Talk:Water fluoridation controversy/Archive 2

Libertyinfo blocked
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)


 * So he's completely blocked and unable to plead his case now? From what I've seen he was not that incivil nor that disruptive. See [|here] and notice that most of his edits were on the Talk Page. He wasn't continually reverting edits back. This looks like an abusive block, and you should keep in mind that when you do things like that, you severely hurt the reputation of Wikipedia and the willingness of people to contribute. According to the blocking policy that I read, an indefinite block should be used as a last resort. An indefinite block doesn't look necessary here. OptimistBen (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. --AeronM (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unusual Use of Words in Safety Section
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)

Water Fluoridation Controversy Overview
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)


 * 1) You make a good point about industrialized countries and the lack of a citation. Reworded as such.  Feel free to suggest any other changes to that subsection.
 * 2) This isn't a reliable source for what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration thinks about fluoride.
 * 3) The "overview" subsection continues to note that fluorosis is one of the major concerns of fluoridation opponents. I did not remove it.
 * 4) China has a large amount of naturally occurring fluoride in many of its water supplies in addition to atmospheric fluoride from pollution, if I'm not mistaken. Thus, setting up a contrast with the implementation of fluoridation in the U.S., without context, is a bit unfair.  This is especially true if placed into the first subsection of the article.  Furthermore, purposefully setting up such a contrast smacks of original research.  That's not to say the status of fluoridation in China should not be discussed here (or perhaps the main article if it is not already), of course.

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)

is using an image of a suspected "meth mouth"
really appropriate for an article on water floridation? Plugwash (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks to be a photo of a small child, who I doubt is a habitual meth user. Do have reason to believe otherwise? --AeronM (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I took the photo. The patient was definitely not a small child. The teeth are clearly adult teeth. They look nothing like baby teeth. - Dozenist talk  01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jersyko. It's apparent that you have a vested interest in making this controversy slanted towards water fluoridation...
...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)


 * Yes, we care about neutrality. That's why I just semi-=protected the article again to stop the numerous biased edits by anonymous individuals apparently obsessed with promoting one side of the issue. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope to get some good refs for this soon, such as a summary study of all the peer-reviewed double-blind safety studies from the 1930s to the 1990s, as well as the huge health costs to places like Los Angeles when fluoridation was stopped. There are a number of people who honestly believe that fluoridation is toxic and is part of some sort of conspiracy. I've met some of them, and they are sincere. I don't think that such nonsense needs to be given much print space, but it needs to be debunked. Although I'm guessing, I imagine that a lot of the rhetoric about cost, personal choice, and fluorosis is really motivated by these fears. It's weird, since many of these same people take herbal supplements like St John's wort, which not only hasn't been adequately been tested for safety, despite its apparent medicinal effects, but which they can't even be sure they're taking, because there's no law or oversight to ensure that bottles of "St John's wort" actually contain St John's wort. There could be anything in them. kwami (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure debunked is the right word - documented is closer to it, with documentation to support the reception of this view in mainstream sources (especially if we can find journal articles that describe it explicitly as a conspiracy theory). Otherwise I agree: it's controversial only to a very small number of individuals. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't you believe the views of an organisation (composed of people with no ulterior motive unlike companies that use fluoride) that was set up to help the public and who are a lot more knowledgeable than you, me and even the dentists(who just follow orders and will do what they are told as long as they can continue to get paid and feed their families)? Tremello22 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't you believe that dentists are just as capable of independent thought as the people who run a self-published anti-fluoride website? And, assuming you're prone to conspiracism, shouldn't dentists oppose fluoridation, thereby ensuring a flow of people with bad teeth and securing themselves more income? I'm still getting the hang of these theories. MastCell Talk 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the thoughts of a self-published website it was the EPA (enviromental protection agency) In 1997, more than 1,000 members of the union working at the Environmental Protection Agency HQ in Washington DC voted unanimously in favour of banning water fluoridation. Not all dentists are misinformed but most are. Some former advocates did a complete reverse turn on the benefits of water fluoridation.Tremello22 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The largest dental insurance company in California even ponied up $100,000 to help cities set up fluoridation. They're only out for profit, and they feel fluoridated water will save them money in claims. kwami (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of editing the article, but as someone who was given fluoride tablets as a kid, has lived in a state which has fluoridated water for the last 24 years and has almost perfect teeth, I think there's a lot of mythology banging around. Orderinchaos 03:03, 2 February 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)
 * The comment "not all dentists are ill-informed, but most are" perfectly illustrates the problem with most editors on the anti-fluoridation side of this dispute. Wikipedia is not the place to fix the "fact" that "most" dentists are "ill-informed", it's the place to document the received wisdom as defined by the bulk of professional opinion, while noting that dissent exists.  The article has been abused for a long time by people trying to argue the case against fluoridation.  That';s not what Wikipedia is for.  Wikipedia is for documenting, not influencing. There appears to be no significant movement among dentists or public health professionals to remove fluoridation, and no likelihood of thought leaders adopting an anti position, so little likelihood of a change in policy, but even that is only of tangential relevance, as Wikipedia is not supposed to be an instrument for influencing public policy.  Guy (Help!) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To address Cheeser1's comment, you're absolutely correct. I should not have bothered to respond. In fact, the best approach is probably to follow the notaforum template at the top of the page and simply remove comments which do not address concrete changes or improvements to the article (mine included). MastCell Talk 21:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right. I have no particular interest either way in how this article is written, but when someone complaints (sensibly or not) about a pro-fluoride bias, the last thing that will help is to make invalid or dismissive rebuttals. I'd say that comments that aren't constructive should simply go unaddressed. Those that express an encyclopedic concern should be discussed, but within the confines of building the encyclopedia, without alluding to which side of the controversy is "right" or "wrong" (if there is such a thing). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There will be at least an implicit endorsement of one side if we're to be unbiased, just as there will in, say, astrology or the idea of a flat Earth. kwami (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unbiased does not mean 50/50 split. Refer to WP:UNDUE. No one is suggesting that we make sure to have exact mirror statements or the same amount of "support" for each side. We shouldn't be supporting either side, just presenting the current issue as defined by reliable sources and verifiable information. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

request for foreign language research
We need some Wikipedia editors who are fluent enough in foreign languages to go research the folowing:


 * Why Japan stopped fluoridating water.
 * Why Sweeden stopped fluoridating water
 * Why Finland stopped fluoridating water
 * Why the Netherlands stopped fluoridating water.
 * Why Germany stopped fluoridating water.
 * Why Czechoslovakia stopped fluoridating water.
 * Why the Soviet Union stopped fluoridating water.

