Talk:Water ionizer

Add a catagory to Water Ionizer article

Whether you believe in them or not, water ionizers are a part of alternative medicine. For that reason, , the 'Water Ionizer" article should also be under the category Alternative Medicine

Moorstag (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Moorstag

Seems reasonable, so I added it. --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it, deferring to WP:FTN. --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Annotated bibliography of Alkaline Water Research

• Electrolyzed-reduced water scavenges active oxygen species and protects DNA from oxidative damage. PMID 9169001
  • Argues that active hydrogen is effective against oxidative damage. discusses the production of active hydrogen in water ionization. Evaluates the properties of Ionized Alkaline Water (IAW). Tests IAW in hypoxanthinexanthine oxidase (HX-XOD) system, which generates free radicals. Shows IAW effective in reducing oxidation damage to DNA in HX-XOD system. Tests water bubbled with hydrogen, shows bubbled water does not have the effect of IAW in HX-XOD system on oxidative damage.

• Influence of alkaline ionized water on rat erythrocyte hexokinase activity and myocardium. PMID 9198011
  • Examines the effect of AIW on rat blood, glucose functioning, and the heart muscle, compared to a group given tap water. Study examined effects on pregnant rats, and their offspring. Research observed shows new born rats given AIW from birth showed greater weight, and higher metabolic activity than control group. Especially in males, changes in myocardiac necrosis (death of the heart muscle tissue)

• Influences of alkaline ionized water on milk yield, body weight of offspring and perinatal dam in rats. PMID 9922938
  • Examines the transfer of serum calcium (calcium in the blood) from mother rat to offspring before birth (via placenta) and after birth (in mothers milk). Rats given AIW are compared to rats given tap water. Supports previous study showing increase in body weight for offspring as opposed to control group given tap water.

• Ionized alkaline water: new strategy for management of metabolic acidosis in experimental animals. PMID 19527469
  • Experiment on dogs and rats evaluating the effects of AIW on induced metabolic acidosis in dogs and rats. Renal failure was induced using two methods, ligation of both ureters; and the second model was induced by urinary diversion to gut.
    In renal failure animal models, acid-base parameters improved significantly after hemodialysis with ionized alkaline water compared with the conventional water treated with reverse osmosis.
    Similar results were observed in urinary diversion models as there was significant improvement of both the partial pressure of carbon dioxide and serum bicarbonate after utilizing alkaline water orally.
    Alkaline ionized water can be considered as a major safe strategy in the management of metabolic acidosis secondary to renal failure or dialysis or urinary diversion.

• Anti-diabetic effect of alkaline-reduced water on OLETF rats. PMID 16428818
  • Using OLETF rats (bred to have develop type II diabetes) The effect of ARW on the body weight, lipid composition, and glucose levels in the blood of the rats were measured. Group given ARW was compared to control group given tap water.
    The glucose levels of both groups tended to increase. However, the ARW group's glucose levels were significantly lower than those of the control group after 12 weeks (p<0.05). The total cholesterol and triglyceride levels in the ARW group were found to be significantly lower than those of the control group during the experimental period

• Inhibitory effect of electrolyzed reduced water on tumor angiogenesis. PMID 18175936
  • Tumor angiogenesis is the process by which tumors attract new blood cells, it is triggered by Vascular endothelial growth factor, a substance that stimulates new blood vessel growth.
    Electrolyzed Reduced Water(ERW) was shown to inhibit the production of Vascular endothelial growth factor, and inhibit the process of extracellular signal-regulated kinase, which is the method that the cancer cells in the study used to grow.

All of these references are actual, clinical research into the effects of Ionized Alkaline water. Each reference is published in PubMed. These references prove that there is an effect in laboratory tests conducted on animals caused by ionized alkaline water.

None of the skeptic references in the Water Ionizer article actually test ionized, alkaline water, the skeptic articles expressed the opinion of the authors, nothing more. Moorstag (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Moorstag

I re-organized this list so it's more readable. — Scientizzle 19:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please Remove Pseudoscience category: Ionized Alkaline Water uses represent an Alternative Theoretical Formulation

According to the Fringe theories page, "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted."

