Talk:Joshua Bonehill-Paine

Connected contributor

jooner29 is Joshua Bonehill and makes ludicrous claims about his importance on here as well as everywhere else he can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.40.52 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 20 November 2014‎ (UTC)

He has acknowledged that he's a connected contributor. As for any claims he makes here, that's why the WP:COI policy requires him (or really, any editor) to back claims up with reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not Mr. Bonehill, however I Myself am aware of him through political connections. I have provided citations to back up political claims in the article which for some days have been deleted by various trolls and anti-bonehill types. The article is how fully referenced and no disputes can be made against claims. Also added is an Infobox with image of Mr. Bonehill outside parliament. Furthermore I suggest this article is protected from vandals ASAPJooner29 (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You held yourself out to be Bonehill in this message on my talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This meeans that Jooner29 is either a shared account (and so needs to be blocked), or is impersonating a subject of a BLP (and so needs to be blocked), or is lying just now to WP:GAME the system and otherwise edit this article WP:TENDentiously (meaning he needs to be at least topic-banned). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reported the discrepancy in Jooner29's claimed identity at ANI, in the thread "We've either got a shared account, an impersonator, or a tendentious editor". Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (Joshua Bonehill is a notable UK figure, stop trolling this Page with your personal vendetta against Mr. Bonehill ) --88.144.244.109 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The article won't be speedy deleted. -- GB fan 19:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Public school?

I see that the uncited "Public schoolboy" claim has been re-added. It's claimed to be sourced to the Telegraph, so can someone who has Telegraph access (I've had my article limit for the month) please add it. Also, which school was this? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I almost reverted it because our article does not currently cite a Telegraph article. It is mentioned offhand in Daily Mail, but what's the relevance? Honestly, because it was restored by a lying troll who is not here in good faith and needs to be at least topic banned, I'm tempted to revert it anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If necessary, I'd rather refute it than revert it. Which school was it? Is it really a public school, or is this some convoluted Bonehill lie where it turns out to actually be a US "public school" (which means something quite else). If it's Eton or Harrow, then I'd suggest that is then certainly worth recording. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It's quoted in the Daily Mail article. "[T]he former public schoolboy turned up drunk at the station at 2am on March 11, where he cheekily asked if he could have a lift home."[1] The school is not mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Some web searching suggests the names of either Taunton School or Merryhay Academy, but there are no good BLP sources for either. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

{{UK far right}} navbox

The navbox has just been added and Bonehill has been added to the navbox. I've left the navbox here, but I've removed Bonehill from it: he's not a politician or wielding any influence, merely a personal blogger. Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right. He has not led any notable organisation, he is puffing his own chest here '''tAD''' (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the Yeovil anon IP Bonehill, or just someone local and aware of him? We can't know for sure either way. I can see justification for having the NaziNav box here though, to assist those reading on further. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I live in Yeovil and don't know Bonehill personally but am following his case, the navbox should remain as it outlines notorious far right criminals and politicians. David Copeland to name one is present within the Box. We know that Bonehill is both far-right and a nationalist, his politics are clearly outlined at his political website www.joshuabonehill.net and www.nationalbritishresistance.org There is also this here where Bonehill gave a speech at a BNP meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uM2A9q4n-M so therefore given the evidence, the box should remain. The article should also look more into Bonehill's politics as these are clearly outlined throughout links shared 79.64.162.74 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Bonehill has politics doesn't make him a politician though. Has he ever carried out any political act beyond the blog? He was a member of the Conservative Party. Has he ever joined, or held office, in another party? Has he ever held a public stage, and if so under any party banner? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Addition of Bonehill to the navbox

Should Bonehill himself be added to the navbox? Bonehill has added himself to this, and so has the Yeovil IP. Should it be added?

