Talk:Roger Hallam (activist)

Requested move 30 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Roger Hallam → Roger Hallam (activist) – No indication that this is the primary topic over Roger Hallam (Australian politician), a fairly senior state government minister. Page views are not an acceptable rationale, and WP:RECENTISM to boot. Frickeg (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 22:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The request sounds reasonable as far as it goes; but, however unfairly, the article on the other Hallam makes him rather seem like a serially promoted blank. How would the course of Australian history have been even slightly different if Hallam hadn't existed? The article on him doesn't seem to say. This probably sounds a bit snarky: I regret this (I don't mean any disrespect to Hallam), but really, he was (for example) "appointed the Nationals' spokesman on community services", which would have made press fodder out of whatever he chose to say, so what did he choose to say? -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"Spokesman on community services" means "shadow minister for community services". Just because the article is a stub, like many state ministers, doesn't mean the article title should reflect that. Frickeg (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I note that User:BorisAndDoris moved the Australian in early March with the rationale "pageviews show most searchers are looking for Roger Hallam (activist)". Frickeg, when you refer to pageviews, I assume you mean (recent?) pageviews for the activists and not the politician. I would agree with that (recent pageviews not relevant for the activist but relevant for the politician). Post that pagemove, the Australian has had a daily average of three pageviews. We could keep an eye on things for a few weeks and see how the activist is doing. If it's significantly higher than what the Australian gets, then the current configuration is appropriate. Schwede66 01:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with this. It is perfectly natural that a present-day activist would get more pageviews than a state politician from twenty years ago. Pageviews are an inherently recentist way to judge primary topic. Frickeg (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

But "(1) A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. / (2) A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." (numbering added) The former says that the primary topic is the activist. The latter says -- well, we don't know about the latter. If the politician has enduring notability and the article about him has enduring educational value, then editors are free to make the article show this. Whether the activist has enduring notability and whether the article about him has enduring educational value is something that we simply can't know until time has elapsed. -- Hoary (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As for pageviews, I haven't actually referred to that yet because (as I explained above) I am opposed to using them in general to determine the primary topic (they are inherently misleading), but if we are taking them into consideration, the activist has barely any pageviews either, and not only that is frankly barely notable at all (Roger Hallam (activist) is currently a redirect to Extinction Rebellion since @Onel5969: made it so in March, and this article has existed in its current form for less than 24 hours). I presume @BorisAndDoris: is claiming that because of the short-lived spike in late May, that proves that people were looking for the activist - a debatable claim, and even if true one that was over within a week. Frickeg (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

BorisAndDoris changed this page in March after observing that Roger Hallam pageviews increased during periods of XR activity particularly last November. I then tried to have both the activist and politician page for a few weeks to compare pageviews but a bot redirected this page to XR directly (for some reason the history of this page has disappeared) and an attempt to start this article on the activist page was knocked back when I had little time to edit. It does appear even clearer now that interest in the activist increased during the XR rebellion in April and his trial for activities from two years ago in May. Being UK based I assumed the importance of the activist over the politician but can see that from an Australian perspective the politician may be a more important subject. Therefore it seems more balanced to make this a disambiguation page BorisAndDoris (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Clarification: I think this is already clear, but to be explicit: I am proposing that Roger Hallam become a disambiguation page as I do not think there is a primary topic here. Frickeg (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

