Talk:Penta Water

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Can someone tell me if I'm doing the right thing with the trademark on the first occurence of Penta in the article.Christianjb 02:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The ™ doesn't do any harm, but as far as I can tell is unnecessary in this context. Although corporations get very anal-retentive about its inclusion, prestigious independent style guides say different:
Medical Library Association: "Although owners of trademarked names may suggest otherwise, publishers are not obligated to denote the trademark status of a name when that name is mentioned in text".
ACS Style Guide from Oxford University Press USA: "In ACS publications, do not use trademark (™ ) and registered trademark (®) symbols".
IEEE: "We do not include the trademark symbol in articles published in IEEE Computer Society periodicals and proceedings. Trademark law does not apply to the press because using a product name in the headline or text of an article does not constitute an attempt to capitalize on the reputation of the company or the product".
Chicago Manual of Style, quoted here: ".The symbols ® and ™, which often accompany registered trademark names on product packaging and in advertisements, need not be used in running text".
(Besides, you only need to look at a few newspaper websites - eg Ben Goldacre's articles or this USA Today piece - to see they don't use it. Raygirvan Apr 21 2005
Cool! Thanks. I suggest leaving the trademark sign in the first mention anyway so that people know that Penta Water is a brand-name.Christianjb 04:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also- if anyone has a pdf/ps copy of the Raman paper on Penta, can they send it to me. I've written to the lead author but have (surprisingly!) received no reply. Christianjb 03:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Update. I finally got Penta UK to give me a copy of the paper. I'll be writing a subsection about the paper in the next few days. Let me know if anyone needs a copy.
Update. This page is now available for download from the Aquaphotonics website. (See main article.)

Contents

[edit] Suggestion

After reading the paper by Gvozdev et al., it seems at least possible that the faster rate of dissolution of COM crystals may be due to impurities in the penta water (as the same paper pointed out that addition of iron or aluminum chlorides quintupled the dissolution rate). A look through Scifinder Scholar reveals no information pertaining to the purity of this product. Have there been any independent assays relating to the purity? If the purity cannot be verified, then it would seem reasonable to point out in this article the various conclusions that can be drawn from that paper.

-Will


[edit] Penta's POV

A representative from Penta UK contacted me today expressing their point of view regarding the Penta Water Wikipedia web-page. I told him that he is welcome to edit the Penta page, though his edits may well themselves be edited (especially if they are not sourced). I also mentioned that Penta should feel free to put their point of view on this talk page and that Wikipedians would treat them civilly and respect their right to state their case. I think we can all agree on this. Christianjb 06:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] from Vfd

On 16 March 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Penta Water for a record of the discussion. – ABCD 02:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compukiss link

Deleted. Googling a key phrase - "upstart water from San Diego leapfrog the players" - reveals it's not an independent review, just a widely syndicated 2003 Penta press release (see http://ww1.prweb.com/releases/2003/2/prweb57946.php). RG Apr 07 2005

Thanks, and nice research! I would however like to include a few links showing +ve reviews of Penta- even if it's only to show that a lot of health food stores promote this stuff. Also, it makes the page look a little more balanced- someone out there is buying this. Christianjb 21:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the Earthly Goods one is also iffy as a testimonial. Google again shows a few duplicates, suggesting its source is promotional copy from Penta. RG Apr 10 2005
Haha, this is getting embarrassing! As I said- I do want to provide at least a couple of links showing that some people like Penta- after all they're doing very good business. (BTW- if people want to spend a lot of money on bottled water because it makes them feel cool- well that's their decision!) Well, here's what I suggest. If you can show that the words on that page are partially taken from Penta press releases then just put a note next to the link saying that and including your source. After all, it is useful information to know that many of the +ve reviews are just reheated Penta press releases.Christianjb 04:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too Sciency?

As an aside- I'm trying to write this page in clear non-technical English. If anyone thinks I'm getting too sciency or technical then please let me know. Christianjb 04:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Randi Discusses this page!

See [1]. BTW, yes I know this isn't just 'Christian Burnham's' article- it's a collaborative effort and I'd like to thank all the people who have corrected my poor spelling and have improved the article! Christianjb 20:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

Someone (who doesn't sign his/her name) is making lots of edits to the page that appear to be very pro Penta and without even including an edit summary. There's NOTHING wrong with adding counter-arguments to support some of Penta's claims- but let's hope that it's done responsibly with good sources- or else this could be dangerously close to vandalism. Let me know what you think. Christianjb 23:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

