Talk:Tommy Robinson

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2025

Source 262 is inactive. (Bailey, Luke (14 July 2018). "This hardline US conservative think tank says it's funding Tommy Robinson rallies in the UK". iNews. Archived from the original on 14 April 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2019.) 108.21.229.252 (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Marked link as dead - FifthFive (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Solitary confinement

HMP Woodill making Tommy visitors sign non-disclosure agreement contracts. https://x.com/Lewis_Brackpool/status/1875493505214362103 https://x.com/Lewis_Brackpool/status/1875573701644898482

Interesting to see that someone who critizises radical islamists and child exploitation has to be protected in prison from attacks. Do we know who the possible attackers are? Any analysis from our "trusted sources" perhaps? 2A02:3031:211:580E:E56D:E928:8457:573 (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Naming any attackers in the article would be contrary to WP:BLP and sub judice. Even naming them here would serve no useful purpose. I suggest this thread by hatted as WP:FORUM. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

ad 1) Solitary confinment is a quite radical measure and it should be in the interest of the public, and by extension Wikipedia, why this measure is necessary. My question is simply whether there has been any public analysis into this which could be included in this article. This has *nothing* to do with publishing "my own thoughts and analysis". The question is obvious. ad 2) I am not suggesting to name individuals but groups which may have an interest to attack Robinson 2A02:3031:211:580E:A917:DCA5:37E1:7468 (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You said: "Do we know who the possible attackers are?" How do we even know that there are "groups which may have an interest to attack Robinson", rather than random individuals who have a grudge against him? Furthermore, I don't believe that the internal policies of individual HM prisons are necessarily open to public scrutiny and debate. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

We are not investigative journalists. We do not do Original Research. If any Reliable Sources have written about this then this might be worth including but without sources it would just be us making stuff up and we are absolutely not allowed to do that. Given the obviously false framing of the question, I'm not even sure how serious this question is. We should not waste any further time on this unless some plausibly valid sources are suggested. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course, it could be that Robinson is under threat from pickpockets from Brighton, but the Independent has this daring idea: "Given his Islamophobic rhetoric, Robinson is likely to be kept separate from any Islamist prisoners." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-hmp-belmarsh-far-right-b2637364.html 2A02:3031:201:6976:DC87:7A78:BD9A:DDEC (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thus we can say he is in solitary, and why. What we can't do is do into any details. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, no one actually expects Wikipedia to notice the elephant in the room, namely that the UK has problems to protect a non-violent offender, like Robinson, from radical-islamic elemnts in their prison system. See Independent article above. 2A02:3031:201:6976:DC87:7A78:BD9A:DDEC (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Independent article relates to his brief stay in HMP Belmarsh. He is no longer an inmate there. Paul W (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Robinson is a "non-violent offender"? The article says:

• 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. He received sentences of 12 months and 3 months.
• In 2003 he was convicted of assaulting an off-duty police officer in a drunken argument for which he served a 12-month prison sentence.
• In 2011 Robinson was convicted of common assault after headbutting a fellow EDL member. He was given a 12-week jail term.

Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this obviously untrue "non-violent offender" nonsense is pretty much where I draw the line for considering Talk page content as trolling. If it wasn't for the fact that other people are making sensible points, which might actually lead to improvements to the article, I'd be rolling this whole section up citing WP:NOTFORUM and WP:DENY to discourage our anonymous friend from wasting any more of our time. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I was tempted to offer to add a link to pickpockets from Brighton. No objections to you hatting this thread, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You know, contempt of court is a CIVIL offence, not a CRIMINAL offence. And so he should not even be in a that category of prison.

https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/1875250808251674750/ 203.30.15.99 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, he is in protective custody rather than "solitary confinement" (the latter term is not used in the UK prison system - "segregation" is the preferred, and perhaps less emotive, term). Paul W (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the article mentions "care and separation unit", so maybe that phrase should be pipe linked? But that's probably as far as we need to go. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. That's a phrase that many British readers, and almost all non-British readers, will not understand without further explanation. If we can link it to an explanation then that will make it easy for them to find out if they want to. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have expanded the protective custody article to include a section about segregation facilities in England and Wales prisons, and updated the "care and separation unit" wikilink from the Robinson article so that it points to the relevant section. (Also no objections to this thread being hatted). Paul W (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Changed one instance of "kept in solitary confinement" to 'segregated' (latter is term used in Prison Service in England & Wales). Paul W (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

