Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States

Veracity of Dr. Sax references

There seems to be a disagreement about the reliability of material sourced from Dr. Leonard Sax's work. Some say it does not meet WP:MEDRS[1] while others do.[2] Thoughts? --Meitar (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Sax graduated Phi Beta Kappa from MIT with a bachelor's degree in biology and then completed the combined M.D.-Ph.D. program at the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school, with the Ph.D. in psychology. The book in question was published by Doubleday (publisher). It should not, and is not, be the basis of the entire article, but surely it is good enough for a couple in an article with hundreds of references. --Illuminato (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view, books by mass-market publishers are questionable sources. By "questionable" I mean just that, open to question. This is because publishing companies do not employ fact-checkers. (This may not be true of some purely academic publishers.) They employ copy editors, who may check some facts, but generally on a hit-or-miss basis. In this, they differ from peer-reviewed journals and major journalistic entities.

So when you reference a book, you are depending very much on the author. In that case, some questions to ask are:

• What are this person's credentials?
• Are there significant and relevant character markers in this person's history? (Mostly only looking for major stuff here - for instance, if the person has been fired from a professorship for falsifying data, that would be a data point.)
• What are this person's motivations for being neutral and truthful? On the continuum "Entirely disinterested scholar <--> complete polemicist", where does this person fit? (Very few people are entirely one or the other, and most everyone has a point of view, and its only human to emphasize material that supports this. However, this tendency is present in varying degrees.)
• What is the cost/benefit position for this person vis-a-vis being rigorously truthful? (For instance, is this person in a position where, if it came out that a book he wrote was deliberately mendacious, would this person's career be harmed? For many popular authors it doesn't make much difference. For authors dependent on an academic career, it might.)

Oh, OK, Sax has a Wikipedia article, Leonard Sax. Granting that this only a beginning, let's use that.

• He has a Ph.D in psychology and (if I'm reading this right) an M.D., both from Penn, which is a good school. On the other hand, after that his professional experience is only as a family practitioner.
• He's not been fired or sued, but there has been criticism that he fudges data. We don't want to necessarily make too much of this - it looks like he has political enemies. It may be a data point, but a pretty small one.
• His motivations are questionable. He definitely appears to have a strong point of view.
• It looks like his cost for stretching the truth would not be high. He makes his living writing books and so forth, I infer, so he's pretty free to say what he wants.

Looking more into the article... good reviews by David Brooks, Time, Library Journal and the Atlantic and so forth, these don't mean too much, however the sheer weight of them adds up somewhat. However, when JAMA says he provides "excellent and informative references and information", that is something to notice.

Then criticism... there is a paragraph about criticism on a blog, which seems excessive and doesn't mean much. A paragraph about criticism from Elizabeth Weil. And that's it, so there's not much there. Weil does say "many academics... find Sax’s views stereotyped" and that would be worth drilling down on. The rest of Weil's criticism, at least as seen in the article, seems mainly political.

All in all, I'd say the JAMA quote is pretty telling. It depends on what we want this article to be. I would not consider Sax a reliable source for statements of fact. However, if the article is to show people's interpretations and opinions so forth, then it looks like Sax belongs at the party. He's notable, he's studied the issue, enough people have backed him up that he doesn't appear to be nutcase or anything. Herostratus (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Let my clarify that, since on reflection it contradicts my earlier assertion that only AAA-level refs should be used. I do not consider Sax's book an AAA-level ref for statements of fact (an this is true of most mass-marked books). I forget what statement was ref'd to Sax, but let's say it was something like "Teen sex causes depression" for instance. I would not take Sax's word for it and I would not use him as a ref to back up a statement of fact in the article to the effect that teen sexual activity is a known cause of depression. I don't trust the he wouldn't fudge his interpretation of data to fit his POV, and there's no fact-checker to back him up. (As I say, the Atlantic, David Brooks, Time, etc. are not in a position to vet his use of date. JAMA is, but it's just one quote, I'd have to read the review to see more about the context.)

