I am sure that clarity would help; if only we could agree as to what one would say. The knub of the disagreement comes in the relationship between Acts and the letters. Long arguments have already taken place between those who, supported by scholars such as Conzelman, think Acts to have a comparatively low historical value, emphasising the hostility towards Judaism expressed in Galatians, and those who regard Scripture as consistent de fide so that any one statement must be reconcilable with any other. Critical scholarship makes the second view difficult to hold, though it is represented in the article. the statement about St. Paul's prctice would be controverted on precisely these grounds by a number of editors and, more important, by scholars. It is always hard for editors to cope with the fact that we are not, as a matter of WP policy in a position to say that anything is 'indefensible. That is POV - a point of view. We can say that this learned person or that has argued in this way or that. Whne I last looked at the article it nowhere suggested that St. Paul was a Judaizer; quite the contary as Peter Ballard writes. 

In short, I fear that one person's clarity may be someone else's POV. Because we have no credibility of ourselves, we must cite someone else, someone who has some scholarly credibility.