it could welll have been on legal advice". I'm sure it was not your intention, but your post smacks of a threat of legal action against an editor which is specifically prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Emeraude (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:Assume good faith. You know perfectly well that I am not threatening anyone with legal action. The top of this talk page reminds editors that they are personally responsible for what they write. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. Emeraude (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, you are insulting my intelligence by claiming "You are the one changing established content, so the burden is on you to establish consensus."

I already informed you that WP:PROVEIT requires "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", in other words with you. If you think you know a way of verifying the BLP-sensitive statements you republished, then it is your responsibility to explain how this can be done. It is not anyone else's job to prove you wrong.

It is not just others who have responsibilities, so do you.

You even republished the BLP-sensitive statements a second time, demanding I "Discuss on talk", just after I discussed my BLP concerns on this talk page, pointing out that WP:BLP requires such statements to "be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Then you complained about not knowing about the BLP concerns, while nevertheless leaving the statements you republished live on the article, even when you were fully aware of the issue.

Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, you overcomplicated something relatively straightforward. The unvetted pages you mentioned, WP:LINKROT and WP:OFFLINE do not prohibit anyone from removing dead links and these are not even policies anyway.

• WP:LINKROT says a dead link "indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past". It does not say "indicates that information continues to be verifiable in the present, therefore its removal is prohibited".
• Its sister page WP:RSC says it must be "possible for someone to verify it [the published material] within a reasonable time", which is impossible with the the dead link to retracted multimedia content that you republished. Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

To clear up one point: None of the February 2011 issues of Newsnight are currently available. This has nothing to do with any legal or BLP issues relating to Robinson. Emeraude (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That's helpful to know. I'm used to the Beeb keeping everything forever, so my suspicions were raised. We could get round this problem if a RS reported what happened on that programme, which is not exceptional though not usual. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The programme has been cited several times. See, for example,

William Allchorn Anti-Islamic Protest in the UK: Policy Responses to the Far Right (Routledge)

Tyler M Blac, "Interpreting the relation between immigrant hostility and extreme right wing party success in England" (thesis)

Unlikely they (or anyone) will give a full account of the programme as a transcript. Emeraude (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3rd March 2019

Change (far–right activist) to (activist), pls. "Far–right" is extremely controversial and emotionally biased. Stop the war pls. Proposal. Add a section TR's opinions and categorize them. Add a subsection Opinions on TR where all the controversial refrenced ballast on him might be balanced (right, far–right, thug, fascist, Nazi, racist, hero, free–speech fighter, anti–islamic, controversial, etc). Thanks. Vlakovod (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. Your gripe is with the reliable sources, not with Wikipedia. If reliable sources have started saying, "We were wrong, and he isn't actually far right after all", then please provide links to those sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Even the Daily Mail describes Robinson as far-right.[18]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Even the Daily Mail describes Robinson as English nationalist and/or far-right leader.[19] So should he be far–right leader or far–right activist or English nationalist or ex–EDL leader or whatsever else or just Tommy Robinson? That was the point. Am I clear now? Vlakovod (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Even the Daily Mail doesn't.[20] Vlakovod (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a waste of time to discuss the Daily Mail here because that newspaper is not acceptable as a reliable source on Wikipedia. WP:DAILYMAIL. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You seems not to be accurate: "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, [...]" The infobox within the reference [1] above have nothing to do with the notability. I think one may exclude this case from the general ones. Vlakovod (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

My gripe was not intended to be with the reliable sources. Here, I do not claim he is far–right or not, it's another story. My request (well, question) was – Why does Wikipedia select just one single sticky label within the first sentence? Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlakovod (talk • contribs) 07:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

[21] (sorry, forgot to sign the previous one) Vlakovod (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

