Talk:List of common misconceptions

Please read before proposing new entries A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list does not exist, but any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following: The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete. If you propose an entry that does not fulfill these criteria but you still think should be included, please include your rationale for inclusion.

Last paragraph in "Evolution" section

The last paragraph in the "Evolution" section seems to be poorly worded, if not misinformed. Many theories and general explanations of evolution hold that natural selection has some unknown property in determining what features of an organism should change, rather than all changes occurring by random chance as the article suggests. That natural selection isn't entirely random is central in explaining animals that use camouflage. That section seems to be suggesting that most people's understanding of evolution is really Lamarckism, yet the example given about Lamarckism here does not match examples given on that article. For example, Lamarckism seems to hold that evolution is very direct ("a blacksmith builds up muscles, his son will more easily develop muscles"), and yet the misconceptions article applies Lamarckism to the idea that natural selection is more than a description of random incremental change.

The article says " Evolution does not plan to improve organism's fitness to survive", but I'm prettye general theory of natural selection holds that an organism will strategically develop to survive in its environment. For example, it seems impossible that an insect would ever start looking exactly like a stick or leaf by completely random chance. The source given simply states given says similar to "no, there is no objective involved with natural selection", yet it doesn't say why. Just because its on the Berkley University website doesn't mean we have to include it; surely there are much better sources that explain natural selection than some Q&A. On a side note, please forgive me if this is hard to understand; my sleeping is messed up.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The article does not suggest "all changes occurring by random chance". It simply dispels the myth that "evolution" has anthropomorphic characteristics such as being able to "plan" or "try" something. It's that simple. You're reading way too much into what is stated in the article. Until you can provide reliable sourcing (and your opinions or statements here do not suffice) that evolution can "plan" or "try", the sources provided in the article are quite sufficient and reliable. The article is not a dissertation on evolution; it simply dispels one of the misconceptions. Cresix (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The central point of that paragraph is not that there is no sentient planning or trying. The paragraph clearly states that "Evolution doesn't see a need and respond to it[...] A mutation resulting in longer necks would be more likely to benefit an animal in an area with tall trees than an area with short trees, and thus enhance the chance of the animal surviving to pass on its longer-necked genes. Tall trees could not cause the mutation nor would they cause a higher percentage of animals to be born with longer necks." This text says that change does not occur in response to features of an organism's (indirect?) environment. That goes against every concept of evolution that I've heard. Perhaps the fact that such trees are indirect features of the environment makes this excusable, though. Also, you don't need sources to add a 'citation needed' tag: neither do I really need sources to question the value of one source we are using, as long as you are familiar with the subject. If the information were presented in more than one source I would find its inclusion acceptable.

Also, I find it questionable to judge theories on natural selection, a theoretical process, as "wrong". It should be made clear that an idea is not the mainstream scientific outlook, yes; but it seems dubious to go further. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that "Change does not occur in response to features of an organism's (indirect?) environment" is correct when taken to mean change at the individual level, which is exactly what "Tall trees could not cause the mutation nor would they cause a higher percentage of animals to be born with longer necks" means. The same number of animals are born with long necks as if there were no tall trees around, but the fact that there are tall trees around mean that a higher proportion of long-necked animals will survive. Thus when talking about change on a population level it makes sense to talk about changes in response to environment, but it is important to understand that the mutations are not a response to the environment.

I agree that on principle it must be allowed to question a source without having a secondary source.

Dr bab (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree that a secondary source would improve the item; I just don't see a problem with the current sources. Let me suggest, rather than arguing about what is intended in the item, perhaps IronMaidenRocks (or anyone) could suggest a rewording of the item with source(s) to support it. Without a source to back up a challenge to the item, I don't think we can proceed. If you take each sentence in the item individually, on face value there is no mistaken information. The problem arises when we try to infer what is meant beyond the literal statements. That's why I think a rewrite would be helpful. BTW, I don't think the item is judging natural selection as "wrong"; it's just shedding some light on a misconception about evolution. Cresix (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to go too deep into theories on giraffe evolution, but if the paragraph's interpretation of natural selection is correct it does not seem as if the species which became the giraffe would continue having their necks grow longer. Even if they did achieve a mutated, longer neck, and that helped them to survive, why would their necks continue to get longer? According to the paragraph, the figurative force of natural selection would be perfectly content with the animal's current neck length. They're already getting the food from trees which helps them survive, so why go further? It would only be by means of another random mutation which causes the proto-giraffe to receive a longer neck. Of course, it seems fallacious to assume that the giraffe's genes/whatever would be able to detect food in tall trees. Does anyone else see this conflict? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Examining the source shows that Darwin believed it to be due to over-feeding on trees, where an animal with a longer neck would be more likely to obtain food and thus live to reproduce. But why didn't other members of the pecora infraorder develop such long necks? The way Darwin puts it, developing a longer neck would be a natural trend because it would benefit any 'browsing feeder'. And yet, giraffe is the only species which obtains the mutation. Lamarck seems to be commenting on the origin of the giraffe's long neck, whereas Darwin comments on the neck's further development after it was already a feature of the giraffe. It also seems that the same rules could not apply to the walking stick, for example; the odds of a creature looking exactly like a stick or leaf would be astronomical under such an understanding of natural selection. Well, anyway, it seems between Bab's comments and my checking the source, that my problem with the section is solved. Although, I would still recommend adding a source which accurately describes the modern concept of natural selection in detail, rather than such a "Q&A". --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a simple matter of cost vs. benefit. Longer necks require more energy and make it harder to run and drink. Therefore, longer necks grant a reproductive advantage over shorter necks only in environments where they make it significantly easier to obtain food. In other environments, the cheaper alternative (i.e. shorter necks) wins. DES (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't explain the question I posed. Your answer assumes giraffes are the only type of Pecora in regions giraffes inhabit. That's not the case. The idea here is that there is no 'selection' in natural selection; in this explanation there is no 'cheaper alternative winning out' and advantage just increases the likelihood of reproduction. You could think of it as a numbers game involving the likelihood of values being repeated with factors narrowing down the available numbers. That is, at least, my understanding of Darwin's theory. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The giraffe example is poor anyways and I feel it should be changed. While longer necks do allow a giraffe to reach higher food, they do most of their feeding at shoulder height anyways, and this advantage is balanced out by the added difficulty of reaching water from such a height. The main advantage in the longer neck is believed to be as a sexual advantage in necking battles with other males. While this is not particularly relevant to the topic of evolution, it is ironic that the list of common misconceptions uses a common misconception as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.169.74 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon

The caption below the picture of Napoleon contains awkward grammatical structure. Consider this rewording:

Napoleon on the Bellerophon, a painting of Napoleon I by Charles Lock Eastlake. Napoleon was taller than his nickname, The Little Corporal, suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howrad (talk • contribs) 06:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I made the fix. I also thought it was awkwardly worded when I first read the article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got a source I'm afraid but I've heard on TV that his shortness was simply made up by british cartoonists during the nepoleonic war. Coolug (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So, "the Little Corporal" as a nickname probably was "[not referring] to his physical stature." Hmm -- then, to what was it referring to? Twipley (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It was referring to the british obsession with creating some form of comedy disability for anyone we ever find ourselves fighting a war with (such as hitlers alleged singular testicle) :) Coolug (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Article says "Some believe that he was nicknamed le Petit Caporal (The Little Corporal) as a term of affection." He wasn't a corporal either, so why would the nickname 'little corporal' have to imply that he was small in stature? It doesn't imply he was a corporal. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

