This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bedfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bedfordshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BedfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject BedfordshireTemplate:WikiProject BedfordshireBedfordshire
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
I've noticed that Tommy Robinson's Telegram channel and group have been app store banned, but i don't know if there are any independent reliable sources for that. Can someone find some reliable independent sources on this fact? If so, state it in this article. 67.209.130.66 (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything about app store bans, though it was reported in March 2024 that Apple and Android mobile users' access to Robinson's Telegram channel had been blocked (source). I have added a sentence to the Social media bans section. Paul W (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Image is used @ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg?lang=en){kind=small}
Done Marked link as dead - FifthFive (talk) 06:53, 2 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)