Talk:List of common misconceptions

Side effects of medication

This was explained in such a concise fashion as to be baffling, so I have reworded it more explicitly.

Suggested addition: chloroform alone cannot instantly knock out a person

This probably doesn't quite satisfy the inclusion criteria yet, but I feel it's a misconception worth noting.

Suggested addition: Although chloroform has an anaesthetic effect when inhaled, it is nearly impossible to knock someone out solely by holding a chloroform-soaked rag in front of their face. It takes at least five minutes of doing so to render a person unconscious. Even after a person has lost consciousness due to chloroform inhalation, the chloroform must continue being administered for them to remain unconscious. Most criminal cases involving chloroform also involve another drug being co-administered, such as alcohol or diazepam, or the victim being found to have been complicit in its administration.

Inclusion criteria:

• 1. Yes, Chloroform.
• 2. Yes for the factual contents, debatable on the common misconception (but I'm sure there are more reliable sources on this).
• 3. Yes for the factual contents, debatable on the mention of this as a common misconception.
• 4. Somewhat unclear, although this article suggests that the misconception is still prevalent in film as of 2017.

I suspect this will still need some work before it satisfies the inclusion criteria, but it's late here and I can't be bothered to search more at the moment. Edderiofer (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me this item meets all the criteria. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any reason it wouldn't satisfy the inclusion criteria BossBabyIsAMasterpiece (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

My reasoning for it possibly not satisfying the inclusion criteria is that I'd like to find a better source for the claim that this is a current misconception; that is, better than a single article that claims it's a prevalent falsity in films, or medical articles from the pre-2000s that claim it was a misconception at that time. Perhaps I'm being too strict with this last criterion, though. I guess I'll wait a week, and if nobody else objects or finds a better source by then, I'll add it in. Edderiofer (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've always interpreted the word current very broadly here; my sense is that the criterion is meant to eliminate truly outdated conceptions, like "the function of the brain is to cool the blood", or "it is a potentially fatal strain on the human body to travel at speeds above thirty miles an hour". Not that I'm on the cutting edge of nascent knowledge, but even I was misinformed about chloroform up until a year or so ago (mine took well over eight minutes and the considerable application of upper body strength). And as you note, it's still a prevalent trope in film as of relatively recently. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The article chloroform does not say that its instantaneous action is a common misconception. It does say that it is a cliché in crime fiction. Maybe we need another article for counterfactual clichés in fiction. Not things like faster-than-light travel, superheroes, and vampires, which everyone understands are fictional, but things which people have internalized as true or plausible because they see or read them often in fiction. But we should probably leave that to TV Tropes. --Macrakis (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Suggested inclusion: tax on charitable donations from customers

Suggested inclusion in the "Economics" section.

Businesses do not receive a tax benefit from collecting charitable donations from their customers, for example at supermarket checkouts. A business could only reduce tax owed by donating their own money, and thus reducing the profits upon which corporate taxes are assessed. A donation from a customer would neither reduce (or increase) profits or be an allowable deduction, and as such has no impact on the business' tax at all. It would also not make sense for a corporation (or an individual) to donate money to charity solely to reduce tax, since the amount saved in tax would be several times smaller than the amount donated. Corporate donations to charity, whether solicited from customers or not, are simply a means of generating goodwill and/or an expression of philanthropy, and do not give a net financial advantage to the corporation.

Inclusion criteria:

1. The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.: Yes, corporate taxation and charity (practice).
2. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception: Two sources provided, one referencing a widespread TikTok on the matter and the other from a major news source mentioning this being spread in Facebook.
3. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources: No, but it's not clear that it would fit in any specific article; should it be included in any? The misconception can be evidenced to exist.
4. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete: Sources are from the past couple of years.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foonblace (talk • contribs)

