Talk:Drinking water/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kolvera, Aodunlam, Tguagent.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2020 and 21 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mxranda, Ni.chih.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Drinking water classifications
There does not seem to be any detailed information on the types of drinking water (i.e. Spring Water, Artesian Water, etc.) and the way these products are qualified and regulated. I propose a section under Drinking water, covering the various legal classifications of water, with more detailed information. Consumers need to understand the difference between "municipal", "artesian" and "spring" drinking water.--Mabu2 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The precise definitions of these terms depend on the legal context in which they are used i.e. different countries have different laws governing these defintions. I would suggest you look at Bottled water for an overview of how "spring water" is defined when sold as a product in the US and the EU. Something similar could be done for drinking water on this page also, but it runs the risk of having to deal with too many countries' definitions. What about a general statement on the difference between municipally supplied water and privately supplied water, and then a breakdown of the types of private supply? Jimjamjak (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hot/Cold
I hear a lot about how cold water supposedly decreases your immune system and causes stomach ache, and that hot water has lots of benefits such as increased hydration power. Is there any truth to any of this (I've always assumed it all to be rubbish)? Would be great to have something about this in the article. --DreamsReign 03:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your assumption is correct. It is rubbish. Jimjamjak (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC

[icyx] according to traditional chinese medicine, it does have an effect on our bodies.

Terminology
The proper term for this is potable water. I'll switch when there is more to work with - Marshman 04:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * In the United States, potable water supplied through distribution systems such as owned/operated by water utilities is referred to as "Drinking Water":
 * See USEPA Drinking Water page.--WCFrancis 14:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with User:Marshman here. I would suggest that "Drinking water" is the most appropriate name for this article. In the European Union, water intended for human consumption is dealt with by Council Directive 98/83/EC, which is referred to as the "Drinking Water Directive". Within the legislation, such water is referred to as "water intended for human consumption". Potable water suggests that the water is fit for drinking, whereas drinking water (or water intended for human consumption) implies that the water is both potable and intended for drinking/consumption. Furthermore, the parametric quality standards set by the EU in Annex I to this legislation are based primarily on the World Health Organization's 'Guidelines for drinking water quality', where the term "drinking water" is used extensively. The EU is not alone in using the WHO guidelines as the basis for their standards: other agencies and states worldwide use the terminology and standards therein (albeit adapted).Jimjamjak (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that potable water is the proper term. Calling this drinking water when in reality it is relatively rarely used for drinking (as opposed to cooking, cleaning, washing) is confusing. II  | (t - c) 18:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think also for laypersons, drinking water is clearer than "portable water", so I would leave it as drinking water. Drinking water does not mean it is just being drunk, but it means it has drinking water quality (even if it is then used to flush the toilet!). EvMsmile (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Fluoridation
I have removed the external link to the anti-fluoridation site and added a link to fluoridation article. There is absolutely no need for an anti-fluoridation external link when that issue is covered in existing wikipedia articles especially since this article doesn't even mention fluoridation. Even a more balanced fluoridation external link is unnecessary. If you want to add a direct link to the fluoridation controvery article, that would be acceptable but IMHO unnecessary since anyone can see the link from fluoridation article. Nil Einne 18:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your replacement of the external link with the link within WP was a good idea. Given the immense scope of the subject of drinking water per se, I don't think that this issue demands any more than a link from this article.Jimjamjak (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Safe water
I am proposing that Safe water be merged here. The current article provides a very heavily biased accounted centred on the USA experience with little relevance elsewhere that isn't already covered in Drinking water. Mrs Trellis 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ok to merge safe water into drinking water. but neither should be merged with water quality as someone has proposed elsewhere. Anlace 19:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * support to merge safe water into drinking water and to keep water quality separate. But I also suggest to merge both safe water and drinking water into water supply. The stub on tap water could also be mergend into it. Water supply is the only article that is not heavily biased on the US experience so it may be a good candidate to host the other articles. Also, the section on water availability should be merged into water resources--Mschiffler 13:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree there is some minor overlap between the two articles, I disagree with merging drinking water into water supply. I think that the two concepts are too disparate.  My interpretation of drinking water is that it refers primarily to the quality of drinking water, and that the composition and the presence or absence of drinking water is relevant within this context.  By contrast, water supply refers primarily to the management and infrastructure for the delivery of water.  While the supply of water is often of drinking water it may also include the supply of non-potable water (such as for irrigation).  I think that the origin, treatment, delivery and final products should continue to be separate, if interlinked articles. There is plenty to say on each of them. T He He 09:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Futher discussion of proposed merger with water supply can be found below in section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gorman (talk • contribs) 05:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Expiration??
This article lists "expiration" as a "normal physiological activity" that requires water. Expiration means dying. Were they referring to respiration? -Jimmy 11:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Is it OK to merge safe water??? Potable (or drinking) water is used mainly for human consumption. Water that is used for agricultural or some aspects of animal breeding is not essentially potable but must be safe. Therefore I think that these two terms must be separated.

