Jump to content

Talk:Dihydrogen monoxide parody/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Pro-nuclear Origins ?

I remember something very like this from my student days (UK 1979-1982), from a pro-nuclear publication, as a parody on anti-nuclear 'scaremongering' about Plutonium. I can't pin it down any closer than that. Possibly the 'Hydrogen Hydroxide' mentioned. It might have been a photocopy viral meme - someone must have put a collection of those on the web ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Title cleanup

The title says dihydrogen monoxide is a hoax. Since it is clear that dihydrogen monoxide does exist, and that most of the hazard claims associated with it are in fact true, this doesn't fit my definition of a hoax. Rather, it's a case of misleading vocabulary. Shouldn't the article title be simply "Dihydrogen monoxide" with a hatnote linking to the article "Water"? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about water. It's about the hoax itself, and the title is the most obvious way to refer to it. Mezigue (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This question has been much discussed - you can read through old conversations by clicking on the "Archive 1" link near the top of the page. Here, incidentally, is part of an answer I gave back in 2007 when this question came up: The only usage of "dihydogen monoxide" is within this hoax-type thingamajig. Articles should reflect the actual usage of the topic, not some theoretical structure. I mean, we don't make Cardiff Giant into a disambiguation page that points to Cardiff Giant (hoax), just because "Cardiff Giant" is a consistent nickname for somebody who lived in Cardiff and is really big. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, then, let's forget about the hatnote (there's already a wikilink to water in the article anyway) but what about moving the article to Dihydrogen monoxide, that is, reversing the redirect currently in place? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with DavidWBrooks and Mezigue that the article is best left at the present title. It's about a deliberate deception, not a chemical substance, and the title should reflect that. People are hoaxed into believing that there is an environmental chemical threat to health of which they were previously unaware. The fact that they are deceived by true-but-misleading statements doesn't make it any less of a hoax. The OED defines 'hoax' as follows:
A 1. verb trans. Deceive by way of a joke, play a trick or joke on. L18.
A 2. verb intrans. Perpetrate a hoax. E19.
B. noun. A mischievous or humorous deception; a trick, a joke. E19
Seems to fit, to me. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that DavidWBrooks is not saying he supports the current setup, only that this has been discussed ad nauseam before and that there's already a consensus in place. As such, I'll abide by it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear: I do support the current article name, which seems to me to describe the situation fairly and clearly. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
And may I just add, as a non-related note, that I can't stand your sig, Blanchardb - the red block is incredibly distracting, a example of bad design interfering with content. I can hardly read your comments because the eye is drawn to that blaring item. It's like an escapee from a MySpace page. Tone it down, dude!!! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Web or Newsgroup?

The section about the original posting mentions that it was from a newsgroup so why does it say "web" appearance? I'm changing it to "Internet" because this sounds like a common ignorant error on the author's part. - ComradeSlice(talk) 14:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

History

Although I don't have an encyclopedic reference to cite, my Dad told me about the dangers of water-under-a-scary-name, and even mentioned the then-equivalent of a spoofed MSDS, back in the 1970s. He went so far as to explain the joke and draw the conclusion that it played on people's scientific ignorance and knee-jerk fear of big words. 68.110.104.80 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

He probably did. But maybe you are mis-remembering this, combining a real memory about your father warning about something else with subsequent knowledge about DHMO to create an unreal memory that seems true to you. We all do that sort of thing; human memory is incredibly fallible. Which is why wikipedia needs sources. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Joke removed

I removed this joke because I thought it didn't belong in the article, and wasn't funny enough (sorry):

Also another joke about "dihydrogen monoxide" is this
"I'm allergic to dihydrogen monoxide"
This is also another good joke about dihydrogen monoxide:

person 1: "You know what chemical can dissolve anything"
person 2: "No, what?"
person 1: "dihydrogen monoxide"
person 2: "ooh sounds dangerous"
person 1: "well how did you think the Grand Canyon was formed, by water?"
or
person 1: "It covers over 75% of the world, and your body consists largely of it"

Millions of people each day are flushing dihydrogen monoxide down their toilets into municipal water treatment plants, eventually ending up in the public's drinking water supply. --MarioSmario — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioSmario (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

