> I would have to disagree with the characterization of two opinion blog posts from relatively unknown authors as “unbiased sources.”

The first link is from Destiny, a well-known (albeit controversial) online figure. It seems to be a factual timeline of events with citations for every claim made, which is far from an opinion piece.

Both are highly researched with Sources cited...

Presence of citations has near zero meaning in terms of goals of the writing or bias. These are so clearly opinion pieces. One is bordering on an attack piece.

> Presence of citations has near zero meaning in terms of goals of the writing or bias. These are so clearly opinion pieces.

Completely dismissing the content because you believe it must be biased is somewhat ironic.

Would you at least then concede that the Wikipedia article is also unreliable and biased?

> One is bordering on an attack piece.

Which one? If you're referring to the piece published by Destiny, what constitutes an "attack piece" if all the claims made are rigorously cited? Would being an attack piece invalidate the claims even if they're demonstrably true?