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)

This is a problem that I see no solution to. The only reliable source as to whether a misconception is commonly held would be an opinion poll, and nobody is going to pay for such a poll any time soon. Lacking that, (or perhaps convincing Snopes.com to put in "I was taught that was true", "I was taught that was a misconception" and "never heard that one before" buttons) all we have for a reliable source is someone who is of the opinion that a misconception is common, with no way for them to know that. And yet, there are beliefs listed on this page that I suspect everyone here agrees are commonly held, even if we cannot prove it. Guy Macon 21:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a solution and the issue of whether lightning strikes the same place twice is a good example of how to apply it. The phrase "lightning never strikes the same place twice" is said not as an statement of belief, but as an idiom. If you were to reply to someone saying it to you, "really? lightning doesn't strike the same place twice?" they would probably tell you that you missed the point of the phrase. My proposed solution is that if a phrase is an idiom, it's not a misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.13.153 (talk) 03:10, 15 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)

Yes, 134.93, but what 72.187 is suggesting is that it is commonly believed that vinegar is effective against infection. --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 15 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)

I agree; it should be reworded. Or possibly even removed. --76.22.247.48 (talk) 04:55, 11 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)

Re: "it's not clear to me that the misconception actually exists", do a Google search on [ cold feet cover your head ] for page after page of people who believe it. Guy Macon 05:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This entry needs to be removed entirely. The misconception is not that one loses most body heat through their head. The misconception is among those who attempt to debunk this perfectly sound statement--- they misconceive the meaning to be that the head radiates or conducts heat away faster than any other part of the body. The statement is almost always made to emphasize the need for a winter hat in situations where people are, outside of headwear, dressed for the elements. In this case, most heat that is lost is lost through the head. If it were common practice for people to wear proper winter gear over their whole body save their left elbow, the phrase would have been "most heat is lost through your left elbow." In this bizarro world, people would be just as wrong for debunking the statement by proving that the bare left elbow indeed radiates heat the same as the bare right elbow or any other bare body part. --88.64.13.153 (talk) 02:57, 15 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).

The version of the myth I heard is that the "shock" of being tipped over while asleep would cause the cow to have a heart attack.TomasMartin (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

With three versions in the offing just here, doesn't seem to be much of a "common" misconception.Clifsportland (talk) 21:39, 14 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)

Thanks for everyone's help. Glad this got sorted. Turkeyphan^t 22:14, 10 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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.144.106 (talk) 15:48, 11 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? --Skintigh (talk) 17:22, 10 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)

Sorry, add the word "modern" in front of my use of monkeys and apes. The multiple definitions of all these words does not help the situation, most of all with the word "theory." --Skintigh (talk) 17:24, 10 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)

Why are we trying to use the word "monkey" at all? It's a very vague term that doesn't match any particular monophyletic clade, so of course it causes confusion, especially amongst people not familiar with cladistics. Unless you use it in a specific context to make clear which group you are talking about (Old World Monkeys) it's easier and clearer to just use "other primates" in most cases. There's no need to try to cram vague and colloquial terms into complicated and specific evolutionary groups.Dtipson (talk) 18:08, 10 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)

That was my point. We're still waiting for sources that it's an actual misconception. I've personally never heard of it. Turkeyphan^t 22:17, 10 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)

This is a misleading summary on many levels. But the point is that she died from water intoxication, nothing to do with MDMA. For the purposes of this article and this talk page discussion, people have died from water intoxication.Turkeyphan^t 22:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it is common, it apparently is not a full-blown misconception - Water intoxication. --Kvng (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to actually read what people are saying in this talk section. Water intoxication has already been brought up and it's nothing to do with this (alleged) misconception. Turkeyphan^t 00:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

An expert stated at the inquest that if she'd have just drunk the water, she would have survived, and if she'd just taken the drug she would have survived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.41 (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Coreycat, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

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)

Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference, as it does not meet our standards for reliable sources, which you can read at WP:RS. In order to add that info, we'll need at least one source meeting those guidelines that verifies that information. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a common misconception ("the primary colors are red, yellow, and blue") and will look for reliable sources. It would be more correct (though still an oversimplification) to say that cyan, magenta, and yellow are _the_ primary colors. The problem is that no set of three pigments can mix to form every color humans are capable of seeing.

 Not done: See section at bottom on "Requirements to be on this list" Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request for Human body and Health

{{edit semi protected}} 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhinds08 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The first link is dead, and doesn't look like a reliable source, and the second definitely isn't. It may be possible to add the clarification, but only with a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Spain I'm untranscluding this and rejecting until we get reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hypothermia, frostbite, and other cold injuries 2nd edition, by Giesbrecht, Ph.D. and Wilkerson M.D., pg 14, confirms that the feet and hands are subject to greater vascular constriction in order to prevent heat loss.

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)

Jon Stewart recently did a segment on this. I think that probably puts it legitimately in the category of items that should be addressed in this article, and would probably also provide the evidence needed to support this.

I don't think there's any way to add this to this article, based on the reasons Adreclos says above--it's a pretty complex topic which is not agreed upon by serious historians. It's probably wrong to say it was caused entirely by any one thing, just like it's wrong to attribute any war to a single, definable cause. In that sense, we can say that every "belief" that "Historical event X was the sole and direct cause of Historical event Y" is likely to be a misconception (because it's always "more complicate than that"), but that would be beyond the scope of this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Serious historians actually do agree that the potential abolition of slavery was the primary cause for secession by all of the confederate states. This is stated quite clearly in each of their declarations of secession. Disagreement comes from pop-historians and essayists, not from academic scholars. As to whether this fits with the aim of the article--- that's another matter. It is a common misconception, but it is one that is purposefully spread. It's more deserving of its own article or at least mention in the article on historical revisionism. --88.64.13.196 (talk) 00:55, 16 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 [1]

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.

[2]

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.

[3]

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.

[4]

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.

[5]

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.

[6]

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)

... I'm glad this got tightened up, but I don't see any reason to believe this is a common misconception. It was a popular idea in certain circles, but no more popular than many conspiracy theories. Hairhorn (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is a common misconception. Many still believe this, even after Wakefield being discredited. I have had to correct Psychology professors on the issue, among others. As for sources...[7] [8] (Just in case somebody tried to remove it n those grounds). 71.238.163.251 (talk) 07:33, 13 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.[9] —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)

The popular misconception might be fueled by the use of it in the movie Boondock Saints, in which this etymological explanation is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.159.194 (talk) 17:27, 11 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)

I believe it's important to note that the Mayan calendar not only not ends, but instead reboots or resets.Ivan0310 (talk) 21:09, 10 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.

ERROR: Fix the Terminal velocity, it CAN exceed 50mph and has been calculated to reach 65 mph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.247.251 (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

This section is misleading as vegetarians do need to be careful in their protein intake. The question is not whether vegetarians get enough protein, but whether the protein they eat gives them sufficient essential amino acids in the right proportion in their diet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.244.84 (talk) 06:01, 11 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 {{edit semi-protected}} 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)

 Not done: See section at bottom on "Requirements to be on this list"--you need an RS to show that this is a common misconception. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Inallsincerity, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

• 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)

 Not done: See section at bottom on "Requirements to be on this list" Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 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)

I think that's the point of the misconception - There's a misconception that he was definitely white, whereas in reality we don't know. We would of course need reliable sources for this, and I'm not 100% convinced that this is actually a common misconception, although certainly one propagated by art or other depictions of Jesus, in the western world at least. VegaDark (talk) 01:16, 12 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)

This isn't a debate. It never was a debate. This talk page isn't actually for debating to begin with. It's for collaboratively working to improve the article. You have opposed the inclusion of certain content, and have gone as far as to remove it due to your opposition. It is not outside of reason that I would expect you to discuss why you opposed it so that the section could be cleaned up. But, I'm not seeing much use in continuing this in any case... since for all my trying, you appear to be quite adamant about refusing to clarify what (if any) issues there are. So, once again, if you decide to come back to the discussion and clarify what problems you have, I'd be happy to work with you to fix them. Until then, Jess_talk|_edits 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"since for all my trying, you appear to be quite adamant about refusing to clarify what (if any) issues there are": I'll ask you not to make misleading statements about my behavior. If I am taking a break from this section, it simply means I'm taking a break, not that I am "refusing" to do anything. You still have not completely dropped your pattern of personalizing this issue as being about me. Let me suggest that you make no further references to me, as you agreed to do. Otherwise, however, thanks for stating that you're willing to work on our differences. As I have said repeatedly, after others have had an opportunity to comment I may have more to say; the RfC has only been up a few days. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the alleged sex through the sheet misconception, I don't think the citation of Curb Your Enthusiasm is correct, since it seems to imply that the show affirms the misconception as fact. In fact I think it debunked the misconception. If I remember correctly, Larry is propositioned by a Hasidic Jewish woman. After debating with friends, he decides to bring a sheet with a hole anyway. The woman is shocked and insulted by this. Loniousmonk (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Loniousmonk, you are correct. The reference to curb your enthusiasm isn't being used as a citation for a place "someone got it wrong"; It's intended to establish notability of the misconception in media, etc. The section should stand on its own without the references to media appearances, but I think their addition adds something to the content. If you feel these are out of place, is there a way we could better phrase their inclusion to make that clear? Jess_talk|_edits 20:32, 12 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)

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)

Edit request from 85.164.115.57, 9 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} 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)

 Not done: Concur with Ccrrccrr. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State

{{edit semi-protected}}

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 think this is a legitimate addition. I vote to include it.

