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.

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.

Also, when a bird has a cut, and a person's hands are dirty, obviously the bird may get sick. Certainly the myth that a baby bird will be rejected is a myth, but there are some other factors.76.254.39.77 (talk) 23:47, 14 May 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)

I must say I hadn't heard about it until it was presented as an arb case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The other issue with this is, if you check out the arb case, whether or not the common assumption is false depends entirely on conditions not normally stated in the problem (i.e. which door is originally "shown.") The mathematical issues involve, as far as I'm concerned, make this issue more complex than is feasible for a "list" article. eldamorie (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The mathematical issues are as crystal clear as those behind 0.999... and naturally misconceptions about both are documented in this very talk page (see archive for 0.999...). Tkuvho (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The common nature of the misconception is clearly sourced at Monty Hall Problem. Rather than yielding to the delete reflex, please add a footnote here if that's the format you prefer. Tkuvho (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Eldamorie's statement that "if you check out the arb case, whether or not the common assumption is false depends entirely on..." is incorrect. There is a long-running content dispute that resulted in bad behavior and an arbcom ruling on same (arbcom does not rule on content), but the content dispute is between two different ways of explaining that the 50% / 50% odds assumption is wrong and that 33.33% / 66.66% odds is correct. It has nothing to do withe whether the common 50% / 50% odds assumption is false. Everyone agrees that it is false. All citations to reliable sources say it is false. Some sources talk of other, related problems, but they all fall far short of the "commonly held" criteria and thus have nothing to do with this page Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The following sourced material could be included: In a game show, there are three closed doors, one hiding a car, and two hiding a goat. The player wishing to win a car guesses a door, which remains closed. The host proceeds to reveal a goat behind one of the remaining doors, and offers the player a chance to switch his choice of door to the remaining door. Should the player switch? The correct answer, contrary to a common misconception, is affirmative: the player doubles her chance of winning the car by doing so. When Parade published this answer, it received ten thousand letters of protest, testifying to the common nature of this misconception. Tkuvho (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Personally, I don't think it belongs in the article, hence why I deleted it. I'd be less likely to do so if you added an actual reference instead of just pointing to a different article. I don't think it should be included because what is commonly referred to as the "Monty Hall Problem" is actually multiple, slightly different problems. It is not as crystal clear as .999... = 1 because host behavior is the deciding factor (see [[1]]. In the form of the problem as it was presented in Vos Savant's column, this issue was not addressed, therefore individuals who are likely making different assumptions about host behavior are likely to come to different solutions that are entirely in line with their original assumptions. Not to mention the fact that the article remains controversial after the arb case (although I suppose that could be used as an argument for including the data...).

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the "simple solution" is necessarily incorrect, just that the issue is not as clear cut as the simple solution would have us believe. Regardless, referencing the mhp article is insufficient to meet the criteria. Footnotes are vital. eldamorie (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Both the simple solution and the conditional solution lead to a conclusion that the common 50%/50% odds assumption is wrong, and thus have nothing to do with any proposed entry in a list of common misconceptions. It is a dispute among mathematics professors as to what the best way to explain that the common 50% / 50% odds assumption is wrong. No need for that level of detail here. Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(double ec) I don't really understand what the issue is in adding this, but I'm not a regular here (I'm here because of a thread at WT:WPM). That the Monty Hall problem reflects a common misconception is surely evidenced by the 1000 odd letters sent to Parade Magazine objecting to the solution. Under the typical interpretation of the problem statement, the solution is provably correct (although Vos Savant made errors in the presentation of that solution). There have been attempts to devise different interpretations of the problem statement, and different ways of going about solving it. But I think that's all secondary to the main issue that most people when confronted with the problem have trouble conceiving that, even under the standard interpretation of the problem, the contestant is better off switching.

Regarding specific sources for this as a "misconception", there is a section about Monty Hall in Statistical Misconceptions By Schuyler W. Huck. There is a discussion of the psychology of this misconception in Bayes for Beginners by David S Moore in the collection Advances in statistical decision theory and applications by S. Panchapakesan, N. Balakrishnan, Shanti Swarup Gupta: "Students find it very hard to distinguish between P(A|B), P(A and B), and P(B|A) in plain language settings." These are just the first two from the Google books search. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

So add it with those sources - my main objection was that the content was being sourced to another wikipedia article. eldamorie (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Just as is claimed for the problem itself, my Edit summary for the first revert in this exchange was surely 100% clear. User:Tkuvho simply must have seen the article's inclusion criteria when he edited the article, and completely ignored them. Commendably, he uses Edit summaries himself, but chose to completely ignore mine when he reverted my revert. He is now on the edge of a violation of WP:3RR. Such behaviour by one of its fans will never help the case for inclusion of this material. The unacceptable behaviour inevitably takes attention away from the far more sensible discussion of whether there is something here worth including. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Over on Talk:Monty Hall problem there is now a consensus that the editors involved with that page come to an agreement as to the text of a proposed addition to list of common misconceptions with proper sourcing and no content before we actually propose it here. Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tkuvho just added this item. I'd like to ask Tkuvho (or anyone) to provide here the information from Schuyler W. Huck, Statistical Misconceptions that confirms that this is a common misconception. A direct quotation would be very helpful. Most of us don't have access to that source. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I stopped following this discussion when I was satisfied that the proposal to include the Monty Hall problem was rejected. I must have missed the new turn of the discussion. I was quite surprised to see it's now in the article. I am opposed to the inclusion because it's not a misconception in the normal sense but something with deeper roots. It's an expression of a cognitive bias. I have browsed through Huck's book and got the impression that he uses "misconception" in an unusually wide sense. My guess is that he wanted to write a book about popular false arguments in statistics and then went with "misconceptions" for the title because books about popular misconceptions are fashionable. Hans Adler 11:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans, I really don't see why this bothers you to the point of challenging a consensus at Talk:Monty Hall problem. Obviously large numbers of people are aware of the problem, particularly since the Parade thing, etc. People obviously don't believe the correct solution the moment it is presented to them (in this sense, this is very similar to .999...). The fact that this may have deep cognitive roots does not negate the fact that it is a common misconception. In short, it is a widely known math problem, and the correct solution is just as widely disbelieved. Tkuvho (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I also question whether this item should remain in the article. I don't think it has been sufficiently sourced to be a common misconception among the general population. The source described it as a "famous example of a 'cognitive illusion', often used by psychologists, economists, and even law scientists". A "famous example" of something used by an academic does not necessarily translate into a common misconception. It may be famous among that select group of people, but I suspect that most people have never given it much thought. When they watch the actual game show, I doubt that statistical probability goes through their minds. I'm not necessarily saying that this is unequivocally not a common misconception; I just think we need better sourcing that this is something that enough people even think about to make it a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I also have my doubts. Clearly among those who have heard of the problem there is an overwhelmingly false misconception, but what percentage of the general population reads Parade Magazine? My original comment when I started this topic was made to explore this very question prior to including it on the list. I am inclined to remove it until a citation or two showing general knowledge that the problem exists is provided. Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Maybe twenty years ago this could have been included, but Let's Make A Deal hasn't been syndicated since 1986, and I'd wager that an ever-larger portion of the population couldn't even tell you the format of the show anymore. Justintbassett (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not really clear how "common" something needs to be to be called a common misconception. (E.g., duck quacks don't echo? Is that really a common misconception? I've certainly never heard of it.) The point seems to be what reliable sources have to say about the matter, and at least one source says that this is a common misconception. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały, please give us the details about your source that "says that this is a common misconception". It's certainly not this one linked in the article. That source only describes it as a "'cognitive illusion', often used by psychologists, economists, and even law scientists". It is described as a misconception, but not a common misconception. There's a huge difference. Listing everything here that is described somewhere as simply a misconception would expand this article to the size of the entirety of Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the remarkable assertion: That source only describes it as a "'cognitive illusion', often used by psychologists, economists, and even law scientists". No, it also describes it as having been popularized by Marilyn vos Savant's column in parade. You'll note "popular" is a synonym of "common". Anyway, here is a module published by the Pennsylvania Department of Education that actually uses the exact phrase "common misconception" in relation to the Monty Hall problem, although it's not clear how reliable that should be regarded. Doubtless more sources can be found attesting to the commonness of this misconception, if you want to pursue the matter further. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing "remarkable" in my statement. "Popularized" in Parade magazine is not necessarily equivalent to "common misconception". That all depends on how many people actually read one article in one issue that mentions the Monty Hall problem and, perhaps more importantly, how many of those readers already knew the solution to the Monty Hall problem, how many didn't know it but were convinced by the article of the correct solution, and how many read the article and still didn't believe the correct solution. If you have those data, please provide them; otherwise an article in Parade magazine is no evidence whatsoever that this is a common misconception. And Sławomir, if there are "doubtless more sources", by all means please do the legwork, find them, and post them here. That's the way WP:BURDEN works on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. There were thousands of letters to Parade Magazine disputing the solution. Those statistics are well-known. I'll post them too. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the quotation already provided says that it is "the most famous example of a cognitive illusion" in a book on statistical misconceptions. That's already more than most entries have as far as direct sources calling them a common misconception. But I'll add more sources, as you say. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Doubtless more sources can be found attesting to the commonness of this misconception", I hope so, because if those sources are not found we are going to have to remove it from the list. I happen to personally like it being in, but the standards for inclusion are quite clear, and require reliable sources attesting to the commonness of this misconception.Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Tierney piece discusses it being debated nationally. (I was also going to include the part about 10,000 letters being sent to Parade, per Cresix that we quote some statistics.) The Huck book, a book about statistical misconceptions says both that it is "popular" (and not just to readers of Parade—that is not the implication of the text, nor is it true), and that it is "the most famous example" of a cognitive illusion. The Pennsylvania Department of Education actually uses the exact phrase "common misconception". This seems like stronger sourcing for the commonness of the misconception than most of the other entries of this list! If folks continue to argue for its removal, I'll start to wonder why there seems to be a double-standard. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• There were thousands of letters to Parade Magazine: Thousands? Let's suppose it was 3,000 10,000. The population of the United States alone is over 300 million. That's about 1/1000th 3/1000th of one percent. If you think that's evidence of a common misconception, I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
• You not-so-cleverly left out part of the sentence you quoted: "famous example of a 'cognitive illusion', often used by psychologists, economists, and even law scientists". I am a university professor; I sometimes use the "famous" Milgram experiment (famous among psychiatry and psychology professors) to illustrate a concept. The vast majority of the population has no idea what the Milgram experiment is. So what your truncated quote really says is that this is a misconception among some psychologists, economists, and law scientists. That's even less than 1/1000th of one percent of the general population of the United States.
• Bottom line: no substantial evidence that this is a common misconception except among a very, very select group of people. Cresix (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini "Probability blindness: Neither rational nor capricious", Bostonia, March/April 1991, 28–35: "No other statistical puzzle comes so close to fooling all of the people all of the time....The phenomenon is particularly interesting precisely because of its specificity, its reproducibility, and its immunity to higher education." (As quoted in Rosenhouse, Jason: The Monty Hall Problem. Oxford University Press 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-536789-8, p. 31.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't how many people can accurately solve the Monty Hall problem. The issue is how many people actually have given it any thought, even the people who watched the gameshow. As an analogy, many people probably would have a misconception about the behavior of subatomic particles if they thought about it, but the vast majority of people rarely, if ever, think about it. Inability to solve a statistical probability problem is not evidence of a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that is the issue, then how many people think duck quacks don't echo? How many people think gyroscopic forces are required to ride a bicycle? In fact, as far as I can tell none of the entries on the list keeps track of what percentage of the general population believes them. That's an impossible standard to hold any entry to. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be an impossible standard for this particular item, but that's because it's not a common misconception. It's not an impossible standard for the article in general. As for ducks and bicycles, every item is judged on its own merit. If you find an item in the article that is not reasonably sourced as being a common misconception, then by all means please remove it, or discuss it here. "Other stuff exists" is no reason to continue to add to the problems already in the article. Cresix (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

