Talk:Tommy Robinson

"Convicted criminal" in the first sentence

I'm sure I'm probably about to be reverted, but searching, I don't see a long discussion on this, so I'm gonna start one because I don't think this is relevant enough to deserve the prominence it has. There are all kinds of people who have, at one point or another, been convicted of a crime, justly or unjustly. There's a whole paragraph about the actual things he was convicted of further down in the lede, and I would also like to discuss moving these further down. While they're undoubtedly essential to his character, I don't think they're >50% of the reason he's notable (which current word counts in the lede would seem to imply). We don't afford people notability based on the crimes they commit per WP:PERP, so these things are only notable because he is, already, for other reasons, a notable figure.

I'm not out to make a martyr of the guy, obviously he's a rather unpleasant fellow for a number of reasons, but I can't help but think his criminal convictions are a backdrop for his notability, rather than a leading cause of them. This edit to the first sentence is in my opinion a first step in the right direction. BrigadierG (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree the first sentence is WP:UNDUE, especially when it's mentioned again later in the lead. I agree that it's not >50% of the reason he's notable; I suspect it is there for PoV reasons. — Czello ^(music) 13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

upon first reading the lead to the article, it does strike me as odd "Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982), better known as Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam campaigner and activist."

i believe he is far better known for his work on exposing child rape grooming gangs than he is for being an "anti-islam activist", not to say that he isnt one. in my opinion, it should read:

""Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982), better known as Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam and anti-child grooming campaigner and activist."

i have to agree with User:Czello and User:BrigadierG, the lead being largely just about him being a criminal seems ideologically motivated, and clearly WP:Undue. NotQualified (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

He's known by most people as a racist who spreads lies to stir up hate like what we're seeing now. Only his supporters think he's actually an anti-grooming guy. 31.185.168.251 (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I seriously question the description given to him as an "activist" since he's more of an agitator and an instigator. Activist loses it's meaning if it's allowed to be bestowed on this individual. 2600:1700:D970:3370:680C:9F2C:61DE:1002 (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed it should say stochastic terrorist in the parentheses 194.127.105.107 (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

He has been convicted of more than one, throughout his life, and goes back to before he was notable as an activist. So it is very much part of his imager in the media. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

He has been involved in numerous scrapes that have led to criminal convictions, and some of them are notable because they relate to his career as an activist. However, I agree that the wording in the opening sentence is rather clunky. Since this is already dealt with in the lead with more context, I've removed it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

'Scrapes'? Interesting choice of words... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

no ones denying that, but it is a bit absurd to dedicate so much of the lead to it, especially as it is duplication. NotQualified (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made an attempt at tightening up the lede to focus primarily on crimes that lend to his notability - such as his recent jailing for contempt of court. Happy to discuss/compromise on how to approach this. BrigadierG (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's more than a little concerning that the lede said he was convicted of stalking when the actual outcome was a civil order. BrigadierG (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

But not that he is in fact an international criminal? Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a relatively unimportant backdrop to him already having existing convictions and being the leader of a far-right extremist group - ultimately, that's the reason why he used false documents in the first place. BrigadierG (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

So, it makes him an international criminal, he has broke the law in more than one country. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we already have enough information in the article to conclude that he committed a crime internationally. What's up with the insistence on that label in particular? Could it possibly be that the term "international criminal" calls into mind big threatening drug cartels and the like? The archetypal "criminal" is a loaded stereotype.BrigadierG (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It puts his call for asylum there into perspective? Nor do we say "international criminal" in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think it is relevant and should be mentioned in the article body, but the question I'd put to you is this - is the reason he was travelling on a false passport a factor of:

1. His previous imprisonment for assaulting an off-duty police officer or

2. His leadership of the EDL

3. Something else

My current perception is that it's a product of 1 - something otherwise mostly unrelated to the reason for his notability. I would be convinced that it has a place in the lede if it can be shown the reason he needed to travel on false documents is because of his political affiliation (or because of some outcome or legal status connected to his political affiliation). BrigadierG (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said, the fact he was asking for asylum in a country he is not even allowed to legally enter needs to be in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Given that its crimes in multiple countries are considered terrorism, a better start to the article would be.

