Talk:List of common misconceptions

Much work needed - few citations supporting wide belief of myth

I'm happy to see that a significant number of items have been removed, but there is still work to be done.

Can we first agree that any entry requires not just one but two types of reference (possibly covered by one citation):

1. Documentation of the true state of affairs, that is, a reliable reference supporting the facts
2. Documentation that a false belief is, in fact, widespread.

Many of the myths were completely devoid of references, but many of the remaining ones have type 2 references, without type 1 references. And no, a site simply declaring that such and such a myth is not true does not establish that such and such is widely believed.

I see the Columbus item was restored. I don't happen to disbelieve that many people still think Columbus was the first, but the current entry contains NO evidence.

The Napoleon entry has three decent references showing that he wasn't short, but not a single reference supporting that claim that many people think this. I thought it was true, I don't doubt it would be hard to find some, and I'll look, but I believe citations are needed to support the claim that this supposed fact is widely believed. Does anyone disagree?--SPhilbrickT 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Addendum - having found some support that some believe Napolean was short ( a little harder than one might think, most of the first few hits were debunking sites), I'm not sure where to place such a reference. the format of the page is not Myth, Debunking, but simply Debunking. I'll try something, but we may need a common style.--SPhilbrickT 18:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good thing to transform the page to Myth, Debunking style. In the past I had to add the Myth part myself when I didn't even believe it, because otherwise there was nothing to put a fact tag on! Of course it would still be much better to delete this article altogether. We should have a policy against articles that collect random facts from all conceivable areas, which will never get the necessary expert attention. Hans Adler 19:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed numerous examples lacking sources. I completely agree that each example needs a clear explanation of the widely-held misconception, and sources for both the misconception and the reality. Rracecarr has reverted my edits, without supplying sources for the stuff I took out - I don't want this to turn into an edit war. There are a lot more examples that I haven't been able to check yet, but which are dubious at best. --hippo43 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the stuff you've removed is dubious, other stuff just needs better sourcing. Rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater, at least move entries to talk rather than deleting outright, until some consensus has been reached about whether it should be included. If you don't want an edit war, stop edit warring. Rracecarr (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This stuff has been discussed to death, a debate which you took part in - Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_6#Removed_numerous_badly-_or_unsourced_examples. The examples I removed all had edit summaries explaining why they were removed. There is no requirement to discuss before removing unsourced material. There is no consensus for reinserting it, and you have clearly not checked each entry before restoring them. Per WP:V, the burden of evidence is on you. Your opinion about what is badly sourced and what dubious is irrelevant - please do not reinsert these without proper references, in line with policy. --hippo43 (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rracecarr, meant to add that I didn't see the point moving examples to this discussion, but if you think it'll help, I won't object. --hippo43 (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is that that way, there's a chance that a number of contributors' insights and efforts won't be squandered simply because the entries don't conform to your idea of perfect. I know you are aware of the 3RR rule, having run up against it before. You have reverted 4 times in a couple hours, and could certainly be blocked from editing on those grounds. If you don't slow down your rampage, I will go tattletale. Rracecarr (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not my idea of perfect, it's Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Some of these are interesting stories, but if they are not verifiable as common misconceptions, they don't belong in the article. No good work will be squandered - if an editor finds good sources for an entry, it can go back in. By all means move entries here if you want to discuss them. Apologies for 4 reverts - I just wasn't counting, though that wouldn't have been an issue if you weren't also reverting. I will keep trying to improve the article, so may well remove some more entries if I find more which aren't consistent with the article's lead or with policy.

Very well, I've filed a report. Like as not we'll both get blocked, although I have not actually violated 3RR. At least there will be a break from all the deletions. Rracecarr (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to hear views from some other editors on this. --hippo43 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A common misconception about WP:V

Please note that WP:V does NOT state that all content must be cited to WP:RS. Instead, it says that material challenged or likely to be challenged requires reliable sources. If something is factually accurate but not sourced, that doesn't automatically mean it should be removed. The two items on Columbus are factually accurate (although I could not find sources for them). The one on Emancipation Proclamation is also factually accurate and I've restored the material with a cite to Time Magazine where it states this is a common misconception. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That citation is weak. I've observed that many authors of article in the mass media find it a useful construction to start an article "It is a myth that xxxx, in fact, yyyy". In many cases, the author wants to assert yyyy, but needs a hook, and uses the myth construction without any support for the myth. Sometimes there is a myth, sometimes there is not.

That said, for better or worse, Time is considered a reliable source. However, the opening paragraph is self-contradictory. The fourth sentence states:

It's likely that none of them had any idea that they had actually 
been freed more than two years before.

What possible interpretation of this sentence can be consistent with the claim that the slaves were not "actually...freed more than two years before"?

If the claim is based upon the few months between the date or the order (22 Sep 1862) and the effective date (1 Jan 1863), rather than the two years between the order and the effective implementation, then this falls into that category of anal distinctions that do not belong in an encyclopedia.

I don't feel strongly enough about this issue to make a change, but it is one more example showing why this whole article is a black eye for Wikipedia. Many articles have questionable claims, and we all need to work to improve them all, but an article about misconceptions ought to be held to a strong standard, just like an article about spelling ought to be especially free of spelling errors, or an article about common math errors ought to be free of math errors (except, of course, the examples).--SPhilbrickT 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The author means that they were freed in a technical/legal sense, but the North couldn't enforce the proclamation in areas they did not control. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the distinction - de jure emancipation occurred on one date, de facto on another date, but if one wishes to express this distinction, one cannot use the virtually identical construction in both cases. Not to mention that the term "actually" would be more appropriate for de facto, not de jure, but that's JMO. I see that you have improved the wording, thanks. I still don't think the sourcing is acceptable, but there are bigger fish to fry, so I'll move along :)--SPhilbrickT 15:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But there's a larger issue at play here: WP:V does NOT state that all content must be cited to WP:RS. Instead, it only says that material challenged or likely to be challenged require reliable sources. Thus far, not a single challenge to an item actually involves the factually accuracy of the item. Instead, the challenge was merely for the sake of having WP:RS (which isn't not required by WP:V). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, as I stated earlier in this thread, WP:V does not say that all content must be cited to WP:RS. Instead, it says that material challenged or likely to be challenged requires reliable sources. If something is factually accurate but not sourced, that doesn't automatically mean it should be removed.

Since no one has bothered responding, I am restoring all deleted content which is factually accurate, but just not sourced. If you have a problem with this, please address my concerns that these mass deletions are not supported by WP:V. Simply not having a source is not a valid reason for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As I responded below, in reply to one of your other comments, WP:V clearly states that all content must be verifiable. You've clearly read the policy, but are choosing to ignore the first line: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." This is crystal clear - everything in Wikipedia has to be verifiable, i.e. backed by reliable sources. Whether you believe, for example, that the "humans are descended from monkeys" example is true or not is irrelevant. Removing unsourced material to the talk page is a legitimate option - as I've said elsewhere, tagging has clearly not worked here.

To be clear again, I don't believe the examples I removed are actually widely-held misconceptions. If unsourced material is questioned and removed, restoring it without sources (as you have done) is a blatant breach of policy ("The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.") --hippo43 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, many of the reasons you gave was simply "No source". AFAIK, that's not a valid reason for removing content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, I agree that WP:V does not require unsourced material to be removed, but it does explicitly say that it can be removed - "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." The discussion of these unsourced and badly sourced examples has gone on for months - we have had more than enough time to clean this up. The removed examples are here on the talk page so can easily be moved back in if sources are found and consensus reached. --hippo43 (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, I've posted a question clarifying WP:V here Can material be challenged not for being wrong or inaccurate, but simply for not being sourced?. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed unsourced misconceptions again.

I removed the entries restored by Rracecarr, and a few more which are not referenced as common misconceptions. I can't see consensus here for restoring the stuff he put back in. Per WP:V, the burden of evidence is on the editor who restores material. These entries were challenged and removed, with edit summaries for each one, and Rracecarr put them all back in without making any changes. He clearly did not assess each one individually or improve any of them.

As various others have said above, these examples must all be sourced as common mosconceptions (or similar). If not, they have no place in this list. If Rracecarr would prefer to move them here to discuss each one, I have no problem with that.

Quest said above "WP:V does NOT state that all content must be cited to WP:RS. Instead, it says that material challenged or likely to be challenged requires reliable sources. If something is factually accurate but not sourced, that doesn't automatically mean it should be removed." I realise they don't have to be removed, but they can be removed if an editor chooses to. They cannot then be restored without the proper evidence. I don't believe any of these are factually accurate, i.e. it is factually accurate that they are common misconceptions. I may be wrong, but would want to see reliable sources which explicitly say so before I'm convinced. The article lead says it is a list of "ideas that are described by multiple reliable sources as widely held" but listed a load which were no such thing. It would be good to get the views of others on this. --hippo43 (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My only comment is that I wish we'd come to decision and then stick with it. Would a RfC help? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletions (again) not because I think they are all bad, but because taken all together, I think they are a step backward. It takes a lot more thought and effort to add a new entry than to delete it. Each entry should be considered separately--there are no doubt some that don't belong, but by deleting dozens at once, even if some are garbage, we get further from, not closer to, a good article. For example, in the Physics section, I think the entry on sailboats is oversimplified and unreferenced, and I suspect consensus could be found to remove. You can say for the umpteenth time that consensus isn't needed according to policy, but in fact, if you want your changes to stick, i.e. if you want to make forward progress, getting consensus is the way to go. On the other hand, the misconception about the speed of electrons moving in wires is referenced, accurate, and is a quite common misconception. I strongly disagree with its removal. Let's discuss entries one at a time rather than making huge cuts all at once. This can be done before any changes are made to the article, or, if you must, you can move entries here to talk during the discussion. But simply deleting them makes them more difficult to discuss, and more difficult to restore if the result of the discussion is "keep". Rracecarr (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. We disagree, but I'm sure we can work on this. I will move them here to a new section below. --hippo43 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Miracle on Ice

I have problems with the re-add of Miracle on Ice.

I reviewed roughly the first twenty Google hits searching for "miracle on ice" gold. Every single one correctly noted that the gold was the result of the game with Finland. I found two (may have missed some) that said there was a misconception, but saying there is a misconception is not the same as documenting that there is a misconception. Not a single source claimed that the US won the Gold with the Miracle on Ice game. (one or two could be misread to imply it, but often sloppy headline writing.) I realize my sample is biased. It's plausible that sites with correct information score higher than sites with flawed information, But to support the contention that it is a common misconception, we either need a LOT of sites making the claim, or a cite to a good study confirming the misconception. I haven't found any. Doesn't mean they don;t exist, but the burden in on the editor adding the information to supply, not on me to read 106,000 hits to confirm it isn't there.

Ironically, I think there is a misconception about this game - many people who watched it, or claim they watched it, think they were watching it happen live, as opposed to tape delay.

Again, adding a misconception to a list requires a source documenting that it IS a common misconception. Documenting the truth isn't sufficient, and IMO, documenting that some people repeat a claim that there's a misconception isn't goof enough for a quality encyclopedia, as the whole reason misconceptions exist is because people repeat plausible statement without requiring documentation.--SPhilbrickT 20:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I skipped past the first 100 hits, thinking I might find something better further down. The first few all seemed to be correct, but I did find this. One example, not enough to support the claim.--SPhilbrickT 20:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree - see comment above. I'm for taking it out. --hippo43 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that sounds like WP:OR to me. The threshold for inclusion in Wikpedia is verifiability, not truth. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you feel is original research? I'm pointing out that the implied claim (many people think the Miracle on Ice resulted directly in a gold medal) is not sourced. Outsourced claims should be removed. I attempted to find such a source, rather than simply note the lack of source. I failed to find a good source. But maybe something more familiar with the subject and/or more skilled at searching might find a source soon. So I opted to leave it as is, and wait to see if someone can find a source. Or perhaps someone will argue that it is sourced. The talk page seems like the right place to talk out whether the sourcing is adequate, rather than simply removing and moving on - do you disagree?--SPhilbrickT 01:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Can you clarify what you feel is original research?" Doing a Google search and then using those search results to draw the conclusion that the misconception is not popular. Please provide a reference to a reliable source that draws such a conclusion. In any case, it's already cited. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid we are talking past each other. Let me try saying it a different way.

Saying something is a common misconception means that many people believe something (that doesn't turn out to be true.) If we want to include a misconception in a list, we ought to be able to point to a reliable source documenting that there are many people who mistakenly believe the claim. There is not a single cite that does this. I believe it would either be adequate to cite a large number of sites making the false claim, or one reliably sourced study of the false claim, but I do not believe that the mere assertion that there's a misconception proves anything. The whole point of a misconception is that people mistakenly believe something that seems plausible. As the editor of a reputable encyclopedia, I think we need a higher standard than some guy thinks so, but doesn't assert any evidence.

Based upon the lack of a cite, it would have been acceptable to simply remove the item. However, I decided to go the extra mile, as search for a cite. After all, if it really is a common misconception, it doesn't seem like it should be hard to find any evidence. My Google search is not evidence that the claim is invalid, but the claim has no reliable source, I made a good faith effort to find one, and the best I could do is find one lame support that ONE person mistakenly believes this.

If this was a page about hockey games, the cite you include would be a Reliable Source to support the claim that the USA beat Russia, and then beat Finland for the gold. However, this is not a site about hockey games, it is a site about common misconceptions. The citations does not, in my opinion, adequately support the claim that is it a common misconception.--SPhilbrickT 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that at least one and possibly two sources have been provided. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two cites making reference to a myth. Both would adequately a claim that "two people think this is a common misperception, but neither cites any real evidence". I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, but I'm not going to continue—you are doing fine work trying to make this article better, and there are bigger problems to address.--SPhilbrickT 13:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Truce?

Rracecarr/Quest, I suggest we calm down a little. We have all been edit-warring over the last few days. I think we all want the same thing - well-sourced entries that reflect actual common misconceptions. Can I suggest we actually discuss these examples and only move them back in if we agree that they are reliably sourced? I have no problem with restoring entries which are reliably sourced as such, but the three of us fighting is getting in the way of actually working on the article. --hippo43 (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with my proposal on May 1st? If we had followed it, we'd be done by now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, ok. Can we try to move forward? As you know, I've spent some time on this in the past, but I didn't have much time for it around May/June. I don't think that my actions were inconsistent with your second last statement in that section - "I'm not sure if we have reached conscensus but it appears as if the majority of editors are in favor of removing unsourced items/sentences/phrases."

Anyhow, my suggestion is that we stop fighting (reverting) and focus on the article. If there are examples you think should go back in, can we discuss them? You clearly don't think all of them should go back in, so we obviously agree on a lot of this. --hippo43 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I do agree that a lot of what was on here was crap. But some of it wasn't. I would rather take a more judicious and orderly approach to this.

If you look at the last mass deletion[1], out of 21 items, only 1 was even flagged with a {fact} tag. So nobody even knew there might be a problem. I certainly didn't know and I'm one of the most active editors of this article. I think we should move them back to the article page where people are more likely to see them but this time we insert {fact} tags to the items.

So, here's my proposal:

a) Any items (or sentences) with a {fact} tag of May 1st should be deleted now if they haven't already.

b) For any items that we think that there's a reasonable chance of finding reliable sources for, we add back to the article. But this time, we add {fact} tags on them so other editors can see them and possibly help out. The ones that I think have a reasonable chance at being sourced are here:[2].

c) For any other items that aren't sourced, we add {fact} tags.

d) For any sources which may not be reliable, we add {Verify credibility} tags.

e) For any sources which are dead, we add {Dead link} tags.

f) Set a deadline for when we delete any remaining items (or sentences) which haven't been fixed. Given this month has already started, I propose Sept 1. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't support adding this stuff back to the article. I removed it because it was not sourced - adding unsourced material back into the article will make it worse, if only for a month, and is not consistent with policy; better to have some (maybe) correct but unsourced material missing for a while.

This has been ongoing for months, and the article has been tagged as badly referenced since 2007. You, Rracecarr and others were active in this article when I removed loads of these in April. A large number of the ones I removed recently are the same ones, so you (and other involved editors) were definitely aware they were contested. They have not been properly referenced since then, and other bad examples which have appeared since then have not been policed very well by us. For me, it's very obvious that tagging does not work here.

The list you think have a realistic chance of being kept has about 20 entries on it. I agree that some of them sound plausible, but IMO there are others which are hopeless. If we focus on these 20 or so on this talk page, it won't take long to get through them. --hippo43 (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"I removed it because it was not sourced...I agree that some of them sound plausible"

OK, so you agree that you removed material not because you think it's incorrect, but just because it was not sourced.

"large number of the ones I removed recently are the same ones, so you (and other involved editors) were definitely aware they were contested. They have not been properly referenced since then, and other bad examples which have appeared since then have not been policed very well by us. For me, it's very obvious that tagging does not work here."

Only 1 out of the last 21 items you removed contained a {fact} tag. So, no, tagging doesn't work when you don't bother using it.

"adding unsourced material back into the article will make it worse, if only for a month, and is not consistent with policy..."

No, WP:V does not say everything needs a source. Only material that is challenged or likely to be challenged requires a source. By your own admission, you are not claiming any this material is incorrect, only that it isn't sourced. I don't think that challenging for the sake of challenging meets the letter or the spirit of WP:V. I've asked a question on the WP:V for clarification as to whether this is a valid reason for removing material.

You should not have made such massive, sweeping changes to the article without first attempting to reach consensus with your fellow editors. I am attempting to resolve this issue with you in good faith. I've proposed a compromise which I feel is fair and will resolve the issue. Do I understand your position correctly that you refuse to discuss a compromise? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't support adding material back until it is properly sourced. Adding material that is questionable, simply because it was there for some period of time, doesn't strike me as a good working model. The article still has problems. Black belts have to register their hands with law enforcement? Are you serious? Are there really more than a handful of people beyond middle school who believe this? It sounds preposterous - which doesn't make it not true, but it requires a cite. What is the rationale for adding back questionable material? The article is an embarrassment - and I fully expect some editor to see it and propose Afd. I don't know that we'd survive an Afd vote. Let's not make it worse by adding in more questionable material. JFTR, I love the concept of misconceptions. I'm a big fan of Snopes and Mythbusters, but I want this article to be one I'd be proud to show them, and right now I'm worried they'll feature it as a prime exhibit - Myth - Wikipedia digently sources its material - busted.--SPhilbrickT 03:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Quest, you're being ridiculous now. I haven't 'agreed' any such thing. I've said I removed these because they were unsourced and because I don't believe they are actually widely-held misconceptions. Please stop repeating your accusation which I have already explained more than once - by making the same baseless claim, you are not acting in good faith. I have not 'admitted' to any such thing, you have just misunderstood what I've written. To be honest, there are examples still in the article which I think are not misconceptions either, but they are verifiable - i.e. someone has said in a reliable source that they are. In those cases, I've left them in. When I've written "No source for misconception" I was trying to be brief - I have not been removing material which I believe is factually accurate. When I said "some of them sound plausible" I was trying to be open to discussion and persuasion - I can see that some of those may turn out to be verifiable as misconceptions, though I don't really think they actually are. I've said all along that I could be wrong - as another editor pointed out recently, none of us is an expert in all these areas, and what is obvious to one editor may not be to another.

As for "not bothering" to use fact tagging, this is an old argument, and horseshit. When I removed a load of these months ago, my position was that tagging material had not worked here - the article had been tagged for years, and was stacked full of crap. Material was put back into the article, which editors knew was challenged, but was not tagged. Presumably, you also haven't "bothered" to use it, over the same period - why did you not add tags to all the examples which were restored? Some of the examples I removed recently were tagged since March - why has no active editor removed these in the intervening five months?? You may be a fan of fact tagging, but I'm not - it doesn't work, so I don't use it much.

Re WP:V, I've already addressed your view above and at WT:Verifiability. You are misunderstanding the policy - its first line is clear: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The threshold for inclusion is verifiability - if material is not verifiable it should not be included. Not every sentence needs to have an inline citation, but it must have been published in a reliable source. It goes on to say "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed" - why is this hard to understand?

Moreover, this article is explicitly a list of examples which are backed by "multiple reliable sources", so I'm baffled by why you are supporting keeping unsourced entries. Restoring unsourced material is a blatant breach of the policy - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." If material has been removed, i.e. challenged, an editor who restores it must supply a source.

I have obviously not refused to discuss suggested compromises - I discussed this one, so no, you don't understand my position. Whether I can agree to a suggested compromise is different. I have compromised already, by discussing these here rather than simply deleting them. I don't see any benefit to moving any of this material back into the article, and I see a lot of harm in doing so, so if that is what you mean by compromise, I can't support it. I am, however, willing to focus on discussing those which you think are most likely to be verifiable. I suggest we do that rather than obsessing about the process. --hippo43 (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have attempted to resolve this issue with you in good faith. Your refusal to discuss a compromise is unfortunate and I ask that you reconsider your position. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Good faith? At WT:Verifiability you claimed I am lying. If you want to actually deal with the problem, let's discuss the removed material. You are now edit warring by restoring false and unsourced material - which you have acknowledged contains a lot of crap - without consensus, without adding proper references and without 'fact'-tagging any of it. --hippo43 (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, at one end of the spectrum is keeping the items permanently. At the other end of the spectrum is removing them immediately. In the middle, is adding {fact} tags amd setting a deadline for deletion. Is this not a reasonable compromise? In the end, you're going to get what you want anyway.

I only restored items that sounded plausable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No - you are, probably unintentionally, misrepresenting the spectrum of reasonable outcomes, and proposing a false compromise. Keeping contested material permanently, even after it has been fact-tagged, is not really at the inclusionist end of the spectrum - it's just not a reasonable solution.

At the deletionist end of the spectrum is deleting the whole article. Deleting the dodgy material immediately would maybe be next - this is what I did initially. Rracecarr suggested the compromise of moving the stuff to the talk page, which I did. So my original position was to delete the bad entries outright, but I went along with Rracecarr's suggested compromise. Your initial position was the same suggestion you are making now - you haven't compromised at all! Trying to present your own preferred option (which didn't work the last time it was tried) as somehow a compromise between your position and mine is disingenuous at best. --hippo43 (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, WP:V does not require all material to be sourced, and no source is not a valid reason for deletion. I don't know why I have to keep reminding you of this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quest, I have no idea why you keep 'reminding' me of this, because you are wrong on both counts. I not also that instead of answering the points that I make (such as about your supposed "compromise" above), you change the subject and revert to tired, discredited attacks.

I used to think you made intelligent contributions, so your recent behaviour seems strange. As has been pointed out to you at WT:V and in this discussion months ago, I have not removed material only because it is unsourced. Your repeated assertions that I have are a clear breach of WP:AGF. Here are the relevant passages from WP:V which I have pointed out before, but which you appear not to have read, and have not addressed in your replies:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Material without a reliable source does not meet the threshold for inclusion, therefore material needs a source to be included.

"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed." Speaks for itself. If you have an opinion on these, I'd love to hear it. --hippo43 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's why I sought clarification on the WP:V talk page if challanging material not for being factually accurate, but for not being sourced was a legitimate reason for deleting content and the concensus was no. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Misconception

There appears to be a misconception that the title of this article is "miscellaneous facts".

If I assert that Abraham Lincoln is not a hippopotamus, and proved a reliably source cite verifying that Lincoln is not a hippopotamus, I've adequately sourced a fact, but I haven't adequately justified why it belongs in this article.

There has to be a belief, held by many people, which turns out to be false. To deserve inclusion in this article, there needs to reliable evidence supporting the misconception. This can take the form of many citations to sources making the false claim, or a single formal study, with evidence that many people have been polled or studied in some way, with the conclusion that many people belief the false statement.

We can and should debate some implicit boundary conditions. If evidence shows that high schoolers have a mistaken belief, but most adults do not, does this qualify? I say no, but at a minimum, such a state of affairs should be noted. If evidence shows that many people used to have a misconception, but the misconception is rare today, should it be included? I say no, but again, perhaps yes with the right qualifier.

Most of the entries removed failed to meet adequate citing for inclusion. In fact, some on the list before the recent reversion didn't meet the test.

Let's see if we can debate the rules for inclusion, so we are all on the same page.--SPhilbrickT 23:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you've summarised the problem accurately - people have added things which they believe are misconceptions held by others, but haven't provided sources which verify that they are in fact common misconceptions.

For me, every entry needs:

1. A very clear and specific explanation of what the misconception is - i.e. something like "It is a common misconception that Al Jolson invented oranges", rather than just "Al Jolson did not invent oranges" or "Whether or not Al Jolson invented oranges depends on what you mean by oranges..."
2. At least one, ideally more, reliable sources (i.e. relevant to the subject, reputable publisher etc) which confirm that this specific misconception is indeed a misconception and that it is held by many people, or similar wording. Or, a number of otherwise reliable sources which repeat the misconception as true.
3. A clear explanation of the truth of the matter.
4. At least one reliable source for the debunking - i.e. a source which specifically deals with the misconception rather than just one stating a different point of view.

If a misconception is only held by a particular group (Americans, children, doctors etc) then it needs to be noted as such. We need to consider in each case if these are notable. However, every example implicitly has these kind of limits - people knowledgeable about particular subject areas generally will not hold these misconceptions; astronomers, for example, probably don't believe idiotic stuff about outer space. In that sense, each entry could begin "it is a common misconception among the ill-informed that..." IMO the key thing is that every entry is impeccably sourced, or the list has no real value. --hippo43 (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion of unsourced/poorly sourced items

Part of the problem with the most recent round of mass deletions is that only 1 of the 21 items were even tagged with {{fact}}. So most of the editors of this article weren't even aware that there might be a problem nor were they given a chance to actually fix things. Therefore, I make the following proposal:

1. Any items (or sentences) with a {{fact}} tag of May 1st July (or earlier) should be deleted now if they haven't already.
2. For any items that we think that there's a reasonable chance of finding reliable sources for, we add back to the article. But this time, we add {{fact}} tags on them so other editors can see them and possibly help out. The ones that I think have a reasonable chance at being sourced are here:[3].
3. For any other items that aren't sourced, we add {{fact}} tags.
4. For any sources which may not be reliable, we add {{Verify credibility}} tags.
5. For any sources which are dead, we add {{Dead link}} tags.
6. We then work together to resolving the above issues.
7. Set a deadline (such as Sept 1) for when we delete any above items (or sentences) which haven't been resolved.

I honestly believe that the above proposal is fair and reasonable to all sides. Please discuss. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with this. I realise you really think this is a good proposal to resolve this, but I can't agree to restoring such poor material, even temporarily, rather than discussing it here. Fact tagging has been tried here, and it didn't work. Much of this material has been removed before and was previously available here to be discussed - it is well-known to interested editors that it is contested. Putting material back in after it has been challenged and removed (in many cases, at least twice) makes the article worse, and does a disservice to readers. If interested editors care about this material, they will see from their watchlists that the article has been reduced by about half. If these things are actually common misconceptions, I'm sure you will be able to find good sources which confirm them. You have done a lot of good work on this and been able to find reliable sources in the past. You probably could have got through most of the 20 or so in the time you have been arguing with me, and either found sources, or cleaned up the language, or concluded that they are not really misconceptions.

If you are sincere about improving the article, rather than winning an argument with me, please stop edit warring (no consensus has been reached to put this stuff back in) and stop claiming I removed this only because it was unsourced. If you want this to remain civil, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

My proposed solution is this: part of the problem, as SPhilbrick notes, is that the criteria are not clear, so perhaps we are not all looking at this the same way. So we need to agree criteria for inclusion, as discussed in the section above. We leave the disputed examples here on the talk page (as Rracecarr initially suggested), and restore only those for which there is genuine consensus. After 2 months, we archive the discussion. Thoughts? --hippo43 (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop saying "Fact tagging has been tried here, and it didn't work.". 20 out of the 21 items that you deleted didn't have any {fact} tags. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't stop saying it. I'm not talking about just the most recent stuff that has been removed. Tagging has been used in the past (just take a quick look through the discussion archive) and has clearly failed, as we're still having the same problems. Numerous examples I removed in the last few days were fact-tagged for months. For some reason, nobody - including you - had removed them over that time. It doesn't work here so I won't support using it. --hippo43 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Except for the fact that these items weren't tagged. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just look through the examples I removed - William Henry Harrison, herbal tea, zero gravity, Council of Nicaea, Original Six and Romance languages all had unresolved tags from months ago. Still no explanation why you didn't remove the disputed entries when your previous deadline passed. --hippo43 (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove the items because because I wanted to acheive conscensus first and I didn't want to trigger an edit war. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Hippo has a very good point as to setting a clear criteria for inclusion before you do anything else. Questions that need to be answered are: 1) What constitutes a "common misconception"? 2) How do we verify that what we list actually is a misconception (as opposed to, say, an alternative viewpoint or an accademic dispute)? and 3) How do we verify that the misconception is common?

That said... Quest's idea is a very reasonable compromise once that criteria has been set. I esspecially approve of setting an agreed upon deadline for removal of items or sentences that remain problematic. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, I would agree it could be a reasonable solution if it was the first time it had been tried. (I think I did agree to a similar solution some time ago) This same debate has arisen before, time and again. A similar arrangement was tried around April this year, but for some reason the contentious material was not removed (even by Quest, who was active at the time). Several recently removed entries had been tagged for months, and noone had removed them. Between May (when Quest's deadline expired) and a few days ago, the article had grown in size from around 85k to 110k, with many of the additions being of very poor quality. The previous approach has just not worked, so I can't support trying it again. Let's try a different approach for a while - ruthlessly cut out the garbage, then leave it open for discussion here. If consensus is reached, we can put entries back in. If it hasn't worked after a few months, let's try something else. --hippo43 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, they were NOT tagged. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

See this version from 3 August, before my removals - Harrison, lunar phases, tea, zero gravity, Council of Nicaea, pendulum, North Pole, Gutenberg, Wright brothers, Original Six, Romance language - all tagged.

In fact, you actually tagged several of these! You should have tagged more - the many others that were removed and disputed. And you (as well as others) should have removed the ones that were tagged in the intervening months. How can you seriously propose that tagging these and removing them at a later date is a workable solution? --hippo43 (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's try this again. How many of these items that you deleted contained a {fact} tag?[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what point you are trying to make. That I removed some items which weren't tagged? Yes, I did, and haven't claimed otherwise. Many, if not all, of the items I removed in the diff you supplied were the same ones removed and discussed months ago - why on earth are you suggesting putting them back in again when no editors, including you and the many others involved in the discussion who knew they were contentious, have improved on them in months?? If you're so in favour of tagging entries, why did you not tag these months ago? Tagging has been tried in the past (as in the examples of your tagging I showed above, and previous attempts) and has clearly not worked - can you address that point? --hippo43 (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hippo, this 'my way or the highway' attitude is not helping matters. I've proposed a compromise and solicited feedback here and on the WT:V talkpage and so far, everyone has said that my compromise seems fair and reasonable. The only one opposing it is you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more to what Quest just said above. -- penubag  (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Quest, this 'let's try an approach that has failed in the past' attitude is not helping matters. Should I assume that your focus on getting this stuff back in the article means you haven't had much luck finding reliable sources? You haven't proposed a compromise, you have proposed the same thing you tried months ago. Rracecarr proposed a compromise and we followed it. I suggest you go along with it. Your attempt to solicit support for the idea that I was removing material only because it was unsourced was shot down at WT:V. Your subsequent attack on me showed you have maybe lost a little perspective on this. You received some support for your proposal there (not here), but we haven't heard from Rracecarr, SPhilbrick, Locke9k, Hans Adler, SLRubenstein on it here and SPhilbrick has spoken against it ("I don't support adding material back until it is properly sourced. Adding material that is questionable, simply because it was there for some period of time, doesn't strike me as a good working model").

