Thanks for the input SirFozzie. I have taken into account your opinions, cleaned up the section which was deleted, and have returned it to the article with your suggestions. I have not placed any cites as I did not write the section originally. What I think we can do is, go from here, place in the relevent cite requests, and attempt to clean up this section. NOTES- (1)I left in the last sentence of the first paragraph. While it might be seen as "original research" it is a fact, I'd prefer to let it go with a cite request to at least give someone else a chance to make it better. (2)I left in the last three paragraphs which you think don't deserve attention, however it is true, and this behavior definitely deserves attention in a "comments and criticisms" section. I think the problem here is that it is not a clean section. The current wording certainly is of an axe grinding nature, but can be cleaned up and sourced to become good information. Here is the original section I've pulled from-
Personally, I prefer this info to be integrated into the article more seamlessly, but I have accepted "comments/criticism" sections as a necessary part of these types of articles as there tends to be no other way to share this information without damaging the integrity of the article. Insertion of information regarding Hitler's abuse of drugs after his assasination attempt, or Exxon's treatment of the Valdez incident, and subsequent hand wringing over the suit, to all be examples of pertinent info regarding individuals and companies that can easily be perverted to a non-objective position, but are still highly valuable when done correctly.
So this done, let's all take it easy. Those who think it is a poor section please leave it and place in your cite requests. Those who think it deserves to stay can work to find those cites and clean it up. This can and will become a good section if we let it be and allow for the open source machine to work it's magic.