Talk:List of common misconceptions

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).

I'm pretty sure lots of people are convinced people used to think the Earth was flat before America was discovered. I'm pretty sure I was told that in Elementary school whenever Columbus Day came around, so I'm sure that is being told to lots of school kids and some never learn otherwise.68.94.91.172 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2011 (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."[1] 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)

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)

In my experience it's a very common misconception but probably more of an old wives' tale. Turkeyphan^t 01:20, 6 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)

The real misconception here is failing to understand the fact that the Germans in WWII knew exactly what radar was, and in fact had such powerful portable radar systems that they were in a constant capabilities and countermeasures race with the Allies on all fronts (in which low tech chaff, or strips of aluminum foil, became the most tactically significant development on both sides.) 71.198.176.22 (talk) 08:59, 6 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)

Vinegar is not an antibacterial agent it is an antifungal. Any premed book will tell you this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.128.12 (talk) 15:25, 10 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) 07:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(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.

Maybe the misconception is that "Shaved hair growing back coarser and darker is a misconception" ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.182 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The previous commenter stated the case much more elegantly than I did originally. The entry, as listed, actually explains why shaved hair is, in fact, thicker (by virtue of not having a tapered end), coarser (by virtue of having a sharp, unworn edge not present on unshaven hair), and darker (by virtue of not being sun-bleached). I did not submit an edit because it simply needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.127.48 (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

When people say that hair grows back thicker after you shave it, they don't mean that each hair is thicker, but that more hair grows (or it grows faster), and thus is "thicker". 70.92.246.13 (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept that's what you mean when you say it, but none of can confidently say what others mean when they say something. Humpty Dumpty demonstrated that very clearly in Through the Looking-Glass HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

I repeat, as to whether it is a widely held misconception, every entry on this page raises that "Is there research that this is a common misconception?" question, with no good way to get an answer from a reliable source. Personal experience such as asserting "that is not the way the 'saying' goes" is no help; you may live in a region that does not have a misconception widely held elsewhere. If you want to trade personal experiences, my mother, one former employer and a couple of friends all told me that any metal in any microwave will burn out the microwave's electronics. Not start a fire; burn out the electronics. That's the commonly held misconception as I heard it, which of course proves nothing. I might as well assert without evidence that that is the way the 'saying' goes. That, like your assertion ("that is not the way the 'saying' goes") are original research and unsourced material, and thus not acceptable as Wikipedia citations. Guy Macon 21:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there actually are entries in the article with sources that the misconception is common. A few others were settled by consensus. Feel free to challenge any that are not source or were not settled by consensus. But the argument that "other stuff exists" is not a valid one for adding unsourced information. Cresix (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of all the assertions of this and that, this is the only misconception that doesn't actually state what the misconception is. Its really quite confusing, I had to read the above comments to understand what was going on. So you could rewrite it from scratch so that it actually makes sense Guy Macon (its currently suffering from "too many authors syndrome" for sure). Personally I'd just remove it. --eean (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There are enough problem with this entry that I support deleting it until new version is developed that overcomes there problems.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it needs a rewrite. I have no position about whether to delete it pending the rewrite; either way is fine with me and I will support whatever the consensus is. Guy Macon 09:04, 6 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)

Let me start by saying that I have read the archives. Here are a number of websites which state that the idea that deoxygenated blood is blue is a common misconception:

1. http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/upload/2010/09/is_blood_ever_blue_science_tea_2/Is_Blood_Ever_Blue.pdf
2. http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-Veins-Blue-Blood-Red-5204165
3. www.ehow.com/how-does_5164838_do-look-blue-under-skin.html (unlinked for spam-filter)
4. http://www.colourlovers.com/blog/2007/07/26/color-in-science-is-my-blood-really-blue/
5. http://www.misconceptionjunction.com/index.php/2010/09/deoxygenated-blood-turns-dark-red-not-blue/
6. http://blog.sciencegeekgirl.com/2008/06/07/myth-7-blood-is-blue/
7. http://www.sunriseequine.com/Documents/what_color_is_blood.htm

None are what I would call great sources, but I would hope that what they lack in quality is made up for in quantity.

I suspect that http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.3730690513/abstract mentions this misconception, and would be a *great* source, but I can't find the full text to check. Good enough? blahaccountblah (talk) 23:13, 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)

The present wording seems like all the problems above have been resolved reasonably well. Is there an outstanding problem that I'm missing?Ccrrccrr (talk) 04:28, 8 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)

I'd say that the fact that the term turned up in this liste in it self proves that it is a misconception, common enough to make the misconception turn up on this list as "the truth". But who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.177.14 (talk) 12:21, 6 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—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.29.24 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

That's cool. I think the article should mention this fact, and link to it. I know that Wikipedia is a user-edited thing, an in theory if I think there should be a change, that I should just do it. But honestly, I think I'd just screw it up, so perhaps someone else should take care of it? -Jon Samuelson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.29.24 (talk) 11:02, 6 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)

I suppose that without the gyroscope, balancing on a bike would be analogous to ice skating (on one foot) -- which is also harder at slow speeds, I think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.182 (talk) 23:25, 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)

The context of the phrase is misstated. See e.g. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkberliner.html so JFK was referring to himself, if only figuratively. 'All -- 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."' Also, as a native speaker of german I can confirm the contribution from 87.162.104.206. 93.232.140.203 (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends on where you are in Germany. As the article states, "Berliner" isn't used for a Jelly Doughnut in Berlin; however, it is used in other parts of Germany. To Berliners, the meaning was quite clear. In other areas of Germany, the double-meaning was present and it is a good joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.66.210 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

When checking the cited source, it clearly states that, "Berliner" was not commonly used to refer to the doughnuts in the Berlin of the 1960s. As a German, I can verify that it is in fact a widely spread and very common word. I think most of the confusion arises from the fact that Germans nowadays think it's funny, but the Germans from that time didn't. I'd suggest changing "The word Berliner is not commonly used in Berlin to refer to the Berliner Pfannkuchen;" to "The word Berliner was not commonly used in Berlin at that time to refer to the Berliner Pfannkuchen;" (much to my own suprise as well btw ^^) --91.89.3.92 (talk) 02:41, 6 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)

They don't really sleep; they just kind of zone out. If you have several horses in a field, you'll find that one or two will stay standing but "daydreaming", while the rest lie down. They will spot you as soon as you approach, though. Presumably this is to guard against predators, or maybe they just all wake up when they smell breakfast coming. 86.156.229.223 (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard that a tipped cow would die. This is clearly ridiculous, cows are large, strong creatures that wouldn't die from simply falling over. Clifsportland (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the myth isn't based around the cow being physically damaged by being pushed over, rather that the cow could not subsequently right itself and would eventually die of starvation. 82.18.86.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 9 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)

I dispute that it is inacurate. Indeed, I would even say that "letting the cold in is a misconception" is itself a misconception. Opening the door of a house on a cold day will physically let cold air flow into the house. This is nothing to do with radiation (and I don't know of anyone claiming it is), but rather Advection and/or Convection Wardog (talk) 00:03, 6 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)

More importantly, what you say is untrue. In a vacuum without heat radiation (provided you keep your blood from splattering in all directions due to presure loss) you would feel cold, because your body radiates heat but recieves no heat radiation. Satellites, my area of expertise incedentally, have a hot side and a cold side. The cold side constantly looses heat and can cool down to a few kelvin, if it is insulated from the hot side.--87.162.104.206 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue you may be eluding to here may be that of heat rising (conversely cold falling) (which is substantively convection rather than radiation) which is the myth when in practice what is actually happening is hot air rising and cool air falling due to the associated densities. I don't have a source, but it shouldn't be too difficult to find one as its in every physics high-school text book. 82.18.86.179 (talk) 22:36, 9 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)

Nonsense. Why should he need to provide such evidence? Our practice is definitely not "claim something until someone is able to prove the contrary". If the article claims this misconception to be "common", as it does now, it would need a source for that. But there is only a source for "common in the U.S." - which is not surprising since indeed almost no one believes this in, e.g., Europe. --131.152.41.173 (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This (may or) may not be a common misconception in Europe, but I would guess that it's commonness in the US has far more to do with popular media portrayals of humans and dinosaurs coexisting (e.g., The Flintstones), than with creationism. Some of these media portrayals may be popular in Europe as well. The Lost World was written by an Englishman (although perhaps it doesn't really touch on the misconception since it dealt with dinosaurs existing in modern times rather than cavemen and dinosaurs coexisting. I'm pretty sure one or more of Kipling's Just So Stories did have cavemen and dinosaurs.192.104.39.2 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Not this aspect of it. --131.152.41.173 (talk) 11:30, 6 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: [2].

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)

An alternate date of Christ's birth of April 17, 6 BC was proposed in the book "The Star of Bethlehem: The legacy of the magi" with further discussion on the author's website. This derived from planetary alignments that would trigger an astrological event significant to the magi. This would explain why no one in Judea noticed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheros3 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 6 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)

It's obviously easier to peel in the sense that you won't burn your hand while holding an egg you just cooked.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.243.81 (talk) 09:14, 6 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)

It is also already mention in the article on the human rib cage, here to be exact. Its been about 500 years since its been refuted and is something that seems to be exclusive to those that went to Sunday school, so I don't know how common it still is. Lando242 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was taught that men have one less rib than women, in church, as truth, when I was a kid, growing up in the Southeastern U.S., roughly 15-20 years ago. I am not entirely sure, but I think that qualifies it enough to be considered, "common." This is anecdotal, but warrants, for the time being, leaving this in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.112.115.99 (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is common enough that an article was written in 1995 about how many school children believe men have less ribs than women: http://discovermagazine.com/1995/sep/darwinsrib561/?searchterm=adam%20eve%20rib --Skintigh (talk) 18:25, 6 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)

Excellent comments--I encourage you to proceed.Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:26, 8 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)

I do not think that it is pervasive. Not that I have any hard data or anything, just an interest in the time period and a phenomenal eye for other people's flaws. Note that the apologetic article only mentions one person who had the idea.

While we're on Galileo, there's something to be said for the theory that his punishment had less to do with his findings and more with Operation Piss Off The Pope. Unfortunately, we cannot know that with the kind of definiteness that this page would require. --Kizor 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's very likely not a common misconception. I'm not sure about elsewhere, but in the USA about the only thing most people know about Galileo are that he demonstrated something about the speed of falling objects by dropping balls from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Many don't even know that much. Cresix (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Which by the way is another misconception; no precise enough clocks were available to measure anything like that. One of his students made that up. --Echosmoke (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a clock at all to see that a 10 pound ball and a 20 pound ball hit the ground at just about the same time rather than the 20 pound ball hitting the ground while the 10 pound ball is only halfway down. I'm not saying the story is necessarily true, simply that the lack of precision timepieces cannot be used to disprove it. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There are clearly some common misconceptions when it comes to Galileo being held up as an example of science vs. religion. At least in US schools that was always the spin put on his story.173.59.121.90 (talk) 07:16, 8 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)

If you don't understand why this is MASSIVELY problematic, I'm not really sure where to start. Perhaps a basic philosophy of science course would help. That aside, please could you refer me to particular talk archives that attempt to show why this section isn't meaningless and in need of removal? Thanks. Turkeyphan^t 01:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're rather missing the point. The misconception is that fields that don't use the "scienctific method" so-called are ipso facto not sciences. But since there is no single scientific method, whether or not a field uses it is not a good way of distinguishing sciences from non-sciences. The archives are easily found using the search function, one relevant discussion is here. Hairhorn (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point - I'm pointing out the entire concept is fundamentally flawed and cannot be sustained. It needs to go. Turkeyphan^t 18:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to point which concept is flawed then... if you think the activity of distinguising "science" from "not science" is flawed, then it's moot whether you think there is a single scientific method or not. Hairhorn (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

To offer some light on where the objection is coming from, Larry Laudan's analysis offers a survey of attempts to demarcate science and pseudoscience and shows the flaws in each. Turkeyphant is right, this is still very much an unsolved problem. See also: the original article. M.Levin 20:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the misconception is that there is a clear line between science and non-science, and the line is "scientific method". So conceding that this is an unsolved problem only reinforces the view that there is a misconception at play. Since you don't dispute the issue at hand (that there is a single technique used by all scientists) feel free to suggest an alternate wording. Hairhorn (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole section ought to be removed. It is merely expressing an unusual philosophical view. It is not a misconception like the rest of the article. Roger (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing fringe or unusual about this at all. See for example, "RECURRING SCIENCE MISCONCEPTIONS IN K-6 TEXTBOOKS". Hairhorn (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should put this to a vote? People have mentioned reputable sources backing up my claim and almost all serious scholarship on this issue makes a similar point. Turkeyphan^t 23:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Which claim? I don't see you actually disputing the central claim in the description of the misconception. Hairhorn (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I dispute it and so do several others here. It looks like someone removed it. Good. Roger (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to question the Berkeley reference used there -- I fail to see why their definition of 'science' is necessarily more valid than others. They include no citations; the text seems reasonable, but so do many others on the subject. I admit I don't have access to the other listed reference, but I'm really not sure that the 'scientific method' should be kept in a 'list of common misconceptions', when the misconceptions depend on interpretation and aren't entirely agreed upon. Obonicus (talk) 18:13, 6 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)

Mathematics is definitely not a science, so it doesn't fit the "Scientific method" section. Mathematics is not a science for the simple reason that its subject is not Nature. Mathematics is the language of science, but this does not make it a science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.162.82.126 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• In fact there is an ongoing debate as to the status of Mathematics, see Math#Mathematics_as_science, it's premature at best to call the debate finished. Saying that "its subject is not Nature" means you are already taking sides. Hairhorn (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it shouldn't be included in a 'list of common misconceptions', if the answer is still in the air. Obonicus (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As just an IP, I'll avoid the presumptuousness of outright deleting the section in question myself. But the entire thing is ludicrous. Trying to describe a "common misconception" by getting the actual concept completely incorrect is lazy research at best, and an obvious bias (blatantly POV) at worst.

The scientific method isn't the "The rigid hypothesis to experiment to conclusion model" - the scientific method isn't about the steps or tactics you take, it's about the rules you follow while taking whatever steps or tactics you need to determine a good explanation for your observations. Rules like: don't come up with a new entity as your explanation when you've already got something to explain the results (Occam's Razor); make sure your hypothesis is falsifiable; make sure your process is repeatable and thereby verifiable by independent sources; and so on.

The individual steps aren't just dictated by the field you're working in (astronomy, paleontology) but even by the specific hypothesis you are testing - it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise, and it's downright insulting to people with scientific knowledge to pretend that the scientific method contradicts this. Just as a JREF million dollar applicant's test is tailored to the applicant's specific claims, any process of scientific inquiry is tailored to the specifics of the subject; the scientific method - the rules that make sure the results are sound and verifiable - still holds.

If the author of this section really thinks that astronomy and paleontology don't comply with the scientific method - the actual scientific method, rather than the straw man he or she has set up - then I'd recommend some more research on the subject. I'd also recommend that this entire section be deleted, or replaced with one pointing out the common misconception of the scientific method being a "series of steps" to take when conducting scientific inquiry...because it isn't. What a preposterous (and most likely deliberately biased) notion. The misconception here isn't about whether the scientific method applies to all fields of science (it does); the misconception is the author's own common misconception about what the scientific method actually is. 67.81.189.234 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As "just an IP" you couldn't delete the section anyway because this article is protected from edits by new or anonymous accounts.

In any case, speaking as a scientist myself, I agree with you. The claims made about astronomy and paleontology are ridiculous, and there is no "common misconception" explicitly described. The article is better off without it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Amatulic - on both counts! I'm not a Wiki expert, just an interested observer, so your point there is genuinely appreciated. 67.81.189.234 (talk) 20:19, 7 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.

The red color in the capes is used to hide the blood stains on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.28.224 (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Fan Death

Can someone make "fan death" into a link to the main article? 216.243.36.162 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

From reading that reference, I get "fans make the air cooler" is a myth, and that improper use of a fan when the air temperature is above body temperature can actually make things worse (due to dehydration). It's a bit of a stretch to go from that to claiming "fan death is not a myth". 68.105.72.35 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The EPA is warning people to not assume a fan alone will prevent death from heat stroke. The Korean doctor believe fans will cool a room until you die of hypothermia. I have personally met people who believed if they left a fan on in their room all day (with doors and windows closed) the room would be cool when they got home. --Skintigh (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is also common for shops to run a self-contained refrigerator with the door open, in the hope of cooling the whole premises ! (Ignoring the added heat pumping out of the back ...) Of course, it could be a useful dehumidifier ?

