Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Why is America still fluoridating tap water supplies?
Most of Europe has stopped water fluoridation: http://www.fluoridation.com/c-country.htm - the reasoning of most European countries is that fluoride may be toxic, and that there are other ways of delivering fluoride to the teeth than forcing it into everyone's tap water.
How many Americans know that fluoride comes from the pesticide and aluminum industry as a by-product (that was originally discarded, causing pollution and toxicity in the surrounding areas)?
OBVIOUSLY, this is NOT the same as adding iodine to salt, Vitamin C to juice or Vitamin D to milk, since the tap water is not something a consumer goes to a store and purchases (and has many options to choose from) - because iodized salt, juice or milk with added vitamins can easily be avoided - but fluoridated water can not.
Even if a consumer chooses to filter their water, fluoride is still taken up by vegetables, fruits, grains, animals, and most restaurants that do not use advanced filtering for their water, use fluoridated water to cook with. --Aeditorr
This has nothing to do with editing the article or changing the content. Please address article content Cuvtixo (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Equity Indexed Universal Life Insurance Pros And Cons Video
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How about mediation?--AceLT 21:31, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 o contribs).
Bullcrap, where is the evidence for that statement?--Fahrenheit451 21:20, 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)
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)
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 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)
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
- 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?
- 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
- 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)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon