Talk:List of common misconceptions

Birds are dinosaurs?

"Most paleontologists regard birds as the only clade of dinosaurs to have survived the Cretaceous Tertiary extinction event approximately 65.5 Ma.". --Birds —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 11:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Birds are NOT dinosaurs. Being descended from dinosaurs is not the same thing as being a dinosaur, any more than humans possibly being descended from some ancient species of rodents makes humans rodents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. We are Humans, homoids, apes, primates, mammals, reptiles, etc depending on the level you look at. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Coelacanth. 65.46.169.246 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again. Didn't read the quote you were responding to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You have, again, removed cited information without any reasoning. You have been warned not to edit war on your discussion page. I have quoted the wiki page on birds as stating birds are an extant clade of dinosaurs. You have removed this correct information twice with no reasoning except 'birds are not dinosaurs' and 'wrong'. This are your opinions, and may be valuable to you, but cannot be used on wikipedia due to wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Birds are not dinosaurs. Being an evolutionary descendant of dinosaurs is not the same thing as being a dinosaur. The burden of proof is on you, which is also a wikipedia standard, and so far you have failed that test. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

clade n.[1] A group of animals or other organisms derived from a common ancestor species. The clade Dinosauria includes all dinosaurs as well as birds, which are descended from the dinosaurs Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on this topic at the science ref desk.[2] Your citation that "most" scientists this-and-that is sufficient to keep it out of the article. If the scientists can't definitively agree on it, then it's not appropriate to state it as if it were a blanket truth. It could be stated with appropriate qualifications, which it was previously lacking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that the misconception about humans and dinosaurs not interacting needs to be reworded. It's still true that humans never interacted with "classic" or stereotypical dinosaurs like t-rex and brontosaurus. If birds are to be considered as equivalent to dinosaurs, then the misconception needs to be written better than it was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, good point. Birds may be regarded as living dinosaurs, but if they are, then humans and dinos have definitely lived at the same time since we both exist now. Our Dinosaur article uses the phrase "non-avian dinosaurs" to refer to "classic" dinos like t-rex. Maybe we could use it in this case to clarify the situation? Doc Tropics 05:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

On further review, I see that "Non-avian dinosaurs" is already used, but not until near the end of the paragraph. Would moving it up into the first sentence help resolve some of the confusion? Doc Tropics 06:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As I just said at the science ref desk, I think we've got a misconception within a misconception. One is that early hominids interacted with "classic" (non-avian) dinosaurs. The other is that all dinosaurs went extinct at least 65 million years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I just left this note at WikiProject:Dinsoaurs in the hopes that one of our friendly Ph.D.'s can help clarify things. I'm sure it's just a matter of getting the right wording to eliminate confusion. Doc Tropics 20:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. This statement: "being an evolutionary descendant of dinosaurs is not the same thing as being a dinosaur" is utterly false under modern classification systems (or at least, the classification system currently used by 99.99% of paleontologists. In phylogenetic taxonomy, unlike old-fashioned, pre-evolutionary Linnaean taxonomy, groups are nested within one another rather than being split off into 'classes' etc. In this sense, the clade Aves is nested within the clade Dinosauria (which is in turn nested inside Archosauria, Reptilia, Amniota, Vertebrata, etc.). According to all modern experts in the field (save a vocal minority of about 2 researchers), birds are dinosaurs. I can even personally attest that there has been a very large, prominent banner with the words "Birds Are dinosaurs" hanging in the Saurischian Dinosaur Hall of the American Museum of Natural History, not exactly an institution of quackery, for the past 20 years. There are also dozens of sources from the giants of the field listed in Origin of Birds, Feathered dinosaurs, etc. if you want something citable. In short, Baseball Bugs is misinformed and/or following outdated information. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite true. As was pointed out in the science ref desk, "dinosaur" used to mean one thing, and its definition was broadened to mean something else, but in general the public thinks of T-Rex and Brontosaurus as "dinosaurs", and birds as "birds". And as I say, this leaves us with a misconception within a misconception. The standard "fact" is "dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago". That's true of the "classic" dinosaurs, but not of the avian ancestors. So the misconception needs to either be re-worded or jettisoned altogether. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was just responding to a request for clarification. I don't know what definition of "misconception" you guys are using. The fact is that in the past, "dinosaur" was a vague term that excluded birds but included certain extinct reptiles. It has since been given a formal definition where it includes a specific set of reptiles that happens to include birds within that set. This is in parallel with say, the definition of "planet" (note, not a 're-definition', as in both cases no formal definition existed in the first place). If you would say that it's a misconception that Pluto is a planet, than it is also a misconception that dinosaurs are extinct. If not, then it's not. Is it still a misconception if a definition changes and the general public doesn't know about the change? I think that's the central issue here, not whether or not birds are dinosaurs (they are, contra your initial posts asserting otherwise). MMartyniuk (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The misconception is that humans interacted with "classic" dinosaurs such as T-Rex and Brontosaurus, and that misconception remains intact. In general, people don't think of birds as being dinosaurs, because they are not "terrible lizards", they are birds. As far as Pluto is concerned, that wouldn't qualify as a misconception, because Pluto did not change, only the scientists' designation for it did, just as they decided to redefine what a dinosaur is; which is why scientists get ridiculed for stuff like this. Of course there was a "formal definition" of what planets and dinosaurs were - look in any old dictionary. The asteroids used to be called "minor planets". This term "dwarf planet" is likewise an invention of scientists, but Pluto is still a "planet" by strict definition of what a "planet" is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

By "formal definition" I meant a scientific one used by experts in the field, not the kind of vague, colloquial definitions given in dictionaries for scientific terms. (I actually have some popular kids books from the '70s which argue that there is no such thing as a "dinosaur to begin with, only a vague, informal term for certain unrelated prehistoric reptiles. The modern definition took over when it was recognized that classic dinosaurs actually do form a natural group. So it was as much a result of scientific discovery as changing definitions). Looking in a random dictionary right now, the definitions given there would make some "classic dinosaurs" true birds, since it defines "bird" only as "winged, egg-laying, warm blooded vertebrates." This describes Velociraptor as much as it does an ostrich. As for minor planets, the fact that different people were using the term planet in different ways at various times means that there were a variety of colloquial definitions, but no universally recognized formal one. Anyway, I agree with you that if it has to come down to an issue of semantics like this, it's probably not a common misconception. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientists are notorious for changing their minds about things, so the statement "birds are dinosaurs" is not a "fact", it's merely the way one group is classifying things this week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply put: Birds are dinosaurs, by today's standards, but this need not be included in the misconception due to its confusing nature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a fact if you simply use a full sentence. It is a fact that birds are dinosaurs in the most used phylogenetic model. Or cladistic model. Or whatever. That being the dominant model, saying it 'isn't a fact' is like saying "Earth being a planet isn't a fact." Well, in the relevant model, it is! In some model it may not be, but so what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree if someone wants to remove the bit about birds being dinosaurs. I only re-entered the edit four or six times, or whatever, because the argument against it was that 'birds aren't dinosaurs'. Which is wrong. But it is true that 'birds are dinosaurs' might not be really a necessary tidbit for this misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the right way to say it might be, "Birds didn't used to be dinosaurs, but now they are." And if that seems like a joke, it is, but not for the reason you think. It's the scientists who are responsible for this shifting sand of definitions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, the nature of science is ongoing review when new data becomes available. The last thirty years has seen huge changes in how we classify organisms (cladistics) - we now know that birds are descended from dinosaurs, and that that means they are technically dinosaurs. Birds, dinosaurs (and crocodiles for that matter) share a more recent common ancestor (and are hence more closely related to each other) than other reptiles such as turtles, snakes and lizards. Hence they form a more natural group. I would add a final line "Ironically, birds are now considered to be dinosaurs by most scientists, so we are all coexisting with dinosaurs." once I find a nice consensus reference. Having a photo of the banner sounds cool. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Update - added 3 refs showing consensus that birds = dinosaurs. This is a consensus view. Period. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed this to "birds evolved from dinosaurs" which is the mainstream consensus simply stated. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

1st sentence, 2nd para, last sentence, first para, first sentence - um, "are" being the operative word, not "evolved" Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Birds are dinosaurs. In the same sense in which humans are apes, apes are monkeys, and whales are fish. Don't worry, I'm not about to try to make those changes. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this debate but now feel compelled to jump in. Casliber, the sources occasionally use the phrase "are dinosaurs", but there is also a generous use of phrases such "descended from", including the idea that dinosaurs and birds descended from a common ancestor, which does not make birds equivalent to dinosaurs. There is enough doubt about the bold statement "birds are dinosaurs" that it should not be stated as such in the article. Mention the possibility, including common ancestry, but don't state "birds are dinosaurs" as if it is unquestioned fact. Cresix (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"birds equivalent to dinosaurs"? "birds = dinosaurs"? Is there such a confusion about the statement that birds are dinosaurs? That "birds are dinosaurs" means that "dinosaurs are birds"? If there is such a confusion, then it counts as a common misconception, and there should be an explanation of that. "Tomatoes are fruit" does not mean that fruit are tomatoes. Maybe there should be an entry about cladistics, in which it is explained that a clade includes all the descendants of the last common ancestor (LCA) of all of the members of the clade. If "dinosaur" is a clade, and birds are the descendants of some dinosaurs, then that means that birds are descendants of their LCA, and birds are dinosaurs. Just as humans are the descendants of the LCA of chimps and gibbons (both of which are universally recognized as apes). Just as apes are the descendants of the LCA of titis and baboons (that is, monkeys). Just as whales are the descendants of the LCA of sharks and tunas (that is, fish). (Other examples of descendants of the LCA of fish are ostriches and anteaters.) TomS TDotO (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please Cresix, read about cladistics. And look at the sources. These museums do not make statements like this lightly. Each reference makes the statement "birds are dinosaurs" within it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite your condescending suggestion, Casliber, I did read the sources. You are selectively citing parts of sources, overlooking (as I have already said) that the sources also make as much use of phrases such as "descended from" as they do "are dinosaurs". Certainly the possibility exists that birds are dinosaurs, but you are imposing an inflexible interpretation on a matter that is not universally acknowledged, even in the very sources that you cite. Cresix (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me the problem here is just that there are clearly two senses of 'dinosaur' involved here. There is the scientific sense, which is rigorously defined, and in this sense birds are dinosaurs. There is a distinct, ordinary sense, which is not clearly defined, and in this sense birds are not dinosaurs. This is perfectly analogous to the term 'animal'. In its biological sense, humans are animals. In its ordinary sense, humans are not animals. (If you doubt the latter claim, try reporting child abuse to your local animal cruelty prevention organization.) Because there are two distinct senses of the same word, any revisions need to acknowledge explicitly that there are these two senses, and say unambiguously which is intended. MJM74 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

ISTM that everybody is agreeing that there is a common misconception or two which call for explanations, and what better place to have those explanations? TomS TDotO (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Whow, this is one of those problems even scientists themselves are not agreeing about. We are just having a nice discussion on this topic on one of the taxonomists list-serves. Anyway, the issue is that there are several paradigms used when we classify taxa. In the strict phylogenetic way, all extant species that originated from a single ancestor are preferably grouped together in a monophyletic group. If we do that, birds and dinosaurs are in the same group. A different way to look at it is from the perspective of changes, some critical characteristic. Here it gets fishy, because birds are traditionally defined on characteristics like having feathers, but feathered tetrapods have made taht a bit difficult and the current definition of birds is somewaht arbitrary set to Archeopteryx being the first bird. But if we ignore those details, birds have acquired some unique characteristics and for that reason should be considered a seprerate group outside of the dinosaurs. This would make the dinosaurs paraphyletic in the phylogenetic sense, but would be more representative for the crucial changes underpinning the group. Nowadays, there is a strong push in science towards forcing monophyletic groups in the phylogenetic context (especially by molecular phylogenetisists), but it is by no means the only voice (many more traditional taxonomists disagree). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The nested definition idea seems suspect to me. if birds are dinosaurs because they share a common ancestor, doesn't that mean that mammals are reptiles (or amphibians, or fish) for the same reason? I can't see that "descended from a common ancestor" means "is the same as" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But birds do not just "share a common ancestor" with dinosaurs. We share a common ancestor with dinosaurs, trees share a common ancestor with dinosaurs, crocs share a common ancestor with dinosaurs. Birds are nested inside dinosaurs, just as tyrannosaurids, ceratopsians, and sauropods are. (Follow the links in order to make any sense of things.) It's no different from dogs being nested inside mammals. And Velociraptor (or even Brachiosaurus) is more closely related to a house sparrow than to a Triceratops. Albertonykus (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"Birds are dinosaurs" does not mean "birds are the same as dinosaurs." Some dinosaurs were not birds. And the same "problem" of cladistics applies with "reptiles" (including "turtles", "crocodiles", and "snakes" implies including "mammals" and "birds") and "fish" (including "tunas" and "sharks" implies including "reptiles"). TomS TDotO (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Vomitorium redux

After reading the previous discussion on this talk page about vomitoria, I did a little source-hunting to see if I could nail down "misconception" and "common" sources (and convice myself that I'm not crazy and everyone else has heard this one too!). Here's what I came up with:

• Oxford Dictionaries entry for "vomitorium": "a place in which, according to popular misconception, the ancient Romans are supposed to have vomited during feasts to make room for more food".
• Google books preview for a book called "A Cabinet of Roman Curiosities: Strange Tales and Surprising Facts from the World's Greatest Empire": "There is a common misconception that rich Romans had a special room, a vomitorium, to which they withdrew to throw up so that they could continue eating. There is no evidence for such a room.", which goes on to define what a vomitorium actually was, in addition.