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)

I worry that this is becoming an opinionated battle. I personally believe the separation of church and state is very prevelant in the American media and the public. News articles commonly cite the "separation of church and state" as if it were law, when in fact the establishment clause is much different, in both word and intent. I would venture to say a large percentage of the population, however, believe that the phrase "separation of church and state" is literally part of US law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.236.235 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: See section at bottom on "Requirements to be on this list" Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to the common myth

I've reverted the following edit[10] 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)

I see what you are trying to say, but I disagree. What we are really talking about here is the difference between:

• George Washington did not have wooden teeth - it is in a list of common misconceptions, so it is obvious that his having had wooden teeth is a misconception, otherwise the statement has no meaning
• Contrary to the common misconception, George Washington did not have wooden teeth - the first phrase is redundant

Almost all entries in this list are of the first form, so any entries including the redundant phrase stand out for having an obvious redundancy. It's a bit like saying in a list of notable bridges that "Brooklyn Bridge is a notable bridge". We should be consistent one way or the other, and at present most entries do not include the redundancy, so all should not. Andreclos (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

One further point; you imply above that if a statement is correct it is not a misconception, giving the example (corrected): "George Washington did not have wooden teeth. --- This is correct, so it's not a misconception." If it is correct and it is in a list of common misconceptions, then it is obvious that his having had wooden teeth was the misconception. Making a true statement in such a list does not make it "not a misconception". Logical fallacy here. Andreclos (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion simply replaces one problem with another. Probably the best way to handle this is to rewrite the article in a Misconception - Fact format like this. Unfortunately, no one has stepped up to the plate willing to reformat the article. Perhaps you would like to lead up this effort? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, please don't edit-war while discussion is ongoing.[11] And please don't mark such changes as "minor" and not leave an edit summary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "edit war" - please calm down, one revert does not make a war. Regarding the best way to handle this, I suggest we leave it for others to comment. If there is indeed the consensus that you referred to then I will be happy to go along with it. Until then it is just the two of us butting heads getting nowhere, so I suggest we leave it like it is. Personally I don't think a major reformat is cost effective in the case of this article, but if others feel like doing it... Andreclos (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I see this edit got reverted again. This discussion is too silly for words, but the change is too trivial to argue over. I will leave it in it's current irrational state. Andreclos (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I see that there is no sign of the claimed consensus for this reversion, so it is just one editor insisting on having their own way. There is not much that can be done about this in Wikipedia, if it doesn't interest more than one person then the most intransigent gets their way. Andreclos (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? I haven't been online the last couple days. In any case, did you try searching the talk page archives? IIRC, it was Baseball Bugs who suggested the the format change and since then, it's come up a couple more times. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Searching the archives is a good suggestion. I can see Baseball Bugs wrote many interesting things in the archives, but there is not much on the myth/fact format. The only thing I could find was in the section titled List of misconceptions? seems backwards in Archive 10, where there is one comment from you, two from an IP address and two from BB. I note that BB's first comment notes an item starting with "it's a common misconception", but BB comments: "except it could get repetitive". BB's second comment says maybe items should "ensure that the first line of each item states what the common misconception actually is". The discussion in that section looks like a weak consensus at best, and it is a consensus at best for stating what the misconception is. It does not at all appear to be a consensus for starting items with "contrary to the common myth". I don't mind if some or all items are stated in a myth/fact format, so in the case in question it would be something like: "Misconception: the Coriolis effect determines the direction that water rotates in a bathtub drain. Fact: The Coriolis effect induced by the Earth's rotation becomes significant and noticeable only at large scale...". This is very different from starting all items with the completely pointless and redundant "contrary to the common myth" in a list of common misconceptions. Andreclos (talk) 02:48, 15 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)

Hah, your edit has made me realise things are even more complicated! The translations differ as well; I'd looked at the KJV[12], which commands Noah to take the unclean animals "by two, the male and his female", so I presume one pair, and the clean beasts "by sevens, the male and his female", which I assumed meant seven animals. The NIV[13] you've cited, however, says one pair of unclean animals and seven pairs of clean animals. Maybe I'm misreading the archaic English of the KJV, but I'm not sure I am. EDIT The NKJV [14] Is even less ambiguous: seven each of every clean, two each of every unclean... Keepstherainoff (talk) 09:48, 11 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)

No, as the source states, those people think that Obama openly is Muslim, and i am ready to believe that, by carefully chosing only the right media (like chain-emails) to get information, this is possible ;) --Echosmoke (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Let them eat cake

The exact sentence attributed to her is "Let them eat brioche". Ref: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brioche#Histoire There are two misconceptions here! Macaldo (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's covered. The sentence commonly attributed to her is 'cake', the correct quote is 'brioche'. Both she did not actually say. I suspect the cake (in german, 'Kuchen', the same, is used btw) version was coined due to 'brioche' being a quite unknown word/pastry outside of France. --Echosmoke (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.103.220.97, 10 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In your article List of Common Misconceptions, under Religion, Book of Genesis, the following is stated:

Although common conception says that Noah was told in the Book of Genesis to bring two of each animal onto his ark[203], the book actually contains contradictory passages about the number of animals he was told to bring; in Genesis 6:19, he is told to bring "two of all living creatures", while in Genesis 7:2 he is told to bring "seven pairs of every kind of clean animal [...] and one pair of every kind of unclean animal."

Saying that this is contradictory is not true. The range of unclean animals is much greater than the range of clean animals. If I send someone to the store and say, "I want you to get two crates of all Pepsi products, and five crates of Pepsi itself," I am not contradicting myself. I am being more specific and adding instruction. It is less offensive to phrase this common misconception as follows:

Although common conception says that Noah was told in the Book of Genesis to bring two of each animal onto his ark[203], the book actually states that Noah was told to bring a pair of most animals, but to bring fourteen of every clean animal. In Genesis 6:19, he is told to bring "two of all living creatures," and in Genesis 7:2 he is told to bring "seven pairs of every kind of clean animal [...] and one pair of every kind of unclean animal."

99.103.220.97 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The entry has already been restated to remove the "contradictory" claim. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Vomitoria

Vomitoria or "Voms" aren't the tunnels. They are the arched entrances into the stadium. The term is still used today - the tunnels are where people are 'vomited' (Roman use) into the stadium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.78.69 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Entry has been reworded. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Entry Under Food and Cooking: Wine and Cheese Parties

{{Edit semi-protected}}

I would like to request that the following be added to the "Food and Cooking" Section under the title "Wine and Cheese Tasting Parties"

The consumption of cheese has been shown to dull most flavors that one can taste in red wine [1] and in general can "suppress the expression of particular wine attributes" [2]. Conversely, dry white wine has been shown to dull the flavors of certain blue cheeses [3]. Wine and cheese pairings can be considered pleasing [4], however the concept of a "wine and cheese tasting party" is fallacious if the intent is tasting (and not simply consumption), as wine and cheese mutually diminish each others' taste.

[1] "Sensory Effects of Consuming Cheese Prior to Evaluating Red Wine Flavor" Berenice Madrigal-Galan and Hildegarde Heymann, Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 57:1:12-22 (2006)

[2] Wine Tasting: A Professional Handbook by Ronald S. Jackson. Food Science and Technology International Series, Elsevier Ltd. (2002)

[3] Nygren, I. T., Gustafsson, I.-B. and Johansson, L. (2003), Perceived flavour changes in blue mould cheese after tasting white wine. Food Service Technology, 3: 143–150.

[4] King, M. and Cliff, M. (2005), Evaluation of Ideal Wine and Cheese Pairs using a deviation-from-ideal scale with food and wine experts. Journal of Food Quality, 28: 245–256.

--Camillawillis (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. I see no common misconception described in the proposal above. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Would it be considered acceptable with the following revision?

It is a common misconception that wine and cheese make an ideal pairing when tasting wines, as evidenced by the commonplace occurrence of "Wine and Cheese Tasting Parties". However, the consumption of cheese has been shown to dull most flavors that one can taste in red wine [1] and in general can "suppress the expression of particular wine attributes" [2]. Conversely, dry white wine has been shown to dull the flavors of certain blue cheeses [3]. Wine and cheese pairings can be considered pleasing [4], however the concept of a "wine and cheese tasting party" is fallacious if the intent is tasting (and not simply consumption), as wine and cheese mutually diminish each others' taste.

--Camillawillis (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to believe "wine and cheese make an ideal pairing" is a common misconception; as for me, I only believe that they go nice together, which your wording acknowledges. Now, admittedly, the line between a trivial nitpick and pointing out a misconception can be pretty fine, but this one seems more like a nitpick to me. Hairhorn (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To expand on Hairhorn's comment:

I know it's common to pair wine and cheese. I see wineries do it. Are parties specifically for the purpose of tasting wine and cheese together truly commonplace? I'd never heard of them. I've been to wine tasting parties that happen to have cheese served along with other things. I've seen many parties were wine and cheese were served, but the point of the parties wasn't "tasting"; the wine and cheese were simply accompaniments to the party.

For this entry to qualify as a common misconception, there needs to be a source that says it's a common misconception that wine and cheese can be paired beneficially. Do any of the sources you cite (you didn't provide links) explicitly state that this is a common misconception? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If you google, in quotations, the words "wine and cheese party", that exact wording and order results in >94,000 results. If you google, again in quotations, the words "wined and cheese tasting party", that exact wording and order results in >65,000 results. Removing the quotes in the search "wine and cheese" gives > 1,800,000 results and (again, quotes removed in search) the words "wine and cheese tasting party" give >720,000 results. This seems like adequate evidence of their commonality. I am sure I could hunt down some blogs that would discuss the commonality of such events, probably even some news articles, but would those be acceptable references? I get the impression that even if I were to do that, there is a bias working against me (as is common with common misconceptions), and I will be again rebuffed.

--Camillawillis (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source (newspaper article would work, blogs do not, nor do search engine hits) that verifies not that "wine and cheese parties" exist, but that it is commonly believed by people that tasting those two foods together enhances their taste or that they act as complements to each other. As a side note, the way that google works, you can't actually compare results in that way, because Google doesn't handle complex searches in simple, predictable ways. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this page belong in Wikipedia?

There are many Web sites for endless lists of funny and interesting trivia, just as there are sites for funny pictures of cats.

Misconceptions that can be shown to be widespread and enduring, and have been proven to be incorrect, can be added to a related articles but lumping them all together here seems pointless.

I believe that articles like this really undermine Wikipedia's credibility.

Al8998 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Al8998 11 Jan 2011

I've been against deleting this article in the past, but recent days have shown me that this article could grow beyond control. Something needs to be done, I just don't know what.Asher196 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing that can be done is to move the descriptions of the misconceptions to the topics' parent articles, and treat this article as what it is: a list of misconceptions. This article could be restructured as a directory of misconceptions rather than a collection of full descriptions of misconceptions. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the items wouldn't remain in the parent article for a week. That's especially true of the items that have been added within the past five days (most of which are not common misconceptions, just someone's favorite misconception). The items would be removed very quickly from the parent article as useless or "unencyclopedic" trivia. For example, imagine the reaction of adding the "misconception" that Jews have sex through a hole in the sheet to Jews or Judaism. That one might stay in the article about five minutes. Cresix (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that imply that the entry doesn't belong here, either? If it isn't encyclopedic enough for the parent article, what makes it encyclopedic enough for this one? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100%, but try removing some of the items that have been added in the last few days and see what kind of response you get. Not only are most of them not common misconceptions, they have no consensus for inclusion in the article. But that matters little to those who demand that their favorite misconceptions not be touched. For the specific item I mentioned above, look above at Talk:List of common misconceptions#Edit request - Judaism section. Cresix (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Luckily, if the article does grow beyond control, that will draw in more controllers. I suggest waiting a couple of weeks for the traffic to die down, then seeing what (if anything) should be done. If we try to work out a cure before we agree that there's a problem, we'll have a problem when people try to implement it at different tiems. --Kizor 07:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to defend Wikipedia's credibility, you must begin by removing the "edit" button. No other measure will be effective until that's done. Personally, I've noticed that removing content for the sake of our pride, worth or credibility has brought us much more mockery than having that content in the first place. There's a quote I like: "To be honest, I think the thing that makes Wikipedia a "laughing stock" is not many articles on the minutia of television or other fiction, but the seriousness with which we take ourselves. --Ursasapien" --Kizor 07:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said in a deletion discussion for this article:

Lists of common misconceptions are a popular topic for the kind of book that one tends to find in remaindered book shops rather than in libraries or real book shops. If WikiBooks doesn't have a book of this genre yet, it should. There is a verifiability problem because many of the factoids in the list are sourced to such books, which generally have the very low standard of accuracy of a large part of the edutainment market. In other words: Such books are generally not reliable sources. There is a demarcation problem, because the choice of factoids from the thousands that have appeared in relevant books seems to be purely random. This list is no more encyclopedic than a list of interesting telephone numbers in Leeds, only more entertaining. [15]

Encyclopedias are about reducing the information to the absolutely essential, so that readers can get the most important information quickly. Lists of misconceptions, by contrast, are about entertainment and about feeling superior rather than about information, and they blow up trifles. Hans Adler 21:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you say Hans, although I take a more middle-of-the-road position. A few of the misconceptions in the article are well sourced as widely held. Those may be viewed as "entertainment", but I find them as informative as a substantial portion of Wikipedia. It has always been a struggle for this article to be kept to those well-sourced items. Over the last few days, the publicity received by the article has caused a radical shift in its content; as I said, most of those newer items are not common misconceptions, have weak or no reliable sourcing that they are common misconceptions, and haven't even been added by consensus. I can appreciate your sentiments when it comes to removing those items. Only time will tell whether the article can be brought back within reason after the dust settles. Sadly, the ruin that has been thrust on the article recently may very well lead to its demise, including the more worthwhile items. Cresix (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 203.41.133.81, 10 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

With respect to Noah and the number of animals he was asked to bring on the ship, he had to bring in the unclean animals two by two for preservation and the clean animals seven by seven for preservation and food for him and his family of survivors. See clean and unclean in Leviticus. So the unclean animals were one pair while the clean ones had to be seven pairs. Gen 7:2

203.41.133.81 (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. The entry already says what Genesis 7:2 says. No further elaboration is required. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Goodespeler, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

• Sarah Palin never said she "could see Russia from her house." 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." in an on-air interview with ABC's Charles Gibson. It was Tina Fey who later, in an SNL parody of Palin, made the misquotation

Goodespeler (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. This issue has already been addressed several times, and even recently. See section 29 (as of this post), entitled "Palin: I can see Russia from my house", for more information. -- HXL's Roundtable, and Record 01:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bigdan43, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I have many acquaintances from France and they believe in a myth called "Hydrocution" where if you do not splash water gently on your extremities before wading in water you will immediately have a heart attack and die from the temperature change. Similar in nature to the "fandeath" korean myth. I will track down some sources, if someone can beat me to it so be it!

