Talk:Street children

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Statistics

"In the United States, as many as one in seven young people run away or are thrown out of their homes before the age of 18. Many of these children have been driven out of their homes by extreme poverty, severe family conflict, abuse and neglect, or parental abuse of alcohol and drugs."

This seems like a very dubious claim to me. What stats back this up? In my city, Minneapolis, this would mean something like 14 thousand homeless minors wandering the streets. For the metro area as a whole, this would be around 100 thousand homeless minors.

I agree. I am removing that line as it seems unrealistic and is not backed up -- rachel, US

How do you add comments in this discussion? Hopefully I am following procedure. Anyway, I don't believe the stats suggest that they ALL must be homeless at the same time. Often, a child runs away many times which may skew them some. Do any stats ever reflect the actual truth? These numbers are meant to give a sense of the size of the problem. Not sure where they originated but I have heard these figures before. I'll do a little research and get back. Jqlogan 03:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't hard to find. It is quoted on the National Runaway Switchboard web page at this URL: http://www.nrscrisisline.org/issuefacts.asp along with some other unbelievable stats--all with references. This stat has reference "J. Greene et al. Prevalence and Correlates of Survival Sex Among Runaway and Homeless Youth. American Journal of Public Health, 1999". If my voice matters, I vote to reinstate the line along with the reference once it has been validated. You should be able to validated the article on the American Journal of Public Health webpage. More specifically at URL: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/9/1406 . I appreciate your consideration of this matter. Jqlogan 03:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ethanol?

Not that it matters much, but I think it is glue in those bags that children sniff from.

I agree. Ethanol is the substance found in alcoholic beverages-- I don't believe it's possible to get high from simply inhaling it. 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah, the section on Pune seems kinda un-encyclopedic.

It's written as an opinion, is it not?

Please sign your contributions by striking the tilde key four times. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error in Classification

There seems to be an outright error in the classification section:

Street Children are classified by UNICEF into the following categories: * Children on the street: This is the largest group, consisting of children who work on the street. * Children of the street: These include runaways, abused, alienated children from deprived and poverty stricken families who are unable to maintain normal family units. * Children in the street: The smallest group, covering orphans and abandoned children whose parents may have died from war, illness or simply been unable to look after the children because of their family circumstance. [Ref. UNICEF] [citation needed]

I attempted to track down this classification at UNICEF and found:

Definition of Street Children The most common definition of a street child or youth is “any girl or boy who has not reached adulthood, for whom the street (in the broadest sense of the word, including unoccupied dwellings, wasteland, etc.) has become her or his habitual abode and/or sources of livelihood, and who is inadequately protected, supervised or directed by responsible adults” (Inter-NGO, 1985). This definition was formulated by Inter-NGOs in Switzerland in 1983. In this study the term “street children” is used to refer to children who work and/or sleep on the streets. Such children may or may not necessarily be adequately supervised or directed by responsible adults and include the two co-existing categories referred to by UNICEF as those “on the street” and those “of the street” (Agnelli, op. cit., p. 34). Other researchers identified these two categories amongst different street children populations (e.g. Dube et. al, 1996, Ennew, 1986; Scharf et al., 1986; Richter, 1988a). “Children of the street” are homeless children who live and sleep on the streets in urban areas. They are totally on their own, living with other street children or homeless adult street people. On the other hand, “children on the street” earn their living or beg for money on the street and return home at night. They maintain contact with their families. This distinction is important since “children on the street” have families and homes to go to at night, whereas “children of the street” live on the streets and probably lack parental, emotional and psychological support normally found in parenting situations.

from A Study on Street Children in Zimbabwe

A Google search for the reference yields only other studies citations of the work that contains this definition and classification, but not the original work itself. Considering that there is currently NO reference for the current information, The classification system should be revised to reflect the definition hinted at in A Study on Street Children in Zimbabwe.


