Talk:Water supply

message: This article is very US centric. I guess we can do several things to rectify this but the most blatant examples are the quoted examples of water supply. Metering is not far benhind - this isn't actually how the majority of the world pays for its water. I propose to delete this section and replace with more generic text with perhaps a few examples from across the world. Anone disagree ? Velela 19:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to not be focused on one country... I'd be inclined to add more info, and perhaps trim back the US info, rather than actually deleting it all... perhaps do it step-by-step, adding your material, and then see if the old material is useful to have in the article. --Singkong2005 · talk 10:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Sinkong. I will go ahead and add some more material, improve the structure of the article and cut back on the US examples which I would suggest to move to a separate entry such as "Water supply in the USA". Also, sources should be added to the extent possible.--Mschiffler 03:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parochialism

message: The linked article states that Chlorination is still a viable and common option (nevertheless, more an more alternatives are being tested). The term "previously" leaves a different impression.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.196.96 (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously now removed in favour of a more accurate phrase. Velela (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "previously chlorination..."?

message: thumb|150px|right|Perhaps this image may be added to article. It features a low-cost diy (ceramic) pipeline system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.151.170 (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar system was used by the Roman civilisation , the Greek civilisation the Egyptian civilisation and probably almost every civilisation since and is still used today to carry water off land to reservoirs, irrigation systems and much much more.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ceramic low-cost system

message: Continuing from the water privatization page, I have come to understand that these issues permeate not only private sector attempts at water distribution schemes but naturally public ones as well. As such, Mschiffler and whoever else watches this page,  I am taking some of your advice and moving some of the analysis to this page instead. I would like to build a suitable addition to this article, as these issues are reflected in institutional and academic literature and appear to be underreported on Wikipedia. Bryancraven (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a pretty good new article in its own right. I think if it was added in here it would unbalance this article,  but I would certainly support a short summary here with a link to your new article.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you I will do just thatBryancraven (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to the article to include gender impacts/issues of water supply in developing nations 

message: As of September 4, 2012, this article says NOTHING at all about beneficial chemicals, mostly minerals, found in drinking water supplies. I will just mention some that I have heard of or thought of. Often in the case of desalinated or highly-purified water, some minerals need to be added to the water to make it taste right:
MgCO3, MgCl2, CaCO3, CaCl2, O2, even NaCl
Also, do people think that "chemical" = "hazardous chemical"? Dumb.98.81.2.69 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemicals / minerals in drinking water 

message: Koa Wright
Wiki assignment 2
1. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? If there are unreliable sources, identify them and explain why they are unreliable.
A: Most of the facts presented in this article are factual and can be backed up with provided citations of reliable sources. Although there were a few that caught my eye that I believe could have been improved such as the following statements
 "A clean water supply - in particular water that is not polluted with fecal matter from lack of sanitation - is the single most important determinant of public health.[citation needed]" 
This information could be opinion based because there is not a credible source cited to that claim.
"In the United States, the typical single family home uses about 138 US gallons (520 l; 115 imp gal) of water per day (2016 estimate) or 58.6 US gallons (222 l; 48.8 imp gal) per capita per day. This includes several common residential end use purposes (in decreasing order) like toilet use, showers, tap (faucet) use, washing machine use, leaks, other (unidentified), baths, and dishwasher use.[2][better source needed]"
This information was tagged for needing a better source. What I learned on one of the wiki info pages is information will be tagged with needing a better source if things happen such as the source cited has a bad reputation for not fact checking, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have conflict of interest. This being said I think the credible information on how much water a single family house uses is out there, just not with this source due to it possibly not being correct or possibly opinionated.
2. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? If so, identify it and explain why.
A: Nothing was necessarily distracting in this passage. Because water supply so such a complex and vast topic there was a lot of different information given so it was a lot to take in. For example this passage covers not just physical water supply but also water quality, water policies, financial aspects, as well as the history of human advancements in obtaining sources of water. All of these sub topics are important in understanding the main idea of how important and how complex the idea of water supply really is.
3. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Explain how it is biased and how it should be changed.
A: This article is very neutral with the information they provide. The information provided in the article is mostly un opinionated and is based on a collection of data that argues for or against nothing,  just provides useful information to anyone who has a curiosity for knowing more about water supply. Although one section did grab my attention and it was the following statement
 "A clean water supply - in particular water that is not polluted with fecal matter from lack of sanitation - is the single most important determinant of public health.[citation needed]"
This caught my attention for one because it does not have a citation to back up the claim. Two because the wording of the section is very opinionated like "is the single most". When someone says phrases such as "is the single most" but then provides no credible citation it makes the statement seem very opinion biased. What someone could do to make that statement seem reliable is by posting the citation that backs up the claim of "is the single most".
4. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
A: You can see where the information came from by going directly to the citation. At the bottom of the page there is a list of references that are all of the cited information. Overall the information cited seems to come from mostly from research foundations, non profit organizations, and government research. The sources have no personal profit from information   
5. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented?
A: I did not find the information to be overrepresented. I did find that the policies and regulations page could have had extensive information relating to the ownership of water and water rights.  how over pumping creates problematic situations or adds to already existing ones such as drought. This would be difficult to do without being biased, so focusing on the data rather then  if what they are doing is morally right or wrong may help stay clear of a biased statement.
6. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
A: I found one case of what I believe is plagiarism but I cannot tell who is guilty. On the Wikipedia page the statement says
" Water supply systems get water from a variety of locations after appropriate treatment, including groundwater (aquifers), surface water (lakes and rivers), and the sea through desalination. The water treatment steps include, in most cases, purification, disinfection through chlorination and sometimes fluoridation. Treated water then either flows by gravity or is pumped to reservoirs, which can be elevated such as water towers or on the ground (for indicators related to the efficiency of drinking water distribution see non-revenue water). Once water is used, wastewater is typically discharged in a sewer system and treated in a sewage treatment plant before being discharged into a river, lake or the sea or reused for landscaping, irrigation or industrial use (see also sanitation)." 
There is no citation marked to this information
While doing some plagiarism checking I found the https://www.goodwatercompany.com/commercial-property-water-supply which on their main page says the following without citations
"Water supply is the provision of water by public utilities, commercial organizations, communities, or individuals, usually via a system of pumps and pipes. Water supply systems get water from a variety of locations after appropriate treatment, including aquifers, lakes and rivers, and the sea through desalination. The water treatment steps include in most cases, purification, disinfection through chlorination, and sometimes fluoridation. Treated water then either flows by gravity or is pumped to reservoirs. Once water is used, waste water is typically discharged in a sewer system and treated in a sewage treatment plant before being discharged into a river, lake, or the ocean. It can also be reused for landscaping, irrigation, or industrial use."
Because neither have citations presented it is hard to determine who was stealing the information from who or if they both stole this information from another source.
:For the record the sentence "Modern water supply systems get water from a variety of locations, including aquifers, lakes, rivers, wells, desalinated seawater, and other sources. The water is then purified." was present in this article by 2016 - 11 years ago. The mention of desalination was added the following year - clear evidence of the article text growing with time. This is a very strong contra indication to Wikipedia plagiarising the text of others. The commercial reference that you quote  is copyright 2017. All this evidence strongly suggests that Wikipedia has been copied and not the other way round. It is always worth taking a forensic look at the history of an article if you have concerns about plagiarism.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Student exercise

