Skepticism B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

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"

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]