Talk:List of common misconceptions

Carrots for rabbits and the Kremlin

There are two common misconceptions that I wanted to add here, but I couldn't find mentions to them in their respective articles. They are:

• That rabbits have a special appetite for carrots (similarly to mice for cheese), while in reality it can be harmful for them in excess and is better taken as a special treat;
• That the St. Basil's Cathedral is often erroneously called "the Kremlin".

If anyone can find references and add those to the articles, please do so. It would be interesting - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 21:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Really, St Basil's Cathedral is often called the Kremlin???--Jack Upland (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I have seen this mistake noted in reviews of a 1980s episode of The Transformers. I was not aware of other instances of this mistake. Dimadick (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

If they are not mentioned in their respective articles, then they are too obscure to warrant mention in this list. I think the item about carrots for rabbits could be added to the rabbit article, but you need to locate solid refs. The other seems too obscure to be considered a "common misconception", but that is just my POV. Find enough citations so it is clear a lot of people make this mistake and it is good to add to the article and this list. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen various instances in the media in which St Basil's Cathedral is called the Kremlin. The only one I can recall now is in the game Civilization IV, but I'm sure there are many others out there. I don't see why it would be obscure given that both the Kremlin and the Cathedral are both worldwide famous tourist spots. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 17:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Common Swift

I added a misconception about swifts to the list, but it was reverted with reference to the inclusion criteria. I checked them, and they are:

1. The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own. > Common Swift
2. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception. --> Two sources are added, one of which to a bird protection agency.
3. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. -> Mentioned in Common Swift#Behaviour
4. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete. -> It is.

I think this can be included. Did I miss something? 89.12.170.34 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Great format for suggesting an inclusion. Are you sure this misconception is widespread? The link in the parent article doesn't mention this misconception as particularly common. IE do you have a source that says something like "many people believe X, but..." Squatch347 (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Now that I look at your original inclusion, the second source does say that many people believe. I'm not sure I've ever heard of this, but I'm open to including it. SUPPORT. Squatch347 (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Homosexuality - homophobia correlation

Does this qualify as a misconception? Or is it just a phenomena that, given a lack of research, hasn't had any real opportunity to be validated or falsified yet? A handful of studies coming to different conclusions is not sufficient to make this kind of judgement. It might count as a misconception if it was popularly believed to be a scientific fact, but the connection between homophobia and repressed homosexuality is mostly derived from news stories of high profile anti-gay politicians and religious figures being outed, and recent journalistic exposés such as In the Closet of the Vatican - along with older archetypes of pious hypocrisy like Tartuffe and psychiatric notions of psychological projection. The word 'misconception' implies there is something erroneous about the belief. 121.44.140.228 (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Bow shock vs. friction

One that should be added is the one about spacecraft re-entry causing heat because of friction instead of compression of air before the spacecraft. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The articles concerning this are Atmospheric entry#Reentry heating and Aerodynamic heating. They do not seem to mention this as a common misconception, but they do mention that early heat shield designers had used wrong models of gas physics. perhaps someone who is more familiar with the science can help with this? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, it has already been added, I just missed it reading too fast. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Moving Mormon Misconception

The misconception about polygamy in Mormonism is under the Christianity section. It is somewhat ironic that this is here on the list of common misconceptions about Christianity due to a common misconception. The common misconception I am referring to is that Mormonism is not a denomination of Christianity and instead it's own religion with many principles that vary immensely from Christianity. As such, I think this paragraph should be moved as it is inaccurately categorized. However, I do not know where to move it to. Perhaps just under "Religion" or maybe a new section should be created? Perhaps it can be removed altogether? I'm not sure, but I think it was worth mentioning. IdontLikeMormons223 (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the categorization found in academic, secular, and scholarly reliable sources, which place Mormonism and the larger Latter Day Saint movement as subset of Christianity. A consensus on this pattern was hashed out a while back on Talk:Christianity, succinctly summed up here. Consensus can change, but since this consensus is currently very far reaching across wikipedia, it should probably be discussed at a forum with a broader audience than just this article, like a noticeboard or WP:RELIGION. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"Trickle-down economics"