New section: "Lisping King of Spain" under History

I have heard in several Spanish classes and found several articles (which you have to look up, because they're blackisted) that claim that the reason Spaniards pronounce the C in "ci" or "ce" as θ, known to English speakers as th. However, the reason certain regions of Spain have that specific lisp is an example of regional dimorphism of language. (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceceo.)This is further explored in the wiki article on Ceceo. In fact, this myth is mentioned in the article, as well as how it was disproved. Other articles: (spanish.about.com/cs/qa/a/q_lisp.htm)

Fundamentally, this myth holds no water, as Castillian Spanish pronounces "S" the exact same as other regions, so it can't be the result of a lisp, as a person with a lisp would be unable to pronounce the "s" sound. I think that even though it's mentioned on the Ceceo page, it deserves a spot on this article, because of how widely accepted it is.) El erico (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable source that declares this to be a common misconception, or something very similar, and that explains the truth of the matter. Click on Edit for any part of the article to see the full inclusion criteria. HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Added with plenty of sources. We already had this at Distinción#Castilian lisp. Hans Adler 15:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Monkeys

The article claims that humans did not evolve from monkeys. What is meant is that humans did not evolve from any extant monkey species. But what is wrong with calling the common ancestor of e.g. all Catarrhini a monkey? According to the article Monkey, monkeys are primates that are not prosimians or apes. It also talks about extant monkey species, which implies that there are also extinct monkey species, which means that extinct primates can be monkeys. I think we should remove the word “monkey” but am not willing to start an edit war. —Quilbert (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The last real discussion about this is now archived at Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 12#Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys. Here is the current text:

• Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys, chimpanzees or any other modern-day primates. Instead, 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 and apes. Humans are part of the Hominidae (great ape) family, which also includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. 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 the two extant chimpanzee species.

Some problems:

• "Evolution does not claim" is creationist jargon.
• The first two sources (PBS and San Francisco Chronicle, i.e. general media) are weak for a tricky statement about science.
• The remaining (strong, academic) sources are only used for providing background information, so presumably they do not support the main claim.
• The first source does not actually say it is a common misconception that humans evolved from monkeys. It presents "Did we evolve from monkeys?" as a frequently asked question, selectively provides only part of the necessary background, and then answers the questions incorrectly. (The source says that humans derive from apes, not monkeys, but suppresses the fact that the common ancestors of apes and monkeys would nowadays be regarded as monkeys.)
• The official definition of monkeys is odd: The term subsumes both New World monkeys and Old World monkeys, even though they branched off the evolutionary tree of primates at different points. Basically this should be referred to as "monkeys other than apes" in the same way that "animals" is usually short for "animals other than humans". And just like "animals other than humans" becomes problematic when we go too far back in time, the same happens with "monkeys other than apes". Therefore monkey as a precise biological term only makes sense for relatively recent species.
• Given the problem with the term monkey, I don't know whether biologists refer to the common ancestors of monkeys and apes such as Aegyptopithecus as monkeys. Apparently they have characteristics of both monkeys and apes, so neither term really fits. But from a non-technical common sense point of view they are clearly monkeys. The general public does not have misconceptions about highly technical details of biological nomenclature for extinct species. When we say that humans descend from monkeys, we mean that we have ancestors who were much smaller than we are, had fur and a long tail, who lived in trees, and who would nowadays not be out of place in a zoo next to the gibbons (though they are apes) and baboons.

I will try to address these problems. Hans Adler 12:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I see only two possible definitions of monkeys that are logical and fit the official definition: Simiiformes excluding Hominoidea, or Simiiformes excluding all species whose last common ancestor with Hominoidea has no extant descendants other than apes. In both cases Aegyptopithecus would (probably) be a monkey. —Quilbert (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I think the current version of the article is good. Let’s hope it survives. —Quilbert (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

""Evolution does not claim" is creationist jargon" How so? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Evolution itself does not claim anything. It is the framework based on which questions such as whether we derive from monkeys can be decided. It is a generally accepted theory in biology, not an active research field (or at least not to the extent that would justify such a formulation). Saying "Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys" is like saying "Gravitation does not claim the Moon must fall on the Earth." This kind of abbreviation is only common in contexts in which people doubt evolution (or gravitation, hypothetically). In terms of absurdity it's one or two steps below "evolutionists", but it's still not appropriate in what is supposed to be an NPOV article.

A more neutral (though still too imprecise) way of putting it would be "It does not follow from evolution that...". In contrast, "Evolution does not claim..." presents evolution as an ideology that claims things rather than concluding them from evidence. This touches the very basis of "Teaching the controversy": The claim that evolution and creationism are equivalent on a very fundamental level, or in other words, treating science as just another religion or ideology. Hans Adler 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you might be over-analyzing it. How about "Evolution does not say..." Let's try and keep things simple so the reader understands what we're trying to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Do you think "Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees or any other modern-day primates" is harder to understand than "Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys, chimpanzees or any other modern-day primates"? The misconception was a coatrack for incorrectly debunking a silly objection to evolution that dates back to Darwin's time. I would not have minded that except for the incorrectly part. I fixed the problem by removing the unnecessary reference to evolution. Hans Adler 16:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to your post which said, "A more neutral (though still too imprecise) way of putting it would be 'It does not follow from evolution that...' ". "Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees" is fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I just meant it as part of the explanation, not as a concrete proposal for article space. Hans Adler 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

These misconceptions about evolution were originally sourced from Q&A pages intended to shoot down common 'Creationist' arguments. That's why the sentences are/were worded like they're dealing with the creationism vs evolution debate. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jesus is a Caucasian male with blue eyes and long brown hair should be on here under the christianity or bible section

It should be stated that the modern American view of Jesus is derived from a famous painting of him (DaVinci) and not from any kind of credible account of having met Jesus. In fact most countries have separate views on Jesus's race. It should later be said that Jesus was born of the line of David who was middle eastern and born to a middle eastern mother Mary. The bible also mentions that Jesus looked like the people around him (that he looked like an ordinary man so to speak) and that further suggests that he wouldn't have been a white man with blue eyes and long brown hair as that would not have looked like anyone else in Jerusalem at the time. I don't have sources right not but I know they're out there. I'm hoping someone who's more of an expert on the subject would be interested in researching and verifying this as a common misconception.

Tilton372 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "misconception" is the most appropriate angle to look at this. I think many Christians simply never thought about it and when asked would probably agree that as he was a Jew living in Israel who would probably have looked like the locals there do. Some Christians may strongly disagree, but I would see this a religious belief rather than a misconception. We don't treat transubstantiation, virgin birth of Jesus or resurrection of Jesus as misconceptions, either. Hans Adler 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point that many christians simply haven't thought about it but I think that most have and have concluded that he is white. Hence the controversy when a non-white person plays a Jesus character. (Family Guy's "Black Jesus" cutaway, or Jim Caviezel being the only white actor in Passion of the Christ where everyone else was Middle-Eastern, are two examples. In the latter it's doubtful that someone didn't notice his race was off. More likely they noticed and concluded that a white Jesus among all Middle-Eastern peoples was correct.) I don't agree however that this is comparable to transubstantiation, virgin birth, or the resurrection of Jesus as those are all faith-based beliefs not facts. Jesus was alive is a fact whether or not you believe he is the Lord and Savior. Therefore he had a race. His race cannot be someone's opinion. It simply was what it was. And many people commonly mistake his race for something that it is not therefore I believe it is a misconception. 68.59.73.31 (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"Jim Caviezel being the only white actor in Passion of the Christ where everyone else was Middle-Eastern": Now that's a whopper of a misconception. Last time I checked, Italians (e.g., Monica Bellucci) are not considered "Middle-Eastern". In any event, unless we can find a time machine and go back about 150 years, the blue-eyed, white Jesus is not a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"150 years"? Do you mean 2000 or am I misunderstanding what you're implying. As for the time machine, you don't need to see something first hand to know that it was false. None of us have met Beethoven but we know he wasn't African. See what I am saying? We have records of people and events that took place even before the birth of Christ and the races/ethnicity/heritages of people in different regions is something we have kept track of. Jesus was not white nor did he have white features. This is a fact because we have records of his birth and the heritage/race/ethnicity of his parents and of their parents and of their parents and so on.