<Convicted international terrorist Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982), better known as Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam campaigner and one of the UK’s most dangerous far-right terrorists.>

We cannot deny that it has committed some serious offences. And even if a reliable source for its terrorist atrocities doesn't currently exist, then one can be made to cite the article after it is edited to make such a declaration. Then we'd have a reliable source to cite, improving the validity of the assertion. It's not like anyone can prove it isn't a terrorist, so that's good enough to strengthen the article. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

no one listen to this user, they have violated many wikipedia rules in other talk issues. this is frankly crazy. in this, they also argue they do not need to cite sources. this is blatant libel and im reporting this immediately NotQualified (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

in lieu of this, i have requested mr robinsons article to have a further upgraded protection and it further re-affirms User:Czello's suspicion that the lead was written in violation of PoV and UNDUE and needs to be urgently re-written. i hope we have consensus on this. i am hoping that a higher up moderator will see my report and write it themself so we can close this issue ticket. NotQualified (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Scrape, "a difficult or slightly dangerous situation that you cause by your own silly behaviour".[1] It was pretty silly of Robinson to attempt to enter the USA with someone else's passport, but I'm not denying that he has committed some serious offences.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is a statement of fact - he is a convicted criminal. 92.233.82.113 (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

He's clearly notable for his criminal acts and convictions. From where I see it, it's one of the main reasons for his notability. So I'd say that yes it should be in the first sentence of the lead. TarnishedPath^talk 02:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

He may now even be a fugitive. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"Convicted criminal" is a bit wishy-washy. That could cover anything from driving without a licence to murder. I'd prefer a more precise description, though there doesn't seem to be a coherent theme to his convictions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Which is kind of the point, he is a serial criminal, but has no pattern of offenses. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Robinson constantly seems to be involved in some legal controversy. However, he is primarily known as a far right activist and this is what causes the legal problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

i agree, i dont think it should be in the first sentence. it isnt what he is known for, hes known for his activism largely speaking. NotQualified (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

punching a nazi, illegal entry into america, recording and shaming child rapists outside a court, libel (which he contends as judicial malpractice?!?!). agreed, his offenses are not repeats but random and sporadic NotQualified (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That he chooses to engage in criminal behaviour in a variety of ways, is immaterial. The fact is that he has been convicted for quite a number of serious crimes and it is a long running part of his history. It is part of the main reason why he's notable as attested to by numerous WP:RS which have covered his crimes and convictions. TarnishedPath^talk 03:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

is he? i believe hes on bail and he doesnt have to be in britain as of now? source? NotQualified (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Possibly [[2]], an arrest warrant has been issued. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, but at the end of the day a criminal is a criminal. Now that being said I don't know why this guy has been created badly. He stands up for Britain and he is a good man. 49.184.197.124 (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record i fully support the removal of «Convicted criminal» in the first sentence of the article. This is not his most know characteristic currently. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I first heard about him not as a "criminal", but his anti-islam ideology. A lot of blp articles are about people with felonys etc., but they don't mention it in the first lead. The lead is to show why is this person mainly notable for. I think criminality comes pretty last in his notables. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Met police did not arrest Tommy Robinson

Met tweet "Met officers are not involved in the alleged arrest of Tommy Robinson and we are not aware of any links with the demonstration held yesterday in London. This matter involves another force and we hope that further information will be released soon." 2A0A:EF40:E29:C01:9D1C:59E0:49C0:873B (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: this was posted by me bit not logged in. I am a journalist that believes in truth. WatfordHertsLondon (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The source cited says the Kent Police, not the met. I have reworded the section accordingly, adding more detail. As of whether this really merits inclusion in the article, I'm inclined to think not unless it goes anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Just an arrest, no its undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

