Talk:Water fluoridation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

 This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.

(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

/archive

Contents

[edit] Duplication

Either the controversy should be fully discussed in this article or it should be fully discussed in water fluoridation controversy and merely summarized here. It should not be rehashed in both to the substantial degree that it is right now. For reasons I originally articulated months ago, I think it should merely be summarized here and fully explained in the controversy article. - Jersyko·talk 04:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Additionally, as I come back from my Wikibreak, I see that this article has been substantially expanded to highlight the controversy. This is violative of NPOV, imo. - Jersyko·talk 04:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Only issues concerning "water fluoridation" should be discussed here and I think they basically are. See the prior discussion. The last arrangement was a pro fluoridation page in the water fluoridation page which was not NPOV. As discussed, the prior page failed to include health effects of fluoridation as well which deviates from other medications on Wikiepdia.

The only use for the water fluoridation controversy is if people want to make an article about the individuals advocating for or against water fluoridation.

--Editmore 08:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I do not see how a long intro makes the article not NPOV. A number of people have worked hard to remove the POV language throughout the article and it is cited pretty well.

--Editmore 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The long intro does not make the article POV, it makes the article unweildy and non-conforming with standard Wikipedia style. I disagree with you that the older version of the article was POV, however, even if it was, the current version is unacceptably POV as it is far too slanted toward emphasizing the controversy. I understand you had a recent discussion about this with another editor (who disagreed with you, might I add). Note, however, that an even older discussion took place months ago on this same subject, and an apprehensible consensus was reached. Finally, the main problem right now is content duplication between the two articles, which should probably be the first issue we address. - Jersyko·talk 12:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The focus of the article is about water floridation and not the controversy. There is some controversy and that should be mentioned from a neutral point of view, however the focus of the article is on floridation not the controversy. On the other hand, the water fluoridation controversy article is a good spot to flesh out the aspects regarding the controversy.--Sk8ski 13:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
In that case you´d have just to write what is not a matter of controversy. But the controversy already starts with saying "Fluoride" is used for fluoridation. It´s not always "fluoride" (the simple fluoride ion, as in sodium fluoride) but fluorosilicates (or fluorosilicic acid) which dissociate in part (!another matter of controversy!) to release fluoride. Tren 13:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
And your comment demonstrates the problem - fluoride opponents see the entire issue as being controversial, i.e. it cannot be discussed as a scientific or historical phenomenon without also mentioning that it's possibly dangerous and controversial. Well, it can, and it was, actually, in the early May/late April versions of this article. If a subsection is added to that version of the article summarizing, briefly, the controversy with a prominent link to the controversy article, this article would be NPOV and would stay on topic. - Jersyko·talk 15:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, the more I look at the changes to this article and the controversy article, the more I realize that the changes by various editors purportedly made to make the articles more NPOV are, in nearly every case, extremely one sided against fluoridation. My own view now is to rollback most if not all of the changes to these articles over the last month. I'll look through the history at some point soon and see exactly where the changes started to go wrong, but these articles, especially this one, are unacceptably POV at this point. - Jersyko·talk 14:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I count the space to be fairly equal not that there is anything requiring the area for both positions. Those wishing to edit should focus on citing articles better not removing either the studies or arguements for or against water fluoridation.

There are peer researched articles showing that water fluoridation reduces caries. There are others that show water fluoridation causes dental fluorosis. Both are appropriate to be in this section under "water fluoridation."

There are obviously people who wish that only article discussing the negative health effects of fluoridation were listed and others that believe only that studies showing the purported positive effects of fluoridation were listed. Both should refrain from trying to nuke the other side out of the discussion. Such an attempt to show only one or the other is not contructive and against Wiki rules and is basically vandalism.

--Editmore 01:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments assume that the controversy warrants more than a paragraph summary in this article because a lively debate is actually taking place among legitimate scientists and public health agencies about the controversy. - Jersyko·talk 01:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, before accusing anyone of vandalism, I recommend you read (1) WP:NPOV (particularly the section on "undue weight") and (2) WP:NOT. Those two policies are vital to any information that is posted on Wikipedia. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 01:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My reversion

To explain my reversion, I'll merely point to the following: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Yes, this version is not perfect: there needs to be a subsection with a paragraph summarizing the controversy briefly. And I'm sure there are stylistic/grammar/spelling changes that need to be made. However, the reverted version adheres to NPOV, the other version does not. - Jersyko·talk 02:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to destory dozens of people's edits over the last month. You remxoved a whole lot of new content on the status of water fluoridation and replaced a whole slew of POV language which many of us worked to remove in many of the sections.

