Talk:Water fluoridation

/archive

Duplication

Either the controversy should be fully discussed in this article or it should be fully discussed in water fluoridation controversy and merely summarized here. It should not be rehashed in both to the substantial degree that it is right now. For reasons I originally articulated months ago, I think it should merely be summarized here and fully explained in the controversy article. - Jersyko·talk 04:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Additionally, as I come back from my Wikibreak, I see that this article has been substantially expanded to highlight the controversy. This is violative of NPOV, imo. - Jersyko·talk 04:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

According to wiki policy (see WP:GFCA), both sides of a controversial issue should be described in the article. --AeronM (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Only issues concerning "water fluoridation" should be discussed here and I think they basically are. See the prior discussion. The last arrangement was a pro fluoridation page in the water fluoridation page which was not NPOV. As discussed, the prior page failed to include health effects of fluoridation as well which deviates from other medications on Wikiepdia.

The only use for the water fluoridation controversy is if people want to make an article about the individuals advocating for or against water fluoridation.

--Editmore 08:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I do not see how a long intro makes the article not NPOV. A number of people have worked hard to remove the POV language throughout the article and it is cited pretty well.

--Editmore 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The long intro does not make the article POV, it makes the article unweildy and non-conforming with standard Wikipedia style. I disagree with you that the older version of the article was POV, however, even if it was, the current version is unacceptably POV as it is far too slanted toward emphasizing the controversy. I understand you had a recent discussion about this with another editor (who disagreed with you, might I add). Note, however, that an even older discussion took place months ago on this same subject, and an apprehensible consensus was reached. Finally, the main problem right now is content duplication between the two articles, which should probably be the first issue we address. - Jersyko·talk 12:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The focus of the article is about water floridation and not the controversy. There is some controversy and that should be mentioned from a neutral point of view, however the focus of the article is on floridation not the controversy. On the other hand, the water fluoridation controversy article is a good spot to flesh out the aspects regarding the controversy.--Sk8ski 13:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case you´d have just to write what is not a matter of controversy. But the controversy already starts with saying "Fluoride" is used for fluoridation. It´s not always "fluoride" (the simple fluoride ion, as in sodium fluoride) but fluorosilicates (or fluorosilicic acid) which dissociate in part (!another matter of controversy!) to release fluoride. Tren 13:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And your comment demonstrates the problem - fluoride opponents see the entire issue as being controversial, i.e. it cannot be discussed as a scientific or historical phenomenon without also mentioning that it's possibly dangerous and controversial. Well, it can, and it was, actually, in the early May/late April versions of this article. If a subsection is added to that version of the article summarizing, briefly, the controversy with a prominent link to the controversy article, this article would be NPOV and would stay on topic. - Jersyko·talk 15:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, the more I look at the changes to this article and the controversy article, the more I realize that the changes by various editors purportedly made to make the articles more NPOV are, in nearly every case, extremely one sided against fluoridation. My own view now is to rollback most if not all of the changes to these articles over the last month. I'll look through the history at some point soon and see exactly where the changes started to go wrong, but these articles, especially this one, are unacceptably POV at this point. - Jersyko·talk 14:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

By implying that edits referencinging the controversy are "wrong" indicates to me a stong POV on your part. Please see WP:NPOV. --AeronM (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I count the space to be fairly equal not that there is anything requiring the area for both positions. Those wishing to edit should focus on citing articles better not removing either the studies or arguements for or against water fluoridation.

There are peer researched articles showing that water fluoridation reduces caries. There are others that show water fluoridation causes dental fluorosis. Both are appropriate to be in this section under "water fluoridation."

There are obviously people who wish that only article discussing the negative health effects of fluoridation were listed and others that believe only that studies showing the purported positive effects of fluoridation were listed. Both should refrain from trying to nuke the other side out of the discussion. Such an attempt to show only one or the other is not contructive and against Wiki rules and is basically vandalism.

--Editmore 01:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments assume that the controversy warrants more than a paragraph summary in this article because a lively debate is actually taking place among legitimate scientists and public health agencies about the controversy. - Jersyko·talk 01:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, before accusing anyone of vandalism, I recommend you read (1) WP:NPOV (particularly the section on "undue weight") and (2) WP:NOT. Those two policies are vital to any information that is posted on Wikipedia. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 01:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My reversion

To explain my reversion, I'll merely point to the following: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Yes, this version is not perfect: there needs to be a subsection with a paragraph summarizing the controversy briefly. And I'm sure there are stylistic/grammar/spelling changes that need to be made. However, the reverted version adheres to NPOV, the other version does not. - Jersyko·talk 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to destory dozens of people's edits over the last month. You remxoved a whole lot of new content on the status of water fluoridation and replaced a whole slew of POV language which many of us worked to remove in many of the sections.

--Editmore 02:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we work, again, to remove it, though I imagine that we disagree, exactly, about what is POV. Please read the section of the NPOV policy about undue weight I reference above (here it is again). Your characterization of my reversion as "destroying" your work is spurrious. Quite the contrary, the edits over the last month have created a POV article, thereby distorting (but by no means "destroying") the original article. I've demonstrated why the article is POV with a specific reference to the NPOV policy. I would suggest you proffer a counterargument to the point I've presented if you want to continue this discussion, but please stop mischaracterizing my actions with inflated rhetoric about "destroying" work and vanadlism. - Jersyko·talk 04:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Contributing to this article is obviously a waste of time. Tren 10:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC) ---

Apparently bored with editing, Jersyko is trying to wipe out everyone's work over the last month. Please stop.

--AceLT 18:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, as has been explained to you, Wiki rules and common practices establish that criticisms go on the page of the topic. Also, the section areas in the US and world that have water fluoridation shouldn't have been wiped out either. I don't know why you believe that is "controversy."

--AceLT 19:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You're giving undue weight to a minority view by including the controversy prominently in this article. I've cited a specific wikipedia policy that is applicable to this article. You invoke "wiki rules" and "common practices", but have not cited a specific rule that mandates that we discuss the controversy fully in this article, giving equal weight to both the majority and minority positions. Please point out the rules you are talking about that overrule NPOV/undue weight. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 21:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a subsection on the controversy, FYI. - Jersyko·talk 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I see it's been reverted again by a non-registered user. I would recommend that everyone involved here read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry and the three revert rule. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 22:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone take a breather.

Please see Wiki policy below. There are going to be multiple "conflicting views" on the subject like they are on others.

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

--216.174.242.58 22:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the basic NPOV policy. But it is qualified by the undue weight portion of the same policy. - Jersyko·talk 22:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Contributing to this article is obviously a waste of time. Tren 10:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC) ---

Yes. Unfortunately, it is far easier to revert a document than actually take the time to edit it. Hopefully, this article can continue on a normal editing track soon.

--AceLT 23:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I merely want to point out that you continue to ignore my request and my point, instead continuing with overblown rhetoric and generalizations. I think you will find that when other editors take a look at this discussion, they are more influenced by policy arguments than rhetoric, so I would recommend either making reference to specific Wikipedia policy in response to my point about undue weight or conceding the point and working with me on the reverted version of the article if you believe it to be flawed stylistically, grammatically, or in content. If we cannot work out an agreement amongst ourselves, I will file a request for comment to get other users involved in this discussion. Jersyko·talk 00:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would not have tried to erase everyone's work on the subject for the last month through multiple reversion attempts, your comments may have been taken more seriously.

I think if you look at the above comments you will see a number of references to Wiki policy, yet you have ignored them and sought to have the article contain a single POV and a silly reference to Dr. Strangelove which has nothing to do with water fluoridation.

Further, you have provided no justification for elimiating that section on the status of water fluoridation in the US and world which was one of the better sections and took alot of people alot of time.

Sure, go ahead and ask every contributor to this article in the last month whether you have their permission to eliminate their contributions.

--AceLT 00:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN, no one owns their contributions to this article or any other. I request no one's permission to edit, and require none. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. Regarding the minor, specific point about Dr. Strangelove -- what?? It's the most prominent pop culture reference to water fluoridation I'm aware of. If consensus is to remove it, fine, but I'd like to know exactly why it's against Wikipedia policy to include it when there's a perfectly reasonable reason to include it (I'm not against rewording or changing the placing of the reference, but it's difficult to justify failing to mention Strangelove at all). Next, I didn't eliminate the section of the status of water fluoridation in the US and the world, it's still there under "Implementation" in the version I reverted to. Finally, I'm still waiting to hear your response to my point about undue weight. - Jersyko·talk 01:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I think this resolves the matter. Here is the most on point article in Wikipedia I have found after reviewing all of the above references and many, many more:

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

Thus, the attempt to "to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts" should not have been done in creating Water fluoridation controversy in the first place. The creation of the page was an impermissable POV fork.

By the way, this is a specific policy on the Undue Weight section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

--Editmore 02:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't resolve the matter. As a policy, WP:NPOV, and thus the section on Undue Weight, trumps the guideline contained at WP:POVFORK. In any event, I disagree that the controversy article is a POV fork. As a preliminary matter, note that the POV fork guideline talks about fairly representing the majority points of view on a certain subject. Anti-fluoridation is demonstrably not the majority point of view. Next, the controversy article is about a distinct subject--the water fluoridation controversy as opposed to water fluoridation generally. If the article talked only about how bad water fluoridation is, it would be a POV fork, but if the article objectively described the controversy, it would not be. Third, a POV fork is an article that is split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. That's not what is happening here at all--this article is describing water fluordiation generally, the controversy article is describing the controversy. Neither should take a stance on the issue. However, since undue weight is given to the minority, anti-fluoride position in this article, it violates WP:NPOV. It would be impossible to cover the controversy thoroughly in this article and adhere to the undue weight policy. - Jersyko·talk 03:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not that complex actually. The fact that there is such a thing as dental fluorosis is an accepted fact and accepted majority view. So is the fact that different areas have water fluoridation in them and some do not. Also, it is accepted that some people have been injured from malfunctions in water fluoridation overfeeds. Non of these are pro or anti fluoridation. They are simply facts that have cited references concerning water fluoridation. Thus, even using your reasoning, they belong on the water fluoridation page.

