A standard dictionary definition of species is the worst possible reference to use. But since you say you have examined the vast literature on the subject, I'm sure you've read this paper:
Ok, so now that you've clarified yourself, we can ignore Splangy's view, and your endorsement of it, as it is not a biologically defensible model.
The thing is, even biologists that completely follow the Biological Species Concept (which I think Splangy is incorrectly endorsing) wouldn't say her comments are valid. Hybrid zones do exist. Hybridization of different species does exist. Splangy fails to recognize that speciation events don't happen instantaneously, and the ability to interbreed isn't the final say. There are hybrid fitness levels, differences in phenology, mating behaviors, etc...all important pieces in a very complicated puzzle in what can be defined as a separate species. Quite frankly, her absolute and unchanging definition is rather naive.
Was simply trying to say, that some places, as in Norway, this view of species is considered a possible one, and is taught in school beside "your" view, as an alternate model to a science that is still rather unexplored in many ways.
Absolutley - science is a jungle, and as I said, there's as many definitions and theories as there are scientists, making it easy to get confused.
And as we know, what one learns in 'school' is not always representative of current scientific thinking. And if you're being taught that determining species only requires the notion of interbreeding, then your teachers/professors have questionable expertise.