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.

Why was the Dark Ages section removed?

It was well sourced. But alas, anti-Catholicism prevails. 184.96.219.51 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

When was it removed? Did the editor write an Edit summary? HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm restoring it. Thanks for pointing it out -- LightSpectra (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but... I didn't remove it or anything, but I dunno. Not an expert, but I always thought that "Dark Ages" only applied to the early Middle Ages. However, I'll grant that it's quite possibly true that the average man in the street Dark Ages == Middle Ages, so yeah, I suppose it's OK on that basis. Herostratus (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is only meant to mean the early middle ages, but that's still a misconception. Modern scholars almost universally reject that notion. -- LightSpectra (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a lack of sourcing for the claim that "It is also erroneously claimed that the Roman Catholic Church suppressed scientific advancement during this era" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.55.210 (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is stupid. That the Roman Catholic Church has been blamed for suppressed scientific advancement is very' commonly stated. Heck, I even learned that at school. As long as we have a source for the opposite, we should be fine. Petter Bøckman (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And the source for claiming that the church 'didn't' supress some forms of scientific knowledge is? Don't even think of using Tim O'Neill or James Hamaan either.......And yes, although the consensus is now that the term Dark Ages are something of a misnomer, you will note that the list of Roman Catholic Cleric Scientists does not contain a single person dating from before the 12th century, so how this disproves any notion of a demise in the scentific method after the fall of the Western Roman Empire is anybodys guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Ages have several related meanings. As far as I know, the original term was coined in British history to cover the time from the withdrawal of the Romans from Britain until the Norman conquest. The "dark" par refer to the lack of written sources from the period (i.e. "Historical darkness"). In my own language, the similar term mørke middelalder refer to the later medieval period, from about 1350 and onward, a period where the plague depopulated the already thinly inhabited Scandinavian peninsula. The use of the term "dark ages" to cover the whole of the medieval period (c 6th to 16th century) seems to be an American use. The three sources in the text all use the Dark Ages as in British scholarship, i.e for the early part. I think a revision and some more sources is in order. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I might have been the one deleting this and I will happily do it again. The reasons given are still valid (search for the edit summaries). Among them are: mostly unsourced, sources do not back "by most". It is in fact just the claim of one author. No source for a common misconception at all (criteria, bullet 2). Strictly speaking, from the wording, the common misconception would have to be "most modern historians classify the European era between the decline of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance as the "Dark Ages". This of course is not true. The intended common misconception/truth is probably "the dark ages were (not) dark and the church is (not) nice" but we are not even near that with sources and wording. And for those who are willing to do some further research: The dark ages article uses the same bad sources that are being used here, added by the same POV warrior, but the wording there is much more careful since experts on the topic are more likely to come by and object. And to add some of my own POV: claiming "significant advances" compared to ancient roman and greek times after the wilfull destruction of this ancient knowledge is detestable. Even the catholic church can only go up from zero. --Echosmoke (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree about the current wording and the lack of a source identifying a clearly defined proposition as a 'common misconception' or some equivilent.Number36 (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Banana "trees"

This is just like the "vegetable/fruit" bullshit argument, where someone tries to use a scientific definition to discount the usage of a perfectly valid word in a non-scientific context (this is even mentioned explicitly in the same article in regards to the tomato fruit/vegetable debate and the "theory"/"hypothesis" debate for evolution). While a "banana tree" may not be scientifically classified as a "tree," in common usage the word "tree" refers to any plant as tall or taller than a person which has a defined trunk with branches/leaves at the top, rather than having branches grow from the base up to the top, which would commonly be called a "bush." No one in common usage is going to refer to a banana plant as an "herb." (In common usage, an "herb" is a tiny-ass plant.) Therefore it is not a "misconception" to refer to a banana plant as a "tree," it is a completely accurate statement for common English usage of the word "tree." It is only inaccurate when talking to botanists and biologists in a technical or scientific context. 184.88.235.102 (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you have a reliable source for that, please put it here for discussion.Sjö (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/tree?q=tree There's my fucking source. 184.88.235.102 (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Banana trees don't have branches nor are they made of wood.Number36 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"another type of tall plant, without a wooden trunk" Dr bab (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Which would require WP:SYNTH. Also really vague, that definition would apply to Sunflowers. That's not to say I disagree that we can't call banana trees, trees. Hence my calling them banana trees. But then by the same measure a koala bear isn't actually a bear.Number36 (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The source for this misconception does not confirm that the belief that bananas grow on trees is a common misconception. It is just presented as an answer to the question "Is a banana a fruit or an herb?".Dr bab (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's easy enough to find. A google for 'misconception banana tree' yields these from the first page: [1] [2] [3] And this is a ref from Banana (I didn't check all the refs, only a couple that i thought could mention the tree misconception).Sjö (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Chiquita (1) and hort.purdue.edu (4)("often erroneously referred to as a "tree") satisfy criteria #2 (Reliably sourced as a misconception), in my opinion. --Lexein (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well done finding the sources. I have added them. Didn't have the time to look yesterday, but just thought I'd point out that they were lacking. Good to see someone else taking responsibility.

