![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I have indefinitely blocked Libertyinfo as an unrepentant POV warrior who seems constitutionally unable to play nice. Guy ( Help!) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
In the section 'Safety', "These persons" is a very unusual (and grammatically dubious) use of the English language. I would use a term like this to belittle my opponents - subtly suggesting that they are divided, not representative of common opinion, and small in number (almost "One or two silly boys, who shall remain unnamed"). I suggest changing this term to "Opponents". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 ( talk) 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
moved from my talk page. · jersyko talk
Hi Jersyko. It's apparent that you have a vested interest in making this controversy slanted towards water fluoridation, and I'm somewhat on the other side. I recently added some information which was well-cited and you took it out. You asked why I mentioned only two countries. Why is it invalid to mention two countries and not more? The two countries offer an interesting dichotomy which adds to the article. The overview section is designed to introduce the reader, not survey each country's stance. China represents one philosophy and the US, the other. Further, this is going to be a work in progress (as all Wikipedia articles are) and I'll add further information to other countries as I describe the different approaches to water fluoridation. In the Overview section the focus is not in describing countries' takes but rather philosophies or reasons behind a wariness of fluoride. China's stance offers an interesting perspective on why fluoride could be harmful, and the US position offers a perspective on what is considered reasonable by the other side. Feel free to add more to the Overview section to flesh it out.
I'm going to request that you add back what you took out unless you can come up with a better reason for it to be taken out. Skeletal fluoris is one of the major concerns associated with water fluoridation and so its mention is relevant.
I noticed your edit claiming that "few" is relative and POV. Unfortunately, the claim that water fluoridation is "prevalant in other industrialized countries" is uncited and misleading. Considering the POV nature of "prevalent" and even "industrialized countries", it may be best if we simply list which countries fluoridate most of their water. Then we avoid the POV nature of "prevalance". The list actually seems to be fairly small. It seems that many countries don't want to spend the money -- developing nations, from what I'm seeing, are largely unrepresented in the main article. According to the main article, that means we can add New Zealand and Chile. The UK only fluoridates 10%. So, I may do that edit, adding New Zealand and Chile. Let me know if I'm missing a country. I don't think we can broadly claim that "industrialized countries" fluoridate water without a citation. OptimistBen ( talk) 09:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd chime in as a recent visitor over the past few months. Generally looks good, Jerseyko seems very accommodating. Yes, he does seem to be pushing an agenda, but so was one of the OP's here. This article should be linked to more related material on Wikipedia, I was frankly surprised and disappointed that it is not. Off the top of my head: "Toothpaste", "Sodium Fluoride", "Dental Fluorosis". Thanks for an informative article.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
really appropriate for an article on water floridation? Plugwash ( talk) 04:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
...pretty much says it all, despite being repeated over and over since the beginning of this discussion. Can someone please explain how jersyko continues to unilaterally control the content (or lack of content) of an entire Wikipedia article from Day 1, contrary to the wishes and good faith efforts of a multitude of contributors?
There's a lot of important information that really needs to be included, but it's quite apparent that jersyko will just keep making his unjustified POV edits no matter what anyone says. Could someone please cite the authority he's been given as final arbiter of this article? Such obvious bias destroys Wikipedia's credibility.
For example, why does an article about fluoridation CONTROVERSY begin by saying, "The current stance of several major medical and dental research associations is that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to prevent tooth decay and improve oral health", even though all 11 EPA employee unions representing over 7000 scientists and public health professionals have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people -- not to mention that more than 1000 independent doctors, dentists, scientists and researchers are calling for an end to water fluoridation -- is noted near the end of the article as an afterthought?
And what does the second paragraph, "Use throughout the world" have to do with CONTROVERSY, especially when all of it has been duplicated in the main Water Fluoridation article?
What's wrong with this picture? Does ANYONE in Wikipedia really care about neutrality and a lack of bias? Evidently not... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.29.239 ( talk) 10:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As much as I appreciate the position that we need to keep the article neutral, verifiable, and otherwise reasonable, can we not stoop to refuting complaints (which may, at times, be valid) with things like "if it were bad, insurance companies wouldn't support it" or "I drink fluoridated water and I'm fine"? None of that seems any more reasonable than what you're trying to refute. -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 20:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "fuzzy math" commentary is a poor source for the statement it supposedly supports, being polemical and in any case a discussion by an activist of a source which we should cite directly. Guy ( Help!) 21:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
We need some Wikipedia editors who are fluent enough in foreign languages to go research the folowing:
![]() | This article needs attention from an expert in Japan. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.(March 2009) |
![]() | This article needs attention from an expert in Finland. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.(March 2009) |
![]() | This article needs attention from an expert in Netherlands. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.(March 2009) |
![]() | This article needs attention from an expert in Germany. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.(March 2009) |
![]() | This article needs attention from an expert in Russia. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.(March 2009) |
76.85.197.45 ( talk) 00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In 1952, Norrköping became one of the first cities in Europe to fluoridate its water supply, allegedly without public disclosure, though I haven't found any reliable sources confirming that. Norrköping's fluoridation experiment was declared illegal by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court in 1961. In 1962, the Swedish parliament legalized fluoridation. In -66, the government gave Norrköping permission to resume the experiment. In 1971, the law was repealed. The repealing bill emphasized that the medical research did not unanimously say that water fluoridation was risk-free, and that water fluoridation was a forced mass-medication and an encroachment on citizens' private integrity. An official investigation/inquiry committee was formed, which published its final report in 1981 ("Fluor i kariesförebyggande syfte - Betänkande av fluorberedningen. SOU 1981:32"). The report recommended other ways of reducing tooth decay (changing food and oral hygiene habits) instead of tap water fluoridation. It also said that many people found fluoridation to impinge upon personal liberty/freedom of choice, and that the long-term effects of fluoridation were not sufficiently known. They also lacked a good study on the effects of fluoridation on formula-fed infants.
There was never a large fluoridation program in Sweden. Besides Norrköping, three other cities received permission to fluoridate their water in 1968. I'm not sure how many of them actually started fluoridation before the bill was repealed. — Ksero ( talk | contribs) 08:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
In the introduction of the cited source, it states: "The recommendations presented in this report were developed by the Task Force and are not necessarily the recommendations of CDC, DHHS, or other participating organizations." I have therefore removed the CDC reference. -- AeronM ( talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete edits before discussing here on the talk page. This constitutes edit warring and is frowned upon here at Wikipedia. Thank you. -- AeronM ( talk) 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
AeronM, it appears to me that you label any statement that does not support your POV as "non-neutral" and any edit that removes content you added as "edit warring." I don't think you will find that many people around Wikipedia (not to mention the world at large) support your interpretations.
