Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 4

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

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

US-Centered

Just reading the section on America, before the one on Europe one immediatly sees how it is everything about the United States with the exception of the mention of Columbus... That's something that really needs improvement!Undead Herle King (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Cause of Common Cold

> The common cold is not caused by being cold or wet. It is caused by a virus of the rhinovirus family. Being cold or wet may weaken your immune system, making it easier to succumb to the virus.

This has been demonstrated in a peer-reviewed and published Study by the university of Cardiff's Common Cold Centre. The article currently states "experiments so far have failed to produce evidence that short-term exposure to cold weather or direct chilling increases susceptibility to infection", which is incorrect, because the study demonstrates exactly that. Let's change the article so that it says something like "Common colds are not caused by exposure to cold environments, they are caused by rhinovirus or other infectious agents. However, cold environments do increase the susceptibility to develop symptoms of infections.^[1]" --213.106.124.194 Indeed, the article referenced pmid12357708-81 actually refers to preceeding notions, and theorizes that cold environments lead to common cold. (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the laws of classical logic, this means exactly that - the common cold is caused by being cold. Indeed, the cause and effect relation is transitive, i.e. if A relates to B, and B relates to C, that means A relates to C. Substitute here: relates = causes, A = being cold, B = weakening the immune system, C = allowing virus to infect, and get the statement in question. This "misconception" should be either rewritten or removed. --Dp074 (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if you have a strong immune system you can get a cold. "Make easier" is not the same as "cause". Being cold does not cause a cold, it makes it more likely. Rm999 (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually 'cause' can have a meaning that would justify saying that the common cold is caused by getting cold or wet. A 'but for' cause in, say, legal analysis is a necessary precedent condition or event that leads to some outcome. "Had I not got chilled to the bone I would not have caught that cold." Denying this is like saying that jumping out a twentieth storey window doesn't kill you - it's the impact at the bottom. True, one can die on the pavement without falling twenty stories, but still: jumping out that window is surely a cause, if not the only cause, of death in such a case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpenton (talk • contribs) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Classical logic? Oh dear. You're calling "cause" transitive? There are two different connections, only one of them is even clearly causal. Having a weakened immune system is neither necessary nor sufficient for getting a cold. Where's the causation? You might as well say being cold can cause smallpox or HIV, there's no reason to pick out one particular virus. If reading a chain of causation backwards gives you "cause" all the way back, you can pretty much blame anything on anything else: a butterfly on the other side of the world caused my cancer. Hairhorn (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Suicide

Perhaps someone should add information about the legality of suicide. Many people have a misconception that suicide is illegal. Metroman (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The legality of suicide varies depending on where in the world you are; and is sufficiently complicated -- see Legal views of suicide -- that I don't think it's really appropriate for this page. -- simxp (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you could make a law against attempted suicide. A law against suicide would be moot to enforce. Nacho Insular (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

The claim that only Orthodox Jews are "forced" to follow laws of Kashruth is absurd. In fact, it really makes no sense. It is wrong on many levels. First of all, no Jew is "forced" to follow the laws. Every human is born with free will. If he or she chooses to break the laws, that is his or her right. Now, in terms of who recognizes the laws of kashruth as biblical canon, it stems far beyond Orthodox. While some movements such as reform do not care to follow many of the laws of the Torah, this does not mean they are not "supposed to" follow them. According to the Torah, EVERY jew is to follow the laws of kashruth. Nowhere does it say "only Orthodox Jews have to follow these laws". Furthermore, in modern practice, many Conservative Jews also abide by the laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.50.27 (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No one said you couldn't make a point. But nobody said you had to do it like a jerk. I was raised Jewish, I think I have a little understanding of the topic. But it was a reconstructionist sect, so maybe I was a little under informed. You don't have to say things "Get off your high horse, you know nothing about the topic". We can talk like civilized people, just like this. Akyoyo94 (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was just a little bit of a slap in the face to see you revert my edit and tell me to prove it or stop editing in such an abrasive manner. Granted, I did get quite defensive there in retaliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.50.27 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it happens to the best of us. I know how you feel, too. I've had 2 knife articles deleted under G11: Blatant Advertising, even though they weren't. Well, you can keep it however you want, I don't care. Happy editing.Akyoyo94 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Islam

It appears the entry regarding Allah requires everyone to subtly emphasise how their God is the best. I'm not even sure if the fact both Christians and Muslims believe in the Abrahamic God is relevant to the missconception actually being presented here, although it should probably be left in if it will result in fewer adjustments. Thoughts? Het (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this entry "Allah does not refer to a Muslim, as opposed to a Christian, God. It is simply Arabic for "God". Arab speaking Christians also refer to God as Allah. Islam, Christianity and Judaism share a belief in "one god", the Abrahamic God." is probably the best that one can hope for in such a pluralistic encyclopaedia. Muslims seem to want to emphasis that Allah is the same God that the Christians worship, however Christians disagree with this. There is also the contradiction that if Allah is the same Abrahamic God, then why does Saudi Arabia not allow churches or its citizens to become Christian and continue to worship the "same" God. I think that you are really stretching things (due to wishful thinking or ignorance) when you say that they all believe in the Abrahamic God. What does that mean? Allah and the God of Heaven are clearly different. They have different characteristics and personality traits. They react in different ways and are thought of differently. Sure, there are also many similarities, but just because a cat and a dog are similar, does not make them the same. I hope that this is clearer now to the user "Het". Thanks. Lehasa (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't put that "Abrahamic God" thing in there, I would prefer it wasn't even there (due to irrelevance) but I have to say it's probably as neutral a statement as you're going to get that will also dissuade people from making adjustments. As for the definition of the Abrahamic God, that simply means the God of Abraham... both religions claim a belief in such a God. To say this is stretching the truth is like saying the Mormons don't believe in Jesus because he's so different to the Jesus the Baptists believe in. Het (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Worshiping the same god is not equal to following the exact same peripheral beliefs or interpretations. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic god is the same, but many of the specifics of the religions are not. A Qu'ranic quote may be in order, Qu'ran 29:46):

"Be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book, except with those among them who do evil. Say: 'We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one. To Him we surrender ourselves.'"

omegamogo (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this because of the discussion on sourcing. As a Muslim with over twenty years of experience in interfaith discussions and, more to the point here, debates, I want to say that this section of the article is excellent. It doesn't actually state the misconceptions, but only the corrections, but the misconceptions are implied and, yes, I've encountered all of them frequently, and, one of them, we even see being repeated here by an editor.

I.e., this editor holds the misconception about "Allah" (which shouldn't be surprising; after all, it is "common,") and doesn't believe the correction, which can be established beyond a reasonable doubt and which is not controversial among knowledgeable Christians, Muslims, and the large majority of scholars. There are books with the imprimatur and nihil obstat of the Catholic Church, for example, on this. The disagreements and differences are over the qualities of God, or certain specifics about our relationship with God and our obligations, not the "identity." That is, there are fundamental definitions of "God" on which Christians, Jews, and Muslims will agree. Jews and Muslims especially, but also knowledgeable Christians, in my experience (such as priests or academically educated ministers or even one well-known lay apologist for Christianity who was known for defending Christianity against intemperate Muslim attack, and was sometimes a bit aggressive in the other direction, plus countless ordinary persons among these faiths for whom God is a spiritual reality, not a dogma or belief. People who share this quality seem to find agreement regardless of the specific theology they may follow. And, in fact, though Arab Christians will tend to use the word "rabb" ("Lord," but that English word doesn't convey more than a small part of the meaning) more than "Allah," such Christians also recognize "Allah" as a name of God, rather than something other than God. Indeed, if we think that these Arab Christians believe in "God," we will have to accept this identity; Jesus is reported by the Gospels as saying, on the cross, in Aramaic, "Eli," i.e., "My God," which is very close to the Arabic "ilahi," or "my God," with "Allah" being a contraction of al-ilah, "the god," i.e., the definite article implies uniqueness. Ahem. And in the other direction, Arab Muslims will immediately recognize "rabb" as a name of God, where the difference comes in is that "Rabb," for a Christian, may also be used to refer to Jesus, alayhi salaam. You might be able to tell that I wrote about this stuff for twenty years. Or not.