But I just pointed out that no item in the list has precise statistics associated with it. Precious few even have sources that directly address the "common misconception" issue. Other stuff exists is one thing, but it seems like you are inventing a different standard for this item to which none of the others is held. (Oh, and if you wanted numbers as evidence at any rate of the commonness of the "common misconception", the Tierney article appeared on the front page of the New York Times. At the time, that had a circulation in the millions.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a quite a number of items in the article that are properly sourced as "common misconceptions", some with exact statistics. Please read the article and the sources that are cited. And once again, if you find items that are not sourced as being common misconceptions, please remove them. "Front page of the New York Times"? Once again, how many people read it; how many already understood the answer to the MH problem; how many were convinced; how many were not convinced. Give me those data, or front page of the NYT is meaningless. I didn't ask for an exact percentage. I asked for a reliable source that clearly and unequivocally identifies the Monty Hall problem as something that is given sufficient thought by enough people to be a common misconception among the general population. I'm not arguing whether most people can or can't solve the statistical probabilities involved; I'm saying most people have given it no thought. I want some evidence to the contrary, and more than 3/1000ths of one percent of the general population. Cresix (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's consider Parade (magazine): http://www.parade.com/corporate/parade_facts.html makes the following claims:

Circulation: 32.2 million. Readership: 74 million. (Wikipedia says "It reaches nearly 42 million monthly")

We know that among the letters sent to Vos Savant from the general public, 92% weree against her answer.

Assuming that two thirds of Parade readers skipped all of the several Vos Savant columns on the topic, that would be very roughly 10 million people.

The puzzle was mentioned in an episode of the first season of the CBS drama NUMB3RS, which averaged 10.77 million viewers.

The puzzle was also mentioned in 21 (2008 film), which grossed a total of $157 million dollars. If each person paid $10 to see it, that would be 16 million people.

We probably should assume that the movie and the TV show did a worse job of convincing people than Vos Savant did.

So at least twenty or thirty million have heard of it, and at least 90% of them have the misconception.

Is that enough? Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Being mindlessly exposed to something is not the same as thinking about it. I get Parade magazine. I only occasionally look at it. When I do, I might read one article. Even that one article might just be the first paragraph to see if it's interesting. How many people read every article in every issue; or alternatively, how many people read the one article of the one issue in question?

92% of 10,000 people? Once again, that's less than 3/1000th of one percent of the general United States population. Not evidence of a common misconception.

How many people viewed the one episode of NUMB3RS? How many paid enough attention to the MH facts to actually give it any thought? How many already knew the solution to the MH problem? How many were convinced? How many were not convinced?

I'm not seeing much more than speculation that enough people have given the MH problem enough thought to even have a misconception. Cresix (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cresix here. Like I said several days ago, a misconception is something that people know, but is actually incorrect—not something they answer incorrectly when it is presented to them. For example, I bet most people would say 2 + 2 × 2 = 8, when it is actually 6 due to order of operations. Doesn't make it a common misconception. In the end though, what really matters is reliable sources saying it is a "common misconception" or something very similar. I don't think that threshold has been met yet. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please interpret the question "Is that enough?" as "Hey, I have no idea whether this is enough, but these numbers and assumptions might be worth discussing" not as "here are some numbers that I am implying are enough." If I had meant the latter, I would have written "That's enough." Remember, my position is that I haven't seen a citation to a reliable source establishing general notability,and that we need to delete the section if such a citation does not appear. Actually, I originally suggested establishing general notability before adding the material, but another editor added it against my advice. Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There are sources that say something very close to this, but they are basically being interpreted (by Cresix in particular) to mean among some very small segment of the population. There's a large research literature showing that the general population makes the wrong choice in situations like this that require Bayesian reasoning. So I imagine it would be less controversial to call it a "common cognitive illusion" or something like that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, and don't personalize this. There are no sources that clearly and unequivocally identify this as a common misconception (i.e., criterion 2). The 4 criteria weren't created by Cresix. They were created by consensus. Where we go from here is to remove the item, unless proper sourcing can be provided. We cannot add every statistical probability problem that most people can't solve. I have about 7 or 8 statistics textbooks. Give me a couple of hours and I could come up with several dozen probability items that most people could not solve. Solving statistical problems is not the issue here. Giving enough thought to the MH problem to have a misconception about it is the issue. Cresix (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not personalizing, just making a clear referent for a statement. We have one source that unequivocally says that it is a "common misconception" (with those exact words), another that says that it is a "famous 'cognitive illusion'". Various sources attest to its popularity. More sources still can be brought up that will support an assertion that it is a common cognitive issue with precisely this kind of Bayesian reasoning (not just as a "statistics" problem, but whenever this kind of decision needs to be made in the world). Also, I think the cry to delete is premature. We're still discussing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The one source that uses "common misconception" has dubious reliability. And once again, you left out an important part of the "famous cognitive illusion" sentence; famous among psychologists, economists, and law scientists. "Various sources attesting to its popularity", but zero evidence about how many people actually paid attention to those sources. And please don't put words in my mouth. I did not make a premature "cry to delete". I said if sufficient sourcing cannot be found, it should be deleted, according to criterion 2. I understand that you are trying to spin this issue toward inclusion and I don't blame you for that, but please don't selectively quote sources (especially when it has already been pointed out) or misstate my words. Cresix (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be getting a bit adversarial. I'm going to take a break for a week or so and return to the discussion at that time. Sławomir Biały (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate editor Cresix's efforts to ensure that any item added here is properly sourced beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, this particular item currently having 4 reliable references testifying to its common nature, to insist on further verification would seem like splitting hairs. Tkuvho (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Tkuvho, but that is simply not accurate and I must repeat myself. A source identifies it as a statistical probability problem that is commonly used by "psychologists, economists, and law scientists" to illustrate that most people can't solve the statistical probabilities correctly (and that is not the issue here; as I've said, I could add dozens of statistical problems that most people cannot solve). Other sources refer to an article in a popular magazine, with absolutely no evidence about how many people read it, how many of those already knew the answer to the MH problem, how many did not know and were convinced, or how many read the article and still weren't convinced. Most people have never given enough thought to the MH problem to even have a misconception about it. Cresix (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that "psychologists, economists, and law scientists" think it is a common misconception does not mean that it is a common misconception among "psychologists, economists, and law scientists". It means that based on their work with laymen, such specialists come to the conclusion that it is a common misconception. Tkuvho (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It means that psychologists, economists, and law scientists use this statistical problem to illustrate that most people can't solve it. The misconception at issue here is not how many people can solve the problem; it's whether most people have even given it any thought. No offense, but how many times do I have to repeat this: I can literally post a couple of dozen statistical problems that most people cannot solve. Those are not common misconceptions. As CWenger stated above, a misconception is something that people know, but is actually incorrect—not something they answer incorrectly when it is presented to them. There are millions of bits of information out there in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc. that the average person cannot figure out; they're not common misconceptions because most people have never given them any thought. The MH problem is simply one more that most people have never given any consideration. Cresix (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cresix; there's an equivocation here between "common misconception" and a question that people commonly answer incorrectly. Hairhorn (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A common misconception is precisely a question that people commonly answer incorrectly. The fact of people being commonly exposed to it makes it a common misconception. As has been already mentioned more than once in this space, the nature of this particular question is such that people refuse to accept the correct answer, much like the 0.999... misconception. Obviously, if they accepted the correct answer once they heard it, this would not be a common misconception. But they don't. Just check Talk:Monty Hall problem :) Tkuvho (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

