Talk:List of common misconceptions: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:57, 31 March 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of common misconceptions article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 29, 2006	Articles for deletion	No consensus
March 24, 2009	Articles for deletion	Kept

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1] 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.^[2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

== WebMD says penis enlargement device actually works‏ ==

"The FastSize Extender device promises results, but it’s far from quick and easy. Just ask Bob, a retail manager from New Jersey. He says he’s gained over 2 inches of erect length. All it took was 25 months and over 2,600 hours wearing the device, typically five hours a day, seven days a week. 'I was afraid my girlfriend would think I was a freak, but she was supportive because she felt a difference in her satisfaction and I felt more confident in myself,' Bob tells WebMD."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/14/health/webmd/main3261380.shtml 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Seperation of church and state

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

-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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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' [4]. Seems some people will believe anything! --Neil (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Elephants' trunks

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

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

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

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

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?—Jchthys 01:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Dark Side of the Moon

While I understand what the description is saying, it seems too vague to be completely understood. By my understanding, the dark side of the moon is whatever side the sun is not lighting at the time. Thus, a dark side exists...at least, it would certainly be darker than the side the sun is illuminating. I understand that I am taking this extremely literally, but I found it to be oddly written. (204.111.166.31 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Earthworms

This page says "An earthworm does not become two worms when cut in half. An earthworm can survive being bisected, but only the front half of the worm (where the mouth is located) can survive, while the other half dries out or starves to death. If one cuts the worm too close to the saddle (the fat pink section where all of the worm's vital organs are located) then the worm may die. ...". This disagrees with Earthworm#Regeneration: when an earthworm is cut in two, ability to regenerate a head and/or a tail at the cut varies with species and where in the worm the cut is. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tagging

Have just a bunch in there. The edit summaries are reasonably detailed. In many cases there are just no sources at all, so that's easy. In some cases there are sources that state something is authoratatively X, but do not say it's "commonly perceived" as something else. And a lot of those (like the kosher entry) don't seem to be in fact "common misconceptions." They will at the very least have to be established via reliable sources to be labelled stuff.

I also did a little rewriting on the koran stuff -- it was just factually inaccurate, and it's better now. But it should all probably go because there is considerable controversy even among scholars (lets forget imams and so forth -- controversy gets much worse if we go there) about what the words in the koran actually MEAN. So how can we authoratatively state what Islam does or does not promise or require (by way of refuting an alleged "misconception") when a few hundred years of western scholarship, and the 1,400 year history of Islam itself, haven't definitely sorted out these questions? That's one of the inherent problems with this list. On many of the things here the "truth" is not clearly established.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also strongly leaning towards removing all 27 items that are currently flagged as "citation needed." I'll give it some time, though. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good you tagged every unsourced item, but let's wait til the current AfD situation is resolved before doing anything further. --Armchair info guy (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't come close to tagging every unsourced item. It's just a start. I have just stripped out some patent nonesense about chameleon's exploding if placed on an orange and the like. I think the tagged number is now at about 35. But there's a lot I haven't read yet.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of tagging, why not spend a few seconds Googling? I easily found references for a few tagged items. Dream Focus 10:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bats

A reliable source will be needed for the assertion that bats are blind is a "common misconception". The existence of the phrase "blind as a bat" does not support this on its own. Anyone who'se watched a nature show knows bats have some vision. I don't presume the majority of people (which i presume the word "common" is refering to in the title of this article) are this stupid. Reliable sources will be needed to back up this assertion.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons

This edit [5] reinserts what can charitably be called an unsourced assertion with an edit summary that essentially says "this belongs here." That's not how it works. You will need reliable sourcing establishing this absurdity is a "common misconception." Your opinion that it is is insufficient. (It's my opinoin is that it is not). The way we settle these differences of opinion is with sourcing. So I strongly urge you to revert your own edit. If my efforts to deal with unsourced assertions are thwared, I'll seek out other editors who have not yet engaged with this article who may be likewise interested in making sure we adhere to the sourcing policies that are the only hope of preserving whatever integrity and credibility the project has.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of bad information on the subject: [6]. This "explanation" implies that the tilt of the earth causes seasons by moving the summer hemisphere closer to the sun, whereas, of course, the northern hemisphere is actually a couple million miles farther from the sun during summer than winter. Of course, the link does not prove that this is a "common misconception" exactly, but it is a prominent website, and I tend to think that we should at least look around for some sources before deleting the entry outright. Rracecarr (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not evidence that it's a common misperception (and you're using "Wiki Answers" as a source? not RS) and at any rate this article says the common misperception is that the seasons are caused by being closer to sun in summer "rather than by earth's tiled axis." It gets the first bit right, and maybe it's language is sloppy. But again, it's Wiki Answers, and that doesn't establish much. Perhaps the tile of the list should be changed to "List of misconceptions held by some people." That would bring the sourcing bar down quite substantially. Bali ultimate (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wiki Answers is not a reliable source. The very reason I quoted it was because it was wrong (and ranked highly in web searches). Let's not intentionally misunderstand each other. And by the way, the language in the Wiki Answers entry ("Because the North is nearer to the heat source, the Sun, than the South part of the earth, the Northern parts gets warmed by the heat of the Sun") is not sloppy, it's flat wrong. I understand that the "commonness" of the misconception needs to be established. However, that does not mean delete the entry. It means tag it, and, if you're not willing to do the work yourself, give others some time to look for sources. Rracecarr (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I’d say most of the sources on this page do not prove that the items are necessarily ‘common misconceptions’; the sources simply disprove the misconceptions. The statement on WikiAnswers proves something—that it is indeed a relatively common misconception, as far as can be possibly judged—and a reliable source can disprove that misconception.—Jchthys 22:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will need a reliable source saying this is a "common misconception" (or words that amount to the same thing). What you have now is evidence that some contributor to wiki answers is misinformed. That's insufficience (especially when we're talking about something most of us learned in school -- axis, tile, less direct sunlight about covers it).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This latest "citation" [7] fails to establish anything other than the basics of axis, tilt, and less direct sunlight. It says nothing about how these basic, well understood facts are in fact "commonly misconceived." Have restored fact tag.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that I once got a red X from a science teacher on this very misconception: I replied, "because of axial tilt", she said, "no, it's because the Earth is closer to the sun". So, anecdotally, this is a pretty important misconception. Give it the benefit of the doubt until better sources are found.--Father Goose (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An anecdote involving your ignorant teacher (and how many years ago?) is not RS (I know you know this). Nothing should be in the encyclopedia until it's demonstrably true. As I said somewhere earlier if the list name was "Misconceptsion held by some people" (which is what, in fact, this list currently has) sourcing would be much easier. But "common" implies some large number of folks more or less currently are mistaken about something. That needs to be established in most of these cases, including this one.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say that most of the misconceptions on this page have no source saying that they are in fact common misconceptions. I think that’s a hard thing to prove, and not a central point.—Jchthys 16:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "I’d say that most of the misconceptions on this page have no source saying that they are in fact common misconceptions." Ok. I can concede that "some" (very few) of the points on the page have a source for "common misconception." But if i understand this next comment of yours accurately, this is the point at which it becomes impossible for us to find common ground: You write "I think that’s a hard thing to prove, and not a central point." See, to me, determining whether something is or is not a "common misconception" (and the further meta point of whether it's possible to define and determine if ANYTHING is a "common misconception") is the central point for determining: A. Whether something can be included in such a list and, B. (meta) Whether it's appropriate to include such a list at all (i.e. if "common misconception" is not truly categorizable in a limited, specific fashion, then no). Now, i think we can fruitfully argue over points A. and B., but if you think that points A and B are unimportant, we're at an impasse.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being unclear here. Really, I think that if such a list exists, there need to be clear guidelines about what can be included. Obviously, there needs to be a source proving that the misconception is false; but maybe there wouldn’t need to be a source proving that it is indeed a common misconception, and the community could decide that. I do think there is no harm in keeping the list, so we need to decide about these guidelines. Personally, I think that the season misconception is very common—for example, it occurs both in Latin poetry and in a conversation with my younger brother last week—whereas some other misconceptions that get to stay on the list aren’t.—Jchthys 00:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would work to cite two sources: (1) either a reliable source stating that the misconception is relatively common OR a relatively high-profile site or work (WikiAnswers, for instance) that gets the fact wrong, and (2) a reliable source setting the facts straight.—Jchthys 02:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, don't ever edit my user page again. Second. I don't care what you "personally believe" is common or uncommon. I only care about what is demonstrable via reliable sources, that allow for verification and establish some bar for notability. Your opinion is (just as my opinion is) precisely worthless in these matters. The only accpetable standard is a clear defintion of "common misconception" (hard to see that being reached, but whatever) and then reliable sources outside wikipedia (wiki answers? No. Never. Not RS for about 5 reasons i can think of off the top of my head) that support inclusion via that clear definition. That's it. Otherwise, this is just a blog or myspace (which are free to edit with no rules).Bali ultimate (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the anecdote about my science teacher is "proof" of the misconception being common -- just that since I've encountered that very misconception in my lifetime, I'm inclined to believe it may be pretty common. As such I am suggesting we give it the benefit of the doubt until someone tracks down sources. If no supporting sources are turned up after careful research, then it should be tossed. It's a question of Wikipedia not being perfect. We toss obvious crap, but there is a benefit to giving other material time to improve. Add a ^{[citation needed]} in the interim, or, if you have the time and are a good researcher, do the research yourself.--Father Goose (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is this: why leave out the seasons misconception until proven worthy, but leave in others?—Jchthys 14:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

This reinserted entry is a classic reason so much in this article has to go:

"The word "theory" in "the theory of evolution" does not imply doubt in mainstream science regarding its validity; the words "theory" and "hypothesis" are not the same in a scientific context (see Evolution as theory and fact). While "theory" in conventional usage tends to denote a "hunch" or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles which, via logical induction, explains the observations in nature. The same inductive inferences can be made to predict observations before they are made. Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity.^{[citation needed]}"

This just defines "theory" in a scientific sense. Yes many creationists deliberately/ignorantly ignore the precise definition of this word for rhetorical purposes. But this does not make it a "common misconception" (and the entry as stated is problematic -- details of the theory are being changed all the time -- so there is some "doubt" about the full validity and precision of this commonly accepted, by almost all scientists and most educated people, "theory"). Bali ultimate (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the entry is not phrased in the best possible way. However, as you yourself admit, the "evolution is a theory, not a fact" argument is often used to cast doubt on evolution. I'd say that pretty much means it's a common misconception. The entry needs editing, not deletion. Rracecarr (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually believe most of the people who make this argument are playing rhetorical games (that is, they're lying). They know the difference but are seeking to fool what they hope is a gullible audience. Since they have been consistently losing supporters for their position for 50+ years, I see no evidence this is a "common misconception" (by your reasoning, the fact that many crazies believe 9/11 was carried out with fixed explosives by the trilateral commission and the mossad, justifies it's inclusion on this list). In neither case is "common misconception" determined by a reliable source.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right--nothing in this entry (or pretty much any of the others) establishes the percentage of people who believe the falsehood. That is very hard to do in most cases, and is the main difficulty facing this article. Why can't we just decide what content is appropriate for inclusion on the talk page, as would be done on any other article? If deciding what's common by consensus bugs you, the title could be changed, though I don't have a great suggestion for a new one. Rracecarr (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now we agree. "Common" is a vague indefinable term, but seems to imply something like "widely held" or "believed by many." Where we disagree is what defines a category that can be listed. I believe such lists should be specifically definable, and possibly completable (i.e. I have no philosphical opposition to "list of rivers" articles -- they have specific inclusion criteria and are completable). (So do most librarians and people that work in business taxonomy and ontologies.) In the interim, we must find sourcing that somehow supports the "common" part of this. "List of misconceptions" is even more unwieldy. For the moment, i think a few entries like ("Napoleon isn't short" can stay -- there are multiple sources discussing this "misconception." My fact tag there is for the innacurate assertion about the "fact" of the history of "petit corporal" In fact, no one knows why that was his nickname, there are 2-3 other theories for it, none proven, and none of that speculation should be mentioned in this article).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would be on your side. It doesn't make sense to have a list unless there's a way to distinguish definitively between items that belong and those that don't. However, I personally really like this list. When I first came to it I learned that a number of things I had believed were wrong. I know you'll say that that is not relevant, but I've seen a number of posts from other users saying essentially the same thing. To take your example, having heard my whole life about small feisty people with "Napoleon complexes", I had assumed he was short. I'm not very likely to have ever ended up at the Napoleon Bonaparte article, and without this list, I would still not know. It is nice to be able read for 15 minutes and correct several lifelong misconceptions. I certainly would be unlikely to do so randomly surfing wikipedia articles on narrowly defined subjects. Screw policy, screw what wikipedia is not, forget all that rigidity. This list is cool. People like it. It should stay.