--Editmore 02:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we work, again, to remove it, though I imagine that we disagree, exactly, about what is POV. Please read the section of the NPOV policy about undue weight I reference above (here it is again). Your characterization of my reversion as "destroying" your work is spurrious. Quite the contrary, the edits over the last month have created a POV article, thereby distorting (but by no means "destroying") the original article. I've demonstrated why the article is POV with a specific reference to the NPOV policy. I would suggest you proffer a counterargument to the point I've presented if you want to continue this discussion, but please stop mischaracterizing my actions with inflated rhetoric about "destroying" work and vanadlism. - Jersyko·talk 04:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Contributing to this article is obviously a waste of time. Tren 10:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC) ---

Apparently bored with editing, Jersyko is trying to wipe out everyone's work over the last month. Please stop.

--AceLT 18:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, as has been explained to you, Wiki rules and common practices establish that criticisms go on the page of the topic. Also, the section areas in the US and world that have water fluoridation shouldn't have been wiped out either. I don't know why you believe that is "controversy."

--AceLT 19:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You're giving undue weight to a minority view by including the controversy prominently in this article. I've cited a specific wikipedia policy that is applicable to this article. You invoke "wiki rules" and "common practices", but have not cited a specific rule that mandates that we discuss the controversy fully in this article, giving equal weight to both the majority and minority positions. Please point out the rules you are talking about that overrule NPOV/undue weight. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 21:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added a subsection on the controversy, FYI. - Jersyko·talk 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I see it's been reverted again by a non-registered user. I would recommend that everyone involved here read Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry and the three revert rule. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 22:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Everyone take a breather.

Please see Wiki policy below. There are going to be multiple "conflicting views" on the subject like they are on others.

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

--216.174.242.58 22:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the basic NPOV policy. But it is qualified by the undue weight portion of the same policy. - Jersyko·talk 22:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Contributing to this article is obviously a waste of time. Tren 10:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC) ---

Yes. Unfortunately, it is far easier to revert a document than actually take the time to edit it. Hopefully, this article can continue on a normal editing track soon.

--AceLT 23:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I merely want to point out that you continue to ignore my request and my point, instead continuing with overblown rhetoric and generalizations. I think you will find that when other editors take a look at this discussion, they are more influenced by policy arguments than rhetoric, so I would recommend either making reference to specific Wikipedia policy in response to my point about undue weight or conceding the point and working with me on the reverted version of the article if you believe it to be flawed stylistically, grammatically, or in content. If we cannot work out an agreement amongst ourselves, I will file a request for comment to get other users involved in this discussion. Jersyko·talk 00:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would not have tried to erase everyone's work on the subject for the last month through multiple reversion attempts, your comments may have been taken more seriously.

I think if you look at the above comments you will see a number of references to Wiki policy, yet you have ignored them and sought to have the article contain a single POV and a silly reference to Dr. Strangelove which has nothing to do with water fluoridation.

Further, you have provided no justification for elimiating that section on the status of water fluoridation in the US and world which was one of the better sections and took alot of people alot of time.

Sure, go ahead and ask every contributor to this article in the last month whether you have their permission to eliminate their contributions.

--AceLT 00:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN, no one owns their contributions to this article or any other. I request no one's permission to edit, and require none. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. Regarding the minor, specific point about Dr. Strangelove -- what?? It's the most prominent pop culture reference to water fluoridation I'm aware of. If consensus is to remove it, fine, but I'd like to know exactly why it's against Wikipedia policy to include it when there's a perfectly reasonable reason to include it (I'm not against rewording or changing the placing of the reference, but it's difficult to justify failing to mention Strangelove at all). Next, I didn't eliminate the section of the status of water fluoridation in the US and the world, it's still there under "Implementation" in the version I reverted to. Finally, I'm still waiting to hear your response to my point about undue weight. - Jersyko·talk 01:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Ok. I think this resolves the matter. Here is the most on point article in Wikipedia I have found after reviewing all of the above references and many, many more:

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

Thus, the attempt to "to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts" should not have been done in creating Water fluoridation controversy in the first place. The creation of the page was an impermissable POV fork.

