It seems to me that trying to apply the original smalltalk definition to Web MVC is one of the main sources of confusion on the subject.
Perhaps, but for me it was an aha moment that really clarified MVC for me. I feel that taking too broad a view of MVC is the main source of confusion about it, because then almost anything that attempts to separate domain and presentation can be called MVC (and often is). But, in that case, calling it MVC doesn't give you guidance for implementing it. The benefit of following a more strict smalltalk inspired definition of MVC is that you get then get a strict set of principles to help you implement the pattern and to answer questions like "where should X go?" or "what is a controller?"
This article gives a comprehensive description of MVC which goes far beyond whatever may have been in the original Smalltalk implementation. It describes so many options and possibilities that it clearly demonstrates that there is no single, definitive, absolute description of what MVC is and is not. Surely that means that any developer is free to choose any implementation that he likes, with the only proviso being that it should work for the particular application being developed.