Talk:Water woo/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 26 October 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page: , (back)

Totnesmartin sings to you[edit]

Water woo - I was defeated, you won the war

Water woo - promise to love you for ever more

Water woo - couldn’t escape if I wanted to

Water woo - knowing my fate is to be with you

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa

Water woo - finally facing my water woo

Totnesmartin (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh drear lord I've just spotted this...

^theist 18:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the reason I make sure to check the "Talk" pages. --Pere Ubu (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Further research[edit]

I found this page http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/research_emoto.htm which purports to show water purifcation through prayer - "Love filled water". Not quite sure how to fit it in at the moment so just putting it here as a reminder. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

An article about water woo has no links to Masaru Emoto? Major fail. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a wiki. Add it to the article. Too late, I did it for you.

Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Water Therapy[edit]

You can always spot the woo by noticing the grammar and spelling errors. Oh, and uterus cancer, rectal piodapse, hostorthobics. I'm guessing that they mean uterine cancer, rectal prolapse (how does drinking water reattach a person's anus anyway?), OK, I got nothing on that last one, Google search didn't even try to give me a suggestion how I spelled it wrong. BTW, don't do a image search on rectal prolapse, seriously, you've been warned.TwoGun (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Eight glasses a day fallacy[edit]

(note to self to write this up when I get back from work) Totnesmartin (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti-oxidant water[edit]

They sell it in bags at my gym, I have no idea what it is suppose to do because when I go to the gym, I just work out and not listen to dickheads talking. - π 22:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

and that's when I realised it was the ventriloquist's doll and not the doctor who was giving me the exam. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

well that is what she said anyway. - π 22:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What does this mean?[edit]

"The real reason is that water is generally completely free ingredient to reduce costs ... to the woo peddler in manufacturing water-based remedies ... and therefore increase the profit margin." Can someone rephrase this?--Krej^talk 20:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Water is cheap, thus you can sell water based remedies for more money. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 21:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that. I just think the sentence sounds strange.--Krej^talk 21:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 21:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed it, by the way. How is it now?--Krej^talk 21:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind.--Krej^talk 21:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Structure-altered water[edit]

I was reading my Popular Science magazine(yeah, I know, but what else can I read?), and in the ads section in the back, I saw an ad for special water that said, and I quote,"Today people drink water that has a hydrogen bond angle of 104 degrees. They need to be drinking water with a bond angle of 114 degrees." It also said that "your throat is still living in the 20th century", and "The water you should be drinking is being distilled in the 21st century."^{— Unsigned, by: 173.72.162.61 / talk / contribs}

Update: I believe the website was www.watercureseverything.com.

Further update: The only reason I mentioned this is because I thought it would make a silly and amusing example of water woo.

Well, you really can cure everything with water! After all, hundreds of people can't be wrong!--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 00:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

what. Unless I'm seriously wrong, it'd be a major violation of physics to be able to change that hydrogen bond angle. Like "messing with atomic forces" violation. --Pere Ubu (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw that ad too. In fact, I still have the magazine it was in. Should we add that? TheGreenWarrior (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The Website you have is correct. I tried to upload a scan of it a few times, but it didn't work.TGW ^me ^myself^{, and}^I 21:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I laughed and enjoyed...[edit]

...more and more as I read. That bronze/importance crap, though... embarrassing aspie shit. ħuman 05:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Kacper Postawski / WaterLiberty.com[edit]

Just saw this via Google Ads: http://www.waterliberty.com Is it worth mentioning or just run-of-the-mill? Wēāŝēīōīď ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Water energised through radio waves[edit]

Dubious Claim: Radio-wave treated water improves crop output We should keep an eye on this, so far it isn't clear at least to me what's true. The claim looks like typical water woo but if several universities and Kew Gardens take this seriously I won't write it off yet. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Do crops under electricity pylon networks (rain is going to fall on and drip off the wires and pylons after all) grow differently to that elsewhere in the fields ... and anyone care to bring in crop circles? 171.33.197.73 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Take a container of water.

Put it in front of the radio while you listen to a program you enjoy.

Lo! You have produced said radio controlled water enhanced with your favourite program. 86.191.125.188 (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hydrogen bond angle[edit]

... simply filtering or heating water is an ineffective measure against infection by pathogenic bacteria. Our interview with the stewards of the water industry highlighted the fact that removing toxic materials from water does not remove their energetic signatures.

Came across a copy of "Mother Earth News" in a waiting room, with a full-page ad for a gadget that claims to alter the bond angle of water molecules, with alleged health benefits... I turned the page and went on, without noting the particulars of the vendor. Searching the web for "hydrogen bond angle" came up with the above link, among others. including this debunking. Perhaps RW could turn its sights on this John Ellis character, along with Kim Greenhouse's "rainmaking" site. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Further improvements to water[edit]

Stir in citric acid and sodium bicarbonate to taste.^{— Unsigned, by: 82.198.250.3 / talk / contribs} Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

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?

Splitting this article (water-woo) up into its constituent articles (bottled water, water fluoridation, kabbalah water, holy water, water memory, etc)?
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.—CheeseburgerPlate

(talk • stalk) 02:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato Looks like it's time to upload that water woo nav you made!

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:

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.
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. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (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,

Lefty Green Mario! 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.) 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (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,

Lefty Green Mario! 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)