![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 February 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Romashkaya,
NamePen,
Pokithecat.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Takayuki Toyama,
BuffaloRanch23,
Sciephymath.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone know what chemicals are artificially added to American tap water and for what reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.108.158 ( talk) 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I do not believe the Tap Water article should be merged with Domestic Water System. To me it seems that tap water is not the same thing as the whole system that brings it to us.
However, I feel that this article is incomplete and is in great need to be developed further. A list of chemicals added to the tap water by municipalities needs to be included, and how harmful or harmless they might be to us. Also other possible contaminants of tap water before and after it leaves the water station, and what studies and tests of tap water around the world told us.
I came here hoping to learn if my fears about tap water were founded or not, I discovered that none of my fears were mentioned here despite the fact that most people drinking bottled water instead of tap water have the same fears, though most of us don’t understand exactly what these fears are or where they come from. We need a clear understanding of what is tap water and how safe it is.
Someone will need to address these issues so this article will provide a better understanding of what we are actually drinking. And since I am no expert, it cannot be me.
By all means, if you are an environmentalist, feel free to tell us how harmful it is to drink bottled water instead of tap water, but both sides need to be developed further. This would be more what readers of Wikipedia would expect, an unbiased point of view. Otherwise, this article tells us what we already know, tap water is water coming to our home through pipes after municipalities treated it “somehow”. Somehow I was expecting more.
Markytea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markytea ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Each treatment plant has their own thing to purify water. Chlorination, filters, reverse osmosis, and/or UV light. Some treatment plants also add fluoride to strengthen teeth, also for public health reasons. You should be able to ask the company that supplies your water what they do exactly to treat your water. If there was anything to really fear, it would be that the treatment was incomplete or the water source was not treatable. I would be also be worried about your own piping system to see if you aren't adding your own pollutants to what is normally safe drinking water. Lead pipes are bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.225.207.97 ( talk) 21:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You should fear of Chlorine and Floride in our tap water. Chlorine and Flouride cause cancer and heart disease (do some research pls). You probably won't agree with it, but why do you believed: Chlorine treats water, Flouride strengthen teeth? Chlorine may treat water (kill germs), but what about its side effect? Did you just trust what government/official says? I will doubt it, I doubt everything. Do your research and try it yourself. Try using shower filter and you will feel the difference. Have you ever heard that Flouride actually remove teeth enamel? Why dentist love it? Well, I tried it myself, no risk(may be few holes in my teeth). I use organic toothpaste(no flouride) for 3 years already and haven't visit dentist so far. Its worth testing yourself, but don't test it on everyone else. We should see from both sides of controversy and let people know about it.(According to the U.S. Council of Environmental Quality, “Cancer risk among people using chlorinated water is as much as 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine.”)
Can someone please remove the uncited attack on fluoridating water, especially since the line claims that there is ample evidence for the claim, and then completely fails to cite any credible evidence. I don't know the first thing about editing wikipedia in a way that won't get reverted by a mod immediately, so I brought it here. This is the line I'm talking about:
"The biggest drawback that tap water has over bottle water is the addition of fluoride. Many water plants will add fluoride to their water through water fluoridation, compared to bottled water companies of which very few add fluorine. This element is a well documented health hazard, known to cause fluorosis (pitting and loss of tooth enamel) and an increased incidence of bone fractures.[citation needed]"
A number of studies have been done that weigh both the benefits and potential risks of fluoridating water. The studies found that the risks were minor, and that the claims of opponents were largely false. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.37.143 ( talk) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Expert Attention needed-- 69.215.76.193 04:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
needs a history of running water... -- Feb 27 16:46:19 EST 2006
Is it true the roman empire invented the first working faucet? This article will benefit from a history section.
There's nothing domestic about Rome...