76.85.197.45 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fluoridation in Sweden
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)

CDC Reference
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)

Edit Warring
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)


 * Actually, edit warring occurs when individuals repeatedly revert edits to a page, not when edits are deleted once. See WP:EW for more information.  If you want to start a discussion, feel free to start one, but I fail to see how spurious charges of edit warring are going to accomplish that.  In any event, I encourage any involved editors to join potentially relevant discussion here: Talk:Fluoride. ·  jersyko   talk  02:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. I did want to start a discussion, and I did, just above, when I asked everyone, yourself included, to discuss edits (including deletions) here prior to executing them. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 02:34, 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.
 * I disagree. By "boldly" deleting that word, the sentence now sounds like fluoride is safe and beneficial to public health. Perhaps there is a word, not as strong as "questionable" that we could use instead? --AeronM (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting perspective. In the world I inhabit, a "discussion of safety" is almost always a discussion of hazards. For example, when someone talks about "highway safety", we don't need to put a negative word like "questionable" or "doubtful" in front of that to know that they recognize highways to be inherently dangerous. --Orlady (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page, the original research that I deleted was the following paragraph:
 * There are two main areas of contention in the water fluoridation controversy. One questions the efficacy of ingesting fluoride as a means to deter tooth decay, while the other relates to the notion that having fluoride added to the water supply by the municipalities effectively constitutes mass medication of the population.
 * I simply reiterated this from elsewhere on the page. --AeronM (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies for failing to recognize this as a good-faith attempt to summarize the article. I did not find the statement credible because it didn't even mention concern about safety and health effects as an issue. --Orlady (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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:
 * If you are asking for reliable sources I would be happy to provide them. Meanwhile I have restored the text you reverted. Please discuss all edits on the talk page prior to making them, per your POV tag. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * If I understand your remarks correctly, I may make major changes to this article without discussing it here on the talk page first. Also, I did not state or imply that I thought that I owned this article. On the contrary, I asked that everyone abide by the same rules, and that includes discussing major edits here first, per wiki policy. PS Your admission that you remove material that is potentially controversial signifies a serious WP:POV problem.  --AeronM (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You do not understand my remarks correctly. I was talking about removing unsourced content, consistent with Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to contain any unsourced content, but levels of tolerance vary with the nature of the content. Unsourced defamatory statements about living persons get removed on sight, while unsourced statements that are almost certainly true and are uncontroversial in nature may merely get labeled "citation needed." Most of the unsourced content in this article lies somewhere in between those two extremes... --Orlady (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See comments above. --AeronM (talk)

Lawsuit vs. case
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 have added the date of your reference (1973) to the article for clarity. --AeronM (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly. I agree that the next subsection in the article adequately explains that the consensus persists today.  Actually, the subsection already said that the consensus developed by 1973, so I'm not sure why you feel a note of the year is necessary in the second sentence.  As my favorite presidential candidate recently said with a bemused look, however, I'm happy to concede this point. ·  jersyko   talk  01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate that. --AeronM (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Safety section
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)


 * It sounds like we're back to the same debate: is the reference within WP:RS and WP:V ? According to my wiki research, it is. I am still waiting for opponents of this reference to show why it should not be included. Once we establish whether or not the reference cited complies with WP:RS and WP:V, then we can argue over whether portions of it's content should or should not be included in the article. Again, my goal here is to get us a little closer to NPOV.--AeronM (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I took out the sentence you objected to the loudest. Leaving the other two sentences was the compromise. But I am open to discussion, as always. --AeronM (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Which sentence was that? The passage is still the same bunch of nonsense it was earlier. --Orlady (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The first sentence, Orlady. And it's not a bunch of nonsense, thank you. Jeez. Where are everyone's manners?? --AeronM (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps patent nonsense was a bit strong. I looked at the ref., and it turns out that the substance in question is not HF but (concentrated solutios of) fluorosilicic acid, which is one of the substances that can be used for water fluoridation, and apparently it is the major one in the US. I don't deny that it is corrosive when concentrated and that it it seems plausible that Uncle Sam will be interested in protecting it from terrorists. The real question is whether these facts are relevant to this article. Verifiability does not imply relevance! And especially when the facts are presented out of context to make them seem scarier. For perspective, remember that acetic acid is a nasty and somewhat corrosive substance when concentrated, but yet I don't see many activists worrying about keeping vinegar away from their salads. --Itub (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But in any case, it is not fluoride! You'll find that your credibility will increase by an order of magnitude when you start to refer to totally different substances using accurate names. --Itub (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll leave it for the next sucker to try to get this article to NPOV. I'm outie! I'll check back in a month or two and see if you've made any progress. --AeronM (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Keepers of the Well
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)
 * Evidence please. Jefffire (talk) 09:41, 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)
 * That's actually not evidence, but an argumentative opinion. Has this group achieved some sort of notability or prominence which could be verified by (for example) coverage in independent news sources? MastCell Talk 22:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some of the local ordinances that they have passed or promoted:

FAN says, "About Citizens for Safe Drinking Water: One of the most active groups in the country..." 

In the media in Hawaii:

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:

The Oregonian: Petergkeyes (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter, you should have a look at what Wikipeida constitutes as a source. Simply put, a reference "reproduced" by a third party has the reliability of that third party, not the original.  So by you providing all those links just confirms what Mastcell is saying, KOTW is only a minor fringe organisation that is only parrotted by other minor fringe organisations.  Per WP:RS and WP:FRINGE Wikipedia policy tells us what to do with these sources.  Shot info (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We are talking about putting in an external link. There seems to be some confusion over what RS means in this situation -- which is, probably nothing. If we want to demonstrate that an organization is significant within a movement, then certainly citing its prominence within that movement is appropriate. Similarly, we wouldn't count "# of Google hits" as a reliable source, but we do mention this when discussing notability. In an article on "water fluoridation opposition", it is certainly appropriate to include links to the main organizations involved in it, regardless of whether certain editors consider these organizations to be "fringe".


 * I have repeatedly asked you to point out where it says this, because I don't see it at WP:RS. In any case, the original source can be looked up, and if the work is not copyrighted, then I see no problem with linking to a copy of the full-text after that text has been verified as accurate. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. RS101 which is why when you have previously questioned me, I had ignored you. It is clear that you need to review the basis five pillars of Wikipedia if you are unsure what constitutes a reliable source.  Shot info (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * I am not the one adding the information with the dubious sources. The onus to supply reliable sources for edit is on the edit making the inserts.  I am only following the clear policy directives per WP:RS.  Shot info (talk) 06:46, 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)
 * Though of course we cannot conduct original research here, and so the widely-accepted theories should be presented as such. - Dozenist talk  11:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove reference
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)


 * Certainly? You don't even provide a basic reference for the claim that it is so famous or well-known -- yes, Dr. Strangelove is well-known, but we I doubt many people picked up on that reference. Anyway, I'm not going to edit-war with you, since I try not to sink to that level. Let's hear what other people have to say. ImpIn | (t - c)
 * I certainly have to admit that when it comes to fluoridation, Dr. Strangelove is the first thing I think of. But it possibly is no the "most famous".  Not without a source at anyrate.  But I'm willing to leave it only as I like it :-) Shot info (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Trivia is discouraged on WP. MaxPont (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please help verify these claims
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, 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. 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". 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". ''

Problems:


 * Fluorine (i.e. F2) is the most reactive element in its standard state (diatomic gas) but fluoride is certainly not the most reactive species known, not by far! Could be misleading to imply this is the case, since discussion switches from reactivity of fluorine to that of fluoride.


 * Aluminium does have a certain degree of neurotoxicity, as referenced, but the ref doesn't say anything about concern about fluoride.