By the way, this is a specific policy on the Undue Weight section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

--Editmore 02:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't resolve the matter. As a policy, WP:NPOV, and thus the section on Undue Weight, trumps the guideline contained at WP:POVFORK. In any event, I disagree that the controversy article is a POV fork. As a preliminary matter, note that the POV fork guideline talks about fairly representing the majority points of view on a certain subject. Anti-fluoridation is demonstrably not the majority point of view. Next, the controversy article is about a distinct subject--the water fluoridation controversy as opposed to water fluoridation generally. If the article talked only about how bad water fluoridation is, it would be a POV fork, but if the article objectively described the controversy, it would not be. Third, a POV fork is an article that is split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. That's not what is happening here at all--this article is describing water fluordiation generally, the controversy article is describing the controversy. Neither should take a stance on the issue. However, since undue weight is given to the minority, anti-fluoride position in this article, it violates WP:NPOV. It would be impossible to cover the controversy thoroughly in this article and adhere to the undue weight policy. - Jersyko·talk 03:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not that complex actually. The fact that there is such a thing as dental fluorosis is an accepted fact and accepted majority view. So is the fact that different areas have water fluoridation in them and some do not. Also, it is accepted that some people have been injured from malfunctions in water fluoridation overfeeds. Non of these are pro or anti fluoridation. They are simply facts that have cited references concerning water fluoridation. Thus, even using your reasoning, they belong on the water fluoridation page.

Trying to relagate them to another page because you do not want to see them is a POV fork as discussed above and is not permitted.

I certainly disagree with your suggestion that the POV fork policy is "trumpted" or invalid.

Instead of arguing (incorrectly I might add) that the Wiki fork policy is not valid, can't you just concede you made a mistake and help the rest of us edit the article instead of continuously trying to remove our work?

--Editmore 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You say that I'm "relegating them to another page because [I] do not want to see them." No, in fact, I've suggested adding a summary of the controversy to the version I reverted to, then did so myself, in which I brought up fluorosis, among other things. I've never said that there cannot or should not be a discussion of water fluoridation system malfunctions in this article. Per my first comment in this section, note that I said that I know the reverted version is not perfect, but I know it adheres to WP:NPOV, while the current version does not. My goal is to remove the controversy discussion in this article and leave a summary in its place, I'm not against expanding the reverted version further, provided that the relevant Wikipedia policies are followed. - Jersyko·talk 04:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, regarding the relative importance of WP:NPOV to WP:POVFORK, take a look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. NPOV is a key policy, and is in fact one of the building blocks of Wikipedia and is non-negotiable. - Jersyko·talk 04:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the article to return to the NPOV version. It is interesting that most of this information on the controversy was actually information that I wrote, and I firmly believe it belongs in the water fluoridation controversy article, NOT this one. - Dozenist talk 05:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never said that there cannot or should not be a discussion of water fluoridation system malfunctions in this article.

I see. You also said earlier you were not against the article showing the areas which are fluoridated. Then I would suggest editing the page rather than trying to destroy it and expect others to work it back up again.

What parts do you specifically object to?

--Editmore 07:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

One can argue that the Wiki ban re: POV fork should it is "trumped" by another rule. Perhaps Wiki will change the rule in the future. However, for now it is valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

--Editmore 08:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)--Editmore 08:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's something to keep in mind to the content deletion attempts:

Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time: consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (e.g. saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette

--Editmore 09:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This information is presented in the controversy article, and should be presented there. There is no rampant deletion of information occuring. - Dozenist talk 12:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And I'll just keep referring back to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, mmk? The parts I specifically object to in the version you prefer are: (1) the excessively long introduction which highlights the controversy for over half its length, thereby giving undue weight to the minority anti-fluoridation view, (2) nearly everything else in the article (other than the "history" section and the section on the status of fluoridation in different countries), as it is all related to the controversy, thereby giving undue weight to the minority anti-fluoridation view, and (3) numerous unsubstantiated, POV phrases that have been inserted into the article, such as (just as one example) "Water fluoridation remains controversial among the general public [in the United States]." - Jersyko·talk 14:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dental fluorosis is an example of a majority view on the effect of water fluoridation.

Continuing eliminating content related to it borders of vandalism.

There are a number of ways this page could work, but you appear only interested in reverting and not editing. I don't see how this is very productive.

--Editmore 17:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fluorosis is a majority accepted consequence of ingesting too much fluoride, not of water fluoridation itself. Also, you're simply lying by saying that the reverted version eliminates discussion of fluorosis, as it is discussed in the neutral version in more than one section, for crying out loud. Your continued inflated rhetoric about "vandalism" and "destroying" your work is not going to solve anything, but could cause me to report you to an administrator if it doesn't stop. - Jersyko·talk 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Repeated content deletion on Water Fluoridation

Continuing eliminating content related to it borders of vandalism. --Editmore 17:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does.

At this point, Jersyko doesn't seem to have any interest in editing or following Wikipedia rules that have been pointed out to him, only in wiping out 2/3rds of the article everyone worked on over the last month by numerous authors and trying to get his Strange Love material in.