Trying to relagate them to another page because you do not want to see them is a POV fork as discussed above and is not permitted.

I certainly disagree with your suggestion that the POV fork policy is "trumpted" or invalid.

Instead of arguing (incorrectly I might add) that the Wiki fork policy is not valid, can't you just concede you made a mistake and help the rest of us edit the article instead of continuously trying to remove our work?

--Editmore 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You say that I'm "relegating them to another page because [I] do not want to see them." No, in fact, I've suggested adding a summary of the controversy to the version I reverted to, then did so myself, in which I brought up fluorosis, among other things. I've never said that there cannot or should not be a discussion of water fluoridation system malfunctions in this article. Per my first comment in this section, note that I said that I know the reverted version is not perfect, but I know it adheres to WP:NPOV, while the current version does not. My goal is to remove the controversy discussion in this article and leave a summary in its place, I'm not against expanding the reverted version further, provided that the relevant Wikipedia policies are followed. - Jersyko·talk 04:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding the relative importance of WP:NPOV to WP:POVFORK, take a look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. NPOV is a key policy, and is in fact one of the building blocks of Wikipedia and is non-negotiable. - Jersyko·talk 04:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the article to return to the NPOV version. It is interesting that most of this information on the controversy was actually information that I wrote, and I firmly believe it belongs in the water fluoridation controversy article, NOT this one. - Dozenist talk 05:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never said that there cannot or should not be a discussion of water fluoridation system malfunctions in this article.

I see. You also said earlier you were not against the article showing the areas which are fluoridated. Then I would suggest editing the page rather than trying to destroy it and expect others to work it back up again.

What parts do you specifically object to?

--Editmore 07:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

One can argue that the Wiki ban re: POV fork should it is "trumped" by another rule. Perhaps Wiki will change the rule in the future. However, for now it is valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

--Editmore 08:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)--Editmore 08:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's something to keep in mind to the content deletion attempts:

Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time: consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (e.g. saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette

--Editmore 09:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This information is presented in the controversy article, and should be presented there. There is no rampant deletion of information occuring. - Dozenist talk 12:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And I'll just keep referring back to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, mmk? The parts I specifically object to in the version you prefer are: (1) the excessively long introduction which highlights the controversy for over half its length, thereby giving undue weight to the minority anti-fluoridation view, (2) nearly everything else in the article (other than the "history" section and the section on the status of fluoridation in different countries), as it is all related to the controversy, thereby giving undue weight to the minority anti-fluoridation view, and (3) numerous unsubstantiated, POV phrases that have been inserted into the article, such as (just as one example) "Water fluoridation remains controversial among the general public [in the United States]." - Jersyko·talk 14:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dental fluorosis is an example of a majority view on the effect of water fluoridation.

Continuing eliminating content related to it borders of vandalism.

There are a number of ways this page could work, but you appear only interested in reverting and not editing. I don't see how this is very productive.

--Editmore 17:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fluorosis is a majority accepted consequence of ingesting too much fluoride, not of water fluoridation itself. Also, you're simply lying by saying that the reverted version eliminates discussion of fluorosis, as it is discussed in the neutral version in more than one section, for crying out loud. Your continued inflated rhetoric about "vandalism" and "destroying" your work is not going to solve anything, but could cause me to report you to an administrator if it doesn't stop. - Jersyko·talk 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Repeated content deletion on Water Fluoridation

Continuing eliminating content related to it borders of vandalism. --Editmore 17:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does.

At this point, Jersyko doesn't seem to have any interest in editing or following Wikipedia rules that have been pointed out to him, only in wiping out 2/3rds of the article everyone worked on over the last month by numerous authors and trying to get his Strange Love material in.

I would suggest someone attempt mediation but I doubt it will do any good as the article can be modified anonymously. Now looking back over the last year of history, Jersyko has been doing this for quite some time on the page so its no surprise he's continuing.

If someone else has some suggestions, let me know.

--AceLT 21:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll file a request for comment and we'll see what the community consensus is on this, ok? - Jersyko·talk 21:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How about mediation?--AceLT 21:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is later in the dispute resolution process than RFC. You're supposed to exhaust this type of rememdy first before something like Mediation or Arbitration. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. - Jersyko·talk 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no "content deletion" going on here. This whole business about the controversy belongs in the article water fluoridation controversy, and actually most of the information here was taken from that article. This article's topic should remain only on water fluoridation itself, as was discussed much earlier before you began editing this article to emphasize the controversy. - Dozenist talk 22:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC (1)

Please, cut the intro down - waaayyy down; as it stands, it is too long by a long stretch. Nobody wants to read an intro this long before they get to the meat. By the time they finish an intro like this they think they've finished the articela and then you see the ToC. See what I mean? Perhaps just one or two sentences that state the practicce is controversial, and then discuss the controversy in the main body further down.Bridesmill 22:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps something like this is what you're after? - Jersyko·talk 22:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think the article would look better if the different sections were combined. Thus, instead of arguments for an con, there were just sections such as status of water fluoridation across us and world, health effects, etc.

--Editmore 23:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're suggesting to keep all the content but consolidate several of the sections, eliminating some section headings? How does that help the article adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, exactly? Also, I think Bridesmill has expressed concern about the readability of the article. Consolidating sections is going to hurt readability, not help it. - Jersyko·talk 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think about half of the space in the for and against area could be eliminated if the sections were combined. Having the pro and con has made some of the article duplicative. Other parts of the article seem like rhetoric pro and con instead of simply making a cited statement. Some of these can be taken out.

--Editmore 07:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the controversy is written in detail in the article, water fluoridation controversy. Only a summary is needed here. - Dozenist talk 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Editmore Proposal

Here's how I would change the current page

Intro

I would eliminate the third and forth paragraphs. They deal with flouride alone and not water fluoridation. The paragraph about people worried about bottled water is really superfluous. However, if someone really felt strongly about it might be ok although lower down in the article.

History

This area is too long and I don't think people care about the history too much. Nevertheless something should still be there. Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 look like they were cut and pasted from somewhere else and don't add much and some.

Arguments for and against

This section needs to be reorganized and renamed into sections similar to the following resulting in a significant space saving:

1) Claimed Benefits of water fluoridation

2) Health Concerns of water fluoridation

3) Ethical Concerns of water fluoridation

This will eliminate the back and forth part of the page completely and I would expect half of the space with be saved. This will also allow the page to look like a normal article again.

Status of Water Fluoridation Nationally and Internationally

This section should stay as is. I don't think there is much disagreement about it. However, the latest version has had alot of people wotk to improve the detail of it as well as making it more NPOV.

Acute Poisoning resulting from malfunctions in water fluoridation equipment -This section should remain the same.

Groups Opposing/Advocating Water Fluoridation - This section should remain the same

--Editmore 07:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro - I'm glad you agree that it needs to be pared down. However, your proposed deletion would include only three sentences and in no way aid in fixing the undue weight problem, which is extremely disappointing. Upon second glance, I'm not sure I know which paragraphs you're talking about. Do you mean the fifth and sixth paragraphs, beginning with "Concerns among . . ."?
History - I'm in complete disagreement. Your statement that "people don't care about history too much" and proposal to cut out all of the information covering the period between ~1909 and the 1940s doesn't make any sense. Additionally, cutting out information from this section would merely serve to further highlight the controversy, adding to the undue weight problem.
Arguments for and against This section should be eliminated, renamed "controversy" or something similar, and summarized in a paragraph or two with a prominent link to the controversy article. This is the heart of the undue weight problem, and merely cutting its size by half isn't going to fix that.
Status of water fluoridation . . . - This section is also in the version I prefer, under Implementation. You're incorrect that this section is NPOV, as I've already given at least one example of a POV phrase that has been added to it in the last month (there are more). Also, much of the information that has been added is sourced to anti-fluoride websites, which I would prefer not be done per WP:RS.
Acute poisoning resulting from malfunctions .. . I'm ok with this section remaining, provided that it be renamed "Malfunctions in water fluoridation equipment" and that the argumentative language in the section is removed. This is not the place to rehash the anti-fluoridationist argument, but rather to merely state the fact that fluoridation equipment has occassionally malfunctioned, resulting in ill health effects.
Groups opposing/advocating . . . - Right now, it violates undue weight as it makes it appear that there are an equal number of opponents as there are advocates. Also, it merely serves to highlight the controversy, which is also violative of undue weight. It needs to go. A list of opponents could be added to the water fluoridation controversy article. - Jersyko·talk 14:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There are currently 7 paragrphs in the introduction before the table of contents. I think paragrphs 5, 6 and 7 could be eliminated. One paragraph is about toothpaste. Another is about bottled water. Another talks about topical fluoride treatments. I think it is useful to see the groups supporting the groups supporting and opposing water fluoridation in paragraphs 3 and 4. However, since that it mentioned below, perhaps it is redundant.

--Editmore 00:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is useful to see the groups supporting the groups supporting and opposing water fluoridation And I'll go ahead and mention that your proposal, and your preferred version of the article, violates undue weight again. - Jersyko·talk 06:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know you believe that. And I have mentioned that your proposal to segregate the information represents a impermissible POV Content Forking WP:POVFORK.

Also,

Please look before you start eliminating links to sources. Some were from primary sources, others were not. Take a little time to differentiate between the two before just cutting out sections. Denzenist had the right idea and did some good work but took out some legitimate links too.

--Editmore 07:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained, with agreement from Dozenist, that there is no POV fork if the second article presents the controversy objectively and without bias and the second article is necessary to prevent the original article from (1) being overlong and/or (2) violating other Wikipedia policy (like undue weight here). This type of splitting has numerous precedents on Wikipedia, one example can be found here and here. Your argument is a red herring that is merely distracting attention away from the undue weight problem that has still not been addressed here. - Jersyko·talk 15:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To further eliminate POV fork from discussion, this sentence from the guideline is enlightening, and demonstrates that it is not relevant here: "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." Since that is not what the controversy article is doing, but rather the article is objectively describing the controvery and merely presenting the arguments made by each side, the guideline is simply not relevant here, and I trust that it won't be brought up again. - Jersyko·talk 15:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe all this has been written on the talk pages with almost no editing done at all. Further, it is useless to try to work the issue out if you keep trying to destroy other people's work in the meantime.