I'm against it. Bonehill is a blogger and hoaxer. He has no political following, he has no political platform, he is not part of any broader political group. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Bonehill branded as Moronic

I have removed the term 'Moronic' from the description of Bonehill as I feel this is the opinion of one person and has not been widely reported. Moronic is not a vocation nor is it an occupation, it's simply one man (Graham Cluley's) opinion. Wikipedia can not be seen to take sides in political or personal disputes, stick to the facts. 79.65.57.126 (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:RS

To have the BBC label you as 'moronic' once is unfortunate, to have them use that precise term in a headline twice becomes a lifetime label. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

National British Resistance and Stand Strong

I have added two new sections which questionably were missing prior? Stand Strong UK was widely reported by several notable news outlets including ITV news. I have also added a section reflecting Bonehill's short lived National British Resistance movement which is referenced by the Western Gazette and the tab. The introduction has been edited to reflect these new changes. Some of the items removed from the introduction are already cited and referenced in other parts of the article. Bonehill's political contributions with Stand Strong UK, BNP and National British Resistance shouldn't be missed out as these further assert Bonehill's political status. 79.65.58.240 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

From the sources given for Stand Strong, there's nothing to confirm that Bonehill founded the organisation, just a local paper interview referring to it as "his" campaign and mentioning plans for "93 similar marches in towns and cities". It seems to have been a grassroots movement with no organiser: the Nottingham Post source given does not mention the "Stand Strong" group, nor Bonehill, and is credited to Sophia Carluccio; the ITV source mentions a Derby march organised by "Woolwich Strong", but does not mention Bonehill. It looks like Bonehill just announced a plan to organise one local event in Woolwich. I've cut the section back to say no more than this. --McGeddon (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Bonehill is known as Joshua Bonehill, just as Stephen Yaxley Lennon is known as Tommy Robinson.

Joshua Bonehill-Paine identifies publicly as Joshua Bonehill, the page name should remain as Joshua Bonehill considering the fact that Tommy Robinson who is also known as Steven Yaxley Lennon legally identifies publicly as being called Tommy Robinson.

The Page change was done maliciously and with flaccid reasons designed to disrupt the article. 79.65.58.56 (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the move as it was not discussed and the sources appear to use this name. -- GB fan 16:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

How do the court documents refer to him at his several trials? That is after all where he makes his most public appearances. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually it should not be how the primary sources call him. It should be the secondary sources. -- GB fan 18:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In which case, the Independent uses Bonehill; the BBC, Daily Mail, Western Gazette and even i (the Independent magazine) use Bonehill-Paine. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And that is why it should be discussed before moving. The original mover is someone who edit warred and kept nominating the article for deletion, that is not the person who should be making the decision to move the article. -- GB fan 23:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

National British Resistance Meetings

The article suggests that the National British Resistance only had three members, there is no evidence, sources or any clarification that points to the number of members in the NBR. Please remove this.88.144.245.190 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done: edited to match source, which only describes the party being in the process of being registered in September 2014. I've cut the material sourced only to WP:PRIMARY websites. --McGeddon (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2014

Joshua Bonehill → Joshua Bonehill-Paine – Seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME in a majority of secondary sources, from those used in the article: the Daily Mail, the BBC and Jewish Chronicle all use "Bonehill-Paine" exclusively; the Western Gazette uses "Bonehill-Paine" in four articles and "Bonehill" in one; the Independent uses both names, one in each article; The Tab is the only site to solely use "Bonehill". McGeddon (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• weak support as that's what the official record seems to use. I wouldn't like to see this turn into Chelsea Manning, but WP:COMMONNAME might be seen as having Bonehill's own support for it. From his comments here, that's clearly what he favours as "A Man Of The People". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • comment: Not opposed to move, but it appears that the sources on Bonehill as a criminal use Bonehill-Paine (any ordinary person would have their full name used in a court case) while the sources on him as an "activist" use Bonehill http://tab.co.uk/2014/08/29/should-we-feel-sorry-for-the-bnps-next-big-thing/ I'm aware that this would carry no weight at all, but his rivals and victims all refer to him "Bonehill" on Twitter. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This guy is just an internet troll

Yeovil 'internet troll' Joshua Bonehill-Payne due in court tomorrow http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/Yeovil-internet-troll-Joshua-Bonehill-Payne-court/story-24574204-detail/story.html

The current page gives far too much credit to him. It is only his internet trolling that got his name in Daily Mail etc.

"Bonehill has been involved with several political groups and parties, and in 2014 claimed to be in the process of registering the National British Resistance party." - His "National British Resistance" consists of one member, himself. Why is this even mentioned?