 * The "untoward effects" quote is here, i.e. page 219 of the book referenced. Took a lot of searching to find the page.


 * I read the Science News article - the wrong one is referenced, it should be this. It references this Nature letter. Further papers on this topic:,.


 * These references would be a lot more convincing if they were from respected peer-reviewed scientific journals, especially as referenced by (scientific) review articles that critically consider the veracity and importance of these facts. It's often possible to find one reference in a good scientific journal for something that was later proved to be a wrong. The Nature letter is certainly acceptably scientific, but the later paper by the same authors shows that the 1:200 ratio of F−:Al leached is not found at neutral or nearly neutral pH.

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)


 * Good catches; sorry for the mistakes. I'll yield the first as misleading; I'm no chemist. The intro just needs to convey that fluoride forms complexes in the body with aluminium (and possibly other metals? The aluminium article has a brief section on this. I'm not sure -- and if aluminium is the correct spelling, then why does it get underlined as misspelled? should be fixed). The 217 should have been used for the rats administered NaF and AlF; even rats administered fluoride with no aluminium had twice as much aluminium in the brain upon death -- Varner attributes the Al in the NaF group to the rat chow (search for Varner fluoride on PubMed for the articles). I'm sorry you had to read a bunch, but if you'd been patient I could have helped you! -- plus it's good background for this article. I planned on expanding on the connection between aluminium in the brain and neurological problems, specifically Alzheimer's.

Statement from the National Kidney Foundation: avoid Fluoride
Reference to be integrated in the article: Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease  MaxPont (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

revamp
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)

Skagit County, Washington State
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)

World Health Organization: "Water Fluoridation Safe and Viable?"
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 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)
 * Per WP:UNDUE it is ok. The CDC is US based and only should be used for US information.  Note that the article is "Safe and Viable".  Not "Always Safe and Viable in every country of the world".  That's a difference...and not so subtle.  Shot info (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't a page just for criticism. It is a page for a critical yet balanced discussion of the issue. Specificaly, p. 16 states "Community water fluoridation is effective in preventing caries in both children and adults." They repeat this sentiment elsewhere. On p. 19 they state that there are risks to fluoride exposure, and it may be impossible to fluoridate water without some degree of fluorosis. So you should present their entire outlook, rather than a biased presentation. II  | (t - c) 02:10, 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)


 * Per WP:UNDUE "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Tremello22 (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We can't read your mind, Tremello22. Anyway, I like much of the improvements that Peter has done here, but it is obvious he's taking a very biased, slanted approach, and this is bad. From what I saw in that reference, it is obvious that the WHO supports fluoridation while noting its possible risks. There's no reason to present a biased view of their perspective. II  | (t - c) 00:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
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)


 * The authors of the document stating that fluoridation of public water supplies violates the Nuremberg Code and the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999 are Robert J. Carton and D.W. Cross, as they wrote in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health in 2003, like the reference states. What is unclear about this matter? Petergkeyes (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, can you please indent your edits? Secondly, so two random people have published something in a journal.  Why is this relevant?  What is special about Carton and Cross?  What makes this publication by them particularly notable?  Shot info (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Look up Robert Carton. 100% guarantee this individual qualifies as an appropriate source for this article. I trust you will agree with me that you were premature in labeling Carton and Co. as, "random people." Petergkeyes (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to explain here in this talkpage why it is an RS for use here in this Wikipedia article. You wish it added, you need to justify it .  Shot info (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fluoride Alert
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? You may find that some agree with you - that the American Dental Association - proprietors of FluorideAlert.com are not a particularly reliable source.  Petergkeyes (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Try the "search" field. And you will find that they didn't agree with you and gave you advice on what to do.  Please try to engage constructively.  Shot info (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I constructively argue in favor of restoring and keeping all references from Fluoride Action Network. FAN is at the forefront of opposition to water fluoridation, and is uniquely qualified as a reliable source for this article.  Petergkeyes (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As was pointed out to you at RS/N, FAN is not an RS and edits material that they (re)publish. Hence it is not a reliable source.  By all means, add in the original untarnished and unedited source from it's original location.  Shot info (talk) 04:56, 23 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
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)
 * Regardless of "left" and "right", unreliable sources are unreliable. Sources that "republish" information are inherently unreliable (see WP:RS), especially those who don't have a reputation for fact checking.  Shot info (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

campaign on england
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"

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)

This article is not very encyclopedic, but maybe that's best
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)
 * I noticed that too, Smokefoot. A rouge admin needs to come in here with a big stick. A big stick of FLUORIDE. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did anyone notice the one topical vs systematic statement which has 27 (!!) citations? May I suggest someone familiar with the research efforts pick, say, three of those as the most representative or most reliable, or ones that are reviews which refer to the others, and keep only those? This topic is certainly notable but it deserves a better article&mdash;that type of gluttonous citing makes it read like a POV fork.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a strong suspicion that Smokefoot hasn't read a single sentence of this page. There are no individual case studies referenced on this page that I can see. It seems that the "blinded by passion" phenomenon is not restricted to only antifluoridationists. :p Probably misreading Smokefoot, since he is discussing "related unbalanced articles", where there probably are a lot of case studies. Incidentally, I agree with Baccyak4H that there are sections with way too many citations. PeterGKeyes got a little cite-happy. II  | (t - c) 21:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * More cites are better than none :-) Besides, with the number of cites added, it allows for editors to go through and fine tune.  FWIW, I'm finding it difficult to find the time to finish what I started a week or so ago :-(.  We still haven't correctly IDed who and what exactly the "opposition" is, other than supply a whole spray of poor cites from dubious organisations.  I must admit, I'm starting to lean towards a big prune of the article to get it back on subject rather than the mass of psuedoPOVforks that it is at the moment.  But alas, that involves time :-(  Shot info (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
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)
 * I'm sorry, you're removed reliably sourced material on the undeniable elements of conspiracism in the early anti-flouridation movement because you think it "tarnishes" the subject? If reliable sources mention that conspiracism played a role in the early part of this movement, then it violates NPOV and WP:WEIGHT not to mention it. Your reverts also removed additional sourced material and restored unsourced material. Given the length of this POV fork, it is absolutely reasonable to have a brief section describing the extensive influence of anti-Communist conspiracism in the roots of the movement, as well as noting that the movement has gone beyond that at present. As an aside, it's best not to get into accusing others of having an agenda. You've also gone over WP:3RR in record time, so I would strongly encourage you to self-revert. MastCell Talk 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't a content fork - it comes under the exception - "Articles whose subject is a POV". I agree Peter went overboard with the edits before.  I edited it to a neutral point a few months ago and everyone seemed fine with that.  So I am happy to compromise with a small sentence on the link to conspiracy theories but this is not what this article is about.  I am willing to work with you but don't make the article into a conspiracy nutjob page.  A large section with  a poster is undue weight to a sub-subject that isn't relevant to the debate.Tremello22 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, 4 reverts of 3 different editors in 15 minutes doesn't exactly scream "I am willing to work with you". I'd strongly suggest you undo your most recent revert and go from there. I'm on the fence about the lead - it's pretty short right now, so the sentence about the 50's might be too much. But you have to understand that in popular culture, opposition to water fluoridation is still associated to some extent with its conspiracist origins. Like it or not, this is a notable aspect of the topic, and one dealt with in older and more recent reliable sources. MastCell Talk 21:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, I agree with Trem that there's undue weight given to conspiracy theories from the 60s, and I don't see much need for it to be in the lead (although I don't really care if it stays either). ChrisO has an understandable fascination with the conspiracy theory topic, and that is why the section is so large, but it violates summary style. Perhaps we could create a subpage on the history of water fluoridation. I also tentatively agree with Franamax at this point that this article and water fluoridation should be merged. With that said, I'm just one person. II  | (t - c) 21:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks II, yes I think a page on the history of fluoridation would be right. I wouldn't object to conspiracy theories being mentioned there as it would deserve a mention because it is relevant to that topic.Tremello22 (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that yet another content fork is the way to go. The history of opposition to fluoridation can be handled adequately and appropriately here, though the details still need to be worked out. I agree that with the current lead, it's probably overkill to have the conspiracy theory in there, though if the lead were expanded and detailed a sentence on the topic might be appropriate. MastCell Talk 22:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My focus on this is more as an historian (that's my area of professional expertise). From what I've read about this, largely in connection with the work I did on developing Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act as a featured article, the opposition to fluoridation originally had three principal elements: health campaigners (or "faddists" as they were described at the time), ethical campaigners such as libertarians and religious groups, and political campaigners such as the John Birch Society who saw the whole thing as a plot to promote communism or socialism. The three elements worked together as a (somewhat uneasy) coalition against fluoridation. The conspiracy theorists were the dominant element during the Red Scare period, but their influence faded along with the Red Scare, leaving the other two elements to carry on the fight. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The tapwater cabal strikes again! &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I supported removing a lot of the material here because it reeked of WP:SYNTH. I'm fairly certain a full review of the sources cited would show improper citations or misleading citations. This kind of thing crops up a lot with pseudoscience, because you have a lot of quack Ph.D's who either are bad scientists or take the low road of generating quack research to sell to the ignorant masses, for personal gain, even at the expense of their academic influence and the respect of their peers. And it's very easy to abuse citations on Wikipedia, because of the amount of time it takes to discredit them (to go the library or find the scholarly journals) and so few people willing to do this. I could even theoretically make up a fake citation to a non-existent journal and, if you can't find it, I can just claim it's out-of-print or whatever else.


