I understand your logic, but I disagreed with your position for a different reason.  The point is that we cannot prove that the editors who used the sources showing in google books search results only saw and used the snippet view.  If we are to assume good faith here, we should believe they did actually see the full texts, cited them, and provided the links to google books as the best available online target (it's better to have a link to a snippet view rathen than to nothing at all, wouldn't you agree?).  However, this does not mean you or anyone else cannot ever question the validity of these cites—what it does mean is that to be able to question them you'll have to have something better than logically-enhanced mind wanderings (such as one above).  Which brings me back to my original recommendation—find the books, read them, and if they indeed are not acceptable as references, remove the sentences in question.  If, in turn, anyone questions the results of your analysis, well, they'll have to get their own copy of the books on their own, after which you can go through the pleasure of discussing both sides' interpretations of the sources on the article's talk page, instead of accusing the other party of what may or may not have been the case of OR/SYN/plain negligence to do a proper research...— • (yo?); 17:31, March 30, 2009 (UTC)