Talk:Joshua Bonehill-Paine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Joshua Bonehill)

Infobox parameters[edit]

I have added the place of residence to the infobox, and assume that other information relevant to the article, including place of birth and relatives and others, might be added as well. I also believe it would be reasonable to add the "criminal-charge, criminal-penalty, criminal-status" parameters as well. According to the template documentation, those parameters are only to be added when a person is "convicted." I am not sure exactly how that term applies right now, with a guilty plea in place and sentencing awaiting, but at the same time I can't see any reason to rush the inclusion, considering how little time there is before the sentence is expected to be announced. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image?[edit]

There are a couple, admittedly, not really good images here which could used for this article, I think. I think at least one online BBC story has one as well, but I imagine it is probably owned and not PD. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We had a picture uploaded by himself, but it was deleted for some reason. I think we can trust that even a criminal like Bonehill wouldn't have to steal an image of himself '''tAD''' (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is in the Commons deletion request; it seems Bonehill uploaded the image claiming it to be his "own work", but he can't have been the photographer if he was in the photo at the same time. If he had permission from the photographer to release the image under a CC licence, then he should have specified this and credited the photographer when uploading it. For all we know this was a press shot whose copyright remains with the photographer, who wouldn't appreciate it being distributed under a CC licence for free commercial reuse. --McGeddon (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those flickr pics are photoshopped in order to present Bonehill in a negative way, and are not free to use. So they're not really appropriate here '''tAD''' (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that, but thought maybe the "Battleship" at the pub image might be a real, if rather strange, one. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But none of these pictures are CC-licenced, they're all marked as "(C) All Rights Reserved". Wikipedia can only use appropriately licenced images. --McGeddon (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a photoshop of him "playing" chess with a mate and claiming he was playing it with a war veteran '''tAD''' (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mention change in ideology?[edit]

While his Daily Bale was mere libel, and anti "PC" (a characteristic shared with the entire right wing including but not limited to Conservative politicians and mainstream press), the article could mention that his new website joshuabonehill.net favours Nazism, with National Front links on the side, antisemitism and even promoting forced eugenics. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


My lost edits - GB fan[edit]

You've removed all my edits that I've just spent three and a half hours doing. I know some of them had issues, I know I duplicated some sections (an accident via c&ping the script), but I fixed most of it eventually and huge chunks that you've removed were properly sourced and referenced, such as his date of birth and various quotes from newspapers. Before I edited it to the correct date there was confusion over which year it was. I'll stick my edits on here and you can all figure out what you want to do with them, because I've spent the last two evenings attempting to update the article and apart from the section on Stamford Hill and the addition of his full name, I have nothing now to show for it. :( Ed4444 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed a paste of the whole article to the talk: page. I've some sympathy for the comment above, but pasting the article onto the talk: page isn't the way to proceed with this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, pasting duplicate sections into the main article wasn't much better. If anyone feels the urge, it would be useful to pick the expanded sections out of this and straighten it out properly. However as an expedient way to fix gross duplication, I can't fault GB fan's rollback here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I thought it would just leave the code and instead it posted the page. :/ I actually combined some of the duplicate sections, viz the one about him facing trial in February 2015 for the alleged Ebola hoax, of which there were two examples. I also put all the alleged hoaxes into one category, the political activism into another and merged the articles about Nigel Farage and Luciana Berger, seeing as they both involved some sort of malicious communications. The article was a bit of a muddle with a lack of delineation. The duplicate sections were pure accident. For some reason when I copied the script on the page to a word file I ended up with two copies that upon editing and pasting back onto the page, both ended up on there for a couple of minutes, before I re-edited the page again. Ed4444 (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on your talk page right after I reverted edits, you can read the information. I think you should take it in smaller pieces so it doesn't happen again. Also you need to make sure you don't add unreliable sources information into the article. The only reason I reverted was I was having a hard time figuring out how to fix it with the correct information. -- GB fan 00:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2015[edit]

Request the article is deleted under the various publicity for criminals/written by the subject and is an orphan entry rules. FiveGoMadInSE23 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Requesting for article deletion isn't done in such way. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Note that this article has been nominated twice already. See the boxes above in this page. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015[edit]

As pointed out in the Guardian, Mr Bonehill Paine outed himself as having made the comments against Ms Monroe. The article is [1] and was confirmed on Mr Bonehills website 195.167.217.42 (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC) 195.167.217.42 (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/25/jack-monroe-twitter-abuse-man-re-bailed
For now, the police seem to be sticking with a "22-year-old man from Yeovil Somerset", as is common practice for people who have been arrested. Bonehill's comments on his website have already been mentioned here for several days cited to the earlier Independent article. Today's Guardian article still only implies Bonehill is accused of sending the tweets which, as Bonehill is not a reliable source (even about himself), I think we should stick to for now. Anything else risks counting as an interpretation (see WP:SYNTH).Philip Cross (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015 arrest[edit]

He is now under arrest again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.73.16 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.met.police.uk/news/man-charged-with-inciting-racial-hatred-121863 Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Evening Standard also covered it, I added it to the article earlier. --McGeddon (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitic statements[edit]

His comments are hardly WP:PRIMARY when what is being discussed is his statements. And his "absolute gas" statements have garnered significant attention. Bellezzasolo (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Bellezzasolo (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person's own blog is unambiguously a WP:PRIMARY source, and hate speech hits the "self-serving" and "third parties" flags of WP:SELFPUB. If a statement someone has made on their blog has gotten attention in a reliable secondary source, use that source instead. --McGeddon (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they're primary. If they've "garnered significant attention", then where was that and can we use that as WP:RS? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon: http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/138491/joshua-bonehill-paine-charged-over-antisemitic-blog-post-0