-edit: here is the link to the french wiki page to confirm the existance of the belief http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocution

They believe that apparently this sudden drop in temperature causes blood to coagulate rapidly and causes death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdan43 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

-todo: find article disproving myth

Big Dan 02:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's only in France (like "Heavy legs") it may not be "common". Hairhorn (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a point, I found evidence proving polar bear dips are safe thus this would though. if ever this gets put in here it is: (not the best source) http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/29/5734446-planning-a-polar-bear-plunge-how-your-body-reacts?gt1=43001 Big Dan 02:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdan43 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: See section at bottom on "Requirements to be on this list": the French wikipage is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In reply to hairhorn: Wait..what? Are you seriously proposing that, well, really, what are you proposing? A common misconception that only exists in France does not qualify? Then what does? I am tempted to ask: only those from the USA because the states are more important?? Or do you believe we can establish "global" misconceptions? On that I can only tell you that most of the list's entries are not even known in Europe. --92.202.102.11 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

He didn't say that; you may be a bit too eager to hear it. What he said is that fr.wikipedia.org does not meet WP:RS standards (because it's an open wiki). If it can be sourced as a common misconception in France, that's fine; there are already non-US regional misconceptions in the list, like Fan death. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP was referring to my "heavy legs" comment above, but a simple trawl through the archives will show that in fact I have argued against including US-centric misconceptions in the past. Something can be common without being "global", but "common" is also vague, you can call it as you see it, and I don't see it here. Hairhorn (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference problem

A problem forms around reference 165/166 where the reference list gets out of sync with what they're actually referencing, e.g. the bit about 41% of US adults believing humans and dinosaurs coexisted is referenced as 165, but is in fact taken from reference 166. Some of the ones after this point are out too, not sure how many, I stopped checking. Fixing it is beyond my skill set/will to learn how to. Hoping someone who already knows how can fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.120.220 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Peanut butter references disagree

The references to George Washington Carver's supposed invention of peanut butter disagree. One says he invented it and one says he didn't. This poses a problem. Marcusyoder (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol in Cooking

"Some cooks believe that food items cooked with wine or liquor will be non-alcoholic, because alcohol's low boiling point causes it to evaporate quickly when heated. However, a study found that much of the alcohol remains: 25% after 1 hour of baking or simmering, and 10% after 2 hours."

Yes, there is alcohol left over, however in proportion to the amount of food cooked, the alcohol content (when using wine) generally means that the item cooked has as much alcohol as a very weak beer. If you consider that not everything during the meal is cooked in alcohol (usually only the meat), you realize that the alcohol content of the average meal containing an item cooked in wine is negligible. (I'm not talking about when liquors are used, which I think most people realize produce slightly alcoholic dishes).

If you are muslim, a recovering alcoholic or a parent serving children, then some caution should be used I suppose, but otherwise, although I agree that this is a common misconception, the article is somewhat misleading by stating the 25% or 10% of the alcohol remains. Maybe I should just expand it to make things more clear... Szkott (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should also mention that most antibiotics might have side effects when taken with or before having an "alcoholic" meal. Some antibiotics have a warning about alcohol, indicating that no amount is a good amount (zero tolerance). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.67.44.250 (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon "Petit" as a term of endearment. "Our dear leader"

In the french language it is common to use the term "petit" as a term of endearment. This is similar to the spanish "cito" where the words for small are added to words to imply fondness, reminiscent of the British convention of likening things that are adored to the idea of littleness, or "cuteness"

http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/es-en/pececito.php

Examples of this can be seen http://www.monpetitchou.com/ < A french website selling children's accessories with the popular term "My little cabbage".

It can also be seen here where "petit" is used to transform the word "ami" (friend) to "special friend", or, more commonly used, "boyfriend/girlfriend".

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Je_t'aime_mon_petit_ami_mean

Taking this into account it seems probable that the "petit" nickname was one of fondness and demonstrated the great love for Napoleon at that time.

This view is also supported in the following texts

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/bonapartenapoleon/a/napoleonheight.htm

http://spinellimd.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/short-sighted/

http://www.bspcn.com/2010/11/13/20-misconceptions-taught-at-school/

SamanthaSnail (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lemmings

Maybe it should be pointed out that the belief that lemmings dive off cliffs was majorly propagated by the famous video game. Shai Deshe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.65.152.24 (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

SamanthaSnail

Wrong.... That myth was widespread decades before the Lemmings game appeared. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Walt Disney is usually pointed out as the culprit. Hairhorn (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's a common misconception that the video game propagated the misconception that lemmings dive off cliffs? I know I believed that (the video game was the culprit of the myth) until I read this article. Someone find some sources! VegaDark (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The myth might have originated by Disney, but the Lemmings video game was a major contribution to it's being so common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.245.153 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CarlKlutzke, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

I think the following text, derived largely from the article on the color Indigo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo), would be a good addition to the list of common misconceptions, under Physics:

Although traditionally considered one of seven divisions of the optical spectrum (as represented by "i" in the mnemonic "Roy G. Biv"), modern color scientists do not usually recognize indigo as a separate division[1]. Sir Isaac Newton divided up the optical spectrum into seven colors primarily to match the mystic significance of the seven notes of a western major scale and the seven known planets[2][3].

[1] J. W. G. Hunt (1980). Measuring Color. Ellis Horwood Ltd. ISBN 0-7458-0125-0.

[2] http://www1.umn.edu/ships/updates/newton1.htm

[3] http://home.vicnet.net.au/~colmusic/opticks3.htm

Thank you!

-Carl Klutzke

CarlKlutzke (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. This is interesting, but is there a documented misconception about this subject? I don't discern a misconception above. In fact the third reference shown seems to indicate that indigo is a distinct color. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Picking up baby birds

{{editsemiprotected}} Proposed addition to the Science::Biology section --

It is a common misconception that "if a baby bird is touched by a human, it's mother will reject it." If you find an unfeathered bird on the ground, carefully pick it up and place it back in the nest; a feathered bird on the ground is learning how to fly, and can be left alone.

Notes:

1. Lollar, Michael. "Fine feathered infirmary for sick songbirds." Knoxville News-Sentinel. 16 June 2008. Accessed 11 Jan 2011.

2. Jacobs, Shannon K. "Healers of the Wild: People Who Care for Injured and Orphaned Wildlife." 1998. Accessed 11 Jan 2011.

External Links

• snopes:Rejected Baby Birds
• What To Do When You Find a Baby Bird
• I Found A Wild Animal

Jhyrman (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)  Done I only used the first reference, because the second is in a flowchart form and thus I think is more difficult for us to summarize carefully. Since the first reference covers both the misconception and the proper care, is reliable, and quotes someone who appear to be an expert, it should suffice. If anyone else wants to add the other reference, though, feel free to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.108.156.91, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the section on the human body and health, it's claimed that alcohol does not kill brain cells. While seems true of acute exposure in healthy adults, in chronic, heavy alcohol users, abrupt cessation following heavy use can cause excitotoxicity leading to cellular death in multiple areas of the brain. Overactive gultaminergic transmission, leading to increased intracellular concentrations of calcium, causes such over-excitation. This is because alcohol acts as an NMDA antagonist and GABA-A agonist, so with chronic exposure to alcohol, the user's brain adapts to these effects, increasing basal levels of glutaminergic transmission.

reference: Lovinger, D. M. (1993), Excitotoxicity and Alcohol-Related Brain Damage. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 17: 19–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1993.tb00720.x

(sorry about the lack of proper formatting in the reference--this is my first edit suggestion)

AndyKohnen (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, in a more concise form. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion on linked article #75; length of discussion

The linked article, #75, links to a web archive, and looking through it I've found absolutely no difference between that and the web archive that hosts the page. However, I could have missed something, or it was linked to there for a reason. I only bring this up because that the web archive load-times are horrendous.

In addition, the discussion page length is extremely long. As I have no idea what I'm doing with wiki editing, could someone move the discussions that have been fulfilled, finished, or otherwise rejected into a sub archive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.120.242 (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lift

The article is only half correct in this matter. Equal transit theory is wrong, but saying it is "mainly" angle of attack is also wrong (very wrong). Newton and Bernoulli both can be used to describe lift. The problem with Bernoulli is that it is associated with the incorrect explanation (equal transit time). Air over the top of the wing flows faster, thus the pressure must decrease. Bernoulli explains this. Bernoulli sis a conservation of energy equation and is perfectly good for explaining the differences in pressure around a wing (even one flying upside down). The Newtonian conservation of momentum method is equally good, and in fact both can be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.22.70 (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bigroundhead, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Saying lift is mainly due to angle of attack is at the very least misleading and at worst incorrect. I have put a bit in the discussion over this. However Bernoulli (conservation of energy) and Newton (conservation of momentum) both adequately can be used to describe lift. The misconception of Angle of Attack is similar to the misconception of equal transit time. Lift over an aerofoil is due principally to the differences in pressure over and below the wing. Lift in curved wings can and does occur at zero angle of attack. The angle of attack misconception leads people to believe it is air hitting the underside of the wing and puushing it up. This is completely incorrect. The majority of lift occurs over the top of the wing due to the lower pressure there.