I would suggest someone attempt mediation but I doubt it will do any good as the article can be modified anonymously. Now looking back over the last year of history, Jersyko has been doing this for quite some time on the page so its no surprise he's continuing.

If someone else has some suggestions, let me know.

--AceLT 21:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll file a request for comment and we'll see what the community consensus is on this, ok? - Jersyko·talk 21:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How about mediation?--AceLT 21:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is later in the dispute resolution process than RFC. You're supposed to exhaust this type of rememdy first before something like Mediation or Arbitration. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. - Jersyko·talk 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no "content deletion" going on here. This whole business about the controversy belongs in the article water fluoridation controversy, and actually most of the information here was taken from that article. This article's topic should remain only on water fluoridation itself, as was discussed much earlier before you began editing this article to emphasize the controversy. - Dozenist talk 22:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Please, cut the intro down - waaayyy down; as it stands, it is too long by a long stretch. Nobody wants to read an intro this long before they get to the meat. By the time they finish an intro like this they think they've finished the articela and then you see the ToC. See what I mean? Perhaps just one or two sentences that state the practicce is controversial, and then discuss the controversy in the main body further down.Bridesmill 22:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps something like this is what you're after? - Jersyko·talk 22:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think the article would look better if the different sections were combined. Thus, instead of arguments for an con, there were just sections such as status of water fluoridation across us and world, health effects, etc.

--Editmore 23:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're suggesting to keep all the content but consolidate several of the sections, eliminating some section headings? How does that help the article adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, exactly? Also, I think Bridesmill has expressed concern about the readability of the article. Consolidating sections is going to hurt readability, not help it. - Jersyko·talk 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think about half of the space in the for and against area could be eliminated if the sections were combined. Having the pro and con has made some of the article duplicative. Other parts of the article seem like rhetoric pro and con instead of simply making a cited statement. Some of these can be taken out.

--Editmore 07:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the controversy is written in detail in the article, water fluoridation controversy. Only a summary is needed here. - Dozenist talk 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editmore Proposal

Here's how I would change the current page

Intro

I would eliminate the third and forth paragraphs. They deal with flouride alone and not water fluoridation. The paragraph about people worried about bottled water is really superfluous. However, if someone really felt strongly about it might be ok although lower down in the article.

History

This area is too long and I don't think people care about the history too much. Nevertheless something should still be there. Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 look like they were cut and pasted from somewhere else and don't add much and some.

Arguments for and against

This section needs to be reorganized and renamed into sections similar to the following resulting in a significant space saving:

1) Claimed Benefits of water fluoridation

2) Health Concerns of water fluoridation

3) Ethical Concerns of water fluoridation

This will eliminate the back and forth part of the page completely and I would expect half of the space with be saved. This will also allow the page to look like a normal article again.

Status of Water Fluoridation Nationally and Internationally

This section should stay as is. I don't think there is much disagreement about it. However, the latest version has had alot of people wotk to improve the detail of it as well as making it more NPOV.

Acute Poisoning resulting from malfunctions in water fluoridation equipment -This section should remain the same.

Groups Opposing/Advocating Water Fluoridation - This section should remain the same

--Editmore 07:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro - I'm glad you agree that it needs to be pared down. However, your proposed deletion would include only three sentences and in no way aid in fixing the undue weight problem, which is extremely disappointing. Upon second glance, I'm not sure I know which paragraphs you're talking about. Do you mean the fifth and sixth paragraphs, beginning with "Concerns among . . ."?
History - I'm in complete disagreement. Your statement that "people don't care about history too much" and proposal to cut out all of the information covering the period between ~1909 and the 1940s doesn't make any sense. Additionally, cutting out information from this section would merely serve to further highlight the controversy, adding to the undue weight problem.
Arguments for and against This section should be eliminated, renamed "controversy" or something similar, and summarized in a paragraph or two with a prominent link to the controversy article. This is the heart of the undue weight problem, and merely cutting its size by half isn't going to fix that.
Status of water fluoridation . . . - This section is also in the version I prefer, under Implementation. You're incorrect that this section is NPOV, as I've already given at least one example of a POV phrase that has been added to it in the last month (there are more). Also, much of the information that has been added is sourced to anti-fluoride websites, which I would prefer not be done per WP:RS.
Acute poisoning resulting from malfunctions .. . I'm ok with this section remaining, provided that it be renamed "Malfunctions in water fluoridation equipment" and that the argumentative language in the section is removed. This is not the place to rehash the anti-fluoridationist argument, but rather to merely state the fact that fluoridation equipment has occassionally malfunctioned, resulting in ill health effects.
Groups opposing/advocating . . . - Right now, it violates undue weight as it makes it appear that there are an equal number of opponents as there are advocates. Also, it merely serves to highlight the controversy, which is also violative of undue weight. It needs to go. A list of opponents could be added to the water fluoridation controversy article. - Jersyko·talk 14:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There are currently 7 paragrphs in the introduction before the table of contents. I think paragrphs 5, 6 and 7 could be eliminated. One paragraph is about toothpaste. Another is about bottled water. Another talks about topical fluoride treatments. I think it is useful to see the groups supporting the groups supporting and opposing water fluoridation in paragraphs 3 and 4. However, since that it mentioned below, perhaps it is redundant.