I am restoring the prior work done but keeping EamonnPKeane's new additions. Whether they need to be edited in the future is another issue but at least its an attempt to try to have the article have some positive direction in it.

You may not like the WP:POVFORK prohibition in Wikipedia that prevents you from trying to bifricate the article. However, the policy is still valid and we expect that you will abide by it.

--AceLT 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Proposal for Resolution

OK, this is a waste of time. All I am seeing is Jersyko hitting the reversion button with no attempt at editing. The only real editing attempts have been new people coming along.

Of course, he believes he is right. I think we can at least agree that this process isn't working and there is a difference of opinion on Wiki policy to say the least. It has certainly kept people away at editing the page which is a shame.

One way to resolve this quickly would be to agree on an arbitrator for issue and have everyone agree to the decision. Yes, yes, I know arbitration is a later process. However, it would certainly save time and effort and let the article be able to edited normally again.....for awhile at least.

Any suggestions for an arbitrator? Someone without ties to any of the parties who knows Wiki policy well?

Then anyone who wants to can make a short statement of how they believe they think the article should be structured and cite whatever Wiki policy they think is applicable and supports them.

--AceLT 21:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been patient and willing to discuss this on this talk page. I've pointed to applicable Wikipedia policies, and made arguments in response to you guys' red herring attempts to change the issue from undue weight to POV forking. I've received no reply to my points about undue weight because, frankly, there is no reasonable response that can be formulated, as undue weight compels action to be taken to this article that you guys refuse to accept. Now you're talking about arbitration, which is ONLY a last resort option per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Arbitration often ends up with some users getting blocked or banned, either entirely or from editing one article or articles about one subject matter. That's why it's a last resort. The Rfc has barely been up for a day, why not give the community more time to comment and for consesus to develop? That's how things work here. I understand there are multiple fairly new users involved in this discussion, who perhaps are not experienced in dealing with Wikipedia policy, and especially how Wikipedia policy mandates discussion of contentious issues. Let me assure you that I've been in much more heated, long, and arduous discussions than this one, and that satisfactory results were reached by the end of each. I expect the same here. I also expect, however, that the unproductive rhetoric about me and others "destroying" work and "vandalizing" this article will stop, and that calls for skipping steps in the dispute resolution process cease. My ONLY concern is for this article to adhere to Wikipedia policy. I have no underhanded motive, bias, or prejudice. If you're so concerned about ending this discussion immediately instead of through discussion, perhaps consider whether you want to be involved in Wikipedia at all, as that is how things work here. I'll end this little speech with a plea for each person involved to, once again, read the neutral point of view policy, focusing on the undue weight section. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Jersyko on this matter. As someone who has written almost all the content found in this article as it currently exists, I find your attempts to push for a version that violates neutral point of view, especially the issue of undue weight, and more recently the issue with reliable sources, completely disheartening. Instead of complaining about Jersyko, you should try to address the points he has made and spend time defending your arguments. - Dozenist talk 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If I may, Dozenist, to clarify your point that you have "written almost all the content found in this article as it currently exists," this is true merely because a lot of it has been copied and pasted from the water fluoridation controversy article, where the undue weight policy functions differently given the distinct subject matter of the article. Additionally, while I think you're correct that a large majority of the text in this article is text you wrote originally, I'd also like to point out that multiple POV phrases (and rephrasing) have been inserted throughout, though not by you. I just didn't want any third parties that stumbled across this article to get the wrong idea ;). - Jersyko·talk 12:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be edited and I thought some progress was being made. But then I keep seeing someone keep reverting and erasing other people's material. With such actions, it makes it hard believe the discussion is going on in good faith.

No, I not a fan either of pro and con discussion.

As for NPOV, weighting and POV forking, I think everyone has read the articles pretty well and there is certainly a a disagreement over how it is interpreted for different sections.

Some sections have stronger reasons for being there than others. Some of it is redundent or not applicable.

--AceLT 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As for NPOV, weighting and POV forking, I think everyone has read the articles pretty well and there is certainly a a disagreement over how it is interpreted for different sections - Actually, I'd love to hear your interpretation of WP:NPOV, reliable sources, undue weight, and WP:POVFORK. Do tell. - Jersyko·talk 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edits

Since I'm a glutton for punishment, my proposed version of the article looks exactly like this, but I would add a small section (similar to but rewritten from the current version) on malfunction of water fluoridation equipment. My explanation for this preference is simple, neutral point of view, undue weight, reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WP:POVFORK is not relevant to this article. As it stands, content is duplicated between this article and water fluoridation controversy. The controversy article was created, in part, so that excessive attention is not paid to the controversy in this article, thereby causing this article to violate undue weight by devoting a majority of its text to the controversy and the minority anti-fluoridation view. Presenting the anti-fluoridation and pro-fluoridation views equally in this article violates undue weight. Additionally, presenting and explaining the controversy fully, even if the arguments are appropriately weighted for scientific acceptance, in this article is violative of undue weight as it would require this article to spend a majority of its text on the controversy, which merely serves to highlight the controversy and give it undue weight. As the subject matter of the water fluoridation controversy article is distinct from the subject matter of this article, undue weight functions differently there. WP:POVFORK does not preempt the existence of the controversy article as it was not created or maintained (though it needs to be tweaked) for the purpose of avoiding or circumventing the neutral point of view policy, but rather is an article on a subject distinct from the subject matter of this article, the controversy surrounding fluoridation instead of fluoridation itself. I'm writing this so that my thoughts on this article will be absolutely clear. I've referenced relevant Wikipedia policy, as I've been doing all along on this talk page, which I again recommend that all participants in this discussion read thoroughly and absorb. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 13:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read your proposal. However, I don't see that it is much different froma old reverted version a month or so again you had. It does have an extra section.

However, it eliminated much of the material concerning the status of water fluoridation around the world that many people worked on and it has a number of POV statements that were changed to NPOV earlier. Then instead of the improved articles and information, you try to put in Dr. Strangeove to characterize the opponents to fluoridation. I don't see that is an accurate portrayal of them.

Finally it tries to use the title "implementation" instead of NPOV status.

I think we are aways away from resolution.

--AceLT 00:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I respond merely to point out that my point in re undue weight is still unaddressed, in favor of minor quibbles over Dr. Strangelove and section title names. We can re-add the removed material that is NPOV in the implementation/countries section, though I'm afraid a lot of it is not. The main purpose of my proposal, however, and the one that is seemingly being ignored in favor of the minor quibbles I've noted, is that the controversy needs to be excised from this article for the most part. - Jersyko·talk 01:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A side question: why is "Implementation" POV and "Status of Water Fluoridation Nationally and Internationally" NPOV? I know, I'm biting on the red herring, but it seems such a unique point that I had to . . . - Jersyko·talk 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Observations

I don't want to dig into the content specifics but I would like to make some points based on my experience with the content policies and what that means for this article. This article is about water fluoridation, thus it should evenly survey all of the facets of that subject and not give undue weight to any one subtopic as Jersyko points out. The controversy is such a subtopic and should not be given undo prominence. Having a more detailed article on the controversy is not a POV fork as long as that article treats the controversy in an NPOV way. Instead, that is exactly the way it should be handled to cover more detail on a subtopic per WP summary style. More specifically, the lead is still too long. Per WP:LEAD it should be at most four paragraphs, but not huge ones either. Also, the structure separating pro and con arguments in different sections is a cop out, sorry. Instead, the article should address all of the facets of the topic in turn. I don't know the subject in detail to know what those are, but an article outline should be agreed upon for what are the most important facets of the topic and those should be how the article is sectioned. I won't judge the reversions and edits specifically (it may be that Jersyko or others are being unfair) but I will note AceLT and Editmore are not arguing on point at times. - Taxman ^Talk 11:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro Discussion

Ok. Now I going to see if anyone agrees on anything other than they like to rever Someone tell me their response to this narrow issue on the intro which I posted earlier:

There are currently 7 paragrphs in the introduction before the table of contents. I think paragrphs 5, 6 and 7 could be eliminated. One paragraph is about toothpaste. Another is about bottled water. Another talks about topical fluoride treatments. I think it is useful to see the groups supporting the groups supporting and opposing water fluoridation in paragraphs 3 and 4. However, since that it mentioned below, perhaps it is redundant.

Agree? In part? in nothing?

--Editmore 07:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. It could be worse. Someone could start using all CAPS.

--Editmore 07:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've edited down the intro per (1) undue weight, (2) the connected guidelines of reliable sources, no original research and WP:CITE, and (3) Taxman's, my, Bridesmill's, Dozenist's, and (at least in part) Editmore's agreement that it was too darn long.
Regarding the rest of the article, I'm flexible in that I'm not married to the exact text of my proposal above, but I would like the edited article to comply with relevant policies and guidelines and my response to Editmore's proposal. - Jersyko·talk 13:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I like what you have done with the introduction. This is a much more acceptable version. Once everyone involved in this lively debate subscribes to the Assume Good Faith policy, some real progress can be made to get this article back on the right track. Thanks for your diligent commitment. --Sk8ski 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I also appreciate the work you have been doing to improve the quality of the article and to change the content in order to make it adhere to wikipedia policy. Editing can get difficult at times, but your diligence is appreciated. - Dozenist talk 15:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Editmore has reverted the changes I made to the intro, despite growing consensus that the edited version is superior to the version Editmore prefers (even Editmore admits that the intro is too bulky in that version). It seems that Bridesmill, Dozenist, Taxman, myself, and Sk8ski all agree that the intro needs to be drastically cut down, and some of those users have even expressed agreement with the edited version. Editmore, you say in your reversion edit summary "Can a version be worked out?", yes, it can, and it's the one I edited in yesterday. Consensus is important on Wikipedia. Let's let other editors comment on the edited version of the intro to see what they think, but that means it has to be in the article first. I have no doubt, based on initial comments and because it adheres to Wikipedia policy, that consensus will continue to develop in favor of the edited version. I see no basis behind the reversion. - Jersyko·talk 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of Editmore were ok but Stange Love and bottled water should not have been in.

