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. GĂ©rard 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.