The research that I have presented from PubMed in my previous post meets all of the criteria for Alternative theoretical formulations

• Performed by members of the scientific community
• Peer Reviewed
• Use of scientific method
• Published in Academic Journals

According to the Fring theories page, Alternative theoretical formulations "deal with strong, puzzling evidence which it is difficult to explain away". The theories advanced by the scientists in the PubMed-published research I have cited are an effort to explain the results of the experiments conducted.

Because of the strength of the references I have presented. I ask that the category of "Pseudoscience" be removed Moorstag (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Moorstag

I've taken this and the question of the applicability of the Alternative medicine category to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, and asked for help with the MEDRS and NPOV concerns as well. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Came here from posting on WP:FTN. Any claims that "water ionizers" have any medical use in humans is clearly WP:FRINGE. No evidence for its use clinically in humans is available - (and no, studies in rats do not count) - and until substantial evidence says so, it belongs in the Fringe category. Yobol (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. In 1999 - At the 25th General Meeting of The Japanese Association of Medical Sciences, in "Electrolytic Functional Water in Medical Treatment" from the Alkaline Ionizer Review Committee, the world's first double-blind comparison clinical testing for drinking water offered the conclusion that "Alkaline ionized water is useful". Please consult this resource : http://www.3aaa.gr.jp/english/alkali/hs.html Steelmate (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to refer to a reliable source rather than a promotional website. Yobol (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Association of Alkaline Ionized Water Apparatus was established in Japan in 1992, with the stated purpose of : “to provide sound knowledge regarding alkaline ionized water apparatus and to continually improve product quality”. Currently, the association members are represented by 17 companies, including : Panasonic, Yamaha, Hitachi, Mitsubishi and others. I believe it is a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. If you object, we can take the issue to moderators. Steelmate (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a website made to promote a product, and appears to fail WP:RS, not to mention WP:MEDRS. That having been said, if said trial were done, it should not be an issue to cite that published research rather than a promotional website. Yobol (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I consulted Wikipedia guidance : "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view". And first of all, it is not a journal. Second, it's stated goal is "to provide sound knowledge regarding alkaline ionized water apparatus and to continually improve product quality" , nowhere did it state as it's goal to promote the product. Improve the product is different then promote the product. Improvement has nothing to do with promotional(marketing) strategy. If everyone who wants to improve something will be banned by labeling them promotional, then ANY medical research paper has it's goal of improving people's health should be banned according to your logic. Also here is a research article of the double blind study : http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200113/000020011301A0419248.php . Steelmate (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Promotional websites often do not declare themselves as promotional as that would defeat the purpose of the website (to nominally appear independent when they are in fact not). Clearly you will take the word of any website without any critical evaluation, so I will not waste my time discussing this further except to say that this website is promotional and not reliable for use here. With regards to the article you provided a link to, the journal does not appear to be MEDLINE indexed, raising suspicion about its reliability, and it is a primary article which would fail WP:MEDRS as we do not cite primary articles, but reviews that have evaluated the primary literature. WP:REDFLAG would need to apply to any discussion of health benefits from ionized water. Yobol (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact it is not on MEDLINE - doesn't mean it was not conducted by the trained researchers. And primary source is NOT a failure, it is just the recommendation of Wikipedia to use secondary resources, but Wikipedia DOESN'T prevent use of primary resources. Steelmate (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide proof that Water Ionizers are fringe. There are no medical references on this page that proves water ionizers don't work. All of the skeptic articles just provide opinions. 70.181.160.180 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Moorstag

