Talk:Water ionizer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Chemistry | |||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Water ionizer article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 | |||
[edit] Request to include resource - Vinny Pinto - A Look at the Claims About, and an Explanation of the Effects of Alkaline Ionized Water and Acid Ionized Water
Please include this resource : http://h-minus-ion.vpinf.com/truth-about-ionized-water-1.html As it falls into definition of RELIABLE, SECONDARY and PARITY. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- WP:POINT much? Yobol (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- WP:POV much? Steelmate (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- What would this source be used to verify specifically? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- That "any beneficial health effects of alkaline ionized water... due primarily to the presence of a simple, primal, primitive and primeval antioxidant called the negative hydrogen ion" Steelmate (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. The claim that ionized water has any beneficial health effect would require a MEDRS. The claim that it's just water, does not. The positive, and in particular, the unusual claim, requires reliable sources. That's how PARITY, FRINGE, REDFLAG and MEDRS work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:MEDRS it is a Reliable Secondary resource. This is undeniable. Steelmate (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- You've gone from being simply a newbie trying to figure things out to a highly annoying, tendentious editor. I know you want to advertise here, but really, it costs about $10/month from Godaddy.com (there's advertising...LOL) to set up a website. You can call it ionicwaterworks.com. Get it? waterworks? I'll let you have that for free. There you go, you can claim anything you want on your own advertising website. You can sell all the water you want. You can thank me later. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Steelmate, the only thing that's undeniable is that you are misapplying MEDRS. A random webpage is not sufficiently reliable for medical claims. It's not peer reviewed, it's not published in a medical journal and it's not a review article even if it does synthesize multiple claims (though, without any references apparently). Again, you don't need a source, you need a mainstream source. The webpage ain't it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- You've gone from being simply a newbie trying to figure things out to a highly annoying, tendentious editor. I know you want to advertise here, but really, it costs about $10/month from Godaddy.com (there's advertising...LOL) to set up a website. You can call it ionicwaterworks.com. Get it? waterworks? I'll let you have that for free. There you go, you can claim anything you want on your own advertising website. You can sell all the water you want. You can thank me later. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- According to WP:MEDRS it is a Reliable Secondary resource. This is undeniable. Steelmate (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. The claim that ionized water has any beneficial health effect would require a MEDRS. The claim that it's just water, does not. The positive, and in particular, the unusual claim, requires reliable sources. That's how PARITY, FRINGE, REDFLAG and MEDRS work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- That "any beneficial health effects of alkaline ionized water... due primarily to the presence of a simple, primal, primitive and primeval antioxidant called the negative hydrogen ion" Steelmate (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be a "nothing source" since it is not a report of original research (definition of a primary source) and provides no sources for the claims being made (required of a reliable secondary source). 76.23.245.128 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Steelmate, if you're having trouble telling the difference between a reliable source and a steaming pile of horseshit, the website you linked to should be instructive. Generally speaking, when it comes to medical claims, self-published, personal websites like that definitely belong in the latter category. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] History
Question : Could you add a link about the history of the water ionizator ? Who invented it and when it was first used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daipandan (talk • contribs) 06:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
