(ec):Keegan: before we go deeper into the article itself, are you satisfied that (1) Hoolio can speak for Rodriguez and (2) that Rodriguez asserts (via Hoolio, I assume) that the description 'Jesuit Priest' is incorrect and/or unwanted?If Rodriguez is notable in his own right then there should be plenty of steers in the 'opinions' section of his home page at his university—which is in Spanish.  The problem is that nobody who speaks Spanish shows any interest in this page.  If he is not notable in his own right, then the article belongs in the bin, and the description of the controversy belongs somewhere else (we can discuss where the right place is later).The controversy surrounding the publication of Man of Ashes (i.e. the English Language version of A7393: Hombre de Cenizas) is verifiable.  A university decided to translate the book and employed not just a translator, but also historians to check out the plausibility of the events described.  Rodriguez delayed publication of Man of Ashes by legal threats.  There are articles describing the event by more than one author out there.The idea that only some proportion of an article can be negative seems strange to me and not really what NPOV is about (but, I don't do many BLPs).  Do we wait for the Spanish-speakers to add a thousand words, and only then include reports of what happened?  But until that kilo-word arrives we must keep mum?  Lastly, the article uses (or did) what would normally be reliable sources: we are not attaching WP:UNDUE weight to some crackpot writing on some obscure blog whose ideas have been picked up by a credulous journalist somewhere.