All that needs to be done is removing the angle of attack comment.

see the nasa discussion of this here

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html

note they say

Newton's laws of motion are statements concerning the conservation of momentum. Bernoulli's equation is derived by considering conservation of energy. So both of these equations are satisfied in the generation of lift; both are correct.

bigroundhead B.E. M.Eng.Sc

Bigroundhead (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Bigroundhead (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Both your link and Wikipedia's own page on Lift (force) confirm that it has little to nothing to do with Angle of attack. Rather than try to give a succinct explanation for why lift does occur, I just removed the last sentence, since the (now last) sentence already has clear links to a nice, full explanation of why lift does actually occur. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Requirement to be on this list

I am about to untransclude and decline a large number of edit requests to this page. The problem with all of them is that the requesters are not understanding that two distinct things need to be documented to be on this list. First, we need a clear, unambiguous reference claiming that the point in question is, in fact, a common misconception. This is the only thing we have from keeping this list from exploding with every single error in thinking, facts, judgement, or analysis that anyone at any point has had. There must be a reliable source that verifies that the idea is a common misconception. I believe that every single request I closed failed this point. Second, we need a clear, unambiguous reference explaining what the "truth" is. Now, these can be (and, ideally, should be) the same reference. But, without both, the requests should not be fulfilled and put on the list.

In addition, I think we have a problem if this page is getting legitimate edit requests every single day. If there are so many nonconfirmed users who want to edit the page, we're doing them a disservice by protecting the page, and adding a lot of work on the part of other editors of the page and editors like me who work through the Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. I'm not certain what the solution is, but I think we need to look for one. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Finally, the voice of reason speaks up. The article has already begun exploding with everyone's favorite unsourced misconception being added. A requirement to be included on the page has always been the need for "a clear, unambiguous reference claiming that the point in question is, in fact, a common misconception". That was fairly manageble until about six days ago; then it became impossible for those of us who usually monitor the page to keep things under control. As a result, many unsourced (and frankly ridiculous) "misconceptions" have been added. I'm glad you want to close the barn door, Qwyrxian, but about half the horses have already escaped.

I don't know what the answer is either, but I do know that the answer is not to remove protection. If that is done, we'll see all of the additions over the past few days multiplied a hundredfold. Cresix (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, my first suggestion would be to delete the page, because I personally hate pages like this--lists of vaguely defined, highly inclusive criteria that don't really have encyclopedic value as a cohesive topic. But I know that across Wikipedia I am in the minority on this point, so that's not really helpful.

Another thing that you can do is what I did in the section below--as soon as you reply to a request, untransclude it and either add it or declare that it cannot be added in current form. Part of the problem is the misconception about how edit requests work (in my opinion). Making an edit request is exactly like actually editing the article--the requester must have a complete, full copy of exactly what they want to add, as well as all necessary reliable sources. That is, WP:BURDEN applies equally to editing articles as it does to edit requests. In exactly the same way that we can and should immediately revert an unsourced addition to the article, we can immediately deny an incomplete edit request. Now, I don't know how much this will help, but it at least makes the job of responding less. I think part of what may have been overwhelming you is that, when I look at your responses above, you've been spending a lot of time trying to build up each of the edit requests, teasing out what may or may not valuable in them. Instead, place the burden clearly on the person who wants to add the info.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"either add it or declare that it cannot be added": Sometimes that can be done, sometimes it can't when an editor is hellbent on adding it and we are restrained by 3RR. After declaring, in a period of about six hours, that dozens of suggested additions cannot be added because of inadequate sourcing that the misconception is common, and then seeing them added anyway, I finally gave up (temporarily). I'm waiting for this "flash in the pan" because of publicity and the ensuing add-it-because-I-like-it frenzy to subside, and then try to pare down the new entries. Usually that occurs after new editors grow tired of an article, but if it doesn't happen, you may get your wish; the article, good and bad, may be deleted. Cresix (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Eventually, things will quiet down and we can go back and reassess the new additions and remove any that fail to meet the established criteria. FWIW, I posted appeals for help at the Village Pump, Jimbo's talk page and my talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was unaware of the cartoon (I tend to catch up on XKCD about a month or two at a time). That is a bother. Oh, with reference to Cresix, above, my point of "add it or..." is in response to edit requests. On the other hand, after looking at AQFK's comment at the Pump, I realize that there is a new user issue here too. Well, what I'll do, as I encounter the issue, is keep the pushback here brusque and policy centered, but try to make effort to talk to the user's on their talk page as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bigroundhead, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Add a section to physics

A motorbike stops more quickly than a truck. or The heavier your car is the longer it takes to stop.

If the brakes of a vehicle can dissipate the energy the weight of the vehicle does not change stopping distance. It is a popular misconception that weight increases stopping distance.

Friction is proportional the the normal force and the coefficient of friction. In a car the usual limiting area is the friction between tyre and road. Here the normal force is weight. So as you increase weight you increase friction available.

Friction = uN (where u is coefficient of friction and N is the normal force)

N the normal force is given by MG where M is mass of car and G is gravity

so Friction = uMG

Deceleration is given by the force and mass. F=ma As the mass of the car increases the force required to decellerate the car increases. Here that force is given by the friction between trye and road.

so stopping force required = F = Ma which equal friction uMG

gives us Ma = uMG

so a=uG

Maximum deceleration equals G by the coefficient of friction. For cars this means about 0.8G is max stopping acceleration.

http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/ftp/arxiv/papers/1008/1008.5041.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigroundhead (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Bigroundhead (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You need to provide a source that gives evidence that this is a "common misconception." In addition, you would need to format the explanation in a far simpler way--not a complex set of physics calculations. Finally, I'm not clear what that paper is--is it from a peer-reviewed journal? The solution also needs to be a reliable source, so if that is from a journal article, we'll need the full citation. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Roger will get better references when I get a bit of free time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.22.70 (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual behavior in animals--not a misconception, just political nonsense

Another popular myth regarding human sexuality is that homosexual behavior occurs only among humans, and is "unnatural". In reality, homosexual behavior is widespread among other animals, and is very common in nature.

While it is commonly argued by leftwing activists that homosexuality is "not unnatural" because it occurs in nature, it's hardly a misconception that homosexual behavior does not occur in nature. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that. I doubt anyone believes it. This is simply political propaganda unnecessarily inserted into an otherwise whimsical and informative article about misconceptions. All three of the "citations" are articles raving about how gay animals are, with not one documented case of anyone claiming that homosexual behavior does not occur in animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.139.3 (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I do think that is a common misconception, because I've heard many people argue against homosexuality because it doesn't (ever) occur in nature. Luckily for Wikipedia, though, my personal opinions are irrelevant. I've removed the item from the article until such time as there is a clear citation which verifies that this is a commonly held misconception. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. My favorite citation related to this is:

Moeliker, C.W. (9 November 2001). "The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard Anas platyrhynchos". DEINSEA. 8: 243–247. ISSN 0932-9308. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)

The author won the 2003 Ig Nobel Prize in Biology for this. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Another editor just re-added the section, claiming that the first citation does indicate it's a common misconception. Actually, it's discusses the issue of whether or not biologists consider the practice among animals to be a "natural" one among animals--that is, whether it's evolutionarily beneficial or just an aberration for sexual pleasure. It says nothing about this being a common misconception. Until you get a full clear reference, this has to stay out. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

this article isn't designed to become the arena of political arguments. Obviously, if you have a political opinion, you will claim that your opponents suffer from a misconception. This does not belong here. There is no common misconception regarding non-occurrence of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom. If there is any misconception here it is the idea that it makes sense to derive sexual norms from the observation of other species. This cuts more than one way. --dab (𒁳) 22:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Coriolis Force

This is rather minor, but in the Physics section the article states, "Generally speaking, the Coriolis effect is only significant at large scales, such as in weather systems or oceanic currents." This is not at all general, or true. As I understand it, the Coriolis effect appears to any inertial observer watching something moving in a straight line in a rotating frame. Wikipedia's own article on the Coriolis effect states such. I realize that the article is talking about the Coriolis effect applied to the drain water, but making the statement as above and calling it general is misleading. So it should be removed. Skipper per (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What you say is technically correct for the general case of any rotating reference frame. The context of the entry, however, is in the reference frame of the rotating planet Earth. As such, it is significant at large scales, larger than water draining in a bathtub. The coriolis effect influences things at smaller ranges too, such as the aim of large guns. I will clarify the statement to remove "generally speaking" and adding that the Coriolis Effect on the Earth is significant at large scales. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from ThoAppelsin, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The Fictious Centrifugal Force must be added to the Physics section on this article, in my opinion. It's a common misconception among many people, who haven't specialized at physics.