On a side note, I think the "petit corporal" bit can go, especially if as you say it might not even be true. The fact that he wasn't short is enough--speculation about how the myth arose is not needed. Rracecarr (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? That is most definitely a common misconception in the US. Many people don't know what "theory" means in a scientific context. Go read Eugenie Scott's book. --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"They know the difference but are seeking to fool what they hope is a gullible audience." It is clear that they have a very attentive audience that is willing to believe the distortion as fact -- thus making it a quite common misconception, albeit a deliberately spread one. Nonetheless, its status as a misconception has to be described as such by sources -- as does every entry in this article.--Father Goose (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Father Goose -- do you have a reliable source to support you contention that this is a "common misconeption?" Your and my opinion about "the truth" in this matter is largely irrelevant.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing on that basis. What I'm saying is, give it time. Good writing takes time. Good research takes time. This article needs quite a bit of work to bring it up to the standards you are demanding. The standards you are suggesting are appropriate. Insisting that the article meet those standards right this instant is not appropriate.

Ask yourself the question, "what work would be needed to make this article the best it could be?" Then be prepared to a) do the work or b) let others do the work, when the time is available to them. Any parts that are clearly worthless can be tossed right away, which you've been doing -- that's fine. I commend you for your contributions. But please chill out a bit more -- don't relax your standards (don't expect Wikipedia to relax its standards), but don't expect the rest of Wikipedia's editors to bring this article up to them right this instant or else!

If anyone's claiming that this article shouldn't be fully sourced, and all entries fully justified, they're wrong, and you, I, and several other editors here will disregard them. Bit by bit, we can turn this into a quite good article. But, please, holster your defensiveness and impatience, so that we can work on this article at a sane pace, and in a civil environment. Okay? Please.--Father Goose (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

I've brought up my concerns about the need for reliable sources to establish the inclusion of items on this list here. [8] Bali ultimate (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long is long enough to ignore sourcing?

Quoting Father Goose from up above: "What I'm saying is, give it time. Good writing takes time. Good research takes time. This article needs quite a bit of work to bring it up to the standards you are demanding.... Insisting that the article meet those standards right this instant is not appropriate." This article has been here for over 5 years. [9]. How much more time should unsourced, largely false information, be allowed to persist, in your opinion? When does an "instant" end?Bali ultimate (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, "largely false"?? Rracecarr (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a fairly elaborate reply to your questions. But ultimately, the right answers are WP:TIND, WP:IMPERFECT, and {{sofixit}}. If you're really so insistent that this article must be fixed right now, then shut up already and get to work. I and others will help you. This endless jawing is taking our time away from actually doing that work.--Father Goose (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes largely false. Most of these things are not by any stretch of the imagination "common misconceptions" (and why are we fighting about this -- they don't have any sources showing that they are, whatever my opinion) so their inclusion here is false, misleading, etc... Furthermore, the whole question of what a common misconception is remains hard to establish. I believe your edit to the lede was helpful "described by multiple reliable sources as widely held by the general populace" but this has set the bar very, very high. The only one on this list i bet you could find multiple reliable sources for (a toilet-reading paper back on a shelf next to "100 Fart Jokes" at the book-store isn't going to cut it) is napoleon wasn't short. The rest of this stuff people don't have beliefs about at all. "During World War II, King Christian X of Denmark did not thwart Nazi attempts to identify Jews by wearing a yellow star himself." Do you think the general populous outside of denmark could even identify King Christian X? of course they can't. As for sofixit, I intend to, but removing unsources material.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Has set the bar very, very high" -- is that a bad thing? I'm pretty sure it's not as high as you think -- though it's certainly higher than it's been so far. Of the handful of entries I've sourced, I have seen that multiple reliable sources do indeed describe the facts in question as widely held misconceptions. One of them, the bit about glass being a liquid, was deleted about a week ago for being slightly contradictory and having imperfect sourcing. As rewritten, it's one of the solidest (pardon the pun) entries on the list -- but if I hadn't been watching the article at the exact moment of its deletion, I wouldn't have known to restore and rewrite it.

Deleting stuff that needs work is counterproductive. If people went through your stuff and deleted anything that was half-finished, you'd tell them to fuck off. It's even more important to not throw out things that are in an imperfect state on Wikipedia, because even if one editor stops working on an article, another will eventually continue with the work, if the article's worth anything at all.

I wouldn't oppose your deleting entries if you made a concerted effort to try to source them first. In fact, that's another thing I'd commend you for, 'cause that's the work that needs to be done. Sources need to be found for every entry on the list. If diligent research turns up nothing to support the claim that a given entry is a "common misconception", then it should be deleted. Like I've pointed out in the past -- and you know it yourself -- deleting things solely on the basis that they're unsourced is not accepted behavior on Wikipedia. So I suggest you stop making empty threats to that effect. I'd especially suggest you not actually follow through on that particular threat. Do do the research if you really want the article to get better.--Father Goose (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted before, most of the items in this article are brief summaries of facts discussed in other, linked Wikipedia articles. The linked articles contain extensive references, which it is not always necessary to copy here. As with many list articles on Wikipedia, this one serves as an index into other articles. --FOo (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is never bad to source things. If the items are sourced in other articles, we should copy those sources into this article. Every article on Wikipedia should be able to stand on its own.--Father Goose (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited entries

Moving uncited entries to here. This may get unwieldy and need to be collapsed or moved to a subpage, but being bold to start. Let's either find citations that demonstrate these are common misconceptions or keep them out of mainspace.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop moving things here. This is counterproductive. Yes, some need referencing. By moving them here, however, you make that more difficult. Editors must now cut and paste these entries back into the mainspace, figuring out which category they fit in, rather than simply adding references. Further, the references that are in these entries are no longer clickable. Worst of all, some of these entries are perfectly well referenced, both for verifiability and as common misconceptions. By moving things here rather than adding fact tags, you are making the article worse and making extra pointless work for other people, same as plain vandalism. Go find a way to actually contribute. Rracecarr (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Do you really think bolding makes your arguments more persuasive? I am contributing by removing unsourced material without prejudice. I understand it's frustrating that establishing something is "commonly misconceived" is so difficult. The burden of providing references is on those wanting to insert people into the encyclopedia, not the other way around when citations do not establish the accuracy of the material.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding doesn't make the argument more persuasive, it makes it easier to spot, so that maybe someone who might mistakenly think that what you are doing is helpful or supported by others will be less likely to contribute to the damage. The way to deal with unsourced info is to TAG it. Give people some time to find refs. And certainly stop removing properly referenced material. Rracecarr (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to deal with unsourced info is to actually research and reference it. It's also the hardest way -- it involves doing actual work. But it's ultimately the only way the enyclopedia gets written.--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest, Bali ultimate, that you take a different approach, namely putting two or three undersourced entries up for inspection at a time, and challenging us to perform some collaborative research on them. Ideally, you should join in on that research as well -- so far, you're not doing much more than proving that you know where the 'delete' button is. There is a point at which such behavior becomes disruptive.--Father Goose (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And i reject your suggestion that I "do what you want." I think there's a point at which ignoring good sourcing, as you are doing, becomes disruptive. I have looked into these. You and I disagree. It's my assertion that insisting on original research to support inclusion in a vague, undefined category (common? now? in the past? Does the definition of commonality shift depending on whether it's physics or history as you appear to be arguing below? How is common defined? How recently most of it have been commonly held? Etc...)is an incorrect approach. No sources, no content. It's generally that simple. This thing has been here for years, and without someone like me it would never improve one iota. It woud just bloat, and bloat, and bloat, as it has been doing for a long time.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've looked into these -- as in, you researched them, and found them to be false (or not described as common)? If so, that's fine: that's what we'll ultimately have to do for every entry in the article. But at least one of the entries you removed, about cold-not-causing-colds, was so trivial to source, I get the sense you didn't research it at all.

I would like to see you add sourcing to any part of the article you think is worth keeping. You're not obliged to do so, but I'd like to see it. Research and writing is ultimately the only thing that makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia. If all anyone ever contributed was "deletions", Wikipedia wouldn't exist at all.--Father Goose (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When floating ice melts, it does not raise the water level (Archimedes' principle). However ice such as glaciers rests on rock, and is held above water: releasing it, or melting raises the level of the water that it is dropped in. The predicted threat of rising sea levels due to global warming is mainly due to the detachment or melting of inland ice, such as that on Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet in Antarctica, the melting of glaciers, and the thermal expansion of seawater. Melting of sea ice in the Arctic makes a tiny contribution, by lowering the global average salinity (and therefore the density) of seawater.^{[citation needed]}
The melting of Antarctic ice is not predicted to be the largest cause of rising sea levels in the near future. The partial melting of Antarctic ice is predicted to be only the fourth-largest potential contribution to sea level rise by the year 2100 (−170 to +20 mm), after thermal expansion of the world's oceans (+110 to +430 mm), melting glaciers (+10 to +230 mm), and melting Greenland ice (−20 to +90 mm).^{[citation needed]}

Koalas are not bears. Koalas belong to the marsupials infraclass of mammals, a separate lineage from the placental mammals of which bears (along with most mammals found outside of Australia and South America, such as rodents, primates, canines, etc.) are members.^{[citation needed]}
The Platypus is often heralded^{[by whom?]} as the only egg-laying mammal. However, there are four species of Echidna, also of the order Monotremata, which also lay eggs.^{[citation needed]}

Throughout most traditions, the Bhagavad Gita is not equivalent to the Christian's Bible in level of scriptural authority. It is considered Smriti (that which is remembered) which is a class of scripture lower in rank than Shruti (what is heard), containing the Vedas. The Bhagavad Gita, though, is considered the most popular.^[3]^{[citation needed]}
Hinduism is considered a family of religions and as such has no concept of God universal to all astika sects. Hinduism is thus not strictly polytheistic across all sampradyas (traditions), but can be pantheistic or panentheistic, or be distinctly henotheistic or monotheistic.^{[citation needed]}
Hindus do not worship "300,000 gods". Someone arranged the various gods that were worshipped in his time in various parts of India, into 30 classes, using a Sanskrit word that means "a class" and also "ten thousand."^{[citation needed]}