[edit] External links

The external links section was a directory to organizations who work with street kids. These links did not primarily contain encyclopedic information about street kids, but rather linked to websites of organizations promoting their work with street kids (for the most part, there were a couple of dead link and pay-to-view sites). I've removed them. The link I left (consortium for street children] may also need removing. I thought it was borderline, and since there weren't any other links I left it in to provide at least some jumping off point for further study. But I think it would be better to find some decent online research to put here. -- SiobhanHansa 17:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good evening,

let me tell you frankly that I don´t agree with your arguments and the removing of the links. You could have removed the dead links and the pay-to-view sites. But not all links. For the readers of the side about street children it is not only important to read about this needies but to inform what kind of help is possible. To have this informations on the same side is very helpful. Without the links it is only an encyclopedic information which doesn´t have any effect. And it doesn´t show the true life of this children at all. To see what kind of help can be done for the street children can have a disseminator effect. I am working for more then 17 years in my free time very hard for this kids to give them future. And I am running two children homes with actual 181 boys and girls. For the sake of all street children it would be nice if you could afresh the links. Thanks. Have a nice weekend. -- NITYASEVA 19:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize you'd like to see this page advocate for street children and promote the efforts of those who are working to help these people. However, we are an encyclopedia, not an advocacy site or portal. You should look for other websites to promote your organization and goals on. Wikipedia is not a suitable forum. -- SiobhanHansa 18:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

All the best for you and for Wikipedia. And lots of love for the worldwide street children who are not enough recognized because their fatefulness is not suitable. It´s easy to delete links but much harder work to save lives. I´ll not visit your discussion side again. Hope you are sure that your decission was right. That´s all. NITYASEVA 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I want to merge Street children angeles philippines into this article. However, I don't what the majority of people who edit this article think about merging, so if there is no objection in five days, I will go ahead and do so. --Kannie | talk 18:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello Kannie, I oppose merging the articles for two reasons, the first is the article on street children is already quite long and growing. Second, Ill be adding at least four times more content to the article on street children in angeles, making the merge unappropriate I feel. Its possible, when I have time later, I might do a specific article on street children in the Philippines and it may at that time be a good merge proposal, so I suggest we leave the article be on the basis that in the future it may be merged with artcile on street children in the Philippines. What do you think? kind regardsSusanbryce (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I am specifically opposing the merging because Street children angeles philippines gives a very specialised view of street children specific to a particular geographic region. But this article documents a generalised view on the causes, condition and effects of street children with a worldwide view. The Phillipines article is different from that and also quite long with divided in sections. So how these specialised huge info specific to particular area can come in this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


Although there are street children all over the Philippines, there are a few main areas such as Angeles, Manila and Davao which are unique in their own right for several variable reasons. What Id like to do is eventually set up an article on the other two manila and davao, then these three stand alone articles would link off from a main article on street children in the philippines which would link from the street children article here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims to give its users the most information it can and I feel this is the best way to move forward. kind regardsSusanbryce (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very little is really verifiable

Street Children: Definitions and Numbers

Hope I can add a little to this discussion.

The category "street children" is amorphous. As editor of the Open Directory's "streetkid" category I have chosen to define street children as children who live independently in urban streets - no home and no adult caregiver. However, there are several other current definitions which would widen the category in various ways, such as "street working children". And there are definitions which would subsume street children into a broader category such as "children in difficult circumstances." And there are other categories which include only some street children, such as "orphans."

One way to look at the problem of definition is to consider the opposite: the normal child. The normal child has a home with one or more adult caregivers who are responsible for its economic and social maintenance. The child has few economic responsibilities and is primarily engaged in home and school based activities, with time for play and recreation. The child's activities are mainly directed by the caregivers and take place within boundaries they set. There is an unspoken contractual agreement between the child and the caregivers: they provide the basic requirements for the child's development - love, food, clothing, shelter, education, freedom to play and explore and in turn the child follows their instructions.

Any child who lives outside this basic framework in an urban environment might be considered a street child. A street child may work or beg or steal or scrounge, may sleep on the street or in an abandoned building or in a park or some sort of shelter built with other street children. His or her time is his own but does not generally include school. His or her freedom is absolute within the bounds of poverty, abilities, social environment and age. In most countries it is possible to find children who live this kind of life and their numbers are thought to be especially high in Asian, African, Eastern European and South and Central American cities.

attempting to define a street child by by analyzing a set of their characteristics they may be more clearly be seen as a negation of normal or ideal childhood.