--Editmore 00:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is useful to see the groups supporting the groups supporting and opposing water fluoridation And I'll go ahead and mention that your proposal, and your preferred version of the article, violates undue weight again. - Jersyko·talk 06:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know you believe that. And I have mentioned that your proposal to segregate the information represents a impermissible POV Content Forking WP:POVFORK.

Also,

Please look before you start eliminating links to sources. Some were from primary sources, others were not. Take a little time to differentiate between the two before just cutting out sections. Denzenist had the right idea and did some good work but took out some legitimate links too.

--Editmore 07:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained, with agreement from Dozenist, that there is no POV fork if the second article presents the controversy objectively and without bias and the second article is necessary to prevent the original article from (1) being overlong and/or (2) violating other Wikipedia policy (like undue weight here). This type of splitting has numerous precedents on Wikipedia, one example can be found here and here. Your argument is a red herring that is merely distracting attention away from the undue weight problem that has still not been addressed here. - Jersyko·talk 15:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
To further eliminate POV fork from discussion, this sentence from the guideline is enlightening, and demonstrates that it is not relevant here: "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." Since that is not what the controversy article is doing, but rather the article is objectively describing the controvery and merely presenting the arguments made by each side, the guideline is simply not relevant here, and I trust that it won't be brought up again. - Jersyko·talk 15:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe all this has been written on the talk pages with almost no editing done at all. Further, it is useless to try to work the issue out if you keep trying to destroy other people's work in the meantime.

I am restoring the prior work done but keeping EamonnPKeane's new additions. Whether they need to be edited in the future is another issue but at least its an attempt to try to have the article have some positive direction in it.

You may not like the WP:POVFORK prohibition in Wikipedia that prevents you from trying to bifricate the article. However, the policy is still valid and we expect that you will abide by it.

--AceLT 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitration Proposal for Resolution

OK, this is a waste of time. All I am seeing is Jersyko hitting the reversion button with no attempt at editing. The only real editing attempts have been new people coming along.

Of course, he believes he is right. I think we can at least agree that this process isn't working and there is a difference of opinion on Wiki policy to say the least. It has certainly kept people away at editing the page which is a shame.

One way to resolve this quickly would be to agree on an arbitrator for issue and have everyone agree to the decision. Yes, yes, I know arbitration is a later process. However, it would certainly save time and effort and let the article be able to edited normally again.....for awhile at least.

Any suggestions for an arbitrator? Someone without ties to any of the parties who knows Wiki policy well?

Then anyone who wants to can make a short statement of how they believe they think the article should be structured and cite whatever Wiki policy they think is applicable and supports them.

--AceLT 21:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been patient and willing to discuss this on this talk page. I've pointed to applicable Wikipedia policies, and made arguments in response to you guys' red herring attempts to change the issue from undue weight to POV forking. I've received no reply to my points about undue weight because, frankly, there is no reasonable response that can be formulated, as undue weight compels action to be taken to this article that you guys refuse to accept. Now you're talking about arbitration, which is ONLY a last resort option per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Arbitration often ends up with some users getting blocked or banned, either entirely or from editing one article or articles about one subject matter. That's why it's a last resort. The Rfc has barely been up for a day, why not give the community more time to comment and for consesus to develop? That's how things work here. I understand there are multiple fairly new users involved in this discussion, who perhaps are not experienced in dealing with Wikipedia policy, and especially how Wikipedia policy mandates discussion of contentious issues. Let me assure you that I've been in much more heated, long, and arduous discussions than this one, and that satisfactory results were reached by the end of each. I expect the same here. I also expect, however, that the unproductive rhetoric about me and others "destroying" work and "vandalizing" this article will stop, and that calls for skipping steps in the dispute resolution process cease. My ONLY concern is for this article to adhere to Wikipedia policy. I have no underhanded motive, bias, or prejudice. If you're so concerned about ending this discussion immediately instead of through discussion, perhaps consider whether you want to be involved in Wikipedia at all, as that is how things work here. I'll end this little speech with a plea for each person involved to, once again, read the neutral point of view policy, focusing on the undue weight section. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement with Jersyko on this matter. As someone who has written almost all the content found in this article as it currently exists, I find your attempts to push for a version that violates neutral point of view, especially the issue of undue weight, and more recently the issue with reliable sources, completely disheartening. Instead of complaining about Jersyko, you should try to address the points he has made and spend time defending your arguments. - Dozenist talk 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If I may, Dozenist, to clarify your point that you have "written almost all the content found in this article as it currently exists," this is true merely because a lot of it has been copied and pasted from the water fluoridation controversy article, where the undue weight policy functions differently given the distinct subject matter of the article. Additionally, while I think you're correct that a large majority of the text in this article is text you wrote originally, I'd also like to point out that multiple POV phrases (and rephrasing) have been inserted throughout, though not by you. I just didn't want any third parties that stumbled across this article to get the wrong idea ;). - Jersyko·talk 12:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be edited and I thought some progress was being made. But then I keep seeing someone keep reverting and erasing other people's material. With such actions, it makes it hard believe the discussion is going on in good faith.