The witch-cult hypothesis -- the notion that medieval witch-hunts were the suppression of an ancient pagan religion which had once been common throughout Europe -- is not considered well-supported by modern anthropologists and historians.^{[citation needed]}
Paganism is an umbrella term like Christianity - Lutherans, Catholics, and Protestants are all Christians just like Wiccans, Druids, and Shamans are all Pagans.^[4]^{[citation needed]}
Not all witches practice magick (spelled with a 'k' to distinguish it from stage magic). There are forms of witchcraft that are completely philosophical or religious that exclude any magickal practices.^{[citation needed]}
Plants do not metabolize carbon dioxide (CO₂) directly into oxygen (O₂). Light-dependent reactions capture the energy of light and consume water, producing high-energy molecules and releasing oxygen as a by-product. Light-independent reactions use the high-energy molecules to capture and chemically reduce carbon dioxide, producing carbohydrate precursors and water. See Photosynthesis.^{[citation needed]}
Christopher Columbus was not the first European to discover North America. The earliest physical evidence of European colonization comes from the Norse: Greenland was settled by Icelanders in 984 CE, and a Norse settlement was established at what is now L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland ca. 1000 CE. Scholars are divided on whether Norse explorer Leif Ericson established the L'Anse aux Meadows settlement.^[5]
The Spaniards did not conquer the Aztecs with a "hundred men and a handful of cannons". Although Cortes only brought with him (approximately) 400 soldiers, 100 sailors, and about 10-20 horses,^[6] the conquest of the Aztec was a complicated affair which included thousands of natives who allied themselves to Hernán Cortés and a smallpox outbreak.^[6]
Sarah Palin never claimed to be able to see Russia from her house in Alaska, an attribution to Tina Fey's parody of Governor Palin. She said, in a September 11, 2008 interview with Charlie Gibson: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." In a September 25, 2008 interview with Katie Couric she added: "It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state."^[7] Two islands in the Bering Strait called Big Diomede, which sits in Russian territory, and Little Diomede, which is part of the United States are only separated by about two miles and can be seen from one another. The sea between them freezes in the winter.^[8]^[9]^{[citation needed]}
The trenches on the Western Front in World War I are often said^{[by whom?]} to have stretched "from the frontier of Switzerland to the English Channel". The trenches reached the coast at the North Sea, not the English Channel. In fact much of the British war effort was a bloody but successful strategy to prevent the Germans reaching the Channel.}}^[10]^{[citation needed]}

In the United States, Police are not required by law to immediately give the Miranda warning when arresting a suspect, and the Miranda warning is not given only to suspects under arrest. Rather, according to the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, a suspect in custody or in a custodial situation must be informed of these rights before being subject to interrogation. If the Miranda warning or similar warning is not read, incriminating statements made by the suspect while in custody are not admissible evidence in court.^{[citation needed]}
Another misconception is that opponents of official school prayer are largely atheists. Rather, the plaintiffs in many Establishment Clause cases have been members of a minority religion in that area, such as Jews in Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962) or Catholics in a largely Baptist school district in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe 530 U.S. 290 (2000).^{[citation needed]}

There is no reliable scientific evidence that installing security lighting in outdoor areas actually deters crime; it may actually make crime easier to conceal. For instance, a burglar who is forced to use a flashlight is more easily spotted than one who can see by existing light.^[11]^{[dubious – discuss]}
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.^[12]
The number of megapixels in a digital camera is not a sufficient measure of image quality. The skill of a photographer, the quality of the lens, and the number, size and compression of individual pixels all impact image quality. Most viewers hold contrast, color saturation, and color accuracy to be more important than resolution.^{[citation needed]}
Card counting in the game of blackjack does not allow the card counter to know specifically what cards are going to be dealt, and it does not guarantee positive returns to the card counter in the short term. Counting cards only allows the player to know that the remaining cards in decks will give the players an edge on the house in the up-coming hands (usually only a few percent), and so allowing the players to maximize the projected (not guaranteed) profits from this edge by betting larger amounts.^[13]^{[citation needed]}
It is a common misconception^[where?]^{[by whom?]} that the Scottish Tartan has always identified the clan of the wearer. Tartans were more commonly associated with a region, and it is only in modern times that the connection between a pattern and a clan came into being.^{[citation needed]}
The German crowd witnessing John F. Kennedy's speech in Berlin in 1963 did not mistake Ich bin ein Berliner to mean "I am a jelly doughnut."^[14] It is an incorrect American notion that he should have said "Ich bin Berliner" rather than "Ich bin ein Berliner". Different areas of Germany refer to a jelly doughnut as a Berliner.^{[citation needed]}
During World War II, King Christian X of Denmark did not thwart Nazi attempts to identify Jews by wearing a yellow star himself. Jews in Denmark were never forced to wear the Star of David. The Danish government did help most Jews flee the country before the end of the war.^[15]^{[citation needed]}
Adding salt to water does not make it boil faster; the salt elevates the boiling point of water above the 100 Celsius ( 212 Farenheit ) boiling point of pure water. Furthermore, adding a "pinch" of salt to a pot of water will make little measurable difference.^[16] But salt does make the pot of water boil faster through a process called nucleation where the surface of the salt provides a place where bubbles can form.^{[citation needed]}
Kosher food is not food that has been blessed by a rabbi. It is any food that is not prohibited in the Biblical laws, meets the requirements for slaughter enumerated in the Mishnah (in the case of meat), and is prepared and served in accordance with Jewish law. For kosher certification to be approved, a rabbi or other religious Jew who is well-versed in Jewish law (called a mashgiach) serves as a production supervisor. Jews make individual blessings over the food they eat; there is no blessing said by a rabbi or layman that would make a food kosher.^{[citation needed]}
Former UK prime minister Tony Blair never said that he remembered sitting behind the goal at St James Park watching Jackie Milburn play for Newcastle United. As Milburn retired from football when Blair was four years old and seating was not introduced until the 1990s it was suggested that he lied about it, in an interview in December 1997 with BBC Radio 5 Live, to boost his working class credentials; however he was misquoted, saying his time as a supporter came just after Milburn.^[17]
UK prime minister Gordon Brown never claimed to be a fan of the Arctic Monkeys nor that he wakes up to them. He did say that if they were playing on the radio it would certainly wake him up.^[18]
Peter Mandelson never mistook mushy peas for guacamole. The mistake was made by a young American researcher working for the then Labour leader Neil Kinnock who mischievously attributed the mistake to his colleague Mandelson.^[18]
Modern spacecraft returning from space do not suffer a communications blackout. While the heated atmosphere in front of the spacecraft prevents direct communication with Earth, and in the early days of the space programs of the world indeed meant that no communication was possible during reentry, systems like the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System have removed this problem.^[19]
French fries (or French fried potatoes) did not originate in France. The term comes from frying potatoes in the French method (frire, meaning "to deep fry"). French fries were invented in Belgium.^{[citation needed]}
In the book of Genesis, the serpent in the Garden of Eden is not explicitly identified as being Satan. This is teaching made by later Christians.^{[citation needed]}
The belief that gunpowder, even though it was a Chinese invention, was first used for war by the Europeans is a misconception.^{[dubious – discuss]} The Chinese used flamethrowers and gunpowder arrows for military purposes from the 900s CE onward.^[20]

I found a book which even has a searchable page on Google with the fact mentioned about WW1

WW1 now has a citation I added for it, proving the common misconception. Googling will result in many other cases of that myth, it not just found in one book. I went ahead and deleted the second citation needed, because honestly now, if you don't believe the British trench warfare stopped the Germans from getting to the English Channel in World War 1, you have only to look it up in a damn history book. If someone mentioned that the allies won World War 2, or that the Americans had been the ones to drop a nuclear bomb on the Japanese, then you wouldn't tag it for a reference. Every single sentence ever written does not need a reference. Dream Focus 10:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that citation falls far short of proving "common misconception". These days, i doubt most people have any strong sense, accurate or inaccurate, about the extent of the trenches. You or my opinions don't matter; specific reliable (and multiple, in the case of this list according to the criteria) need to demonstrate it's a "Common" misconception. This does not appear to be established yet.

Nope. I read that page. Nothing was said to support that this is a "common misconception." Said something about the front stretching from the channel to switzerland (and didnt' say this was wrong). The front and the trenches are different things. Snipped the entry up above.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these valid for proof that something is a common misconception?

Are the following valid references to prove something is a common misconception?

Googling the myth in quotations reveals that thousands of people mentioned it, and thus it is common.
Sites like http://www.snopes.com/ that disprove common myths, list it.
The television show Mythbusters disproved it.
Outdated textbooks that showed the incorrect information to millions of school children every year, for the years they were in use.

Dream Focus 10:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's all original research and none of it provides backing for "common misconception". Thousands of people "mentioned" it on google? Were they wondering if something might be true? Were they doubtful that it was true, but wanted to make sure? Does thousands make something a "common misconception." Etc... Mythbusters or snopes disproving something does not say anything about the commonality of a notion (any more than proving that odd jobs hat doesn't work doesn't suggest that most people believe that it would). Snopes "disproves" many things that only a few people believe. Outdated textbooks are also of no use for "common misconception." Every scientific text book from the 19th century will be wrong on many crucial points. But these "misconceptions" have been changed by research and time; no one holds them NOW. Are we to include every mistaken belief ever once held by humanity? Of course not.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the criteria we've adopted, more than one source should identify something specifically as a common misconception (or words to that effect) for it to belong on this list. It won't be enough to provide sources identifying something as a misconception and a bunch of other sources containing said misconception. If it really is a common misconception, there should be a source available that describes it as exactly that. (And hopefully multiple sources that say as much.) Those sources might include Mythbusters or snopes, but only if they actually describe it as commonly-gotten-wrong -- they investigate a lot of uncommon misconceptions (and truths) as well.--Father Goose (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Google results never count, according to general Wikipedia consensus. This is one of the few cases where I think it would be justified. Snopes.com and Mythbusters seem to be of unusually high quality as far as misconception collecting sources go. I think it shouldn't make a big difference whether they say explicitly that something is a common misconception or not, but that's how it is currently handled. Personally I would accept a bit of original research for establishing this, but think we should only include implausible claims about misconceptions held when they come from a very reliable (e.g. scholarly) source.

I cannot think of a better proof that a misconception is common than its appearance in widely circulated school books. Even if the rules for this page say otherwise, that would be a case for WP:COMMON. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the chromosome one, the common misconception about humans and aliens breeding together?

I know a lot of people used to say how stupid it was that in science fiction humans and aliens were somehow able to breed together, do to the chromosomes. They'd often mention that the chromosomes of chimpanzees are very close to humans, and yet the two can't breed. Was that where this misconception came from, or was there something else? We know now that any species advance enough to cross solar systems to get here, would surely have holographic video games, cow mutilation equipment(if that fad is still in style among alien pranksters), and of course, a way to alter genes to genetically engineer a hybrid species, most likely to play holographic video games with them(someone alien enough to relate to the games they play, but not 100% pure alien, so they'd have an easier time beating them, of course). Dream Focus 10:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to address sourcing for "common misconceptoin." Most people probably don't really know what a chromosome is, so i'm having trouble beleiving they have a lot of false beliefs about them based on speculation in science fiction.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

herbal tea is confirmed by looking at ingredients, isn't it?

