Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist)/Archive 4

Edit request: Criminal Contempt of court offences under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 not (usually) actually a criminal conviction here in the UK (England and Wales)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stephen-yaxley-lennon-held-in-contempt-of-court

Notice the key word here, " held ", rather than " convicted " or " found guilty ".

Section 14(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 states that,

"In any case where a court has power to  commit  a person to prison (rather than "imprison") for contempt of court and (apart from this provision) no limitation applies to the period of  committal  (rather than "imprisonment"), the committal shall (without prejudice to the power of the court to order his earlier discharge) be for a fixed term, and that term shall not on any occasion exceed two years in the case of committal by a superior court, or one month in the case of committal by an inferior court."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/section/14?timeline=false

Any references to "convict", "convicted", "conviction" or "(being) found guilty" with regards to the criminal contempt of court offences should be substituted with "hold" or "held", and "imprisonment", "imprison" or "imprisoned" with "committal to prison", "commit" or "committed", and any references to "sentence", "sentenced" or "sentencing" removed; and the criminal contempt offences be removed from the conviction category and be either moved into a separate Infobox with a new value, or e.g. be moved to.

See also https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/invitation-to-comment.pdf.


 * That is original research and you need a source that says the sources used in the article are wrong. Certainly held in contempt can be used as a synonym for convicted or found guilty of contempt, and there is no reason to think they mean different things. And there does not seem to be any difference between being committed to prison and imprisoned. TFD (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It may be correct but it is a bit too technical. If he is sent to prison then it is safe to assume that he committed a criminal offence.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Committal to prison" ≠ "imprisonment": both are specific legal terms in England, and should not be used interchangeably. -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO is the OP is able to find sources of equal quality which use the specific wordings the OP is proposing which we could add or replace or current sources it would be okay to discuss which wording is better and personally I think some minor OR about how certain wording maybe misunderstood would be acceptable. However we would need these sources first not simply the OR Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't know some specific legal point in law in England in the year 2019 (perhaps because you are based in New Zealand; and why should you?!), with the greatest of respect, that doesn't make it OR on my part. See, from an actual English barrister, Francis Hoar . 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I note the latter does not say (despite being asked a direct question) " he was not convicted".Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because in England and Wales, a person can only be convicted of a (criminal) offence ?! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, RS say he was convicted, and none have said he was not. So either it was a criminal convection, they are wrong or you are. They are RS and you are not, so we go with what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 194.207.146.167: Thanks you for proving my point. It is OR because you are relying on your own alleged knowledge, and sources which have nothing to do with Tommy Robison. If you were not performing OR, then it would not matter if I'm a leprechaun from Timbuktu who has never heard of the concept of law before in my life because I could see the quality reliable secondary sources which say Tommy Robinson was committed etc. You have failed to present such sources, except for extremely poor quality sources (some government press releases and Tweets) and a bunch of OR based on sources which do not mention Tommy Robinson in any way. (Unsurprisingly, an act passed ~1 year before Tommy Robinson was born does not mention him in the legislation. Nor does the invitation to comment about amending the rules of contempt. from Criminal Procedure Rule Committee.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding he was convicted of contempt of court, the legal wording is often odd and does not mean what many thinks it means.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, what I am saying is that "(criminal) contempt of court" (under the Contempt of Court Act 1981) is NOT actually a criminal offence in England and Wales. He was 'found/held' to have committed contempt. The word 'conviction' has a specific legal meaning in this country, and should not be used as a generic term . 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not according to RS [], "convicted in contempt-of-court case".Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ("Stephen Yaxley-Lennon held in contempt of court") and this 'OR' was actually from the UK Government, issued on Friday . An online article from the Reuters website which will disappear within a year (if not a month) is somehow RS, but one prepared by lawyers working for the UK Government is OR?! Are you being serious?! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The one does not contradict the other. As I said leglases often uses one word for another. You need to have a source that explicitly says that being found in contempt of court is not a conviction.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "As with Canterbury, the formal record of the contempt proceedings wrongly suggests that the appellant had been convicted of a criminal offence, rather than found to have been in contempt of court." (Paragraph 70) From the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales himself, last year. Full published judgment. This is not OR (purely my own personal work), but a matter of UK (English) public record, easily available. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It may not be OR, but it's still not suitable for inclusion because you have no provided a source which meets our WP:RS standard. As you have already been told, court judgments are explicitly disallowed as sources in BLPs. They're rarely allowed in other articles either especially not when they are used to contradict secondary sources given the ease of misinterpret them, making a big deal over things that don't matter or otherwise misuse in the way primary sources are often misused. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Articles from news organisations which a reputation for fact checking and accuracy are normally considered significantly better sources that government press releases and similar. Again, I strongly urge you take a read of WP:RS at a minimum Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not going to swing can we please close this?Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this AN/I?! If there is no action, there is no action. It looks like you have already made your mind up that you are right, and I am wrong. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you mean we have made up our minds that we cannot rely on WP:OR and poor quality sources and instead must go by what high quality secondary sources say, then yes we have made up our minds. Anyone editing wikipedia should have made up their minds, since that's how we work. Take a read of WP:RS and maybe even the basic WP:5P. If you mean we've made up our minds on what wording to ues, then no you're mistaken. I think all of us are willing to contemplate a different wording, if someone is able to provide the high quality secondary sources which supports such a wording change. Definitely I am as I made clear in my first reply. If no one is able to do so, and so far you have failed to do so instead relying on WP:OR and government press releases, court judgments (for a BLP!) and Tweets!, then things are settled for now. Of course we will be fulling willing to reassess the situation when someone presents the sources. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Contempt of court is not a crime per se. It is a sui generis (unique) offence committed against the court itself which it is peculiarly within the province of the court to punish. A penalty imposed for contempt of court is not regarded as a sentence. At least since the Contempt of Court Act 1981 it is common for the phrases 'criminal contempt' and 'civil contempt' to be used to distinguish between types of behaviour and the different rules etc that govern the way in which a court can or must deal with the matter. For example, taking a photograph in a court is a crime for which the perpetrator could be prosecuted. It also is a contempt for which action could be taken. It could be but doesn't have to be both. Although the two phrases suggest or imply that a contempt can be either a civil offence of a criminal offence, it is not, it is a sui generis offence. Simply, if the contempt is serious and the perpetrator faces the possibility of imprisonment it is referred to as a criminal contempt and the usual criminal standards of procedure (mens rea, beyond reasonable doubt etc) must be observed. But there is no statutory crime of contempt.

It is quite easy to find RS to show this is so. Lord Deas at p 1123; MacLeod v Speirs (1884) 5 Coup 387, Lord Young at p 403), contempt of court is not a crime per se. It is a sui generis offence committed against the court itself which it is peculiarly within the province of the court to punish (Mayer v HM Adv, supra; HM Adv v Airs, supra; Petrie v Angus, supra). A penalty imposed for contempt of court is not regarded as a sentence (Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (the 1995 Act), s 307(1), sv "sentence").