Theoretically, without a clear definition, it is impossible to come up with accurate figures as to the numbers of street children, so looking for authoritative information on this is hopeless. The problem is further complicated by the transitional nature of the category's population. Street children grow older and every day some leave the category and enter some other social category (homeless, unemployed, criminals, vagrants, etc) while other social phenomena (war, famine, social upheaval, economic collapse) may suddenly result in a large ~~increase in the population of the category.

In addition, because different agencies use different definitions when estimating or counting street children even the best current estimates based on adding up numbers from various agencies in different countries are likely to be wrong.

So what does this mean for this discussion? It is not easy to come up with "facts" regarding street children. Despite a large amount of research we have neither an authoritative definition nor an accurate census, nor are we likely to have these. Yet these children do exist. They are recognizable and need to be recognized. How to recognize them in a fashion appropriate to Wikipedia is a difficult problem. I'd like to help.

Some other problems with the current article: Looking at the street children in a few particular countries is misleading since it implies that other countries may not have street children so I suggest that detailed examples (e.g. Russia, Nepal, etc.) should not be used. I also compile the blog archive "World Street Children News" at http://streetkidnews.blogsome.com/ and have there evidence of street children in about 95 countries. Links to specific agencies (e.g. Benposta) are similarly selective. The most useful thing that Wikipedia can do here is to provide links to directories such as the Open Directory's streetkid category http://www.dmoz.org/Society/People/Generations_and_Age_Groups/Youth/Streetkids/ that has links to about 280 different street child agencies working in many different countries.

Secondly, links to bibliographies would be useful to students and researchers. Joel Mermet maintains one online at http://www.geocities.com/joelmermet/streetchildren.html and there are a few others though not as comprehensive as his.

Thirdly, I suggest that "World street children news" (link above) is also useful for anyone trying to find out about the phenomenon of street children globally or in specific countries.

There are also a few agencies which attempt a global approach and synthesis of information - I'll provide links if anyone wants to find out more about them. There is no global agency that is specifically focussed on street children.

What do I suggest? It seems to me that the best solution is to abandon the attempt to be authoritative and settle for a short article about street children couched in the most general terms that outlines the difficulties of definition and numbers - not too different from the first section of the current article but perhaps expanded a little with some information about labor, drug use, sexual activities inappropriate for children, and health issues arising therefrom. It should also be mentioned that generally they lack the documents that might allow them a fuller participation in their societies. Appended to this might be a short list of links to additional information, such as the links given above.

I'll check back on this discussion from time to time. If I can help, let me know through discussion on this page or through the streetkidnews site email or open directory's streetkid category editor email. --I've since opened an account here: user name almudo 24.69.178.221 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)bh Almudo (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)almudo

[edit] 800 million?

"Estimates vary but one often-cited figure is that the number of children living independently in the streets totals between 100 million and 150 million worldwide, and it is forecasted that - by 2020 – the number will increase to 800 million.[2]" i The reference [2] for this figure is: http://streetkidnews.blogsome.com/category/1/north-south-america/honduras-streetkid-news However, the original source for this article is: http://denver.yourhub.com/Littleton/Stories/Famly-Friends/Stories/Story%7E261258.aspx This article gives a number of references for their information, only one of which gives the 800 million figure: From: http://www.friends-international.org/aboutkids.html

"Some sources estimate that this number will increase to 800 million by the year 2020."

There are no citations given in support of this figure beyond "some sources" - are these "weasel words?" Anyway, I can't find any other reference to this 800 million figure so I think it should be deleted.

