Jump to content

Talk:Opposition to water fluoridation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1990 end date for fluoridation in East Germany: reason?

[edit]

I notice that the article lists 1990 as the end date for water fluoridation in East Germany. Was that date due merely to the termination of the DDR as a legal entity upon unification with the BRD; was it due to the DDR's adoption, upon unification, of the BRD policy of non-fluoridation; or did the DDR abandon fluoridation pre-unification, and if the last, did it do so under the influence of the USSR, which abandoned fluoridation in the same year?

RFK Jr.

[edit]

I've readded RFK Jr. as he's been nominated to Secretary of Health. Darrelljon (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...in one country where 95% of the world's population don't live. He is regarded as a nutter even by half the people in that country. He is NOT representative of the issue. I have reverted your addition. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He may not be credible but isn't it a matter of notability? Darrelljon (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a global article. Kennedy's thoughts are irrelevant to most of the globe. Please avoid US-centrism. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFK Jr is American appointed to high office in America but that doesn't demonstrate non-notability or US centrism. He's headline news today in BBC, Guardian and Sky. An article here even says he will impact global health https://theconversation.com/if-trump-puts-rfk-jr-in-charge-of-health-get-ready-for-a-distorted-reality-where-global-health-suffers-243152 Darrelljon (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look carefully, that's what the headline says, but the article doesn't really make that case. It describes some idiotic things he has said and done in he past. then just makes generalised speculation about what might happen in future. Nothing specific. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted as RFK Jr. is notable on this article. Darrelljon (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NO he's not. He's not even mentioned in hte article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
Oppose adding the photograph without article changes: Adding a third opinion here, in my read of things it's not completely unreasonable for the article to mention RFK Jr. as a powerful advocate for the conspiratorial perspective here, but:
  1. He certainly shouldn't be featured in the lead section as things currently stand, that is US-centrism on a global issue.
  2. He isn't mentioned once in the article—if he's a notable advocate for this and his advocacy is significant enough to be included in this article, some work should be done to reflect that in content before inclusion of a picture could be justified.

In my opinion, having a photo of him included near well-sourced content about his impact on the subject of the article would be just fine, but there's no reason to feature his photo in the article as it currently stands, and I don't think there's any reason to have him in the lead unless and until significant, noted, well-sourced major events change that. I also think enriching the article with a few more illustrations would decrease the impact of one photo of RFK Jr. being added and alleviate any potential WP:UNDUE concerns around the picture. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've included mention of RFK Jr. under opposition from environmental groups as he worked at Riverkeeper and founded Waterkeeper Alliance. Darrelljon (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This more US-centrism. It's not a good look for a global article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same sentence references the American groups the John Birch Society and the KKK. Inclusion of notable Americans is not US centrism. Darrelljon (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it actually is. 95% of the world's people don't live in the USA. Unless you include proportionate mention of people and bodies from elsewhere, it's classic US-centrism. The fact those other American bodies were already mentioned just makes things worse. HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this about diff which added "(including senior politician Robert F. Kennedy Jr.)"? Does the reference at the end of the sentence mention RFK? Have reliable sources made statements about RFK and this topic which would make material on RFK WP:DUE? Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I include some non-US sources here
Darrelljon (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-US sources don't help. Most of those are simply telling us about something happening in the USA. So it's still US-centrism.HiLo48 (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things happen in the USA that are notable enough to be referenced in articles not specifically about the US. Nominating RFK Jr to Secretary of Health is one thing that is notable for his opposition to water fluoridation. Darrelljon (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's STILL about events entirely within the USA. Is nobody elsewhere opposed to fluoridation? I can actually help you here. Australia has its own similar nutter, though not with the an equivalent political ancestry - Pete Evans. He's a fan of RFK Jr too. Maybe write about him rather than the all-American hero.HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there ten sources about Pete Evans views on fluoridation that are not from his own country? Is Pete Evans presumptive nominee for Minister/Secretary of Health in his own country or likely to be? Or the same questions for any other opponent of fluoridation. Including the John Birch society or the KKK for that matter? What is their impact on fluoridation outside the USA? What was RFK Jrs impact on public health in Samoa? Was it notable? Darrelljon (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFK Jr being presumptive nominee for Minister/Secretary of Health in his own country is obviously a US-centric matter. RFK Jr is mostly laughed at outside the US, so his influence on fluoridation outside the USA is probably the opposite of what he seeks. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


[1] I have posted on the talk page before your revert "I have written something on the talk page, now I can continue edit-warring" is not how WP:BRD works. You wait until the discussion is over (and you have reached consensus). --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sept. 25, 2024 fed court ruling

[edit]

The findings in Judge Chen's ruling merit mention. I propose language like this:

On Sept. 25, 2024, U.S. Federal Judge Edward Chen ruled that water fluoridation posed an, “unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children…a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response…One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epa-must-reduce-fluorides-risks-to-childrens-iq-court-says

Many other sources will verify this information if needed. The addition would help get the section, "Court Cases, United States" up to date. Petergkeyes (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems to be a fact hat the judge made this ruling. I just wish we would place more emphasis on the fact that courts can never decide science. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition

[edit]

This page used to be called Water Fluoridation Opposition. After the name change to Water Fluoridation Controversy, most data regarding the opposition was removed. Opposition to water fluoridation is currently increasing exponentially. If this is not the place to document this significant movement, perhaps it is time for a "new" (resurrected) Wikipedia page. For a "new" page, I propose the title, "Water Fluoridation Opposition." Petergkeyes (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to water fluoridation NOT is currently increasing exponentially. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interest in (and skepticism of) water fluoridation has been on the rise lately.[1]Recent developments such as the Aug. NTP report,[2]the Sept. Federal Court ruling[3]and the Florida Surgeon General’s new policy[4]have garnered unprecedented attention for this subject. Naturally these developments will find their way to the appropriate Wikipedia pages as interest and rules permit. New pages may be called for. Petergkeyes (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you say may be true for one country where less than 5% of the world's population live and which is undergoing a dramatic political shift right now. Please don't try to modify this global article as if the whole world is doing the same. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this to Opposition to water fluoridation accordingly; there may be a need to reword certain parts of this article accordingly. But I see no reason for two separate articles on the same issue (note I was directed to this article by WP:FRINGEN, which also supported moving this article to "Opposition to water fluoridation") GnocchiFan (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/rfk-jr-fluoride-water-teeth-b2653515.html
  2. ^ https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride
  3. ^ https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/food-and-water-watch-v-us-epa/
  4. ^ https://www.floridahealth.gov/newsroom/2024/11/20241122-fluoridation-guidance.pr.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opposition_to_water_fluoridation&oldid=1265979805"