Please take the following at face value, I don't wish to be percieved as "flaming" or "trolling"...

I wish to pose what I believe to be a fair question. Is it the best sort of practice to cite unpublished work that has yet to be subjected to peer review. It's frustrating not being able to access and scrutinize the material oneself and possibly a failing to rely so heavily on unqualified literary work. After all, Ranika is no longer with the team and able to offer further information pertaining to this literature correct?

I really would love to take a peek at that source material...although without a translation I suppose I'd get only limited use of it. However any information at all regarding the location of this literature, a name associated with it's handling, or at the very least a cross reference of some sort I think should seem reasonable.

On the other hand I suppose the EB team is under no real obligation to adhere to such a protocol and have every right to make that investment of faith in Ranika's research. Perhaps a disclaimer on the material might be appropriate? Moving on...

While changing units at this juncture would no doubt prove unpalatable to the EB team a change of unit names and splash screen quotes might be more doable and hence make this thread a more worthwhile debate in that direction?

My humble opinion is offered only as I myself have wondered often about the the "Cycle of Don" and ect...no insult or distasteful inferences are intended.