It's never seemed to stop you guys from using it yourselves many times. It's subjective.
But, rather than denigrate a source because you may not like what it says, one thing that Wikipedia does is post ALL its source material right there at the bottom of the page, usually with hypertext links built right in so you can go to them and check the footnotes for yourself. Of course, had one gone to the actual link, one would have seen that and might not have made such a poor excuse for NOT reading the material. Too bad. Here's the link again so anyone can check if I am right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance
It certainly is, but it requires actual knowledge of the subject too. The Renaissance is not synonymous with Renaissance Art. Church funding and support of neoclassic sculpture, paintings, and architecture do not negate the extreme secularization influences of the Renaissance as a cultural and political phenomenon and the resurfacing of the relativism and humanism of the "Golden Era". To deny that these in large part laid the foundations of the "Reformation" is nonsense.
Peace be with you