Talk:Dihydrogen monoxide parody/Archive 1

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

original text?

Does this link have the original text? [1] If so, it's probably worth copying to wikisource. Lefty 19:30, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

The origin of the Coalition to ban DHMO

I authored / edited the original web page referenced above (formerly hosted at circus.com). The idea started at UCSC, and Eric Lechner created a warning sheet designed to be posted on water coolers. I added to it and changed it around, creating a political cause, and posting on the web for the first time in 1994. It was first offically published in print by Analog Magazine. Nathan Zohner later drew media attention to it by using it as the basis for his science exeriment, and the folks at dhmo.org ran with the idea further.

The original Coalition page included my home address along with a request to send an SASE for more information. I received many inquiries via post and email, along with a surprising number of letters from teachers who had asked their students to write reaction papers to it. A few of these are still around on the net: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/dhmofoot.htm

-Craig Jackson, President of the Coalition to ban DHMO

Could you edit the article to reflect this? - DavidWBrooks 5 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)


long tutorial on chemical nomenclature

entire section could be replaced by a link and a comment that its a very rarely used technical name for water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.243.109 (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

dhmo.org

I suppose you could take some effort, and try to read more of the reasoning behind the dhmo.org page, which is available not so difficultly on:

this page username: press, password: press

Maybe the article wouldn't be so aggresive then.

A anti-DHMO-action fan.

Aggressive? I'm not sure what you mean; it seems pretty level-headed to me. - DavidWBrooks 20:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
dhmo.org seems pretty biased to me. A google query indicates that nowhere is the substance identified as "water". Peter T.S. 22:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
(Wow - a response to a comment made 13 months ago!) You are joking, right? You do realize dhmo is a joke, right? I'm being idiotic by responding to you as if you were serious, right? - DavidWBrooks 01:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes... though no offense intended by the "idiot" part. I think it's a particularly funny one. Perhaps I should have put in a ":)" there to avoid this confusion. Peter T.S. 13:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I must be getting old: I require a smiley to comprehend something ... egad. - DavidWBrooks 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Accurate?

Compare "are accurate but rarely-used names" with "[t]echnically speaking the chemical name dihydrogen monoxide is not correct ... [h]ydrogen hydroxide is also technically incorrect". Have replaced the first with "humorous, pseudoscientific" but that's still not the best description...

Good point. "pseudoscientific" is too strong but on the right track; how about "scientific-sounding"? - DavidWBrooks 14:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Isn't "dihydrogen monoxide" the correct name for water as a molecular compound though? I am only starting chemistry, so maybe someone can answer this. 66.41.59.162 01:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It is in fact correct, but it is also true that the term is (purposefully) a bit over-formal. So I changed it to "a somewhat pedagogical chemical name." --Ur Wurst Enema 01:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought the chemical name would be like some other oxides:

But, I don't know. --rob 02:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Those are also correct chemical names for H2O, which is why I said it is "a" name and not "the" name.  :)

Others include, as the article currently states, hydrogen hydroxide and hydroxic acid. --Ur Wurst Enema 02:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I should have read the article more carefully/completely. --rob 03:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Changed to "cryptic", since the whole point was to be technically correct but deceptive. Lefty 16:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com, "cryptic" means
1) Having hidden meaning; mystifying. See Synonyms at ambiguous.
2) Secret or occult.
3) Using code or cipher.
These are ill fitting descriptions for what we need, as 1) DHMO does not have hidden meaning, 2) is not secret, and 3) is not a code. It is simply a chemical name. Would we call carbon dioxide, or hydrogen peroxide cryptic?
Meanwhile, while one of the definitions of "pedagogical" does indeed pertain to teaching, it has another that means "pedantic formality" - i.e. overformal. I think this is closer to what we want than "cryptic."
With this in mind I have reverted. Ur Wurst Enema
Those other chemicals don't apply, as there is no non-technical name for them. There is a non-technical name for water, and using a technical synonym in non-technical contexts is mystifying. Note that pedantic formality is a later definition of pedagogical, but mystifying is an early definition for cryptic. Lefty 11:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
And besides too, I'm not sure that "dihydrogen monoxide" is a proper scientific term; if you'll check above you'll see that that's the cause of this imbroglio. The last paragraph of the "Terminology" section list four scientific synonyms, none of which are dhmo. If it's not a proper scientific term then pedantic doesn't apply. Lefty 11:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd have to vote against "pedagogical", too. Its meaning as roughly "methods of teaching" is far and away the best-known meaning, which doesn't fit at all. But "cryptic" isn't exactly right, either. I like "tongue-in-cheek" because this whole thing is a deliberate joke, but I haven't put it in, because I believe it was in earlier and taken out by some who objected to it. - DavidWBrooks 12:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to "pedantic" if it is a technically accurate term, or "scientific sounding" if it isn't. The article isn't clear on whether it is or isn't. Lefty 14:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
"There is a non-technical name for water, and using a technical synonym in non-technical contexts is mystifying."
Hmm... perhaps petitions in scientific matters (like the joke itself) *should* be considered a technical context - i.e. only mystifying for people who have no business signing such petitions. I would agree that, as you suggested above, technical terms in technical contexts would not qualify as mystifying.
"I'm not sure that "dihydrogen monoxide" is a proper scientific term; if you'll check above you'll see that that's the cause of this imbroglio."
It is a proper term, and is explained quite clearly in the terminology section. I make no claim to be an expert on this matter, but I was in a school of engineering for two years, which included chemistry, so I know at least a little bit about this.
"The last paragraph of the "Terminology" section list four scientific synonyms, none of which are dhmo."
Why are we limiting to just the last para? The section lists five, one of which is DHMO.
Will edit to "somewhat pedantic" until further notice. --Ur Wurst Enema 21:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
A grade 11 Chem text book lists a rule that prefixes are not applied to hydrogen when it is the first element named. Peter T.S. 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
"The mono- prefix is usually only applied in cases where there are two or more possible oxide compounds, such as the case with carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, and silicon monoxide and silicon dioxide.