page move

Uh, what? That's really all I have to say, the current title with "petition" instead of hoax makes no sense to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Why can ANY pages be moved without notice. There does not even seem to be an easily accessible log of page moves. The petition was just one part of the hoax. Restore earlier title, please. --JimWae (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if it was abrupt. I just don't think it was meant as a hoax. Rather, it was a form of parody science. In a hoax, you really want to fool people. Like crop circles or Piltdown man. This was more social commentary.
But the (not so) easily accessible log of page moves is here (scroll down to see it). --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the new title is worse. The original "Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide" page [1] wasn't a petition, and neither were most of the incidents listed under "Public efforts involving DHMO". Dcxf (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
All right, how about dihydrogen monoxide ban parody? That's it for this year. If you all think it's more of a hoax than a parody or social comment, get an admin to move it back.
But I think the crop circles article is more important than this one. Anybody would think (before I started correcting it) that scientist (still!) are mystified by the "phenomenon" even 20 years after Doug Bower and Dave Chorley admitted the hoax and explained how they did it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
What the frick are you doing, moving pages around without a discussion? The move should absolutely be undone - you've left a baffling trail of multi-redirects ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty messed up. I'm going to move it back, it should not be moved again without a consensus as nobody appears to agree with the bizzare, sudden, multiple renames. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, stop already. While I don't agree that either page title was "bizarre", I did tell User:Materialscientist on my user talk page that I'm done moving it. Usually moving an article has not been a big deal. The last few moves I made didn't seem to require discussion first; I guess this one did, though.
  1. moved Christmas Every Day to Christmas Every Day (movie)
  2. moved Anti-LGBT slogans to Anti-LGBT rhetoric ‎ (more than just slogans)
  3. moved Nephology to Cloud formation and climate change ‎ (The term "nephology" is rarely used, and much of the article is about climate change)
I am to get along by going along. You'll have no more undiscussed moves from me here, okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to discuss every single page move, and if nobody objects to it WP:SILENCE applies. However, right after you did the page move I opened a discussion about it as I did not agree with the move. Before that discussion had progressed much you moved it again. That, in my opinion, is when it became a problem. Siice you have agreed not to do so again it's not a problem anymore, and of course we can discuss any proposed new name you think is apt, but for now it should stay here unless a consensus for a different title becomes apparent. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. After the discussion was opened my attempt to "solve" the problem just made it worse. My bad. Lesson learned. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, you didn't check the Talk archives to see that the point of whether to call this article a "hoax" or "parody" or whatever has been discussed quite alot, without consensus. So it had already been established that a move was not supported; ergo, if you wanted to make the move you should have started a discussion first. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point, David. I've included a note near the top of the page indicating that it was discussed without consensus and suggesting a glance at the archives. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think the title should just be plain old Dihydrogen monoxide, since that term is used only in relation to this hoax/parody, and the simplicity would avoid these kind of debates. But I've never been able to get anybody else to agree.
Consensus-building is a really annoying process when people refuse to agree with me! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that's a good idea. We could revise the article so that it's about the term rather than the substance. This is not an article about H20 (i.e., water) but rather about the term DHMO or dihydrogen monoxide used to show "how gullible" people are, in the context of being asked to ban (supposedly) dangerous environmental hazards.
The term was introduced in web pages and "petitions" with a two-fold strategy:
  1. Get people to agree to ban the dangerous-sounding chemical
  2. Expose their excessive readiness to ban it, as a form of social commentary or to make a political point
Unlike regular hoaxes, the point was not to get people to maintain belief in the false concept. No one wanted an actual ban on water! It was more like an April Fools joke, where the fun comes at the expense of the fooled person's realization (he can laugh along with us, preferably).
Gosh, I wish I had been patient enough to slow down and build consensus instead of overdoing "be bold" to the point of irresponsible recklessness. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about revising the article to be about the term; that seems to be putting the cart before the horse. The hoax/parody/joke was the point, the term was created to make it work.
I think the overall tone and approach of the article is pretty good right now; it's only the title of the article and the noun used to describe it that generates the debate. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

very confused

I'm confused so is dihydrogen monoxide also called water, or is water the solvent that can dissolve this chemical?

if it's also called water then what is http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html talking about?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 (talk • contribs)

Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is an unusual synonym for water. Water dissolves a number of things, and is used in industrial settings. Chris857 (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong word?

"49% of the candidates answered on behalf of the restriction."

What does this mean? Surely, "on behalf" is the wrong phrase?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Public efforts involving DHMO getting too long

I have removed a couple of examples from the Public efforts involving DHMO section, because the list is getting long and repetitive. I think we have gotten to the point where only actual, mistaken examples involving public officials should be included - not jokes or web-based hoaxes, because they're too common. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Early history

I'd dispute that DHMO was "brought to widespread public attention in 1997" - I certainly remember a mention in New Scientist in May 1996 which I'm pretty sure led to significant coverage in the British media at that time. Zohner might have led to some publicity in one country after May 1996, but Wikipedia is global and in any case the Snopes reference doesn't actually say that Zohner was the first to bring it to public attention as the article implies at present. 86.27.45.204 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

molecule

the DHMO molecule looks like this:

water molecule

DHMO is water!! gonna ban water for no reason? NO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgsho (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Scientific literacy

Words can be scary if you're not sure what they mean. Occasionally a well-developed hyperbole rises to the rank of hoax. Good craftsmanship gives the ring of credibility.