EDL image

Image is used @ http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tommy_Robinson Caption reads "Robinson with EDL demonstrators in Amsterdam in 2010" I make out a minimum of 12 people represented in the image. 4 or 5 could be the subject of the photo. Not sure the others pictured deserve to be associated, but I'll allow that's been settled. I simply think it should be clear why this image is featured in this article, and if the subject of the article is pictured, specify which person is the subject. If others can be identified, that should be clear also. 8.3.49.6 (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It is clear to me which of those people is Robinson. A glance at the lead image confirms it. The photo of Robinson in Amsterdam is to illustrate the European Defence League which is an offshoot of the English Defence League. You can suggest a better caption if you wish. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Caption amended. Paul W (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

"Mortgage Fraud" case

this is going absolutely nowhere - tldr no reliable sources cover this and so it won't be included -- ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/1876226815238283755 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.15.99 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC) This is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC) What? It has come straight from the person himself. So yes it is a very reliable source. If only state BBC propaganda is allowed, and no one is allowed to explain themselves what has happened, we're all screwed. 203.30.15.99 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Read wp:rs, and no his claim is not proof its true (after all what is his real name?). He pled guilty, and as such he is guilty, whatever he now says. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) It coming from the person is exactly why it's not a reliable source. See WP:PRIMARY. — Czello (music) 14:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) But no leftist legacy media will dare write an article about it because it would SUPPORT everything that Tommy has claimed. And they can't have that can they? So they ignore it, as have you. I just want you ignorant people to be aware of it, that's all. Good day!🙂 203.30.15.99 (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC) The article says this: "In November 2012, Robinson was charged with three counts of conspiracy to commit fraud by misrepresentation in relation to a mortgage application, along with five other defendants. He pleaded guilty to two charges and in January 2014 was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment." It's all fully sourced. What's to discuss? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Suggest you watch the video and educate yourself properly then.🙂 203.30.15.99 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC) What are you going to do? Delete it? Censor it? The lid has blown off this, the can of worms has been opened mate. There's no way on Earth you'll get them all back in the tin now mi'laddio. 203.30.15.99 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Untill RS talks about it there is. Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) The trouble is that all your "reliable sources" as you call them rather conveniently fail to disclose ANY highly relevant background information that supports Tommy. Funny that eh? 203.30.15.99 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Where's all this "relevant background information"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "What's to discuss?" Well why don't you watch the video and you'll find out what's to discuss. He made a plea deal. He was blackmailed into it by the police. But I guess you don't want to get red-pilled. So stay in the matrix then, go on. 203.30.15.99 (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Ah, I see. What independent evidence is there to corroborate that claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC) None. There is only Tommy's word against everyone else's. That's why he's had an uphill battle for at least the last 10 years or so. It's not fair, but there it is. 203.30.15.99 (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) So you are suggesting we add information which, by your own admission, has no evidence other than the word of a person for whom it would be beneficial? Seriously? — Czello (music) 14:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Yes I am perfectly serious. 203.30.15.99 (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Otherwise, only BBC and the Guardian etc can be quoted, and no one else. And that is discriminatory against all non-journalists. Isn't it? You are now openly discriminating against someone. I thought you were not meant to do that? Watch the video please. 203.30.15.99 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Not just uphill, I fear. But doomed to fail. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC) When RS talk about this claim we can until then there is nothing to discuss, so I will stop with a firm no. It reamains no until I say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC) I don't care what you say. Some of us are highly educated research professionals. And we know more about Tommy than you ever will. So there! 203.30.15.99 (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC) I'd have thought "highly educated research professionals" know better than to take Tommy's word for it. — Czello (music) 14:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Look, I'll have you know I have not one but FOUR tertiary degrees okay. One of them is a PhD. I'm probably more educated than you. Alright? I suggest you watch the video I posted and learn something. 203.30.15.99 (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Yes, it's quite apparent that you don't care. I'm intrigued to know which professional research body has decided to employ you. As you are so highly educated and that. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2025