--AceLT 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at other pages. The Dr. Strangelove reference could still be mentioned in the article as a reference at the bottom.

As for consensus, Jersyko wiped out a month worth of editing by around a dozen people who had a growing consensus of what the page looked like. If he had simply tried to improve the page, we wouldn't be where we are now.

--Editmore 00:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed and took away different sections in into.

--Editmore 00:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Editmore: you left 3 out of the 4 paragraphs in the intro to discuss controversy-related topics. As has been explained over and over and over, this is a blatant violation of undue weight, no way to slice it. Cutting out the information you choose to excise from the intro is making the undue weight problem worse, not better (though it does help the length problem, but "short length" isn't Wikipedia policy, undue weight is), as it leaves the intro with a higher percentage of controversy-related subject matter. It's becomming difficult to assume good faith here when you blatantly edit to violate policy that I've done my best to pound at you guys. Additionally, there is developing consensus in favor of the version of the intro I have posted. Stop saying I've "wiped out", "destroyed", or "vandalized" a "month's worth of editing." If this continues, I'll report it as a persistent pattern of assuming bad faith. Finally, your claim that the relevant edits were made in the last month by "about a dozen people" is a flat-out lie, as anyone that has the ability to read English and click on the article history button can see that you and AceLT made nearly every policy-violating edit to this article over the last month, not "a dozen people."

AceLT: your misleading edit summary, saying that you merely "removed Strange Love [sic]," when you in fact reverted every change I made to the intro, demonstrates bad faith on your part. I suggest not being misleading again. - Jersyko·talk 03:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The edits are clear from the history. I do not believe Strange Love is appropriate as it tries to characterize the criticisms as communist conspiracies. Retained other changes by others I saw.

--AceLT 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the edits are clear from the history. The history makes perfectly clear that, for the second time in a row, you have reverted all of my changes to the intro with a misleading edit summary.
Also, Strangelove is important because it's an instantly recognizable pop culture reference to water fluoridation (and the only one I'm aware of), thus it deserves to be mentioned in this article. As it's a film, a work of fiction, and because there's an article on it which is linked in this article, there's no danger of violating Wikipedia policy by doing something as innocuous as merely mentioning the context of Strangelove's depiction of fluoridation in this article. - Jersyko·talk 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe Strange Love is appropriate as it tries to characterize the criticisms as communist conspiracies.

Yes, your right, it was written like that earlier. However, I think it has been edited some to make it more neutral. It probably needs more editing and needs to be in a pop note at the end of the article. Also, the fact is that it is part of a film. Take a look at other articles for example of such (pop) references.

--Editmore 07:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Strangelove certainly belongs somewhere, likely not in the introduction though. I ratehr like sidebars or boxouts for that sort of thing, but that is uncommon in WP. This is topic which tends to attract enormous apathy, and a few a very few very strong views of religious intensity. The latter deserve coverage, otherwise readers might be left surprised, but proportionate coverage is not very much. Midgley 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Another view (responding to the RfC)

The beginning of the article as it stands now is quite informative, at least up through the history section. The international status section looks like the scarred earth of a long edit war. Maybe replace it with someting simple and NPOV, like a paragraph or two or a chart explaining where it's used, rather than going into details with phrases like "Germany has consistently rejected...", etc.

Particularly since there is a separate article on the controversey (which I haven't read yet), perhaps that entire section (from the end of history to the beginning of see also) might be better left out of this article and discussed there? This would leave behind a good solid article and bring an end to what looks to me like an excersize in trench warfare. SB Johnny 01:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Based on your response, I'm glad you didn't see this version of the article. I started working on the International status section just a bit this morning, and hope to pare it down considerably as I attempt to make it NPOV at the same time. In fact, there is a version of the same section, with a different title ("Implementation"), in an older version of the article that I think might be a good guide for what this section should look like. Anyway, let me know if you disagree, and thanks again for responding. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts, looking at the current version, are in like with SB Johnny's, even though I'm looking at a version a month later than he was. Here's what I would suggest for the entire section:

Cut the U.S. section to one sentence: 67% of Americans are living in communities with fluoridated water according to a 2002 study.[15] Canada, one sentence: Approximately 40% of the Canadian population receives fluoridated water[20] Europe gets 4 sentences: Most of Europe does not fluoridate their water supply. The Republic of Ireland is the only EU nation to have mandatory fluoridation. In the United Kingdom, only two major cities, Birmingham and Newcastle, fluoridate their water supply.[24] Several nations, including France and Germany, have nation-wide bans on fluoridation. "Other" gets a few sentences too: In Brazil, about 45% of the cities have a fluoridated water supply. Australia has fluoridation in all but one state, Queensland, in which water fluoridation is under local government control. The government of South Africa supports the fluoridation of water supplies.[25] can stay IFF "supports" means "does it"; otherwise, like the rest of the section, it's irrelevant.

The rest of the International Status, with one exception, can be cut entirely from the article. If it's really that important, that's what the "controversy" article is for, otherwise, a city voting to suspend its fluoridation program and then reinstituting it is irrelevant trivia.

The one exception is "The cost of fluoridating water supplies in the United States has been researched.[19] In cities with a population of over 50,000 people, fluoridation costs 31 cents per person per year. The cost rises to $2.12 per person in cities with a population below 10,000." Move that to the intro, since it's technical information; or, better yet, put together a whole section regarding technical information on water fluoridation. The Literate Engineer 20:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Children vs. adults

Does fluoridation help adult teeth, or only children? -- Beland 02:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Horrible POV in this article

Wow, came to this page looking for chemical formulas relating to how flouride is effective in water, leaving scared to drink water and brush my teeth. I think there might be a little too much focus on what (I believe at least) to be a minority view among scientists and health professionals. Kinda reminds me of the Aluminium link to Alzheimer's link (which I thought had been debunked but still appears on Al(OH)3 page... hmmm...) (notregistered) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.90.2 (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Very clearly, some biased editing has occured in this article to make it read like a ADA pro-fluoridation pamphlet. I have made some edits to remove this.--Fahrenheit451 10:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How about some good faith, please? You removed very few words. Obviously, it wasn't THAT bad. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think if you check the definition of good faith, you will find it applies to the manner of dealing with other editors, although you may hold your own connotations of the term. I have every right to criticize POV editing and will boldly edit to contribute to a NPOV article. This one was flagrantly POV.--Fahrenheit451 21:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that there were some POV phrases in the article. I suppose I merely disagree with your characterization of the article as "flagrantly POV" etc. I suppose I'll leave it at that. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

New Minor Edits

The american dental association is not a pro fluoridation group as such, as this is not their sole purpose (fluoridation) , they do however have a pro fluoridation stance, and have as such produced many pro fluoridation publications. The ADA has also been converted to a link so that information about the ADA stances can be entered there(Bouncingmolar 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Australasia is overdue to be put on the map (Bouncingmolar 10:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

If I was naive, I would think that public health policies in the US and Ireland are either hopelessly behind times; or else this is one small but significant way that their respective conservative policy-makers have gone collectivist. I think it is simply amazing that "socialist" Europe has MOSTLY rejected water fluoridation, yet the overwhelming consensus of establishment experts in mega-capitalist, hyper-individualist "America" (the US) seem to hold on to this one piece of forced (collectivized) treatment (additive, benefit, medication, drugging, depending on your POV) of public water supplies as if it were sacrosanct. Yes, it is true that right-wing crazies in the 1950s and 60s thought fluoridation was a Commie plot, but now, even Ralph Nader opposes it. Everyone knows that big money is what determines government policy in the US; forcibly fluoridating everyone just to help those too poor, uneducated, undisciplined, or apathetic to get proper dental care may sound noble, but it's giving way too much credit to the powers-that-be and serves only to distract attention away from the real reason: convenient disposal of toxic waste, where citizens are forced to both pay for it and ingest it. Having only a majority, consensus, or authorized (official/ADA-approved) view is just as political as having one endorsed by Greenpeace or the John Birch Society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.40.34.150 (talk • contribs).

Exactly. And that's without even venturing in to the reports which indicate fluoride was originally added to the drinking water as a means of disposing of it! --AeronM (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Europe, who has "rejected" water fluoridation, has embraced salt fluoridation and school-based fluoride rinses. - Dozenist talk 23:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bullcrap, where is the evidence for that statement?--Fahrenheit451 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Try this. Please be civil. · jersyko talk 21:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You be civil. You did not cite your friend Dozenist's statement. I see that you and he are buddies.--Fahrenheit451 21:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't directly cite it. But given that this is a talk page, I don't have to. Neither does he, actually. In that link I posted, however, are several studies (including undoubtedly reliable sources) of widespread salt fluoridation in Europe. But most importantly, it doesn't matter because this is a talk page and Dozenist doesn't have to cite his statements on a talk page. Yes, Dozenist and I are friends in real life. I helped him copyedit his featured articles. What's your point? · jersyko talk 22:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct in that you don't have to cite anything on a discussion page. However, it can make discussions more productive and avoid disputes. I think you got my point. You and Dozenist are buddies. Thanks.--Fahrenheit451 23:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Or you could assume good faith when someone knowledgeable makes such a statement on a talk page. Nevertheless, there is clearly an abundance of sources, so I'm not sure what you're getting at in continuing this conversation. · jersyko talk 23:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Filters to remove fluoride

Some people have fluoridated tap water, but wish to avoid drinking systemic fluoride. Brita and other popular filters do NOT remove fluoride. The only options seem to be selected bottled water, or installing an expensive reverse osmosis system. "How to Remove Fluoride from Drinking Water" [1]

"Does BRITA reduce / remove fluoride ?
The BRITA Water Filter System does not remove fluoride from tap water. Fluoride is a negatively charged ion and does not react with the components of the BRITA Filter Cartridge." [2] -69.87.200.99 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Concers with sources

I'm concerned with this series of edits, given that several of the sources cited are contained at anti-fluoridation websites. Their status as reliable sources is questionable. I am re-adding the cleanup tag that was removed adding an {{unreliable}} tag to the section. · jersyko talk 03:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko, I'm concerned that you are pushing your pro-fluoridation POV here. Please explain why the web sites that I cited violate WP:RS. Specifically, the web site of the British Parliament, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Nature, and Fluoride Journal. If you cannot show that these sites are not reliable sources, then I remove the tag. You have 24 hours. --Fahrenheit451 04:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't be concerned that I'm pushing a pro-fluoridation POV, as I have not edited the article to remove the sources. Rather, I am merely attempting to begin a discussion regarding whether the sources that have been used are reliable.