A DNS lookup on the anonymous editor, 64.165.22.130, comes out as BioHydration of 268 Bush St, San Francisco, CA 94104. As you say, they're free to edit an entry, but if it fails the usual Wikipedia criteria such as verifiable source and NPOV, others are equally free to bin it. "One 'endorsement' that is difficult to argue against is that every day thousands of people spend an average of $35 for a case of 24 - 1/2 liter bottles of Penta water" is just the standard fallacy of Appeal to Popularity, aka bandwagon fallacy. RayGirvan 01:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the great research Ray! Fantastic! I (and others) reverted most of the more opinionated edits by the poster. However, I did try to incorporate the poster's main points in a fair way in subsequent edits. To be fair, I don't think the edits today were vandalism- but the poster didn't sufficiently back-up and source his/her data making most of his/her edits look a bit amateurish. At least the poster didn't try and remove anything from the page. I think we all still welcome well thought out statements in support of Penta. Also, I still invite Penta to comment on the Penta Wikipedia page on this talk page.Christianjb 03:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually contrary to my statements above- I have found odd sentences which were deleted from the page by the BHRL employee. Not only did the poster do this anonymously- but no explanation was given for the removal of text. This drives me crazy and I do regard it as vandalism. It's also creating extra work for the rest of the posters who are behaving responsibly. I'm not sure how much more of this I want to stand for. Christianjb 23:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
More pro Penta edits made by an anonymous user (80.3.32.9) today. These were speedily removed (thanks Geni!) presumably because they fail in almost every way to meet the minimum requirements of Wikipedia. They were unsourced, biased in the extreme, opinionated and very probably slanderous (towards James Randi). Christianjb 30 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)

[edit] James Randi Replies to remarks made by Penta supporters

From an email correspondence with Christianjb

Our involvement with Penta is very clear. They agreed to be tested, then they backed out. Any Wikipedia entry that suggests we have been unwilling to test Penta, is a direct lie. I refer you to www.randi.org/jr/08-24-01.html and www.randi.org/jr/08-31-01.html for the story.

The Wikipedia entry says: “Bio-hydration Research Lab has offered to send samples to [JREF] for testing, but they have refused to spend the time, effort, or energy to scientifically prove or disprove the research conducted by Bio-hydration or Aquaphotonics.” As we have patiently explained to Holloway, any tests that JREF would do, would be rightly ignored as possibly biased. It is not our function to decide for ourselves whether any of these claims are true; it is the obligation of those making the claims, to submit to proper independent tests – agreed to formally by both parties, as clearly described in our challenge – and the JREF is and always has been, ready to do this. Holloway at first agreed to this process almost four years ago, then he backed out. We still stand willing to enter into tests – he has refused.

James Randi.

Posted by Christianjb 18:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, James wrote to me today to clear up that he's NOT blaming Wikipedia or the responsible posters- his comments are specifically regarding the employee of BHRL's remarks. It is absolutely a matter of public record that Penta has not submitted to independent testing arranged by the James Randi Educational Foundation. It's irritating that the BHRL employee who's posting to this page is trying to muddy the water on this issue. Christianjb 23:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
"trying to muddy the water on this issue" heh,heh... Lisiate 22:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Claims made by Penta: not verified

All of the items with asterisks still ahve to be verified somehow, or we shouldn't be reporting them. archive.org might be of assistance if someone knows the original pages. Melchoir 06:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I believe this company is dead

As a former employee, around a month ago I was laid off along with the majority of the company due to financial problems. I drove by the other day and saw a "For Sale" sign on their building. Anyone hear of anything on this?

  • I've heard nothing of it, but I say good riddance. On the other hand, sorry you've lost your job and good luck finding work elsewhere. Maybe for a more scrupulous company. 24.40.172.245 04:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it possible that they have more than one building? It looks like they moved multiple times according to the Penta-Water website, but this says nothing else. If it really did close down, does anyone know if they are still selling the bottled Penta-Water? Jon Fawkes 06:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As of July 31, 2007, Penta Water is still available at my local Southern California "Clark’s Nutrition and Natural Foods Market" store. Someone is still bottling it for $35/case. Probably from Carlsbad bay.

[edit] Penta Water China

Does anyone notice the link out to the Penta Water China page? It looks like it might hold some information, but it also looks like it isn't visited very often either (the only poll they've got on that page has 2 votes total, one of them being mine). I've looked around that page, it looks almost exactly like the official page, but I skimmed it very quickly. If someone else would like to take a look at it, please do. It is likely that I missed a lot of information. Jon Fawkes 08:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] delete this entry ?

I think this entire entry should be deleted altogether. It does not add anything to anyone's understanding of the world, except for fraud, which is presumably best understood by reading the entry for fraud.

This page does however, provide a service to the company and product it ostensibly exposes as fraudulent, since the old adage "any PR is good PR" is certainly true in many, even most, instances. Since no right-minded person would want that to happen - this page should be deleted!

I read the discussion about the last time deleting was discussed and was surprised to see apparent unanimity in voting to keep it. I worry that keeping this entry opens the door to too much rubbish that does not belong in WP. If it wouldn't ALL be welcome, then NONE of it should be.

TimProof 04:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Once notable, always notable. — Omegatron 03:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed a line

I removed a line which stated that Penta water, like all types of water, has 0 calories.

It is impossible to have a non-distilled sample of water to have 0 calories.--18jahremädchen 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)