OK Dirk, sorry if my last edit was choppy. It was morning and I was revising again against a time constriction. I look forward to seeing your balanced edit. I reiterate my point that information must be balanced and not written from a subjective point-of-view. The area of controversy in anti-depressants is such that an editor could find references to support this or that perspective while actually distorting the reality. I believe that this article has improved dramatically in the past few months and now represents a very balanced presentation. This is very important as many people use Wikipedia for information, and I know that edits that try to water down facts are just not honest. Others have expressed this view here in the editing talk, but I have made a personal commitment that the information here is truthful and not a distortion of reality. I met tonight with a young woman who was a former user of this drug, and she told me how it frightened her in its impact on her mental health. That is not to say that the drug does not help many millions of patients, but the risks need to be clearly presented here. Otherwise, the article might as well be a series of links to key articles about the drug, and let the readers decide which is more honest and truthful.  Balance in editing is a key factor of what gives Wikipedia its strength. Not one person deleting facts that are supported by links within Wikipedia itself (e.g. the term "addiction".) Thanks again Dirk. I trust you will write something that reflects the truth clearly.