Now, is there reliable source for the misconception? Probably. But should we be exercised about it? What is truly important here is that there be strong source for the correction. If an occasional straw man misconception creeps in, as long as some group is not besmirched by it, it's relatively harmless. I'm starting to think about the readers, more and more, and what is interesting, as being more important than our rules as long as we don't increase in unreliability. If something is interesting it is, by definition, notable in the fundamental meaning of the word, and we have lost sight of the goal if we simple-mindedly insist on formal definitions of notability. --Abd (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A joke

Bullet points on religion taken from "Freethoughtpedia." Wikipedia you've done it again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.36.194 (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Aerodynamic lift

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. I'll comment on this page a bit later to review what's been said.

I come seeking support in a silly edit war at Common misconceptions. Relevant discussion may be found at User_talk:Jetstream_Rider. Jetsream wants to add an entry stating that the force applied to the air by an airplane wing is different in magnitude from the force applied by the air to the wing (lift). Perhaps if someone besides me could try explaining Newton's Third Law, he would be more apt to listen. Thanks to anyone who takes the time to check it out. Rracecarr (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

While I would tend to favour a NASA reference over many things, Jetstream does provide references for his statements. I don't know if the statements are correct, but IMO this section should be formated in the following way

Common misconception 1 (ref)

Small explanation of why it is wrong

Common misconception 2 (ref)

Small explanation of why it is wrong

Common misconception 3 (ref)

Small explanation of why it is wrong

Common misconception 4 (ref)

Small explanation of why it is wrong

etc..

Then

Correct theory

Small explanation of correct theory (ref)

You are dangerously close to 3RR, so I would advise both of you to go to the talk page and settle things there. When references contradict each other, there is no other solution than to identify which reference is wrong. The only references that should be allowed here is are text books on fluid dynamics written that provides a full development of the lift equations. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies that I didn't or won't tackle this tonight. I got caught in improving the list of mesons as well as other debate accross wikipedia. I'll make an effort to try to tackle it tomorrow. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, no one seems to be in a big rush to edit the article, so there is no hurry. Frankly though, I'm quite surprised that it takes you more than a minute or two to make up your mind in this case. Rracecarr (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible reasons include the possibility of minds made up in a minute or two to be severely mistaken. Aerodynamic lift on wings is a product of multiple forces, and "sending air downwards" is neither only nor dominating one.

Basically, as stated right in "lift(force)" article, this thing does not lends itself to ease of explanation in layman's terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.138.103 (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What causes lift is beside the point, as far as I'm concerned. At issue is whether the rate of momentum transfer to the downwash is equal to the lift or not. Either it is, or physics which has been working since the 1600s and is learned in junior high school is wrong. Rracecarr (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion discussion started at User talk:Jetstream Rider#Third opinion. The advice on presentation above, is sound, too. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a physicist, and I concur with Rracecarr; the rate of momentum transfer to the downwash is equal and opposite to the lift. -- Scientryst (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The practice is considerably more complicated than the principle. Of course, in the end, the plane does not fall out of the sky which means that there must be a net flow of air downwards. In aerospace engineering, which I believe is Jetstream's background, downwash does not always refer to the net flow but instead refers to additional downward flow due to wing-tip vorticity. The state of the article at the time of writing states that air is "deflected" downwards. This invites the misconception that lift is due to elastic collisions of air molecules and the wing, which is the misconception that Jetstream is trying to fight. Perhaps if we just changed "deflected" to "airflow redirected"?--V. (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was extremely hard to follow and I can't figure who argued what OK, nor what exactly was argued. So I've read each references provided, and said screw whatever was said here. The NASA references are especially well made IMO, and I think this page should follow what's said on the NASA website.
Here's what I gathered from everything:

Equal time transit doesn't make sense.

Elastic collision (air being deflected downwards due to impact) contributes to lift by increasing pressure under the wing and creating a vaccum above the wing. This is due to the '"angle" of the wing relative to air flow.

Example: Placing your hand outside of your car window will result in upwards motion if you expose your palm to incoming the air molecules.

Vortex-like effect also contributes by creating a pressure difference under and above the wings, contributing to lift. This is due to wing curvature.

Example: Bringing a sheet of paper right under your lips, and blowing air over it.

Both vacuum above the wings and air "impact" have to be taken into account to fully explain lift, but one does not have to be present for the other to work.

I am afraid I cannot offer anything more than this. I don't know who's position this is, but I believe this one to be the correct one. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We have had a HUGE discussion about the lift subject over on Bernoulli's Principle. The consensus was that the only thing we can say for sure is that the Equal-Transit Time explanation is wrong. As for the rest, Lift is an incredibly complex thing and does not lend itself to simple explanations. It does not allow itself to be explained in one to two sentences. For reference, see this: Bernoulli Or Newton: Who's Right About Lift?. Common misconceptions should only say that the equal transit time explanation is wrong and then link to Lift (force). --J-Star (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the lift was caused because the air took the same time to travel on both sides but the distance was longer for one side? In which case the "misconception" is correct and the "truth" is not?! Kypzethdurron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.15 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely you must mention the Bernoulli principle?! If it doesn't apply, then explain clearly why not, or make it clear which link to click on to explain it. Lehasa (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bernoulli principle is (roughly) about the direct correlation between the change in airspeed and change in air pressure, in an fluid with no friction. A pressure-gradient accelarates or decelerates the air. However, the air-speed does not "cause" the pressure-change, but the pressure-change causes the change in air-speed. So the Bernoulli principle does NOT explain aerodynamic Lift, but only the change of velocity around the wing. Both, the Lift and the change of Velocity are caused by the change of pressure, but they don't cause each other. The direct cause of lift is the change of air-density below and obove the wing. the air with higher density below the wing has more density and therfore has more elastic collisions between the air-particles and the wing-surface. the air with the lower density above the wing has less elastic particle collisions. This change of density is due to the inertia of the air-particles which are forced into a new flight-path underneath a wing by the wing itself, and a new flight path obove the wing by the surrounding pressure. Aerodynamic lift is a force and not a momentum. All the other effects: the pressure-change, the change of velocity, the transfer of momentum and the vortex are subsequentially caused by this change in density. I cant cite specific sources, because it is too long ago since i learned this, but I am a german aerospace engineer and i know what im talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.56.247 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Einstein and Religion

Declaring that Einstein was an atheist because he didn't believe in a personalized deity is baseless. Deist, or even agnostic, would be more apt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.7.131 (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here, let Merriam-Webster's website explain:

(athe·ist)

Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\

Function: noun

Date: 1551

one who believes that there is no deity

---

(a-)

Pronunciation: \(ˈ)ā also (ˈ)a or (ˈ)ä\

Function: prefix

Etymology: Latin & Greek; Latin, from Greek

not ; without

---

(the·ism)

Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ˌi-zəm\

Variants: -theist

Function: noun

Date: 1678

belief in the existence of a god or gods

---

So, what were you saying about Atheist not meaning "the lack of belief of the existence of god"? Akyoyo94 (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC) (P.S., "Agnostic" literally translates into "Without knowledge," but they are far from the same thing.)

Change of name

Why? What on earth was wrong wih the old name, simply List of common misconceptions. The new name is misleading. This is a list of common misconceptions, but they do not all occur "in popular culture" (whatever that means). I would like to see it moved back. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Was there discussion for a move beforehand? I agree that the longer title is less clear and more cumbersome. Someone ought to "be bold" and move it back. Aletheon (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't actually seen that the page had originally been at list of common misconceptions, which was changed six months ago. The discussion at that time (i.e. how to focus the article on stuff which isn't domain-specific trivia) seem to favour adding a suffix to that effect. "common misconceptions" could basically be anything at all, whereas if this article is to have any focus it should be on the kind of very common fallacies which shape our culture. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to move the article to List of common misconceptions, but since that was already a redirect, it caused me to make a mess of the move. I'm tagging the redirect for deletion, and will then hopefully make the move. Asher196 (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Asher196 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Astronomy Section, black hole

I fail to see the point of this misconception. If the attempt is to show that the black hole's gravity is less than the stars, it fails, if it attempts to show that it is more than the star's, it fail as well. The addition of the radius as a determining factor is merely splitting hairs. Most people understand that a black hole's gravity is more than the star's gravity, which it is... but the "in distances less than the star's radius is unnecessary. Furthermore, what radius would it be? The red giant phase or the original phase? The point I'm making is that to have this here is simply a way of splitting hairs.70.157.65.21 (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be suffering somewhat from the misconception. The gravitational attraction of a black-hole is the same as the gravitational attraction of a star of the same mass and any radius greater than the radius of the star.