No, I not a fan either of pro and con discussion.

As for NPOV, weighting and POV forking, I think everyone has read the articles pretty well and there is certainly a a disagreement over how it is interpreted for different sections.

Some sections have stronger reasons for being there than others. Some of it is redundent or not applicable.

--AceLT 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As for NPOV, weighting and POV forking, I think everyone has read the articles pretty well and there is certainly a a disagreement over how it is interpreted for different sections - Actually, I'd love to hear your interpretation of WP:NPOV, reliable sources, undue weight, and WP:POVFORK. Do tell. - Jersyko·talk 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed edits

Since I'm a glutton for punishment, my proposed version of the article looks exactly like this, but I would add a small section (similar to but rewritten from the current version) on malfunction of water fluoridation equipment. My explanation for this preference is simple, neutral point of view, undue weight, reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WP:POVFORK is not relevant to this article. As it stands, content is duplicated between this article and water fluoridation controversy. The controversy article was created, in part, so that excessive attention is not paid to the controversy in this article, thereby causing this article to violate undue weight by devoting a majority of its text to the controversy and the minority anti-fluoridation view. Presenting the anti-fluoridation and pro-fluoridation views equally in this article violates undue weight. Additionally, presenting and explaining the controversy fully, even if the arguments are appropriately weighted for scientific acceptance, in this article is violative of undue weight as it would require this article to spend a majority of its text on the controversy, which merely serves to highlight the controversy and give it undue weight. As the subject matter of the water fluoridation controversy article is distinct from the subject matter of this article, undue weight functions differently there. WP:POVFORK does not preempt the existence of the controversy article as it was not created or maintained (though it needs to be tweaked) for the purpose of avoiding or circumventing the neutral point of view policy, but rather is an article on a subject distinct from the subject matter of this article, the controversy surrounding fluoridation instead of fluoridation itself. I'm writing this so that my thoughts on this article will be absolutely clear. I've referenced relevant Wikipedia policy, as I've been doing all along on this talk page, which I again recommend that all participants in this discussion read thoroughly and absorb. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 13:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read your proposal. However, I don't see that it is much different froma old reverted version a month or so again you had. It does have an extra section.

However, it eliminated much of the material concerning the status of water fluoridation around the world that many people worked on and it has a number of POV statements that were changed to NPOV earlier. Then instead of the improved articles and information, you try to put in Dr. Strangeove to characterize the opponents to fluoridation. I don't see that is an accurate portrayal of them.

Finally it tries to use the title "implementation" instead of NPOV status.

I think we are aways away from resolution.

--AceLT 00:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I respond merely to point out that my point in re undue weight is still unaddressed, in favor of minor quibbles over Dr. Strangelove and section title names. We can re-add the removed material that is NPOV in the implementation/countries section, though I'm afraid a lot of it is not. The main purpose of my proposal, however, and the one that is seemingly being ignored in favor of the minor quibbles I've noted, is that the controversy needs to be excised from this article for the most part. - Jersyko·talk 01:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
A side question: why is "Implementation" POV and "Status of Water Fluoridation Nationally and Internationally" NPOV? I know, I'm biting on the red herring, but it seems such a unique point that I had to . . . - Jersyko·talk 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observations

