Talk:Water fluoridation controversy

The summary state that dental fluorosis is the only known disadvantage of water fluoridation. This has not been established.

The statement is too strong and in the absence of long term safety studies of water fluoridation, cannot be made given the current understanding on the topic. Much as how the scientific law accuracy is limited to specific conditions (i.e. Newtonian laws do not stand under relativistic conditions), the statement tantamount to an absolute declaration that water fluoridation is a safe practice. The statement does not reflect the controversy in an unbiased manner.

Will the guy who lock the page give respond to this? Haaaa (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The person who locked the page is almost certainly an uninvolved editor. The statement you are objecting to is sourced. I replicated the reference closer to the statement for clarity. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Saying it is the only "known" disadvantage has been established. While there may be "unknown" disadvantages, none of these are known. The comparison with physics does not stand, since the reference to known disadvantages is only intended to apply to known uses of fluoridation. TFD (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Without a precise definition, I'd think that the many decades of observation of the results of use have to count for being long term studies. Not sure how long the OP wants. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I would NOT say that the argument is too strong, in fact, I would say that much factual information about fluoridated water is all but missing. In particular, any of the 20 or 30 studies on brain damage and IQ reduction. There is even a Harvard meta-analysis of these studies, and most of them are credible and qualified. I am hesitant to edit it; apologetic fluoride imbibers will most likely immediately censor any other health effects. Truly disappointing -- Regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Communist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.148.205 (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there are already existing studies indicating the possible danger from water fluoridation.

That the source is cited does not necessary mean it is conclusive in the face of contradictory evidence like below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=10.1289/ehp.1104912

Where there are contradictory evidences, that particular study should not be cited, especially in the headline where it would received undue prominence, giving bias to the article

HiLo48, rather, than asking about how long do I have in mind, perhaps one should ask, what are the available length of safety studies available?

So to TFD, there are existing concerns about the dangers of fluoridation already. They are not unknown, but they are not appearing on the article to provide a balance viewpoint thanks to overzealous self-censorship.

Haaaa (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Lancet Neurology Study

This new study, conducted by a professor at Harvard's School of Public Health, was published in a high impact journal is compelling and should be integrated in this article. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract DanaUllman^Talk 01:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You are going to have to do better than your rather vague suggestion. What exactly does this study have to do with this Wikipedia article? --Daffydavid (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My point is that there is now solid evidence, drawn from a metaanalysis published in a high impact journal, that fluoridation in water leads to negative effects on brain function. I just wanted to make certain that people here knew about this new study and would then consider incorporating this information into the article here. DanaUllman^Talk 15:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, no; that's not what that paper (or the meta it cites) actually says. Incidentally, one doesn't find "fluoridation" in water; one finds the dissolved ion fluoride. Fluoridation is the process of deliberately adding fluoride to water. It is essential to grasp the distinction between the two terms, otherwise one is likely to misunderstand, misinterpret, and inadvertently misrepresent the literature on this topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And of course the highest levels of fluoride are perfectly natural and therefore entirely harmless. Or something. Guy (Help!) 02:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Paper does not appear to mention fluoridation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This article states "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44". I think 'flouride in drinking water' = flouridation unless it was naturally occuring flouride, right?Sthubbar (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked on the main article talk page and see that this study has been thoroughly discussed. No need to open the discussion again here.Sthubbar (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, some parts of China have very high levels of naturally-occurring fluoridation. This document from the WHO states "Fluoride concentrations in the groundwater of some villages in China were greater than 8 mg/litre". This document from the CDC gives an optimal fluoridation level of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter, and this from the EPA gives a goal of a maximum of 4.0 mg/L for safety. The Lancet study cited does not appear relevant to the topic of this article. Zad68 05:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Some semi-random facts to inform this conversation:

• The article Fluoride toxicity describes the problem with high fluoride (from mineral sources) across the globe.
• 404,000 articles, patents, and reports mention "fluoride" according to Chemical Abstracts Service yesterday.
• According to Fluoride, seawater contains slightly above 1 ppm of fluoride.

--Smokefoot (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Addition to Statements against water fluoridation

Please add the position of Environmental Working Group (EWG) on water fluoridation in the 'Statements against' section.

American environmental organization, Environmental Working Group (EWG) opposes water fluoridation citing "a growing body of evidence demonstrates the known and potential health consequences of fluoridated water...the main concern is for pregnant women and bottle-fed infants" http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2007/08/ask-ewg-what-can-i-do-about-fluoride-my-water

79.178.3.146 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go with NO for your request, the information you provided is from a blog which is almost never considered WP:RS. Also, your edit suggestion is two verbatim lines from a copyrighted work, which means we can't use it. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your reasons for rejection are blatanty false and do not represent wikipedia guidelines:

1)The source is in compliance of WP:PRIMARY. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. " It's the Organization own blog, and It is giving a statement about its own self and describing there own reason for this position. The self statement from the source is unambiguous "true that EWG opposes water fluoridation.".

2) The passage is definitely in compliance of copyrighted work via WP:QUOTE. "Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations—often informally called "quotes"—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words."

My first line gives credit to the source plus use of quotation. and the quote is used in order to avoid any POV on this controversial issue.

Your response does not qualify changing the tag to "answered"79.178.3.146 (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, how about the fact that this Environmental Working Group blog is still non-WP:RS and is flogging woo and as such it isn't notable enough for inclusion in the article. Go here - [| ADA website] and please enlighten me on where it backs up the claim of this blog(EWG says ADA says "don't use floridated water to make formula" - but alas they don't say that). While we are at it I suggest you set-up an account and stop IP hopping when you edit here and at the Homeopathy page. Oh, and still NO--Daffydavid (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that an environmental group doesn't seem to have quite the right credentials to be looking at the complexities of health issues. HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid you are clearly invested in illegitimately suppressing the 'Against' section - after you came up with reasons to reject my additions the first time, that proved to be total bogus, you decide to change avenue and challenge notability, which is. off course, Bogus too: Environmental Working Group. the 'EnviroBlog' is part of their official website.