However, if Sax is used to back up a statement such as "Some observers have contended that teen sex causes depression", then Sax is eligible to be included in the class "some observers", I think.

I personally don't think we should be going down the "Some observers have contended..." road with this article. But if we are, then Sax is, indeed, some observer. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

After hearing about his background and education, I was quite surprised that I could not find a single scholarly article that he has participated in. That concerns me from the perspective of his credibility as an expert on this topic. I did find "Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men"[3] and "Girls on the Edge: The Four Factors Driving the New Crisis for Girls-Sexual Identity, the Cyberbubble, Obsessions, Environmental Toxins"[4] and "Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences"[5]. I looked at the book,s and they seem well written and referenced. The question is, I guess, does his book (The one referenced in this article is the "Why Gender Matters") actually say what the references attribute, or does he say something else and the references are not in the same context as the book? Atom (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Vetting sources

One of the best ways this long article could be cut down on the sources. If we remove material that is not sourced to very good sources, that would best accomplish this goal, I think. It would decrease the length while improving the reliability of the material overall.

Now, there are sources and there are sources, and many factors go into considering a source. I think a rule of thumb is, the more important, contentious, and emotionally fraught the material is, the better the sources need to be.

For instance, if I write in an article "Eddie Foy had a summer home in East Bridgewater, Massachusetts", then it's OK to source this to a note in the local paper, because 1) it's not contentious and 2) it's not that important and 3) there's no reason to believe they'd lie about that.

However, if I write in article "Increasing numbers of teens across America are giving up sex in favor of daily church attendance" or whatever, then I would not want to source that to the East Bridgewater Clarion (or whatever paper they have there). Because 1) it is contentious, and 2) it is important to get it right and 3) people are emotionally invested in sexual subjects are so are motivated to bend the truth a little, maybe interpret a study an a way that is not entirely on the up-and-up or stuff like that.

So we want really good sources here. WP:RS lists two types of sources that are specifically assumed to in general to be good sources:

• Peer-reviewed scholarly journals.
• Journalistic entities which are known to have rigorous and effective fact-checking operations.

WP:RS doesn't say that other entities can't be good sources. And they can be. It depends. And these can be looked at one at a time. But on this contentious and important issue, we shouldn't accept anything less than the best sources without carefully considering, checking, looking into, and discussing each one individually.

Does this make sense?

This is going to take quite a while, but if we roll up our sleeves work together I'm sure that we can do this. I propose to lay each source out on the table and lets look at it, starting from the top, and starting soon. Herostratus (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that any source that meets the Wikipedia policy for RS should be used, as long as we maintain a balanced POV and give fair balance to all notable positions. If we choose to primarily use higher quality references, such as thouse that you suggest, I think that would be great. But, I don't think we chouse censor others with opinions different from our merely because their references may be less notable (assuming that the reference given is RS.) Have we determined that the article is too long? I thought earlier discussins felt that there was material in this article that is covered, or should be covered in the Adolecent Sexuality Article, and this article could be pared to focus only on the "in the United States" part? Atom (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:RS is long and complicated, and it basically says "Look, we cannot give you a magic bullet to tell you exactly what is and is not a 'reliable source'". However, to the extent that it does say what a reliable source is, this is contained at WP:RS#Some types of sources, and two are given: scholarly and journalistic. WP:RS then describes some sources that are probably not reliable, but I guess it leaves the middle ground -- the ground between The Economist and The Lancet on the one hand, and a self-published entity on the other -- as subject to discussion. So what I am saying is, in this difficult and contentious area, let us err on the sign of caution, and let us look with gimlet eye on sources that are not described at WP:RS#Some types of sources. Per WP:V, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight", and I think we can all agree that if there are any refs in this article to which that applies (there may not be), they should certainly go, for starters. Herostratus (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC):::Yes, I agree with that. Atom (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, please don't use the term "censor" here. No one is suggesting that any government agency should have a hand in this process. Herostratus (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." Anytime asny individual cuts out material that they object to, they are acting as a censor. We should not remove material that meets wikipedia standards, but does not meet an arbitrary higher standard within the article. I see no problem with seeking to use higher quality sources. Atom (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about the other point, removing material that doesn't focus on just the USA. Long discussions, hard to keep it all straight. Makes sense though. I guess that is a separate issue, although it can be worked on at the same time. Herostratus (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sounded good to me, so I examined the article in that light. I think it is arguable that most of the material currently included makes a reference to some aspect of adolescent sexuality in that context. (American, U.S., etc.) Atom (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to chime in on this thread and direct your attention, Herostratus and others, that your suggestion to "One of the best ways this long article could be cut down [is by cutting down] on the sources" as "It would decrease the length while improving the reliability of the material overall," is the majority of the character of my original WP:BRD edit, as I explained above. So, I agree with you that doing that is a useful strategy to improve the article. However, like Atom, I am wary of grading sources based on criteria other than WP:RS and, of course, WP:V. --Meitar (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you read WP:RS, it more or less says this:

