Talk:American Dental Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fair use rationale for Image:LogoADA.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:LogoADA.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Other internet websites[edit]

I have removed the statement:

The ADA has purchased internet websites with names that mimic those of prominent websites that do not favor fluoridation. The ADA redirects visitors from the websites and to their own pro-fluoridation pages. The domain names of these websites are parodies of safe water sites and

There are several reasons why I have removed such statements. 1) Does Wikipedia really need to begin listing all the websites purchased by the ADA? Is that information really important? I say no. The information is not relevant to describing the dental association. 2) The domain names are not parodies- they are common misspellings. 3) and FluorideAlert are best described, not as "safe water" sites, but as "Extremist and fringe sources" as described in WP:RS. Those websites perpetuate a theory of fluoridation that is "held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field." The text added to the article has less to do with the American Dental Association and more to do with trying to stir up a controversy with water fluoridation. - Dozenist talk 15:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How many other websites has the American Dental Association purchased? I would be very interested to know what other url's ADA owns, and for what purpose.

ADA has purchased the misspelled domain names. There does not appear to be any dispute in that fact. The misspelled hotlinks speak for themselves. When the domain names in question are spelled correctly, they link to websites that do not favor water fluoridation. That fact also appears to be agreed upon. The information is relevant because it supports the well established and documented fact that ADA favors water fluoridation. The purchase of the misspelled domain names is part of the ADA campaign promoting water fluoridation.

May we now remove those unsightly neutrality scales from the section? Petergkeyes (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please supply the reliable sources (so no anti floride advocacy sites) that state clearly what you say "speaks for themselves". Without it, you are engaging in Original Research. Click on the link to find out why we don't do that in Wikipedia. I will add a cite tag. Shot info (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Shot Info. Which sections of the paragraph do you object to, and what would you do to correct them?

The reliable sources that you seek are actually the very misspelled domain names in question. If you click on all the links in the paragraph, it tells the entire, rather simple story of the ADA purchasing copycat website domain names. There is no need for additional citations. The cite tag should be removed.

This is most certainly not original research. You seem to have misunderstood what I meant with the phrase, "speaks for themselves." In this instance, I was not referring to the relative merits of the contents of the aforementioned websites. I was simply pointing out the fact that the ADA actively redirects people from one type of advocacy website to a competing advocacy website with a dramatically different viewpoint. Manual testing of the different spellings verifies this fact. These redirects are a noteworthy component of the ADA's innovativeness when it comes to water fluoridation promotion. This is a clever and proactive vehicle for delivering their message. ADA has owned these domain names for years. This irrefutable information belongs on the Wikipedia page for the American Dental Association. Petergkeyes (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review the wikipedia policy. Do you have a source that states "simple story of the ADA purchasing copycat website domain names"? Or are you just guessing that this is indeed true? If you don't have a source, then you don't have a source - which in Wikipedia terms is called OR. This is quite basic and the cite tag should remain until such time that a source of the information is provided. And per RS, the source needs to be from a reliable source. Shot info (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I know you were talking to Shot Info, but I still do not believe this information is notable enough to be mentioned in the article about the American Dental Association. I can only imagine similar content being placed in other organizations and companies, and thinking the content would not be notable. And further, to say that "the ADA actively redirects people from one type of advocacy website to a competing advocacy website" is misleading. First of all, the ADA has no control of the "advocacy" websites and FluorideAlert. Thus, the ADA cannot be redirecting people from those websites to its own website. Second, it would be more accurate to describe the information on and FluorideAlert as "Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories," as described on WP:RS. The ADA is not an equivalent organization, and instead would be considered a reliable source. - Dozenist talk 01:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dozenist, I agree with you, however the world isn't going to end tomorrow, so let's see if there are any relevant sources. And if there isn't, then we do what WP:RS tells us to do, which is remove the information. FWIW the information is rather non notability, and looks like a whole lot of OR to me, but I'm willing to leave it in for the next week or so to see if anybody can substanciate all these assumptions about what the ADA is actually doing. Shot info (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

One relevant sources for this information is the website of the American Dental Association. The domain names, and are parts of the ADA website, substantiating their notability within this topic.

Dozenist missed the subtlety in the misspelling of the ADA owned domains. ADA does not redirect from fluoridealert.ORG. ADA redirects from fluoridealert.COM. Therefore, if a websurfer was seeking the website of the Fluoride Action Network, but accidentally typed in, rather than the very similar, they would have trouble finding the Fluoride Action Network website. This is due to the fact that ADA's property,, parodies, or mimics the domain name of the Fluoride Action Network. Same goes for (please note misspelling).

Does anyone dispute that these domain names are intened to mimic the websites and It would be improper to remove material from the ADA website, on the American Dental Association Wikipedia page, with "unreliable source" as the complaint. Petergkeyes (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I dispute that these domain names are intened to mimic the websites and Please supply sources that clearly articulate your arguement. Without sources you are engaging in original research and as such, editors are well within policy to remove such material. Shot info (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on Peter, a side remark from a syndicated newpaper column with some rather childish remarks. I expected better. Not only that, it only covers one of the "problem" addresses. I expected some industry sources, not some minor journalist. Shot info (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ADA position on infant formula and fluoride[edit]

This recent edit reinserted the following text to American Dental Association #Advocacy the following text:

"In November 2006, the ADA began recommending to parents that infants from 0 through 12 months of age have their formula prepared with water that is fluoride-free or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis."

Although well-sourced, this insertion fails the WP:WEIGHT test, as it emphasizes just one of the many positions of the ADA, without any reliable source to verify the claim that this position is worth emphasizing over all the others. This insertion should be reverted. If there is to be more detail about the ADA's positions, the detail should reflect what reliable sources say about all the positions, with proper WP:WEIGHT according to the reliable sources. Eubulides (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't mind it being in there. There was a better worded version previously that was deleted. Yes, its largely trivia - and the ADA has lots and lots of similar recommendations (that are not on this page) but it may as well stay up for the mean time. Could it be tagged with a 'primary' tag or something? Maybe Peter can provide a tertiary source (not FAN or the like) that shows why this particular snippet of info is required? Shot info (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I tagged it with {{Importance-section}}. Peter, can you provide a reliable source supporting the highlighting of this particular position of the ADA? Eubulides (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Dental Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)