 * So, I think it's wonderful that ScienceApologist did what he did, I almost restored his version too. And for the reasons above, "but there's citations for the material removed," isn't really a defense.


 * For now, there's a biologist on Wikipedia I know. I sent him a message about this and I'm sure he could give us a fair and unbiased evaluation of the research cited here. For the record, he's from the Netherlands. To my knowledge, he hasn't drank fluoridated water yet, so I think we can trust him, but he is a bit of a radical leftist, so maybe not. After all, fluoridated tapwater can be bottled and smuggled across the Dutch border, and he may have drank tapwater abroad. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have missed the point of this particular discussion, your contribution didn't add anything. It is your opinion that all research done showing the negative effects of water fluoridation are bogus- but your opinion is no more valid than anyone elses.  But like I said, we are not discussing that in this section.  So if you want to set up a new section to discuss particular references I would be happy to contribute to that.Tremello22 (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a good-faith contribution which doesn't add anything to the discussion. Even if a claim is dubious, or a particular person's opinion, as soon as someone has pointed it out, the discussion has benefited from seeing how such arguments are spurious.


 * Now, with that said, my claims above don't rest merely on my opinion. I'm not saying that "all water fluoridation research is bogus." I'm saying that the article's claims and the citations there seemed to be original research, in the form of synthesized material, merely because it was so far out there to the point that it seemed unimaginably implausible. Similarly, if an article stated, "According to new research (multiple citations here), Jimmy Wales' daily diet consists of gym shorts and jam," I'd object to it as well. Now, in this case, the article wasn't patent nonsense, but it was silly enough to warrant removal, at least until there is a full discussion on the validity of the sources cited, by people who know what they're talking about. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not how this works. Reading this article and analyzing its sources would take you about a half-hour. Then, bring up the particular information that you have an issue with. We're still waiting. II  | (t - c) 19:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Salt fluoridation
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:
 * implementation mechanisms: water, milk, toothpaste, and "alimentary" salt (four sub-mechanisms varying also with country and time: domestic table salt, restaurant table salt, commercial bread, school meals),
 * with time, countries turn these policies off and on,
 * and even within countries (e.g. cantons of Switzerland).

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)


 * This is a fair point. I'm glad you're considering a constructive approach to the article. You should check out The mystery of declining tooth decay from Nature -- if the article is any good it will comment on the salt fluoridation thing. Also glance here, where they have a table on which countries fluoridate water/salt. Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Belgium, Finland -- none of them have either salt or water fluoridation, yet they all have mean DMFs below the United States. I noticed that the US data is old -- the newer data is here, with mean DMF of 1.19, which puts US just below Finland. Looking forward to continued engagement, II  | (t - c) 01:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we can probably do better than a 20y old paper, but the UN's WHO and the U.S. Center for Disease Control would probably be as notable authorities, although worrying to the most ardent antifluoridationists. Regarding the Europe, this source [] indicates that dental health is fine in the first world. The raison d'etre for this article is the very fact that many people maintain that fluoridation is not a factor for the prevailing good dental health in first world countries and, in fact, might be a government conspiracy.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm completely missing your last point, could you rephrase it? One reason I'm confused is that the fact that many of the European countries with no fluoridation whatsoever have less average cavities than the areas with the most fluoridation strongly suggests that fluoridation has nothing to do with the decreased cavities. The little WHO article you point to has no comment on this particular issue, and your sort of assumption that you've refuted this point confuses me. Tertiary, unreferenced policy statements from the WHO and CDC are interesting and have some weight, but they are less scientifically reliable than secondary sources such as meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and should not be misconstrued as such. The latter includes, for example, the York review, largely considered to the best, most comprehensive analysis. It found no "A level" high-quality evidence, but the B level evidence it found (C was excluded) concluded that water fluoridation had an effect of increasing cavities by 5% to decreasing cavities by 64%, with a median of 14.6%. That's a perfectly reliable and probably fairly accurate summary of the literature. The York review itself notes that the "evidence is insufficient to allow confident statements about other potential harms", and that these should be considered along with "ethical, environmental, ecological, costs, and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation". One of these "other harms" is the effect on intelligence (see [luoride and its effect on human intelligence. A systematic review, it is a 2008 conference proceeding, but I imagine it will be published and then we can then use it in the article). [[User:ImperfectlyInformed| II ]] | (t - c) 06:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are my points again: 1) interpretation of the effects or noneffects of fluoridation is challenging. Places "with no fluoridation whatsoever" (ImperfectlyInformed's phrase) probably do not exist in the first world because fluoride is delivered by so many mechanisms: fluoridated toothpaste, table salt, water, dental gels, etc. 2) The US's CDC and the UN's WHO.[][] are organizations with authority (although, again, unconvincing for antifluoridationists, which is cool).  This Wikipedia article is not the place to argue about the quality of the data (that would be original research on our part), but to describe the fact that major groups (CDC, WHO, John Birch Society) do not agree on the advisability of fluoridation of water.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the primary arguments is that fluoridated toothpaste and dental gels, where swallowing is controlled, is the preferred way to do this (see the precautionary principle section). Again, the WHO and CDC are not nearly as reliable as reviews and meta-analyses. Since we have the latter, the former are of dubious use. By the way, we could use your chemistry expertise in evaluating some of these papers related to lead leaching from brass pipes. Do you have access to the NeuroToxicology journal? II  | (t - c) 19:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Brain
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)