Does it matter? Mostly no but sometimes yes it does. In the Canterbury matter, they got it slightly wrong and this led to the Appeal court having to order that the court records be altered. In the second matter, they got it wrong which led to a whole bunch of problems - Robinson wrongly being treated as a criminal prisoner by the prison authorities and to the recent rehearing etc. It seems to me that whilst it doesn't much matter in many circumstances it is at least important that the Courts and encyclopedias get it right. The notion that it is all too technical doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me.Jacksoncowes (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the entire judgment, but the appeal judges say that the original court erred in saying it was a criminal conviction rather than a finding of contempt and that distinction was significant in determining how soon Robinson could be released from prison. I don't see any reason why we cannot use a court decision to correct an incorrect reporting in the media. It's strange though to expect everyone to understand this obscure point of law when even the original judge did not. I still don't see the difference between imprisonment and committal to prison. Obviously judges don't literally put people in prison, but the current wording seems consistent with usage in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, the distinctions are important and were the basis of Robinson's appeal and release. I suggest we put this on hold for now until the full judgement in the present case is published by the court and then adopt whatever terms are used by the judges there. Emeraude (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that is the key point, its an obscure legal technicality that in truth has no meaning beyond archaic semantics that even many in the legal profession seem to have problems with.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely, because it was the judge in Leeds not using the correct terminology that led to Robinson's appeal, his release and subsequent retrial. I suggested that the High Court's judgement when published ought to clarify the correct terminology: it has just been published: Neutral Citation Number: 2019 EWHC 1791 (Admin) (but I haven't got time to read it yet). Emeraude (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "A person who publishes material in breach of an RRO will be guilty of contempt" He was found to be in breach of an RRO, and thus.....Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite so (that's para 57). And: "..having been convicted in Canterbury.." (para 43). Now we just have to wait for the publication of the judges' sentencing remarks. Emeraude (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Breaking news: Robinson committed to prison for 6 months, plus the 3 months of the previous suspended sentence, to run consecutively, minus days spent in prison before appeal hearing. Best to wait for a reliable new source before adding to the article or, better yet, the actual published judgement. Emeraude (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added it, in summary form. That BBC source is perfectly reliable. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect the issue will be semantics again, was he jailed, committed, incarcerated or whatever obscure legal euphemism is used.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, he's now locked up, and probably in transit to a jail. Is he able to appeal the length of his sentence? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure that is relevant, it is not for us to speculate.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I quite agree we should not speculate. Lawyers usually quickly make a statement, on behalf of their client, if they intend to challenge the sentence. In the absence of any such public statement, I think it's fair to assume it is not possible or is not proposed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * He has 28 days in which to lodge and appeal. Emeraude (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. This should not impinge of the appropriateness of using the term "jailed". Also note, as explained in The Daily Telegraph here: "Because Robinson has already served 69 days for the Leeds contempt case ... he would be required to serve nearly 10 weeks in prison." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The 28 days in which to appeal is mentioned in the BBC source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

'Freedom Fighter'
Just passing through, and noticed someone has changed the lead from 'British far-right and anti-Islam activist' to 'true British patriot, freedom fighter and hero', which seems absurd and against what previous discussion seems to have concluded. Someone who can might want to fix that. Oh, and I just noticed that he's suddenly apparantly gained a knighthood. 31.185.236.213 (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Details of current (11th July 2019) prison term?
Is there not a mistake in the length in the prison term (9 months) stated here today? His May 2017 sentence was 3 months (suspended for 18 months). This suspension was now revoked because of the new conviction within the 18 months. He served 69 days (3 months) in 2018 before being released. Now he was send to jail for 19 weeks (which is 4,75 months). So where do the 9 months come from? Dradicke (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The nine months is the official sentence. But he is deemed to have already served some of that, while awaiting and participating in the trail and the sentencing. So it's deducted. This is normal practice. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of posting the same point, the original (full) sentence was confirmed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how does it add up to 9 months? The 2017 sentence was 3 months. The 2018 sentence was 13 months. He served about 3 months (69days). So the original 3 months were bascially already served. And now he is to serve about 4,5 months. I still do not get the math... Dradicke (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The BBC source says this: "The nine month jail sentence served on Thursday includes six months for the Leeds Crown Court offence last year and another three months for contempt of court, following a suspended sentence given at Canterbury Crown Court in May 2017.". Does that help? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And he will be released after serving half his sentence (9/2=4.5). TFD (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * but in the paragraph after the quoted above at BBC it says: "reducing his sentence to 19 weeks - OF WHICH he would serve half before being released." Half of 19 weeks is 9,5 weeks, which is a bit more than 2 months. So instead of 3 months (For 2017) plus 10 months (original 2018 sentence), after deducting 69 days already served, he now only has to serve 9,5 weeks. Dradicke (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As shown at gov.uk here: "For prison sentences under 12 months, the person’s normally released automatically halfway through." Is that clear? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Move?
We seem to be using parenthetical disambiguation unnecessarily here. The correct title would be Stephen Yaxley-Lennon,. per the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.159.160 (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Tough one as whilst that may (may) be his real name it is not his stage name.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, we need to use the common name, and the name almost everybody knows him by is Tommy Robinson, not Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Spot on. And it's why we don't have an article with the title Marion Robert Morrison but we do have one on John Wayne, pilgrim. Emeraude (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that is what I was implying, we use his stage name.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Me too. 15:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But we don't have John Wayne (actor) because there is only one John Wayne and only film nerds knew his real name was Marion Morrison - in this case we are using a parenthetical disambiguation of his stage name instead of his real name when his real name is reported in pretty much every news story about him. So what we're doing is closer to titling the article on Carl Benjamin as "Sargon of Akkad (Twitter troll)".
 * It all depends on how RS treat it, and most call him "Tommy Robinson, real name..." We add "activist" so its not confused with the (other) football hooligan, or Tommy Robinson (footballer).Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Since he is best known as Tommy Robinson, that should be the name of the article. In future of course that could change. I think we can drop the "(activist)" because he is better know than the other two Tommy Robinsons on the disambiguation list, Tommy Robinson (hooligan) and Tommy Robinson (actor), neither of whom have their own articles. TFD (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to leave things as they are. I don't think this Tommy Robinson is the clear-cut primary topic, so it's best to keep "Tommy Robinson" landing on the DAB page.  And, yes, definitely we use the name he is known by and not his relatively unknown real name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How can two lesser known people who don't have their own articles compete as primary topics? TFD (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think RECENTISM enters in here. Plus, do take a look at Tommy Robinson: there are more than three people listed there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Only three of them are called "Tommy Robinson" and RECENTISM refers to recent events, not someone who has been in the news for 10 years. Besides, RECENTISM does not apply to article titles. The purpose of having a main topic is that when people type in a name, in this case Tommy Robinson, it will go to the topic they are looking for. 90,000 people have viewed this page in the last 90 days, compared with 2,000 who viewed Luton Town MIGs, which contains Tommy Robinson (hooligan). TFD (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That many, eh? I wonder if there's anything going on with Yaxley-Lennon? Perhaps he's in the news? 82.1.159.160 (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to derail the discussion, but what you really need to consider is that Tommy is a derivative of Tom Robinson, so Tommy Robinson should be redirected to Tom Robinson serving as a main disambiguation page. Yet the page Tom Robinson is now about a British singer-songwriter, bassist, radio presenter. I propose that Tommy Robinson is redirected to Tom Robinson and create that as a disambiguation page. All the Toms and Tommys would come under that. werldwayd (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, Tom and Tommy are derivatives of Thomas, and there are about twenty articles on Wikipedia about people called named Thomas Robinson. Emeraude (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case both Tom Robinson and Tommy Robinson should be redirects to Thomas Robinson. In case the list goes too long there, Thomas Robinson disambiguation page could include separate sections of Thomas, Tom and Tommy werldwayd (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly disageree with here, Tommy Robinson referes to people named Tommy, Tom to people named Tom, Thomas to people named Thomas; to redirect Tom and Tommy to Thomas would be the incorrect thing to do here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually Tom Robinson goes to the pop star, as it should do. I think there is an argument this article should be Tommy Robinson and the dab page go to Tommy Robinson (disambiguation). ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Name
Should the article make it any clearer that although his "real" name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon his birth name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley? Presumably that became his "real" name when his mother remarried? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is his birth name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley, but he "official" (as we do not really have a concept of legal name) name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, whereas his stage name (for want of a better) term is Tommy Robinson. To add to the confusion he hold (or at least did) hold a passport in the name of Paul Harris (which means that according to the concept of legally acceptable ID his "real" name is Paul Harris).Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe just adding something like "On the marriage of his mother he took the name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We then imply that until then he was called Tommy Robinson. I would opt for what the banks would opt for, what his official form of ID says. "who is named as Paul Harris on his passport".Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Had been thinking of adding that text just after "... remarried when Robinson was still young... " in the "Biography" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Media reports say that his real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon but what this means is that it is his legal name in the 2018-19 court cases. It isn't the name on his birth certificate.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Many people in the UK change their name after a marriage occurs, of course, most of them women. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We can include as many alt names as we have sources for. So, yes ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RichardWeiss, I think your ping didn't work as I've already singed on this page. But if you do think further clarification is required, I wonder if you have any suggestions. Maybe I'm just getting bogged down in the semantics of "real". It seems we have a lotto choose from here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

NPOV - "wrongly lambasted"
@Martinevans123 asked me to take this to the talk page. I have, but I shall also be reinstating my edit.

