"Subsequently Eleland came along and deleted most of your modifications claiming that they were not from authoritative enough sources and that they were disproportionate within the article. Eleland made a unilateral decision about all this and was quite perturbed when I reinstated the article. Eleland proceeded to get into a deletion war, would not entertain discussion prior to making wholesale deletions, and then contacted administration to have the sections struck out. Please check discussion for Admin's response. I do not question anything said by Manning, however it does not appear that he has looked at the sources as thoroughly as Fluri. Also Eleland placed warnings on the article regarding the veracity of the citations.

Admittedly, I have responded vigorously in discussion, but only to protect the material that had already been checked by Fluri. Anyway it appears that Eleland is on a messianic crusade to have it struck off the record. This is somewhat surprising given Eleland's herculean efforts to include material about Israel on the Caterpillar.Inc issue. Clearly Eleland is not the impartial arbiter that he would have us believe under ""Ed O'Loughlin"" but a bit of an anti-Israel activist himself.

This is perhaps strange considering, and I quote Eleland in the discussion on Caterpillar Inc.: Editors must not remove information about an argument because they personally disagree with the argument. Wikipedia must include all notable points of view which appear in verifiable published sources. Reporting that activists have said something does not imply that the activists are correct. Removing those reports because you think the activists aren't correct contradicts Wikipedia's core policies. Eleland 

Many thanks for considering the situation & is there a case to have the article protected against ideologues like Eleland who apply rules to suit their ends?124.191.92.25 

[edit] 
"