The burden is not for us to prove something doesn't work (especially when it hasn't been tested in humans). The onus is on the people who say it is mainstream and not fringe to provide the evidence. No such evidence has yet been provided.Yobol (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done extensive research of all available medical databases. I found thirty seven articles that in any way reference "ionized water". There were seven rat studies, four in vitro, three in vivo. There were no -- zero -- human studies. None of the thirty seven studies support any of the claims made for advocates of health benefits of ionized water. I am Joseph T. Cohn, MD, family physician and Clinical Assistant Professor of Family Medicine at Drexel and UMDNJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.215.104 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your research might be called extensive but definitely not complete. Please see resource I quoted above for the human based double blinded study. Steelmate (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Steelmate, that is a comically bad source to offer for medical claims. It explicitly states that the organization is comprised of "businesses related to alkaline ionized water apparatus[es]" for the purposes of collaboration on "manufacturing and sales". It fails to cite published primary research in its claims and the statement "Alkaline ionized water is useful" is, ironically, entirely useless. Surely you wouldn't think it appropriate to cite a "drug X is useful" statement from an organization funded by major pharmaceutical companies that offered incomplete citations of apparently non-peer-reviewed/unpublished sources? — Scientizzle 19:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not for medical, for the medical claims I provided a separate link, just the study itself was mentioned. Steelmate (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You know a set of alternative medical claims is WP:FRINGE when even Andrew Weil thinks they're bogus! — Scientizzle 19:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Weil is not an authority on Alkaline Water research. show me at least one of his researches on this topic? His claims are clear speculations. Are we going to collect speculations here on Wikipedia or reliable data from actual researches? Steelmate (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The humor here is that Weil is well known for being an "alternative medicine guru" and supporting a broad variety of medical interventions that lack scientific plausibility and clinical validity... — Scientizzle 20:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

He has not done a research himself and that is what counts. On some other topics he might be an authority. Steelmate (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Association of Alkaline Ionized Water Apparatus

I request to add the resource of "Association of Alkaline Ionized Water Apparatus" (http://www.3aaa.gr.jp/english) as a reliable resource to this article to show involvement of Japanese companies and their investments in this technology. Steelmate (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

See immediately above. The source is not appropriate for any medical claims; of dubious value for anything else. — Scientizzle 19:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So it is dubious to mention in Wikipedia Article that 17 Japanese companies formed an Association???? Steelmate (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We use independent sources here. Even it it were true, I don't know why we would want to put information about a promotional association in this article. Yobol (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is Encyclopedia, and we are collecting information related to the topic, not original research. The fact that it is a 'promotional association' is your individual self research , which is prohibited according to Wikipedia guidelines. The existence of such an association and it's prominance is fact deserving mentioning in an article describing Water Ionizers. Why do you want to hide facts? Steelmate (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't include every piece of information about a topic in an encyclopedia article. Discussion of this association does not appear appropriate here. Re: "hiding facts", have you stopped beating your wife? Yobol (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So you decided that association of 17 Japanese companies is not worth mentioning. I got you opinion, and disagree. I think it is an important organization and is worth a separate article and a link to it. Steelmate (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to write the Association of Alkaline Ionized Water Apparatus article. Good luck with that. I see no compelling reason to link to this organization in the article at present. — Scientizzle 20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Who care whether 17 corporations formed an association for marketing purposes? Why do you care? Why should anyone care? — Scientizzle 20:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you care that it will not be included? Do you have a personal bias against it? Steelmate (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

When did you stop beating your wife? — Scientizzle 20:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is to effectively describe Water Ionizer and industry and medical claims and everything that is verifiable. Hiding info just because someone thinks none will be interested is not a Wikipedia guideline. We are not doing our own research here, just stating verifiable claims. Steelmate (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Clinical Evaluation of alkaline-ionized water for chronic diarrhea. Placebo-controlled double-blind study.

I request to add this research study (http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200113/000020011301A0419248.php) as a reliable resource for medical claims of water ionizer. Steelmate (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

