So how does any of this justify wholesale deletion of the criticism section? In fact if what you're saying is true, then you should have no problem with my edits to the criticism section: your argument is that it's feasible to cover the relevant controversies in a neutral and balanced manner (written as part of the History section, and avoiding unnecessary direct quotation of political opponents' smear phrases which means that not only are can changes to the quotes of criticism of CounterPunch be done, but that would also mean you need to have the quotes of criticisms to exist in the first place in order to make the changes so that the quotes are written in a balanced manner.