These both strike me as fairly reliable sources; I'd like to propose that we replace the vomitorium blurb in the article with the wording originally provided by IP 199.106.103.249, bulked up by my sources: In ancient Rome, there was no wide-spread practice of self-induced vomiting after meals, and Romans did not build rooms called vomitoria in which to purge themselves after a meal. Vomitoria were tunnels underneath the seats in their stadiums which allowed crowds entrance and exit.

Opinions? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me. Thanks for finding the sources. Cresix (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and nice work! Doc Tropics 22:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

Per the above discussion, please insert the following text into the "Europe" Section under "History". For attribution purposes, edit summary might need to include that the text, minus sources, was originally written by anon editor 199.106.103.249.

• In ancient Rome, there was no wide-spread practice of self-induced vomiting after meals, and Romans did not build rooms called vomitoria in which to purge themselves after a meal. Vomitoria were tunnels underneath the seats in their stadiums which allowed crowds entrance and exit.

keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Good work. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Can ancient Rome and Vomitoria be linked? The latter certainly should be and I think the former would be useful too. It looks a little too bare of links at the moment.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

already  Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Mediation

There is an outstanding request for mediation concerning this article. I would be willing to accept the role of mediator, but I have a couple of concerns. First of all, the request for mediation looks more like a request for support. That is not how mediation works. Secondly, the atmosphere on this talk page seems quite hostile and I see possible IP socking issues. Is this a serious request for mediation, or should I just close the case? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

How nice it was of the user to NOT notify us of that nonsense. As far as socking, he freely admits to using that IP, so that's not at issue. He does tend to show up and disappear, such as he did in mid-November, and also since about 3 days ago. The problem on this page is editors who run across something that has to do with a survey about misconceptions and then they present it as "fact". The wrangling is over trying to keep the page tight and neither endless nor dubious. The dinosaurs/birds issue is one. The point is it's being debated. The trouble with the user in question is that he doesn't understand that his posting something in an article doesn't mean he gets to own that posting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked my archives and I was definitely NOT notified of this so-called "mediation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. It doesn't sound like mediation is appropriate (or necessary) in this instance. I'll give it 24 hours for the requesting party to respond, but if I don't hear anything I'll close the case. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nor was I notified, and I'm directly named in the mediation request as a party to the dispute. This issue was discussed rather extensively on this talk page. This is an example of one user (TheThomas (talk · contribs)) trying to assert unilateral control over the consensus process repeatedly over a period of months and not accepting the fact that he does not form a consensus of one person. Both before and after requesting mediation, he restored the item with his "consensus of one". The first time he tried to do it "under the radar" editing as an anon and not leaving an edit summary. When called on that, he made the request for mediation. When that didn't get a response for a couple of weeks, he again restored the item with the edit summary "Added back in due to lack of consensus or reasoning for removal". Note also that some of this user's suggested additions to the article have been accepted with little discussion, so we have taken the time to consider his ideas and, when necessary, discuss. Cresix (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There is two cases that I have repeatedly added sourced material (usually days apart), which has then been repeatedly reverted by Cresix or Baseball Bugs.

1) I go to the talk page, discuss the removal. I get no response for five days, then I add in the removed piece--"Added back in due to lack of consensus or reasoning for removal". That is my understanding of consensus by silence in WP:CON. If nobody has a reason for removal of material, then it is consensus by silence.WP:SILENCE

2) The second case in which I post material repeatedly (again, days apart) is when the complaint against my material is that the source is bad (broken link, not specific, not a strong enough study). In which case I go find a study which meets the reasonable requirement set by the objecting party, and reinsert the material. Which is my understanding of consensus.building consensus Both parties (myself and objector) agree that the article could use stronger supporting references, then I add the references after waiting for any other objections.

I have tried, multiple times, inserting new material directly into the discussion section--in order to skip the insert/delete/insert/delete phase. This has resulted in zero, zero, responses. So, I must put the material into the page to test whether these two will delete it. So far, my experience has been that these two will delete anything they have once removed--no matter how many times I meet their requests for better documentation of the appropriateness of my inserted statement.

The short version; these two are repeatedly deleting good, sourced information without reason, or having given a reasonable standard to meet, deleting after the standard is met. That is edit-warring, and it is bad for wikipedia. Effective discussion has ended, since no reason is given for repeatedly deleting material--besides the circular reason, 'no consensus for addition.' TheThomas (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)72.187.99.79 (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

'Consensus for addition' is not policy of an unchallenged edit. It is the opposite of policy.Wikipedia:DRNC This page does not get its own policy because these two demand it.WP:CONLIMITED

Only when an edit is removed, and in the discussion or edit note, there is listed a reason for removal, which isn't addressed, is consensus needed. The edits I have repeatedly put in with more, and more, sources were not in need of consensus.Building Consensus If an issue was brought up, it was addressed, or the issue was dropped by me. If an issue was not brought up with the edit, I waited 5 days then re-entered the edit, per wikipedia policy.WP:SILENCE

Note: for the character of these edit wars. In this discussion section Baseball Bugs states that I warned him not to edit war after he repeatedly removed material. He feels he was in the right simply because he thinks what I put was " the blatant falsehood that 'birds are dinosaurs'." Apparently, not knowing much about dinosaurs, he feels he is the ultimate judge here. Despite me linking to the Birds article which I was very nearly quoting. The truth wasn't important to him, the quality of references weren't important. What was? His opinion, that's what.

This occurred again with the first iteration of another statement I have been trying to edit into this article. He started the discussion by simply saying, 'no that's wrong'. Without knowing a damned thing about the subject he feels he can flout peer-review, and professional opinions I cited [3]. At this point it has five separate references for one sentence. Not enough? Not if opinion is more important than fact. Having just two sentences in the conversation--one accusing me of being a shill for a corporation--he then baldly asserts "Yes, it's settled: It doesn't belong in the article." The conversation was between me and one other person(Cresix), no consensus whatsoever. Why is it settled? Cuz Bugs says so.

As for Cresix. He thinks I am bound by rules that he really doesn't pay attention to. Wikipedia:DRNC "Don't revert due to 'no consensus' ". He repeatedly says I can't enter things into this article without first having consensus. Guess who's consensus. Bug's and Cresix's. The only two people in the discussion channel. Bugs says no to everything he doesn't understand. With a three person vote, it will always be Cresix that decides the vote...this is not an excellent system. Ownership! Wikipedia policy states that "no consensus" for adding an edit is NOT a reason for keeping that edit out, except in highly refined pages, which this is not. Consensus is for removing material, but this bureaucrat missed that part, and repeats the circular reasoning, "No consensus to make any of the changes currently under discussion." Oddly enough, he usually doesn't even bother to claim a problem with an edit, just says there is no consensus.

As for the particular accusations : "We have a user who insists, despite lengthy talk page discussion, that he has a right to post a particular theory despite the lack of consensus to do so." -- I have no idea what this is referring to. Nearly everything I have posted (all with citations) has been immediately reverted. Often while displaying a lack of understanding in the appropriate field of knowledge. Note "Birds are dinosaurs."

"This user apparently thinks he constitutes a consensus of one person, despite being told repeatedly there is no such thing." --This is wrong. A consensus by silence is a consensus of one person. Which I have been clear about. If no one discusses any complaint about an edit for five days I put it in b/c that makes sense. "Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, sometimes it is best to assume that silence implies consensus." WP:SILENCE

"He first tried to restore contentious material "under the radar" by editing as an IP with no edit summary." --Yes...all edits that aren't declared as "Hey Cresix, I'm editing" are insidious...

Cresix claims, TheThomas gave a gratuitous warning "...to me after I reverted him one time." In fact, nearly all my (many, cited) edits were reverted by one of these two users.

I'm simply trying to make this article better by adding well-sourced material. Unfortunately, instead of this being a cooperative activity it has become a competitive one.TheThomas (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please try to follow the usual conventions for indenting comments. The above is confusing, and the problem is exacerbated by flipping between your account name and IP address. Secondly, it seems clear to me that the problem here is lack of editors. This is typical with "list of..." articles (may they all be damned) because they are so often subjective. Thirdly, the debate has descended into a series of terse comments of dubious good faith. If mediation is truly desired, I will be happy to help. That being said, I will primarily be involved in facilitating collegial discussion, during which I will expect everyone to behave like timid nuns and basically follow the tried-and-trusted approach of proposing changes on the talk page before attempting to implement them. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI: This article has been a WP:BATTLEGROUND for at least a couple years. Things have actually died down significantly from its heyday. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, AQFK! Thank you for the info. I will bear that in mind if mediation is accepted by the parties. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe locking down both the article page and the talk page for awhile might help. Like for 6 months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I think I might have given a false impression. If I am not mistaken, Bugs, Cresix and TheThomas are relatively new editors to the article. I was referring to past disputes with different editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I once gave a false impression. I tried doing Sylvester, and they told me I was Daffy.

I ran across this page a few months back, I don't recall exactly when; and there was indeed constant arguing, all going back to the attempt to keep the standards rigorous or you'd have every alleged "misconception" that was revealed by some researcher's survey or that someone remembered from childhood turning up here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have followed this article for about four years. I did some minor editing originally as an anon. Then after registering I became more active. I've witnessed a lot of the battles. Cresix (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

@AQFK - It's okay. I read it as an historical issue, rather than something current. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

@Bugs - That seems a teeny bit extreme, akin to "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit." -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hence the "maybe". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Scjessey. I'll simply comment that TheThomas has provided no new information in this section. The fundamental issue is whether the item that TheThomas wishes to add is a "common" misconception. In my opinion (and I believe Baseball Bugs will agree) it is not a common misconception, and TheThomas has not provided adequate evidence that it is a common misconception. This is a frequent issue for this page: There are millions of misconceptions. Are all of them "common" misconceptions? Some misconceptions are held by a few people ("the earth is flat"). Some are held by a group of people with enough knowledge of the subject to even have a misconception (the behavior of subatomic particles). Some are held by a broad range of people, and those might be considered common. Sometimes an item is added after an editor finds clear evidence that the misconception is common; for example, see the excellent work above by keɪɑtɪk flʌfi regarding Roman vomitoria. That issue was debated back and forth as to whether it is a common misconception; then keɪɑtɪk flʌfi did the research and found very good sources supporting that it is common. Even then, keɪɑtɪk flʌfi was thoughtful enough to get others' opinions before adding the item. Without unequivocal sourcing that the misconception is common, items are sometimes added by consensus that the misconception is common. I don't believe TheThomas has provided that unequivocal sourcing, and there is no consensus to add the item. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good summary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - I would argue that there is no consensus not to add the item either. A meaningful consensus is hard to obtain with so few editors. Perhaps a Request for Comment would be more useful? It would bring in extra eyes on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone, of course, can post an RfC. I would urge that if it is done, in the spirit of neutrality, the explanation should include a clear distinction between sourcing that an item is true (e.g., the earth is not flat) and sourcing that it is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, as for no consensus not to add the item, that certainly is true, but until there is a consensus, the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or restore the item. Cresix (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, and that's the crux of the current issue. Thomas and his IP alter ego think that if they read some magazine article that claims that (1) this is a common belief and (2) my survey indicates otherwise; that somehow it qualifies for this wikipedia article, without discussion. Wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

