![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on October 27 2016. The result of the discussion was delete. |
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 sourced must 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 rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
An editor has claimed that the two sentences on Trump retweets were undue. As posted above, there was an AfD to delete this article in 2016 and it was changed to a redirect. The retweetings of Trump have brought Fransen's postings publicity. As far as I can tell, the ensuing international furore is at the moment the only reason for the article to have been restored. Untangling current police proceedings against Fransen is an ongoing matter for editors. In contrast to the concise content in this article on Twitter postings, there is a lengthy section in the Trump-related article on social media [1]. Mathsci ( talk) 09:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. While the situation may be one-off, it did create a furore and was notable. It is better that the section is expanded and does not remain a very short one. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 14:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
You know well your "reply" had nothing do with the original issue of the AfD that you had mentioned. So others do not get confused I suggest you reseparate this entirely different issue.
Back to the article. I didn't read the first para properly and didn't completely notice the reactions. Sorry for the mistake, had I noticed I wouldn't have added it. But the praise by her is not there in the first para, the praise by her has been noted by the media. The addition needs to be only three words "she praised Trump".
Also lastly I request you remove your undue tag. The videos were the ones retweeted. They and their veracity has been noted by many news outlets. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 15:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Mathsci What i actually said was you offered no legitimate reason for adding the undue tag. Don't twist my words. All your claims didn't cut ice or make sense. Besides, their details have been noted by the media. They are the ones retweeted by Trump. There is no contradicting that. So calling it undue, is contrary to facts. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 15:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, it is a personal opinion, but one that's supported by my observation that her infamy is predominantly restricted to the United Kingdom - where I reside, so it's logical that I should have heard of her and hold an opinion. A google search for "Jayda Fransen" brings back multiple results, (1.3 million) and the vast majority and certainly the first few pages are predominantly British (English/UK/British) sources such as The Sun, BBC website, The Guardian, The Independent, Sky News, LBC etc. Even the apparent American site Huffington Post is in fact the UK edition. However, as soon as I google "jayda fransen trump tweets" I pick up results from NY Times, CNN, Fortune, CBS and the Washington Post.
I don't really see the point that's being attempted here, all I'm trying to assert is that her notablility hasn't changed here in the UK due to her tweets being used by Trump, but it has increased elsewhere - specifically the US - due to said tweets. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 21:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
To prove my point that her three tweets retweeted by Trump have given her way more notability, see the interest over time on Google Trends. ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=GB&q=Jayda%20Fransen) She had some interest since 2015, but there was a very huge rise in interest when Trump retweeted her tweets in Nov. 2017. This never happened earlier to her.
It was similar even in UK, there was some interest since 2015 but there was a never-before-seen sharp rise in interest after Trump retweets in Nov. 2017. ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Jayda%20Fransen)
You can confirm the date of the sharp rise with data of last 90 days from Google Trends about interest in her. Worldwide interest ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=Jayda%20Fransen) and UK interest ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&geo=GB&q=Jayda%20Fransen). They clearly show this sharp rise is during and after 29 November when Trump retweeted her. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 01:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Since us poor IPs are currently prohibited from editing for some reason, here are some points that could be added with sources.
Some better sources are needed, but it seems her paternal grandfather was Dutch, and escaped to the UK to serve with the Royal Netherlands Navy during the Second World War; he married his wife in a Catholic church in London, and it seems she was of first or second generation Irish descent. On the maternal side, more research is needed, but it appears her family may be of Jewish descent.[ HuffPo]
And then a couple of points mentioned in some sources, which other sources have disputed:
Also could be source problems with this: through predominantly Muslim districts of British towns. Who defines and how a Muslim area. B.F. campaign in British towns and cities. Could fall foul of claims of racism if saying Muslims own or are segregated in these "areas". 86.187.161.179 ( talk) 20:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone add any biographical information on the subject? In the following documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srvGGlAaQmQ she states that her grandparents were immigrants to the U.K. Does anyone know from where? What her ethnic background is? Thanks. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 01:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Date of birth please. Valetude ( talk) 17:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
"Leadership of Britain First
"Britain First is a British fascist political party..."