@Squatch347 and Macrakis: I don't consider this a common misconception, just a bad-faith framing by political opponents. Nor would I consider an article talking about a study saying tax cuts for the rich don't work to be worthy of inclusion. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's first try to clearly state what the misconception is, it is possible my re-wording of the original entry isn't as clear as it reads to me. The misconception here is that there is a theory called "Trickle-Down" or that there are economists who advocate for something called "trickle-down." I agree with you that the source describes this as bad-faith framing by opponents, but it also describes this usage as widely and commonly used. The usage doesn't seem to be clearly a nickname or a derisive term in many of the examples, but describes it as being used as if it were an actual title or theory used by proponents. That reads to me as a misconception, at least in many cases. Squatch347 (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC) 18:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the term "trickle-down economics" is pejorative. But let's look at the theory itself, not the name:

Reducing taxes on the rich to stimulate investment and thus create job or growth ("trickle-down economics") generally does not work.

The name is only mentioned parenthetically in this description, and certainly, the name used by supporters of this theory, namely supply-side economics, should also be mentioned, though it covers more than tax rates on the rich.

For something to be listed as a "misconception" we need evidence that it is widely believed and that it is wrong.

We don't expect professionals in a field to hold to misconceptions: physicists don't believe that microwave ovens operate at a resonance frequency of water; constitutional scholars do not believe that the First Amendment limits restrictions on free speech by private organizations; linguists don't believe that the Spanish /θ/ sound comes from a lisping king. So we don't expect that professional economists subscribe to trickle-down economics.

But I do agree that the one source given isn't enough. We should be able to do better than that. There should be plenty of sources in the supply-side economics and trickle-down economics pages. --Macrakis (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there have been two items on this topic included in the article recently. One about whether or not economists actually advocate for "trickle-down economics" and one about the efficacy of supply-side economics. I don't think the former should be added because (1) some economists do seem to advocate for something very similar to that, and (2) as I said, I think this is mostly a bad-faith framing by opponents instead of a true common misconception. But I also don't think the latter should be added because it's just a minority economic theory rather than something that can be conclusively proven false. The source used doesn't really establish that it's a common misconception, and one scientific paper certainly doesn't mean it's definitely incorrect. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with CWenger related to the second entry not meeting the criteria for entry. There seem to be two points for us to resolve on inclusion here.

1) Is there a theory labelled "trickle-down" or is it a characterization? This seems the easiest one to resolve. That it is the latter. The source included makes that argument in depth. We could also include [1], [2], and [3] if we wanted to. The parent article here on wiki even discusses this as a label added by opponents.

2) The second is whether it is a misconception. IE do people widely use this as if it were a real term? Again the source referenced points out this wide spread usage as do the three sources added. A recent Reuters/IPSOS poll and Gallup poll used the term in their question sets as if it were a commonly understood economic model [4][5]. The most telling to me is the parent article, which uses the term as if it were the actual title. It's opening sentences state is as an actual economic proposition, not just a framing by political opponents. It certainly does go on to reference that, but the initial description along with a good portion of the body of the article go on to use the term interchangeably as if it were the actual title of the theory or model. I think the sources, along with our own article on the topic give plenty of evidence that the label has been used as if it were an actual economic theory, not just a framing of an idea. Squatch347 (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that there is a "common misconception" that the term "trickle-down economics" is used by economists who are in favor of reducing taxes on the rich.

It is not clear to me whether there is a "common misconception" that reducing taxes on businesses and on the rich causes economic growth that benefits all. It is a claim that has been made by many politicians, notably Reagan, Brownback, and Trump, so presumably they believe that voters will believe it. Do voters actually believe it? I don't know -- do we have any evidence one way or the other?

Is it true? Probably not. But I agree that one article is not the way to show that. --Macrakis (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that could be the case. Two major polling firms used it as a description of an economic theory. The respondents clearly understood it to be a description of an economic theory in their responses. There are multiple articles referencing it as a term that is commonly used. What, specifically, would you look for that would meet the criteria?

