", 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I just now removed the other two ""unbalanced"" tags for the Kleck and Lott sections. I don't see any articulation of how they're biased, other than you saying ""sections on flawed studies"". That's simply not sufficient. If your argument is that no mention needs to be made of those studies because at all, I strongly doubt others will agree that would result in a balanced article.

Perhaps I misunderstand your objections though. I do not like the rearrangement of the article into specific sections for each researcher. I think that may be some of your objection. I would recommend reverting back to the earlier organization, where it was organized by issue, and not researcher. Organizing by researcher allows for the problems you're concerned about. That said, I do not see any bias in those sections for those researchers. Hemenway's research is cited as a rebuttal in the opening paragraph of the first paragraph, and not long after in the next.   20:17"