Fascist is an extreme word, describing, for example, Hitler and Mussolini. Britain First isn't fascist. It's never described as fascist. The 'mainstream media' and politicians describe it as "far-right". 213.205.241.1 ( talk) 19:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Let's be honest: the word fascist has been used deliberately yet again as a defamatory political label - for the left, anything to the right of Jeremy Corbyn is a Nazi or a fascist - or both. I'm going to change fascist to "right-of-centre". Maelli ( talk) 13:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
There's obviously not much point in arguing with mini-intellects like these, but - just a quick question - don't you think, like any responsible historian, you owe it to literally everyone on the planet to check the facts before you stick your preferred label on them. "We have multiple sources" is not an argument, and citing the MSM is nowadays tantamout to saying "we have proven dimwit bias claiming that". And of course it matters what labels you stick on people, just BTW. Labelling people as "fascists" is clearly intended to dismiss the opinions of those people before you've even heard them. There have been many cases in history where it was necessary to face up to unpleasant facts - sometimes before it was too late, sometimes not. Crass ignorance never helped. Maelli ( talk) 23:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I have issues with the following statement in the Leadership of Britain First section
"Golding handed over the leadership roles in Britain First to Fransen in November 2016. [1] Fransen stated that Golding was taking 6 months leave as leader of the organisation "to address some important, personal family issues". [2]"
This is just a euphemism for saying he's in chokey. Whilst it could be argued that going to prison is indeed a "personal issue", and he was only imprisoned for two months it's still an inaccurate representation of why he was unable to continue leadership - for somebody who doesn't follow references they may think that his Granny was ill.
I think this should be changed to say she took leadership at least partially because he was in prison, but at the same time Fransen's reason is so typically politican-speak it should also stay in.
I propose to change it to:
Golding handed over the leadership roles in Britain First to Fransen in November 2016 in part due to being sentenced to 2 months in prison for breaching a court order, [3] although Fransen stated that the leave was in order "to address some important, personal family issues". [4] [5]
I could have just made the change but the rationale is a bit long winded, especially for a controversial article. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 18:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Golding handed over the leadership roles in Britain First to Fransen in November 2016 in part due to him being sentenced to 2 months in prison for breaching a court order, although Fransen stated that the leave was in order "to address some important, personal family issues".
Someone called "Chaheel Riens" is taking ownership of the page and undoing all my edits for no reason. Please can folks restore the edits so carefully justified. Tanks. 195.11.204.67 ( talk) 18:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
How can I check to see if you've checked? You included no sources or contrary references to those used in the article - which state "screamed". I also clarified my reasoning in the edit summary. I hardly "deleted them for no reason"
And if one of your computer IP's has been blocked, then you cannot just use the other to carry on. That's called block evasion. But you already know that. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 06:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Removed "fascist" for a number of reasons. It's absurdly outdated, no one uses it except a few anorakky types. It's not applicable to Fransen etc. as it refers to leftwing extremism. It's never used by mainstream media academics or other writers in connection with Fransen etc.
An admin told me that opinion pieces are not regarded as legitimate sources, which covers the first two sources. In the third source 'fascist' is not used to describe them. 109.144.209.156 ( talk) 20:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must 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. 109.144.209.156 ( talk) 20:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
(External links Wikiquote has quotations related to: Jayda Fransen Research quoted in York, Chris (28 December 2015). "Someone Researched The Family Tree Of Britain First's Deputy Leader And It's A Bit Awkward" . HuffPost .) This is outdated. Wikiquote has been edited and no longer has this ethnic segregation of Jayda Fransen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.174.194 ( talk) 16:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it's ridiculous to include her middle name. Biographies and encyclopedias don't usualy name people that way. Jylinn ( talk) 18:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The article says she's a leader of "a fascist party". Which implies she's a 'fascist'. Calling people 'fascist' is pretty serious, and offensive. It leaves the organisation publishing the acusations open to legal actions. She and Britain First have strongly denied it and Britain First is threatening legal action over it.
It's not how an encyclopedia would behave, to throw around the term 'fascist'. More like the behaviour of immature, and foolish, teens, writing a student pamphlet.
As has already been noted. The mainstream media don't call her or Britain First 'fascist', in Britain or America. And it's an outdated, old-fashioned term.