For reference sake, my previous edit was based on what the source cited at the time that made no mention of Kent Police.[3] Thanks for updating with the new information, it's questionable if it's due I agree. My only reason to keep it would be that other editors will likely continue to return the content if it's removed, which isn't the best reason but worth considering. CNC (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That is what PP and blocks are for. We should not keep content just to appease users. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes fair point, however PP is only for vandalism, disruption and abuse. I'm not convinced added relevant content (against talk page consensus) inherently covers it. It'd just require "revert per talk consensus" actions instead. I recommend for now it's left for a few days and see if anything comes of it, otherwise can be removed if not. I generally agree it's a "nothing burger", he was arrested for obstructing (or intending to obstruct) a search and likely get's a fine at worst. CNC (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Eh, if he was not arrested by police then why was he taken to court and why did the police withdraw all charges? 49.184.197.124 (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

The article provides a false information about Tommy Robinson. He is not anti Islam, he is anti extremists Jihadists. He was wrongly accused and then was released from prison without the charge! Facts are available and proper journalists can allocate it. Do your research and provide facts before publishing such a gross misinformation! 194.223.185.245 (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia presents a neutral point of view based on how the subject is described in reliable sources. Do you have reliable sources that can corroborate the idea that he is not anti Islam or at least evidence a proportionate viewpoint that counters this view? CloakedFerret (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

In this interview with Jordan Peterson he describes growing up a multi faith community. From approx. 36:40 onwards he make it clear that he is anti islamist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnhwBoFxaDI

This article quotes him specifically stating he not anti islam:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/i-am-not-racist-or-anti-muslim-tommy-robinson-tells-high-court-in-libel-case/ 81.77.105.184 (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course he denies it, that does not mean he is telling the truth. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't prioritise his own views on the matter; we say what reliable sources say. Also see WP:MANDY. — Czello ^(music) 16:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Your sources are not reliable though. You cannot use the rantings of extremely biased left-wing journalists as a reliable source in this "impartial" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.160.225 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2024

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: moved. With a general consensus to move as the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

---

• Tommy Robinson (activist) → Tommy Robinson
• Tommy Robinson → Tommy Robinson (disambiguation)

– This Tommy Robinson, is, I think, the WP:PTOPIC for the title. Tommy F. Robinson is disambiguated by his middle initial and Tommy Robinson (hooligan) redirects to a section of a different article, so the main "competition" for primary topic is Tommy Robinson (footballer), who seems to have done reasonably well in the early 20th century. However, Tommy Robinson (activist) is the WP:PTOPIC. As a high-profile criminal and fascist politician and activist, who has been accused of inciting the 2024 riots, he is a major (and controversial) UK political figure. He has more long-term notability than the footballer. Even in 2015, the pageviews of this article were a hundred times higher than that of the footballer; this year the article has a daily average of 6563 views, compared to the footballer's average of just four. Cremastra (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Overwhelming primary topic. The page views for the other entries would probably drop in future as a lot of their (much smaller) traffic will be driven by people looking for the activist. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Lukewarm support: As of August 2024, Mr Yaxley-Lennon is far and away the most well known person with the name Tommy Robinson. However, Wikipedia tends to be cautious with disambigs, so there is nothing much wrong with the current article title.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Primary topic. The fact that Tommy F. Robinson has a middle initial is utterly irrelevant when considering primary topic. But neither he (a sheriff and later a minor politician for six years) nor any of the others is especially well-known. The activist, on the other hand, is (unfortunately) a household name in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support, definately primary topic Masterhatch (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support as primary topic given 99.9% 98.7% of views in past month last year are for this article compared to the 1.3% for the footballer, politician, or hooligan redirect. Notably 10% of his views last month were coming from the disambig page, which is unnecessary at this point. CNC (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I was actually preparing a nomination for this move. I would advise using sources that predate the riots, as that might skew the results. To add to the nomination, searching "Tommy Robinson" on JSTOR establishes him as the primary topic there. Svampesky (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: It seems like the activist is the primary topic people come to this page. Waqar💬 14:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. DankJae 15:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support This long term analysis of page views suggests that Tommy Robinson (activist) should be the primary topic, and also displays the disambiguation page access peaking at the same time as access to the Tommy Robinson (activist) article https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en-two.iwiki.icu&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2024-08-19&pages=Tommy_Robinson_(activist)%7CTommy_Robinson%7CTommy_Robinson_(footballer)%7CTommy_F._Robinson%7CTommy_Robinson_(hooligan), memphisto 09:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Support Overwhelming primary topic. Bruno pnm ars (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Support - absolutely the primary interest of readers. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 15:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

