Ensuring high quality sources where needed, especially science/academic topics (narrow focus)

Well, a good example is right here [1]. I have worked on an article on Jesus reinterpreted in the light of what we know of Jewish culture and history at the time. There is a section reviewing current explanations as to why Christianity broke away from Judaism. It also includes an account of the most cutting edge research by a scholar named Boyarin. User Ari has recently come over deleting a section saying it is dubious, and calling for a reduction in the space devoted to Boyarin as his views are marginal. I reverted his deletion and left a note at talk in which I said that of course he thinks these views are marginal (anyone who deletes views does) but this is why we have an NPOV policy and instead of deleting views he does not like, he should add other views he feels are neglected. In the past few days we have had a little revert war. He continues to delete content that I drew from reading books assigned in university courses on the topic. Although he claims these views are dubious and marginal, he has not added any of those other views he seems to think are right. And he insists that I insulted him. How do I deal with this problem?

One reason it is hard to resolve is that very few Wikipedians know this literature, have researched it, and watch the page. If five or six people who were knowledgable in Early Christian History, Jewish history, Biblical studies watched this page perhaps we could have a real discussion on how to improve the article, incorporating views currently neglected, clarifying views already present. With five or six knowledgable editors we could have a real conversation on which are the mainstream views, minority views, and so on. But we just do not have enough people.

So with only two editors it turns into a silly revert war.

I also continue to be confused about how Ari feels I insulted him. I suspect he misunderstands NPOV (which in my understsanding demands that we include views we do not like, because it is inevitable that editors all acting in good faith will have incompatible understandings of which views are notable and which are not. For me a corollary of this is to add content rather than delete. But Ari deletes, and claims I insulted him.

Sorry to bring in a personal example but to me this is a classic example of those small number of articles that could be better and often are not for lack of adequate attention by enough editors who (1) are well-informed and (2) understand NPOV and (3) committed to consensus-based editing