I am amazed that there could have been such a major exercise over this extremely modest article which conained nothing contentious or manufatured. There was a good set of source material given for such a minor article, in fact more than I have seen on countless other articles where often there are none at all. Looking back to when I created the article observers will see that I only attributed actual quotes to two writers. I cited Anderson as my source for much of the article but I did not actually quote him (although I lifted much from him). My edition is the revised 1867 (9 volume) set. But there are many editions of this work. I have seen editions as late as the 1890s and condensed into two big volumes. A glance at ABE Books will give some idea of the number of editions available.