And I've seen twitter cited, so:

File:Joshua Bonehill-Paine shoah wish.png
Joshua Bonehill-Paine shoah wish

- would this be acceptable? I am trying to find secondary sources reffering to this. UPDATE: https://twitter.com/IdoDaniel/status/582172804797198336 Bellezzasolo (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the article really needs any particular troll quote here, even if the Jewish Chronicle did quote it along with the rest of his post. It certainly weakens the paragraph to follow the previous endnote of "was arrested for inciting racial hatred" with "furthermore, he made a joke on his blog", so I've moved it back a bit.
Pointing out that he made a joke "despite" an earlier talk-radio call of his saying something else is WP:OR, again, and a call he made to a radio station is a WP:PRIMARY. I've cut that bit. (And citing Twitter is the same as citing a blog, as above - see WP:BLOGS.) --McGeddon (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luciana Berger[edit]

Or in this case Luciana Berger. Joshua Bonehill-Paine is charged with harassment of Wavertree M.P Berger. Why isn't it on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.73.62 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is now in the middle of the "Hoaxes and internet trolling" section. A new development, it has limited coverage so far. Your original heading of "Simon Danczuk" was odd, so I have changed it. Philip Cross (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now has its own section. Philip Cross (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mass loss of sources[edit]

The domain hosting the Western Gazette has shut down, and operations have moved to "Somerset Live". The titles can still be searched, but result in dead links, suggesting that maybe the stories are intended to be moved to a new address. If this doesn't happen any time soon, the links should be archived, or when possible the information should be sourced from elsewhere. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denier category[edit]

A user has recently added Category:British Holocaust deniers to the base of the article. While Bonehill has certainly practised Holocaust denial on his website (easily confirmed, but I am not providing a link), this does not seem to have been mentioned in any usable secondary sources about him. The article, at this stage, does not indicate explicitly that he is a denier, a requirement for the use of any category. Certainly a marginal decision to remove, however, as trivialising the Holocaust might be considered enough for the use of this category. For this reason, I have chosen not to remove it for now. Philip Cross (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent surname usage[edit]

I attempted to make the article consistent, and was spasm reverted. My point remains that the article is inconsistent:

Bonehill

  1. Bonehill has described himself as being "a proud anti-Semite"
  2. Bonehill was described as an "internet troll" by the prosecutor at a 2014 court hearing
  3. Bonehill was sentenced to a 12-month community order
  4. In 2013, Bonehill announced plans
  5. In February 2014, Bonehill appeared in court
  6. That September, Bonehill announced
  7. Also that year, Bonehill released
  8. By 2015, Bonehill was reportedly
  9. Bonehill stated in an interview
  10. In April 2014, Bonehill was sentenced to
  11. which Bonehill later said had been written
  12. In October 2014, Bonehill was investigated by police
  13. it was reported that Bonehill had been arrested
  14. with Bonehill participating via a video link
  15. The court was told that Bonehill had posted
  16. His defence counsel said Bonehill would not
  17. Bonehill was convicted of racially-aggravated harassment
  18. Bonehill was due to be charged in St Albans
  19. Bonehill was tried at Stevenage Magistrates' Court
  20. Bonehill claimed to have been the man arrested
  21. Bonehill did not admit responsibility
  22. Bonehill pleaded not guilty to a charge of harassment
  23. Bonehill called for a "mass protest"
  24. which Bonehill falsely asserts
  25. spokesman said that Bonehill had
  26. resulted in Bonehill
  27. Bonehill was arrested on suspicion
  28. Bonehill announced his intention
  29. Bonehill was convicted of inciting racial hatred
  30. Bonehill was held at HM Prison Manchester

Bonehill-Paine

  1. In February 2015, Bonehill-Paine
  2. a poster on Bonehill-Paine's website
  3. the length of Bonehill-Paine's sentence

So what possible good reason is there for maintaining those three uses of Bonehill-Paine? 2A02:C7D:3CBD:3100:F490:D52D:DE9E:A4E8 (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed those three uses of Bonehill-Paine so the word Bonehill is used in the text, apart from at the top of the article. The previous discussions @Andy Dingley: refers to in his edit summary (on the Talk:Archive 1 page) are inconclusive as to an agreed usage. Philip Cross (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should go the other way as we normally use the last name used in the article title. This is probably a leftover from the old article name. The article was moved from Joshua Bonehill to Joshua Bonehill-Paine in Dec 2014 as the result of a requested move discussion, Talk:Joshua Bonehill-Paine/Archive 1#Requested move 10 December 2014. - GB fan 17:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But sources do not use Paine, and Bonehill-Paine is a mouthful. Philip Cross (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are some that don't use -Paine but looking at the sources used in the article most of them do use -Paine. - GB fan 17:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • His prison record is under the name Bonehill-Paine. As that's what his notability rests upon, that's what we should use. I know that he, his many IP socks, and at least one of his sympathisers have edited here to push his favoured form of "Bonehill", but the court favours Bonehill-Paine.[1][2] Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed them all to be consistent with the article title. The sources in the article mostly use Bonehill-Paine and that is what the article was moved to in December 2014. - GB fan 18:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joshua Bonehill-Paine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Middle name[edit]

The Daily Telegraph here gives his middle name as Mark. Should this be added? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joshua_Bonehill-Paine&oldid=1216349025"