The point about radius is relevant only in that where one is 'inside' an extended body such as the Sun, as here our approximation of a point-like mass breaks down, and one needs to consider the distribution of mass. As a black hole is a more compact object you can get closer to the centre of mass, and experience a greater gravitational field.

The point which needs to be made is that black holes do not act like giant space vacuum cleaners, and I hope that my edits to this point reinforce that. --Neil (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I do, in fact, get what is being stated. My point is just that it seems like an overally semantic game that is being played here with it (as well as with a number of other entries). If the point is to suggest that the black hole doesn't have inescapable gravity at any distance, than fine I can see that as that is a blatant misunderstanding. However, if the point is to clarify something the populace generally knows, but not to a a huge scientific degree, then the list stops being about "common misconceptions" and starts becoming a science lesson. Overall, this addition, with others, comes across less as a clarification of a misconception, and more as someone at a frat party going "hey, look at me and how much specific knowledge I know about obscure facts". 68.18.173.238 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with the entry. If we compare the gravities of a star and a black hole of the same mass, the gravity of the hole will be equal for distances larger than the star radius, but it will be larger for distances smaller than the star radius, simply because the hole's mass is concentrated in a gravitational singularity, while a star's mass isn't. It seems you believe in the misconception, since you apparently don't know about this effect, but you would still like it striked out for no real reason. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It just seems to me that the second paragraph on them is not addressing any misconception that the first did not already address, and as a clarification it just makes things more confusing for the reader, because most readers don't get that if you tunnel within a star, the only gravity acting on you is from the mass of the part of the star at a lower radius than yourself. Maybe instead say something like "Black holes have a large gravitational effect when you are close to them because they are small, so all the mass of the hole has effect on you from a short distance, as opposed to a star, where some of the mass is always going to be the entire width of the star away, and so has relatively little effect."? I feel that's possibly clearer to a layperson, but still needs work.DewiMorgan (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this too. I removed all but the first sentence from the following quote

Only when one is close to a black hole (within the radius of the body which formed it) will the gravitational attraction become greater than the parent body's. One can check this by a thought-experiment: if we are inside a star, some of the star's mass is located in the other direction from us than the centre-of-mass, and thus will attract us away from the centre-of-mass, reducing the gravitational effect. On the other hand, if we replace the star with a black hole, there will be no such reducing effect, as the total mass is in the centre-of-mass, thus always in one direction.

As you know, spherically-symmetric distributions of mass with a minimum radius create zero gravitational field within that radius. That is, a even spherical shell of mass will not create a gravitational field within itself. Of course, this might only be true for Newtonian gravity, and I would welcome contributions concerning relativistic corrections.128.111.237.53 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Health

Perhaps someone could put together something to tackle the widespread misconception that the blood of a woman on her period is harmful, contains toxins and can make a person sick, etc..216.189.173.3 (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? That myth is still current? I thought that would have gone out after the mediaeval era.

However, speaking of health didn't there used to be something on this page about the 'necessity' of drinking 2 litres / 8 glasses of water a day, which as commonly presented is false (e.g. not only water, but coffee, tea, and water in foodstuffs count, and the amount of water you need is highly dependent upon local conditions of temperature etc.) --Neil (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Suncreen not reducing cancer risk here is the current view and below was the last issue with it and what has been done to fix that

Sunscreen does not reduce the risk of cancer. Instead it limits exposure to vitamin D which the body needs to protect against up to 25 chronic diseases. Notably: prostrate cancer, breast cancer, osteoporosis, schizophrenia and heart disease.^[2] Many types also contain toxic chemicals in the form of artificial fragrance, chemical colors and petroleum products which are used as fillers and stabilizers. These chemicals are absorbed through the skin where they enter the bloodstream and damage the immune system. Artificial fragrances often contain dozens of carconigenic chemicals that damage the liver, the heart, and even promote systemic cancer.^[3]

issue - this would definitely need to be reworded. The citation only talks about the UK. The claim that sunscreen doesn't reduce the risk of cancer needs substantiation

fix - slightly reworded. The UK only ref has been fixed (was summary of a report). gave added ref for toxicity, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.148.128 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am taking out the bit about sunscreen not preventing cancer for now, for several reasons. Firstly, the addition contains multiple issues, that even if proven do not belong under the basic listed misconception that "sunscreen does not prevent cancer". Secondly, that claim flies in the face of widespread and longterm advice from the health department of several western countries. To challenge such a long established policy will require much more evidence. Thirdly, (and i only skimmed the long article quoted but couldn't find otherwise) the author of the article is not a doctor. I know he does quote doctors, but like any controverial subject, opinions differ. Facts are what counts. Each and every fact listed will require substantial proof, not just a single cite that can (and most likely will, be challenged)--Dmol (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

alright will start to put together more citations find more reports..

study findings, one hour after a ten-minute session of UV exposure (sunscreen ingreidients following), the ingredient benzophenone-3 elevated free radicals by 64 percent compared to the control, while octyl methoxycinnamate and octocrylene boosted free radicals by 33 percent and 16 percent, respectively.

sunscreen has the potential to create free radicals — including even the newer, more photostable versions and the purely physical blocks zinc and titanium dioxide

2006 study from the University of California, Riverside published in Free Radical Biology & Medicine helmed by lead author Kerry Hanson - Hanson says that the study builds upon ten-year-old test-tube research that also suggested that some sunscreen ingredients contribute to free radicals.

"Once absorbed into the skin, antioxidants can last about four days" Sheldon Pinnell, a professor of dermatology at Duke University School of Medicine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.148.128 (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

MythBusters

One can hardly count "MythBusters" as a credible source of information, especially since the bullet right above it debunks the misconception by appealing to confirmation bias. 209.149.59.4 (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to which misconception? For certain circumstances this may be the case, but for instance in the claim about paper being able to be folded 'x' times then a single observation of a piece of paper having been folded more than 'x' times invalidates it. --Neil (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The North Pole is not the North Pole

So since the part of the compass magnet that we have painted with an 'N' points to the geographical north pole, that must be the magnetic south pole eh? Priceless. The magnet had two ends - we painted an N (or a red dot etc)) on the part of the magnet that points to the part of the earth that we wanted to call "North". Consider this part of the magnet to be a mispainted south pole if you like, but the convention is that the magnetic north pole is at the top of the earth. Any magnet that points toward the top is, by definition the south end of a magnet. The convention in compass magnets is to label their ends so as to indicate the direction that they point, not to indicate their actual polarity. Naturstud (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I was always told it was the other way around - the 'north pole' of a magnet is a 'North seeking pole' - i.e. the North pole is the pole which actually points north, so by this convention the most northern of the magnetic poles would be of the opposite polarity. --Neil (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

New "Sports" section should be deleted

An anonymous editor created a "Sports" heading and added three entries. I'm tempted to delete the whole thing, because (a) these don't seem to be "common" misconceptions but rather esoteric misconceptions unique to a minority of fans, and (b) absolutely nothing is sourced. Consensus to delete? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, claims here should be sourced or at least linked to full articles that are sourced. --FOo (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already deleted the sports section. And a more recent addition from the same IP address about the Space Needle in Seattle. All far too parochial, and in no way qualifying as "common misconceptions". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have already left two different warnings on the anonymous editor's talk page (one in July about adding obscure examples, and another just now about sourcing) but s/he doesn't get the message. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The references section is messed up

The references section seems to have an error, since from reference 31 onwards it looks wrong. I don't know what's the problem, so maybe someone wants to take a look and fix it. Ancenande (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. The refs look fine. Asher196 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

It should be pointed out that while the general social definition of a vegetarian is one who does not eat any flesh of any fauna, the dictionary definition (in all major dictionaries, Websters, Oxford English, etc.) defines a vegetarian as someone who excludes meat from their diet, and specifically defines meat as the flesh of mammalian species, specifically excluding fish and poultry. Though in all practical sense those eating fish or poultry would not be considered vegetarians by most, by dictionary definition, one who excludes mammalian flesh from their diet, but still eats seafood or poultry, is a vegetarian. Kirottu82 (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, regarding social phenomena such as vegetarianism, religion, and so on. The dictionary does not tell us what is true; it tells us how some people use a word. It becomes obsolete when people change how they use a word. --FOo (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

People that find it useful to speak precisely about vegetarianism do not use generally use "vegetarian" as a stand-alone term. There are several modifiers to that term now in use that narrow down the type of vegetarian diet being described. There is no "one true definition" of what a vegetarian is. The word "vegan" was created for this purpose, and for good reason. Although originally I did not care for the term because of my personal distaste for modern neologisms, after having lived as a strict vegetarian for over a decade, I now understand the need for more precise terminology. Aletheon (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the entry is not relevant. It's like saying "nice people are always nice, except when they're not". I don't think entries saying nothing more than "this word has a woolly meaning" add anything to this list. Vegetarian creatures don't necessarily eat only plants: a cow will happily munch up insects with its hay, for example, and will happily and healthily eat processed meal with meat in if it's provided. I know vegetarians who'll occasionally eat meat, or who don't consider fish or fowl to be meats, or who consider eggs but not dairy to be meat, or... Discussion on the meaning of vegetarianism is more suited to the entry on it.