On that point, here's an extremely relevant portion of the reliable sources policy, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I suppose we can discuss whether specific single-issue advocacy organizations that are opposed to fluoridation have or do not have such a reputation, but that's almost beside the point. Why? Because of the very fact that they are single-issue advocacy organizations.

Additionally, the reliable sources guideline states, "[i]n general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views . . . ." Thus, assuming, arguendo, that the anti-fluoridation websites can be found to be somehow reliable, surely they are not the most reliable and appropriate sources. Rather, news reports about the specific countries, reports in a peer-reviewed journal of general renown, or other such source that is not affiliated with an advocacy organization would be the most reliable and appropriate sources. Then again, this second hurdle is only reached if the first one is cleared, and I cannot see how it can be, though I'm certainly willing to hear the counterargument. · jersyko talk 04:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

One more point: I do not mean to question the reliability all of the sources you have used. Rather, only those sources that are related to or hosted by advocacy groups. I have amended my original statement as such. · jersyko talk 04:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko, I will repeat myself once again: Please explain why the web sites that I cited violate WP:RS. Specifically, the web site of the British Parliament, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Nature, and Fluoride Journal. If you cannot show that these sites are not reliable sources, then I remove the tag. You have 24 hours.--Fahrenheit451 04:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your ultimatums are not going to foster debate, nor are they based on any Wikipedia policy. In fact, they likely violate WP:CONSENSUS. I have explained myself clearly; do you deny that some of the websites you have cited and claim to be reliable sources, for example, fluoridation.com, flouride-journal.com, and, yes, even the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, are either related to or are, explicitly, advocacy organizations? · jersyko talk 04:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your wikilawyering is not going to foster debate, nor is it based on any Wikipedia policy. In fact, it violates WP:RS and WP:V. If you refuse to answer my question, our discussion terminates right here and now.--Fahrenheit451 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to continue discussing, but I'm not sure why you believe you can somehow terminate all discussion on point. In any event, you act as if I must prove that the sources are unreliable. No, actually, you must prove they are reliable. · jersyko talk 05:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko, you take your own medicine and prove that every one of YOUR edits comes from a reliable source. It looks to me that we will need another RfC here for you. --Fahrenheit451 05:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to address other sections of the article or other issues, I suggest starting a new subsection on this talk page. This one is about whether specific sources added to the article are reliable. I take it that you are not interested in demonstrating that your sources are reliable. Thus, yes, I will start a new RfC to see if anyone else has an opinion. · jersyko talk 13:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also concerned about using the fluordiation websites as a source. Some of the material seems to be clearly out of context. For example, it lists a letter stating that Austria does not allow toxic fluorides in its water, but no nation does. Austria DOES, however, add non-toxic fluorides within its water supply. In fact, it has even conducted studies to demonstrate which levels are adequate, as seen here. Djma12 ^(talk) 17:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC

"The series of edits" refers to this. MessedRocker (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Who must demonstrate the reliability or unreliability of sources, the editor adding the material with the sources or the editor challenging the material with the sources?
2. Are the sources included with this series of edits reliable sources? Material cited to the following sources has been specifically challenged: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons [3], fluoridation.com, fluoride-journal.com. 08:27, August 26, 2007

ad 1) I am not really good about WP policies.

ad 2) A complicated series of questions. I would not regard a parliamentary site as an authority on scientific issues, but it would be a very authoritative source on legislative issues. (I am not in the mood to check what exactly the reference is supposed to show.) With Nature, it is the other way around. Again, it is important to see what the reference is supposed to show. And is this a research paper, a review paper, or an editorial opinion? It all depends. Websites with material that is not published in print are generally not authoritative. /Pieter Kuiper 13:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would accept anything in Nature. Publications of the the UK parliament should be good. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons sounds partisan, and if the same information could be found elsewhere, it would be good. However the facts cited to that journal don't appear very controversial. Are they likely to give the wrong answer to the question whether a country fluoridates their water or not? On a medical or scientific issue I'd be more careful. EdJohnston 16:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Concerning question 1, per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material".
• Concerning question 2, again per WP:V, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Neither the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons or the fluoride websites would meet this criteria. HOWEVER, as EdJohnston pointed out, the statements about which nations use fluoridation should be widely available in neutral sources. If these sources can be found, there should be no reason to exclude these comments. Djma12 ^(talk) 16:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed statements based upon the Jour APS and the fluoride website b/c they do not meet WP:V standards for "reliable, third party" sources, and b/c some of the statements are blantaly out of context. (See above comment on Austria.) The parlimentary sources are only admissable if the relevant parlimentarians cited which sources they used during debate, as opposed to merely mentioning in passing. (See WP:V for primary vs secondary vs tertiary evidence.) However, if the relevant editors can find reputable sources for these statements (and they should be easily available from third party sources, fluoride websites do not count), then these can easily go back in. Djma12 ^(talk) 17:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In the interest of consensus building, I will note that I agree with everything Djma12 said. Other, reliable, third-party sources regarding the status of water fluoridation in these countries would be great. · jersyko talk 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus building is NOT the relevant point here, but rather WP:V and WP:RS, please do not attempt to misdirect this thread, Jersyko.--Fahrenheit451 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Consensus building is always "the point". · jersyko talk 03:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to throw my hat in with Djma12. As per concensus, the whole point is to have concensus *about* whether we're meeting the standards, such as WP:V and WP:RS -- Rei 17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

I noticed the recent edit war over the inclusion/exclusion of a series of 3 external links in this article. The rationale for excluding the links appears to be that they are "links to be avoided" under WP:EL in that they contain "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" and that the links violate WP:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view). On the other hand, the argument for keeping the links appears to be based on WP:NPOV.

In any event, I took a brief look at one of the websites linked. Two of the more prominent claims made there are that water fluoridation causes brain toxicity and cancer. I leave it up to the community and persons better versed in the science to determine whether claims like these disqualify these links from inclusion here. · jersyko talk 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• There are legitimate concerns about fluoridation and I have no problem including them if they are cited from peer-reviewed medical journals. Notice that this website is merely citing editorials, lawsuits, and in one instance, itself. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Those links look like they would provide good source material for what the anti-fluoridation camp says on the subject. In other words, they would be an excellent resource for Water fluoridation controversy. But that does not mean they are relevant to this article. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 15:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:GFCA, specifically the section "Decsribe The Controversy," which clearly applies here. --AeronM (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed from first paragraph

The adoption of fluoridated water was spearheaded by Edward Bernays.

• This material is unsourced. Following the wikilink, we read that Edward Bernays was some sort of PR whizz (not doctor, dentist, nutritionist, etc.), and that one of his many campaigns was on behalf of some fluoridation group... a claim which is also unsourced. WP:V requires that material be verified.
• There is no documentation saying that Bernays' efforts actually had any effect on water fluoridation. Before credit can be given for this man's contribution, it must be shown to be a notable contribution per WP:N.
• This material is not documented in the body of the article. WP:LEAD says that the article lead should provide a concise summary of the contents of the article.

I hope this adequately explains why I've removed the material. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

More than adequately. I agree. · jersyko talk 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy and summary style

The #opposition subsection of this article is presented in summary style. The information recently added to the article, whether sourced or not, is appropriate in the controversy article but not this one. Why? Because this subsection is merely meant to be a very short summary of the controversy article and is not meant for details, which can be found in the main article. That's how summary style works. Actually, I'm not even sure that the information is even contained in the main article, making its inclusion in this short summary here all the more inappropriate.

Additionally, expanding the controversy/opposition section in this article, especially by including entirely anti-fluoridation information as the recently added paragraph contains, violates WP:UNDUE. This article must be more scientifically based than the controversy article, which is more about arguments and allegations than science (though it obviously does discuss the science). The new paragraph alleges that fluoride contains arsenic and causes cancer (with no citation). Actually, it doesn't "allege" any of that, it simply flatly states it as truth. Thus, even in the controversy article, this would be removable as presented as violating WP:NPOV. · jersyko talk 00:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that the arsenic/cancer claim has now been sourced. I see no connection to fluoridation in the source, however. In any event, each of my concerns still stands, as the paragraph warrants removal from this article and possibly addition to the controversy article after a rewrite no matter how many sources are added. · jersyko talk 00:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko, it seems that you keep hawking WP:UNDUE whenever an editor adds material or citations to an edit that go counter to your POV. Also, you comment while I was editing. Does it bother you that I add citations to an edit you don't like?--Fahrenheit451 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than commenting on the trends of my comments on talk pages or what or what does not bother me, do you care to respond, substantively, to my arguments? · jersyko talk 00:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I see little substance to this particular argument of yours. The citations were very easy to find. I don't understand why you did not look for those yourself and simply add them.--Fahrenheit451 00:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, citations are easy to find. However, you do not address my summary style, undue weight, or NPOV points. · jersyko talk 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Because I see no NPOV violations in it. Undue weight, according to who? Summary style can be corrected with a little editing.--Fahrenheit451 00:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Rfc

• My reasoning for removing the paragraph is contained in my comments in the subsection above. In sum, summary style, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE support including only a very brief, one paragraph, neutral description of the controversy in this article, whereas the new addition is rather weighted against fluoridation and would be much more appropriate in the water fluoridation controversy article. · jersyko talk 00:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Substantial additions relating to the controversy should be made to the "controversy" article and discussed on its Talk page. Once an addition has gained consensus there, and is stable, it should be summarised in this article. Otherwise we run the risk of creating a POV fork of the "controversy" article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Supporting Sheffield Steel's comment and adding the following observations and suggestions: This might be a symptom of 'blow-back' . Because...
  

