[Satan]

My thoughts on this may be wrong but if they are I'm sure someone will take the time to actually prove that instead of just saying it.

Wet is a state. It is opposite of dry.

Can water be dry, or "free from moisture or liquid; not wet or moist."?

As it is a liquid, I believe by definition it cannot be.

I also have not found any evidence supporting that you can saturate a liquid with itself, and you can only cover a different (solid) state of a liquid with itself, which isn't really what is being discussed here, as it would then be saying ice can become wet.

Covering it would require some sort of boundary between the liquid and more of itself, which water itself doesn't do.

For these reason I don't believe water is wet.
Also googling this question and finding some sort of poll, thoughts on this seem 50/50.

Its essentially just an argument over semantics, and probably wouldn't be solved even with scientific data going either way.

[mothered]

There are some very good arguments for and against, and I'm not partial either way.

Is water wet? By appearance yes, by scientific research and definition, probably not. Prior to determining whether water Is In fact wet, I think the term"wet" needs to be conclusively defined with supported evidence.

[Jiggly]

This is a very non-extreme example of why ANSI (American National Standards Institute) or ISO (International Standards Organization) should make an official dictionary, so we won't have definition-based debates.
More extreme examples are legal arguments, and the whole transgender debate.

Wait, you don't have a nationally recognized dictionary? Though, keep in mind, even if you did, your English dictionary wouldn't necessarily match the dictionary definitions from other English speaking countries. I think we just have to accept that language itself isn't perfect or that restricted. Words change meaning over time, and new words are created all the time. The ability to interpret in more than one way gives us more freedom in how we communicate.

AFAIK we do not have one.  Sure, but we would have somewhere to point to, and we can have standardized stuff.

I do agree with you there. Though it surprises me there isn't one in the states.

Its essentially just an argument over semantics, and probably wouldn't be solved even with scientific data going either way.

I feel exactly the same way. We're talking about language here, more than science.