Jylinn (
talk)
18:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
"On 18 December 2017, Twitter permanently suspended the accounts of Fransen and Golding, together with the official account of Britain First, as part of its general policy towards any groups which glorify violence or use hate-inciting imagery to fulfill their goals. The company's stated aim in enforcing such bans was to "reduce the amount of abusive behaviour and hateful conduct" on the web. Permanent suspension of an account would result whenever the profile contained "a violent threat or multiple slurs, epithets, racist or sexist tropes, incite[d] fear, or reduce[d] someone to less than human"." You can't permanently suspend something. suspension is a temporary state. 195.11.204.67 ( talk) 19:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"2018 conviction" section
"Unusually, Kent Police released mugshots of Fransen and Golding, taken when they were originally in custody, because of "the nature of the offences committed and the impact they had on the wider community". The usual procedure is that only offenders sentenced to a year or more in custody have their mugshots released."
In terms of readability and reader interest, the Article puts the toe in the door with the "unusual" nature of the release of their mugshots, but doesn't address the ironic aspect that merely yelling some words and "approaching an address" results in this usual treatment by the British government, within the larger context of the more significant charges of rape. Did the British government also release the mug shots of those accused of rape? If not, this would be rather ironic, and therefore interesting to the Reader, however I also recognize that other Wikipedia Editors might consider "irony" to be non-encyclopedic, and possibly Original Research (the difference being whether or not a reliable source noted the irony, vs. it being created by Article Editors). All depending on whether or not the mug shots of the accused rapists were released. Either way, the inclusion of this information is still worth discussing, IMO. Tym Whittier ( talk) 20:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
There’s a mugshot that’s been released by Kent Police, or perhaps the Pacemaker photograph that the BBC uses? Naihreloe ( talk) 11:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
She is registered in UK Companies House as a director of Freedom Movement Ltd, see this. This company appears to be involved in the organisation of a number of protests in UK cities planned for Sat 16th May against and in deliberate violation of UK wide covid-19 emergency constraints on freedom of association involving mass gatherings. See also this. Posters being distributed widely to advertise these events offer membership of the so called "UK Freedom Movement" . Copsewood ( talk) 11:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Obviously a conviction for this is notable enough for the lede, but currently this phrase is used both in the opening line and in the final paragraph. Is there a good way to rephrase this while retaining the gist? ValarianB ( talk) 12:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I thought this might be of interest to editors. Nature had an article in 2022 Improving Wikipedia Verifiability which has the Jayda Fransen article as an example [3] Wakelamp d[@-@]b ( talk) 12:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on October 27 2016. The result of the discussion was delete. |
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 sourced must 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 rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
An editor has claimed that the two sentences on Trump retweets were undue. As posted above, there was an AfD to delete this article in 2016 and it was changed to a redirect. The retweetings of Trump have brought Fransen's postings publicity. As far as I can tell, the ensuing international furore is at the moment the only reason for the article to have been restored. Untangling current police proceedings against Fransen is an ongoing matter for editors. In contrast to the concise content in this article on Twitter postings, there is a lengthy section in the Trump-related article on social media [1]. Mathsci ( talk) 09:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. While the situation may be one-off, it did create a furore and was notable. It is better that the section is expanded and does not remain a very short one. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 14:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
You know well your "reply" had nothing do with the original issue of the AfD that you had mentioned. So others do not get confused I suggest you reseparate this entirely different issue.
Back to the article. I didn't read the first para properly and didn't completely notice the reactions. Sorry for the mistake, had I noticed I wouldn't have added it. But the praise by her is not there in the first para, the praise by her has been noted by the media. The addition needs to be only three words "she praised Trump".
Also lastly I request you remove your undue tag. The videos were the ones retweeted. They and their veracity has been noted by many news outlets. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 15:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Mathsci What i actually said was you offered no legitimate reason for adding the undue tag. Don't twist my words. All your claims didn't cut ice or make sense. Besides, their details have been noted by the media. They are the ones retweeted by Trump. There is no contradicting that. So calling it undue, is contrary to facts. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 15:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, it is a personal opinion, but one that's supported by my observation that her infamy is predominantly restricted to the United Kingdom - where I reside, so it's logical that I should have heard of her and hold an opinion. A google search for "Jayda Fransen" brings back multiple results, (1.3 million) and the vast majority and certainly the first few pages are predominantly British (English/UK/British) sources such as The Sun, BBC website, The Guardian, The Independent, Sky News, LBC etc. Even the apparent American site Huffington Post is in fact the UK edition. However, as soon as I google "jayda fransen trump tweets" I pick up results from NY Times, CNN, Fortune, CBS and the Washington Post.