I'd agree that it isn't clear to me either whether there is a common misconception about the economic impacts of reducing taxes on upper income brackets. I don't think I'm discussing that topic at all here. It certainly isn't clear that there is a misconception, and we probably shouldn't include anything of the sort given it is an active field of debate within economics itself. Are you reading the text I am referencing as discussing the merits/demerits of the underlying policy? If so, lets talk about that because I'm only referencing the use of the term. Squatch347 (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The polls are using language that the general public understands. When people talk about flat-earth theory, surely they're not claiming that it's supported by any scientists. --Macrakis (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

But they are using it as if it is the legitimate name for that set of beliefs and positions, which is my point. They aren't referencing some different term used pejoratively by people to describe them. That is the term that proponents themselves use as well. Squatch347 (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I am surprised that you re-added the "trickle-down economics is not a theory" point to the article, because we have not reached a consensus here. I do not see evidence that this is a misconception. Yes, I agree that it is a loaded term. But it is a loaded term that is used by serious economists such as Paul Krugman and Peter Cornell -- as reported in Sowell's footnoted article.

Loaded terms are not "misconceptions". We don't have a section in this article saying that "pro-life" does not actually mean opposition to all killing, or that "pro-choice" does not mean supporting all kinds of life choices, but that both refer specifically to abortion. We don't have a section in the article pointing out that "freedom fighter" and "liberation army" are terms of propaganda, not neutral descriptions, or that "people's republics" were not in fact republics run by the people.

In any case, one article by a highly partisan writer is not good evidence. -- Macrakis (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

We do have additional sources, listed above, for this being a widely used misconception. I'm not sure your examples hit the mark though because those are the labels that those positions use themselves. It would be a better analogy if a term like "pro-abortion" had been created and then widely used as if that were the pro-choice side's chosen name. We probably would have that listed, and discussed (as we do here) on the parent talk page. Squatch347 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Reopening this after the removal of the misconception by Volteer1. As to the inclusion criteria:

1) Clearly the case. 2) There are multiple sources both here and in the host article as to this being widely use and being a misconception. The talk page there is replete with exactly the discussion we are having here with a general consensus being formed that it not only was worthy of inclusion, but common enough to be featured prominently in the parent article. Add to this the multiple polls above about the widespread use of the term and Sowell's writing about its widespread use in journalism. 3) Reiterating 2 here, this is a prominent piece of the host article and a general consensus on the talk page has been formed that it is a widespread misconception and worthy of a prominent place in the article. That the article spends almost as much time discussing the term's origin as it does that actual economic idea and impact should be a good indicator. 4) No one has brought this up as an issue, clearly still a term in modern usage.

Squatch347 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Pejorative names for things are not "misconceptions", and focusing on the name misdirects attention from the substance. To take an example from the other side of the political spectrum, should we write, say,

"Welfare queen" is a racist term that is not used by sociologists to describe welfare fraud, which in any case is rare.

or should we write more neutrally:

Welfare fraud is rare, accounting for about x% of welfare spending in the US, despite the common political stereotype of the "welfare queen".

Or maybe not even mention "welfare queen" at all. --Macrakis (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

ticks

I'm a mathematician, not an entomologist, but I have personally walked by a river on a path without grass, but covered by trees, and was practically showered by ticks. So, the line on ticks should be edited to read that most ticks hang out in grass, but some do fall from trees. I don't know, but it may also be true that ticks in grass are more likely to carry disease than the ones in trees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:fdf0:aa40:f91f:b96d:8824:dada (talk • contribs) 21:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree. I've had a similar experience. There are woodlands in Maine with nothing but rocky ground, no grass, and you don't have to touch anything but you tend to collect ticks when walking under trees. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Personal experiences cannot be cited. Apparently the scientists who study these bugs do not get out to your neck of the woods. Googling "ticks falling from trees" results in several sites denying it can happen. You guys aren't editing Wikipedia from another planet are you? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Jerry Lewis

The article says Lewis was not actually popular in France and uses a link to the Straight Dope website as evidence. However, the content at that link actually contradicts this article's claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgrayson (talk • contribs)