I also have my doubts about evaporative coolers that might cause a tiny temperature drop, at the expense of a huge increase of humidity !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

They aren't. Wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apple supports you that aepple was used for fruit in general. Unfortunately, a) the Bible was, as far as I know, never translated into Old English and b) the word "apple" does not appear in Genesis at all in the King James Version; the relevant passages use the word "fruit". That doesn't mean the belief couldn't have arisen from some sort of similar confusion (for example, French pomme (apple) derives from Latin pomus (fruit)), it just means that Old English probably isn't directly involved. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:11, 6 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)

Not to intrude on the arguments of quality of sourcing, but I think most people know Fey said it instead of Palin. Most people attribute it to Palin on purpose to make her sound dumb, but intentional slander/misquotation is not the same thing as misconception. It belongs in the article about misquotations, but not here. (Just my two cents.) Spidey104 20:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of revealing my lack of connection to popular culture, I thought Palin had actually said it; I stopped watching SNL about the time the original cast left, so I'm only vaguely aware of who Tina Fey is. I agree that it belongs in misquotations rather than here, but I suspect more people than you think do in fact believe Palin said it due to how widely it was quoted, without attribution, in the media. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:22, 6 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)

don't really know how to go about finding a reliable citation that it is a common misconception, but the number of people i have heard express it is pretty staggering compared to the number i've heard say that a duck's quack does not echo (zero). the mechanism of the misconception is the same as the 10% of the brain myth: an early study seemed to suggest it and people latched onto that rather than the subsequent research. http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp Gobo2001us (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have heard countless people say they will never use aluminum cookware because of this belief. Often when there is a post on my favorite deals website for aluminum cookware someone brings it up. I also recall reading this article about cookware sales: http://discovermagazine.com/1992/sep/alzheimersstepch102/?searchterm=aluminum%20alzheimer That should be a good citation for how common this belief is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skintigh (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 198.160.139.1, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

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)

I don't see how it's a useful change. Hairhorn (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Especially since most laypeople probably won't know the meaning of the word "cogency" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.182 (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought this wording was actually weak. A hypothesis is an idea that fits known facts and observation, is testable, and is falsifiable. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested, has been agreed upon by the majority of the scientific community, is the best explanation available, and often ties many different fields of science together into one explanation. For instance, evolution ties together what we know about inheritance, paleontology, DNA, microbiology, and even complex systems like populations and computer science. Gravity ties together classical mechanics, astronomy, relativity, etc. Germ theory of disease ties together observations in medicine, biology, sanitation, etc. --Skintigh (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done While I agree the wording is weak, and I personally prefer "cogency", I agree it isn't a good layperson's word, so I think we can dispense with this particular request. If anyone has a different improvement to suggest, please post a new request or make the change to the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:00, 7 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)

The common misconception is regarding the US interstate highway system being used for landing strips. While explaining this misconception the section illustrates that it is indeed true in some localities that highways have purposefully been designed as landing strips. In doing so it references Finland without a citation. This edit requests adds the citation requested but does not alter the section in any other way.

Please reconsider adding the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.27.102 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a source that this is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 21:42, 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?  Done, for the final suggestion by Gobo2001us. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right Amatulić. This page has been so hectic today. I've missed a couple of things along the way. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The current wording is still perhaps a bit stronger than is warranted. See the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Signing, which includes citations both supporting and arguing against the August 2 date. I think the most it's fair to say is that we are not certain exactly when the declaration was signed, though the physical document most people think of as the Declaration of Independence (i.e. the one in the National Archives) may well have been signed at least primarily on August 2, with some signatures potentially being added later. (A bit further down, reference is made to the Dunlap Broadsides, printed the night of July 4, which while not having an actual signature included the phrase "Signed by order and on behalf of the congress" followed by John Hancock's printed name, with Thomson listed as witness.) It might be worth mentioning the distinction between the Declaration of Independence as an ideal, and the physical document on display in Washington. Actually, that alone would be sufficient to quell my reservations. Ptorquemada (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a specific wording to suggest? ~Amatulić (talk) 07:02, 7 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)

Heights have been increasing over the past few centuries. --98.217.79.216 (talk) 14:09, 6 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)

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)

I have heard that one countless times. The Museum of Science in Boston lightning exhibit specifically debunks this. I have also heard people say that rubber soles will also protect you from lightning or electrocution, and this was even mentioned in the "furries" episode of CSI: Las Vegas, among about 5 other misconceptions in the first 5 minutes. As for links, the fact every safety site goes out of their way to debunk this says a lot:

"Most people believe the rubber tires on a car are what protect a passenger during a lightning strike. " http://www.weatherimagery.com/blog/rubber-tires-protect-lightning/

"Remember, rubber-soled shoes and rubber tires provide NO protection from lightning." http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/thunderstorms.shtm

"Rubber tires provide zero safety from lightning." http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_pls/vehicle_strike.html --Skintigh (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There was an excellent episode of Top Gear where they sent Richard Hammond to the Siemens High Voltage site in Germany, to be zapped with "artificial lightning" in a car. A quick google turns up countless YouTube links, so I won't bother to post them here. Anyway, surely everyone knows that cars protect you from lightning because the metal body conducts, and that the carbon black in tyres makes them very conductive? 86.156.229.223 (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it matters if the tires are made out of copper or 1 million feet of insulation. If the car really does act as a Faraday cage (do we know this for a fact?), that is what protects the passengers by keeping the charge on the outside and the inside neutral. But even if it doesn't act like a Faraday cage, it's not voltage that hurts you, it's voltage differential. In that Top Gear video he says he was told to keep his hands away form any metal objects in the car... If you are standing on a metal plate charged at 1,000,000 volts and touch a wire charged at 1,000,000 volts you are fine, likewise if you are in a metal car body and touch parts of the body. If you are standing on a the 0 volt plate, or 2,000,000 volt plate, and touch a 1,000,000 volt wire, then you are in trouble. (Though, maybe there are other dangers for quickly changing voltages, like with lightning, in non-Faraday cage situations?) I've seen this demonstrated with a Faraday cage at the Boston Museum of Science: while being struck by lightning the operator in the cage rubbed his hands along the inside of the cage. I think he mentioned something about not sticking his hands outside of the cage, maybe so the lightning wouldn't hit him first and use his fingers as a resistor?

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)

In a similar vein, no skin cream or other cosmetic product can "reverse aging", regardless of manufacturer claims. ArcheoPhyte (talk) 18:38, 6 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)

I agree that the PBS source is at best an oversimplification, if not outright wrong. The problem is the same as in the birds/dinosaurs dispute: there are two senses of the word, a precise cladistic one and a problematic common one. "Monkey" is commonly understood as excluding apes, and "ape" is commonly understood as excluding humans. These categories are ok for common usage about extant organisms, but there's no good way of extending them to apply consistently to the common ancestors. The cladistic terminology does make sense. So the common ancestor of monkeys (and apes) is best understood to be a monkey; the common ancestor of apes (and humans) is best understood as being an ape. Humans thus are monkeys that evolved from other monkeys, and apes that evolved from other apes. The common misunderstanding is that people imagine different modern forms as having evolved from each other, rather than from an ancestor that strictly should not be identified with either. The common ancestor may resemble one of the modern species much more closely than another, which can roughly be expressed as saying that the latter species evolved from the former. For example we quite reasonably say, "The Hawaiian Goose evolved from the Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)" even though strictly we ought to distinguish between the current Canada goose and the species as it existed before separation from the latter. The article needs clarification. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Man did not evolve from monkeys and apes because monkey and apes did not exist at the time man first evolved, so it is impossible to have evolved from them. We share a common ancestor. Think of them as very distance cousins. Would you claim you are descended from your distant cousin? Of course not. You may share a great-great-grandparent, but you most likely were not born directly from your cousin. Using incorrect terminology only confuses people and invites fallacious quips like "if man came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" --Skintigh (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's just wrong. Humans are apes and apes evolved from the Old World monkeys. See Ape#Classification_and_evolution. --92.199.199.217 (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that people don't realise that Monkey refers to any primate that isn't either an ape or prosimian. They see the word Monkey and assume that they are all the same family within the order primates, and by inference assume that if we evolved from Monkeys, then they must be modern monkeys. This is clearly a logical fallacy. 82.18.86.179 (talk) 00:13, 10 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)

Agree. Children's misconceptions are not what is being discussed here. It should be removed. Turkeyphan^t 01:29, 6 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)

Maybe it is a common misconception in Germany only. w/e ;) --Echosmoke (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's probably due to conflation with regular water poisoning (see Leah Betts, et al.) Turkeyphan^t 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a common belief in the UK, too - perhaps because it's true ! See Leah Betts & Water intoxication ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm from the UK and I'd never heard that. Leah Betts died from drinking far too much bottled water. I've never heard anyone suggest that it was particularly pure in any way and would be very surprised if it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.195.51 (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Leah Betts did not die from just randomly deciding it would be fun to drink a lot of water, she had taken a bad ecstasy pill at her birthday party, which made her feel dehydrated. She drank a lot of water very quickly and ended up with swelling on the brain, causing her death. Her dad was/is a policeman and started a big advertising campaign to alert young people to the dangers of taking ecstasy after the loss of his daughter. I am English, and I remember the 1995 story very well. BBC News- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.41 (talk) 15:54, 10 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)

Actually, in my experience, the more common misconception is that there is no such thing as centrifugal force. To cite the wikipedia article you just cited, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force Centrifugal force is a force found only in rotating reference frames, much like the Euler and Coriolis (sp?) forces. As a matter of fact, the existence of a centripetal force, implies the existence of a centrifugal force under Newton's Third Law. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force)

Now you could possibly say Centrifugal Force is a subclass of inertial forces applied to rotational motions, or that it is a result of inertial forces, but to say that it does not exist is sort of like saying that Drag does not exist (as a force) After all, if you look closely at drag, you will see that it is really just friction. Jared Thaler (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The misconception that there is no centrifugal force is itself a misconception that is taught in schools. Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force http://xkcd.com/123/ --Skintigh (talk) 19:04, 6 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)

I think what Popoi is referring to is the fact that unsourced material stays in this article since no one is challenging it (what you call consensus, basically). This however is true for all of WP, just usually ppl may be more keen on challenging. --Echosmoke (talk) 23:59, 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)

This isn't a misconception. The belief may be widespread, but that's at least partially because it's approximately true. Mixing just about any shade of red and any shade of blue will produce some shade of purple. It may not (in fact, probably won't) be a bright, clear purple, but it isn't actually wrong as such. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I came to say something similar. Schools teach the primary colors of pigment (or subtractive primaries) are red, yellow, and blue. This is FALSE, as you stated. They are magenta, yellow and cyan, which are the secondaries of the (additive) primary colors of light: red green and blue, which are determined by the red, green and blue color sensors in the average human eye, and that is why the screen you are staring at is made up of red, green and blue dots. There is no way to mix non-primary colors to form a primary color, so you could never mix red, yellow and blue pigment to form magenta or cyan pigment. Supposedly, the reason this falsehood is taught is because hundreds of years ago there was no way to make cyan or magenta paint, so approximations were used. As a reference I would use wikipedia, but someone deleted some of those details... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_color#Subtractive_primaries --Skintigh (talk) 19:12, 6 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)

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

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

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

"It is also true that" isn't grounds for including an additional fact here. There are many many things that are also facts.Ccrrccrr (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is cleat that you didn't even read after that line, because I didn't just state a completely irrelevant fact. My comments were to say that the misconception is not in fact false in all cases, but there are instances when the head and other parts of the body do lose heat faster. "It is also true" that you are douchebag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhinds08 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion. I've added it to the article using your source as well as a couple more I found using Google. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 8 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)

Judging by the number of suggested additions just today, I don't think you'll find much support to delete. As for it being US-centric, feel free to round it out with a few well-sourced non-US items. Cresix (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Gyroscopic forces are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle". Someone built a bicycle with two additional non-grounding wheels that rotated backwards, to cancel gyroscopic effects. Of course handling was affected, but it was still easily rideable. The forces exist, and are even helpful, but they are not essential, not necessary. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Typo (now fixed)

There is a typo in the Human body and health section. The item talking about the brain continuing to create neurons. It says "we no know" when it should read "we now know." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.187.181.169 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been fixed (not by me).Ccrrccrr (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from PhiloHippus, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

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)

 Not done You need to show us some sources that this is a common misconception. For me personally, this is the first I've heard of this; I thought it was common knowledge that lunar phases result from the direction of sunlight falling on the moon. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 6 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)

Fair enough. Can you suggest a clarification? "...at a distance"? "...outside its event horizon"? "...on orbiting objects"? --Kizor 21:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea of black holes being cosmic vacuum cleaners is that once things get trapped below the event horizon they don't get out (baring a very small bit of hawking radiation), where as matter approaching a star is repelled by the radiation pressure from the light (or more significantly for things like comets where there is a back pressure from water vaporising) and these effects do not exist for a black hole, there is simply gravity. Further more matter entering a star might well simply be blasted out as solar wind another effect not present with matter entering a black hole, although emission of x-ray frequency radio is fairly common from accretion disks. It seems the misconception is that black holes have a stronger asymptotic gravity field than the star they were formed from, rather then a serious dispute about their ability to "suck" stuff out of space. comment added by YetanotherDave (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Who Invented What?

Spinoffs of the Space Program (Velcro, ...):

From http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/myth_tang.html

Are Tang, Teflon, and Velcro NASA spinoffs? Tang, Teflon, and Velcro, are not spinoffs of the Space Program. General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959. In 1962, when astronaut John Glenn performed eating experiments in orbit, Tang was selected for the menu, launching the powdered drink's heightened public awareness. NASA also raised the celebrity status of Teflon, a material invented for DuPont in 1938, when the Agency applied it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts' convenience in zero gravity situations. Although it is a Swiss invention from the 1940s, it has since been associated with the Space Program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgalassi (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have heard the Tang one a lot. There are many news articles about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_%28drink%29 --Skintigh (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

Edit request: Bat blindness (grammatical change for clarity)

In the secion "Biology," we see "Bats are not blind. While most bat species do use echolocation to augment their vision, all bats have eyes and are capable of sight.[124][125][126]"

It might be more accurate to say "all species of bat have eyes and are capable of sight" instead, since surely not *every* bat in the world is sighted.

76.19.66.41 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think a few blind bats in the world really makes much difference in how this should be worded. Cresix (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe this edit is warranted, not only for accuracy but simply for consistancy in the sentence: "most bat species" is already in the first half the the sentence. Sexy plant lover (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Addition request: Schizophrenia

Could somebody please add the misconception about schizophrenia and multiple person(ality) disorder? Request it because i'm not natural english speaker and don't want to leave a mess of language here ;) --84.61.4.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

 Not done: Please provide a reliable source that this is a COMMON misconception. Cresix (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence of the second paragraph in the article on Schizophrenia says that schizophrenia and split/multiple personality disorder are "often confused in public perception" and provides a source for that statement. --74.84.88.99 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a case of the writer of that statement in Schizophrenia not quite representing the source accurately. The source does not identify it as a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Islam misconceptions

This TED video [3] exposes many misconceptions about Islam that could/should be added to the article.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good information, but it's only one person's ideas about misconceptions about Islam. Need more evidence that they are COMMON misconceptions. Cresix (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Deletions

Multiple editors have been deleting sections of this article on the basis of there not being a source showing that it is a misconception or there not being a source showing that it is a common misconception. These deletions have, in some cases been made without regard to ongoing discussions on the talk page concerning those exact issues.

If the issue is whether the alleged common misconception is true or false, a good policy is that if the section has been in the article for a long time but unsourced or has a low quality source such as an opinion on a blog, remove any low-quality sources and add a citation needed tag. If it was just recently added, deleting it with a note that it was unsourced or poorly sourced is appropriate. Editors are reminded that "Citation Needed" notices, unless many months old, are not a reason to delete a section.

An open question s whether it is reasonable to expect a citation from a reliable source showing that something is a common misconception. A reliable source saying that X is false and Y is true is evidence that X is a misconception, but not evidence that X is a widely held misconception It is hard to see how anyone could know that for sure without conducting a public opinion poll. I would favor discussing proposed deletions based on how commonly held the belief is on the talk page and seeking consensus rather than simply deleting them out of hand. Guy Macon 22:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed a discussion about these very issues under the rather non-intuitive title "Snopes vs. LoCM". Guy Macon 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be surprised to see you citing a wikipedia policy that states "unsourced material may not be deleted because people jabber about it on a discussion page" In fact, many templates state the opposite: "unsourced and challenged material may be removed." That's what people do and it is good and well they do it. It is, after all, not an issue to reinsert deleted content from a previous version IF someone actually comes up with sources AFTER a lengthy discussion (which I yet have to see, btw). But then again you are posting this at the top of the page which says a lot about the policies you follow ;) --Echosmoke (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. In this case the assumption is accurate; if I have failed to follow a policy it is because I don't know the policy. A link to the policy you are assuming I violated in bad faith would result in me studying the policy and doing my best to follow it in the future. Guy Macon 03:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So let's move it to the bottom of the page. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't fault the people editing this article for shooting first and asking questions later. They should still make sure that the questions do get asked. If an entry looks like there might just be good sourcing for it, the editor who removes it should bring it up on the discussion page if it isn't here already. Skipping this step means that the outcome is likely to depend on force, not facts, plus it's impolite. --Kizor 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Goldfish memory

Could someone update this entry to distinguish between memory and attention span, as goldfish attention spans are actually quite short, and this is the origin of the misconception (wouldn't want to create a misconception the other way) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.182 (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Japan and vending machines

I would like to consider adding that the belief that in Japan you can commonly buy little girls' used underwear in vending machines is actually false. This did actually happen at one point in the early 1990s, yes, but it was not "on the main streets in Tokyo" as I often hear people say. It was in one town, Chiba City, and at one pornography store in said city. There was also an immediate public demand that the underwear vending machines be removed, so it's not as though this is an accepted practice in Japan.

