This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chemicals B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment B‑class This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture 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. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Does the existence of this article make it less likely that the hoax can be perpetrated?Rathfelder (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This hoax works because people don't know the chemical names for water. Someone who has to research dihydrogen monoxide has already been hoaxed.Abc03833 (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If something is true it is not a hoax. This is a meme or trend, or prank if malicious, but it's not a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.85.233 (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hoax in that it is meant to fool people. Mezigue (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Before considering a new title for this article, please see the archives. This topic has been discussed many, many times without reaching a consensus. (This is just one discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax/Archive_3) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it meant to fool anyone, or is it merely satire of the nature fallacy?Ordinary Person (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dihydrogen monoxide hoax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140523021635/http://www.armory.com:80/%7Ecrisper/DHMO/ to http://www.armory.com/~crisper/DHMO/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140523021635/http://www.armory.com:80/%7Ecrisper/DHMO/ to http://www.armory.com/~crisper/DHMO/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing a good deal of the archived discussions on this page, I think there is a middle ground that addresses everyone's concerns. I would recommend we update the title to Dihydrogen Monoxide parody.

A hoax is undertaken for the purpose of a deception, usually as part of an attempt to defraud. Hoaxes generally involve attempting to pass of incorrect information as truthful to elicit an action beneficial to the fraudster.

There doesn't appear to be any such intent or relationship here.

Parodies on the other hand is an imitation of a style or format of an author or group for humorous effect. That seems much closer to what this article is describing. The intent of the various activities doesn't appear to be deception for personal benefit, but mocking of other groups for humorous effect.

Let me know if this makes sense or if I'm missing something.

Squatch347 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly close, but many of those involved in this joke-like thing over the years have used it as a way to make a point (people don't know science, etc.) by working to ensure that it is taken seriously. "Hoax" is marginally more accurate than "parody" I think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, that explanation is exactly why I think parody works more than hoax. They are attempting to mimic a broader style (activist pamphlet) to make a point. If we look at Gulliver's Travels, it is a parody on the common trend in England at the time for sailors to publish travel guides. Swift mimic's the style to prove a point that people are far too gullible about exciting claims of far away lands.

The example in this article is nearly identical. We have a broader trend of dire warnings to collect petition signatures that the authors or making fun of by use of satiric imitation to make a point that peoples' lack of familiarity with science allows them to be taken in.

The wiki parody article "is a work created to imitate, make fun of, or comment on an original work—its subject, author, style, or some other target—by means of satiric or ironic imitation." Which I think matches what you are saying exactly. Something used to make a point.

Contrast that with a hoax "is a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth. It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment..." Which seems like a very different thing that what we both seem to understand this thing to be.

Squatch347 (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Swift didn't pretend that Gulliver's Travels was real - it was a parody. People sometimes pretend DHMO is real, so I'd say it's more often a hoax. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that is accurate. Swift didn't add a fiction disclaimer on his work (and categorizing works as fiction didn't really come till much later). Swift simply put it out there and let discerning readers decide. Compare that to these examples, where the video makers almost always start out the video explaining that Dihydrogen Monoxide isn't dangerous because it is just water.

Likewise, the falsehood that DHMO is dangerous isn't the key feature to their argument, its the subject of the parody. They are mocking those that are overwrought (in their opinion) about anything with a chemically sounding name. The point of the writing/petition is to satirize those people.

The key here (and in the definitions offered) is intent. Is the intent to deceive or to educate? I think we both agree it is the latter. The people who occasionally do this stunt don't do it to legitimately deceive people, but to educate people to be cautious about psuedoscience. The point of the endeavor isn't to get people to believe, legitimately, that Dihydrogen Monoxide is dangerous, right? Squatch347 (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they're mocking people by fooling them - that is, hoaxing them. Fooling people is the whole idea, otherwise it's just a feeble joke. ( Compare it to the "dark-sucker theory", which is just a joke and doesn't try to fool people. http://www.ultimatecampresource.com/site/camp-activity/the-dark-sucker-theory.html) But I hope others chime in. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I hadn't seen that before, thanks for passing it along. This seems to be slightly different though. In your initial response, you said they were using it to make a point about people not being very scientifically informed. I think you are spot on, the point of this joke thing is to make a point, not to convince people it is actually dangerous. Take a look at the youtube examples: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dihydrogen+monoxide

The first one is Penn and Teller, well known satirists. Each of the top five have specific references in them showing you it is actually water they are talking about and are, generally, pro-science related channels. It seems pretty clear the intent here is to educate rather than confuse. Squatch347 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit this actually looks like a good name change. The intent isn't to deceive, but educate or poke fun at, which puts it more in parody or satire territory than hoax. That's especially since this is exaggerating (if only slightly if at all) what you'll see others doing for relatively non-toxic chemicals. Stephen Colbert is a fairly good parallel example of such parody where his act wasn't really intended as a hoax. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If two people like the change and one doesn't, I'd say that's probably not enough of a push to alter an article name that has been accepted for so long. Anybody else have an opinion? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would totally agree, except as we can see from the archives the title of the page has been contentious for quite a while. It would be great if we could get a couple more people in here, but if we don't I still think we can move forward with the change given the disucssion here, and see if that draws out more interest. Squatch347 (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than trying to decide on our own what to title the article, we need to reflect what it's actually called by reliable sources. Until we do that, I'm not in favor of moving the article. - BilCat (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]