Talk:Water fluoridation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Water fluoridation is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2009.


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Water fluoridation. 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) 11:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Water fluoridation. 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) 09:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issues in controversy section[edit]

I have removed the word consensus and also added a better source needed tag to this sentence for the controversy section, that states that consensus has been reached that Fluoridation is safe. However, the whole point of the section is that there is a controversy relating to this concept, and the content above it on the page goes into great lengths to show that fluordiation is in fact safe. Thus this sentence in this section seeks to debunk this WP:FRINGE theory that it is non controversial. The issue is that it is attempting to debunk this theory using a primary source. It is well documented that the ADA states that flurodation is safe, thus using the ADA website is WP:PRIMARY. Note on this page there is no mention of the word consensus, thus this is a summary. We dont do that on wikipedia. For example, Mike Tyson saying he is the best boxer in the world might be true, but we need to find a a few WP:IRS that agree with him before we are going to add it to the wikipedia article. We are not going to use his personal website stating the same. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The ADA are primary for their view as a view, but in general the position of major medical bodies on health topics may simply be asserted as facts about those topics (for which they are secondary) per WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Alex, are you referring to WP:MEDORG?
I agree with you this list of organizations that support fluoridation would be sufficient to use as a secondary source for the purpose of adding organizations in the list to this Wikipedia and other wikipedia articles. However, their view that the world has reached a consensus on fluroridation would be primary, as it is there view (note that they don't assert consensus on the page).
The second more glaring issue is that in fact the ADA doesn't even assert any consensus (which would be their view per above) on this page nor does ADA even use the word consensus on the cited page. It is simply us humble editors reading a long list and assuming that list is 'long enough' to be a conensus. That assumption by us editors is in fact WP:OR on the part of the editor. If we are going to say there is a consensus we need to find an RS that meets MEDORG.
Comments on the above two points?
Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see what your proposal is. All I am saying is that the views of reputable medical organizations are ideal sources, and not suspect on account of WP:PRIMARY. I'd say the ADA meets WP:RS/AC too. Is an actual change being proposed? Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it appears that WP:RS/AC is what applies here. I removed the "consensus" in this edit here Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This change failed verification. This change also failed verification. The entire sentence needs to be rewritten in order to comply with V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Quack, the entirety of text on the source's page only says "National and International Organizations That Recognize the Public Health Benefits of Community Water Fluoridation for Preventing Dental Decay". There is no mention of many, safety, etc. The entire sentence lacks a source and is subject to removal. Your assertion of many vs. some is your own WP:OR. @Alexbrn: I think it was you who removed the tags, please feel free to discuss here next time before removal. I have re-added the tags. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The article says "Many public health authorities find a that water fluoridation at appropriate levels is a safe and effective means to prevent suffering and promote oral health, and generally support fluoridation.[116]"
The source says "National and International Organizations That Recognize the Public Health Benefits of Community Water Fluoridation for Preventing Dental Decay".[1]
Both "some" and "many" fail verification. The source does not mention some or many or any such similar wording. See WP:WEASEL. The source also does not mention safe and effective, among other things. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree, I thought some was a better weasel word than many. But yes, both is us editors trying to create a position out of a list of organizations. Us editors are really just doing WP:OR by putting words in the ADA's mouth. I guess they must have made some other statement about their consenusus and fluoride being safe, so let's delete the text or find a better source. That's how wikipeida works, no crusades for the public good, this page included. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Have removed the tag per WP:MEDRS. It is the position statement of a major medical organization. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit James, feel free to reach consenus here. There is numerous issues with this content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Statements by medical major organizations are reliable secondary sources per MEDRS. This is very basic stuff. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Again you deleted the tag, looking a bit like edit warring. What is the statement this organization is making exactly? The entire text on the page is ""National and International Organizations That Recognize the Public Health Benefits of Community Water Fluoridation for Preventing Dental Decay" and that is far different from the text in the article. If you want to put the text in the article, then simply sumarize it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
RTFM. Your writing It is the position of the ADA that floridation is safe, thus this citation is a primary source is simply incompetent-- Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I might be incompetent, its entirely possible... but you swearing at me on this page and my talk page seems a bit beyond the scope of this discussion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I have added a second statement, this one from WHO. They are easy to find as so many health organizations say this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: this additional source you have added supports the use of fluroide to prevent dental issues, same the other ADA source. That is not disputed. However, neither of those two sources support the safety claim in this sentence, nor do they assert that fluoridation is generally supported. If they are easy to find, then add one that supports the other claims (safety and general acceptance). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
So you are dropping your objection to the source as "primary" - is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
We are dropping the FV content. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
JYT, yes I am dropping the Primary objection as the sentece is currently contstructed by QuackGuru [2]. Thanks QuackGuru for solving this! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Great. I have further tweaked. It is good to get rid of the "some". The safety and effectiveness is dependent on dose (as it always is) which may involve raising or lowering fluoride levels. There are places where the drinking water coming out of the ground has very high fluoride and it needs to be removed! The WHO is especially attuned to that. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The content failed verification using the ADA source.[3] It was introduced here[4] to another article and copied to this article.[5] QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
JYT, we can't change the definition of fluoridation in this small controversy section. It is defined in the article header as "Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay." No mention of removing fluoride. Second it makes no mention it is safe way to prevent tooth decay. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── no definition is being changed. Read the WHO source. 02:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