However, the reason I'm first posting it in Discussion instead of just adding it to the article is because I'm not sure whether this falls under the category of "misconception" and thought I'd ask here first. Xprivate eyex (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Misconception, yes. Common misconception? I doubt it. Hairhorn (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't doubt it. I agree that this is a common misconception, but I base this opinion on personal experience from talking to a dozen or so individuals about this exact subject over the past 15 years or so. Go to any anime convention in the United States and ask around; you'll find that this is a prevailing view. I can't say there are any reliable sources stating explicitly that this is a common misconception, however. It certainly seems common among western fans of Japanese popular culture. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: It isn't a misconception at all, it's still true: See the article on Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/risque/kinky/panties.asp ~Amatulić (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Great way to make money though. Buy $100 worth of girls' underwear, pee on it, then sell it for $5000. Cresix (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It IS a misconception that it is a common practice in Japan to sell girl's underwear in vending machines, which is what I stated. I have read the Snopes article and the article does not definitively state that it is still true. It says people claim they've seen the vending machines, when it's likely they've merely seen vending machines that sell underwear - new ones, for both men and women - because yes, you can buy just about anything in a vending machine in Japan. If you read the article you will see that what I initially said was correct - it was a single pornography shop in Chiba City, not the entirety of Japan. Xprivate eyex (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Galileo was not sentenced to death

Nor was Copernicus. This is a VERY largely spread misconception about history. M.M. --82.120.133.118 (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read the talk page. Already discussed. Cresix (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Related with the discussion above --> Chapter 8 in: Ronald L. Numbers (ed.) Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). addresses the myth "That Galileo Was Imprisoned and Tortured for Advocating Copernicanism". In the concluding thoughts, it says:

In view of the available evidence, the most tenable position is that Galileo underwent an interrogation with the threat of torture but did not undergo actual torture or even territio realis. Although he remained under house arrest during the 1633 trial and for the subsequent nine years of his life, he never went to prison. We should keep in mind, however, that for 150 years after the trial the publicly available evidence indicated that Galileo had been imprisoned, and for 250 years the evidence indicated that he had been tortured. The myths of Galileo’s torture and imprisonment are thus genuine myths: ideas that are in fact false but once seemed true—and continue to be accepted as true by poorly educated persons and careless scholars. (p. 78)

Note: the first tree chapters of the book can be found here. --Leinad-Z (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I think you are confusing scientists. Galileo was threatened with torture by the church and imprisoned for life for his observations. Copernicus feared what would happen to him and waited until just before death until publishing.

However, Giordano Bruno was slowly burned to death by the church for his scientific work that suggest the Earth was not the center of the universe and the Sun is just one of many stars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno --Skintigh (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Slavery and the US Civil War

I often hear (especially from folks from the Southern US) the claim that the US Civil War was not about slavery. Primary source documents from the time (articles of secession from the seceding states, the diary of prominent southerners like Alexander Stephens (VP of the CSA)) all emphasize slavery as the primary or sole cause for the war. --Thomas B♘talk 00:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Like many wars it was probably really about property and profits. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly was not the "sole cause" for the war; that's far too simplistic for such a complex topic. But I think most people would agree that it's the primary cause. The weakness of primary source documents from the time is that they lack the benefit of hindsight provided by time. Cresix (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading, but can't remember where, that southern states regarded removal of slavery as a threat to their income, so it wasn't the threat of removal per se that caused the war, it was the refusal of the southern states to accept the economic consequences, AND their refusal to accept being dictated to in what they saw as being none of the north's concern. Slavery is central to all this, so it can be said the war was about slavery, but it can equally well be argued, especially by the southern states, that slavery was at best a secondary issue. Given this, there is no clear misconception to refute, so I think this complex subject ought to be left to the history articles. Andreclos (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is something taught in Southern schools, I guess to white-wash history. It's actually illegal in Texas to teach any history that portraits Texas in a negative light. While there were numerous reasons, the primary reason was slavery, and every state that seceded issued a proclamation of why the seceded and they all listed slavery as a primary reason. Perhaps we could gather each state's statement into one document and kill this lie once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skintigh (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Vaccines and autism

While I realize I'm going to inject some controversy here; the claim that there's no biological basis for vaccines causing autism simply isn't true. The refutation of the vaccine/autism connection is typically based on population studies. There's solid biological evidence for a mechanism. Polymorphisms related to glutathione production are tremendously common in autistic children. Such a mutation wouldn't cause autism per se, but would make an adverse reaction to thimerosal more likely.

We compared levels of SOD, GSH-Px, and MDA in children with autism and controls. In children less than 6 years of age, levels of SOD, and GSH-Px were significantly lower in autistic children compared with their controls [4]

OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to determine whether ... improvement is associated with increased plasma concentrations of glutathione (GSH) and an increased redox ratio of reduced glutathione to oxidized glutathione (GSH/GSSG), both of which have been previously identified to be low in children with autism.

[5]

Early post-natal toxicant administration to mice has been used to model autistic regression. To test the hypothesis that genetically altered mice might be more sensitive to toxicant exposure early in life, mice with a deletion of glutathione-S-transferaseM1 (GSTM1; a gene associated with increased risk of autism that codes for an enzyme involved in the management of toxicant-induced oxidative stress) and wild-type controls were exposed to valproic acid (VPA; a toxicant known to cause autism-like behavioral deficits that, in part, are mediated through oxidative stress)... VPA treatment caused significant increases in apoptosis in granule cells of the hippocampus and cerebellum. There was a genotype by treatment by sex interaction with wild-type females exhibiting significantly fewer apoptotic cells in these regions compared to all other groups. VPA treatment also resulted in long-lasting deficits in social behaviors and significant alterations in brain chemistry. VPA-treated GSTM1 knockout animals performed significantly fewer crawl-under behaviors compared to saline-treated knockout animals as well as wild-type controls receiving either treatment. Collectively, these studies indicate that VPA-treatment causes cerebellar and hippocampal apoptosis and that having the wild-type GSTM1 genotype may confer protection against VPA-induced neuronal death in female mice.

[6]

The severity of autism is associated with toxic metal body burden and red blood cell glutathione levels.

Multiple positive correlations were found between the severity of autism and the urinary excretion of toxic metals. Variations in the severity of autism measurements could be explained, in part, by regression analyses of urinary excretion of toxic metals before and after DMSA and the level of RBC glutathione (adjusted R(2) of 0.22-0.45, P < .005 in all cases). This study demonstrates a significant positive association between the severity of autism and the relative body burden of toxic metals.

[7]

De-novo mutations and advanced parental age as a risk factor for ASD also suggest a role for environment. Systemic and central nervous system pathophysiology, including oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, and mitochondrial dysfunction can be consistent with a role for environmental influence (e.g. from air pollution, organophosphates, heavy metals) in ASD, and some of the underlying biochemical disturbances (such as abnormalities in glutathione, a critical antioxidant and detoxifier) can be reversed by targeted nutritional interventions.

[8]

Reduced glutathione regenerating enzymes undergo developmental decline and sexual dimorphism in the rat cerebral cortex.

Oxidative stress during development may predispose humans to neurodegenerative disorders in old age. Moreover, numerous ailments of brain disproportionately affect one of the genders. We therefore hypothesized that, activities of enzymes regenerating and utilizing glutathione (GSH) show sexual dimorphism and developmental differences in rat brain. ...Our results showed that sexual maturation had an impact on activities of enzymes that regenerate and utilize GSH and rat female cortex had more anti-oxidant capacity. Moreover, age-related decline in the activities of these key enzymes were observed. Reduced glutathione and NADPH protects the brain from oxidative stress. Thus, our results may have implications for neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's disease and developmental disorders of brain like autism in which oxidative stress plays a key role.

[9]

Cellular and mitochondrial glutathione redox imbalance in lymphoblastoid cells derived from children with autism.

Lymphoblastoid cells (LCLs) derived from autistic children and unaffected controls were used to assess relative concentrations of reduced glutathione (GSH) and oxidized disulfide glutathione (GSSG) in cell extracts and isolated mitochondria as a measure of intracellular redox capacity. The results indicated that the GSH/GSSG redox ratio was decreased and percentage oxidized glutathione increased in both cytosol and mitochondria in the autism LCLs. Exposure to oxidative stress via the sulfhydryl reagent thimerosal resulted in a greater decrease in the GSH/GSSG ratio and increase in free radical generation in autism compared to control cells. Acute exposure to physiological levels of nitric oxide decreased mitochondrial membrane potential to a greater extent in the autism LCLs, although GSH/GSSG and ATP concentrations were similarly decreased in both cell lines. These results suggest that the autism LCLs exhibit a reduced glutathione reserve capacity in both cytosol and mitochondria that may compromise antioxidant defense and detoxification capacity under prooxidant conditions.

--Ryan Wise (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

>That study only shows that people with autism have lower levels of glutathione, how exactly does that prove Vaccines cause autism? For that matter very few Vaccines use anything related to Mercury, so your statement that Vaccines verifiably cause Autism is wrong. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.101.9 (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The passage which I removed from the page claimed there was no biological basis for vaccines to cause autism. Glutathione is primary in the removal of mercury from the body. Autistic people have demonstrably more numerous mutations in glutathione related systems. Thus, there is a biological mechanism for people with autism to be more susceptible to vaccines. This does not, nor is it an attempt to 'prove that vaccines cause autism.' It may very well be that people with autism would still have autism, but would be more likely to have adverse reactions to vaccination because of their chemical sensitivity. Primarily, this post explains the removal of incorrect information, namely that the page incorrectly claimed there was no biological mechanism by which vaccines could cause autism. Currently mercury (in the form of thimerosal) has been removed from nearly all vaccines, however prior to ~2000 that wasn't true. The association is therefore relevant to children 10 or older with autism. Further, you are not only misinterpreting what I wrote to be a claim that vaccines have been proven to cause autism, you are misinterpreting it to be a claim that autism is caused exclusively by vaccination.--Ryan W (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, there was a segment on the news this very morning mentioning that several of the authors on one of the prominent papers (unfortunately, I didn't catch which one) linking vaccines and autism had withdrawn their names from the paper and were accusing the primary author not only of being wrong but of deliberate fraud. Any scientific support for the view that vaccines can cause/exacerbate/have anything whatsoever to do with autism seems to be fast eroding. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the now disgraced Dr. Andrew Wakefield (Globe and Mail) (Telegraph) TimothyPilgrim (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Pyramid's Built by slaves

Various sources state that pyramids being built by slaves is a myth started a long time ago. 71.174.190.191 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide sources that (1) the pyramids were not built by slaves, and (2) this is a COMMON misconception. Cresix (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Our article Egyptian pyramid construction techniques says "Archaeologists now believe that the Great Pyramid of Giza (at least) was built by tens of thousands of skilled workers who camped near the pyramids and worked for a salary or as a form of tax payment..." So, not built by slaves. What's left is to demonstrate that enough people believe that they were built by slaves to justify labelling this as a common misconception. I suspect plenty do, but that pure OR on my part. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"This notion of a vast slave class in Egypt originated in Judeo-Christian tradition and has been popularized by Hollywood productions like Cecil B. De Mille’s The Ten Commandments, in which a captive people labor in the scorching sun beneath the whips of pharaoh’s overseers. But graffiti from inside the Giza monuments themselves have long suggested something very different." http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids

pedrorui Pedrorui (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, someone with editing privileges should add this. I've always thought of it as a classic example of ubiquitous erroneous knowledge. 98.111.202.57 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The best we have is "Archaeologists now believe...". That isn't proof that it was or wasn't built by slaves, so there is no real basis for stating a misconception. Andreclos (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tyrkeybloke, 6 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The text: Palin actually said "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." is incorrect. The quote is wrong, and has been paraphrased by a news company.

The true quote is: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.", without the part on the end which was added to the news report which this article references. I distinctly recall the interview and the final part of the sentence as written in this article was certainly never spoken. I've tried to find the youtube link for the full interview, but I can only find the excerpt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk While it is cut short, you can clearly hear the interviewer jumping in with his next question right before the excerpt ends. I'm sure the full interview still exists, I just couldn't find the correct search terms.

On a separate note, I would argue that alongside other significant misconceptions relating to Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, that a stupid comment by Sarah Palin is not of significant relevance to this article, and that countless other more significant examples could take that text space. I would propose the section be removed entirely.

Tyrkeybloke (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Already discussed extensively on this talk page and in the archives. Cresix (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And yet the entry is still there. I'd be happy for someone to rid us of it, I have already blanked it twice, so I'm disqualifying myself for now. Hairhorn (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The additional explanation looks like the kind of thing that an interviewee would add when authorising the interview. Spoken speech is often a bit sloppier than written speech, so in English-speaking countries interviewees traditionally get a chance to edit their responses for the written version. Of course this also gets abused for making embarrassing mistakes sound more reasonable.

The claim that one can see something Russian from somewhere in Alaska is clearly true (see Diomede Islands, and that's not entirely theoretical since Little Diomede Island is inhabited (apparently by less than 200 Inupiat people).

The real issue here was the embarrassing insinuation that Russia being a neighbour of Alaska somehow makes her competent on foreign policy. It suggests very strongly that Palin has not reached the level of conscious incompetence about foreign policy and is still unconsciously incompetent. Apparently this blunder wasn't handy enough in the context of a US election campaign, so people on one side jumped on a caricature of the statement ("I can see Russia from my house").

Altogether, this is just another case of the picture presented in the media being an over-simplification of actual facts, although not completely wrong. It may be appropriate to explain this in detail in a Palin-related article, but as a mere simplification it's not really appropriate for this article and should be removed. Hans Adler 08:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the points made in the previous discussion; this is here for polemic rather than educational reasons. So again I would call on someone to remove the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This item also appears in list of misquotations. I suggest deleting it here and continuing the disucssion there.Ccrrccrr (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done per consensus above. -Atmoz (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Rule of Thumb" Origin

Today, my government teacher told us that the origin of the phrase "Rule of Thumb" is that it used to refer to the maximum thickness of a stick with which a man was allowed to beat his wife. Being the smart-ass that I was, I immediately looked it up and found that this had been discredited. (See the Rule of Thumb page under the heading "Thumb used for regulation"). I would like to add the following (and its related references) to the LoCM:

It is often claimed that the term originally referred to a law that limited the maximum thickness of a stick with which it was permissible for a man to beat his wife, but this has been discredited.

But I do not know where this would be appropriate to go. Any suggestions? I'm a noob to editing Wikipedia so if anyone wants to do this instead of me, go right ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergamesoftoday (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I added it to the article under the "Law" section. Feel free to jump in and make any changes, or add any sources, which you have. Thanks for the suggestion! Jess_talk|_edits 09:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe for proper clarity that the time period in which this myth was supposedly originated be mentioned in this article as taken from the cited writing which discredits this myth. Simply stating that it has been illegal since the 18th Century to beat your spouse opens up questioning as to laws before this time. However, the article cited makes mention of the colonial time period being the origins of this myth.

Essentially in this case, lack of proper quotation is lack of proper evidence making this section incomplete and partially invalid. Ivan0310 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard this too, but always in the context of it being debunked. At the risk of stealing Cresix' thunder, "My teacher told me" is not the same thing as a reliable source stating this is a common misconception. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Writing "In actuality, domestic abuse against women has always been illegal in the United States, and in Britain since the 1700s." without providing a citation is inappropriate. The term, "domestic abuse against women" is a culturally defined concept, and any claim that such action "has always been illegal" without consideration of the historical record of what has met the legal criteria for bona fide "abuse" and what has been considered culturally or civilly permissible is also inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.163.9 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also false. There were no laws against wife-beating in the U.S. until the 1880s.[10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.223.19 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, please make any changes which are appropriate to the section. I took the sources we had and put together some wording, but that wording might not be the best. Feel free to make it so. If you can't edit the article, you can provide the wording you prefer here, and another editor can make the change. Jess_talk|_edits 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, "rule of thumb" originates from a measuring method for heigts. the original "rule of thumb" sais: "If you want to know the height of an object, hold up your hand with the thumb up, so that in your line of vision the base of your thumb reaches the top end of the height to measure, and the hand-end of your thumb is at the base of the height. Then rotate your hand around the base and see where the end of the thumb lands. Walk to that point, and count the feet to the point where you set the base, this is the height." This is a quite simple measurement method, usable without tools in any given situation, though it's just an approximation to the actual height. Thus, a "rule of thumb" in general refers to "quick and dirty" way to achieve something without much effort. --212.23.105.74 (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from F0r4n4, 6 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} For entry under Section 5.2 Human Body and Health of the page "List of Common Misperceptions"

The entry reads:

Vaccines do not cause autism.[114] Current scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis of causation for more-common disorders such as autism.[115][116] There is, however, significant biological evidence showing that mutations in the genes related to glutathione, a critical antioxidant involved in the removal of mercury from the body, are found to be significantly more common in people with autism. [117][118][119][120][121][122][123]

My proposed change:

Vaccines do not cause autism.[114] However, according to the National Autism Association, and a legal case involving the CDC and Hannah Poling; thimerosal – a leading preservative used in multi-use vials for childhood vaccines does. This is a failure in the manufacturing process as opposed to a failure in the safety of vaccines. The additional cost associated with producing single-use vaccine vials that do not require preservatives such as thimerosal to guard against the introduction of bacteria from multiple needle punctures in a single vial will successfully neutralize the threat posed from heavy metal neurotoxicity in children.

