Your whole argument is assuming that since some citations are factual and relevant than the others are and that makes the article Okay to cite as a source. Whic

Your whole argument is assuming that since some citations are factual and relevant than the others are and that makes the article Okay to cite as a source. Which just on its face is ridiculous. > oh sure that was a factual statement backed by a factual citation Don't you think considering "X thinks Y" as a fact is a bit disingenuous? > you've resorted to goalpost-shifting You started quoting Wikipedia as a source, and then shifted the debate about how not problematic it is. I "resorted" to nothing outside of common sense.