sorry for the confusion i am saying that it is not neutral the way it is now you are suppressing the pov that is stated in the sf chronicle that no one was forced and that no laws were broken which seems highly relevant given the allegations so i am saying that the phrasing you are selecting suffer from undue weight non neutral fact selection and wording also from wp npov verifiability lives alongside neutrality it does not override it a matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present marginalized or given undue standing described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it or subject to other factors suggestive of bias verifiability is only one content criterion neutral point of view is a core policy of wikipedia mandatory non negotiable and to be followed in all articles concerns related to undue weight non neutral fact selection and wording and advancing a personal view are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited the two are different questions and both must be considered in full in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article so based on this i am also reverting i really am only trying to make the article better by trying to find neutrality and getting away from bias