List of articles on aluminium and fluoride
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
 * THE BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY OF METALLIC FLUORIDE: ACTION, MECHANISM, AND IMPLICATIONS (2003). Free access.
 * Aluminium as a risk factor in Alzheimer's disease, with emphasis on drinking water. (2001). I have access -- free access? See related links for many more articles.
 * The epidemiology of chemical contaminants of drinking water. (2000). Accessible for me. General paper -- mentions fluoride (osteosarcoma, fluorosis) and aluminium (Alzheimer's).
 * Toxin-induced blood vessel inclusions caused by the chronic administration of aluminum and sodium fluoride and their implications for dementia. (1997). Don't have access.

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)


 * Oh, I didn't mean to complain about the time it took to search for this stuff - all I meant to show is that it would take the average reader of this article a little time (if they even bothered to persevere) to find the supporting evidence, so we should try and put in a more direct link to the quote.


 * Thanks for adding this para in the first place, it's good - interesting stuff, well supported by the literature. Don't want to alarm people by making it seem like using Al saucepans is definitely going to poison them - there is some possibility of this, but severity depends greatly on conditions (fluoride concentration, pH of saucepan, etc), and it's not clear from the refs I read exactly how bad the health effects are. Might be best to say, yes, under certain conditions you can get up to 200 ppm aluminium from 1 ppm fluoride, but usually it's more like 0.4 ppm Al from 1 ppm fluoride in neutral-ish conditions (which are much more common in cooking).


 * As for spelling aluminium vs. aluminum, WP:CHEMS decided that in all chemistry-related contexts, aluminium should be spelled with an i for consistency. It shows up as wrong on US spellcheckers, but that's for general usage rather than specific chemical contexts. IUPAC prefers aluminium. The purpose of having a consistent spelling for an element is to make searching databases etc. easier, avoiding the need to search for two terms. It's not just a case of "let's use the UK spelling for all elements", though: all chemists now spell sulfur with an f.


 * Stick the para back in, but rewrite the first bit to say something like:


 * The fluoride ion, F−, readily complexes aluminium to form stable aluminofluorides. Fluoride can leach aluminium from saucepans, forming aluminofluoride complexes that can be absorbed by humans and may subsequently cross the BBB, potentially leading to neurotoxicity. The amount of aluminium leached depends greatly on the pH of the cooking environment, and can range from 0.4 Al per F− at neutral pH to 200 Al per F− under very basic or acidic conditions.


 * Ben (talk) 01:07, 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)


 * It's all explained at Aluminium.


 * As for AlFx crossing the BBB, it'd be good to find a source that details what actually happens to people afterwards. It's all very good putting some clues on the table (Al has a way of getting into the brain, Al is a neurotoxin, etc) but readers might imply a particular outcome (i.e. certain death, v. high risk of brain damage, etc.). If we can find a neutral, scientific article on the clinical (as opposed to molecular and microscopic) effects of Al consumption, that'd be more satisfactory.


 * Ben (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Aluminum doesn't only come from cookware; tea and several other foods have high (often very high in the cases of some teas) concentrations. Also, alum, a compound containing aluminum, is a commonly used chemical in water treatment. Badagnani (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Big long subarticle about Fluorosis
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)
 * Nope, read thru it and the article as it stood has no information that is not already covered in the Fluorosis albeit badly worded with very poor grammar. Peter, if you are concerned about the concern about Fluorosis, please look at the section immediately above it which has the Health Risks.  Fluorosis is there, but under children and it links to the main page.  If there is a risk about Fluorsis but it applying outside of the context of children, then please edit according (with cites).  Each of the health risks do not need to be discussed in this article other than a listing as the risks are more adaquately discussed elsewhere.  Shot info (talk) 04:01, 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)
 * No, it shouldn't, since it does not discuss the opposition movement at all. I have reworded it to avoid it becoming a POVFORK and pointing to the actual article.  In on the opposition movement and their attitude to Fluorosis now should be added. Shot info (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * John Colquhoun is Principal Dental Officer of Aukland, New Zealand. He is an elected official.


 * Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS is an Associate Professor and Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto. Is he not an official in the field of dentistry? Petergkeyes (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you will need to clarify what does "Official" mean, as so far you have used the same term on (what you indicate above) two different "Positions". This is the reason why I question the use of the term.  It seems very weaselly.  You will note that Colquhoun was an elected councillor, then later Principal Dental Officer in the Department of Health in Auckland.  A position he retired from in 1984.  Mind you he signed the same paper as John Colquhoun, School of Education, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand..  So, "officical" of what exactly, because he wasn't a councillor not an officer when he wrote Why I changed my mind about Water Fluoridation in 1997?  Shot info (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So Limeback's official status apparently is not contested. If there is general consensus that the late John Colquhoun was a dental official, then I will remove the weasel words tag. If Shot Info must continue to protest, perhaps we could call these guys dentists, or dental professionals, or something. But I think to do so would be to disguise the fact that both individuals have been profoundly influential in their respective countries in the dental field, and have been elected to top positions in the dental field in their countries. Dental officials is the most accurate way to describe both men in a brief, concise, elegant way.  Petergkeyes (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered the question. Shot info (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Does anybody else agree with Shot Info - that to describe Limeback and Colquhoun as dental officials is inappropriate, and amounts to weasel words? Petergkeyes (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do. Verbal   chat  10:23, 4 August 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)