Water has a regular scientific or systematic name of hydrogen oxide, " I think this is wrong (ie the name dihydrogen monoxide is strictly correct) , for a start dihydrogen has 3 diferent oxides, water H20, hydrogen peroxide H202 and Trioxidane H2O3. for a second point, water is a covalent molecular substance, the naming coventions for such (as defined in the textbook "foundations of chemistry")require that all prefixes be included with the exception of mono iff (if and only if) it occures at the start of the compunds molecular formular. Oxinabox1 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that you are correct, Oxinabox1. Water does not have "dihydrogen monoxide" as a common synonym. In the most pedantic of uses, it is possible that it could be used, but I have never heard an English speaking person with a chemistry degree use that word, even in jest, to describe water. Check the MSDS for the product, or chemfinder.com. JT Baker lists the following synonyms Hydrogen oxide; Dihydrogen oxide; Distilled water; chemfinder.com lists the following synonyms Aqua; Dihydrogen oxide; Deionized Ultra-filtered Water; Water; Hydrogen oxide; Ice; Snow; Steam. A search for dihydrogen monoxide on scifinder scholar turned up only a single result. I'm a published Ph.D. student in chemistry, and I feel that I've cited fairly strong sources showing that Dihydrogen monoxide is certainly not present in the technical language of chemistry. I do not know how to edit the page so that references would appear proper, so I'm just going to state my case here and hope that a more experienced person will see fit that my argument has enough merit to make a minor edit to the page. A link to an MSDS should be enough to establish that while a possible unambiguous name for water, dihydrogen monoxide is certainly not in use. Link is to JT Baker's MSDS. [2]Nmathew 23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm Old argument, I Still agree with my self (however pidantic i was) How can we differentiate between the 3 Hydrogen Oxides without using the mono prefix? when i first heard the hoax it used the dihydrogen Monoxide name, i think Oxinabox (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

npov

can you safely call it a hoax? there is never any false information or forgery.

It's more of a joke, but it is a joke that has fooled people and caused them to behave in inappropriate ways, which is what hoaxes do. It's not really a deliberate hoax, more of an accidental hoax. Could we think of a better term? - DavidWBrooks 16:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
According to dictionary.com, a hoax is "An act intended to deceive or trick". It doesn't have to be false. Lefty 13:07, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
Personally I think the article name spoils it since it turns up as the first google result. There is no deception and while it might be called a trick renaming the article just "Dihydrogen monoxide" would have the added benefit of avoiding spoiling the game for future generations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.197.137 (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessive ingestion of H2O is not life-threatening?

Leah Betts might disagree, and we have an article on water intoxication... Ojw 21:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

an economic perspective

In the intro I added the idea that the DHMO petition is not strictly an illustration of ignorance of science, but ignorance of economic reasoning, namely that those who wanted to ban DHMO wanted to do so strictly on its associated costs without its associated benefits (like being alive). Personally I think that the cost/benefit description fits much better than the science one (after all DHMO could be scientifically proven to fit all the enumerated costs), but I did not want to totally abandon the prevailing notions. Any thoughts? --Ur Wurst Enema 16:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you've missed the whole joke. The joke is thatpeople don't realize DMHO *is* water, not that they're doing a poor economic analysis - they don't think it has any benefits, because they don't know what it is. - DavidWBrooks 23:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course whether the joke works or not hinges on people not knowing that DHMO is water. I know that. But the ultimate point goes beyond people not knowing their Chemistry 101. The point includes (or should include) the idea that people often hear the costs of something and then immediately react to those costs without asking, what might the benefits be? If they did so, they would find out that the cost of banning DHMO would include death. And along they way they would figure out that DHMO is water.

You're right that people don't know about its benefits only because they don't know it's water - something with which they have everyday experience. But when people don't have such direct experience in a matter (which natually includes much if not most public policy), the answers to the matter in question require an honest comparison of cost and benefits (not to mention research) - which the DHMO hoax demonstrates that many people are unable/unwilling to do. --Ur Wurst Enema 09:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. Imagine the whole joke - listing all the bad stuff and no good stuff - using the word "water" instead of "DHMO". It would fall completely flat. The thing that makes it work, and the reason anybody cares about it, is that it shows that people react illogically to "bad-sounding" "chemical" names. - DavidWBrooks 01:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course it would not work without obscuring it behind a chemical name. But you're onto something like what I said by saying that people react illogically to certain things. Why is such a reaction described as illogical? Probably because instead of taking the time to inform themselves and make an honest cost comparison, they just fell into "ban it" syndrome. This particular hoax is so poignant because it has gotten people to "ban" something which obviously shouldn't be banned, but by itself is merely a symptom of an overarching problem - that when people find themselves lacking information, they act on ignorance instead of rectifying their lack of information. Which is kind of what I was trying to say. :) --Ur Wurst Enema 09:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with ignorance of science. This is a simple case of people not trying to analyze the information given to them. Anyone, once he/she gives it a thought will understand that DHMO is H20. This is an example of gullibility, not ignorance.

I also agree that chemistry is not the most interesting part of this. Yes, it's amusing and perhaps surprising to the less cynical among us that people are ignorant of basic junior high school chemistry, but it need not stop there. After that part of it has gotten old and you've gotten cynical enough, you no longer care whether people know their chemistry or not, it's not like it's among the biggest faults of the ignorant.

Much more alarming (and amusing in a twisted, cynical sense) is the utter inability of many to appraise the value (or otherwise!) of even perfectly correct and factual information. If you can't do that, how can you be expected to make sense of the jumble of information you get from media etc., which is at least slightly incorrect most of the time, and at times blatantly designed to mislead? That is food for thought for those who have not yet completely given up hope that the general public might one day develop even the slightest amount of resistance to mind control of the simplest kind, and is actually something that really matters. Vaccine is a weakened form of a disease-causing agent, and I think this "joke" definitely qualifies as one. 130.233.22.111 09:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I see what you did there. You should have linked it to irony.Eebster the Great (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

North Carolina?