Why do you keep restoring these even though there is no consensus for it? How can we take your involvement in this discussion seriously? --hippo43 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I've been working on this article, it hasn't failed. As you remember, back in April (or so), I went through each one that didn't have a source and either fixed it, removed it or posted something on this article talk page. Had my suggestion of May 1st been followed, we'd be done with the article now. In any case, the items that I am restoring have a reasonable chance at being sourced. But since they didn't have {fact} tags on them, I had no idea anything might be wrong. Had I known, I would have looked them up. No, I'm not working on the article (other than the Pilgrim one) until this dispute is resolved. All this time we're wasting arguing about this could have been spent fixing it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked over the entries that are currently being fought over. Very cursorily, so don't read it as an endorsement when I say that apart from the absurd pilgrims entry I saw nothing in them that concerned me particularly. The pilgrims entry is very bad. Apparently it uses pilgrim in some weird US-specific sense that I have never heard of but never even so much as hints that it does. It even links to pilgrim, which contains what I would expect in the article and nothing about the American "pilgrims". The only clue is that this entry is in the America section. And of course we have the usual problem that this misconception cannot possibly be common in parts of the world where these "pilgrims" are not even known. Hans Adler 20:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: I just looked a bit closer (sorry, I dobn't have much time and concentration today), and found that "pilgrims" seems to be used as an abbreviation for Pilgrim Fathers. Now even the misconception makes sense... Hans Adler 20:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hans, I tried addressing your concerns with this edit[5]. Is this any better? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quest, that is a fair point - I realise you have only been editing this since around April. However, it obviously didn't work in the past - that was a central point of the discussion back then. Moreover, of these items you tagged in May seven were still in the article until a few days ago. At the risk of sounding repetitive, tagging hasn't worked here. --hippo43 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I worked on the William Henry Harrison item quite a bit, but had trouble finding a decent source. I created a separate discussion here. I removed it[6] but it must have been added back in. I'm fine with deleting all items (or sentences) that had a {fact} tag as of a couple days ago. It's the ones that don't have a {fact} tag that I would like back in the article with {fact} tags and given a fair amount of time to find sources. If we can't find sources, we can delete them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is largely what has happened in the past, but with added fact tags. As WP:V says, the burden of evidence is on the editor who restores material. I can't see any advantage to putting challenged material back in before finding sources. Let's not lose sight of the fact that none of these should have been added in the first place without the proper references. Editors have already had more than a fair amount of time, and haven't fixed the problems. They didn't find sources so I deleted them. I can't support going through the process again. --hippo43 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

But I reject the legitacy of challenging material for the sake of challenging. And lots of the material you removed was, in fact, valid. For example, you deleted the common misconceptions about earthworms and Christopher Columbus/flat Earth. Both were valid. Do you care to explain these mistakes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the item you just deleted on pilgrims is valid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Material has not been challenged for the sake of challenging, at least by me. Endlessly repeating this lie is not civil. The examples you mentioned were not mistakes - I believed they were not common misconceptions, and they had no sources allowing me to verify them, so I removed them. If they had been sourced, I would have read the sources, and known that in fact they were common misconceptions. So removing them improved the article. --hippo43 (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As for pilgrims, I don't believe it is a common misconception. The source says pilgrims are depicted this way, but it doesn't say that a lot of people actually think they looked like that. If someone can supply a source which states that it is commonly believed that they dressed that way, I will have to accept that it is verifiable, but I don't believe it. --hippo43 (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You can accuse me of lying all you want but see Wikipedia has this wonderful thing called an edit history which keeps tracks of everyone's edits. If we carefully examine this edit diff here[7], Hippo removed about 60 items, the vast majority of which had no explanation at all, and the ones that did, the explanation was "No source". Per the discussion at the WP:V noticeboard, not having a source is not a legitimate reason for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a diff.

This has been explained to you numerous times over the last few months. This material was not removed simply because it was unsourced, but because it is both inaccurate and unsourced. Most editors have taken it as read that I was challenging the accuracy of material, otherwise I wouldn't have removed it. So in cases where I wrote 'No source' or similar, I did so for brevity. I didn't think ahead that one otherwise rational editor would interpret that to mean I was removing material only because it is unsourced. However, WP:V explicitly states that "any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". Can you explain what you think this means?

Your refusal to assume good faith and your recent edit-warring, restoring material which you know to be unsourced and contentious, give the impression you are more interested in trying to win a petty personal battle than actually fix the obvious problems in the article. --hippo43 (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You removed them because you claimed that they weren't sourced and now that you realize that challenging for the sake of challenging isn't a valid reason for deleting valid content, you try to change your story. I'm sorry that you see this as a personal battle, but I'm just trying to improve the article. I've attempted to reach a reasonable and fair compromise (which other editors have also agreed with) but you refuse to even discuss it. It's a shame this article is being held hostage by efforts of one problem editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

4 sentences, all of them garbage. --hippo43 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested compromise regarding inclusion criteria and maintenance problems

Talking about compromise and inclusion criteria: Two things need checking for each entry:

1. it's a misconception, and
2. it's common.

This article is mostly about exceptional claims, but it generally doesn't use exceptional sources to back them up. That's a big problem. I am willing to compromise regarding 2, because (almost) everybody can see that it's common practice to stretch the words "common" or "popular" a bit if it allows inclusion of something that is particularly interesting/entertaining. Saying that a misconception is common if it isn't (and only some poor-quality source claims it is) can mislead our readers, but it's unlikely to cause much harm. But I am not willing to compromise regarding 1. It's embarrassing to claim that something is a misconception if it's actually true and only some pedants claim otherwise. This is not theoretical – I have myself removed at least two such cases in the past, and there was violent opposition. (Herbal tea is tea according to one of the definitions of tea in the OED and most other dictionaries, although it's of course not camellia sinensis. Mirrors do exchange left and right according to the only reasonable interpretation of the sentence, which is of course not the literal one.)

So here is what I propose as a compromise.

Types of sources

The following are some of the most common types of reliable sources for this list:

• Infotainment sources
  • Collections of misconceptions
  • Newspaper articles
• Popular subject-specific sources
• Scholarly sources.

Misconception

Something can only be a misconception if it is actually wrong. To prove that it is wrong, an infotainment source is not sufficient. Popular subject-specific works are acceptable.^X Scholarly sources are preferred. When evaluating a subject-specific, and especially a scholarly source, care must be taken to account for different uses of language. A work written for a community that uses the word tea as short-hand for camellia sinensis may claim correctly that "rosebud tea is not tea" without proving that "rosebud tea is a kind of tea" is a misconception. (It is simply a different use of language.)

Common

There are no special sourcing requirements for the claim that a misconception is common. However, it should actually be said in the source and not follow indirectly. E.g. a book "The 1000 most popular misconceptions" may well cover some misconceptions that are not actually common at all. If there is reasonable doubt that a misconception is common, a RS claiming explicitly that it is common will be needed. On the other hand, when it's clear that a belief is common, a single "some people believe that..." may be adequate.

I can suggest a workable criteria for inclusion on this point... to say that something is common, it should be mentioned by multiple (mainstream) reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that several reliable sources must state that it is a misconception, or that several reliable sources must present the misconception as true?

Also, can we define 'multiple' more narrowly? 2? 5? --hippo43 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this wouldn't really solve anything. Once a real or claimed misconception has arrived in one misconceptions compilation, it is copied into others, with no attribution. I think in practice this rule would only amount to additional work and clutter, while randomly excluding only a small number of entries that aren't worse than others that would still get in. Hans Adler 16:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. --hippo43 (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Formulations

Each item must start with a clear statement of the incorrect belief and a claim that at least some people believe it. This is important for the readers, who have in the past often been confused about what the misconception was supposed to be. An explicit statement of this kind also provides a place where a tag can be added in case of sourcing problems.

Related article for each item

If a misconception is common, then there can be no doubt that it also needs to be dispelled in an article that is directly relevant to the topic concerned. With rare exceptions,^X every item also needs to be discussed in such a more relevant article, although the article need not mention the common misconception itself; it's enough if it explains what is actually true. Each item should link to this article, and the article must link back with an invisible comment next to where the misconception is dispelled, or by some similar mechanism. This is to ensure that the two discussions stay synchronised.

I would go a step further... I would require a short statement in this article explaining why the item is a misconception (with proper citations of course). Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Extra care in dubious cases

This list will never be complete, and that's not its goal. If an item appears highly dubious, extra care needs to be taken. In particular, if some editors doubt that a belief is false, the two clauses marked with "^X" must not both be applied. I.e., if there is only a popular source saying that a belief is false, then the misconception must also be discussed in an article where it is more likely to generate intelligent comment from readers and editors competent on the subject.

Some things I am personally not happy with in this proposal (as I said, it's intended as a compromise): It's easy to get misconceptions in that are not common. The system of duplicating each misconception in another article gives prominence to an article that I personally still believe should be deleted. But at least we seem to have a chance to solve the systemic problems with this proposal. And if this leads to peace, the list might even grow enough to allow us to split it into subject specific sublists, improving the expert scrutiny on the individual items further. Hans Adler 15:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --hippo43 (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, my own long-term personal goal is to look into splitting the article into multiple sub-articles so we can attract more subject-matter experts. But first, we must clean up the problems on the current article which I am attempting to do, but unfortunately, resistance to improving the article has forced me to stop working on improving it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there would be consensus to split up the article. I don't care either way, but I think some people like this list because it is so mixed, and would want a list of items linked just by being misconceptions. I'm not sure why our disagreement would stop you working on it - you are obviously able to look for sources for these if you want. --hippo43 (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason for this page?

I wonder how it can be written without violating NOR. The Columbus thing is a good example - by what standard is it a common misconception? According to whom? When I went to grade school (which I regret to say was a looooong time ago) we were never taught that Columbus discoveredn "North America." Our textbook and teacher seemed to agree that he landed on Hispanola in his first voyage. "America" means the Americas which include lots of islands. I think we were taught that what made Columbus's discovery important was that he demonstrated that one could sail west in what were at the time state of the art sailing vessels and reach landfall - specifically, a source of fresh water and fresh food - before stores ran out. We were also taught about Ponce de Leon and Cabot and many other explorers. And that Leif Erikson probably siled to Newfoundland. So what is the misconception?

It seems to me that the proper place to address any such misconception is in the relevant articles.

What next? Do we add that it is a misconception that Jews killed Jesus? Or that it is a misconception that God is a man? Or the very common misconception that the conflict between the Church and Galilleo had to do with a clash between the Church as authority or scientists as authorities of knowledge of the natural world? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to involve original research. When finding cites, I look for sources which state the misconception is common (or words to that effect). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes a misconception is only *implied* in writing - especially in published print - but held passively by lots of people. The idea that the US President, beginning his term, must swear his oath with his hand on a Bible, and that this is demanded by the word of the Constitution, for instance. That's something lots and lots of people take for granted, but actually it's just established custom. But it would be hard to find people who state the belief and say it is widespread - I know William Manchester corrects this one inThe Death of a President, but it's just random that I happen to know that citation.

Or suppose I add, "Commonly held: Private investigators are allowed to commit certain otherwise crimninal acts and often do so to catch someone they believe to be a culprit. They are protected by their PI license." - like on tv. It's indisputable that very many people think that's how it works, but I honestly can't recall anyone who says it *is* a sidespread belief, simply because it's so cute, and the matter falls outside of ordinary science while it's so obvious for law trained people. /Strausszek (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Strausszek, your view that these are "indisputable" misconceptions isn't worth much. I dispute them - I don't think either of these is a common misconception. Do you honestly believe that people think Magnum is allowed to break into houses because he's a PI, and it was on TV? If you can't reference them, they don't belong in an encyclopedia, so why bring them up? --hippo43 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you could find a good batch of people who think that if the PI was caught by the cops after breaking into a house, and he could show results pointing to someone else who was involved in a more serious crime (incriminating documents, jewels from an earlier theft that the police had failed to resolve), so it made a "reason" for him to be there, then he'd walk away without any real punishment. People who are legally trained wouldn't buy it, but many millions of other people would. Of course the idea I gave as an example wasn't that Magnum can commit any crime he likes, save homicide, but that he can commit some acts with impunity, like a cop. Reasonably often I've heard people imply that at least American PIs can do a Sam Spade like that. /Strausszek (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I see where you're coming from. You can show all kinds of crap on TV and people will believe it. I just don't think that makes it a common misconception. Maybe belongs in a list of "stuff gullible people will believe if you show it on tv". As for the US president being sworn in with a bible, I don't think most people give it any thought. "That's the way they always do it" ≠ "It must be written down in the constitution." --hippo43 (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the issue I think is, does "common misconception" mean common among trained professionals in a field (lawyers, doctors, scholars) or "widespread among the general public"? Of course, no cop would suppose that PIs have any legal immunity, and no trained historian would think people in the Middle Ages believed the earth to be flat, but those ideas are widely believed among everyday folks, even quite educated people.