Change "one of the UK's most prominent far-right activists" to "one of the UK's most prominent activists" unless there is an actual source that mentions why he is far-right (if so, leave it as is and change citation #4 to something that provides evidence). I don't doubt that he is, but citation #4 only claims that he is without any evidence (which I was looking for when clicking on the citation to hopefully have an article explaining why he's far-right, but didn't see any evidence) and would not be a valid source for such a claim. It's like taking the title of a news article calling someone a name and using that as a citation to say that they are that thing; it doesn't make sense. Thanks editors. 66.227.235.46 (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The Irish Times is a reliable source and is perfectly adequate to verify this assertion. In just the last two days, reliable sources like the Washington Post, the BBC and the New York Times have described Robinson as "far right". Cullen328 (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

He is not "far right".🙄 203.30.15.99 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

"Reliable sources like the BBC" HA! If that is not one organisation with its own agenda and reports what it's told to report I don't know what is RockFan321 (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

See the entry for BBC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Who do you think "tells the BBC what to report"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to a BBC interview where the person interviewed says that Tommy Robinson does not have far right views, that is a reliable source. Please update your locked article.🙂

"Speaking to the BBC's Andrew Marr, Gerard Batten said Mr Robinson was "not far right" and "doesn't have far-right views"

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-47926338 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.15.99 (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should update the article based on the opinion of one person who previously employed Robinson as a political advisor. Hardly a reliable individual view. Paul W (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No you should, you just don't want to. I have politely provided one BBC reference where the interviewee has stated Tommy Robinson is not far right. If you aren't even allowing links to people if they have talked to Tommy in person or if they have been associated with him in any way in the past, even if it's a BBC source reference, then it's total confirmation that you are clearly and openly biased. You just admitted it right here for everyone to see. What you want to say is that "only leftists who've never actually met him can have an opinion of Tommy Robinson, that's all we'll allow here, even if they are dead wrong". Is that what you want? Is that what wikipedia has spiralled down into?

The explanation for that 2019 clip, as given in the source? "UKIP leader Gerard Batten has defended his decision to to appoint the former English Defence League (EDL) leader Tommy Robinson as an adviser." I think that tells us all we need to know. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

As noted above, Batten is already mentioned/linked in the Robinson article. His personal opinion is not reliable, whether reported on the BBC or not, and does not alter the balance of coverage. As editors we seek to "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (WP:NPOV). Batten's opinion is not significant, and, as "views held by a tiny minority should not be represented", it can be disregarded. Paul W (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

What's not reliable are BBC editors, that's what. And wikipedia editors too it seems. So only *leftist* opinions and articles and LEFTIST journalists are allowed on here are they? Only leftists can decide what is "far right" and what is not. I mean, that is after all THEIR personal opinion, and they love to repeat it. Is that how this works? I'll have you know I used to be a leftist! Certainly not anymore though! 203.30.15.99 (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

"whether reported on the BBC or not"

What you really mean to say here is "It supports Tommy, so I the wikipedia overlord gatekeeper of information flow won't allow it". 😳 203.30.15.99 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Who do you think is the "the wikipedia overlord gatekeeper of information flow"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's still a reliable BBC source though. So you've -ONCE AGAIN- decided to selectively omit anything even remotely in support of Tommy, even one of your very own precious BBC articles/interviews. You do not even allow ONE reference in support of Tommy, not a single one!! My god how embarrassing.😳 203.30.15.99 (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No. I am simply adhering to Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP:NPoV. "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Batten's opinion remains a minority view. Paul W (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2025 (2)

It is not accurate to describe Tommy Robinson as anti-Islam, which brings this page into disrepute. He is anti-Islamist and that is significantly different. He has publically stated this many times. 188.77.234.6 (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Source needed as well as format change. Appreciate your good faith. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Where have you seen this article as being "in disrepute"? I see that the word anti-Islam is a piped link to Islamophobia. The Anti-Islam DAB page has five possible meanings. But looking at the References section here, four say "Anti-Islam" and one says "Ani-Islamic", but none says "Anti-Islamist"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you replied to the wrong comment. I also think the tone may come across a little harsh. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 20:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I intended to reply to this one. I was trying to clarify the range of relevant articles that exist. If you could point out where my tone is "a little harsh", I will gladly adjust. Although I note this request is now closed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