The article currently asserts:

By other records it was popularized by a North Carolina Chemistry teacher, who cautioned his
students about this dangerous chemical. Since the town was so close to the ocean, the teacher
informed them that they where actually very close to a huge natural pocket of this deadly
compound, and thus the hoax was born.

I'd love to see documentation on this. Especially since as an eariler edit states this happened in 1988, before the UCSC pages. In any case however, it's clear that the current incarnation is based on the UCSC students stuff - and they didn't have any knowlage of previous hoaxes. Ocicat 19:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed it - as I did earlier this week - out of suspicion that it's a joke. It was placed there by anons, or just-created accounts, with some vandalizing intermingled. It may well be true, but it requires more than such an urban-legend-sounding recounting. I certainly can't find anything about it online (the earlier version included a name, which got nowhere on Google; not that that is the final word, though) - DavidWBrooks 21:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

I rewrote the article recently; DavidWBrooks reverted (13:21, 1 March 2006) and said: "the earlier version, hashed out over many months, is much preferable - make a case in Talk if you want a big rewrite".

Perhaps others would like to compare two versions (mine is 13:17, 1 March 2006 Pol098), and comment here. I'd be particularly interested to hear any adverse comments, as I don't want to waste time with rewrites considered much un-preferable to the original. I will revert if and only if there is about a 2/3 majority in favour of my version; if anyone else wants to revert in the event of a majority, but smaller, it's up to you.

I don't know whether others agree with retention of my paragraph about gullibility in general to emotive terms. I think the harmless DHMO hoax is a useful way to look at people's attitudes and behaviours without using loaded words and ideas; but maybe the paragraph should be omitted even if the rest of the article has merit?

Thanks to DavidWBrooks for the critical review; not what I wanted, but it's the way we hammer out better articles.

I append the first part of my version; this is simply a text copy of (13:17, 1 March 2006 Pol098)

Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is a chemical substance whose molecule comprises two atoms of hydrogen (Di-Hydrogen) bound to one (Mono) atom of oxygen (Oxide).

In other words, DHMO is a correct, but obscure, name for water, H2O; the obscure name is used as the basis for a hoax.

This article is about the hoax usage; see articles on water (molecule) and water for actual details about DHMO.

The [[hoax] involves listing negative properties of "the chemical, DHMO", such as contributing to soil erosion or causing death by inhalation (drowning), and then asking individuals for their opinions or their assistance regarding this "dangerous chemical". A great many people are taken in and react as if DHMO were indeed a threat..

This illustrates how a knee-jerk reaction, in place of thought, about a "chemical" can lead to irrational fears among people who do not attempt to find out the facts before reacting. This often deceives even those who know the chemical formula for water and thus have the intellectual tools to penetrate the disguise—high school chemistry teachers, university science students, and environmentalists are listed below. Although this is a hoax due to its intention, everything that is said is true, but in an unfamiliar form. In particular "monoxide" invites knee-jerk analogy with carbon monoxide, well known to be poisonous.

The effectiveness of this harmless deception highlights humans' tragic tendency to be easily persuaded by what they are told to react, without thinking or looking at the facts, to emotive terms: immigrants, groups of different appearance ("blacks"), religious belief ("infidels" or "Muslims"), or culture ("gypsies"), etc.

The DHMO joke was apparently originally perpetrated by Eric Lechner and Lars Norpchen in 1990, revised by Craig Jackson in 1994, and brought to widespread public attention in 1997, when Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old student, gathered petitions to ban DHMO as the basis of his science project "How Gullible Are We?"

Pol098 15:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My major complaint is that your rewrite starts out like a chemistry article, whereas this is an article about a joke that has had interesting results. (After all, the title of this article is "dihydrogen monoxide hoax" not "dihydrogen monoxide".) Hence the current opening sentence: Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is an obscure name for water used in variations of a common hoax that illustrates how ignorance of science and one-sided analysis can lead to misplaced fears among environmental activists and others. - rather than an opening that talks about chemistry. (Check the history and you'll see how much back-and-forth it took just to decide on that adjective "obscure"!) - DavidWBrooks 15:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I quite like the idea of the "knee-jerk" paragraph and comparing it to racism, etc. I do agree with David though that the current opening is preferable. I'd like to have at those two paragraphs worked into the current structure. Ocicat 17:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it would really be beneficial to link the DHMO hoax to racism etc. I agree that DHMO is probably a very good example of how easily you can get people to act a certain way when you appeal to their prejudices correctly, but this article is not really about the art of demagoguery or propaganda, but simply about the DHMO hoax. --Ur Wurst Enema 20:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the paragraph about racism is unnecessary. It seems like too much of a stretch. Itub 18:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources note

Here's the Internet Archive entry for the original web page: [3]

Here's the Internet Archive entry for the original Coalition membership: [4]

There are at least three primary sources for this involved in the discussion, if you include Eric Lecnher's edits from a while ago. Georgewilliamherbert 04:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Robert Nisbet link in Public Efforts

Someone just linked in Robert Nisbet who died in 1996 as having done some DHMO workplace safety flyers in 2005. I am reverting that back out until the context is corrected or explained and the link fixed. Georgewilliamherbert 18:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoax?