ThoAppelsin (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done A proper request should provide citations that verify your claim that a common misconception exists. The statement you made above doesn't explain what the common misconception actually is, and where one would go to verify that it's common. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

heh, it is true that there are a lot of misconceptions about it, and Wikipedia has seen its epic share of them. But they are all semantic. Whether the statement that "the centrifugal force is fictitious" is a misconception depends on whether you use the term "fictitious" correctly in this context. --dab (𒁳) 22:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.153.159.118, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Could an entry be added in the "United States politics" section stating that the United States is not a democracy? It is more a republic than a democracy, as the entire U.S. population does not vote on bills to be passed. A note could be added stating that elections are democratic.

24.153.159.118 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. While I have witnessed people making this error a number of times, where is the evidence, cited in reliable sources, that this is a common misconception? I think most people know the difference between a republic and a democracy. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not a misconception, it's just a matter of terminology. A Democracy is any polity which has a government that is publicly elected. The USA still qualifies for this. What you are saying is that the USA is not a direct democracy and I have never heard about a misconception assuming that it is. "It is more a republic than a democracy" doesn't even make sense, see Republican democracy. Is this some sort of trolling based on the names of the "Republican" vs. "Democratic" parties? --dab (𒁳) 18:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Retostamm, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please make Eyre Highway a link to the relevant Eyre Highway page (add [[]]) Retostamm (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done! ~Amatulić (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Regnak1, 13 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please Change:

Fever does not harm the brain or the body, though it does increase the need for fluids. Fever does not cause brain damage or death in children if untreated. In fact, fever is normally a signal that the immune system is working well.

To Something Resembling:

Fever does not harm the brain or the body, unless temperatures reach 107.6 °F (42 °C), though a fever does increase the need for fluids. Fever does not cause brain damage or death in children if untreated. Fever is most commonly a sign of an infection, and is evidence that the body's immune system is fighting that infection. A fever will only rarely rise above 105 °F (40.5 °C), and for an adult or child over 1 year, this is the temperature at which medical advice should be sought, so as to determine what may be causing the fever. For a child under 1 year, the temperature is 102.2 °F (39 °C), and in an infant under 3 months, 100.4 °F (38 °C).

Source: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003090.htm

--Suggesting that a fever cannot in any circumstances be dangerous, and is not a cause for alarm is irresponsible and incorrect. I suggest changing this entry to reflect that.--

Regnak1 (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this has been more or less  Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Microwaves cooking from the inside out

For thin objects, this is not a "misconception": a one-centimeter piece of meat will be heated approximately equally in all volume, but the surface will dissipate heat by convection, radiation and water evaporation, while the inside will mantain its heat and will reach higher temperatures than the outside. So "cooking from the inside out" is a misconception only for thick objects, like a chicken leg, which, however, will reach the highest temperatures under the skin, while the skin will stay relatively cold. Which is the reason why people prefers grilled, rather than "microwaved" chickens.--GianniG46 (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

About drowning people waving their arms

I removed this:

• A person who is drowning does not wave and call for help, as in fictional depictions of drowning. The instinctive drowning response prevents a person from vocalizing or raising their arms.

There's no misconception there. "Drowning", in the layman's sense of "Look, someone's drowning!" means that someone is in danger of drowning. When someone is in danger of drowning, yeh, they can wave and shout. The instinctive drowning response is only for the last stages of the fatal situation. Gronky (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced. I have read reports that a lot of people drown without going through the stage where they are able to wave and shout, especially children. In any case the misconception is that a person who is not waving or shouting cannot be in danger. The source seems more than adequate, and IMO the only reason for removing this bit (as opposed to rewriting to make it more accurate) would be if it was completely wrong. Hans Adler 13:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As a former lifeguard, I shed some light. On different occasions I have pulled drowning children from a swimming pool, one of whom was a teenager. In each case they didn't waive and shout. They simply got in over their heads (so to speak) and were unable or afraid to breathe. The sign that triggered "drowning" for me was the fear-of-death look of panic in their eyes.

I think that entry should be restored. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Drowning Doesn't Look Like Drowning is a great article on the situation, and has the most nightmarish statistics you're going to see in a while. Hans Adler is right about the misconception, and I am in favor of restoring it. I'll restore it (and perhaps change the phrasing, to make it more clear that the misconception is the idea that the trashing and shouting comes standard) unless there are objections. And probably if there are, since there's a strong argument here, but hey, politeness is a must. :P --Kizor 21:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, and to those who commented above. I see now that something about this misconception should be in the article. I think there's still something useful in my error though. To a layman, "drowning" includes what's referred in that article by "aquatic distress". Earlier stages can even be called "drowning". Rather than a misconception, the previous text read like a smarty-pants jab at the lack of precision in the terminology used by laypeople. Gronky (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

True. Can you think of changes to make? I'll make them if necessary, but your command of the English language is better than mine and you're up to speed now. --Kizor 22:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, this item was deleted. I'm restoring it per this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

About Kennedy's speech “Ich bin ein Berliner”

The article says that Kennedy did not use the famous sentence referring to himself, but in the following context : “Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is Ich bin ein Berliner!” This is at the beginning of the speech. But the speech ends like that : “All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin. Therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words Ich bin ein Berliner!” ([16]) English isn't my native language, but is he not clearly referring to himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.18.0.130 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right, this appears to be (incorrect) "original research". I simply removed it. Hans Adler 13:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Other people are convinced he said "I am a Hamburger". Should we put this in? Tkuvho (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 165.91.222.124, 13 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

James Watt did not invent the steam engine, as is popularly attributed. He actually invented the separate condenser as an improvement to the Newcomen steam engine which was originally powered by a single cylinder that was repeatedly heated and cooled. Prior to the separate condenser the Newcomen steam engine was primarily applied to raise water out of mines.

165.91.222.124 (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. The burden is on you to provide sources backing up the claim that this is a common misconception. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Gravity NOT a theory.

The part of the article under evolution that discusses the misconception on the definition of theory, gravity is called a theory. Gravity is not a theory, but rather a law.

A hypothesis accepted after repeated tests becomes a theory. A theory is composed of one or more hypotheses (that have been often tested and never rejected) that adequately explain some phenomenon. A scientific law is different from a theory. Laws are descriptions of what we observe in nature; laws typically are mathematical generalizations describing the precise relationships between two or more variables.

 Not done. The article on gravitation disagrees with you. While we do have Newton's law of universal gravitation, it is a simplified statement and not the same thing as the theory of gravitation. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Signifier and signified. Gravity is just an aspect of reality. The theory of gravity is a theory. Evolution is just an aspect of reality. The theory of evolution is a theory. This is semantics. This article isn't named "smart-assed reflections on semantics and solipsism", it is called "list of common misconceptions". --dab (𒁳) 08:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

fatwā before Salman Rushdie

I have no proof at hand, but I'm pretty sure a fatwā had the death sentence connotation before Salman Rushdie. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious ref

Examiner.com. This is NOT the San Francisco Examiner, nor any other established news agency with a fact-checking and editorial policy. Here's the full ref Billings, Katelynn (May 27, 2010). [examiner.com/islam-in-baltimore/a-common-misconception-about-islam "A Common Misconception about Islam"]. Baltimore Islam Examiner.com. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help) --Lexein (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a no-brainer that most westerners think "jihad" means "holy war" or something similar. That's the reason that link is there, to establish that this is a common misconception. Notice that the link contains no http:// because examiner.com is blacklisted on Wikipedia.

A better source that confirms this is a misconception might be this one:

Louay M. Safi (2003). Peace and the limits of war: transcending the classical conception of Jihad. International Institute of Islamic Thought. p. preface. ISBN 1565644026, 9781565644021. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

...which says "...misinformed and misguided individuals ... confuse the Islamic concept of jihad with the medieval concept of holy war." I think that source would be preferable to examiner.com. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Examiner.com is blacklisted for good reason. Thanks, Safi is a very good source. Added. --Lexein (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Everthewatcher, 14 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under Everyday Life, can someone remove the spurious 'a' in "It is often believed that _a_ mechanical fans are used to cool rooms".

