`    said it a year ago, and I'll repeat it: this article is embarrassing.  This is Wikipedia, not Everything2; readers shouldn't be bombarded with a debate they most likely have no interest in.  Check out the Sodium page  it's nasty stuff, and we eat it every day, yet there's no sodium controversy.  A bad example?  Of course, just like this page is a bad example of a Wikipedia page.  Since the controversy aspect now takes up the majority of the page, yet is peripheral to the subject, I am forced to disagree with 's strategy of merging the Water fluoridation controversy page back in to this one.  A ``section consisting of a paragraph or two summarizing the debate and linking to the other article`` is by far the more professional way of structuring this page.  50 years down the line, when the requisite research has finally been done and the controversy is settled, one side or other is going to look somewhat foolish.  Being more of a centrist, I don't really mind so much, but we can all work towards decreasing the embarrassment by following sound Wiki practice and not throwing cream pies around where innocent bystanders might be hit.  Comments on this position are welcome.  `