Removed by another editor here. Whoever created the entry contends that Jerry Lewis was renown among critics, but not the general public. This fails verification; the Straight Dope's specifically cites biographer Shawn Levy saying "French audiences took to Lewis . . . ". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Mansa Abu Bakr II

I have been having a debate with Macrakis regarding my addition of the following to the article: "The early 14th-century West African monarch who preceded Mansa Musa as ruler of Mali and apparently disappeared during an attempt to cross the Atlantic Ocean was not named Abu Bakr II or Abubakari II, as no such mansa ever ruled, but probably was named Muhammad. The misconception originated from a mistranslation that incorrectly assumed Mansa Musa's ancestor Abu Bakr reigned as mansa between Mansa Muhammad and Mansa Musa." This misconception was treated as fact by Wikipedia for over a decade, but I recently revised the article on the voyage to reflect the historical consensus that there was no Abu Bakr II. Given that belief in the existence of a Mansa Abu Bakr II seems to be widespread (among people who pay attention to West African history), but the historical consensus is strongly against it, I think it qualifies as a common misconception. It's perhaps a little niche, but it's not like this article doesn't have some fairly minor or niche misconceptions already. Most relevant sources:

• Levtzion, Nehemia (1963). "The Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Kings of Mali". Journal of African History. 4 (3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 341–353. doi:10.1017/S002185370000428X. ISSN 0021-8537. JSTOR 180027. OCLC 1783006.
• Fauvelle, François-Xavier (2018) [2013]. "The Sultan and the Sea". The Golden Rhinoceros: Histories of the African Middle Ages. Troy Tice (trans.). Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-18126-4.

Additionally, a quick few Google searches will reveal that belief in the misconception appears to be more widespread than the correct belief; there are lots of webpages that mention Abu Bakr II's existence as fact. The voyage in question is central to a fringe theory that there was significant contact between West Africa and the Americas during the 14th century. I would regard the fringe theory as beyond the scope of the article, as it's not a simple matter of factual incorrectness, but the existence of the fringe theory makes the factual misconception about the identity of Musa's predecessor noteworthy. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The same sites that mention Abu Bakr II's existence as a fact presumably also mention the fringe theory as a fact. An erroneous detail about the name of a personnage mentioned in an erroneous theory reported on by non-reliable sources (ancient-origins.net, etc.) seems beyond the scope of "common misconceptions". --Macrakis (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

"Another fallacy that follows from De Slane's mistranslation is that Abu-Bakr himself reigned in Mali. Thus all the commentators put in ther genealogical tables 'Abu-Bakr II'"(Levtzion 1963). "We often read that Musa's unfortunate predecessor was called Abu Bakr or Abu-Bakari...author after author diligently repeated it." (Fauvelle 2013, trans. Tice 2018). Again, until earlier this year, when I fixed it, Wikipedia itself treated his existence as fact on multiple pages without treating the fringe theory as correct. There appear to be thousands of web pages calling Musa's predecessor Abu Bakr II, some of which do not mention the voyage. Are the pages reliable sources? No, but their existence supports the idea that it's a widespread misconception, as stated by my sources. And, look, here's a National Geographic article that contains the misconception: [6] Again, it's not just a detail about what name to give a specific figure: it's inserting an entire additional monarch who never existed into the history of an empire. Is that really a more trivial misconception than whether some actress wore a specially-designed bra in some movie? Or whether the name Big Ben is technically accurate for the entire bell tower? Or whether the Beatles were the first musicians to use a specific type of speaker to process sound? Ornithopsis (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You have a point about the triviality of some of the other items on this list!:

• The Big Ben item seems to be a harmless synecdoche (as the article itself says), not a misconception at all. It's no worse than calling the Office of the President the White House. So I would support removing it.
• The Jane Russell bra item is also trivial, and the footnotes to the relevant paragraph in the Jane Russell article do not support the claim that there were "countless media reports" that she wore the bra that Hughes designed, only that Hughes thought that she wore it (I have added a cn tag). So I would also support removing that item.