I think this would be a valid and interesting list, but it's whether anyone has the source material to make it that would be the problem.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tap water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, As a part of the Wiki Education course taking place from February to 21 May 2021, a couple of students (NamePen, Pokithecat) and I will work on improving the Tap water article. We will carefully evaluate the existing text and focus on making it more readable and compliant with the guidelines. Please feel free to comment on any contributions from our group and suggest further edits :) Thank you! Romashkaya ( talk) 18:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
"Usually it is potable although water quality problems are not rare." Regarding this sentence in the lead, can I delete this? This is vague and does not represent the world's situation. Pokithecat ( talk) 18:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Before making any changes to this article, I think it is important to check what already exists in other articles on Wikipedia. Independently editing this article will likely result in inconsistencies and duplication. The other articles I would suggest looking at:
To a lesser extent, the content of following articles may also be relevant to Tap water:
Jimjamjak ( talk) 11:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I type "Copper Tubing" and come to the "Tap Water" article? When did that start? And in the Tap Water article I see the table of copper tubing sizes? Nobody whose main interest is tap water also wants to see a CTS table. And it would seem the table is incomplete, lacking the nominal 1/8" (1/4" OD) size. So hoping for a better table, under "Copper" I click on "See also Copper tubing" and arrive at the Pipe Fitting article. There I click on "See also Copper Tubing" and get back to the Tap Water article, closing a circle. This seriously violates the principle of least surprise. I thought there used to be a separate article on Copper Tubing, with a good CTS table. This Tap Water article is not the place for the CTS table. IMO. CountMacula ( talk) 07:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
In the lead leaching section there is mention of current lead specs for solder. It is expressed as .2%. It should be written as 0.2%. As anyone who works with practical figures knows, the inclusion of a zero aids the awareness of the decimal point for the reader. Tables often omit the zero before the decimal when the tabular form makes the decimal obvious. 74.178.137.171 ( talk) 01:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Water only flows through plumbing but is no component of it. Likewise, water is no component of any washing machine although water is necessary to wash. 85.193.235.230 ( talk) 20:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Anybody want to go through and mark all the non sequitur or non cited statements? There are kinda randomly thrown around in here.
a few points that need checking and maybe mentioning in this article:
-- Tarquin 10:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think that there is a real need to point out the variety of meanings of tap water for countries other than the USA, and to address some of the issues in those countries - non-continuous supply problems, differences in plumbing quality, public/private supply issues etc. Jimjamjak ( talk) 11:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a
worldwide view of the subject. (August 2019) |
S Sycamore ( talk) 23:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
are you kidding? it is well known from ottoman archives that Architect Sinan was awarded (but then charged because of that thats how it enters to archives) to have water for his own usage at home, while other citizens were using public fountains in 16th century, 3 centuries before... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is "indoor plumbing" directed to this page, rather than the plumbing page? -- Faro0485 ( talk) 10:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Besides the lead section being too long with seven paragraphs, the article exceeds the scope of the lead section. In particular the Copper tubing sizes section as well as most of the pipe materials section belong in the article on Pipe (material). I ♥ ♪♫ ( talk) 17:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have the idea that most of the article is about plumbing as opposed to tap water. In my opinion tap water is "the water coming out of the tap", not about the tap itself. I agree some information on plumbing would be useful background information, but it should not outshine the information on the water itself (its source, treatment and water quality). However, all information on water quality is in the bottom sections, some information on water sources is mentioned, but the section is vague about its own topic, whether it's mentioning sources of tap water or alternatives for potable water, it seems to suggest the latter. No information is given about water treatment and information of tap water sources is insufficient. Fixing this missing information is a large project though. Therefore I would like to address the over-abundance of plumbing information. Should we move the entire fixtures and appliances section, the fittings and valves section, the waste water section and most of the pipe materials section (most notably excluding the history subsection) to the plumbing article? The plumbing page lacks a lot of the information in those sections and these sections are far more relevant to the plumbing article than to the tap water article. I think we could merge whatever remains of these sections in this article into a single plumbing section referring to plumbing as the main article. Does anyone have any other ideas? I don't think the information needs to be deleted, but I don't think it belongs to the tap water article either. PinkShinyRose ( talk) 00:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
do you need a saddle valve on a kitchen sink cold water supply line? Thank you Phillip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.143.163 ( talk) 12:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
As I was going through the article, I realized that it could be structured more effectively. Here is my proposal:
1. Lead
2. Background
2.1. United States
2.2. Regulation and compliance
3. Fixture and appliances
3.1. Fittings and valves
3.2. Materials
4. Potable water supply
4.1. Wastewater
4.2. Water Flow Reduction
5. Comparison to bottled water
6. See Also
7. References
8. External links
Any comments or concerns? :) Romashkaya ( talk) 01:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 February 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Romashkaya,
NamePen,
Pokithecat.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Takayuki Toyama,
BuffaloRanch23,
Sciephymath.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone know what chemicals are artificially added to American tap water and for what reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.108.158 ( talk) 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I do not believe the Tap Water article should be merged with Domestic Water System. To me it seems that tap water is not the same thing as the whole system that brings it to us.