1. Peer-reviewed articles published in reputable scholarly journals are reliable sources.
2. Material published by journalistic entities (newspapers etc) which are known to have an active and rigorous fact-checking operation are reliable sources.
3. And nothing else is a reliable source - necessarily.

We might or might now allow sources in in the third category, depending on circumstances. We allow local papers for local news, even though they might not even employ any full time fact checkers, and so forth. We allow a lot of category 3 sources for uncontentious statements. If a statement based on a category 3 source is 1) probably true, and 2) not the sort of thing that anyone would have any incentive to lie about (or slant), and 3) it's not that important, and 4) no one contests it, then we generally allow some considerable leeway. But we are not required to and generally shouldn't if those four criteria are not met, as a rule. And it is anything else that is grading sources based on criteria other than WP:RS.

Now, its true that at the Wikipedia we don't always follow WP:RS. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and "twice makes a custom" is not a Wikipedia rule. Herostratus (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally Fresh Eyes

I have only literally just come to this article, and its talk page, and so have no previous 'history' with any of this. The first thing that struck me about the article was that the POV tag seems definitely warranted. Hopefully this can be resolved amicably, and without taking up too much room! Is it worth while you guys finding out what kinds of research have been done by (for example) Dutch researchers, where the openness of sex education from an early age has been recognised as beneficial for many reasons, by many people? And, also, has any study been done on how much 'psychological damage' is not done so much by the sexual activity itself as by the societal stigma attached to it? Maybe those lines of thought could spark some fresh input. And no, I don't have time to do it, and I'm not really inspired enough by the subject to attempt to make time to do it, it was just a thought which may turn up something constructive. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a question for the anti-teen-sex guys: has anyone ever asked late-teens or early adults what their feelings were about 'having to do math in school'? How may of them would say "I wish I hadn't had to do math", "I was pressured into doing math", "doing math really upset me at the time", "I still have issues with math" (insert any other subject name, as appropriate). Would we then, as a result of that survey, be stating that "doing math in school" is bad for teenagers, damages them, leaves them with permanent 'issues'? ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Dangerous fringe advice

So Hans reverted Illuminato's changes, with an edit summary about "dangerous fringe advice". As far as I can tell, Hans removed the following sentences:

"One of the big problems here is that kids are having sexual relations before they are biologically and emotionally ready to manage this, both from the standpoint of planning the consequences and from dealing with all that ensues," Pinsky says.[6]

"Lets make this clear to parents out there," Dr Drew Pinsky said on his TV show. "It is ok to tell your kids not to have sex, and I would encourage you to do so. Delaying is the goal here."[7]

