I've already mentioned what a reliable source is... look a couple of posts back. .. a reputable statistic record keeping organisation that anybody can look at
Exactly. Where did your book and your newspaper get these records from? If they can't provide that, and if nobody can publicly look at the information then their source might actually be their Uncle Sue.
Sure, but these are respected sources. All three of the sources i've listed have reputations that are mostly in tact. I'm sure your Uncle Sue is respectable too, but it's unlikely that The Observer on Sunday would have asked him/her for an opinion. You've said you regard ONLY "a reputable statistic record keeping organisations" as acceptable sources, nothing else matters. I'm asking you what would be a good example of "a reputable statistic record keeping organisation"? Can you give me an example?
It's not up to me to give an example, I don't know if there is anybody tracking these things. If there are no statistics being kept then nobody knows. If the newspaper has a source then they have to show it. A newspaper isn't a source, it reports a source. Until you can tell me the source that they're using then it's Uncle Sue's word versus my Aunt Tom's word. You don't seem to be following the logic very well..
The top couple of beltholders in each division are well rounded, but I think it's fair to say the norm is that those that fall below that tier are far less complete.