User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shibbolethink. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
309		Chloroquine (talk)	Add sources
302		Immunosuppressive drug (talk)	Add sources
95		Gold 101.7 (talk)	Add sources
52,259		Gulf of Mexico (talk)	Add sources
315		Viral hemorrhagic fever (talk)	Add sources
98		MacEwan University (talk)	Add sources
32		W. Ian Lipkin (talk)	Cleanup
7		2013–2014 Zika virus outbreaks in Oceania (talk)	Cleanup
218		Aquaphor (talk)	Cleanup
116		Treatment and management of COVID-19 (talk)	Expand
142,080		Elon Musk (talk)	Expand
71		COVID-19 drug development (talk)	Expand
895		Parliamentary republic (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
359		Kogal (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
122		Gyaruo (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
41		Amphetamine type stimulant (talk)	Merge
57		Norepinephrine–dopamine releasing agent (talk)	Merge
791		Somatic experiencing (talk)	Merge
17		History of Waldorf schools (talk)	Wikify
2,020		2025 in spaceflight (talk)	Wikify
18		China Railway comprehensive inspection trains (talk)	Wikify
67		StreamYard (talk)	Orphan
9		Bahawalnagar incident (talk)	Orphan
8		Type A influenza vaccine (talk)	Orphan
5		A F M Yusuf Haider (talk)	Stub
12		Mizoribine (talk)	Stub
25		Yamaken-gumi (talk)	Stub
8		2022–2023 mpox outbreak in Portugal (talk)	Stub
4		Glycylpeptide N-tetradecanoyltransferase (talk)	Stub
58		Rotokas alphabet (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on the Water fluoridation article. I wanted to clarify why the lead reflects WP:MEDRS-compliant evidence with regards to the evidence of childhood neurodevelopment issues below guidelines (removed excerpt). The JAMA Pediatrics meta-analysis (2025) shows statistically significant (consistently linear dose-response) inverse associations between urinary fluoride levels below 1.5 mg/L (not limited to prenatal exposure) and reduced IQ. Since urinary fluoride is a superior measure of total fluoride exposure compared to water levels (as stated in the meta-analysis), this strongly suggests that the current WHO guideline of 1.5 mg/L in water is insufficient to prevent adverse neurodevelopment outcomes. Grandjean et al. (2023) further supports this with a benchmark concentration (BMC) of 0.45 mg/L and a BMCL of 0.28 mg/L.

Given this evidence, I believe it would be appropriate for you to self-revert this change to reflect consensus and ensure accuracy, since WP:MEDRS sources clearly support the statement that you removed. The part you removed was also written by another user who first opposed its inclusion but later supported it. Keep in mind too that the statement is worded as "some evidence" i.e. not overstating the science, and uses the exact scientific language ("associations"). I’m happy to discuss further if needed. MightyLebowski (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

statement is worded as "some evidence" i.e. not overstating the science, and uses the exact scientific language ("associations"). I’m happy to discuss further if needed

Given that this is still under significant debate in the scientific community, we should wait for it to be more settled science before reporting it on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

There’s no such thing as truly "settled science" because science evolves with evidence. However, the JAMA meta-analysis meets WP:MEDRS standards for scientific consensus and shows robust associations that are relevant now. Waiting for “settled” science in toxicological areas like fluoride exposure outcomes creates potential indefinite delays in reflecting valid, peer-reviewed evidence. Using cautious terms like “some evidence” already addresses the nuance appropriately and complies with Wikipedia policy, which doesn't require absolute, undeniable evidence to be included (WP:PROOF requires reliable sourcing, not indisputable proof). Given this, a self-revert would help ensure the article remains policy-compliant and accurately reflects the current body of evidence with appropriate nuance.

The reality is that this language errs on the side of understating the evidence, since the JAMA meta-analysis found clear, undeniable, and statistically significant associations of adverse neurodevelopment outcomes below the guidelines. You shouldn't mistake the cautious language as meaning the evidence is weak, since these are the findings of a high-quality meta-analysis supported by low-risk-of-bias studies. So the excerpt:

with some evidence indicating associations below current guidelines

is clearly supported by high-quality WP:MEDRS-compliant evidence (the opposite of your edit justification). MightyLebowski (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

the JAMA meta-analysis meets WP:MEDRS standards for scientific consensus
Not when other equally high quality MEDRSes did not find the same association. We don't just go off our favorite sources. We look at the overall picture of the BEST AVAILABLE sources. Scientific consensus has a very specific meaning on wikipedia, and that term doesn't apply here. See also: Wikipedia:RS/AC

This addition has WP:WEASEL written all over it, so until it's more settled science more robustly supported by a wider range of MEDRSes, it has no place on wikpedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The WP:WEASEL claim is incorrect and misapplied here. WP:WEASEL prohibits vague statements without attribution, but the phrase “with some evidence indicating associations below current guidelines” is directly tied to the JAMA Pediatrics (2025) meta-analysis, a high-quality WP:MEDRS-compliant source. The statement is precise and properly attributed, not vague or misleading.

WP:MEDRS does not require excluding valid evidence simply because previous reviews didn’t find the same association. The JAMA meta-analysis is the best available evidence due to its superior exposure metric (urinary fluoride), inclusion of longitudinal research, and low-risk-of-bias studies. Scientific consensus is not static, and waiting for complete agreement would result in indefinite delays in updating articles. Additionally, WP:MEDRS explicitly recognizes meta-analyses as key sources for representing scientific consensus.

The phrasing appropriately captures the complexity of the evidence and reflects the findings without overstating them. Excluding this would be a disservice to accuracy, as WP:MEDRS supports including up-to-date, peer-reviewed evidence with proper context.

Let’s focus on balance and ensuring key research findings are presented, not excluded. MightyLebowski (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kash Patel on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)