With respect to WP:BURDEN, that is indeed correct; however, my purpose as mediator is to mediate between parties, and part of that is to make sure all reasonable points of view are considered. While I have my own feelings on the matter, I will not be taking sides. I would like to help parties come to a mutual agreement by promoting reasonable discussion and mutual respect. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks for your efforts. Cresix (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's simply a question of sourcing, WP:RSN should settle the matter in a couple of days. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

RSN may be helpful, but again, let's make distinction. An item can be reliably sourced as true ("the earth is not flat"), but that is not equivalent to being reliably sourced that it is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The tricky part is this article's two-pronged requirement of a "fact" being both a commonly held belief and being untrue. One author claiming that something is both a commonly held belief and that his survey proves otherwise, is nowhere near sufficient. The "commonly held" part needs to be broadly demonstrated to be "commonly" believed; and the "untrue" part needs to be broadly demonstrated to be untrue. One guy taking a survey demonstrates neither. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If an editor is combining two sources to state a conclusion not reached by either, then it's a violation of WP:SYN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, but it's not exactly that, in this case. It's finding a magazine article somewhere and concluding that that one article is the truth and therefore it qualifies, without looking into other studies that might demonstrate otherwise... or looking into studies of those studies, which would take away the "primary source" aspect of it, while supporting the "widely held" requirement and possibly the "untrue" requirement. I say "possibly" because surveys are notoriously suspect for being worded in such a way to prove the researcher's point. I've said before, I know exactly where I was on 9/11/01 and 11/22/63 when I heard the news, and no survey in the world can prove otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the proposed text and associated sources could be represented in a new section below. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

See below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I must be missing something, because I'm having a hard time believing flashbulb memories are a misconception at all, let alone a common one. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To some extent, I believe you are correct. I believe this particular "misconception" falls into the group I described above as held only by people who have enough knowledge to even have a misconception. It may be a misconception among some with knowledge of memory research (or those who think they have that knowledge), but most people have never heard of it. Cresix (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The alleged misconception is that people don't remember things as well as they think they do. That's hardly a news flash, as there is no end of conflicting testimony of eyewitnesses even right after an event. And you're right, this "flash memory" business is an obscure term. This vaguely reminds me of something from a few months back about how Louis Armstrong supposedly had a different birthdate than was "commonly" thought. Trouble is, the average citizen nowadays barely knows who Louis Armstrong was, never mind what his birthday was. That one, obviously, was kept out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And again, the premise is unprovable anyway. I can tell you precisely where I was and what I said when I first learned of JFK and 9/11 and the Shuttle explosion, but I haven't a clue what I had for lunch on those particular days. Some things stick with you and some don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Things have gone quiet. Will one of you file an RfC over this issue, or shall I just close the medcab case and exit stage left? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Those two options are not mutually exclusive, of course. I suggest closing if you see no need for mediation. Any editor can post an RfC at any time. Thanks for you help. Cresix (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is so sad. Cresix just repeats "there is no consensus" while bugs makes up some nonsense about citing one magazine article. The one statement has five citations, and no consensus is not a reason. It is nonsense to say that hasn't met the burden of proof, it has several citations which say it is a common misconception, several which say it is common, and several which say it is a misconception. But, at least spitting out nonsense is better than the edit warring you two have been doing--not even having claimed a reason to support your actions. I don't care to spend an infinite amount of time discussing this topic, so I probably won't attempt to find a six, seventh, and eighth citation for the bloody-fucking obvious.72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"...the premise is unprovable anyway." You've repeatedly said things like this (scientifically and logically illiterate, or nearly so) about this, and other, edits I've made. I want you to consider that scientists were the ones to state that 'flashbulb memories aren't more accurate'. It wasn't me. What you are citing is your opinion of how accurate your memory is. The facts say that memory is no more accurate than other memories you have. Note: forgetting what you ate that day has nothing to do with this discussion. It is a discussion of accuracies of memories, not retention of memories.72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I don't think you should be doing much more than editing when it comes to topics you don't understand. I understand your need to tamper, go ahead, but if you've never learned a significant amount about a topic, please don't remove/revert it. Note: In the "Birds are Dinosaurs" discussion we had to get a professional to specifically tell you that you were completely wrong...then you argued with him. 72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The point of my "There is two cases that I have repeatedly added sourced material..." material up top was to point out that you were both consistently breaking policy to revert my material. The fact that you feel that 'adds nothing to the discussion' disgusts me. I normally wouldn't even think to explain why breaking policy repeatedly is bad. But, apparently you two need that done. When you break policy you undo what is good and great about wikipedia, and degrade it. Doing harm to a great thing is bad, it means you are foul and that the rest of us must undo your harm rather than enjoy wikipedia.72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Rant about the issues as much as you wish, but watch the personal comments about editors ("you two are foul"). Cresix (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not foul at all. In fact, I went into the gap for extra bases. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

TheThomas' edit

• It is a common misconception that some particularly emotional events (9/11, Challenger explosion) cause memories which are stronger (Flashbulb memory), and more reliable than normal memories. In fact, the details of any long-held memory are similarly very untrustworthy.

References

Misconceived to be a misconception

Some of these misconceptions are so dumb I have to assert that they are only "reportedly" common misconceptions, and aren't very common.

I'm trying to set up a dichotomy between "commonly reported as a common misconception" and "common misconception".

How common is it, really, for people to believe lightning never strikes the same place twice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What, you've never heard the expression? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is a common quote, but I don't think the people who say it believe it. I may be wrong, but unless there is hard data, I may be right. The quote may simply be older than towers tall enough to attract lightning commonly. The same goes for Europeans believing in the world being flat. This makes me think this article should be split into two halves. True misconceptions and reportedly misconceptions. Respectively With, and Without, empirical research into the commonness. "Commonly reported as a common misconception" and "common misconception".~ ~ ~ 72.187.99.79 (talk) ~ ~ ~ 72.187.99.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

That sounds like a content fork, but it does give me an idea. Maybe there could be a separate article (again, at risk of it being endless) that examines the truth or falsehood of "well-known sayings". For example, "Lightning never strikes the same place twice." Obviously false, but it could be taken as a metaphor equivalent to "Opportunity only knocks once." "Water finds its level." Probably true. "Criminals always return to the scene of the crime." It only takes one exception to "prove" that one false, but a more interesting result would be if there is any reliable info on what percentage of criminals return to the scene of the crime, assuming they're even able to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We may be able to get good statistics about one particular class of criminals returning to the scene of the crime; arsonists. It is common enough for arsonists to be in the crowd that watches a fire that investigators photograph the crowd. The same face at three or four unrelated fires is a dead givaway. Guy Macon 08:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

An improvement, not a fork. Interesting idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 11:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

72.187.99.79: Where are you going to get sources which specifically state something is a common misconception but there's no empirical research into its commonness? AQFK (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong agree. Many things mentioned here are far from genuinely believed. Turkeyphan^t 13:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

French fries

I'm sure if the average American were asked which country originated French fries, they would look at the questioner as if he had just asked what color the White House is. The attempt by some to rename them "Freedom fries" due to political issues with France speaks to the core assumption that they're of French origin. In France itself, these kinds of fried potatoes are called "fried potatoes" or simply "fries", which also has the the unfortunate side effect to a visitor (such as I was) of reinforcing the assumption that they're French, because why would the French bother to call them "French" fries? I recall many years ago when Harry Reasoner did a special called "An Essay on Doors". The only specific thing I remember from that program are his comment, "French doors are about as French as French fries - which aren't!" However, sourcing is needed. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a little different perspective on this. I suspect that most Americans perceive the name of the food as "frenchfries"; to them, it's just a name with no connotation of national origin. I think if they have a surprised look when asked which country originated "frenchfries", it would be the same look you would get if you asked for the country of origin for "hashbrowns" or "potato salad". Now if you emphasized the word "French", there might be a pause followed by "Uh ... I guess ... France??". But maybe I've just been hanging around people who don't think very deeply. :) Cresix (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Reasoner's comment subtly points out something. There are likely plenty of objects which have false labels. The public uses those false labels frequently and ignorantly. But does it matter enough to add it to a "misconceptions" article? Actually, the attempt to label them "Freedom fries" speaks directly to such a misconception. But it would be tough to prove that the average citizen really knows or cares what country these fries actually originated from. A parallel I can think of is chop suey, which is commonly assumed to be a Chinese dish, but supposedly was invented by a restaurant owner in Chinatown, San Francisco, which means the dish is not exactly "Chinese", but more like "American-Chinese". But it tastes the same either way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, whether they originated in France or Timbuktu, I prefer good ol' American burgers and fries smothered in catsup rather than a Royale with cheese and fried potatoes covered in mayonnaise. Cresix (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That raises another "misconception", namely that a "hamburger" might be made of ham. There's no end to this kind of thing, which is why it doesn't really belong in this article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And then there's the ancient mystery of which part of the chicken is the nugget. :) Cresix (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Parts is parts."[4] Beyond that, we're better off not knowing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about that commercial! LMAO!! Cresix (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually "French fries" are "French" in a culinary way, meaning that they are cut into silvers. 129.199.114.227 (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Humans, dinosaurs and birds, oh my

OK, I've stayed out of the bird/dinosaur issue, but having just read the item,[5] it's confusing and appears to contradict itself. The item needs to be clearly explained or removed. Or just remove the last sentence. The last sentence is probably a violation of WP:SYN anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

We now have discussion on this topic going on on two sperate places on this page. What is synthesis about it? Birds = dinosaurs in the sources provided. I guess you could take out the word "conversely", is that what you mean? Actually a better idea is to change the misconception to "Dinosaurs are extinct. They are not. Birds are dinosaurs"Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's not WP:SYN, but the last three sources aren't about this common misconception. I think the problem is as you said, there are (at least) two different defintions of the word 'dinosaur' but our article doesn't explain this. Just axe the final sentence and it's fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you studied biological sciences at all? Have a read of cladistics. Leaving off the last line reinforces an antiquated view of vertebrate biology. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A week or so ago, it stated that the last non-avian dinosaur went extinct 65 million years ago. I thought that was a nice, concise way to say it. So what happened? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

{EC}I dissected a frog once. I think you're being too clever for your own good. When most people think of dinosours, they're thinking tyrannosaurus rex, brontosaurus, pterodactyl, etc. See this. In fact, dictionary.reference.com defines dinosaur as "any chiefly terrestrial, herbivorous or carnivorous reptile of the extinct orders Saurischia and Ornithischia, from the Mesozoic Era, certain species of which are the largest known land animals."[6] If you want to correct the common misconception that there are no living descendents of dinosaurs, I suggest you create a separate item. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't see anyone disputing the misconception (that humans existed in the eras in question), all I see is a debate about wording which looks increasingly pedantic. I'm sure this is a relevant debate somewhere, but's not all that relevant on this page. Hairhorn (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that "birds are dinosaurs" is not a "fact", it's this week's classification by scientists who think they own the English language. The simple wording that was there a week ago was just fine. The current version is an attempt to browbeat the public with the scientists' current definition of dinosaurs, and it's not appropriate. It's pedantic, as you say. The animals did not change, only science changed its definitions. Like when they haughtily declared that Pluto was no longer a planet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact. It's not this week's current definition but the culmination of 150 years' worth of investigation. The more fossils are found indicating a great many dinosaurs had feather-like structures as well as evidence for their warm-bloodedness, shows how wrong earlier conceptions were. Anyway, BB, beyond that the wording reflects the sources. Wording something as "descended from" implies exclusion, which is in error and conflicts with the sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved (at present) with your discussion, but will just comment on your (Casliber's) statement, which contains a logical error: "Wording something as "descended from" implies exclusion,..." No, "descended from" implies" "descended from", not exclusion. It can still be inclusive and definitely implies relationship, not exclusion. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The only "fact" is that scientists co-opted the term and assigned their own meaning to it and expect the public to kiss up to it. In any case, the wording a week ago was fine, and somebody screwed with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ummmmm, Baseball Bugs, the level of knowledge (or otherwise) you are happy with I have no problem with, but please don't foist your opinions on issues when they differ with experts such as the various museums cited. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, there is strict wording (i.e. the sentence makes no comment on inclusiveness), and there is implication. But okay, I'll conced the point. The next issue then is that the statement which uses "birds are descended from dinosaurs" without saying "birds are dinosaurs" is cherry-picking material from the sources and potentially misleading by omission. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We could resolve this issue nicely by deleting everything from "The issue is complicated..." and onwards. It really does "complicate" the picture and really isn't part of the whole point. It's only an issue for pedants. It sidetracks and detracts from the main point....humans and dinosaurs didn't exist at the same time. That's the point and we should just stick to it.

