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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I must be getting old: I require a smiley to comprehend something ... egad. - DavidWBrooks 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Water => H20 => H+OH => Hydrogen oxide or Hydrogen monoxide
• H202 => Hydrogen peroxide
• H203 => Hydrogen trioxide
• Sb2O3 => Antimony trioxide

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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

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)

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"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think the paragraph about racism is unnecessary. It seems like too much of a stretch. Itub 18:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Internet Archive entry for the original web page: [2]

Here's the Internet Archive entry for the original Coalition membership: [3]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just searched through the new provisional recommendations,[4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

However, it might prevent issue like the anon who just "fixed" the quote. - DavidWBrooks 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I couldnt agree more Ischemia 13:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yet "dihydrogen monoxide" is completely consistent with covalent nomenclature --JimWae 16:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]