See our guideline on sources for medical claims in which we use secondary sources such as medical reviews, not primary sources such as primary research articles. This source is also not MEDLINE indexed, raising concerns of its reliability. WP:REDFLAG would also have to apply to any discussion of positive health benefits from ionized water. Yobol (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a fair bit of difficulty in determining whether this journal actually exists! I'm not saying it doesn't, but I can't find any good information anywhere on even who publishes it. While it seems unlikely that a single primary study in a non-MEDLINE-indexed journal should receive much (or any) coverage, the argument's moot as far as I'm concerned if nobody can see more than the abstract. — Scientizzle 20:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You can read it here : http://www.naturalmedicalhealth.com/articles/Clinical%20Studies/Disease%20Prevention%20Clinical%20Study.pdf Steelmate (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that figure-less presumable-copyright-violation a few minutes ago. It's a terrible study, that's clear. Statistics nightmare; no overall effect, so how about a series of un-elucidated post-hoc analyses with no multiple comparisons controls? This is not, in my opinion, a reasonable source to cite. It would do a disservice to our readers. — Scientizzle 20:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, a good example of how being double blinded and placebo controlled is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for looking at the quality of clinical studies... Agreed that this a poor study, and deserves no mention here, per WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. Yobol (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. So you guys are medical experts I guess. And reviewed the paper which may or may not be all the study and concluded that is junk. Isn't it something called : original research, that is prohibited in Wikipedia? I am not saying anything on the quality of the study, nor am I supposed to. All I want is a reliable source. And if this study is not good or controversial that again - a reliable rosource stating that (not your opinion, your opinion ISN'T a reliable resource), I respect your opinion, but please don't do original research! Steelmate (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, see WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. We should not be using primary studies, nor place undue weight on any individual studies, especially from poorly done primary research found in obscure journals. Yobol (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Research "poorly done" - is your original research, and it is against Wikipedia's policy WP:NOR. Also see WP:MEDRS - "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used". Steelmate (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't one of those occasions. Yobol (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't? Steelmate (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Per our guidelines, we use secondary sources. Exceptions are usually made for particularly important studies (published in high impact journals, ones which have made a prominent change in the medical community). This clearly isn't one of them. We don't give undue weight to small studies in obscure journals. Yobol (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That study made BIG impact in Japan and Korea. It was after that study that water ionizer was recognized by the government of Japan to be a medical device. That is what you call a small impact??? Also this journal is published in Japan, does that means it is obscure or small??? And compared to other resources used in this article, the resource I gave leaps and bound higher in quality. Steelmate (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We need independent sources showing its impact, not just your say so. The fact that it is not MEDLINE indexed by definition makes it obscure. Yobol (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason we are not keen to add this source is the same reason we're not adding the primary sources that found myocardial necrosis and fibrosis with hyperkalemia in rats given alkaline ionized water...we need secondary sources to evaluate the research for its quality and impact because we cannot do so. — Scientizzle 13:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't place research made on mice in the same category as research on humans. But anyway, please take a look at the resources used in this article and explain how they got qualified as a reliable secondary resource? The secondary resource should be based on the primary research. And NONE of the given resource even mention the primary research! Steelmate (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I havn't received a response yet and so reiterating my question. So, the secondary sources are preferred in Wikipedia over the primary sources, and the source I gave prior was a primary source. So, according to WP:NOR -Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them." . While looking at the sources given now in the article, I couldn't find any that would fall into category of secondary sources, as none of them are referring to the primary research papers. At best they fall into person's own research - which again is considered to be a primary resource and therefore must be excluded from the article. I propose : 1. Exclude ALL Primary resources. 2. Identify reliable secondary resources and use only them in the article. Steelmate (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I could only find one primary source, which has been removed. All other sources appear to be appropriate secondary sources (note the key words "at least one step removed...") Yobol (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Another primary resource is this one : Lower, S. ""Ionized" and alkaline water: Snake oil on tap". The author is doing his own research, not based on the primary research of others, that makes his work a primary research. Please remove. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That site cites numerous other webpages via hyperlink, and does not do any original research himself. Clearly not a primary source. Yobol (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

None of "Other webpages" - is primary research paper, all the references are to claims of some people, which are not themself a primary resource. Do you see a difference? Not every webpage is a primary resource. Got it? Steelmate (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, they might qualify as a tertiary source, but they certainly aren't primary. Before removing sources, it would be best to know what they are and how to apply our guidelines. These are reliable sources, per WP:PARITY. Yobol (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No they don't, Tertiary source is using Secondary sources which rely on PRIMARY sources. None of the links can be qualified as Secondary or Tertiary Sources as NONE of them cite PRIMARY sources or SECONDARY sources. None! Learn the Wikipedia rules first please. Steelmate (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Also what makes you think this is a "fringe theory"??? It is a controversial subject for sure, but far away from fringe theory.Steelmate (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, if as you say the "other websites" are Tertiary sources, then the citations would become Quadratiery sources - which again against Wikipedia rules. Any way you see those source are nor reliable. Steelmate (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I have missed something here but to me it is significant that in the 12 years since the study was conducted this work does not appear to have been replicated by others nor refined by the original researchers and has not given rise to any proposed mechanisms to explain the results. That would also explain why there are no secondary sources that mention the study since it is not part of any body of work that merits review. 76.23.245.128 (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

