Steve did you even read the thread I was responding specifically to Noloops s edit The problem is a conflict of interest not religion Also in this case the references aren t scholarly I don t know how you interpret what he said but what I understand is 1 Noloop is alleging a conflict of interest which I think is a red herring There is no COI if so please explain 2 Noloop is alleging the sources are not scholarly My response was simple if they meet the standards of RS they are acceptable Noloop did not discuss balance that is your topic and not germane to what noloop stated Please be on topic and precise If Noloop had alleged Evangelical excess which he did not then you might have a leg to stand on but that is not what he stated Is that your criticism Exactly what are you proposing for the article and its improvement