Furthermore we have Jesus being born on the 25th of December as a common misconception and we didn't have a time machine to corroborate that. Again you don't need to experience something first-hand to know it was false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.73.31 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue here isn't whether Jesus was actually white with blue eyes. We know that is false. The issue is whether there is a common misconception that Jesus was white with blue eyes. And there is not. I meant 150 years. 150 years ago it might have been a common misconception. Today it is not. Cresix (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well then I understand your point a lot better now. I do believe that today it is a common misconception. Everyone I've ever talked to about this has believed he is White and has been shocked when I presented them with facts pointing to him being of middle-eastern descent. Maybe we come from different places (I'm from the bible belt but have traveled across the world) and it's not so common in your area. But I do believe that the average person (who knows of Jesus of course), until presented with factual information mistakenly believes that Jesus is of their own race. I find this to be a lot more common a misconception than the fact that Jesus was probably not born on the 25th of December as most everyone knows. If someone who's more knowledgeable in this area would like to present evidence to prove/disprove my claim that would be great. I did a quick Google search but can't find any research on whether or not this is "common". On a side note how common does something have to be for it to be featured here? Is there some rule of thumb I can go by? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.73.31 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As for what is considered common, if a reliable source identifies it as common (or very similar wording), it generally is considered common. But it needs to be unequivocal. A source that simply says "misconception", or "you've probably heard that ...", or "all of my friends think ...", that's inadequate. And it must be a misconception among the general population. For example, nuclear physicists may have had a common misconception about the behavior of atomic particles, but that's not a widespread misconception. There's discussion in the archives if you wish to search. You should also click the "Edit" button for the article, not to edit but to see the four criteria for additions to the article. If you don't have a username, look at the criteria for some of the proposed additions above on this talk page or in the archives. Cresix (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've talked to several people who thought Jesus was black, or that he had long hair. In fact, most people in my area believe he had long hair for some reason. That seems pretty disrespectful or tongue-in-cheek, considering that the Apostle Paul said along the lines of 'Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?' (1 Cor 11:14). However, there's no evidence or discussion from the period as to what Jesus looked like. We can assume that he looked like a Jew of the period, and not so unusual looking as to generate any noted discussion about his looks. We can say that he kept the Mosaic Law by wearing a beard and kept it and his hair groomed; no discussion is made about him breaking the Law in these matters. If I remember correctly, for a Jew to grow their hair out meant they were either on a military campaign or they were making a special type of vow, etc. One thing is for certain: Di Vinci did not know what Jesus looked like. He was just an artist. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Color of water

Should we include this in the article? Color_of_water#Color_of_lakes_and_oceans

It is a common misconception that in large bodies, such as the oceans, the water's color is blue due to the reflections from the sky on its surface. Reflection of light off the surface of water only contributes significantly when the water surface is extremely still, i.e., mirror-like, and the angle of incidence is high, as water's reflectivity rapidly approaches near total reflection under these circumstances, as governed by the Fresnel equations.

--Andy0101 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the section you link (and most especially the "common misconception" part) is unsourced. That is a minimum requirement for inclusion in the article (Wikipedia cannot source itself). BTW, oddly, there was a discussion about whether it is a common misconception that the sky is blue because it reflects the color of water (Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 7#Blue sky). That was not sourced either. Cresix (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is widely believed to refer to multiple personalities or split personalities. In fact, schizophrenia has nothing to do with those ideas and is instead a condition of disintegration between the cognitive and emotional faculties of the brain. It's hallucination and delusions, not multiple personalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.182.67 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception. A source linked in Schizophrenia identifies this as a misconception, but not a "common" misconception. This issue was previously discussed at Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 11#Addition request: Schizophrenia and Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 8#Split personality =/= Schizophrenia. Cresix (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hot Water Freezes Faster Than Cold Water

Wasn't sure where to put this and I suppose I can't anyway since the topic is locked. I don't even know how to edit wikipedia or make a suggestion so I hope someone can do something about this.

"Hot water can in fact freeze faster than cold water for a wide range of experimental conditions. This phenomenon is extremely counterintuitive, and surprising even to most scientists, but it is in fact real. It has been seen and studied in numerous experiments. While this phenomenon has been known for centuries, and was described by Aristotle, Bacon, and Descartes [1—3], it was not introduced to the modern scientific community until 1969, by a Tanzanian high school student named Mpemba. Both the early scientific history of this effect, and the story of Mpemba's rediscovery of it, are interesting in their own right — Mpemba's story in particular providing a dramatic parable against making snap judgements about what is impossible."

The first thing you need to do is find a reliable source that there is a common misconception that cold water freezes faster than hot water. BTW, one statement made by the source you cite about hot water freezing faster is flat wrong: "it was not introduced to the modern scientific community until 1969". I learned about it in seventh grade, long before 1969. I even tested it myself, before Mpemba "introduced" it. Cresix (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Still Technically Harmful to Pick Up Baby Birds in Nest

Though it is indeed a myth that picking up a baby bird from its nest will cause the parents to reject it, it can still be harmful to them. Predators will take notice of the activity in the nest area, and in particular the smell that a human leaves. This can obviously be harmful to the birds, so picking up an otherwise normal and safe chick will potentially cause it problems. That should probably be clarified in that section. Though I've heard this from actual ornithologists, I have no internet source to site as of right now.

The Ring around The Rosie thing

Hey, I just thought this should be added on the list.

The theory that links Ring Around the Rosie with the Black Plague is false. Although the rhyme has consistencies with symptoms of the Black Plague, there is no records around this time that suggest that there is any connection between the disease and the rhyme. The earliest mention of the song is in 1790 in the United States, making this theory historically impossible.

Sure, it's unsourced, but there are tons of reliable sources that disprove that theory. I've heard many people say this and even some historians actually believe this and it still goes on, making this a common misconception.MubarakIsntCool (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please address each of the four criteria for inclusion in the article:

• The common misconception's including topic has an article of its own.
• The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
• The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
• The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.

