Article is wandering pandering   This article is sounding more and more like a CYA apology to all the criticisms out there on this topic  The recent edits I think have wandered far from the basics of an encyclopedia article ie a terse and pithy who what where why when and how of the topic  For example not even  sentences in we are already hedging and apologizing for stating anything in this article not to mention the article starts with a qualifying statement  It seems to me sentences  at the top of the article are out of place going from beginning Smith translated to end Smith returned before even introducing the topic we dont need a preview before we get to the article summary first section  Im pretty good at copyediting and I cant even begin to think of a wording that straightens out the beginning of this  This article is sounding much more and more like a book on the subject rather than an encyclopedia  It is reading like a list of strung together quotes and I can even see merit in the synthesis argument because we are stringing together so many quotes from so many sources that even though this isnt original research it can be easily construed as such  The article is getting wordy it lacks a clear focus on the subject and tries to include everything to the exclusion of clarity  Take a look at the differences between the FA version of this article over  edits ago and nowI think its clear that we have made some progress in some areas but to pander to critics and apologists to this level is ludicrous