It is not my job to enlighten your ignorance, but nevertheless - The EWG article is from 2006 and the ADA statement' comes from here http://web.archive.org/web/20071119103032/http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride_infants.asp

HiLo48 EWG is a reputable source *(from their wiki article) "52 percent of EWG's resources go to toxic chemicals and human health" that is what they do. EWG position should be added to the Against section. (i am the editor who requested the addition)109.64.50.177 (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources that back up the official statement in the primary source (the organization own website) and its notability on the subject:

1)"In June [2005] the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a watchdog organization, petitioned the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to list fluoride in tap water as a carcinogen. " http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1118379,00.html

2)"Since 2005, EWG has been calling on federal agencies to respond to these findings, which come from National Academy of Sciences and many others, documenting that excess fluoride exposure poses dangers that range from discolored teeth to potential hormone disruption and neurotoxicity" http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/07/fluoride.recommendations/

3)"The research has been made available by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a respected Washington-based research organisation. The group reports that it has assembled a 'strong body of peer-reviewed evidence' and has asked that fluoride in tap water be added to the US government's classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans" http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/jun/12/medicineandhealth.genderissues

4)"The president of the watchdog group, Ken Cook, says, “It is time for the U.S. to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it’s as easy to end as turning off a valve at the water plant.” http://www.wnd.com/2007/08/42991/

5)"Much stricter fluoride standards are recommended by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C. It believes that "fluoride exposure should be limited to toothpaste, where it provides the greatest dental benefit and presents the lowest overall health risk." http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1759632 (I am the original requester of the addition)79.179.128.177 (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: To the 2 IP editors, from your persistence and accusatory tone I'm beginning to think you are not only the same person but also George1935. Please open accounts of your own. Also resetting the request is unnecessary since we have an ongoing discussion but I'm sure it will be reset in the very next edit anyway. "It is not my job to enlighten your ignorance, but nevertheless" followed by an outdated (deleted from ADA website - thus your need to use Wayback)interim link that is no longer the position of the ADA. Clearly here I should suggest (in keeping with your tone) that you are part of an anti-fluoridation misinformation campaign, but I'm going to suggest you provide a WP:RS and also provide proof that EWG meets the WP:NOTABILITY requirement. So far all I see is a fringe group that is very rarely mentioned anywhere on the net except in alternative communities which in themselves aren't considered WP:RS. Wikipedia articles themselves are not considered a WP:RS either. --Daffydavid (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid every time you get an answer, you move the goal posts further away = The definition of a pseudo-skeptic and an intellectual charlatan. and therefore make you totally irrelevant and illegitimate in this discussion . I let other editors who posses integrity and NPOV to give their opinion.(same editor)79.177.33.236 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As I predicted you put up the notice again. I should start a psychic website. Not done: You are entitled to your opinion, but I only provided additional reasons, I didn't retract the original reasons. The sources you provided allegedly establishing WP:NOTABILITY are old and WND has been determined to be non-RS, so unless you have newer and good quality RS sources EWG is NOT notable. You have opted to ignore those reasons and engage in name calling instead. Please read WP:NPA and set up your own account and stop IP hopping. Do have a nice day. :-) --Daffydavid (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid, Oh so now Notability, according to you, aka 2006 articles are too old. WOW! Here are some from February 2014 (have a wonderful day too :O) )

• http://www.cbsnews.com/news/consumer-group-ewg-warns-almost-500-products-on-the-market-contain-yoga-mat-chemical/
• http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/02/24/environmental-toxins-can-be-destructive-to-womens-reproductive-health/
• http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/food-industry-marketing-nutrition-labels-104055.html
• http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/03/is_formaldehyde_dangerous_no_but_johnson_johnson_removed_it_from_baby_shampoo.html
• http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Mar/04/making-your-own-laundry-detergent-can-be-easy/
• http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post--money-smart-ways-to-eat-healthy
• http://fr.canoe.ca/sante/archives/2014/02/20140227-121220.html
• http://www.bna.com/chemical-manufacturers-advocacy-n17179882542/
• http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/diet-fitness/Food+companies+propose+voluntary+labels+individual+states/9476757/story.html
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/saudia-davis/how-to-avoid-bringing-tox_b_4995150.html
• http://www.qt.com.au/news/be-sure-to-grow-dirty-dozen/2184985/
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ceo-todd-becker-has-faith-in-the-future-of-ethanol-producer-green-plains/2014/02/27/f0e54cf8-9e3d-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html

The Group is a leading and notable environmental organization. (same editor)79.177.33.236 (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange that if they are a "leading and notable environmental organization", that most of your links don't mention the word "environmental" when discussing EWG, one calls it "a Washington advocacy group that supports labeling", one says "consumer group" and another says "a health research organization". Not a single one says "leading" of any kind. So I'm not satisfied that they are indeed notable and if they were it wouldn't really be that hard to find a WP:RS source stating the EWG position on fluoridation. EWG appears to be known primarily for their "Dirty Dozen" list. Also, shouldn't a "leading and notable environmental organization" have something a little newer and updated to remove reference to an out-dated ADA interim report. A 7 year old blog post, really? --Daffydavid (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: IP editor, resetting the request without addressing the concerns indicates you have no interest in following Wikipedia protocols and are instead here just to do tendentious edits. Address the concerns raised. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid i am done dealing with your nonsense. i have taken the matter to WP:DRN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Water_fluoridation_controversy

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

#2 Addition to Statements against water fluoridation

Yael German, Minister of Health of Israel Opposes Water fluoridation. in 2014, she has ended Israel decades of water fluoridation practice. In her view it is better to provide fluoride in other ways to “target audiences” such as poor children, who were unlikely to brush their teeth regularly with fluoride toothpaste, she sees water fluoridation as a health risk: “It must be known to you that fluoridation can cause harm to the health of the chronically ill and pregnant women,”.

Sources:

• Ynet: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4366896,00.html
• The Jerusalem Post: http://www.jpost.com/Health/Article.aspx?id=310965
• Calcalist: http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3599895,00.html
• Israel HaYom: http://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/83141
• Maariv (newspaper): http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/459/984.html?hp=1&cat=479&loc=12
• Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/health/1.1991841
• TheMarker: http://www.themarker.com/consumer/health/1.1991891
• Supreme Court of Israel, July 2013, ruling: "We have noted before us the State’s obligation to stop the fluorination of drinking water within one year. Due to the cancellation of the Original Regulations and the fact that Regulation 20 of the New Regulations shall expire within a year, and since neither the Petitioners nor the Respondents have indicated another source of authorization for water fluorination, the Petition has been exhausted and is to be stricken. Incidentally, it should be noted that apparently, the way by which the New Regulations were phrased is not optimal as far as the clarity of the law is concerned – once the Respondents have decided to stop the water fluorination, it would have been better to set the rule of non-fluorination as a primary arrangement, and the continuation of the fluorination as a temporary transitory provision, instead of the manner by which it had been done. http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/12/730/081/a12/12081730.a12.pdf (page 2, #3) (same editor as first request)79.177.33.236 (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yawn..... HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48 Yawn, but your edit wouldn't be approved as suggested anyway because it is not WP:NPOV, the articles you linked show other statements opposing the view of German and without presenting both viewpoints it violates the policy. Also, the removal of fluoridation hasn't taken place yet so WP:NOTNEWS would apply. Finally WP:WEIGHT would indicate that a simple statement indicating that Israel had stopped fluoridating would be sufficient. It would be appropriate to add the item WHEN IT HAPPENS, not before. I'm not going to bother setting the edit request to answered because you will only reset it as we have seen over and over and over again. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I had enough of you and HiLo48 approches . i have turned to WP:DRN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Water_fluoridation_controversy.23Addition_to_Statements_against_water_fluoridation79.177.33.236 (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This is already added to Fluoridation_by_country#Israel. The text could be twaked, but the addition is correct!

Note that the law had already been passed! We can already add "Israel (1981-2014)" to Water_fluoridation_controversy#Use_throughout_the_world. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NOTNEWS is not valid in this case: Water fluoridation has ended de facto by law in 2013. as stated by the supreme court ruling , the new signed regulation, limits fluoridation for only one more year (until 2014).
• The WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT are actually valid quite to the contrary: 1) German is an MP (Knesset) and the minister of health - therefore her action represent the policy of the Government of Israel. The Government of Israel Has Due-Weight on this subject. 2) Every major newspaper in Israel, has made German opposition and statement most notable. (same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Since a statement is already on the article over there adding it here would be overkill, I would suggest adding the month Israel is ending fluoridation in order to avoid inaccurate information until the event actually happens. --Daffydavid (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

IP sock, I have to ask, since your edits are already in the other article why are you so insistent on getting them inserted here.--Daffydavid (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid, The israeli government has ended its practice of water fluoridation, not due to lack of funds,raw materials, mechanical problems etc. It did it on behalf of health risks. The statement made by The Minister of Health sums the official position " that fluoridation can cause harm to the health of the chronically ill and pregnant women". therefore this position is a prime example for this article, in the section "Statements against water fluoridation".

As a general note: in-order to avoid WP:NPA. refrain from addressing me as "IP Sock" as if my IP change is deliberate for "improper purpose"(WP:SOCK) and not due to my ISP supplier. "IP editor" is the proper description. and Wikipedia does not oblige me to register (same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide a RS source stating that fluoridation has indeed stopped so we can verify the information. Jerusalem Post perhaps or something like that, hopefully with a reference to either the decree or judgement or dare we hope - both? I'm addressing you here since it has been pointed out that trying to address you on the IP page is probably futile. You'll have to forgive me if don't consider your word RS. I've addressed your other argument before and we are getting nowhere, so we will just have to agree to disagree.--Daffydavid (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I have found the exact date in which the law requires to stop public water fluoridation in Israel: Exactly 1 year from August 25, 2013.

• Health Minister German signed The "Public Health Regulations: The Sanitary Quality Of Drinking Water and Drinking Water Facilities-2013" on April 11, 2013 (all the media sources references quote that date). These regulations are usually updated every decade or so
• The "Public Health Regulations-2013" have officially commenced on August 25, 2013 (See in Hebrew: תקנות מי השתיה בתוקף מ - 25.8.2013)
• A copy of these regulations is available on the Health Ministry website in English as well. Regulation #20 (Fluoridation), is the regulation that enforced and enforces public water fluoridation in israel. Regulation #40 (Temporary Provision -Fluoridation) says "Regulation 20 shall remain in force for a period of one year from the commencement date." (As the July 2013, Supreme court ruling explained) (original editor)79.178.6.210 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Israeli villages will no longer be required by law to fluoride their water, according to Haaretz[1]. Of course, this is not the same as ordering that fluoridation is stopped...... --Enric Naval (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The July 2013, supreme court ruling (see above) has made it clear - "We have noted before us the State’s obligation to stop the fluorination of drinking water within one year."

German has explained on her official FaceBook Page, that it would have taken a longer bureaucratic procedure in order to change the 'language' of the regulation code. so this is how it is being done. The very reason to stop public fluoridation according to German is because of health risks. (same editor)79.178.6.210 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, do we have a WP:RS source stating that the event has happened or not? Surely, if this is such a huge news issue worthy of note we would have multiple RS sources trumpeting the end of fluoridation and celebrating the fact that it was done for health reasons. I noticed while I was reading that the Ministry changed the way to deliver fluoride, which seems odd if she feels so strongly against fluoridation as the IP ed is urging us to include in the article. From the regulations I see that Fluoride is set at no more than 1700 mcgl, I don't really know what to make of that. We should have a better source than a Facebook page, why is this so hard to come by? Is fluoridation stopped? When? As per RS source(s). Is this a non-issue in Israel? Is this why we have no WP:RS sources? --23:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

...still after my last meticulous post, you are asking the questions. ok :

• German clearly stated that she is against Public water fluoridation due to Health risks to sub-populations "Chronically ill and pregnant women". She would have stopped it "today", but due to bureaucratic procedure, this was the fastest way to implement the end of fluoridation. (she did not author the regulations, she just signed them, which the prior government refused to sign)
• The "Huge news issue" of the end of fluoridation was indeed noticed through every major news outlet in Israel (ie. all the references) at the day of German Signing the Regulations (April 11, 2013)
• The signed regulations state (regulation #40) that Public water fluoridation will end 1 year from the legal commencing of the regulations
• The legal commencing date of the regulations is August 25, 2013
• Public water fluoridation will end by law 1 year from August 25, 2013. (same editor)79.178.104.72 (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And still no RS stating that this will happen on the date you provided.--Daffydavid (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave a link to ministry of health website where it is written when these regulations are officially commencing August 25, 2013 + a link to the regulations themselves from the ministry of health website. regulation #40 states that fluoridation will end 1 year from the date these regulations have commenced. there is no ambiguity. (same editor)109.66.59.99 (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

#3 Addition to Statements against water fluoridation

American political advocacy group, John Birch Society (JBS) opposes the fluoridation of public water supplies on the grounds that it is an involuntary mass medical treatment that violates individual rights.

• http://reason.com/archives/2001/12/05/impurifying-our-precious-bodil
• http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/15554-portland-oregon-votes-down-plan-to-fluoridate-its-water-again
• http://www.jbs.org/about-jbs/myths-vs-facts (same editor of previous requests)79.177.33.236 (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Opposition to fluoridation was never a major action item of any JBS campaign. Yawn --Daffydavid (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE covers this I believe..... --Mdann52talk to me! 14:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

JBS have been notable for their position to fluoridation since the 60s :"The society opposed water fluoridation, which it called "mass medicine"[41] and saw as a communist plot to poison Americans.[42]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society#1960s

This addition also fulfills the same requirements that as the established list in the article(same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

#4 Addition to Statements against water fluoridation

Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) which represents professional employees at the headquarters offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oppose water fluoridation. In 2005 they have stated on behalf of a coalition of EPA Unions: "We, the undersigned representatives of a majority (eleven) of EPA’s employee unions, are requesting that you direct the Office of Water to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking setting the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride at zero, in accordance with Agency policy for all likely or known human carcinogens."

Sources:

• http://www.epw.senate.gov/107th/hir_0629.htm
• http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/02/22/epa-reverses-fluoride/
• http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/01/fluoride-drinking-water-regulations.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/10/AR2008031002371.html
• http://www.hotpress.com/news/US-Environmental-Protection-Agency-Union-opposes-fluoridation/9840187.html(same editor as previous requests)79.177.33.236 (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a medical article, so all references should not only be WP:RS, but to be more specific they need to comply to WP:MEDRS, especially where medical or scientific claims are being sourced. Most of the sources being provided for addition are not MEDRS. Ochiwar (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: WP:UNDUE; We generally do not include direct quotations of legislation in articles.

--Mdann52talk to me! 14:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: refusal to add Statements against water fluoridation

Four additions for the 'Statements against water fluoridation' section need NPOV editors to review and comment. 79.180.147.42 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The continuing, aggressive, repetitive assault on this article by those advocating against fluoridation is unhelpful and disappointing but revealing. The fact that the most virulent messages arise from editors focused on this single-issue detracts from their credibility - they demonstrate little or no ability to edit calmly other technical articles. The fact that these editors rarely have even mildly informative user pages also diminishes their standing on a complex topic where major health organizations (ADA, CDC in the U.S.) have weighed in repeatedly.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I find the demurrals offered by Daffydavid, HiLo48, Ochiwar, and others to be sensible and aligned with the spirit of Wikipedia's content and sourcing policies. Particular concerns surround problems of undue weight: providing excessive (and potentially unbalanced) coverage of what seem to often be minor (and/or non-current) positions of relatively minor groups. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole bogus arguments which have been presented by those who oppose the additions are nothing more than smoke and mirrors for thier real motivation: they don't want water fluoridation to appear to have legitimate opposition. They tend to ignore the obvious, they are the ones who are in violation of WP:Fringe they are the ones violating POV and undue-weight in this article:

Water fluoridation is a fringe practice among nations worldwide. According to the British Fluoridation Society (2012) : Most developed nations do not fluoridate their water. In western Europe, only 3% of the population consumes fluoridated water. While 25 countries out of 193 worldwide have water fluoridation programs, 11 of these countries have less than 20% of their population consuming fluoridated water: Argentina (19%), Guatemala (13%), Panama (15%), Papa New Guinea (6%), Peru (2%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), South Korea (6%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Vietnam (4%). Only 11 countries [2014 only 10] in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%). In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population. There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.

The dubious and minute, water fluoridation practice is diminishing not increasing. Israel termination of its fluoridation practice is one current example.

What's even more ironic and ridiculous is this very article is about the controversy, for which the opposition view (representing the majority of countries in the world) is censored(same editor as before)79.180.147.42 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You are proposing sources that are not reliable for medical statements. Consequently, your proposals are being rejected. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Enric Naval, my suggested additions are identical in their scope and wording to the material already established in that section. see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy#Statements_against_water_fluoridation

The purpose of that section is to list the notable opposition to water fluoridation and summarize their position.(the original editor))109.67.143.145 (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, that sounds reasonable. I think that each proposal should be assesed on its own merits. Personally, I would only add #5, and only because it had enough impact to get responses from the national government. And more weight should be given to the responses given by the government. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Enric Naval, that's strange, actually #2 has had the most impact - The ending of fluoridation practice in a country (Israel). and according to you weight should be given to the government decision to end fluoridation and not to its critics. Nevertheless, all the additions achieve notability(same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, #2 is also good, although the proposed text looks unbalanced (only includes the arguments against? it doesn't mention the reduced rate of caries?) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

#5, It took the governments 5 years to respond to FAN and I see he was but 1 of numerous presenters at the event. Was this the only response to a presenter? I'm still not convinced of WP:NOTABILITY. But if we did decide to include it the sentence needs to change to reflect the fact that the government reports refuted or dismissed each item on the list.--Daffydavid (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary source reporting that the government reports "refuted or dismissed each item on the list" ? if not, it conflicts with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. (same editor)79.181.5.72 (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the Wiki policies you linked. You want to use the Israeli gov't regs but the gov't reports here are OR, that's too funny. Please make up your mind. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh i understand them perfectly, that's why your usual strategy of misusing them is not working with me.

I am not stating a personal opinion (WP:OR, WP:NPOV)) if the israeli new regulations are good or bad, i use them for direct quotation as to when water fluoridation will end in Israel. its not an interpretation. What you are trying to do is to state your opinion about the irish/New Zealand rebuttals. for an opinion about if they have "refuted or dismissed each item on the list" you will need to find a Secondary source commentary. (same editor)109.66.59.99 (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment -- Only here for the RFC Something about this subject seems to sap rationality, let alone restraint, and I don't have time for religious sectarian violence. The title (and I should have hoped, the topic) of the article is: "Water fluoridation controversy", a topic of reporting & history, not advocacy. The sub-text and much of the text of this RFC seem to be: "Water fluoridation evils and how the conspiracy should be stamped out." If that is your doctrine, live with it in good dental/mental health, but what does it have to do with this topic? The material objections, alternatives and recommendations are matters of fact, and they and their supporting citations belong in elucidation of facts in Water fluoridation. How you think it should be stamped out or who is wearing haloes or hero badges or black hats belongs in your local political rag or church newsletter, not in an encyclopaedia. This is independent of the notoriety or competence of the sources, which should meet the standards applicable to any other article, and the spittle and abuse do not override such standards. JonRichfield (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment -- only here for the RFC Something about this subject saps rationality -- I agree. Like vaccination, people have long associated it with whatever bogeyman they were afraid of; vaccination was long associated with a Jewish plot and water fluoridation was associated with Communists, as in Dr. Strangelove. Any arguments against water fluoridation would need to be supported by multiple peer-reviewed scientific articles. The word "fluoride" in the abstract of a Lancet or Nature paper is not enough. To support a specific claim, there would need to be a reference to a study with a large sample size, a control group that differs from the experimental group only in the consumption or non-consumption of fluoride, and a clear, statistically significant conclusion.