Cresix (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand how this article could get out of control if there were not stringent standards for content addition. However, the first and third criteria above seem a little overly strict to me. Was there consensus for these? As an encyclopedia, we should strive to document common misconceptions based on reliable sources, independent of that topic's status on Wikipedia. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a really close look at the amount of crap added (i.e., everyone's favorite misconception with no regard to whether it is actually a common misconception) before the criteria were implemented (especially the first and third), and you'll see more than the article getting "out of control". Dozens of ridiculous items were being removed every week, for months. The talk page wars raged endlessly. The criteria work. They're not perfect, but they work. Cresix (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No there wasn't consensus for the above criteria. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of us wanted the article deleted because of the difficulty of effectively controlling what appears here. I finally agreed to a trial of the current criteria. Anything looser would not be acceptable to me at all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an example of something that was added that you feel shouldn't have been, and is excluded by the first and/or third criterion? –CWenger (^ • @) 19:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Someone added a "common misconcepetion" that Jews can only have sex through a hole in a sheet according to Jewish law. The editor who added it argued vehemently and extensively that this is a common misconception, providing such evidence as a comment by one rabbi. The item remained in the article for considerable time because the single editor would not relent and a consensus to remove it could never be achieved. It was eventually removed after the criteria were implemented because it failed the first three criteria, and possibly the fourth. Cresix (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

But a comment by one rabbi is not a reliable source, is it? –CWenger (^ • @) 20:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The source was legitimate; I don't remember the specific source, but that's not the issue. Let's say, hypothetically, that it was the NY Times; a source can be reliable without supporting the idea that it is supposed to support. In most articles that's enough to remove information, but that hasn't worked in this article. Some people think that if they think it's a common misconception, then it undoubtedly is common, and many of them refuse to accept that it isn't. As I said, the talk page wars raged for months with those kinds of ridiculous additions. That's the whole point of second criterion. A comment by one rabbi did not support the idea that this is a common misconception. The criteria avoid a lot of bickering back and forth about whether something is a common misconception (and the item I refer to had extensive debate); it doesn't prevent it entirely, but has reduced the endless arguing considerably. Cresix (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like we just needed stronger enforcement of criterion #2 then. We can (and do) require that a reliable source says it's a "common misconception" or something similar, rather than simply a reliable source repeating the misconception. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It's easy for someone to say, as has been said in the past, that we don't need formal criteria, we just need stronger enforcement. The problem is (and I'm speaking in general and not referring specifically to you), what ends up happening is that two or three editors spend countless hours fighting all the battles almost singlehandedly while everyone else runs for cover or just sits and watches. I speak from experience because I was one of those editors. Saying we need stronger enforcement is one thing; doing something about it is altogether different. It's more than simply removing an improperly sourced item; you then have to argue back and forth with the dozens of editors who are certain that their favorite misconception is "common". I can virtually guarantee that if some sort of agreement is reached that the criteria will be eliminated, the same thing will occur again. That's up to the consensus of editors. But if that happens, I can say a couple of things quite confidently. I won't be around to clean up the mess (and it's is a foregone conclusion that there will be a mess); we have already lost a couple of editors who worked diligently to keep this article from spiraling out of control. And I can also guarantee that the article eventually will be deleted because it will be a crap magnet, as it has been very often in the past. Either of those outcomes will be a shame (and I say that not because I am irreplaceable, but because it's always a shame when an editor gives up on a potentially good article). So ... if enough people agree that there just needs to be a little "stronger enforcement", we'll see how accurate my predictions are. If you're not around this article much at that time, I'll be sure to let you know. Cresix (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

All I'm saying is we could accomplish the same thing with fewer rules. Surely that is a good thing. Otherwise it looks as though the rules are actually intended to dissuade editors from adding legitimate content. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And all I'm saying is that some of us have had vast experience with this article before and after the rules. If the past is any indication of the future whatsoever, "fewer rules" will result in disaster. Is that really "surely a good thing"? If it happens, let's see who can put his/her actions where his/her mouth is and spend all the hours cleaning up the mess. Cresix (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case why don't we add 20 more arbitrary rules so nobody will dare add content? Problem solved. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That's quite an illogical suggestion, one sometimes made when there is no other basis for argument. You were making some reasonable points, despite my disagreement, until you made that suggestion. As an analogy, if 5 milligrams of a medication helps you recover from a disease, why not take 50 mg to be sure it does the job thoroughly. And if 50 mg is overkill, let's just not give you any medication. If the current penalty for driving 70 in a 55 mph zone is a $100 fine, why don't we make the penalty life imprisisonment so that no one is every injured as a result of high speed driving? And if that's overkill, let's just eliminate any penalties for speeding. We don't add 20 rules because so far four rules have worked rather well. Now, if enough editors agree with you to eliminate the criteria, so be it; I'll wish everyone good luck and say goodbye (I will hang around long enough to see who cleans up the mess). I've made my points, several times. No offense, but I really don't care to respond again and again to illogical suggestions, so let's see if others have comments. Thanks for the discussion. Cresix (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

CWenger, why won't you accept what Cresix is saying? The current criteria arose out of a time when the article was being filled with masses of absolute garbage. Those of us who were there at the time saw the problem and came up with a solution. It's working. Why change anything? Exactly what problem are you trying to address? HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My point is it seems like unnecessarily strict rules for adding something to the article. I still have not heard an example where careful application of criteria #2 and #4 would not be sufficient to exclude something that we can all agree should be excluded. I'm trying to avoid instruction creep that dissuades newcomers from contributing. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question, but I think the shoe is on the other foot. As I said, the present criteria solved a BIG problem. They are working, at least so far as keeping most of the trash out of the article. I think it's up to you to demonstrate that the current criteria are creating a problem of rejecting material that should be in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. What specifically are some examples of well-sourced misconceptions (including sourcing that they are common misconceptions) that have been excluded since the criteria were implemented? That is the true acid test of the validity of your argument. Cresix (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, you tell me, you've been watching the page a lot longer than I have. But I think the burden of evidence is on those wanting more instructions rather than fewer. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't know of any items that have been excluded, but you're arguing that the criteria restrict legitimate items?? OK, I'll tell you: There aren't any. And no, the burden of evidence is on you to make a legitimate case (with examples) that the criteria are too restrictive. Otherwise, this discussion is finished. Cresix (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here's one:

The United States Constitution was written on parchment, not hemp paper. It is likely that drafts of the document were written on hemp, since a large portion of paper at the time was made from the material.

That item does not meet criterion #3 as far as I can tell, in either the articles United States Constitution or Constitutional Convention (United States). Now I realize it is not exactly what you asked for because it is not a new addition that was excluded due to the rules, but it was easier to look through the current article than the talk archives, and I think it makes the same point.

Please understand that I am very appreciative of the work you have put into this article, I am simply trying to avoid biting newcomers and instruction creep. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I intend to delete that item now. I would normally do it immediately when such a shortcoming was noticed, but this time I'll await further discussion here. To me, that's a classic example of inappropriate content. It would only be of interest to Americans, and probably only a small subset of them. It would be a misconception to an even smaller subset. It would be of absolutely no interest to the majority of readers. It's purely US-centric, a serious disease of Wikipedia that we must make every effort to avoid. Who's happy for me to delete it now? (PS: Can anyone tell I'm playing a little test case game here?) HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that one fails criterion #2: there is no indication (unless I missed something) in the sources that this is a common misconception. Use of the term "urban legend" does not equate with "common misconception". There are lots of urban legends that many people have never heard of. And I doubt very seriously that it is a common misconception. Here's the problem that people who have very little history in dealing with this article are not very much aware of. Everyone has his idea of what is a common misconception. I have a few myself. Some of mine turn out to be unknown to most people. I must either find a source that it is a common misconception, or give up trying to put it in the article. It is pointless for me to argue endlessly on this talk page (not to mention a waste of a lot of people's time) if I can't provide that source. And that is exactly what happened before the criteria were implemented; repeated, endless wrangling about whether an unsourced item is a common misconception. All of the criteria are important, but if a misconception can't be demonstrated as common, that is an unfixable problem (unless someone can manage to find a source). The very title of the article includes the words "common misconceptions". 01:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am completely fine with requiring a reliable source which both says it is a common misconception and it is factually untrue. It's the other criteria that I find excessive. The one about Mussolini making the trains run on time probably fails criterion #3 as well, as it is only in the Benito Mussolini page as an external link. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So, shall I delete that one too? HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