Quoth the first sentence of the NPOV policy:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Yes, of course the journalists were complying with UK law. No, I don't think they were covering up crime. But the people lambasting them sure did, and while I disagree with them that's my own POV and an ethical judgement - Wikipedia is not the place for those. Declaring that the lambasters were wrong in their opinion is textbook POV, just like it would be POV if Wikipedia said Dred Scott v. Sanford was wrong (as opposed to saying that half a billion people think it was wrong, which is factually true). Magic9mushroom (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its also a case of if we do not say they are wrong we are saying they are right. Now of course there is an issue of OR, and a re-wroding might be in order, but such a re-wording must be done to ensure we also do not imply they were right.Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't like "wrongly lambasted", it is a journalese phrase and isn't encyclopedic. The same meaning should be expressed more in line with Wikipedia's style and tone.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Magic9mushroom may have a valid point, but I agree with Ian. The source text is simply this: "It led to protests on the streets, it led to all sorts of abusive messages and allegations against our reporters and this newspaper - some believed we were “covering up” this abuse by not reporting it." But I'm surprised we need to use the Yorkshire Evening Post for this. The whole tone of that editorial seem rather tabloid. Let alone then layering it up with words like "lambasted". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed it untill better wording and sourcing can be produced, even this this may really be undue as its not about him.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm pretty sure we are not talking just about Yorkshire Evening Post reporters here. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether it should be removed entirely, as I'm not greatly versed in this topic (as with many of my edits, this was a drive-by on something that jumped out at me while reading). It's fine by me either way as long as we aren't pushing a POV. I did think at the time that the scare quotes around "covering up" provided sufficient distance that we weren't implying they were right (otherwise, indeed, that would be an issue) but I've no particular attachment to the wording there. Magic9mushroom (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, here's that tabloidy YEP source. It's still used at three other places in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue for me was undue, not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, understood. So even a broadsheet or BBC source might not warrant inclusion of this point. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Would be slightly differnt as it would be of national interest, but I wold still be a bit unsure. At the end of the day this artocle is about Mr Harris and not his supporters.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * His supporters throwing bottles and smoke bombs at police, and the resulting arrests were certainly of national interest. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, but that does not mean everything they do or say is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2019
Kriskringle28 (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Please grant me permission to edit this article. I have found that this article has many strong hints of bias.
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, welcome to spell out here any examples of bias that you may have seen hinted at. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like you cannot edit this article because the user account is brand new and has made only one edit. Editing a semi-protected article requires autoconfirmed status.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

New trial section
I ask serious Wikipedians to look again particularly at this section and ask 'does this give a fair neutral account of the RS coverage of this matter'. Just as an example, much of The Independent's article under the heading "Tommy Robinson: How close EDL founder came to causing collapse of Huddersfield grooming gang trial" is ignored (not referred to) whilst prominence is given to several quotes from, of all things "the right-wing conspiracy channel Info Wars". It might be worth re-reading what the Wiki article on Info Wars says.

I am not particularly arguing that these quotes from Info wars shouldn't be there - they do give a flavour of Y-L's thoughts - but without balanced neutral assessments of what the contempt and the contempt proceedings were about, and there are plenty of them published in many RSs, the result is a partial and misleading article. E.g. on a BBC T.V. news that showed protesters wearing T-shirts emblazoned "Sentenced for journalism" the BBC felt it necessary to say that viewers should understand that he was not sentenced for journalism.

In my opinion, too many of the widely published assessments in RSs have been omitted, deleted for being trivial or irrelevant etc. and this has left the article lacking in NPOV. Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Contempt of Court Issue

 * Ihe fact is that it is not possible to be sentenced to imprisonment for contempt of court. Yes, the court at Canterbury said that it had done that and later the court at Leeds compounded the error when it activated the wrongly imposed suspended sentence and wrongly added another sentence of imprisonment. Yes, some RSs correctly reported what the courts said they had done and it is right that the article should reflect that. Some RSs were more circumspect in their language by using phrases such as 'jailed for contempt', which avoided the error. The courts' error led to Y-L wrongly being treated by the prisons as a convicted criminal prisoner when he was actually a civil prisoner.  This was not just some minor technical point.  It had serious impact. It also led to his successful appeal and to his initial release.  At that stage, the Court of Appeal corrected the courts' errors and RSs reported that.  You seem to me to be relying on a section of the RSs rather than attempting an encyclopaedic approach to the full range of RSs.  As it stands the article is plainly and importantly incorrect.  I think you should try to find a way for the article correctly to reflect all the RSs in a way that properly explains what happened. Please edit, please do not edit war.  Jacksoncowes (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * [].Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Headlines from Mirror "Today and tomorrow, High Court judges at the Old Bailey will hear the new application by the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox QC to commit Robinson to prison."[]
 * Articles from SKY that also published tweets by Rosenburg. p"Key points


 * Tommy Robinson sent back to jail for contempt of court"
 * "Joshua Rozenberg
 * @JoshuaRozenberg
 * Replying to @JoshuaRozenberg
 * YL: six months. Only immediate custody commensurate with seriousness of the case. We activate suspended committal order in full. Total penalty is therefore nine months — 39 weeks. Already served 10 weeks: 138 days. He’s imprisoned for 19 weeks but will be released halfway."[]
 * YL: six months. Only immediate custody commensurate with seriousness of the case. We activate suspended committal order in full. Total penalty is therefore nine months — 39 weeks. Already served 10 weeks: 138 days. He’s imprisoned for 19 weeks but will be released halfway."[]


 * Joshua Rozenberg
 * @JoshuaRozenberg
 * · Jul 5, 2019
 * Replying to @JoshuaRozenberg
 * Last words from me today on YL: contempt is not a criminal offence so there’s no need for bail. YL’s lawyers can’t advise him on an appeal until they see the court’s full reasons next week. It looks unlikely that they’ll persuade the court to postpone sentencing YL on 11th July.[]
 * Last words from me today on YL: contempt is not a criminal offence so there’s no need for bail. YL’s lawyers can’t advise him on an appeal until they see the court’s full reasons next week. It looks unlikely that they’ll persuade the court to postpone sentencing YL on 11th July.[]


 * It is correct to say, for example, that "the sentence of the court was that he was committed to prison for....' It would be incorrect to say that 'he was given a prison sentence of....'  Those quoted above, and others, have carefully phrased their publications correctly.  To the man on the Clapham omnibus, or to the person talking casually it doesn't matter.  To the person who is the subject of the court's action or to those charged with administering it and putting it into effect it matters crucially.  It is not easy but it is not impossible. An encyclopedia must grapple with it.  My attempt is not perfect and obviously, I welcome edits.

Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not if the court documents say Sentenced or jailed it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Forgive me and please explain because I do not understand what you mean by your comment immediately above. I know precisely what the published judgements say. Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "..having been convicted in Canterbury.." (para 43).Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He was convicted in Canterbury. That's not the issue. He wasn't sentenced to imprisonment - the court had no power to do that. He was committed to prison, suspended. The court had the power to do that. But the court wrongly stated that it had sentenced him to imprisonment. The Court of Appeal later corrected the Canterbury court's error, presumably under the slip rule, by ordering the Canterbury court record be amended to show that for his conviction of contempt Y-L had been committed to prison (suspended).
 * This part of the problem is relatively simple compared with the Leeds courts errors. These need yet to be tackled in this article. Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Added the page to the Wikiproject Law. The serious mistakes made by all concerned at the proceedings at Canterbury and Leeds show the amount of confusion that exists within the legal profession about contempt of court. I don't think the article is yet ready for assessment but I believe that the errors identified at the appeal hearing and later when it went to the Recorder of London will prove to be important cases.Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

False passport, clarification suggested
He had been banned from entering the US due to a drugs offence [singular!].

It seems it is not exactly what the source (London Evening Standard) says. Let me quote it:

''The court heard that he was previously jailed for assault in 2005 and also has previous convictions for drugs offences [plural?] and public order offences. Sentencing the 30-year-old, Judge Alistair McCreath, told him: “You knew perfectly well that you were not welcome in the United States. You knew that because you tried before and you had not got in, and you knew the reason for that - because, rightly or wrongly, the US authorities do not welcome people in their country who have convictions [plural!] of the kind that you have.”''

Could it be possibly clarified somehow? Thx. Vlakovod (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Good point. By 2012, Robinson had various convictions that would have made a visa to enter the USA unlikely, and this is not an accurate summary of the source.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Vlakovod (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ian. Could someone possibly have a look at the previous point (71%)?

Better known
Where in the citation given does it say he is better known as? Or any?Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no doubt that Robinson is best known as the co-founder of the EDL -- it is, in point of fact, his only actual claim to fame. His service as a political advisor to Gerard Batten was a short-lived event.  I've reverted the order in the lede to indicate the chronology of eventes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ghits:
 * "Tommy Robinson" "English Defence League" - about 139,000
 * "Tommy Robinson" "Gerard Batten" - about 64,200
 * In other words, twice as many hits for EDL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but having said "That's what we have sources for") don't you think you should quote a source that says he is better known for x rather than y. Are there any sources quoted in the page that say he is better for  ...?  Without the sources it seems an entirely subjective comment to me. Try hits for Tommy Robinson contempt of court, milk shake thrown at, sent to prison, Almondbury Community School assault.  Just a thought. Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC) But I do accept that the hits suggest he might be better known for his EDL connection than his Batten connection. I wonder what hits for TR & UKIP.Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)  224,000 By the way.Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The Rebel Media
This edit is wandering dangerously close to no legal threats. The Rebel Media is described as a far-right website here and in other sources.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor in question writes in an edit summary "If The New York Times publishes quotes from communists, The Times isn't communist," but the analogy is patently false. The true analogy would be if the Times only published pieces by communists, in which case the Times would indeed be communist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I.ve added multiple citations which refer to The Rebel Media as "far-right". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Action of supportes
Suggestion: Change the heading Actions of supporters to Reactions of supporters. Reasoning: the former seems to be like: to do st. instead of him while the later means: to do st. against his imprisonment. Appology for my English, I might be totally wrong here. Similarly, sorry if it was already discussed, just let me know. Thx. Vlakovod (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The section contains information about both reactions and actions, but is more about their actions than otherwise. I'm going to be BOLD and change it to "Response of supporters", because I believe that will cover both. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fine with that. Thank you. Vlakovod (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson is not an Aircraft Engineer
The Wikipedia article infers that Mr Yaxley-Lennon is an Aircraft Engineer, whereas the information presented shows that he is clearly not. The cited Daily Telegraph newspaper article actually states :"After he left school, Robinson applied to study aircraft engineering at Luton Airport, one of the few remaining providers of skilled blue-collar jobs in the town. “I got an apprenticeship six hundred people applied for, and they took four people on,” he says. He qualified in 2003 after studying for five years..."

First, to become any kind of (professional) Engineer requires an engineering degree, which means study at a university. Prior to his application, Y-L studied to GCSE level. To be able to apply to a university to study engineering requires having completed A-levels, which Y-L did not do. Also, Y-L "studied" at Luton Airport, and not a university. Quite clearly, Y-L applied for, and completed, an aircraft fitter/mechanic apprenticeship (a five-year programme), and not an engineering apprenticeship (a three/four-year programme), which is a different kettle of fish. Note, also, that an aircraft fitter/mechanic is a blue-collar job, as the Daily Telegraph points out, whereas a Professional Engineer is a professional job (while collar).

The main article overstates Y-L's credentials and should be corrected. It is understood that Y-L claims to have studied engineering, but the article should point out that he actually studied to become an aircraft mechanic.SemperContendo (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This has been raised before, and although it may well be correct, there is a problem with using a source to say something different. Overall, the evidence suggests that he was likely to be training to become an aircraft maintenance technician. The BBC source here says "He won a prized place as an apprentice aircraft engineer at Luton Airport" which is much the same wording as the Telegraph.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Since when has engineer begun with a capital letter? Emeraude (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete Convictions in infobox
Why is it there? Undue & POV to claim he is famous for them, etc. Zezen (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The same in lead - let us remove it from there: Robinson has accumulated several criminal convictions and has served three terms of imprisonment. His criminal record includes convictions for violence, financial and immigration frauds, as UNDUE Zezen (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This was previously discussed here. I agree with the undue and POV concerns caused by lavishly cataloguing all of the criminal offences in the infobox, even the minor ones from some years ago that would be considered spent under UK law.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Tough one as it can be argued that he gets most publicity when he fetches up in court. But at the same time most of them are minor and not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And as if to make the point [].Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * They're not spent, given that he has continued to rack up new convictions with alarming frequency. Even if they were, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act allows their disclosure in the public interest, for example for people engaged in political activity. The man is a recidivist criminal and none of his convictions are "minor". Emeraude (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It is notable that Robinson was denied a job at Luton airport because he had a conviction for assault, despite qualifying in 2003. However, some of the other convictions have problems with WP:DUE.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Tommy's a lovely lad really. I think the salon shows his feminine side. I think the convictions should all stay. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC) p.s. and he's been very generous with his burgers and hot dogs


 * The only long past conviction that is notable is the one that denied him a job at Luton airport. For all of the others, it is meh, so what?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think readers might find it interesting to see that someone with a criminal record as long as this could have the nerve to stand as an MEP. Even without any bribes. A great testament to our great democratic process, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * And again as if to illustrate the point [].Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Although, to be fair (!), this is a civil and not a criminal matter. Emeraude (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but most of the coverage he gets is for his (or his supporters) criminality.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

71% Muslim claim
Part of the section on prison terms says someone "falsely" claimed the prison Robinson was sent to is 71% Muslim. This claim is declared false, but no information to back this statement is provided (such as actual approximate Muslim population in the prison at the time). No citations at all are made in the entire paragraph about this, however it accuses several people of spreading this alleged misinformation. Supertin (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC) Vlakovod (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC) In fact, he was put in HMP Hull (7.4% Muslim population) on 25 May 2018 and released from HMP Onley (30.4% Muslim population) on 1st August 2018.  (Independent, 8 Aug 2018) said: ''He also complained about being moved from prison in Hull to HMP Onley in Rugby. "You have moved me from Hull with a 7 per cent Muslim population to here where 1 in 3 prisoners are Muslim..."'' — This sources from Hull to Onley; lots of other sources available, would like some more? The percentage are confirmed by the actual source Cambridge News (  ). OK? Or more sources needed? Notes: some 5% in UK population and some 9% (?) in UK prisons; might be interesting in this context, shall I look for the sources? — the date of move, expecting Thuesday 12 June 2018; well, probably no RS does care about. Vlakovod (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC), Vlakovod (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Next: "And they were spread further by British InfoWars writer Paul Joseph Watson, on his Twitter account." [145]. This is also inaccurate as Watson's tweet reads "[...] has reportedly been moved to a prison with a 71% Muslim population." — reportedly. And, again one day before the [145] was released, there was Watson's retweet "Clarification that Muslim population is estimated to be around 70% on wing in which Tommy is being held, not entire prison." — estimated, on wing, not entire prison. Timing: the paragraph 71% is on June 2018; the previous paragraph USA support is on July 2018. Well, the whole 71% para sounds strange and somehow twisted. Thx for the reconsideration. Vlakovod (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC) The sources I was citing have been included in References (Cambridge News & The Independent). Why not reliable? The additional (Watson's) Twitter was just to show out (in the Talk) the reliability of Cambridge News. Vlakovod (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Have anything to add to the previous? Vlakovod (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's table in the source provided which specifically says that the percentage of Muslims in the prison was 7.4%. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The misinformation is that the 7.4% holds for HMP Hull where he was moved from. He was moved to HMP Onley with 30.4%. Not exactly 71% but it is really a high density w.r.t. to some 5% in UK, isn't it?
 * Please provide a source for your claim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please, let me first propose the claim itself (just putting the facts, subject to any edits), then we can work out sources.
 * I have corrected the figure. Olney was not listed in the source as 7.4% Muslim, but as 14.3% percent.  The figure in our article was wrong, but the claims made by Robinson and his people that the prison was "71% Muslim" are still false. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thx. But 14.3% are still false, sorry. "HMP Liecester [sic!] has a Muslim population of 14.3 percent" [145 = Cambridgeshire Live]. Surely Leicester. — "The prison with the highest Muslim population in the Midlands is Onley, which is nowhere near Leicester. Some 30.4 per cent of Olney [sic!] prisoners are Muslim" [145]. Surely Onley.
 * According to the source, 14.3% is correct. The sources you are citing are not reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * HMP Leicester with 14.3% is correct. But what is the relation with the Article?
 * Sorry, but I may miss your point. What exactly was wrong with added sourced information I intended to improve the Article? Thanks for your answer.

