All of your references are discussing and debunking misapplication of Bernoulli.
In fact, Bernoulli applied correctly explains all of the lift. The Newton approach also explains all of the lift. They are just two different ways of looking at the same thing. Bernoulli comes from applying conservation of energy. Newton comes from applying conservation of momentum.
See this discussion from NASA: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html
What's puzzling is that it is not at all uncommon in other areas of physics for there to be different ways to explain something, and this causes no problems.
If one person calculated the velocity of a dropped object by integrating the acceleration, and another person did it by using conservation of energy on the conversion from gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy, people might argue over which approach works better, but no one would argue that the other approach does not work and does not explain 100% of the velocity.
Or one person might calculate the response of a linear circuit to a sinusoidal signal by working in the frequency domain, and another person might work in the time domain. People might argue over which approach is easier, but again no one would say that only their approach works.
But with lift, people seem to like to latch onto one approach to the point of rejecting the very idea that there might be a different way to get the same result. It makes no sense to me.
The Newton approach is easier to teach reasonably correctly, so that's probably best up through, say, first year college physics and for pilot training.