Can someone tell me where the "dangerous fringe advice" is in this? I'd have guessed that parents talking to their kids is about as non-dangerous as you can get, and that encouraging a delayed sexual debut is practically the definition of mainstream views on adolescent sexual behavior. This barely qualifies as "advice" in my mind. Was there some other problem, i.e., the wrong edit got reverted? Is there some danger here that I'm just not seeing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Hans, but my guess is "dangerous fringe advice" is a standin for "material personally loathsome to me", which carries somewhat less cachet. I haven't vetted Dr Pinsky, but he appears to be an actual PhD and even has a professorship at a real college, which puts him miles above several of the sources we use for sexual matters in other articles. Herostratus (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

see Drew Pinsky for background -- Paul foord (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

His credentials are pretty impressive, and that's before you get into his decades of hosting media programs designed to speak to adolescent and young adult audiences on matters concerning relationships, sex, and physical and mental health:

• BA Amherst College
• MD University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine of USC
• Residency Internal Medicine, Huntington Memorial Hospital
• Board Certified, American Board of Internal Medicine[
• Board Certified, American Board of Addiction Medicine
• Certified member of American Society of Addiction Medicine since 1990
• Member of American College of Physicians
• Licensed Physician and Surgeon in the State of California since 1985

I'm reverting. --Illuminato (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, here is the problem:

"Lets make this clear to parents out there," Dr Drew Pinsky said on his TV show. "It is ok to tell your kids not to have sex, and I would encourage you to do so. Delaying is the goal here."

Attributed or not, this is a strong appeal to parents to encourage their children not to have sex, or as late as possible. The problem with such appeals is that they are usually followed only by those who tend to be extremist in that direction anyway. The appeal comes after a context of 13-16-year-old girls 'dating' up to 30-year-old men has been set up, but the relation is not made explicit and may or may not reflect the original context in the source. In any case it's not the general context of the section "Family" of which this appeal forms the last paragraph. Encouraging parents to prevent their children from having sex can't be the last word in such a section. That's what almost all parents are naturally inclined to do anyway. A much more real problem is for parents to learn letting their children go, and this advice encourages parents who try to control their 20-year-old children's sex life.

For such advice we would need strong, WP:MEDRS-quality sources, not an expert saying something in a TV show. And this particular expert has a history of saying utterly careless things on TV, as is documented under Drew Pinsky#Criticism and praise.

Apart from that there is the POV problem. The article is still biased towards a completely negative view of sexuality as something unhealthy, and this paragraph contributes to the problem. Hans Adler 09:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, these are not "extremist" ideas: that 1) parents should talk to their kids about sex and 2) it is neither bizarre nor dangerous for a young person to choose not to have sex right away. I understand that you personally find these ideas loathsome and would wish them away, but the Wikipedia has to cover material comprehensively, notwithstanding the personal opinions of any particular editor.

The Wikipedia is neither encouraging not discouraging anyone from having any conversations about anything. The Wikipedia does not offer advice or encouragement. The Wikipedia reports facts.

Pinsky said the quote. The quote represents a reasonably cogent expression of a mainstream view held by a good number of people, professionals and otherwise. Pinsky appears to be a reasonably well credentialed person who is familiar with the field.

You don't need a WP:MEDRES level ref for this.

First of all, this is not a medical article. If it was a medical article, about anatomical aspects of adolescent or statistical facts, that would be different. It is a sexuality article. The accepted level of stringency for vetting sources for sexuality articles is much, much lower than MEDRES. (I'm not necessarily happy about that myself, but it is what it is.)

Second of all, there are a number of refs used in this very article that are not MEDRES level. If there was a comprehensive effort to vet and clear all the references to AAA-level, that would be one thing, but let us not cherry-pick those we don't like. (I had proposed and offered to lead an effort in this direction (see above), but not done so since the prospect of dealing with polemicist editors is offputting.)

As the POV problem, I don't have an opinion on that. There's been various proposals to deal with the article's POV issues, but the problem is that ideologically-driven editors make this difficult. (My opinion, expressed above, is that this is simply not a subject that the Wikipedia can handle well and the article should be either deleted or reduced to a short description of proven statistics.) But absent a comprehensive overview and solution, I don't think that this mainstream quote is unbalancing.