Tom Way clearly states in the press section of dhmo.org that "I am not a prankster and the site is not a hoax, although these are popular misconceptions that require debunking." The point being that his page is an educational tool that can be used for teaching information literacy. Is it npov to constantly refer to it as a hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.145.69 (talk • contribs)

Good point. Why isn't this article just named "Dihydrogen monoxide"? It does redirect here, but why not the other way around? --SB_Johnny | talk 00:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Tom's not a hoax, but DHMO started as one. Or a prank. Depends on your point of view. That Tom took it and went off in one direction with it a ways is fine, but doesn't change the original nature. Georgewilliamherbert 01:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
A hoax, by definition, is false. In reality it is a prank (at best). I recommend changing the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.44.121.252 (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DHMO is not a hoax, but the "dangers of DHMO" is a hoax. Yet, I do not think renaming the article as "Dangers of dihydrogen monoxide hoax" would accomplish anything --JimWae (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

Where exactly do the IUPAC rules say that water is the only permitted name? As I read them, water (and various national equivalents) is an acceptable trivial name, but is not an official name at all. -- Securiger 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just skimmed through the current rules, and can't find anything to support the claim, so I have added a {{disputed}} tag. By all means remove it if you can find a reliable cite. -- Securiger 01:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I just searched through the new provisional recommendations,[5] and they don't say anything about it. The only thing they say is that "oxidane" should not be used to refer to water, but only for the construction of derived names. Itub 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I also had a look at the link above, and there is a pertinent example in chapter 2:
(i) In isotopically substituted compounds, the appropriate nuclide symbol(s) is placed in parentheses before the name of the part of the compound that is isotopically substituted (see Section II-2.3.3 of Ref. 2). Compare with the use of square brackets for specifically and selectively labelled compounds in Section IR-2.2.2.2(a).
Example:
9. H3HO (3H1)water
It seems to me that this usage implies that "water" is an official for H2O, not just a trivial one, otherwise they would not use it in an official naming example in this manner.
Nowhere does it say that the structural name shouldn't be used, though, so the phrasing should probably be changed. TeraBlight 05:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Logical fallacies

I think someone should describe the kind of logical fallacies that lead to negative conclusions from some of the statements. For example, the following two are obviously logical fallacies:

[DHMO] is a major component of acid rain. Acid rain is bad. Therefore DHMO is bad.
It has been found in the tumors of terminal cancer patients. Tumors are bad. Therefore DHMO is bad.

Do these fall under association fallacy or some other fallacy? Thanks. --Spoon! 07:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A guess: affirming the antecedent. --Tianxiaozhang 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My teacher gave me a report on this

He probably didn't think I would look it up on Wikipedia

Or he did and wanted to see your ability to criticize your sources. --Frodet 07:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Louisville Courier Journal link

The fourth reference, "Water without hydrogen would warrant warning, Louisville Courier-Journal, Monday, July 17, 2006" is broken. I would just remove it if it were just an external link, but I don't really want to remove a reference. Could somebody find a link that works? Also, a picture of what it is referring to (the "warning sign" in Louisville, Kentucky) would be incredibly awesome. --Transfinite 23:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(sic)

This aversion to (sic) is new to me - adding it isn't considered making a change to quoted material, which seems to be your objection - the whole point of its existence is to be placed in quoted material, to demonstrate that something which is "wrong" is correctly copied. Can you point me to something that says "don't use (sic) in wikipedia" ? Otherwise, I'd like to return it so that people don't think "that's stupid- "despite" is misspelled" without having to go into the edit mode to see an explanation (actually, there is no explanation in edit mode either, just a lecture) - DavidWBrooks 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I should have responded on my talk page earlier... my apologies. We do have Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations, which says in part:
"Avoid linking from within quotes, as doing so clutters the quotation, violates the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and may mislead or confuse the reader."
That addresses the topic in passing ("...the principle of leaving quotations unchanged..."), but not directly.
I recalled there being a stronger guideline which said more specifically not to modify the contents of quotes, but I haven't found it in intermittent looking for it since you asked me this morning. I am going to ask around and see if I was mistaken, or if I just can't find the right guideline tonight... Georgewilliamherbert 02:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. But (sic) isn't usually considered modifying quotes - it exists just to be put into quotes as a signal to the reader. - DavidWBrooks 11:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a difference between newspapers/magazines, where (sic) is standard, and encyclopedias, where I don't see it generally used. WP has some aspects of both, in particular the editability, but it's not a newspaper... Georgewilliamherbert 17:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
However, it might prevent issue like the anon who just "fixed" the quote. - DavidWBrooks 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Small note

As a child (five years or so ago) our class went to the library to talk about the Internet. We were given three sites and told to pick out the fake one (a lesson on misinformation). DHMO was the fake site. This article brought up many memories. --Viridis 07:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Zohnerism

I've put a merge tag on Zohnerism to here - it doesn't seem to be especially notable, is an orphan, and has no references. Totnesmartin 19:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename this article

The word "hoax" in this article's title is misleading. It's not a hoax, but a parody. A hoax is an attempt to trick the victim into believing that something false, is true. As such, the DHMO thing is clearly not a hoax on two counts:

  • It doesn't make any false statements (at least not in most manifestations). Instead, it makes a lot of TRUE statements, and uses these to demonstrate the absurdity of naive application of causality theory.
  • Nobody (at least no adult with even a very basic education) would resonably believe the "hoax" to be true. Its clearly done to poke fun at certain subcultures.