/Strausszek (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a list of common or popular misconceptions, so the general public are implied. Take a look at List_of_common_misconceptions#Further_reading : those books all seem to be about misconceptions among the general public. To answer the original question, yes this list can be populated without original research, just summarising existing published literature: that further reading section shows which literature we're talking about. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's my idea too, it seems plain to me that what belongs here are beliefs that are widely held among the general public, and which those people will defend: "Yes it is, of *course* it's like that" if you ask them. it doesn't have to be a majority belief, but we're not talking about just "erroneous opinions among trained experts in a field". hippo43 seems determined to crop the list as short as possible though - he's been a regular at it for many months - and you can see he implies that what counts is whether many people who 'ought to know' are misinformed.

Martin, you're making the common appeal to sourcing things from reliable texts. I agree that's broadly a good method, but I don't agree everything that's not taken cut and dried or strictly pieced together from a patchwork of external reliable sources (in English, preferably?) has to be original research. This is not a heavyweight article, but if you'd tried to write about any kind of historical, human or social sciences subject for WP, you'd have realized how hard it can get to produce something intelligible if you try to follow a doorknob rule that every single bit of every single statement or argument must be sourced by one or preferably three good sources. Why is it self-defeating? because

i. An expository text doesn't always spell out who's behind "many people", "the educated public", "commonly believed", "it was understood that...", "the people who heard X thought that..". It's not so transparent that you'll always be able to pick out the "fact statement" behind the words if you don't understand in some depth what it's about. In a book about physics the writer will ideally be 100% clear about how he proved something and just what he has refuted, but most other ways of talk and most other sciences are not like that. So it becomes problematic to run the verifiability taliban line, like hippo does.

2. Historians and journalists (the kind of people who supply a lot of WP's "sources") do not always spell out every implication of what they have said. They may feel there's reasons for them not to shout out a conclusion that's still in the text, or they may simply not feel at ease with taking the spotlight. Or they don't want to bog down the text with giving the exact, long-winded way they reached that conclusion, so they skip it or just hint it - and hints are not good sources on WP.

3. Some kinds of knowledge are kept up without being stated all the time. The words "fuck" and "cunt" survived hundreds of years when they were methodically purged from spoken and written English. No one was supposed to use them or learn them, and they were never seen in print in honourable books or papers, or spoken in broadcast (the word "fuck" first appeared on the BBC in 1965 and provoked a debate at Westminster - these days it's a mainstay of English tv). Surprise, all that didn't stop most people from knowing them! In the same way, people don't always state what they think is the norm even if they'll obey that norm all the time. If you insist what people mean, what they say is always spelled out flat on the surface, then you run the risk of turning this place into a storehouse of systematized knowledge about knee-joints and ant legs /Strausszek (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Strausszek, comments like "...the verifiability taliban line, like hippo does" are ill-advised - please stay civil. Besides, you're not even close to summing up my view on this article - I'm not at all interested in cropping it as short as possible, nor do I believe "that what counts is whether many people who 'ought to know' are misinformed." If good quality sources report that something is a widely-held misconception, and good sources are given for the correction, then I have no problem with it. I do, however, think it's important we give some context - it's patently obvious, for example, that huge numbers of English-speaking Indians are not generally living in the mistaken belief that George Washington had wooden teeth, or that the vast majority of English-speaking people around the world who have never considered the details of American entrapment law are struggling under the misconception that an undercover cop can't deny being a cop!

I am definitely interested in keeping it verifiable, and I'll continue to strip out unverifiable nonsense. The article lacks any encyclopedic value or credibility if it is just a list of crap that some editors think a lot of people mistakenly believe. If you can't verify that it is a common misconception, it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. If you want to publish material that is not verifiable in reliable sources, maybe find another website? --hippo43 (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The workforce that built the great pyramids

Even today, popular fiction puts forth this notion that the great pyramids at Giza were built by slaves, when strong evidence shows that a skilled national workforce was organized during the non-harvest season to perform their duty to their demi-god pharaoh. Here's what I'm talking about, right from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques)

The Greeks, many years after the event, believed it must have been built by slave labor. Archaeologists now believe that the Great Pyramid of Giza (at least) was built by tens of thousands of skilled workers who camped near the pyramids and worked for a salary or as a form of tax payment (levee) until the construction was completed, pointing to worker's cemeteries discovered in 1990 by archaeologists Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner.

BBlze1 (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the evolution item belong?

I see that some material about evolution was removed, then restored. I looked at it, and don't think it belongs. Let me confess to a possibly unfair view of this article—I think of it as having the title, things (many) people know that aren't so. I think something belongs in this article if you could walk down the street, ask a number of people a question and get a wrong answer, coupled with some assurance that the answer was right.

The mistake than many people think sushi is raw fish qualifies. I am confident (because I've tried the experiment) that many people would be surprised to learn the truth. This article provides a useful function if is collects such examples.

I recognize that the title is softer - "common misconceptions". But the title isn't "A long list of things that some people don't properly understand". That list could literally fill an encyclopedia.

Are there people walking around who think "evolution" has something to do with the Big Bang? I don't doubt it - I watched a clip of Jay Leno asking a person on the street who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Some got it wrong. Does anyone honestly think we should add that as a misconception, simply because some people get it wrong?

I think we need evidence that a large proportion of people not only get it wrong, but feel fairly confident that they know the right answer. I don't doubt that some people might be mistaken about the precise definition of evolution, but I doubt a significant number of people both get it wrong and are highly confident they are right. (I may be guilty of being too optimistic.) I also did a mini-survey about the brightest star in the sky (other than the sun). One person mentioned the North Star, but not with any confidence, and only because it was the first star that popped into his head. When I said no, he was quick to concede that he had no idea and was guessing. That doesn't qualify for what I think belongs in this list. I think when you tell someone the truth about an item, they should be surprised and maybe even disbelieving. I think if you tell the average person that evolution is unrelated to cosmology, their typical response (after asking what "cosmology"Is) will be, oh, OK. I don't think that makes the cut.

The first evolution item has two references. the first didn't work for me, the second barely supports the claim. It doesn't cite a scintilla of evidence that large numbers of people are actually believing the wrong thing, they simply state it in passing. I think we should have tougher standards.

No, I didn't delete it, because I don't want to get into a revert war, I'd like to continue the conversation about what belongs in this list. If it is to be a list of things that some people don't know, then I'll propose it for deletion, as that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If it has a narrower definition, I can support it, but we don't have a clear consensus on what belongs, as evidenced by the reversion of a very marginal item.--SPhilbrickT 23:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The first link worked a few months ago. Unfortunately, sometimes web sites change their content. I checked archive.org for it, and they don't have it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Champagne point - physics

what does this mean 'Putting a teaspoon in the neck of an opened bottle of champagne will not help it retain its fizz' - a teaspoon? I have never heard this. nor do I understand it fully - any old teaspoon is supposed to do this? my plastic one? did they mean (haven't looked at history) a teaspoon of sugar? because that would work. stopper that sugared champagne and you'll have more bubbles (if you can keep that top on!)

this doesn't seem all that 'common' or clear imho. moreover this whole bit is written poorly. there is a slight confusion regarding the authors intention.

Daviddec (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Black belt holder? - sports

A myth is prevalent in America that black belt holders in martial arts must register their hands as a deadly weapon with law enforcement agencies.[120]

Should this be here? I have never heard this drivel, nor would I think it was common.

from the looks of the discussion here, this is a tricky article, but this belt comment seems a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

Daviddec (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As an American, I've heard this one before. Whether people actually believe it or not, I cannot say. Personally, I never really thought too much about it, but I kind of assumed it was a joke. Is it reliably sourced? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. The source wasn't especially reliable, and didn't actually say that this is widely or commonly held. --hippo43 (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've heard this one before, but there's no reason to think it's a common misconception. It's more like an urban legend. Hairhorn (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be put back in. I must have heard this 20 times throughout my lifetime and since reading this here, have thought it was true. -- penubag  (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you know of any sources which verify that it's a common misconception? --hippo43 (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense intended to the person that heard it many times, but this is the type of thing adolescents tell elementary school children. There's probably a few adults who never gave it another thought, and don't know for sure, but I just don't believe it is commonly believed. Think about it - you don't have to register knives or chainsaws, but you have to register your hands? Please.--SPhilbrickT 23:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources for warts

There are so many sources that show Duct tape is a common misconception with warts. Just go to google and type duct tape wart and every article there states that duct tape cures warts, which is not the case. This overly supports how commonly misconceived this is. -- penubag  (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want a specific website, here it is: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06273370.htm : "Dutch researchers reported on Monday in a study that contradicts a popular theory about an easy way to get rid of the unattractive lumps." -- penubag  (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

First, pointing to search results that repeat a flawed claim does not amount to a reliable source documenting a misconception. "Popular theory" ≠ "popular misconception." Second, the sources you have given do not conclusively debunk the idea that duct tape cures warts. The USA Today source, for example only says its effectiveness "may have been overstated" and that the new study it reports "raises doubts." It then suggests duct tape may be more effective in children and that the researchers used a different type of tape. The Reuters report (from earlier than the USA Today report) says that the Dutch study "showed the duct tape worked only slightly better than using a corn pad." I have no idea if it works or not, and the idea sounds like bullshit to me, but the sources presented so far do not support that this is a misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's personal opinion. But regarding your second comment, I believe that given the amount of mistakes made in this area (even by licensed doctors and people with credentials) it deserves at least a mention here. -- penubag  (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What's "personal opinion"? This shouldn't be included (until/unless conclusive sources are supplied) because there isn't a reference to it being a common misconception (or similar wording). Moreover, the sources are not consistent - as things stand, according to the sources given, it isn't clear to what extent duct tape works. -hippo43 (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What's personal opinion is saying "Popular theory" ≠ "popular misconception", furthermore, it is not your place to decide this. Do you want me to actually a source that says word-for-word misconception to satisfy you? Contradicting popular believe is synonymous to misconception. The sources claim that the effectiveness of duct tape is grossly overstated so this should be included since a huge amount of works claim it is an effective remedy. -- penubag  (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

More sources: [8]: "lahovic noted that several studies have shown duct tape in no better than a placebo." [9]: "It is very easy to fall for this one as a lot of people are doing it. The idea is to place a piece of duct tape on the infected area to inhibit the growth of warts. It is a mystery as to what compound in the adhesive surface of duct tape would actually bring the cure, but several studies have been made on this theory. All reports show that the effect is negligible or very close to zero. "

That's not my personal opinion, it's the common, accepted meaning of the words. Similarly "red tomato ≠ red fire engine." --hippo43 (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but the sources I've provided say common misconception, so I'm readding it to the main article. -- penubag  (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Artipot article is not a reliable source, IMO - their fact-checking policy is not clear at all. The ivillage source is not decisive - the doctor they quote says "Don't put duct tape on it and expect it to go away, since there is a specific protocol for using it. See your dermatologist or podiatrist for this and other treatment options." I'm taking it out - the sources you've given on this are not conclusive and contradict each other - it has not been effectively debunked, so can not be considered a misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What more do you want? Credited sources and people overwhelmingly state something that isn't true, including almost every top listing on Google. I've provided sources that show how many people get this wrong. This is clearly a misconception, and I even provided 2 sources that has that exact word in it. It may not be completely debunked but most all sources say it does only a little better or not at all to a placebo. This definitely deserves to go in the List of common misconceptions. -- penubag  (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Blue sky

"Some believe that the sky looks blue because it reflects the colour of the ocean."