The fact that various groups have said they oppose water fluoridation is not relevant. There are specific groups whose purpose is to oppose fluoridation of water; their opinions are only scientifically relevant if they can be supported by research of the type I just mentioned. As for unions and other otherwise-neutral groups who have decided to oppose fluoridation, I have personal experience with politics of that sort, and I can tell you decisions like that are usually made by a small group of people and do not necessarily represent the majority of the membership. (Someone will hold a meeting on the subject, get a quorum and pass a resolution.) At any rate, there are countless thousands of NGOs that are each entitled to an opinion, and the purpose of this article is not to state the opinions of those organizations (which would be an argument from authority). Even whole countries do not necessarily stop fluoridation because of the "risks" (even if they try to wrap it up that way, politically); they probably stop for financial reasons, as there are more cost-effective ways of fluoridating teeth, especially with the increase in bottled water consumption.

The article is intended to provide reliable scientific information about the controversy on fluoridated water, not to say who is and who is not against it. Roches (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

#5 Addition to Statements against water fluoridation

Leading water fluoridation critic(1)(2), Paul Connett, emeritus professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University and executive director of the Fluoride Action Network(3), one of the largest organizations opposing water fluoridation(4), compiled and presented to the *Irish Fluoridation Forum in October 2000 "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation".(5)(6), The paper led the Department of Health of Ireland and the Ministry of Health of New Zealand in 2005 to post their rebuttal to Connet's paper(7)(8), to which Connett responded.(9)

References:

• (1) The National Council Against Health Fraud: http://www.ncahf.org/digest13/13-15.html
• (2) Physicians for Social Responsibility: http://www.psr.org/chapters/oregon/paul-connett.html
• (3) Chemical & Engineering News: https://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8436gov1.html
• (4) Canadian Dental Hygienists Association: http://www.cdha.ca/pdfs/Profession/Resources/ProbeFluoride.pdf
• (5) BMJ: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001050/ (Reference #21)
• (6) Aust New Zealand Health Policy (Journal): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222595/ (References #57, #84)
• (7) Department of Health (Ireland): http://www.dohc.ie/other_health_issues/dental_research/
• (8) Ministry of Health (New Zealand): http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/response-50-reasons-oppose-fluoridation_1.pdf
• (9) http://web.archive.org/web/20120327021832/http://www.fluoridealert .org/50reasons.ireland.pdf
• * http://www.fluoridationforum.ie/ (same editor as previous requests)79.180.147.42 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm seeing an RFC and mentions of DRN. Please address this through those venues before attempting additional requests here. --ElHef (Meep?) 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

FAN is considered a non-RS source as per discussion at [[WP:RSN] and I'd have to look it up again, but I'm pretty sure they may even be blacklisted. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Now that's funny, did you even read the links you provided IP79, the first one I clicked on randomly Canadian Dental Hygienists Association not only supports water fluoridation but actually recommends expanding it. I guess we should use this source as a supporting statement then. What do you think? --Daffydavid (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

My 2nd random click on your list(the one with no number)http://www.fluoridationforum.ie/ led me to an old page, so I clicked through to the updated page - http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/faq/ which fully supports fluoridation. Shall we use this source too? To use your suggested edit would completely violate WP:WEIGHT. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid, I'll tell you what's funny - this article is called 'Water fluoridation controversy'. This very article existence, establishes that there is indeed a controversy. My additions are listing the figures/bodies that represent the opposing side of the controversy, without them - there is no opposing side. but that is really your intention, so what you need to do, is to nominate this article for deletion. Because no suggested addition + the current established list in the article meet the 'Daffydavid criteria' for notable opposition. according to your pseudo-reasoning you presented so far - there is no water fluoridation controversy at all.(same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I thank for such high praise "Daffydavid criteria" I can feel my head swelling with pride. But I feel that since you hold me in such high esteem that I should point out that addressing the concerns raised in a point by point manner would be a much more effective use of your time. The sources you provided don't validate your suggestion, but rather refute it. I predict you won't address the concerns raised but will instead continue attacking editors (me in particular). --Daffydavid (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The links in source #5 and #6 are identical(why they list the same link as 57 and 84 in #6 is beyond me) and it is to blacklisted website \bfluoridealert\.org\b. Source #2 links to a different page on the same blacklisted website. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Why should i address deliberate nonsense ? "My suggestion" is- Leading water fluoridation critic Paul Connett head of one the largest organization opposing water fluoridation presented to the Irish Fluoridation Forum in October 2000 "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation" and that paper got responses from 2 different governments health agencies.

How do my sources not validate this statement?

How do they refute this statement? (same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Because you are cherry-picking statements piecemeal to support the conclusion you wish to make. To place this line would completely violate WP:WEIGHT. One guy with a family run organization is not WP:NOTABLE and what you are trying to insert is WP:OR, if however you find a WP:RS source (news organization - Guardian, ABC, NY Times, etc.) saying what your edit suggestion says then we would be getting somewhere. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You are basicaly describing, the whole of wikipedia as cherry-picking. i find it quite amusing. According to You he in not notable, Six quality sources epitomize him as the opposition to water fluoridation. Two ministries of health found him and his work notable enough to write rebuttals. And WP:OR certainly doesn't apply here, since non of the sources depict him other than a fluoridation critic. As usual you misue Wikipedia policies.

As i have commented earlier, according to the 'Daffydavid standard' there is no opposition to water fluoridation, and this very article violates WP:WEIGHT.

Your line of reasoning is attacking the existence of this article itself. Get the article deleted and you'll have a case (same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Six quality sources, lol. Reread my previous comment(s) which you have chosen to ignore and do try to respond to the request(s), unless of course you can't find a source to satisfy the request, then please continue with the attacks since you have obviously decided to ignore WP:NPA. Reread WP:OR, it applies to way you are trying to justify your sentence. It is completely applicable here. Repeating yourself over and over again and ignoring requests for RS sources just wastes everybody's time. --Daffydavid (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Re "Leading water fluoridation critic(1)(2), Paul Connett, emeritus professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University and executive director of the Fluoride Action Network" Paul Connett is long retired from a tiny (non-research) school. He has almost zero publications in peer-reviewed journals. Look at the St. Lawrence University website and look him up. He's a nobody in the scientific scene. He has received no external recognition. Wikipedia once had a Wikipedia article on Fluoride Action Network (FAN), but editors decided that FAN was too flimsy to merit an article. FAN is run by Connett and his wife and one son. It is literally a mom and pop (and son) organization. And pop (as well as mom and son) has no scientific stature.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Eight of the references demonstrate that Connet is viewed as a leading and influential water fluoridation opponent.

Connet also co-authored perhaps the most scholarly and notable, opposition to water fluoridating books. "The Case against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There". A review of the book in a legitimate journal doi:10.1080/09581596.2011.593350 describes Connet as "A leading Academic from the USA" and praises the book as "well researched and cogently argued".

