`, 16 March 2014 (UTC)  :::I just now removed the other two ``unbalanced`` tags for the Kleck and Lott sections. I don't see any articulation of how they're biased, other than you saying ``sections on flawed studies``. That's simply not sufficient. If your argument is that no mention needs to be made of those studies because at all, I strongly doubt others will agree that would result in a balanced article.  :::Perhaps I misunderstand your objections though. I do not like the rearrangement of the article into specific sections for each researcher. I think that may be some of your objection. I would recommend reverting back to the earlier organization, where it was organized by issue, and not researcher. Organizing by researcher allows for the problems you're concerned about. That said, I do not see any bias in those sections for those researchers. Hemenway's research is cited as a rebuttal in the opening paragraph of the first paragraph, and not long after in the next.   20:17`