I know non-smokers who have a cigar at Christmas. Just because a word is woolly and has grey areas doesn't make it a misconception. Only if the word's meaning is clear, but is often misunderstood in a definitely incorrect way, is the misunderstanding of it a misconception. If it can mean two things, and people sometimes take it one way and sometimes another, that's just a woolly word. Maybe make another list of them?

When I want to be clear about my beliefs, I do not merely say "agnostic" or "atheist", because they are woolly words. I say "I believe that the jewish, muslim and christian god is sufficiently well disproven to not be worth considering or arguing further; I believe that some definitions of god such as the deist or omphalistic gods cannot be disproven by their very nature, but equally, are not relevant to life by their nature; I know too little about other gods to make a judgement but feel them unlikely." That's a mouthful, so I normally just say "atheist". This does not mean that people's understanding of "atheist" is a misconception.

When I was in Greece, my family was vegetarian, and we were known as "the family who does not eat meat or fish, not even little ones" - very useful, as merely introducing ourselves as vegetarian ("fitofagos") would get us served fish. This does not mean that the Greeks' understanding of fitofagos was incorrect.

Removing the entry and references: simply because some concerned organisations want a word to mean one thing, doesn't mean it does. DewiMorgan (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

An Unidentified Sentence in the History Section

"The notion that he should have said "Ich bin Berliner" and that "Ich bin ein Berliner" is an incorrect Americanism, and is itself wrong."

Don't know who wrote it, but can't fix it because I also don't know what exactly he meant. Someone should look into it. They might have meant "... is incorrect, and is an Americanism", or "... is an incorrect Americanism is itself wrong." But can't be sure, Ima hand it over to you.--Dimitrakopulos (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I rephrased the sentence for clarity. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Americanism

I'd suggest we try to avoid this term. Sure, it has its own wiki page, but that doesn't mean it's a good word to use. It's generally used in a derogatory way, and seems to me slightly racist. It's also generally wrong: its use above to describe the "ich bin ein berliner" is a common belief in the UK, for example.

Disclaimer: I'm British.DewiMorgan (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm American and I have no problem with the phrase "an Americanism", which means "a word or phrase found mainly in American English". It does not mean "something believed mainly by Americans", and that's reason enough to delete the nonsensical claim that the "Berliner" myth is an Americanism. -- BenRG (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just say [sic] when someone says something incorrectly instead of labelling it as an Americanism? Lehasa (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Because [sic] refers to incorrect spelling in a quote. Kingoomieiii (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Corned Ceef and Babbage

Added the section on Charles Babbage to the Digital computer misconception; almost kept it out, but it never specified the digital computer had to actually have been built before any others (models of the analytical engine were eventually built following his notes.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irontobias (talk • contribs) 04:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

alleged glass flow

The viscosity article mentions "the widely held misconception that glass flow can be observed in old buildings. This distortion is more likely the result of the glass making process rather than the viscosity of glass."

Is this alleged glass flow idea "common" enough to mention in this list of common misconceptions? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so, any one else care to venture an opinion. --Neil (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's common. I've heard talk about the secrets of glass elsewhere. Akyoyo94 (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I put it in. I'm not sure whether this goes more under "science" (glass transition temperature is a studied under a branch of physics, right?), or under "technology" (glass-making is a technology, right?), so I flipped a coin. --70.185.242.190 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the sources correctly, you see that this is not about a misconception, but about different approaches. You can say that glass is solid and amorphous, therefore it is an amourphous solid. But the process of the glass transition shows no phase transition, which means that the term "cooled liquid" also describes it correctly. There is no single point in the glass transition, where you can discriminate the states of being glass or being fluid. So, I would not count this as a misconception, since it is indeed not false. (PS: i'm a physics student and i just got a lecture about the glass transition at university). Please feel free to read the sources again.

I would agree with this statement. The nature of glas is disputed within the scientific comunity and several theories exist. Thus saying this is a common misconception is erroneous since the truth about glas isn't really known. Also the fact that sheets of glas were made unevenly in the past does not prove, that glas _doesn't_ flow, it merely makes examining the problem a lot more complicated. There is an experiment though, where you take a thin rod of glas and hang it by a thread for several weeks. It can be observed that the glas road will slightly bend. The other problem with this issue is that while glas does not have a crystaline structure, the crystaline structure it may achieve is thermodynamically stable. Therefore the glass will, over the course of centuries, become a crystal (modern glass has supplements added to prevent this, but those weren't so common in old days). This means that the process of flowing will ultimatly end at some point, which might be the reason that glas does not end up 'in a puddle' as one source puts it. In conclusion I'd suggest this item be removed from the list, since a definitive answer can not be given.--138.246.2.116 (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ethidium Bromide and Evolution

I went into this list expecting it to be full of semi-bogus entries, and sure enough the first entry under biology is bogus. The first entry was "Ethidium bromide, despite its reputation in biological laboratories, is considered a possible mutagen but is not a known carcinogen." The citation lists the MSDS for EtBr, which does not list carcinogenicity. But the reason for this is from the EtBr page: "Ethidium bromide may be a strong mutagen. It is also widely assumed to be a carcinogen or teratogen although this has never been carefully tested."

Basically, tests show EtBr is mutagenic. Anything mutagenic is almost surely carcinogenic as well, since anything that causes mutations will, theoretically, raise cancer rates (cancer is caused by mutations in cell cycle genes). Nobody has officially tested it because we all know to stay the hell away, but that should not earn serious skepticism on EtBr's nature as a probably cancer-causing agent. I've changed the wording to "Ethidium bromide, despite its reputation in biological laboratories, is considered a mutagen but has not been confirmed to be a carcinogen" although I would personally remove the entry.

I also don't like the last entry for evolution, which suggests "survival of the fit enough" in place of "survival of the fittest." Evolutionary biologists do indeed use the term "survival of the fittest" because fitness is defined as reproductive (i.e., how many children do you have that themselves can bear progeny). The only need to change the terminology would be to help others better understand the nature of the phrase, but there is nothing wrong about it. I'm not changing this one yet, though, and would welcome any comments. Personally I would rework the entry to emphasize the reproductive nature of fitness.

