Let me google that for you No, I paraphrased it and provided you a full reference. Indeed, you do. And you aren't going to accept it you are going to have to get up off your behind and do some research if you want anymore... like everybody else. Have you ever looked at the referneces of an academic history book. What you describe as "shotgun sourcing" is standard academic practise of all historians and publishing houses (provided the latter even bother to include references at all). So why is it good enough for the historical profession, but not for you? The book will cost you a whole cent on Amazon. I did provide a page number as well as a publishing year and I paraphrased the comment. Which is more than I needed do. You would fail critical source analysis 101 with that attitude. Because something is in writing does not equate that it was said. Short of reproducing a copy of Japanese diplomatic traffic there is no way to provide that 'proof'. You, like everybody else, are just going to have to take Hoyt, and all professional historians for that matter, at his word unless you want to hunting through his references, and the references of his sources, etc. Basically what you are doing is refusing to accept the content of a work of historical research, and demanding an unreasonable degree of research on the part of your online opponent to confirm the veracity of the history book they are citing, because you don't want to accept that you might be wrong. Well that is exactly what you are doing now. Nonsense. If the reference was to a document stored in an archive 3,000 miles away how precisely could I reasonably be expected to check it? Or if the author cites another book which you don't have and are unwilling to purchase? Your demand is utterly unreasonable, and serves only to deflect the possibility that you might have to accept the possibility that you are not as well informed as you previously thought. Why? Like I said I provided you with a full reference. A professional historian submitting an article for peer-reviewed publication wouldn't have to submit anything more, what makes you worthy of greater expense of effort and time? 'Fair use' does not exist in the UK. And what would that be? You think wrongly. To highlight the part you clearly failed to read: "The person making the copy does not make copies of the material available for a number of people." My emphasis. By posting sections online I am making that available to a near limitless number of individuals. How is what we are engaging in a book review? This is a book review: JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie No.