[fjtorres]

To put it terms that are on-topic, "authoritative" sources more often than not are the official position of the time and place, the orthodoxy of the era. In the 1880's the orthodoxy on american history was the triumphalist "conquest of the continent" narrative and anything that conflicted with that orthodoxy was deprecated, ignored, brushed aside.

Fast-forward a hundred years and you'll find a different "authoritative" orthodoxy and narrative in place that does not contenance light being shined in the dark places any more than the older one.

You find similar conflicts all over in reference works and resources with different societies insisting *their* narrative is the correct and "authoritative" one.

So we get debates about the Gulf of Arabia/Persian Gulf, who invented the telephone, whether the moon landings were faked, and whether Jomon/Ainu proto-caucasian peoples from northern asia could have colonized north america millenia before the first amerindians. All of which in one form or another impact modern politics in one way or another. (Read: prestige, money, influence, nationalist pride, etc).

And it is those kinds of debates that usually end up being fought in Wikipedia edit wars which is why Wikipedia is generally accepted to be merely "reasonably accurate" instead of "authoritative". Regardless of their position, somebody's ox is bound to get gored and somebody is going to go away in a snit.

The price of trying to be comprehensive, I suppose.