luke warm support I think this is true for now but it is hard to say if it will be true in years from now... but we can discuss it again later if need be Jorahm (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support The overwhelming number of readers searching for Tommy Robinson are searching for this page. TFD (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly WP:PTOPIC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No Mention of Milkshaking?

Given the cultural significance of “Milkshaking” the topic itself having its own Wikipedia page, and Tommy Robinson being the first relevant target (This detail being mentioned on the Milkshaking Wikipedia page) I would have thought it was worthwhile mentioning it in this article too? Ghoulgamesh (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Its trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a Wikipedia article called List of food and drink items that have been thrown at Nigel Farage during election campaigns, although it would be quite a long one. But it is WP:NOTNEWS--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC).

It’s history no? I’ not sure what the consistency and logic is behind milkshaking having its own page and the person who is central to its origin not having that mentioned on their own page. If milkshaking is news or trivia then surely it shouldn’t have its own article. But if it’s significant enough to have it’s own article then shouldn’t it be worthy of mention in the article of the person connected to its very origin? Ghoulgamesh (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That looks like OR. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Trivia. And the claim that Robinson was the first 'major figure' to have a milkshake thrown at him isn't even supported by the citation in the Milkshaking article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And he gets no more coverage than most of the targets, and maybe less than some. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

He’s not anti Islam?

Please can we not feed the troll?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You can’t call him anti Islamic when he isn’t. He’s friends with Muslims and everything. He’s anti men raping and molesting our children. EBONORy999 (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC) RS say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC) What reliable source? EBONORy999 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Because anyone with any sense wouldn’t listen to just “reliable source” like sky news. BBC. Your meant to be impartial but your taking a side EBONORy999 (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Yes, its called wp:policy, now if you are not happy with it you can try and get it changed (but not here). Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC) thank you i will look into it further EBONORy999 (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC) EBONORy999, which are your WP:RS secondary sources that explicitly say he's "not anti-Islam"? I'm sure we would all like to see them. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC) This from only last week, or have you forgotten: "On 29 July, the day of the attack on a group of young girls in Southport, far-right influencer Tommy Robinson repeated on X the false rumour that a Muslim asylum seeker who'd arrived on a Channel boat was the culprit. On the site, where he has nearly one million followers, he repeatedly linked the stabbings to the Muslim community, and said that the Government was "gaslighting" the public about the events. In the days after the attack, his X posts received an average of around 54 million daily views." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC) it was a second generation immigrant. in the jordan peterson interview from the 29th he legit talks about all this. EBONORy999 (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC) And the kid he lied about in 2018? Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC) So didn't arrive on a boat then is what you're saying? CNC (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC) "Axel Rudakubana, a 17-year-old British citizen born in Cardiff to parents from Rwanda." But I'd also like to hear what EBONORy999 is saying. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC) The father of Axel Rudakubana, who murdered killed three children with a knife in the 2024 Southport stabbing, was Christian and the family was heavily involved with the local church? What exactly did Robinson say in that interview? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Please avoid WP:BLPCRIME violations, even in talk pages ideally. There is no confirmation that Rudakubana murdered anyone, he is currently charged with such a crime and is due to face trial in 2025. Please strike your comment accusing a suspect of being guilty, thanks in advance for respecting policy. CNC (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Ah yes, of course. My mistake. Perhaps it wasn't really murder at all? I wouldn't want to prejudice the jury's deliberations. So I have now adjusted my comment above. Or would you would like me strike out the whole comment entirely, CNC? What's your view on the subject of this discussion thread? We're waiting to hear about Tommy Robinson's view of this incident. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Go watch silence by Tommy Robinson. Our churches are being burned. Kids being butchered and no one cares. The kid is second generation so he was born in uk but his parents weren’t. This site is pushing false information. EBONORy999 (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC) I’m just a kid really. I’m scared and I’m fearful. For my dad. An ex military man who fought in the Middle East. I’m scared for my nieces. I’m scared and I can see the corruption. It scares me all. I don’t get if people don’t agree with Tommy why don’t they do something different and better EBONORy999 (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC) You said above "This site is pushing false information." What exactly do you see as "false" in this article? "Silence by Tommy Robinson" sounds like an oxymoron. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Irish citizenship