If one really wants to save that material, then bury it in a footnote. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, let's not. As it is right now I can live with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Bugs, Brangifer and others have said. Casliber, you seem to be the only one championing this. If this is the case, I suggest you drop the issue so we can move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this doesn't present the opportunity of clarifying another "common misconception". The common misconception that cladistics clarifies by classifying humans as apes, apes as monkeys, and birds as dinosaurs. TomS TDotO (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge, these arguments aren't about numerical advantages. Plain fact is, if people won't read sources or value their own opinion over Reliable Sources then I am at a loss as to how they can contribute. You can't cherry-pick sources to suit your arguments...which contrast with all the museums I've linked to thus far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not just drop that discussion? Screw the sources because all this discussion about birds and dinosaurs is another topic than the main point....humans and dinosaurs didn't live at the same time. Period. Keep it simple.

Casliber, if you want to start a new section about the bird/dinosaur matter, then do it, but don't let it confound and create confusion about this simple matter. Humans and dinosaurs aren't even slightly related, so we don't have to worry about it. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Casliber: You keep confusing two different definitions of the word 'dinosaur' as if they're the same when they're not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I favor the suggestion to remove the entire mention of the bird issue. Neither the article nor this talk page is a dissertation on evolutionary biology. Casliber, you are alone on this. Consensus has been achieved. Please move on. Cresix (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. This leaves a section that stays very strictly on-topic without any distractions. The previous version would be a constant target for edit wars, and all over a side issue. There is no point in that. What's left should be safe.

Now can we mark this section as "resolved"? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You are all ignoring half of what the sources say in favour of your own misconceptions. The version with the removal of the bird information is outdated and incorrect. This is an encyclopedia not some witty repository of one-liners. Still I will not edit war about it. But Bullrangifer suggests another section so that is a place to start. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point here. Sticking to the main and only point of that entry ("humans not coexisting with dinosaurs") is what counts. The existing reference documents the matter quite well. Was there anything in the refs that were removed with the other content that shed light on the point here, or were they about the other matters that sidetracked the whole matter? If there were any of them that were relevant to the "humans not coexisting with dinosaurs" matter, then you are more than welcome to restore them at the appropriate spot(s). Otherwise the idea of starting another section about birds=dinosaurs is still open. If you can find good sources without using any OR or SYNTH, then go for it! I'd love to learn from it. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Mythical Polish Cavalry Charge

I was wondering if we should add an item regarding the common misconception that Poland made cavalry charges against Nazi tanks in WWII? Unfortunately, there don't appear to be a lot of sources online (not in English anyway), but I do have this source.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Carrots improving eyesight

I was wondering if we should add an item about carrots improving eyesight. This was propaganda from World War II to explain why the Royal Air Force was so successful in fighting the Luftwaffe. Germans didn't understand the significance of radar so the British came up with a plausible explanation about carrots improving their pilots' eyesight. I haven't looked for any sources yet. I wanted to get some feedback first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sourcing that currently it is a common misconception, it might be possible (I'd suggest posting the sources here first). A misconception from 65 years ago may not be very common today. For example, back then many people where I lived thought someone who is slender was unhealthy and needed to get some "meat on his bones" by eating lots of red meat. My personal opinion is that the carrot idea probably is not very widespread these days. But if you want to dig up some sources, that would be an interesting one. Cresix (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

i have heard this story and I agree, I remember as a child being told "carrots are good for your eyes/ seeing at night" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.143.26 (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Blueberries are what temporarily improve night vision, not carrots. The carrot one is also part of the old joke: "Carrots are good for your eyesight. Did you ever see a rabbit wearing glasses?" -- Brangifer (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm, at least anecdotally, that this misconception is commonly repeated to children in my area. I don't know whether people actually believe it or not though. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a very common misconception. --Spuzzdawg (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's likely a common misconception. Now are there RS to document it as such? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are some potential sources:

• Carrots & Night Vision
• Can eating carrots improve your eyesight?
• Carrots Good for Eyes?

The only potential issue here is that if you're suffering from a vitamin A deficiency, eating carrots is good for your eyes. What does everyone else think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Vinegar

Vinegar has been used to fight infections since Hippocrates, who lived between 460-377 BC, prescribed it for curing persistent coughs. As a result, vinegar is popularly believed to be effective against infections. While vinegar can be an effective antibacterial cleaning agent on hard surfaces such as washroom tiles and countertops,[28] studies show that vinegar – whether taken internally or applied topically – is not effective against infections, lice,[29] or warts.[30]~ 72.187.199.192 (talk) ~ —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception; not just that vinegar is is not effective against infections, a source that it is a common misconception. 15:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning: incoming xkcd readers

This article mentioned in the latest xkcd webcomic (http://xkcd.com/843/), which may mean an edit or two... 69.243.228.209 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a note on the talk page. Would semi-protection be appropriate? 24.15.185.156 (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Samvaran.sharma, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} under "human body"

• Alcohol does not in fact make one warmer. The reason brandy and other such drinks create the sensation of warmth is that they cause blood vessels to dilate and stimulate nerve endings near the surface of the skin with an influx of warm blood. This actually results in making the core body temperature colder, as it allows for easier heat exchange with the cold external environment.

Samvaran.sharma (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception; not just that alcohol does not make one warmer, a source that it is a common misconception. 15:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresix (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I added it while you replied. But I think it can stay, there are a number of sources, like this one. I'll add a few in a minute. Regards SoWhy 15:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Three sources added, from 1967, 1977 and 2004. If you want more, check GNews archives, there are hundreds :-) Regards SoWhy 15:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request on "Human Health and Body"

Regarding the entry under "Human body and health" stating that "Shaving does not cause hair to grow back thicker or coarser or darker." This entry in no way refutes the conception that hair grows back thicker, coarser, or darker, and in fact provides the mechanism by which all three occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.127.48 (talk) 1:48 am, Today (UTC−5)

(edit conflict)  Not done: Please state the desired change--HXL's Roundtable, and Record 07:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually wish to demonstrate that you believe this common misconception? It's wrong. It's time for you to learn from this and change your thinking on the matter. Read the source. The entry should not be changed. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the source is any good... The argument is, that if it does grow back thickler, coarser or longer, bald people could shave and get their hair back. By that argumentation you can say, that if caffeine makes you more awake, dead people could drink it and wake up! You have to have some experimental evidence to back it up! Not some hair-expert comparing hair and bamboo. I am sure that there is some scientific articles on the internet, so why not refer to them insted? Btw I haven't found any evidence that shaved hair doesn't grow back quicker... But then again, that isn't what is discussed here;) --130.225.29.254 (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A science show in Australia did an episode on this a while back. They took photographs of a particular patch of skin and counted the number of hairs as well as measuring their overall length. They shaved the patch multiple times and retook the photographs. There was no change in number of hairs, hair length or hair colour. They went on to give the same explanation that is covered in this article and I think they might have even quoted some more reliable scientific studies. I'm sure that someone more interested that me can dredge up the name of the show. --Spuzzdawg (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This entry is contradictory: "hair that has never been cut has a tapered end, whereas, after cutting, there is no taper. Thus, it appears thicker..." Something that is tapered is on average (over the its length) thinner than something that is not tapered. Therefore, this states that shaved-and-regrown hair is thicker than unshaved hair. Finishing the sentence from the article "... and feels coarser due to the sharper, unworn edges." Concerning one's perception of his hair, it's the feeling of coarseness that matters and not the microscopic coarseness. This again affirms that the regrown hair is in someway different from the unshaved hair, and in such away as to conform to the expectations of the "misconception." Likewise: "Hair can also appear darker after it grows back because hair that has never been cut is often lighter due to sun exposure." This suffers from bad writing. The hair doesn't "appear darker"; as stated by the author, it actually is darker than unshaved hair which has lightened from sun exposure.

Metal in Microwave Ovens

The citation titled "Is it Dangerous to Put Metal in a Microwave?" (http://www.wisegeek.com/is-it-dangerous-to-put-metal-in-a-microwave.htm) is an unsourced opinion in a blog. Does anyone have a citation to a reliable source to back up claim the that metal in a microwave oven can damage the magnetron by causing an impedance mismatch? An empty oven chamber has a nearly perfect impedance mismatch (basic physics; a perfect impedance match means maximum power to the load, and the walls and air of the empty chamber do not get hot, meaning very little power has been transferred, thus a nearly perfect impedance mismatch), yet microwave ovens survive that case just fine. Also, various types of automatic load impedance matching in microwave ovens have been around for years. See United States Patent 5512736 for one of many examples.

Although it would be original research and thus not usable as the Basis for a Wikipedia article, I would be most interested if anyone has ever burned out the magnetron in a microwave oven by putting metal inside of it. Where are the piles of burned out microwave ovens? Guy Macon 08:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The microwave oven article states, "Another hazard is the resonance of the magnetron tube itself. If the microwave is run without an object to absorb the radiation, a standing wave will form. The energy is reflected back and forth between the tube and the cooking chamber. This may cause the tube to 'cook' itself and burn out. Thus dehydrated food, or food wrapped in metal which does not arc, is problematic without being an obvious fire hazard." This suggests that you are right, an empty microwave is a near perfect mismatch and suffers high VSWR. From this description, I imagine that the magnetron itself absorbs most of the energy. While magnetrons may not appear to suffer any damage from this I wouldn't be surprised if magnetrons were actually significantly damaged and their life expectancy significantly decreased from such an action. My extremely limited experience with high power radar magnetrons suggests to me that magnetrons are very touchy. Their spectral and power output can be significantly affected by aberrations within the tube and temperature. Heating and general use slowly change the internal dimensions and eventually the thing stops working. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that a high VSWR would exacerbate this process. I imagine that it is far more likely that the user believes the magnetron has been unaffected because the microwave continues to cook food. Of course, all of this is pure speculation. If you decide to conduct an experiment for yourself, make sure you pass on the results. --Spuzzdawg (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done a bit of work with both radar and microwave magnetrons. The difference is a lot like the difference between a fine Swiss watch and a sundial. The radar is a precision instrument that puts out a precise beam at a precise frequency, while the microwave oven just has to spray a broad beam of microwaves into the cooking chamber with no particular effort to control the exact frequency.

Alas, the microwave oven article also has a problem with citations to reliable sources, as can be seen by the "This section needs additional citations for verification" tag. Somehow, though, having unsourced and unproven claims about microwave ovens in the list of common misconceptions article seems especially wrong. I am going to hold off until the latest storm of edits caused by the mention on XKCD dies down, and then, if nobody has come up with a reliable source, I will fix the page.

I also question the oft-repeated claim that the reflected energy heats the magnetron. Looking at the various patents that have been issued for microwave ovens, it seems much more likely that the oven lowers the power output and changes the impedance matching to compensate for the mismatch. Once again going back to basic physics, the proof one way or the other would be to find a reliable source giving us magnetron temperature readings with and without food in the chamber.

Another potential issue is that, in the case of consumer products, you cannot count upon the manufacturers recommendations being accurate. Such recommendations are usually written by the legal department, not the engineering department. Thus we see white 100% cotton sheets with "dry clean only" instructions an Q-Tips with instructions saying not to use then to clean your ears. Guy Macon 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That source is totally unusable by our standards. The instructions from manufacturers of microwave ovens would be acceptable.

