"

 Why confusion and controversy in the ""real world"" does not preclude the writing of a good Wikipedia on the topic 

Ackoz suggests that, because the real world has not yet hashed out ""the truth"" about the expulsions, it is therefore impossible for us to know the truth and thus impossible for us to write about it.

I reject such a stance.  I think it is difficult but quite possible to write a quality Wikipedia article about a topic that is murky and/or controversial.  Where many Wikipedia editors ""get it wrong"" is that they believe Wikipedia's job is to report the truth.  This is wrong.  Wikipedia's job is not to report the truth precisely because it is difficult to determine what the truth is.  Any attempt to do that is original research.

Instead of ""truth"", Wikipedia aims for ""verifiability"".  Put a different way, Wikipedia is committed to recording the state of human knowledge and opinion (not our opinions but those of reliable sources).  If the truth is clear and uncontroversial, it is easy for us to report that.  If the truth is murky and controversial, it is more challenging but possible for us to report on what different reliable sources assert and think about a topic EVEN if these reliable sources conflict.  Where Wikipedia editors get into trouble is when they start siding with one side of a controversy and asserting that the side that they have selected represents ""THE TRUTH"" and not just one perspective (or POV) on the topic at hand.

I have been trying to hit this NPOV ""sweet spot"" but it is difficult to do so in the midst of a running polemical debate between the two sides.

 
Obviously is, because some users (Jadger and Wikiferdi) don't want to discuss in fact, they want us to agree with their POV, that's not discussion about the NPOV edits. That's why I quit from the discussion about the form of the article. ≈talk≈ "