At this point I'm not convinced that this is a common misconception. One source states: "Some social media users are spreading misinformation". That's hardly an indication of a common misconception. Anyone can post misinformation; that doesn't mean very many people believe it. The other source describes one angry customer with the misconception. The number of Facebook "likes" is mentioned, but that's not an indication of a common misconception. People can "like" a video for dozens of reasons that have nothing to do with the misconception, such as liking that a customer got angry at a merchant that the "liker" doesn't like. Some people may "like" videos indiscriminately regardless of the issue. Whether the misconception can be mentioned in a topic article is dubious, but that remains to be seen. You could discuss the misconception in a topic article, but that doesn't mean that other editors will consider it valid or notable. By the way, one of the articles you link is a disambiguation page (Charity), which cannot include any content other than links to other articles. Sundayclose (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a very common misconception that in addition to being circulated on social media comes up quite frequently in any discussion of the charitable donations at checkouts, e.g. this Reddit thread has multiple people claiming it to be the case, and plenty of organisations have had to specifically refute it. Other links: AP News, Patriot Accounting, Charity Navigator, Misbar (this last link gives lots of examples of the myth being repeated). Foonblace (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear - I would argue that given that this misconception has had to be fact checked repeatedly by multiple different organisations based on social media posts, this is a sufficiently common misconception that it should be included. Foonblace (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion. Misconceptions about taxes are often US centric. There are a little less then 200 counties in the world and you are not likely to find an RS that has actually surveyed all of them for their tax practices. Although we do get a lot of suggested items about country specific misconceptions about taxes, so maybe a separate article about it is needed. The suggested item addresses an internet meme. Internet memes come and go. If we put it in today, next week, next month, next year, it will not be current because people will have moved on. Those are my general arguments about taxes and memes. Specifically to this item, I do not see evidence it is false. Certainly an honest business with honest accounting cannot reduce its tax owed be deducting these donations by customers. Obviously if the money received was not added to the business's income, then the business has no basis for deducting it. However my faith in human morality is pretty low and I think if someone thinks they can get away with it, they will try. An unscrupulous business owner or cooperate CFO might give the money to said charity, telling the charity that the company is donating it, getting a receipt that says it was donated by the company and then deducting from the company's income. For that matter they could tell the charity it is a personal donation and use the receipt to deduct it from their own income. Basically lying on their taxes. You do realize businesses have been known to lie and not just on taxes. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Foonblace, thanks for your additional comments. Reddit threads are meaningless for Wikipedia's purposes. Anyone can post a Reddit thread. What's the difference between 10 threads and a hundred threads? I disagree that fact checking is very much of an indication of a common misconception. Politicians are frequently fact checked; that doesn't mean very many people believe their claims. What we need here is a reliable source clearly stating that a large percentage of the general population believes the misconception, not that the claims have been fact checked or discussed on social media. Unless I missed something, so far I'm not seeing that. Sometimes misconceptions are not common because most people have never given it much thought. I suspect that's the case here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point the proposed entry does not meet the minimum inclusion criteria. We can return to the discussion if and when it does. Until then, there's not much more to say. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Yemeni women traditional costume.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

p-value misconception in Mathematics section

I would like some opinions about how common this misconception is, and whether perhaps a major change in emphasis is necessary. The specific misconception is stated, "The p-value is not the probability that the null hypothesis is true, or the probability that the alternative hypothesis is false; it is the probability of obtaining results at least as extreme as the results actually observed under the assumption that the null hypothesis was correct, which can indicate the incompatibility of results with the specific statistical model assumed in the null hypothesis." My concern is that the sources don't seem to identify this as a common misconception, except among people who are familiar with statistics and research. I don't think the average person has ever given any thought to p-values and the null hypothesis. On the other hand, one of the sources (Sterbe & Davey) states, "the medical literature shows a strong tendency to accentuate the positive; positive outcomes are more likely to be reported than null results." An example is that if there are 20 studies that show significance at the p<.05 level, one of those studies erroneously identifies a difference as significant and consequently as being more important than it really is. I believe there is a misconception here that doesn't need to be expressed with the technical references to p values and the null hypothesis. I think the misconception among the general population is that research results (for example, about a medical treatment) should be interpreted dichotomously as either "good" or "not good", when in reality the research results are more accurately viewed as a probability. I may not have explained this adequately, but if others have ideas I would like to hear them. I think the wording of the misconception currently does not indicate a common misconception, but I believe a common misconception may underlie the points made in the sources. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the "misconception" is that few people understand probability and statistics, perhaps myself included. How common is it to even have heard of the p-value? Not very I surmise. OTOH, most people have heard about the "95% confidence level", which is related to but not quite the same as a p-value of less than .05.

My opinion is that the confusion is due to assuming that p < .05 is the same thing as "95% confidence". But I don't have sources to back that up, and until we do we can't base the article on my opinion.

There's an entire page dedicated to Misuse of p-values with adequate sourcing to establish that it is common, at least among a certain population. Whether it is common enough among the general population to warrant inclusion here is debatable. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

About the issue of penguins not exclusive to Antarctica

I propose the addition of the misconception that penguins are not exclusive to Antarctica, but it was unfortunately reverted. I hope to find a source that mentions that this is indeed a common misconception, do people know of any sources that mention that? Windywendi (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Windywendi: I am the editor who reverted it. I think you may have a legitimate misconception but not as you worded it. The sources don't state that the misconception is: "Penguins are exclusive to Antarctica" Instead, the misconception is that penguins are found in the Arctic and/or at the South Pole. The same is true of the topic article. Perhaps you should reword the entry with that in mind. But if you prefer seeking a source to support your edit, that's fine. Sundayclose (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Sure, I'll rewrite my statement and make it match the sources I found. Windywendi (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The misconception that Catholics aren't Christian

