  == 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, i.e. a terse and pithy who, what, where, why, when, and how, of the topic.  For example not even 4 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 2-4 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 don't need a preview before we get to the article summary (first section).  I'm pretty good at copyediting and I can't 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 isn't 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 1,200 edits ago) and now[]...I think it's clear that we have made some progress in some areas, but to pander to critics and apologists to this level is ludicrous.   