- Josh (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Though I couldn't give any input on the first issue, the change from "survival of the fit enough" to "survival of the fittest" does seem accurate. Akyoyo94 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources - plural - do list carcinogenicity - that is, the lack thereof: the sources state that none of the lists of carcinogens referenced include EtBr. Furthermore, it is not scientific nor is it encyclopedic to operate under a broad generalization such as "anything mutagenic is carcinogenic," and certainly not if you qualify your reasoning with "almost surely." Furthermore, the mutagen article specifically states "As many mutations cause cancer, mutagens are typically also carcinogens" - NB "typically." The Ames test has shown that EtBr is mutagenic. But EtBr is used in animals - given to them - to treat trypanosomiasis. It is not a known carcinogen. I agree that "possible" should be removed as a qualifier concerning its mutagenicity. I've also added a citation for an EtBr Ames test, but I've changed your wording to remove the implication that EtBr will inevitably found to be carcinogenic. Pwhitwor (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am an expert on the subject of molecular biology (I am a PhD candidate in a cancer lab) and can attest to the fact that current scientific models support the conclusion that anything mutagenic is carcinogenic, with certain caveats. These caveats include: the mutagenic agent must be non-specific (i.e., not targeting a specific gene or sequence), the mutagenic agent must not be altered in vivo in such a way that its mutagenic properties are altered, and the mutagenic agent must distribute to cellular nucleii in vivo. Given these caveats, one cannot state unequivocally that ethidium causes cancer in humans (although it is known to be non-specific), but it is probably true since the vast majority of mutagens are carcinogenic...I could get a reference for that if you insist upon one. How about I just strike this entry from the list since it seems silly to list a "common misconception" that is probably not a misconception at all, if one were to actually test it. Josh (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I, too, work in a biological research laboratory. I would like to point out once more that EtBr is given (legally) to animals to treat trypanosomiasis, and I cannot find any research finding that this administration of large amounts of EtBr causes cancer. If EtBr is consistently cleared from animals' systems without causing cancer, it is - by definition - not a carcinogen: see http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/2_Part_1/250 for intraperitoneal injection of EtBr. Furthermore, the addition of this entry to the article was not intended to state that ethidium bromide is, without any uncertainty, not a carcinogen; it was specifically intended to address the misconception held by many that EtBr is known as a carcinogen. Look at the MSDS references; if you find evidence to the contrary within them (or in any other reputable source), feel free to remove the entry again. Otherwise, leave it alone. I would also like to point out that you came to this list looking for "bogus entries" - a mindset that will surely allow you to find "bogus" entries in such a list if you yourself hold a misconception. Finally, you state that you "could get" a reference for the vast majority of mutagens being carcinogens. I would like that reference. Here are two references stating specifically that not all mutagens are carcinogens, for my part: http://www.beefnutrition.org/uDocs/ACF1A8.pdf ("Mutagens are not automatically considered to be carcinogens") and http://www.answers.com/topic/mutagens-and-carcinogens ("not all mutagens induce cancer"). Pwhitwor (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You state that "If EtBr is consistently cleared from animals' systems without causing cancer, it is - by definition - not a carcinogen." I agree, but the study you link in my opinion only supports the notion that EtBr is carcinogenic -- while it is decreased to 50% volume after 24 hours, it is not altered in vivo and it actually inhibits tumor growth. Inhibition of tumor growth is, paradoxically, evidence of its ability to cause cancer (which is why Marie Curie died of cancer for her cancer treatment, radiation). I have now spent an hour or two quibbling with you over what is a simple point, and which you should be well aware of if you work in a biological research lab -- mutagens will probably cause cancer. Since you insist on evidence for such a basic point, I dug some up for you: http://www.pnas.org/content/72/12/5135.full.pdf+html and http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/5/1287. Both papers directly address the point -- the first paper states: "About 300 carcinogens and non-carcinogens of a wide variety of chemical types have been tested for mutagenicity in the simple Salmonella/microsome test. ... There is a high correlation between carcinogenicity and mutagenicity" (also see the table). The second paper states "A total of 224 chemicals that have been tested in long-term studies for carcinogenicity in rats and mice by the National Cancer Institute and the National Toxicology Program were tested for mutagenicity in Salmonella typhimurium. Correlations between mutagenicity and carcinogenicity were examined. ... A clear mutagenic or equivocal mutagenic response in Salmonella was predictive for 77% of the carcinogens or equivocal carcinogens." I don't care that the MSDS doesn't list it as a carcinogen -- as I have already stated, this is, in my opinion, because nobody has tested what everybody believes to be dangerous. I am removing the entry again, and will keep removing it if you replace it. I don't want people getting the idea that EtBr is safe. - Josh (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You are a scientist and therefore understand the difference between a vast majority of carcinogens being mutagens and a vast majority of mutagens being carcinogens. The first paper you cite simply tests carcinogens for mutagenicity, but not mutagens for carcinogenicity, and is therefore irrelevant to this argument. The second paper you cite actually states in its abstract that 23% of mutagens tested were not carcinogenic (not even equivocally carcinogenic), and it uses the phrase "mutagenic noncarcinogens" in describing a significantly large subset of the tested compounds. Obviously, the number of mutagens that are carcinogenic is large but cannot be described as a "vast majority." I would also like to point out that the entry does not convince people that EtBr is safe - the oral and inhalation LD50s for it are evidence enough to the contrary, and it is classified as toxic (independent of mutagenesis). The entry is simply intended to inform that EtBr is not known to be a carcinogen, because a large number of people familiar with EtBr believe it is known to be carcinogenic. I agree, of course, that mutagens are not things to be taken lightly, but they are not all carcinogens. EtBr is not a known carcinogen, and your contention that this lack of knowledge is only due to scientists' being so sure of something that they don't test it goes against the very nature of science. I do, however, agree with the post below describing this entry as outside the intended scope of the article, and will therefore not revert the page. And Marie Curie did not have cancer and died of aplastic anemia, which is, without any doubt, not cancer at all. Pwhitwor (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right about Marie Curie -- she did not die of cancer. But her death was probably caused by DNA damage from the radiation, which gets at the point I was trying to make -- anti-cancer therapies often cause DNA damage themselves, and can lead to cancer or, in this case, aplasia. I also can't let this one go by without a response: "your contention that this lack of knowledge is only due to scientists' being so sure of something that they don't test it goes against the very nature of science." No, this contention does not go against the nature of science. My statement is one of probability, based on the evidence (!!) I provided that a large majority (I agree that 77% is not "vast") of mutagens act as carcinogens. I do not consider the issue decided. I merely consider it silly to include EtBr in a list of misconceptions when the evidence is far from convincing that there is a misconception at all. And while using the word "known" or "confirmed" makes the sentence semantically correct, the reader is left with a misconception that ethidium has a better than even chance of being non-carcinogenic. I also noted your issue with the articles (that analyzing carcinogens for mutagenicity is not the same as analyzing mutagens for carcinogenicity), but my reading of the articles was that the list of chemicals was not entirely biased -- you'll notice several chemicals in the first study that are listed as non-cacinogens, and the second study used chemicals that were tested for carcinogenicity, not chemicals that were confirmed to be carcinogenic. Of course this is not a perfectly unbiased screen, and of course there is not 100% certitude that "mutagens are usually carcinogens," but this is, as you know, how science works. At the end of the day, I am happy saying that there is indirect evidence that EtBr is a carcinogen, as well as (in my opinion significantly weaker) indirect evidence that it is not. And the net result should not be to list EtBr's carcinogenicity in a list of misconceptions. Well matched, however, sir. This has been an enjoyable edit war :) - Josh (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am removing "considered" in front of mutagen because it is known to be a mutagen. Pwhitwor (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to add an outside opinion here, I think it's difficult to conceivably describe views of EtBr's presence/absence of carcinogenic/mutagenic properties as anything approaching a "common misconception". Obviously such views may well be "common" within particular science specialisms, but that's not what this page is about. "Common" here means "widely held by the general populace" (to quote the article). I doubt that any more than a percent or so of people are even aware of the existence of ethidium bromide, let alone that it may/may not be both a mutagen and a carcinogen. Anyway, I note that the item has already been removed from the article, and it should stay that way. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Giles quotation concerning Great Wall

I believe the quotation to be unnecessary and poorly formatted. I propose its removal. Pwhitwor (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconception about changes to the New Testament

The section under Christianity about the new testament not being routinely altered by scribes and priests doesn't make sense. It starts out saying it wasn't changed, and then it says it was. And the citation listed for this isn't authoritative, just opinion. The premise is that only 1% was changed. But that isn't insignificant. There are approximately 180,000 words in the new testament, and 1% of that would still be 1,800 words! That's quite a lot. I don't think it's a misconception. Even if it's only 10 words, it's not like you'd have to change very many words to make drastic changes in the text. 64.7.156.33 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

He's right. The mistake people make when adding things related to what they see on this list is is that it's a list of Common Misconceptions. This thing should probably be taken off. Wait for some more input, though. Akyoyo94 (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is confusing and contradictory. Why is this even under common misconceptions? Well, I guess it is a misconception that the NT is full of errors. I tried fixing it a bit, but I don't think I did much good. One good academic reference is F.F. Bruce, "The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable?" Lehasa (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Inventions Section

Even though I know for a fact it's true, since it's not sourced, maybe it should be taken off. If I don't find anything on Snopes, at the least, I'll do it myself. Akyoyo94 (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Found and added references for the first two. Pwhitwor (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Temperature of Space

Although it is commonly stated that space, being a near-vacuum, has no temperature, this seems to contradict definitions of temperature which include radiation. Since there is always cosmic background microwave radiation in space, this radiation's temperature should sensibly considered space's temperature. The temperature of this radiation is approximately 2.725 K, which is indeed extremely cold. Eebster the Great (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The item was completely wrong, though not for the reason you gave. Plenty of space is very cold, and plenty is very hot. See interstellar medium and interplanetary medium. Modest Genius ^talk 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