All true teas, including black, green, and white teas, come from the Camellia sinensis plant. Herbal "teas", such as those made from chamomile, peppermint, or rooibos, usually contain no tea.[citation needed]

I don't know what the most popular brands of herbal tea are, but their ingredients are surely found online, and would confirm what they do or do not have in them. Would linking to a commercial site listing the ingredients be an acceptable reference? Dream Focus 10:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You need to show that there is a common misconception that herbal 'teas' contain tea. pablo_hablo. 11:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has the word tea in it, so people would probably be confused. Most would expect something with "tea" in the title, to actually be "tea". Dream Focus 11:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you can make any assumption about what "most people" would expect. Ever eaten a hot dog? What percentage of dog did it contain? What about toad in the hole? Including an item on this list is effectively an assertion that the item is a common misconception, and that needs referencing. pablo_hablo. 11:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do we distinguish between "tea" and "herbal tea." Seems clear to me that most people know there's a difference. The inclusion of the tea will require multiple reliable sources calling it a "commonm misconception" or words to that effect.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radiometers and bats

I'll allow the bat to stay (though i think that "some" people mistakenly believe some idiocy doesn't make it common). As the radiometer, there is no establishment in the refs provided at all that it's commonly misunderstood. There is no common understanding, correct or otherwise, about "Crooke's Radiometers." Fewer than 1 people in 100 could identify what it is, let alone the correct physics on how it works. Absent refs establishing that there is a "Common misconception" on the radiometer (and I'm giving wide latitude -- i.e. the bats), i'll remove it againBali ultimate (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got a ref to support the claim that fewer than 1 in 100 could identify it? Even if you do, if a significant portion of those believe in an incorrect explanation, it's still a common misconception. The ref says: "To understand why these common explanations are wrong..." My Crooke's radiometer, that I got when I was 10, has an incorrect explanation on the box. The referenced article also points out the the Encyclopedia Britannica gets it wrong. Leave it in. Rracecarr (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No i don't. But do you have a ref that supports there are "common misconceptions" about crooke's radiometers? I mentioned my opinion (do you really think it's unlikely that the vast majority of people have never heard of them) as support for the fact that the removal of this unsourced information wasn't frivulous (far different from, say, demanding a cite for "most people think the sky is blue"). Again, neither your nor my opinion matters of course. Nor does the fact that your radiometer received when you were ten had incorrect information on the box (i'm assuming that was long ago, to boot). This is not a list of Scientific beliefs later proven to be incorrect but a list of what is "commonly misconceived" today. I suspect an RFC is our next stop.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the third, time **Y E S** there is a reference for this being a common misconception. It was already there when you hacked the entry, and I finally cut and pasted some text from it above. Rracecarr (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First -- don't say i've "hacked" the article. You're verging into personal attacks. Second, lets break this one down. These two ^[21]^[22] refer to "competing theories" but not "common misconceptions." This one ^[23] talks about the history of mistaken theories about why it works, up to the current presumed (of course, future research may lead to tweaking the theory again) correct theory. This one ^[24] says nothing about "common misconceptions." This one from britannica, apparently, ^[25], I couldn't get to open. I'll take your word that it outlines a theory that is incorrect. Doesn't sound like it establishes "common misconception" and i'm sure it will be corrected in britanicca as the next update catches up with current science. So, these references all appear useless to me in determining what is or is not a common conception, incorrect or otherwise, about the Crookes radiometer. Reliable sources are not addressing this as provided.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ref I refer to is this one, which you perhaps overlooked. You accusing me of personal attacks is completely laughable, considering your recent edits to your user page. Rracecarr (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, an explanation why theories from the distant past (and were common at those times) have in fact been demonstrated by modern science to be wrong (and in a paper from 12-13 years ago) does not establish a "common misconception." Is he explaining why theories, in a past less informed age, were wrong? Yes. But once more, that does not establish that this is a common and current misconception (if we don't take current into account, this list could be filed with explanations of why phlogiston was wrong, why the humours theory of illness were wrong, while homeopathic magic in general doesn't work, why you can't make a basilisk out of a pile of rooster dung, etc...).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baez: "To understand why these common explanations are wrong..." Physics Begins with Another M--: "The "myths" [section] clears up misconceptions about physics that occur in everyday language." (The "radiation pressure" explanation is given as "Myth #5" in that section.) Instruments of Science describes the "expanding gas" explanation as "usually given to students today". And the Wolfram Demonstrations site says "A number of other defective explanations, which we will not enumerate here, have been popular through the years."

What this amounts to is multiple reliable sources pointing out that there are several common misconceptions about the Crookes Radiometer. The entry now outlines the two that are specifically singled out by the aforementioned sources as common and wrong. I'm hewing to the rule I suggested about needing multiple sources that identify something as a common misconception. (I hope you will not split hairs and insist on seeing those exact two words.) I'm not slapping on sources and claiming "common misconception" according to some personal notion: I'm sticking to exactly what the sources say.

In addition to the sources that specifically identify various explanations as common misconceptions, I used several sources as references for the "correct" explanations provided -- the Scandurra paper, the description of thermal creep, etc. I also provided a link to the actual Britannica article identified by one of the sources as containing a common misconception. These sources are sources for the correct explanations within the article, serving a different role from the sources that specifically call various explanations common and wrong. Okay? So don't jerk me around. I'm here to help fix this article according to standards I believe we both agree upon. Doing this work is time-consuming, and if I'm going to have you second-guessing and nit-picking everything I do (and I am a very careful writer and researcher when it comes to these things), I'm going to have to ask you to fucking stop. I don't need to be dealing with somebody who's in a judgmental and contrarian state of mind. Work with me to improve this article, or go away.

As I have not researched the bats entry yet, I cannot offer an informed opinion about whether or not it belongs.--Father Goose (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again a paper from 12 years ago about misconceptions in the past, when science was less advanced, does not establish a current "common misconception." So you can ask me to "fucking stop" and tell me to "go away" all you want. Your original research and claims are not persuasive to me. I am working to improve this article -- you seek to define my refusal to do what you want as not working to help and call me "contrarian and judgemental." But name calling doesn't make it so. I am in fact demanding iron clad sourcing for rather extraordinary claims (in this instance that anything is "commonly" believed about the physics behind Crookes Radiometers). A discussion of what drives them is well placed in that mechanisms article, as is the evolution of current scientific explanations for what drives them. Absent specific, excellent sourcing that this is a "common misconception" it should go -- and "information" without such sourcing degrades the encyclopedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And look at this garbage that's just accreted here [10]. Do either of you two agree that an egg can only be balanced on end one day a year is commonly held?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of that one myself, but snopes seems to indicate that it is somewhat common.Rracecarr (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it, many times. We still need to improve the sourcing, but I have cause to believe such sourcing will be found.--Father Goose (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of mine who own chickens said they performed that feat last Friday (first day of spring), so yes, it is common (though it still needs sourcing, I suppose).—Jchthys 14:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject:

Rracecarr and Father Goose have the right idea. A common misconception a dozen years ago is still a common misconception - especially because the people who learned those misconceptions are still around, and haven't been exposed to updates. In this way, a misconception is like a meme; even if current knowledge about how a radiometer works differs from knowledge of a decade ago, people with the older knowledge still spread it around.

This is one of those things that may be transitioning away from the "common" attribute, but right now I'd say it qualifies. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be not-so-common in the sense that Crookes radiometers are not terribly common in the first place. Nonetheless, I owned one as a kid, and the explanation I received was the incomplete "gas expansion on the black side" one. I am obviously not making the claim that my personal experience is proof of anything. I am however making the claim that -- per the criterion I believe we agreed upon -- multiple sources claim that the "radiation pressure" and "expanding gas" explanations are common (and wrong), meaning the entry passes the threshold of inclusion for this article. I almost get the sense that Bali is arguing that it doesn't belong here because of his personal judgment that Crookes radiometers are some obscure thing. If that's the case, he would be the one engaging in original research. If he were willing to stick to the sources, I think we could end our disagreement over this entry.--Father Goose (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ 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)
^ Heart of Hinduism: Hindu Sacred Books
^ All About Spirituality - Paganism
^ "Leif Erikson (11th century)". BBC. Retrieved April 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
^ ^a ^b Empires Past: Aztecs: Conquest
^ "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/25/eveningnews/main4479062.shtml". 25 September 2008. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
^ Nina Shen Rastogi (September 15, 2008, accessdate=18 February 2009). "Can You Really See Russia From Alaska?". Slate. Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing pipe in: |date= (help)
^ http://www.pbs.org/harriman/current/profiles/diomede.html
^ The Complete Idiot's Guide to World War I page 161 [1]
^ "Our Far-flung Correspondents: The Dark Side". New Yorker.
^ "How Night Vision Works". How Stuff Works.
^ Card counting 101
^ Ich bin ein Pfannkuchen. Oder ein Berliner?
^ Snopes on Denmark
^ http://itotd.com/articles/521/water-freezing-and-boiling-myths/
^ "Blair football 'myth' cleared up". BBC.co.uk. Retrieved 2008-12-15.
^ ^a ^b "Hague's baseball cap, Mandelson's mushy peas: True tales or just great political myths". Daily Mail. Retrieved 2008-12-15.
^ Shuttle Blackout Myth Persists, MRT Mag. Retrieved 18 March 2008.
^ Gunpowder and Firearms
^ http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0402011
^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997APS..PC...J206K
^ [2]
^ [3]
^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/489199/radiometer#ref76722

Einstein/God entry

This is a problematic entry. Researching it, from what I can tell, he was neither religious nor an atheist, though that doesn't necessarily make him a deist either. The best we could do is factually describe "what other people think Einstein thought", though that still wouldn't be a factual statement about Einstein's beliefs proper. Probably best to remove it.--Father Goose (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I basically rescued all the entries deleted outright by Pablomismo, because it was clear he made no effort to check on their validity, and I did not want possibly valuable entries to be lost too far back in the history. I decided, subjectively, which entries looked plausible and which looked dubious, and I restored the former (including Einstein) to the article, and moved the latter to talk. I have not researched the Einstein question, and it is quite possible the entry does not belong. I restored everything to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

This is anecdotal, but I have certainly heard Einstein quotes such as "God does not play dice" used as 'proof' that maybe the most famous scientist ever believed in God, which is at least a misuse of his words, if not a misconception. Rracecarr (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I attempted to check that these were "common misconceptions", and I can't see why you would assume otherwise. I removed them when I was unable to find sources. I stopped when I saw that another user was moving contentious material to the talk page, which struck me as a better way of trimming down the page to some entries which could be shown to be common misconceptions. pablo_hablo. 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You either didn't try very hard at all, or you are not very good at finding references, or you are applying an unreasonably high standard. The William Henry Harrison entry, or the Columbus/flat Earth entry are both easy to source, for example. Rracecarr (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just the normal standard - if it's unreasonably high for this article then so be it. pablo_hablo. 20:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not criticizing the restoration, or even the removal, of any entries in general: I'm just examining this one about Einstein's beliefs. We can't simply say that he did believe in God or that he didn't; the entry makes the cramped claim that he didn't believe in a "personal God" -- but what does that mean, really, and what misconception does it dispel? It isn't precisely a cut-and-dried fact in the first place. His beliefs are the topic of much debate. Therefore, I think it doesn't belong on a "common misconceptions" page. We should limit ourselves to "common misconceptions" where there's an uncontroversially correct explanation.