CWenger, so you're OK with throwing out criterion #4 and including such misconceptions as "Contrary to a once-held common misconception, the Earth is not really flat"? It would be easy for that one to pass the other criteria. Would it be OK if I added that one? Or how about one stating that it was once thought that blood-letting could treat disease? Or how about the once-common misconception that women were unclean during their menstrual periods? Give me a few minutes and I'll come up with a few dozen more to add. Don't worry, it would only double the article's length. Cresix (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I am fine with criterion #4 as well. Just #1 and #3. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So we can get rid of number 3. Then if the rabbi I mentioned earlier had stated in the NY Times that it is a "common misconception" (using those words) that Jews must have sex through a hole in a sheet, we would have to restore that one, right? Doesn't matter that it's not mentioned in Jew or Judaism (and trust me, add the hole in the sheet to those articles and I'll bet you big money that it will be removed within 24 hours)? Cresix (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What are the odds that the Times would have a story like that, and not challenge the assertion? I'm willing to risk it. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You sidetracked the issue. Let's say any reliable source. The rabbi made the statment in a reliable source. If the rabbi used the phrase "common misconception", we would have to restore the item, right? Cresix (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because a reliable source quotes somebody saying something doesn't mean they are claiming it to be true. That is an issue for all of Wikipedia, not just this page. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a similar point regarding the .999=1 section. The main source for that section comes from a book where someone stated it was a common misconception. So if a notable person says something in a book, poof, it's a reliable source.--Asher196 (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I just remembered that I intended earlier to address the allegations of instruction creep here. The article was a mess. One set of criteria were "agreed upon", and things have been stable ever since. There is no creep. The allegation is false. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

CWenger, you're getting just a tiny taste of all of the arguing back and forth about what is a reliable source and how do we define a common misconception. And the current discussion has been reasonably civil. In many cases, editors who have attempted to add their favorite misconception (with no evidence that it is common) have been anons or very inexperienced editors who refused to take no for an answer despite overwhelming opposition. The debates went on and on. At times there have been dozens of these types of additions every day. Are you the one who will step up and spend hours and hours and hours every day to manage this problem in the absence of criteria that have clearly reduced the problem? I'd like for you to go on record about that, and I'll ask you not to evade the question by talking about how it's everyone's responsibility to take care of Wikipedia. In theory that may be true, but for this article it has been a very small number of dedicated editors. So will you make that pledge now that, if no one else steps up, you'll take care of all of these problems, and that you will do it in a timely manner so that dozens of bad additions don't linger in the article for weeks or months? A simple yes or no will suffice. Cresix (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

May I humbly suggest that that answer demonstrates either deliberate confrontation, or being out of touch with reality. You cannot do such a thing on your own. HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been days when I (stupidly) spent a total of 8 or 9 hours on this article alone. And that wasn't making my own additions or copyediting. It was entirely removing and re-removing and re-re-removing ridiculous additions, then making dozens of lengthy responses to all the complaints and arguing on this talk page (or my talk page when I was verbally attacked repeatedly). Then there's all the 3RR reports (those are very time-consuming) and ANI reports (and that doesn't even include basic vandalism). And in those days there were six or seven other editors helping me out (some of whom left in disgust). As ridiculous as this may sound, I am tempted to suggest a temporary suspension of the criteria, ask everyone except CWenger to leave the article alone, and watch CWenger's performance. I think I already know the outcome, but that seems to be what it takes to convince some people who have little experience with this article. CWenger, before you make your final committment, I'd like to ask you to read all of the archives, especially archives 7 through 15. Cresix (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin comment: To all of the above participants, I will point out an official guideline: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. That is essentially what you guys are discussing here. Cease and desist, please. This is a pointless exercise. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You may have a very valid point, although I think barking out a "cease and desist" order (as if we had vandalized an article) over a talk page discussion is a bit of overkill. A simple comment or request would have sufficed and would not have given the appearance of trying to use admin rights inappropriately. The last time I checked, an editor is perfectly entitled to request that other editors voluntarily not make changes to an article for a while. You make it sound like we were inciting a riot, asking people to vandalize the article. In any event, it never amounted to anything because CWenger did nothing. And Amatulic, your removal of an entire section below threw the baby out with the bath water. I don't disagree with your point, but there were some legitimate and very relevant comments pertaining to the article. I think it's time to take a close self-examination of your admin privileges and responsbilities. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I issued no orders (as far as I know, the only time when an admin can issue orders is when enforcing ArbCom decisions, which doesn't apply here). The word "please" above was meant to express a request. Furthermore, I can't fathom how admin rights have anything to do with WP:REFACTOR, which is a very clear guideline that would justify anyone removing that section, which was unambiguously about another editor. Please accept my apologies if I came across too strong, but honestly, the conversation above followed by the section I removed did seem to me like a discussion to allow disruption deliberately (which is far different from "inciting a riot") to prove a point. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Cease and desist" is an order, both in language and tone. No one on Wikipedia can literally issue an order, but admins can threaten, which was clearly your intent. Apology accepted. "To allow deliberate disruption"?? Not editing an article is not "allowing deliberate disruption", unless you somehow think that any of us volunteer editors are required to fix articles. And if that's the case, I imagine that you're as guilty as the rest of us in "allowing deliberate disruption" throughout Wikipedia. I understand that you overreacted with the "cease and desist" order, but I really think you had some (momentary) warped thinking in your interpretation of "deliberate disruption". Don't get me wrong; I have no reason to think that you're a bad admin. But it is not unheard of for an admin to have moments of "I'm the authority" thinking, and I believe you had one of those moments. Secondly, I didn't say your removal of a section below was an admin action. I said that, in addition to removing any problematic parts of section, you removed legitimate information. That wasn't an admin action, but it was wrong. Thanks for your reply. Cresix (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: Refraining from editing wasn't the source of my concern; that would be ridiculous. Rather, I became alarmed by your discussion of an experiment to remove the guidelines for new entries to this article. I had the impression from the discussion above, and the one that followed, that you were getting serious about doing this to make a point to one editor, and I regarded that as disruptive.

If you feel that any content that I removed is critical enough to require restoration, feel free to restore it if you can do so without restoring the discussion about another editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, your clarification really does nothing to justify your comments about "allowing deliberate disruption". First, editors are perfectly entitled to discuss the guidelines on this talk page. Wikipedia has no requirement for the guidelines. They were decided on by editors. Editors can discuss whether they need to be enforced. Secondly, editors are not required to respond if someone else ignores the guidelines. So there are only two possibilities about what you meant in your "deliberate disruption" comment. You were either telling us we should not be discussing whether we, as individual editors, plan enforce the guidelines in others' changes to the article, or you were telling us that we are required to respond and fix the article if someone else ignores the guidelines. There was no "deliberate disruption". As I said, I'm not saying you are a bad admin, but you stepped over the line in suggesting some sort of policy violation (with implied sanctions: "cease and desist"). It's an understandable and certainly a forgivable offense (and I think perhaps even unintentional), but nonetheless one you need to not try to pretend didn't happen. I sympathize with admins. I would never want to be an admin even if I qualified. It's a thankless, often tedious job. But it is a job that is willingly taken, and without a standard means of recall (except for the most extreme cases), the only way for the admin system to work is for admins examine their own behavior from time to time. That's my only goal here; and I'm not singling you out. I've challenged other admin comments or actions from time to time. Fortunately, it's not often necessary.

