SlimVirgin wrote:
What I meant to add is that the "list of quotations" articles are impossible to copy edit, and even if you try, you'll be instantly reverted. As a result, our most contentious pieces are often nothing more than, "A said X, while B said Y, but C did not concur, adding that Z."
While such writing is pretty clearly acting as placeholder for a more mature treatment, it is still true to our basic principles. "Placeholder" is the best we can do, until solid academic discussions come along (and even those have to be slotted in as they merit it, not simply used to carpet-bomb dissent). And "holding the ring" in contentious areas, for the sake of NPOV, is how Wikipedia operates (feature not a bug).
No doubt, it is tempting to look at the topic hot-spots as indicative of any possible breakdown of model. But I really don't think anything quite so unrepresentative should be taken as central to the writing issue. I certainly don't think we should start muddling up the key content policies and the Manual of Style. Those are, and for good reason, functionally separate.
Charles