On second look, nothing is wrong- just a misinterpretation. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 20:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a misinterpretation, I'm afraid. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

He actually had a muslim lawyer until very recently, so no he is not anti-islam, nor anti-muslim. Anti-islamist at most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.15.99 (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. We say what the sources say, and they say anti-Islam. — Czello ^(music) 08:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

His lawyer? Did you mean this: "Tommy Robinson ‘sacked’ by Muslim tax advisor for ‘stoking far-right riots’"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes but the point is, you didn't previously know he even had a muslim lawyer did you? So now you know. You thought he was so "racist", that he would have discriminated against all muslims, and therefore not have a muslim lawyer. And yet he did. For several years in fact. So now we've LEARNED something NEW today, haven't we? And by "we" I really mean you.🤪 We'll educate you one at a time if we have to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.15.99 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Surely the first point is he wasn't a lawyer, he was a tax advisor. And the second point is that he Jesminara Rahman "sacked" Robinson? But your comment here borders on a personal attack. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It was a she, actually.🤦

My point is that -surprise- Tommy had hired a MUSLIM tax advisor.😆 203.30.15.99 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Is showing you up deemed a personal attack?😕 203.30.15.99 (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You (and your helpers?) offered to educate us all "one at a time". Is it only you here who is a "highly educated research professional"? I've adjusted my post about Jesminara Rahman, thanks. ~Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@203.30.15.99 and @Martinevans123. It appears that you are currently fighting. I am not taking sides, I would like you both-in one comment- to tell me what is wrong. @203.30.15.99, please watch the tone you are using. @Martinevans123 I know you are angry, and I am not criticizing that, but please remain polite. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 19:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The IP is right now on a ban. Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello User:3OpenEyes. No, I'm not anywhere near angry, thanks. And I believe I've been perfectly polite (please get a second opinion on that, from any other editor here, if you're not sure?) I believe IP 203 is a troll. But I stopped responding before they were blocked. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) p.s. I found most of their contributions quite laughable, not really worthy of any kind of ire.

Hi,

I have ASD, and as such at times it can be hard to interpret anger for me. Thank you for clarifying. I am glad this got resolved. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 20:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why isn’t the term rape gang used?

Jk Rowling has a point. This article uses the term “grooming” gang. 198.91.180.173 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Is that the same "point" as Mr Musk seems so keen to make? This edit has just changed "Huddersfield grooming gang" to "Huddersfield sex abuse ring". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Re that edit: The Huddersfield article title is now consistent with others on similar topics (eg: Halifax and Rochdale child sex abuse ring). While the term 'grooming' has been widely used by reliable sources reporting these cases, sexual grooming is child sexual abuse. Paul W (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Weasel words

The expression "It is understood that" is a weasel word, and furthermore the statement is not sourced. I'm surprised this is accepted in such a high-profile article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e0a:278:eb10:acad:6a45:4ff9:9680 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I have now attributed the claim. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Umm, you do realise that the entire article is a weasel article right? I think you know why.🙂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.15.99 (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No other editor, apart from you, has suggested that. What would you propose as the remedy? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

See what I wrote under this section "Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2025". Tommy is not even far right! Look, the article does come across as extremely weaselly, because you allow non-reliable leftist sources/reference such as Hope not Hate which are known to loathe all things Tommy.

You have a looong way to go to fix up this article. If not now then in 2028. The entire thing reads as one big smear/slander campaign. I don't even know where to begin. Tommy did not "almost collapse the Huddersfield sex abuse ring trial". Even your own source says that he "could have". But "could have" is not the same as "almost". The fact is, that information that he livestreamed was already in the public domain and there were no reporting restrictions on that trial, he checked. So no, he did not prejudice the trial in any way shape or form, in fact the deliberations were practically already over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.15.99 (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok, no real proposals then. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I do have plenty of proposals, but you simply keep ignoring them on purpose because it doesn't suit your agenda here. You are clearly not a neutral unbiased editor. Sure, keep it the way is now if you prefer. You can't hide the truth forever though can you? Well can TRY, but look how that's worked out so far. 152M views and counting. Isn't it marvellous? I bet you're just chomping at the bit to ban me LOL.😃

Do highly educated research professionals know how to sign their posts? The proposals you've made so far have all been rather vague or based on the use of non-neutral biased sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

They are now blocked. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Awwww, no more lovely smiley emojis? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why are wikipedia editors hiding and censoring all forms of discussion in support of Tommy?

