controversial articles and neutrality problems

"FT2 suggests that a POV dispute can be simply resolved by writing "Rashid Khalidi says this
and Anita Shapira says that." But that same information can take on a completely different
meaning when written, "Anita Shapira says this and Rashid Khalidi says that." Order, emphasis,
and nuances of language are the substance of these disputes, and not the specific content."

Exactly. The POV warriors have already agreed all of the substantive differences and are reduced to quibbling over semantics. That the scope of the disagreement is this narrow is IMHO a success for the wiki process. Options for resolving this last issue are:

1. pick one side. The sides are so close together that this would almost have to be at random.
2. let the POV warriors continue to discuss this till the cows come home (i.e. forever). It does no harm and keeps them occupied. Outside intervention being limited to enforcing civility and process.
3. Create two separate point of view articles which gradually drift farther and farther apart as each gets captured by extremists since no one else cares enough to fight them.

I would pick option 2 - the current system. Like Churchill said about democracy "It's the worst system, apart from all the others".Template:O Rly