2000, Nobel Laureate for Medicine Arvid Carlsson in his review of the book wrote "Sweden rejected fluoridation in the 1970s and, in this excellent book, these three scientists have confirmed the wisdom of that decision. (the original editor)79.178.6.210 (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Further more, Connett is is invited by Environmental organizations worldwide to come and lecture on the the subject, and gets media notice of his visit by local major media such as in Israel and in New Zealand (same editor as above)79.178.6.210 (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• So, he's an opponent of fluoridation who is famous for being an opponent of fluoridation who can be labeled a scientist. He is not notable in any way for any scientific works whatsoever. This is circular reasoning at its most primitive. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

FAN is blacklisted on Wikipedia, the link I provided above is in fact the web address for FAN and this is why #9 in the list provided by IP ed is not linked properly, because it can't be added to Wikipedia. --Daffydavid (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's get back on track here:

• The discussion is not about fluoridealert.org blacklisting. fluoridealert.org has been blacklisted from wikipedia on the account of a technicality - spamming.
• The discussion is not about FANs WP:RS status on Wikipedia] (FAN WP:RS discussion). "FAN is run by Connett and his wife and one son" , if you describe it like that so is Quackwatch, FAN is advised largely by PhDs with reputations fluoridealert.org/about/team/ and has been covered numerous times in the media fluoridealert.org/about/fan_news/ .

Both administrative sanctions appear to be pro fluoridation supporters work to censor the leading opposition group from Wikipedia.

• The discussion is about the the individual suggested for addition for the 'Against' section - Paul Connet + his '50 reasons' paper.Does this fulfill WP:Notability for "Statements against" section ? Yes. Are the references WP:RS? Yes (same editor)79.178.104.72 (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned already Connet is not notable by himself and his 50 paper is linked back to FAN in your "reliable sources". The coffin nail has been driven in this edit suggestion. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It's says a lot about the weakness of your pro fluoridation arguments that you crave to censor your opposition view. Unfortunately for you i have linked to two articles in two legitimate journals one of them being BMJ that use the link to FAN 50 reasons in their own references. So go ahead - challenge these 2 journals as being non WP:RS.

I have provided 8 references proving notability. I have not seen 1 challenge to the references WP:RS. what's also quite ironic is that your very side (reference #1) describes Connett as "Leading water fluoridation critic". speaking of nails in your coffin.. (same editor)109.66.59.99 (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

#6 Addition to Statements against water fluoridation

the following paragraph should be added to "Statements against water fluoridation" section:

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) at the 2011 LULAC national convention in Cincinnati, adopted a resolution against public water fluoridation, stating "fluoridation is mass medication of the public through the public water supply; and...current science shows that fluoridation chemicals pose increased risk to sensitive subpopulations, including infants, the elderly, diabetics, kidney patients, and people with poor nutritional status; and...minority communities are more highly impacted by fluorides as they historically experience more diabetes and kidney disease; and...minorities are disproportionately harmed by fluorides as documented by increased rates of dental fluorosis (disfiguration and discoloration of the teeth)"

References:

• http://lulac.org/advocacy/resolutions/2011/resolution_Civil_Rights_Violation_Regarding_Forced_Medication/
• http://www.cnbc.com/id/101505824

Doesn't look like a reliable source by WP:MEDRES standards. Associations of citizens are not reliable sources of medical statements? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Enric Naval, our discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation_controversy#RfC:_refusal_to_add_Statements_against_water_fluoridation, applies here too.(same ip)79.178.6.210 (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. But this is "only" a citizen organization. It has some little problems:

• should we list every organization of citizens that has made a statement "pro" or "against"? (pro hint: this only works in obscure topics, where there are very few statements available to choose from. For example, in Laundry ball I got away with listing the statement of every consumer organization, because there are only a few statements)
• Do we list only statements that had an influence on real-world politics of fluoridation? (pro hint: by default we assume that there was no influence, we need to find a RS to establish an influence)

--Enric Naval (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note to Israeli IP 79.* and 109.*- Please pause and read replies

To the editor posting from the Israeli ISP, using IP addresses beginning with 79.* or 109.*:

• Please slow down! With the exception of this message, you have created all of the new sections on this talk page. You're up to seven new sections in two days, and I'm concerned that you're not allowing time to discuss your proposed edits.
• Stop and read the responses to your edit requests. A little over a day ago, Technical13 responded to (and rejected) two of your edit requests with the explanation that you should establish a consensus in favor of your requests before a change would be made to the article. Five hours later, you created another edit request (your fifth consecutive request) without engaging in any prior discussion to establish consensus first. Six hours after that, ElHef responded to (and rejected) that request giving essentially the same advice – resolve the outstanding disputes before requesting additional edits. Eight hours later (as the very next edit to the talk page) you opened your sixth consecutive edit request—again, without making any effort to discuss the edit in advance. You're getting specific, explicit information about why your requests are getting rejected, but you're not making use of it.
• Quality is better than quantity. Take a moment to figure out what the most important edits you would like to suggest are. Figure out if and how they are compatible with Wikipedia's policies, especially those on reliable sourcing (particularly sourcing for medical claims) and neutral point of view (especially with regards to giving appropriate weight to coverage of different sources and views). Present a persuasive but concise argument. Participate in – but don't try to dominate or overwhelm by sheer volume – the discussion. Be prepared to accept that other editors may differ in their interpretation of these Wikipedia policies, but note that a patient, civil, calm approach will never be less effective than spraying a large number of edit requests and dispute resolution notices and hoping something sticks. If your editing continues to make this talk page essentially unusable for other editors, then it is likely that technical steps – blocks of your IP address, or semi-protection of this talk page – will be taken.
• Consider registering an account. Because you're unregistered (and your ISP has not provided you with a static IP address) your edits to this talk page come from a range of addresses; there's no way to direct a personal message – like this one – to you specifically, so editors are left with leaving messages on talk pages (like this one!) where we hope you'll stumble across them.

I hope that some of that helps. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, i thank you for your time and post. let me explain:

my additions are identical to the requirements fulfilled by the present 'against statements' section. actually mine are much thoroughly cited. This is a clear indication that the real reason behind the rejection has nothing to do with WP:Notability (which has been established) and WP:RS (which have been presented).

Just see the first addition, discussion. every time a "demand" is fulfilled, a new excuse is given. Daffydavid at first, thought he could seal the case with bullshit so he intentionaly misused and accused my addition of violating WP:RS+WP:CV, but when i simply quoted the authentic meaning of those policies, he then attacked with WP:Notability, and also went on to demand i prove EWG integrity. this is what i had to deal with - a complete intellectual charlatan. and nobody here said a word about this.