water had expired? 2601:C4:8301:2BF0:BD1F:9634:841A:C7BE (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Global availability
Some of the countries listed in that section have the highest rate of access to safe drinking water in their region (ie Iran) so to cite these countries, who are all political foes of USA, as examples there seems POV and politically driven. --Patrick987 05:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The source is cited. Can you give us a more NPOV summary of global availability? It's a germane issue. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I didnt contribute to the original list, but ive added two more. Im not aware these two countries are "foes" of the usa. by the way iran does not have the highest rate of access in its region; iran ranks in the middle third of countries in the middle east. it seems like the list gives a useful insight to the widespread distribution of the problem.  the summary already says asia is a big participant (one assumes china and india are the big numbers there). Joan-of-arc 06:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 92% of people in Iran have access to safe drinking water, that's one of the highest percentages in the Middle East region. Your list seems like a POV fork for political means, so please don't remove my POV tag. If you're actually interested in impartial data, you should be listing all countries and the percentage of the population without access to safe drinking water just like the actual source you're citing, not just a selective list with misleading crude numbers you've calculated yourself. --Patrick987 07:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Partick, if you see a problem then go ahead and fix it. Why not add the top ten and bottom ten worldwide? Or whatever seems representative. -Will Beback 08:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. I agree, lets add the the top ten and bottom ten worldwide percentage-wise per population, just as presented in the source without being selective. If Joan won't do it, I'll fix it myself tomarrow.--Patrick987 09:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The top ten and bottom ten will not be very enlightening. the top ten (good) countries in population served will be USA, Uk, Australia, sweden etc who have 100 % access and who mostly are from the west or are US allies. the top (worst) entries will be the lesser developed giants like china, india, pakistan etc. and mostly asian and some african. this format will lead to very little useful info beyond what people could surmise and will look like region bashing. at least now there are examples from all over the world.  the format shown is sound...to have countries of different sizes and regions of the world. Antennaman 14:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point about the top ten. Looking at the source again I see that another useful set of numbers would be the averages for each region. That sidesteps impugning or favoring any particular nation. -Will Beback 18:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have tried to compromise the approaches by adding some of the top countries in a sentence in the text and not belabouring the point that they are all 100 %. Then ive added a sentence mentioning where the big numbers are of unserved population, again without belabouring the numbers because everyone knows that china and india etc are huge in many measures of population.  Thats an excellent idea about the regional averages to add in. Ill try to add that when i have time.  I think the midrange countries are interesting and deserve a place here for perspective.  Incidently I ve checked a couple of sources on Iran and found Iran is purely average in its region. Cydperez 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Citing the top and bottom countries is enough, I'm replacing the POV selective list of countries with a larger list of countries. --Patrick987 23:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I've expanded the list to twenty countries with with % of population with access to safe drinking, to make the section less selective and more NPOV, exactly based the original source unicef.org's format and findings. --Patrick987 00:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ironic that the editor who keeps calling others POV is espousing a list with no representation from the most populated continent...Asia. The numeric order listing also makes much more sense for readers to assimilate. Cdcdoc 02:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If folks can't agree on the makeup of the list then let's just leave it off. -Will Beback 05:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the silliest edit war I've seen in a long time. Once again, as a compromise I suggest using the regional averages that are in the source. Another alternative is removing the list entirely. -Will Beback 08:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I quite agree! I've not seen many edit wars quite so ridiculous on WP in several months! I suggest that the table should be removed since I am not sure whether it adds particular value to the article, anyway.Jimjamjak (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

symbol
this section should be deleted as nonsense unless it is explained or expanded promptly Anlace 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

External link cull
Following WP:EL, I've gotten rid of a bunch of external links that I don't think relate to this article. In general I've gotten rid of very commercial sites, sites that are only indirectly related to the article (mostly related to water treatment or supply (not the point of this article)) and sites that don't provide more information than the article should. If you disagree with the changes I've made, feel free to discuss it here. T He He 10:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal with water supply

 * stongly oppose merger of this description. there are many water supply systems all over the world of very different types. many of these have nothing to do with drinking water.  even in the case of municipal supplies, there is a clear distinction of the engineering aspect of supply from the product of drinking water. besides this argument both of the topics cover trmendously large scope and deserve articles of their own. Anlace 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This is ridiculous, based even on something as obvious as the size of the articles in question, which would be phenomenal if combined. Yes, one could put the two in the same article without it seeming out of place, but the scope of each article does not sufficiently overlap as to merit a merger. Gorman 05:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose. Cburnett 13:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cburnett for taking the merge tag off per concensus here. Hopefully this article can develop peacefully now without the spectre of an inappropriate merge hanging over it. Cheers. Anlace 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Silly?
Is it just me, or does the exclamation "Water is good for you!" in the metabolism section sound a little silly? Andri Egilsson 16:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC) And/Or the part that says "Water has always been an important and life-sustaining drink to humans and is essential to the survival of all organisms." Of course it always has, we haven't changed... 131.217.6.6 (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Drinking water quality monitoring
Currently this section contains very little about monitoring. Useful additions would include brief descriptions of: The two sentences on the Washington D.C. lead problem, in the way they are discussed here, are off-topic for this article. The "so what?" question was not addressed. A discussion on lead in drinking water per se would be relevant, and the D.C. situation could be cited as an example of a current problem. While the award to the Washington Post authors is commendable, its mention here is irrelevant and should be deleted. Moreau1 05:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * monitoring parameters (classes or groups of parameters would be sufficient, rather than listing/describing each parameter)
 * monitoring techniques (sampling, instrumentation, etc.)
 * detection & quantification issues
 * trends in monitoring results.
 * I've deleted the "off-topic" template, as the offending text has been deleted. Moreau1 (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to 198.161.238.18 for adding the paragraphs on monitoring parameters. Moreau1 (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Include?
Is this text really important? However, before removing it from your body, after consuming water, you will put on weight, in proportion to how much you have consumed. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Symbols category
User:Reywas92 added this page to the Symbols of Indiana category namespace under good faith but I ask, "Is this sort of thing desirable in an encyclopedia for global readership?" It seems to me very US-centric, for a start, which makes it of extremely limited interest/use. It seems like this kind of categorisation just groups together rather unrelated information.Jimjamjak (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the category.Jimjamjak (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)