I noticed that, at least in my experience, there's a common misconception among Protestants that Catholics aren't Christian, which has led to the term "Christian" being considered synonymous to "Protestant" for a lot of people. In fact, I've heard people say, "I'm not Christian, I'm Catholic", so I suppose this misconception has even spread to Catholics, with even some modern lay Catholics erroneously thinking Catholicism and Christianity are different religions. This seems to be a common trend in the United States and Latin America as far as I know. Would you say this misconception is notable enough to be included in this article since, though originally an exclusively Protestant misconception, has spread to non-Protestant people? Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I would want to see some good sourcing on the ubiquity of the misconception. I'm aware that some Christian fundamentalists think that Catholic and Christian are separate things, but I was skeptical hearing that some modern lay Catholics think that. Certainly anybody who attended a Catholic school and was paying attention would have learned of the Reformation, and be aware that Catholics could be considered the original Christians, and that Catholics are now a subset of Christians. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Even some Catholic sources cannot be considered reliable indicators that it is a common misconception. Many of those sources defend against misconceptions even if they are not common, including two that were cited to support this entry ([1], [2]. The misconception among some extreme fundamentalists and evangelicals certainly don't support that it is a common misconception. Even some of those acknowledge that their past comments were extremist (e.g., John Hagee, Jack Van Impe). To verify that this is a common misconception, we need reliable, neutral sources that don't have an agenda to push. I'm a 72-year-old Catholic, and I know hundreds of religious people of all faiths, and I have never heard one make the claim, even those who have serious disagreements with Catholicism. In the distant past this misconception may have occurred more often, but one inclusion criterion for this article is that the misconception must be current. Sundayclose (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this really a "misconception", or is it just sectarianism? Many Christians consider those who do not belong to their branch of Christianity not to be "true Christians". Some Republicans talking of RINOs. Many Orthodox Jews do not treat Reform Jews as true Jews. etc. When some fundamentalist protestants identify themselves as "just Christian", they are making a point, not mistakenly thinking that others are not Christian.

None of these cases are "misconceptions" -- they are sectarian positions. --Macrakis (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

True. It's just that I hear the claim that Catholics aren't Christian from Protestants all the time, and mamy of the Catholics I know use "Catholic" to mean "Catholic" and "Christian" to mean "Protestant". One Catholic in school told me "Catholics aren't Christians, don't be silly" when I was explaining that Catholics are Christian. But to be fair, I live in Southern California and haven't really interacted with a lot of Catholics from other parts of the country, so perhaps it's a regional thing? Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd have to guess maybe this idea of Catholics not being Christian among Catholics is mostly among those who didn't attend Catholic school growing up and grew up as non-practicing but still identifying as Catholic due to heritage. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It could be partially due to sectarianism, but I genuinely did not know Catholics were Christians until I was a teenager and like I said, this misconception or terminology or whatever you wanna call it isn't exclusive to Protestants. Like I said, I've heard Catholics say, "I'm not Christian, I'm Catholic," and they speak of "Christians" as an outside group. But to be fair it could be because I live in an area where religiosity is relatively mild, like I said. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions based on your personal experiences, but we need neutral, reliable sources. Sundayclose (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, there's a bunch of entirely secular disambiguation websites trying to explain "the "difference between Catholicism and Christianity", some of which do so erroneously. Even Encyclopedia Britannica thought this subject was significant enough to discuss on their website. If these articles exist then the misconception that Catholicism is a distinct religion from Christianity must be rather widespread, and is not restricted to sectarian Protestants, at least, not anymore.

https://www.britannica.com/question/What-is-the-difference-between-Christianity-and-Roman-Catholicism

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Catholicism_vs_Christianity

https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-catholic-and-christian/amp/

https://www.worldatlas.com/amp/religion/what-is-the-difference-between-catholic-and-christian.html

https://www.enkivillage.org/the-difference-between-catholic-and-christian.html

In fact, one secular disambiguation website, difference guru, which is understandably banned as a source on Wikipedia due to its poor verification, even falsely claims that Catholics aren't Christians at all, which is proof that this misconception is not at all restricted to Protestants. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on! Britannica and the other reliable sources don't discuss "difference between Catholicism and Christianity" (your words). Britannica states that "Roman Catholicism differs from other Christian churches and denominations" (bold added) and "all Roman Catholics are Christian". That clearly confirms that Catholics are Christians. There's little if any dispute that Catholicism differs from other types of Christianity (every denomination differs from every other denomination; otherwise there wouldn't be separate denominations), but that in no ways suggests that very many people believe that Catholics aren't Christian. I won't go so far as to say that you have intentionally misrepresented any sources, but you have seriously misunderstood them. The only reliable sources among those you list are Britannica and World Atlas, neither of which confirms a common misconception that Catholics are not Christian. Sundayclose (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess I did misunderstand the sources. I know these articles confirm that Catholics are Christians, but I thought that the title of the Britannica link being "What is the difference between Christianity and Roman Catholicism?" implied that somebody thought that they were different religions, and that the fact that the article even had to mention all Catholics are Christian in the first place shows that somebody thinks that Catholics aren't Christians. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not that the articles "discuss the differences between Catholicism and Christianity", I'm just saying the titles of them ask it, implying that someone thinks there's a difference. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me the Britannica article is, at the beginning of the article, is trying to explain that Catholicism is a form of Christianity to those who don't know that yet. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