Citing Websites:

“Deal in an Autism Case Fuels Debate on Vaccine” NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/us/08vaccine.html (Mar 8 2008: Jan 5 2011)

Thimerosal. National Autism Association http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php (Jan 5 2011)

“Vaccine Presentation in the USA: Economics of Prefilled Syringes versus Multidose Vials for Influenza Vaccination”. Medscape.com http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/733986 (Dec 15 2010: Jan 5 2010)

Reason for requested change:

The debate on Autism and vaccines is oversimplified in speech. Specifics were needed to convince the CDC during the hearing of Hannah Poling that there was merit to the claim of her parents. As such, the phrase "Vaccines do not cause Autism" is true, however, the claim that preservatives used in multi-dose vaccines are safe is false.

F0r4n4 (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

F0r4n4 (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, none of the sources provided makes the claim that thimersal causes autism. --Leivick (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   — Jeff G.  ツ 17:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How about the misconception that Obama is Muslim?

Here's a reliable source stating that 1) "Nearly 20% of Americans believe Obama is Muslim" and 2) Wrongly. I'm not exactly sure what the threshold for what "common" consists of, but if 1 in 5 isn't common enough I'd be pretty surprised.. Here's on that specifically calls it a misconception and that it's 24% who believe it. VegaDark (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Does 20% of Americans being dumb equate to "common" for the whole world? HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

no it doesn't, which is exactly why it should be placed under the US history/US politics section, although that clearly leads to bias in coverage and could be accused of being undue. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Do most of the things on this page equate to "common" for the whole world? I'd bet the vast majority of China and India, a huge portion of the world's population, would have never heard of many of these. I'd imagine quite a few are common misconceptions only for the western world, just as there probably are quite a few "common misconceptions" in Asia or other places that most of us would never have contemplated. That doesn't mean it isn't a common misconception, it simply means it's a common misconception amongst a certain population. And if that population is big enough, such as, oh, the entire United States, I'd say it qualifies to be on this page. I'm going to go ahead and add it. VegaDark (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The other problem with a "misconception" like this one is that it is no doubt happily fuelled by Obama's political opponents. That makes a big difference. Should we really count a deliberately created misconception? HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's perhaps doubly important to point out deliberately created misconceptions in my view. While the belief in many of these might be dropping as time goes by (quite possibly due to viewing this list), deliberately created misconceptions are likely to increase. That brings me to another amusing question- If this list does its job (informing people of common misconceptions), wouldn't they no longer become common misconceptions, and thus each entry on this list would have to be deleted? Perhaps this page would have to incorporate former common misconceptions to be sustainable in the long run. VegaDark (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Americas section

Since these are fundamentally stories from the mythology of the United States of America and not "the Americas" it would be nice if this section was renamed to something more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.200.75 (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first entry is about Columbus. I don't believe he actually got to the USA. The rest are USAian though. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Columbus didn't have much to do with the USA but he and his journey are certainly not part of the legends and stories that people believe about Canada (for example). I don't know about Mexico and Central and South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.200.75 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

While not 100% accurate, extremely good longitudinal estimating methods were available and in use by China's naval exploration fleet led by Zhang He in the late 1300s. See here for more details. Explorations by European explorers including Columbus did not have this ability until far later. 70.137.130.116 (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

More than 5 senses.

Under the heading "Human Body and Health," it states that there are more than 5 senses. While this is in fact correct, I would like to note that some of the other senses listed, such as relative temperature, pain, itching, and even the urge to urinate are all caused by touch. This seems fairly obvious to me. 98.16.208.55 (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing touch with physical contact. 111.69.248.240 (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

They are sensed by different kinds of nerves. Ultimately it comes down to semantics, and biologically it makes at least as much sense to count them as different senses as it does to throw them into one category called "touch". 68.105.72.35 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking about senses, you should also include the perception of polarization of light discovered by Heidinger, see Haidinger's_brush. The ability to detect polarization provides additional information that can be used to detect position of the Sun even if it is covered by coulds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.183.203.19 (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A few more

Here are a few more that I would like to see added. I may add some of these myself, if time permits:

• Alexander Graham Bell did not invent the telephone.
• there is no good evidence that foods such as chocolate increase acne, according to my internist and a dermatologist I once saw. I'm going to look for more evidence to support this.
• pre-ejaculatory fluid has never been proven to contain sperm. rather, sperm that already exists in the urethra can be carried out by this fluid. if no sperm is in the urethra (for example, due to urination), pre-ejaculatory fluid can not cause pregnancy.
• America was not founded on Christian values, it was founded on Enlightenment Era values.

64.203.5.246 (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I recommend against most of these. To take them point by point:

• "Bell did not invent the telephone" is at least as wrong as "Bell invented the telephone." The actual situation is rather complicated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy. There's substantial evidence that Bell may have been aware of Gray's work, but the fact is that Bell submitted a patent for the telephone, and Gray did not (until much later, when he submitted a patent for a crucial part of a telephone, not the telephone itself).
• Actually, I don't have a problem with this one, as long as you find a citation saying it's a common misconception as well.
• This is a semantic quibble, and I think "correcting" it may cause more harm (in the form of undesired pregnancies) than good.
• Partly semantics, partly opinion, entirely controversial.

68.105.72.35 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your last point. To quote the Founding Fathers "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli --Skintigh (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on any of the rest, your third response - "I think "correcting" it may cause more harm" - is not a valid reason for exclusion. We're not in the business of censoring information for reasons like that. Jess_talk|_edits 18:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

arabic numerals and asia section under history

arabic numerals where not actually an arab invention but rather invented by persian mathematicians in india, might consider adding an asia catagory to the history section --RebAvi (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you do that, please add that actual arabic numerals differ from what we call arabic numerals in the west. 82.180.29.126 (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The article on Arabic numerals has sources to confirm that they were invented by persian mathematicians in India, but we need sources that this is indeed a common misconception. --Banana (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

the fact that they are referred to as arabic numerals isn't enough to say it's a common misconception?RebAvi (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Maitreya Buddha is not the second coming of Gautama Buddha

Maitreya Buddha is not the second coming of Gautama Buddha, it is the fifth, as correctly stated here: Pepa65 (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a common misconception? Citation, please. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Add link to list of logical fallacies?

I think a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy would be appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand.prabhakar.patil (talk • contribs) 10:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Science and religion: "No scientist ever lost his life..." and Lysenkoism

While it may be true that the Inquisition did not execute any scientists due to their scientific beliefs, scientists have in fact been killed because of their belief in Mendelian genetics under Stalinism. While the excuse for their executions or imprisonments leading to death was that they were spies or sabotuers, as with other purges and show trials of the time the real reason was political, in this case their opposition to Lysenko's botanic theories.

182.239.133.206 (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Miranda rights

Would it be appropriate to add an entry on the misconception that, in the US, if a suspect is not read his Miranda rights he is automatically freed? Seems a pretty common misconception to me, though, as with many such things, it may be difficult to source how common it is. In reality, such a failure only means that anything the suspect says afterwords (such as a confession) can be ruled inadmissible in court. All other evidence, including eyewitness, material evidence, etc. is still admissible and can lead to a conviction. -R. fiend (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Show sources demonstrating people believe this. I doubt you can. Turkeyphan^t 18:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Number 2 in this list for a start. I can probably find others. How many do we need? -R. fiend (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Number 2 in this list too, though admittedly these aren't necessarily the best sources. -R. fiend (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Chevy Nova

Could we possibly list the myth about the Chevy Nova failing in whatever Spanish countries due to "Nova" supposedly translating as "no go" (no va)? I've had quite a few Spanish, history, and sociology teachers mention this bogus story as fact, and it's always annoyed me. Some guy (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We'd need a source for 1) this being a common misconception, and 2) something refuting its truth.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

2012

The Maya calendar does not predict that the world will end in 2012, or in any date for that mater. This is simply the first day of the 14th b'ak'tun. In fact, Maya texts mention dates beyond this one. One extreme example is a data 41 octillion years in the future. (source for octillion date: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon#cite_note-S.26F-19)

All of this is well-documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon

RELIABLE SOURCES: "Sandra Noble, executive director of the Mesoamerican research organization FAMSI, notes that "for the ancient Maya, it was a huge celebration to make it to the end of a whole cycle". She considers the portrayal of December 2012 as a doomsday or cosmic-shift event to be "a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in."[14] The 2009 science fiction apocalyptic disaster film 2012 is based on this belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar#cite_note-13

POPULAR BELIEF NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon)

Many movies help to popularize the idea that the Maya thought the world would end in 2012 : In the Will Smith movie “I Am Legend” the setting was 2012. The latest Indiana Jones feature theorized that the world would end if all the crystal skulls were not collected by that date. The movie Death Race (the new one, not the classic) references 2012 as the year that the economy fails. One major movie, titled “2012: The War For Souls” is a Michael Bay production based on Communion author Whitley Striber’s book of the same name. The 2009 movie simply called 2012 stars John Cusack and Amanda Peet and is a science fiction apocalyptic disaster film 2012 is based on this belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_(film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrorui (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that there are a bunch of fringe ideas about 2012, but I don't see any common misconceptions. Can you specifically state what the common misconception is, and the source that backs that up?

It's a pretty common misconception that the Mayan calendar says the world will end in December 2012. There have been dozens of books put out - in a non-fiction capacity - in the last 5 years alone claiming that the world will end in 2012, and that's in addition to the numerous books and movies of the fictitious type playing on this fear. Xprivate eyex (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Science/Religion Compatibility... equivocation

The discussion of it being a "misconception" that Science and Religion are incompatible, relies on an equivocation about all three terms: Science, Religion, and compatibility.

For detailed discussion of this by Jerry Coyne, please reference this article. However, my basic point would be to ask that it be made abundantly clear: There IS and will remain an intractable incompatibility between scientific thinking/epistemology with regards to the falsifiability of hypotheses, standards of evidence, and the necessary modification of theories to accommodate/explain evidence

AND

Religious, dogmatic thinking that makes a virtue of faith (belief without evidence), and protects pre-existing beliefs at the expense of new knowledge.

Religious thinking and scientific thinking about "truth" in the world are fundamentally incompatible, and the common misconceptions page should be edited to clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folboteur (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire "Science and Religion" section is more controversy than misconception and should be relocated or removed. Large portions of it are inaccurate (the Flat Earth model was supported in Europe by respectable scholars, such as the Archbishop of Seville, well into the Middle Ages), debatable or matters of opinion. ArcheoPhyte (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me add here that the basically one source, bloatet into 5, absolutely sucked. Past tense because I removed the entire thing after actually reading the source(s). Some of it certainly could reenter, better worded, more detailed and better sourced. Like, most likely "the church" did not hamper all or even most research (scientific or not), but is that what "people" imply when "they" say what they supposedly say (which has not been established by a source anyway). --Echosmoke (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A majority of this section requires citations, with more assertions requiring them than have sources (which are dubious but I'm not qualified to refute properly). As mentioned above - this is more controversy than proven misconception and should not be on this page. It is more apologetic than factual. --BTolputt (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Acronym etymologies

Would it be worth including a general comment along the lines that any word origin story that claims a word existing before the 20th century derives from an acronym is almost certainly false? Such etymologies are fairly common generally, even if individual ones (e.g. Fornication Under Consent of the King, For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge) may not be all that widely known. http://www.etymonline.com/baloney.php is an article debunking a particular one (Ship High In Transit) that also mentions the commonality of such false etymologies and supports the contention that acronyms were not at all in wide use before World War II and were practically unknown prior to World War I (the ones it does cite from prior to that are, with the exception of "okay", clearly abbreviations rather than actual words... we read 1:00pm as "one pee em", not "one pum"). 68.105.72.35 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That "S.O.S" stands for "Save Our Ship" could be another. I think that misconception is substantially more common than For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge or Ship High In Transit. -R. fiend (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions lead to misconceptions

An important point about misconceptions is that memories of misconceptions often fail to remember them as misconceptions. That is, telling someone that "it is a myth that the CRA caused the subprime mortgage" is likely to be remembered as "the CRA caused the subprime mortgage."72.187.199.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

Dipping a sleeping person's hand in warm water does not cause them to involuntarily urinate

There is a commonly told summer camp prank that if you dip a sleeping person's hand in warm water, they will wet their bed. This myth was tested and debunked by the MythBusters show (2009 season, series episode #136 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%282009_season%29#Camp_Prank).

Do others think this qualifies as a common misconception?

Jhyrman (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think it probably does... but we'd need a source for it. Can you find a reliable source which specifically calls it "common"? Jess_talk|_edits 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a cite, but a suggestion: perhaps we could reasonably agree to call any belief the Mythbusters consider worth debunking "common". I'm not suggesting that we make this a "List of things Mythbusters has debunked", just saying that mention of a particular belief on a national science-oriented show should perhaps count as a cite from a reputable source that the belief is at least moderately widespread... otherwise, what are we left with? I somehow can't see Gallup conducting a poll to determine how many people are worried about warm-water induced urination. Ptorquemada (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If we start listing things from Mythbusters here, it will quickly open for us to list everything from Mythbusters here, which would probably result in creation of a "List of things Mythbusters has debunked" page anyway. Some guy (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, Wikipedia already documents everything that mythbusters ever did in way more detail than is called for. In addition, the criteria for inclusion in Mythbusters has more to do with entertainment value and controversy than being a widely held idea.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Timekeeping

This section is wildly off-base. None of the three references it cites state that it is a "misconception" that the numbered centuries and millennia begin in years ending in "1." And if it is a misconception, someone better send a memo to the rest of Wikipedia: 20th century, 2nd millennium, etc. This smells of original research and agenda-advancement via editing. Every authority on timekeeping and calendars I have ever consulted has been perfectly clear on the fact that, under the Gregorian calendar, the 20th century ran from 1901-2000. Will any editor step forward and produce an authority that says otherwise? (ISO 8601 doesn't even define centuries, so no soap there.)

You can say that the Gregorian calendar is "only a convention, man," to which the only possible response is yes--and so what? All definitions are conventional. You might as well say that it's a popular "misconception" that this comment was written in the year 2011. --158.111.5.34 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly support removal. The section as currently included in the page is at least misleading and arguably wrong. The existence of some alternative system that nobody actually uses (if you disagree, please provide cites showing this usage to be widespread, not merely showing that such a system does exist) does not mean that the system that everybody actually DOES use is now invalid. In the Gregorian calendar new decades/centuries/millenia do in fact start on years ending in 1, not years ending in zero. Ptorquemada (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I also strongly support removal of this section, it is completely at odds with many other articles in Wikipedia - Gregorian calendar, Civil calendar, etc. The ISO 8601 standard that it quotes is a standard for exchange of date and time information, it is not a calendar. Please either support with acceptable references (unlikely to happen!) or remove. Andreclos (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it since the above looked like a consensus to me, and I reviewed the citations and found no support for the central assertion. Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done, in my opinion. And let me just link to this discussion on the numbering of centuries from the United States Naval Observatory, as a fairly authoritative source endorsing the traditional understanding, in case this comes up again. Thanks.--158.111.143.22 (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Giordano Bruno's demise

Under the Science and Religion section, the statement beginning "No scientist ever lost his life because of his scientific views..." is inaccurate. It may be true that Bruno's support for Copernicanism was not the principle reason for his execution, or even a contributing one. However, one of the principle charges against Bruno was his heretical belief in the plurality of worlds (see the Wikipedia entry for Giordano Bruno and references therein). Bruno held that the sun was merely one of many stars, the Earth but one of many planets and possibly that humans were but one of many forms of intelligent life. Bruno offered a partial recantation, eventually appealing to the Pope, but the head Inquisitor demanded a full recantation and found him guilty of heresy when he refused.

Bruno's religious beliefs and his apparently near limitless capacity for p*ssing off powerful political figures certainly were major factors in his fiery doom, but his scientific views were a contributing factor.

This statement is at best Controversy, not Misconception and should be relocated or removed. ArcheoPhyte (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then I agree. Are there specific reliable sources which can back up the notion that his scientific views were a contributing factor in his execution? Jess_talk|_edits 19:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jess. I'm getting most of my information from the Wikipedia page on Giordano Bruno. The references are largely hardcopy and likely in Italian or Latin and thus inaccessible to me, so I'm relying on the author's of that page. The following excerpts from his wikipedia entry show that Bruno's belief in a plurality of worlds was a contributing, and possibly major factor in his demise (Emphasis mine in all cases):

"Still, the English period was a fruitful one. During that time Bruno completed and published some of his most important works, the "Italian Dialogues," including the cosmological tracts La Cena de le Ceneri (The Ash Wednesday Supper, 1584), De la Causa, Principio et Uno (On Cause, Principle and Unity, 1584), De l'Infinito Universo et Mondi (On the Infinite Universe and Worlds, 1584) as well as Lo Spaccio de la Bestia Trionfante (The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast, 1584) and De gl' Heroici Furori (On Heroic Frenzies, 1585)."