Unrelated stuff
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 to be clear, Fluoride poisoning is real, but it is only peripherally related to Water fluoridation conspiracy theory. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent page move
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. --Elonka 22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked SA about that on their talk page. There may be conspiracy theorists editing here, but that does not make it a conspiracy theory. I'm not aware of any consensus, and I would oppose such a move since the title would prejudice the page. Opposition to fluoridation is a legitimate topic (although I personally find some of the zOMG poison! claims to be a little over the top). Franamax (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The move was a pointy response to my pointing out the mainstream health effects discussion on fluoridation on a separate article a few minutes ago, as I pointed out just now at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. ScienceApologist is so emotional about this issue that he can't engage in discussion about studies. As far as the zOMG poison claims, I'd love for Franamax to raise those points individually. There seems to be very few people here interested in reading the content objectively. II  | (t - c) 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have restored the page to its original title of Water fluoridation opposition. In the future, anyone wishing to make a controversial page move, should go through WP:RM.  Thanks, --Elonka 22:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Water fluoridation opposition is actually a bad name for it as well. It was moved there by Franamax without much comment, but given the amount of controversy within the scientific community around it, it should be moved back to water fluoridation controversy. I'll probably put in a RM about it. II  | (t - c) 22:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm? ImperfectlyInformed indeed. Moved there by Franamax? Care to back that up? My contribution was to point out that the "controversy" was being systematically stripped of balance, and it wasn't even at this article. Thanks for the wild accusation though, no need to consider any facts. Franamax (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was indeed moved, but not by Franamax, it was, back in April. I looked through the archives, but didn't see anyone objecting to the move at the time. So since the page has been stable at the "opposition" title for a few months, I recommend leaving it here, and engaging in discussion about what the best title should be from this point forward. --Elonka 23:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry! I saw your comment on it today and I carelessly assumed that you'd followed through with it. I don't know who moved it, then. My apologies. It was The Transhumanist who moved it. Anyway, I would certainly prefer that this article be made balanced, and I hope you would support me in moving it back to "water fluoridation controversy". Should we move it before or after we balance the page? The reason I have trouble with this title is that it associates the article with a vague and small "opposition" movement, when the controversy actually extends into the mainstream science. This was sort of the excuse used by Jefffire and Shot info for taking out the York Review of fluoridation, which certainly is relevant to the controversy. II  | (t - c) 23:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. No problems here :) The basic problem here is that there are two separate themes: one is the legitimate concern about excess fluoride intake - but note though that is not strictly a water fluoridation issue, it's a dietary fluoride issue, water fluoride by itself, within limits, is generally fine. The devil is in the details, when it's combined with fluoride-rich foods, now there can be overdosing (and of course, natural water with excessive fluoride levels can be bad too); and the other theme is exemplified by Dr. Strangelove, that is where the "zOMG, they're poisoning our water, next they'll take our guns away!" mindset comes into play. I believe that part of it can be properly labelled as a conspiracy theory.
 * Water fluoridation and Water fluoridation opposition should ideally be merged. But as long as we have editors who wish to note every rat that died and every letter that says "no we don't fluoridate", we have a problem. So the status quo is to keep the issues separate. I'd be happy to work with you to achieve some balance. I went out and bought the January 2008 Scientific American issue, I checked out the papers it cited, I tried to add balanced content to express both sides. I think there is still an "and" left from my work. If we can separate the mainstream from the fringe though, I'm all for it. Franamax (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure they should be merged; there is a lot of material to cover here, although it can certainly be trimmed to a summary style. One major issue with water fluoridation is that it is rather hard to regulate how much water is being consumed, combined with the lack of strong evidence for efficacy shown by the York review. A 100-pound woman who drinks a gallon of water a day because it is "healthy" might end up facing harmful effects, as might a child. The several epidemiological studies in China correlating fluoride intake with lower IQ also add to the concern. These studies were comparing areas with high natural fluoride to areas with less, but there is quite possibly a smaller linear effect in people consuming less. (That's not to say the IQ effects are confirmed -- but they warrant more research and possible suspension until the research is performed.) In any case, the epidemiological IQ effect, along with endocrine effects, are the most worrying to me. Masters and Coplan's work in the lead leaching into the water also add to the concern, with a study recently showing that fluoride increases leaching from brass pipes.  II  | (t - c) 00:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrgh, I take my shiny new library card for a spin and it turns out NeuroToxicology is not one of the included journals! I'll contact you offline to ask for the text. Do I understand you to imply that it's not a good idea to use lead in water pipes? No argument from me, irrespective of the mechanism of extraction.
 * The York study was a meta-study I believe. I have big concerns about meta-studies in general, but they're a fact of scientific life, so I would agree it needs due weight.
 * The Chinese study(s), if I read it/them right, were in areas that almost anyone would agree had excessive fluoride content in the water. This is where it gets tricky. Too much fluoride seems to be a bad thing - but how exactly does that relate to the practice of low-level addition of fluoride to drinking water? Linear interpolation is not always the best interpretation of the dose-response curve - see Nature Vol. 421 pp. 692-693, Calabrese and Baldwin, "Toxicology rethinks its central belief".  (copy if you email me) Admittedly, I'm making an interpretation - but equally, uncritical inclusion of those primary sources is an interpretation.
 * And a 100-pound woman drinking a gallon of water a day because she thinks it's healthy may face other health issues, that's a lot of water. I'm not aware of the data on relative retention of fluoride-containing substances, presumably if it goes right back out through the kidneys, not a big huge deal. A reference would be very helpful for this case. Franamax (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Chinese studies did not have that high of fluoride in the water. From the NRC chapter on neurotoxicology: "The high-fluoride area (Wamiao) had a mean water concentration of 2.47 ± 0.79 mg/L (range 0.57-4.50 milligrams per liter [mg/L]), and the low-fluoride area (Xinhuai) had a mean water concentration of 0.36 ± 0.15 mg/L (range 0.18-0.76 mg/L)." That was one of the studies. Yes, in the United States it would ideally be lowered to become closer to the ideal range of 0.7 – 1.2; nevertheless it is not extremely high. Masters & Coplan's work has been criticized by Urbanskyp, but I believe his critique was based on the lead in the silicofluorides themselves, rather than the lead leached from plumbing. (The paper is a little too complex for me.) Whether or not we think using lead solder in pipes is good somewhat irrelevant (it is now illegal, I believe) -- they exist across the United States, and if fluoride increases the leaching, then it is a legitimate concern which adds to the controversy. In any case, the fluoridation of water should be based upon a cost-benefit analysis like everything else. As this BMJ commentary pointed out upon the publication of the York review in 2000, the cost to benefit ratio just doesn't seem that great these days. I don't get your comment on the relative retention, by the way -- consuming more fluoride will put you at a greater risk for adverse health effects, which is why authorities get worried when the fluoride level gets above 2 mg/L. Thing is, some people can still consume a lot even if the level is at 1.2 mg/L because they drink a lot of water or tea (which incidentally has an extremely high level of fluoride).  II  | (t - c) 03:34, 1 August 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)
 * The conspiracist strain of opposition to flouridation, as satirized in Dr. Strangelove, is a relevant and historically substantial element of the topic, but I don't think there's any way that modern opposition to fluoridation can be categorically described as "conspiracy theories". MastCell Talk 18:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard that the conspiracy theory was associated with the John Birch Society (which makes sense, given how it was portrayed in Dr. Strangelove), and that Edward Bernays was brought in to popularize it. But I haven't good source for that information yet. II  | (t - c) 18:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly was associated with the Birchers: "Especially in the 1950s and in the United States, extremist right-wing and racist groups were opposed to fluoridation, including the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan in the United States and the League of Rights in Australia. Opposition to fluoridation provided a vehicle for such groups to vent their opposition to 'big government.'" (Brian Martin, Edward Groth, Scientific Knowledge in Controversy. SUNY Press, 1991. ISBN 0791405389). I recommend reading Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, which I wrote, which documents a simultaneous parallel controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I think the recent changes describing some of the history of conspiracism associated with the topic are reasonable. has reverted them twice now, but I'm not able to decipher his reasoning as provided in edit summaries. I've invited him to comment here. MastCell Talk 21:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, would be nice to mention those specific groups in the article. I do think that the section violates summary style; it is a fairly minor part in the modern scheme of things, and it is given undue weight as it stands. I'm also not sure that it belongs in the lead. Also, after doing some more reading I think there is a modern version of the conspiracy theory. Chistopher Bryson goes on about it (book review of his book): the basic gist is that factories had to do something with their fluoride byproducts, and the best option was to sell them to municipalities. The argument is that this financial interest, rather than benevolent concern for the public health of citizens, precipitated the push to fluoride water. I'm not sure on the reliability on these sources, but theory does have some evidence and plausibility behind it; currently 90% of the fluorides used to fluoridate water are industrial byproducts. II  | (t - c) 21:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. I'm sure I saw some references to that viewpoint - I'll see what I can find out. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