There is also another matter that seems to be ignored. Focusing on damage to the magnetron tube is only one problem. Just as with a shortwave diathermy machine Metal can quickly get very hot and damage things in the oven or the oven itself. If the writer of that blog article is correct, there are apparently ways to use the heat created to an advantage. It just as to be properly shaped and designed for the purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the blog is unusable by Wikipedia standards, so I deleted the citation and added a citation needed tag. I don't agree that instructions from manufacturers of microwave ovens would in all cases be be acceptable; see above for my reasoning. I think the issue of metal getting hot and damaging the oven (or your fingers!) can be addressed by expanding the part where it talks about arcing, so I will go and try to fix that. Guy Macon 17:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dumb question in general here. But the title of this article is List of Common Misconceptions. Now, what is the common misconception in this case? The way I've been familiar with this is "Don't put metal in the microwave because it might damage [the oven]". How is this a misconception? This sounds like saying "It's a misconception that you need to look both ways before crossing the road, because in some cases the road might be closed to automobile traffic". If on the other hand putting any common household metal object (fork, bowl, pot) in any commonly existing microwave never resulted in any damage to either object or oven, then I might agree that it was a misconception that "putting metal in microwaves is bad", but as it stands it seems more like a technicality that gets around this fact. I suggest this entry is removed from the list. Thoughts? -Popoi (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The common misconception is that it is always dangerous to put anything metal in a microwave. The article should reflect that misconception. We know that sometimes it is a danger (arcing sets a bowl of popcorn on fire, the popcorn fire sets the plastic parts found in some microwave ovens on fire) and we know that sometimes it isn't (food containers containing metal that are designed for microwave use), so "it is always dangerous to put anything metal in a microwave" is indeed a misconception. As to whether it is a widely held misconception, every entry on this page raises that question, with no good way to get an answer from a reliable source. Personal experience is no help; you may live in a region that does not have a misconception widely held elsewhere. Guy Macon 16:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, that's just my problem. (A) We are trying to call it a misconception i.e. completely false, when it is not always false. Putting aluminum foil in a microwave might cause a fire - ergo, putting metal in a microwave can be dangerous. (B) We're trying to narrow the definition of the misconception to "Putting any metal object in any type of microwave oven will always be dangerous" -- but that is not the way the "saying" goes. Show me the money! 1) Is there research that this is a common misconception? 2) Is the misconception always stated the same way? I think we are splitting hairs here, and again "there is a common misconception that you need to look both ways before crossing a road. some roads are not open to automobile traffic and it is completely safe to cross without looking both ways" --Popoi (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Deoxygenated blood is blue.

Deoxygenated blood never becomes blue as depicted in many textbooks. It becomes a dark red. It is the veins around the blood that are colored blue.

Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood#Color

Kienle, Alwin (March 1, 1996). "Why do veins appear blue? A new look at an old question" (PDF). Applied Optics. 35 (7): 1151–60. doi:10.1364/AO.35.001151. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

File:Blutkreislauf.png
Red = oxygenated
Blue = deoxygenated]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.242.211 (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Bloodbags.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.242.211 (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether blood is ever blue, but whether it is a common misconception. Please look at the archives. The idea of blue blood has been rejected as a common misconception several times on the talk page. As just a informal illustration, almost no one is shocked, surprised, or even a little puzzled when they always see red blood if they have a cut. Cresix (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been told by several people that they believe the misconception that blood can be blue. The reason that you don't see blue blood from a cut is that the blood comes into contact with air, and air is oxygen (note that is also a misconception). Sorry I don't have a source, but I'm sure someone could find one. 173.164.86.190 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, please read the archives, where this issue has been discussed several times. The fact that you "have been told by several people that they believe the misconception that blood can be blue" does not qualify as a reliable source. If you're "sure someone could find" a source, you need to be the "someone" who finds its. I have been in the healthcare profession for over forty years and have never met one person who thought that blood can be blue or who was surprised that it is red. Cresix (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ronligt, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} After Cow Tipping there is a empty reference: Maybe this should be removed.

Ronligt (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done SPat ^talk 09:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Heat lost through head

"Although it is commonly believed that most body heat is lost through a person's head, this is not correct. The head loses as much heat as any other part of the body." This is only correct if one does not count breathing as heat loss through the head (incl. heat carried away by evaporated water in the breath), which is IMHO quite misleading. The citation does not address this issue at all. 81.182.216.151 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence needs to be changed regardless. "loses as much heat" implies that the misconception is that one might mistakenly believe it loses less heat. "loses no more heat" would be a better wording, though I think it's wrong: thermal imaging tends to show the head as warmer than most other parts of the body, and therefore a prime (though probably not to the extent of 40%) site of heat loss, because that's how thermodynamics works. I also have issues with the cite itself: it's a journalistic take on a scientific paper, and as a scientist, I'm very aware of how misleading those can be. Careful reading indicates that the core principle... that for maximum heat retention you should wear a hat when it's cold, because otherwise much of your heat loss will occur through your uncovered head instead of your covered thighs, torso, etc. ... seems valid (note in particular the Army study mentioned in the citation itself). It's clear that the belief that the head in particular somehow loses more heat than similarly sized parts of the body, all else being equal, is wrong, but all else is usually not equal: a person is much more likely not to wear a hat when it's cold than they are not to wear, say, pants when it's cold. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This may be true of humans, but what about animals such as elephants and desert foxes that use their ears as heat regulators? In order for this to be considered a misconception I think it needs some clearer, more directly scientific sources. 151.201.118.97 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The original made me uncomfortable because it applied a study on a very specific condition to all conditions generally. The citation I gave focused on sedentary patients in a warm environment (chilled intravenously, as a heart surgery patient would be), and showed that under normal conditions, the head seems to lose heat approximately in proportion to it's surface area. As hypothermia sets in, the head's contribution increases, but is not "The majority." I have seen statements (though I wouldn't cite them) that during moderate exercise (before sweating), the head also loses a disproportionate amount of heat due to increased blood flow (somewhat paradoxically).

Another issue, on top of what you mentioned, is that the head is generally more exposed to wind and the elements, which isn't addressed at all in any of the citations.

I tried to make it less strong, but I still find it problematic (I left the Guardian citation so people without access to journals can see something, but I agree that it is pretty weak too.) I'd support further changes or removal. I think that it is a very common exaggeration, but it doesn't seem to be a myth from what I have seen thus far. Kjsharke (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd support removal for two reasons.
First, it's not clear to me that the misconception actually exists. People might say, by way of shorthand, that much of our heat loss is through our heads -- leaving unsaid "if you are otherwise dressed for the weather".
Second, the evidence is not quite as simple as is presented in the Guardian article. Though the Guardian article is a third hand source it accurately reports on the British Medical Journal article "Festive Medical Myths". That BMJ article bases its conclusions on another article in the Journal of Applied Physiology. These data are far more nuanced.
The original study does indeed say that heat is lost from the head in proportion to its surface area (more or less). The same study also says that heat loss increases by more than 45% (298 kJ to 440 kJ) if the head is uninsulated and the rest of the body is insulated - which approximates the misconception. Interestingly, some of this increase in heat loss occurs because the rest of the body loses heat faster when the head is exposed to cold.
Furthermore, the core body temperature declines even more quickly than would be expected when the uninsulated head is exposed to the cold -- regardless of whether the rest of the body is insulated or not.
I think that in this case the apparent misconception is actually more accurate, on a practical basis, than the debunking and that failing to act on the apparent misconception could actually be dangerous in some instances. --Bill WHO (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Danish Pastry actually Danish

It's a common misconception that the Danish term Wienerbrød means that the pastry originates in Wienna (where they actually are called Kopenhagener Gebäck, meaning roughly Pastries from Copenhagen). The true origins for the Danish name was that the they were created by Austrian bakers in Copenhagen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.88.105 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read this talk page and the archives. This has been discussed previously. Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception; not just where the term "Danish" originated, a source that it is a common misconception. 15:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong

Is there any citation for "One small step for 'a' man..." having its 'a' "lost in transmission back to Earth"? I don't really see any way it can be possible for that to happen without causing an audible gap in the recording. Unless, of course, the recording had the gap edited out, but why would anyone bother? Interference and gaps are audible in other parts of the Apollo recordings, why pick out that bit? Gordonjcp (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same thing myself. If nobody objects could we tag this "citation required" for now? Splateagle (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, this is an old misconception that's gotten some more traction in recent years. See this Snopes article Alereon (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon's Height

I think it's worth noting that, although Napoleon was far from being a dwarf, he was pretty short. Notably so by European standards. As stated in the article his height at time-of-death was 1.686 meters (5'6.5"), which is shorter than the average person in all of the European countries listed on Wikipedia's "Human height" page, and is in fact shorter than the average Japanese man (who are a notably short people). I think it's a bit disingenuous to include "Napoleon wasn't especially short" on a page of common misconceptions, when measured against today's standards, he was in fact a notably short man. Perhaps when measured against the people of his own time, Napoleon was of average or perhaps even above average height, but if that's so the article should mention and cite sources to validate such an argument.

I'm not really sure how to sign this, but I am...

Jon Samuelson

According to Average_height#History_of_human_height, the average height of French troops in the mid-nineteenth century was 1.65 m, making Napoleon slightly above average for the time. However, nobility tended to be taller due to better nutrition, so he may have been considered somewhat short among his peers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.144.106 (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sections titles inconsistence

Both sections 2 and 3 of the article talk about USA-based misconceptions only, however section 2 is called "United States politics" while section 3 is just "Law". Since no other section is named after a country, I request section 2 is renamed "Politics", and if in the future more misconceptions from other countries are added to the article then it can be split into subsections, just like section 1. 84.236.255.164 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

bike and gyroscope

The gyroscopic effect is disregarded. However there are two parts to a gyroscope: First it resists turning of the axis of rotation. This effect helps slow the time-constant of the bike falling over once you have some speed. This is why it is more difficult to bike along at pedestrian speed than to pedal at normal bike-speed. The other effect of a gyroscope is: if you try to turn the axis of rotation one way you'll get a force in another direction. This effect, I think is meant when the references say that it doesn't impact bicycle riding (much). Rewolff (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's right: the reason why it's more difficult to balance at low speeds is the transmission of your turns of the handlebar into leans depends on speed. The slower you go the longer it takes, and below a certain speed it's too slow: you can't correct your lean quick enough to stop falling over.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thirteenth Amendment

The article states that with the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment slavery was officially abolished in all of the United States. But that is in fact not true, since the Thirteenth Amendment allows slavery as a punishment for crime. Danvolodar (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ich bin ein berliner

My German teacher a native German told me this one. Are you sure that it is as misconcieved as stated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.76.21 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in and say that the German public were, in fact, amused by this secondary meaning of "Ich bin ein Berliner". Near everytime I would get doughnuts in Germany, somebody would smirk and asked if I knew the story. The way the misconception is stated, it seems to indicate that there was no secondary meaning, and that Germans didn't find it amusing. I'll buy the idea the German he used was correct in the way he intended, but the external links from the article and everything I can find indicate that the secondary meaning was understood and laughed at. 142.162.19.202 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a German native speaker born in Frankfurt, now living in Berlin. It is true, that it would be more common to say "Ich bin Berliner", without the article, but it does not sound wrong to me to include it. It's also true, that "Ich bin ein Berliner" would be what one would say to identify oneself as a jelly doughnut. However, as the article correctly states, the word "Berliner" for jelly doughnut is common in most of Germany, excluding Berlin. I don't think the average guy who grew up in Berlin even knows that the word "Berliner" carries a second meaning outside of Berlin. That didn't stop anybody from having a small chucke over the anecdote. In Berlin Doughnuts are called "Pfannkuchen". Everywhere else a "Pfannkuchen" is just what you get when you translate the word literally - Pan Cake. --87.162.104.206 (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Male/Female mosquitos and crane flies

Crane flies are often mistaken for male mosquitos. This is due to the commonly spread knowledge that male mosquitos are larger than females, and that male mosquitos do not bite humans. Male mosquitos are nectar feeders, and can be larger than females, but mosquito size is rarely larger than 16mm (0.6 in), compared to the crane fly whose average size ranges from 2 to 60 mm (0.08 to 2.4 in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by StPuglo (talk • contribs) 11:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception; not just that crane flies are not mosquitos, a source that it is a common misconception. 15:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sports->Cow tipping: "killing it"?

In the sports section:

Cow tipping is commonly believed to be a rural practice in which a cow sleeping on its feet is tipped over, killing it.

I've never heard of cow tipping being intentionally fatal to the cows, and the cow tipping article doesn't seem to mention it either. Remove that bit? 99.50.96.218 (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone *could* tip over a sleeping cow, since they sleep lying down. Sometimes they kind of zone out a bit while standing up, but they're not asleep and they're still alert - otherwise they'd be easy prey. Anyone trying to tip over a cow like that would soon realise that it's a bad idea to be near an angry and spooked cow. 86.156.229.223 (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that cows (and horses for that matter) can lock their knees and sleep in a standing position. Is it a misconception?81.235.168.90 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Physics: Cold does not radiate

Cold is the absence of heat and hence cannot radiate any more than darkness (which is the absence of light). Cold objects (above absolute zero) in fact radiate heat (blackbody radiation), just less so than warm objects. The illusion of cold 'radiation' derives from the cooling of air around cold objects as heat seeps into them. In a vacuum, you would nor feel any such 'radiation' of cold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.144.106 (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception; not just that cold does not radiate, a source that it is a common misconception. 15:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not an actual source, but a Google search for the phrase "letting the cold in" produces nearly 32,000 hits, which is fair evidence that a substantial number of people do think this way. On the "no, don't include it" side, the majority of hits on the first page are to sites objecting to the phrase on the grounds that it's scientifically incorrect.68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right: number of Google hits is not a reliable source. Google hits vary drastically depending on how you word it. I just Googled "cold radiates" and got a grand total of 1470 hits. And you don't know how many of your 32,000 hits could be about "letting the cold in" not being a valid idea. Google hits mean absolutely nothing, and it does not conform to Wikipedia policy. Cresix (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.141.47.181, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the biology section, please change 'shark' to 'sharks' where needed; this would be really easy for me to do if not for the so-called protection!

