"some on Mudcat present it as an article of faith" - Glueman
I've asked similar questions on this thread, but please, where did this come from? - Jim Carroll

It's based on things like:

"I'm not contesting the 1954 definition….. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it." - The Snail
Except join in discussions like this when the opportunity arises - Jim Carroll.

Surely you must see that criticising the very idea of discussing the 1954 discussions comes across as authoritarian? I've used 'article of faith' as an analogy before because it precisely fits the attitude, something based on uncritical dogma and an appeal to sentiment, beyond any rational discussion.
It's also based on Mr Bridge's conventional putdown which goes (to paraphrase only slightly) "I've explained it before (1954), if people are too stupid to see I'm not wasting my time," as though disagreeing or pointing out the fault lines were a mark of stupidity or, more often, disloyalty to an idea. I'm at a loss as to how discussing what is a definition aimed at harnessing some abstract ideas can be equated with idiocy or disloyalty. It reminds me of religious debates - or non-debates - with priests at school which also revealed institutional myopia about where to look for the truth, and a tendency to reprimand and patronise when people looked in the 'wrong' place.