Southofwatford The claim that everything that appears in a newspaper is a sourced fact is just absurd The word fact in such a context no longer has any useful meaning because every rumour or piece of speculation that gets reported has to be treated as factual information So if newspaper 1 reports something that is directly contradicted by newspaper 2 then both are reporting facts the mind boggles My complaint is that you are imposing changes on everyone else involved without any discussion of them and then defending them simply by saying you have a source Of course we could all do this but you know as well as I do that the result would be a chaotic mess more or less what we are getting with this article It was made clear when protection was turned down that the discussion page was to be used before making changes you only like to discuss after the event because you know your changes are going to be challenged Given that your methodology means working by imposition rather than consensus on changes it is inevitable that it will lead to deteriorationin the quality of the article Anyway I want to return to an earlier question I think it would be in the interests of openness to know exactly who you have used to prepare material for this page You have told us that you are working with conspiracionists I think we are entitled to know exactly who you are representing here given that you are not operating as an individual contributor