You apparently regard my edits to this article as edit warring, or at least as "POV". I, on the other hand, perceive that I removed a blatant bit of POV from the first sentence of the article and removed another paragraph that was original research.
The POV I deleted was the word "questionable" in the following passage: "Water fluoridation controversy refers to activism against the addition of fluoride to public water supplies, and the consequent discussion of its questionable safety and benefits to public health." Without the word questionable that is a pretty straightforward statement, but the insertion of that one word indicates a bias against fluoride. By boldly deleting that word, I was attempting to make Wikipedia better by removing POV.
As I told you on your talk page, the original research that I deleted was the following paragraph:
Who determined that there are two main areas of contention and that they are "the efficacy of ingesting fluoride as a means to deter tooth decay" and "the notion that having fluoride added to the water supply by the municipalities effectively constitutes mass medication of the population"? If these ideas are based on a published analysis in a reliable source, please cite the source. If this is your own interpretation or that of another Wikipedian, it's original research and needs to be deleted. (Regardless of whose interpretation this is, I disagree with it and I think I could find a reliable source to support my view.)
In reply, you said:
Please be advised that the need for reliable sources is not a negotiable item around Wikipedia. The policy WP:V gave me the right, if not also the obligation, to remove that piece of unsourced analysis. I and other Wikipedians do not need your permission to edit this article, particularly when our edits are removing material that is unsourced and potentially controversial. After perusing the edit history of the article, I am replacing that paragraph with a somewhat better version that existed several weeks ago.
For the record, it's not "my" POV tag, although I did comment in an summary on the amount of bias I found in this article. Just as it's not my POV tag, though, it's not your article, either. -- Orlady ( talk) 04:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I feel confident I could well be challenged to explain myself regarding this edit summary, I'll merely point out that requests for a Declaratory ruling are not considered lawsuits. Second, the cause of the court cases is fluoridation. The "apparent dangers" of fluoridation did not always precipitate the cases. Cases were often brought for reasons unrelated to dangers of fluoridation, such as privacy concerns or disputes over the bounds of municipal or state power. Thus, the change was simply wrong. · jersyko talk 00:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support the deletion of the following passage, which Itub deleted (with an edit summary saying "Patent nonsense -- "fluoride" is not the same as HF or F2. Heck, fluoride is not even a substance! It is an ion..."), but which AeronM restored with an edit summary saying "Compromise":
Fluoride is so corrosive that has to be transported in rubber-lined tankers.[citation needed] After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, U.S. authorities were advised to keep a close eye on shipments of the substance.[21]
Itub is correct. That is patent nonsense. Hydrofluoric acid is highly corrosive, but "fluoride" is not the same thing as hydrofluoric acid. "Compromise" is not an option when dealing with patent nonsense. -- Orlady ( talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove this reference from the external links section. It is within the mainstream of the safe water movement, and is a central website for people who oppose water fluoridation. Petergkeyes ( talk) 08:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
KOTW is an educational arm of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water. CSDW is an aggressive activist group that opposes water fluoridation. The group has had many successes in passing local referenda that prohibits water fluoridation, and is currently raising funds for a federal lawsuit against the practice. Petergkeyes ( talk) 21:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's some of the local ordinances that they have passed or promoted: [2]
FAN says, "About Citizens for Safe Drinking Water: One of the most active groups in the country..." [3]
In the media in Hawaii: [4]
KOTW is raising funds for the upcoming federal lawsuit aimed at halting fluoridation: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64168]
Media mention from May 22, 2008: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64920]
Water Industry: [5]
The Oregonian: [6] Petergkeyes ( talk) 22:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Simply put, a reference "reproduced" by a third party has the reliability of that third party, not the original.
— Shot info
Hi Shot Info. You have expressed your opinion regarding websites you do not consider reliable sources of information for the water fluoridation opposition page. What are some websites that you would consider reliable sources for this topic? Petergkeyes ( talk) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It is good to be skeptical. I would advise restraint in accusations of WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. There is plenty of each for this, and related topics. And there is also a wealth of well referenced information available from both proponents and opponents of water fluoridation. Careful, thoughtful distinction between dubious theories and proper research is needed here. Petergkeyes ( talk) 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, one of the most famous references to this belief is in Dr. Strangelove. As such, I included mention of this in the lead. ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
User:ImperfectlyInformed just added the following section, entitled Aluminum compounds. I copyedited it but then noticed some of the references do not support the statements they follow.
Fluorine is the most reactive element [1], and as such it readily forms compounds with almost all other elements. Of particular concern is fluoride's ability to form compounds with toxic metals, and in particular, aluminium, which is a known neurotoxin [2]. Evidence suggests that aluminium fluoride complexes can then cross the blood-brain barrier. The National Research Council of the United States suggests that "many of the untoward effects of fluoride are due to the formation of AlFx complexes" [3]. Rats administered fluoride as both sodium fluoride (NaF) or aluminium fluoride (AlF3) were found to have twice as much aluminum in the brain upon their deaths as control rats. Concerns have been raised over cooking in aluminum pans, as Science News reports that "water with 1 part per million (ppm) of fluoride frees nearly 200 ppm of aluminum when boiled 10 minutes in aluminum cooking pots. That is 1,000 times the aluminum leached by nonfluoridated water". [4]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Problems:
If there are any willing scientists out there, particularly toxicologists familiar with the literature, could they please help improve this section by finding a comprehensive review of aluminium toxicity enhanced by fluoridated water.
Ben ( talk) 13:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Reference to be integrated in the article: Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease [9] [10] MaxPont ( talk) 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This page needs a lot of work. Hopefully I don't step on too many toes with bold edits and revisions. Petergkeyes ( talk) 08:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph from the, "Contemporary Challenges," section.