Just now my edit was deleted. Expunged. Censored.

"Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor" (WP:Talk). They are not for discussion or personal opinions on "support of Tommy". Paul W (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Also new section go at the bottom of the page, not well hidden in the middle. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

But wait a minute! The page is crawling with anti-Tommy supporters. So that's a double standard right there. I support the truth. I don't care either way. I want a neutral unbiased factual scientific Tommy page. But if you lot keep censoring and deleting people from defending him in any way shape or form, THEN YES YOU WILL END UP WITH A CLEARLY LEFTIST-BIASED ARTICLE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU HAVE NOW. 203.30.15.99 (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If it's already here, we won't "end up with it". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is the original page locked until 2028?

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

---

And why, when I just asked this 5 minutes ago, and wrote several paragraphs about it, why was that information deleted/censored? You know, leftists do not have a monopoly on information, and if that's the way you want it, people will lose trust in wikipedia. In light of this documentary, you need to unlock the page and let people update the article. 152 million views is a lot, and at the very least, there should be a section in the page that states that Tommmy has made a documentary with 152 million views on it. Here is a reliable source that you all so want and crave: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/3/who-is-tommy-robinson-and-why-is-elon-musk-throwing-his-weight-behind-him https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/1817184820151070917

Ditto. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The thread above, headed "Mortgage Fraud" case, which you started, was collapsed because a number of people thought it was a worthless waste of time. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You people have been given too much power, honestly. 203.30.15.99 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You'd have more "power" to edit if you simply had a long-standing User account, instead of just an anonymous pop-up IP address. But if you still insisted on ignoring editing guidelines, you might soon find yourself blocked for being disruptive. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

We already have a section on this documentary in the article. So what exactly is it you want added from this Al Jazeera source? Just that it has a certain amount of views? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The number of views. 203.30.15.99 (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This part of the article: "In the film, Robinson repeats his defamatory claims about the boy."

This link: https://hopenothate.org.uk/2023/07/11/around-the-world-in-80-lies-the-story-of-tommy-robinsons-libels-lies-and-luxury-lifestyle/

Why is the link to hope not hate considered a "reliable source"? That is neither a journal, a book or a news site. It's a leftist activist site. That's not even remotely neutral. Don't you think you should remove that obvious bias? I mean, by your own editing guidelines and standards, that is not a reliable source. 😉

The boy was a known bully. So Tommy is the reliable source, not Hope not Hate.

Are you going to censor my comments now? 203.30.15.99 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is that number of views notable? What are we comparing with? Were they real views, or just access clicks? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you serious?🤨 Don't you think that is a significant number? Don't you think that is noteworthy? Or does everyone here like to downplay his apparent popularity? His support base is growing.😂 203.30.15.99 (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

So what are you comparing that figure with? The interwebs thing is quite a big place, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Go and fix up all the links to Hope not Hate! Hope not Hate is most definitely NOT a reliable source of information. They are not a reliable reference. They are a leftist charity for Pete's sake! They all need to be deleted post-haste!! That's for starters. 203.30.15.99 (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

wp:rsn has said otherwise, also see wp:rsp. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

How convenient. So you only allow leftist references. I get it now. Well then wikipedia is truly farked then.🤦‍♂️ 203.30.15.99 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You've offered the BBC as a reliable source here? Is that just a leftist propaganda machine? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Who else has a documentary with a HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION VIEWS ON IT?🤨

Nobody. It's only probably the most watched independently made documentary in the last decade! 203.30.15.99 (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No, hang on, that was the question I asked you. How exactly are going to justify "nobody"? Ah right, probably. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If you (the ip) is talking about views on X, then every timeline it has appeared in counts as a view. If it appeared on my timeline and I scroll past it, then that is counted as a view. Knitsey (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That puts a slightly different perspective on that number. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