Per WP:BRD I've reverted your edits as I consider your arguments as unproven. If other editors want to weigh in that would be fine. Herostratus (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is psychological advice. Psychological advice needs WP:MEDRS quality sources everywhere. ("This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article [...]")

Regarding ideologically driven editors, I suggest that you take a look into the history of this article and who is responsible for its current state. The editor who is responsible for this POV nightmare has added this quotation, and it's a strategic one that makes an already bad article worse. Apparently my strong, angry response to this (triggered by my anti-extremism reflex) has triggered your anti-extremism reflex. I suggest that you have a second look before I have to escalate this very minor incident to a noticeboard.

We have an extremely unbalanced article which cannot be deleted because it is on a notable topic and which cannot be improved because nobody other than its former owner Illuminato can be bothered to do anything here. There was a period of inactivity with only occasional attempts to revert back to the state before the partial cleanup (in which I was not evolved) – first by Illuminato, then more recently by User:173.76.81.231. Now we have Illuminato adding new content that skews the article further, and you are supporting him. Are you sure that's what you want to do?

And no, the fact that there is badly sourced stuff here already does not make it right to add even more badly sourced stuff that goes in the same direction. Hans Adler

Basically, Hans' argument isn't working for me. Talking to your kids about sex isn't dangerous, keeping them from having sex at a young age isn't dangerous (in fact, it contributes to their safety), and the view expressed here is not anything even remotely like fringe. It might (barely) be second-hand advice (that is, we accurately report that someone advises this, rather than advising it ourselves). I don't see a justification for removing this information.

I am, however, open to ways of re-writing it. For example, I think it would be accurate and appropriate to rephrase Pinsky's as something like, "Most mainstream healthcare professionals encourage parents to talk to their children about sex and to delay their sexual debut". It would of course require another source, but finding such a source should be trivial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I would be worried if my child started to have sex with 12, or 14, and if she started with 16 I would wonder whether it's a good thing and would not encourage it. For most people in Western societies these reactions, or much more extreme reactions, are perfectly normal and in general don't need any encouraging from "mainstream healthcare professionals" (who presumably give their advice based on precisely the same kind of attitudes rather than any expert knowledge gained from rigorous studies). – But people hear what they want to hear. If they don't want their 20-year-old daughter to have sex, then they will read "young age" as "everything below 18" and then stretch that a little. And your proposed formulation is entirely consistent with trying to delay the "sexual debut" of one's (adult) children from an age that the parents consider normal for their children (say 19 or 21) to something much later. That's why such advice must always be formulated very, very clearly and unambiguously so that it cannot be misunderstood by people with unusual backgrounds. Otherwise we risk encouraging bigotry and a very unhealthy relation to sex. (I am not making this up. Just look at this article, especially in its earlier, more extreme revisions.)

Apart from the precision problem, I think it's a bad idea to say what the usual advice from "mainstream healthcare professionals" is without contextualising this with WP:MEDRS quality information on whether this advice makes sense.

So much to what motivates me here, so that you can see I am not just wikilawyering to keep some random information out of the article. Formally the problem is that the Pinsky material is of abysmally low quality as a reliable source. We can take the question whether MTV programmes are formally reliable sources and whether they pass MEDRS to WP:RS/N if you want, but the result is predictable: They are reliable sources, but only barely so, and they have no chance of ever coming close to passing MEDRS. Hans Adler 07:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to stress again that the Wikipedia is not offering advice here, we are reporting on advice offered by others. If in an article we say (for instance) "Mussolini made the argument that attacking France would have many benefits", we are not advising our readers to, themselves, invade France. You see the difference? Now, it's true that some readers may be influenced in their actions in life by what they read in the Wikipedia, and this is probably your concern, and I agree it could be a valid concern in some extreme cases -- we are not here to cause evil, even if indirectly -- but not here. Because the person's observation is unexceptionable, bland, mainstream, and not harmful.