70.141.47.181 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry for the protection. I love xkcd but unfortunately every time Russell mentions a Wikipedia entry, it gets a flood of vandalism and similar attacks. Regards SoWhy 12:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dinosaurs & Humans

It is a common misconception even among adults that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted. According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed. Could this be a U.S.-only misconception? Evolution-scepticism is really a US phenomenon, and I doubt that most people in Europe, apart from small children, would ever claim this... 77.107.173.123 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does say that the "41%" figure is for US adults only. I agree that most Europeans would not think such nonsense but then again, a number of them do and so do (unfortunately) a number of people in other countries. That phenomenon may be most apparent in the US but I doubt you can say that it's an US-only-phenomenon. Regards SoWhy 12:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If this is to be changed, please provide a reliable source that this is not a common misconception outside the U.S. 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's an American problem, with some of it also in certain other regions, but not Europe. Science denialism in conservative religious circles is very strong. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What is your evidence that this is an "American" problem? Cresix (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This subject is already dealt with above. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Date of Christ's Birth

The current entry in the list says the following:

"Contrary to popular belief[161], there is no evidence that Jesus was born on December 25[162]. The Bible never claims a date of December 25, but may imply a date closer to September.[163]. The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was likely chosen to coincide with the pagan holidays celebrating the Winter Solstice."

While the first couple of sentences are fine, the last sentence is itself a common misconception. The pagan holiday celebrated on December 25 was instituted by Roman emperor Aurelian (ruled 270-275 AD) as an attempt to unify the various pagan factions, due to his hostility with the Christians. The Christian use of December 25 was based on an old Jewish belief that the Prophets of Israel died on the same day as their conception or birth date. Early calculations (which were probably wrong) put Christ's death on March 25, hence it was believed that he was conceived on that day (now the Feast of the Annunciation, celebrating Gabriel's visit to Mary). Add 9 months to that day and you have December 25. Source: William J. Tighe, Associate Professor of History, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA as described in the article Calculating Christmas.

Bellde (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not correct. The Roman holiday of Brumalia was celebrated before on that day. The Greek Lenaia, Jewish Hanukkah and Roman Saturnalia also took place on or around that day. What you are referring to is the holiday of Sol Invictus, which was instituted by Aurelian later. Your theory is included in the article in the section "Sol Invictus and Christianity" though. Nevertheless, this article does not talk about the holiday of Sol Invictus and as I pointed out before, other holidays were celebrated on that day, long before the birth of Jesus. Regards SoWhy 12:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was indeed referring to Sol Invictus (see the source article I mentioned). Brumalia was indeed held on 25 Dec, as a celebration to Bacchus, and not the "sun worship" attributed by some to the Christian intent to take over the date. Lenaia was a minor holiday, and thus not likely a prime candidate for the early Christians to try and take over; Saturnalia was originally on 17 Dec and later made a longer celebration from 1-23 Dec, so close to 25 Dec, but not the same. The Sol Invictus wiki page refers to the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia as advocating for the pagan influence on the choice of 25 Dec, but that is an erroneous reading of the page (go check it out: [8].

The Sol Invictus article goes on to say that the view I expressed above is disputed by others (obviously true), including many Christians, but ignores the fact that the academically well-versed leader of over half of the Christians in the world (Catholics represent 50.99% of all Christians according to the CIA World Fact Book) does express this same view, so technically (although not necessarily actually) the Christian majority actually supports this view.

My suggestion for the misconception page would be to change the last sentence to something like "There are 2 primary schools of thought as to why December 25th was chosen to celebrate the birth of Christ: 1) it coincided with 9 months after an early calculation of Christ's conception being on March 25 (footnote: Calculating Christmas); and, 2) it served as a Christian replacement for the Roman holiday of Sol Invictus. Catholic Christians tend to express the former view whereas Protestant Christians the latter."

Bellde (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a sentence from Christmas instead which addresses all of those rather nicely. Regards SoWhy 15:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get all the verses out of the Gospels, however the bible, when taken at face value regarding the dates of John's conception, Jesus's conception, John's Birth, and then Jesus's brith comes out with a date of late December as the date of Jesus' birth. The first sentance regarding Jesus's birth says that there is no evidence, when there is some evidence that December 25th is the date when you put all the Jewish celebrations and 9 month gestation periods on a calendar. 155.13.48.128 (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What's your evidence? Cresix (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I like your final solution. Bellde (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Holding a cooked egg under cold water makes it easier to peel

According to a german TV show (I do not remember which), this is incorrect. Fresh eggs are however easier to peel than older ones.

This requires a good reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.219.31 (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Male/Female Rib count and the Adam and Eve story

Based on Sunday school classes I always thought men had less ribs than women. The first time I vocalized something about this unquestioned belief I instantly fell in the shame of my own misconceptions. I'm not alone There are too likely places to add this religious and health/biological tidbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Displague (talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Meteorites are cool when they land

"When a meteor lands on Earth (after which it is termed a meteorite), it is not usually hot. In fact, many are found with frost on them. A meteoroid's great speed during entry is enough to melt or vaporize its outermost layer, but any molten material will be quickly blown off (ablated), and the interior of the meteoroid does not have time to heat up because the hot rocks are poor conductors of heat.[47] Also, atmospheric drag can slow small meteoroids to terminal velocity by the time they hit the ground, giving the surface time to cool down.[48]"

I do not doubt the logic of this entry (or that it is a common misconception that meteorites are necessarily hot). But this is currently written as if freshly landed meteorites are always cool or cold. First, the sources listed are not clearly attributed to the correct information in the article. For example, source #47 is talking about the conductivity of rocks in the Earth's Crust ("meteor" or its derivatives are found nowhere in the article). And while this statement may pertain to a stony meteorite, it's probably not true of an iron meteorite. Source #48 is a book, which I don't have, but I trust that someone here might. Second, the only reference I can find to the statement that "many are found with frost on them" is in a forum discussion, author anonymous.

Quoted from the American Meteor Society's FAQ: "9. Are meteorites “glowing” hot when they reach the ground? Probably not. The ablation process, which occurs over the majority of the meteorite’s path, is a very efficient heat removal method, and was effectively copied for use during the early manned space flights for re-entry into the atmosphere. During the final free-fall portion of their flight, meteorites undergo very little frictional heating, and probably reach the ground at only slightly above ambient temperature. For the obvious reason, however, exact data on meteorite impact temperatures is rather scarce and prone to hearsay. Therefore, we are only able to give you an educated guess based upon our current knowledge of these events."

I believe the language in this entry should be softened to match what the AMS FAQ actually says, which is that they are not necessary hot. If no one objects, I can do this ASAP. (Unless some other sources to the contrary are found in the Bad Astronomy book?)

As a note: The discussion on this entry is in Archive #6 from 2009. It pertains to adding sources, which I find ironic in this sort of article (isn't the lack of sources how these misconceptions get started in the first place?) Will.i.am (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

galileo put to death

apparently some people believe this? is it common? http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0138.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.145.40 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Scientific method

This section is all but meaningless. What exactly is meant by "genuine science" and how is it determined? Get rid of it. Turkeyphan^t 13:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

...ie, not pseudoscience. The misconception is that fields that don't use "the scientific method" aren't sciences. See talk archives for more. Hairhorn (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics is generally not considered a science, at least not in the sense of the scientific method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzort (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And your point is? Cresix (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Sports: Bulls are not enraged by the color red...

This entry states that "Cattle are red-green color-blind." This is misleading (and might itself be deemed a common misconception). In fact, cattle are dichromatic (see Jacobs GH, Deegan JF 2nd, Neitz J., Vis Neurosci. 1998 May-Jun;15(3):581-4. "Photopigment basis for dichromatic color vision in cows, goats, and sheep."). While cattle might not be highly sensitive to the color red (which is what should be written to replace the quoted statement from the wikipedia article), it is not pertinent whether they are "red-green color blind" (deuteranopic) because the use of the cape in bullfighting does not rely on the distinction between the colors red and green. Furthermore, because cattle are not trichromatic (as are humans, where wild-type humans have three types of cone cells that detect red, green, and blue light), they don't have the opportunity to suffer "red-green color-blindness" as humans do. Red-green color-blindness can arise from mutation in either the red opsin or green opsin gene, leaving one less-able to distinguish the two colors. Because cattle don't have both a red opsin and green opsin gene, it is not possible for them to become clasically red-green color blind via genetic mutation.

129.2.131.170 (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fan Death

Fan death is not really a misconception the way it is stated here. There are 2 misconceptions about fan death: how it happens and that fan death is a myth. Fan death is not a myth according to the US EPA. http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/pdf/EHEguide_final.pdf page 37 section 4.2.2 explains fan death and how and it happens. JaySee55 (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)JaySee55

Forbidden fruit misconception

Something to add to this section, if you examine the etymology of the word 'apple' in, I think, Old English, you find that the word was just a generic word for a piece of fruit, and did not specify any particular one. It was only later when its meaning changed but the Bible did not that the misconception arose that the forbidden fruit was an apple. Essentially it came about as a translation error in the Bible. Haven't bothered to track down the article I read this in, but etymological references should not be hard to find. 118.210.47.181 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request for "Cooking" section

{{Edit semi-protected}} There is a slight misspelling under the "Cooking" section. The bit about alcohol and cooking says "However, a study dound that much of the alcohol remains" while it should read "However, a study found that much of the alcohol remains". Change the word 'dound' to 'found'. Idamelio (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Done: Now fixed. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 14:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

food

i just thought i'd mention that there is a spelling error in the bit under the food section about wine in cooking. the results of a study 'dound', should be changed to results of a study 'found'. 76.3.171.21 (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Done: Now fixed. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 14:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

The Palin entry keeps being reintroduced without discussion, after a clear consensus to delete. Hairhorn (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry: Water

I think that the single word "usually" needs to be taken out from the first bullet.

Completely pure water is not a good conductor of electricity.[146] In practical situations (such as bathtubs, flooded basements) water usually contains impurities (electrolytes) which allow for good electrical conduction.

In 'practical' situations (which I don't know what that means as many practical applications require pure water) or maybe better household applications, water ALWAYS has impurities. A perfectly pure water source would be lethal to humans due to Le Chatelier's principle as water becomes an aggressive solvent when pure.

This might clear up an misconception that in 'practical' applications there is sometimes 'pure water.' (It isn't even close in actuality.)

Merci. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.103.161 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that's just another misconception. That pure water is lethal, that is. It might be in the (very) long run as it, consumed exclusively in large quantities and without proper amount of electrolytes in food, causes elimination of electrolytes from the body, which in turn influences serum potassium concentration, which in turn fucks up your heart among other things. We should add that i think. --Echosmoke (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The item is about water as a conductor of electricity, not it's lethality if consumed. Cresix (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin: I can see Russia from my house

Despite the decision in mid-2010 to remove this misconception, the following links (and there are tons more that can be found with a simple Google search) show that it is, in fact, a common misconception:

• "There is evidence that many voters attribute the SNL line to the real Palin"

• Palin: I can see Russia from my house!

• Sarah Palin "I Can See Russia From My House" Refrigerator Magnet

• I Can See Russia From My House

• Immortalize Sarah Palin's famous quote about why she's so qualified to be VP with unique, funny shirts, hats, bumper stickers, baby clothes, sweatshirts and more found here! (the link is blocked by Wikipedia, but you can see it at http://www . squidoo . com/funny-sarah-palin-russia-shirts by removing the spaces.

