Talk:American Dental Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the project or you can direct questions about the rating system here. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as high-importance on the assessment scale |
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LogoADA.gif
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)
[edit] Other internet websites
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 flouridation.com fluoridealert.com and fluoridealert.net to their own pro-fluoridation pages. The domain names of these websites are parodies of safe water sites fluoridation.com and fluoridealert.org
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) Fluoridation.com 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 Fluoridation.com 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 Fluoridation.com 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 flouridation.com, fluoridealert.com and fluoridealert.net 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 fluoridealert.com, rather than the very similar fluoridealert.org, they would have trouble finding the Fluoride Action Network website. This is due to the fact that ADA's property, fluoridealert.com, parodies, or mimics the domain name of the Fluoride Action Network. Same goes for flOUridation.com (please note misspelling).
Does anyone dispute that these domain names are intened to mimic the websites fluoridation.com and fluoridealert.org? 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 fluoridation.com and fluoridealert.org. 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)