I'm thinking of adding the old centrifugal force thing. Since many people supposedly learn that centrifugal force does not exist in high school, but it does (via rotating reference frames) I would say that qualifies as being a popular enough misconception. But I'm not sure about that. Also, I'm not entirely sure what the exact misconception is, having been lucky enough to be taught correctly. So perhaps someone else should add it, if at all. Triangl (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of consistancy. In a non-inertial reference frame, we could refer to that. The sentence "centrifugal force pushes the kid against the spinning 'gravitron' ride at the fair" leads one to think of this mysterious force pushing out. In fact, the walls of the spinning ride keep pushing the kid toward the center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nacho Insular (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Snopes

Snopes is not an authoritative source, right? I suggest we remove all those references, and find better ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.63.3 (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Give me ONE example of an error in their debunking, if you know so much about them, in the reference of course, and I'll believe you. Wait...you didn't even read the page, did you? You don't know anything about Snopes, do you? (By the way, it's four tildes to sign your comments, it's not that hard.) Akyoyo94 (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Snopes is THE source for all bunk. It's totally an authoritative source! 67.43.140.49 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Emancipation Proclamation

If the Southern states had fallen under Union control before December 31, 1862, the slaves would not have been freed under the provisions of the Emancipation Proclamation.

This is misleading. Parts of Louisiana were already under Union control and slaves in those areas were not freed. andkore 22:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: "Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Lincoln; it declares free all slaves in the Confederate states (except Tennessee, southern Louisiana, and parts of Virginia)..." (ref) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andkore (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't thin it really matters much,does that declaration really have any legal standing?--Opasno (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)--Opasno (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this encyclopedic?

Someone better explain fast how this in encyclopedic or it's heading to AFD--Ipatrol (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So it can survive the process again? --chbarts (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a collection of Encyclopedic facts. Sure, Wikipedia is encyclopedic, but with all the idiots on here, do you really think that's even 100% true all the time? Lighten up, this is good information, no matter what. Jeez... Akyoyo94 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Which of course has never stopped articles from being deleted before. So why stop now? *sarc* -- Suso (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be completely unencyclopedic. Worse, it seems to be an exact violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a directory. The point of these policies is that 'good information' doesn't always merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Locke9k (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Would the encyclopedia be improved by deleting this article?--Father Goose (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question. And the answer is definitely NO. This article is useful. --Armchair info guy (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A how-to manual for fixing my toilet, for example, is also useful. However, it does not belong in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a manual. There are other Wikimedia pages for that. Usefulness is not a sufficient justification for material in Wikipedia. Locke9k (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why we don't do "how to" guides is because they invariably contain original research. Do you think this page is a "manual", or are you here just to delete it because it doesn't line up at right angles with other articles on Wikipedia and you spot an opportunity to get something deleted for no reason other than aesthetics?--Father Goose (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Goose. Sure there are probably a few items that could be trimmed, but most are well-cited, genuine misconceptions that are both informative and encyclopedic. It makes sense to keep them together in one page like they are now. And this content is ceratinly far more valuable to the average person than the thousands of frivolous pages around here.

Locke, you should look up "encyclopedic" in the dictionary. Definition: "Embracing many subjects; comprehensive" or "very full and thorough". Sounds like an accurate definition of this page to me. --Armchair info guy (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than looking in a third party source you should look in the Five pillars and guidelines. Note that Wikipedia is not a random collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Locke9k (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

evolution misunderstanding

"The characterization of evolution as the "survival of the fittest" (in the sense of "only the fittest organisms will prevail", a view common in social Darwinism) is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any organism which is capable of reproducing itself before dying is considered "fit". If the organism is able to do so on an ongoing basis, it will survive as a species. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[56][57]"

This bit is non-sense on several levels. "Survival of the fittest" is maybe not the best wording, ("propagation of the fittest" might be better). Evolution is not about survival, it's about reproduction. The fittest individuals are the ones that survive. This statement makes an artificial delineation between "fittest" and " merely fit." The actual "fittest" would have more offspring or a higher survival rate of offspring then the "merely fit" and, therefore, their genes would eventually displace the "less fit" genes. Survival fitness is binary, evolutionary fitness is measured in "more" or "less" but has a time frame much longer than an individual. I recommend it be removed since, ironically, this article is about misconceptions. Asdf858 (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I also found this claim peculiar. This doesn't even begin to get into competition, which tends to be the motivating force behind gradual evolution. Eebster the Great (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing this claim from the article, as it is utter nonsense. Simply put, the number of viable offspring produced in a lifetime is probably the best definition of fitness, and it is therefore obvious that the fittest individuals pass on the most genes, and therefore the fittest traits survive. I think this is exactly what the term "survival of the fittest" means: that the traits survive in the very long term, not that the individuals with that trait "survive" for some arbitrary length of time. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seperation of church and state

It does say that in the Declaration of Independence, though, no? Akyoyo94 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, (full text on wikibooks) Like You Never Did See (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Assembly line -- not Ford

This page says: "Ford introduced the assembly line to automobile production[83], and used it to bring the cost of automobiles into reach of many more people". But Ransom E. Olds says "Olds was the first person to use the assembly line, Henry Ford came after him (sic). This new approach to putting together automobiles enabled him to more than quintuple his factory’s output, from 425 cars in 1901 to 2,500 in 1902."

In fact, the very link on this page (at ideafinder.com) used to support the Ford claim says: "Ransom E. Olds created the assembly line in 1901. The new approach to putting together automobiles enabled him to more than quadruple his factory’s output, from 425 cars in 1901 to 2,500 in 1902. Olds should have become known as "The father of automotive assembly line," although many people think that it was Henry Ford who invented the assembly line. What Ford did do was to improve upon Olds’s idea by installing conveyor belts." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.40.113 (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the article's source, and I'm pretty sure it says Olds invented the assembly line, and Ford introduced it to automobile production. Or was it just improving it? Either way, you should change the article to whichever you feel is accurate. Akyoyo94 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

It would be spectacular if someone could add that sexual orientation is not proven to be a choice or something along those lines. --67.243.54.167 (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Anything goes here, really. If you can find a third-party source and it's commonly misunderstood, just find the right section and edit away! Akyoyo94 (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

First "First Person Shooter"

The article lists Wolfenstein 3D as the first, however I can think of at least one title Catacomb Abyss, which came out a year or two before Wolf3D. Were there any pre-dating this game? Wardrich (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

-id made Wolfenstein, Catacomb, and Hovertank before DooM; there are many other games that used first person perspective and involved shooting before those came (Mazewar is a likely candidate for the very first). I would peg Hovertank 3D as the first FPS in recognizable form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.206.87 (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Battlezone (1980 video game) predates any of those, and includes a first-person 3D perspective and shooting. But is it a FPS, or merely a vehicular combat game ?--68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

References for things being common misconceptions

None of these things are misconceptions unless you can find references that they are. If one editor thinks he/she has heard that somebody has a misconception, it does not count as a common misconception in an encyclopedia. This page is a mess (and probably should be even deleted). 82.181.83.31 (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I originally came here to say just this but, since you beat me to it, I'll simply say that I'm agreement.AlecSchueler (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I like some aspects of what the entry is attempting to do, but it might not be enough to only cite a source for the correct information. A case can be made for having to cite that something it, in fact, a misconception held by a significant population. -- Xinit (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

While that should come as an excuse, someone needs to find references for all these misconceptions, or at least delete the ones that aren't common and/or misconceptions. And while we're at it, I think there should be some sort of standard of how to word sentences, instead of having a mess of statements. Though this may be a list of topics, it's a collection, not a single idea, so maybe they should all somehow start with a form of "It is a common misconception that..." or "The common misconception of...is false", or some variation. Akyoyo94 (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Survival of the fit enough

"The characterization of evolution as the "survival of the fittest" (in the sense of "only the fittest organisms will prevail", a view common in social Darwinism) is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any organism which is capable of reproducing itself before dying is considered "fit". If the organism is able to do so on an ongoing basis, it will survive as a species. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[58][59]"

While the 'fittest' versus 'fit enough' distinction is an unnecessary one, "survival of the fit enough" would be much simpler stated "survival of fit." But again, this distinction is pointless and thus should be removed from this article. 68.206.118.66 (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may throw in some random food for thought, "survival of the fittest" is frequently misunderstood -mainly in cultures that translate from English, it seems- to mean something like "survival of the (physically) strongest" (only the strong survive, because they beat all the weaklings, etc.), while it really means "survival of the best adapted" relative to the given ecological niche. 91.33.252.93 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

footnotes are off-kilter by 1

i wish i could fix it but i don't know how. you can tell by mouseover or click on a footnote it will go to one before the one it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.182.64 (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not really relevant, the numbers are arbitrary. The links still navigate to the correct footnote. Julianhall (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What is true and whats not?