People commonly answer incorrectly when asked the probability that a particular set of numbers will roll if four die are rolled, or what the odds are that a particular sequence will roll; not a common misconception, just uninformed. We could come up with thousands of these. These are not common misconceptions, just things people answer incorrectly because they've never thought about them. The MH problem is no different. Cresix (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are not responding to the point I am making. MHP is not in the category of "uninformed". People continue to cling to their belief even after they are given the correct answer. Same as 0.999... There is no reason they should cling to their wrong value for the probability of four dice, etc. The fact that they continue to cling to their wrong belief in the case of MHP is documented in the literature. Tkuvho (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I clung to my erroneous beliefs about rolling die until it was explained to my level of understanding. Before that, I never gave it much thought. It was never a misconception on my part, just ignorance. Give me the unequivocal evidence that "people continue to cling to their belief even after they are given the correct answer", if it is explained to their level of understanding. And that does not include a source stating that it is used as an example by psychologists and economists, or that 3/1000th of one percent of people who might have read a magazine article wrote a letter. How many people in the general population cling to the belief? And BTW, I still don't consider the 0.999... item to be a common misconception, but it is reliably sourced as such, so I accept it. So far, that kind of sourcing has not been provided for the MH problem. Cresix (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Cresix and others have a point here, this is a mathematical problem most likely to be solved erroneously but not able to qualify as a common misconception. There is no real basis among the mass for the common thing to happen. Every media depiction would portray this as a "statistical illusion", but you will certainly not find any source and people mistakenly solve this problem and not realizing its falsehood(which actually, renders it impossible to be a misconception, as stated above). People would argue about, be skeptical of, feel hard to believe the right solution and takes a lot of time to finally come around, but they would not automatically believes the other way and naturally hold on to it as a fact, both because the inherent nature of this being a complex mathematical problem, and because it has almost always appeared in media and popular culture in its correct form, hence cannot encourage and shape a real common misconception. I also think of the PDE source as a really standalone source and like Cresix I question its reliability. I would desire more sources clearly stating it is a common misconception among common people.Kuphrer (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Cresix, and I think Kuphrer makes a very important point with "it has almost always appeared in media and popular culture in its correct form". I.e. you can divide the population into two parts: One which has heard about the Monty Hall problem and knows the correct solution, and one which has not (a large proportion of which will not be able to solve the problem). The MHP cannot be said to be a common misconception among either of these populations.

Personally, I think of a misconception as a piece of "knowledge" that a person would conceivably share with others (Napoleon was little, the great wall of china is visible from the moon), and to me, various miscalculations do not fit. Dr bab (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Jalapeno Seeds

Cresix: can I ask why you deleted this section? ("*The seeds of the jalapeno (and other peppers) is not what contains the heat of the pepper. The seeds actually produce none of the chemical that cause heat in peppers. This chemical, capsaicin, is found mostly in the white pith that holds the seeds (and to a lesser extent in the other fleshy parts of the pepper). The seeds are often coated with capsaicin due to their proximity to the pith, and thus appear to be the hot part of the pepper.")Joriq (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because you either did not bother to read the four criteria that must be satisfied before adding an item, or you read it and deliberately ignored it. The four criteria are clearly visible every time you click "Edit". There is a symbol that almost jumps off the page, followed by the four criteria. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the jalapeno claim. Read the four criteria, satisfy them, and your item will remain in the article. Cresix (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I did pay attention to it, and I definitely did not deliberately ignore them. It was really my first time posting something on a page that has restrictions, so I'm doing my best. I'm not sure why you have to be rude about it. Joriq (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing rude about asking you to follow the criteria. If you saw the criteria and didn't ignore them, why did you add an item that clearly does not conform to them? You call it rude; I call it to the point. Sorry if you took my comment the wrong way, but I hope you can understand that if everyone did what you did, we would have dozens and dozens and dozens of items to remove every week. That's the way it was in the past before the criteria were implemented. If I can help you satisfy the requirements of the four criteria, mesage me on my talk page. BTW, I did fail to make an edit summary when I reverted your edit by accidentally clicking before typing it. I apologize if that caused some confusion. Cresix (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's rude to say I did not bother to read the instructions or I just ignored them. If you say I ignored them because there is no topic page of it's own, I thought there was. There is a page about Capsicum that talks about this, so I thought that would cover number one. I didn't interpret it that it meant the myth itself had to have a page. That would take care of criteria 1 and 3, in my opinion number 4 is met, and I sourced the fact. So I did make the effort in my mind. That's why I was looking for an explanation. Again, sorry that I did it wrong. It was a first try, and I don't think I was being ignorant.Joriq (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just so I fully understand, that's where I went wrong right? The MYTH has to have a page of it's own?Joriq (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize; just a misunderstanding as I see it. I think the biggest problem with the item is that there is no reliable source that this is a common misconception, which is a part of criterion 2. That's usually the point where most suggested additions run into problems. And even though the exact words "common misconception" are not required, there must be a very close equivalent. If a source simply says "misconception", "myth", "you've probably heard ...", "a lot of people think ...", etc., that won't work. If we accepted all of those, the article probably would be a hundred times it's current size, if not more. My honest opinion is that most people have never heard anything specific about which part of the jalapeno causes the heat, except for people who spend a lot of time learning about the details of cooking. It must be a common misconception in general, not just a select group of people. But I may be wrong. You may find a source that satisfies number 2. Cresix (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, to clarify, the Capsicum article uses the phrase "contrary to popular belief", but that doesn't appear to be supported by the source cited. The source says "Many claim ..."; to me that's not close enough. Wikipedia can't source itself. If I missed something, please let me know. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

THAT explanation is VERY clear. And thank you for it. The list of criteria certainly does not explain the necessary sourcing as you have. I think I have a much better idea of the expectations for an article such as this one now. In my experience, the seeds of a pepper containing the heat is at least as common a belief as all the other misconceptions in the food section, except for the chewing gum, if not more. I have heard people say it many times, and not just a select group of people, but I understand that my personal experience isn't enough. If I find a source, I'll revisit this idea.Joriq (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think anyone who has ever eaten a jalapeno has thought this. Enough of the spicy chemical gets onto the seeds that one might misconceive that the seeds are the hottest part, even if they were to eat each seed individually. You can always contact the original source and ask them for information which shows that its a common misconception. Have you ever eaten a jalapeno before, Cresix? The seedpod is the dreaded pepper appendage for which most eaters would get their two glasses of milk ready! --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