there have been studies in other applications of this water but they are all primary researches and Wikipedia prefers Secondary resources. Yes it is not easy to find Secondary resources on this Subject I agree, but possible. Steelmate (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use primary sources just because secondary ones do not exist. If anything, that is the argument for not including them, per WP:NOR/WP:NPOV. NW (Talk) 02:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at the sources cited in article. They are not Secondary, Tertiary, not based on any research, just opinions and only those who have negative opinions, no positive opinion made into the article. This is at least unfair , biased and strong POV pushing. There are plenty of positive opinions, why are they disregarded? Ad why any negative opinion, WITHOUT ANY SCRUTINY, make into this article??? Steelmate (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Yobol that this study is unacceptable. And, Steelmate, please understand that WP:OR is regarding adding original research to articles. It is, in fact, our job as editors to determine if any particular study or source is used in an article and it is not a violation of OR to do so (it would really be silly if we didn't scrutinize sources). N^oformation ^Talk 03:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The scrutiny should be regarding the quality of the source, not the content. When we as Wikipedians scritinize the content, we make original research. And that is against Wikipedia's policy. The article is full of low quality non scientific opinions and should be a concern. I gave a VERY HIGH QUALITY primary resource. And believe it is leaps and bounds higher in quality then any other resource in this article. And by the way all the negative opinions go into article without any scrutiny. Steelmate (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to quote WP:MEDRS, Knowing the quality of the evidence helps editors distinguish between minority and majority viewpoints, determine due weight, and identify information that will be accepted as evidence-based medicine. In general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom. The medical guidelines or position statements produced by nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies often contain an assessment of the evidence as part of the report. That's why we critique articles that changes the dogma, as in this case. But you also have to ask yourself, "if this study is so great, why hasn't it been repeated?" We could change the way we treat our water if it were right. But it isn't. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just adding to the consensus - the page should be based on secondary sources if it is to make medical claims. The idea that ionized water has healing properties of any sort is a fringe claim and should be substantiated with high-quality sources indicating this is a mainstream belief and accordingly we are not placing undue weight on a minority opinion. If ionized water, and by proxy water ionizers, are used throughout the medical community, the world, or even in a single country to treat disease, it should be trivial to provide documentation of this fact, even if it's a minority opinion. If this idea is just starting to gain some support in the medical or scientific community, then it is too early to proclaim it a win and promote it as an intervention. Wikipedia changes when the main stream changes, not before. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Who decides if it is a mainstream or not? I can see 50/50 percent of articles on internet pro and against it. In the scientific medical research the percentage is even higher : 95% positive (about 50 studies), 5% negative(3 studies). This particular article in Wikipedia is 100% negative. This is huge bias in my opinion. Steelmate (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. And don't bring google links, because we'll reject them right out of hand as being outside of MEDRS. And since science isn't a vote, let's see the studies. We're waiting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I will make a list and post it here, maybe in a new section. Please clarify what do you mean : "google links" - that is a new Wikipedia term for me. May be you can point to where in Wikipedia this term is discussed or even mentioned in rules. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained before, we use secondary sources. Please provide reliable secondary sources to the table, or we're going to keep talking past each other. Yobol (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Secondary source is a different question. After evaluating all sources in the article - NONE QUALIFIES AS A SECONDARY SOURCE and I can prove it one by one. Steelmate (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well then we're done here. AND you can't prove anything, you can only provide verification with reliable medical sources. Primary sources, especially those sources that weren't repeated by other researchers are useless. You are closing in on being a tendentious editor. Stop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If you mean you are d one reviewing the request of this section, then I have to agree. Only then please be consistent and not include any Primary research in this article, because this article is full of them. Please see my request in a new section. Steelmate (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Also please read my words carefully as you are jumping into conclusions. Stop doing that! I said I can prove that existing sources in the article are not Secondary sources but Primary. Steelmate (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And you just repeated my point, all Primary sources should be excluded, not just some.... selectively. Steelmate (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You have NO clue what constitutes a primary source. None. Nada. Nichts. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Which point exactly am I missing? I read all the Wikipedia guidelines on this. Steelmate (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, if the internet says so. They don't let just anyone post things on the internet. Sarcasm aside, we don't base things on representation on "the internet", we base medical claims on peer-reviewed, secondary sources. Steelmate, consensus is clearly against you. Zero support, multiple comments. We're done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"we base medical claims on peer-reviewed, secondary sources" - in theory maybe, what I see in practice is manipulation of resources to match certain common beliefs held by editors here, that form sort of monopoly to what can be included in the article without second thought. That Monopolistic belief got rid of all other editors who were daring to provide another view. It is more like a Fascism rather then Democratic choice of people... Steelmate (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Request to remove source - Lower, S. ""Ionized" and alkaline water: Snake oil on tap"

