No sorry you are still very wrong Impartialness is a factor of WP NPOV and we have to be able to distinguish between opinion and fact Again there remain very few facts that we can associate with GG overall short of what s in the current History section it is a war of opinions here that s why its a controversy Further FRINGE states we give fringe views a neutral fair treatment with the associated weight of ink they get from RS So because ethics claims have been discussed if not then debunked by the authors in the next breath in these highly reliable sources we can discuss them in a non prejudging way and then later include the criticism of them that s how we meet all content policies End of the day we can not appear to take a side in the GG issue and everything you have said above is against that point And that I m trying to use an avalanche of incredibly negative stories to say its about ethics is 100 wrong I m trying to introduce the required impartiality into the article per NPOV I don t necessarily believe at the end of the day GG is about ethics but they have presented that as their case and as we are an impartial encyclopedia we should include any facets of their case that have been appropriately documented in highly reliable sources Failure to do so is showing a partial view of the story The fact that these claims are made in negatively charged stories doesn t matter they are stated in what everyone here is considering as highly reliable sources most of what we know about Westboro Baptist Church for example comes from highly negative sources about the congretation but we still can document what the church claims about itself from them That s exactly what we must do here t