Article title

Yes, "dihydrogen monoxide" is not a hoax. But the article is not about dihymonox, but about a hoax involving dihymonox, hence the title. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No. It's not a hoax. It's deliberately one-sided in portrayal, but every word is true. That's the whole point of this exercise. K7L (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Every word is true, but the total effect may be false. This is a peculiarity of human language con men make good use of. By the way, you never stopped beating your spouse, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The proposed title did not gain consensus. However, this looked like it may have been due to "hoax" not being deemed appropriate, so there is scope for a discussion around a better alternative, after which another RM could be tried. Personally I don't think "witticism" is used enough these days. Number 57 13:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


Dihydrogen monoxide hoax → Dihydrogen monoxide (meme) – The claim that dihydrogen monoxide is a "hoax" violates WP:NPOV and is false. Dihydrogen monoxide is real. The dihydrogen monoxide petition is an Internet meme which, by design, portrays this stuff (H2O) in the worst possible light while still being technically correct and accurate - a means to prove a point - but neither the claim that dihydrogen monoxide exists nor the claims that specific safety issues or even fatalities are associated with it are false. There's a huge factual difference between "I disagree with the premise that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned" and "Dihydrogen monoxide is a hoax". It's real, various groups ranging from Red Cross to Coast Guard are doing what they can to minimise the dangers. Inserting blatantly POV terms like "hoax" into article titles is neither encyclopaedic nor helpful. K7L (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose Staszek Lem (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:POVTITLE. Terms like "hoax", as statements of opinion, normally do not belong in article titles. K7L (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Strikes me as though "hoax" isn't really the right word for this. That said, I'm not 100% sure "meme" is either. NickCT (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - The argument is that it should be "meme" because water is real. If this article is about water, it duplicates Water and should be merged there, not renamed. If it's about a meme that is not the same as simply "water" then we have the right name already. It is a hoax because by the very first sentence of the article it's clear you're trying to elicit a response and fool people into thinking it's more than it actually is (it's the act of trying to elicit a response from someone by framing water as scary that is the subject of the article and once you tell someone "oh it's just water," they are no longer afraid -- hence: hoax). --— Rhododendrites talk |  12:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites: - This article is clearly not about water. It's about a "joke", "hoax" or "meme" or whatever you want to call it about water. I think it's a slightly more than a hoax, b/c there's a semi-instructive element to it which I don't think one usually associates with a hoax. NickCT (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, per Rhododendrites. There should be a policy or guideline preventing people who "don't get it" from nominating articles for such changes. That being said, if a better title is found, it might be worth considering, but I haven't seen it yet. It's a constructive/instructive hoax, not the type which one would associate with a scam or attempt to deceive for personal gain. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Facepalm This is the kind of stuff detrimental to wikipedia's credibility and the portrayal of its editors as humourless goons. The nominator's proposal is absolutely horrific, both from that aspect but perhaps rather more seriously that it is completely out of line with WP:AT policies & guidelines, chief among them WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURALDIS avoid parenthetical disambiguators and WP:CRITERIA #1: RECOGNISABILITY. Plus I'm dubious that it is really an internet meme sources please. If "hoax" is really absolutely intolerable, then I propose Dihydrogen monoxide prank. Cf. Prank (wikt:Prank) (redirect to Practical joke) and Hoax (wikt:Hoax). walk victor falk talk 13:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not to be nitpicky (who am I kidding? that's exactly what I'm doing), what critics of memes (not to be confused with internet memes) complain is not that it is pseudoscience à la von Däniken and razor-sharpening pyramids, which can be dismissed in some of the most scathing words ever uttered by a scientist, das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch, but that it is bad science, as in difficult to test and falsify, and therefore not very helpful; a bit like string theory. Personally, I think a bit too much is made of the scientificness of a concept that Richard Dawkins intoduced a bit off-handedly at the end of a popular science book, and it should be considered more as a philosophical aid to help one adopt an evolutionary (R, V, S) weltanschauung. walk victor falk talk 03:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment How about dihydrogen monoxide (joke)? It's not a hoax as it's carefully worded to all be true, but are we such humourless goons as to not be able to accept a joke as a joke without becoming offended and screaming "hoax!" at the top of our lungs in mock righteousness and indignation? K7L (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It is your proposal that is a joke!! You are pov-pushing the dihydrogen monoxide agenda to present that terrible, terrible chemical substance as a harmless product that improves your mood and makes you laugh, like a good joke. In fact I suspect you are a paid shill of the dihydrogen monoxide industrial complex with a massive COI and should be summarily perma-banned forthwith. Dixit. walk victor falk talk 23:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It can't stay at "hoax" if both the substance in question and the senseless fatalities very much exist. I'd hoped the matter would've been addressed after the watergate scandal, but the whitewater controversy shows this is not the case. Nonetheless, if even one drowning can be prevented by pointing out the very real dangers of water instead of dishonestly and disingenuously dismissing them as a "hoax", the effort in finding a more truthful name for this page will have been justified. K7L (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • In this case it would be Dihydrogen monoxide joke - a term that indeed gets 10x more google hits than "dihydrogen monoxide hoax". By the way:
