Here we go again (wikipedia)

[yossarian]

Biased or opinionated sources

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Gloria Steinem wrote that...", "According the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:...ed_sources

The second paragraph was never met for purported factual statements.

---

Additionally see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:QUESTIONABLE

---

GROAN

It's not a scientific test of "fact" you *****.

You can't apply scientific tests of fact to humanities. When they talk about "fact" they refer to "textual fact". For instance, "It is a fact that the Bible tells a story about Jesus."

Literature or sacred texts don't have to substantiate their claims with scientific tests.

I'm arguing with a 12 year old aren't I?

---

These published works are arguably trivial.

1. YOU DIDN'T MAKE THAT ARGUMENT, DID YOU? I WONDER WHY NOT.

2. They are NOT TRIVIAL ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA'S DEFINITION OF TRIVIAL WHICH WAS JUST QUOTED TO YOU ABOVE YOU *****!