"In Skagit County, in Washington State, the county commissioners have been empowered by the Washington State attorney general to act as the Board of Health. [121]They are telling the local Public Utility Disctrict/ PUD to start fluoridating the public water supply by Jan. 2009. $1.2 million could be provided by a private group, Washington Dental Service Foundation, to begin building the equipment needed to add fluoride to the Judy Resevoir which supplies the majority of Skagit Valley's water customers. The source and type of fluoride to be added to the drinking water of more than 70,000 citizens has not been disclosed."
It does not describe a contemporary challenge to water fluoridation, nor is it about the opposition to water fluoridation. The paragraph resides on the water fluoridation page, with POV language removed. Petergkeyes ( talk) 01:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is about opposition to water fluoridation, not praise or criticism of fluoride. This claim, "The World Health Organization...still list fluoridation of water as a viable and safe option of maintaining a healthy level of fluoride in the oral cavity," is suspect. The citation provided [11]is 45 pages long. I do not see anywhere in there where it says water fluoridation is always safe and viable in every country of the world. Please notate page numbers if WHO actually makes this universal claim in this document. Petergkeyes ( talk) 01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
So page 19 clearly states that it is NOT safe, that some toxic reactions may be an inevitable consequence of water fluoridation. And page 16 does not claim the practice to be either "safe" or "viable." I placed a "citation needed" tag on the claim. Page numbers that correspond with safe and viable claims by W.H.O. should satisfy the challenge. Where in the document does the World Health Organization claim water fluoridation to be safe and viable? Petergkeyes ( talk) 08:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Peter I note you have removed the vn tag. The point to this tag was that yes, there is critism, but exactly who is doing the criticising? It isn't mentioned in the article, and it's unclear the value of it in the supplied reference. Just because their is "criticism" doesn't make it notable. Shot info ( talk) 03:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I note that once again, lots of references to FA have been inserted back into the article contrary that the advise provided by RS/N. These will be progressively removed and replacement sources requested. Shot info ( talk) 02:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
What is RS/N? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergkeyes ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Reliabe sources/noticeboard. Here is the discussion. My main concerns are copyright issues. II | ( t - c) 06:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Fluoridation.com is also right in the mainstream of the opposition to water fluoridation movement. References to this source should also be restored. Petergkeyes ( talk) 05:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi II,
With regards to the linking of references in the lede, my preference is to follow WP:LEADCITE and have a minimal (but the "best") reference in the actual lede. For sure, we can go crazy in the body but all those [1][2][3][4]..[n] just looks plain ugly. The particular reference I removed as the first three instances under the #cancer subsection refer to salts and don't really say that they are linked to cancer at all. Shot info ( talk) 05:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This article lacks the anti-fluoridation campaign on England:
"Glasgow would already have fluoridated water were it not for Catherine McColl, who waged a one-woman campaign after city councillors approved plans for fluoride to be added to supplies by a single vote in 1978. The "toothless granny" from the Gorbals became famous throughout Britain when she won her fight against fluoridating the Strathclyde region in the Court of Session in 1982." Sunday Herald [13]
Also includes opposition of Green Party, difficulties to introduce it on England, and how it would surely be introduced on Scotland if it was approved on London. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
As illustrated by the precedeing anecdote and the tone of much of this talk page, this article has become a forum for strident antifluoridationists. The antifluoridation cause may in fact have significant merit, but this article is presently unconvincing and unhelpful because those editors that feel so strongly are blinded by their very passion. One trend that we see in related unbalanced articles is the tendency to cite numerous case studies that "prove" their point. Overall, speaking as someone who edits chemistry pages, I am exceedingly pleased that this article exists to absorb such stridency, sparing other, related articles of such blatant advocacy.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This article should not be tarnished with a conspiracy theory section. You talk about NPOV , well a massive section on conspiracy theory makes this whole debate look like a big joke. I am happy to compromise with a small sentance in a relevant section without a poster. Tremello22 ( talk) 21:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The current article indicates that water fluoridation in, for example, Germany was discontinued, but that event occurred concomitantly with the large-scale implementation of the fluoridation of salt. Googling "salt fluoridation" gives zillions of hits to specialty journals discuassing this aspect. E.g. http://www.who.int/oral_health/action/risks/en/index1.html. Fluoridation practices vary with respect to:
Both water fluoridation and this article have lists of policy vs countries, no doubt started with the intention of being highly encyclopedic. But maintaining these lists is probably impractical (several hits discuss the situation in Jamaica, for example - do we intend to list every country?). This listing business is something for the admins that are reviewing this rapidly evolving article to consider. For other articles where public policy is of interest, I am unsure how the diversity of policy is represented without making the article too cumbersome.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 00:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does this article lack any mention of the concern over the ingestion of fluoride as regards the human brain or blood-brain barrier? That is one of the main concerns that has been discussed and studied, yet many other concerns are listed instead. Badagnani ( talk) 02:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Searching for aluminium rather than aluminum on PubMed doesn't seem to make a difference. A PubMed search for aluminium neurotoxin turns up 142 articles, 38 reviews. Aluminium neurotoxicity turns up 254 articles, 53 reviews; most of the reviews different from the preceding search. Aluminum fluoride turns up 1586 articles, 56 reviews. I just looked at the reviews for the first search. Most of the relevant ones I had no access to. Articles descending from latest date