I propose this article is renamed to Dihydrogen monoxide parody, and categorised accordingly. Dontdoit 23:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldnt agree more Ischemia 13:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree too, although I would rather just call the article "Dihydrogen monoxide", so that we don't need to debate whether it is parody, prank, satire, or whatever. But hoax seems to be one of the less-accurate terms we could choose, IMO. Itub 13:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You have a point. It's been "hoax" since the creation almost three years ago, but I guess there's no reason it couldn't be just Dihyrogen monoxide. It exists as a redirect to this article, so it would be easy to swap the redirect the other way. - DavidWBrooks 19:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to move pages, if there already exists a page with that name. I suggested "parody", because the name is available, and it nicely fits the definition in the first sentence at parody. We can always redirect Dihydrogen monoxide to whatever name we choose. Dontdoit 03:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You can move pages to an existing target (which is, in this case, just a redirect) if you want. It takes a couple of steps and should be performed by someone who has a clue.
I have no problem with the idea of moving it, but I want to make sure there are enough people in favor of it before anything is done. I think we're headed towards enough, but not there yet... Georgewilliamherbert 07:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Did people realize there's a Dihydrogen monoxide (disambiguation) page? I didn't. it points to water, water(molecule) and here. Ridiculous! Looking at the history of Dihydrogen monoxide is kind of amusing; it has always existing as a redirect page, but sometimes to water, sometimes to here, sometimes to Dihydrogen monoxide (disambiguation). It's never had any real content. - DavidWBrooks 21:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dihydrogen monoxide should point nowhere except to water. In fact, perhaps it ought to be the other way around. I mean, we don't have nitrogen monoxide pointing to Endothelium-derived relaxing factor do we? and yes the DHMO thing definitely isn't a "hoax". Klower 13:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But "Dihydrogen monoxide" isn't a chemical term used by anybody *except* in conjunction with this hoax/joke/parody/socialcommentary/whatever. Nobody types "dihydrogen monoxide" into a search engine, looking for information about water. I don't think the rules used for articles about legitimate chemical nomenclature need to apply in this case. - DavidWBrooks 14:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yet "dihydrogen monoxide" is completely consistent with covalent nomenclature --JimWae 16:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
But it's not ever used that way - the only usage of "dihydogen monoxide" is within this hoax-ish-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 then points to Cardiff Giant (hoax), just because "Cardiff Giant" is a perfectly consistent nickname for somebody who lived in Cardiff and is really big. - DavidWBrooks 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of "hoax" in the article name isn't entirely incorrect. The Wikipedia article of hoax even makes a reference to this article as a hoax variant: "..however, it is possible to perpetrate a hoax by making only true statements using unfamiliar wording or context (see DHMO)". There is no other word which describes this phenomenon better. I see no reason to rename. --Frodet 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right that its not "enterly incorrect", but it isnt really approrpriate either. The whole dhmo thing could be done as a hoax, but it wouldn't work for very long. When I first saw the dhmo.org page, I was fooled for maybe half a page, then I realised it was a joke. I think the sites an amusing one and sometimes I look at it again, because its funny not because I'm being duped anymore, so its more of a joke/parody/spoof than it is a hoax WhaleWey

"Hoax" is not the right way to talk about a joke. It's not the same thing at all as things like the Piltdown man. That was intended to deceive, whereas this isn't (although it might do that in some cases). Carmen56 12:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It was (is) intended to deceive some people, just not all people, which makes it different from the Piltdown-type hoax but doesn't mean it's not a hoax at all. It's kind of neither-fish-nor-fowl, which is why the issue has been chewed over so much. - DavidWBrooks 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is none of these: it is an educational tool if you look at http://www.dhmo.org/presskit/ (user/pass = press/press) he explains what this is. It is for teaching students that despite the conclusion you must draw from it (banning DHMO) do to truth twisting it really is not that way. Comperr 15:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what he's using it for. Originally, it was a prank against ... less scientifically educated UCSC students. Georgewilliamherbert 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fountain hoax

Something bugs me about the statement that the fountain hoax "relied on the public's lack of understanding". As a scientifically literate person, if I saw a sign on a fountain saying that the water contained a large amount of hydrogen, I might assume good faith on the part of the poster, and interpret the sign to mean that the water contains a large amount of dissolved molecular hydrogen, which might be caught on fire by a nearby smoker. Who knows... maybe I'd even convince myself that there was some anti-corrosion treatment for metal that could involve dissolved hydrogen being present for several days. I am reluctant to remove the statement based on my personal perspective, but it seems amiss. 204.186.148.95 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The text is a quote is from a newspaper as to the reasoning behind the signs, so should probably be kept --h2g2bob (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Original Web appearance has changed

If the section’s text is “Original”, why has it been changing? According to #Primary sources note, this is the original. I’m going to change the text back to the linked version’s. —LOL 22:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hydronium Hydroxide

These complicated names for ordinary water have been campus jokes for, well - I'm going to guess about 100 years. Water has some percentage of free ions in the form of Hydronium and Hydroxide. H3O + OH = 2 H2O My college physics professor was throwing "Hydronium Hydroxide" or "Hydronium Oxide" around in the 1960's, and he probably encountered it when he was a student of John Strong in the Physics Department at Johns Hopkins in the 1940's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.100.36 (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Interesting coincidence - my physics professor (Jack Taylor) also studied under John Strong and I first was exposed to the concept in the 1960's as well.

Dihydrogen monoxide: little used or misleading?

Rather than get into an edit war with DavidWBrooks, I will ask this here. While dihydrogen monoxide is used to mislead, the name itself it technically correct. That most of the public are unfamiliar with the term or lack the background to parse it out does not make it misleading. Thoughts? TechBear (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, in that the way I rewrote it ("... under a misleading name ... ") isn't great. Editing help is needed! But "dihydrogen monoxide" is misleading in the sense that virtually nobody will realize what it means - it is used to mislead people into thinking about toxic chemicals rather than water. (Did anybody in any publication ever use the term "dihydrogen monoxide" before this hoax came along? I'd love to see a cite of it.)
The key point, I think, is to immediately inform readers that the name was chosen to fool people, leaving debate about science-terminology merits to later sentences. The technical aspect of the name is almost irrelevant to the hoax and shouldn't be (IMHO) included until we've made it clear why that odd name was being used. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought my revision of the lede made this clear: The dihydrogen monoxide hoax involves listing negative effects of water and then asking individuals to help control the seemingly dangerous substance. Dihydrogen monoxide (shortened to DHMO) is a scientific name for water that, while technically correct, is almost never employed by scientists and is relatively unknown to the general public. This has led to its use in hoaxes illustrating how the lack of scientific knowledge and an exaggerated analysis can lead to misplaced fears.
The use of "dihydrogen monoxide" is a scientific name for water that is almost never employed by scientists and relatively unknown to the general public (except in the context of this hoax, that is.) Anyone with scientific knowledge would either recognize the name immediately or be able to parse it out pretty quickly and realize what is being referenced; thus, those without scientific knowledge get taken in by the exaggerated analysis. That is what makes it such a good illustration of misplaced fears. TechBear (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
My concern about that revision is that it doesn't include the use of the misleading name in the intro sentence, which is key to the entire hoax. The hoax could have been done with milk or air or any other ordinary substance, as long as a weird-sounding name was used to mislead people. The sentence above makes it sound like they listed negative effects for water while calling it water and then people got upset, which would really be strange.
Also, I bet the name was never used by anybody in or out of science until these hoaxers made it up. I could be wrong, that's just a guess, but it's certainly a reasonable supposition. The fact that the name is sort of OK under the terminology employed for chemical nomenclature is a side issue, really. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I know this comment is long past it's due, but I must note that you are patently wrong. While most of the public has never used the term before, I found it on my own, in junior high-school, and at that time referred to 'water' as Dihydrogen monoxide. (In all honesty probably just because I thought it was cool.) We had just learned about scientific nomenclature and were tasked with, with no outside aid, writing up 10 'long' and 'short' scientific names. One of my examples was 'H2O, or Dihydrogen monoxide' ~九尾の氷狐~ (「Sumimasen!」 「Dochira samaka?」) 14:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oops; I missed the new rewrite, which I think is fine. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm good with the rewrite too. Thanks! TechBear (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Btw, many high school chemistry teachers are also fooled by it, even those with a B.S. in chem. Maybe even some college teachers were - before it became popularized? I think "monoxide" raises mental alarm bells --JimWae (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

