Talk:Dihydrogen monoxide parody

Short description
The Short Description was previously "Parody where water is presented by an uncommon name". I changed it to "Demonstration of scientific illiteracy", which was reverted with the comment "That's too vauge - doesn't tell readers anything". The goal of a Short Description is to tell readers what the general scope or topic of the article is, not to summarize the article. I would argue that the main topic is scientific illiteracy, not water and not uncommon names for water. The fact that it's a parody is already in the title, and doesn't need to be repeated. --Macrakis (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Although the words you used in the short description may be inferred from the article (and true)—being so esoteric, they just don't work for a fact-based SD. The prior was better; and re-using the word from the title is allowed and descriptive.   GenQuest  "scribble" 20:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, if "scientific illiteracy" is too esoteric (really?), we could rephrase it as "poor understanding of science" or "misunderstanding of chemistry" or something. But the fact that an uncommon name is used in the parody doesn't seem helpful in an SDESC. --Macrakis (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the short description is to help readers find the article that they're looking for. I think the "Parody where water is presented by an uncommon name" is more likely to help a reader who's looking for "that thing when people get punked by an unusual description of water" than the suggested alternatives. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Tom Way
I'm surprised that this article does not identify the guy behind the current website. He is Dr. Tom Way, an associate professor of Computing Sciences at Villanova University. See

I'd do this myself, but I'm a WP:newbie and don't yet have the confidence.

Thanks to anyone who can help. Bholtgren (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In the Public use section there is this content: "In late 1997, drawing inspiration from Jackson's web page and Zohner's research, Tom Way created a website at DHMO.org, including links to some legitimate sites such as the Environmental Protection Agency and National Institutes of Health.[16]" David notMD (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't see that. Thank you very much! Bholtgren (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The ref itself is a bit off-putting, but if one types in press and press for user and password, it goes to the website and there is confirmation that the website was created by Tom Way. David notMD (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hydric oxide
IP 68.2.138.130 added "hydric oxide" to the list of names for water in the article, and I reverted as "unsourced". The IP then offered this as a source for the edit. I cannot tell from the link what publication that source is from. I suspect it may be from Nature, apparently from 1897. The item in particular is a letter from an otherwise unknown correspondent, presenting what may be an idiosyncratic term for water. I do not regard that as a usable source for the present-day use of a technical term. Another issue is whether the term "hydric oxide" has been used in connection with the dihydrogen monoxide parody. I believe that a reliable source that states that "hydric oxide" has been used in connection with the dihydrogen monoxide parody is needed in order to add that term to the article. Donald Albury 15:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Verbatim
The part about Aliso Viejo exists verbatim on ChemEurope: https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax.html 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:E956:DEF8:AF93:BC0B (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It copied from wikipedia. See the statement (small letters) at the bottom of the article: It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax". A list of authors is available in Wikipedia. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)