World English Dictionary
hoax (həʊks)
— n
1. a deception, esp a practical joke
Therefore I don't understand why you are so excited with the term "hoax", which is quite appropriate here. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I get what the nominator is saying: it's not incorrect to identify water as "dihydrogen monoxide", and that by itself is not a hoax. However, the dihydrogen monoxide phenomenon is more than that: it's aim, through the deliberate use of chemical names that average people are unlikely to be familiar with, is to cause the misapprehension that the substance in question is something more/different than the common and familiar liquid that it is. (Would it work as well, or indeed at all, if one clearly identified to people that the substance was in fact "water"? Clearly not.) Therefor, insofar as the goal is to trick people through accurate but unfamiliar terminology into assuming something they otherwise would not, it's appropriate to identify it as a hoax. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article is not about dihydrogen monoxide, but about a hoax. As such, the current title is appropriate. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 11:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; per wp:commonname and commonsense. I really can't believe this is a real proposal being discussed here. The article is about the old 'hoax' regarding water, not the chemical compound itself. The first time I saw it, it was on a mimeographed (look that up if you want to get an idea of how long this has been floating around) sheet. The premise is typical of a 'hoax' or 'con,' so the word, 'joke,' is no good, as it is not a joke with a punch-line. Also, 'meme' doesn't work at all, as this hoax was around way before the popular internet was, and meme was not a common term then. Subbing 'prank' for 'hoax' is not any better. Just leave as is. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 11:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:COMMONNAME would place this article at water. The term "meme" dates to 1976 (per that article), an era when your precious mimeograph would have been very much still in use. K7L (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No, your logic is faulty. Commonname would place it at hoaxes involving water, NOT water, since it is about a hoax regarding water. Since that article doesn't exist, it's name is fine as it now stands. The word meme may, as you say "date" to 1976, but was far from any common usage until the mid- to late-90s. Oh, and my "precious" mimeograph is still in use even today (but not commonly), as they were in the 1970s (but not commonly and mostly in backwards, third world nations then). Cheers, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not a hoax, it's a logical fallacy. Different beast. "Dihydrogen monoxide has destroyed entire towns, so H2O should be banned" isn't a hoax (those villages are indeed gone) but is a logical fallacy if the proposed ban either doesn't solve the problem or creates new, worse problems. K7L (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is a fallacy. But your this argument is a fallacy as well, the one of the kind "it is not wood, it is timber". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Call to Close this Discussion. Can someone close this as there is not anything near consensus developing to change the article's title, and we're beating a very dead horse here. ThanX, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Yes it is a hoax, i.e., (a) a deliberately fabricated falsehood (b) made to masquerade as truth. re (a): The falsehood in question is that DHMO is an extremely dangerous substance to be banned. re (b): all true facts about HDMO properties are extactly deliberate masquerading tricks. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The danger is real. Thousands have drowned over the years. No hoax there. As for whether a ban would be helpful, that's purely a difference of opinion. As such, placing "hoax" in a title is POV and misleading. K7L (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, they drowned. Do you know that 97% of people who died of cancer ate cucumbers and 47% did thatat least twice a day in summertime? Staszek Lem (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • What do cucumbers have to do with anything (aside from their dihydrogen monoxide content)? Dihydrogen monoxide doesn't merely correlate with deaths by drowning, it causes them by mechanisms which are well-known and documented. Effectively, this stuff in sufficient quantities displaces oxygen in the victim's lungs and the victim dies. That's all been scientifically proven; do you need a WP:RS? I'm sure it could be sourced to either of the RMS Titanic enquiries (the US and UK each did one), which are reliable and any copyright on the findings has long expired. K7L (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @NickCT:: Re: "clearly not about water," I was just making a point based on comments like "the danger is real" below, which would seem to purport that this article addresses real dangers about water, which is not actually its intent (and if it were, it should be at water). Nonetheless, I do think hoax is still appropriate because there is an unstated fiction the whole idea rests upon: getting someone to believe dihydrogen monoxide is a harmful, unfamiliar substance (i.e. making sure they don't think you're talking about water). Looking at the Snopes link referenced in the article, people have been convinced to propose legislation on the subject -- a kind of notability that, to me, justifies "hoax." Two quotes from the article, the first of which comes from a New Zealand news source quoted by Snopes (and both of which happen to use the word "hoax":

    National MP Jacqui Dean has been caught out by a long-running hoax that seeks to trick gullible MPs into calling for a ban on "dihydrogen monoxide" — or water. A letter, signed by Ms Dean and sent to Associate Health Minister Jim Anderton, the minister in charge of drug policy, asked if the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs had a view on banning the "drug".