While reading this article I found it hard to discern what is the misconception and what is the truth. The title "List of common misconceptions" means that the page should have a list of things that are false, ie, misconceptions. But while reading, there are a few misconception statements which are explained to be false and then some statements which are not misconceptions at all but pure fact. What Im trying to say is that there is no format for this article which makes it hard to read. It should be in this format "(misconception)(truth about misconception)(Any further explainatory notes) Eg "Koalas bears are bears. They are in fact marsupials." Like that. However, in the article it is phrased like this "Koalas are not bears. They are not even placental mammals; they are marsupials." Now while it is clear if you read the whole thing, a casual reader who just reads the title and reads the first sentence, will not fully understand and be given the wrong information. Much of the article is like this. But then some of the article is correct, its just all over the place. It has left me confused as to what was the misconception in a lot of what I read before I noticed this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.64.214 (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There's a little too much "preaching to the choir" in the article -- that is, a knowledgeable person writing for the benefit of someone who knows almost as much as they do. The idea of formating something like:

Misconception:

Truth:

Explanation:

would be an improvement, but that doesn't solve the whole problem, because people have heard different versions of the incorrect information. I.e., a reader will look at the "misconception" and say "Oh, that's not what I heard." So the "misconceptions" need to be phrased in carefully loose language. I was just fixing the paragraphs on polar ice melting and effect on sea level. There's a basic concept, which is that solid and melted ice displace the same amount of water. Then, another editor threw in that the ice that will melt has a different salinity (and density) than the ocean -- that's true -- but if you hadn't heard that mentioned, it might be confusing -- but, on the other hand, if you *had* heard it, but didn't see it mentioned in the article, you might think the article was incomplete, or deceptive. This is a problem that customer service agents face frequently: will additional information confuse, or unconfuse the customer? Piano non troppo (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Santa

Maybe add the common misconception that Santa Claus was invented by Coca Cola? 82.170.218.89 (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

By whom was he invented then? 212.123.132.204 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody. He's an amalgamation of historical fact, Christian mythology and cultural tradition. --Neil (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll buy cultural tradition; But Christian mythology seems unlikely as an origin (204.111.166.31 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

It's not a common belief that Coca Cola invented Santa Claus no more than they invented polar bears. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 17:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To be fair - a very closely related statement is listed on Snopes.com - 'The modern image of Santa Claus - a jolly figure in a red-and-white suit - was created by Coca-Cola' [1]. Seems some people will believe anything! --Neil (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Melting of Antarctic Ice

To say that "the likelihood of total melting is extremely small" is, strictly speaking, incorrect. I can understand what is trying to be said here, but on a geological time scale it's happened before and will happen again. Another form of words that takes into account the timescale over which various effects may take place would help. (81.174.241.81 (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

I spotted the same problem and corrected it. The reader might mistakenly understand that all the Antarctic must melt in order to cause sea levels to rise. Also, another sentence that was confusing Archimedes' Principle with water's property of expanding when frozen. They are unrelated. (If water remained unchanged in size, or if it expanded when melted, it would have exactly the same effect on the surface level, i.e., none.) Piano non troppo (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for cleanup

Some of the entries here are beyond trivial, and it is unlikely that they could be sourced to any real degree (some website or magazine starting a columns with "a common misconception is that" should not be our sole demand for sourcing). Some good examples:

"There is no single theory that satisfactorily explains myopia" - This would imply that there is a common misconception that "there is a single reason for myopia". Nonsense.
"the melting of glaciers contributes far more to raising sea level than the melting of sea ice or floating icebergs" - This would imply that there is a common misconception that random, non-polar icebergs are responsible for raising sea level. Never heard it.
"Biological evolution does not address the origin of life" - This would imply that there is a common misconception that "the first living organism evolved from a non-living organism". What.
"The number of megapixels in a digital camera is not a sufficient measure of image quality" - need I go on?

For now, I've tagged the article with {{cleanup-list}} and removed the request to expand it. It's long enough for now. We need to focus on quality. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Human body in space vacumn.

"The human body can survive the hard vacuum of space unprotected, despite contrary depictions in much popular Science fiction. Human flesh expands to about twice its size in such conditions, giving the visual effect of a body builder rather than an overfilled balloon. Consciousness is retained for up to 15 seconds as the effects of oxygen starvation set in. No snap freeze effect occurs because all heat must be lost through thermal radiation or evaporation of liquids, and the blood does not boil because it remains pressurised within the body. The greatest danger is in attempting to hold one's breath before exposure, as the subsequent explosive decompression can damage the lungs. These effects have been confirmed through various accidents (including in very high altitude conditions, outer space and training vacuum chambers).[26][27]"

The blood woud not remain in the body,it would burst through the blood vessels in the nose. The flesh would tear appart and exlpode,because there is no pressure keeping it back.

In the James mopvie Licence to kill, a balloon is used to simulate milton Krest's head. I'm not saying the whole head will explode,my point is the actual balloon they put a balloon in the chamber and rapidly de pressurized the chamber,which caused the balloon to explode.--Opasno (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That is entirely false. "There is no pressure keeping [the blood back]" is technically incorrect, as the vessels exert pressure on the blood. The fact is, the pressure blood exerts on the vessels is on the order of one atmosphere, and that pressure is simply not enough to burst the vessels. The fact that human bodies have been exposed to near vacuums in the past confirms this. Remember that a low pressure doesn't exert force; only pressure differences exert force. A pressure difference of one atmosphere is equivalent to the difference between swimming about ten meters underwater and standing at sea level. Have you ever seen a fish explode on a boat?

As for the balloon to which you refer, consider that there is far more than one atmosphere of pressure inside the balloon, which is what makes the rubber stretch. The balloon was probably sufficiently pressurized to be close to popping, and decreasing air pressure (and thus increasing the pressure difference) by one atmosphere was enough to pop the balloon. This has nothing to do with the human circulatory system, which does not exert as much pressure as the air in the balloon. Besides, human skin is much stronger than thin balloon rubber. Eebster the Great (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Abortion,Christianity.

"Though many Christians believe that abortion is a sin, akin to murder, nowhere in the Bible is abortion explicitly proscribed or indicated as being sinful. According to the book of Leviticus killing a fetus during an altercation is considered a crime, but only one punishable by a fine.[79] In Exodus, however, if a pregnant woman is struck, a loss of life may be punishable by death.[80] See also Proverbs 24:11,12.[81]" Thou Shall Not Kill,isn't aborortion killing?

Yes, I know The Old testement has contradictions. --Opasno (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is arguably trolling, but on the grounds that you may be willing to be persueded, the point is that there exists a somewhat arbitary point at which a cell or ball of cells becomes a life, and thus capable of being killed. In most societies which allow abortion this is legally where the foetus is able to survive independent of the mother, or has a developed brain. In others circumstances, such as I believe under Catholic theology, it may be considered to the be the point at which egg and sperm fuse.