There is a lot of this article's substance, 'forking' over into the other - hence the psycho-social phenomena of blow-back to readdress the balance. (Therefore, remove from the other article: those things that belong here – and what belongs there, may then - stop bleeding through into here) . Further Comment: Some months ago I came across these two articles and saw that some editors appear to be quite unaware that Policy formulation and implementations and scientific enquiry and advancement are different fields of human endeavour (one doesn't have to sit on many committees before feeling like you want to get them all in one big room and bang their heads together; but cross-organisational co-operations like that is so, very, very, rare). The lack of differentiation thus - it seems – to have lead to both articles appearing to be over dependant on Begging the Question . This leads to edit wars (as is quite plainly evident), as arguments from different premises can never be resolved.--Aspro 16:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More problematic recent edits

Can anyone make a cogent case that this series of recent edits conforms to NPOV, RS, UNDUE etc.? I have absolutely no interest in continuing to edit war at this article, so I merely tagged it with {{POV}}. The additions not only are completely biased toward the anti-fluoridation position, but they also make the introduction entirely too long per the manual of style. It should all go, I see little salvageable information. Besides, nearly all of it is already contained, in substance, at water fluoridation controversy. · jersyko talk 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

BMJ

The British Medical Journal has published this article: doi:10.1136/bmj.39318.562951.BE JFW | T@lk 17:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated, unsourced statements without a NPOV

I removed the following:

"Water fluoridation has provoked controversy, although opponents of fluoridation have not assembled as a majority in the scientific community. Whether for health concerns, or for concerns of consent, or because their people are receiving fluoride through other means, some governments have ceased or decided not to start fluoridating their water. However, no country has discontinued or refused to adopt fluoridation simply because it was proven harmful in any way."

When all 11 unions representing over 7000 EPA employees have called for a moratorium on water fluoridation due to cancer concerns, I don't think it can be reasonably stated there's not a majority in the scientific community. I'm not saying there is, just that it can't be stated that there's not:

Associated Press Wednesday 31 August 2005

EPA unions call for moratorium on fluoride in drinking water

By Mathew Daly Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON --Eleven unions representing more than 7,000 workers at the Environmental Protection Agency are calling for a national moratorium on programs to add fluoride to drinking water, citing what they call a possible cancer risk...

http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/2378.html

And it's also incorrect to say that "no country has discontinued or refused to adopt fluoridation simply because it was proven harmful in any way." Letters from the Japanese and Austrian governments dispute this, as does a Netherlands study:

"Japanese government and local water suppliers have considered there is no need to supply fluoridated water to ALL users because 1) impacts of fluoridated water on human health depends on each human being so that inappropriate application may cause health problems of vulnerable people..."

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-japan.htm

"...referring to your letter dated 5.2.2000 we allow us to inform you that toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria."

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-austria.htm

The Netherlands banned fluoridation after a group of medical practitioners presented evidence that it caused reversible neuromuscular and gastrointestinal harm to some individuals in the population. (Grimbergen, GW. "A double blind test for determination of intolerance to fluoridated water". Fluoride 7 146-152 1974)

[edit] I moved "controversy" beneath "history" since the controversial aspect of water fluoridation is perhaps the paramount issue.

Also, I don't want to be accused of having a POV and I haven't edited anything under the "History" sub-heading, but I noticed the only studies cited which were all pro-fluoridation are the earliest ones from the 1930s and 40s. Is the contributor aware that other more recent studies conducted in NY state (a 50-year study) and Canada (between Toronto and Vancouver, B.C.) show either a slight or non-existent correlation between water fluoridation and dental caries? Is he also aware that the largest and most comprehensive study of over 39,000 school children conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1986-87 concluded that there are no significant differences among caries incidences between the fluorodated and non-fluorodated communities? (except for a doubling of dental fluorosis in the fluoridated communities.) Without mentioning these much more comprehensive and recent studies, can this article truly be considered unbiased and NPOV?

Agree 100%. --AeronM (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

New source: Scientific America reports risks for flouoride (Reuters story)

• 'Second Thoughts about Fluoride,' Reports Scientific American Jan 2, 2008

"Some recent studies suggest that over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland," reports Scientific American editors (January 2008). "Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift," writes author Dan Fagin.

I'll come back and take a look....not feeling well right now, but thought this would be an interesting reference for the article. TableManners^C·U·T 04:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The item linked to above shows a pretty biased POV. The SciAm article itself could be interesting. I'll buy a copy tomorrow. Franamax (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The bias of the source does not matter, only the reliablility, from what I understand. See WP:V. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. TableManners^C·U·T 15:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and it the RS aspect I'm commenting on as regards the link above. It is released on PRNewswire and is a press release from an advocacy group. The Scientific American article itself, however, meets both RS and V. I have it now, it is quite interesting and well worth a read, Franamax (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, how does fluoride help teeth?

I find it remarkable that in an encyclopaedia entry on water fluoridation it doesn't say how the fluoride actually helps teeth. Am i to presume that it is not known? If so, how anyone can justify adding it to water is beyond me. Tremello22 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The topic of whether or not fuoride is beneficial to humans is the subject of a great debate currently. In accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:GFCA, both sides of the controversy should be described in the article. --AeronM (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This page seems to have the answers. I think it would enhance the article if we used some of it. Tremello22 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a link already in "See also" to Fluoride therapy which discusses the topic more thoroughly. This article is specifically about the issue of adding fluoride compunds to drinking water. Franamax (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, the link you mention above comes from The Fluoride Debate website, an anti-fluoridation website. It would certainly not be considered a reliable source. From the homepage of The Fluoride Debate: "We believe that if people take the time to read and study both sides of the fluoridation debate — especially the science that has emerged over the last ten years — they will be appalled by the practice of putting this known toxic substance into the public drinking water." Better references than this website would be needed. - Dozenist talk 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

it is a reliable source, if you read it you would see it provides links to reliable sources within the article. This is the same for most anti-fluoride websites - there is a reason people are anti -it. It is not just for the sake of it. Tremello22 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source. It is an advocacy website, an issue site. Generally (though there are exceptions), advocacy websites are not reliable sources for scientific facts. · jersyko talk 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How can you say it isn't a reliable source when it quotes the research done by Canadian Medical Association Journal,University of Chicago,Journal of the American Medical Association, other numerous studies and testimonies from respected doctors? Answer:you can't. Tremello22 (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources you are cite above may be reliable sources. I don't know. However, the question is whether the fluoride debate website is a reliable source. No matter what third party sources it may cite, it will never be a reliable source for scientific fact. Thanks. · jersyko talk 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the initial question, here's an article from 2000 from the International Dental Journal.

• Role of Fluoride in Oral Health Promotion 2000

"It is now understood that the primary mode of action of fluoride in reducig dental caries is post-eruptive (topical), in that it promotes remineralisation, and inhibits demineralisation of dental enamel during the caries process."

It goes into a bit more detail which I won't list here. PatrickRBC (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

I've reworded the Controversy section and added some sources here. This is primarily based on the Scientific American article of Jan08 which I consider to be a RSS, I have included some primary sources to flesh things out and give some other places to look. Primary sources are of course not definitive, those of you with access to these sources, please feel free to review them to look for reviews within those sources. Also, please all feel free to correct the formatting of the sources!

There's some more work required to get the sources-tag off this section, let's all pitch in... Franamax (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

N.B. I have not put any of the reworded discussion or sources into Water fluoridation controversy where it also belongs. Franamax (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing here, I am going to revert this edit, it is somewhat incoherent, also my RSS, Scientific American Jan08 cites the same NAS study, nap.edu...record_id=11571 as the IP editor uses and reports the NAS as saying "current limit...4 mg/L... should be lowered". I see no discussion that "2ppm is harmful" as the IP editor states, and I invite the IP to produce a specific verifiable quote. Franamax (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Further to Jwray's edits, I am going to roll them back without prejudice but with the following notes: the study was conducted with dosages of AlF and NaF compared to distilled water, the NaF dosage was 2.1ppm equivalent to the 0.5ppm AlF dosage, I'm not clear on how this compares to drinking water dosages of hexafluorosilicic acid as far as the equivalent number of fluoride atoms being consumed; the ref'd article abstract states "No differences...between the body weights", more rats died "in the AlF group", conspicuosly excluding the NaF group. Etc., etc. and only reading the article abstract, but are we comparing apples to oranges here? More importantly for our purposes, do we wish to include a single (apparently peer-reviewed) result, a study conducted with different chemicals, on different animals, in this primary article? Or is this finding more appropriate for the Water fluoridation controversy article?

I'm not trying to make a finding here, editors have done the B for bold, I've done the R for revert, now lets do the D bit of WP:BRD. Franamax (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is now adequate sourcing. I have removed the sources tag. --AeronM (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Jersyko, if you would like to add a POV tag to this article, you need to discuss your reasons on the talk page first. Thank you. --AeronM (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, please address issues here on the talk page instead of in your edit summaries, so that a discussion can take place. Thank you. --AeronM (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Relevant discussion is here. · jersyko talk 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The first half of this article strikes me as quite biased against fluoridation. What strikes me is that most opposition seems to come from lay people, while as a generalisation medical, dental and health organisations seem strongly in favour of it.