Getting back to Abu Bakr II, this page doesn't report on the errors in fringe science and history. We say nothing about either the major claims of Velikovsky's theories nor about the Nephites traveling from Jerusalem to the Americas nor about the phantom time hypothesis, let alone the numerous factual mistakes proponents of these theories make.

Now, I admit that I'm disappointed that National Geographic doesn't fact-check its children's encyclopedia more carefully (and probably cribbed the claim from the Wikipedia article), but that in itself isn't evidence of a common misconception.

Here are some candidates for misconceptions that are much more widespread than the Abu Bakr II one, and which probably do belong in the article:

• There was never a female pope (Pope Joan).
• The Pyramids were not build by slaves.
• The Israelites were not enslaved by the Egyptians.

Best, --Macrakis (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've more or less made my case: I've provided two different reliable sources that say it's a common misconception, pointed out that it's a misconception Wikipedia itself promoted for over a decade, and provided an example of the misconception being repeated by a source most would consider fairly trustworthy. It is not a misconception unique to a fringe theory; the misconception long predates the fringe theory and continues to be repeated by sources that do not promote the fringe theory. I won't deny that it's somewhat niche, but it's certainly a common misconception within that niche and would not be unique on this page in being niche. I don't think I have anything else to add, so I would like to hear others weigh in on the matter. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it's certainly a judgement call on how niche and how trivial this issue is, and I'll be happy to hear from other editors. --Macrakis (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If other editors do support the inclusion of this item in the article, perhaps it would be better to phrase it as something like the following: "There was no mansa of the Mali Empire named Abu Bakr II. The Atlantic voyage commonly attributed to him did occur, but probably was led by Mansa Muhammad, who was Mansa Musa's predecessor according to historical sources. The misconception originated from a mistranslation that incorrectly listed Mansa Musa's ancestor Abu Bakr as a ruler." That might make the emphasis clearer that it's about the nonexistence of a particular alleged ruler, not merely semantics over the proper name of someone. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Saying that the voyage "did occur" is much stronger than what RS supports. Both Gomez and Thornton report on the story, but don't conclude that it "did occur".

As for whether the item should be included at all, see my comments above. --Macrakis (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove "Big Ben" item?

We currently have an item reading:

Although the name "Big Ben" is frequently used to refer to one of the towers of the Palace of Westminster or even to the entire building, it is actually a nickname for the Great Bell, the largest bell inside that tower, which is called the Elizabeth Tower (formerly Clock Tower and Stephen's Tower).

That is, "Big Ben" is a pars pro toto nickname for the tower. I don't think it makes sense to call a metonym like this a "misconception". Should we also have an item saying that Big Ben is not in a building called the "Houses of Parliament" (two political bodies), but rather the Palace of Westminster (a building)? Also a common metonym. --Macrakis (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

We are of the same mind here. I was just about to remove it, and decided instead to come here and pose the question to the community. Since your comment is already there, I am going to be bold and remove it. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This article over the years has morphed into a List of misconceptions

While everything on this list is a misconception, many of them are not common misconceptions. What exactly is the criteria for one to be common? If there isn't one, we need to think one up. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Historically, we have relied on a source attached for that assessment. IE the underlying source needed to label the misconception as common or widespread or something of that nature. There are a few items I believe who rely on polling to meet that criteria, but I believe those are generally non-controversial (high percentages of people believing the misconception). You are almost certainly correct on the list, does any specific item strike you as something we could review? Squatch347 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Related is the question of "what do we mean by common"? Is a misconception that is very common relative to the correct understanding, but relates to an obscure topic, a common misconception? See my above proposal regarding "Mansa Abu Bakr II" of Mali. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a good question. Are we saying that these are common misconceptions amongst the public, or common misconceptions within an area? I would definitely lean more towards the former. The latter is likely to devolve into disputes within fields and the kind of politics seen on the fringe theory notice board. There are definitely areas that are perhaps a bit more narrowly known that are worthy of inclusion, and of course, there really isn't a clear, objective way to distinguish between the two, but I believe our goal should be more for widely known topics. Squatch347 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that, in general, this list should steer clear of niche misconceptions specific to a particular narrow area of specialty. I could probably think of a hundred "common misconceptions" within my own area of specialty, paleontology, that do not merit inclusion on this list. But of course, as you said, there isn't a clear place to draw the line between a relatively esoteric but still generally notable misconception and a misconception only notable within a narrow area of specialty. I think that "Abu Bakr II" narrowly falls on the "generally notable" side of that line, personally, but I can understand how people might disagree... There's also the separate issue of where something crosses the line from "misconception" to "semantics", e.g. the Big Ben issue or whether it's correct to call Mozart (who lived in what is now Austria, but was not part of what was called Austria at the time) Austrian. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a scholarly error, even if it makes its way into school textbooks, qualifies as a "common misconception" unless it has a life outside of academia. For example, the notion that the Romans salted Carthage seems to be part of the common knowledge of many educated people, though scholarship has moved on. If the error were limited to Roman historians, I don't think we would call it a "common misconception".