So again. Trying per partes. "In mid–June Robinson was transferred from HMP Hull to HMP Onley." This introduces the para on 71% & gives some background. Is st. wrong? Is st. wrong with The Independent? Or with The Israel News? Thx for the answer. Vlakovod (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC) My conclusion here: "In mid–June Robinson was transferred from HMP Hull to HMP Onley." is correct and properly sourced. Vlakovod (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do they say it in their words?Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thx. I read your question as: Do they [the cited sources] say it in their [own] words [i.e. explicitly not quoting some other sources]? — Right?
 * Israel National News, 14 June 2018, lede: Activist Robinson transferred yesterday to Onley Prison with high Muslim majority, known as violent prison. Tens of thousands demonstrate. — No quotation.
 * The Independent, 8 August 2018, paras 10&11: He also complained about being moved from prison in Hull to HMP Onley in Rugby. “You have moved me from Hull with a 7 per cent Muslim population to here where 1 in 3 prisoners are Muslim. I’d like to know how that move could have happened considering you have a duty of care for my safety.”. — He (quoted) said "to here where 1 in 3 prisoners are Muslim"; the source said "to HMP Onley in Rugby".
 * Is it correct to assume the answer to your question is yes in both cases? Vlakovod (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No as one says nothing about this (but the actual article (rather then the head line) says "Robinson’s manager Caolan Robertson said a large majority of the prison population of Onley is Muslim. ", so they are quoting someone, context matters.) and one is them quoting him.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems your talk is about the percentage, not the prison move. If so, let's forward to the percentage (below) with other sources (those in the reverted revision); otherwise let me know please.

And the second part of the reverted revision was "Muslim population was about 7.4% in HMP Hull, 30.4% in HMP Onley and 16% average in England & Wales prisons." Taking it one by one: So, is something wrong with any of these claims? Is something wrong with any source? Let me remember that the revert was with "No consensus (TW)". does not contribute to this Talk any more. Sorry, but I can't see any "no consensus". About to put it back in the Article, just to simplify link access. Thx. Vlakovod (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Muslim population was about 7.4% in HMP Hull... — source: Cambridge News (already cited later in the discussed para)
 * 2) ...30.4% in HMP Onley... — sources: Cambridge News (the same) & Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Onley by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
 * 3) ...and 16% average in England & Wales prisons. — source: UK Prison Population Statistics, Briefing Paper, Number CBP–04334
 * Stop trying to add this crap to the article. What you added was incomprehensible, and the relevance has not been shown - nor do you have consensus to add it.  Stop, of this is going to end up with a noticeboard report for WP:Disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing your opinion (hope it is allowed to discuss it); in fact any feedback was great. It is nice to see no objections against the sources. The relevance is a good point, let us try to discuss it (below). Regarding the incomprehensibility, the claim could have been reformulated, right? — and if the proposed claim is not clear, then it might be difficult to asses its relevancy, I suppose. The consensus is hard to be achieved without discussion, and this is not possible without some answers to questions above or without any objections. "Be polite, and welcoming to new users; Assume good faith; Avoid personal attacks" — excuse me to remember the Talk introduction, but your warning could easily be understood as a crossing of attack–definition line. Vlakovod (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Relevancy
Supertin suggested at the beginning of this talk section: This claim is declared false, but no information to back this statement is provided (such as actual approximate Muslim population in the prison at the time). — note please "in the prison at the time" not "in the prison he was reportedly moved to". After 3–week discussion Beyond My Ken suggested that the relevance has not been shown. May I politely disagree with this. If the Article just denounced some people, the Reader would certainly get a biased and misleading information; I feel this is not the goal of the Wiki project. Let me suggest that "Robinson was moved to HMP Onley with 30% Muslim population" or "Robinson was moved to the highest–rate Muslim–population East Midlands prison" has the "medium" relevance level; still this minimum information being of undisputable high importance for understanding of the remaining paragraph claims (that are in their turn of the medium relevance level at the best). Thx for any feedback.Vlakovod (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC) So, can we conclude something? E.g. Thx for your tolerance and patience. Vlakovod (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Maybe I misunderstood st. Maybe you are too busy. Maybe it needs more time. Don't know. Vlakovod (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC) "Inmates at Onley prison, where Robinson was reportedly transferred to, [...]" "Onley prison has a Muslim population of 30.4 percent, the UK’s Mirror reported."
 * He was moved to HMP Onley with 30% Muslim population, that is the highest rate in the East Midlands prisons. This info alarmed people (that already had shown their anger a few days ago in London). They were so anguished (having in their minds the previous in–prison conflicts) that they sometimes reacted (in good will or not) unreasonable (consensus on that). That is the background of the story. Again, don't take me wrong, this is not to push forward any justification of that reactions, just trying to put it in the context.
 * "Robinson was transferred from HMP Hull to HMP Onley." has the "high" relevance level, without doubt I suppose.
 * Exactly, they were already on the streets, this did not create anything. Moreover the claim of 71% was very rapidly disproved, and no evidence has been shown to say that this altered anyone's opinion of the jailing of Harris. Nor does it in fact give any context to an outright lie, it is not even a case that Onley has a majority Muslim population (let alone 71%).Slatersteven (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I didn't get your outcome. At least the source issue is clarified. (1) The discussed paragraph includes exaggeration (or falsehood), (misleading) accusation and (conditional) threat; no street movement. All points are time–limited and subject–limited to one day (let's say chaotic day) just after the transfer. (2) Exactly, the 71% itself was very rapidly disproved, while other claims like "high Muslim population" or "somewhere in the East Midlands" eventually "nearby Leicester" were fuzzy but perfectly correct. (3) Let alone a majority or 71%. What is wrong with 30%? Is it so terrifying for Editors as it was for supporters?
 * The suggestion of is relevant.
 * Let alone the falsehood of 7.4%, it was corrected.
 * The actual wording "the actual percentage of Muslims in the prison he was reportedly moved to was 14.3%" by is misleading.
 * The properly sourced fact "Muslim population was about 30.4% in HMP Onley" by is correct and relevant.
 * Or, eventually, did you mean the suggestion to delete the whole paragraph?
 * Once again, I see no reason to change the article in regard to this supposed issue from what it is right now, From what I can see, no one else on this page supports your suggestions either.  Please drop this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I already had got your what (viewpoint) but can't see your why (argument), sorry.
 * Our article only talks about the exaggeration by Caolan Robertson. But the figure of 14% seems unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's in the citation given after the next sentence, in the section "If he has been moved there, does HMP Leicester have a 71 per cent Muslim population?", which is easy to miss - I did myself the first time I examined the ref. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of various "sources". May I proposed the last one in the list below? Note quoting pls. UK (I suppose):
 * Cambridge News already sourced in the Article
 * Mirror
 * The Unshackled – actually pulled out(!) but archived 23 times between 14 June 2018 up to 26 Feb 2019
 * or US (I suppose):
 * Daily Wire
 * Europe Reloaded
 * World Tribune
 * Vlakovod (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not contesting the 30.4%, I am saying the 14% figure is unsourced (oh and Beyond my Ken, the source dos not say Oleny has a population of 14% it says HMP Leicester does in fact "The prison with the highest Muslim population in the Midlands is Onley, which is nowhere near Leicester. Some 30.4 per cent of Olney prisoners are Muslim.".Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Which prison
OK, we need to establish, which prison was he moved to HMP Leicester or HMP Onley as this seems to be part of the confusion. Out article says Onley, but text is being used that applies to Leicester.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC) The source, Cambrigdeshire Live used by, reads "Has he been moved to HMP Leicester? We don't know". There is no other source claiming that. That's why he suggested to formulate the claim "…the actual percentage of Muslims in the prison he was reportedly moved to was 14.3%…". Vlakovod (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He was transferred to and released from MHP Onley. It seems that there is no doubt about it. Nobody has challenged it here (regarding you question). Nobody has asked for more sources (see my suggestion above), in fact dozens of them exist. It is claimed three times within the Article (even in the introduction, and without any reference mentioned or required).
 * The [problem is the source also says "The prison with the highest Muslim population in the Midlands is Onley, which is nowhere near Leicester. Some 30.4 per cent of Olney prisoners are Muslim.", so we have a problem, the source contradicts the claim olney has a population of 14.3%, and admits they do not know what prison he was sent to (so how can they know what its Muslim population is?).Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All of this is trivial in the extreme, not germane to an encyclopedia article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We are supposed to prevent the best possible information, not something that is at best dubious (the source admits it does not know a rather pertinent fact). We can say the claim of majority or even 71% is false, and that is all we need to say. As you say (but not I think what you meant) its trivia that adds nothing to our understanding of the topic, and so can be excluded. A user checking that source will see what I have seen, and will ask the same question. All this does is cloud the matter, as to what the reality is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. It is neither trivial nor irrelevant principally because the article is wrong. Surely Vlakovod should not have had such a protracted battle to make what seems to me to be a straightforward point. Y-L was moved from Hull to Onley (well-sourced) not Leicester. Y-L himself complained about that move on the basis that the prison had about a 30% Muslim population (well sourced}. Onley has about 30% (well-sourced) Any claim that he was sent to a prison with a majority Muslim population or with a 70% population is an exaggeration. Onley is 30 miles from Leicester. It might be wrong to say only 30 miles. It is wrong to say nowhere near. HMP Leicester is an irrelevance. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK then. Trying to put the 30% in the para. Vlakovod (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Minor clarification
Proposal: modify "Javid subsequently received a death threat referring to Robinson" to "Javid subsequently received a conditional threat to be 'hung, drawn and quartered' if anything happened to Robinson". Reasoning: Wayne Kirby's Facebook post was idle. "A threat for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient" does not seem to be really a "death threat". Contrary to fatwa on Robinson. Vlakovod (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A death threat is a death threat.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tautology is tautology. A threat for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient is a threat for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient. Vlakovod (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That can be said of all death threats, the difference between those and (say) a threat to punch you in the face and a death threat, is the threat of death.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Still, the "death threat" seems to be Wikipedia's own opinion, a shortcut shifting the sense. It is not the wording of the sources or what he was arrested for or sentenced for. And, definitely, it was conditional.Vlakovod (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok then. Trying to modify it. Vlakovod (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The modification reverted. All right. So again. "Death threat" is not what the sources say. They say threatening, abuse, threatening and abusive comments, harassment and abuse, threatening, offensive comments, threat, threat was "silly and ignorant", this type of abuse, threat for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient… Vlakovod (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with "hung, drawn and quartered"? Vlakovod (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with repeating what he was charged with and prosecuted for?Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong. Thanks. Vlakovod (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