In light of that, should we retain this entry?--Father Goose (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. As you say, Einstein's religious beliefs are debatable, and this together with the fact that there is no common conception about them makes this a spectacularly bad candidate for this list. pablo_hablo. 06:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the argument that we can't say he didn't believe in a personal God. Of course, the ultimate source on that is the man himself, and here is a direct quote: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." (italics added). As far as I can see, this quote alone establishes the truth of the entry, and even goes part way to establishing it as a common misconception. To be clear, I'm not crazy about the entry myself, but I don't think it's the worst on the list. Rracecarr (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could say "Einstein did not believe in a personal God", but is that the misconception? We have to find sources that make it clear just what the actual "popular misconception" is about Einstein.--Father Goose (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

There is no source given for the claim that gunpowder being a European invention is a common misconception. In Germany it is one of the standard examples (together with porcelain and many other, less standard examples) that are mentioned frequently in connection with the generally accepted wisdom that "most" (possibly a common misconception?) inventions were made in China first. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a way to tag a statement that is made only implicitly, by saying true things in a context which suggests that anybody doesn't know them. But who, I ask, other than perhaps small children, really believes that chamomile or peppermint infusion contain anything of the tea plant? In German and perhaps some other languages, "tea" has become a generic word for infusions. Perhaps someone has take this as an indication that Germans believe chamomile infusion is tea in the English sense of the word? For roiboos it seems to be only slightly less outrageous. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "common misconception" comes even close to being a good term for a belief in the bizarre connection between eggs and the first day of spring. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about sparkling wine and teaspoons is reasonable, so I don't want to tag it just because I can't check whether the book it is sourced to bases this on a scientific test or merely on authority. However, I remember reading somewhere that this is actually true in case of a metal spoon which is partially immersed in the wine, because the metal conducts heat and makes the wine reach the fridge temperature earlier. I don't know how plausible that is, and I can't find my source right now, but perhaps somebody is interested in pursuing this. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about mirrors supposedly not inverting left and right is pedantic hair-splitting unworthy of an encyclopedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see nothing close to a common misconception in the passage about Mount Everest. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In common parlance, "desert" means "dry desert", in the sense of no water being present. Areas covered by ice obviously need not apply. Therefore the Sahara being the largest desert is not a misconception but merely an example of scientific terminology being inconsistent with the plain sense of the words it borrows from normal language. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.tv is, of course, a de facto domain for TV-related websites, so it's hard to see where the supposed misconception comes in. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet waste dumped overboard in an aircraft? Really? Who believes that? --Hans Adler (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few people actually. I used to work for an airline and it's something people do bring up from time to time. I've also heard it brought up in complaints from people living near airports. To someone in the know, it sounds ridiculous, but that's what this article is for. I've restored the entry. Rpvdk (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These guys are arguing up above that there are "common" beliefs about "crookes radiometers," misconceived or not, and will breach the removal of almost any of this unsourced, original research. It's a thorny problem to be sure. I agree and endorse yoru analysis of the entries you've just summarized.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Everest entry doesn't correct a misconception. People think it's the tallest mountain, and by the most common definition, it is. It seems more like "people don't realize there are other possible ways to define the height of a mountain" which is not really a misconception. Rracecarr (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eggs

I removed the following nonsense, and Father Goose added it again:

It is true that you can balance an egg on its end on the vernal equinox (the first day of spring); however, you can also accomplish this delicate feat on any other day.

OK, my edit summary calling this a "hoax" was misleading. But the two references given do not support the idea that this is a common misconception. One source says it is a "quaint superstitious belief, most often attributed to the Chinese". In other words: People like to claim that somebody, somewhere remote, believes in this. The other source says: "This has to be one of the silliest misconceptions around, and it never seems to die. Every year, without fail, some TV station broadcasts a news segment showing local schoolchildren standing eggs on end on the first day of spring." In other words, the source really claims only that some TV programmes try to spread this myth. There is no evidence that they are successful, and it seems very unlikely.

The extraordinary claim that this is a common misconception requires extraordinary proof, which has not been presented. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ("The rage spread across the Western world"; "One reason this myth is so popular".) But please, man, do a bit of research before you remove any more entries. You should be as skeptical of your own state of knowledge as you are toward the entries in this list.--Father Goose (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this after you told me "C'mon, do some research", and I explained exactly why your sources don't prove what you think they prove. The principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is fairly well established on Wikipedia. The claim that anyone actually believes that nonsense (as opposed to people claiming it on TV, or writers of silly "popular misconceptions" compilations including it for completeness and entertainment value) surely is extraordinary. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem extraordinary to me. Do you really think that the people who make these claims on TV and in books are deliberately lying, or that their viewers aren't fooled? Those would seem to be incompatible beliefs; even if there was a benefit to deliberately lying (increased book sales, say) it would only work if people believed the lie. The egg-balancing claim seems preposterous to you and me because it doesn't make sense that there would be a sudden discrete change in egg-balancing behavior with a duration of one day. But most people don't understand that. Look at the similar claim that the Coriolis force controls the direction water drains in a tub. A guy in Kenya has a rigged demonstration where he walks a few feet across the supposed location of the equator and shows the water draining in opposite directions. Even if you knew nothing about the Coriolis effect you ought to see that it's not going to change discontinuously across some precise dividing line on an object the size of the Earth. Yet Michael Palin was suckered by this, as was anyone at the BBC who vetted his program. Huge numbers of people believe the most ridiculous things. I don't think that's an extraordinary claim. -- BenRG (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that you believe in the egg nonsense although actually you don't is no different from claiming you hold religious beliefs that you actually don't. This is very widespread behaviour, as you can observe in the large number of nominal Christians who go to church once or twice a year and have their children baptised, although they have only very fuzzy, if any, religious beliefs. It simply doesn't occur to the people in question that you could refer to a misrepresentation about their state of mind on such an irrelevant topic (egg balancing or religion) as "lying". Only when you make it very clear that you are not asking in an entertainment (for eggs) or ceremonial (for religion) context but that you genuinely want to know what they believe will they give you the true answer. But if you merely interview them after a show, or ask them to say the credo in church, they will make sure not to spoil your game. I am sure sociologists and ethnologists already have a rich literature about how such pretended beliefs contribute to a group identity or whatever the purpose they serve. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the egg idiocy is "commonly believed" is not established by these sources and is in fact laughable on its face. The sources just aren't there (the fact that people like to play a pleasant little game once a year is no more evidence of this then a claim that "the belief stepping on a crack will break your mothers back is, in fact, false. Scientific research shows that rates of back-cracking among mothers are the same for both cohorts of crack-steppers, and those who are diligent in enver stepping on cracks).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to mark inclusion of an entry as disputed?

I cannot find a specific template for this. Since entries on this list do not have a heading and most do not state explicitly that what they describe is a common misconception, there is no place to put a "fact" or "dubious" tag. It's very frustrating when removal of obviously bogus information is reverted and you can't even tag it to draw other editors' attention to the problem. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're questioning that the entry as a whole is a "common misconception" add either {{cn}} or {{dubious}} to the end, and better still, raise your doubts on the talk page. Or research it yourself, and tell us what you found (or didn't find).--Father Goose (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these tags are normally used only to tag the statements which they follow. In the case of this list often the statements are OK, but they shouldn't be on the list. You are not addressing this problem. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others have started addressing the problem by adding explicit statements of the type "this is a common misconception" so that they can tag them. This is certainly an option, but it feels a bit strange to add a statement that you feel is wrong merely so that you can tag it. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herbal tea

I removed the following entry, and Father Goose reinstated it:

All true teas, including black, green, and white teas, come from the Camellia sinensis plant. Herbal "teas", such as those made from chamomile, peppermint, or rooibos, usually contain no tea.

Like the entry claiming that the Sahara being the greatest desert is a misconception, this seems to be another instance of the popular misconception that words have a unique meaning, and that subject experts control this meaning. Another example for such a misconception is all the nonsense (not yet on this page) surrounding the natural language word "weight", the word used for it in physics ("mass"), and the different but related concept in physics which unfortunately is called "weight" as well.

Since so many get this wrong, a few people claiming that this is a misconception is not convincing at all. After all, they are obviously wrong. It is a matter of our editorial discretion that we need not and should not repeat incorrect claims merely because they can be sourced.

The following is from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Tea ... 5. Used as a general name for infusions made in the same way as tea (sense 2), usually from the leaves, blossoms, or other parts of plants; mostly used medicinally, sometimes as ordinary drinks.

The first source given for this usage is from 1665/1666.

An encyclopedia article about common misconceptions that perpetuates common misconceptions is a disgrace. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case I wasn't clear enough: There is no evidence that people using the word in this way do anything but abbreviate herbal tea to "tea". If we leave this in without much better evidence for a belief that there are tea leaves in herbal teas, I will feel justified to propose the following entry:

Although human feces are also called "stool", their only relation to chairs is via stool-shaped toilets, which were once popular.

--Hans Adler (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am obviously not the only who thinks this is silly. See #herbal tea is confirmed by looking at ingredients, isn't it? above. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have agreed that the right way to keep this list focused and factual is to insist that all entries have sources, and even to insist that all entries have multiple sources specifically identifying the "misconception" as "common" (or words to that effect). Insisting on rigorous sourcing is a Good Thing. But it goes both ways -- and this is also a Good Thing: you can't say I believe this is untrue, if you're contradicting what the sources say, any more than you can say I believe this is true without providing sources to back it up. If you can provide sources that themselves claim that something normally held to be a "common misconception" is itself a misconception, then we can shoot the entry down (or maybe even document the misconception-within-a-misconception).--Father Goose (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly normal on Wikipedia that we discount sources as unreliable, or as unreliable for a specific purpose, or even for a specific statement. One reason to do so is if the statement for which the source serves is verifiably wrong. In this case the claim that it is a "misconception" (common or not) is contradicted by the Oxford English Dictionary, which is clearly more reliable than random websites of tea enthusiasts and the like. Of course OED doesn't say that the claim that the "misconception" is not one; we need to use our brains to see this. This arguably disqualifies OED as a source for saying that it is not a misconception. But it's still perfectly OK as a strong reason to remove this entry. It's a popular misconception that questionable factoids cannot be removed from a Wikipedia article merely because they are backed by a technically reliable source.

There are thousands of misconceptions that could be on this list; it will never contain all of them. Why are you wikilawyering to keep a questionable one on it? --Hans Adler (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've deflated the OED argument yourself, so I won't go into that. You are right that just because something is sourced doesn't mean we have to include it on Wikipedia. But once we open the door to "I think this isn't a popular misconception, regardless of what the sources say", we open the door to huge, unresolvable fights over individual entries based on personal taste. And knowing how some people are, it's going to be over almost every. Single. Fucking. Entry. Let's avoid that, please. We've agreed to a pretty stringent objective standard for inclusion. Let's stick to it to inform us both what belongs on the list and what doesn't.

I don't think the list is going to get as bloated as you seem to fear. It's been around for five and a half years and it's still only a bit above 100 entries. It'll probably drop lower still as we cross-examine each entry against the new rigorous sourcing requirement. Positively stupid entries like "chairs are not poop" will never meet the sourcing standard and will not appear on the list. But if it does ever get up to 200 or 300 entries, we'll split it into List of common misconceptions about science, List of common misconceptions about religion, List of common misconceptions about history, and so on.

Letting the sources dictate both what gets removed from and what gets included on this list is the path of least drama for everyone concerned. Okay? Please?--Father Goose (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not OK because the sources used for this list tend to be sub-standard. How can you argue for including something if it's painfully obvious that it's not even a misconception? "Chamomile infusion is a kind of tea." The only thing that is wrong about this sentence is the claim that "tea" can only mean "tea (OED definition #1)", but never "tea (OED definition #5)". --Hans Adler (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, thank you for rewriting and sourcing the "snow words" entry. I'm getting a little ticked off by people who are just here to pass judgment on the article and give it a death by 1000 cuts. I'm encouraged when others pitch in with the work that's needed to actually build it up into a good article.--Father Goose (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that you are angry about people attacking the list by different means after the AfD failed. I argued for deletion because I think such a list has no place in an encyclopedia. I must and do accept, for the moment, that there was no consensus for deletion (the closing statement "keep" by the admin was clearly wrong IMO). One of my reasons for deleting this list (this one obviously not policy-based) was that it is a cruft-magnet. And this is exactly what I am addressing. The misconceptions about snow words, or "Allah" referring only to the Muslim god, are unquestionably common and worth debunking. But the list loses a lot of its value if such serious entries are mixed with "misconceptions" that are only repeated because of their entertainment value, and others which far from being misconceptions are actually true. We all like to think that others are wrong about something, that's why there are so many sloppy books about popular misconceptions. But an encyclopedia is not the place to be sloppy. If you want that, you should really consider using a different site such as WikiBooks, where fishy misconceptions are much less likely to be deleted. If you start a WikiBook with the collection from this list, you can even get it linked with a nice big template from misconception (and of course from this list, but I am fairly sure it's not going to survive in the long run). --Hans Adler (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the distinction between "Tea" and "Herbal Tea" is well understood and not commonly misunderstood (after all, they have distinctive names even). That tea is used as a catch-all term for infusions is not a misconception. IT was just readded -- along with an odd claim about sushi [11]; I think the japanese and the asian cultures that have close contact with them, at least, are well aware of the difference.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sushi