IMR, I've eaten many jalopenas because I like them, and I already knew it isn't the seeds that are the major heat source. But what you or I think about the seeds is largely irrelevant, because you, Joriq, and I do not constitute a "common misconception". That's where a reliable source is needed. Cresix (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the original post in the list give no source? All I can find on Yahoo Search are misconceptions about cross pollination. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Capsicum describes this as a "popular belief", but that is not verified by the source cited. Cresix (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Source says "Although many people believe the seeds to be the hottest..." Also says "many people believe" in the question. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Myths about Language

Hi, We are a class at the University of Minnesota studying Language and Society. We have spent the semester working on common misconceptions about language and would like to share them on Wikipedia. Since this is a big addition, we are first putting the section in the discussion area, but we would like to move these myths over to the main page. Thank you. (Sara S. Loss, instructor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crayonzilla (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You can add a brief summary hear and discuss if it warrants addition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justintbassett (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Myth: English is ruining other languages

As a common lingua franca, English is permeating the languages of other nation. Because of this, some believe that English loanwords are “ruining” other languages. However, lexical borrowings from English retain the phonetic　and morphologic structure of the original language. An example is the verb arrenji-suru (アレンジする, /ɑɾɛndʒi-sʊɾʊ/ , “to arrange”) in Japanese, which takes the English word “arrange” and adds the infinitive verb suffix –suru. Similarly in Spanish, the word bistec (/bistɛk/) is derived from the English words “beef steak” and the French word “le weekend” share the same meanings as the original English word, it has changed to conform to the phonemes of their respective languages. --Scott (List of common misconceptions) 11:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the common misconception that is being claimed here?--Asher196 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's the reverse: Words from other languages continually get absorbed into English. Whether such assimilation (in English or not) qualifies as "ruining" is subjective. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No evidence whatsoever that this is a common misconception, very likely because it isn't. Cresix (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not All Romance Language Speakers Can Understand Each Other

It is well known that romance languages have many similar linguistic features. Despite this fact, not all romance language speakers can understand each other when they speak. Historically, all romance languages derive from Vulgar Latin. Local variants and creoles have developed through slavery, colonization, displaced people, and the forming of new countries, distancing the similarities amongst all of the romance languages. For example, phonological differences create a barrier for romance language speakers impeding their ability to understand one another. French, for example, drops all final vowels, and in many cases the last consonant is not sounded out. Spanish on the other hand pronounces all consonants and vowels at all times. Vocabulary differences and false cognates create another barrier for romance language speakers. “Sono” for example in Italian means “I am” but in Portuguese means “sleep”. These differences may lead to confusion and misunderstanding.</ref> Romance languages have many commonalities, however not all speakers of romances languages can understand one another in a conversation simply because the languages are similar.

With regards to Romance languages, I didn't know that was a myth at all. Since this is an English Wikipedia, I would guess that most wouldn't know what a Romance language is (well, other than maybe saying French is romantic, as in love and such). Those who know what a Romance language is would assume that French is not at all similar to Spanish or Italian. And let's not even go with Romanian which isn't even close to the other languages. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the common misconception being claimed here. Who believes that romance language speakers can all understand one another? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No evidence whatsoever that this is a common misconception, because it isn't. I'm 60 years old, speak two languages, and have never once heard this concept as even a remote possiblity. Who thinks up this stuff??? Cresix (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've actually heard something to this effect before, from my first Spanish teacher. In describing the development of the Spanish language, she noted the similarities to French and Italian, claiming that with some effort, a fluent speaker of one language could roughly understand the speaker of another. I have no idea if this is something commonly asserted, though. Justintbassett (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Double Negation

The myth that double negatives in English make a sentence illogical is untrue, especially when coupled with the myth that double negatives must be figured out mathematically. As in Romance languages, the use of double negatives was considered standard in Old English, and it emphasized the negation and showed agreement between the negative and the verb. When English was standardized using Latin rules, such as double negatives canceling to positives, the uneducated continued using double negatives with no loss of understanding. Today, some double negatives serve the function of litotes, such as saying that someone is “not unkind” to mean that he isn’t mean, but that he isn’t exactly kind either.

This isn't a bad proposal, although the double negatives article would need to have material about this misconception before it would be acceptable here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This one is interesting but very likely not a common misconception. It may be a misconception among linguists and language teachers, but probably not among the general population. And it will need a lot more than "the double negatives article ... [having] material about this misconception" to be acceptable for this article. Specifically, meeting criterion 2 is required. Cresix (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the first cited source, there's a lot in it about surveyed common perceptions of general population, not just linguists and teachers. There's enough in the source material to indicate that this is indeed a common misconception. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless I missed something (and please correct me if I have), there is not "a lot in it about surveyed common perceptions of general population". On page 114, the author uses the phrase "If you ask people why ...", with no indication of whether this might be two people or two thousand people. On page 115, the author picked ten people off the street in London (no indication of where in London; was this at or near a university campus where the sample is quite narrow? We don't know; no evidence this is a representative sample). Ten people??? Any statistician or pollster will tell you that is about as close to a worthless sample as you can get. I could asked ten people if they believe Osama bin Laden is dead, and I am unlikely to get an accurate image of what the general population thinks. As I said, please correct me if I didn't read far enough, but if that's all there is, that's a long way from "enough in the source material to indicate that this is indeed a common misconception". If I spent a little time, I could add a dozen or two "common misconceptions" that few people have heard of using that method. Cresix (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Surveys will often state that 100 people of diverse backgrounds represent the entirety of Americans. Obviously that doesn't account for individual opinion, but adheres to some strange philosophy that peoples of the same skin color, financial, or religious backgrounds all think exactly the same way. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: mammals did not evolve from reptiles

I'd like to suggest an item: Mammals did not evolve from reptiles. The ancestry of mammals and reptiles diverged about 320 million years ago, in the Carboniferous period. Their last common ancestors were a group of primitive amphibian-like animals known as amniotes. The misconception that mammals evolved from reptiles arose from a once common practice of using the word "reptile" very loosely: the ancestors of mammals were sometimes called "mammal-like reptiles", a term that modern biologists avoid.

Let's for the moment ignore issues of sourcing these statements and demonstrating that this is a common misconception; I don't think there will be much difficulty about those things. I would like to get a feel, though, about whether people think the item would be appropriate if those conditions can be satisfied. Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Good one. Looking it up I see mammals evolved directly from Reptiliomorpha which are "reptile-like amphiphians". You learn something everyday! -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 18:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea in principle, but I'm worried it will be harder than you think to find a reliable source that explicitly states that the idea of mammals having evolved from reptiles is a common misconception. There are many reliable up-to-date sources still claiming it as fact, for example [2] [3] -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the misconception is still very widespread, but this paper, in particular, explains the situation very clearly, even if you can only access the abstract. Looie496 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me if I have missed something: The springerlink.com source linked above identifies this as a misconception, but not as a common misconception (or very equivalent wording), right? If I don't have that right, could we have a direct quotation from the source that identifies this as a common misconception? Thanks. Also note that finding a few sources that state a misconception as fact is very inadequate evidence that it is a common misconception because it doesn't tell us how many good sources do not identify it as a fact. Cresix (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Springer source says that "Dimetrodon Is a Dinosaur" is a common misconception. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 02:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This would just be a clone of the misconception about monkeys, which did a fine enough job at explaining how evolution theory is meant to be interpreted. Or you could explain misconceptions for every animal which is mistakenly said to have descended from one another. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So? If it is a misconception, it should be listed here - and I am struggling to think of other similar misconceptions beyond the monkey one and this one. And it is a common misconception. I would guess that 99% of population that is educated and non-Creationist believes mammals evolved from reptiles. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

99%? Geez, I hope not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hope is irrelevant. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 00:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is that most people who care believe that humans evolved from contemporary animals. The point of the section about monkeys, and now reptiles, is that humans did not, according to mainstream scientific understanding, evolve from those modern-day animals. Both misconceptions are saying the same thing. This is not an exhaustive list; a clone misconception does not need to be included. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The misconceptions are distinct (one is about the origin of mammals, the other of humans). Also if you think the list is not exhaustive then try finding sources that, say, that we evolved from mammoths is a misconception. You won't find any. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 04:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the front page of the article. Every Wikipedia list contains the disclaimer "this list is not intended to be exhaustive". No, there probably aren't misconceptions about every single animal in this regard. However, I'm sure you'd find a lot involving modern fish, frogs, dogs, elephants, etc. You say that they're distinct, but the misconception is caused by the same misunderstanding in both cases. We could add similar to the "jalapeno and 'hot seed'" misconception, mentioned above, to every single pepper with similar traits. Or we could just explain that, in such cases, the irritants are contained in the organ which holds the seeds. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