There was one legitimate and authentic comment on the first addition discussion made by Technical 13. he asked for further secondary sources on top of the primary, showing EGW stance on fluoridation. i added 5, from major media. This is where the Addition should have been accepted.

but Daffydavid had to find a way to stop the addition at all cost so he changed to intention of Technical 13 and invented a rule "sources from 2006 are to old" to prove EWG WP:Notability, funny ha?

Just for the sheer exercise i added 12 citation just for the month of Feb 2014. for WP:Notability. but off-course Daffydavid clings to my own description "Leading organization". nothing is never enough. like filing paperwork to leave East-Germany.

The same thing happened with perhaps the most profound implication (cessation of fluoridation in israel) and heavily cited addition (#2). i understood that the same game is being applied there too. this is where i tried (first time i ever did) to initiate some kind of outside arbitration, with the limited knowledge i had on such processes.

Do you get now why "Good Faith" is down the drain? "patient, civil, calm approach" are for legitimate and honest discourse. none has happened here so far (except for your last post).

Non of the present material in that section qualify to the "Daffydavid standard" which, off-course - is not to allow any addition to the fluoridation opposing side.

When i asked for the DRM (against Daffydavid and HiLo48) i finally got the glimpse for the real reason for the rejection, and that all the discussion was just hocus-pocus to mask the real intention . in HiLo48 (the Sarcastic "Yawn" editor), DRM words "fairly dramatic change to the POV of the article". so all those comments had nothing to do with Notability,RS,CV,Primary etc. just an exercise to discourage and try to belittle a contributor to wikipedia. Which i find nothing short of despicable. (the editor you refer to)109.67.143.145 (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

While I understand that you are feeling frustrated, choosing to level attacks against editors who have disagreed with you, and continuing to make hyperbolic accusations of bad faith against them, isn't ever going to help your case.

Also consider that different editors may disagree with a given (proposed) edit for different reasons; it's not always an instance of gaming the system if different editors present different lines of argument or different policy reasons to reject a particular proposed change. Moreover, it's not always the case that an editor will have the time or inclination – or even necessarily the ability – to immediately and exhaustively list every applicable objection to a given proposed edit; again, this isn't a sign of bad faith or gaming the system.

Please don't read this as an invitation to continue to re-argue the same points, especially not accompanied by further attacks on other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no deadline. Posting and pushing for hurried conclusions as if there is a deadline can be seen as bad faith editing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, Your sole contribution/response to my thoroughly cited #2 Addition request: "Yawn..... HiLo48 (talk)", not can, but has been established as bad faith editing. And now with this 'Wikipedia has no deadline' You just trying to use a different strategy to get rid of these legitimate edit requests. "if we can't kill it, lets just wait for it to die" (same editor)109.67.143.145 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If other editors support your position, it won't die. But so far there hasn't been enough time for most editors interested in this topic to even see this discussion. As a matter of fact, I would like to add a lot more, but happen to be very busy in my off-Internet life right now. Just be patient. There is no need to rush. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

IP79 All the conversations that have happened here are available to everyone so I find your attempts to slander me actually rather humorous. But please read WP:NPA and adhere to it in the future as other editors may not find you so amusing. It would be much more productive if you actually read the replies and addressed the concerns raised than frothing at the mouth with indignation. As I said at your DRM complaint, if other editors found your argument compelling they could approve your edit(s). Since that hasn't happened I imagine it can only be for 1 of 2 reasons, 1- you haven't made your case, or 2- We Wikipedia gate keepers paid by BIG PHARMA are conspiring to stop you, bwahahah (This is sarcasm in case you missed it). --Daffydavid (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Small note :I have registered to wikipedia (the original IP editor), with the following signed nick. LarryTheShark (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is in horrible shape

What precisely is the scope of this article? It is turning into a repository of "statements for" and "statements against" without any real context. Is it supposed to discuss the social, political, historical controversy? There is no real medical controversy, so why is the "against fluoridation" position receiving so much undue weight here? Yobol (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? no real medical controversy ?

"Artificial fluoridation of drinking water reaches the whole population, but is a controversial as a public health measure. Too much fluoride may be harmful, leading to discolouration and even damage to teeth from fluorosis. It has also been suggested that excess fluoride may have other health effects. " http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/

"Thus, evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor. This is reflected in the recommendations of the Medical Research Council (MRC)13 and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline14 on preventing and managing dental decay in preschool children (box 3). We know of no subsequent evidence that reduces the uncertainty."

"Public and professional bodies need to balance benefits and risks, individual rights, and social values in an even handed manner. Those opposing fluoridation often claim that it does not reduce caries and they also overstate the evidence on harm.21 On the other hand, the Department of Hea
lth's objectivity is questionable—it funded the British Fluoridation Society and, along with many other supporters of fluoridation, it used the York review's findings9 selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation.22 In response to MRC recommendations,13 the department commissioned research on the bioavailability of fluoride from naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. The study had only 20 participants and was too small to give reliable results. Despite this and the caveats in the report's conclusion,23 this report formed the basis of a series of claims by government for the safety of fluoridation.24

Against this backdrop of one sided handling of the evidence, the public distrust in the information it receives is understandable." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001050/ LarryTheShark (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have been living under a rock for the last umpteen years, the controversy is about the fact that there is yet no scientific agreement on fluoridation. One can liken it to Newton's laws of motion, the two forces are equal and opposite -currently.

A little lesion in the ways of the World: Heath Care is an Industry. People working with in it are just like you and me – If the boss tells you to do something.. you do it – or at the next headcount one might might be looking for another job. Although the administrator might have been to medical school they are never the less, just very pressurized desk drivers and politicians. If they think fluoridation, satins, lithium salts (in the water to reduce the incidence of domestic violence – yes, lithium salts! I kid you not), etc., is a good idea – they get an underling to cheery pick some studies. It is not the job of these underlings to evaluate any studies – it is their job to fulfill their bosses desire. Then the anti's come along, show the justification to (say) a toxicologist who say: Ah, yes, but back in those days we did not understand how aluminum crossed the blood brain barrier to cause alzheimer's disease but later studies we are doing now, suggests it is carried over by fluoride. Then the anti's might show it to another toxicologist in a different field who says: Oh, Back the those day that those studies were done, we had no idea how ... and so on and so forth. This is now 2014. Science moves ever forward. Medical? No! The controversy is about scientific doubt, due to the lack of good quality studies that have eliminated confounding errors. --Aspro (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

For any one who hasn't ever held a managerial position, and thinks that administrators that launch these proposals on Health Care initiatives have more that our lowly allowance of 24 hours in the day, to enable them to sit down down and study all the evidence themselves. Then just ask your own GP. (1) How much bumf do you receive each week to read?(2) How much of it do you actually read? The modern heath care system is a dinosaur. People work their way up into management because they dearly want to make the World they live in, a better place and they find themselves snowed under by paperwork. So they have to delegate jobs to underlings that don't know their **** from their ****** --Aspro (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