So now you are intentionally minimising it. Because you can. Look, the more you keep trying to unfairly slandering and smearing Tommy, the more views it gets. See how that works now? It's blown up! There's no stopping it. Millions of people HAVE seen it. Millions. There is *nothing* on Earth you can do to stop it now. 203.30.15.99 (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Then, you need to state that it has been "scrolled past" 152.9 million times. Are you brave enough to write that, to put that little factoid in there? Or are you still trying to prevent even one more person from seeing it, from watching it? It's gone up 100k while you've been arguing over it. 203.30.15.99 (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Read wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Nah, I guess you didn't scroll past it. So it's had a least one legitimate view. Probably. Who knows, perhaps you've watched it more than once. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

(this would be a lot faster if you just swallowed the red pill already and watched the darn thing yourselves) 203.30.15.99 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no rush. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is a BBC-level reliable source with viewing statistics on the documentary Silenced:

"That film may have been viewed at least 47 million times."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c704eedkqkvo

Would you care to include that in your article on Tommy Robinson? Or are you once again going to leave that out and deem it "unimportant"? BBC thought it important enough to write about didn't they?

From the New York Times:

Is that a "reliable enough" reference source for you to include here I wonder? Or do you simply pick and choose and manipulate what info you want people to see?🤔

"He now has more than 1 million followers, and a video he posted there called “Silenced” has had 55 million views."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/26/world/europe/who-is-tommy-robinson-the-activist-behind-a-far-right-london-rally.html 203.30.15.99 (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That film may have been viewed at least 47 million times. May is important, because they are aware that scrolling past a video on your timeline is not a view, as in purposely clicking on the video. Knitsey (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

A Metaverse Prison Yard Virtual Video By Elon Musk.

Falcon 9's Landing by SpaceX.

Looking Into 2022 From Bill Gates.

Neymar's Dribbling.

Virat Kohli Practicing in Nets.

Ozark Season 4 Part 1 Trailer.

'AVE IT! ' by LADbible.

Ronaldo Playing Football with A Boy Without Legs.

These are the top 10, its not there. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, what a stunning collection. Who said civilisation was dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Here are the top 100 followed users [[1]], Harris is not there. Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

We have a whole section on it "6.2.1 Silenced". Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

We can close this IP blocked. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to hat this thread? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Edit reversion

22:33, 15 January 2025 diff hist +115 Tommy Robinson added writer & film maker with ref to film Tag: Reverted

I added the above edit a few days ago and it was promptly reverted. I am aware this article is designated as contentious, however I do not believe describing Robinson as writer & film maker is contentious. I included a reference of a professionally made documentary film to support this. RockFan321 (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Twitter is no good as a source. Do any Reliable Sources describe him as such? Let's face it, he's not exactly Leni Riefenstahl. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Funny, twitter seems to be OK as a source on a lot of Wikipedia pages? Does it really matter where it is, the film is there to be watched. You can see it as a professionally made film. And, it is a very valid film regarding Robinson and his current jail term.

The film is on IMDb also, which I understand to be pretty much THE film web encyclopedia. RockFan321 (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

No it is not, except where it is being used for what someone claims. And IMBD is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:RSPTWITTER for using Twitter as a source, WP:ABOUTSELF regarding the specific claims being made ("unduly self-serving" comes to mind), as well as WP:IMDB since you mentioned it. There is also WP:DUE to consider for the MOS:FIRST, but we haven't got that far yet based on lack of reliable sourcing for such a claim. Experienced editors could do well to provide consensus and policy links rather than vague arguments to new users that comes across as opinion not policy. CNC (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification @CommunityNotesContributor and the links. I'll look forward to having more clues and obviously read quite a lot between those perhaps dusty lines. RockFan321 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Musk financial support on legal fees

I have seen two sources (1, 2) reporting that Musk is funding Robinson's legal fees relating to two cases. Both appear to be based on a Twitter/X claim from Robinson's supporters, and Musk/his representatives have yet to publicly comment on the claim. At the moment, I think the claim amounts to hearsay so does not warrant inclusion. Paul W (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ye, I would not to see stronger sourcing to include this claim. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Also reported by The National and iNews. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)