But "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.)" -- Hoary (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, Frickeg argues that there is no primary topic. Hence ONEOTHER would not apply. Schwede66 08:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Right. Now, if you want the activist, typing in his name gets you there; if you want the politician, typing in his name and then clicking a hatnote gets you there. With a disambiguation page, if you want either the activist or the politician, you have to type in his name and then choose and click. Which readers of Wikipedia would benefit from this proposed change, and how? -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I see disambig pages as a benefit; makes it a lot easier to be sure you're getting who you want instead of a surprise. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. There are two definitions for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: one is for a term with respect to usage and the other is with respect to long-term significance. What Frickeg is talking about is the latter. The question that I raised previously is about the former; we should wait a while and see where usage (as measured by page views) lands. If readers of the Wikipedia are currently much more interested in the activist, then the title for this page is correct, and it serves the needs of those who use Wikipedia. It may well be that the Australian politician has the same long-term significance as the activist but that's something that we can reflect when interest in the activist declines over time. What matters for now is usage. And we aren't quite there yet to determine what the level of usage is. Hence my procedural oppose. Let's have this discussion in a couple of weeks, or sometime later (in case the activist makes the news again and that causes an unusual spike in interest). Schwede66 19:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think it's been clearly demonstrated that this recently created article meets either of the main primary topic criteria. Disambiguate for now and we can always re-evaluate the situation later. PC78 (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support with base being a disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Given that this RM is still open after a few weeks, I thought I'd have another look at pageviews during July so far. I don't follow the British news so don't know what the spike in views over the last four days is all about, but note that prior to that, views for the activists sat at a pretty constant 100 views per day or so. Compared to 3 for the Australian. Any more questions? Schwede66 20:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Primacy should be measured in years or decades, not days. This article didn't exist a month ago, and this person hasn't done anything that indicates that anyone will be studying him very deeply in a decade or two. He was a dramatically unsuccessful candidate for a political office (924 of 2,241,681 works out to 0.04% if my math is correct), and he spray-painted something at a college campus while he was a student there, and he cofounded a notable organization with various other people (the article about the organization says it was founded by "by Roger Hallam, Gail Bradbrook, Simon Bramwell, and other activists from the campaign group Rising Up!"). That doesn't indicate exceptional enduring notability. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Radical Think Tank listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Radical Think Tank. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

PhD in civil disobedience at King's College London?

I can not find any information on such a PhD programme on the web site of the King's College. Could someone verify this and possibly correct? --Sascha.leib (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

PhD's are often characterised by the actual title of the PhD thesis, rather than the program they enrolled on. We can look at Halem on ther King research portal [1] and see that his project is titled "Design of effective mechanisms of collective action for progressive campaign groups My research focuses upon ways for campaigns to maximize political participation and mobilization" in the Department of Culture, Media & Creative Industries. He has one published paper. He started in 2014 so his thesis is on the late side. --Salix alba (talk): 14:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I've slightly changed that wording in line with your discussion above. Check that you're both happy with it please. Liamcalling (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's much clearer this way. --Sascha.leib (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust comments and POV

Currently the situation on these comments seems to be this. Hallam himself has apologised for them. His organisation Extinction Rebellion have disowned them and asked him to step back from his position with them (it's not clear whether they mean temporarily or permanently). His publisher has dropped him in protest. In general, there has been widespread criticism of the comments from many different quarters, including the Foreign Minister of Germany.

However, someone has edited this page with a lengthy defence of the comments (which - I feel the need to emphasise once again - Hallam himself has apologised for) and without any mention of the controversy around them. This is a ludicrous flouting of POV rules and makes a mockery of the article. I hadn't even heard of Roger Hallam till half an hour ago, so don't particularly want to make a major change. However (if nobody else does it first) I will remove that defence later today unless someone here wants to attempt to justify it. Liamcalling (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Liamcalling: Indeed. I have removed the justification that strays from the Hallam specifics of the case, which was sourced to an article that does not relate to Hallam. I have also indicated that "African activists" is the "Stop the Maangamizi: We Charge Genocide/Ecocide! Campaign" and removed the overly long quotations. Is the Stop the Maangamizi: We Charge Genocide/Ecocide! Campaign a voice whose opinion we should include or not? I have not yet looked into them. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Common Sense for the 21st Century by Roger Hallam.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• This Is Not A Drill.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Holocaust section needs updating

