Hi, Simon, and welcome to Wikipedia. You seem very interested in the Dental amalgam controversy.
Is there any aspect of the anti-amalgam argument that you feel has not been fairly described in the article? Or anything left out which merits inclusion?
I've been with Wikipedia since its first year, and I'm pretty good at adding controversial content - as long as I don't get too emotionally involved, anyway. :-) --Uncle Ed 19:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Simon, the thing about "controversy" articles is that they don't get you a free pass to an uncritical statement of the views of opponents of a mainstream view. We've had this recently in an arbitration case, which reinforced the fact that we should always reflect the dominant view even when discussing minority views, while of course doing our best to reflect those views accurately. In the case of amalgam, 150 years of widespread use have not led to any compelling evidence of harm. It doesn't matter that you can't "prove" safety, because 150 years of established practice without more than minority dissent indicates that the dental world is, in general, not worried. Contrast with smoking, where there is compelling evidence of a causal link between smoking and a variety of mortal illnesses, which evidence comes from numerous sources (not just case-control studies, which are prone to confounding). The problem is not that the topic is controversial, since the article is in general well cited, the problem is that Wikipedia is not an agent of change. We document minority views as such, we document views rejected by the majority as having been rejected, and we change only as and when the reliable secondary sources say that consensus in the real world has changed. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Uncle Ed and Guy, and thank you very much for your friendly and helpful messages. I apologise for the absurd delay in posting a response, but, strange though it may sound, I until today had not realized that I had received these messages earlier in the year! I'm still learning about Wikipedia as I go, and today just discovered my "user page" ;-)
Guy: Thank you, and yes, your comments are well-said, and make good sense. You're right, that Wikipedia isn't an 'agent of change,' and that makes sense to me, since I think it's a good thing to aspire to create an encyclopaedia, not just an online Hyde Park Corner where anyone can shout what they like from their own soapboxes! So I'm in support of what you write here. I wouldn't propose we add 'uncritical statements' concerning minority views. Rather, the article should reflect the mainstream view in the controversy prominently, and then in secondary parts also give space to show opponents' views, as it does, but not with bias towards them. I agree. In a way, this is why I've focused my attention on a recent mainsteam (FDA) hearing on the subject, which I felt should be mentioned in the introduction too, as this is the principle ommission in the article intro at present.
Uncle Ed: Yes, as you say, it's true that I'm quite interested in the Dental amalgam controversy. I'm also interested in many other subjects, and therefore hope to contribute to other Wiki articles over time too! I've just made a start by getting involved with this topic, as a way of contributing and, also, getting acquainted with Wikipedia. Thank you for your suggestion, Uncle Ed, of adding "controversial content" in an acceptable way. You asked if the "anti-amalgam" side of the controversy has so far been fairly represented and if anything else merits inclusion. Good question! Actually, I think the article in general, as it stands, is fairly good already. I respect encyclopedic principles, as a source of objective and referenced research information, and wouldn't want an article to misrepresent either side nor be imbalanced.
However, there is one item in particular, so far, which I believe merits change. The FDA hearings of last year on this topic were so historically important (the first of their type), and the result such a surprise to everyone, that I feel this merits brief mention in the introduction. It was, after all, not an anti-amalgam group, but the FDA itself in the USA which held these hearings at which a majority voted in favour of the "anti" side. For balance, however, I also feel this needs to be mentioned alongside specific references stating the mainstream views still held by a number of key authorities.
I therefore did the homework on this, digging up a whole line of citations, and composing a statement which I felt was balanced and useful. I proposed this on the Discussion page, back in February. So far the responses from others on this proposition have been positive at the Discussion page itself, and yet no one has moved to place it on the article itself, and as it was frozen for a long time I decided to leave it for someone else to act upon. What would you suggest I do next, besides proposing the statement and citations again on the Discussion page, as I have just done? It would be nice for a conclusion to be made on my proposition, which has been sitting there for 9 months awaiting a consensus to be reached on it! Simon K 16:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)