User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Premanand as a Source

This page was created as part of the mediation process for the Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The page is specifically devoted to discussion of the use of the writings of Basava Premanand as a source for Wikipedia articles.

Indian Skeptic as a Reputable Source

The Wikipedia policy No Original Research states:

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source.

The policy provides some tests to determine whether or not a publication should be considered reputable.

• Is it openly partisan?
• Does it have a large or very small readership?
• Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff?
• Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip?
• If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes?

It is the mediator's opinion that Indian Skeptic does not qualify as a Reputable Source according to Wikipedia policy. As far as the mediator is aware:

• Indian Skeptic has an openly partisan campaign against gurus.
• Has a relatively small readership
• Is published and editted by a single person who is also a frequent literatary contributor to the magazine
• Does not seem to have a system of peer review.
• The mediator would not feel reassured if he heard that the publication was considering publishing an article about him, even if were not intended to be negative. Many of the articles of Indian Skeptic are online [1]. The article DID SATYA SAI BABA INFLUENCE THE JUDICIARY? (Vol 1, No 6.) [2] is sufficient to give me pause regarding the quality of journalism permitted in Indian Skeptic. The inuendo implied by this article is that Sathya Sai Baba improperly influenced the Supreme Court. The style of the article includes drawing conlcusions based upon speculation, and a long list of "unanswered questions". The article contains no substantive testimony to support the inuendo implied in the title. The mediator would not be pleased to have an article written about him in that style.

Please express whether you agree or disagree that Indian Skeptic may not be used as a reputable source to satisfy the requirements of the Wikipedia policy No Original Research. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 17:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Andries: Strong disagree. Premanand is treated repeatedly as an expert by the BBC in their radio and TV Programmes. Nagel refers to Premanand in her 1994 article. The article by Dale Beyerstein was published in the Indian Skeptic. I would not be afraid if the Indian Skeptic published an article about me or anybody else that I like, because they use the very reasonable rule of thumb that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There are very few people who have studied SSB better than Premanand. The Dutch psychology professor Piet Vroon referred to Premanand in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant and Premanand also appeared on Dutch TV to talk about SSB in the early 1990s. It also allows a proponent (John Hislop) to give his viewpoint and it published correspondence between academics on the subject i.e. "David" (David C. Lane), Erlendur Haraldsson and Dr. Dale Beyerstein. Where else were the miracles of SSB discussed among academics other than in the Indian Skeptic? Andries 17:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (amended)

Here is what Nagel wrote in the acknowlegement of her article a guru accused. She mentions only two persons that is Tal Brooke and Basava Premanand's Indian Skeptic "Acknowledgement: If Basava Premanand had not launched his Indian Skeptic a lot of the critical Sai Baba-material might still be floating around isolated. If Tal Brooke had not introduced his personal sexual encounters with Sai Baba in his Avatar of Night, others having experienced similar encounters would not have had an anchor reference point. Even though I do not agree with their conclusions about Sai Baba, I acknowledge their pioneering efforts in search of the truth." Select Nagel and then "A guru accused" Andries 18:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think excluding the Indian Skeptic as a source would be similar to excluding James Randi on the subject of Uri Geller, something I would disagree with. Andries 01:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The Indian Skeptic may not be a good source in Wikipedia for any other article than SSB, but the specialization of the Indian Skeptic is SSB. That makes it a good source in this case. Some sources like this one is not reputable for many, but only for a very limited range of subject. I think that the Indian Skeptic would not be a good source for e.g. Hinduism or religion in general. Andries 21:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

On seonds thoughts, the question seems moot to me, because there is no information sourced only to the Indian Skeptic in any of the SSB related articles. Dale Beyerstein's study of SSB's miracles has also been published by Indian CSICOP and apart from that his study has also been referenced in Nagel's 1994 article printed in the magazine of Free University of Amsterdam. I do agree that this question is important for the set of SSB articles, but not at this moment (04 March 2006). Andries 16:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• SSS108: I Agree. SSS108 03:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thaumaturgic: (excused -- on vacation)

Questions Pertaining to Indian Skeptic

Please express your opinion on the following questions. --BostonMA 15:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is Indian Skeptic openly partisan?

