::::OK, I see your point. I agree that summarizing the points of each side in a seperate section is looking less and less like a viable model.  If someone wants to change it, I won't complain.  As for the Paez issue, let's work out an NPOV, factually accurate phrasing here, then move the bullet point out of support into a seperate section that discusses Paez and Abe Fortas as 'Possible precedents' or something.  My proposal- "There are three nominees whose confirmation was delayed by 14 Republican Senators, which Democrats point to as an example of Republicans filibustering judicial nominees.  Republicans argue that this was not a filibuster since these nominees did eventually get a vote(PDF file).  Bill Frist stated '(Voting against cloture) to get more information is legitimate.  But not to kill nominees.'  Democrats counter that cloture was only achieved because Republicans couldn't get the votes to overcome iti.e. the filibuster was successfully blocked.  They also point out that the delay meets every definition of the word filibuster (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=filibuster) and that a Press Release by the opposing Republicans referred explicitly to the vote against cloture as 'an effort to block' the nomination.