Telling me that I can restore important content in the section you removed does not mitigate the fact that you were in error in removing it. Thanks again for your response, and for your concerns about the article. Cresix (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Long arguments over content might be more useful, at least, than long arguments over the criteria. At least less misinformation gets through. I, again, would state my opinion that the whole article should be scrapped and we make a common misconception article which describes what a common misconception is and gives a handful of examples. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, based on long and torturous experience with this article. It's easy for CWenger and you to say it's better without the criteria, but when it comes to actually keeping the article under control, people who make such comments are nowhere to be found. You obviously haven't taken a good look at the archives, or been involved in trying to maintain the article when dozens of ridiculous additions were being made every week. Cresix (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I don't think the article should not have a criteria, I see its value. However, I think its useless to have equally long and drawn out conversations about the criteria. As I said, I'd rather see the whole article scrapped. Its never going to return to Good Article status; its very nature contradicts several Wikipedia Policies. I also think, even with the criteria, it has as much chance of spreading misinformation as it does defusing misinformation. As another post pointed out, several of the included items have not even been peer reviewed yet. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with him ^ . But I don't have the energy for another RfD right now. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point about deletion, IronMaidenRocks, but you still are in error (again I think resulting from not having read the archives in detail or having a lot of experience with the article). There have not been "equally long and drawn out conversations about the criteria". There has been discussion of the merits of the criteria, but that pales in comparison to the heated and relentless arguments about the hundreds of useless items that some editors have attempted to add. There is simply no comparison. Deletion is another matter, however. Regardless of the merits of deletion, the possibility of misinformation, or Good Article status, the criteria have made the article immensely more manageable and prevented a ton of crap like what was been dumped in the article in the past. And BTW, IronMaidenRocks, feel free to be bold and remove items that have not been peer reviewed. You have as much right, and responsibility, to do so as the rest of us. Cresix (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Great Chicago Fire

I added an entry for the Chicago Fire and had a legit source, but was quickly removed. I want to add it again, and I have a book to back it up saying it's a common misconception (in fact the whole book is about misconceptions).[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.231.253 (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this meets all the criteria now, go ahead and add it back. Other editors will modify it as needed. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. With the additional source it appears to meet all of the criteria. Cresix (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48, why didn't you raise objections to the addition before? It is in a 1996 book of popular misconceptions so that is a reliable source saying it is a common misconception. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't always sit here waiting for odd additions. I am sceptical about this being a common misconception. We cannot look at the source to check if that's what it says. And since the person who made up the story debunked it himself in 1893, as I said in my Edit summary, surely only an idiot would believe it now. How can it be a common misconception? HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Catherine O'Leary reports that many still believe it. I've asked for a cite there to see if anyone comes up with anything. Within the past 5 years or so, there was a "history recreation"-type show on a cable channel that tested the "theory" to see if the fire could have happened that way. They treated it as a reasonable theory. In grade school (early 1970s), we learned the song and I recall the music teacher basically telling the story, treated as a simple fact. Yes, anyone who bothers to research the story would quickly find the truth, but most probably simply accept what they hear about such things. Based on the little evidence we have so far, I'm fairly convinced that the story does have current believers. In terms of citing the currency, I'd say the relatively recent "misconceptions" book is a solid start. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I support including this item. It meets all of the 4 criteria, including #4. It may have been debunked officially in the nineteenth century, but that doesn't mean than many people don't continue to believe it. Cresix (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still haven't seen evidence that the source says it's a "common misconception". It gets too hard when the link is to a book sales site, not the actual contents. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed. The source doesn't have to use the exact phrase "common misconception". This source uses "popular [common] legend [misconception]" (bracketed words are mine). I think most people (but not everyone) would equate the two. That seems to be the sentiment among three or four editors in this discussion. If it had simply said legend, misconception, "You've probably heard ...", or "Some people believe ..." I would not accept it. I personally have no doubt that this is a common misconception. I've heard it my entire life going back to childhood, and from a wide range of people. Cresix (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please point me to exactly where the source discusses the fire. All I can see is a Google Books site seemingly trying to sell me a book. And to balance your absence of doubt, I'll just add that I've never heard of it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Despite the popular legends, the Great Chicago Fire of October 8, 1871, was not started by Mrs. O'Leary's cow kicking over a lantern while being milked." (from Myth Information, by J. Allen Varasdi, 1989, published by Ballantine). It goes on to explain how the legend was started, and how the Chicago Fire Department never determined how the fire started. Cresix (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have, but I'm from Chicago. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've heard it all over the United States, and even in Canada. Cresix (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, back we go to one of the big concerns about this article. Is "popular legends" the same as "common misconception"? Where do we draw the line? We must not try to decide if the writer meant the same thing. That's original research. I submit that we can never know. So there is no source available describing this as a "common misconception." It cannot be in the article. As for my "I've never heard of it" claim, I was playing a little bit of a game there. I'm in Australia. We don't pay all that much attention to fires in Chicago. I'll bet there are many misconceptions here that you have never heard of, and I would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting them added to the article. So why this one? HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Deciding what terminology might be equivalent to "popular misconception" may be a matter of disagreement, but it is not original research any more than deciding whether "minute" (the adjective) is a synonym for "miniscule". Wikipedia is not that rigid. Previous discussion of the 4 criteria acknowledged that reasonably equivalent wording would be acceptable. It's one thing to debate whether "popular legends" is equivalent to "common misconceptions", but it is entirely another to argue that the term "popular misconception" must be used with absolutely no variation. And popular misconceptions for a particular country are acceptable for the article, as long as they meet the four criteria. Currently the article has an item of a popular misconception in Korea. If you add popular misconceptions in Australia that meet the four criteria, you would get no objection from me, and I'm one of the main deleters for this article. Cresix (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I do recall words like "reasonably equivalent wording" being agreed to, but they're not in the criteria editors see when they attempt to edit the article. Should that be fixed? I still see all of this as evidence that this is one of the worst defined articles in Wikipedia. We have to constantly discuss things like "What is really meant by..." All very sloppy, and time consuming. And quite frankly, I don't think trivial examples of ignorance among my neighbours in Australia is worthy of inclusion here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with modifying to "reasonably equivalent wording", although that may encourage some rather heated debates about what is "reasonably equivalent". This is not the only messy article. Others have such problems, just not for the same reason. That's inherent in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The 4 criteria have gotten the problem down to manageable proportions, though. Cresix (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion, a legend/popular legend is not the same as a misconception. To me, a legend is acknowledged to be "factually challenged", a fairytale with some basis in truth perhaps, whereas a misconception is an erroneously held belief. Dr bab (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Plus One from me - a legend is not a misconception. I would also argue that "Y was the cause of the fire, not X" is not a misconception. Neither is it a fallacious idea or fallacious belief comparable with "the sun evolves around the earth" which is the kind of item I feel belongs on this page. (I might agree to "erroneous belief" though which brings us back to squabbling 'bout words.) --Echosmoke (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Rationality of voting

Many potential voters believe that casting their vote makes no difference. Some rely on naive mathematics to support this belief. However, researchers explain that voting is a rational behavior. Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science at Columbia University, summarizes his research findings in Yes, it can be rational to vote.. A more mathematical analysis is available in Why Vote.

Peer-reviewed publications are also available to cite:

Voting as Rational Choice (pdf)

Vote for Charity’s sake

[http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/probdecisive2.pdf What is the probability your vote will make a difference?]