I don't know about the tea. But the sushi entry is a common misconception. Did you even do a cursory search? Obviously not. Google "sushi fish misconception". There are THOUSANDS of references. What is your problem?? Rracecarr (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that if a few people in America or the UK don't speak and fully understand japanese, that is not sufficient to determine "common misconception." NO ONE in japan misunderstands the distinction between the two. And what does sushi mean anyways? -- "Usually raw, but sometimes cooked, fish on top of rice." That the ill-informed generally think of raw fish when thinking of suchi is largely correct.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have just readded tea and sushi rracecarr. That (depending on how you count it) has you at 3rr or perhaps at 4rr (since the first revert was actually to undo the removal of sushi by me, and the removal of tea by someone else. Just letting you know.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And rracecar, calling me a vandal [12] is innapropriate and I ask you to desist. Focus on the content, and drop the ad hominems against me (or anyone else who might not agree with you). Bali ultimate (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. How can you possibly think that because people in Japan know what sushi is, it follows that there can't be a misconception about it in other parts of the world? And I am not at 3rr. 1 edit cannot count as 2 reverts (anyway your claim in that regard is false--it was 1 "undo" reverting an edit by you in which you deleted two entries). Further, 2 consecutive edits that could have been accomplished at once do not count as 2 reverts. And stuff it with the personal attack complaints until you take down the ones on your user page. Rracecarr (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the working definition of "common" as applied to "misconceived?" I lived in southeast and north asia for many years. Quite a few people live in that area. I would hazard a guess that very, very few do not understand the difference between sushi and sashimi. I am perfectly willing to accept that some americans, for instance, do not fully understand this difference. I assert 1. that is insufficient to make something "common." 2. A failure to fully grasp the meaning of a word in a foreign tongue, while being in the right ball park, isn't a a misconception.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Americans, at least, think that if it ain't raw fish, it ain't sushi. That's a misconception. There are plenty of sources on the web describing it as a common misconception. Incidentally, your definition "Usually raw, but sometimes cooked fish on top of rice" is incomplete. There need not be fish at all. Rracecarr (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK sushi refers to the preparation and type of rice(vinegared), I think for each of the misconceptions we will be able to pick out a subpopulation for whom it is not a common misconception, I can tell you from anecdotal evidence that many Thais have no idea that sushi is not raw fish. Unomi (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In America, we call raw fish sushi. Do they label things in the stores in this country "sushi" which is anything other than raw fish? Ketchup in America always means tomato ketchup, while the word ketchup in other nations can mean any of a variety of things. Words have different meanings in different nations. Dream Focus 12:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I am not concerned about this entry. Obviously the raw fish is the most interesting feature of sushi for Western people. Therefore a semantic split of the English word "sushi" cbetween the original meaning and the raw fish meaning is an inevitable, natural process. It seems that the raw fish meaning hasn't reached the dictionaries yet, and therefore the entry seems to be correct, albeit slightly pedantic. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors

I removed the following entry from the article, and Father Goose reinstated it:

It is not true that a mirror reverses left and right. It actually inverts front and back. The left and right sides of a person's mirror image seem to be reversed because we are actually accustomed to everyone else's left and right being reversed when they turn around to face us. If, instead of rotating on the spot to face us, people instead flipped over into a handstand, we would see their left and right remain the same, but their top and bottom being reversed from our own. The mirror image faces us without its left and right or top and bottom being reversed in this sense, which is why it is the reverse of what everyone else sees when they look at us. Another way to understand this is the following. The misconception arises because one compares the image in the mirror to an object already 180° rotated around a vertical axis on the plane of the mirror, and then notices a left-right reverse. However, if one takes this (subconscious) rotation also into account, the rotation plus the left-right reverse together actually mean a front-back inversion. (Image a rubber mask being pushed inside-out, as opposed to being turned around.)

My edit summary was: "rm mirror inversion - as the article makes clear, this is merely pedantry, ignoring the fact that left-right inversion is the *normal* way for humans to express orientation inversion". "The article" referred to the first source, which is a psychological article published in a physics journal by a biologist. Father Goose added an off-line source which I cannot check, and which he claims specifically states this is a popular misconception.

The new source may claim this is a popular misconception, but it's obviously not true. Nobody in their right mind thinks that left and right are reversed in a mirror in the literal sense in which it would be a misconception. If I touch a mirror with my right hand, then obviously what I touch is not the mirror image of my left hand. If we say that left and right are reversed, we mean that if the mirror image was a real person, this person would have their heart on the right side of the body.

If we want to argue on the pedantic level that makes reversal of left and right a misconception, then the claim "It actually inverts front and back." is another misconception. After all, if we are not allowed to rotate our mirror image by 180 degrees before comparing, there is no reason why we should be allowed to shift it so that its centre of gravity coincides with our own. What the mirror really does is a reflection (mathematics). --Hans Adler (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mirror is back in - it was re-added, i removed (with a mistake in the edit summary; wrote "refraction" when i should have wrote "reflection". Oh, the horror), and it has again been readded. I suppose I'm at my limit for removing unsourced claims. At any rate, i concur with Hans analysis here. It should go.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mirror entry, while a little quirky, may belong in the list. People see a left-right inversion because they typically rotate around a vertical axis to turn around (face backward). If people typically rotated about a horizontal axis, somersault-style, to turn around, always keeping, say, their right side to the north, mirrors would seem to invert things top-to-bottom. Thus the common belief that mirrors flip things left-right isn't strictly true. Rracecarr (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not belong in the list. It's not just that it contains false statements, as I explained above. Someone would have to be exceptionally stupid to believe that a mirror flips left and right in the sense in which it would be false. This is simply a question of how we express a complex idea. If this is a misconception, then surely another misconception is that capitals have voices and can speak ("London announced that..."), and the only reason we can't include it is that nobody called it one. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "misconception" here, at all, and it should go.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usual form of this puzzle is the question "why does a mirror reverse left and right rather than top and bottom?" or, to put it another way, "why are reflected images flipped horizontally rather than vertically?" The answer, of course, is that they aren't. Many (even most) people have trouble seeing this, from which I conclude that "mirrors flip horizontally and not vertically" is a common misconception and this item ought to be in the article. Maybe it needs rewording, but there's a real point of confusion to clear up here. -- BenRG (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is some confusion here, but it's not on the level where the entry claims it is. If you ask, how can an entire city like London negotiate with another city like Paris, then people will say, it's just a manner of speaking. If you ask, why does a mirror exchange left and right rather than top and bottom, then they will go, waaah!, complicated physics question!, I have no idea, instead of giving the same answer. The problem is that we can't say this, because we don't seem to have the necessary sources to support the correct interpretation. Most sources treat it as a problem of physics, which is exactly the misconception. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general problem here is that low-quality sources are much more likely to say that something is a misconception than high-quality sources. And since it is hard to find out, rather than postulate, whether something really is a common or popular misconception, this particular claim makes it even less likely that the source is good. Therefore this article's criteria have a strong bias towards "reliable sources" of the lowest quality. If an amateur interviewed by a local newspaper talks about a potential "misconception", they are much more likely to call it a [common] misconception than a scholarly article discussing the same topic. Hastily written compilations of "misconceptions" for the mass market make the problem even worse. As a result, we are technically able to reproduce popular misconceptions about "misconceptions", but unable to debunk them.

Here is a good example demonstrating how these pseudo-misconceptions arrive: [13]. It's a typical situation where an amateur who advocates a specific non-standard use of language ("tea" can only refer to products of the tea plant, and "herbal tea" needs scare quotes) is interviewed for edutainment. The format is that of a journalist interviewing an expert, but that's just a game. The non-standard language use serves to mark the distinction between the "expert"'s group (tea enthusiasts) and the rest of the world, but especially the enemy group (herbal tea advocates). An encyclopedia is not the place to take such sources seriously. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't provide a reliable source to show that another reliable source is wrong (about the explanation or about its being called a "common misconception"), then the inclusion criteria for this list will not be source-based, but editor-opinion-based, and just about every single idiot in the universe will come by to offer his or her opinion about every single misconception.

This is a horrifying prospect.--Father Goose (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have a choice between going through all these discussions, even doing that on a page that collects supposedly scientific statements about random fields, with the consequence that for every individual entry only very few, if any, experts watch it. Or simply making false claims. WP:V says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." There is a subtle reason for the word "threshold" here, rather than "standard": If we can formally verify something, but we know it's not true, then obviously we must not claim it since that would be lying. See also WP:Editorial discretion. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about evaluating the merits of one source against another, then sure; if you're talking about evaluating ostensibly reliable sources against nothing more than personal opinion, that's an abandonment of WP:V -- not "editorial discretion". I can't accept the latter, and I doubt the rest of Wikipedia will either.--Father Goose (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you really don't understand WP:V. This policy says what we must not include even if we want to. It does not tell us to include something that we don't want to. (I just double-checked this; I couldn't find a single sentence in WP:V that can be read as an obligation, or even an encouragement, to include something.) "Reliable sources" are full of lies and bullshit (the latter in Harry Frankfurt's technical sense of the word, see On Bullshit). Articles normally focus on a specific field, and editors with knowledge of the field, along with some others, decide what goes into the article and what doesn't. This system obviously breaks down under the special conditions of the present list.

To come back to the topic that started this thread: If you really believe that many people who say that mirrors exchange left and right actually believe that they see the mirror image of their left hand on the right hand side and vice versa, then you have yet to tell us so. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know if people believe that or not. People believe such jaw-droppingly stupid things in this world. I know that my belief of what they believe (or ought to believe) isn't worth a hill of beans. There's a difference between my personal view that "obviously it doesn't reverse left and right" and "obviously nobody else could believe that".

I'm prepared to let sources be the authorities on whether "people believe things". And to let the list be a list of "things people have claimed are popular misconceptions". I know not to insist that it be a list of "things that are definitely and quantifiably popular misconceptions". That would force all of us opinionated fucktards here on the talk page to wrangle over the "truth" of each and every entry. I of course include myself in the list of fucktards.

That approach will be perpetually unworkable. I bleed from several orifices at the very prospect of it. What we can do in a factual and consistent manner, however, is to note what several reliable sources have called "common misconceptions", without interjecting any personal opinion as to whether or not those sources are wrong. (If other reliable sources contradict them, then we have to figure out what weight to accord to each source, taking into account the context and overall reliability of each source's statements.)--Father Goose (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for this article.

It's obvious that this article will generate continual disagreement if there is no guideline accepted by consensus, with, then the consensus being a matter of dissent and reconsideration. The stronger the consensus on the guideline, the less fruitless discussion there will be.

There was a proposed guideline at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_3#guidelines_for_.22common_misconceptions.22. It should be read and used as a basis. Because I'm in a hurry, I'm not referring to it, but am making some comments myself that would properly be integrated with it.

The topic should be notable, which for our purposes can be evidenced by a Wikipedia article that is standing.
The misconception and the correction should be covered in the article. Can't get it there, not appropriate here.
The misconception should be supported by multiple reliable sources, I'd set a standard of at least three, but two might be adequate. One could be adequate if it is a reliable source asserting that the misconception is common, but I'd still prefer to see a confirmation showing the misconception as actually being held and asserted, which is then a primary source confirming that the misconception isn't just a Straw man.
The correction should be supported by:
1. source of higher quality, or
2. more recent and more informed source, of equal quality, not contradicted by newer independent sources.