As you can see, there is a wealth of literature on the topic, which can be accessed by following the papers cited (or citing) by the above papers or checking related links in PubMed. They tend to be technical, but they have areas of less technicality which can be cited. ImpIn | ( t - c) 00:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll put it back in at some point here, maybe after some more reading. The leaching from pans is an incidental point; the broader point is that concurrent consumption of aluminium and fluoride may allow the aluminium to cross the blood-brain barrier, even in people who are not renally-impaired. This is suggested by Varner's study with rats, but I'll look for some more definite statements to that effect. By the way, I like consistent spelling. I'd prefer that the IUPAC chose the simpler one -- aluminum -- but since they've got the power, why don't we all use aluminium? What's the root of this -ium fixation? And why isn't it universal, e.g. platinum? ImpIn | ( t - c) 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that the current reverted piece about Fluorosis is just about Fluorosis it will be cut back to the parts that are relevant to the discussion about "Water Fluoridation Opposition" and a "Main article" link to Fluorosis. This is just so the section is not about Fluorosis which it is at the moment. Peter, can I suggest you cease editwarring? Shot info ( talk) 03:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Although fluorosis is an epidemiological concern outside of the opposition movement, the fluorosis phenomenon is certainly one of the major factors behind the opposition movement. So I think it should stay. II | ( t - c) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with II that the fluorosis section should stay. Shot Info takes issue with the notion that it doesn't explicitly reference the "opposition movement" in each sentence. But Shot Info misses the point. This article started out being titled, "Water Fluoridation Controversy," and maybe we should revisit changing back to that title, if it would solve some of these problems. For now, I will respectfully remove the tag that suggests that this section strays from its intended topic. Petergkeyes ( talk) 21:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There was a lot of bollocks being included in this article with references to very high concentrations of fluoride. I removed all I could find. This article could use an improvement, especially because this paranoia is so pathological as to be lampooned viciously by Stanley Kubrick more than 40 years ago! ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Just checking, was there consensus for the most recent page move? If so, could someone please point me to the discussion? Otherwise the page should be moved back. Controversial moves should go through WP:RM. -- El on ka 22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(Unindenting) I agree that the title "Water fluoridation conspiracy theories" is inappropiate, given that opposition to fluoridation seems to be about more than just conspiracy theorists. To quote Edward O'Rourke in 1953, opponents were mostly "food faddists, members of religious groups opposed to medicine in general, and those self-appointed guardians of the public who appear before most open committees." Conspiracists were generally in the latter category, and I doubt things have changed much since then. However, I was rather surprised to find that this article didn't have anything about the conspiracy theories that circulated in the 1950s and 1960s, so I've added a section on that topic - it's something I came across in writing Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, the controversy over which involved many of the same people and groups. -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I asked user Kim Bruning about this, because he's a biologist, and has access to some scientific journals. He took a brief look and gave his opinion here. [27] Because he says, "I get the idea that much of the scientific opinion is on the pro side on this topic, albeit with caveats," there is somewhat of a mild confirmation that the article, in the form that ScienceApologist wiped, was at least somewhat misrepresentative of the overall research. Anyone with access to these types of journals ought to be able to add stuff here to balance out the various stuff that was here before. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 19:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I find it amusing that editors here, including a real "biologist" (give me a break!) are debating the merits of fluoride in face of the WHO ([ [28]]: "fluoride is most effective in dental caries prevention") and the U.S. CDC ("one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century"). Obviously there is a controversy as indicated in this discussion and the current article. It seems ill-advised or worse (hubris) for editors to re-analyze and qualify data (ImperfectlyInformed asks for reanalysis of the WHO and CDC findings, because II has insights that these organizations lack or conspire to hide). Such an analyses verge on OR. Re the fluoride-brain issue: this article is not about toxicity of fluoride: we already have an article on that Fluoride poisoning.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I'm not debating anything in the face of anything. Just lazily pulling some refs out of pubmed because I'm bored and don't have anything better to do. WHO is an international organization, and just based on what I've looked up so far, I would predict that globally they're likely to support fluoridation, because on average much of the world is poor and doesn't get decent dental care. CDC is a US organization, and they have a US POV. Conditions in specific countries may or may not match the average case (for WHO) or the US case (for CDC). -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 01:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
As discussed above, and unresolved, the section on fluorosis (not just dental) is not germane for the article as it is currently written. The tag should remain until the section is improved just it says in the tag header. Pulling the tag off without discussion is a legitimate reason for a revert. To the two editors who are doing the removal, please discuss first rather than just edit warring. Shot info ( talk) 23:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be clear to everyone that massive blanking cannot be permitted in the case of such a closely watched and controversial article, which should be edited in a very deliberate manner. Please restore the considerable amount of text blanked in this edit, go back to "Discussion," and give reasons why you believe this text should be removed, thanks. Badagnani ( talk) 06:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
You mean the removal of entire refs? How closely did you examine that diff? Badagnani ( talk) 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I ask that you please examine the diff more closely. Do that first, then comment here, thanks. Badagnani ( talk) 18:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
An entire paragraph was removed. Have things gotten to the point where the commenting editors are pretending they don't see that? I kindly ask that you please look again (please be aware that I say so in the very opposite of a rude manner; I say so out of the highest ideals for our project). The blanking of an entire paragraph without discussion here is impermissible and should at least be notice, especially when a diff is presented. Badagnani ( talk) 18:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The entire paragraph that was removed. It's in the diff. Badagnani ( talk) 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It's about some type of Green Party proclamation. Did you examine the diff closely? It's difficult to miss the deletion of an entire paragraph, or so I thought. Badagnani ( talk) 19:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the blanking took place without a suitable edit summary or justification here, then I had to request more than ten times that it be examined, is highly problematic. Badagnani ( talk) 19:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The blanking of an entire paragraph, without prior discussion here nor proper edit summary, is unconstructive, highly problematic, and creates the impression of not adhering to good faith in an article that has generated controversy. Badagnani ( talk) 20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that, despite your above comment, an entire paragraph was blanked, and it should not take 15 comments to have this acknowledged; it's in the diff presented in the very first comment. The least you can do is admit that it occured, and not do it again in the future. Good faith must be maintained at all times, in both editing and discussion. Badagnani ( talk) 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"Paragraphs 56, 57 and 59 of the Home Office Guidance Notes on the application of the Human Rights Act establish that fluoridation violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act, and also Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. Since fluoridation is the illegal administration of a registered poison with no medicinal authorisation, it constitutes a State sanctioned criminal act against the public, and is incompatible with the Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Where children are involved - indeed, specifically targeted - such an act also raise issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child."