However, I feel that this article is incomplete and is in great need to be developed further. A list of chemicals added to the tap water by municipalities needs to be included, and how harmful or harmless they might be to us. Also other possible contaminants of tap water before and after it leaves the water station, and what studies and tests of tap water around the world told us.
I came here hoping to learn if my fears about tap water were founded or not, I discovered that none of my fears were mentioned here despite the fact that most people drinking bottled water instead of tap water have the same fears, though most of us don’t understand exactly what these fears are or where they come from. We need a clear understanding of what is tap water and how safe it is.
Someone will need to address these issues so this article will provide a better understanding of what we are actually drinking. And since I am no expert, it cannot be me.
By all means, if you are an environmentalist, feel free to tell us how harmful it is to drink bottled water instead of tap water, but both sides need to be developed further. This would be more what readers of Wikipedia would expect, an unbiased point of view. Otherwise, this article tells us what we already know, tap water is water coming to our home through pipes after municipalities treated it “somehow”. Somehow I was expecting more.
Markytea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markytea ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Each treatment plant has their own thing to purify water. Chlorination, filters, reverse osmosis, and/or UV light. Some treatment plants also add fluoride to strengthen teeth, also for public health reasons. You should be able to ask the company that supplies your water what they do exactly to treat your water. If there was anything to really fear, it would be that the treatment was incomplete or the water source was not treatable. I would be also be worried about your own piping system to see if you aren't adding your own pollutants to what is normally safe drinking water. Lead pipes are bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.225.207.97 ( talk) 21:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You should fear of Chlorine and Floride in our tap water. Chlorine and Flouride cause cancer and heart disease (do some research pls). You probably won't agree with it, but why do you believed: Chlorine treats water, Flouride strengthen teeth? Chlorine may treat water (kill germs), but what about its side effect? Did you just trust what government/official says? I will doubt it, I doubt everything. Do your research and try it yourself. Try using shower filter and you will feel the difference. Have you ever heard that Flouride actually remove teeth enamel? Why dentist love it? Well, I tried it myself, no risk(may be few holes in my teeth). I use organic toothpaste(no flouride) for 3 years already and haven't visit dentist so far. Its worth testing yourself, but don't test it on everyone else. We should see from both sides of controversy and let people know about it.(According to the U.S. Council of Environmental Quality, “Cancer risk among people using chlorinated water is as much as 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine.”)
Can someone please remove the uncited attack on fluoridating water, especially since the line claims that there is ample evidence for the claim, and then completely fails to cite any credible evidence. I don't know the first thing about editing wikipedia in a way that won't get reverted by a mod immediately, so I brought it here. This is the line I'm talking about:
"The biggest drawback that tap water has over bottle water is the addition of fluoride. Many water plants will add fluoride to their water through water fluoridation, compared to bottled water companies of which very few add fluorine. This element is a well documented health hazard, known to cause fluorosis (pitting and loss of tooth enamel) and an increased incidence of bone fractures.[citation needed]"
A number of studies have been done that weigh both the benefits and potential risks of fluoridating water. The studies found that the risks were minor, and that the claims of opponents were largely false. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.37.143 ( talk) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Expert Attention needed-- 69.215.76.193 04:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
needs a history of running water... -- Feb 27 16:46:19 EST 2006
Is it true the roman empire invented the first working faucet? This article will benefit from a history section.
There's nothing domestic about Rome...