Oh please, this is nonsense. Even the citation notes that it can be shown to be false with a couple seconds thought. This isn't an article to list all those things someone, somewhere misunderstands, it is about Common misconceptions. Some are quite good, but some, like this one, have a laundry list feel to them. It is NOT sufficient to find some source that says that some person mistakenly believes it (and this citation doesn't even meet that weak standard.) We need sources demonstrating (not simply asserting) that some falsity is believed by many. This doesn't qualify. (Sorry, I'm cranky over the Chzz incident, but this whole article is a source of embarrassment, and we need to clean it up). Does anyone think this item deserves inclusion? If so, where is the support?--SPhilbrickT 02:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Predictably, I totally agree. Bin it. --hippo43 (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...According to the cite, it says "The vast majority of adults in the world have seen a clear-blue sky tens of thousands of times, yet only a few know why it's blue." Then it says "Even worse, a lot of web sites I've seen give an incorrect answer to the question". Then it says "Probably the most common idea is that the sky is blue because it reflects the blue color of the ocean". Sounds like a common misconception to me. I would consider Bad Astronomy to be a reliable source due to its reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. If there's a more specific objection, then let us know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Probably the most common idea" does not equal "a common misconception." "Most common" among websites which give bad info? "Most common" among people who get it wrong? "Most common" among these bad explanations does not necessarily equal "widely held" in real terms. The most common type of jetpack might be the ThrustMaster 3000, but that doesn't mean ThrustMaster 3000s are actually a common mode of transport.

AFAICT, Bad Astronomy only exists to highlight flawed science - its author has an obvious interest in claiming that various dumb ideas are commonly believed, otherwise what myths would it smugly debunk? It may be a reliable source for the scientific explanations, but it is not an authority on how widely people hold these supposed misconceptions. (It appears to offer no evidence or research into how common these beliefs are.) Do any independent sources claim that this is a widely-held belief? (Note that the lead refers to multiple sources.) --hippo43 (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Countless people get this fact wrong. This just needs some rewording for it to be included. -- penubag  (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You may be right:, but you are not a reliable source. --hippo43 (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have included references in the sky entry. Also, I'm reverting your removal because when "discussion is ongoing" the default is not to delete until consensus, the default is to keep it as the status quo even if the debate has no consensus. -- penubag  (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispelling myths is often a journalistic device. Just like FAQ. Do you really assume all FAQ have been asked often? Just because some book or column wants to use the device to make a point doesn't mean the false claim is truly that common. If it is, it could be cited, and that almost never happens. I don't find it hard to believe that many people don't know why the sky is blue. I can easily imagine someone pressed for an answer to wonder if it might be reflection of the ocean, although I've never heard that in my life. But I simply do not believe, and no evidence has been presented, to support the claim that this misconception is common.--SPhilbrickT 23:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what Sphilbrick has said. Moreover, we don't keep badly sourced embarassing misinformation in our articles until the editors pushing it give in. That kind of stuff needs to be removed immediately. Hans Adler 23:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Penubag, the only source so far supplied has been challenged and is not accepted here as reliable for the existence of a common misconception. If you read the quote above posted by Quest, nowhere does it say that a lot of people believe the sky is blue because it reflects the colour of the sea. If you can't find anything which actually confirms that it is a common misconception, it will have to go. Hans' comment above means there is a majority supporting removal. I think I'm at 3RR, so I won't be removing it today, but I will take it out soon, assuming nobody finds a compelling source. --hippo43 (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Hans beat me to it. --hippo43 (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing standards for medical advice

Please note that any medical information in the list has to meet the higher sourcing standards of WP:MEDRS. Some of the popular misconceptions claimed in this list do not meet this standard, and I have flagged them accordingly. Hans Adler 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been over a month. If you honestly feel the information is not factually accurate, I have no problem with it being removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Blue blood

This is interesting, but clearly not a common misconception, so I have moved it here:

• Mammal blood is bright red or scarlet when oxygenated and a darker red when not oxygenated. It is never blue. Veins appear blue through the skin because of differential absorption of wavelengths of the blood's color by the overlying skin and flesh.

There is no source for the claim that this is a common misconception. In fact, this list entry doesn't even explicitly make any such claim. Hans Adler 19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Music examples

These were removed to this talk page months ago, and have been put back in without discussion. As far as I can tell, they are not widely-held misconceptions, and I can't find anything in the sources supplied to confirm that they are.

• Contrary to the self-perpetuated popular myth, Louis Armstrong was not born on July 4, 1900. It was not until mid-1980s that his real birth date was revealed – August 4, 1901.
• Although included in Charlie Parker's "Omnibook" and eventually copyrighted under Parker's name, the jazz standard "Donna Lee" was actually composed by Miles Davis.
• Jaco Pastorius is often misquoted to have invented the fretless bass by removing the frets from a fretted bass guitar that he had, instead of replacing his upright bass that had been ruined due to humidity. Actually, Fender started marketing fretless Jazz Bass models as early as 1964. The previous owner of that guitar (a Florida-based saxophonist named Ben Champion) had already taken out the frets himself, but Jaco was less than satisfied by his overall work, thus finishing the job by filling the gaps with plastic wood.

--hippo43 (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you honestly read each and everyone of those sources to verify the information isn't there? Can you please scan and upload a copy of page 61 of the book Milestones: The Music And Times Of Miles Davis so I can verify it as well? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I stated above that I couldn't find anything in the sources to confirm that they were common misconceptions, so yes, I did check. No, I can't scan a copy of the page. Rather than showing reluctance to assume good faith, can you let us know if you can find any claim that these are common misconceptions in the sources? (2 of the 3 are available online) They were removed months ago, and have been restored without discussion. As the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wants to restore them, it is on them to produce a supporting quote from the source when it has been challenged. If you want to restore these, can you let us know which passages in the sources support you?

More to the point, what are the misconceptions being claimed here? It isn't clear to me at all. --hippo43 (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF works both ways. Another editor has claimed that it does support this content. I don't have access to this book so there's no way I can determine who's right. Luckily, this should be simple. Just upload a scan of the book and we can settle this matter very quickly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The other editor involved has not even articulated what he thinks the misconception is, and hasn't engaged in the discussion started above several months ago - he simply restored material without attempting to clarify the challenged source. As I said above, I'm not able to supply a scan - I suggest you start to assume good faith. I don't own the copy of the book I checked, or have access to a scanner. The burden of evidence is on those who want to restore material, not on me. Therefore the burden of producing a scan, or quoting the relevant passage, lies with the editor/s who wish to restore material - I suggest you check yourself or ask Hearfourmewesique for a scan. I have no idea which part he thinks supports his assertion that there is a common misconception here. --hippo43 (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

All this arguing about uploading a scan, when Google Books has already done it. Page 61 is here. While it doesn't say that it's a "common" misconception that Charlie Parker wrote a composition that Miles Davis actually wrote, it does say that the error was perpetuated on numerious re-issues. In spite of this error, the source quotes someone who suspected the error. So in a sense this may be a common misconception due to a widely-published error, but on the other hand it isn't a common misconception because anyone intimately familiar with the works of both Parker and Davis suspected Davis wrote that particular piece.

I'd say it's a wash, probably not a misconception at all among Davis afficionados in spite of being perpetuated by a publisher. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but it doesn't give me a scan of the page - the page I get gives info about the book but says "No preview available". If it lets you access the whole page, is there anything in there that supports the assertion that there is a misconception, and that it is widely held? --hippo43 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The link does give you a scan of that page. I suggest you view it, and stop making your inability to look up a source into a problem for everyone else. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, please assume good faith. That link may give you a scan of the page, but not me, perhaps because we're in different parts of the world. --hippo43 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As I already stated, I've done my share of supplying the burden of evidence. "As far as I can tell, they are not widely-held misconceptions" – what is exactly "as far as you can tell" and how does that count for a reliable source? Or, for that matter, if I look at your edit history for this page, you keep removing the most obvious entries such as "veins are blue". Please explain, in detail, why you do that. As far as I can tell, there are many kinds of editors on Wikipedia, and here are two kinds: those who seek to make positive contributions to benefit the community, and those who do nothing but scrupulously seek to remove any contribution that might slightly bypass a rule (that would usually have 345876473 exceptions to it, if you really dig deep), just to be some kind of "Wikipedia police". I am going to assume good faith here and pose the question: which kind are you?

To get back to our issue: all these are widely held misconceptions, at least among the worldwide musicians' community, and it is fairly large to ignore. Louis Armstrong was "symbolically born" on the Fourth of July, 1900; "Donna Lee" is an integral part of the Charlie Parker be-bop school for any jazz musician; and Jaco Pastorius is unanimous with pioneering the fretless bass. As I told you, please check your knowledge and know where to humble yourself. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What an arrogant pile of crap. "As far as I can tell" means that I can't see any words in the sources you supplied which document that these are widely-held misconceptions - using these words means I am open to someone showing me I have missed something, but so far, noone has. Rather than attacking me, can you actually quote any text from these sources which confirms that these are widely-held misconceptions? I'm the kind of editor who looks to improve articles by adding good material and removing untrue and unsourced material - both are positive contributions which benefit the community, despite your arrogant assumptions. In the case of this article, it's often the latter. In this instance, the three examples you inserted are garbage, and the sources aupplied for all three do not support your claim that they are common misconceptions. Don't patronise me with your assumptions about "the worldwide musicians' community." There are editors who can read sources and editors who can't. Which kind are you? --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So far, the only arrogant remarks I see are coming from you. You are breaking consensus, conducting personal attacks and tenaciously removing material without proper justification and/or discussion. As you were told, WP policies go both ways and no editor is the "ultimate authority" as for removal of material. It is not unsourced, nor is it untrue. Please rephrase your response so it meets the basic criteria of human respect and we will continue this discussion, otherwise – the consensus is to restore these entries.

