` :Your views of the editor's position are distorted. I don't mind using Beevor or any other of the saint trinity, mentioned by you above, as far as using them follows wikipedia guideline ``stay with the facts``. ``mostly relics`` isn't fact. It's a personal assessment. You seem to push on authority of the trinity, and willing to put into article anything, just coz they mere say so. I appreciate your effort in trying to find the factual basis behind their statements. But when you realized that there is none, the next step became too hard to take.  :The source with criticism of the saint trinity's ``research`` obviously does not exist. coz nobody knows/cares about them outside of english world, and inside they seem to be taken with religious zeal. :The systemic bias, by it's nature, can not be countered by ``giving weights``, since this is exactly the way it's introduced. Blindly following guideline ``this is verifiable so shall be in`` while ignoring other (``stay with the facts``) will mere make wikipedia a collection of cliches and stereotypes, popular among the prevailing editors. This is reflected in details on the systemic bias page. :According to the guideline ``they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them``, I've put the warning tag.   `