The page should just report his internet trolling activities such as the hoaxes he posted. Wollopas (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

He was in Daily Mail for drunken burglary, not trolling '''tAD''' (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not only is Bonehill cited as being involved in a lot more than just 'trolling' he has extensive history of being involved in Political Parties as evidenced via the references provided in the main article. We have to present an article based on fact, yes Bonehill's actions have been described as Internet Trolling and references to this have been included in the Article - however Bonehill has also been involved in Politics, breaking into Police Station's, raising money for charity and setting up his own party. Your remark seems to be coming from an angle that disagrees with Bonehill personally, 'Why is this even mention'. 'why are the jews even mentioned in Hitlers article', 'why is osama bin laden mentioned in the 9/11 article' - everything has it's place and we present a fair and equal article. If you don't like it then take this up with Bonehill himself, our job is to curate fact 79.65.59.146 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

How has Bonehill been involved in politics? He has been a member of the Conservative party, but many people are just members. Did he take an active role?

What parties has he set up himself, parties that actually exist that is? This has to be a bit more developed than simply publishing his manifesto to the internet. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

To address the questions that have been raised by the anonymous Devonian IP:

• Has Bonehill ever been involved in far-right politics? He has spoken at a BNP meeting and clearly shares many of their views, but that's not enough to regard him as "politically active". Has he either joined someone else's far-right party and taken part in organised politics with others? "breaking into Police Station's _(sic)" isn't generally considered as a valid form of activism. Or has his own National British Resistance progressed beyond just posting his own words into an online vacuum? Being a racist, being a troll, they're clearly demonstrated - but also he doesn't seem to "play well with others" when it comes to political parties.
• "The fact remains that Bonehill is cited as being a political activist in more than one newspaper." So cite it. I'm keen to hear of this "raising money for charity" in particular.

" I will ask you to take a step back for the benefit of the people who read this article. " I will refer you to the case of Arkell vs. Pressdram for the answer to that one. Like every other editor, I am bound by POV etc. If you think that dislike of racist trolls is unsurmountable WP:COI, then WP offers a wide range of dramah boards as venues for you to call for my public flogging. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty, this section of talk holds no relevance. The article as it stands is accurate and all references to said/claimed events are backed up. If you feel that the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia then you need to request for it to be deleted. I will pull you up on one thing though, for Bonehill to be branded the 'BNP's next big thing' by a news publication, this should surely back up claim to political recognition. The NBR has a paper trail on the internet, there are photographs of people meeting but I would agree with you to the point whereas to the common man, it would appear to be words online. Bonehill does explicitly deny being a troll and the only person who labelled him a troll was the prosecutor in his case. The man after all dictates what he is. Homosexual's are allowed to express themselves publicly as Homosexuals, Racists should be allowed to also express themselves publicly as racists. You mention the police station incident as to having no political releveance, well I beg to differ as stated By Bonehill in his own poorly written biography There are two key facts to remember here, 1) Bonehill is a criminal 2) Bonehill has had involvement in politics - have both of these been covered by the mainstream press? Yes. Are both of these key points included in the article? Yes. I feel though you will have your day in the coming months ahead as we watch the trial of Bonehill with interest, until then I ask you only to edit with truth and integrity 79.65.59.146 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

References

I would assume that the student paper calling Bonehill the "BNP's next big thing" was being sarcastic, given that it immediately goes on to call him a "hotshot cretin" delivering a "ridiculous tirade" to an "almost empty pub". Per WP:BLPSELFPUB we should not be using Bonehill's own website to help us decide whether his actions make him a troll or a political activist. --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

79.65.59.146 is just another blatant sock of Bonehill himself. He's already had several blocked on this page. And yes, it was also him who was writing his own article, delusions of grandeur. His claims above are funny, since Bonehill is the most despised person in white nationalism. There are threads for example at Stormfront (the neo-Nazi site) where no-one wants anything to do with him. He's branded a troll & nutcase there and is laughed at. Calling Bonehill a troll is not a smear "from the far left" or "liberals" as he claims.Wollopas (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think he's a sock, then SPI awaits you. I don't know - he's clearly trying to write (badly) as a third person. As he's unconvincing anyway, I care little. He still fails to realise that one may be a racist or a drunken burglar in isolation, but politics is always (of its very nature) a group activity and Bonehill just doesn't seem to have any political friends. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Revert Introduction

Can somebody undo the current introduction, "Joshua Bonehill is an internet troll". 79.65.185.133 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Another sock of Joshua Bonehill I presume. FossilMad (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)