Post 5: Can a non-fiction book contain un-true facts and still be considered non-fiction?

As you may know already, a non-fiction book tends to be true, but what if it contained un-true facts? Would it still be considered non-fiction? In my mind a book has to be 100% true in order for it to be non-fiction. This is because if you're reading a historical book and it has un-true/made up facts, will you be able to tell what is right and what is wrong? If you use this book as a reference to a paper you are writing; yet the "facts" you give are wrong. You quote directly from the book which caused you to get something wrong, yet you thought it was right because it was a non-fiction book. That is why a book that is put in the non-fiction genre should contain only the truth.

Half-truths are not okay even if they have a good story. If someone changes something only to make a profit it shouldn't be considered a good book because you are not getting the real experience that they got. You're not fully understanding what they actually did if the story is bent. That's why I think it does matter that Frey and other memoirists who bent the truth in their story should be considered un-reliable because they want people to hear their story but they have to bend the truth to do it.

David Shields in my opinion is wrong. There needs to be line in between genres because if you have a fantasy book without a genre label and someone thinks its real because they didn't know the genre, what do you think would happen? Also with history books, if it doesn't have a non-fiction label and it holds the correct information but there another history book on the same topic but it is fiction. Which one will we believe? That's why I think we need to have a line that draws when a book crosses over the line into another genre.