As for your question – I am the type of editor, who seeks the balance between adhering to policies and exercising common sense. You, on the other hand, only boomeranged the question without having the decency to respond properly. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I answered your question, and didn't attack you at all - I only criticised your last comment. If you were offended by that, it wasn't my intention. I have already discussed these sources. In your latest reply, while pompously refusing to discuss the issue, you failed to address the crucial point - what text from the sources you supplied states that these are common misconceptions? I can't find anything in any of the 3 sources you supplied, but I may have missed it. There is no consensus in this discussion to keep these examples - Amatulic and myself do not support your view, and no editors have spoken up in support of these sources. Rather than remove them right away, I will leave them for 24 hours. If there is something in these sources which justifies keeoing them, please point it out or I will have to remove them again. --hippo43 (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm only going to say this once: this is the last time I am cooperating under threats. I am asking you politely to never give out these kinds of ultimatums again.

• Louis Armstrong – found another source that blatantly states the words "common misconception" (Google the subject and I am positive you will come up with more);
• Donna Lee – I do not own the book, and even if I did... it takes great nerve to request me (or anyone) to upload copyrighted material. You are more than welcome to find it in a library;
• Jaco Pastorius – please read the article (I thought you knew how to read sources, if I can properly read your comments ). I am not here to chew your food for you.

I have done my share of research for proper sources and I know what I am doing, otherwise I would not be adding this information in the first place. This is not arrogant, neither is it pompous. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and it is only natural to admit either. I am fairly knowledgeable when it comes to music, especially jazz, and I am here to share some of that knowledge with the public. This is my idea of being a Wikipedia editor.

Oh, and by the way, it amuses me (to the least) when you write "no editors have spoken up in support of these sources" right after A Quest For Knowledge speaks in my favor, and Amatulic only doubts (which has a different meaning than denies) the Donna Lee myth as a common misconception – but if you read his answer thoroughly (again, which you claim to be your strength), he only claims that musicians/musicologists/aficionados (and he only refers to those who are "intimately familiar with the works of both Parker and Davis") suspect that Parker did not write it. C'est tout. I need to sleep sometimes too. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no threat above - just an offer to wait for you to explain what I may have missed. You still haven't taken me up on it. If there is some text in these sources which states that these are widely-held misconceptions, please be straight-forward enough to point it out, as I can't find it. I didn't ask you to upload copyrighted material, I asked you to quote the text from it which supports your view - a perfectly reasonable request. I have read the source and it believe it doesn't support your claim. I realise you may be very knowledgeable about some aspects of music, but your word on the matter is not enough - we depend on reliable sources, not your willingness to share your knowledge with the public. Quest has not spoken up here in favour of these sources. If he is able to point out what you haven;t, that would help resolve this. I will wait a little longer, as I said above, but if no editor can explain what parts of these sources are relevant, I'll remove them later today. --hippo43 (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just read the new source supplied by Hearfourmewesique - swingmusic.net. I don't believe it is a reliable source - I can't find anything on the site about its fact-checking policy. Moreover, it states that this was in the past - "For many years the public believed..." - so apparently it is not currently a misconception. If there are reliable sources which clear this up, it would be helpful. --hippo43 (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No you won't. You will file an RfC and wait patiently. I would be wiser than resuming an edit war shortly after being unblocked. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I will wait for 24 hours to see if yourself or any other interested editors can explain if I am missing something in the sources. These were moved to this talk page, with an explanation, several months ago, and consensus was established when no editors objected to their removal or supplied proper sources to support restoring them. A few days ago I noticed that you had restored them, without discussing them here, and without updating the sources at all, so I moved them here again, and started a discussion. (Not exactly edit-warring on my part.) Since then, you have commented here 4 times, and each time have not explained which part of any of these sources supports your opinion. I have done more than enough to try to discuss this with you and others, and to establish if I have misunderstood something in the sources. If nobody is able to point out the text from the sources which document that these are widely-held misconceptions, I will remove them. --hippo43 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above, I've removed these again, in line with the consensus established when they were moved here for discussion in August. They can still be discussed here if other editors can shed more light on them:

• Contrary to the self-perpetuated popular myth, Louis Armstrong was not born on July 4, 1900. It was not until mid-1980s that his real birth date was revealed – August 4, 1901.

The Kennedy Center source does not say this is (or was) widely believed. The swingmusic.net source (which is not a reliable source) says that it was a misconception ("for many years the public believed...") - i.e. it is not currently commonly believed. The article should not cover former common misconceptions, such as "many people used to believe that the earth was flat".

• Although included in Charlie Parker's "Omnibook" and eventually copyrighted under Parker's name, the jazz standard "Donna Lee" was actually composed by Miles Davis.

I presume the misconception is supposed to be that many people believe Parker wrote 'Donna Lee', though it was actually written by Davis. However, the source does not say any such thing - it says it was mistakenly attributed to Parker, but it does not say that it is widely believed that Parker wrote the piece.

That is splitting hairs. The error was widely perpetuated by the publisher. Since the general population would assume the publisher isn't publishing falsehoods, it's reasonable to claim that the widely-perpetuated published error that doesn't get corrected is the same thing as a common misconception. There is no consensus for removing this item. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That line of argument is pure original research. "The general public would assume...it's reasonable to claim..." Says who? There is no reliable source cited stating that this is a common misconception. If noone can provide one over the next weke or so, I will remove it. --hippo43 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Jaco Pastorius is often misquoted to have invented the fretless bass by removing the frets from a fretted bass guitar that he had, instead of replacing his upright bass that had been ruined due to humidity. Actually, Fender started marketing fretless Jazz Bass models as early as 1964. The previous owner of that guitar (a Florida-based saxophonist named Ben Champion) had already taken out the frets himself, but Jaco was less than satisfied by his overall work, thus finishing the job by filling the gaps with plastic wood.

The claim is that Pastorius "is often misquoted to have invented the fretless bass by removing the frets from a fretted bass guitar". This supposed misconception does not appear in the source - the source explains that Pastorius bought a bass with the frets already removed, but does not state that it is widely believed that he came up with the concept himself, or anything similar. I can't find any other source which covers this claim. --hippo43 (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Hippo43 has been blocked yet again for edit warring less than 24 hours since his unblock.[10]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Quest and Amatulić. I have really grown tired of such editors and it's about time they started regressing from sucking our energies by forcefully engaging us in lengthy, needless "discussions" that can usually be summed up on their end as "not good enough" (a-la the Queen of England ). Now that hippo43 has alienated the same admin that unblocked him, it will be increasingly harder for him to find support for his actions. Live and learn... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Despite my requests, noone has explained why they believe the sources currently included support the Armstrong & Pastorius entries, so I've removed them. I'm more than happy to discuss these, as I've repeated several times. --hippo43 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Again these were restored without discussion or explanation, so I've removed them again. Again, happy to discuss if I've missed something in these sources. --hippo43 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a music writer (and bass player), I've not once heard this alleged misconception about fretless basses, so I find it hard to believe it's a "common" misconception. Given that upright basses have no frets, fretless bass guitars hardly require much imagination. And the Louis Armstrong entry for me falls more into the realm of trivia, and trivia of interest only to Americans. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1) A "common" misconception refers to a vast number of people, but never 100%. Therefore, with all due respect, the fact that you never heard of this doesn't refute the misconception.

2) As for your second sentence... ahum, what?

3) This whole article could fall under trivia, and even if this were of interest only to Americans (which is a statement I'd personally avoid, since I heard this misconception in a different country and not only Americans know who Satchmo was or what July 4 means), it's – again – a fairly large group to ignore. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You're largely criticizing views I don't hold. I never said that the Jaco story was absolutely not a common misconception, I said I found it hard to believe that it was; the burden of proof is on those claiming it's a common misconception, not on me, and the entry as posted doesn't convince me. As for Louis Armstrong, this strikes me as Americana trivia in way that other parts of this page aren't, such as the entry on the Emancipation Proclamation. And compared to well-sourced misconceptions about history and science, this is trivia. Hairhorn (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Jaco story is a rumor I heard from several bassists and other musicians throughout my life, in various countries. As for Armstrong, you haven't convinced me the tiniest bit as for why it's trivia compared to other parts of the article. "Well sourced" is something we can argue about till doomsday; I have supplied two sources that claim that Louis himself claimed July 4, 1900 to be his birth date and given the fact that he is the ultimate jazz icon of all times and as such, represents the whole jazz culture even to those who are not familiar with it at all (worldwide), his word would be largely taken for granted unless officially proven to be untrue.

Has anyone noticed how ridiculously long this section of the discussion has become? I have provided all the answers hippo43 needed; his claims that I'm reverting without explanation are infuriating and intended to suck out my energy on every occasion he can. I suggest we wrap it up, even if admin intervention is needed. If anyone wants to take action, be my guest. I've learned not to feed the trolls on such occasions; I'll keep reverting until such intervention occurs. If I'm told by the higher-ups to stop, I will stop; as I wrote on hippo43's talk page, it's not a job, I have a life and I'm not here for the drama. I just want to edit in peace. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Until now, you hadn't provided the answers I asked for - now it's clear you don't have proper sources for these. Your explanation of the Pastorius example ("a rumor I heard from several bassists and other musicians throughout my life") confirms that this is original research, and not verifiable as it stands. It doesn't matter that you 'know' that lots of people believe it - you need to provide a source which states that this view is widely held.

As for Louis Armstrong, you also haven't supplied a reliable source which states that this is a common misconception. I'll remove them again now - please do not restore them without supplying new sources which support your view. --hippo43 (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have left these on Hairhorn's talk page as well. These are good examples of the Jaco rumor being spread around on various sites and forums. I could "fish out" more examples, but anyone who knows how to Google can do it. Again, too many energies I am spending on what could have been a joint effort.

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14] (this is supposed to be a biography – quote: "He invented the fretless bass guitar one night by taking out a pair of pliers and some wood compound and removing the frets.")

[15]

[16]

[17] (this is supposed to be a bass related lecture – quote: "It was invented by Jaco Pastorius who, takin' away the frets of his Fender Jazz, could in this way obtain a sound that even more so permitted him to stand out for his enormous technical and expressive skills.") Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is obviously original research. Finding examples of a belief (in this case, in non-reliable sources) and contrasting that with a statement made by Pastorius is not acceptable as a reference for this being a common misconception - you have researched that yourself and are not citing secondary sources which cover the misconception. If there are reliable sources which states that it is widely believed that Pastorius invented the fretless bass, but that he actually bought an already-fretless instrument, then that would be acceptable. If you don't understand, please read the policy - WP:NOR. --hippo43 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Most Popular Myths in Science

Here's a potential source that we can use for this article: http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/result.php?cat=myths. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Testosterone

High levels of testosterone do not necessarily make humans more aggressive and less cooperative

I'm not sure that this is a common misconception, given the word "necessarily". Of course nothing is necessary in biology. The real question is whether testosterone level and level of aggression are positively correlated in humans. AxelBoldt (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. For me, there are several problems with this one - recentism, reliance on a single, very limited study, the self-promotion and claims made by its author, and the exaggeration of the study's significance by the media. Not surprisingly, journalists don't use moderate language in covering this sort of stuff - writing something like "one recent study suggests that the relationship between testosterone and aggressive behaviour may not be as clear as some people have assumed" is not as sexy as depicting a more polarised situation with words like 'debunk' and 'myth'.