We are also using the American Dental Association source.
Current wording: Public health authorities in the US and internationally attest that water flouridation, which may involve increasing or decreasing the amount of fluoride present in the water supply, is a safe and effective method to inhibit cavities in children and other vulnerable populations.[116][117] Both sources do not verify the claim. It may be a WP:SYN violation. I am unable to pinpoint where in the WHO source verifies the claim.
Previous wording: Public health authorities in the US and internationally attest to the health benefits of public water fluoridation for inhibiting cavities.[116] Water fluoridation, where possible and culturally agreeable, has considerable benefits especially for subpopulations with an increased risk of developing cavities.[117] The content is sourced to each citation. QuackGuru (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Gah this has gotten all screwed up from people messing with it. It is out of sync with the controversies article now. ffs. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The WHO source says "There is no credible evidence that water fluoridation is associated with any adverse health effects (5, 6)." It doesn't say the word safe, nor does it say that other organizations agree. Want to just say the following?: The WHO says: "there is no credible evidence that water fluoridation is associated with any adverse health effects." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I re-synced it, here. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The current wording: "Public health authorities throughout the world find a medical consensus that water fluoridation at appropriate levels is a safe and effective means to prevent dental caries."
The review says "Nevertheless, for underprivileged groups in both developing and developed countries, the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation has been endorsed, even in recent years, by international and national agencies and dental associations throughout the world"[6]. QuackGuru (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I sure don't see where medical consensus can be construed from this Pizzo source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The part "medical consensus" and "at appropriate levels" failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
It is a summary of that. We summarize sources here. The source talks about raising or lowering fluoride levels to reach appropriate levels. It could be improved by adding something like "for vulnerable populations".... Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
That source is from 2007. We should look and see what more recent reviews say and update this everywhere. Will do that in the morning and post what i find here. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Raising or lowering fluoride levels is not what the international and national agencies and dental associations have endorsed. They endorsed specifically "the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation". Furthermore, what they endorsed does not mean medical consensus. The part about raising or lowering fluoride levels to reach appropriate levels can be added to another section. The wording can tweaked or a newer source can be used. If a newer source is not found soon I or another editor can improve the wording. There is no rush. QuackGuru (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I largely agree, and would like to see a source that says "safe" if we want to use that in this section and if that cannot be sourced then we put in the section what we can source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
JYT, you seem to have edited the content on the page again using the Pizzo G source. This source fails verification relating to medical consensus and safety. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There is more content that failed verification. The part about "medical consensus that water fluoridation at appropriate levels is a safe and effective means to prevent dental caries" entirely failed verification. Adding "for vulnerable populations" would also fail verification. Public health authorities endorsed "the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation". The part about medical consensus blatantly failed verification because the source said "has been endorsed,...". The part endorsed does not mean there is medical consensus. Also the part about "at appropriate levels" and "means to prevent dental caries" is a WP:SYN violation. We are supposed to summarize the source. It is not a summary. It is poorly written. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I am a bit confused. You have created a list of sources in the talk page section below you titled Source Review. As QuackGuru noted, this content you keep adding fails verfication. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I understand that you are confused. The current content is fine given the sources that are there now. The article needs to be updated with the refs below to maintain its FA status. I am working on getting back to that. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Whether the content is updated or not the current wording fails verification. I explained the problems with the current wording in detail. QuackGuru (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
There is only one source for the sentence we are discussing, what do you mean by "sources"...i understand the plural to mean more than one. I tagged the offending content for a second time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The only person supporting you here is Quackguru, whose editing privileges are hanging by a thread that is extremely close to breaking (you can search ANI to see for yourself). If you want to improve this article, please review the MEDRS sources below and draft new language. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to propose more text from the sources below, be my guest. But the existing text fails verification, so it needs to be discussed and deleted if you cant find a source to support your claim. It has nothign to do with the new sources you are proposing, nor do I need to propose more content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It is true that you don't need to do anything and no one said you that you needed to do anything. The failed verification claim you are making is incorrect, but there is no point arguing over content that is going to be re-sourced soon; the claim in the content is not "mine" btw. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
In this edit [7] you removed the tag and stated "(Do that again and I will bring you to EWN and you will likely be blocked.)" in your edit notes. Please explain what is EWN why I would be blocked for tagging content. Second, what is your justification for deleting the tag? That was the second time you have deleted the tag on the content you added. Looks like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: I noted your edit [8] and which continues to use to the Pizzo abstract as the sole RS. This content, post your trimming still fails verification. There is nothing in this abstract that points to safety and this source actually contradicts the content, with the source stating "Moreover, the caries reduction directly attributable to water fluoridation have declined in the last decades as the use of topical fluoride had become more widespread, whereas enamel fluorosis has been reported as an emerging problem in fluoridated areas." Please comment, thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I very much doubt Doc is using just the abstract, but citing the whole paper. Editors must not use sources they haven't read: WP:NOABSTRACT. Jtbobwaysf you're not doing that are you? Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The Pizzo et al. 2007 study is referenced 11 times in the article, yet no mention that the author concluded based on existing studies at the time, that flouridating water may be unnecessary for caries prevention. - The article is using this study in a selective way. Kudos, it is actually mentioned, in the large lede. prokaryotes (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Looking at authorities

