Talk:Water woo

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon alt med alt.svg

This Alternative medicine related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png


This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Further improvements to water[edit]

Stir in citric acid and sodium bicarbonate to taste.— Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.3 / talk / contribs

The farmer and fancy water[edit]

There are several variants on this joke.

A farmer visited his child in the city, was offered piped water to drink, and was asked what he thought about it.

'Doesn't smell right, doesn't taste right.'

Sums up most water woo. 86.191.127.108 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The future of this article[edit]

Which one of the following two alternatives sounds best to you?

  1. Splitting this article (water-woo) up into its constituent articles (bottled water, water fluoridation, kabbalah water, holy water, water memory, etc)?
  2. Making this article (water-woo) the main "all-things-water-woo" article, and focus on bringing this article to Gold, rather than any of the smaller, individual articles (which would be much harder to get to Gold quality than the wider umbrella article "water-woo")?

Note that I'm not proposing that we merge any of the smaller articles into this one. The only merger I've put on the table is the merging of this article into its smaller, constituent articles instead.

Would you be comfortable with a main "water woo" article reaching Gold, and thus the front page? (Again, without cutting anything from the smaller articles as they exist now.)

Or is "water woo" too vague for the front page, and you'd prefer taking the longer route of eventually getting just Bottled water, or just Water fluoridation, or just Holy water, to Gold (and thus the front page)?

Or is it better is we dedicate specific efforts to specific articles, instead of bulking it all up into a semi-vague "water woo" article?

Regardless, there's certainly enough bullshit on the topic of water for some article on it to deserve Gold (other than the homeopathy article).

Thoughts on this? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Gut reaction: Water woo is a bit vague of a term, I mean, these individual topics contained within are very vaguely related through the fact that people misunderstand what water is and how it works in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways. I'd be happy with either option, but tbh, I wouldn't know where to begin and am inclined to say that it's not worth the effort of ranking this 'Gold', even when it becomes a highly polished article. People aren't going to search for a highly quality article about general water woo, it will be more relevant for them when we highlight specific topics like homeopathy (which is already a gold article) or specific organisations and persons we have articles about. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, don't get too involved with the above — me and Joris plan to propose that we merge away the overly vague "Water woo" article, and instead invent the Water Nav (complete with a sweet icon — perhaps featuring a faucet?) to harbor the 25-something individual water woo articles we currently have (with more on the horizon). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
On board with RBP's idea.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3 Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 02:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato Looks like it's time to upload that water woo nav you made! Th hug.gif
Also, IIRC @LeftyGreenMario was basically "on-board" as well, alongside @JorisEnter and myself? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Reminder: the 'plan' being to dismember the overly broad "water woo" article into its constituent parts (uniting the many smaller articles via a new 'water woo nav'). This, if nothing else, for two simple reasons:

  1. Most actual water woo being closely related/repetitive in its claims (i.e. deserving of the common thread a nav brings) + water woo being a prolific 'field' of woo, demanding a nav.
  2. While perhaps convenient for skeptics, literally nobody will be Googling "water woo". People are Googling [specific form of water woo], however — and our corresponding articles need to be our focus (and recieve more love from us).

In a nutshell. Steps one and two; strip the current "water woo" article for anything worth merging into sub-articles, and invent/implement the water woo nav onto relevant pages (approximately 25 as things stand). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
When I saw the "on-board" word, I immediately thought of water boarding. P.S. I'm fine with that. Anyway, what's your stance on similar articles like Food woo and salt woo? What would make those a different case from water woo? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Food woo fits the "hubpage" type. (See also Pseudoastronomy.) It's minimal on content and high on links out. For stuff that's really really general, that's probably the best we can do. (Contrast Young Earth creationism, which is both specific and a hubpage.) oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
A section on the Food woo page perhaps?
Is RW Gonna Wash This page Right Outa its Hair? 86.191.125.188 (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
WTF.
Anyway, sounds good, convert this to a hubpage and create articles on the subsections or merge subsections to existing articles (the Bottled water section has a neato pic-o and the Bottled water article doesn't? C'mon!). Generally better to have multiple smaller articles than one big article, as I believe it helps with search results, looks better organized, helps categories, and whatnot. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Whatever happens, someone will call it a washout. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"Raw water"[edit]

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/1/16839092/raw-water-unfiltered-untreated-disease-toxins-microbes-minerals-cholera-new-york-times 77.100.72.93 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Chromium 6[edit]

The mention that 200 million Americans are exposed to dangerous levels of "chromium 6" (hexavalent chromium) is sourced to a newspaper article that in turn is sourced to an advocacy group's press release, not actual scientific publications. Just saying.Vivisectionist (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Victoria Beckham[edit]

There was a mention in the media of Victoria Beckham and 'moon water' if anyone wishes to chase it up. Anna Livia (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)