Where should this go on the Misconceptions page? Maybe "Legislation and crime" could move under a new "Policy" heading and this could fit there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turadg (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says any of this is a "common misconception"? If not, forget it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. I don't know the standards for such an assessment, but here is a list of articles explaining the irrationality of voting. Several of the authors are famed economists, to whom one might expect to be arbiters of what is "rational".

Don't Vote: It makes more sense to play the lottery (Landsberg in Slate)

Why Vote? (Dubner and Levitt in NYTimes)

Why do People Vote?: Voting is a supremely irrational act (Psychology Today)

Not Voting and Proud: Don't throw away your life; throw away your vote(Reason magazine)

Turadg 22:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turadg (talk • contribs)

Porcupine!

As a guest here I thought I should list this one.

Porcupine can shoot its quills (like a projectile), when actually it has spines that stick in flesh and comes off easily.

From the Porcupine page "From ancient times, it was believed that porcupines could throw their quills at an enemy, but this has long been refuted." Unfortunately it is still around today, having to correct a fellow student during a wildlife observation (where we saw one).

50.17.221.68 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This might be a good misconception. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the quill firing porcupine equivalent to the Australian drop bear? HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That article is a good example of why I sigh heavily every time I log into Wikipedia. Its funny, but it links to blogs and joke websites, and doesn't properly describe how the story is spread or why its notable. Maybe I take Wikipedia too seriously. Yes, I think I do - I'm still obsessing that the Jazzercise article is in such bad shape. Anyway, uh, no. Its not supposed to be a different species of porcupine. Most people think porcupines fire their spikes as opposed to dislodging them - a fact they would know if they had ever watched Homeward Bound. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Cwenger's "Yes"

Let me suggest to all that we leave the criteria in place, but let CWenger handle all of the requests for new additions, any additions added (with or without talk page discussion), and any challenges to additions; and that this will be the procedure for the next couple of weeks. Activity has occurred in the article and on this talk page since CWenger gave his unelaborated "Yes". I don't anticipate any major change in amount of activity over the next couple of weeks. So let's see how thing go with the criteria in place, then we can discuss whether to temporarily suspend the criteria to see how CWenger handles things. Cresix (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's got three to work on immediately, the Chicago fire, where at least three editors disagree with him, plus Voting, and Porcupines. I'll hold back for now. I wonder if he sleeps? HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

25 December (birth of jesus) is not a misconception

I am pretty sure everyone knows that it is not the exact date of the birth of Jesus.

I agree, but there are enough editors think there is enough evidence to include it here. I truly believe that we need an exclusion clause along the lines of "If only an idiot would believe it, then it doesn't belong", but I guess I'll be waiting a while. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

From your comment I would guess that this has been discussed before, but do we have sources that confirm this as a common misconception? The sources 209-212 seem to only deal with why 25th of Dec. was chosen, and not talk about how many people do or do not believe this to be the actual date? Dr bab (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Most people in the West are told that Jesus' birth was on the 25th of December. Its commonly spread misinformation; if that doesn't meet the criteria, then we should remove the so-called misconceptions of evolution. Those 'misconceptions' are actually deliberate, widespread misinformation. The 'Jesus was born on the 25th' thing is a convenient lie to distract from the holiday's origins. Just because we know that Jesus wasn't born on the 25th, that doesn't mean the masses do as well. Very few people examine their religions or traditions, so why would they know? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The evolution misconceptions are sourced as common misconceptions. So far, no one here has produced a source that the Dec. 25 misconception is common. That's the bottom line. Cresix (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The widespread teaching of the 'December 25th birth' is well known to all of us - can we agree on that? While it needs a source, it should not be removed for not having one. There are plenty of other misconceptions listed that have not been peer-reviewed, so why single out this one which we in the West can observe? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed if there is inadequate sourcing. "Other stuff exists" is no reason bad information shouldn't be removed. No one is under any obligation to fix an entire article simply because they fix a part of it. And please, IronMaidenRocks, please do remove those items that you feel have not been peer reviewed. Cresix (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

the senses

"Humans have more than five senses. Although definitions vary, the actual number ranges from 9 to more than 20. In addition to sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing, which were the senses identified by Aristotle, humans can sense balance and acceleration (equilibrioception), pain (nociception), body and limb position (proprioception or kinesthetic sense), and relative temperature (thermoception).[106] Other senses sometimes identified are the sense of time, itching, pressure, hunger, thirst, fullness of the stomach, need to urinate, need to defecate, and blood carbon dioxide levels."

Surely pain, relative temperature, itching, pressure, and even "need to urinate" and "need to defecate" are the same as the sense of touch? Thefilmdude (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly some of those are stretching the idea to prove a point- "hunger" and "thirst" are simply excessive amounts of a certain chemical floating through the bloodstream- but I don't believe that sense of balance or acceleration fall under the category of "touch". I have also heard of read articles that mention that humans can sense electric fields. Even if Rudolf Steiner's 12 senses are not exactly right, idea that we have more than the basic 5 senses seems like a decent argument. Also, I don't know if this is relevant or not, but along similar lines, because the two are so similar, some people group taste and smell into one sense called "savor". Sesamehoneytart (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tasklist: some items that may be lacking sources

I have been going through the article and looking at the sources to check what items are actually really sourced as being common misconceptions. I have not come all the way through the article yet, but I have already constructed a sizeable tasklist of items that may need better sourcing.

I am not saying that these items should be removed, although in some cases this may be the correct conclusion. In other cases all we need is better sources, and in some cases consensus may be opposed to my impression and the item be deemed properly sourced as is. Nevertheless, I think it would be beneficial to take a closer look at the following items and sources:

• Vikings did not wear Horned helmets.

A single off-line source with no quote. Nothing sourced at Vikings or Horned helmets apart from a straight dope article that lists two sources:

"The Invention of the Viking Horned Helmet" by Roberta Frank in International Scandinavian and Medieval Studies in Memory of Gerd Wolfgang Weber (2000), edited by Michael Dallapiazza et al.

and

"The Origin of the Imaginary Viking" by Johnni Langer in Viking Heritage Magazine, December 2002

It would be beneficial if we could find these sources and get some quotes.

• Iron Maiden not used as a torture instrument

A single offline source in German with no quote given. Google gives a couple of "top ten misconceptions about history" hits.

• Marie Antoinette did not say Let them eat cake.

Only source at present is howstuffworks.com. At Marie Antoinette the following source is used:

Lady Antonia Fraser, Marie Antoinette: The Journey, p.xviii, 160; É. Lever, Marie-Antoinette: The Last Queen of France, pp. 63–5; Susan S. Lanser, article 'Eating Cake: The (Ab)uses of Marie-Antoinette,' published in Marie-Antoinette: Writings on the Body of a Queen, (ed. Dena Goodman), pp. 273–290.

However, it is not clear that this establishes this as a common misconception, it may just as well only be a source for the phrase it is now generally regarded as a "journalistic cliché".. At Let them eat cake the sources seem to be mainly concerned about sourcing the quote to the right person.

• George Washington did not have wooden teeth.

Currently sourced by an article from msnbc which deals with the real composition of the dentures. The existence of a belief in wooden teeth may be implicit in the article, but nowhere does it state that this is a common misconception. The article on George Washington cites an article at americanrevolution.org, where it states "Contrary to American legend, George Washington never owned a set of wooden teeth". Legend is not the same as "common misconception". Other sources at George Washington deal with the poor state of the man's teeth, the reason for this, and how the bad teeth may have caused the clenched-jaw expression often seen in portraits. The article at americanrevolution.org does list a bibliography where something may be found if anyone has access:

Callcott, George H., A History of the University of Maryland., Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, MD.

