  Fate magazine was the original place Rawlin's published his account. However, summaries of the criticism and just as many quotes can be found in numerous places dealing with this controversy (any details re this issue could be taken from, for example, Richard Kammann's 'true Disbelievers' published in Truzzi's Zetetic Scholar). Simlarly, while Josephson's criticisms are originally published on his homepage on the University of Cambridge website (one of the foremost academic institutions in the world), they were also covered in some detail in 'The Times' newspaper so again anything needed for the article could be found there. I have to say, though, that I think it is disingenuous to try to exclude these criticisms (that we all know took place as described) on the basis of quibbling about sources. The point of the Reliable Source rules are to ensure that things that didn't happen but which are reported in unreliable sources are not then reproduced in Wiki - in the above cases though, all we are saying is that a criticism exists and so it's very existence - even in the most unreliable source imaginable - is evidnece enough that the criticism actually does exist. And if nobody buys that, then there are also countless other examples (I think I detailed these at length on the archived talk page and don't really want to haver to go through those again) that, if necessary, could be used to make almost identical points.      