::::::::You keep putting things in quotations that aren't actually quotations, since nobody's actually said them. Of course the merit of various sources needs to be examined critically and discussed. That's what determines the "reliable" in "reliable sources". And RS is how Wikipedia is written, regardless of what really happens with tertiary overview books. You're setting up this false dichotomy that somehow insisting on WP:RS, WP:V and no WP:OR implies lack of thought or common sense - that just isn't the case. Anyways. If this was just one source or two in isolation then maybe there'd be something to discuss here. But the term is very common in all sorts of academic and non-academic literature  - so we're not talking a single "NY Times or a "notable columnist or tv commentator"" here.