"When Bruno announced his plan to leave Venice to his host, the latter, who was unhappy with the teachings he had received and had apparently developed a personal rancour towards Bruno, denounced him to the Venetian Inquisition, which had Bruno arrested on May 22, 1592. Among the numerous charges of blasphemy and heresy brought against him in Venice, based on Mocenigo's denunciation, was his belief in the plurality of worlds, as well as accusations of personal misconduct."

"The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology. Luigi Firpo lists them as follows:

   * Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
   * Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
   * Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
   * Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
   * Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
   * Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
   * Dealing in magics and divination.
   * Denying the Virginity of Mary.

In these grim circumstances Bruno continued his Venetian defensive strategy, which consisted in bowing to the Church's dogmatic teachings, while trying to preserve the basis of his philosophy. In particular Bruno held firm to his belief in the plurality of worlds, although he was admonished to abandon it. His trial was overseen by the Inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine, who demanded a full recantation, which Bruno eventually refused. Instead he appealed in vain to Pope Clement VIII, hoping to save his life through a partial recantation. The Pope expressed himself in favor of a guilty verdict. Consequently, Bruno was declared a heretic, and told he would be handed over to secular authorities."

I hope this helps. ArcheoPhyte (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruno was not a scientist, and his view about other worlds were not based on any scientific evidence. Roger (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

pure oxygen and explosions

I think saying that things that burn "flare" in pure oxygen rather than "explode" is largely a matter of semantics and the difference, if any, is going to be lost on the typical observer. I don't see that the sentence in question really adds anything anyway. Ptorquemada (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition "five times less oxygen" is clumsy and inaccurate. This should be edited to state "air has 1/5th the oxygen".--207.106.239.81 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that this entry be deleted, because I don't see any evidence for there being a misconception that is common.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The science and religion paragraph is "christian-centric"

It seems to me that this paragraph is written by the point of view of the christian religion it seems to ignore the others. --SoliDreamer (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot tell which paragraph you are referring to. --Banana (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because it finally! got deleted for good.--Ettuquoque (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Vomitorium redux returns

In the section on European history, the first bullet has two sentences on vomitoria. While both sentences are cited, the first sentence actually has two claims (that the Romans didn't vomit between meals and that they didn't build vomitoria to do so in) and only the second one is cited. Bastian964 (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've found these sources [11] [12] that mention the Romans vomiting. I'm going to remove the part about just vomiting in general until we get a cite. --Banana (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Pure Water

the following sentence was recently removed on the grounds that the editor did not see how it was a misconception: "*Purified water is not a good conductor of electricity. However, in practical situations (such as tap water, bathtubs, flooded basements) water contains impurities (electrolytes) which allow for good electrical conduction." The misconception is that people think that water is a good conductor, but it isn't. It is actually the impurities that are good conductors. 99.255.58.85 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And for that (people think that water is a good conductor) there is a source missing (I would also deny that this is a common misconception but that's not really the point) --Echosmoke (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me add once more. If you ask "people" "Is water a good conductor?" most will either say yes or no. When you ask them why, they will either say "I don't know" or have some basic notion of Ions/electrolytes. So I would argue that additionally this fails to be a misconception; it's just not knowing more exactly. --Echosmoke (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Infrared vs Heat

I propose we add a section to this article detailing the differences between thermal radiation and infrared. 74.68.114.111 (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! Do you have a source, or any kind of article, which describes this misconception? All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to differentiate between Near-IR and Far-IR, why not discuss whether Hi-Viz jackets are yellow or green ? It's down to vague boundaries and semantics, no ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Are people in the northern hemisphere idiots?

In the Science/Astronomy subsection the article tells me that "It is a common misconception that seasons are caused by the Earth being closer to the Sun in the summer than in the winter." I'm trying to figure out how ignorant you would have to be and who you would be to believe that? To anyone who knows that the seasons are at opposite times in the northern and southern hemispheres (true for at least everyone I know in Australia), that alleged belief would make no sense at all. Does anyone really believe that? Who are these dumb people? HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Collectively we are much stupider then you would like to think, its kind of a weakest link in the chain type deal. Just look at most of the schmucks we elect to public office or the crap we allow our celebrities get away with just because they are famous. Anyway, that information is not exactly daily use type stuff. I'm sure most people get taught it once in school and forget about it soon after their last test on the subject. Just imagine all the stuff you learn in your life that you think is useless and forget about. One person's knowledge is another's useless factoid. Lando242 (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was reading a report a week or two ago about how many people don't know how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the Sun. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's based on two separate ideas. At one point in its orbit, Earth is indeed closer to the sun than it is at another point (See Copernicus) but I'm not sure whether or not this actually matches up with the same seasonal shifts caused by the wobble of Earth on its rotational axis. Also, Earth is a proper noun, Unless you're a Vortigaunt, there is no "the"Vennificus (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean Kepler, not Copernicus. The "wobble of Earth on its rotational axis" does't cause "seasonal shifts", unless you mean seasonal shift wrt the fixed stars. As for the definite article, as our Earth article is well aware, it's "Earth (or the Earth)".

the upshot here is, we need WP:RS saying that some misconception is "common". If we have that, we can carry it no matter how stupid. If we don't, it needs to go. Personally, I am familiar with children assuming summer is due to the Earth being close to the Sun. I do not think something counts as a "common misconception" if it's just something kids tend to assume or imagine. --dab (𒁳) 21:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Diamonds do not form from coal

Popular misconception answered on Answers.com and Yahoo Answers. Check answers 1, 2, 8 and 9 on Yahoo Answers, which are dead wrong, for helpful examples of the misconception. This popular misconception has been promoted by over-simplified classroom explanations of complex geological processes and may have been further popularized by a quote attributed to Henry Kissinger that “A diamond is a chunk of coal that is made good under pressure.”

Correct Answer:

Coal is an impure variety of carbon that is formed when decaying plant matter in a swamp or bog is shallowly buried beneath layers of sedimentary rock [1]. Small amounts of heat and pressure cause the plant matter to break down, liberating volatile compounds, however appreciable amounts of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur are contained in coal in quantities depending on its grade [2].

Diamonds, on the other hand, form from relatively pure carbon under extreme pressure but, contrary to popular belief, relatively low temperatures [3, figure 4]. Diamonds may be formed by meteorite impact [4]or subduction of continental plates in continent-continent collisons[5] but these diamonds are typically microscopic and, in the case of continetal subduction, revert back to graphite before reaching the surface.

All of the diamonds that humans use are erupted from the deep mantle by exotic types of volcanoes known as kimberlites or lamproites [6]. The majority of these diamonds formed from carbon that was present in the mantle when the crust formed, but a small minority of eclogitic diamonds appear to have formed from carbon carried down on subducting oceanic plates, most likely as carbonate minerals or organic debris.

So coal forms in shallow sedimentary basins on the continents, whereas diamonds form 150 km below surface or deeper and there is no known mechanism for getting coal to that depth and back up again as a diamond. Moreover, coal forms from dead plants, and the youngest diamonds dated at present are a hundred million years older than the first plants to colonize the planet's surface [7, 8].

Editors may wish to condense this significantly. ArcheoPhyte (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dcpelletier, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Under the Christianity heading,

"The Bible does not say Jesus fell to his knees under the weight or strain of carrying the cross and therefore the cross had to be carried by another. It has been assumed that Simon of Cyrene was told by soldiers to carry Jesus' cross because of Jesus being unable to continue due to weariness and exhaustion. Three of the four gospels (the synoptic gospels) give an account of Simon of Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross by soldiers (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26). None of the accounts mention Jesus falling to his knees or being unable to carry the cross himself."

The misconception described in this entry is not "Jesus didn't fall to his knees" (as it sounds currently), it is "The Bible doesn't explicitly say that Jesus fell to his knees." Below is my suggested revision.

"The Bible does not explicitly give a reason why Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry the cross for Jesus. Three of the four gospels (the synoptic gospels) give an account of Simon of Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross by soldiers, but none of them specifically mention Jesus falling to his knees or that he was unable to carry the cross himself. (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26)."

Dcpelletier (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Declined - Your suggested revision does not address a common misconception. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

5 senses of the tongue

Just so you know, gustatory neuroscience is still in contention about the presence of four or five types of taste. Umami is not widely accepted yet and is currently still in debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.236.82 (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This "list of common misconceptions" is completely backwards

This is supposed to be a "list of common misconceptions", but it is apparently list of facts. For example: one of the items on this list says "George Washington did not have wooden teeth." That is not a misconception. It should say "George Washington had wooden teeth". - JefiKnight (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Have a look at the talk page archives where this is discussed ad nauseam. Hairhorn (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A casual search only reveals one topic in the archives. It seems to agree that the list is backwards and the idea of changing it has some merit. - JefiKnight (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions v.s. controversies

It seems that some distinction should be made between misconceptions (that people almost always stop believing when presented with evidence to the contrary) and controversies (where people usually refute evidence against their position with an argument of some sort) another way to state this would be that it is only a misconception if people believe it because they never heard otherwise if people have heard the evidence against their position and continue to believe it (however wrong that position might be)then it is a controversy or a fringe belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.83.19 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Any specific entry on this list that you think is a controversy rather than a misconception?--Banana (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I view that comment as good guidance for editors working on this page, rather than a specific complaint. I think that that is a concise statement of some of what I've been trying to do in the few comments and edits I've been able to contribute.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

mislinked citation

this citation is wrong. It's listed and displayed as 168, but goes to 167:

Although frequently repeated as fact, a penny dropped from the Empire State Building will not kill a person or crack the sidewalk if it strikes either one.[168]

- I can't edit or I'd fix myself.

NBD. This occurs often in Wikipedia. There might be a source that is used twice. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 04:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

works for me. Maybe it was fixed already. --Ettuquoque (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Vegetables as complete protein sources

The section regarding the need to combine vegetables to receive complete protein intakes is poorly cited. The citation is a biased opinion article that is itself, poorly sourced. This 'misconception' is so widespread that some empirical evidence, or a reputed published article should be provided. To determine the truth of the misconception, it would be necessary to know the completeness of each food in a non-complementary paired diet; use this with the amount of each food eaten to calculate the total quantity of each amino acid absorbed; and compare this gram quantity to the recommendations. The source cited for this misconception simply asserts it is unnecessary to complement without giving any evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.68.50 (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That section, as written, also appears to contradict the article Complete protein. Genesis 1:3 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. From Complete protein: "...contrary to popular belief, do not need to be combined in the same meal."Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

MisQuotations - move these ?

Surely these belong in List of misquotations, instead ?

• Let them eat cake --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Al Gore never said that he "invented" the Internet --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Sarah Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house." --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is 'Ich bin ein Berliner!'" --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A beneficial side-effect of moving those would be to lose List_of_common_misconceptions#United_States_politics in its entirety - perhaps it was given undue weight in a global context, anyway - I guess many other countries mis-quote their politicians ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree about Gore and Palin; Palin is already there. Kennedy doesn't exactly fit there though. Perhaps I'll ask on that talk page whether it belongs there. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Defibrillators and heart stops

I think one important and common misconception which should be added to the health section is that defibrillators (the things which paramedics use to give an electric shock to a patient's chest) are not used to start a patient's heart but to stop it! If paramedics encounter a patient without pulse, they never use a defibrillator although television would indicate otherwise. It's actually only used to stop a heart if it has e.g. difficult arrythmia and the heart is expected to start itself after using its own sinus rhythm. Naturally if someone's heart is already stopped, there's no idea in stopping it again.

If paramedics encounter a patient without pulse, they resuscicate (chest massage and mouth-to-mouth).

For more information, see Defibrillation#Popular_culture_references Paukkumaissi70 (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm - as an Australian First Aider I have been trained to use them if there is any chance at all of getting a heart beating again. But I'm not a paramedic. I think we need to be very careful what we put in any health related topic. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the general public don't know the details of a medical procedure and when it is used for what doesn't qualify as a common misconception. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, although TV does show doctors/paramedics using a defibrillator on a flat-line patient, this does not qualify as a misconception. Both American Heart Association and Red Cross teach to hook up an AED any time the patient has no pulse; the AED analyzes the rhythm and decides if a shock is indicated or not. As a paramedic myself, I know the difference between v-fib, v-tach, v-pause, and flat-line (arrest), and I still laugh when I see TV doctors doing something that would cause a doctor to lose their license. Jhyrman (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.130.191.133, 7 January 2011

Misconception that Mormon men have multiple wives

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) do not practice polygamy (plural marriage). The practice ended in 1890. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "has nothing to do with those who practice polygamy", and any members of the church who practice plural marriage are excommunicated (http://lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/what-are-people-asking-about-us-?lang=eng). Most widely recognized polygamists are those who call themselves "Mormon Fundamentalists". In a talk given by President Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until his death in 2008,he stated that "There is no such thing as a 'Mormon Fundamentalist.' It is a contradiction to use the two words together." (http://lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/what-are-people-asking-about-us-?lang=eng). 72.130.191.133 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty reasonable request, but I fear that we are headed down a slippery slope of taking sides in disputes between branches of religions that have forked, as to which are the heretics and which are the true believers. In this case it seems pretty clear that one side of the dispute has a clear majority and that the general public probably means, by Mormons, those who call themselves "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" rather than those who call themselves "Mormon Fundamentalists". But then again, if one group uses the label for themselves and the other doesn't, it gets confusing. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Common according to whom

What is a common misconception and what is not? Who has decided this and based on what criteria ? Gnevin (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In theory every bullet should provide a suitable source like a survey or an academic paper that evaluates if it is (not just claims it). However, the term "common" is as such so vague that several people have pointed out that there is no objective way. Is 10% of people already common? 40%? 50+? --Echosmoke (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe move to List of notable misconceptions ? Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Section on Christianity

While I doubt anyone but zealous fundamentalist would doubt this, you should also mention that there is also no evidence that Jesus was resurrected on the Vernal Equinox either and that a great many of the symbols that are devoted to both of these holidays in reality have nothing to do with anything Christian at all.

The early church had to compete for worshippers with the pagan religions which were, quite frankly, a lot more entertaining for the majority of the population. Go to church and listen to someone drone on in a language you don't understand (Latin) or go out to the woods, get drunk, get naked and dance around a bon fire? See the problem... And much to the horror of the many of the priests, church fathers, etc. at the time, many people were doing BOTH.

The solution was to have the Christian holidays occur on the same days as the pagan holidays and in order to make the local populations comfortable with this new and unusual religion, it dressed itself up in the same symbolism.

Instead of celebrating midwinter and the return of the solar diety, we celebrate the birth of the baby Jesus.

Popular Christmas symbols: Tree, Holly, Mistletoe are all of pagan origin. - The prophet Jermiah condems Jews in the Old Testment for cutting down trees and bringing them into their houses - Quoting "Jeremiah 10:2-4: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."

Furthermore, during the Roman celebration of the feast of Saturnalia, pagans did decorate their houses with clippings of evergreen shrubs. They also decorated living trees with bits of metal and replicas of their God, Bacchus. Tertullian (circa 160 - 230), an early Christian leader and a prolific writer, complained that too many fellow-Christians had copied the Pagan practice of adorning their houses with lamps and with wreathes of laurel at Christmas time. He also complains about many of the early Christians participating in both Christian and pagan activities.

Mistletoe was considered magical for its ability to remain green when the rest of the tree was dormant. The custom of kissing under a branch of mistletoe hails from Norse pagan religion. Because the mistletoe was used to both kill and then resurrect the son of a Norse goddess, she blessed it so that anyone standing under it was entitle to love and protection.

Instead of celebrating spring the resurrection of some harvest diety, we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.

Familiar easter symbols like the egg, rabbit, and lily. Since spring is a time of growth and promise, fertility symbols have always been prominent. Anyone who has ever heard the phrase "breeding like rabbits" doesn't need to have the rabbit explained any futher. And the egg should be equally obvious. Easter lily was associated with fertility because of its similiarity in appearance to a certain male appendage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.119.81.135 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems problematic to me to get into disputes over religious beliefs on this page. And if we did, we'd want to ensure that they were about truly common misconceptions whereas your preface to the whole comment doubts that this is a common misconception.