    In March 2004 the California municipality of Aliso Viejo (a suburb in Orange County) came within a cat's whisker of falling for this hoax after a paralegal there convinced city officials of the danger posed by this chemical. The leg-pull got so far as a vote's having been scheduled for the City Council on a proposed law that would have banned the use of foam containers at city-sponsored events because (among other things) they were made with DHMO, a substance that could "threaten human health and safety."

  • --— Rhododendrites talk |  13:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Why would an article about drowning or lifesaving be at water? There's enough there to stand alone as a separate topic. Individual incidents involving this stuff get articles if they're historically notable - and many are. K7L (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Surely we can find a more neutral term than "hoax"? It'd be difficult to find a less neutral term, short of creating articles with titles like "nonsensical Darwinian monkey business" or adopting the pro-death and anti-choice terminology of the abortion debate. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:8D7 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have tried to think of a more descriptive term than hoax, since it is a bit ambiguous and therefore open to misinterpretation. The phrase practical joke comes to mind, although, if used alone, it suffers from the same problems. That concept seems to be a fairly close description of the intent of the website, but it has an added dimension not included in the phrase. They wish to trick gullible people for the purpose of teaching them a lesson in critical thinking and scientific skepticism. They are aiming at people who "don't get it" because they are scientifically illiterate. Can we find a term which combines these ideas? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Ignore the edit summary. It's a copy/paste error.
  • Anything from dihydrogen monoxide panic to dihydrogen monoxide parody to dihydrogen monoxide spoof to dihydrogen monoxide ban petition is better than what's there now, although still POV to some extent. Using a loaded term like "hoax" is a little like telling those aboard the RMS Titanic that they should stop complaining because water is harmless. To a drowning person, water is anything but harmless. Perhaps just move this back to plain dihydrogen monoxide if this is the only context in which that name (as opposed to the WP:COMMONNAME) is used. K7L (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Check the archives of this Talk Page, if you haven't already - this topic has been much chewed-over in past years with no consensus reached about an alternative to "hoax." Changing the article back to plain old dihydrogen monoxide has been rejected previously, which doesn't mean it can't be considered again - although I would vote against that, since the article isn't about the term or the substance but about the entire ... well, hoax. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Either K7L is pulling our leg or they don't understand our WP:NPOV policy. The HHMO is called "DHMO hoax" and "DHMO joke" is reliable sources, i.e., it is "officially" recognized as such. The issue of neutrality might have been on the table if there were equally weighted opposite opinion about DHMO, kinda "DHMO threat" or "DHMO danger". However this opinion is propagated only by pranksters and stupid marks, therefore we dismiss it as an option for the main title per WP:FRINGE. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Do you understand WP:FRINGE? Elvis did 9/11 and the CIA is covering this up is WP:FRINGE if it can only be sourced to a supermarket tabloid, a claim that over 1500 people actually did drown (and are very much dead) in the wake of the RMS Titanic disaster is not. I doubt that any WP:RS is seriously disputing that there have been fatalities on the water, nor that better safety measures could prevent drownings.
I'd be fine with the term "dihydrogen monoxide effect" which thefederalist.com describes with "the gluten-free fad depends on the 'dihydrogen monoxide' effect, the famous stunt in which people were convinced to sign a petition to ban water, good old H2O, by rebranding it with a scary-sounding name."[2] Effectively, bury something behind a heap of scientific jargon and it sounds more dangerous or more intimidating, as a psychological effect. That still applies even if the underlying claims are technically true. Likewise, the Great Falls Tribune's claim that "The point here is that it’s easy to make anything sound like it’s scary. People drown in water every day, and water is used as a flame retardant. People tend to assume that things with scary names and vague descriptions are bad for you"[3] acknowledges the claims about DHMO are true while insisting they're more hype and sensation than useful data (in this instance, using DHMO as a rhetorical device to downplay Coca-Cola’s phase out of BVO, brominated vegetable oil, from their products). A similar theme from consumeraffairs.com, "Search online for information about dihydrogen monoxide, and you'll find a long list of scary and absolutely true warnings about it: used by the nuclear power industry, vital to the production of everything from pesticides to Styrofoam, present in tumors removed from cancer patients, and guaranteed fatal to humans in large quantities."[4] but concluding it's safe to drink this stuff. Dihydrogen monoxide effect, because it's the terminology and the reaction (psychological, not chemical) to vague, pseudoscientific jargon that's at stake. Just lose the word "hoax" as that is POV and wrong if this is deliberately constructed so that all the claims technically are true. K7L (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not a hoax, it's a logical fallacy. Take a look at Cherry picking (fallacy), an informal fallacy. Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally... K7L (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The confusion here occurs because the article is not about (a) water by another name, nor is it about (b) people who don't understand that DHMO is water; but it is about (c) the process of deliberately obscuring the name of water and fooling people into thinking that the name involves some other chemical - i.e., people committing a deliberate hoax of other people - in order to make one or more points. That's why the title is appropriate for this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