They are not "caused by the same misunderstanding in both cases". -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

How so? Both misconceptions seem to be caused by the misunderstanding that all modern creatures descended directly from other contemporary creatures. That they diverged is the reason for these distinctions as "monkey-like" or "reptile-like". --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the significant detail that reptiles are both contemporary and ancient, the point is, which you seemed to have missed, that mammals did not descend from reptiles or reptile-like creatures, but directly from amphibians or amphibian-like creatures.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The text you quoted at the OP says reptiles and mammals share a common ancestor; the amphibian-like creatures of which you speak. So, as I was saying, it is held that they are not descended from reptiles because their ancestors diverged at some point. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How is this truism relevant to whether the material should be excluded/included? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

On the inherent problems associated with "I have never heard of that" or "everyone I know has that misconception":

We often see arguments of the form "I have never heard of that misconception" or "everyone I know shares that misconception." These arguments have a basic flaw; misconceptions may be common in one region or one social class and nearly unknown in another. For example, all my friends are well aware of the Double-slit experiment and its implications, but I seriously doubt that it is commonly known among the general population. On the other hand, I just googled "celebrity rumors" and found this little gem: http://www.nerve.com/content/the-40-best-celebrity-rumors-ever (not suitable for children). Not only had I only heard of one of those rumors (the one about J. Edgar Hoover), I don't know who half of the "celebrities" mentioned are. Again my experience is unlikely to match that of the general population. That's why we need citations to reliable sources establishing that a misconception is commonly held. Anecdotal evidence just isn't good enough. Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see a lot less anecdotal evidence proffered on this page. Take Fan death as an example. If I walked around my (American) office right now, I doubt I could find a single person that believed it. In Korea, though, it is widely believed. Finding sources for a misconception is important, though I do believe we should develop better criteria for what qualifies something for common misconception status. Justintbassett (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Guy, as someone who (stupidly) has spent as much as 10 hours in one day removing dozens of I-like-this-misconception items added with absolutely no evidence, I fully agree with everything you say. That's exactly why the 4 criteria were established. I don't have a problem with editors making comments such as "I've never heard of that" or "All my friends know about that" because talk pages don't require sources, but such comments never substitute for appropriate sources in the article. Cresix (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't do it to argue that a misconception should stay. When I say something similar, I mean that I think the subject should be looked into further. Also, all of these misconceptions are regional. What misconception is there which people the earth over share? Perhaps 'the sun is yellow' came close, but not quite. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Regional to some extent. Should we include misconceptions that are widely held throughout the United States, or Canada, or Great Britain, or some other country? Yes. Should we include misconceptions that are held in one county of one state of the USA (and there are some of those out there)? No. Cresix (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I think maybe it always goes down to whether there are reliable sources. When proposing to add something to the page, just don't say anything beyond those supported by your source. Assume the I know nothing position and let the data and articles talk. That way we might save a lot of time used in unproductive arguments.Kuphrer (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove Baraka Obama is not a Muslim

The "source" for this line is third party conjecture, not fact. More direct sources come from Obama himself: Writing in a chapter of his book describing his 1992 wedding, the presidential candidate stated: "The person who made me proudest of all was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam, and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendergast4 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're trying to suggest that Obama is in fact a muslim, you're in the wrong place. Hairhorn (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, it stays. Richard Dawkins might have gone to a Catholic Mass in his youth, but that doesn't mean hes not a hard-liner atheist today. Obama has called himself a Christian. His mother was apparently drawn to Muslims because she was a secular humanist who had a hard time with hypocritical members of Christendom. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So, if a practitioner of one religion is proud of another person for making a strong start down a different spiritual path, this automatically changes the religion of the person who is proud? This doesn't even make sense grammatically! Couldn't agree more - it definitely stays! FlaviaR (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the removal of this misconception, but for different reasons. I think that most, if not all of the people who believe Obama is a Muslim understand that he prays every day and claims to be a Christian, they simply believe that to be a mask to hide his true Muslim colors. While I think this is rather silly, it's not really a "misconception", as they more or less understand the facts, they just come to a different conclusion. Enigmocracy (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the facts don't seem to matter to people holding on to the "misconception". Hairhorn (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it requires the assumption that people cited in the article as believing he is a Muslim are lying, and we have no evidence of that. I'm sure at least some people believe the "mask-of-a-Christian" idea; the question is, how many? So unless someone can come up with a reliable source stating that a substantial number of the people who state that they believe Obama is a Muslim don't actually believe it, the proposition that they are lying is simply unsourced conjecture. I doubt you'll find such a source. Cresix (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You could be right, but you're reversing the onus somewhat; all of a sudden we have to prove that it's not a misconception. Hairhorn (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of removal. I think this item is better classified as a conspiracy theory, not a common misconception. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to Hairhorn: No, I don't think I'm reversing the onus. The item has already been sourced (i.e., that a substantial number of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim). To remove a reliably sourced item as being inaccurate, it is general practice on Wikipedia to expect another reliable source that conflicts (e.g., that a lot of the people were lying about what they believe; or that there is something wrong with the information in the source). Not to belabor this, but an analogy would be if someone challenged that John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln. We wouldn't remove the Booth info just because a few editors thought there might be a problem with the veracity of the claim; the onus would be on those challenging the information to provide convincing evidence for their claim. That having been said, almost anything in Wikipedia can be removed by consensus (as long as there is no policy violation), so I would respect a consensus for removal. Cresix (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard "Obama is a Muslim pretending to be a Christian." I've always heard it similar to "That Obama is a Muslim, just look at his name! Rhymes with Osama!" I would say that most of those claiming Obama is a Muslim could care less about his actual views and personality; they're more concerned with generally disliking the man. I would guess they heard at churches which tried to sway for a Republican victory that election year. In America right now, being a Muslim is probably the worst thing you can be in the eyes of popular opinion: I'm sure they would have called him that, family background or no. And Cresix is right, you should have a conflicting source before we actually remove the item. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Entropy and evolution

Unless I'm mistaken, an increase of entropy means an increase in chaos (therefore complexity). The second law of thermodynamics therefore states that EVERYTHING becomes more complex. It would therefore even corroborate evolution. So although "Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics" is still right, the explanation that follows is not and should be changed. KatzBlackblade (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing chaos with complexity. They are totally unrelated. Complexity, or more precisely, diversity, is a exact demonstration of how much order the bio-system has. A rich and hierarchal network of organisms represents a low entropy. Kuphrer (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I had to think about it, but you're right. Sorry. KatzBlackblade (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Hair does not grow back courser or darker"

There seems to be a misunderstanding on both sides here, which the explanation of the "misconception" does nothing to alleviate.

The hair, growing back, grows the same as it always was, yes. However, the "explanation" immediately admits that, yes, the hair is darker and courser, because uncut hair is lighter and softer at the tips. So, if you have a full face of hair that is too light and soft, you could cut it all, and when it grew back, it would be darker and courser than it was the first time.

Unless the hair is somehow re-lightened and re-tapered, which the explanation does not mention.

I think a better restatement would be something like "Hair does not grow differently in reaction to being cut; cutting hair merely removes the lightened, tapered tips, and reveals the darker, courser bases that grow naturally all the time."24.13.125.86 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Coarser! Moriori (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to split hairs (pun intended), but it's now a moot point. I removed the item because it fails criteria 2 and 3. Snopes.com is rarely a good source. In this case, the misconception is not identified as common. Cresix (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Snopes can be an excellent source. Did you even look at the end of the Snopes article where they listed THEIR sources for this myth? There are eight sources listed. Also, I think this IS a common misconception, but short of finding a source that uses those exact words, I will wait to put it back.--Asher196 (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did look at THEIR (your shouting, not mine; apologies if that wasn't your intent) sources. Snopes is usually a bad source because, as in this case, they rarely identify how common a misconception is. They might do a good job of confirming that it is a misconception, but that's usually the extent of it. Cresix (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't shouting, just putting emphasis on those words. Probably not the best way to do it.--Asher196 (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I use italics for that purpose. Cresix (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please quote the material in question, including any sources. Doing so, the evaluation process becomes much easier. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The item removed is:
"Shaving does not cause terminal hair to grow back thicker or coarser or darker. This belief is because hair that has never been cut has a tapered end, whereas, after cutting, there is no taper. Thus, it appears thicker, and feels coarser due to the sharper, unworn edges. The fact that shorter hairs are "harder" (less flexible) than longer hairs also contributes to this effect.citation to snopes. Hair can also appear darker after it grows back because hair that has never been cut is often lighter due to sun exposure."
Cresix (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Inexplicably, A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) has begun to edit war on this item, despite the fact that this section has been here for over a week. If anyone has any opinions about this item, please express them here. As I indicated above, this item fails criterion 2. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In relation to previous discussions, Cresix (talk · contribs) has begun to edit war on this item, despite the fact that this item has been in the article for over a week year. If anyone has any opinions about this item, please express them here. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Editors, please note that the first comment in this section was made on 11 May 2011. Cresix (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, an edit that took place only a month ago should take place over a year ago? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

First: You're talking about two different things, right? Cresix is saying that with this talk-page discussion being here for a week, and so A Quest For Knowledge should seek consensus here before putting the item back in. A Quest For Knowledge meanwhile, opines that since the hair regrowth misconception has been on the list for one year, a consensus has existed to keep the item in the list, and Cresix is wrong to remove the item without first seeking consensus in talk.

