3 ms·

Uh. There was a source provided: 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I wouldn't call that more reliable, but it's still as valid a source as Wikipedia.

• mgraczyk 13y ago
  The 1911 Britannica is not the source provided. The source is a hypothetical entry in an encyclopedia that most people don't have. That is not as valuable a source as Wikipedia because I cannot easily verify that the 1911 Britannica corroborates the facts in this email.
  • maxerickson 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_a_citation_from_the_1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica_with_Wikisource_reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_inc...
  • saraid216 13y ago
    Just because you are lazy and unwilling to verify the source doesn't mean it's not a source.
  • acqq 13y ago
    The text of the whole 1911 Britannica is just one Google away: https://archive.org/details/EncyclopaediaBritannica1911HQDJVU https://archive.org/details/EncyclopaediaBritannica1911HQDJV... http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica
• sltkr 13y ago
  You're right -- my mistake. I missed that somehow.