introduction

Many excellent edits have been made to the article today by K7L, but I've undone one of them: he/she rewrote the introduction in a way that made it appear the article was about the name "dihydrogen monoxide", not the hoax surrounding that name. I suspect this was done to avoid the word "hoax" - but that is the title of the article and since the consensus has not been to keep that title, the introduction needs to mention and describe the hoax, not the name. I have returned the previous introductory paragraph, which was very good (IMHO), and tweaked some other edits to avoid duplication. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The article *is* about the name. The whole point of this exercise is that using unfamiliar chemical nomenclature (such as "dihydrogen monoxide") makes this sound more dangerous than it is, while using the common name "water" makes the same substance appear harmless (with the reality between these extremes). The word "hoax" is simply incorrect; while the claims are technically true, they contain deliberate logical fallacies which are quite accurately described in the intro without resorting to POV terminology. I therefore strongly disagree with your reversion of my text. K7L (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The whole point is about the hoax, which uses the uncommon name; but is certainly NOT about the name. See the above wall of words: a discussion—which has been closed—but apparently not to K7's precious[sic above] views. (Note: I have just been editing this to WMoS for over an hour, and will introduce my changes later in the week (as time permits) due to constant edit conflicts. I will then reconcile any pertinent additions.) GenQuest "Talk to Me" 00:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The article "hoax" to which you link leads with "A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment, or rumors, urban legends, pseudosciences or April Fools' Day events that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes." If dihydrogen monoxide is parody science or an exercise in critical thinking concocted to demonstrate specific, common logical fallacy, it does not fit this definition. K7L (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
See above discussion. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 01:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This is about the article. The title is a separate issue. K7L (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
So in other words you did not get the outcome you desired in the article title discussion so change the article text accordingly and use the same arguments to back it up? --— Rhododendrites talk |  01:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
That seems to be the case, and could be grounds for a topic ban or longer block. This is extremely tendentious editing. K7L, you lost your attempt above and you need to drop the stick and walk away from this article. You simply can't be trusted to edit it, especially now that you've been caught red handed trying to subvert it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Basic wikipedia style is to use the article title in the first sentence - which means the word is hoax, not meme or parody or anything else. Until the article title changes, the first sentence will describe dihydrogen monoxide hoax. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Oxidane?

"Water is one acceptable name for this compound, even though it is neither a systematic nor an international name and is specific to just one phase of the compound. The other IUPAC recommendation is oxidane."[Leigh, G. J. et al. 1998. Principles of chemical nomenclature: a guide to IUPAC recommendations, p. 99. Blackwell Science Ltd, UK. ISBN 0-86542-685-6]

Any evidence of widespread use of this terminology? It's validly sourced, but yields very few hits on a web search. K7L (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the term Oxidane used on the website? If not, then discussion or mention of it has no place in this article. This article is not about water, regardless of what it's called, but about a hoax using the term Dihydrogen monoxide. We need to avoid OR and off-topic content here. If Oxidane is used on the website, can you explain why you are asking about it? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This article isn't about the DMHO.org website per se. K7L (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It is about the hoax propagated by that website. Information that is tangentially related to that is sometimes allowed in an article like this, but it must be tangentially related, without OR or going off-topic on the general subject of water. It must be about water with the DMHO formula and reactions to the hoax. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Please answer my questions above:
  1. Is the term Oxidane used on the website? Yes or No.
  2. If Oxidane is used on the website, can you explain why you are asking about it?
I'm AGF and requesting clarification. Please provide it for both questions. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

move

Somebody (who? hmmm... ) turned Dihydrogen monoxide into this article, with "meme" and "parody" replacing hoax. I've reverted it to a redirect. - 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that User:K7L = User:2001:5c0:1000:a::265. Block them both for sock puppetry. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
User:DavidWBrooks, in case you're in doubt, what are the chances of two Canadian editors editing so different articles as this article and this article? K7L's behavior, especially after losing their attempt to change the title of this article, has been one of subterfuge, trying to still change the content to fit their beliefs. Then, when I opposed them, they accused me of vandalism and a point violation and started a thread at AIV. Well, that was thrown out. They then stop editing for a short time, and then try to mess with the redirect. Very childish behavior. The behavior alone deserves a longer block, but now the sockpuppetry should seal their fate, especially since it was destructive sockpuppetry. Please block the sock indefinitely and K7L for at least three months, or indefinitely. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Two reverts