This source is Primary research of the author and therefore is considered to be a Primary source which we don't use in Wikipeda. Please remove it from the list of sources in this article. Steelmate (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This source is reliable, per WP:PARITY (the owner of the website appears to be a retired professor of chemistry). Yobol (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any parity then... where is the other view in this article? Steelmate (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The fringe view is sourced to the LA Times article, i.e. that ti is an antioxidant and slows aging. There is therefore no need to cite another source where a reliable source already cites one. Yobol (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Request to remove resource - Woolston, Chris (2007-01-22). "It'll quench your thirst, of course. But whether ionized water can slow aging and fight disease is another matter". Los Angeles Times.

This article doesn't represent Secondary resource as it is not basing it's content on Primary resource. Please remove it. Steelmate (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? The LA Times isn't reliable in providing secondary sourcing for the people they interview and for their reporting? Yobol (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Steelmate is refusing to bring reliable sources supporting his "belief" in this bogus technology, so employing the logical fallacies of others who fail in science, attack the attackers. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please be on topic Orange Marlin and don't attack me but provide arguments if you have any... Steelmate (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No I am serious. Please provide Wikipedia guideline saying LA Times is reliable secondary source. Thanks! Steelmate (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The LA Times is a secondary source for information about a topic or event; a primary source would be published by the scientists they interview or the people at the event. If you cannot understand the difference, it would be best to learn about the topic rather than harassing others with your ignorance of the topic. Yobol (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree if the people they interviewed constituted Primary resource. But they are not. None of the people exposed in LA article have done any primary research. Therefore LA article is not a secondary resource. Right? Steelmate (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Yobol (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? Steelmate (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Because wikipedia represents the mainstream opinion, which is that ionized water is not magic. An adequate parity source to debunk fringe claims filled with red flag statements. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not mainstream opinion. You make it look as if it is. The stream is divided 50/50. And in this article at 100% negative. And you close your eyes on this. Steelmate (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you prove it by referencing mainstream sources that support the use of ionized water for any health indication? Say...a pubmed-indexed review article that supports this statement, or a page from the National Institutes of Health, or a page on the FDA's website that notes water ionizers have been approved for medical indications? I'm perfectly willing to read pages that are worth my time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now from the examples you gave, how many have been used as a reliable source already in the article? None. All the sources already existing are very poor quality and biased, BUT they are kept because they say negative things about the water. Isn't it biased approach? Either apply your standard of quality to all resources, or don't request me to provide resources of much higher quality than already are used in this article. Steelmate (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And that would be wrong if there were any medical claims made on the page. There are not, neither positive (ionized water is better for you than regular water!) nor negative (ionized water is worse for you than regular water!). There are numerous statements that ionized water does not benefit health, which is fine. The approach isn't biased, it's simply geared towards giving due weight to the mainstream opinion, which necessarily involves giving little weight to what manufacturers and fringe proponents say. An article such as this one shouldn't give a long and detailed list of what people think ionized water can do, followed by a statement saying "oh, and it doesn't actually do any of that". It simply describes and denies. So you could say that there is a bias in wikipedia towards the mainstream opinion, and you'd be right. We are allowed to cite "biased" sources that don't give "both sides" of the issue when there is really, among the relevant experts, only one side of the issue. We are applying wikipedia's policies appropriately, the fact that you don't really like this fact is really pretty irrelevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Request to remove resource - Brian Dunning (2009-02-03). "Change Your Water, Change Your Life".

