Talk:Water ionizer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|
Contents |
[edit] I'm Glad...
Water for Life USA for your support on this, I am the person who was fighting for water ionization to be fairly written on here when wiki started. It does seem that I haven't been around for over 1.5 years now, but I'm back just to see if that Postglock idiot was still floating around with his linear views.
I completely agree with you and you have some excellent resources on water ionization. I'm curious whether I can back you up in any way?
I find it so silly that you need US or European 'peer reviews' to prove something works, but there you go, Western ignorance and no, I'm British not a US enemy!
[edit] NPOV Tag
I am in dispute with the edits of User:Water_Ionizer_Research who continually adds external links to this article that are supportive of water ionisers and appear to promote their use. The user has removed links that are critical of water ionisers. Every time I remove the link the user reverts the change. The user also alleges that I am promoting my own website. Further, the user changes my comments on the user's talk page to allege that I am a link spammer. You can see such changes here: [1] and here [2]. I would appreciate some neutral third party looking into the external links. Mind you, I also think the entire article needs rewriting. Gillyweed 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gutted
Just gutted the article - there were very few sources, those that were on the page were extremely confusing and virtually useless to anyone attempting to verify the information. Information needs to come from reliable sources, which means no conflict of interest websites (i.e. any website for a company that sells water ionizers). Claims need to be sourced - any claim that is unsourced can be removed at will and only statements that people agree represent the subject should stay. Contributions should be in summary style in an appropriate tone. Per WP:MEDRS, any medical claims should be sourced to a reliable source - in this case, pretty much only medical journals and statements from national or international governing or scientific bodies. The 'some guy' websites aren't appropriate, and neither is plopping pubmed links into the external links section. Integrate articles as inline citations using citation templates.
Further, people should be civil and discuss contested edits rather than reverting back and forth.
Final point - this article is about water ionizers, so claims, discussion and other sundry about the water itself are only tenuously appropriate and are better placed in another page. It's very weird to me that the page has been here since at least 2004 and it's back to a stub. WLU (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Well now, it's fine that it's only about the machines, and not about the water, but since the machines are being sold with various idiotic health claims the association is rather close. These machines would not exist if such claims were not around. Now the claims are largely idiotic and ill-founded, but Prof. Sirahata in Japan (provided that link, and it's still there today, but everything else I've contributed is gone) is in my view the only one who has done serious research in this area, and was published in Biological and Biochemical Research Communications (BBRC) which is a leading academic journal in the field (97). So why the conclusions of his report were eliminated from the page mystifies me. Now Prof. Sirahata also happens to be on the science board of Nihon Trim, which is one of the leading manufacturers of these machines, but he is a well respected scientist, and he's come up with the only credible theory sofar of why reduced water may have health benefits, since he was able to demonstrate an anti-oxidant effect. But, here is where the anarchy of Wikipedia simply prevents ending up with a decent article, and that appears to be the case almost in any contested issues. My conclusion is, it's rather pointless, and Wikipedia is a permanently tainted source. Rogier van Vlissingen 10:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vliscony (talk • contribs)
[edit] Archived
Talk page was ridiculously long. Archived. WLU (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
