Discussion of source quality I wanted to start a new section to discuss the quality of sources cited PeterEastern was right to comment that the CBS article I added to the intro was not a primary or secondary source but instead a tertiary source where a reporter is telling us what others have researched on the subject In reviewing the sources I don t know that we have a large range of really high quality sources Many appear to be news articles or other sources with no citations For example I don t think Guy Span s work on the subject should be given more weight than Slater s Snell s work on the subject has been discredited by other researchers who have shown factual errors in Snell s version of events Thus according to Wiki guidelines his work should be viewed as unreliable and only cited to show that he said X vs that X actually happened Thoughts comments