• Andries: It openly opposes paranormal claims. Opposition against these claims is widely held. Andries 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it openly partisan? --BostonMA 23:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Partisan is explained in the dictionary (Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary that I have at home as 1. enthusiastic and often uncritical supporter of a person group or cause. Using that definition it is not partisan because it allows long rebuttals (Hislop) and discussion about disagreeing academics (Haraldsson, David Lane, Beyerstein) about the miracles The magazine openly opposes SSB I have to admit, based on the weight of evidence against him. Andries 07:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• SSS108: Yes, the Indian Skeptic is openly partison. I have not found the Indian Skeptic cited by any site or person other than those who are Skeptics, Atheists or Rationalists. SSS108 21:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thaumaturgic: (excused -- on vacation)

• Does it have a large or very small readership?

• Andries: I do not know. Andries 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: The Indian Skeptic magazine has a small readership. This is evident in the fact that it does not have any sort of public distribution venue. The magazine is exclusively ordered through Premanand, in India, and all payments must be made in his name Reference Also, CSICOP said, on their own site, about the Indian Skeptic "And they need bucks so badly, they accept American checks" Reference SSS108 ^talk-email 05:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Thaumaturgic: (excused -- on vacation)

• Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff?

• Andries: Mainly by Premanand, I believe, but I do not know. Andries 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: Yes, it is principally run and published by Premanand, with the assistance of a secretary and a couple of "students". SSS108 21:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thaumaturgic: (excused -- on vacation)

• Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip?

• Andries: Premanand is specialized in SSB and he is seen as an expert by among other the BBC. It may not be a good source for any other subject than SSB. Andries 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Does it seem to have any system of peer review? --BostonMA 23:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the magazine is peer reviewed, but the only reference to Indian Skeptic is "the betrayal letter". The letter requested feedback and openly asks whether the letter is true and requests investigation. The betrayal letter was referenced by Matthijs van der Meer in an article in the magazine Spiegelbeeld Here is what van der Meer wrote "Parallel to this, in the Indian Skeptic of August '99, a sickening report was published on the systematic selection of cute little boys by the Indian Sai-organisation." Andries 12:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• SSS108: The Indian Skeptic does not have a system of peer review and repeatedly bases conclusions on personal opinion and belief. SSS108 21:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thaumaturgic: (excused -- on vacation)

• If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes?

• Andries: I would be re-assured because it uses the very reasonable rule of the thumb that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Andries 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: It is my firm conviction that Premanand is wholly irresponsible and does not check his facts. This opinion is based on my own personal communications with him, in which he even publicly accused me of being sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba Reference, even though this never happened. Premanand also accused me of numerous things that he has yet to substantiate in any way, fashion or form. Premanand has shown complete unwillingness to concede to his errors. Therefore, my opinion about Premanand is rooted in direct personal experience, which can be independently assessed through my communications with him Reference SSS108 21:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thaumaturgic: (excused -- on vacation)

Separate Sources for Same Author Require Separate Consideration

It is commonly the case that an author may be published in more than one place. It is the mediator's opinion that when an author is published by more than one source, the reputability or lack or reputability of one source does not bear on the reputability or lack thereof of another source. For example, if an author is published in the New York Times, it does not follow that the author's work appearing in his or her vanity press qualifies as having been published by a reputable source for the purposes of Wikipedia No Original Research policy. Similarly, if an author is published in a journal which has been deemed to not satisfy the reputability requirements of NOR, that does not mean that work by the same author appearing elsewhere cannot be considered as a source (if it meets requirements).

In particular, the mediator believes that any recognition that Premanand may have received from reputable sources does not bear upon the question of whether Indian Skeptic is a reputable source. Nor would a rejection of Indian Skeptic as a reputable source bar use of Premanand's writings that appear elsewhere (provided that source is reputable).

Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 02:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Andries: I agree Andries 20:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: I agree. SSS108 03:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thaumaturgic: (excused -- on vacation)

Indian Skeptic Article Employs Innuendo to Suggest that SSB influenced Judiciary

In the opinion of the mediator, the article DID SATYA SAI BABA INFLUENCE THE JUDICIARY? by B. Premanand, appearing in Indian Skeptic volume 1, No. 6, employs innuendo to suggest that Sathya Sai Baba may have improperly influenced the Judiciary of India.

Please express whether you agree with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Andries: As I already stated whatever I will write about this subject is based only on a superficial impression, because I do not know the background of this article and I do not know any names in the article, except the names SSB and Premanand. Please take into account that Premanand has critically followed SSB and published about him and his political connections for decades so he has far more information about SSB than available in the few issues of the Indian Skeptic online. The questions are open and not suggestive, so I do not think that it is innuendo as defined by the Wikipia article on 11-March-2006. If someone writes that it is not good journalism then I agree. Andries 23:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: I agree. SSS108 04:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thaumaturgic: (excused -- on vacation)

Indian Skeptic Article Provided No Credible Evidence that SSB influenced Judiciary

In the opinion of the mediator, the article DID SATYA SAI BABA INFLUENCE THE JUDICIARY? by B. Premanand, appearing in Indian Skeptic volume 1, No. 6, provides no credible evidence that Sathya Sai Baba improperly influenced the Judiciary of India.

Please express whether you agree with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Andries: If Premanand gave indications that the judge is a devotee then there is good reason to assume that the judge would not have been neutral. It is very difficult to imagine that a devotee of SSB would have been neutral as a judge about him. Everybody (unconciously or consciously) favors people (both inside and outside Wikipedia) whom s/he likes. (a more extensive reply will follow) The article did not provide credible evidence that SSB influenced the the judge. The article is speculative about a certain mysterious case (SSB knowing in advance of the verdict that no normal person can now), but the questions are open and not suggestive, so I do not think that it is innuendo as defined by the Wikipia article on 11-March-2006. If someone writes that it is not good journalism then I agree. Andries 20:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC) added preceding comments on 09:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Did the article provide any credible evidence that SSB influenced the judiciary? If you believe that it has provided credible evidence, you may list such evidence after stating yes. If you do not believe that it provided credible evidence, please answer no. --BostonMA 18:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the article did not provide credible evidence that SSB influenced the judge. Andries 09:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• SSS108: I agree. SSS108 04:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thaumaturgic: (excused -- on vacation)

Anonymous Sources cannot be considered reputable

In the opinion of the mediator, an anonymous source cannot reasonably be said to be a reputable source.

Please express whether you agree with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 01:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Andries: Disagree The Danish Radio and the Daily Telegraphy kept the real names of the Young/Rahm family secret. Both Danish radio and the Daily telegraphy are generally considered reputable. The courts in many countries incl. the Netherlands keep the names of sexual abuse complainants and victims secret. In other cases the courts usually reveal the names of the complainants and victims.Andries 13:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: I agree. SSS108 ^talk-email 01:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

www.indian-skeptic.org

Please answer the following questions with regard to indian-skeptic.org.

? See my answers about the Indian Skeptic. Am I missing something? I thought that Indian-skeptic.org is the online version of the Indian Skeptic. Andries 16:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not have paper copies of the publication Indian Skeptic. It appears, however, that www.indian-skeptic.org may have material that is not included in the paper version of Indian Skeptic. It may be that this other material is included, but not as articles. I am thinking, for example of [3] and similar items which appear on the website. If your answers for Indian Skeptic and www.indian-skeptic.org after this explanation, please let us know. --BostonMA 17:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The IndianSkeptic.org website is not run or owned by Basava Premanand. It is owned and operated exclusively by Gerald Huber (a skeptic and friend of Premanand). Huber duplicates material from Premanand's Indian Skeptic magazine onto the IndianSkeptic.org website. Hope that clarifies things. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that material of the Indian Skeptic is very similar to material of the Indian-skeptic.org No, I cannot be sure until I ask Alexandra Nagel whom I believe has a subscription, but for the time being you can count my answers on Indian Skeptic as identical to the indian-skeptic.org. Andries 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is it openly partisan?