MTIA.

Everthewatcher (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How does this not fail WP:LIST

Someone removed the proposed deletion with an edit summary of something like "up until a week ago the article did not fail WP:LIST. I grabbed a version from back in October, and did not see anything that was any closer to meeting WP:LIST. Any attempt to "organize" the content will always violate WP:OR. This article will ALWAYS simply be an indiscriminate conglomeration of random items that will never meet WP:LIST, no matter how long we wait for "recent buzz" to settle down.

I will be bringing this back to AfD unless someone can provide a more convincing arguement than that claim in the edit summary. The original AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misconceptions was somehow closed as "no consensus" when the only keep arguments were WP:ITSINTERESTING. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a long comment on the above.

What's your preference: individual lists by subject? category? deletion?

This is not indiscriminate. I'm of the opinion that the most-interested editors have enforced some good discipline in preventing the list from becoming indiscriminate.

Most of these items (not all) are supported by sections of Wikipedia articles of established notability, as well as individual reliable sources. Most of these items (not all) are supported in books and magazine articles on the topic of misconceptions. This renders the "indiscriminate" argument null.

Misconceptions as a topic are a well-known problem in education, management, news organizations, parenting, healthcare, and so on.

Perhaps this article should not be called a list. This is an example of an expanded list, rather than a mere list of articles such as List of indie rock musicians, which could be satisfactory as a category, but not as compactly.

Cleanup is needed in terms of improved sources for some borderline items, which I'm making my way through, but deletion is not the answer.

Offered some rhubarb pie, I could see an argument to enforce limiting the list to only items which are directly supported in books and articles about misconceptions. But this has (mostly) already been done.

"It's interesting" as mentioned in the LfD discussion is not merely a statement of personal opinion, it has external, objectively measurable status, in the viewable traffic statistics at the top of the page. First, ~25,000 views in December 2010. This demonstrates definite utility to the Wikipedia audience, independent of the opinions of editors. If this were a very low-traffic article, or just an article for fans or info-hoarders, I'd see little utility in it. Then there were ~1 million views in January, up to the 13th. In my opinion, utility trumps too-narrow policies and guidelines.

Wikipedia is NOT only an encyclopedia. It suffers from the simultaneous freedom and burden of the rubric of "encyclopedia", with the encumbered false notion that things which aren't in other encyclopedias don't belong here. Well, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in the real world, too, and it applies to bad, narrowminded, page-limited dead-tree encyclopedias.

Without the "indiscriminate" argument, there simply is no deletion argument.

The LfD "vote" isn't a vote. There was no consensus, since the two week discussion period expired without consensus. There weren't strong pillar/policy/guideline/essay/consensus-based reasons stated for deletion, independent of the weak "keep" arguments. Therefore, it was kept.

Lest you think I'm not going to get around to citing guidelines supporting keeping this, please reread WP:LISTPURP. This is an annotated, structured, informative list. Keep.

--Lexein (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please make a strong case for deletion, that is, list specific reasons and list many of them. "Fails WP:LIST" will not convince many ppl. (WP:LIST sucks - it does not provide a single criterium a list must have, must not have or makes a list no-go.) Have this reason for a start: For every bullet an editor has to decide if the idea is common. Deciding how many people have to believe something so that it becomes common is inherently original research.--Echosmoke (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree a strong case should be made for deletion beyond the simplistic "fails WP:LIST" (and you're right, WP:LIST is a meaningless reason for deletion as it does not state criteria for keeping lists or deleting them). But it's not original research if there is adequate citation to reliable sources that the misconception is common. Until about a week ago many of the items were sourced that way. I'm all in favor of removing poorly sourced items (that is, sourced that they are common misconceptions), but not deletion of the entire article. Cresix (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, as much as I don't like lists of this type, I'd recommend against an AfD at this point. There was recently (now archived), a very spirited discussion at WT:N attempting to nail down more careful criteria for what makes a list notable. Unfortunately, discussions fell through, and if you look at the section on lists in WP:N, you'll see that the explicitly state that no consensus was reached. The odds on you successfully getting a delete vote are close to zero--more likely you'll end up with no consensus, which is just as good as a keep. Worse yet (from your perspective), if you did actually get a keep result because interest in this list is very high right now, you will significantly decrease the chances of a future AfD being successful. Instead, a better approach is that we just go harshly and aggressively through the list, trimming out anything that doesn't have the necessary sources (that it's commonly believed and that it is actually a misconception). That is, why not cut it down to only those things that everyone agrees are clearly verified as misconceptions--then we should all feel better about keeping this. I feel like the activity here is significantly lower even than a few days ago, but, as someone else recommended, it may be better to wait for the significant purging for a little while longer until the external interest dies down a little bit. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Atomic Model as Solar System

In the reasoning given for removing the entry on the description of the atom as solar-system-like was stated 'it is not a "common misconception", it is an intuitive, "pedagogical" way to describe atoms whitin the wave-particle duality frame.' This is incorrect and is just a fancier restatement of the misconception. First, the particle description of an electron in the potential of an atom breaks down and is useless; one simply cannot describe the motion of an electron in this potential by the motion of a centralized particle. Second, even if one could, the result certainly would not be in the shape of a planet-orbit-like elipse. This is a model that was never actually put forth by physicists or chemists, exists only in drawings from secondary school texts, and is known bunk since the late 1920s regardless. --88.64.13.153 (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Blueskyline, 15 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

• Adding salt to boiling water does not make it boil faster. Adding any solute to water will raise the water's boiling point due to its colligative properties, and thus it will take a longer time to reach boiling temperature. In reality, it does not significant change to boiling time very much. However, it is useful to chefs in that a higher temperature can be achieved.

Blueskyline (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. That's a self-published or blog source, and it doesn't actually say anywhere that it's a common misconception that adding salt to water makes it boil faster. It just says "the real question is whether water boils faster." I think most people know that salt makes water boil hotter, not faster. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

0.999...

The widely known fact that students believe .999... to fall short of 1 is discussed, for example, by

• Tall, D. O.; Schwarzenberger, R. L. E. (1978). "Conflicts in the Learning of Real Numbers and Limits" (PDF). Mathematics Teaching. 82: 44–49. Retrieved 2009-05-03.
• Tall, David (1976/7). "Conflicts and Catastrophes in the Learning of Mathematics" (PDF). Mathematical Education for Teaching. 2 (4): 2–18. Retrieved 2009-05-03. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)
• Tall, David (2000). "Cognitive Development In Advanced Mathematics Using Technology" (PDF). Mathematics Education Research Journal. 12 (3): 210–230. Retrieved 2009-05-03.