chemophobia

This edit removed "chemophobia" saying its article said it was a term used to "peddle nostrums". I do not find that in the chemophobia article, which does say:

Chemophobia literally means "fear of chemicals" and may be used in various ways. It is most often used to describe the assumption that 'chemicals' are bad and that 'natural' things are good.

which seems to quite appropriately display what makes this hoax more noteworthy than a joke.

The same edit removed all explicit assertion in that section that DHMO was a legitimate term for water. I think some reversion is called for --JimWae (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I see what the editor meant by "peddle nostrums" - however, I also see it listed officially at http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/enviro/glossaryc.html - and we need not even presume that it need be an "official" phobia to refer to the existing article --JimWae (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Chemophobia" struck me as unnecessary in the sentence and as going too far- after all, we don't know what the motives are of people who fall for the hoax; maybe they're just being polite to the person with the survey. I don't think we need to guess what is driving their actions, because that always makes it sound like an article is trying to make a point (these morons have irrational phobias!).
However, your NLM cite of the word is quite good and makes the term more legitimate than our chemophobia article made it sound; I think it should be incorporated into that article.
If I went too far in editing the initial sentence, which was clumsily written, please tweak it. I think the phrase that's still in it ("...an unfamiliar scientific name for it...") makes it clear that DMHO isn't made up, but perhaps not. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Solid "DHMO" as a hazard

I am surprised that people didn't look at the solid forms of "DHMO" as hazards. Ice is a hard, abrasive substance, and it could be used in a blunt-object assault on a person. If one Columbo script is correct, someone could attack another person with ice and allow the murder weapon to literally melt away and either evaporate or merge with the "DHMO" in a body of water.

But even at that, ice causes falls (often lethal) and creates slippery highways that contribute to numerous deaths from vehicle collsions.

Second, powdery crystalline "DHMO" (snow) however innocuous it may seem, is an essential component of lethal avalanches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul from Michigan (talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Add to this, solid "DHMO" (thin ice) on top of bodies of water can look solid enough to walk upon, only to give way under a person's weight and force someone into one of the deadliest forms of DHMO -- the cold, near-freezing liquid that kills from either drowning, hypothermia, or some lethal combination of the two.

As a dental hazard -- someone could bite onto solid DHMO (ice) and break or otherwise damage a tooth.

--Paul from Michigan (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

While I acknowledge your ideas and appreciate your will to contribute, I’m afraid Wikipedia does not publish original thought (and research) according to WP:OR. —LOL (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


That is why I have this in the talk section and not in the main article. I would not be surprised if someone introduced a "solid DHMO" section referring to the hazards of ice and snow. It's still "original research" until someone puts it into an "article" as part of the hoax.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Article issues

An editor did not understand the reasons for the tags on the article and they asked this to be placed here, so here goes:

The issues with the article are numerous, there is nothing that supports the claims about the origin of the term and the link to the original post is original research. Many of the other claims about the spread and usage of the hoax are likewise uncited original research. The |refimprove parameter may be removed from the article once every statement is cited. The same goes for the |or parameter. The tone of the article is unencylopedic and reads like someone's personal essay. It needs to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic, fix the structure and conform to all the sections in the MoS. Once this is done the remaining two tags may be removed. All citations must also use the {{cite}} templates from WP:CITE to render them correctly in the reflist. Once this is accomplished the final tag may be removed.

Silly Rabbit placed the tag at the bottom of the article. He did not provide an adequate explanation for this and someone may want to move it to the top of the article so people can actually see those tags. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Replies:
  1. I don't think the article reads like a personal essay. There may be some specific passages in need of copyediting for tone, but I suggest that you identify the offending passages and try to work on them rather than placing an unproductive template on the page against consensus.
  2. I have worked on some of the referencing issues. Most of the {{cn}} tags have been replaced with actual citations. I will let someone else try to deal with the few that remain, but I for one feel that a {{refimprove}} is no longer needed (and probably never was).
  3. As for the {{OR}} template, I'm not really sure what you think is original research about the article. The terminology section is useful for setting the context of the article, and I doubt anyone can seriously claim it is original research. The hoax was fairly widespread, and there are plenty of references documenting this in the article. Some of the bullet points didn't pass WP:V, so I deleted those. Most of the remaining ones are solidly cited.
  4. Finally, your demand to rewrite the article to "conform all sections in the MoS" is ludicrous. Please either help to do this yourself by editing the article to bring it into accord with what you think the MoS says, or at the very least identify which sections of the MoS you have in mind and how these are not met by which sections, passages, and phrases of the article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. If you think there are problems, work on them, don't just slap down a bunch of ugly boxes that basically say "I'm unhappy, so you have to change things." That's how wikipedia grows -- by people writing and editing articles, not just criticizing other efforts. I look forward to seeing your work. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well if either of you had spent as much time working on the article as you had being hostile to people with suggestions for improving it, it would be in much better shape by now. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I resent that mischaracterization. I spent several hours digging up and adding references to the article at your request, where you have yet to make a single productive edit to the article. Forgive me for getting aggravated when you think you can just drive-by tag an article with multiple templates, start an edit war with those that disagree with the templates, and then finally have the temerity to think that you have the right to lay all of the responsibility for unspecified improvement at someone else's doorstep. If you don't like it, then you can fix it. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
What he said! (This, by the way, is a perfect example of why I hate "nag tag" boxes - they have become a substitute for editing that bring out the worst in editor wannabes. If I could eliminate them all, I would.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • But only after you assailed me in edit summaries and on my talk page for over how mad it made you to do it. If you had forgone all the incivility and simply left the tags there for someone else, or found the references and removed the tags, we would never have had a conflict. Since you were feeling territorial about the article, you decided first that you should scream at me for doing something as perfectly innocous as tagging an article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it's a good thing you can't then, they serve a good purpose in notifying editors when an article may have conjectural or subjective content. Also I strongly resent you calling me an "editor wannabe" and if you keep that up I'll ask for a recall. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point on my "wannabe" comment, which was both inappropriate and incorrect - everybody is equally an editor on wikipedia. Otherwise, though, IMHO, you're in the wrong. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, there's at least one other person who has left a message on your talk page in the past 24 hours objecting to your continuing removal of "nag tags," on that basis alone. I think you would do well to reread policy in this instance to better realign your perspective with the goals of those tags. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
By an unusual coincidence, he is also wrong. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh OK, well if you find a consensus that you actually agree with, let me know. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