To return to the original post: Does s/he have a point? The Cambridge source seems to pretty clearly define the word tree in such a way so that it covers the plant which produces bananas. Do we go with the common-english definition of "tree", or do we go with the botanical one?

If we include the banana≠tree, can we exclude the tomato≠fruit? (And peanuts≠nuts and I am sure other similar botanical misconceptions too). Dr bab (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment that most people would use the word 'tree' in a way that means the banana plant is a tree. I think the point should be expanded to explain why it is not a tree (ie. a definition of what a tree actually is). I'm not a botanist, but if I don't get it exactly right, please fix it rather than removing it, because it's important for people to understand why it's commonly miconceived.JenLouise (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I added some information from plant stem and slightly re-wrote your edit. I am not sure if your statement about the definition of a tree holds up. I am also not a botanist, but from the WP article on tree it reads: "[A tree is] most often defined as a woody plant that has many secondary branches supported clear of the ground on a single main stem or trunk with clear apical dominance." From the info I found about "pseudostems", the issue could be that there is neither stem nor trunk. Anyone know a botanist?

I am still inclined to agree with the original poster that maybe this should be removed as a non-scientific use of language rather than a true misconception. I would like to hear other peoples input on the matter..Dr bab (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I have moved the banana-tree to the Biology section rather than Food and cooking. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"People do not become angels upon death"

While this is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, I would rather that this was not placed among the misconceptions due to the belief of some heterodox theologians that this does happen (Clement of Alexandria, for instance). Please see Bucur, Bogdan G. (2006). "The Other Clement of Alexandria: Cosmic Hierarchy and Interiorized Apocalypticism". Vigiliae Christianae. 60 (3): 251–268. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) for verification. --He to Hecuba (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Too many different interpretations on the Bible to label this a "misconception".JoelWhy (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why it was there, because in orthodox Catholic theology it would be regarded as a fallacy, but it would be non-neutral to assume doctrinal correctness. --He to Hecuba (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disputing

"Drinking milk or consuming other dairy products does not increase mucus production.[273][274] As a result, they do not need to be avoided by those suffering from flu or cold congestion."

I always notice more congestion. Sure, it may not increase mucus production, but it may be something else. Funny how the next sentence isn't cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike44456 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Spinach

Spinach does not contain as much iron as is generally thought. The cause is a typo in a study. (10 times as much) http://www.de-fact-o.com/fact_read.php?id=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.203.97 (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And? If you're proposing new content, please read the section at the top titled "Please read before proposing new entries" HiLo48 (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2012

The plate armor of European soldiers did not effect mobility in any significant manner, in fact soldiers equipped with plate armor were more mobile than those with chain-mail armor.

Jjones1135 (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Bility (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The North Star

It's a common misconception that the North Star, Polaris is particularly bright. I've even seen people claim planets were "the North Star" and said planets were not in the direction of north. 184.96.220.184 (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at the section near the top of this page titled "Please read before proposing new entries". HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's my source. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/badpole.html 184.96.220.184 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Misconception about Tourettes syndrome

It's a common misconception that Tourettes results in excessive use of profanity, but this is not the case. I have it, so I should know. It can result in repetitive, uncontrollable actions of any sort, not just profanity.