To the discussion: I see the point made by 24.13.125.86 that the misconception may not be a misconception after all, or it might be open to interpretation. In general, I think we should avoid these types of misconceptions.

As for snopes.com, I am in favour of always using the primary source. Snopes.com-sources may be good additional sources since they are available in an online-form, which makes the quest for further reading much easier for editors and readers of the encyclopedia.

However, using snopes articles as an only source for any claim is dubious, as snopes.com does not use inline citations and we have no way of knowing what claims are rooted in which of their sources. In this particular case it might be even worse, as the article makes 13 additional claims about hair, and several of the sources listed may be completely unrelated to the hair-regrowth-myth.

In general, I would not add an item (nor support its addition) based on a snopes.com-article, but I would be hesitant to remove an item unless I had first given my fellow editors the chance to check the primary sources of the snopes.com article or find other sources.

In this case then, I support the removal of the item unless further sources are being dug up, but as I don't think it unlikely that this might happen (e.g. snopes.com primary sources), I am somewhat sympathetic in A Quest For Knowledge's critisism of Cresix in being a tad too trigger-happy. Dr bab (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Small Inaccuracy in Section on the liquidity of glass

The article is correct in that older panes of glass are often thicker at the bottom due to the manufacturing process instead of glass flowing, but that would not apply to stained glass, which is stated and linked in the article, as the manufacturing process that created the uneven glass panes would not be applicable to stained glass as the stained glass pane would actually be made of dozens of smaller pieces of glass separated by a metal, often lead. The reason the big panes of window glass (not stained glass) were thinner at the top is that during production the molten glass would be spun so the centrifugal effect would pull it flat, which would make the final round piece of glass that is to be cut into panes thinner in the middle than in the edges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.214.251 (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? Cresix (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding Hindu beliefs to religious misconceptions section

Can we add something about how Hinduism does not belief in many 'gods' but rather different manifestations of the same 'ultimate reality', Brahman ???

<3 P44v9n (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And references for this?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Mazdaism holds that all gods are the same god, Mazda. However, if they worship a god in the context of it being Ahura Mazda, they are still technically worshiping the other god. There are many gods in Hinduism, no matter how their nature is interpreted. Although, it is hard to draw the line. Are the sects and denominations of Christendom still monotheist, despite the fact that many of them worship a triarchy of gods, and their members pray to a plethora of deceased humans? If they are monotheist, why is it fair to call Hinduism or any other religion polytheist? Where is the line drawn? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for any non-Christian point of view, but if, by "worship a triarchy of gods", you are referring to the Trinity, that is a gross misinterpretation of mainstream Christianity (Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.). The belief is that there is one God that consists of three distinct persons. Now, we could debate for eternity how this is possible, but mainstream Christianity views this as ultimately unexplainable because, like most things in almost any religion, it is supernatural and beyond most rational thought. The persons are seen as inseparable and eternal. You personally can interpret that as three gods, but let's not make the mistake of suggesting that's how most Christians see it. Cresix (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Catholicism in particular holds that the three are separate, and yet one. They do not deny that Jesus prayed to a 'Father' and 'received' the spirit, as some groups do (NKJ, for example, has changed the Bible text to make it seem as if Jesus prayed to himself). Other groups which believe this differently (that Jesus was, and is, God and the Spirit) simply do not understand the original trinity theosophy, which never contended that the three were inseparable. This theosophy apparently originated with the need to make Christianity more appealing to religions which heavily relied upon triunes of gods (see triple deity for the great list of such religions), perhaps when the Apologists were rationalizing their beliefs to those of contemporary philosophers. Anyway, this is the same way with Mazdaism, and perhaps Hinduism if the OP described its nature correctly. Mazdaism holds that the plethora of gods ever worshiped are the same and one God, whom they call Mazda. Christendom holds that the three are one, Mazdaism that the tens-of-thousands are one. Why make the distinction and call one monotheism, and yet call the other polytheism? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Not just Catholicism, but the vast majority of mainstream Christianity, holds that they are separate but one. I don't think you'll find a reliable source otherwise (remember, mainstream), and I especially doubt that you can find a source that mainstream Christianity believes in three gods. Individual people have a wide variety of beliefs, but again, let's not give the impression that the great majority believe in three gods. Maybe that's not your point, but if it is, it's incorrect. Cresix (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The point was made at the end of my argument: if "the three are one" is monotheism, why is the "thousands are one" doctrine polytheism? Just because one belief makes more or less sense than the other, doesn't mean that they are altogether different cases. Both instances are nominal claims of serving one god. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I won't belabor this, and I'll reiterate my lack of expertise in non-Christian religions, but I'll simply state that I disagree that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a nominal claim of serving one god. Cresix (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, do you see an eastern religion which counts many gods as one person/god as being polytheist? I don't personally see why a distinction is made, just because the three figures of the trinity are not usually individually personified but remain as vague concepts when considered individually. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Cold weather and colds misconception?

I think this should be added:

Contrary to popular belief, going outside without long sleeves during cold weather does not cause a cold.

I'll try to find some sources for this. GuyWithoutAUsername (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

While looking for sources, please keep in mind criterion 2 ("The item is reliably sourced ... with respect to ... the fact that it is a common misconception") and criterion 4 ("The common misconception is current"). You also might want to look at previous discussions on this topic: Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_1#Colds_and_'Flu and Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_13#cold_weather_really_does_spread_flu. On the level of personal opinion, I doubt that many people have this misconception today, although certainly in the past. Cresix (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's time to address this again - Inclusion criteria

"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."