I don't really see the point that's being attempted here, all I'm trying to assert is that her notablility hasn't changed here in the UK due to her tweets being used by Trump, but it has increased elsewhere - specifically the US - due to said tweets. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 21:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
To prove my point that her three tweets retweeted by Trump have given her way more notability, see the interest over time on Google Trends. ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=GB&q=Jayda%20Fransen) She had some interest since 2015, but there was a very huge rise in interest when Trump retweeted her tweets in Nov. 2017. This never happened earlier to her.
It was similar even in UK, there was some interest since 2015 but there was a never-before-seen sharp rise in interest after Trump retweets in Nov. 2017. ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Jayda%20Fransen)
You can confirm the date of the sharp rise with data of last 90 days from Google Trends about interest in her. Worldwide interest ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=Jayda%20Fransen) and UK interest ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&geo=GB&q=Jayda%20Fransen). They clearly show this sharp rise is during and after 29 November when Trump retweeted her. MonsterHunter32 ( talk) 01:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Since us poor IPs are currently prohibited from editing for some reason, here are some points that could be added with sources.
Some better sources are needed, but it seems her paternal grandfather was Dutch, and escaped to the UK to serve with the Royal Netherlands Navy during the Second World War; he married his wife in a Catholic church in London, and it seems she was of first or second generation Irish descent. On the maternal side, more research is needed, but it appears her family may be of Jewish descent.[ HuffPo]
And then a couple of points mentioned in some sources, which other sources have disputed:
Also could be source problems with this: through predominantly Muslim districts of British towns. Who defines and how a Muslim area. B.F. campaign in British towns and cities. Could fall foul of claims of racism if saying Muslims own or are segregated in these "areas". 86.187.161.179 ( talk) 20:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone add any biographical information on the subject? In the following documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srvGGlAaQmQ she states that her grandparents were immigrants to the U.K. Does anyone know from where? What her ethnic background is? Thanks. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 01:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Date of birth please. Valetude ( talk) 17:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
"Leadership of Britain First
"Britain First is a British fascist political party..."
Fascist is an extreme word, describing, for example, Hitler and Mussolini. Britain First isn't fascist. It's never described as fascist. The 'mainstream media' and politicians describe it as "far-right". 213.205.241.1 ( talk) 19:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Let's be honest: the word fascist has been used deliberately yet again as a defamatory political label - for the left, anything to the right of Jeremy Corbyn is a Nazi or a fascist - or both. I'm going to change fascist to "right-of-centre". Maelli ( talk) 13:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
There's obviously not much point in arguing with mini-intellects like these, but - just a quick question - don't you think, like any responsible historian, you owe it to literally everyone on the planet to check the facts before you stick your preferred label on them. "We have multiple sources" is not an argument, and citing the MSM is nowadays tantamout to saying "we have proven dimwit bias claiming that". And of course it matters what labels you stick on people, just BTW. Labelling people as "fascists" is clearly intended to dismiss the opinions of those people before you've even heard them. There have been many cases in history where it was necessary to face up to unpleasant facts - sometimes before it was too late, sometimes not. Crass ignorance never helped. Maelli ( talk) 23:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I have issues with the following statement in the Leadership of Britain First section
"Golding handed over the leadership roles in Britain First to Fransen in November 2016. [1] Fransen stated that Golding was taking 6 months leave as leader of the organisation "to address some important, personal family issues". [2]"
This is just a euphemism for saying he's in chokey. Whilst it could be argued that going to prison is indeed a "personal issue", and he was only imprisoned for two months it's still an inaccurate representation of why he was unable to continue leadership - for somebody who doesn't follow references they may think that his Granny was ill.
I think this should be changed to say she took leadership at least partially because he was in prison, but at the same time Fransen's reason is so typically politican-speak it should also stay in.
I propose to change it to:
Golding handed over the leadership roles in Britain First to Fransen in November 2016 in part due to being sentenced to 2 months in prison for breaching a court order, [3] although Fransen stated that the leave was in order "to address some important, personal family issues". [4] [5]
I could have just made the change but the rationale is a bit long winded, especially for a controversial article. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 18:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Golding handed over the leadership roles in Britain First to Fransen in November 2016 in part due to him being sentenced to 2 months in prison for breaching a court order, although Fransen stated that the leave was in order "to address some important, personal family issues".
