steven l. rubenstein wrote
I think the only way to proceed is to instead distinguish between "controversial cites" and "uncontroversial cites."
I don't want to pretend that the problems here are either slight or unimportant. But there seems to be a whole tangle here, about editors wishing to prove points.
If one is not 'pushing the envelope' of what is easy to substantiate, with quotations from mainstream sources, then there should be little practical difficulty. Otherwise - well, a POV may be being pushed, or an article may be being dragged onto contentious ground. Are we not seeing Wikipedians trying to get beyond 'some say A, others B', by knocking down B?
Anyway, citations are a means to an end. They are supposed to aid fact-checkers, not to build up a case. I realise that the debates that go on do mean people think they must present a winning case on some matters. As ever, though, that is not what we come here for.
Charles