'Killing' is typically defined as the taking of life from an entire creature. Until the foetus develops an independent existence, it is not considered to be alive in the same way as an independently living entity such as another person. Rather it is alive only as a part of the mother, for instance as an arm cannot survive without the body to which it is connected. We do not consider an amputation to be killing despite the biological process it undergoes being best described as 'death'. --Neil (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If the bible is supposed to be supporting abortion, then why does it proscribe a punishment for it. Just because it doesn't merit the death penalty doesn't mean it's allright with god. If you put abortion in the common misconceptions for your own opinions, then you should find some other text than the bible to look for support. In fact the common misconception is that some christians think that the bible does support abortion when it proscribes a punishment and clearly that is not support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that you've altered the article. It is still inaccurate about the biblical veiw on abortion. If the focus of the law was punishing the altercation, and the altercation only, then why was the miscarriage even mentioned. The punishment is clearly for causing the miscarriage. The fact that it is punished clearly means it is not alright to cause a miscarriage, even if unintended. This is not a biblical support for abortion. It is proscribed, and it is indicated as being sinful, in the very passage you choose to quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.211.108 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of the Bible is not definitive enough to make this a misconception. Different sects and individuals interpret the relevant passages differently. Furthermore, this page can never include all possible misconceptions, but must focus on the best for the page. As such, I am removing this from the page. Eebster the Great (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

80 intermediate revisions lost

Looks like someone reverted to a really old revision just to get back one change (something about a biblical citation), and lost a lot of edits in the process. -- Wikispiff (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify by providing a diff. - Roy Boy 05:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I was working on figuring out what happened and finding the right diff when you posted that, RoyBoy. It looks like 80 intermediate revisions were lost when 208.104.253.217 (talk) tried (and, heh, failed) to restore his biblical reference. Here's a better diff for seeing what was lost.-- Wikispiff (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but some of the edits by 71.75.115.238 were incorrect, and 208.104.253.217 (I think) wanted "although murder is prohibited by God's word according to Exodus 20:13" back, which was accomplished. Also 71.75.115.238's edit summary of "minor rewording to one sentence" is misleading, and it appears the edit was a mistake (or vandalism) of some kind. For example changing misconceptions to misperceptions isn't an improvement. Perhaps there was some good material removed, but 208.104.253.217 edit wasn't too bad relatively speaking. - Roy Boy 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus

"Christopher Columbus was not the first person to discover North America. In fact, Native Americans were the first people to discover North America. Accepting the statement that Christopher Columbus was the first person to discover North America implies that Native Americans are not humans, and thus is incorrect"

This is insane and suggests maybe even white racism upon native Americans. Accepting the statement that Christopher Columbus was the first person to discover North America is commonly done from a Eurocentric point of view and not from a so-called racists point of view. Europeans of that time still did consider Native Americans as Humans and have never done otherwise, albeit as an inferior sort of people, comparable with the way black people were considered by Asians, Arabs and Whites alike as inferior. The proof that Europeans always have considered Native American people (ànd black people) as Humans, is the fact that big efforts were continuously done to christianize them. Also were there always tendences in the White West to abolish slavery, a tendency that was unique in the world, as this did not exist in Arabian or Asian cultures. This tendency was so strong that it eventually did lead to the abolishment of slavery in the Western White world. Further efforts to ban slavery from the world were always of White Western origin. On top of this, this has not been added as a misunderstanding concerning Christopher Columbus, but entirely to suggest white racism. Columbus is only the excuse to bring it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.2.80 (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Apes and monkeys

Monkeys are not apes, and apes are not monkeys, but both are simians and primates. Simian taxonomy is somewhat complex and has historically been revised, but phylogenetic studies of the evolutionary relationships among these taxa have shown that both apes and old world monkeys are members of the parvorder of catarrhini, which together with the platyrrhini parvorder constitutes the simiiformes infraorder.^{[citation needed]}

According to modern phylogenetics, Monkeys would be a paraphyletic group if apes are excluded. All apes are monkeys, but not all monkeys are apes.

140.254.95.215 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it was correct that you deleted this entry from the article. It's more a matter of semantics (scientific versus layman), and not a "common misconception". ~Amatulić (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not according to our article on monkeys. Monkeys are a polyphylectic group, including the Old World monkeys and the New World monkeys, and together with the apes, the three groups comprise the simians. I think this -is- a common misconception - many people use the word 'monkey' to refer to just about any simian (or even any primate). Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 00:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cats

I've removed the claim:

Cats are indeed able to survive falls from very high heights. However, this phenomenon is not due to any aerodynamical effects. Cats break many bones when enduring a large fall, but the fractures heal very quickly due to rapid osteogenesis.

as it is unsourced, and doing some rapid research on the Internet shows that the the issue is equivocal - i.e. there is a study which suggests that once cats reach terminal velocity (after seven storeys) the rate of injuries does not increase, however as with a lot of such studies there is a selection effect (i.e. the study was carried out at a Vets, where only cats which survived would have been seen, dead cats may be more common, but are not accounted for in the statistics).

Night vision goggles

I went ahead and changed "in an environment with no light" to "an environment with no visible light" because thermal imaging uses light as well, just outside the visual spectrum. Besides there are no environments with no light. I believed this to be such an uncontroversial change I didn't wait for concensus. Just a clarification rally.

Passive night vision devices do not actually illuminate an environment, rather enhancing the visibility of light reflecting off surfaces. Image enhancement night vision does not assist visibility in an environment with absolutely no visible light; thermal imaging would be required in this situation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightwanderers (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Questionable entry

The "seprate entities" item at List_of_common_misconceptions#Computing was first reverted as vandalism, but then I gave the editor who inserted the benifit of the dobut and restored and tagged it with {{RS}}, {{dubious}} and {{POV statement}}. Should it come out?--Ipatrol (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore Invented The Internet

NCSA Mosaic was not renamed Netscape Navigator. Navigator was supposed to be an independent project created from scratch, although rumors have long persisted, backed up by evidence of certain bug compatabilities, that Marc Andreesen improperly copied the Mosaic source code before founding Netscape. The NCSA continued to distribute Mosaic for quite some time after Navigator was launched. The Mosaic product was spun off to a company called Spyglass, and eventually became the source for Internet Explorer.

See the help text from IE version 6: "Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc."

This is based on my own memory (I was a CS student at UIUC during the relevant time period). I don't have a citation at this time, and wanted to open this for discussion.

Mashton (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly false that Mosaic was renamed, so I removed that. But I had always been under the impression that Navigator was basically a fork of the Mosaic code base, not written from scratch. Netscape's about box had the same "based on" text as IE's, didn't it? -- BenRG (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The indigenous people of North America

The indigenous people of North America can grow facial hair, contrary to the misconception that they cannot.

Is the word "Indians" also wrong nowadays in America? Or is there another reason for this wording (inclusion of other ethnic groups e.g.) Debresser (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The accepted PC term is "Native American". Using the word "Indian" to describe this group is a lot like using the word "Oriental" to describe Asian Americans- it's an anachronism, and can be offensive. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand. So may I replace "The indigenous people of North America" by "Native Americans"? That does sound a lot better. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Some tribes can grow facial hair. Some can not grow any hair on their bodies at all, other than their head, eyebrows, and eyelashes. After many generations of interbreeding with others, genetically they changed. There is a wikipedia article that address this quite well, plus plenty of other information out there. Stereotypes_of_Native_Americans Dream Focus 02:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Elephants' trunks

Should it be mentioned that elephants do not drink through their trunks?—Jch thys 01:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it really commonly conceived that elephants drink through their nose? ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 03:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read a children's book that said that some people think so, so it must be a misconception somewhere.—Jch thys 21:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Does "somewhere" = "common"? Basically, is this notable enough to place on this page? ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 13:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Piece of paper folded

Obviously the limit on the number of times a piece of paper can be folded refers to an ordinary-sized piece of paper. Do we really need to list this?—Jch thys 01:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it obvious, offhand. I don't see the harm of having it on the ~~paper~~ page.--Father Goose (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that the myth applied to a paper of any size (204.111.166.31 (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

^ "Johnson C, Eccles R. (2005) Acute cooling of the feet and the onset of common cold symptoms. Family Practice 22: 608-613". Common Cold Centre, University of Cardiff. 2005-11-14. Retrieved 2009-05-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ http://www.healthresearchforum.org.uk/reports/sunlightrobbery.pdf SUNLIGHT ROBBERY:Health benefits of sunlight are denied by current public health policy in the UK By Oliver Gillie
^ http://drdingle.com/docs/sunsreens_final1.pdf How Toxic Is Your Sunscreen? by Dr Peter Dingle (BEd, BSc, PhD)

[FapPrac22:608-613-1] "Johnson C, Eccles R. (2005) Acute cooling of the feet and the onset of common cold symptoms. Family Practice 22: 608-613". Common Cold Centre, University of Cardiff. 2005-11-14. Retrieved 2009-05-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[2] ttp://www.healthresearchforum.org.uk/reports/sunlightrobbery.pdf SUNLIGHT ROBBERY:Health benefits of sunlight are denied by current public health policy in the UK By Oliver Gillie

[3] ttp://drdingle.com/docs/sunsreens_final1.pdf How Toxic Is Your Sunscreen? by Dr Peter Dingle (BEd, BSc, PhD)

[1]

[2]

[3]