• Andries: see hereabove. Andries 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: Yes. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Does it have a large or very small readership?

• Andries: see hereabove. Andries 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: Very small. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff?

• Andries: see hereabove. Andries 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: Principally run by a single person. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip?

• Andries: see hereabove. Andries 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: Get a feeling it shoots from the hip. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes?

• Andries: see hereabove. Andries 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: If Premanand was going to make a publication, I would be (a) terrrifed because i'd suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Are the answers that you have made to the above questions that speak in favor of reputability sufficient to meet the threshold such that this source should be considered credible?

• Andries: see hereabove. Andries 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: None of my responses speak in favor of its reputability. SSS108 ^talk-email 02:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Citation Demonstrate Peer Review of Entire Article

Experts in a field may, and often do, cite material which has not yet been published, or which has been published but not by a publisher considered to be reputable according to the Wikipedia No Original Research policy. Citation by an expert in the field indicates that the expert has in fact reviewed the material that has been cited, and unless it is clear from the context otherwise, the expert gives credence to the facts cited. If the work in which the citation appears is also published in a peer-reviewed journal, an extra layer of checking may have been performed.

If the purpose of No Original Research is to exclude material that is not recognized as credible by the appropriate community of experts, then the question arises whether work which is cited by experts should be included in Wikipedia, even if such work does not seem to qualify as having been published by reputable sources according to the letter of NOR.

Citation of previous work is often intended to give credit for the specific facts or ideas which may appear in a later article or paper, which are not the original work of the author of that later article or paper. It is the mediator's opinion that citation is not an endorsement of the accuracy of facts or ideas which are not specifically mentioned.

Take as an example the famous mathemetician Srinivasa Ramanujan. This mathemetician had a great instinct for solving problems. Although he discovered many new formulas, he also proposed a significant number of formulas which were shown to be incorrect. If a current day mathemetician uses one of Ramanujan's formula's in a peer-reviewed journal, academic guidelines generally require such work of others to be credited, even if the formula was never published, and was merely found on a scrap of paper among Ramanujan's possessions. The current day mathemetician who uses Ramanujan's formula in his or her own work gives credence and respectability to that particular formula, but is not thereby implying that everything that may appear in one of Ramanujan's notebooks is thereby accurate.

The mediator believes the principle above applies generally. When a fact or idea is cited by an expert, the expert has passed an expert review on that fact or idea. However, this should not be construed to mean that the expert has passed review on the whole work from which that fact or idea was a part, nor does it mean that the expert has deemed the publisher of that original work to be a reputable publisher. The standards for citation outside of Wikipedia are not the same as those within Wikipedia.

The mediator therefore believes that the fact that an article or other work has been cited outside of Wikipedia, even by experts, is not sufficient to show that the article as a whole or other work as a whole has been accepted by the appropriate community of experts.

Please express your agreement or disagreement with this opinion of the mediator. Please discuss other issues elsewhere. --BostonMA 16:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Andries: I agree Andries 12:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• SSS108: I agree. SSS108 18:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Thaumaturgic: (excused -- on vacation)

More things to Discuss

Can we also discuss the "Betrayal" letter?

BostonMA, you can remove or more this section to any place you choose. Since we are on the topic of Premanand, may we discuss the "Betrayal Letter" as well? Andries insists on linking to this letter, which was originally published and disseminated by Premanand. This letter, in my opinion, is a perfect example of content that grossly violates Wikipedia policies.

Premanand's "Betrayal Letter" is: 1) Anonymous; 2) Has never been cited in reputable media, 3) Its alleged author was arbitrarily changed, by Premanand, after five years. Premanand originally claimed a Sai Student wrote the letter. After I publicly exposed many problems with the letter, Premanand changed the story and claimed, matter-of-factly, that a parent (to a Sai Student) authored the letter. This information was purposely withheld for over five years (even Andries confessed he didn't know that the letter was not authored by a Sai Student: Reference); 4) Despite divulging full names, its contents have never been independently verified by anyone (in any way, shape or form) for over five years; 5) The letter is clearly Anti-Sai propaganda, and 6) Premanand clearly stated, in his correspondence with me, that Nagel got certain facts about the letter completely wrong (she simply parroted what she was told: Reference). Nagel, like Andries, repeated the untruth that the Letter was written by a Sai Student. She never cared to investigate the Letter at all. My research uncovered this startling and withheld information.