The removed quote is in the reference, and the statement being referenced isn't that controversial. Nothing really to see here. I'd be embarrassed if I was Badagnani. II | ( t - c) 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
All right, so our policy of careful, deliberate editing, using "Discussion" to propose the deletion of large swathes of text before actually doing so in the case of controversial articles, has been dispensed with, just for this page? That is outrageous. Badagnani ( talk) 23:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I have moved on, as you can see, posting about other subjects and ways to improve the article. However, this subject must be addressed. As you can see above, I was forced to post at least 15 times to even get a recognition that a paragraph had been blanked without comment. This is unacceptable and must be addressed, not dismissed, as the previous three or four comments seem to be trying to do. Badagnani ( talk) 00:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Does someone have access to a database where the following article could be found? It could be useful:
Badagnani ( talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I've found it:
http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v189/n10/full/4800820a.html
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I have indefinitely blocked Libertyinfo as an unrepentant POV warrior who seems constitutionally unable to play nice. Guy ( Help!) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
In the section 'Safety', "These persons" is a very unusual (and grammatically dubious) use of the English language. I would use a term like this to belittle my opponents - subtly suggesting that they are divided, not representative of common opinion, and small in number (almost "One or two silly boys, who shall remain unnamed"). I suggest changing this term to "Opponents". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 ( talk) 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
moved from my talk page. · jersyko talk
Hi Jersyko. It's apparent that you have a vested interest in making this controversy slanted towards water fluoridation, and I'm somewhat on the other side. I recently added some information which was well-cited and you took it out. You asked why I mentioned only two countries. Why is it invalid to mention two countries and not more? The two countries offer an interesting dichotomy which adds to the article. The overview section is designed to introduce the reader, not survey each country's stance. China represents one philosophy and the US, the other. Further, this is going to be a work in progress (as all Wikipedia articles are) and I'll add further information to other countries as I describe the different approaches to water fluoridation. In the Overview section the focus is not in describing countries' takes but rather philosophies or reasons behind a wariness of fluoride. China's stance offers an interesting perspective on why fluoride could be harmful, and the US position offers a perspective on what is considered reasonable by the other side. Feel free to add more to the Overview section to flesh it out.
I'm going to request that you add back what you took out unless you can come up with a better reason for it to be taken out. Skeletal fluoris is one of the major concerns associated with water fluoridation and so its mention is relevant.
I noticed your edit claiming that "few" is relative and POV. Unfortunately, the claim that water fluoridation is "prevalant in other industrialized countries" is uncited and misleading. Considering the POV nature of "prevalent" and even "industrialized countries", it may be best if we simply list which countries fluoridate most of their water. Then we avoid the POV nature of "prevalance". The list actually seems to be fairly small. It seems that many countries don't want to spend the money -- developing nations, from what I'm seeing, are largely unrepresented in the main article. According to the main article, that means we can add New Zealand and Chile. The UK only fluoridates 10%. So, I may do that edit, adding New Zealand and Chile. Let me know if I'm missing a country. I don't think we can broadly claim that "industrialized countries" fluoridate water without a citation. OptimistBen ( talk) 09:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd chime in as a recent visitor over the past few months. Generally looks good, Jerseyko seems very accommodating. Yes, he does seem to be pushing an agenda, but so was one of the OP's here. This article should be linked to more related material on Wikipedia, I was frankly surprised and disappointed that it is not. Off the top of my head: "Toothpaste", "Sodium Fluoride", "Dental Fluorosis". Thanks for an informative article.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
really appropriate for an article on water floridation? Plugwash ( talk) 04:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
...pretty much says it all, despite being repeated over and over since the beginning of this discussion. Can someone please explain how jersyko continues to unilaterally control the content (or lack of content) of an entire Wikipedia article from Day 1, contrary to the wishes and good faith efforts of a multitude of contributors?
There's a lot of important information that really needs to be included, but it's quite apparent that jersyko will just keep making his unjustified POV edits no matter what anyone says. Could someone please cite the authority he's been given as final arbiter of this article? Such obvious bias destroys Wikipedia's credibility.
For example, why does an article about fluoridation CONTROVERSY begin by saying, "The current stance of several major medical and dental research associations is that water fluoridation is a safe and effective way to prevent tooth decay and improve oral health", even though all 11 EPA employee unions representing over 7000 scientists and public health professionals have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people -- not to mention that more than 1000 independent doctors, dentists, scientists and researchers are calling for an end to water fluoridation -- is noted near the end of the article as an afterthought?
And what does the second paragraph, "Use throughout the world" have to do with CONTROVERSY, especially when all of it has been duplicated in the main Water Fluoridation article?
What's wrong with this picture? Does ANYONE in Wikipedia really care about neutrality and a lack of bias? Evidently not... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.29.239 ( talk) 10:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As much as I appreciate the position that we need to keep the article neutral, verifiable, and otherwise reasonable, can we not stoop to refuting complaints (which may, at times, be valid) with things like "if it were bad, insurance companies wouldn't support it" or "I drink fluoridated water and I'm fine"? None of that seems any more reasonable than what you're trying to refute. -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 20:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "fuzzy math" commentary is a poor source for the statement it supposedly supports, being polemical and in any case a discussion by an activist of a source which we should cite directly. Guy ( Help!) 21:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
We need some Wikipedia editors who are fluent enough in foreign languages to go research the folowing:
![]() | This article needs attention from an expert in Japan. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.(March 2009) |
![]() | This article needs attention from an expert in Finland. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.(March 2009) |
![]() | This article needs attention from an expert in Netherlands. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.(March 2009) |
![]() | This article needs attention from an expert in Germany. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.(March 2009) |
![]() | This article needs attention from an expert in Russia. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.(March 2009) |
76.85.197.45 ( talk) 00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In 1952, Norrköping became one of the first cities in Europe to fluoridate its water supply, allegedly without public disclosure, though I haven't found any reliable sources confirming that. Norrköping's fluoridation experiment was declared illegal by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court in 1961. In 1962, the Swedish parliament legalized fluoridation. In -66, the government gave Norrköping permission to resume the experiment. In 1971, the law was repealed. The repealing bill emphasized that the medical research did not unanimously say that water fluoridation was risk-free, and that water fluoridation was a forced mass-medication and an encroachment on citizens' private integrity. An official investigation/inquiry committee was formed, which published its final report in 1981 ("Fluor i kariesförebyggande syfte - Betänkande av fluorberedningen. SOU 1981:32"). The report recommended other ways of reducing tooth decay (changing food and oral hygiene habits) instead of tap water fluoridation. It also said that many people found fluoridation to impinge upon personal liberty/freedom of choice, and that the long-term effects of fluoridation were not sufficiently known. They also lacked a good study on the effects of fluoridation on formula-fed infants.
