They certainly can.
No, mere assertions don’t cut the mustard on Wikipedia, as I already said. Information has to be cited from a reliable source, else it can be removed.
Wikipedia’s sole goal is not truth; no, it is verifiability. You can put a wild falsehood on Wikipedia as long as it is verifiable.
Show me a wild falsehood from a source that Wikipedia editors have agreed is a “reliable source” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources.
There’s the societal issues that I’ve mentioned before (and that you have ignored)
Say what? That assertion has nothing to do with anything I said, nor with anything else I said. Once again, what do Wikipedia editors have to do with those sources? Do you think they control those cited websites?
but this Wikipedia talk is really a distraction. Like Frink said, if your words offend a large cross-section people, find different words.
The only people who are offended are people who don’t know what the term “Mary Sue” means. Logically, that’s their fault, not mine.