papers served to TR on 030319 re syrian refugee

This keeps getting undone when clearly it IS relevant to the subject of the Syrian refugee. How could this NOT be relevant? It simply includes the headline with a link to the article. --Princessdawn123 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Being served a notice like this does not really mean a great deal. It is best to wait until the case is resolved, it in fact it ever gets to court. The section is already bloated with trivia, and this may well not go anywhere.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It really IS relevant. If it doesn't go anywhere then fine we add "which was withdrawn/settled out of court" but it doesn't remove the fact that the papers HAVE been served and there is a link as evidence to the https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-facebook-sued-syrian-refugee-attack-school-huddersfield-defamation-jamal-a8805071.html?fbclid=IwAR3_Sq2MPRk8YtS-hmwIMvLdRvgFp15np9fMvJFaVHe7fTwFQ7mxWvH3FpM --Princessdawn123 (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I have read it. It doesn't explain why you think an important occurrence in the section should not be included. It is factual, there is video and print footage as evidence. I have not giving a personal opinion so it is not biased. I have provided a link so people can make up their own minds as to how relevant it is, by removing that link you are censoring. It doesn't explain why you keep undoing that fact yet leave sections unedited which we both agree are "bloated in trivia". --Princessdawn123 (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Because it may not be important, it could go nowhere. This is why it is best to wait, noting is lost by waiting. But including material that ends up being trivial and non encyclopedic takes work to remove. The section is too large as it is, and this adds nothing to our understanding of what happened.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

But it is important. In and of itself it is important. Therefore, it must go somewhere and where it goes must be important. Mr Yaxley's notability is as an activist - his activities, the reported repercussions of and the reported reactions to his reported activities are the basis of his notability. They are what this page is about. This morning some of that is being reported. Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019

I want to remove far right as it is not true, I grew up with Tommy and that title is a disgrace 86.155.80.29 (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: We've now discussed this many times, and have succeeded mainly in establishing that a) Tommy Robinson's supporters do not like him to be described as far right, and b) the article says that he is far right because numerous reliable secondary sources describe him in this way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And in any case, your knowing him is original research. Emeraude (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

On his Wikipedia page, Tommy Robinson is described as being 'far-right'; label which is of course, untrue. If we look at Wikipedia's own page entitled 'far-right politics', we can see a number of political ideologies that align with the far-right, none of which are beliefs held by Tommy. To quote the said article: 'The term is often used to describe Nazism,[4] neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist or reactionary views'

Robinson is not a Nazi, a neo-Nazi, a fascist or a neo-fascists (in fact, it is quite disgusting to compare such a man to ideologies that have slaughtered millions upon millions of ethnic minorities)

As for the 'other' ideologies, Tommy is not an ultranationalist, nor is he a chauvinist, a xenophobe or a racist. As for an 'anti-communist', I would agree that Tommy is exactly that, but I would most definitely not call that 'far-right', and as such will be making a case to have that label removed from the far-right politics page, as anti-communism is a belief that can be held by anyone, whether they're left or right.

In conclusion, I would find it absolutely relieving if the 'far-right' tag was removed from Tommy's page, as in all honesty, naming him as such is a massive disservice on Wikipedia's part and a complete case of libel — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightTruthTeller (talk • contribs) 00:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• It's not libel, and the term is verified by the cited reliable sources. If you wish to make a better argument, you'll need to cite reliable secondary sources because that's how Wikipedia works. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, you are wrong. I have used the sources from Wikepedia's own page entitled 'far-right politics' and stated the political ideologies that the term 'far-right' cover, general nationalism not being one of them. Now I don't know who has authority over these semi-protected articles, but it is evident that whoever it is, is a far-left nutcase that likes to twist the truth to fit their own agenda — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightTruthTeller (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an RS. Also lay of the PA's, all you will get is a block. Now provide an RS that says (that says, using the words "not far right", not your interpretation of what is says) he is not far right.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson has previously denounced far-right groups that he had once associated with. I would agree that the 'far-right' tag would apply to Tommy in 2005, that's indisputable, but it is simply not true anymore. Here are some words, backed up by a source, that shows that he is no longer like that.
Robinson joined the British National Party, then led by Nick Griffin, in 2004. When questioned about this by journalist Andrew Neil in June 2013, he said that he had left after one year, saying, "I didn't know Nick Griffin was in the National Front, I didn't know non-whites couldn't join the organisation. I joined, I saw what it was about, it was not for me".
The source in question can be found here: Elgot, Jessica (16 June 2013). "EDL's Tommy Robinson Admits Real Name Is Stephen Yaxley, Was In BNP To Andrew Neil On Sunday Politics". The Huffington Post (UK). Archived from the original on 20 October 2013. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
As for my second source, I'm sure I've already use this point, but I'll lay it out again.
'The term is often used to describe Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist or reactionary views.'
the source can be found here: Carlisle, Rodney P., ed., The Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right, Volume 2: The Right (Thousand Oaks, California, United States; London, England; New Delhi, India: Sage Publications, 2005) p. 693.
RightTruthTeller (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)RightTruthTeller