There was never a large fluoridation program in Sweden. Besides Norrköping, three other cities received permission to fluoridate their water in 1968. I'm not sure how many of them actually started fluoridation before the bill was repealed. — Ksero ( talk | contribs) 08:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
In the introduction of the cited source, it states: "The recommendations presented in this report were developed by the Task Force and are not necessarily the recommendations of CDC, DHHS, or other participating organizations." I have therefore removed the CDC reference. -- AeronM ( talk) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete edits before discussing here on the talk page. This constitutes edit warring and is frowned upon here at Wikipedia. Thank you. -- AeronM ( talk) 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
AeronM, it appears to me that you label any statement that does not support your POV as "non-neutral" and any edit that removes content you added as "edit warring." I don't think you will find that many people around Wikipedia (not to mention the world at large) support your interpretations.
You apparently regard my edits to this article as edit warring, or at least as "POV". I, on the other hand, perceive that I removed a blatant bit of POV from the first sentence of the article and removed another paragraph that was original research.
The POV I deleted was the word "questionable" in the following passage: "Water fluoridation controversy refers to activism against the addition of fluoride to public water supplies, and the consequent discussion of its questionable safety and benefits to public health." Without the word questionable that is a pretty straightforward statement, but the insertion of that one word indicates a bias against fluoride. By boldly deleting that word, I was attempting to make Wikipedia better by removing POV.
As I told you on your talk page, the original research that I deleted was the following paragraph:
Who determined that there are two main areas of contention and that they are "the efficacy of ingesting fluoride as a means to deter tooth decay" and "the notion that having fluoride added to the water supply by the municipalities effectively constitutes mass medication of the population"? If these ideas are based on a published analysis in a reliable source, please cite the source. If this is your own interpretation or that of another Wikipedian, it's original research and needs to be deleted. (Regardless of whose interpretation this is, I disagree with it and I think I could find a reliable source to support my view.)
In reply, you said:
Please be advised that the need for reliable sources is not a negotiable item around Wikipedia. The policy WP:V gave me the right, if not also the obligation, to remove that piece of unsourced analysis. I and other Wikipedians do not need your permission to edit this article, particularly when our edits are removing material that is unsourced and potentially controversial. After perusing the edit history of the article, I am replacing that paragraph with a somewhat better version that existed several weeks ago.
For the record, it's not "my" POV tag, although I did comment in an summary on the amount of bias I found in this article. Just as it's not my POV tag, though, it's not your article, either. -- Orlady ( talk) 04:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I feel confident I could well be challenged to explain myself regarding this edit summary, I'll merely point out that requests for a Declaratory ruling are not considered lawsuits. Second, the cause of the court cases is fluoridation. The "apparent dangers" of fluoridation did not always precipitate the cases. Cases were often brought for reasons unrelated to dangers of fluoridation, such as privacy concerns or disputes over the bounds of municipal or state power. Thus, the change was simply wrong. · jersyko talk 00:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support the deletion of the following passage, which Itub deleted (with an edit summary saying "Patent nonsense -- "fluoride" is not the same as HF or F2. Heck, fluoride is not even a substance! It is an ion..."), but which AeronM restored with an edit summary saying "Compromise":
Fluoride is so corrosive that has to be transported in rubber-lined tankers.[citation needed] After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, U.S. authorities were advised to keep a close eye on shipments of the substance.[21]
Itub is correct. That is patent nonsense. Hydrofluoric acid is highly corrosive, but "fluoride" is not the same thing as hydrofluoric acid. "Compromise" is not an option when dealing with patent nonsense. -- Orlady ( talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not remove this reference from the external links section. It is within the mainstream of the safe water movement, and is a central website for people who oppose water fluoridation. Petergkeyes ( talk) 08:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
KOTW is an educational arm of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water. CSDW is an aggressive activist group that opposes water fluoridation. The group has had many successes in passing local referenda that prohibits water fluoridation, and is currently raising funds for a federal lawsuit against the practice. Petergkeyes ( talk) 21:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's some of the local ordinances that they have passed or promoted: [2]
FAN says, "About Citizens for Safe Drinking Water: One of the most active groups in the country..." [3]
In the media in Hawaii: [4]
KOTW is raising funds for the upcoming federal lawsuit aimed at halting fluoridation: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64168]
Media mention from May 22, 2008: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64920]
Water Industry: [5]
The Oregonian: [6] Petergkeyes ( talk) 22:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Simply put, a reference "reproduced" by a third party has the reliability of that third party, not the original.
— Shot info
Hi Shot Info. You have expressed your opinion regarding websites you do not consider reliable sources of information for the water fluoridation opposition page. What are some websites that you would consider reliable sources for this topic? Petergkeyes ( talk) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It is good to be skeptical. I would advise restraint in accusations of WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. There is plenty of each for this, and related topics. And there is also a wealth of well referenced information available from both proponents and opponents of water fluoridation. Careful, thoughtful distinction between dubious theories and proper research is needed here. Petergkeyes ( talk) 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, one of the most famous references to this belief is in Dr. Strangelove. As such, I included mention of this in the lead. ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
User:ImperfectlyInformed just added the following section, entitled Aluminum compounds. I copyedited it but then noticed some of the references do not support the statements they follow.
Fluorine is the most reactive element [1], and as such it readily forms compounds with almost all other elements. Of particular concern is fluoride's ability to form compounds with toxic metals, and in particular, aluminium, which is a known neurotoxin [2]. Evidence suggests that aluminium fluoride complexes can then cross the blood-brain barrier. The National Research Council of the United States suggests that "many of the untoward effects of fluoride are due to the formation of AlFx complexes" [3]. Rats administered fluoride as both sodium fluoride (NaF) or aluminium fluoride (AlF3) were found to have twice as much aluminum in the brain upon their deaths as control rats. Concerns have been raised over cooking in aluminum pans, as Science News reports that "water with 1 part per million (ppm) of fluoride frees nearly 200 ppm of aluminum when boiled 10 minutes in aluminum cooking pots. That is 1,000 times the aluminum leached by nonfluoridated water". [4]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Problems:
If there are any willing scientists out there, particularly toxicologists familiar with the literature, could they please help improve this section by finding a comprehensive review of aluminium toxicity enhanced by fluoridated water.
Ben ( talk) 13:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Reference to be integrated in the article: Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease [9] [10] MaxPont ( talk) 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This page needs a lot of work. Hopefully I don't step on too many toes with bold edits and revisions. Petergkeyes ( talk) 08:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph from the, "Contemporary Challenges," section.