I think it's reasonable to have a common misconception about religion on this page if it's something like a common belief about a religion that outsiders hold, whereas practitioners uniformly believe otherwise. But we certainly don't want to get into deciding which side is right and which has a misconception where a religion has split over some issue. Nor do we want to get into "it is a common misconception that God exists, whereas actually...." or "it is a common misconception that God doesn't exist, whereas actually...". Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head, Ccrrccrr, in your comment that a misconception must be commonly held among outsiders. See Talk:List of common misconceptions#Edit request - Judaism section where one editor (claiming a consensus of one person) argues that if it's a common misconception among members of a religious group, it is a common misconception in general. Cresix (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok Cresix. This is getting a little silly. You're acting like you have some personal vendetta here, and it needs to stop. If you have a problem with the content, you need to actually explain what that problem is. Refusing to participate in the discussion, and then dredging up offhanded remarks elsewhere on the page about me is inappropriate. Handle the content dispute in the appropriate section, or let it go. Jess_talk|_edits 17:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jess, you have twice used the word "silly" about some matters that are not silly. You denied a second re-addition of non-consensus material as a "silly edit conflict". Now you call my comments "silly". Please stop doing that. And what needs to stop is your personalizing every criticism of inappropriate editing. I have already explained my objections to your misinterpretations of sources as supporting "common" misconceptions and acting without consensus. I'm not repeating myself endlessly, and I'm waiting to see what other opinions might be expressed before I take any additional action. You do not bolster a one-person consensus by repeating the same arguments and demands again and again. Just calm down and let the consensus process work. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Ccrrccrr in this instance. "Religion" and "misconceptions" are fundamentally different things, even if the case is they're both incorrect. This page should be about relatively trivial matters, for which there is no legitimate academic dispute. In the case of vaccines causing autism, for instance, we don't have notable doctors claiming there's any such risk. In the case of Christianity, however, there's an entire field of Theology to contend with. Jess_talk|_edits 18:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Buddha Siddartha Gautama was not an ascetic

As mentioned above in passing, Siddartha Gautama experimented with asceticism early in his "career", but rejected it. Saying he was "an ascetic who taught the Middle Path" is also misleading: the Middle Path refers to a moderate lifestyle, neither ascetic nor extravagant.

It is also worth noting that he is depicted as extremely thin (as he would have been in his ascetic period) as often as he is depicted as chubby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.11.102 (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Those sound like good corrections. Can you suggest specific wording, and provide a source?Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of dispelling common misconceptions, why not just say that G. Buddha (normally thought of as "The Buddha") is not the same person as the fat "Laughing Buddha" Budai. Otherwise it kind of defeats the purpose because we'd have to delve into the 32 signs of a great man and other such things which I can promise you would create more (not less) confusion. For sources, just link the wiki articles on G. Buddha and Budai. Simple, easy, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.97.254 (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Shark Cancer

While I agree with the assertion that sharks can actually suffer from cancer, it would seem that it is a rare occurrence. I disagree with the final statement that "current data do not allow any speculation about the incidence of tumors in these fishes." There is a great deal of research being conducted in this field, and there is some evidence to imply that sharks show impressive resistance to various diseases, including cancer. [13] [14]

The myth that eating shark cartilage will prevent cancer is certainly harmful, and I am glad that it makes an appearance in this article. However, I think it should be added that shark cancer resistance is an exciting developing field for disease research, that may lead to new cancer treatments in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.8.49 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived Discussion

I archived all closed or resolved threads extremely early, because the page was simply unmanageable. If I archived something with ongoing discussion by accident, please pull it back in from archive 12 manually. If someone could go through and close out any remaining queries we have on the page, so we can take care of a few more as well, that would be fantastic. We still have about 100 open requests. Jess_talk|_edits 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Inallsincerity, 7 January 2011

• There are three main misconceptions about transsexuality. Transsexuals are commonly believed to be men who have had genital reconstruction (usually in Thailand) to become heterosexual women. To the contrary, a transsexual can be male to female (MTF), female to male (FTM), intersex to female (ITF), and intersex to male (ITM), in addition many transsexuals do not undergo genital reconstruction. The main component of a physical sex transition is not genital reconstruction but hormone replacement therapy which alters the secondary sex characteristics to those of the desired gender. People who believe themselves to be transsexuals must undergo rigorous psychological evaluations from one to several years according to the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care or the protocol of varying national healthcare systems before surgery is permitted. Transsexual healthcare is available in most countries and is free in countries with socialized medicine. Gender transition is not a "one size fits all" approach. The transsexual undergoes only the medical treatment necessary to relieve the symptoms of gender dysphoria. For example, an FTM who undergoes hormone treatment and/or chest reconstruction but not genital reconstruciton is considered to be "finished" or "fully transitioned" if all symptoms of gender dysphoria are relieved. Transsexuality is not related to sexuality. People who are transsexual can have any sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, etc.)One's perception of one's own gender identity is not related to what gender one is attracted to sexually.

References: Transsexualism: The Current Medical Viewpoint http://www.kaffeine.freeuk.com/korner/bluboox/viewpt.htm, Trans Myth Busters http://www.pfc.org.uk/files/Trans_Myth_Busters.pdf, Gender Bootcamp: The Myths and Facts on Transsexuals http://etransgender.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=61, The Basic Facts of Transsexuality http://www.tsroadmap.com/notes/index.php/site/comments/the_basic_facts_of_transsexuality/, Myths and Facts about Transgender Issues http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/family/19234289.html?page=1&c=y

Inallsincerity (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that as a ready-to-go edit, but perhaps it could become one if the following were taken care of. First, there would need to be a source that showed that the misconceptions were in fact common. In the provided sources, the listings of "myth" and "fact" sounded to me like the myths were overstated caricatures, not anything that documents what is in fact a common belief. If there is one source in particular that supports the common misconception status, perhaps I missed it--could you point it out?

Secondly, the wording isn't clear to me. It says there are three main misconceptions, but I have trouble sorting out what those three are.

My overall impression is that the real concern is not that there are misconceptions, but rather just that there is a lack of solid understanding among the public. As with many things, this lack of understanding is lamentable, and efforts to combat it are commendable. But that does not mean that it belongs on this page. I suspect that a real poll result would show that most people are baffled by the whole concept rather than thinking they know more than they do. If my suspicion turned out to be correct, this wouldn't belong here, no matter how commendable to objective of educating the public is.

Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dcpelletier, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Edit request from Dcpelletier, 7 January 2011

Under the Christianity heading,

"The Bible does not say Jesus fell to his knees under the weight or strain of carrying the cross and therefore the cross had to be carried by another. It has been assumed that Simon of Cyrene was told by soldiers to carry Jesus' cross because of Jesus being unable to continue due to weariness and exhaustion. Three of the four gospels (the synoptic gospels) give an account of Simon of Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross by soldiers (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26). None of the accounts mention Jesus falling to his knees or being unable to carry the cross himself."

In response to my edit which would make the above entry conform to the format of the rest of the page, I received:

Declined - Your suggested revision does not address a common misconception. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If my edit did not address a common misconception, the original bullet point absolutely did not either, so I would like to request that it be removed. As written, it is wordy, redundant, vague (is he talking about a belief about an event (Jesus falling) or a text (Wording in the Bible)?) -- AND, apparently, does not address a common misconception, so...

Remove the above quotation from the article.

Dcpelletier (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. We need to remove the items that are not substantiated as having the status of "common misconception". And we need to apply a high threshold to the "common", they need to be common in an absolute sense, not common within some baroque expert field. --dab (𒁳) 21:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with this.  Done (in a minute or so from now). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request : Section 3 Law

Unless there are additional topics added to this section, it would be more appropriately titled "United States Law" recognizing its content as exclusive much the same as the preceding section is titled "United States politics" to reflect its exclusive content. 99.241.16.65 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, one is about US law; the other is written with a bit of a US-centric view but if you read all the references and what they reference, etc., the discussion is as much about British Law as US law. So I don't see a need to change, and I think this structure welcome additions about law elsewhere better than having a US Law heading would. Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Size of page is getting out of hand

I think editors are misunderstanding the "common" aspect of this article; we don't need an exhaustive list of every imaginable false belief listed here. See also WP:SIZE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that, for some of the bigger sections (like Science), we split it to a new article. We can keep a few of the more notable ones here with a "main article" tag at the top of the section. Just creating a "List of common misconceptions in Science" article would just about half the page size. We already have AIDS/HIV, and other more specific ones, so it would seem to fit. Are there any objections? Jess_talk|_edits 23:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that proposal is that it also splits the misunderstandings about what is a "common" misconception to multiple articles as well. At least with this article, all the discussions are collected in one place.

If the article were to be split up, I'd rather go all the way: Make this article a list of links to other articles, similar to a disambiguation page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

An advantage of breaking it up is that it would become possible for more editors to follow the changes in a topical area, and keep up with maintaining quality. As it is, the change list is overwhelming. A short term problem, perhaps but still a problem.Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As a long-time editor on this article, I urge waiting and taking a longer-term perspective before splitting the article. The frenzy in the article in the last few days will subside; the article got a lot of attention because it got some press, but that will change over time. Eventually some of these newer items will be trimmed or eliminated. Compare the changes in the article over the last two or three days with the changes over the previous two or three months. If the article is too long in three months, then there may need to be a need to split the article. Cresix (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I was a bit disappointed, when i read the article, that it is so short and arbitrary. I sense a bit of an 'Wikipedia inside Wikipedia' problem in that we can't really decide just by consensus on a discussion page, what can be included and what not since it is not up to us to define 'common misconception' - that would be OR, right? --Echosmoke (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus wasn't Caucasian

Shouldn't we include under the Christianity section the common misconception about Jesus' appearance. I think based on the vast collection of art depicting Jesus as Caucasian that we can consider it as a common misconception. Agreed? see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus 173.59.121.90 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As that article indicates, there is no firm evidence of what race he was. In fact, there isn't even a firm definition of what "Caucasian" means. By some definitions, a Jew from Levant would be considered Caucasian/white. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Hi. I tried adding a brief entry under the Science heading reading:

It is commonly understood that scientific findings published in peer-reviewed journals should be replicable by other researchers. In fact, those who have undertaken studies of this have found that most published scientific findings are false, in that when other scientists try to replicate them, they typically cannot.

(First, astonishing as this may be -- it certainly was to me when I read about it -- please suspend your disbelief long enough to read the citations above, so that you can discover that this is, in fact, a misconception. Unfortunately, the best article is the one in the New Yorker, and the full text of that article is not available online except to subscribers.)

When I added this, User:Ohnoitsjamie deleted it and told me, "the article is too big as it is and doesn't need to list every misconception that exists. If you can get any kind of consensus on the talk page for it's inclusion, I'll leave it be." (Is it appropriate for one person to unilaterally deem an article too large and delete any further additions?) In any case, he apparently wants something like a poll of this page's followers to satisfy him that this is a common enough idea to merit inclusion in this article.

So, please reply to this comment to indicate whether you agree that the idea that "published scientific findings are reproducible" is commonly believed. Thank you. StepsTogether (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Couple of problems:

First, "the article is to big" isn't a valid reason to reject a legitimate new entry.

Second, the community's agreement that "published scientific findings are reproducible" is a common misconception is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else here believe. What matters is whether you can find sources that state explicitly that this is a common misconception. I haven't looked at the sources you cite, but if one or more of them state that this is a common belief, then I'd say it's fair to include it in this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

By "too big," I meant that we have to establish some sort of cut-off to avoid listing every imaginable misconception there is. The additional source that StepsTogether added simly states that reproducibility is a core tenet of science; it says nothing about common misconceptions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Amatulic, that makes sense. The first reference in my entry ([15]) indicates the common understanding that reproducibility is a core principle of science. Ohnoitsjamie: obviously, the source that describes it as a common understanding is not going to be the same one that indicates it is a misconception. To be a common misconception, it must be (1) common, and (2) wrong. The first reference shows (1), and the other 3 references show (2). If you need more evidence of commonness than this, I think you'll need to go through the article and delete many of the existing entries.StepsTogether (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A problem with the wording in the quote at the top of this section: The common misconception is listed as being that results should be reproducible, where as the sources instead refute the idea that results are reproducible. I believe that it is true that results should be reproducible and it is also true that many are not. Glossing over that distinction is like glossing over the distinction between saying "everything in Wikipedia should be based on reputable sources" and saying "everything in Wikipedia is based on reputable sources". I trust the editors reading this talk page understand the difference between those two! Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

More misconceptions

The Lincoln cent is not primarily made of copper (see Lincoln cent)

Nero did not play the lyre while Rome burned (see Nero)

Carl Sagan never said “billions and billions” in the Cosmos series (see Carl Sagan)

Tommy John Surgery does not directly cause baseball pitchers to throw harder (see Tommy John surgery)

The poison ivy rash itself is not contagious (see Poison ivy)

Money is not the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10 (NIV): "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.")

“God helps those who help themselves” is not in the Bible (search for it at http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/ )

Genesis 1:3 (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

you need to establish that these are common misconceptions in the first place. I've never heard anyone suggest that "God helps those who help themselves" is supposed to be in the Bible, who would assume such a thing? Yes, the internet is full of cluelessness, but "somebody once thought so" doesn't make something a "common misconception". --dab (𒁳) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. The only one of these I've ever heard/believed is that poison ivy rash is contagious. Xprivate eyex (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - Judaism section

Got here via Metafilter, so I'm guessing there may be a lot of activity on this page and didn't want to jump in if all edits are being deleted, but will gladly contribute this section with further details.
There are plenty of common misconceptions about Judaism, so I was surprised to see nothing included. Particularly these three -

• Religious Jews do not have sex through a hole in a sheet
• Kosher food is not blessed by a rabbi in any way
• There is no prohibition against being buried in a Jewish cemetery if you have a tattoo

Not to mention the American misconception that Jews make up a sizeable percentage of the US or world's population - the actual number is somewhere under 2% in the US and well less then 1% worldwide
thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchelly (talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never heard of any of these misconceptions. The "hole in a sheet" and "tatoo" ones are so ricidulous that I even wonder if your edit is serious. Not only are these not common misconceptions, I doubt that they're misconceptions held by more than a few people. If you disagree, please provide reliable sources that they are common misconceptions. Cresix (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

His edit is, indeed, serious. I've heard all these before. Whether or not a sizeable number of people actually believe them is open for discussion and will require reliable sources to show, but I can assure you that some people do, even as absurd as they are. In fact, the hole in the sheet thing was in some major movie or tv show... Seinfeld perhaps? Jess_talk|_edits 21:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sex through a sheet: Snopes, JewFAQ, Jewish Mythbusters ~~1.5mil google hits
• Kosher Food: My Jewish Learning, Jewish Cooking, ~~100k google hits
• Jewish Cemetaries: My Jewish Learning, Jewish about.com, Torah.org, NY Times, ~~44k google hits Jess_talk|_edits 21:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

None of these sources provides evidence that any of them are common misconceptions. Just my opinion, but I'm starting to think these ideas were picked up by a few Jewish people who found them so ridiculous that they shared them with their Jewish friends just for a laugh. Just like when I was a kid in Catholic school we joked about how all nuns had bald heads, knowing full well that it wasn't true. Cresix (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

