I m holding off from making any edits to the article in the meantime because at this point you re cherrypicking my points and interpreting policy to meet your needs and I shouldn t get into an edit war and shouldn t have gotten into one in the first place But I ll address the specific points you ve made While I didn t make the Mac Observer edit myself so I can t speak for the original editor but I believe the point of the citation wasn t so much to make any particular point about the accuracy of Enderle s predictions though I suppose that could be implied but to point out how often Enderle has predicted Apple s failure if not demise Though more importantly it illustrates that Enderle is target of criticism deserved or otherwise And I don t see how you could question the Death Knell Counter s credibility when it links directly to cited articles And I have no earthly idea why you quoted the policy on academic journals when we re talking about the validity of an internet site list which itself is subject to scrutiny from the site s editors and readers The operative term in the policy you quote is disproportionate which is to say if an article s subject is subject of overwhelming criticism than it makes sense for criticisms to dominate the article and conversely if the subject receives mostly praise then it doesn t make sense for the article to be negative But the way the article was before you erased the paragraph about the criticism seemed to be fairly balanced with his accomplishments and prominence receiving the majority of coverage And again if he has his defenders apologists then feel free to cite them Your edits aren t so much eliminating disproportionate criticisms but whitewashing the article I do not beleive that WP NPOV gives a particular editor the right to outsource their WP NPOV responsibility to another editor you clearly misunderstand the policy and the reason for my edits Criticism against Enderle exists Those criticism against Enderle come from prominent sources Again accurate or not criticism from notable sources should be in the article That you referred to Gruber as a John Doe suggests that you don t know enough about him to make any judgment about his notability and your characterizing Gruber s criticisms of Enderle as personal attacks tells me you didn t read the cited posts carefully The Gruber and Death Knell citations were properly sourced They in turn linked to specific Enderle quotes that they criticize You might not disagree with what they wrote but they are not libelous which is what the biography policy attempts to avoid The policy you cite doesn t apply here 98 204 112 111