"In Skagit County, in Washington State, the county commissioners have been empowered by the Washington State attorney general to act as the Board of Health. [121]They are telling the local Public Utility Disctrict/ PUD to start fluoridating the public water supply by Jan. 2009. $1.2 million could be provided by a private group, Washington Dental Service Foundation, to begin building the equipment needed to add fluoride to the Judy Resevoir which supplies the majority of Skagit Valley's water customers. The source and type of fluoride to be added to the drinking water of more than 70,000 citizens has not been disclosed."
It does not describe a contemporary challenge to water fluoridation, nor is it about the opposition to water fluoridation. The paragraph resides on the water fluoridation page, with POV language removed. Petergkeyes ( talk) 01:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is about opposition to water fluoridation, not praise or criticism of fluoride. This claim, "The World Health Organization...still list fluoridation of water as a viable and safe option of maintaining a healthy level of fluoride in the oral cavity," is suspect. The citation provided [11]is 45 pages long. I do not see anywhere in there where it says water fluoridation is always safe and viable in every country of the world. Please notate page numbers if WHO actually makes this universal claim in this document. Petergkeyes ( talk) 01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
So page 19 clearly states that it is NOT safe, that some toxic reactions may be an inevitable consequence of water fluoridation. And page 16 does not claim the practice to be either "safe" or "viable." I placed a "citation needed" tag on the claim. Page numbers that correspond with safe and viable claims by W.H.O. should satisfy the challenge. Where in the document does the World Health Organization claim water fluoridation to be safe and viable? Petergkeyes ( talk) 08:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Peter I note you have removed the vn tag. The point to this tag was that yes, there is critism, but exactly who is doing the criticising? It isn't mentioned in the article, and it's unclear the value of it in the supplied reference. Just because their is "criticism" doesn't make it notable. Shot info ( talk) 03:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I note that once again, lots of references to FA have been inserted back into the article contrary that the advise provided by RS/N. These will be progressively removed and replacement sources requested. Shot info ( talk) 02:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
What is RS/N? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergkeyes ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Reliabe sources/noticeboard. Here is the discussion. My main concerns are copyright issues. II | ( t - c) 06:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Fluoridation.com is also right in the mainstream of the opposition to water fluoridation movement. References to this source should also be restored. Petergkeyes ( talk) 05:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi II,
With regards to the linking of references in the lede, my preference is to follow WP:LEADCITE and have a minimal (but the "best") reference in the actual lede. For sure, we can go crazy in the body but all those [1][2][3][4]..[n] just looks plain ugly. The particular reference I removed as the first three instances under the #cancer subsection refer to salts and don't really say that they are linked to cancer at all. Shot info ( talk) 05:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This article lacks the anti-fluoridation campaign on England:
"Glasgow would already have fluoridated water were it not for Catherine McColl, who waged a one-woman campaign after city councillors approved plans for fluoride to be added to supplies by a single vote in 1978. The "toothless granny" from the Gorbals became famous throughout Britain when she won her fight against fluoridating the Strathclyde region in the Court of Session in 1982." Sunday Herald [13]
Also includes opposition of Green Party, difficulties to introduce it on England, and how it would surely be introduced on Scotland if it was approved on London. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
As illustrated by the precedeing anecdote and the tone of much of this talk page, this article has become a forum for strident antifluoridationists. The antifluoridation cause may in fact have significant merit, but this article is presently unconvincing and unhelpful because those editors that feel so strongly are blinded by their very passion. One trend that we see in related unbalanced articles is the tendency to cite numerous case studies that "prove" their point. Overall, speaking as someone who edits chemistry pages, I am exceedingly pleased that this article exists to absorb such stridency, sparing other, related articles of such blatant advocacy.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This article should not be tarnished with a conspiracy theory section. You talk about NPOV , well a massive section on conspiracy theory makes this whole debate look like a big joke. I am happy to compromise with a small sentance in a relevant section without a poster. Tremello22 ( talk) 21:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The current article indicates that water fluoridation in, for example, Germany was discontinued, but that event occurred concomitantly with the large-scale implementation of the fluoridation of salt. Googling "salt fluoridation" gives zillions of hits to specialty journals discuassing this aspect. E.g. http://www.who.int/oral_health/action/risks/en/index1.html. Fluoridation practices vary with respect to:
Both water fluoridation and this article have lists of policy vs countries, no doubt started with the intention of being highly encyclopedic. But maintaining these lists is probably impractical (several hits discuss the situation in Jamaica, for example - do we intend to list every country?). This listing business is something for the admins that are reviewing this rapidly evolving article to consider. For other articles where public policy is of interest, I am unsure how the diversity of policy is represented without making the article too cumbersome.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 00:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does this article lack any mention of the concern over the ingestion of fluoride as regards the human brain or blood-brain barrier? That is one of the main concerns that has been discussed and studied, yet many other concerns are listed instead. Badagnani ( talk) 02:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Searching for aluminium rather than aluminum on PubMed doesn't seem to make a difference. A PubMed search for aluminium neurotoxin turns up 142 articles, 38 reviews. Aluminium neurotoxicity turns up 254 articles, 53 reviews; most of the reviews different from the preceding search. Aluminum fluoride turns up 1586 articles, 56 reviews. I just looked at the reviews for the first search. Most of the relevant ones I had no access to. Articles descending from latest date
As you can see, there is a wealth of literature on the topic, which can be accessed by following the papers cited (or citing) by the above papers or checking related links in PubMed. They tend to be technical, but they have areas of less technicality which can be cited. ImpIn | ( t - c) 00:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll put it back in at some point here, maybe after some more reading. The leaching from pans is an incidental point; the broader point is that concurrent consumption of aluminium and fluoride may allow the aluminium to cross the blood-brain barrier, even in people who are not renally-impaired. This is suggested by Varner's study with rats, but I'll look for some more definite statements to that effect. By the way, I like consistent spelling. I'd prefer that the IUPAC chose the simpler one -- aluminum -- but since they've got the power, why don't we all use aluminium? What's the root of this -ium fixation? And why isn't it universal, e.g. platinum? ImpIn | ( t - c) 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that the current reverted piece about Fluorosis is just about Fluorosis it will be cut back to the parts that are relevant to the discussion about "Water Fluoridation Opposition" and a "Main article" link to Fluorosis. This is just so the section is not about Fluorosis which it is at the moment. Peter, can I suggest you cease editwarring? Shot info ( talk) 03:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Although fluorosis is an epidemiological concern outside of the opposition movement, the fluorosis phenomenon is certainly one of the major factors behind the opposition movement. So I think it should stay. II | ( t - c) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with II that the fluorosis section should stay. Shot Info takes issue with the notion that it doesn't explicitly reference the "opposition movement" in each sentence. But Shot Info misses the point. This article started out being titled, "Water Fluoridation Controversy," and maybe we should revisit changing back to that title, if it would solve some of these problems. For now, I will respectfully remove the tag that suggests that this section strays from its intended topic. Petergkeyes ( talk) 21:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