I think this would be a valid and interesting list, but it's whether anyone has the source material to make it that would be the problem.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tap water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, As a part of the Wiki Education course taking place from February to 21 May 2021, a couple of students (NamePen, Pokithecat) and I will work on improving the Tap water article. We will carefully evaluate the existing text and focus on making it more readable and compliant with the guidelines. Please feel free to comment on any contributions from our group and suggest further edits :) Thank you! Romashkaya ( talk) 18:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
"Usually it is potable although water quality problems are not rare." Regarding this sentence in the lead, can I delete this? This is vague and does not represent the world's situation. Pokithecat ( talk) 18:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Before making any changes to this article, I think it is important to check what already exists in other articles on Wikipedia. Independently editing this article will likely result in inconsistencies and duplication. The other articles I would suggest looking at:
To a lesser extent, the content of following articles may also be relevant to Tap water:
Jimjamjak ( talk) 11:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I type "Copper Tubing" and come to the "Tap Water" article? When did that start? And in the Tap Water article I see the table of copper tubing sizes? Nobody whose main interest is tap water also wants to see a CTS table. And it would seem the table is incomplete, lacking the nominal 1/8" (1/4" OD) size. So hoping for a better table, under "Copper" I click on "See also Copper tubing" and arrive at the Pipe Fitting article. There I click on "See also Copper Tubing" and get back to the Tap Water article, closing a circle. This seriously violates the principle of least surprise. I thought there used to be a separate article on Copper Tubing, with a good CTS table. This Tap Water article is not the place for the CTS table. IMO. CountMacula ( talk) 07:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
In the lead leaching section there is mention of current lead specs for solder. It is expressed as .2%. It should be written as 0.2%. As anyone who works with practical figures knows, the inclusion of a zero aids the awareness of the decimal point for the reader. Tables often omit the zero before the decimal when the tabular form makes the decimal obvious. 74.178.137.171 ( talk) 01:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Water only flows through plumbing but is no component of it. Likewise, water is no component of any washing machine although water is necessary to wash. 85.193.235.230 ( talk) 20:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Anybody want to go through and mark all the non sequitur or non cited statements? There are kinda randomly thrown around in here.
a few points that need checking and maybe mentioning in this article:
-- Tarquin 10:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think that there is a real need to point out the variety of meanings of tap water for countries other than the USA, and to address some of the issues in those countries - non-continuous supply problems, differences in plumbing quality, public/private supply issues etc. Jimjamjak ( talk) 11:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a
worldwide view of the subject. (August 2019) |
S Sycamore ( talk) 23:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
are you kidding? it is well known from ottoman archives that Architect Sinan was awarded (but then charged because of that thats how it enters to archives) to have water for his own usage at home, while other citizens were using public fountains in 16th century, 3 centuries before... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is "indoor plumbing" directed to this page, rather than the plumbing page? -- Faro0485 ( talk) 10:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Besides the lead section being too long with seven paragraphs, the article exceeds the scope of the lead section. In particular the Copper tubing sizes section as well as most of the pipe materials section belong in the article on Pipe (material). I ♥ ♪♫ ( talk) 17:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have the idea that most of the article is about plumbing as opposed to tap water. In my opinion tap water is "the water coming out of the tap", not about the tap itself. I agree some information on plumbing would be useful background information, but it should not outshine the information on the water itself (its source, treatment and water quality). However, all information on water quality is in the bottom sections, some information on water sources is mentioned, but the section is vague about its own topic, whether it's mentioning sources of tap water or alternatives for potable water, it seems to suggest the latter. No information is given about water treatment and information of tap water sources is insufficient. Fixing this missing information is a large project though. Therefore I would like to address the over-abundance of plumbing information. Should we move the entire fixtures and appliances section, the fittings and valves section, the waste water section and most of the pipe materials section (most notably excluding the history subsection) to the plumbing article? The plumbing page lacks a lot of the information in those sections and these sections are far more relevant to the plumbing article than to the tap water article. I think we could merge whatever remains of these sections in this article into a single plumbing section referring to plumbing as the main article. Does anyone have any other ideas? I don't think the information needs to be deleted, but I don't think it belongs to the tap water article either. PinkShinyRose ( talk) 00:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
do you need a saddle valve on a kitchen sink cold water supply line? Thank you Phillip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.143.163 ( talk) 12:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
As I was going through the article, I realized that it could be structured more effectively. Here is my proposal:
1. Lead
2. Background
2.1. United States
2.2. Regulation and compliance
3. Fixture and appliances
3.1. Fittings and valves
3.2. Materials
4. Potable water supply
4.1. Wastewater
4.2. Water Flow Reduction
5. Comparison to bottled water
6. See Also
7. References
8. External links
Any comments or concerns? :) Romashkaya ( talk) 01:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)