It is entirely baffling why Andries feels the "Betrayal Letter" is perfectly suitable to be included in the SSB article, although it is anonymous and has never been published or cited by reputably published sources. Then, Andries vehemently dissents with any citations to Kasturi (in relation to SSB's biography) when Kasturi HAS been cited by reputably published sources. When it comes to Andries Anti-Sai POV, the standard for including information into Wikipedia articles is entirely different than the standard he uses for information that he sees as favoring SSB. SSS108 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, Yes, we can certainly discuss the "Betrayal Letter". For the moment, however, I would like to focus on the issues that are still outstanding. --BostonMA 15:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion About Premanand

Premanand was never called an "expert" or treated as one by the BCC. That is Andries assumption. He cannot substantiate this claim with any factual information. Just because the BBC interviewed Premanand, Andries is claiming Premanand is an "expert". The BBC never referred to Premanand as an "expert". They referred to him as a rationalist and author. Premanand admitted he was a skeptic of SSB since 1968. The Indian Skeptic magazine is not neutral. It is specifically a skeptic magazine that allows for NO peer review. Perhaps Andries can show us the peer reviewed articles? The magazine can only be purchased through India. It does not have it's own distribution. ALL of Premanand's articles (without exception) rely on his personal speculations and assumptions. All of the letters from devotees, that Andries made mention to, were NOT addressed to Premanand or the Indian Skeptic [4] They were used to generate more skeptical questions [5] It is not surprising that Beyerstein's articles were published in a skeptics magazine. Beyerstein is a skeptic. Nagel is also a skeptic. SSS108 03:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Nagel is not a skeptic. Andries 16:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: Nagel is a skeptic of SSB. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Indian Skeptic Article

BostonMA, Andries also cited the Gold Control Act, in relation to Premanand. There is wholly inadequate information about this on the Indian Skeptic Site. One must pay to get the details. Full disclosure to this article has never been made public, although it is repeatedly used to critique SSB: Reference It is also referenced on Anti-Sai Sites, who have a promotional offer going on with Premanand [6] SSS108 ^talk-email 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Premanand's Book

Andries also stated (under the "Pending Tasks" on the talk page) that he wants to cite material taken from Premanand's book "Murders In Sai Baba's Bedroom". I think we also need to discuss the reputability of this book as well. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 13:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I do no longer have the book at home and I only glanced at it, but it is a compilation of many different documents, e.g. newspaper clippings etc. Andries 19:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best we discuss Premanand's book so it will not be an issue in the future. SSS108 ^talk-email 22:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot give good answers to questions about a book that I have not read and that was compiled from various sources. Andries 06:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are not planning to use the book, perhaps you should remove it from the list of pending tasks. --BostonMA 13:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I plan to use some news clippings, court documents, and autopsies from the book. Andries 13:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If the book is non-notable, how can you cite its materials? SSS108 ^talk-email 02:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, I believe the deciding issue is whether the book is published by a reputable source. However, whether the book itself is published by a reputable source, if the book consists of reprints of materials available elsewhere, if the original source is reputable, the material may still be used to support statements in Wikipedia (assuming all other policies are satisfied). --BostonMA 13:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Andries: do you intend to use the book as a source to back up statements, or do you intend to use exclusively the original material (from which the book is said to derive) to back up statements? --BostonMA 13:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a "book" in the traditional sense. It is a compilation of documents from various sources e.g. of press clippings and autopsies with some comments from Premanand. I intend to use among others the press clippings . Andries 17:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it is a compilation of documents. The question I am asking is whether, if someone challenges a statement in a Wikipedia article for lack of reputable sources, would you ever cite the book as a reputable source, or would you only site the original publishers of the documents found in the book as reputable sources? --BostonMA 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I intend to cite the original documents. Andries 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)