Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Water fluoridation. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

In particular, the Water fluoridation article is not the right place to talk about a particular 1973 court decision in the Netherlands. That article is global in scope, and doesn't really have the space to discuss the hundreds of court decisions that have taken place all over the world. Another editor already moved that discussion to Fluoridation by country #Netherlands, and this is a better place for this level of detail.

As a general matter, it's better to discuss potentially-controversial edits like this (it's clearly controversial, as a similar edit was already reverted) on the talk page first. Please try to do that here. Eubulides (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion the arguments of the Dutch High Council give another perspective in the ethics and political area and should therefore be reflected in the general page on water fluoridation. I do not have a more general reference giving this perspective and I am not sure if this perspective can be generalised for more countries. In my first edit I put it in the wrong section and I did not object to mention it in Fluoridation by country #Netherlands. E.J.Hoekstra (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, two editors have disagreed with you so far. And even if your opinion were correct, we can't simply rely on our own opinion as to which court decisions are important: we should use reliable reviews of the topic, rather than citing court decisions directly. The article currently cites several reviews of water fluoridation (including negative opinion) and as far as I know none of these reviews mention this 1973 court case. As per WP:WEIGHT, we can't assign far more weight to this subtopic than reliable sources do, nor should we be citing primary sources directly when we have substantial secondary sources available (please see WP:PSTS for details). Please revert the change and discuss it as needed on the talk page. Eubulides (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]