An expert opinion (although it's a bit concise)
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. 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. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "brain" is not mentioned in that opinion (although my unanswered question, as well as other discussion, remains above). The article still does not mention the brain. Badagnani (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Arrest (Ruling) by the Hoge Raad (Dutch supreme court) outright banning fluoridation got me thinking: there's also a legal aspect to this. Is it/ should it be legal to force involuntary medication on people?
 * Also, topical application of fluoride is superior to systemic application, and has rather less risks (even though the risk in both cases is fairly low).
 * So I have some reasons mildly in favor of fluoridation on my own talk page, and some reasons mildly against here now. :-)
 * I don't think there's a conspiracy theory. Based on the quick readthrough of sources I've done, I don't think it's typically a disaster if water gets fluoridated (If done carefully, at least. Adding fluoride to water without careful quality control is Not Good.), but I also don't think it's a disaster if it doesn't get fluoridated. There's upsides and downsides to both approaches. The trade-offs are different in different locations, depending on the local circumstances.


 * But all that is really not relevant. There is clear opposition to water fluoridation, and there has been at least one (dutch) supreme court ruling. I think that even all by itself, such a ruling meets our requirements for notability and verifiability for an article on wikipedia. I'm not sure it has anything to do with whether or not we personally agree with the judges eh? :-) . So this article seems to be a valid article, and it's not just all conspiracy theories, perhaps? :-).
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)


 * Note that several of the adverse effects of fluoride only occur if you overdose on it. At the low levels added by water companies in diverse locations, there doesn't seem to be much evidence of adverse effects.
 * (on the other hand, of course, if you don't swallow the fluoride in the first place, there won't be much chance of adverse effects at all ever :-P This seems to be the common argument put forward against fluoridation.).
 * Does this match what other sources are saying?--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The word brain seems again not to have been mentioned. Badagnani (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, let me look. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, very fast skim, and only look at abstracts (this would earn me an F if I tried to get away with this in university, read the fine sources yourself and dig down! ;-) )


 * J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1988 Dec;51(12):1591-3. ... suggests that excess fluoride normally doesn't get through to the nervous system in the first place. (It remains at some sort of normal concentration in the cerebrospinal fluid, independent of intake.)


 * Histochem J. 1975 Jul;7(4):343-55., shows that levels up to 5 PPM have no (measurable) effect on the brain (or other nerve tissue) in a human-similar species. (But does notice problems with kidneys at 5PPM)


 * There do seem to be physiological effects of fluoride in-system. Just that these pubmed hits don't show an effect on the brain. If I looked further, or actually read the articles more deeply I might get more information. This is only a cursory glance!


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you read the article? One problem is that it doesn't convey the most important resources very well. In 2006 the US NRC published a book entirely on fluoride's toxicity. Here it is. The neurotoxicity and neurobehavioral effects are interesting. Basic findings are epidemiological studies showing an effect on intelligence and rat studies showing that concurrent fluoride and aluminium allow the aluminium through the blood-brain barrier. See the top of the talk page. See other sections of the talk page such as the conspiracy theories section and the salt fluoridation section. Also, do you have a link for the Dutch Supreme Court's ruling? II  | (t - c) 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All I've been doing is quickly reading abstracts, and summarizing their findings. The dutch supreme court (Hoge Raad) is mentioned in the dutch article Drinkwater. What you have found doesn't seem to contradict information I have found. All I've done is given this a most cursory glance. These articles need to be read and compared carefully. Keep an eye on concentration levels btw. At low concentrations fluoride seems fairly harmless, but at higher concentrations it is less benign. (this is why fluoride is only added in low concentrations, afaict). --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Reference for Hoge Raad arrest (supreme court decision) on dutch wikipedia is (HR 22-6-1973, AB 1973, 187). You'll need to find a .nl legal expert to dig that up from whatever library is holding that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Some should rethink what we are doing
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 ([]: "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)


 * Very poor reasoning. It's very clear that one of the main reasons the fluoridation of water supplies (which are used for both drinking and external uses) is opposed is that a substance that may cause damage to the brain is ingested by those who consume such water. Further, the article you mention does not mention the words "brain" nor "aluminum." Badagnani (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course: the WHO and the CDC are tools, what do they know?  More seriously, my guess is Fluoride toxicity is a more suitable forum than this article for your brain-fluoride thing.  Editors with passionate views are always encouraged (by me) to create articles where they can review the particular issues that interest. Such articles use WE as kind of a blog-vehicle, but that's cool with me and reflects the evolving nature of this encyclopedia.  I was thinking that the brain-fluoride/aluminium issue is somewhat tangential to this article which summarizes a controversy, and does not delve into assessing the quality of the data/arguments pro and con.  Best wishes.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you demonstrate that there has been no opposition to the fluoridation of drinking water supplies on the grounds that such ingestion may be harmful to the brain? If so, please remove all mention of the brain from this article. However, tens of thousands of hits belie your hope (or wish) that this is not an issue in "water fluoridation opposition" (the current title of the article). Badagnani (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Moving major discussion of the health effects information to another article is a good idea. Of course, the controversy is grounded in science, so that would not exclude a brief note here. Fluoride toxicity encompasses fluoride poisoning, but the two are quite different. As far as the WHO/CDC thing -- as I've pointed out a couple times, they are tertiary, unreferenced sources. They can be mentioned, but it is best to go to the scientific reviews for the information on the efficacy, which are secondary, referenced sources. I'm not sure why Smokefoot thinks that is OR. There are plenty of sources which do re-analyze, at length, the WHO/CDC's conclusion, so I don't need to do it, which I'm quite happy about. :) II  | (t - c) 23:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind, however, that this article, from its title, is about the opposition itself--not studies showing that fluoride is fine, or dangerous. From its title, it's about the opposition, and includes that information (on both sides) as supporting information. Moving all health information to another article, in such a light, would not do a service to our readers, who would expect to have some discussion of this (some of the primary reasons fluoridation is opposed) in this article, which is about water fluoridation opposition. The reasons for such opposition are certainly important to discuss and examine. Badagnani (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the toxicity info and assessments could be moved to fluoride toxicity (and we can duke it out there), but as Badagnani indicates, readers will expect to see some mention of the medical risks implicated by those that oppose fluoridation. There are other aspects of the controversy such objection to government sponsored mass-medication and whether fluoridation is needed in light of alternative strategies for dental health.  Gearing up for other projects, I want to thank you all for a stimulating and educational discussion, even though I disagree with most of you.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:40, 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)