Provide a quote that says "not far right" not a quote that doers not call him far right. Unless you can provide an RS that says he is not (it has to say it, not you infer it) he is not far right you are wasting everyone's time. Also if he was in the BNP (a far right party) would that not make him far right?Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The article currently provides definitive information on this matter. The text includes a quotation from Mr. Robinson in which he criticises far-right attitudes, and by implication, movements. Therefore this whole argument is moot. The entry is already accurate, to wit: "Reputable mainstream sources judge Tommy Robinson a far-right extremist. Mr. Robinson himself has not confirmed this, and on least one occasion appears to have contradicted it." That is the definitive answer, and we already have it in print here. Laodah 00:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we make a Heading for the planned Panorama BBC programme about him

A request to those that can edit this page:

a) It is a noteworthy thing that the BBC plan a programme about someone. So worth a heading on this page The section to move under this new heading is the part starting: 'On February 23, 2019, Tommy Robinson held a rally in MediaCityUK...'

b) It would be good for the reader to set the scene at the start of the new section - perhaps use this existing sentence, or a re-phrase of it: 'Confirming that an upcoming Panorama episode was being prepared to investigate Robinson and his activities.. BBC said..'

c) it would be good for the reader to be able to click and view for themselves the mentioned Panodrama film: the URL which is on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNd2bvLvyk4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

it is very rare (do we ever?) for us to have a whole section just about one documentary. Nor is it our job to promote BBC documentaries.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Panorama makes lots of programmes, but we don't pre-empt their transmission unless there is significant prior reliable mainstream media coverage. Robinson and his fellow travelers trying to get the first punch in doesn't count. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If it's significant, write about it when it's been shown. And while it's not our job to promote BBC documentaries, neither is it our job to promote Robinson's. Emeraude (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Assault on off-duty policeman

"In April 2005, Robinson was convicted of assaulting an off-duty police officer who had intervened to protect Robinson's girlfriend from Robinson.[3][4] He was given a custodial sentence.[3]" I can't see reference to the above alleged crime with the given references. Tommy has also denied this on his youtube Charles b1984 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Relevant quotes from the cited sources have now been added to the footnotes, for clarity. Zazpot (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

From Tommy Robinson's book "Enemy of the State", P59. He was attacked by an off duty policeman who "tackled me to the floor. He accepted all of this when it came to court, that he got physical first. I bust my head and I ripped my best jeans, so that was it. I got up and fought back and got the better of him. The problem was, when he was on the floor, I kicked him. I was drunk, and it didn't do any physical damage, but I was just reacting to him attacking me. At that point he got up -- because I hadn't really hurt him -- and he said, 'You're fucked pal because I'm a police officer'. LoftyR (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The wikipedia entry should at least reflect that Tommy Robinson was attacked by the off duty police officer, not the other way around. And that he was jailed for kicking but not injuring the police officer when he was down, as Tommy Robinson was fighting back. LoftyR (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Tommy's book is not a "reliable source." He was convicted by a jury of his peers and there has been considerable reporting on that incident and the following legal proceedings, and of many other similar matters. Wikipedia depends upon RSS reportage, not on Robinson's own agendas or of those who might support him. With regard to the ongoing efforts often noted above on this Talk page, to characterize him as something more subjective than who and what he is, I suggest we need to apply the following standard: [[22]]. Activist (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not trying to characterize him as anything. I am just trying to have the Wikipedia page about him reflect the full circumstances of his first criminal conviction. I think it is extremely relevant and of interest that Tomny Robinson was physically attacked by the police officer, not the other way around. People can make up their own minds what kind of duck he is when they have all the facts. But it is hard for them to do so when a deliberately biased Wikipedia entry deliberately suppresses important facts. LoftyR (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Robinson's account is not right and sounds like what he must have aid in self-justification in court. He was prevented from assaulting a woman and in the incident he committed an assault for which he was sentenced. Regardless that the person who intervened against Robinson was an off-duty police officer, it is good to see that a member of the public was prepared to intervene to stop this mysogonist thuggery. Emeraude (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

What RS say it what matter.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, none of the referenced articles mention he was trying to attack his girlfriend. This is a made up fantasy Charles b1984 (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

OK if no one can provide an RS for this it is a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

A made-up fantasy? Really, Charles b1984? I looked up the references. The first two referenced articles do mention it: "convicted in April 2005 for assaulting an off-duty police officer who had intervened to stop a confrontation between Lennon and his partner", "The officer had come to the rescue of Robinson's then girlfriend - now wife" I don't understand why you say they don't, especially now that the footnotes even have the relevant text quoted, per Zazpot above. The third reference,[23] in fact does not does not mention the girlfriend. Bishonen | talk 13:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC).

Because these do not say assaulted, they say (at best) confrontation, which could have been verbal. Perhaps reword to "intervened during a confrontation between Lennon and his then girlfriend"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Emeraude, Charles b1984 and Slatersteven, hold your horses. (And Slatersteven, thank you for your above comment, which you made at the same time I was writing this.)

• The Wikipedia article text does not say or imply that Robinson was physically attacking his girlfriend. Neither do the cited sources.
  In this respect, the Wikipedia article is concordant with the cited sources.
• The article does say that the policeman "intervened to protect Robinson's girlfriend from Robinson". This is the most concise WP:PARAPHRASE I was able to construct that accurately reflects the cited sources (quoted by Bishonen belowabove).
  In this respect as well, the Wikipedia article is concordant with the cited sources.

As such, I do not believe that there is a WP:BLP violation here. If somebody prefers that instead of "protect", the Wikipedia article should say "rescue" (per HuffPo 2015/12/10) or "stop a confrontation between" (per HuffPo 2013/01/07), and if that change would end this discussion, then I will not oppose. Zazpot (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC); edited 14:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Robinson actually admits assault in his book. ("The problem was, when he was on the floor, I kicked him.") I don't think that adding that he was drunk and angry at the time makes him look any better. TFD (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not that the assault happened, but why.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

That Robinson was drunk is an aggravating factor in the assault and would have been reflected in the sentence.. Emeraude (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Tommy Robinson is not an activist.

He is a racist islamophobe .We have to stop calling the nazis ,the fasdcists and the racists activists.Therefore i contest the title calling him an activist,even if it is in parenthesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelosoil (talk • contribs) 11:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The BBC and The Guardian describe Robinson as an activist (see links below). Maybe you could write to Katharine Viner, the editor of The Guardian, and to Tony Hall, the Director General of the BBC, to state your objection to the description of him as an activist and if The Guardian and the BBC agree with you, then Wikipedia may follow suit. In the meantime, Wikipedia has to go by what reliable sources say. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

UKIP

This is not about the party, so we do not really need to know who resigned from it, its not relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That he caused the resignations, and that those who resigned are significant people, is relevant. There is clearly no need to give their expressed reasons, or even party positions - that belongs in their articles or UKIP's, but if we cover Robinson's ties to UKIP we must mention the effect that has had on the party. Emeraude (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

We can without a list.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd actually be inclined to have positions over names: I think "two former leaders, three MEPs and two of the party's three peers resigned" gives me much more of a sense of the event than a list of names I don't recognise (I haven't actually counted properly, so my suggestion might need a bit of work, particularly as I think I wrote it to the tune of 12 days of christmas) Joe (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems better.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The current text still looks a bit like a laundry list and could be expressed more concisely.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done a test edit, I think it looks better and is certainly easier to understand for a casual reader, but I'm mildly worried I'd strayed into OR. Joe (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

By my reckonng, nine MEPs have resigned over Robinson, not six: Bullock, Dartmoth, Etheridge, Farage, Gill, Nuttall, O'Flynn, Reid. The problem is that some have other positions (e.g. Farage - MEP and ex-leader). That's why I wanted the names there rather than positions. Emeraude (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that is pretty persuasive, certainly the current version is wrong then. hmmm, Let me think.Joe (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Um, There's eight names in that list - has there been a typo? If it is eight names then "eight MEPs including two former leaders of the party" would work and be even shorter...Joe (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I left out Coburn. Sorry. Emeraude (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Why (if anything) I think a list of names is a bad idea (or even an exact figure) it may well become out of date far too quickly.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have listed the number of MEPs who resigned over Robinson's appointment as eight. While Lord Dartmouth did indeed cite Batten's support for Robinson as a reason for his resignation, it was not a response to the appointment. Dartmouth resigned in September 2018. The appointment was made two months later in November 2018. Civilised Hatters Fan (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It's silly to say "serving as a political adviser to the Leader of the ". It's not a government post.86.187.165.253 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)