Search Engine page description

I have no idea how to edit this, but it is inappropriate. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be ok now. How does this get changed? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

old joke

I remember hearing people make jokes or fake kerfuffles (not to the extent of a public hoax, but just in conversation) all the way back to the 70s, as a child. I bet if we did some lit search, could find the basic gag is a 100 years old. TCO (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Obscure chemical names for water were an old joke when I was in junior high in the 1960s. The UCSC example even cites that it was inspired by an earlier use of a different obscure name for water. At best, the UCSC prank can be considered the earliest instance to achieve notoriety on the web. 66.245.24.172 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the obscure name - which, you're right, is old hat - but the use of it to get a reaction from the public that is the point. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Should we change the redirect for "Dihydrogen monoxide" to H2O rather than here? Technically it would be correct to redirect the chemical compound to its page, and someone who is searching "Dihydrogen monoxide" would realise it was a hoax when the query gets redirected to water. To further reduce confusion thereafter, if people still fall for the hoax, there could be a disambiguation line on the H2O page that says "'Dihydrogen monoxide' and 'DHMO' redirects here. For the parody of the lethal chemical 'Dihydrogen monoxide', see Dihydrogen monoxide hoax" Kortaggio (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so - nobody goes to "dihydrogen monoxide" to learn about water; they go because they've heard this hoax, whether they're fooled or not. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

CH3CH2OH hazard article needed.

Another chemical solvent that's considered extremely hazardous is CH3CH2OH, also known as lonahte, or lohocla. This replacement for dihydrogen monoxide has been extensively marketed as a superior chemical - supporters claim it increases Gross National Happiness when used as a partial substitute for dihidrogen monoxide - even claiming it is safe to drink. However, there have been widespread efforts to ban the substance - it was secretly made illegal in the United States for 13 years, and organized crime ('the Mob') was extensively involved in illicit production and sale until supporters forced abandonment of the ban through a widespread violent efforts.
This volatile chemical is a byproduct of chemical reactions that run out of control, like a nuclear reactor meltdown. Lohocla is more toxic than dihydrogen monoxide because it's an even more potent solvent.
Lonahte production has been blamed for much of the recent (2007) increase in food prices. Lonahte is a common gasoline adulterant, where it reduces fuel efficiency; greedy oil companies sell gasoline while secretly adulterating it with Lonahte.--Elvey (talk) 4 December 2008

If you can show notability, an article can be created. However, if it's just something you've made up then it won't qualify. To be honest, this hoax is much less creative than the DHMO hoax (perhaps you've hear of the Nacirama people?) and, at most, may deserve a section in this article as a variation. (EhJJ)TALK 02:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe you mean the Nacirema tribe. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, yes. I can tell you about mesangial proliferative glomerulonephritis, but I can't spell American backwards! It's time for sleep! (And then adding more content to that stub!) (EhJJ)TALK 04:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it would be a complete NOR violation! Off to self-flaggelation to perform penance with you, Elvey. I mean I found a reliabull source:[1]  :?) Seriously, wasn't there a version of this article that didn't have the spoiler right up front? --Elvey (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
"Secretly" made illegal?----occono (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

the point

The point of the DHMO hoax is that if you emphasis only the harm of something, ignore any benefits and use fear-mongering terminology to describe it, you can panic enough people into agreeing to ban something as simple and vital as water. It is a commentary on the "Ban It!" approach to abuse problems which often compounds the original problem without solving it (US prohibition of alcohol 1920s) or does no measurable good at great political expense (US assault weapon ban 1994-2004). Naaman Brown (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's *the* point of the hoax, although it's a reasonable conclusion from its results. The originators definitely were targeting mindless fear based on scientific ignorance. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
We do agree that it spoofs a danger of acting aout of fear based on incomplete knowledge. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't water also an alcohol and ether?