That's speculation based on your reading between the lines something that's not there, or at least it's not there to me. You're grasping at straws. Still no evidence for the common misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It could be akin to a discussion about the differences between four-wheel drive and all-wheel drive. Not to say they are separate things, but that there are distinctions. Re Britannica, I don't think the implication that they are wholly separate things is there. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't saying there was an implication that they were wholly separate things, I was saying there was probably an implication that they were trying to disprove the idea that they were separate things, since they mentioned that all Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholics. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that any such implication exists. In any event, that is pure speculation and has no bearing on this issue. Sundayclose (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The encyclopedia article is apparently answering a FAQ. If it had asked "what is the difference between scarlet and red", would you (Sausage) conclude that there is a common misconception that scarlet is not a shade of red? --Macrakis (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I guess I'd just conclude people are hearing what "scarlet" is for the first time and never heard of that color before. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"there's a common misconception among Protestants that Catholics aren't Christian" An observation. I live in a majority Orthodox country (Greece). I had 6 years of mandatory theology classes in school, I voluntarily attended Sunday school in my early teens, and (as an atheist) I have a collection of books about biblical history, Christian history, and Christian atrocities and persecution. Catholics are the go-to example of heretic Christianity for most of the local clergy, but I have never heard anyone deny that they are Christian. Dimadick (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I overestimated the prevalence of this misconception. It seems that Protestants are far more likely to claim Catholics aren't Christians than Orthodox people. I live in an area where the proportion of Protestants and Catholics is roughly equal, and the Protestants tend to be more devout, while the Catholics are less likely to go to church, and Catholics and Protestants alike simply refer to Protestants as "Christians". But I suppose this may just be an American phenomenon, or even just a Californian phenomenon, though this terminology is also common among immigrants from Latin America. But I can't really find any sources that acknowledge this odd terminology at this time, besides some religious websites I found, which were rejected. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Another odd thing is that when Catholics where I live convert to Protestantism, they, or even their still-Catholic relatives say they've converted to Christianity. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me, in the grand scheme of things, that this is a local phenomenon. _signed, Willondon (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I've seen (albeit rarely) people write Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons aren't Christian, but I have never ever seen or heard anyone say Catholics aren't. Obscurasky (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right. This misconception isn't global if it's restricted to only certain parts of the world. I've seen Catholics be portrayed as non-Christians more than any other denomination but that's probably only because I live in an area with a high amount of Protestants, many of which are recent converts from Catholicism. But since I'm the only one in this talk page so far who's had this experience, I will admit this may most likely be restricted to parts of Latin America and the United States. In Mexico, if you ask someone, "¿eres cristiano?" they will usually respond with, "no, yo soy catolico." But this doesn't seem to be a thing anywhere else in the world, so yeah, maybe it isn't notable enough to be included here, especially since I'm the only one on this talk page to have experienced this phenomenon extremely often. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess I just live in a strange area when it comes to religious terminology. I find this phenomenon very odd and interesting, but since it's not found outside the US or Latin America, perhaps I can include this information in another article? Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't base Wikipeda articles on personal experience. We rely on reliable sources to support any material included in the articles. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I can confirm that Cummings and Wolf's A Dictionary of Hong Kong English (2011) outright defines "Christian" as meaning "Protestant", with the following unattributed quote:

“In Hong Kong the Protestants try to reserve Christian for themselves, and have had some success in influencing everyday usage. People who should know better will reply to the question ‘Is he a Christian’ with ‘No, he is a Catholic’.”

While this does lend credence to the idea that this misconception exists outside of America, the fact that the quote is unsourced (and that I can't find it anywhere online) may mean that this is not a usable citation; it also doesn't state how many people use the term in this way.

Once again, we would need a reliable source stating that the misconception is common and current (instead of merely implying it), in addition to satisfying all the other inclusion criteria listed at the top of this page. Edderiofer (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still don't understand why my Georgia Bulletin source was rejected though.

https://georgiabulletin.org/commentary/2011/10/catholics-arent-christians-common-myths/ Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Unlike Britannica, Georgia Bulletin is not neutral. It's a Catholic publication. Please read my previous comments. Look, I think you have beaten this dead horse enough. There is zero support here for your edit. If you have nothing new to say, please move on. Sundayclose (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)