I don't want to dig into the content specifics but I would like to make some points based on my experience with the content policies and what that means for this article. This article is about water fluoridation, thus it should evenly survey all of the facets of that subject and not give undue weight to any one subtopic as Jersyko points out. The controversy is such a subtopic and should not be given undo prominence. Having a more detailed article on the controversy is not a POV fork as long as that article treats the controversy in an NPOV way. Instead, that is exactly the way it should be handled to cover more detail on a subtopic per WP summary style. More specifically, the lead is still too long. Per WP:LEAD it should be at most four paragraphs, but not huge ones either. Also, the structure separating pro and con arguments in different sections is a cop out, sorry. Instead, the article should address all of the facets of the topic in turn. I don't know the subject in detail to know what those are, but an article outline should be agreed upon for what are the most important facets of the topic and those should be how the article is sectioned. I won't judge the reversions and edits specifically (it may be that Jersyko or others are being unfair) but I will note AceLT and Editmore are not arguing on point at times. - Taxman Talk 11:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro Discussion

Ok. Now I going to see if anyone agrees on anything other than they like to rever Someone tell me their response to this narrow issue on the intro which I posted earlier:

There are currently 7 paragrphs in the introduction before the table of contents. I think paragrphs 5, 6 and 7 could be eliminated. One paragraph is about toothpaste. Another is about bottled water. Another talks about topical fluoride treatments. I think it is useful to see the groups supporting the groups supporting and opposing water fluoridation in paragraphs 3 and 4. However, since that it mentioned below, perhaps it is redundant.

Agree? In part? in nothing?

--Editmore 07:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. It could be worse. Someone could start using all CAPS.

--Editmore 07:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've edited down the intro per (1) undue weight, (2) the connected guidelines of reliable sources, no original research and WP:CITE, and (3) Taxman's, my, Bridesmill's, Dozenist's, and (at least in part) Editmore's agreement that it was too darn long.
Regarding the rest of the article, I'm flexible in that I'm not married to the exact text of my proposal above, but I would like the edited article to comply with relevant policies and guidelines and my response to Editmore's proposal. - Jersyko·talk 13:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I like what you have done with the introduction. This is a much more acceptable version. Once everyone involved in this lively debate subscribes to the Assume Good Faith policy, some real progress can be made to get this article back on the right track. Thanks for your diligent commitment. --Sk8ski 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I also appreciate the work you have been doing to improve the quality of the article and to change the content in order to make it adhere to wikipedia policy. Editing can get difficult at times, but your diligence is appreciated. - Dozenist talk 15:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Editmore has reverted the changes I made to the intro, despite growing consensus that the edited version is superior to the version Editmore prefers (even Editmore admits that the intro is too bulky in that version). It seems that Bridesmill, Dozenist, Taxman, myself, and Sk8ski all agree that the intro needs to be drastically cut down, and some of those users have even expressed agreement with the edited version. Editmore, you say in your reversion edit summary "Can a version be worked out?", yes, it can, and it's the one I edited in yesterday. Consensus is important on Wikipedia. Let's let other editors comment on the edited version of the intro to see what they think, but that means it has to be in the article first. I have no doubt, based on initial comments and because it adheres to Wikipedia policy, that consensus will continue to develop in favor of the edited version. I see no basis behind the reversion. - Jersyko·talk 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of Editmore were ok but Stange Love and bottled water should not have been in.

--AceLT 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at other pages. The Dr. Strangelove reference could still be mentioned in the article as a reference at the bottom.

As for consensus, Jersyko wiped out a month worth of editing by around a dozen people who had a growing consensus of what the page looked like. If he had simply tried to improve the page, we wouldn't be where we are now.

--Editmore 00:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed and took away different sections in into.

--Editmore 00:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Editmore: you left 3 out of the 4 paragraphs in the intro to discuss controversy-related topics. As has been explained over and over and over, this is a blatant violation of undue weight, no way to slice it. Cutting out the information you choose to excise from the intro is making the undue weight problem worse, not better (though it does help the length problem, but "short length" isn't Wikipedia policy, undue weight is), as it leaves the intro with a higher percentage of controversy-related subject matter. It's becomming difficult to assume good faith here when you blatantly edit to violate policy that I've done my best to pound at you guys. Additionally, there is developing consensus in favor of the version of the intro I have posted. Stop saying I've "wiped out", "destroyed", or "vandalized" a "month's worth of editing." If this continues, I'll report it as a persistent pattern of assuming bad faith. Finally, your claim that the relevant edits were made in the last month by "about a dozen people" is a flat-out lie, as anyone that has the ability to read English and click on the article history button can see that you and AceLT made nearly every policy-violating edit to this article over the last month, not "a dozen people."
AceLT: your misleading edit summary, saying that you merely "removed Strange Love [sic]," when you in fact reverted every change I made to the intro, demonstrates bad faith on your part. I suggest not being misleading again. - Jersyko·talk 03:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The edits are clear from the history. I do not believe Strange Love is appropriate as it tries to characterize the criticisms as communist conspiracies. Retained other changes by others I saw.