And here's an informed discussion of the 100 to 150 million figures - with references (in the original pdf file). From: http://www.streetchildren.org.uk/reports/State%20of%20the%20World's%20Street%20Children-Violence.pdf - page 64

7.1 Street Children and Statistics: An Introduction 7.1.1 Estimating numbers of ‘street children’ is fraught with difficulties. In 1989, UNICEF estimated 100 million children were growing up on urban streets around the world. 14 years later UNICEF reported: ‘The latest estimates put the numbers of these children as high as 100 million’ (UNICEF, 2002: 37). And even more recently: ‘The exact number of street children is impossible to quantify, but the figure almost certainly runs into tens of millions across the world. It is likely that the numbers are increasing’ (UNICEF, 2005: 40-41). The 100 million figure is still commonly cited, but has no basis in fact (see Ennew and Milne, 1989; Hecht, 1998; Green, 1998). Similarly, it is debatable whether numbers of street children are growing globally or whether it is the awareness of street children within societies which has grown. While there are understandable pressures for policies to be informed by aggregate numbers, estimates of street child populations, even at city levels, are often hotly disputed and can distract rather than inform policy makers.

This report also contains a well-referenced discussion of definitions for street children that might be useful. --Almudo (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)almudo


I have removed the reference to 800 million for the reasons noted above.almudo (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I assume that photos used to illustrate articles should have to meet similar criteria as other "facts" included in the article. Neither of the photos used (the Afghan street child and the Indian street children) appears to be authoritative in the sense that the authors claim to be or are recognized as being particularly knowledgeable about street children.

The description of the Afghan street urchin, as originally uploaded to Wiki describes him as an "Afghan teenager." The original source for the photo, the photographer's blog, does caption this photo as "street urchin." But the appended context description does not supply any reason for assuming this boy is a street child, although he may well be.

From the blog http://privatenotebook.blogspot.com/2006/05/image-gallery-afghanistan.html :

"The three black & white photos were taken in downtown Kabul. Sitting inside of a van...waiting for Kabul's only functioning traffic light to turn Green...I snapped this sequence of images in less than one minute."

It's a good photo but I don't think its provenance warrants its inclusion in an encyclopedic article on street children.

For the second photo, we have only the photographer's caption identifying these kids as "street children." But the contributor of this photo does not appear to have any special expertise in the area of "street children" and does not offer any background information about the children that enables the application of any criteria for judging whether or not these are street children according to any definition currently in use by experts in the field.

There are many excellent photographs of "street children" taken by experts who know them well and have documented their lives. Most would be happy to have one of their photos used to illustrate a Wikipedia article and could provide information that would make the photos authoritative.

I suggest that the article should include photos but that it should be clear that the children represented meet criteria defined in the article. (i.e. write the article first then add photos)

It might be most useful if the photos suggested the global nature of the phenomenon - say one photo for each continent - and pictured the most common aspects of street children's lives - sniffing solvents, eating garbage, sleeping rough, ragpicking, begging, etc.

Does Wiki have any facility for uploading videos? There are some excellent videos on street children - interviews as well as backgrounders.... --Almudo (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Almudo