Since K7L has made so many edits while also sneaking consensus violating content into the mix, it's simply easier to revert to the last consensus version, which I have now done. K7L is welcome to gradually reinstate edits which do not challenge or overturn the consensus arrived at in their failed attempt at a name change. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that is most emphatically *not* what you just did. I've reported your repeated, unilateral deletion of a third of the entire article body (which has nothing to do with "consensus" and is not any status quo position) as WP:VANDAL as warnings on your user talk page have failed to resolve the problems. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. K7L (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Content from my talk page:

Please do not revert valid, reliably sourced contributions as collateral damage in order to make a WP:POINT in a content dispute, as you did here. This is vandalism and will be reported. K7L (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

When you make so many edits and sneak consensus violating content into the mix, it's simply easier to revert to the consensus version. You are welcome to gradually reinstate edits which do not challenge or overturn the consensus arrived at in your failed attempt at a name change. BTW, please keep this discussion at the article's talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
You just unilaterally deleted a third of the article, much of it existing, validly-sourced content. So much for a "consensus version" of anything. When your vandalism was reverted, you repeated the offending edits in an attempt to make a WP:POINT despite being explicitly warned. I've taken this to WP:AIV. Don't do this again. K7L (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's get a few things straight:
  1. The two reverts had nothing to do with each other. They were different types of content and I used different reasons for removing them.
  2. The second revert did remove properly sourced content that had been there for some time, but it didn't belong in that article at all. It was off-topic and OR.
  3. Based on those two explanations, I hope you can see that there was no POINT violation. I NEVER make POINT violations. It's childish and stupid. I have an excellent track record, in spite of editing lots of controversial stuff all the time, and I don't want to spoil that record.
  4. If you had followed BRD, instead of defiantly trying to reinstate the content, we could be discussing this peacefully on the talk page and work this out. Instead you chose to edit war and do battle. That's not good. Be more patient.
  5. If you had AGF and just asked, there would be no problem, but your failure to AGF, which is a serious policy violation, only creates disruption. Don't create such disruption again. Try being collaborative, instead of going to battle.
  6. I've been here a heck of a lot longer than you and have much more experience here. I don't make such reverts lightly, and you really should treat other, more experienced, editors with more respect.
  7. Having said that, I know I can make mistakes, and I'm certainly willing to discuss the matter on the talk page. Let's do it there.
Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Are there any questions after reading that? Keep in mind we are dealing with two very different reverts, one of which had nothing to do with K7L. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

For convenience I'll create separate sections for discussion of each revert. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

First revert: K7L's additions

First revert.

Edit summary: Reverted to revision 610953051 by Vallanne (talk): Restoring consensus version before K7L's massive additions, which also included sneaky changes against consensus. (TW))

Brangifer (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support revert. Also pointing out that this does not appear to be an isolated affair. There is similar original research over-explaining humor by citing unreliable or irrelevant (i.e. factual/serious rather than about humor) sources over at Mathematical joke (see diff). --— Rhododendrites talk |  20:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as, by removing reliable sources which verify that "the claims made are in principle all true but the result is scientifically worthless" (which was in one of the cited books) while retaining websites which specialise in picking one claim out of an e-mail and categorising it as "hoax" or "not hoax", Snopes-style, you are cherry picking sources to support a confirmation bias. The purpose of an encyclopaedia article is to fully explain the topic. If the original piece is intended to demonstrate logical fallacy, say so. We need to present notable positions and analysis from all independent, reliable sources in a WP:NEUTRAL manner without removing valid info just to support an editor's own opinion of the subject matter. Removing a large block of valid, reliably sourced content to retaliate on an unrelated question (the article's title) is not constructive and merely disruption to make a WP:POINT. Spuriously threatening bans and blocks in an attempt to gain leverage in an edit dispute is also poor form; we have a tradition of leaving those decisions to uninvolved administrators and not just any random editor who thinks they WP:OWN an article for good reason. K7L (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per above and certainly wp:Scope. Someone here just doesn't get it. Might I point out that repeating your position, and repeating your position, and repeating your position ad nauseum with walls and walls of redundant text and tantrum-like editing is also bad form, per WP:OWN. This corrects that. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Funny you should mention WP:SCOPE, as Wikipedia:Scope#Choosing the scope says "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular POV on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular POV." and "Use the most general scope for each article you can. Since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's supposed to summarise essentially all knowledge. Hence accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible. Since the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is to be a useful reference work, narrow article scopes are to be avoided." along with a link to an essay Wikipedia:Avoiding POV funnels. K7L (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing artificial about the scope of an article about a hoax, being about the hoax. What is artificial is trying to make a hoax article about something which it is NOT about, the compound—an article/discussion which belongs somewhere else. POV is not even involved here. That you don't see (or want to see) that speaks clearly that you are too closed to debate, and too close to your own POV, to objectively edit this article neutrally. Per scope: "Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus." That consensus is illustrated in the above, now closed, discussion.
I am done beating this dead horse. You should be, too. I wish you the best, but (imo) you should not further edit this article. I'm out. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
In that case, any titles which might even remotely be about the compound should redirect to the page about the compound... and not here. K7L (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Second revert: Irrelevant content