The study's author's statements about how this "proves" such and such are not worth much - we need the views of acknowledged experts in the field about the significance of this work. Has there been a shift in consensus among the scientific community about the relationship between testosterone and human behaviour? I don't know that there has, and haven't found any reliable sources yet which really cover this - the exact role of testosterone in risk-taking, physical aggression, anti-social behaviour and recklessness may be more nuanced than was previously portrayed, but they are evidently still considered to be correlated.

This may be worth a re-write to make it more measured, but I'm not convinced there is a single common belief here, or that it has been conclusively disproved, rather than just qualified. --hippo43 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

JFK "Ich bin ein Berliner"

I've removed this. It's not a common misconception. The source given was a blog, not a reliable source. There are far more sources around which state that JFK did mis-speak, and they have not been reliably debunked. --hippo43 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please don't restart the silly discussion that we had at Talk:Ich bin ein Berliner. For me there is no doubt at all that this is a very common misconception. Of course we have the usual problem that experts normally aren't very motivated to debunk a misconception. In this case it's debunked by Wikipedia, probably using the best sources that could be found, and in an article that is being watched by plenty of Germans who simply know that any German who claimed to misunderstand Kennedy (or even just that Kennedy "really" was referring to a doughnut) did so only as a joke. This urban legend also has a section in de:Ich bin ein Berliner. On the corresponding talk page there is no dispute among the German-speaking editors about whether this was a legend. But I found a pointer to a book that should remove all doubt:

Let us quickly address and then shelve the persistent legend of the putative grammatical error that supposedly rendered the president's declaration nonsensical. [...] The supposed error is much commented upon in Germany and, especially, the United States. [...] It can neither be proved nor disproved that several people among the hundreds of thousands gathered in front of the city hall grinned at the somewhat unusual sentence – on account of either the indefinite article or the multiple meanings of Berliner. It is, however, very clear from the audiovisual documentation available that the crowd did not regard Kennedy's as comical or as a reason to laugh any of the four times they heard it. Nor did the German or American press accounts at the time say anything about a grammatical mistake or the spectators finding the sentence amusing. [...] Moreover, the use of the definite article ein in "Ich bin ein Berliner" is neither incorrect nor entirely uncommon, as the linguistic scholar Jürgen Eichhoff has demonstrated. Saying ein Berliner is grammatically correct if it is used metaphorically. To take a more common parallel example, the sentence "Er ist Schauspieler" (He is an actor) is a statement of fact about a man's profession; the sentence "Er ist ein Schauspieler" means the man is putting on an act. [...] Two further points [i.e. several native speakers checked the speech first, Berliner in the sense of jelly doughnut is not used in Berlin.] In sum, it is safe to say that the jelly doughnut jokes can be relegated to the realm of legend.

Andreas Daum, Kennedy in Berlin, Publications of the German Historical Institute, Cambridge University Press 2007, p. 148f [18]

If all misconceptions presented here were of this quality I would have no big problem with this page. Hans Adler 12:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I have no objection to it now. --hippo43 (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So Hippo, it appears that yet again you deleted valid content that you claimed was wrong. How many times is that now? 10? 20? BTW, I was able to find a source[19] in about a minute. Perhaps you've heard of something called Google? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Forbidden fruit

I've removed this. It's not a common misconception. There is no source supplied which states people widely believe the forbidden fruit mentioned in the bible was an apple, far less a source which states that they are incorrect in that belief. I haven't been able to find any such source. --hippo43 (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you tried very hard. Even Forbidden Fruit mentions it, and googling "forbidden fruit apple misconception" turns up a plethora of information. The article would get better quicker if people put their efforts into finding sources rather than fighting it out via edit wars. Rpvdk (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too stressed about whether you think I tried hard or not. I did find some sources, including two of the sources you cited. However, I didn't consider them of sufficient quality to support the claim. I don't know if The Straight Dope qualifies as a reliable source, but as far as I can tell it doesn't state this is widely believed - it just says "the item in question is invariably depicted as an apple". The JAMA source is clearly not reliable on this, as it's a letter from a reader to the editor. I've removed these two sources from the aricle for these reasons.

Since you've reworded it, the supposed misconception now reads like "many people believe the bible identifies the forbidden fruit is an apple". However, the ohr.edu source doesn't support this statement at all. The rabbi approaches this from the perspective of Jewish theology - he writes "So, what was this forbidden fruit? There are at least three opinions in the rabbinical literature..." and goes on to explain various Jewish interpretations of what the fruit might be supposed to be. In answering the question "What is the identity of the Fruit ...?", he states that there is a misconception about what the fruit is. He doesn't mention any popular misunderstanding over how the fruit is identified in the text, or whether christian artistic depictions of the fruit as an apple equate to people believing that the bible mentions it being an apple.

Further, I'm not sure that the agony rabbi, or the website ohr.edu, are reliable sources on what is or isn't a common misconception. I can't find any statement on editorial control or fact-checking on either ohr.edu or the rabbi's own site. If the mistaken belief is actually "the forbidden fruit was an apple", then I don't believe this rabbi can be considered a reliable source.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this, and from other editors. There may be a misconception in there somewhere, but I haven't found any reliable sources which nail it down yet. I've removed it for now, pending further discussion or reliable sources for the misconception being supplied. --hippo43 (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The misconceptions seems to be more common in German than in English:

• Fruit of knowledge: 9.6 million
• Apple of knowledge: 0.9 million
• [20]: 0.4 million
• [21]: 0.4 million

I found a source that explains why (a piece by a translator, published in a leading Austrian newspaper: "The apple is held to be the symbol of the fall of man – but wrongly. A misconception has crept in here. [...]" The author does not mention the "malus" = apple or evil reading of the Vulgate, but instead explains that for a long time "apple" was a generic word for fruits that could also be applied to oranges, tomatoes and even potatoes. This also explains the term Adam's apple. [22]

But in English the misconception seems to be quite common as well. I don't have access to the following book, but read the first sentence of the Google Books overview: [23]. Now citable reliable sources aside, I found the frequency with which the apple thing is mentioned in the Amazon reviews quite convincing: [24].

I don't know if this convinces you, but it is enough for me. Hans Adler 15:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Lang book does seem to cover it, though I'm always sceptical about sources which purport to debunk a bunch of misconceptions, as it's in their interest to depict every bizarre factoid as a common misunderstanding. Without reading it myself I don't know what he says the misconception is. Can anyone supply a cite? --hippo43 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I share your attitude towards the "misconceptions" edutainment literature. But I think it's acceptable for non-contentious entries, and I thought perhaps I can convince you to accept this particular misconception as a real one, if not a perfectly sourced one. Hans Adler 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure a world renowned journal like the JAMA does enough checking before it prints anything, letter or not. The Straight Dope is used elsewhere in the article as a reference already. There is a good basis for the misconception as it's hisory in art shows. In any case, the sources meet Wikipedia:Verifiability which is the only thing that matters. Restoring the entry. Rpvdk (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what you mean by "the sources meet Wikipedia:Verifiability which is the only thing that matters." Have you actually read the policy? I've removed the JAMA and Straight Dope sources again. The Straight Dope source may be reliable if used in support of something else, but does not mention any misconception so does not verify this material at all. As for the letter to the JAMA, it is ridiculous to contend that these are fact-checked and subject to the same editorial control as the rest of the journal. Periodicals publishing letters routinely include some kind of disclaimer to the effect that "views published here do not represent the views of the publisher etc" - if they only published correspondence that had been rigorously checked, how would there be any scope for correspondents to disagree? I can't find anything on their website to confirm that JAMA staff fact-check these letters, and neither JAMA or the letter's author are widely considered an authority on the subject of misconceptions or biblical language. Moreover, letters are generally conisdered primary sources, and secondary sources are preferred.

Anyhow, as Hans stated above, and I agreed, it does seem to be covered by the Lang book. If it can be worded correctly (consistent with that source), I have no problem with the example being included. I've left the example, reworded and with a 'citation needed' tag, so hopefully someone can supply a source from the Lang book or similar. --hippo43 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability defines unreliable sources as "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." The JAMA certainly does not fall into that category. The policy also states that source quality is most important for contentious claims, so it follows that less contentious claims can do with less than multiple peer-reviewed doctoral studies. I'd certainly qualify whether or not something is a common misconception into the latter category, if there is widespread information on it. Never led it be said that I'm not willing to work with other editors though, so I'll go along with your rewrite and extra citation. I've not been able to dig up the Lang book yet, but I have found another book in print, with the cited page available online: http://books.google.nl/books?id=ttRALSu_bIwC&pg=PT102&lpg=PT102 Since the misconception is adequately sourced by this anyway, I'll remove the JAMA reference. The other references are in place to source the other information so please leave those. Rpvdk (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We could easily go round and round all day quoting various parts of WP:V and WP:RS, but let's just agree to use the best quality sources available. You're right that the JAMA is a very respected source - but in its field of expertise only. It has no standing at all as a source on biblical semantics or popular stupidity, nor a reputation for meticulously fact-checking letters it receives. A non-expert on biblical matters writing a non-fact-checked letter to a medical journal complaining about an author's misunderstanding of the point is just not a good quality source for this - let's not pretend that it is. There are two secondary sources now available (the Lang book and the Szpek source that you added) which deal directly with the subject area, so are clearly preferable. I've again removed the rabbi's article - unless I'm missing something, it adds nothing to the explanation and is a very poor source. I'm certainly open to rewording the example if there's a better way of phrasing it. All in all, I think we have a fairly good entry now.

As for whether or not this stuff is contentious, have you read some of the discussion on here? :) --hippo43 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider Wikipedia:When to cite - we're only writing that there is a common misconception about something, not claiming someone was part of the Nazi party or such. The various religious sources used seem to qualify for the "Subject-specific common knowledge" part of that article. I have no interest in edit warring over these sources though so I'm not going to put them back.

Anyway, not to be pedantic, but you changed "malum" to "mali" - the source says "malum" and List_of_Latin_phrases:_M suggests to me that "malum" is correct. I'll admit I have limited knowledge of Latin but I would like an explanation for this change (or dare I say it, a source :) ) Rpvdk (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that this is all really a trivial matter - I guess I read 'contentious' to mean 'disputed', rather than 'serious'. For something to be included as a common misconception in this list, it seems natural that citing each supposed misconception is important, particularly given the wording ('multiple reliable sources') in the intro.

On the form of 'mali'/'malus'/'malum' used in the vulgate, I was going with the text quoted in the forbidden fruit article - ""de ligno autem scientiae boni et mali". Sources online such as this seem to confirm it, but I may have got this wrong. --hippo43 (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Adam and Eve's children

I removed this. There's no misconception, no sources given - pure original research. --hippo43 (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Blatant contradiction

Al Gore did not specifically say that he invented the Internet. What he did state was, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet".

So which is it? Did he say it or not? A.J.A. (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)