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. 84.52.101.196