****Let's keep the suspicions at bay, please.  I approached Cousens, because he was objecting to the article and it was up for Deletion Review.  If he dropped his objection, the article would have easily passed.  It still passed, but it was more contentious.  Is it really our role to divine why a source reports on something?  Cousens does work internationally, and perhaps he visited Ghana, or Ghana News Agency just takes an interest in alternative medicine.  I like your suggestion to use RSN, but there are several sources, and that will take some time.  You're right that the structure of the article wasn't perfect, and I don't object to improving section headings, for example.  But those are mainly just form issues, not content.  I want to focus on the content.  Although I have 20,000 edits, spread widely around, this is the first BLP about an alternative health practitioner I've written.  It's different that the current events and politics articles I usually write, because the sourcing is not from major national media.  How would you feel about starting to put back pieces of your version, beginning with the background/education section.  I'd like to wait on the controversy section until we can resolve some of the other issues, because I do believe it gives it undue weight to have it at half of the article when there are many sources about Cousens which don't mention it at all.  Thoughts?  |