I don't see how we can have a special set of rules like this that apply to this article only. I know they were created in an attempt to keep order in this article and to limit its size, but these rules exist outside of normal Wikipedia policies, and are overly strict. I think we need to change the name of the article and lift these rules, or get rid of the article altogether.--Asher196 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the second option. The problem with the first option is that the genre "collection of common misconceptions" is one that can about as sensibly be converted into an encyclopedia article as the genre "thriller". Just because Wikipedia is the category killer for open content collaborative writing on the internet doesn't mean all of it has to happen here. Common misconceptions literature clearly belongs on WikiSource as we can simply not handle it properly. Besides, the genre is not about getting things right, it's about maximising the entertainment of readers with a minimum of research. We are trying to do it better, but this simply doesn't scale as this page is obviously not watched by all the subject area experts that we would need for the multitude of subjects. Hans Adler 20:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the only article that has reached some agreement by consensus about how the article should be managed. For example, medical articles have their own guidelines about what is considered a reliable source, and it generally work well. The consensus for the criteria can change, of course, but there is nothing about them that violates any Wikipedia policies. And (without directing this to any editor in particular), I'll again ask anyone who advocates removing the criteria: Will you personally be the one to step in and deal with the dozens of items that will be added per week (in the past, it has been per day) that eventually will be added to the article, but that have no evidence of being common other than one editor's opinion? And that's a lot more than simply removing each item. You'll have to justify it here or on editors' talk pages when you remove someone's favorite misconception. And you'll be accused of everything from POV to being a communist. And even after that, many of the crappy items will remain in the article because no consensus to remove is as good as a keep. And it's not a meaningless question. When the criteria are removed, my ass will be out of here, as has been the case with several very good editors in the past who managed to keep the article under control, but who finally gave up in disgust. Cresix (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree about being overly strict, and in fact, inclusion criteria are REQUIRED as a part of a WP:LIST article. However, I do agree that these particular inclusion criteria STILL do not meet the requirements of WP:LIST. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll remind everyone (again) that WP:LIST is part of the Manual of Style. It is a guideline, not a policy. It has suggestions and are guidelines, but no requirements. We can consider WP:LIST and encouraged to do so, but we are not required to follow it. Not meeting every stipulation of WP:LIST in no way violates any Wikipedia policy. Cresix (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We can ignore them if it helps to improve the encyclopedia. The fact that ignoring them in this instance means that we have an article for which there is massive confusion and debate about nearly every entry does not seem that it is much of an improvement. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether the criteria in any way contribute to "massive confusion and debate about nearly every entry" is a matter of opinion (yours, mine, or anyone's). I think without the criteria there was massive confusion and endless debate. Anyone who can read the archives before the criteria were implemented can see that. After the criteria were implemented, the confusion and lengthy debates diminished considerably, though not altogether. There may be legitimate arguments against the criteria, but very clearly they do not cause massive confusion and endless debate, certainly compared to the status of this talk page and article before the criteria. And my second point is this: WP:LIST and the effectiveness of the criteria are separate issues. Let's not confuse them. Cresix (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the clause about 'only sources which use the exact phrase "common misconception"' should be changed to something more practical. The aim, of course, is not that more material should be acceptable; that would be the last thing we need. However, the phrase "common misconception" is often used in unreliable, novel sources. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The criteria do not state "only sources which use the exact phrase 'common misconception'". The wording is "The item is reliably sourced with respect to ... the fact that it is a common misconception." In the original discussions before implementing the criteria, and in subsequent discussions, it has been acknowledged that the exact phrase is not necessary, just a phrase with very close meaning. Sometimes how far that guideline can be stretched is a point of discussion, but such discussion is normal for almost any article that gets this much attention. So far, no one has come up with another wording that is "more practical". Even if we list all the synonyms of "common misconception", it would never cover all possibilities. Often the sufficiency of the wording depends on context, such as the fuller explanation provided by the source. We certainly can't just use the word "misconception". Then the article could expand almost infinitely. Cresix (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The current criteria were a compromise to kill off a Request for deletion discussion. As far as I am concerned, they must never be weakened. I still support deletion. This article is a collection of trivial rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. In the most recent AfD, no one could come up with a single reason for deletion. Not one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You are naturally entitled to your own opinion, but do try to not be so insulting to so many other thoughtful and experienced editors. HiLo48 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, you think that's insulting? What do you call "This article is a collection of trivial rubbish" which you said to so many thoughtful and experienced editors? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That you cannot see the difference highlights why you saw no arguments against the article's existence. For an item to be here depends on the random chance that someone can find a source (of almost any quality) where someone else has happened to use the term "common misconception" (or similar) to describe it. It's still far too sloppy a requirement. If the current criteria are ever weakened, I plan to add every religion in the world as misconceptions, because I think they are. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the community as a whole saw no reason to delete the article, otherwise, it would have been deleted. And please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a really dumb thing to say. We are all members of that community. I simply draw your attention to my post above of 11:55, 19 May 2011. I was certainly not the only one wanting it deleted. And what's wrong with me expressing my views on what are misconceptions? Others do it here all the time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And the community as a whole disagreed with you. Yes, I am aware of the comments you made against so many thoughtful and experienced editors: "This article is a collection of trivial rubbish.". No, you weren't the only one who wanted it deleted. But that fact remains that no one could come up with a single valid reason why the article should be deleted. Not one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"And the community as a whole disagreed with you" thats complete bullshit. "There is so much here that no meaningful consensus can be derived." "We may well end up back here in a few months " "I am conscious from my fast-approaching-five years as a sysop that the deletion system has failed badly here. I could just as easily have closed this as delete by fiat, " by the closing admin. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to made comments based in actual reality. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In AfDs, WP:consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments, not by the number of editors with thinly-veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. Could the admin have abused his authority? Sure. Did he? No. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone about keeping a civil tone, not because I have a perfect record of civility, but because this talk page has enough problems and I hope we can avoid an escalation of the heat that seems to be building up. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the article, it's kind of fun. But my biggest issue is that it's not easy to find. I edit a lot of the articles that are listed here, and never knew this page existed because some of the original articles (I don't know what percentage) don't link here. The name is cumbersome–who would search for an article with this name. The only reason I found it was that I noticed another editors contributions, and I was wondering what was here. So, despite my finding the article fun and interesting, it really lives in its own world, referring out to other articles, but rarely linked within those same articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point. We should try to be cognizant of adding a link back to this article from each item's parent article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does an entry in this article need a parent article?--Asher196 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• To assure that the entry's parent topic itself is notable per WP:N, having enough sources to justify an article. And (of minor importance) to offload the sourcing and prose of the larger topic to the topic's article, reducing clutter here. Example: glass, and the common misconception that glass is a slow liquid and is why old windows are thicker on the bottom. --Lexein (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ich bin ein Berliner (Which is it?)

Judging from the article, in my opinion, it doesn't seem clear. Do we state that, to some extent, the legend is true because of a regional variation of the name of the pastry in question? If we are saying this, then to a certain extent, this is not a misconception. GuyWithoutAUsername (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the item because of not only your concern, but because it fails criterion 2. Thanks for you comment. Cresix (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. This is very much a misconception and I don't understand the claim that it fails criterion 2. It's one of the best sourced in this entire article: "Let us quickly address and then shelve the persistent legend of the putative grammatical error that supposedly rendered the president's declaration nonsensical. According to many a German grammar book and by common usage, Kennedy should have said 'Ich bin ein Berliner' without the indefinite article ein. [...] What gives the grammatical error its comical touch, if one follows this interpretation, is that the president was declaring himself to be a jelly doughnut, a pastry some Germans call Berliner. The supposed error is much commented upon in Germany and, especially, the United States. The New York Times and Newsweek helped keep the story alive by claiming years after the event that the crowd at Schöneberg City Hall giggled and laughed when they heard the statement 'Ich bin ein Berliner'. Kennedy's supposed gaffe has become nearly as famous as the sentence itself [...] Moreover, the use of the indefinite article ein in 'Ich bin ein Berliner' is neither incorrect nor entirely uncommon, as the linguistic scholar Jürgen Eichhoff has demonstrated. [...] Saying 'ein Berliner' is grammatically correct if it is used metaphorically." [4]

This is part of more than two pages dedicated to dispelling the popular misconception in the Cambridge University Press book Kennedy in Berlin, written by a German and citing a German linguistic scholar who had covered the misconception earlier: Jürgen Eichhoff, "Ich bin ein Berliner: A History and a Linguistic Clarification" Monatshefte für den deutschen Unterricht 85: 71–80 (1993).

This academic online source summarises the latter paper as follows: "Thus President Kennedy did not misspeak, which explains why the myth developed only outside of Germany (see the serious images from German media on this page where JFK’s words were reprinted)."

How popular this misconception is can also be seen from the numerous lengthy discussions at Talk:Ich bin ein Berliner. Sometimes we even get Germans there who actually believe in it because the force of this misconception coming from all sides is so strong that they suspend their own sense for their own language.

To answer the OP's question, there are actually two related common misconceptions: (1) that the sentence contained a grammatical mistake, and (2) that it led to amused audience reactions. The first is disproved by what scholars say about the matter. The second cannot be entirely disproved in such a huge crowd, but it's very obvious from the recordings that the crowd understood the sentence precisely as intended and only laughed when Kennedy thanked his interpreter for 'translating' it. The misconception seems to have arisen when a comedian reinterpreted the sentence weeks later for comic effect, but we don't have a strong source for that. In any case, the mere fact that one can say a totally unlikely sentence that made no sense under the circumstances so that it sounds precisely like what Kennedy said doesn't make this any less of a misconception. Kennedy's sentence was not unintentionally funny. It can be forcefully reinterpreted as a pun, although for actual Berliners it's hard to do because in their local variant of German the pun doesn't even work. Hans Adler 02:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that "persistent legend" is equivalent to "common misconception". I suspect if you ask people who are not familiar with the German language (and even some who are), I doubt that the vast majority will have any idea about the misconception. This comes down to a matter of opinion as to whether "persistent legend" is close enough to "common misconception". I'll leave the item alone unless there is a consensus here to remove it. Cresix (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a misconception about 20th century history. Most people who have heard about the speech (and that's a lot of people) believe in the misconception – except for some of those who have heard the explanation, which only started to get some publicity a few years ago. See e.g. this blog of a professional linguist who always suspected that there was something wrong with the story, and the reactions of his readers. The word misconception is actually used by some of the sources, just not those currently used in the article. Hans Adler 02:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is a matter of opinion for both of us. JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech is widely known, but until I read about the misconception here, I have never once heard anyone refer to a possible misconception in the 50 years since it was made. I can remember some people familiar with German talking about his Americanized pronunciation ("Ish" for "Ich"), but never a mention of a jelly doughnut. If I lived in Germany that might be different, but I seriously doubt that most people in the USA have heard of the misconception. Let's see if there are other opinions. Cresix (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Which leads us back to the question of what is a common misconception? and the problem with the four arbitrary criteria for inclusion in this article.--Asher196 (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really, Asher. The criteria certainly are not perfect, but they are far superior to nothing in keeping this article manageable. If we didn't have the four criteria (and I must disagree that they are arbitrary), we would be having disputes such as this dozens of times per week. And this is a civil dispute. I've never seen an article with this much traffic that didn't have occasional disagreements. Without the criteria, people would be at each others' throats because someone removed someone else's favorite misconception. Take a close look at the archives before the criteria were implemented. We can remove the criteria if that's what people want, but within a month or two this article would then be out of control. We can delete the article if that's what people want; that idea has failed more than once. Based on a lot of experience with the article, I can confidently say that there is no reasonable middle ground. Either keep the criteria (or some well-crafted modification of them), eliminate the criteria and have an utterly unmanageable article, or delete the article. Cresix (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of deleting the final sentence which was causing the confusion. It was unsourced anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"far superior to nothing in keeping this article manageable" that is hardly an endorsement that the article in any way meets wikipedia stand alone article requirements. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're gonna have to do a lot better than that, Active Banana. Blanket, pervasive criticism with no specifics is worse than meaningless; it suggests something that may not be there. This article violates no policies. If you disagree (and please distinguish between guidelines and policies), give us specifics. Everything else is open to discussion but does not lower this article to the level of "bad article" without some specifics, including lots of examples, diff links, and suggested remedies. Simply stating "I don't like this article and I don't think this is a very good article" (or similar) without something substantive to back it up doesn't help the article and is a waste of our time. And my second point: let's not inappropriately mix "I don't like this article" with "The 4 criteria are a bad idea" without a good rationale that is based in fact. Cresix (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The misconception is widely circulated in popular culture in the US. In fact, if I remember correctly, the misconceptions was of American origin. Obviously a German speaker would know that he wasn't saying he was a donut. If I understand correctly, it would be like someone saying "I'm a New Yorker!" and listeners interpreting it as "I'm a New Yorker [style of hot dog]!" --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