If we can agree on the standards, then specific inclusions become a matter of checking off the list. Whatever agreement is found here should be documented for future editors of this article. --Abd (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the grounds that notability doesn't limit article content and being supported by the reliable sources required on the third line pretty much proves notability anyway so i think that line is redundant. I think higher quality sources are a definite plus for the article rather than 'did you know' article and tv shows. I think also we have to say strictly no original research. No finding your own misconceptions. etc. --neon white talk 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those criteria sound good to me. I would start by removing any "citation needed" examples. If there is no source given for an example in a list like this, it shouldn't stay in the article waiting for a reference. --hippo43 (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're actually pretty much going by these standards at this time. As stated in the lead, it's a list of "various ideas described by multiple reliable sources as widely held, but which are false, misleading or otherwise flawed".

I personally have been treating this as "at least two sources that specifically identify something as a 'common misconception', though not necessarily in those exact words". This is more rigorous than "show multiple sources getting this wrong"; that still doesn't necessarily demonstrate that it's a common misconception, or even, for that matter, a misconception.

Unfortunately, people haven't been abiding by this yet. Some editors have tried to remove entries that are sourced, per the above criteria, quite soundly, but that they still contend are "not common misconceptions". A subset of these disputes relate to entries that are more misnomers than misconceptions; I proposed elsewhere that we transfer those ones to List of misnomers, since it's easy to find a dictionary somewhere that treats a technically incorrect name as colloquially correct (such as spiders being insects).

The points you proposed relating to "these misconceptions must be described in other articles on Wikipedia as well" is not the best of ideas, because people can just edit them into those articles, making the requirement toothless. (And it would possibly initiate edit wars across many articles originating from disputes over this one.) External sourcing is the best discriminator for inclusion and exclusion from this list.

While I agree with removing all entries that don't meet the sourcing criteria, I don't support removing all unsourced or undersourced entries immediately -- just the really dubious ones. "Give people time to find sources for plausible information" is a widely held tenet on Wikipedia. We've only adopted the "strict" criteria recently, so it'll take some months before we can properly vet every entry.--Father Goose (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support removing all unsourced material from this article. This article has been here 5 years, and material can be added IN when it's properly sourced not KEPT in the hopes that sourcing will eventually be found at some point in the indeterminate future. The burden of proof is on inclusion, never the other way around.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you should immediately remove all unsourced facts from the encyclopedia. The community doesn't need to be told yet another time that this is your view -- you're just looking dogmatic at this point. What we need is action! Don't waste another minute!--Father Goose (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is totally incorrect (perhaps a common wikipedia misconception ;)) ascording to WP:V policy unsourced info should be removed. Refer to the Jimmy Wales quote at Wikipedia:V#Burden of evidence. I think this is pertinent to this article more than any i've previously dealt with. --neon white talk 08:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced info should be removed, yes, but not necessarily immediately. In keeping with the principle that Wikipedia is not perfect, unsourced-but-plausible info is generally given some latitude before the aforementioned burden is imposed. No latitude is offered within BLPs, nor to anything that is obvious crap. And the higher the overall quality of the article, the more likely unsourced bits will be removed on sight. But there's not much of an improvement to speak of when an undersourced but decent article is whittled down to a nub, albeit a fully sourced one. Doing that holds up the process of article improvement. The real improvement in such cases comes from adding sources, not reflexively removing unsourced info.--Father Goose (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unsourced information from articles IS article improvement, particularly when sources have not been found for years.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is incorrect, we do not leave info or tag it because we believe it may be correct but when we expect a source to be forthcoming in the near future. --neon white talk 05:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I challenge you to delete all unsourced information from every Wikipedia article you encounter, forthwith. And if you find that doesn't meet with a positive response, I suggest you take up the issue at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.--Father Goose (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start with this one article that i'm focused on at the moment (though i of course remove unsourced crap from articles all the time) but know full well that you will stand in the way of removing inappropriate, unsourced information. Edit warring with you won't get me anywhere by myself. Yes, there are many bad articles on Wikipedia. But using this as an argument to not improve this one (by removing unsourced information that doesn't belong here) has to be among the most lame and pathetic arguments i have ever heard for allowing unsourced garbage to remain in an article. If you can't make a better case, consensus will eventually move strongly against you on this one ("I feel it belongs" type arguments don't withstand real scrutiny for long). Believe me.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I feel it doesn't belong (because I say it's not a common misconception even though several sources say it is)" also doesn't withstand scrutiny.

It was my hope to source every entry on this list over the next several months. (And to remove any entry for which I couldn't find sources.) Unfortunately, my attempts to fully source the article have come to a crashing halt as a result of you and others removing entries on the basis of your personal opinions, in defiance of sourcing that supports all factual statements as well as the claim that the entry is a "common misconception".

I can't keep working on it if people are deleting stuff according to personal opinion even after it's been properly researched and sourced. That problem has to be addressed before any kind of constructive work can proceed.--Father Goose (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can add examples when you find the sources. WP:V policy has absolutely nothing to do with personal opinions. It's community consensus and the only place it cannot be addressed is at the village pump. --neon white talk 05:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centrifugal force

I have reverted good faith edits by Ozdoc. They were incorrect. Rracecarr (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they were correct, but the entry can't stay as it is. Ozdoc rewrote the following entry (with edit summary "actually a real force, in the reference frame of the accelerated object"):

(version before Ozdoc's edit) There is no such thing as centrifugal force, or a force that pushes outward while an object is undergoing circular motion. What many people confuse for centrifugal force is actually just inertia, because the object in motion wants to maintain its velocity and move in as direction tangent to the path of its circular motion. The force people often confuse with centrifugal force is centripetal force, the force required for an object to remain in uniform circular motion. Centrifugal force is one of several so-called pseudo-forces (also known as inertial forces), so named because, unlike real forces, they do not originate in interactions with other bodies situated in the environment of the particle upon which they act.

"There is no such thing" are pretty strong words for a concept that every physics student has to learn (or rather, re-learn, since it should normally be covered in school as well) in their first year. The entire entry looks as if it is intentionally misleading, since while linking to the somewhat related term inertia, it omits the obvious wikilinks centrifugal force, centripetal force, inertial frame of reference and pseudo-force, each of which obviously belongs here, and following any of which one is led immediately to a Wikipedia article that explains why the centrifugal force does in fact exist in a rotating frame of reference. When physicists say the centrifugal force is "not a real force" they don't mean that it doesn't exist in any sense of the word "exist". Otherwise they wouldn't define it, and we wouldn't need the word pseudo-force.

"The force people often confuse with centrifugal force is centripetal force [...]." This is even worse. The "confused" people who believe in the centrifugal force know very well that it is directed away from the centre. The centripetal force is directed towards the centre.

Both wrong statements don't even have supporting citations. (Neither does the rest of the physics in this entry, but at least it seems to be correct.) Ozdoc's use of the words "real force" when referring to a pseudo-force was unfortunate; but the edit summary was correct if you read "real force" as "force that one must take into account in the frame of reference in question in order to get correct results".

Because of some potential subtleties around centrifugal force and reactive centrifugal force I don't feel qualified to correct this entry. See the talk pages of these articles for more further technical information than I can give. Until someone knowledgeable bothers to repair this severely misleading entry I am removing it. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entry should no be here at all. Centrifugal force as it's commonly refered to is not a misunderstanding -- ballet dancers and gymnasts and figure skaters use this concept all the time to control spin, etc... that there is no centrifugal "force" in the specific, physics sense of the word "force" is well explained in the relevant articles hans mentions above, and this is generally not confused by students of physics. That we colloquially speak of a "force that throws things outwards" (or whatever) is not evidence of a misconception.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this "misconception" explained countless times. So, in terms of sources identifying this as a "common misconception", this one's hard to beat. The way I'd choose to phrase it is, "Centrifugal force, per se, is not a real force." Then explain the technicalities the way dozens of sources do. (E.g., [14], [15], [16].)

Now that I think about it, this is probably one for the misnomers page, since it's another "X is not Y despite it being called Y" entry.--Father Goose (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entry probably has a place in the list. I do not think it was well written. I reverted Ozdoc because the changes made it even worse. His claim that centrifugal force is a result of Newton's third law is completely false (as is Bali's that ballet dancers/gymnasts/skaters use centrifugal force to control spin). There is indeed a common misconception here--it was exemplified in a "science" program I saw on TV recently, to do with tossing pumpkins large distances. One of the machines worked by spinning a pumpkin around and around, faster and faster, on the end of a long arm, and then finally releasing it. In the cartoon explanation, it said that the centrifugal force got bigger and bigger, and caused the pumpkin to fly off when it was released. The animation showed the pumpkin launching in a direction not tangent to the circle it had been following, but perpendicular to it, along a line passing through the center of the circle. This is clearly wrong, and is an illustration of the misconception--people think an outward force will cause an object spinning in a circle to move outward when it is no longer constrained, when really it just continues along a straight path. Rracecarr (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this type of stupidity didn't even occur to me. Of course if it satisfies the sourcing conditions and someone actually writes a sound explanation, it will make a good entry. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my earlier point. When a ballet dancer talks about "centrifugal force" to control spin, it's just a term they use to describe a common phenomena that the body experiences. They think of physics not at all. It's just language the usefully describes a mundane phenomenon, with no thought whatsoever about the physics involved (everyone who has ever spun a weight or something on a string knows it goes in a straight line when the string breaks. Where's the source for common misconception on this one again?)Bali ultimate (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on sourcing this list

Template:RFCsoc This rather expansive list has a problem. It is to include only those things that are "common misconceptions." But many items on the list do not have reliable sources that unambigiously describe them as "common misconceptions" (or acceptably similiar language like "widely held false belief" "commonly misunderstood" etc...) Some editors here would like everything that is not well-established as a "common misconception" via reliable sources to be removed (without prejudice to readding if sufficient sources are found). Others argue that the unsourced material should remain, until such a time as sources are found. A review of this talk page will show we're at an impasse on this issue.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is general consensus that reliable source is required at some level for both misconception and the correction. "Common" is not a precise term, yet it is appropriate here. First of all, the comparison. The source(s) for a correction must be of higher reliability than the source(s) for the misconception, unless we have high-quality reliable source that the misconception is common as well as for the correction. Otherwise we can't call it a "misconception"! My informal standard for this looks at the level of knowledge involved in the source, that's why academic sources, particularly peer-reviewed ones, are superior. Secondly, as to establishing the existence of a misconception, there are sources of low quality that will call something a "common misconception," but this could be a straw man; these exist for various reasons, not the least of which is a writer desperate to fill space. However, it's a start. Ideally, there are reliable sources that do show the misconception (i.e., the author seems to believe the misconception, which isn't surprising if it is a common one, and if there are no such authors anywhere in the universe of marginal publications, I'd have to conclude that nobody worthy of note believes it), and there may be sources of marginal reliability that nevertheless establish that the misconception is common. What sources are adequate for this? There is a diffuse reliable source that nobody mentions, but it is, in fact, our defacto practice, and it is the answer to the rejoinders above about "well, then go and delete everything unsourced in the project." Most of us do not delete stuff that we know is true. I don't. I might tag it, sometimes, sometimes I don't bother, I have better things to waste my time on. In other words, our de-facto consensus is, in fact, a reliable source of a kind, though undocumented. That can't be in a written policy because .... it could be seen as interfering with the very important policy of verifiability, should some Martian read an article here and wonder where to look for verification for what is well-known. And it could be abused; but, note, the problem only arises when there is disagreement. So, here is where editorial judgment comes in. There can be no fixed boundary; however, we can set limits to controversy: i.e., we could set a minimum standard, below which the presumption would be that the alleged misconception is not included. And we can set another level of sourcing at which the misconception is clearly established, the presumption becomes that it is included. And we can develop an efficient procedure by which what is in between these (or is alleged to be an exception) is discussed and vetted for inclusion. In the end, our consensus is the standard, but developing broad consensus for each item is utterly impractical in the long run. I am in favor of relatively strict standards for what we allow to remain on the page, but a welcoming practice that invites discussion and source-searching from editors who drop their favorite misconception on the page without adequate sourcing, and that shows cooperation with this (rather than simple rejection). And, please, do not remove a misconception that is unsourced if you believe, from your own experience, that it is common. On the other hand, don't edit war with someone else who takes it out, based on your own belief and experience, but only revert if consensus has become clear -- and even then don't edit war! --Abd (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is perfectly clear on this issue. It applies to all articles and this is no exception. The best way forward is the strip the article down and rebuild. --neon white talk 05:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really bad explanation in Physics section. Absurd "misconception"