Hillam, Christine. Ed. for Lindsay Society for History of Dentistry 1990. Roots of Dentistry pub. by British Dental Assoc.

Hoffman-Axthelm, Walter. Translated by H. M. Koehler. History of Dentistry. Quintessence Pub. Co. 1981

Klatell, Jack DDS. Kaplan, Andrew DMD. Williams, Gray, Jr. illus: Caroline Meinstein. The Mount Sinai Medical Center--Family Guide to Dental Health. Macmillan Publ. Co. 1991.

The Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD

Prinz, Hermann. Dental Chronology: A record of the more important events in the evolution of dentistry. Lea & Fehiger, Philadelphia, PA.

Ring, Malvin E., Dentistry: An Illustrated History Henry N. Abrams, Inc., C.V. Mosby Co. 1985.

Stier, Charles J. papers, Baron Henry deWitte's Archives, Antwerp.

Weinberger, Bernhard Wolf. Introduction to History of Dentistry in America Vol. 1 & II. C. V. Mosby Co. 1948.

• The United States Constitution was written on parchment, not hemp paper.

One source seems to be a pro-marijuana page citing the benefits of hemp paper and mentioning that the drafts of the declaration of independence was written on such paper. The other source is "constitutional FAQ answer #145", stating that "Urban legend is that the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights were written on hemp paper".

• Benito Mussolini did not “make the trains run on time”.

A single source describing this as "a myth, nurtured and propagated by a leader with a journalist's flair for symbolism, verbal trickery and illusion." Trains are not mentioned in the Benito Mussolini article, but nevertheless there is an external link to snopes.com were two sources are given:

Montagu, Ashley and Edward Darling. The prevalence of nonsense. New York: Dell Publishing, 1967 ((pp. 19-20).

Smith, Denis Mack. Mussolini. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982. ISBN 0-394-50694-4 (p. 118).

• Polish Cavalry mounting a brave but futile charge against German tanks using lances and sabres.

The source, Panzerwolrld.net, cites a source

ZALOGA, Steven J. Poland 1939 - The birth of Blitzkrieg. Oxford : Osprey Publishing, 2002.

and quotes the following: "If a single image dominates the popular perception of the Polish campaign of 1939, it is the scene of Polish cavalry bravely charging the Panzers with their lances."

The same source is given at Charge at Krojanty. Under Polish Cavalry an interesting source is given to an article in the Guardian:

"The column below repeated a myth of the second world war, fostered by Nazi propagandists, when it said that Polish lancers turned their horses to face Hitler's panzers. There is no evidence that this occurred."[1]

The polish Wikipedia may be a good place to start looking in this case maybe.

• Entrapment law in the US requiring police officers to identify themselves as police.

Only source pointing to a common misconception is snopes.com article "It has long been accepted hooker lore. There is also a reference to a court case, from which I found the following snippet through google:

whatever its precise effect may be, the concept of entrapment involves as a necessary element the idea that an accused person has been induced to commit a crime which he or she otherwise would not have committed or would have been unlikely to commit’.

This seems to indicate that this second source did not deal with "common misconception", but with explaining the entrapment laws.

• Searing meat does not "seal in" moisture.

Nothing in the online source, and through google books I was able to look at the paper-source:

"The pioneer of mass-produced meat extracts was Justus von Liebig, inventor of the mistaken theory that searing meat seals in the juices."

• Placing metal inside a microwave oven does not damage the oven's electronics.

Only source is a patent, which is probably a primary source. A different source would be beneficial.

(This list is also at User:Dr bab/LOCM Tasklist, where I will keep adding to it, and where it may be more easily found after this thread is archived)

Dr bab (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding GW's wooden teeth, the MSNBC article says the false teeth "were not made of wood as commonly believed." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The parts about searing meat and US entrapment law should go. Regionally specific and outside the most trivial importance to non-US citizens, although it might be a common assumption in the US. The searing meat thing is just useless. The source doesn't show it as a common misconception; it just says one inventor had a mistaken idea. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Book of Genesis: forbidden fruit

The phrase "the [Latin] word mali" should be revised in the first paragraph under "The Book of Genesis": the nominative singular form is malum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.159.10 (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that 'malum' was the word used in the Latin Vulgate? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Al Capone

(I would not dare try to edit this page myself, since I have finals coming up, and the last thing I need is get into a drawn out battle here), but if someone wants to add something and can find a source/sources for it being a common misconception-

Al Capone was only imprisoned on tax evasion charges (and violating the Volstead act). He was not (as many people might think) imprisoned for Murder 1, and Bootlegging etc.TeigeRyan (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that most people have given a moment's thought to what crimes Al Capone was imprisoned for; they just know he was a criminal. But if someone can make as case with a reliable source and address the four critieria for inclusion, have a go at it. Cresix (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would actually argue the opposite—it is widely known that he was imprisoned for tax evasion. I think it is noted often due to the obvious irony. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Either way, it must conform to the four criteria, including reliable sourcing that it is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CWenger. Its well known that Capone was imprisoned for tax evasion. Its a somewhat common pop culture reference in the US. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This foreigner from Australia is aware that Capone was imprisoned for tax evasion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate wikipedia page?

Don't get me wrong - I love the content.

But on some level isn't this a list of things that are not true? And if it's that, isn't its length potentially infinite?

Also, the idea of "common" misconceptions is a little weasel-y. How does one define common? My wife thinks that if you put meat tenderizer on a bee sting it will heal more quickly. Is that a common belief? How would I know?

Jeffreystringer (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

First, there is a major flaw in your argument. This isn't an article of misconceptions. It's an article of common misconceptions. That prevents the list from being infinite. To restrict the content even more, there are four criteria that must be met before an item can be added. See the lead of the article. All of the issues you raise have been discussed quite extensively on this talk page, including whether the content is notable and how we define a "common" misconception. Peruse the archives for details. As for "weasel-y", the four criteria address that problem, not perfectly, but they have helped a lot. And finally, the article has been nominated for deletion three or four times, but it's still here. That's no guarantee about the future, of course, but you might want to read all the arguments, pro and con, in the Afd discussions. BTW, I think your wife may have missed it a bit; the way I heard it, meat tenderizer (as well as tobacco), helps prevent the venom from causing swelling. I'm not sure about meat tenderizer, but I know first hand that tobacco works. But then, that means it's not a misconception at all. Cresix (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just the fact that its a list of something which has no main article makes it troublesome to me. Perhaps bygone editors decided that there could be no free standing article on common misconceptions, but decided to make a list. I'm not sure. But this list should be replaced with a real article and avoid all the trouble that such a list brings. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

Someone raised the question of whether Monty Hall problem should be listed. My initial impression in no, but I am open to being convinced otherwise. Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would argue no also, because I don't think it's a misconception in the sense that most people do not have a conception about this issue to begin with. It is just something that most people would answer incorrectly if the problem was presented to them. Although by now the Monty Hall problem is fairly well known so people might be able to answer correctly because of that. Just my personal view but if sources say it is a common misconception or something along those lines I would be open to including it. ––CWenger (^ • @) 17:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State

I think this is a fairly common misconception that should be included in this article. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, though it is commonly cited word-for-word as being US law. There is a big difference between the establishment clause in the first amendment, and the phrase "separation of church and state," but it seems that the latter is more frequently used. So, that's my suggestion, what do you guys think? Does it warrant a spot in this article?