I don't want to "reopen" the issue, as the issue was never actually solved. Wikipedia policies are pretty clear on what consititutes a valid source for any topic, and children's books and books not about the specific topic but that happen to mention it as an aside based upon no real knowledge of the topic clearly do not count. Instead of just blind reverting changes, I'd like someone to try to come up with some sort of justification within Wikipedia policies that would make including such weak and nonacademic references as sources. Whenever a source is in question, it should be up to the person who wants them to stay to provide reasons, not to just keep them come hell or high water because of some people's bias against editors who aren't signed in. These changes were badly needed, and seemingly the only reason they were undone was by one editor who thinks he WP:OWNs the article and others who violated WP:AGF and assumed that an anon user must be up to no good.