There was a lot of bollocks being included in this article with references to very high concentrations of fluoride. I removed all I could find. This article could use an improvement, especially because this paranoia is so pathological as to be lampooned viciously by Stanley Kubrick more than 40 years ago! ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Just checking, was there consensus for the most recent page move? If so, could someone please point me to the discussion? Otherwise the page should be moved back. Controversial moves should go through WP:RM. -- El on ka 22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
(Unindenting) I agree that the title "Water fluoridation conspiracy theories" is inappropiate, given that opposition to fluoridation seems to be about more than just conspiracy theorists. To quote Edward O'Rourke in 1953, opponents were mostly "food faddists, members of religious groups opposed to medicine in general, and those self-appointed guardians of the public who appear before most open committees." Conspiracists were generally in the latter category, and I doubt things have changed much since then. However, I was rather surprised to find that this article didn't have anything about the conspiracy theories that circulated in the 1950s and 1960s, so I've added a section on that topic - it's something I came across in writing Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, the controversy over which involved many of the same people and groups. -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I asked user Kim Bruning about this, because he's a biologist, and has access to some scientific journals. He took a brief look and gave his opinion here. [27] Because he says, "I get the idea that much of the scientific opinion is on the pro side on this topic, albeit with caveats," there is somewhat of a mild confirmation that the article, in the form that ScienceApologist wiped, was at least somewhat misrepresentative of the overall research. Anyone with access to these types of journals ought to be able to add stuff here to balance out the various stuff that was here before. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 19:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I find it amusing that editors here, including a real "biologist" (give me a break!) are debating the merits of fluoride in face of the WHO ([ [28]]: "fluoride is most effective in dental caries prevention") and the U.S. CDC ("one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century"). Obviously there is a controversy as indicated in this discussion and the current article. It seems ill-advised or worse (hubris) for editors to re-analyze and qualify data (ImperfectlyInformed asks for reanalysis of the WHO and CDC findings, because II has insights that these organizations lack or conspire to hide). Such an analyses verge on OR. Re the fluoride-brain issue: this article is not about toxicity of fluoride: we already have an article on that Fluoride poisoning.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I'm not debating anything in the face of anything. Just lazily pulling some refs out of pubmed because I'm bored and don't have anything better to do. WHO is an international organization, and just based on what I've looked up so far, I would predict that globally they're likely to support fluoridation, because on average much of the world is poor and doesn't get decent dental care. CDC is a US organization, and they have a US POV. Conditions in specific countries may or may not match the average case (for WHO) or the US case (for CDC). -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 01:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
As discussed above, and unresolved, the section on fluorosis (not just dental) is not germane for the article as it is currently written. The tag should remain until the section is improved just it says in the tag header. Pulling the tag off without discussion is a legitimate reason for a revert. To the two editors who are doing the removal, please discuss first rather than just edit warring. Shot info ( talk) 23:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be clear to everyone that massive blanking cannot be permitted in the case of such a closely watched and controversial article, which should be edited in a very deliberate manner. Please restore the considerable amount of text blanked in this edit, go back to "Discussion," and give reasons why you believe this text should be removed, thanks. Badagnani ( talk) 06:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
You mean the removal of entire refs? How closely did you examine that diff? Badagnani ( talk) 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I ask that you please examine the diff more closely. Do that first, then comment here, thanks. Badagnani ( talk) 18:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
An entire paragraph was removed. Have things gotten to the point where the commenting editors are pretending they don't see that? I kindly ask that you please look again (please be aware that I say so in the very opposite of a rude manner; I say so out of the highest ideals for our project). The blanking of an entire paragraph without discussion here is impermissible and should at least be notice, especially when a diff is presented. Badagnani ( talk) 18:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The entire paragraph that was removed. It's in the diff. Badagnani ( talk) 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It's about some type of Green Party proclamation. Did you examine the diff closely? It's difficult to miss the deletion of an entire paragraph, or so I thought. Badagnani ( talk) 19:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the blanking took place without a suitable edit summary or justification here, then I had to request more than ten times that it be examined, is highly problematic. Badagnani ( talk) 19:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The blanking of an entire paragraph, without prior discussion here nor proper edit summary, is unconstructive, highly problematic, and creates the impression of not adhering to good faith in an article that has generated controversy. Badagnani ( talk) 20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that, despite your above comment, an entire paragraph was blanked, and it should not take 15 comments to have this acknowledged; it's in the diff presented in the very first comment. The least you can do is admit that it occured, and not do it again in the future. Good faith must be maintained at all times, in both editing and discussion. Badagnani ( talk) 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"Paragraphs 56, 57 and 59 of the Home Office Guidance Notes on the application of the Human Rights Act establish that fluoridation violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act, and also Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. Since fluoridation is the illegal administration of a registered poison with no medicinal authorisation, it constitutes a State sanctioned criminal act against the public, and is incompatible with the Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Where children are involved - indeed, specifically targeted - such an act also raise issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child."
The removed quote is in the reference, and the statement being referenced isn't that controversial. Nothing really to see here. I'd be embarrassed if I was Badagnani. II | ( t - c) 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
All right, so our policy of careful, deliberate editing, using "Discussion" to propose the deletion of large swathes of text before actually doing so in the case of controversial articles, has been dispensed with, just for this page? That is outrageous. Badagnani ( talk) 23:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I have moved on, as you can see, posting about other subjects and ways to improve the article. However, this subject must be addressed. As you can see above, I was forced to post at least 15 times to even get a recognition that a paragraph had been blanked without comment. This is unacceptable and must be addressed, not dismissed, as the previous three or four comments seem to be trying to do. Badagnani ( talk) 00:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Does someone have access to a database where the following article could be found? It could be useful:
Badagnani ( talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I've found it:
http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v189/n10/full/4800820a.html