This resource is not qualified as Secondary as it is not based on Primary research. Please remove. Steelmate (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia defines primary and secondary sources. The Skeptoid podcast evaluates the claims made by various marketers of water ionizers, as well as the scientific basis (or lack thereof) for those claims. It's thus a secondary source as Wikipedia defines it. Whether Skeptoid is a suitable source for this article is a separate question - I think it's reasonable given WP:PARITY, as well as common sense - but I think you're confused about Wikipedia's definitions of primary vs. secondary sources and should probably lay down those arguments until you've taken another look at the relevant policies. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well as it is regarding medical claims, then I believe these policies should be considered. Here at states "A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences." There is a lot of research papers on this topic. Unfortunately Brian Dunning is not using then in their article but referring to claims of some people, who are neither researchers nor manufacturers - so they don't qualify as a Primary resource but are rather - an unreliable resource. So that means Brian Dunning's article doesn't refer to the Primary resource and that doesn't qualify him as a Secondary resource. As a Secondary resource according to Wikipedia - "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic". And so this article is clearly not a Secondary resource, but rather an unreliable resource. Did I miss anything? Steelmate (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So your strategy is to attack other sources rather than provide reliable sources to support your POV pushing about this useless technology. A real editor (and a real scientist) thinks "well, I'm not providing evidence, better work on that." No, you're reduced to rhetoric and laughable ploys to discredit the whole process. Just so you know, MastCell is the nice guy. I'm not. I think you're violating WP:NOTAFORUM and should stop editing now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

My strategy is provide unbiased exposure of this technology in Wikipedia, which is undeservingly biased in my opinion. And you seem to want to push you POV views and making this into circus to discredit the logical arguments that I am trying to bring, not what a real scientist would do! And if I am wrong on something I will be the first one to acknowledge. Steelmate (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

By exposure, you mean "advertising"? Good to know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No I don't. I mean what I say. Steelmate (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing WP:FRINGE, specifically WP:PARITY. WP:REDFLAG applies here too. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not interpreted in a vacuum, but in the context of all others. There is no reason to believe any of the dramatic claims of water ionizers, as there is no logical physiological reason for them to have the effects they claim. Yobol (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

More then 50 academic researches have been done ,mostly on mice, to prove that there IS an effect, 95% positive. There is a huge difference in ionized water in it's properties. And instead having certain beliefs about it I invite you to read those research papers. Retired professor seem to have burnt his brains during his career, as I read very carefully what he wrote and it is in 70% of the article content just plain incorrect! Steelmate (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to list them. You haven't. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Because you said you are done discussing. But it is easy to do it. Steelmate (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please also reread WP:NPOV. NPOV does not mean that all sides get an equal hearing, or that articles are 50/50 or "balanced", or that every "for" claim is balanced to an "against" claim. NPOV means that editors don't insert their commentary (POV) into an article but rather report what reliable sources say. In this case, the reliable sources do not back the claims you are trying to make and thus said claims will not be included. Stop being disruptive and stop trying to make WP:POINT by demanding that reliable sources are removed. You have failed to achieve consensus, it's time to move on, or if you're feeling audacious you can try to bring this up at WP:DR but I assure you that it will not end in your favor. N^oformation ^Talk 19:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if it is not going to help there, I will escalate even higher. I believe it is a very biased article and does a disservice to Wikipedia readers. Steelmate (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Editors here insert only selective sources and don't include others. That is indirect POV pushing based on bias while selecting resources. Steelmate (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free, but I think we're mostly done here. N^oformation ^Talk 19:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable parity source. Second WP:POINT section. Done here, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)