"Robinson's manager, Caolan Robertson, ..." — let's consider "Caolan Robertson, then Robinson's cameraman, ... ", it might be closer to the reality. Vlakovod (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A source "The claims originate from Tommy Robinson's 'manager', a man called Caolan Robertson.".Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. A 'manager' is not a manager (unquoted). 'Manager' is somehow meaningless. I will add sources and come back here.Vlakovod (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but we do not know why they choose to word it like that. They are quoting someone, but who?Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Robertson's own words, e.g. in InfoWars*) or Daily Wire. Quoted 'manager' appeared e.g. in Cambridge News and Mirror. Probably the best explanation by Russia Today: "cameraman and self–styled manager". I've added Vice source to Article. Suitable? Vlakovod (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC) *) InfoWars is on black list, so "infowars dot com slash" "tommy-robinson-fears-for-his-life-after-being-moved-to-heavily-muslim-populated-prison/" Vlakovod (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All rather depends what for, it does not say he is not his manager and a person can be more then one thing (tanning salon manager, football hooligan, convicted fraudster).Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, but not the point. "Conspiracy" InfoWars claimed manager. "RS" Cambridge News copied it, using scare quotes, without explanation. Neutral cameraman seems to be a good solution. Vlakovod (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Or manger in quotes like the RS do, its what they say. or "camerman and 'manager.".Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As you pointed out, we do not know what the source meant by the quoting marks. Why should we define an unknown Caolan Robertson by another unknown ' manager '? Vlakovod (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Err we are not defining it we are repeating what an RS said. RS have said he was a "manager" so should we.Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, we are repeating an RS. But we are expected to select some meaningful information too, right? Vlakovod (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that would violate wp:or, we do not second guess what RS really meant.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No intention to violate WP:OR. If we should repeat he was a 'manager' , let's do it. Primary concern was: manager (unquoted) is not what the source said. Anything else might improve the Article. Vlakovod (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

PJ Watson
"This falsehood was also propagated by ... " — Contentious, unsourced. Deleted. Vlakovod (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC) corr name Vlakovod (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Nazi salutes
"Demonstrators prevented a Muslim woman from driving a bus,[147] performed Nazi salutes, threw scaffolding, glass bottles and street furniture at police and damaged vehicles and buildings.[148]" The source says "Tommy Robinson supporter gives Nazi salute in Whitehall". The video shows one supporter. It seems there were approximately one. Proposal: "Demonstrators prevented a Muslim woman from driving a bus,[147] threw scaffolding, glass bottles and street furniture at police and damaged vehicles and buildings, one performed Nazi salute(s).[148]" Vlakovod (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * One source "Supporters were filmed giving Nazi salutes", what you refer to is the caption to the video, that however is not what the text says.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's correct. Emeraude (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are right, they were apparently more than one. The second one was in Belfast. Vlakovod (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

2005 assault conviction clarification
The infobox and section of Robinson's 2005 assault conviction would benefit from clarification, not least to state what the charges he was convicted of.

Convieniently, Robinson's trial is reported in some detail in ''Spencer, John R (2016). Evidence of Bad Character. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing.'' from page 301 onwards. This is an academic legal source which provides considerably more detail than any other source cited on this incident. This notes that Robinson (under the name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) was convicted on two counts: assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assault with intent to resist arrest (section 47 and section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 respectively). It also notes that he recieved two sentences (12 months and 3 months) which were served concurrently.

The extract is available on google books for anyone interested to look it up. It also includes more detail about the circumstances than any other source I've seen.

I would suggest replacing "c.2005: assault[1][2][3][4]   12 months' prison[3][1][2][4]" in the infobox with: "2005: assault occasioning actual bodily harm, assault with intent to resist arrest    12 months and 3 months imprisonment (concurrent) "

I would also suggest replacing "In April 2005, Robinson was convicted of assaulting an off-duty police officer who had intervened to protect Robinson's girlfriend from Robinson.[1][2][3] He was imprisoned for 12 months.[3][1]" with "In April 2005 at Luton Crown Court, Robinson was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assault with intent to resist arrest against an off-duty police officer in July 2004. The officer had intervened in a argument in the street between Robinson and his then girlfriend, Jenna Vowles. In the struggle that followed, Robinson kicked the officer in the head on the ground. Robinson recieved a sentence of 12 months and 3 months, which were served concurrently.

MegaPowerTape (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's very useful. I agree with your proposal. I'd also suggest linking to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assault with intent to resist arrest. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a Conservative Member
From what I understand Robinson has not joined the Conservative Party, currently the only source is from the Morning Star however there is no mention of it in any other media outlets. Also there are news articles saying his membership card photo has been faked. There is a link to this below. I therefore propose to remove the text saying that he is a member of the Conservative Party. C. 22468 Talk to me  23:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Other publications state (perhaps more carefully) that Tommy Robinson has "claimed" to have joined the Conservative Party, but the statement in this article remains notable regardless of if he has obtained party membership or not. memphisto 13:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see the objection, we can claim what he likes. But in the info bow we claim it is a fact (its not), it is only his claim.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't spot that this was also repeated in the infobox, so my comments really only refer to the statement in the main text. memphisto 16:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No reason to put up a list of his convictions on top of the article
Its pretty left-wing biased.