Second revert.

Edit summary: rmv massive OR which is unrelated to the hoax. The article isn't for the purpose of explaining all about nomenclature. Keeping only what's relevant.

We have a redirect link at the top of the article:

  • "Dihydrogen monoxide" redirects here. For the H2O molecule, see Properties of water.

By "nomenclature, I was referring to all the stuff about water in general, which was the content I deleted. The Properties of water article is the place for such content, not here.

Brangifer (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment / Support - To be fair (looking at ANV, etc.), the BRD you're invoking only applies to the previous revert. For this one you are the B (and, case in point, D). K7L reverting both at once makes it a little messy, but ultimately I don't think it really matters who is B, R, or D because it seems clear that consensus has formed against K7L regarding the subject and direction of this article, which I would extend to reverting the removal of this content. --— Rhododendrites talk |  20:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that the BRD application to this one is "a little messy"! Since it's a totally different type of content, and unrelated to K7L's edits, and also longstanding properly sourced content, this revert should be considered on its own merits (or demerits). I felt it went off-topic and started covering material better suited to the Properties of water article, which is why I removed it. The timing made it a bit awkward, because K7L seems to think that deletion was related to him and went on the warpath by claiming it was vandalism and a POINT violation. Well, that's absurd. I just happened to notice that content, since I was reading the article anyway. I can now see what you mean that it seemed to be taking the article in the same off-topic direction that K7L was seeking to do, but I removed it without thinking of him at the time. I just noticed it was off-topic. I would appreciate it if others really take a good look at that content I removed and decide whether I removed too much or not enough. Also take a good look at the article as a whole now and tighten it up more if necessary, so that it really stays on-topic. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This article isn't about DHMO.org'. It's about every topic for which a title redirects here, including dihydrogen monoxide, hydrogen oxide, oxidane, H2O, whatever. If those terms are not defined here, the redirects should be changed to point to water or disambiguate ice, water, steam. Another option would be to put the nomenclature information at one of the other titles (so that none of them direct here) and leave the info about the joke here. K7L (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The scope of this article seems clear enough from its title and its disambiguation hatnote. Is there any reason to think that a majority of readers arriving via the "dihydrogen monoxide" redirect are actually looking to learn about water rather than the hoax? --McGeddon (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The term "dihydrogen monoxide" is notable primarily for the non-standard nomenclature, information of which is no longer in this article. I'd expect they would be looking for H2O and not for an opinion piece denouncing Alexa 400000-rank DHMO.org, a site which fails WP:GNG. K7L (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Version by GenQuest

I am not sure that the wholesale revert was warranted. While I agree that GenQuest's intro is rather clumsy, the rest of the text is IMO better structures and has additional facts. I'd rather rewrote once more than revert the whole new text. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I responded on my talk page - feel free to revert by revert and/or edit it. I may have become jaded about this article for obvious reason and over-reacted (although GenQuest's intro is pretty hard to read). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Chemtech article circa 1984

The journal CHEMTECH did an article in the same vein in (I believe) 1984. I used it in my Pchem classes as a graduate student. It included such information as LD50 values (listed in depth in inches) for various animals, including 'cat in bag with rock'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.217.136 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

DHMO

I dont know how many people come here when they're trying to find "Dental Health Maintenance Organization". I, though familiar already with the dihydrogen monoxide story, was surprised to find not even a mention of the other meaning. Is it worth making a dab page just for that ? —Soap— 21:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If there are high hits for Dental Health Maintenance Organization, the most that should be done is a simple disambiguation. Even IF the confusion is significant, unless we garner secondary sources (highly unlikely that someone will make a news article on it), we can't do Original Research, especially on something Self referencing. Jcmcc (Talk) 06:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I put a "for" tag on the top, since this is included as a section in the Dental insurance article, with the DHMO abbreviation used. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody/Archive_2&oldid=1136663066"