See for instance [2] - what's his role now? Doug Weller talk 10:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• This Is Not A Drill.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Common Sense for the 21st Century by Roger Hallam.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: edit to remove description of R. Hallam as "a convicted criminal"

My deletion of the phrase "a convicted criminal" was reversed by the same person who wrote an essay here in Wiki about the requirement for entries to hide one's feelings about a particular subject or issue. While we can accept the fact that Hallam is a "criminal" based on a literal interpretation of the word, as thinking adults we must also recognize the obvious fact that this word has emotive meaning that is used very often to smear or attack people. The Wiki entry on Hallam makes it abundantly clear that he has been convicted of crimes. Is it necessary then, to describe him as a convicted criminal, or is this simply an extra jab at this individual? If it is necessary, why are people like Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela or Donald Trump, all "convicted criminals" not so described in Wiki? My reading of this text is that the expression used in this case is very easily interpreted as an emotional attack, and so in order to remove that potential implication from the entry on Hallam, I think the phrase should be deleted. Hallam is praised as a hero by many. The topics of environmental destruction, and global warming, are famously politicized and polarizing. Nobody wants to be inconvenienced in order to save life on the planet. How can we be sure that the authors of the entry here on Hallam are not among those who sneer at efforts to stop a mass extinction, and so see people like Hallam as a nuisance rather than a valuable actor in the effort to do the right thing? RPeel (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Given you mentioned the essay I wrote I suggest you read it, as your POV/motivation on the matter is coming through quite clearly.

However, onto the main point - whether he is considered a hero is irrelevant. It's not for us to omit details because some people admire him or because they consider his work noble. It is commonplace on Wikipedia to state that someone is a convicted criminal if it is a defining part of their article - which it is in this case. His actions even led to the creation of another article about this.

Finally, on your last sentence, please WP:AGF. — Czello ^(music) 10:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I have read your essay. As to your statement that my "POV...is coming through quite clearly" if you are referring to my POV in this talk session, how else can I communicate? Simply put, my POV here is irrelevant to the entry on Hallam: I am not suggesting he be described as a hero, for example. I am suggesting that a phrase be omitted that introduces questionable motives and messaging to a thinking audience. Removing that does not introduce any POV, whereas retaining it certainly does. Again: according to your reasoning, Nelson Mandela and others should also be described as convicted criminals, but they are not. When it comes to those like Mandela and King, we can understand why not: because we know, especially given hindsight, that the courts were wrong at the time. What about Donald Trump, also a "convicted criminal" yet not so described here? The issue is: is the text in question necessary? Does its inclusion introduce the perception by readers that bias is intended? Bernie Madoff is here described as a financial criminal, which is worth mentioning: was his business arguably describable as non-criminal? Is there any reason to believe that he should be considered a person more like Mandela? Was his business serving any greater good than his own enrichment? Of course not. So yes, he was a "financial criminal." The question here of the consistency of your position is worth examining. RPeel (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

How does retaining it introduce a POV? It's a neutral and factual statement. Other articles aren't really relevant to this one, see WP:OTHERSTUFF (but in short, we include it depending on how defining it is to them as individuals; there are plenty of examples of that where it is included). — Czello ^(music) 11:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well this is the real question isn't it? That it is a "neutral" statement is exactly what is at issue here. It is factual, yes, just as could be said regarding Mandela and King and many others not so described. You say "depending on how defining it is to them as individuals" well let me remind you that Mandela spent 27 years in prison. Why does Wiki not consider that a defining feature of his life and so describe him right up front, as with Hallam, as a "convicted criminal"? This is precisely why its inclusion in some cases is POV, or at least, can be seen as such. I am saying that this is one such case. The current political climate makes the case of a Mandela and Hallam different, but that may only turn out to be one based on timing if in 5 years Hallam is elected PM of Great Britain, for example, and so his "convicted criminal" description is moved gently to the end of his Wiki entry... RPeel (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Mandala article, you'll have to ask on that article's talk page. Again, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. How other articles are presented are a matter for that article's talk page.

