controversial articles and neutrality problems

I can see why it's tempting, but I disagree. I don't see anything in that post that would prevent a capable user stating "Rashid Khalidi says this, and Anita Shapira says that".

Again I emphasize, our job is not to resolve the scientific dispute, but to present where knowledge is currently at. Saying "It is hotly disputed and there are multiple views in this area" is exactly what we should do, if that's the case.

Weight and balance are the usual problems in such disputes. How much weight should view X be given? Is view Y mainstream or fringe? (Sourcing disputes are a bit easier to resolve)

My acid test of the issues in the Israel-Palestine disputes is more cynical. It goes a bit like this:

Suppose we took all the source material used in these articles, and gave them to a team of 20 users with no connection to Israel or Palestine, who were used to high quality editing approaches and content disputes in unrelated fields like pseudoscience, beer, indigenous rights in Paraguay, paleobiology, laser welding, English literature... and we asked them to look at the I-P topic area. Would they be able to reach a consensus on some kind of fair representation of the views and their balance?

Answer: probably. Mainly because they'd be considering evidence and seeking NPOV and balance, looking at sources and reliability, and identifying issues of fair representation of facts, as opposed to fighting like kids over it.

In other words, expecting people "too close to the trees" to solve a problem is itself the problem. This is a classic case where we do actually have the resources and can solve the problem fairly well, "outside the box".