I think it also matters how significant the error is. If it were widely believed that it was Scipio Africanus (who did in fact wage war against Carthage) and not his adoptive grandson Scipio Aemilianus who destroyed the city of Carthage, that would certainly be a historical blunder, but I don't think it rises to the level of a "misconception".

Now it may well be that the Abu Bakr II case is widely believed outside specialist circles. Fortunately, African history is taken much more seriously in schools than it used to be, and perhaps there is a whole generation of kids who have heard about Abu Bakr II (certainly I never did). But even so, mis-identifying the particular person seems rather insignificant in the larger scheme of things. --Macrakis (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

While I have no knowledge of the matter whatsoever, it might be that it is a common misconception among people in some African countries, who presumably would know (or mis-know) African history quite well. I just want to make the general point that "common" misconceptions don't necessarily have to be common worldwide (or in any specific country or culture). There are plenty of U.S.-specific ones on the list to illustrate that. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly possible, but we currently have zero sources demonstrating or even suggesting this. Have you found any? --Macrakis (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, belief in the existence of Abu Bakr II seems to be prevalent among Afrocentrist scholars, such as Molefi Kete Asante, which is one of the reasons I feel it's a common misconception. However, there's overlap between that and Ivan Van Sertima's fringe theory about pre-Columbian contacts between Africa and the Americas. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources are important, but sources still need to fit within legitimate sources as defined by Wikipedia. The following sources IMHO wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere on Wikipedia and shouldn't be acceptable for this article:

Cookthink, Howeverythingworks, Self.com, The Balance Careers, Classic FM, About.com, Catholic.com, Mormon-polygamy.com, Bahai.org, Sunnah.com, Transform Magazine, PinyinInfo.com, Bridging the Unbridgeable, Ask Yahoo!, History the Interesting Bits, Patheos.com, How Stuff Works, Napoleon.org, The Seward Phoenix LOG, Dildographer, Panzerworld.net, 37themovie.com, spacepen, AnimalLeague.org, pet place.com, apdt.com, explorersweb, House-flies.net, Talk Origins, Panda Security, Privacy Flake, blog.paessler.com, Gigaom, Elizabethton Star, Examine.com, Nerdfighteria.info, Peanut-butter.org, DifferenceBetween.info.

I am sure there are more that I missed. I think we need to weed out the items with poor sourcing. They can be removed, or proper sources can be found for them. But we need to clean this article up. Best, Kingturtle = (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! I've replaced a couple with cn. Even more problematic because all items on this list are supposed to be supported by full articles. Are the full articles really using such weak sources? --Macrakis (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Another problem I'm noticing as I read through (somewhat fun to learn about common misconceptions, I might add) is that some of these entries are far too long. I want to know what the misconception is and what the reality is (and perhaps where the misconception comes from if relevant or known). I don't want to know all there is to know about the subject or a bunch of related factoids and trivia. See this for example. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've condensed a bunch of items; see what you think. --Macrakis (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Skimming over them, it looks good to me. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Also agreed on Macrakis' edits. Way more readable now. Squatch347 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"Common" misconceptions

I read the sources for maybe the first 25 or so entries, and none of the source material state these misconceptions are common, just they are misconceptions. Seems like synthesis. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)