• Queensland Health on Fluoridation Dec 7, 2007

"Water fluoridation is endorsed by professional bodies around the world including the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, Centers for Disease Control and the British Medical Association.

It is also supported by a number of Australia's peak health bodies, including the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Dental Association, the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Public Health Association of Australia."

I don't see why a lay opinion, though valid, should carry as much weight as an educated one? You'd ask an engineer if he thought a bridge would stand up, not ban it because someone walking past heard a similar bridge fell over once. Anyway, just my two cents but I'm not going to change the article itself. PatrickRBC (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph blatantly omits any of the other side of the issue on this. We need to add something to balance for NPOV. --AeronM (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV does not = balance. See WP:NPOV. · jersyko talk 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Controversy section has been systematically stripped of any balance and should now be renamed "Opposition". Franamax (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

World status

Dozenist has removed 12 statements by 12 countries that inform readers about their fluoridation status. Dozenist does not consider the cited sources to be reliable.

I disagree with that assessment. The original sources cited include: the Ministry of Health of China, the Ministry for Environment in the Republic of Hungary, the Netherlands Directorate Drinking Water, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health of Finland, and the Norway National Institute of Public Health.

Dozenist has dismissed these sources as unreliable. I respectfully disagree. In all candor, I would describe these sources as, "The Horse's Mouth."

I agree that the page needs to represent more of a worldwide view. Dozenist's actions make the page much less global.

Whereas these sources are actual world government officials charged with monitoring water quality, I hereby submit that Dozenist was hasty in removing the information. I will now restore what Dozenist took away. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The section still needs proper references. When you first added the material, it was completely unreferenced; after a request, you've now provided some, but they are still problematic. Yes, the sources appear to be from who they say they are from, but it is all based on electronic copies of letters that are posted on websites of anti-fluoride groups. These groups have a vested interest in providing only material that would support their cause, so their suitability as a source is less than ideal. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Look up the source however you can, and then include the source as your main link. I believe you can link to full-text beside the primary source, especially since these are government publications (non-copyrighted). If you verify that the full-text on those pages are correct, then they don't have to easily verified by others. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 18:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Messiness of this and the controversy article

I'd like to improve both these articles and eventually would like them to be merged back together. I want to work entirely within NPOV policy and quite quickly get the non-worldwide tag off this article. If I take some quite bold steps in rearranging sections, then that's what I'm doing. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a huge meta-study, covering something like 3000 primary studies, which I've been unable to locate. (Haven't had much time to look, unfortunately.) If you could dig that up, it would be much more valuable than having us pick and choose which studies to include. kwami (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That could be the University of York survey, already covered. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

SELECTIVE QUOTE OF CDC PAPER

One quote from the CDC misrepresents their view. In the referenced section “COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF FLUORIDE MODALITIES” comparing various methods of fluoride delivery, (gels, varnish, mouthwash, water fluoridation, tablets, etc) and their cumulative and additive effects, the CDC says:

“Although solid data on the cost-effectiveness of fluoride modalities alone and in combination are needed, this information is scarce.”

In Wikipedia, the quote is used out of context,and says” “Effects

....However, the United States Centers for Disease Control states, “…solid data on the cost effectiveness of fluoride modalities…is scarce…” [7]”

This seems to be intended to disparage water fluoridation by selective quoting of the CDC, intimating that studies of water fluoridation itself are scarce. Readers should perhaps be referred to the CDC’s webpage on water fluoridation http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/ where they say: “Overview Community water fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing tooth decay, and has been identified by CDC as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. “ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.8.143 (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is now tilted, once again, against the medical establishment. kwami (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the Effects section. I suggest we stick to metastudies and conclusions of major institutes such as the ADA, CDC, and WHO. There are literally thousands of studies out there, supporting any conclusion you like, so if we allow people to pick and choose their favorites, there will be no end to POV infighting. kwami (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it is claimed that water fluoridation is practiced at a very low cost. That claim is open to debate, and CDC's statement about scarce data regarding costs of fluoride modalities, including water fluoridation, is relevant, and should be restored. That is, if cost of fluoridation is relevant to this article. I would say that it is. Petergkeyes (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The cost is certainly minimal compared to the cost of having uninsured families use the emergency room for all the extra toothaches and abcesses. kwami (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fluoride exposure, via overdose, can negatively affect life expectancy.

In 1990 the National Cancer Institute declared fluoride an equivocal carcinogen. People have died from fluoride overdose. A short browsing of the malfunctions section shows some of the mortalities. These are some of the reasons why I must remove the following claim, which was unsubstantiated by its citation. Also, the reference is from 1984. That is too old of a reference to be using to back up such a lofty claim.

"While extreme industrial exposure to fluoride will cause health problems, such as nephritis, there is considerable evidence to show that fluoride exposure does not cause cancer or birth defects. In addition it has not been shown to effect life expectancy."

The last claim is false, and, frankly, downright dangerous. Folks, please do not eat your toothpaste! Petergkeyes (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Curiously there is a lot of people who do, who don't suffer ill health. But that is neither here nor there. Fluoride ions are a carcinogen? Really? Didn't know that, which compounds in particular? Shot info (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sodium fluoride. National Toxicology Program, 1990. Petergkeyes (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, had the wrong section # in the ref. And I assume they meant water-fluoridation-level exposure. (It's a summary.)

All that eating your toothpaste will do in the short term is maybe cause a stomach ache, though chronic ingestion is not a good idea. As for the date, there are later metastudies available, but I have yet to locate them. kwami (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that about 1/2 of a tube of toothpaste contains enough active ingredient to kill a small child. Petergkeyes (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for this? Mainly as I regularly see such statements parrotted around on the University of Google, but no real substiciated sources. Shot info (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Potentially fatal dose = 5 mg of fluoride per kg of bodyweight. This is "the minimum dose that could cause toxic signs and symptoms, including death, and that should trigger immediate therapeutic intervention and hospitalization... This does not mean that doses lower than 5.0 mg F/kg should be regarded as innocuous." (SOURCE: Journal of Dental Research 1987; 66:1056-1060.)

Akiniwa, K. (1997). Re-examination of acute toxicity of fluoride. Fluoride 30: 89-104.

Gessner BD, et al. (1994). Acute fluoride poisoning from a public water system. New England Journal of Medicine 330:95-9.

Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.

Spak CJ, et al. (1990). Studies of human gastric mucosa after application of 0.42% fluoride gel. Journal of Dental Research 69:426-9.

Shulman JD, Wells LM. (1997). Acute fluoride toxicity from ingesting home-use dental products in children, birth to 6 years of age. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 57: 150-8.

Whitford GM. (1987). Fluoride in dental products: safety considerations. Journal of Dental Research 66: 1056-60.

Faculty of Dentistry, Class of 2009, University of Toronto[4] Petergkeyes (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Keepers of the Well

Is not a reliable source per WP:RS. It is a WP:FRINGE source. Shot info (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

While the front page of Keepers of the Well makes it look like the website will be full of activist poetry, if you venture into the site you will find it consists of reprints of: the Journal of the American Dental Association, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Board of Dental Examiners, Members of Congress, the American Water Works Association, the National Sanitation Foundation, Lucier Chemical Industry, LTD., the California Code of Regulations, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Academy of Sciences, Dental Cosmos, the Journal of Public Health Dentistry, and much more. There is a point of view, for sure. But the meticulous sourcing makes this a very reliable website. These are mainstream sources, not fringe. Petergkeyes (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

ADA Bottled Water advisory

This sentence fits better in the, "Bottled water" category than it does in the, "United States" category.

In October 2006, the United States Food and Drug Administration issued a health claim notification permitting water bottlers to claim that fluoridated bottled water can promote oral health. The claims are not allowed to be made on bottled water marketed to infants.[83]

Anybody mind if I move it? Petergkeyes (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it only has something to do with bottled water in the US, give that it relates to the FDA only. Shot info (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the title of this still appropriate?

Water fluoridation is simply the bulk of this article, salt and milk are also included, so maybe it may be worth dropping the water part and adding it as a subtitle or just mentioning how it is by far (i assume) the most popular method of fluoridation, or maybe other fluoridation articles to work on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.2.124 (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If the salt and milk fluoridation stuff stays, it may be sensible to drop the word, "water" from the title of this page. Petergkeyes (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Peter Meiers a WP:RS

Time to have a look at WP:SELF. Shot info (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fluoride is ubiquitous in the environment

from natural and man-made sources. Thus, why the need to fluoridate water, salt, or milk, if it's everywhere? Aside from that, fluoridating salt is just foolish, as fluoride is antagonistic to proper iodine uptake, which salt is public health vehicle for. In reality, thyroid health is vastly more important than saving a few teeth, if any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.97.228 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone put both fluoride and iodide in salt? Anyway, while fluoride is ubiquitous, it usually isn't found in high enough concentrations to have beneficial effects. Also, it's more than just a matter of saving a few teeth: after LA stopped fluoridating its water, half of all emergency-room visits were for dental problems, up sharply from the fluoridation years. kwami (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Much of Europe and Latin America puts the two together. As for the levels of fluoride, fluoride does not just disappear after it's been used by the consumer in water. It becomes recycled, raising so-called "natural" existing levels. Remember, matter cannot be destroyed. Basic physics. Thus, it increases in the ecosystem.

Do you have information showing the numbers of dental related emergency visits? Even if what you say is factual, I doubt these figures were ever statistically analyzed for prevalence of "lack of fluoride" as the cause (you assume causal relationship), which is not an emergency by any reasonable standard. Surely you can't be debating the priority thyroid health should take over a possible breach in tooth enamel? It doesn't compare on any level.

Anyhow, considering that most internalized fluoride ends up in the thyroid and pineal glands, where it doesn't belong, and not in tooth enamel where it may have a beneficial effect, systemic fluoridation is a failure at what it's supposed to protect; tooth enamel.