My intent wasn't to provide reliable sources (otherwise I would have added them to the article myself) but to show their prevalence generally. That said, I'm not sure you read through the links carefully enough. The NY times article definitely provides ample evidence that the tattoo myth is common: "Nearly every Jew, from those who go to synagogue only on holidays to those who dutifully follow Jewish law, has heard that adage." Similarly, I would expect of the nearly 1.5 million google hits for "jewish sex through a sheet", enough to spur a snopes article and countless entries on jewish FAQs, we can find plenty of reason to conclude the misconception is prevalent enough to be considered "common". Jess_talk|_edits 23:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, I did read the sources. But "hearing an adage" is not the same as a common misconception. Lots of people heard the adage that if a frog pees on you it will cause warts, but that doesn't mean that most people believe it. As for Snopes, that website does not limit itself to common misconceptions. If it did, there would be no need for this Wikipedia article. And as I've said MANY, MANY times on this talk page, Google hits are not evidence that a misconception is common; the number of hits you get depends on how you word the search; if I search "Jewish" + "sex through a hole in a sheet" I get a grand total of 6790 hits. And of the 1.5 million Google hits you got, how many of those actually confirm that it's a misconception, how many disconfirm that it's a misconception, how many refer to a joke about Jewish sex without either confirming or disconfirming, and how many fall into some other category. If you can't give a specific answer to that, Google hits is meaningless. Cresix (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll concede that it is anecdotal, however, on more than one occasion, I have asked for Kosher meat, only to be told that the store's meat was "Just like Kosher Meat, except it wasn't blessed by a rabbi." Anecdotal is not evidence, but since it's been stated elsewhere that in the absence of evidence one way or the other, the editors establish the "Common" part of "Common Misconception" through concensus, I just thought I would throw my 2 cents in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared Thaler (talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your two cents. Let's see if enough opinions for a consensus are expressed. Cresix (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the google count was sufficient in itself - I've been an active editor here for quite a while actually, enough to know it isn't. My point was that it does turn up a plethora of results, many of which are related to the misconception, and among those, surely a suitable RS could be found; I intended to address your initial concern that the OP "wasn't serious", or that the idea wasn't prevalent. Regarding the tattoo, I'm a little baffled that you don't find a NY Times article suitable which explicitly states that "nearly every Jew has heard it", or the various 'Frequently asked questions' pages I provided written by various Rabbis. I'll give you two more which use the exact terminology, http://www.ehow .com/about_4622123_does-judaism-say-tattoos-piercings.html (<-- eHow is blacklisted apparently. Bringing the issue up on RSN) and Ask the Rabbi. I still think the NY Times article is sufficient (even, stronger), and should be used as a source. I'm going to include whichever of these I can quickly find sourcing for in the article. If you still disagree, feel free to revert me and discuss it further. Jess_talk|_edits 02:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you're baffled, but again "nearly every Jew has heard it" doesn't mean it's a common misconception. I'm Catholic; nearly every Catholic has heard the idea that nuns (in the old days when they wore habits) have shaved heads; I've never met a Catholic who actually believes it; ergo, not a common misconception. As for the chabad.org, it's one person asking a question and one person providing an answer. That clearly does not make it a common misconception. If I ask on a blog whether the moon is made of cheese, does that make it a common misconception? Cresix (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And NO, do not add it without consensus. That's not the way it works on Wikipedia. When there is disagreement and there is ongoing discussion, the proper thing to do is wait for consensus, not add it just so it will be removed. Read WP:CON. Cresix (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cresix, I understand you've been working on this page for a good chunk of today, and I commend you for that. It's understandable that you might be getting a bit frustrated as a result, and if so, I'd advise you to take a short break to cool down. If I'm off-base, then my apologies, but let's try to keep the discussion a bit level headed if we can. I'm sure you're aware of the BRD cycle, so I'm confused why you would say "that's not how wikipedia works". Further, based on the discussion here, it would appear that consensus is against you for the exclusion of this info, as it seems we have 3 editors supporting the inclusion, which to my mind is reliably sourced with multiple citations. Could you please be more specific about why it is that you disagree with the inclusion, particularly so strongly, and what kinds of sources you'd like to see in order for it to be included? Jess_talk|_edits 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this item was under discussion when you added it, the "D" component of BRD. It's not appropriate to boldly add in the midst of a consensus discussion. But no harm done. As for what kind of sourcing I would like, a reliable source that unequivocally states that the misconception is common (which is more than "every Jew has heard it"; see my comments above) would be excellent. There are some items in the article that actually provide sources specifically stating that it is a "common misconception" or "a misconception held by most people" or even a specific percentage of the population that subscribes to the misconception. Additionally, even if "every Jew has heard it" and every Jew believes it, is that a common misconception in general, or a common misconception among Jews? This is just my opinion, but as a non-Jew, I'd be willing to bet money that most non-Jews have never even heard of this misconception. Finally, you can also add the items if there is a consensus on the talk page to do so. As for your statement that consensus is against me, there is no consensus either way at this time. Review this section. Mchelly presented the possibility that these Jewish-related ideas are common misconceptions, but not providing an evidence that they are. You provided some sources that you think support the idea of common misconception. I disagreed with your conclusions. That does not make a consensus. Consensus can take a while; sometimes there is never a clear consensus. The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to add the item. Cresix (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to back away and come back to the page later on, but I'd like to address a few things first. Adding content to an article for the first time is never discouraged, particularly when new sources have been introduced and with explicit acknowledgement that it may be reverted if there is disagreement. I'd suggest you're taking a rather harsh attitude about this issue, which is liable to discourage new editors (which we're getting plenty of today). Secondly, if it's a "common misconception among Jews", that still makes it worthy of inclusion in the article, which is a general compilation of misconceptions -- even among Jews. Thirdly, lots of the content currently in the article isn't sourced to your stated satisfaction here. The NYT article demonstrates that it's a common adage which has widespread acceptance. Orthodox union provides exact wording that it's a misconception which is widespread. That it's been in at least two popular tv shows (Curb your Enthusiasm and The Nanny) lends further support. The fact that I've provided multiple other sources, including chabad - which explicitly calls it a "common misconception" - should even be unnecessary to warrant its inclusion. I'm sorry to say, your opinion that these are insufficient seems unreasonable. Jess_talk|_edits 03:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Adding content to an article for the first time is never discouraged": Read WP:BRD again; it's not an invitation to ignore consensus and edit war. Boldly adding content before discussion is never discouraged. Adding disputed content in the midst of discussion is not appropriate. You're wrong about that one.
• "if it's a "common misconception among Jews", that still makes it worthy of inclusion in the article": So every misconception held by any specific group of people is acceptable? Common misconceptions among Quakers. Common misconceptions among Druids. Common misconceptions among Choctaw Native Americans? No, if that was the case the article could multiply in size by a factor of thousands. This article pertains to common misconceptions in general. Moreover, you haven't provided an adequate source that it's a common misconception among Jews. You've simply provided a source that "every Jew has heard it" (regardless of whether they believe it) and a source quoting one person asking a question and one rabbi answering the question, as if that's evidence of a common misconception.
• "lots of the content currently in the article isn't sourced to your stated satisfaction here": Read Other stuff exists. I've never claimed that the article is in perfect condition. I'm trying to keep the new additions properly sourced or included by consensus. That was a fairly manageable task until about 24 hours ago.
• "I'm sorry to say, your opinion that these are insufficient seems unreasonable.": That's your opinion, and you're entitled to your opinion. I'm sorry to say I disagree. And when there is such disagreement on Wikipedia, it is resolved by consensus. Currently there is no consensus, although it seems that the consensus process is not a consideration in your decision to edit the article. I find it interesting that until about two days ago, even though there were some heated debates about the content of this article, a disputed item rarely was added, re-added, and re-added again without consensus. The article gets some press, followed by people like yourself who have never edited the article. And that's fine; I welcome new editors. What I don't welcome is an editor who assumes that because he has never edited the article, he is entitled to run roughshod over the consensus process. But so be it; I'm taking a break from the article; but unlike most people who have commented here in the last 24 hours, I'll be back later to do the heavy-lifting of getting the article back in shape again. Cresix (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cresix, you're putting things into rather heated territory again. Once again, let's keep the discussion calm if we can. I'll address your points in order.

1) Please read WP:BRD again. Content is commonly added with new sources or new wording during an ongoing discussion as a proposal or to generate consensus. This is common practice, and besides which, that isn't what happened. You objected to the bit about sex through a sheet because it wasn't sourced to your satisfaction, so I improved the sourcing. You are now apparently objecting to the sources being improved... I'm not sure what to tell you - if you think the sources are still insufficient (which I'm just guessing, because you haven't said), you should address that point specifically, not yell at me for improving them. If you think this is a problem, you're welcome to take the issue to WP:RfC or WP:ANI.

2) Being a common misconception among a substantial demographic does make it worthy of inclusion in the article. I'd be open to discussing this with other editors if they'd care to take part, but otherwise, being printed in a NYT article certainly gives it enough notability. You say the article would expand dramatically. Can you give me an example of a misconception for one of the demographics you cite which is equally well sourced but which doesn't belong in the article?

2.5) The NYT article says "Nearly every Jew, from those who go to synagogue only on holidays to those who dutifully follow Jewish law, has heard that adage. It has deterred many from being inked". That seems fairly clear. But I also provided 3 more that use the exact phrasing you requested. The Orthodox Union says "This misconception is widespread amongst American Jews. References to it are often found in general American culture". To be clear, are you objecting because you don't think this idea is common, or because you don't think it's a misconception, or because you don't think the sources are reliable?

3) My point was about your standards of inclusion, but I'll sidestep this issue for now since it doesn't pertain directly.

4) I'll have to remind you that consensus is note a vote. Further, what you claim happened isn't what happened. I'm doing my best to keep this discussion from becoming contentious, but you'll have to help me with that. I'll leave the question on 2.5 open if you decide to come back to the article. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"if it's a "common misconception among Jews", that still makes it worthy of inclusion in the article" So every misconception held by any specific group of people is acceptable? Common misconceptions among Quakers. Common misconceptions among Druids. Common misconceptions among Choctaw Native Americans? No"

And yet the entry on Koreans believing in "fan death" is acceptable? 74.185.250.211 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that these aren't common misconceptions among Jews. They are commonly believed to be misconceptions by Jews. Very few Jews believe that some Jews only have sex through a sheet. There is a difference between a common misconception and a what is frequently believed to be common misconception. --Leivick (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple edits on the table here... so we have to be careful to discuss them individually. I get the impression that Cresix has been claiming that, at best, the tattoo myth is common among Jews. However, the "sex through a sheet" myth is sourced as being common among non-Jews. With that cleared up, do you have a problem for the current sourcing for either of the tattoo or sex through a sheet misconceptions? Here are both:

• Orthodox Jews do not have sex through a hole in a sheet, as portrayed in various films and tv programs such as Curb Your Enthusiasm and A Price Above Rubies. In fact, according to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, "Jewish law does not allow any articles of clothing to be worn during lovemaking", and using a sheet in this way could be considered a violation of that law.
• A person with a tattoo is not generally forbidden from being buried in a Jewish cemetery. This common misconception was depicted in the tv shows Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Nanny. While private cemeteries have the right to forbid burial on any grounds, there is no Jewish law to bar tattooed applicants, and it is uncommon to do so.

Jess_talk|_edits 20:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond with a couple of comments and then leave for a while. Jess, it's you who put things in heated territory by edit warring with no consensus. So take your own advice. Second point: Sorry but you are flat wrong that re-adding (and let's skip the sugarcoating that it was reworded) disputed material in the midst of a consensus debate is acceptable. I've seen editors blocked for it on a number of occasions. And finally (for now) Jess, your "I have consensus" argument (invalid in the first place) is kaput. And I never said consensus is a vote; please stop throwing around ancient platitudes; it's insulting to the rest of us. But there is no such thing as a consensus of one editor; and now you have even more opposition. There is no consensus. I'm out of her for now. I'll be back for the cleanup later. Cresix (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cresix, I'm not going to engage this here, because where it's going is not appropriate for this talk page. If you have an issue with my editing, you are welcome to take it to my talk page or a noticeboard. That said, I would much appreciate it if you stopped claiming I was edit warring. Adding material once is not edit warring in any sense of the word, and misrepresenting my actions and intent in the ways you are is disingenuous. I'm doing my absolute best to work constructively with you - when you asked for more sources, I provided them. When you asked for sources with exact wording, I provided those. When you objected, I asked you why. It's becoming very difficult to continue in that way, and I really have to ask again that you stop treating this discussion like it's a battleground. Any further inquiries regarding editors should be taken off this page. If you could respond to my queries above (notably 2.5), that would be appreciated. Jess_talk|_edits 20:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Once? Let's see . . . once . . . twice. Hmmm . . . oh that's right! You explained it on your talk page: "not sure how that happened, perhaps some silliness with edit conflicts". It's not edit warring . . . it's silly edit conflicts. At this time I'm not "responding to your queries above" because (1) responding to you doesn't seem to change anything, and (2) I'm avoiding this talk page for the most part right now. I'll be back at a future time for the cleanup. Cresix (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you're objecting to the content being added, but when I ask why you're objecting, you refuse to explain. I'm sorry, but that's not appropriate. If you decide to come back to the article and actually explain why it is that the proposal should not be included, then I'll be more than happy to work with you to fix it up. Until then, I don't see any standing objections to the tattoo bit being included in the article, so I'm going to reintroduce it. If another editor has an outstanding objection they haven't voiced, please revert me and discuss it here. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 22:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow... had no idea such a small thing would become so contentious -- Not sure how to further back up that these are common misconceptions, other than anecdotally and via Yahoo answers (1 , 2 , 3) as a very loose survey, with the agreement that the sex one is more prevalent among non-Jews, and tattooing being believed by a large percentage of non-religious Jews. Cresix, are you writing from a locale with a slight or nonexistant Jewish population? If so, that could easily explain why you've never heard these; if you rarely ever met a Jew, you would have no reason to have the subject ever arise. Anyway, didn't mean to cause a war here. Also, for the record: Jews don't have horns ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchelly (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mchelly, I've lived all over the United States and Canada. I know about as many Jews as I do non-Jews. It is unlikely that these are misconceptions that are believed by very many Jews, not just non-Jews (99.9% of whom have never even heard of these misconceptions). Your most accurate statement is that the only thing supporting these misconceptions as common is anecdotal evidence. And why not put an item in the article that, "It is a misconception that Jews have horns"? After all, by the standards for inclusion argued in this section, if Jews have heard of this, it must be common. Cresix (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Cresix, our reliable sources say otherwise. Your assertions that 99.9% of Jews have never heard of these are flat-out contradicted by multiple sources, including the NYT article which says that every Jew has. If you have a problem with the sources, then please answer my questions above to clarify. Jess_talk|_edits 17:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in my mouth, Jess. I said that 99.9% of NON-Jews have never heard of it. And I'll also kindly ask you not to place recent discussion of disputed content in the archives so that others will not see it. Once again, you do not make unilateral decisions on Wikpedia. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You are correct that I misread your comment. Allow me to rephrase: Cresix, our reliable sources say otherwise. Your assertions that 99.9% of non-Jews have never heard of these are flat-out contradicted by multiple sources, including the Orthodox Union article which says that it is "pervasive in American culture", and World News Daily which says "the vast majority of people actually believe this to be true". If you have a problem with the sources, then please answer my questions above to clarify. Additionally, I was quite transparent about archiving only discussions which were stale, and asked anyone who felt a section shouldn't be archived to place it back on this page. Since you have stated that you refuse to take part in the discussion, and no one else had recently commented, it seemed safe to assume the thread was closed. Since you feel otherwise, I'm happy to leave it out for now... though with you refusing to engage my questions, I'm not sure what good that will do. I'm not sure how else to ask you to assume good faith and not treat this talk page like a battleground, so I'm just going to repeat the request one last time. If you can't work collaboratively on this article, then I'll have to eventually seek input from elsewhere. Thanks. Jess_talk|_edits 20:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to suggest this as neutrally as possible: Jess, you might want to be careful with your words, especially with comments that could be construed as a threat. Your editing here hasn't exactly been a stellar example of respect for the consensus process and assuming good faith. I've largely avoided this page over the last few days without picking through all of your comments and edits to find problems, but it seems I can't make a comment here without you jumping on it and assuming that I am being uncooperative. So take your own advice, because if you can't let the consensus process take its course without parsing every word I say and "seek input from elsewhere", remember that your edits also will be examined. You might want to take a little time to reflect on your own edit history, and not just on this article. Now I suggest again that you just settle down and let the consensus process proceed. And if you don't want personal responses from me on this article's talk page, please don't make personal comments toward me here. It's quite possible that you and I could co-exist peacefully here if you would focus on the article instead of me. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right Cresix. Discussion of user conduct should be kept off this page and handled on respective talk pages. Can we both agree to keep this discussion on the article, and not on users? Perhaps we can start by explaining what it is that you object to about the current sources, so we can work collaboratively to clean them up to your satisfaction. Notably, I asked above whether you are objecting because the sources don't say the content is common, or the sources don't say the content is a misconception, or the sources are not reliable. I also asked you to clarify your position about the article getting out of hand by suggesting a misconception which was equally sourced and applied to a similar demographic, but was not appropriate to the article. Could you answer those questions? Thanks. Jess_talk|_edits 02:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have decided to focus on the article rather than me. I don't have a problem continuing to focus on the article. As I've told you, I've explained my reasons for objecting to the items added, but, as I said, I also am taking a partial break from this talk page. If I see a need to explain myself after others have a chance to comment (especially now that someone posted an RfC) I will do so. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't fully explained your objections - or else I haven't understood them - since I'm still not clear on whether you agree that the sources claim it's a common misconception but don't agree they're reliable, or if you agree the sources are reliable but don't agree they claim it's common. Or, it's possible that you agree the sources are reliable and state the misconception is common, but you feel reliable sources are sufficient to demonstrate its notability. I'm just guessing here, because any time I've asked you to clarify, you haven't responded. That's why I've been asking... and until you explain that, I can't work with you to fix any supposed issues with the section. Jess_talk|_edits 04:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right: you're guessing; and there is no reason for you to do so in writing here (think your guesses all you wish). I've repeatedly said I'm taking a break from extensive discussion on this talk page, and I'll comment further if and when I see a need after others have had a chance to comment. Please respect that. That is my right as an editor; people often take breaks from articles and talk pages. It does not imply that I have changed my thinking on these matters. Your continuing to try to push me into getting into an extensive debate is not appropriate, but I'll assume this time that your comments were made in good faith. BTW (and I certainly don't wish to assume too much), my not commenting here also is not a reason to archive this section again, especially since someone posted an RfC for the issues in this section; RfC's typically stay up for a month or so unless a consensus is reached earlier. Cresix (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Theres debate about whether these misconsceptions about jewish people are common and should be included in the article MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm Jewish and have never heard about any of these. Maybe if I lived in an area with a greater Jewish population I would have? InverseHypercube (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• I've definitely heard and believed that kosher food was blessed by a Rabbi, but hadn't heard the other ones before. I'm ethnically Jewish, but not religiously. VegaDark (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.205.71.150, 8 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the Physics section, please add "In a vacuum, an object, such as a spaceship does not need propulsion to keep on moving. That is because, according to Newton's Law, the law of Inertia states that an object will keep moving or or stay at rest unless an external force is apply, by which in space there are barely any air friction." Please make changes and edits accordingly, since I am not very good at writing. A good source would be Newton's book "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" or a blog explaining it http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/sciencefordessert/2011/01/08/propulsion-in-a-vacuum/

128.205.71.150 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done. No doubt that Newton is right about that, but we'd need evidence that it's a common misconception. Counterintuitive yes, common misconception, no. We could have an article on "counterintuitive physics facts" if we need a place for things like that.