It is not true that a nozzle (or a person's thumb) on the end of a garden hose makes the water squirt farther because the same amount of water gets forced through a smaller opening. The rate of flow of water through the hose is not a set constant; in fact, putting one's thumb over the end of the hose reduces the rate of flow. What is constant is the water pressure at the source. When water is flowing, the pressure decreases the farther from the source one gets due to friction between the water and the pipes it's flowing through. The faster the water moves through the pipe, the greater is the friction that cuts down pressure at the output end. A thumb over the end of the hose decreases the flow rate, causing the friction from the source to decrease, causing the remaining water to have more speed.[87]

I don't have access to the source mentioned, which makes verification and comparison difficult, but this is an awful explanation of what happens. ".... causes the remaining water to have more speed." What's the "remaining water"? It would have to mean the water that issues from the end, but why does it have more "speed"? The explanation actually shows why the water pressure at the end of the hose increases. If there is no restriction at the end, the pressure there approaches zero, and the flow through the pipe will then be determined solely by the friction of the pipe. Yes, as the flow decreases, the friction and therefore the reduction in pressure decreases; if the end is completely blocked, the pressure becomes constant over the whole length of the hose as being the pressure in the water mains. So the water that does come out, from a smaller opening, is under higher pressure, i.e., higher force per unit area. Basic physics: higher force acting on mass, higher acceleration. "It squirts further because it is under higher pressure" is the simplest explanation, and I don't know anyone who actually thinks that the same amount of water is squirted out of a hose when you partially block the opening! Pinhole opening, tiny spray at highest velocity, which can immediately turn into a mist. Very little water. And we all know from experience blocking hoses with our thumbs that the pressure increases the more effectively we block the end. I don't know what to do with this one. Anyone know of any source for the misconception beside that book? Anyone here who believed this before being corrected here or elsewhere? If so, and especially if there is more than one, I'd take that as adequate, personally. --Abd (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no common misconception being corrected here; people generally understand how this works. There is no reliable source for this. Yet here it is.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the entry is so bad, although I agree that "causing the remaining water to have more speed" is a very unfortunate phrase. I have a degree in physics, and probably understand the processes affecting pipe flow better than the average person. Before reading this entry, I had never really thought about why water shoots further when you put your thumb over the end of a hose. It is quite possible that if someone had asked me for an explanation, the first thing that would have occurred to me is that the water must speed up going through a constriction. I don't think it's intuitively obvious that the flow rate must decrease in order to make the water squirt farther. Rracecarr (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great example of a misconception. Mine.

When a meteor lands on Earth (after which it is termed a meteorite), it is not usually hot. In fact, many are found with frost on them. A meteor's great speed during reentry is enough to melt or vaporize its outermost layer, but any molten material will be quickly blown off (ablated), and the interior of the meteor does not have time to heat up because rocks are poor conductors of heat. Also, atmospheric drag can slow small meteors to terminal velocity by the time they hit the ground, giving the surface time to cool down.[35]

Good example of the opposite of what I just described in the previous section here. I would have said that meteors would be hot when they land, because they were obviously white-hot in descent -- which was ill-considered. They were at a very low temperature in space, and, if the above is correct -- haven't checked it -- they haven't had time to heat up much, explaining the frost. At terminal velocity, there would no longer be significant heating, so the heat at the surface would rapidly be overcome by the very cold interior, explaining the frost. What is visible, I'd gather, at the entry into the atmosphere, is the ablated surface, becoming white hot gases, which makes perfect sense; if it were just the meteor, it would be tiny, tiny bright thing, not very visible. Nice little piece. --Abd (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the few honest to goodness misconceptions. It still probably needs sourcing, but is the sort of obvious one (there are about 10 of them) that can wait. It's all the other garbage that's the problem -- not just a "misconception" must be established, but some measure of "commonality" must be applied to it.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that -- that "misconception" and "commonality" must be established for each entry. From sources, not from personal opinion. If you were really willing to stick to that, I think our conflicts would be largely resolved. The only remaining conflict would be about whether unsourced but plausible entries could remain in the list pending further research. However, I note that you seem to be willing to allow this entry in, despite it being completely unsourced as yet.--Father Goose (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is something that should be understood about the project. It is full of unsourced information, only a few articles get closely examined. When I see something that I know from personal experience is reasonable, getting rid if it simply because it isn't sourced is rude. A source might be found. Putting a cn tag on it, when I think it is reasonable, accomplishes little, and the danger is that, then, someone else removes it merely because the tag has been sitting there for a while, and the one removing doesn't take responsibility for the research. Thus what might be perfectly good gets removed by someone who only cares about the technicalities of sourcing, when the survival of the item under examination of probably multiple editors (such as myself in the situation posited) provided a rough form of verification, though not establishing easy verifiability.

Hence I only place cn tags when I doubt the material, but don't know with clarity that it is false. Consider it a slow PROD for article text.

My recommendation here, and I will help as I can, is that parties to the dispute seek agreement, not on the difficult issues, but on the easy ones. Create a document that could eventually be a standard, and start by agreeing on what all (or almost all, but try for all) would accept as worthy of inclusion, and that all would accept as not worthy. Deal with the middle last, instead of trying to debate what is marginal.

Personally, as for something not allowable, it is totally clear that if there is no reliable source for the "correction," anyone can delete it, and that deletion should not be opposed unless by coming up with something at least reasonably reliable. For usages and opinions, even blogs might be useful under some conditions. But there must be a source. I don't think that is quite enough for the baseline. At the other extreme, if there is reliable source either describing the misunderstanding or evincing it, and this is a strong source, not just some offhand comment or the common "Contrary to popular opinion," which is really about the correction that follows, and the "popular opinion" may be just a straw man, or "common" is established in some other way -- our consensus is one way, because the "fact" that is asserted is another matter than the element of "common misunderstanding," it isn't crucial that the "misunderstanding" be solidly sourced as long as we don't have substantial disagreement here that it is common -- and then there is source or sources of higher reliability establishing the correction, and we have rough consensus that the correction is just that, not an error or mere opinion, then I think we would agree that the item should be kept.

I'd suggest refining the upper and lower limit as an abstract standard with high consensus (neglecting the marginal middle), then start discussing individual items in the light of it, come to consensus on each item in turn, and refine the standard so that it would predict our consensus. That's what guidelines are supposed to do, they are not authorities, but rather guides to expected community consensus.

If this is done, all participating editors will become bulwarks against maverick editing that will clearly not be accepted when examined, and new editors can be referred to the document. It is a reframe of our work here as seeking consensus rather than arguing one side or another. The document never becomes a fixed authority, new editors (and more experienced ones) being constantly able to suggest shifts or exceptions, but not disruptively. I.e., new editor comes here, adds item, it is reverted by someone making a specific objection, such as "Don't believe the misconception is common," and source isn't there, or "Don't believe the correction or would need reliable source to believe it," the new editor would quickly be referred to the document. If the editor persists in restoring the information without adequate discussion and explanation of why this item should be considered to satisfy the guideline, or why it should be an exception, and without acceptance, this would be edit warring against consensus, and the editor would properly be warned, etc. But the warning, even, isn't a brick wall, it contains an invitation to participate. --Abd (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Tags

Is it just me or are the weasel tags in the article messed up? The are pulling long redlinks to Articles with specific weasel tags in March 2009 or some such. I tested the tag in the sandbox and it came up fine but when I copy/pasted it to this list it pulled the redlink. Does anyone see this?--Adam in MO Talk 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Rich Farmbrough broke the template ~~an hour~~ half a day ago and protected the broken version immediately afterwards. I asked for help at WP:ANI#Important template broken and protected. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted Rich's edit. Since templates are a total mystery to me I'm not going to attempt to fix whatever Rich was trying to fix. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle question

While I'm here, can someone explain the Physics entry on bicycles? It reads: Gyroscopic forces are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle. The stability of a bicycle is influenced by gyroscopic forces as well as by its geometry and the rider's ability to counteract tilting by steering.. So gyroscopic forces are required. I may be missing something (should it read "Gyroscopic forces alone are not enough for a rider...", for example) but the sentence as it stands appears to contradict itself. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that the bicycle bit was strangely worded. David Jones built a bicycle with no gyroscopic action on the front wheel (by mounting a second wheel on a parallel axle rotating in the opposite direction) and had no trouble riding it. So gyroscopic forces are not required. However, the bike would not "ghost ride" so there is some indication that gyroscopic forces contribute to stability. Rracecarr (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text merely needs a tweak so that the second sentence is not read as contradicting the first. I'll fix it. --Abd (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] 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

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

[3] Heart of Hinduism: Hindu Sacred Books

[4] All About Spirituality - Paganism

[5] "Leif Erikson (11th century)". BBC. Retrieved April 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[Aztecs-6] Empires Past: Aztecs: Conquest

[7] "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/25/eveningnews/main4479062.shtml". 25 September 2008. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)

[alaska-8] Nina Shen Rastogi (September 15, 2008, accessdate=18 February 2009). "Can You Really See Russia From Alaska?". Slate. Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing pipe in: |date= (help)

[9] ttp://www.pbs.org/harriman/current/profiles/diomede.html

[10] The Complete Idiot's Guide to World War I page 161 [1]

[11] "Our Far-flung Correspondents: The Dark Side". New Yorker.

[12] "How Night Vision Works". How Stuff Works.

[13] Card counting 101

[14] Ich bin ein Pfannkuchen. Oder ein Berliner?

[15] Snopes on Denmark

[16] ttp://itotd.com/articles/521/water-freezing-and-boiling-myths/

[17] "Blair football 'myth' cleared up". BBC.co.uk. Retrieved 2008-12-15.

[mandelson-18] "Hague's baseball cap, Mandelson's mushy peas: True tales or just great political myths". Daily Mail. Retrieved 2008-12-15.

[19] Shuttle Blackout Myth Persists, MRT Mag. Retrieved 18 March 2008.

[20] Gunpowder and Firearms

[scandurra-21] ttp://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0402011

[22] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997APS..PC...J206K

[23] [2]

[24] [3]

[25] ttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/489199/radiometer#ref76722

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

@@ Line 1,129: / Line 1,129: @@
 While I'm here, can someone explain the Physics entry on bicycles? It reads: ''Gyroscopic forces are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle. The stability of a bicycle is influenced by gyroscopic forces as well as by its geometry and the rider's ability to counteract tilting by steering.''. So gyroscopic forces ''are'' required. I may be missing something (should it read "Gyroscopic forces '''alone are not enough''' for a rider...", for example) but the sentence as it stands appears to contradict itself. [[User:Tonywalton|Tonywalton]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Tonywalton|Talk]]</sup> 16:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 :I had noticed that the bicycle bit was strangely worded.  David Jones built a bicycle with no gyroscopic action on the front wheel (by mounting a second wheel on a parallel axle rotating in the opposite direction) and had no trouble riding it.  So gyroscopic forces are not required.  However, the bike would not "ghost ride" so there is some indication that gyroscopic forces contribute to stability.  [[User:Rracecarr|Rracecarr]] ([[User talk:Rracecarr|talk]]) 18:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
+::The text merely needs a tweak so that the second sentence is not read as contradicting the first. I'll fix it. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)