Someone called "Chaheel Riens" is taking ownership of the page and undoing all my edits for no reason. Please can folks restore the edits so carefully justified. Tanks. 195.11.204.67 ( talk) 18:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
How can I check to see if you've checked? You included no sources or contrary references to those used in the article - which state "screamed". I also clarified my reasoning in the edit summary. I hardly "deleted them for no reason"
And if one of your computer IP's has been blocked, then you cannot just use the other to carry on. That's called block evasion. But you already know that. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 06:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Removed "fascist" for a number of reasons. It's absurdly outdated, no one uses it except a few anorakky types. It's not applicable to Fransen etc. as it refers to leftwing extremism. It's never used by mainstream media academics or other writers in connection with Fransen etc.
An admin told me that opinion pieces are not regarded as legitimate sources, which covers the first two sources. In the third source 'fascist' is not used to describe them. 109.144.209.156 ( talk) 20:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must 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. 109.144.209.156 ( talk) 20:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
(External links Wikiquote has quotations related to: Jayda Fransen Research quoted in York, Chris (28 December 2015). "Someone Researched The Family Tree Of Britain First's Deputy Leader And It's A Bit Awkward" . HuffPost .) This is outdated. Wikiquote has been edited and no longer has this ethnic segregation of Jayda Fransen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.174.194 ( talk) 16:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it's ridiculous to include her middle name. Biographies and encyclopedias don't usualy name people that way. Jylinn ( talk) 18:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The article says she's a leader of "a fascist party". Which implies she's a 'fascist'. Calling people 'fascist' is pretty serious, and offensive. It leaves the organisation publishing the acusations open to legal actions. She and Britain First have strongly denied it and Britain First is threatening legal action over it.
It's not how an encyclopedia would behave, to throw around the term 'fascist'. More like the behaviour of immature, and foolish, teens, writing a student pamphlet.
As has already been noted. The mainstream media don't call her or Britain First 'fascist', in Britain or America. And it's an outdated, old-fashioned term.
Jylinn (
talk)
18:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
"On 18 December 2017, Twitter permanently suspended the accounts of Fransen and Golding, together with the official account of Britain First, as part of its general policy towards any groups which glorify violence or use hate-inciting imagery to fulfill their goals. The company's stated aim in enforcing such bans was to "reduce the amount of abusive behaviour and hateful conduct" on the web. Permanent suspension of an account would result whenever the profile contained "a violent threat or multiple slurs, epithets, racist or sexist tropes, incite[d] fear, or reduce[d] someone to less than human"." You can't permanently suspend something. suspension is a temporary state. 195.11.204.67 ( talk) 19:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"2018 conviction" section
"Unusually, Kent Police released mugshots of Fransen and Golding, taken when they were originally in custody, because of "the nature of the offences committed and the impact they had on the wider community". The usual procedure is that only offenders sentenced to a year or more in custody have their mugshots released."
In terms of readability and reader interest, the Article puts the toe in the door with the "unusual" nature of the release of their mugshots, but doesn't address the ironic aspect that merely yelling some words and "approaching an address" results in this usual treatment by the British government, within the larger context of the more significant charges of rape. Did the British government also release the mug shots of those accused of rape? If not, this would be rather ironic, and therefore interesting to the Reader, however I also recognize that other Wikipedia Editors might consider "irony" to be non-encyclopedic, and possibly Original Research (the difference being whether or not a reliable source noted the irony, vs. it being created by Article Editors). All depending on whether or not the mug shots of the accused rapists were released. Either way, the inclusion of this information is still worth discussing, IMO. Tym Whittier ( talk) 20:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
There’s a mugshot that’s been released by Kent Police, or perhaps the Pacemaker photograph that the BBC uses? Naihreloe ( talk) 11:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
She is registered in UK Companies House as a director of Freedom Movement Ltd, see this. This company appears to be involved in the organisation of a number of protests in UK cities planned for Sat 16th May against and in deliberate violation of UK wide covid-19 emergency constraints on freedom of association involving mass gatherings. See also this. Posters being distributed widely to advertise these events offer membership of the so called "UK Freedom Movement" . Copsewood ( talk) 11:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Obviously a conviction for this is notable enough for the lede, but currently this phrase is used both in the opening line and in the final paragraph. Is there a good way to rephrase this while retaining the gist? ValarianB ( talk) 12:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I thought this might be of interest to editors. Nature had an article in 2022 Improving Wikipedia Verifiability which has the Jayda Fransen article as an example [3] Wakelamp d[@-@]b ( talk) 12:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)