But your take on the matter generally is different and, I would say... unusual. You think that people will read into the quotation meanings that are, in my opinion, frankly bizarre. And even if it were true, on some level we can't control that. I suppose that our article Dolphin could lead someone to the conclusion that tuna fishing is murdering sentient beings and he then might go on a shooting spree at a seafood restaurant, but there comes a point where we can't base our article content on what people with bizarre thought processes or ideologies might do.

It may be that you work with fringe elements, such as extremely religious communities or something, such that your experience is skewed and this affects your perception to the extent that you end up seeing anodyne mainstream thought as having a sinister slant. If that's the case I would suggest that you get out more -- read novels, watch TV and movies, listen to popular music, talk to people from secular backgrounds. I don't think you'll find that suppression of the sex lives of 20-somethings by external entities such as their parents is a serious social problem.

"If they don't want their 20-year-old daughter to have sex, then they will read 'young age' as 'everything below 18' and then stretch that a little". They will? Not where I come from. While there are surely people who don't want their 20-year-old daughter to have sex, they are probably basically motivated by religious, social, or moral considerations and aren't likely to be swayed one way or the other by psychological advice. I would guess that the community of people who believe that their unmarried children should have active and fulfilling sex lives provided that they 1) practice safe sex and 2) wait until age 27 is quite small. (Of course there are many people who believe that their children shouldn't have sex if they're not married, but that's an entirely different issue and far outside the scope of this article or any passages in it.)

So as to "I am not making this up", I think that you are making this up, not necessarily out of intentional mendacity but perhaps because your perspective is skewed, and "this article, especially in its earlier, more extreme revisions" is just one data point that is far from convincing that this is a general phenomenon or likely a general interpretation of the passage. Herostratus (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of critical boundary information

I added " Few children, aged 15 or less have experienced vaginal sex.(ref)[8](endref)". Of course, it is silly to talk about teens as though they were some sort of monolithic group that does everything together no matter how stupid, dependent on some English trickery with wording: thir-teen, four-teen, etc. I don't think this applies to all languages, mercifully. But it does in English and needs to have boundaries established for this particular behavior. It is from the reputable Guttmacher Institute. It was instantly reverted. I was told I would have to "discuss" it first. Not sure why. Student7 (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably mostly because your edit came after mine, which the editor wanted to revert. I have no opinion on the Guttmacher Institute. One issue might be that calling 13% "few" is an interpretation that goes slightly beyond the source's interpretation. Personally I think 13% is a lot. If someone had told me that number when I was 15 myself, I think I would not have believed it. (Of course it may actually have been lower in Germany at the time.) Hans Adler 22:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems with Media Effects Section

I see this entire article potentially has some problems, but my area of expertise is only in the media effects realm. That having been said I found the media effects section to have significant problems with POV, particularly through the selective referncing of sources which, although reputable (at least in some cases) nonetheless do not represent the full range of either research or scholarly opinion. Further the "tone" of the article tends to declare viewpoints as facts and is alarmist in general. I'm going to begin working on this section gradually over the next few weeks. I certainly welcome input from others.

As a side note I'm tempted to suggest a merger with "adolescent sexuality"...does "adolescent sexuality in the US" warrant separate consideration from adolescent sexuality worldwide? 69.91.76.238 (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)MVGuy

Thanks for your contributions. Many of your edits were very helpful - particularly chasing down sources and improving the flow and wording of some sections. However, I am of the opinion that you cut too much out when you were trimming, and I think this gets to your question of whether or not American adolescent sexuality deserves its own article. You cut, for example, information about the type and amount of sexuality that American teens are getting in their media diet. As it has an impact on their actions, I restored it. I also brought back the two sections - one on the content and one of the effects, as well as found a missing citation.

No worries. I'll see if I can find some other useful citations particulary from the other side of the debate to help lend it more balance, perhaps when time allows. Best, 69.91.76.238 (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)MVGuy