For the WHO Inadequate or Excess Fluoride: A Major Public Health Concern (2010) is the most recent summary; it says the same thing as their most recent long report which is from 2011 but based on old refs: Guidelines for drinking-water quality, fourth edition (2011) (see p 372). The WHO really emphasizes getting the level righ, taking into account the whole world, where many regions have endogenous water fluoride levels that are too high.
ADA's most recent policy statement from 2015 is here.
CDC's page is here, was last updated in 2016.
For the EU, the Scherr report (2010) is still the most recent.

Looking at the literature:

PMID 26092033 2015 Cochrane review
PMID 28243675 2017 on risk perception and publication. (has free full text and is interesting for the consensus and the controversy: "Responses to low-hazard, high-outrage risks often begin by asking why many highly beneficial activities, such as drinking-water fluoridation, should raise such levels of public concern when multiple scientific studies have established that the risks are very low.3,4 However, 60 years of research into the determinants of risk perception now provide considerable insight into this question.....This research identifies multiple ‘fright factors’ that tend to amplify people’s concern or outrage.5,6 These include the degree to which people feel they have control over the risk; the degree to which they dread its consequences; whether the risk is perceived as natural or human-made; and the degree to which it is familiar. Control has a substantial impact – people have much lower perceptions of risk when they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are in control of the risk. When it is not possible to control a hazard directly, trust in an expert or government regulator gives a sense of control by proxy. When control-by-proxy measures – such as laws and government safety processes – fail to keep people safe, outrage results."
PMID 27352462 (2016) available free full text. pp78-70 deal with water fluoridation. "Provided that a community has a piped water supply, water fluoridation is the most effective method of reaching the whole population, so that all social classes benefit without the need for active participation on the part of individuals. Water fluoridation has been endorsed by the world’s leading science and health organizations, including WHO, the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), and FDI World Dental Federation." (p 78) and p79 has a long discussion of safety and consistently says "The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health"

There you go... Jytdog (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Are any of these sources used in the article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't intend to keep deeply involved here, but I'll note this is an FA, so these sources jolly well should be being used. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: What does FA mean? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:FA. Alexbrn (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
It probably shouldn't be though. --John (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have let these sit a bit to folks a time to review them. I'll start updating the article with them tomorrow. Just going to move one step at a time... Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Water fluoridation. 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) 09:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)