It has been widely reported recently that he is an Irish national, his mother is Irish and he holds an Irish passport. He should be listed as "British-Irish national" 80.43.192.102 (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:NATIONALITY, the connection isn't strong enough to include in his description in the lead. TFD (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a separate subjection on "Irish passport", which I think is enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Connection between a number of Russian stakeholders and Tommy Robinson

The connection between a number of Russian stakeholders and Tommy Robinson (real name: Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) is well established.

https://x.com/A_SHEKH0VTS0V/status/1831282591552479358 Sneuper (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure is a link to a single post on Planet Musk makes that claim "well established"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't base article content on X/Twitter posts: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If and when this gets reported in the media, we can consider including something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson is a proud Zionist so not Far Right

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I understand how this page came to this conclusion. This label of Far Right follows Tommy Robinson from common knowledge to Main stream media. However it's not correct. He has stuck up for Jewish people's rights for protection in the U.K. even before October 7 2023 and he's a proud Zionist as he himself has said in at least one more recent interview. This is also common knowledge to the point he is constantly accused of working for the Israeli government. As well as he is hated by actual far right groups for the same reason & also because he admits to having friends of all colors that he has known his whole life. I understand political terminology is not grounded in facts as much as it used to be but him being a proud Zionist should be enough to have Far Right removed. I'll do the work and list the links with time stamps if needed but if there was any unbiased research done in the first place you would know this already. Wikipedia used to represent truth based in factual evidence. What counts as proof for an edit these days? Weymouth77 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia bases content on what published reliable sources say, and not on the personal opinions' or 'research' of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Published reliable sources? How many of those reliable sources use Anonymous sources these days?Are they still all that reliable. The man did a documentary with the teachers and children involved with the liable case from the Syrian boy who was "waterboarded" If they don't count as reliable sources and the person who this page is based on own words don't count as reliable then what's the point? I bet if it was an admittion of guilt that would count. It's my fault I should've read the other edit requests first. I would've known I was wasting my time. And maybe since he is a proud Zionist that doesn't work in his favor here. Or maybe I'm wrong. Either way it's another one of life's learned experiences for me. Actual truth based in facts has no place in today's Wikipedia. One thing based in facts is if Wikipedia editors can't be unbiased then they shouldn't be anywhere near an editing gig on a site that claims to be based in facts.I really don't mean to come off like an a**hole. But every main stream media has it's own goals and political views. That's what used to make Wikipedia great. The people could show their proof and let the readers decide. You have better things to do than read my words. I don't envy your job. Not by today's rules. I hope you have a good night or day and wish you nothing but health and happiness. Thank you for your time and help. Weymouth77 (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)