[edit] New Article

It seems at this time that there is not much interest within Wikipedia in this article or in efforts to improve it. Everybody's busy I know and the topic is not as important to others as to it is to me. Despairing of advice or assistance, I have unilaterally decided to replace the current article with a new article I have written. I hope this will stimulate some discussion and assistance to improve this article, which I look on as a work in progress. almudo (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see wikipedia has reverted to the original article. I'm stumped at this point. If anyone wants to read the proposed new article it is located in my sandbox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Almudo/Streetchildren almudo (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit is unsourced, removes a large amount of information, and is POV. You should not try to redo the edit without further discussion. Your current edit seems more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Almudo had asked me to take a look at this article only because he found my name on the peer review list. I have no other experience with the topic. I can't say, however, that I agree with TheOtherSiguy here. This article has been tagged for cleanup since August. Almudo was bold and his version, while probably not perfect, is a tremendous improvement. The "unsourced" comment suggests to me that you didn't actually read Almudo's version: It has very many sources. Let's get the discussion process started. What is POV? And what in the current article needs to stay? Specifics are necessary if we are to make progress in improving this article. --JayHenry (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
To get the ball rolling, I added the section on numbers from Almudo's version. It's extensively sourced and I don't see what could be considered POV about the edit. Perhaps it will be best to move section by section so we can review, but I feel that the numbers are fairly straightforward? --JayHenry (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to see some of my article represented now but am a little doubtful about replacing various sections of the current article with better information or citations. A fundamental problem with the current article is in its structure, the way it looks at the topic.
If the category "street children" has any validity, it must lie in characteristics that are shared by most of the members of the category. Thus an article structured around specific countries, such as is the case with the current article, is fundamentally flawed. Being Russian, Indian, Vietnamese, Romanian or Brazilian is not what makes a child a street child. I suggest that an article section on street children in Russia, for example, is more correctly a part of social demographic information for an article on Russia, than for an article on street children.
Secondly, the selection of 5 countries may imply that other countries have fewer or no street children. The countries selected are by no means representative of a widespread phenomenon. There is no African or North American country represented although street children in Mexico and Kenya far outnumber those in Romania. I am not arguing for the inclusion/exclusion of specific countries. I only want to point out that there does not seem to be any particular rationale for the current article structure, so why struggle to preserve it?
Thirdly, the country focus sections are not equivalent; they don't discuss the same issues. Nor are they generally supported by citations. Street children in Russia are discussed in five sentences. Indian street children also get five sentences, most of which are not about street children and none of which are supported by citations. Street children in Vietnam get seven sentences and a lot of confusion around numbers (8,000? 15,000?) and related categories - migrant children and children in especially difficult conditions. Links to many NGOs are included though none are mentioned for other countries. One article is cited in support of this section. The Romanian section is unsourced and makes some questionable assumptions. Here is the opening sentence of the Brazil section: "Estimates on the numbers of Brazilian street children vary from 200 to 8 million." 200? Should this be 200,000? or perhaps 2 million? Brazilian street children have "underlying causes" apparently significant enough to warrant a sub-section though the causes are not more particular to Brazil than to most other countries. Death squads and drug gangs likewise get Brazilian sub-sections although they exist in other countries. The "Drug gangs" section is particularly notable for its irrelevant information and discussion on guns.
My conclusion on this is that there is very little in the current article that is worth saving or shoring up with citations. I'm not completely satisfied with the sections and subsections in my re-write either but offer it as a basis for comparison. We might also look at other similar categories such as "refugees" to see how they have been treated in Wikipedia.almudo (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with all points of substance which you have made. Personally therefore I vote for a whole replacement with your better version of the article. We could just do it but lets see if others want to comment on this proposal. Its not a vote of course. But opinions are welcome. --BozMo talk 20:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I am in a group for my class on Marriage and the Family that is doing research on street children and attempting to educate others about them, and as part of our project we wanted to help bring this article up to a good quality. I agree with Almudo that there is not a lot worth saving on the current page, and after looking at Almudo's page, his is a great place to startcckrspnl56 4/4/08 —Preceding comment was added at 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added the section on definitions and names, as I think this is essential information atop the article. I changed the names section and made it a subsection of definitions, because I think the term in other languages is possibly of secondary importance to the meaning of the term in English. I don't feel very strongly about this one way or the other (just thought this was slightly clearer), but if anyone objects don't hesitate to say as much. --JayHenry (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a few more sections and made some edits to them. If anyone has any concern with the material added, please let me know. One suggestion I might have: the section Street children#NGO responses contains good information, but it's somewhat unusual on Wikipedia for sections to contain a hierarchy of bullets like this. It might give some readers the impression that they are reading an executive summary of some sort, rather than an encyclopedia article. I wonder: would it be possible to write this portion of the article out into paragraphs instead? --JayHenry (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and lets keep talking

Thanks to all who are helping to move this article forward. There is a core point of view in my re-write of the article which, if I state it bluntly, may move this discussion along and lead to some solutions to problems that are in my re-write.