Does the fact that Sci-Fi movies have spaceships use propulsion to move across the space count to make it a common misconception? Finding an article about it will sure prove difficult. Hope someone finds something on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.71.150 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Article moves screwed up the talk page

First, before renaming the article, consensus should have been sought first. Second, I now have 2 talk pages showing up on my watchlist. Can someone fix this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Move

{{Requested move/dated}}

List of notable misconceptions → List of notable misconceptions —

Common is totally undefined whole notable is a well defined concept both on wiki and off it Gnevin (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this so many levels I'm not sure where to even begin.

• First, and most obvious, this move is a major change and one that requires consensus. We haven't even begun discussing it, so a move is completely premature.
• Second, it's untrue that "common" is totally undefined. It's defined by reliable sources. IOW In other words, if a reliable source says a misconception is common (or words with that meaning), then it's a common misconception.
• Third, WP:NOTABLE is well-defined on Wikipedia, but it's about article notability. It has nothing to do with content inside an article, unless you want to change the inclusion criteria. Assuming you don't, then "notable" is just as well defined as "common". Except now we have to go back and review years worth of work to find sources. Again, this is because we've sourced the article looking for cites that say the misconception is "common" (or words to that effect), not "notable". Who's going to replace all 234 sources? What are we going to do with the ones we can't re-source?
• Fourth, I'm concerned that changing the name will also change the inclusion criteria. This would be a major change because that would mean each item would need to be notable on it's own. IOW, we'll need articles for each item on the list. This, too, has not been discussed.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

IOW? Gnevin (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

IOW = In other words. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree for all the reasons stated by Quest, and because it will not change the content of the article in the least. Not only is it a bad idea, it serves absolutely no purpose. Parenthetically, I'll also state that page moves should have discussion and consensus before the move, not after. Cresix (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD Gnevin (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:EQ Cresix (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what etiquette you are referring to Gnevin (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion. Cresix (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked no one disagreed on a highly active discussion page. So I was bold. Gnevin (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Using the speed with which you acted and your level of consideration for others' opinions as my guide, I could be "bold" and move about ten-thousand articles over the next few days. If I made such a major move on one article, however, someone should suggest that I be more courteous. Cresix (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Don't Move - I would also like to say it is well within the rights of a Wikipedian to boldly change the name of an article. I just disagree with the name change in this case.Asher196 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Asher196. I wouldn't disagree that it is an editor's right to move an article. In this case it is not a matter of what an editor has a right to do; it's a question of common courtesy. Cresix (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Bold edits, even for page moves, are actively encouraged. Gnevin was well within his rights to do so, with the goal of spurring discussion if the move was opposed - which it has. That said, I oppose the move per AQFK. Jess_talk|_edits 03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. AQFK has explained some of the problems well. While boldness is generally OK even for moves, this is only for cases when no objections are expected. Per Help:Moving a page#Before moving a page, all potentially controversial moves should be requested via the WP:Requested moves mechanism. As a rule of thumb, if an article or its talk page is big and active, then a lot of editors will have thought about the title, at least some of them will support the current title (or it would have been moved before), and therefore a move must be expected to be controversial.

It often happens that even when a move is only very very slightly controversial it is reverted as a matter of principle and the move is requested formally. There is no evidence in section #Common according to whom that anybody at all agrees with Gnevin that "notable" is better than "common". Lack of contradiction can be a sign of consent, but not after a mere 20 hours with no response in a tiny section, with a title that doesn't clearly state the intent to move, hidden somewhere in a large, active talk page. Hans Adler 08:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Shutdown Button Action

I think it would be a good idea to mention the action of the shutdown button on most modern computer systems. Pressing it shortly usually sends the shutdown signal, which tells the operating system to initiate a shutdown routine. The computer will not do a "force shutdown" unless the button is pressed and held for a considerably long period, and even if this were to happen, it does not usually do harm to the computer system. Unsaved documents will be lost, that is true, but operating systems will usually be able to recover from a force shutdown anyways. 3000farad (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The result of pressing the shutdown button varies a lot with both operating systems and hardware. (Mac/PC/Laptops...) I think you would be opening a big can of worms. Do you also want to address some other oddities such as the fact that the Print Screen button doesn't do that? Or that Delete means different things on a Mac and a PC? Etc, etc, etc. Lots of illogical stuff. What to include? Maybe a whole new article about computer weirdities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)

I think, if we decide to create subarticles for larger sections, and we can round up enough computer-related misconceptions, a whole new article for it would be great. With that said, I don't think this, or any of HiLo's proposals, would warrant inclusion. I think they are out there, however. For instance, I've heard substantial confusion about Bill Gates' role in computing, including that he "invented software". The idea that a computer means something loaded with Windows software might be another. Sources would have to be rounded up to demonstrate these are common enough, of course, but I don't doubt we could track a few computing misconceptions down. Jess_talk|_edits 03:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to add this, then a just as common, if not more common misconception, is that pulling out a flash drive from the computer without going through the "safely remove hardware" process is going to somehow damage it or the data. I always chuckle when people second guess me when I do that. Not suggesting we actually add it, just a humorous thought. Oh, also we can add that the internet is not, in fact, a series of tubes, and the common misconception that Wikipedia is unrelaible. VegaDark (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

grammar

"The dish comprised of sushi rice and other fillings wrapped in seaweed is called makizushi" -- "comprised of" is ungrammatical and should read "composed of" 91.105.36.32 (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Or "comprises"... – ukexpat (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If the problem is grammar, just fix it. No need for discussion. Xprivate eyex (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol killing brain cells

There's a sentence under "human body and health" that says "...new brain cells are generated on a daily basis.[131]" This is not true, and the source does not say that new brain cells are generated, but rather that there is a repair mechanism. Big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.224.58 (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert by any means, but the cited source states, "And, as an added bonus, new brain cells are generated every day of our lives."[16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming of Iceland and Greenland

It is commonly believed that the names of Iceland (mostly green) and Greenland (mostly ice) were switched to confuse invaders. There is no historical basis for this. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1965/shouldnt-greenland-be-known-as-iceland-and-vice-versa I just Googled to find that article, but I'm sure if this is a worthy misconception then a more solid book source could be found. –Jimmetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmetry (talk • contribs) 09:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is what I was told and believed when younger. But, as you said, it would need to be cited as a common misconception. Jhyrman (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Iran's president Ahmedinejad wants Israel wiped off the map and denies the holocaust

To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world.

According to New York Times (dated 2005-10-30) Ahmadinejad said:

"They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan... ...will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world." ...To long for modified political conditions in a country is a world-wide day-to-day business by all means. But to commute a demand for removal of a 'regime' into a demand for removal of a state is serious deception and dangerous demagogy.

...

The Iranian press agency IRNA: ..."'If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime...” Ahmadinejad said “some have created a myth on holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets."

So he said "In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth." and we were made to believe that he said it's a fairy-tale, two totally different things.

There is much more to hear from the article by Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann (translated from German to English by Erik Appleby) "Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust? An analysis of media rhetoric on its way to war against Iran - Commenting on the alleged statements of Iran's President Ahmadinejad ."

Icouldiwill (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.164.115.57, 9 January 2011

Under "does alcohol make you warmer" it says that the drop in core-temperature is due to a higher loss of heat because more blood circulates closer to the skin, but this only applies when the external temperature is below the core-temperature. the fact is that even though there is no heat exchange between the blood and the environment (at alittle under the core temperature) the core temperature will still go down because of the stimulation of nerve-endings causes the body to sweat more to keep the skin cool. your body is tricked to think it is hotter than it is. there will be a temperature where the extra energy-exchange caused by the blood being closer to the skin will be higher then the energy-loss due to the body trying to cool down, but that temperature is way above the core temperature. I'm not really that good with defining a sentence to add but i think this would be a good addition because i'm experiencing that it's alot harder for most people to grasp. to satisfy the syntax: Please add something along the lines of "the drop in core temperature will also occur in higher temperatures because the stimulation of the nerve endings causes the body to register that it is warmer than it is, and it will compensate by sweating more, hence lowering the core-temperature" 85.164.115.57 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

i suggest that this go in an article on the effects of alcohol, and that it be linked from here. too mucxh detail for here.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass increasing at the speed of light

In the physics section, there is an entry regarding the myth that mass increases when travelling at the speed of light. The following explanation is fairly reliant on one having a solid understanding of physics. If someone who actually believed the myth read the explanation, I doubt if they would be remotely enlightened. Is there anyone out there who can simplify the rest of the entry so that those of us who took high school physics 15 years ago might actually comprehend? 137.186.43.139 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Steph

Separation of Church and State

Can we add one (under 'Law' or maybe 'Politics') that corrects the misconception that "separation of church and state" is in the constitution? I tried to add it, but for some reason I can't. It could read like this:

- It is a common misconception that "separation of church and state" is in the US constitution. That phrase does not appear in the constitution or any of its amendments. The first amendment to the constitution actually says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is currently credited to John Locke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.152.184 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see this also. Find a good source and I will add it.Asher196 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure how you cite the constitution.... "^ Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 29 ("It took John Locke to translate the demand for liberty of conscience into a systematic argument for distinguishing the realm of government from the realm of religion.")" Is the source for the fact about Lock from the Wikipedia Separation of church and state page. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on citing the constitution. You could cite usconstitution.net maybe? --75.189.152.184 (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Constitution would be a primary source. You need to read WP:CITE or Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for info on sourcing.Asher196 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the supposed misconception here? If it is that the constitution does not allow for separation of church and state, then as far as I can see it is not a misconception, the constitution does do this. If it is that the consitution does not include the exact phrase "separation of church and state" or anything close to it - is this really a common misconception? That sounds more like a strawman fallacy to me. Andreclos (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Should not be added. TFD (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If he can come up with the source, then we can add it.Asher196 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that is taking it too literally. It is easy to find an error by examining an issue in pedantic literal detail, but that does not make it a common misconception that is of general interest to Wikipedia readers. I vote to not include this. Andreclos (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose this item. I think adding this "misconception" is risky business unless it is worded that "the Consititution of the U.S. does not literally use the exact phrase 'separation of church and state'", and if that's the way it's worded, I'm not sure that is a common misconception at all (and would require a source that it is). There are two problems here. First, I think it is a political hot potato to make such a bold statement that the Constitution does not provide for (allow, encourage, or whatever other words are used) separation of church and state; I'm not taking a political side here on the issue, but there are lots of people who feel strongly one way or the other, and you'll get a lot of controversy over whether it is a misconception at all, let alone a common one (as a comparison, a more extreme example would be whether it is a "misconception" that abortion should be permissible; imagine the reaction you would get). Secondly, what exactly does separation of church and state mean (e.g., there can/cannot be state supported religion; religious symbols are/are not permitted in state-funded institutions; public prayer is/is not permitted, etc.)? Legal scholars have debated the issues surrounding the specific intent of the Constitution regarding church and state; the concepts are well beyond the scope of this article, whose purpose is not to take sides in political debates. This item should not be included because the issues involved are far too thorny for this article. The issue is discussed at Separation of church and state, which is a much more appropriate place for it. Cresix (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to the common myth

I've reverted the following edit[17] which removed the phrase "Contrary to the common myth". While the phrase may appear redundant in an article titled "List of common misconceptions", this wording solves a problem with the article: this is a not a list of common misconceptions, it's actually a list of facts. A list of common misconceptions would read like this:

• Columbus thought the world was flat.
• George Washington had wooden teeth.

Etc.

What we should probably do is rewrite the article in the Misconception - Explanation format sort of like this. We've talked about this before but no one's volunteered to rewrite the article in this format. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "it's actually a list of facts". I foolishly thought that because it said it was a list of misconceptions, it was actually a list of misconceptions, therefore starting an item with "it is a misconception/myth..." was redundant. I see I was wrong, it is a list of facts. Perhaps you would be so kind as to change the article intro so that the less telepathically skilled among us can see why it would not be redundant to start an item in this way. Perhaps you could also be so kind as to explain why almost all the other items do NOT start with "it is a common misconception/myth". Perhaps this means that all these items should be edited to add this prefix? Andreclos (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I think the central argument here is flawed, and to follow the logic through would mean changing almost all items in the list. This is not a list of facts, it is a list of common miconceptions. Unless I see some decent arguments to the contrary, I intend to reinstate my edit removing the phrase "contrary to the common myth". Andreclos (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Silence. I will reinstate my edit and remove "Contrary to the common myth". It appears to me to be prima facie obvious that this is redundant in a list of common misconceptions. Trying to pretend this is actually a list of something other than common misconceptions doesn't cut it. Andreclos (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been online until today. I really wish you wouldn't. I would rather you follow WP:BRD. This issue has a come up several times before and the consensus is that we should follow one of these two formats. If I wasn't more clear, let me try to explain the difference again:

• George Washington had wooden teeth. --- This is a misconception.
• George Washington had did not have wooden teeth. --- This is correct, so it's not a misconception.

See the difference? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: remove potentially misleading "air contains five times less oxygen"

It is asserted in the current version of the page that "Pure oxygen does not explode. Since air contains 5 times less oxygen, things that burn in air will burn faster and hotter in pure oxygen." I propose that "Since air contains 5 times less oxygen" be removed from this statement because it is poorly expressed. The intended idea is to convey the fact that because burning involves combination with oxygen, and a given volume of pure oxygen has more oxygen in it than the same volume of air, we should expect things to burn faster in pure oxygen. The quantification "5 times less" adds very little to this, and is in any case a poor explanation, because important context (e.g. that the numerical comparison is by volume, and that such a comparison can only meaningfully be made when the same "unit" volume of both things is fixed in advance) is omitted. My feeling is that because of this missing context, a person with misconceptions about gases is as likely to misunderstand the meaning of the entry (in its current form) as he is to correctly understand it. I am, of course, a non-Wikipedian, or I would have made this change on this semi-protected page myself.

173.30.19.136 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove "Jews are not in control of the media, government, etc."

First off, to clarify, I do not believe in this idea that Jews control the world.

But the statement "Jews control the world" is not a misconception, it is a conspiracy theory and therefore should not be addressed by the page. Just as this page does not address the Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 truth movement, or the Bilderberg group, refutation of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories has a time and a page and it is not here. 71.212.191.35 (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is a conspiracy theory but not a misconception, then it is a true conspiracy theory. You don’t want to say that, do you? It’s a misconceived conspiracy theory, and one that is quite uncontroversially misconceived. I mean, not every single detail of the attacks on Kennedy and the WTC is known, but it is very easy to show that Jewish people don’t control the world (although they are on average disproportionately rich and powerful, just as black people are on average disproportionately poor and uninfluential). Jews definitely don’t run the world, and it’s quite commonly alleged in certain circles. — Chameleon 08:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. It was an obvious joke/trolling edit that at taken in the utmost good faith is still unsourced. VegaDark (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, if it's a conspiracy theory, it's not a "misconception" because people have been told they are wrong, and still insist on being wrong. A misconception is something which you always thought was the case but never bothered to look up. Unlike a conspiracy theory, when a misconception is debunked, it goes away. When you debunk a conspiracy theory, its believers will only assume you are part of the conspiracy too. We need to make sure this article does not overlap with our separate list of conspiracy theories. --dab (𒁳) 15:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Human Health and Body -> Mucus Production and Dairy

Under the [Human Body and Health] section there is an entry that a common misconception is people should not eat/drink dairy due to an increase of mucus production. Although the cited study does indeed show that no additional mucus is generated by the body, participants stated that their mucus and saliva felt thicker after drinking either cow or soy milk (not a good study to read during dinner). This is also the reason than singers and speakers do not drink any milk before a performance. So, I guess the actual discussion part of this is, should the semantics between "increased mucus production" and "thickening of existing mucus" be pointed out in this Misconceptions page, or should it be put in a page about dairy? Also, I believe the current reference (#87) be either replaced or supplemented by http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/24/suppl_6/547S which provides a fuller view of the study. Jhyrman (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Numbers of each animal on the ark

The common misconception is that animals went into the ark by two, and Genesis 7:2-3 does say that Noah was instructed to take seven of each clean animal, including birds, onto the ark, but it seems like Genesis 6:19-20 says he should take two of every kind, including cattle, things that creep, and birds. Can someone add in the details?Keepstherainoff (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to straighten out the phrasing of that item. Thanks for the heads-up! Fluffernutter, previously known as Chaoticfluffy (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Article structure

Why is "history" divided in "Americas" and "Europe"? And why is the alleged European belief in a flat earth listed under "Americas"? Why is Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation listed under "History/Americas", but the US Constitution under "US Politics"? This doesn't make sense. When does "History" end and "Politics" begin in the United States? 1776? 1861? 1989? 2008?

I tried to fix this but I was reverted. I don't insist on any particular arrangement, but the present situation is just stupid, and simply reverting without coming up with a better solution is unconstructive. --dab (𒁳) 14:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Your earlier fix clobbered (through edit conflict) some edits, which was unconstructive. If a new improved arrangement can be implemented without edit conflict clobbers, that will be constructive. Now that the rate of change has gone down, it might be easier to do. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

also, this isn't list of conspiracy theories. If 25% of US citizens state that they think that Obama is a Muslim, this isn't a "misconception" but a conspiracy theory, these people obviously believe Obama is secretly a Muslim, it's not that they didn't pay attention in school and were under the false impression he was a Muslim out of pure lack of education. --dab (𒁳) 14:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)