• I can see Russia from my house! - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please see the talk archives for why there was consensus to delete this entry. I see no consensus (or even discussion) that this should be re-introduced. Hairhorn (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's referenced in the List of Misquotations already, which is arguably a much better place for it anyway.68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It belongs in the politics section every bit as much as the Al Gore item. In both cases, a politician said something. In both cases, what they said was true. In both cases, a humorous misquote which makes the politician look like an ass is thought by very many people to actually be something the politician said.

There is no need for a re-consensus to overturn a prior consensus, particularly a narrow one which took place over 6 months ago. This is a sourced item and belongs where it is. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there would be a need for a new consensus. Unless an item is reliably sourced as a common misconception, it can only be included by consensus. The fact that the previous consensus is over six months old is all the more reason for a new consensus: things like this can change dramatically in six months. For example, Palin went from being an unknown to being a major national figure within a matter of weeks. We're not talking about hard facts; this is an "idea". Ideas change rapidly. Cresix (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a need for a new consensus. The citation stands on its own. To say otherwise suggests that certain editors "own" this article by virtue of having been here first. That's not how Wikipedia works. If there was a prior consensus (and I don't think there was), it isn't the consensus that matters, but the reasons given that there was a consensus about. The reasons are what pertain here; not the consensus. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Consensus doesn't matter if you don't like the reasons? Hairhorn (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"The citation stands on its own. Which citation? The meaningless Facebook page? The meaningless photo? The interview from over one year ago? Or The Amazon page selling a book by an unknown author? PLEASE. Read WP:RS. Cresix (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition, when I look at the "consensus" Hairhorn linked to, I don't see anything of the sort. Hairhorn wrote there "I don't see how this is a misconception, I don't see a good source for it as a misconception." I've posted sources for it as a misconception. Is ABC News not a reliable source for such things? You can Google it and see how common a misconception it is. The "consensus" to delete it was a matter of a couple of editors choosing to get rid of it. There was no objection at the time, but there is now. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of Google hits are not a reliable source. If you Google "I can see Russia from my house" and get 100,000 hits, how many of those are about people who don't think she said that? The answer is: you don't know. Not a reliable source. Cresix (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I Googled Palin AND Russia. That should cover the genuine quote and the Tina Fey one. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't be silly. When you Googled Palin AND Russia, how many of the hits disconfirmed the misconception, how many confirmed it, and how many had nothing to do with it. Please give specific numbers. Otherwise, it's not a reliable source. Don't be silly. Cresix (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 64.119.210.82, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the cooking section which could be changed for food I would add a note about the fact that spicy food does not actually burns but only stimulates the nerves. See Capsaicin for reference.

64.119.210.82 (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. I don't think that fits into this article. People might say that something feels "burning" but they are usually quite aware that it's not actually burning them. It's merely a verb used to express a sensation of spiciness. Regards SoWhy 15:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, some "spicy" compounds can in fact cause tissue damage, aka a chemical burn. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1306205/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jrtimon, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the Evolution category, all statements are made with the presupposition that Evolution has been proven. There is a great misconception that evidence equates proof, when in fact are not equatable. Similarly, proponents of Creationism have many evidences that their position is true, however nobody ANYWHERE has absolute proof. If the section is only meant to clear misconceptions about evolution, it should be rewritten in a way that doesn't mislead readers to believe that Evolution is a scientifically proven fact. Maybe adding a section above the Evolution section (entitled Origin of Life or something to that nature) that explains that a common misconception is that there is a scientifically proven law of the origin of life and that Evolution itself is a misconception would be the appropriate action to take, in order to provide neutrality in this discussion.

Jrtimon (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Declined. Evolution is as proven as gravity is. That there are people saying otherwise is correct and covered in our article Objections to evolution but irrelevant for this article. This article lists misconceptions about evolution itself, not about its validity or acceptance. Also, nobody anywhere has absolute proof about anything, so that argument is moot. On a side note, if you read the section in question, you will notice that it's also a common misconception that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life. Regards SoWhy 15:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Gwenkern, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The last item under "Human body and health" contains duplicative language. The last sentence reads: "Other senses sometimes identified are the sense of time, heat, cold, pain, itching, pressure, hunger, thirst, need to urinate, and need to defecate." Heat, cold, and pain should be deleted, since they were mentioned in the preceding sentence.

Gwenkern (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for spotting it. Regards SoWhy 15:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

aluminum causes Alzheimer's

how about an entry for the misconception that using aluminum pans or deodorant cause Alzheimer's or dementia? http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=99 i would say this is virtually as common as the "humans use only 10% of their brain" misconception (although not used quite as often in movies). Gobo2001us (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

To possibly forestall the "please provide a citation that this is a common belief" objection, the fact that it's addressed at the cited site at least strongly implies that it's a common belief. After all, they don't have a section devoted to refuting the idea that, say, "bad karma" is responsible.68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't forestall the need for a citation that's it's a common misconception. It may be a misconception among the few scientists or other interested persons who even know enough to think about it, but that doesn't make it a common misconception among the general population. And I doubt very seriously that it is a common misconception. If we added every item that had been proposed simply because it is "addressed at the cited source", the article right now would have thousands of items. Cresix (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 200.138.222.128, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hey guys, first time edit-asking, I'm not quite sure if this fits here or if it should be at the talk page, but I read everything there and there was no mention to this misconception:

There is a misconception that there is a God.

200.138.222.128 (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Declined That's not a misconception, that's a religious belief. By definition, beliefs are not proven (or, as Terry Pratchett put it: "Seeing is not believing. It's where belief ends, because its not needed any more."). Regards SoWhy 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with SoWhy's explanation; if you believe something and it's wrong, it's a misconception. But we would need to cite a proper source that there isn't a god. I don't think there's going to be such a source: as far as I know, humanity has not yet found any way to prove there isn't a god. 109.255.182.203 (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to believe me but I think my point is still correct. A "misconception" is believing something despite evidence to the contrary. Religious belief on the other hand is by definition something you believe when no evidence exists one way or another. It would be a misconception once there is evidence/proof that god does not exist and people still believed it anyway. Regards SoWhy 16:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 198.160.139.1, 5 January 2011

Under the evolution heading, the following clause exists:

"The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply doubt from mainstream science regarding its validity...."

A theorem might be valid, but a theory can only be strong or cogent. While this might be nitpicking, the logical import of the distinction is rather large. Thus, please replace the above clause with the following:

The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply doubt from mainstream science regarding its cogency...."

198.160.139.1 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a technical nitpick, which centres on the meaning of "valid" used by logicians, the lay use of "valid" is much broader. Hairhorn (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but since the main point is that common usage of a word may differ considerably from the technical usage of the same word, perhaps paying some attention to technical nitpicks is indeed warranted in this particular case. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: TRANSPORTATION

• Finnish landing strips:

There is a "citation needed" tag concerning Finnish and Polish emergency landing strips (what would be cit. 192). The following url http://alk.tiehallinto.fi/julkaisut/pdf3/lo_2010-18_lentokoneiden_varalaskupaikat.pdf (author: Liikennevirasto/Finnish transport agency) contains Finland's traffic authority's instructions about technical and other requirements for such a strip and should be sufficient evidence for their existence.

83.150.92.192 (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

//correction, after cit. 197

83.150.92.192 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• US interstate highway system:

I have heard repeatedly that while the US interstate highway system was not designed to have emergency landings, it was implemented by Eisenhower so that the Military could quickly transport personnel and equipment across the country as quick as possible, and that the overpasses on interstates are of a certain high so that missile transport trucks can pass under them. In addition, there are supposedly parallel highway access roads on most of the original overpasses so that in the even the overpasses were bombed, military transports could still continue along to the other side by using the access roads. Any validity to these claims? if so they should be added to the transport section

 Not done. Please provide a source that this is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Declaration signing

There is dispute among scholars as to when the declaration is signed. Three of the signers themselves claimed it was signed on July 4th. "The" Declaration of Independence says July 4, 1776 on the back. It's possible the signers were lying or mistaken, and that the date was added by someone who didn't know any better, but I think there's enough doubt about this to warrant removing or at least modifying this to reflect that while it's pretty clear that not all the eventual signers were even present on July 4, we really don't know exactly when it actually was signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.72.35 (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources for your claims. Cresix (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Signing. I realize it may not be considered a "reliable" source in itself, but it does reference other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

it might be appropriate, however, to clarify that it was printed and distributed on july 4th and 5th (hence the misconception), though not signed and entered into the congressional record until august 2nd. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html Gobo2001us (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources for your claims. Cresix (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ummm.... if that government archive source provided immediately above your comment is not reliable, what is? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon

I maintain that 1.68m is in fact short, as in "below average", for a french man of that time and certainly for a french man of today. Even more so for a commanding officer who was thus bound to be much shorter than many of his officers and soldiers, which cetainly added to the perception (I expect he was on horse often though). But I realize that his shortness is often exaggerated even more. And yes, I arrived here via xkcd as will many others, I'm sure. And I don't give a fly's toss for what the article says and so will not supply reliable sources. Not that the article does, mind. ;) --92.202.104.35 (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

edit request for History, Europe 88.195.167.85 (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that Vikings wore horns on their helmets.[18][19]" seems to me too unexplanatory. I suggest two additions: firstly, that common Viking soldiers wore plain metal or leather helmets if any (this is backed up by the references already in place). Secondly, to my knowledge one part of the misconception of horns originates from the towns and villages that were raided by the "devillish" Vikings; especially religious accounts of these horrible and fierce attackers attribute them with horns as a sign that relates to devil. This may have lead to some imaginative artists depicting Vikings with both devil horns and also a tail in some occasions.

Unfortunately I'm not able to provide a good reference for the latter information, so I do not insist its addition unless somebody else can help with that. 88.195.167.85 (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources for your claims. Cresix (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Who Invented What?

Did you know Van Gogh did not invent The Starry Night? There were starry nights going back as long as recorded human history and plenty of evidence they existed even before that. Also forests don't exist. If you examine closely you will rather see that they are in fact nothing but a collection of trees. I'm not convinced that if you look even closer that trees even exist, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Gripdamage (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

69 5c 27 6d 20 6e 6f 74 20 73 75 72 65 20 77 68 61 74 20 79 6f 75 20 61 72 65 20 74 72 79 69 6e 67 20 74 6f 20 73 61 79 --Popoi (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

01010111 01100101 01101100 01101100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01110101 01101110 01100100 01100101 01110010 01110011 01110100 01101111 01101111 01100100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101010 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100110 01101001 01101110 01100101 00101110 Gripdamage (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

http://thefuturebuzz.com/pics/the-matrix.jpg --Popoi (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In other news there is still no way to repair split hairs... Gripdamage (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Lightning strikes and cars

What about the misconception that the reason why you are protected from lightning while in a car is due to being grounded through the rubber tires. The actual reason is the Faraday Cage effect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.38.154.10 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception; not just a source to the Faraday Cage effect, but a source that the misconception is COMMON. Cresix (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I know this is anecdotal and that Wikipedia officially frowns on original research, but I personally have had far more people try to tell me this than have told me that air is mostly oxygen. I'm not saying "include this without a source", I'm saying let's apply the same standard.68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

repair split hair

"Although there are hair care products which are marketed as being able to repair split ends and damaged hair, there is no such cure. A good conditioner might prevent damage from occurring in the first place, but the only way to get rid of split ends after they appear is by a hair cut." Wow..I mean, I basically agree, but did someone look at the sources? What happened to reputation for fact checking? glamour, cbc,disabled-world.com?? Also, one source is even differing. I would call that baseless opinions at best. --Echosmoke (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys

Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys, chimpanzees or any other modern-day primates. Instead, fossil evidence has shown that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor that lived about 40 million years ago. This common ancestor diverged into separate lineages, one evolving into so-called New World monkeys and the other into Old World monkeys, apes, and humans. Similarly, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, which lived between 5 and 8 million years ago, evolved into two lineages, one eventually becoming modern humans and the other splitting again into chimpanzees and bonobos. Thus, one cannot consider any present-day monkeys or apes as reflecting how humans "used to look" or behave. All extant animal groups have evolved over the same amount of time.