--AceLT 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the edits are clear from the history. The history makes perfectly clear that, for the second time in a row, you have reverted all of my changes to the intro with a misleading edit summary.
Also, Strangelove is important because it's an instantly recognizable pop culture reference to water fluoridation (and the only one I'm aware of), thus it deserves to be mentioned in this article. As it's a film, a work of fiction, and because there's an article on it which is linked in this article, there's no danger of violating Wikipedia policy by doing something as innocuous as merely mentioning the context of Strangelove's depiction of fluoridation in this article. - Jersyko·talk 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe Strange Love is appropriate as it tries to characterize the criticisms as communist conspiracies.

Yes, your right, it was written like that earlier. However, I think it has been edited some to make it more neutral. It probably needs more editing and needs to be in a pop note at the end of the article. Also, the fact is that it is part of a film. Take a look at other articles for example of such (pop) references.

--Editmore 07:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Strangelove certainly belongs somewhere, likely not in the introduction though. I ratehr like sidebars or boxouts for that sort of thing, but that is uncommon in WP. This is topic which tends to attract enormous apathy, and a few a very few very strong views of religious intensity. The latter deserve coverage, otherwise readers might be left surprised, but proportionate coverage is not very much. Midgley 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another view (responding to the RfC)

The beginning of the article as it stands now is quite informative, at least up through the history section. The international status section looks like the scarred earth of a long edit war. Maybe replace it with someting simple and NPOV, like a paragraph or two or a chart explaining where it's used, rather than going into details with phrases like "Germany has consistently rejected...", etc.

Particularly since there is a separate article on the controversey (which I haven't read yet), perhaps that entire section (from the end of history to the beginning of see also) might be better left out of this article and discussed there? This would leave behind a good solid article and bring an end to what looks to me like an excersize in trench warfare. SB Johnny 01:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Based on your response, I'm glad you didn't see this version of the article. I started working on the International status section just a bit this morning, and hope to pare it down considerably as I attempt to make it NPOV at the same time. In fact, there is a version of the same section, with a different title ("Implementation"), in an older version of the article that I think might be a good guide for what this section should look like. Anyway, let me know if you disagree, and thanks again for responding. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 01:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts, looking at the current version, are in like with SB Johnny's, even though I'm looking at a version a month later than he was. Here's what I would suggest for the entire section:

Cut the U.S. section to one sentence: 67% of Americans are living in communities with fluoridated water according to a 2002 study.[15] Canada, one sentence: Approximately 40% of the Canadian population receives fluoridated water[20] Europe gets 4 sentences: Most of Europe does not fluoridate their water supply. The Republic of Ireland is the only EU nation to have mandatory fluoridation. In the United Kingdom, only two major cities, Birmingham and Newcastle, fluoridate their water supply.[24] Several nations, including France and Germany, have nation-wide bans on fluoridation. "Other" gets a few sentences too: In Brazil, about 45% of the cities have a fluoridated water supply. Australia has fluoridation in all but one state, Queensland, in which water fluoridation is under local government control. The government of South Africa supports the fluoridation of water supplies.[25] can stay IFF "supports" means "does it"; otherwise, like the rest of the section, it's irrelevant.

The rest of the International Status, with one exception, can be cut entirely from the article. If it's really that important, that's what the "controversy" article is for, otherwise, a city voting to suspend its fluoridation program and then reinstituting it is irrelevant trivia.

The one exception is "The cost of fluoridating water supplies in the United States has been researched.[19] In cities with a population of over 50,000 people, fluoridation costs 31 cents per person per year. The cost rises to $2.12 per person in cities with a population below 10,000." Move that to the intro, since it's technical information; or, better yet, put together a whole section regarding technical information on water fluoridation. The Literate Engineer 20:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children vs. adults

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

Does fluoridation help adult teeth, or only children? -- Beland 02:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horrible POV in this article

Very clearly, some biased editing has occured in this article to make it read like a ADA pro-fluoridation pamphlet. I have made some edits to remove this.--Fahrenheit451 10:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How about some good faith, please? You removed very few words. Obviously, it wasn't THAT bad. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think if you check the definition of good faith, you will find it applies to the manner of dealing with other editors, although you may hold your own connotations of the term. I have every right to criticize POV editing and will boldly edit to contribute to a NPOV article. This one was flagrantly POV.--Fahrenheit451 21:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you that there were some POV phrases in the article. I suppose I merely disagree with your characterization of the article as "flagrantly POV" etc. I suppose I'll leave it at that. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/t/Talk%7EWater_fluoridation_bb5c.html"