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Water supply. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206184217/http://www.nusconsulting.com/downloads/2006WaterSurvey.pdf to http://www.nusconsulting.com/downloads/2006WaterSurvey.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824225331/http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page44.asp to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/page44.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109195319/http://plumber.whangarei.biz/a-little-about-tap-history/ to http://plumber.whangarei.biz/a-little-about-tap-history/
*Added  tag to http://www.waterplanning.org.au/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I find the public water service provision section heavily subjective and biased. It needs to be re-written with both points of view and less charged language. It almost reads like a private water company has written it. Highly debatable whether a private company would benefit the poor in less developed nations. In developed nations, the poor receive water no matter the system. 37.133.241.82 (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, almost certainly true. Please feel free to provide balance with some well sourced text.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political bias 

message: The section on history should be shortened and reworked, as there is a sub-article directly dealing with that topic: History of water supply and sanitation. Hence, only the bare minimum needs to remain here. That map by John Snow with the cholera pump is on about 6 related Wikipedia articles... - I keep seeing it everywhere. Let's reduce that repetition. (I have it on my to-do list but it may take a while before I get there; I am writing on the talk page in case someone else agrees and has time to rework this). EMsmile (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually appears in :-   Human geography,  Germ theory of disease, Water purification, Public health, Water supply, Slow sand filter, Environmental epidemiology, 1846–1860 cholera pandemic, History of water filters, History of water supply and sanitation as well as a number of other map and GIS related articles.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, how did you track that, Velella? There must be a tool that I am not aware of. :-) Do you agree with me that it's repeated in too many places and needs to be bundled in mainly just one place and then linked to that one place from the other places? Or is it normal / standard practice that an important image (especially a historical one) gets repeated in so many places? - I have also asked a similar question here on the talk page of the WikiProject Medicine.  EMsmile (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I do agree that it is in too many places. If I could put in a plea for it to be retained at Slow sand filter plus any others you think justifiable, that would be good. I produced the list by clicking on the image and opening the commons description page here. This lists every use of the image throughout Wikipedia. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   11:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, thanks that's really useful. I have now removed that map from a few of the articles. I have also shortened the history section of this article, and moved the content to history of water supply and sanitation. It might even be possible to cull it further. It's never good to have too much repetition/overlap across two articles. EMsmile (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorten and rework the section on history 

message: I am concerned that this article and the one on drinking water overlap. I have written about that on the other article's talk page here. If anyone is able to help with improving that situation, please do. EMsmile (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What is important about this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiacvitale02 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi User:Sofiacvitale02, what do you mean? This overlap still concerns me, also with water quality. EMsmile (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap with [[drinking water]] 

message: Seems unnecessary
- US centric
- don't see how this relates to society and culture
If it is needed then more context is needed for the section and some other examples from other counties/territories Twln (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and have removed it now. EMsmile (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Society and culture section