The core point of view is that street children are a global social category who share many common charactistics. However, they have not been researched from this point of view very often. Most information focuses on a specific group of these children in a certain country or city. This makes global information pretty scanty and leads to descriptions that are particularized for a certain locale. Local information is more readily available but always detracts from the global perspective and is likely to lead to disputes over unimportant details. For instance, in order to give some idea of the global distribution of street children (section 2.2 of the current article) I selected a few countries from each continent and dug up some population figures for those countries. I did this because I don't know how else to establish the global nature of the phenomenon. I suspect that the particular countries selected and the figures attached to them are going to be a constant source of debate. Yet for the purposes of that section of the article, it really doesn't matter if the population of street children in Russia is 1 million or 5 million. The "fact" that the section is trying to communicate is that there are a lot of street children and they are in major cities on every continent. If anyone knows a better or less contentious way of doing this I will be happy to drop the references to specific countries and their street child populations.

So JayHenry, to apply this perspective to your edit of names/definitions: I prefer my original to your edit because it establishes the global nature of the concept of street children as expressed in many different languages and cultures. Once the name has been established, then attempting to define it is a logical continuation. A definition is a meaning of a name. A name is not a sub-category of a definition.

Another place where my re-write has a similar problem (i.e. global vs local) is in the section 10.2 "NGO responses." There are few citations because I don't know any resource where this information is discussed or summarized. Once again, it would be easier to look at specific NGO programs that use strategies outlined in this section. However, here one runs into the same old problem of endless editing that people will engage in to promote a particular NGO or approach. What I wanted to communicate in this section is that if you look at any NGO working in the field anywhere in the world they will almost certainly be using one or more of these strategies. It's in point form because it's a list and presenting it that way seems the clearest and least opinionated way of doing it.

In many of the sections I have tried to establish the factual nature of global generalizations with specific examples from the widest possible selection of countries so that readers don't get the misconception that street children are an Indian or a Russian or Romanian problem. I am not too sure how well this works or how else this might be done.

I don't think attempting to keep a global perspective is "POV." I will quote another Wiki editor from the discussions above "...this article documents a generalised view on the causes, condition and effects of street children with a worldwide view...." (See Merge Proposal, section 6 above).

Also pertinent is the slightly heated discussion on links in the "external links" discussion above. In the final article I'd like to see only a few links for further information about NGO projects and programs and those links should be to directories, not to specific projects - even if they have pages or articles here in Wikipedia. NGOs are competitive and if a link to one is allowed, then others will attempt to add their links to channel some of Wikipedia's traffic to their websites and the article will end up being a links directory. So I'd like to get rid of section 11 ("See also") in the current article - Benposta and Covenant House are by no means representative of NGOs working with street children and links to them may well be construed as promotional or even biased in that both of these agencies are operated by representatives of the Catholic Church.

Finally, what's missing? One section that is missing is the responses of street children themselves to the various programs operated for their ostensible benefit. How many actually benefit? How many participate or drop out? How do they view the services offered? What do they think of their situation? What do they want? I'm working on this but welcome any suggestions.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almudo (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Oops! Forgot to sign thisalmudo (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there much research done that would give us some statistics for that? Many documentaries have great case studies of how children react to NGO response. Children Underground, for example. But these are just case studies and thus not good for generalizing. Cckrspnl56, 24 April 2008 02:33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.185.145 (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't see much point in working towards additional sections for this article or negotiating for photograph permissions. I don't understand the wiki process here at all. Frankly, there doesn't seem to be much of a process. What we have now after several months of muddling is a hybrid bastard of an article that is barely better than the original. If I remove stuff my edits are reverted. If I "discuss" what's wrong with the current article or rationales for suggested changes as in several sections above, there is little or no meaningful response. As someone who has some knowledge and experience in this field, I am very disappointed that the current wikipedia article should be considered to be authoritative. Parts of it are confused, irrelevant, repetitive, tautological and ungrammatical. Just read the current introductory paragraph for examples of all these problems. If any wikipedian wants to participate in improving this article beyond leaving specious notes inviting the gullible to "help" or "talk" or "get involved," leave a note here or on my talk page. I will check back from time to time.almudo (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)