> The fact that it is false was noted on the talk page seven years ago, but this seems to bother no one.

From the talk page:

"This is inaccurate, as the linked Wikitionary page defines rectus as straight, not right"

From the Wiktionary page referenced: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rectus

   - led straight along, drawn in a straight line, straight, upright. 
   - (in general) right, correct, proper, appropriate, befitting.
   - (in particular) morally right, correct, lawful, just, virtuous, noble, good, proper, honest.

The rest of talk page comment: "I was told during my education that the rectus-right definition was used by Robert Sidney Cahn as an excuse to use his own initials, although I cannot find a source to back that up."

So, the wiktionary page literally defines it as right, and we see that it's not about direction but about being correct or incorrect. And then the follow up has literally no source to back it up.

So... "I think we can reasonably expect more."

The first claim is debunked. The second claim has nothing to back it up.

Is your proposal then to accept lies and claims without evidence?