This wikipedia article seems very under-sourced, and there are several unsupported instances of "many say" and "some argue", just in the introductory paragraphs. Later there are paragraphs with a number of factual claims and only one source that supports only one or none of them.
I don't know why this is getting downvoted. These are good points. The literary world enjoys a good mystery. Look no further than the debates over Shakespeare's genuine identity or discussion of the whether Socrates was indeed a real person.
This is where discussion of a historical topic often ends up however when facts are few. We end up carrying around a bunch of "widely held" beliefs among other odds and ends.
There is a movement that seeks to shelve any historical beliefs that aren't backed by some physical evidence. However, there are documented cases of these kinds of things turning out to be true.
i.e. this ancient author claims a civilization minted coins 200 years before any known coins in some area so no one buys it. But eventually someone digs up a pot of coins minted by such and such civilization.
Pursuit of these kinds of informal pieces of information have led to breakthrough discoveries. Sites of ancient cities have been discovered this way.
I think the general position of most historians now is to believe the fact oriented claims passed down, not too intensly, so long as they aren't outright fanciful or seem intended to inflate personal or ethnic or political glory. For example, most ancient historians believe that most accounts of battles actually corespond to a real battle but they are often skeptical of the seemingly inflated numbers of soldiers supposedly mustered.