80.131.60.85 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It merely duplicates content from the body of the article. One or the other should be deleted. Vgy7ujm (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The lede, and the infobox, are both intended to be summaries of the body. Some redundancy is desirable, because the purpose is specifically to provide a quick overview of the rest of the article. Including only positive details in the lede would be non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To add, they summerise important aspects of an subject, its clear that at least some of his criminality is a significant part of his image.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The convictions are summarized in the infobox, the introductory section, and in its own section further down. Providing the same information in triplicate in one article appears to be non-neutral overkill.Vgy7ujm (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really, as the first two are a summarize of the third. We do this in most large articles (and even a few small ones, its common practice.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly how the infobox and lead section are supposed to work. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Drug conviction
Drug convictions are mentioned in the body text but there are no details or supporting evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S C Cheese (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * [] is already used as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a doubtful source, because: "I was absolutely steamboated, I don’t even remember ... It’s cringe.". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's try to compare two sources:
 * "The far-right activist [Tommy Robinson], who has several criminal convictions and in 2014 admitted to possessing 3.48 grams of cocaine with intent to supply, [...]", The Independent, 13 Feb 2019.[]
 * "Also in the dock was Steven Vowles, 26, of Bushmead, Luton, who admitted conspiring with others to obtain a mortgage by misrepresentation and transferring criminal property. He also admitted possessing 3.48 grams of cocaine with intent to supply  [...].", BBC, 23 Jan 2014, on mortgage case.[]
 * It seems to be really independent journalistic data processing. I am not trying to suggest there is not drug issue here. But puting "drug possession" to his "criminal records" does not seem to be justified.Vlakovod (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not, if he admitted to it (as an offence within the meaning of the act)?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong infobox is being used
This article uses the criminal biography infobox. Although Robinson has been convicted on more than one occasion, that is incidental to his work as an activist. The infobox should be changed to the default person biography version. To quote from the criminal bio template

"Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies. This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals."Vgy7ujm (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have much of an opinion on the matter (except that "activist" is perhaps too kind), but "convictions for violence, financial and immigration frauds, drug possession and public order offences. He has been committed to prison for contempt of court. He has served at least three separate terms of imprisonment: in 2005 for assault, in 2012 for using false travel documents to enter the United States, and in 2014 for mortgage fraud. In May 2018, Robinson was committed to prison for 13 months for contempt of court"--that's quite a rap sheet. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Although his convictions may be "incidental to his work as an activist" they are not incidental to an understanding of Robinson as a repeat-offender criminal. I think it's open to debate as to which of these he's best known for. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The template usage guide also goes on to say "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." And media coverage of Robinson is far more focused on his brushes with the law, than his role as an "activist". memphisto 23:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is more an indication of media bias than any significant criminality on Robinson's part.Vgy7ujm (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree it should not be used. If Robinson were not a political activist, his criminal activities would not establish notability. TFD (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I am very much in two minds, as I suspect he is a football hooligan (thus criminal) who figured out that dressing his hooliganism up as political activism would get him some sympathy. I also suspect (after all he is not exactly unique in being a far right loud mouth) that without his criminal activity he would not be quite as prominent as he is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, and would add that his criminality is not confined to football-related hooliganism. It's certainly not a BLP issue to say he's a criminal. So, in two minds, that although it may be desirable I don't see that it is necessary to alter the infobox template. Emeraude (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It's possible the trial became a catalyser, a materialization of the debate about the limits of the freedom of the press, and to a lesser extent of equality before the law (in the same way the Dreyfus affair didn't gain popular traction because of the crime himself; but because the trial became the materialization of a societal slit between those who believed justice was driven by systemic antisemitism, and led to an unfair trial (regardless of Dreyfus' guilt), and those who (for various reasons) thought Dreyfus only got what he deserved). Whether of not we can fully agrees with my previous hypothesis, there's probably thousands of people being charged with contempt of court in the UK (for example for insulting a magistrate because they are not happy with the verdict, etc.), so I can't see how such unremarkable crime *in and of itself* could be the reason one can gain international popularity and/or notoriety. --Han O&#39;Neem (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The ways he came to be known initially aren't what he's primarily known for nowadays. In the same way, the military history of Hitler during WW1 played a major role in his engagement as a politician, however I don't think we should use the template "War Hero" for Adolf Hitler's article. Han O&#39;Neem (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The difference is Hitler used his military past as a political foot hold, Harris has tried to hide his (and it is still very much part of who he is, we have a huge section on his crime (one of them) and his attempts to portray himself as a victim).Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said in the past, the use of infobox criminal and the exhaustive listing of his criminal record in the infobox isn't ideal and has problems with WP:NPOV. I would be happy to use infobox person and to trim back some of the criminal convictions.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that his criminal past has been gone into at some length by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but all of the convictions in the infobox? This was previously discussed at Talk:Tommy_Robinson_(activist)/Archive_3.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought the issue was which infobox to use.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to go back to infobox person. The listing of all of the convictions in the infobox is a separate but related issue.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So, how we proceed form there? Is there a pull-request system to allow non-validated users to contribue? --Han O&#39;Neem (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand why whether or not he tried to hide his criminal record should play any role in the selection of an adequate main template. Again, I don't think he's primarily known for his acts of violence and/or contempt of court (at least not in and of itself). His criminal record has nothing particularly remarkable per se; at least not to the point of turning someone into an international public figure. He's known for his activism much more than for being a criminal (and/or a martyr), and I don't think it's Wikipedia's role to try to change what people are known for. (Also the "criminal" template is inconsistent with the article's title, which describes him as an "activist" rather than a "criminal"). Han O&#39;Neem (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "I don't think he's primarily known for his acts of violence and/or contempt of court (at least not in and of itself).". Well, I think he is primarily known for those. "His criminal record has nothing particularly remarkable per se". The contempts of court are particularly remarkable and received considerable coverage and are merely the latest in a string of serious criminal offences. This isn't parking on a double yellow line! Emeraude (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Without the contempt I would almost agree, except the rest of his criminal past has received a lot of attention in its own right. But the contempt puts this into a whole new game, international coverage, and impact.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Tommy Robinson was already a public figure before being prosecuted for ignoring the mediatic blackout regarding the trial of an Islamic pedophile rings, and cover it live on Facebook. As a matter of fact he already had 400,000 followers on that platform at that time.
 * Robinson received international media coverage over the contempt conviction in May 2018 because the UK media was initially banned from reporting the fact that he had been sent to prison. Inevitably it leaked out via the foreign media, and led to Robinson portraying himself as a free speech martyr even though he had broken the previous court order not to comment on trials while they were in progress.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's be real: the international press wouldn't have talked about it if he would've been arrested for filming witnesses of a car thief against the court order... The press only talked about it because he's been arrested for filming Muslim pedophiles against the court order, in a context where talking about Muslim pedophile rings wasn't politically correct. If you think contempt of court in and of itself is the reason of his fame, then why all the people that have been convicted for contempt of court weren't subject to the same media coverage? --Han O&#39;Neem (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hardly neutral of you to accept the argument of Robinson's supporters. It was nothing to do with political correctness - the press was and is having a field day on similar trials - and everything to do with prejudicing that trial while in progress and others linked to it. Emeraude (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hardly neutral to consider that to be Robinson's argument when there's now evidences the British gov put pressure on the police to try to hide the activities of these pedophile rings. Anyway, The default position should be to use the "person" template unless we can establish he's primarily known for being a criminal (which seems unlikely since most criminals charged for the same crimes don't become famous/infamous). Otherwise, We could use the same argument to change Nelson Mandela's template to "Criminal", completely ignoring his activities as an activist and a political leader, simply because he got lot of media coverage for being imprisoned for his crimes... Han O&#39;Neem (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I find any comparison of Robinson with Nelson Mandela quite bizarre, although also wholly irrelevant here of course. I don't see any mention of "pedophile rings" in this article. Are you suggesting one should be added? But I don't quite see how failings of the government and/or the police in this regard might excuse Robinson of his shameful criminal thuggery. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not comparing Mandela and Robinson, nor am I interested in excusing anything. I have no interest in using Wikipedia as a device for some karmic justice, and I simply think Wikipedia should uphold to his objective of neutrality. Now that I have (hopefully) cleared my intent, let me reassess my point so you could appreciate them in a whole new light... I'm asserting that the "person" template is the default position, so when there opposition against diverging for that default position, it should be the side supporting the exception (ie: the "criminal" template) that should provide proofs showing the subject is indeed primarily known for a specific activity. Your side provided press articles as evidence that Robinson's criminal activity is public knowledge and I appreciate that; however establishing that the press covered Robinson's criminal activities isn't enough to establish that's the main reason why Robinson is publicly known. To establish this was a non-sequitur, I've used the following argument: thousands of people were convicted for the same crimes, and yet they don't have such renown. On top of that, I've provided a precedent de-facto "ruling": Nelson Mandela's article tends to show that Wikipedia recognizes the fact that even if there's an important press coverage of criminal activities, it is not enough to define the subject of that article as being primarily a criminal. Now that I've clarified my intentions, I hope you will be able to appreciate my arguments on their face value. (PS: as for the "pedophile rings" formulation, I'm not a native speaker so I'm not completely familiar with all the euphemisms and/or legal terms being used in English to qualify such a thing. I think the article should use whatever nomenclature is most adequate; however I will continue to use the simpler "pedophile rings" formulation within this talk page) --Han O&#39;Neem (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can understand your point. But his level of offending is such that I think the criminal template has become justified. He's no longer just a "political activist". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "Tommy Robinson 'arrested over assault at Center Parcs pool" (The Independent, 3 March 2020.) No comment. Emeraude (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that the Independent (nor the Mirror) didn't provide the alleged motive for this presumed assault. Since there is no mention of any motive in any sources considered "reliable" by Wikipedia, this information cannot be added here (and by "information" I mean the alleged motive; not the assault, which I'm sure will be added to the article, if that's not already the case). Of course I have no doubt this is only an accidental oversight, rather than an intent to use Wikipedia's loopholes to try to censor a crucial piece of information on the matter. --Han O&#39;Neem (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Now, as Robinson knows, for the media to provide that sort of information after he's been charged would prejudice a trial and would be a contempt of court.''... Emeraude (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * One wonders if this will get "filtered out". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson is not far right
Tommy Robinson is not far right and by labelling him as such, continues the lie perpetuated and echoed by the main stream media. This needs to be rectified on the main article or risk being as believable as the fake news that has been proven false multiple times. Black Knight99 (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And we reflect what RS (see wp:v) say. Do you have an RS that say he is not in fact far right?Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that Reuters disagrees with you. Do you have a single source of any kind that argues "Tommy Robinson is not far right"? I'd be interested to see it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He is at least in Dutch media, also main stream media, described as an anti-Islam activist. Link: https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/2141880/wilders-steunt-martelaar-van-arbeidersklasse . The problem in the UK is that anti-Islam is seen as far right. In other parts of the worlds it is not. E.g. the Iranian socialists would say similar things about islam as Tommy Robinson. And they are described as far left. If you want to classify anti-Islam as far right, be my guest. But anti-Islam activism has nothing to do with fascism or national socialism, and wears out the whole term 'far right' IMHO.  AntonHogervorst (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear: Robinson is not right wing because he is anti-Islam; he is right wing AND anti-Islam, and the article is quite clear on this. Emeraude (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Lets be clear [] whilst no t Harris himself it is his organisation that targeted people who were brown and wore turbans. It is not just that he is anti Islam, but also his attacks on the media, on our justice system, the undermining of (what he sees as) traditional English values (and the discredited theory of white genocide). He takes much of his rhetoric from the far-right copy book. So he is called far-right.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I do not agree. He has used examples of Sikhs and people from India to support his anti Islam statement e.g. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qITyUwl8LxU) Look I know you won't change it anyway, and that the English Wikipedia community is ideologically biased in this, but it is just not the truth. By the way, I challenge you then: refer to an activist from Europe or the USA in Wikipedia who is anti-Islam and not 'automatically' described as far right. Furthermore, you can dislike anti Islam statements if you like, just as some people strongly dislike the 'real' far right, the fascists, but these are just different circles. In my humble opinion, it just goes like this: he is anti Islam, I don't like that, so I call him a fascist. Which by now is OK with me, because many people are just seeing through this, and don't care about the label any more. That is the 'wearing out of the label fascist'. AntonHogervorst (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "I don't like that, so I call him a fascist." Er... Might it not be the reverse: "He is a fascist, therefore I don't like him..."? Get the arguemnt the right way round. Which is not to say that Robinson is a fascist.Emeraude (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh sure. You know, I cannot take Wikipedia serious any more on political subjects reading this. It is not an encyclopedia, it is has become a political platform for SJW to libel people they don't agree with. It's a joke! Like said, more and more people are seeing this. AntonHogervorst (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And when some RS agree with this come back here and ask for us to reflect them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are RS that describe him as an anti-Islam activist. Nevertheless the term far-right is used 14 times, if I counted right, and the term anti-Islam 3 times. This at the least is not balanced. If I would write something about TR I would mainly describe him as an anti-Islam activist. Not placing 'far-right' in every sentence where I can put it. And I know you are now going to use the argument that we should only talk about this article, my apologies in advance for that, but it was I see constantly happening. An organisation like Hope not Hate accuses someone, and only a few hours later, the 'antifa users' start their work in Wikipedia. Person A is a neonazi, put on top of the lemma. Person B knows person A, also it is put in the lemma that person B knows a neonazi. And so on. In the end everybody is a neonazi, and as their main characteristic too. Do we want that? I would not write that way. AntonHogervorst (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't realise SJW were that interested. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! No I mean there are a sort of 'antifa users' on Wikipedia at the moment that try to connect any opinion they do not like to neonazism. Look at this one for example. Now it is good, but for months the first sentence read 'she is a holocaust denier!!!'. See the history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingrid_Carlqvist  AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, as we go with what RS call him, do you have any RS that say he is not far right?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dutch RS, sure! Not having the illusion you will ever change something in the lemma but if you are interested:
 * NOS calls him anti Islam  https://nos.nl/artikel/2293039-anti-islamactivist-tommy-robinson-veroordeeld-tot-negen-maanden-cel.html
 * Telegraaf calls him islam critical https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/2375832/tommy-robinson-weer-vrij-man
 * Elsevier calls him islam critical https://www.elsevierweekblad.nl/buitenland/achtergrond/2018/05/ophef-om-arrestatie-islamcriticus-tommy-robinson-618634/
 * Tubantia call him islam critical https://www.tubantia.nl/almelo/burgemeester-almelo-over-anti-islam-toespraak-ruimte-voor-politieke-mening-moet-er-zijn~afb3bf66/
 * AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And euhm, reading your comment on my personal page: You == Wikipedia in general, hey. Not meant as specifically to you Slatersteven. Personal Attack and stuff like that. No, no. It is far more genral than you. AntonHogervorst (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Read wp:v a source has to say it, not not say something else. Not all sources say the sea is wet, that does not mean they are saying it is not wet.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I am not going to put any more time in this. Because even if I do find it, you're going to say the majority of reliable sources ... et cetera. Frankly I have lost confidence in Wikipedia as a political neutral source already a few years ago. If 'Wiki abbreviations' will be thrown against me as a result of this statement, so be it. My apologies! AntonHogervorst (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should put more time into finding sources. You could, for example, very easily find this Dutch source which refers to Robinson as "omstreden, rechtse activist-journalist Tommy Robinson" ("controversial, right-wing activist-journalist Tommy Robinson", De Telegraaf, 27 May 2018). Or you could actually read the sources you yourself have given: the Elsevier article calls him "de rechtse activist" ("the right-wing activist") and NOS notes that he is the founder of the "extreem-rechtse" ("extreme right") EDL. Emeraude (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So it says mainly right winged, anti islam. Not 'fascist on every second sentence' like this article. And about: "Or you could actually read the sources you yourself have given", this is so typical of the 'liberal group' in Wikipedia. Accusing me of not having a positive attitude towards other contributors if I say you don't like, then ... No surprise, I know you guys on Wikipedia by now. Like said, not taking Wikipedia as a source seriously any more for a few years already. And no, I am not going to devote too much time to your project. Wikipedia is just biased and everybody knows that by now. AntonHogervorst (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * So we're agreed: Tommy Robinson is far right. Emeraude (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverting back unwanted opinions Slater Steven? Give me a break! AntonHogervorst (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go back over this forums archives to see where I stand.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I most certainly know where you stand Steven Slater! AntonHogervorst (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And, just to be clear, nowhere in Wikipedia's article does it say that Robinson is fascist. Emeraude (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Agreed. But that is the whole vague thing about 'far right', how do you define it? It is a sort of collective term of very loosely coupled political currents. Therefore in my opinion calling Tommy Robinson 'anti islam' is more accurate. My objection for article then is: Why overuse this label 'far right'. I can tell you the reason, but if so I will get banned I think. AntonHogervorst (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we close this now, it is not going anywhere and is just being used as a soapbox now.Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)