Moreover, there is a limit to the patience of the reader. If a reader
has
to wade through lengthy sections outlining trivia, conspiracy theories, fringe and crackpot views, etc. while trying to understand what is significant about a particular topic, then that reader will soon either lose interest in the topic, or come away with an entirely distorted understanding of it.
That would be a badly-written article in need of better summarisation.
Not easy to do, when proponents of the various fringe theories insist that their trivia is crucial to understanding the issue. And they tend to be much more determined about their obsession, er, area of focus, than the average editor. As an example, the [[Bible]] article, intended as an overview of the Bible, it history, canons, major translations, etc. now has a large section in it on "The name of God as found in the Bible", simply because certain sects (Jehova's Witnesses in particular) and people promoting the views of a fringe author (e.g. Gérard Gertoux) are extremely focussed on this issue. In fact, it was originally inserted into the introduction of the article, and repeatedly reverted and defended there. Pointing out that this is actually a minor topic more appropriate for the [[Tetragrammaton]] article, if anywhere, eventually managed to get the section actually expanded, and inserted into Tetragramaton as well, but at least it is moved down the Bible page a little. After a while the typical editor, who doesn't think trivia deserves this kind of undue promotion, but also doesn't really have a lot invested in this particular topic, (e.g. me) move on, leaving the nonsense in place.
Jay.