While I'm sure there is something relevant to this talk page in the above paragraphs, I would suggest that we avoid pontificating on the subject and try to stay focused on the article content/structure. Again, I want to clarify the scope of this article, as opposed to Water fluoridation. Yobol (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The scope of this article (if it is to be encyclopdic at all) should focus on the latest science - not orthadoxy (aka: belief).--Aspro (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, because most published findings are wrong. It should reflect the scientific consensus, not the latest study which may be driven by an agenda. The relevance of any political action to the scientific consensus is of course demonstrated by the Indiana Pi Bill. The claim that there is no scientific agreement is simply false. Lack of unanimity is not lack of agreement. There is a robust consensus that fluoride is safe and an equally robust consensus that it does what it says on the tin. The fact that in communities with good dental hygiene (i.e. the affluent) fluoridation is of marginal utility, does not contradict the fact that for those who are not affluent it is very important. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that that most most published findings are wrong. And yes, the article should not promote the latest support for fluoridation driven by agenda. But then a post above says The claim that there is no scientific agreement is simply false. Funnel plot analysis (which includes papers that are not popularly circulated because they suggest bad tidings) show a lack of scientific certainty when subjected to statistical Funnel plot analysis. I hope one understands the math and the significance of this.
Next: “Lack of unanimity is not lack of agreement. “ Even a school kid could nail the logical fallacy of that statement.
Next:“There is a robust consensus that fluoride is safe and an equally robust consensus that it does what it says on the tin.” Stating that Evidence of absence as valid proof is warned about in medial school as a foolish fallacy. Students also get informed about Medical students' disease too, but many still manage to contract it. Ho, Ho.

"Yes there are, a few, very vocal authorities who's pontifications are widely reported in the media. So, yes, I do agree with you that this article is in a mess. It contains too much Pseudosciences, Pseudoskepticisum and ideological nonsense and unfortunately, pontification like above, are often posted by editors that should know better.--Aspro (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that most individual studies overstate the result, is not a reason for assuming that the tiny minority of studies that show harm are the only ones that are right. Water itself is a dangerous toxin, at the right levels. Virtually every toxic chemical that occurs naturally can be found in water at some concentration, that does not make it unsafe at the concentrations normally found - and yes, the level of fluoride in fluoridated water is well within the range of naturally occurring fluoride levels.

I know that you are a believer in the fluoride is evil conspiracy theories, but I'm afraid they are no more valid now than they were when Kubrick satirised them in Dr. Strangelove. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy, You are talking as if the science behind water fluoridation is solid. nothing can be further from the truth. The UK's major report on water fluoridation, the 2000 York report, It's authors came out with an official statement in 2003 :

"We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.

We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.

This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.

An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.

The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.

Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review. As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or lower level than that included in the York review, no matter how copious, cannot do this.

Another 2007 UK review states it similarly :

""Thus, evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor. This is reflected in the recommendations of the Medical Research Council (MRC)13 and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline14 on preventing and managing dental decay in preschool children (box 3). We know of no subsequent evidence that reduces the uncertainty."

"Public and professional bodies need to balance benefits and risks, individual rights, and social values in an even handed manner. Those opposing fluoridation often claim that it does not reduce caries and they also overstate the evidence on harm.21 On the other hand, the Department of Health's objectivity is questionable—it funded the British Fluoridation Society and, along with many other supporters of fluoridation, it used the York review's findings9 selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation.22

In response to MRC recommendations,13 the department commissioned research on the bioavailability of fluoride from naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. The study had only 20 participants and was too small to give reliable results. Despite this and the caveats in the report's conclusion,23 this report formed the basis of a series of claims by government for the safety of fluoridation.24

Against this backdrop of one sided handling of the evidence, the public distrust in the information it receives is understandable."

LarryTheShark (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It is solid. Water fluoridation is overwhelmingly agreed to be a safe and effective intervention, the benefit is less in affluent communities that already have good dental hygiene and use fluoridated toothpaste, but even there it is measurable. Do not mistake poisoning the well for real evidence-based criticism. The York review states this: "What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth." The science is said to be poor, mainly because it is old. Better science is always good, but the fact remains that even the review you cite concludes benefit. Similar arguments are used to assert that the DoH is not a reliable source on vaccine safety, because it promotes vaccination, and it's baseless for exactly the same reason: the DoH promoted fluoridation because it judges form the evidence that it is safe and effective, that policy would change if credible evidence or harm were presented. There is a lot of similarity between anti fluoridation and anti vaccine conspiracists, and that's not a coincidence. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's your personal belief compared to the conclusions of two reviews encompassing all the data up to 2007. The 2011 EU SCHER report also mentions this “Scientific evidence for the protective effect of topical fluoride application is strong, while the respective data for systemic application via drinking water are less convincing.".

Your comparison of anti fluoridation and anti vaccine is spurious. Every nation on earth practices vaccinations. While most developed nations do not fluoridate their water and only 25 countries out of 193 worldwide have water fluoridation programs.

"According to the British Fluoridation Society (2012) : Most developed nations do not fluoridate their water. In western Europe, only 3% of the population consumes fluoridated water. While 25 countries out of 193 worldwide have water fluoridation programs, 11 of these countries have less than 20% of their population consuming fluoridated water: Argentina (19%), Guatemala (13%), Panama (15%), Papa New Guinea (6%), Peru (2%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), South Korea (6%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Vietnam (4%). Only 11 countries [2014 only 10] in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), {stop in 2014} Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%). In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population. There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.

LarryTheShark (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

New Evidence

The Lancet, the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical journal, recently published a report classifying Fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin. The report puts Fluoride in the same category Arsenic, Lead, and Mercury.

Fluoride is everywhere in the United States. The most obvious place is toothpaste which is why we have written a few articles on organic, safe toothpaste. But fluoride isn’t just found in toothpaste, it’s found in the water supply, bottled water, food, medications and more. So it’s not as easy as you think to avoid this stuff. Fluoride is an accumulative poison and should be avoided at all costs. That’s why many of countries have banned Fluoride use, such as: 99% of western continental Europe has rejected, banned, or stopped fluoridation due to environmental, health, legal, or ethical hazards. Oh and don’t forget China, Austria, Japan, and Hungary, they all banned fluoride too. Just like GMOs, they too are being banned by ENTIRE countries.

Referenced:(http://www.naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/2014/03/3084.html)

(http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laneur/PIIS1474442213702783.pdf?id=baak8dkBlaiXPhJTjuTsu)**Actual Medical Report** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.217.53 (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here on this very talk page. Yobol (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)