Last, but not least, fluoride is not naturally part of the structure of teeth at all. (Taken from a paper on materials science, studying tooth enamel composition. "Microhardness and chemical composition of human tooth"):

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-14392003000300011

"Tooth enamel is the most mineralized tissue of human body. Its composition is 96 wt.% inorganic material and 4 wt.% organic material and water. In dentin, the inorganic material represents 70 wt.%. This inorganic material is mainly composed by a calcium phosphate related to the hexagonal hydroxyapatite, whose chemical formula is Ca10(PO4)6·2(OH) 1. X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) analysis of enamel and dentin also indicated the presence in small quantities of other elements such as Na, Cl and Mg 2."

As you can see, fluoride plays no part in this structure, and the replacement of the natural calcium-based hydroxyapatite with fluorapatite (fluoride), is the very definition of dental fluorosis, even if the fluorosis is not readily visible. Thus, it negates the argument that teeth need fluoride at all... Makes me think of the wisdom of opening a barbershop in a town full of bald men, or trying to sell them on a more expensive shampoo, if you'll pardon the humourous comparison . :)

It would be much more productive to ingrain in people personal responsibility of good oral hygiene when it comes to prevention. Eg. A majority still do not floss daily. Much more likely a contributing cause, along with direct trauma to the mouth, of these emergencies you mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.97.228 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Although much of what you say is correct, it sounds like selective reading. I wish I could dig up the LA emergency-room stats. Whether flossing would make fluoride redundant or not (and it appears not) is rather like the arguments for abstinence-only sex education—if everyone just waited until marriage and was faithful, there would be no need for STD health services, so let's eliminate them. Regardless of whether they should, a lot of people don't. How many people die every year from iodine deficiency in the US, compared to the number who die from tooth decay? Those emergency-room visits are serious. kwami (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Much of what I say is correct? What isn't? Again, you show me nothing of the causality you say is present in these emergencies, between lack of fluoridation and the emergency itself. As well, you can't substantiate the number of emergencies in LA at all. You can't even prove the emergencies exist at all! Come on? Prove it! And the causality, as well.

So, what is it I've said you disagree with? You said I'm generally correct, yet you still argue (apparently about STDs and abstinence) which is wildly off topic. Stick to the topic, and debate me with proof, not just rhetorical tactics you learned (poorly) in school. You've not disproven anything I've stated. (And you do not know what I have read, so in what way is my reading selective? Don't accuse me of something you cannot back-up, or be accused of the same.)

FYI, thyroid problems are still a common complaint seen in medical practices and hospitals. Thyroid drugs are commonly prescribed across the world. I've been one of those patients. The rates are even going up in Newfoundland fishing villages, where there should be no problem, considering the heavy fish diet. Lot's of iodine in fish.

You said: "Whether flossing would make fluoride redundant or not (and it appears not)"

Answer: Good oral hygiene (regular brushing and flossing... I wasn't suggesting just one or the other, obviously) is critical to oral health. It is the single best thing to rid the mouth of the bacteria that creates the acids that erode enamel, and cause subsequent infections treated by periodontists. So who are you kidding? It "appears not" to whom? You? Fluoride doesn't protect teeth under the gum level, don't forget. Nor the gums themselves. But good oral hygiene does.

Added for emphasis: Only floss the teeth you want to keep.

Anyhow, I don't normally edit on this site as I just don't have the time, so don't expect a reply to your unproven emergencies, or STDs, or other. I was just here to comment on fluoridation in general, and I've done that.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.97.228 (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Says WHO and the United Nations, as cited in the article. Toothpaste does not replace the benefits of fluoridated water. And of course it helps the teeth under the gums. That's half the point. Or haven't you read the article? kwami (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, as any expert will tell you, but a starting point for basic information. So don't use it as a reference. And don't get angry because you're wrong, can't prove your point, and your ego got hurt. If you want to believe fluoride is a magical "pixie-dust" cure-all, fine. But don't expect me to believe your fairy-tales. You're just getting to be annoying now, with no debate, and lots of hot air. Just who are you trying to convince? Me? Your fellow editors? Yourself? You're very hostile for a guy who said he agrees with me in principle. And I will not answer you again because of this, your disingenuousness, and your rabid pro-fluoridation stance.

I did not write my comments to you, but to a wider audience (WP's readership). And I have not edited the main article, so what's your problem? You were bored? No wonder wikipedia is highly controversial as a source of information, and editors here get burnt out, feeling the need to debate endlessly.

P.S. Fluoride does nothing under the gumline, for either the gums, roots or ligaments. It's "beneficial effect" is only on tooth enamel, strengthening it. And all enamel is above the gumline. What you are stating is blatantly false, as can be seen even by reading the tooth enamel entry on this site. I will not put up with deceit... Why can't you just admit your ignorance on the subject. There's no shame to it. But there is when you try to pass yourself off as someone with more knowledge than you possess, which is clearly the case. Stick to astronomy or language, or whatever your "expertise" is. 76.67.97.228 (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

IP 76, do you care to get a account? Also, can I direct to you some of Wikipedia's policies including WP:NPA and WP:SPA. Shot info (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So you can waste my time with your policies? You agree with Kwami. Fine. Erase my notes if they bother you so. And ban my IP. I have been more than fair with him, if you really look at it. And when I say he is ignorant, I mean on the subject matter. I will consider myself banned and unwelcome here. Happy now?

As a physician, I really have no time for wikipedia anyhow.76.67.97.228 (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on the contribution and not the contributor. It is up to you to follow the rules and to engage in the environment set down by them. Shot info (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

He made no real contribution to this. He merely tried to shout me down, and you know it.

Note: Some of my comments have been erased by Shot info. I will not re-add them to increase the conflict we seem to have, and I will cease to post. But I want this noted. And please do not erase this notice, Shot info, as you really had no business doing so in the first place. 76.67.97.228 (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Click here to make it all clear. Shot info (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You were rude, biased, and disingenuous by deleting comments that legitimately drew attention to you and said bias. Leave me alone, and I will do the same for you. 76.67.97.228 (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I can't even tell what you're responding to half the time. Who's using Wikipedia as a reference? When I said fluoride works under the gum line, I meant systemic fluoride during tooth formation, which is half of its purpose. Rabidly pro-fluoride? I favor it because meta-studies have shown it to be safe and effective. If new data comes along that says differently (and I don't mean individual studies; with 3000+ studies you can find something to support any conclusion you like— thus the meta-studies), I would be happy to reevaluate. I don't have any invested interest in fluoride, but most of the anti-fluoride types I've met have been crackpots of the kind who call people "rabid" for disagreeing with them. kwami (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Meta-studies (properly known as meta-analysis) can be a useful statistical tool, correlating groups of smaller studies. However, being statistical generalities, they provide no new research or insight, and are only as good as the studies included in the analysis.

As to anti-fluoridationists being "crackpots", they are just people who value the notion of freedom of choice, and see mass fluoridation as an erosion of their right to choose. That is their message, as I understand it. But, I am not a member of any of these anti-fluoridation groups, and cannot speak for them. 76.70.116.54 (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fluoride Action Network

Some have suggested that Fluoride Action Network is not a reliable source. I strongly disagree with this sentiment. FAN has recently erroneously been removed as a citation for malfunctions in fluoridation equipment. FAN is one of the most visited, best referenced websites out there that does not favor fluoridation.

Some have suggested that only sources that endorse, support or favor water fluoridation can be considered reliable. Subscribing to that theory would leave Wikipedia readers blind to the constantly raging controversy over the practice.

FAN will be replaced as a good source for the at least 17 equipment malfunctions. Petergkeyes (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a decent point. I count 9 people with scientific PhDs on FAN's advisory board. However, FAN mainly has news from other sources. That stuff should probably be cited directly after being verified, if possible. Also, they don't make note of whether they are reprinting with permission that I can see, which raises copyright concerns. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

FAN is not the source, it is merely "reprinting" information. In the context of supplying sources for all those particular facts, FAN is not a reliable source. When FAN decides to produce it's own information, then perhaps it can be considered a source. But for the "reproduction" of third party sources, it is not a RS. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; RS101 people. Shot info (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Put another way, FAN is a locus for anti-fluoridation information. It's purpose is to oppose fluoridation and to collect anti-fluoridation references. This must suggest some degree of bias and the suspicion that FAN will adopt an uncritical approach as to what it will include on its site as "evidence". If the information FAN collates is reliable, then it can easily be traced to its original source, that source can be verified and referenced in the Wikipedia article, then there's no problem, right? Franamax (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence has it spot on. Shot info (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything Franamax says above, except for this sentence: "This must suggest some degree of bias and the suspicion that FAN will adopt an uncritical approach as to what it will include on its site as 'evidence'". Taking a position on the issue does not equate to an uncritical approach to information gathering. FAN is highly critical, skeptical, and scientific. Editors should cease the inflammatory claims of, "unreliable," and "fringe," and read FAN for what it is: "a locus for (meticulously researched and referenced) anti-fluoridation information." Petergkeyes (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

FAN is a fringe organisation per WP:FRINGE. If it wishes to be taken seriously, it needs to be a little bit more serious that just a "locus". Shot info (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

From the online dictionary Merriam-Webster, Locus: 1 a: the place where something is situated or occurs. b: a center of activity, attention, or concentration. "in democracy the locus of power is in the people" — H. G. Rickover

There is no reason not to take a locus, or center, seriously. No matter how much detractors try to marginalize FAN, it will continue to be a reliable, mainstream source of information about fluoride. Petergkeyes (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, how is FAN different from Wikipedia as a locus? Yet we tell people all the time to not just take Wikipedia at its word, but instead to trace the information to its source. The best solution here is that you track down the referred material yourself, read it to be sure it says what is claimed, then source it directly. Franamax (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Pete, go read WP:RS and WP:V. If you don't understand policy, or it's application, then you aren't going to understand why other people don't consider your "source" as a reliable one. Shot info (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cites

A name, A department, and a date. Dunno about you, but there seems to be a problem with the current cites and what Wikipedia would like. Will leave it sit for a week or so. Shot info

WP:Verifiability says: All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable, published source. Shot info (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)