If Hallam becomes famous for something else later on and it turns out his conviction isn't relevant or lasting, then it could be moved. But right now it's a significant part of his notability; especially given that the sentences are notable for being some of the harshest ever given for peaceful protest and that he's stated that he wants as many of his group's members arrested as possible. — Czello ^(music) 11:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you not recognize that the word "criminal" is used as both a neutral descriptor AND as a label? The fact that it is often used as a label, to paint or smear someone, even those never convicted of any crime, is why it is POV speech, particularly when used in the first sentence of his description. That he is "an activist" is appropriate because it describes his activity. That he is "a criminal" does not describe his activity, it describes how the law and the court, at the current time in one country, sees or saw one or more of his actions, in a legal sense. To describe someone as an activist gives people an immediate idea of what type of work or activity they do, such as being a lawyer or surgeon. "What type of activist/lawyer/surgeon is he?" Describing someone as a criminal first needs more information: is that person an actual, convicted "criminal" or is that person merely unpopular with some people? I really think you are being far too blind to the emotive content that this "neutral description" brings with it in the current context, which is the only context we have at the moment. You seem to want to treat the word as being similar to a description of one's profession, which it clearly is not. I agree that the fact that Hallam was convicted and sentenced to serve prison time is as you say a significant part of his notability, but there are other ways to indicate that than to use the phrase in question, as is done in the second sentence. It is perfectly clear, without containing any troublesome phrasing that could be interpreted as biased. Finally, that Hallam wants his colleagues to be arrested is of no use here. Yes, the activists recognize the need to be arrested in order to make an impact. But this is completely beside the point I am raising here, which is to focus on the emotionally-charged use of "criminal" versus the purely factual use, which is not easily distinguished in this article. RPeel (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That he is "a criminal" does not describe his activity This is untrue, though - and this really is the crux of the point. It is his activity as he's made it his modus operandi for how his protests go. To describe someone as an activist gives people an immediate idea of what type of work or activity they do Simply calling him an "activist" isn't fully descriptive, though. Activism doesn't require being arrested, but his style of activism is directly aimed at conviction. He's even said that "arrests aren’t happening quickly enough" and that "letters, emailing, marches don’t work. You need about 400 people to go to prison. About two to three thousand people to be arrested." Consequently, that combined with the harsh sentence he received is a defining part of him. — Czello ^(music) 12:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You miss the point and have still not answered the question: do you not recognize that "criminal" is used to smear people, or is considered a "loaded" term? This is the problem of its use here. Many people are arrested for all sorts of things. Not all of them are what you would really want to call "criminals" though, precisely due to the nuanced use of the word. Your insistence in considering only one sense of the word is not helping in this discussion. I recognize that sense of the word. But the other sense of the word is clearly present, as a possibility in the minds of Wiki readers, and this is what people like you should be aware of and responsive towards. Perhaps we need to have more people looking at this. I am unaware of the hierarchy of Wiki: are there not others of your kind who should have a look at this so that we don't end up with such a narrow view? If, as you seem to intimate, it is the case that the only people to consider objections raised are those who have written a particular entry, then how do you deal with the issue of consistency in Wiki? This is why I mentioned the entries of Mandela, King, Trump, which you dismissed because they are not your entries. Clearly, consistency is important here. Jailed protestors like King Jr. are not "criminals" because they broke the laws of the time and place in order to raise awareness. That Wiki entry recognizes that, but this one on Hallam does not. That Hallam wants to be arrested, and/or is in fact arrested, does not mean "he is a criminal" in the sense of the word I am concerned about. So how are you ensuring that readers do not receive the "wrong" sense of the word as the entry is currently written? Hallam is not someone who was arrested for a noise complaint, for petty theft, or anything similar. His name instantly raises emotions for those who have heard of him. Perhaps half love him and half hate him. This is what makes this case special and is why calling him straight off a criminal is bound to lead to confusion. It is exactly the reason why I wanted to change the entry: it struck me as a smear. For example: in King Jr.'s time, for white people to hear "Martin Luther King, the criminal from Georgia..." and for black people to hear the same thing would likely have evoked quite a different response and impression back in 1964. This is the problem you are contending with now with the Hallam entry. RPeel (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not recognise that - because it is factual and accurate. So how are you ensuring that readers do not receive the "wrong" sense of the word as the entry is currently written? We do not attempt to influence people's perception or opinion. The fact that he is a criminal is factual - what conclusion people draw from that is their own. That Wiki entry recognizes that, but this one on Hallam does not. They are two different articles with two different approaches to portraying their subject; again, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. It could be that the articles you keep mentioning on the ones in the wrong, not this one. calling him straight off a criminal is bound to lead to confusion. I am really not sure what confusion can come of this. It's clear and unambiguous. The rest of the article adds appropriate context. Perhaps we need to have more people looking at this I am sure others will be along soon to offer their opinions, but if you want more eyes on this urgently you could raise it at WP:NPOVN. — Czello ^(music) 12:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Your comments "No I do not recognize (that "criminal" has a double meaning and is a loaded term) - because it is factual and accurate" as well as "I am really not sure what confusion can come of this. It's clear and unambiguous," are expressions of your opinion: it may be clear and unambiguous to you, but not to others. That you cannot even admit that there is the potential for ambiguity is a real problem, and is a very good reason why you should not be the person to make the decision here. Actually, it is inconceivable that you are unaware of the different ways people use the word "criminal" which I have pointed out here. Is English your mother tongue? As it is, assuming you are a native speaker of English, your response sounds like I am speaking to a robot. If you really want to use neutral expressions here, you should remove the phrase I removed, and leave the second sentence (and the rest of the entry) as it is, which provides all the information needed without introducing loaded speech, which means "loaded given a particular context" which in this case is the highly charged political context of today regarding global warming and environmental destruction and the protests around the world over those issues. RPeel (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation to seek another opinion. I looked into this but the bureaucracy involved is ridiculous. At this point I'm happy to wait for your reflection on my last remarks before proceeding with such a headache. RPeel (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not particularly bureaucratic; you can just open a thread. However in answer to your last remarks, I think you're ascribing more emotion to the term than the average person would. I don't see how it would be unambiguous to others - he is a convicted criminal, and that's exactly what it says. I get the sense you want it removed because you personally agree with the man's actions. — Czello ^(music) 08:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Just another note on these remarks of yours: to say that Hallam should be called a criminal because he seeks to be arrested is to misunderstand the difference between criminals and activists. Criminals do not want to be caught. Activists who intentionally break the law in order to be prosecuted, as this raises awareness of their actions and forces the government into a costly process they would otherwise prefer to avoid, are "criminals" only in the narrow use of the term in which you here are so adamantly attached. The word carries connotations that simply do not fit with the case at hand. Please be more thoughtful of the nuances in communication that are being ignored by the piece as written. RPeel (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I should also say that in reference to the fact that in this case, climate activists recognize the need to be arrested, the point is that for example, they would tell you "I want to be arrested" but not "I want to be a criminal" or "I want to commit a crime." This is purely because of the baggage that "criminal" carries with it, which is problematic here. RPeel (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Also Trump's article does mention that he's a convicted criminal - it's in the final paragraph of the lead. — Czello ^(music) 11:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

In my view, it's a WP:BLP & NPOV violation to retain "convicted criminal" in the first sentence of the lede. It provides no factal information beyond the details re Heathrow & M25 later in the lede, and has strong emotive and attack page qualities. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I have read the above discussion and thought about it for a while. In the end, I have to agree with the arguments put forward by RPeel. Schwede66 05:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm clearly in the minority here then; I won't oppose the label being removed any further. — Czello ^(music) 08:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)