Off topic tag
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 is certainly relevant, as the text states that such a concern has been raised as a primary reason for "water fluoridation opposition" (the title of this article). Badagnani (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This would be the text from the two "officials" right? It is correct in saying that it is their particular concern...yes.  But what is the measure of their influence in the "Opposition"?  Hi, lo, medium, irrelevant?  But that still doesn't explain why a whole section about Dental fluorosis is required, and doesn't explain why Skeletal fluorosis is a problem - especially as there is zero sourcing relating to the "Opposition" movement.  Note that information about fluorosis is not a problem....over at the fluorosis article.  Here, we need more information on why the WFOpposition has an issue.  Otherwise the section should be rolled into just the one or two lines that actually discuss the issue and the POV forking should be removed.  Shot info (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The influence of Limeback and Colquoun (sp) could be described as very high. Both are prestigious, high-profile dental researchers with numerous publications; Limeback was on the NRC's Committee, and is on the Advisory Board for Fluoridate Alert and Second Look. Colquoun was the "Principal Dental Officer" in charge of fluoridation in NZ's largest city. In any case, you should hold off and get other people's opinions on this, because it seems clear that the risk of fluorosis is one of, if not the, major point of contention. II  | (t - c) 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that another reason that water fluoridation has been opposed has been the possibility that even small amounts of ingested fluoride (and the combination of ingested fluoride with aluminum) negatively affects the brain. This is as yet not mentioned in the article. Badagnani (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * II, I hear what you are saying and we have had this discussion before. We all know this (ie/ that fluorosis is important to WFOppoistion), yet we seem to have problem with sources.  So far we have some primary sources of two people.  Yet the tertiary sources stating exactly what you say (ie/ explaining their importance to the Opposition) is missing.  Instead the section wanders off into explaining fluorosis.  I fail to see why both of you are defending the fluorosis (when after all it is just one click away and various sources have been transplanted over to there) information while failing to include sources that are germane to the actual article.  If it is clear that the risk of fluorosis is one of, if not the, major point of contention then sources will be abundant...yet here we are arguing over a POV fork on fluorosis.  BTW, I am not arguing for the removal of the information on the opposition to WF.  I am attempting to improve the article and it honestly is losing it's way by concentrating on explaining info not actually germane to the article.  Shot info (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a POV fork. It is repeating the information in the other article exactly and fairly briefly. Asking us to find sources stating Limeback/Colquoun's relevance is going too far. They are prestigious dental researchers opposed to fluoridation; their POV counts. You're too focused on this "movement", when there is a loose organization at best. This isn't a place to document an established movement, but to explain why people are opposed to fluoride. One's "rank in the movement" is irrelevant; what matters is one's background, expertise, and the publication. Anyway, I'm hoping Franamax or Kim, who are more independent, might comment on this issue. II  | (t - c) 00:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a POV Fork...now after editing and transplating out of most of the fork. We are focusing on the "Opposition" only because it's been used as a reason why this section is important.  Also it is the subject of the article, is it not?  If it's not important, then it's not notable.  If it's important, then it will have sources.  So far the article does not read like there is only a loose organisation (or anything like that) but wanders around not really saying anything.  BTW Wikipedia isn't the place to focus on why individuals don't like something.  If certain peoples opinions are notable, they will have third party sources saying so.  This is RS101.  Shot info (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, this article is not about organizations that support fluoridation, it is about opposition to fluoridation. That should be clear from the title. Thus, it's important to look at the various groups and prominent individuals opposing it, and to examine exactly what their primary reasons are. These would be different from group to group, but there are several primary reasons that come up again and again in these sources. Badagnani (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Various Groups and Promient Individuals = Organisations no? And if there are Various Groups and Promient Individuals (hereafter summerised as organisations or VGPI) then there will be tertiary sources that explain their notability, no? Shot info (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are groups, yes, and I believe they should certainly be mentioned in the article. Badagnani (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Massive blanking
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)


 * I see mostly refs cleanup in that diff? Am I missing something? --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:24, 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)
 * 'Massive blanking' usually refers to the removal of whole (sub)sections. I don't see that in this diff. If you have concerns about the edit could you be more specific and raise them under a more appropriate heading, please? Verbal   chat  18:22, 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)


 * I had another look. There is no massive blanking in that diff. Please be more specific or you're not going to get anywhere. This section is inappropriately named. Also, please don't be rude - of course I looked at the diff before commenting about it. Verbal   chat  18:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. Any chance of more specificity, please? (BTW, I love the section name - Massive Blanking would be a great name for a band, don't you think?) -- ChrisO (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I call "Citation Needed," but I think xkcd got there first. Verbal   chat  18:51, 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)


 * Sorry, I still don't quite get it. The changes seem to have involved only footnotes, not entire paragraphs. Which specific change are you objecting to, since there were multiple changes in that diff? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The entire paragraph that was removed. It's in the diff. Badagnani (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just assume I'm being stupid, please, and quote the first few words so that I can pinpoint it? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:12, 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)


 * Are you talking about the superfluous quote removed from inside a reference (the tags)? As one sentence, that wouldn't count as massive blanking even if it was removed from the article, but as it's been removed from a reference where it probably shouldn't have been anyway, it doesn't seem to be a problem. The context is clear from the rewritten reference. Or was it something else? Verbal   chat  19:26, 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)


 * What blanking? A ref was tidied, the edit summary described this. Verbal   chat  20:02, 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)


 * Can you please quote exactly what you are objecting to, as the removal of a quote when tidying a reference doesn't fit the alarmist description above. Verbal   chat  20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ps: Sorry for the last revert, I looked at your previous edit again and not the new one that, and the old one gave me red link. However, your edit summary was misleading; there was no blanking... I think you need to stop using this term as it means "removal of a lot of text". Verbal   chat  20:29, 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)
 * Why aren't you answering the questions about your complaint? Are you referring to this quote from a reference:

"'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.'"
 * from inside a reference (ie not in the article)? This quote really doesn't add much, and was removed from a reference so is not "massive blanking". The edit summary described the action perfectly - reference tidying. The quote is too long and technical. It could perhaps be condensed and reinserted, or a better quote found, but there is no need for it. You appeal to good faith while not assuming good faith of other editors, and have been close to stonewalling this discussion. My conclusion is that there was no blanking from the article, and the edit summary was correct; ie, references were tidied, which in one case included removing an incorrectly inserted and uninformative quote. I don't understand your comment "The least you can do is ... not do it again in the future" - I didn't do it, and it was a good edit anyway. Verbal   chat  20:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * Yes, I agree, I didn't bother commenting as it was clear somebody was not bothering to look at what was going on. Shot info (talk) 22:58, 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)


 * Honestly, I think you're over-reacting here. I think Sesq has it about right in his comments above. I'm sorry that you feel sore about it but I think you're flogging a dead horse here - the edits weren't unreasonable and they certainly didn't constitute "massive blanking". -- ChrisO (talk) 23:48, 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)
 * That's because it wasn't a paragraph, it was inside a reference. If you looked you would have seen that.  It has been dismissed because the consensus is clear there is not a problem other than one editor.  Shot info (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New article
Does someone have access to a database where the following article could be found? It could be useful:


 * Antifluoridation propaganda material--the tricks of the trade.

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

Badagnani (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)