I think this is just wrong. Humans did evolve from monkeys. Humans are apes and apes diverged from the Old World monkeys. See here. However Humans didn't evolve from any modern-day primate, but this text is at least misleading. --92.199.199.217 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the important phrase is "modern-day primates", which would exclude Old World monkeys, right? Cresix (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Old World monkeys aren't extinct. My point is: Humans didn't evolve from modern-day primates, but from monkeys. --92.199.199.217 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And the article says that evolution does not claim that humans evolved from modern-day primates, so where is the problem? Maybe rearrange the wording to "Evolution does not claim humans evolved from modern-day monkeys, chimpanzees or other primates."??? Cresix (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is the reference that it is a common misconception that "humans evolved from modern-day primates". I don't see any of the references under this bullet point pointing to a reference that there exists such a common misconception among any group of people. --Popoi (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Old World in the phrase "old world monkeys" refers to the Eastern Hemisphere and has nothing to do with age. To the extent that I understand the original complaint, I think the objection seems to be that if we go far enough back on the evolutionary path leading to humans and somehow transferred a member of such a species to the present day, most non-specialists would call it a "monkey" and it would not raise many eyebrows if seen in a zoo next to, say, the gibbons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.72.35 (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Text says "Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys, [...]". That is just misleading since humans evolved from monkeys. "Evolution does not claim gibbons evolved from monkeys, [...]" is an equivalent sentence. --92.199.199.217 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

btw.: I think 131 is wrong.--92.199.199.217 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor request

{{editprotected}}

Please add a wikilink to Little Diomede Island on the text "from an island in Alaska" under the United States politics section. 71.84.199.50 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done! ~Amatulić (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

air = oxygen?

Are there in fact significant numbers of people who think that air is mostly oxygen? Unlike most of the other examples here, I've never heard anyone espouse this belief, and doubt that it is in fact a common misconception. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the reference contains this "Children's misconceptions about weather ... Air and oxygen are the same thing (Stepans, 1994)." So someone made a study that shows that children commonly believe that Oxygen and Air is one and the same, as opposed to Air being a mixture of gases. I agree, however, that it does not show that it is a common misconception among the general population in the world/any particular country/area. So by the standards imposed elsewhere here, i think this entry has a weak reference. --Popoi (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Drinking a considerable amount of distilled (or "pure") water will kill you

I was going to add a section about this myth but it is surprisingly hard to prove that it is a common misconception in the first place. The facts are easy to source and are also basically covered in Purified_water#Health_effects and Distilled water, but help is welcome to find sources that comment on this being a misconception. --Echosmoke (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"it is surprisingly hard to prove that it is a common misconception in the first place": Therein is the problem. I doubt very seriously that many people have even considered this "misconception". Please provide a reliable source that's it's common. Cresix (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Inertia, not Centrifugal Force

There is no such thing as "Centrifugal Force," meaning a force which moves an object away from the center during rotation - for example, when you tie an apple to a string and twirl it around, the apple is being forced away from your finger by centrifugal force. Rather, inertia means that the apple will continue moving in a straight line unless it is held back by a centripetal force (the tension in the string). So if the string breaks, the apple will move away from the person's finger, but this is as a result of inertia, not centrifugal force. wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

I'm not an expert at wikipedia entries, but this would probably qualify as a misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KC McGinnis (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It has to be more than a misconception. Please provide a reliable source that it is a COMMON misconception. Cresix (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Snopes vs. LoCM

What is the actual point of this article? Is it to eventually grow and become some kind of debunk page of misconceptions and (urban) legends, along the lines of Snopes? I know it might sound radical, but does it need to exist at all? It just seems like a massive "random trivia" or "the more you know" page to me. --Popoi (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at the archives. Similar discussions in the past. The article is limited somewhat because items must be reliably sourced as COMMON misconceptions (or accepted by consensus as such). For every item in the article, there are HUNDREDS that have been removed as not common. So it's not exactly a random list of misconceptions. Cresix (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unlikely to grow much more. I think we've pretty much exhausted all the reliable sources we can find, though I do propose two additions above. But I don't see this article growing too much. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, to be fair, very few of the entries on this page seems to meet the criteria of being reliably sourced as being a common misconception. At least on some of them you specify in which culture or population the belief is common. For instance, the Air=oxygen entry only has a reference where a study was done on children. The Let them eat cake entry is another, where I can emotionally agree that i believed this to be true, and therefore think that it is a common misconception, but here no reference is made to support the fact that it is a common misconception. Most entries in the article follow the latter format, and when people suggest additions to the article they are met by Please submit a source that it is a common misconception. What about these other entries? Are they grandfathered in? Is there some kind of voting system in place? --Popoi (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You're "preaching to the choir", Poposhka. No need to demand from most of us that we "submit a source"; many of the contributors to this talk page prior to today (most of today's contributors are a flash in the pan because the article got some press) have thrashed out these issues quite extensively. Some items were accepted by consensus even though not reliably sourced. Feel free to seek a new consensus, but please review the archives first so we don't have to re-invent the wheel. For the remainder that might be poorly sourced, feel free to challenge them. Cresix (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand then. This page is more of a result of the organic nature of Wikipedia rather than how other articles tend to work. --Popoi (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It different from most articles because of the dual sourcing aspect: sourcing that the facts are accurate, and sourcing that the misconception is common. It's that second roadblock that kills the vast majority of items. Cresix (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Coreycat, 5 January 2011

Art Techniques

"Mixing Red and Blue makes Purple". This is something that nearly everyone "knows" and is in fact wrong, unless you are talking about a very specific blue (red shifted) and a very specific red (blue-shifted). Generations of teachers have simplified the "primary colors" as Red, Yellow and Blue, and they don't tend to teach anything about "shifts".

What most people are taught as the "primary" colors of pigment they learned as a kid: fire-engine red and a sort of medium blue (close to the color of a post box, a little less green and dark if they are lucky), and yellow. What you get when you mix that red and that blue can be nearly black- a gray muck with a suggestion of purple.

What are the real Primary Colors in pigment? You will find them in color printer cartridges: Magenta, Cyan and Yellow. If you look at the adult or professional caliber acrylic paints in a good art store you should find Primary Magenta, Primary Cyan and Primary Yellow. Sometimes children's paint companies will label magenta (which looks a little pink) or a magenta/red mix as "red" and it perpetuates the myth that red works, because that "red" does.

Mixing With True Primaries:

To get purple, mix Cyan and Magenta. A little bit of magenta and a lot of cyan will get what most people are taught is "primary blue". Cyan and yellow will get a full range of greens in a purer saturation than if you use blue and yellow (since blue contains some magenta, and will therefore neutralize the green a little). Yellow and Magenta will give you orange. A small amount of yellow added to magenta will give you what most people are told is "primary" red.

When one gets into professional oils and acrylics which use minerals things get infinitely more complex as transparency, reflection, opalescence, and opacity are introduced. I recommend Gamblin Oil's website for learning about that.

There are also some visual effects that change how we see pigment. The most known is that if you mix black and yellow you get something that looks green. It's an optical effect not a pigment reaction, one of many.

Coreycat (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting and worthwhile information, but do you have any sources to reference for the claims you make above? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

RYB color model Gripdamage (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request for Human body and Health

In the section regarding heat being lost through the head, while I agree in normal situations that the head loses no more body heat than any other part of the body, it is also true that in situations of extreme cold the body attempts to warm the core and the extremities, including feet, hands, and head, lose their heat, which is why it is important to keep them covered. Seanhinds08 (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Seanhinds08

Please provide reliable sources. Cresix (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

www.coolantarctica.com/.../science/cold_humans.htm

 http://www.manfredkaiser.com/cold_and_body.html

 Seanhinds08 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Seanhinds08

Unprotect

This article is protected, so I can't edit it.

In the human body section, add a point for the myth that alcohol kills brain cells. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1103162109.html http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/10-brain-myths9.htm

 Not done: "Myth" and "common misconception" don't have identical meanings. Cresix (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In the physics section it says "Gyroscopic forces are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle". But there are gyroscopic forces, and they do help balance the bicycle, so how is this a misconception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.64.192 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources for your claims. Cresix (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

unprotect to propose deletion. This article is nothing but a collection of vaguely related factoids, and is not encyclopedic. WP:DIRECTORY. Also it's US-centric, Template:Globalize/USA, assuming American tropes are universal and but especially identifying a Korean trope with a foreign tone. It's basically a gripe-list for American former middle-school students. 216.145.107.181 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from PhiloHippus, 5 January 2011

In astronomy section, add the misconception that moon phases are caused by the earth's shadow:

• Lunar phases are not caused by the shadow of the Earth or umbra falling on the Moon's surface (this occurs only during a lunar eclipse), they are the result of looking at the illuminated half of the Moon from different viewing geometries.

PhiloHippus (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pedrorui, 5 January 2011

I updated the list of words, replied to a comment and removed the last item.

Linguistics

. The Eskimo languages do not have an unusual large number of words for snow. In particular, it is not true that these languages use special words in order to distinguish between an abnormally large number of types of snow. Simply, there are many words formed around the concept of snow, which is in itself unremarkable. For example, consider the list of English words that contain the element 'snow': snow (verb), snowing (verb), snowboard (verb), snowy (adjective), snowiest (adjective), snowily (adverb), snow (noun), snowiness (noun), snowplow (noun), snowstorm (noun), snowflake (noun), snowfall (noun), snowdrift (noun), snowboard (noun), snowman (noun), snowslide (noun), snowshoes (noun), snowbank (noun), snowcave (noun), powder snow (noun), snowmageddon (noun), etc.. Eskimo, like English, can form complex words from simple ones. In fact, there is no upper bound to the number of words containing 'snow' in Eskimo, only patience sets a limit, just like there is no upper limit to the English words about the concept of 'mother' as illustrated by "great-grandmother" , "great-great-grandmother", "great-great-great-grandmother", etc..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow#cite_note-Pullum.27s_explanation-0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow#cite_note-2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow http://people.ucalgary.ca/~kmuldrew/cryo_course/snow_words.html

. Linguists do not have to learn languages. Most linguists speak very few languages, other than their own. The goal of linguistics is to understand how human communication works, but this does not require linguists to be polyglots. Conversely, speaking multiple languages does not make one a linguist. Similarly, a zoologist does not have to become a chimp in order to study chimps. The following aphorism has been attributed to Lynne Murphy: "asking a linguist how many languages (s)he speaks is like asking a doctor how many diseases (s)he has." Ironically, many dictionaries still equate the terms 'linguist' and 'polyglot'.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000115.html http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/06/18/what_do_linguists_do/ http://linguistlist.org/studentportal/whatis.cfm

 Not done: Please provide reliable source that this is a COMMON misconception. Cresix (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The second URL provided above (Globe newspaper) shows this is common. Moreover, the fact that modern dictionaries like Merriam-Webster make such a mistake shows how established this is: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/linguist

No, the Globe source says nothing about anything being a COMMON misconception. And a dictionary mistake is not evidence for a common misconception; it's evidence for a misconception by a few writers or proofreaders. Cresix (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

But here are more sources for this misconception:

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~ling/ http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002399.html http://www.tomisimo.org/blog/2007/linguistics/a-linguist-does-not-necessarily-speak-many-languages/

NONE of these sources identify anything as a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There are at least two facebook groups about it; http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2201093513 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2263085928

Facebook pages mean nothing. I could set up a Facebook page devoted to the misconception that the moon is made of cheese. That doesn't mean it's a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

... Personally, I get asked by immigration services how many languages I know *every* single time I enter the USA via an airport.

What happens to you personally is not a reliable source. I just asked by friend who is a linguist, and she has never been asked how many languages she knows. Cresix (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedrorui (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a linguist too (as in, a scientist who studies the workings of language), and I also get asked by people how many languages I speak, but this is not a misconception (altho it certainly is common). If you are employed by the Armed Forces, for example, and are a "linguist," then you are a polyglot. The word "linguist" just has two definitions. An equivalent phenomenon would be if engineers (who build bridges etc.) got annoyed when people asked them what sort of trains they drove. Certainly we can educate the public that there is another kind of linguist out there, but to tell people their usage is wrong makes us no better than the prescriptivists against whom we rail during the first week of 101. --Signor Giuseppe (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Astronomy Section on Black Holes

I think this item needs to be clarified or deleted. "Because black hole formation is explosive, the object would lose a certain amount of its energy in the process, which, according to the mass–energy equivalence, means that a black hole would be of lower mass than the parent object, and actually have a weaker gravitational pull." A differentiation between the gravity within the black hole's event horizon and the gravity outside of the horizon should be made. If the above sentence were true for both places it wouldn't make sense why light can't escape the "lower" gravitational pull of the black hole when it could escape the "higher" gravitational pull of the star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmieman (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy

The end of the speech of Kennedy goes:

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner".

So he did refer Ich as himself (_I_ take pride). 95.91.1.157 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Proposed change? --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)