--MathFacts (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.179.5 (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

link to UK prime minister e-petitions site

There was a citation-needed tag on the (correct) assertion that several online petitions for the banning or strict regulation of DHMO have been submitted and rejected on the grounds that they are not serious. I've added a reference, but unfortunately it can't be a real link because there's a WP blacklist entry for any link with "petitions" in it. I'm going to ask for a whitelist entry, though perhaps what's really needed is a less zealous blacklist. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw your whitelist request and I made a comment. As far as I can see this is a legitimate citation and we should be allowed to provide a url. Without a url the statement is not cited properly and it might as well be removed. Of course that is absurdity and the correct course of action is to whitelist this entry. Jdrewitt (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I can no longer find a link to this petition because it seems that since the coalition government has gained power all petitions prior to May 2010 have been archived. I think we should be able to provide a url to the actual petition. This absolutely has to be allowed because it is a citation for a specific fact in a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not censored and as such no one has the power to deny the use of a specific url to provide a citation, unless of course it is being used for spam or canvassing puporses. This is not the case here and so no one should deny accessibility to this link. User:Gareth McCaughan are you able to provide an up to date link for the hoax petition? If so I will ask the link be whitelisted once again. Its fine if you don't want to pursue the point but it is clear that it is a valid citation and hence should not be censored! Jdrewitt (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an up-to-date link for the petition and don't know any more than you do about how to find one. Sorry. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

dihydrogen monoxide or dihydrogen oxide ?

While there is some validity in the use of "dihydrogen monoxide" as the chemical name for the chemical formula: H2O (commonly called "water"), it does not fit all of the rules for chemical naming. According to Sherman and Sherman, "Chemistry and Our Changing World, Second Edition" (1989) pgs 94-95; "...Chemists from all over the world gather regularly...at meetings of the IUPAC [International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry]...and agree on rules for naming compounds." Sherman and Sherman go on to say that "Rule 4" states that: "...compounds composed of two nonmetals...use a Greek prefix [and]...the number of atoms of each element is indicated by the prefix. Note that the prefix name mono is generally omitted, except in the case of carbon monoxide."

Therefore, it is my opinion that the better chemical name for Water (H2O) would be: dihydrogen oxide since it should remove any negative thinking about "monoxide."

I agree with those that say that "HOAX" should not be used when referring to dihydrogen monoxide for four (4) reasons: (1) there are words that more clearly define the logic behind the name, like: debate, controversy or question; (2) it is a cheap tactic of editorializing some self-appointed critic's personal belief rather than respecting the opinions of this community; (3) it re-enforces the "controversy" among academicians that Wikipedia is less that reliable, and (3)in my opinion -- with over 30 years in the science and technology profession -- it is totally inaccurateItalic text! Chemist1960 (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point - the term "dihydrogen monoxide", not "dihydrogen oxide," has been used in his hoax/parody/whatever, and the article is about the hoax not the chemical compound, so we give the term that has been used. Nobody is arguing that DHMO should be adopted as a legitimate name for water. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with David. Also, "hoax" does not mean that the name itself is a hoax, but that the presentation of the chemical compound described as DHMO is a hoax (i.e. misleading).  Cs32en Talk to me  20:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

??

Sorry, I don't know the protocol when editing "edit page"s. Anyway, I believe there is no need to loose one's sense of humor when making an ironic wikipedic discussion. Remember Marshall McLuhan. Correct me if I'm wrong. Rghollenbeck (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily wrong, but confusing ... what are you talking about? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Cancun event

In response to a mini edit war, I think the DHMO signatures at the Cancun climate talk are noteworthy in this article even though they were done by kooky climate deniers trying to make a political point ... because the DHMO hoax is almost always used to make a NPOV point, whether it's "people should understand science better" or "people are stupid" or something like that. The fact that this particular political point is annoying to me (and others, I suspect) is no reason to keep it out of this article. IMHO, of course. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think they are noteworthy? The source is from a propaganda group, and it has been echoed only in far-right blogs & forums. No reputable news media sources at all have used the story, possibly because they can't confirm it to normal journalistic standards. Watching the video linked here, the handful of signatories shown mostly appear to be kids. Without knowing who was approached and who signed, as reported in an RS, this isn't a usable item. In short, we have no RS for this. I'm removing it again, please do not replace it until you can find a reliable source for it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the source is a propaganda group is no argument against inclusion - DHMO is always used to make a propaganda point. However, checking the reports I realize you are correct that nobody other than the originators and their echo chambers has said this actually happened, and so it shouldn't be in here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Please familiarize yourself with the policies of reliable sources and verifiability. And while you are at it, you may wish to review what neutral point of view means in the context of the Wikipedia. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said the just because the original source is a propaganda group is no argument against inclusion - if there are other srouces. A fact isn't tainted because loonies are the first to report it, as long as non-loonies also report it (which doesn't seem to have happened in this case) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
And by the way, the reason the event is interesting for this article has nothing to do with climate change or the frenzy over it. It would be of value if properly sourced because it shows that the DHMO hoax is still being used out there in the wild, with an extra interest that its use by the politically conservative side of a controversial debate seems unusual. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Minor comment - DHMO was not always used to make a propaganda point; originally, it was just a joke (albeit one on the scientifically inept majority... I suppose it could have been interpreted as propaganda for listening to your high school chemistry teachers in a way).
Not relevant to the current discussion per se. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

While this is certainly funny and a water related hoax, it's not a "Dihydrogen monoxide" hoax as such, in that it doesn't mention the words "Dihydrogen monoxide", instead relying on the word "hydrogen" for confusion. What do you think? 87.113.240.188 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm confused by what you're trying to say. What do you mean it doesn't mention those words? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Was this really a hoax?

The material was a satire and misleading but was it really a hoax? From Wikipedia, "A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.[1] It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment,[1] or rumors and urban legends that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes.[2]" Nothing claimed was technically untrue, and the matter wasn't made to be passed as truth.Donhoraldo (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not a hoax. It's a parody. The article should be rewritten to reflect that. It's like taking The Onion seriously, or believing parody sites such as Amtrek.net. - 71.173.2.174 (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a parody, yes, but it's also a hoax; the two aren't mutually exclusive. The Onion is a poor parallel, because it doesn't try to make people believe its reports, although people sometimes do. Most DHMO folks do try to make people believe it in order to make a point.
Another way to think of it is that the point of a parody is the content of the item; the point of a hoax is people's reaction to the item. This is a hoax.
As a parody DHMO is of mild interest, at best. It doesn't stand out all that much from lots of similar parodies. As a hoax, however, it's unusual, maybe unique, and of real interest to wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH3CH2OH
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody/Archive_1&oldid=1136663058"