Additional references are given at 0.999.... It is widely known in education circles that a majority of the students believe that .999...<1. Tkuvho (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Several problems here. First, citations belong in the article, not the talk page. Secondly (and more importantly): the last two sources do not address it as a common misconception whatsover. The first source identifies it as a misconception among some first-year university students; that's doesn't make it a common misconception in general. Most people have never given it any thought, much less have a misconception about it. If you disagree, please wait for consensus before restoring the item. So far two editors disagree with you (Qwyrxian and me); thus currently no consensus for the item. Cresix (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The other editor "disagreed" for a reason that is diametrically opposed to yours, as I recall. He felt it is not a misconception but merely "unintuitive", but seemed to acknowledge implicitly that it is a common problem. As far as your last point is concerned, I am not sure what you are arguing exactly. That most people are not interested in this problem? Certainly many people attend the first year of the university. Furthermore, this problem is routinely treated in highschool as well. Dubinsky et al recently published an article where they describe a program geared toward convincing students of the correctness of .999...=1 by using the formulas for sums of geometric series. There are literally dozens of articles written about this. If you think people don't care, just check Talk:0.999... ! Tkuvho (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please let Qwyrxian speak for himself. And yes, I'm saying that most people other than mathematicians give it no thought, unless it is specifically pointed out to them by a mathematician. I've functioned in academic environments most of my life; I've never met one person other than a mathematician who has ever mentioned it. Looking at your edit history, I'm guessing you hang around mathematicians a lot; that would explain why you think it's a common misconception. If someone hangs around nuclear physicists a lot, he can come to the erroneous conclusion that the general population thinks a lot about the behavior of subatomic particles; in fact, most people never think about it. If this favorite misconception of yours is a common misconception among people in general, please provide sources. The fact that a mathematician developed a program to convince students does make it a common misconception. In any event, please wait for consensus before restoring the item. Cresix (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to user "Gump Stump", whereas Q seems to be bothered by the same sourcing issue as you. As I mentioned, many people do attend the first year of the university. Someone not majoring in the sciences is not likely to have heard about this, and I find nothing odd about the fact that in your "academic environment" this is not an issue. Incidentally, it is hardly an issue among mathematicians, either. The people mostly concerned are the students and the educationists, who have published voluminously on this, and find that a majority of their students feel that .999...<1. There are surely many people with little interest in this; but there are also surely many people with little interest in Roman circuses, as well. Tkuvho (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Someone not majoring in the sciences is not likely to have heard about this.": Precisely my point. Most people do not major in a science, making it less likely that it is a common misconception. I agree that most people have no interest in Roman circuses. In the past few days, tons of crap have been added to the article because it got some publicity. Eventually that will be pared down. In the mean time, the fact "other stuff exists" is not a legitimate reason to continue adding uncommon misconceptions. Cresix (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You are in error. The page had an extensive science section prior to the current wave of edits, as you can see here. Your current line of reasoning is a considerable radicalisation of your initial concern with sourcing. An anti-science position is merely another form of anti-intellectualism. Tkuvho (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How does having "an extensive science section" make your misconception a common one? If the article never had a single science item, would that make your misconception more or less common? If you can explain that, you might have something worth talking about. How many of those in the "extensive science section" were properly sourced as common misconceptions? How many were accepted by consensus? The article needs a lot of cleanup (I never said it didn't if that's what you consider being "in error"), but nevertheless that is not an excuse for you to continue adding uncommon misconceptions. One reason the article has so many items that are unsourced as common misconceptions is that so many editors like yourself insist that their misconception be included because "everyone else is doing it" or "I think it's common so it must be" or "I asked a few of my friends and it is a common misconcpetion among them" or some other ridiculously arbitrary reason. The article has been nominated for deletion more than once for that very reason. Read this talk page and the archives. There are pages and pages of debates about whether an unsourced misconception should be included. And once again, please read WP:OSE. You don't make a page with problems better by adding to the problems. Now this is my final time repeating this: wait to see if a consensus supports addition of this item. That's how things work on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, WP:OTHERSTUFF is one of the most misused guidelines on Wikipedia. It has to do with article deletions. It has absolutely nothing to do with article content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Quest. Technically you are right. My point is the priniciple applies to article content. "Other stuff exists" is no excuse for adding bad information to articles. Cresix (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Resp to Cresix at this indent level, a few msgs above
• First, citations in Talk are not a problem,, they're welcome here, since they serve to advance the discussion. It's wrong to object to their presence here, when the deleting editor would have hacked them out of the article without discussion. Since discussion is one of the WP:Five Pillars of Wikipedia, better to have them.
• If the argument is "it doesn't matter, the misconception is only held by college students,"

1. The first reference establishes that the problem stems from lack of mathematical preparation in high school, where the notion of sums of infinite series is discussed in pre-algebra. So the misconception exists in the (very large) set of all high school students, not "just" the somewhat smaller set of college students.
2. This article isn't about the importance-in-day-to-day-living of misconceptions, just their existence and prevalence. "Common" can mean commonly held among the population (everybody thinks it) or it can mean commonly heard (everybody knows that one guy who spouts this misconception) - it doesn't matter. Here, the misconception that "0.999... is not equal to 1.0" is commonly held - widely held by a large number of non-high-school-math-educated folks, even if it's not commonly professed. If asked, most people will spout the misconcept.

• If the argument is "it doesn't matter, it affects nobody," it's such a widespread misconception that it impacts design, mechanical and electrical engineering, economics, navigation - everything which involves real-world "messy" math. Where the lack of comprehension of the meaning of numbers (really, just the labels we hang on the numbers underneath) contrasts with "common sense", there's trouble. Consumers, anyone? Why do price tags end in ".99"? Because consumers behave as if $9.99 is substantially different from $10.00, whether or not they know there's no practical difference. Sadly, there's probably no study relating this pricing vulnerability directly to knowledge of sums of series ...
• The fact that mathematicians care about the issue does not minimize its importance in any way. The widespread misconception that "0.999... is not 1.0" is a kind of canary in the coalmine of widespread (and apparently growing) willful, indeed prideful ignorance of math and science, as promulgated by... but I digress.
• "No consensus" is not a brickbat. If more independent sources (by other authors, in other journals, books or magazines) are found, I'll support the item's inclusion over the objections raised so far, because the objections are neither well-formulated nor persuasive.

--Lexein (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a mystery to me why we even have a 0.999... article. All this is worth is a brief paragraph at 1 (number). This isn't really a common misconception, it is just a didactic tool for math teachers to familiarize their students with the concept of Repeating decimal. Nobody would form the idea of "0.999... < 1" on their own. The entire story is that the teacher sets up the scenario, students answer to the proposed scenario that it is smaller, and the teacher then shows that it isn't. If we are going to include a list of standard elementary math lessons in this article, we would never see the end of it.

Can people please stay focused of what it is this article is really trying to do, and what it isn't supposed to turn into by well meaning but misguided additions of random concepts.

From the 0.999... article:

In popular culture: With the rise of the Internet, debates about 0.999... have escaped the classroom and are commonplace on newsgroups and message boards, including many that nominally have little to do with mathematics. (I rest my case at this point) In the newsgroup sci.math, arguing over 0.999... is a "popular sport", and it is one of the questions answered in its FAQ.

So, unless we want this page to become a mirror of all usenet FAQs ever compiled, we should draw the line here. --dab (𒁳) 22:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. And unless we want the article deleted, it can't be a repository for everyone's favorite misconception. Cresix (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Lexein:

• citations in Talk are not a problem,, they're welcome here: You're right, but you also misunderstood me (or, more likely, I expressed it poorly). Tkuvho was adding the item to the article without sources (three times). My comment simply was related to my request that he add them to the article if and when the item is determined to be appropriate.
• The first reference establishes that the problem stems from lack of mathematical preparation in high school: I don't agree with your reasoning. High school students have lots of misconceptions, and high school students don't make up a majority of the adult population. We don't need to include every misconception held by high school students unless there is evidence that the misconception is more commonly held.
• The fact that mathematicians care about the issue does not minimize its importance in any way: I never said it did. You twisted my point. I said that the fact that mathematicians consider it a common miconception does not mean it is common.
• If the argument is "it doesn't matter, it affects nobody": Again, I never said that's the argument. If it affects the design of thousands of products, that doesn't mean it is a widely held misconception among the large majority of people who have nothing to do with the designs.
• If more independent sources (by other authors, in other journals, books or magazines) are found, I'll support the item's inclusion: So will I, if you mean more good sources that the misconception is common among the general population. The sources listed above provide little, if any, support for that.
• "No consensus" is not a brickbat: In matters of disputed content or dispute about how adequate sources are, consensus trumps just about everything except WP:BLP. In any event, if this article stays on its current trajectory of adding everyone's favorite misconception with very little evidence that the misconception is common, it will be soon be deleted. I truly fail to see the logic here: We add dozens and dozens of uncommon misconceptions because someone "likes it", only to have the entire article deleted. I have always opposed deletion of this article. But if this frenzy of adding anything and everything to the article doesn't diminish and more reasonable editors begin to accept limiting the article to the misconceptions that are clearly common, I'll support deletion. As it is right now, the article is largely a miscellaneous collection of favorites. Cresix (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Al Gore

Styx1776: Please stop removing the item about Al Gore saying that he invented the internet.[17] [18] This text has been in the ariticle for quite some time. If you want to change it, you need to gain consensus first. This is a very popular misconception so I don't know why you keep removing it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it was silly, no matter how long it has been here. Is the misconception that Al Gore said this, or that he did invent the internet? Your entry doesn't say which.

We seriously need to pause and reflect on the term "popular misconception" as opposed to "internet meme". I think Al Gore was made fun of online after he said something showing he was sort of full of himself. That's it. It was a joke on him, not a "common misconception". --dab (𒁳) 22:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, this wasn't an Internet meme. It received significant coverage in the news media. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)