May you please give us any sources that he was in fact saying "I'm a Hot Dog" and this was the mistake. I also want to ask another question. Let's say that JFK was giving his speech in let's say Bonn (where the pastry is actually called Berliner). Technically, would this grammar mistake be correct in this city? If you may answer, thank you. GuyWithoutAUsername (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

real number 0.999

This is a bit confusing. The reference cited clearly makes a distinction between .99...9 a finite number and .999 with dot over the 9 signifying an infinitely repeating sequence. Yet the article misses this subtle but important distinction. It would be very easy to get the wrong impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.25.3 (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The article clearly designates the number as 0.999... with ellipses following the last 9, which indicates an infinitely repeating sequence. I have added an overline on the last 9 in the first sentence for clarity but it seems redundant.

Would you care to propose a better wording? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Geography

I hear a lot "Australia's the only country-continent!" But it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamolton (talk • contribs) 21:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask any Australians on Wikipedia to bear with me if I display a profound ignorance, but the link above, as well as Australia, don't seem illuminate this issue. What am I missing? Australia is a country, right? Australia is an island, right? Is there another country-continent? Cresix (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of the entry linked, or just look at the image. Hairhorn (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the Australian continent also includes some islands (such as New Guinea) which are separate countries. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, please bear with me. But the fact that Australia includes more than the continent, in my opinion, does not negate that it is a continent and a country. As an analogy, the United States is considered to be on the continent of North America, but Hawaii is not part of North America. Can someone please explain this? Cresix (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I looked over the article, and I can't find a reliable source there that actually states that New Guinea is part of the "continent" of Australia. Maybe this is common knowledge that never passed my way. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force removal

The point in centrifugal force was removed despite following the 4 categories on the talk page.

The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own - Yes if you go to the wikipedia page Centrifugal Force there is the the subheading "Fictitious centrifugal force"

The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception - Below are the sources which also include the wikipedia article on the Fictitious centrifugal force. Source 1 explains how a lot of people think there is such a thing. I know plenty of people who believe such a thing exists. Below are articles which all mention that the Centrifugal force is a common misconception. These can be cited if needed http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l1d.cfm

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=36263.msg356359;boardseen "I think there is a common misconception that "centrifugal force" is a force that will cause a rotating body to "fly off" at right angles to its direction of travel. Of course, we know that is not true. As soon as the centripetal force is removed, there is no centrifugal force, so why not simply call it what it is i.e., a reaction to centripetal force?"

The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources - again yes, see "Fictitious centrifugal force"

The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete - yes people experience this everyday.

Below is the article: There is no such thing as a Centrifugal Force when an object bends around a corner. There is a common misconception that when an object is in angular motion it has a force that pushes it outwards called a Centrifugal Force. This is in fact an imaginary force that the object experiences as it tries to continue in a straight line but is being pulled inwards by the Centripetal force. Although the object can feel itself be pushed outwards, there is no specific force causing this.

Sources: 1)http://regentsprep.org/regents/physics/phys06/bcentrif/centrif.htm 2)http://xkcd.com/123/ (granted this is not a valid source so can be removed). 3)http://phun.physics.virginia.edu/topics/centrifugal.html 4)http://science.howstuffworks.com/centrifugal-force-info.htm

Sephers (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The forum source is not a reliable source; blogs and forums in which anyone who is willing to register can make comments are not reliable sources. The physicsclassroom.com source states "Not uncommon to hear mention of the word centrifugal", which is not equivalent to a common misconception. The other sources make no mention of how common the misconception is. The item should not be restored unless there is a consensus here to do so. Cresix (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the following source. Blood dynamics (2001) published by Academic Press (ISBN: 0127624570) Page 54-55 Sephers (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

John Hanson?

I don't want to go through a bunch of archives, but here's another "misconception". It's a common misconception in itself to believe that John Hanson was the first president of the US disproving the "misconception" that George Washington was the first president of the US, as at the time of the so called "presidency" of John Hanson, there was no official office. There was a weak central government, and he was the president of the Second Continental Congress, which was the closest thing that came to a president, but it had very limited powers. Even if we consider this as a "president", he wasn't the first "technical" president of the US anyway. In fact, the 1st President of the Continental Congress was Peyton Randolph. If you Google "John Hanson", you'll obviously get a lot of sites saying "He was the 1st President". This is in my opinion, a misconception that is commonly believed today. I'll try to find sources. GuyWithoutAUsername (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been around the block a few times, and I've never heard of this. Google hardly qualifies as a source one way or another, since it's rankings are based not on quality but quantity. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this misconception is common either, although I have heard of it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Creation of the Internet

I don't think it's a misconception that Gore took excessive created for developing the Internet. At best, we might say it's controversial. But it would not be neutral to take sides in the squabble.

• Gore, who boasted in a CNN interview he "took the initiative in creating the Internet," was only 21 when the Internet was born out of a Pentagon project. But after joining Congress eight years later, he promoted high-speed telecommunications for economic growth and supported funding increases for the then-fledging network, according to the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences, which presents the annual awards. [5]

If the above is factual, then the Internet had already been created before he gave it whatever backing he did. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh give me a break Poor. He sponsored and shepherded through Congress two key pieces of legislation that made the internet what it is today, a place for people to push their agendas, make money, and blather on about anything they want without support. That legislation was the 1988 National High Performance Computer Act, and the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992. Gore never ever claimed he invented the internet, and without these pieces of legislation, the internet would be nothing. So, unless you really have something useful to say about it, let's move on. OK? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

He is claimed to have said he invented the internet while there is ample evidence that he did not in fact state this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Then it's a misquotation, not a "misconception". And the entry is misleading, because it implies that we are endorsing his claim to have "taken the initiative" (which is a matter of controversy) but I won't edit-war over this. I'll just add this to my long list of places where Wikipedia isn't neutral but takes sides with liberal viewpoints. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But there is still a controversy over whether Gore claimed credit for creating the Internet, even if we supply a charitable interpretation of his having said that he "took the initiative in creating" it.

• Clearly, then, if we take Gore literally at his word, he could not have "taken the initiative in creating the Internet." As the ARPANET moved from research to deployment, Gore was finishing college and serving in the Army in Vietnam. From 1976 to 1985, Gore served in the House of Representatives. From 1985 to 1992, he served in the Senate. The record shows that his interest in national computer networking issues became acute during his years in the Senate - when the Internet clearly was fully in operation.
• So let us grant to Gore's critics that he was in no position to "take the initiative in creating the Internet." But is it possible that Gore's declaration, chosen in real time during a live-on-tape interview, could be simply a poor choice of words - sloppy speaking on his part - and that a slightly different formulation might be quite reasonably interpreted as totally accurate? [6]

I still say this should not be in Misconceptions but in Misquotations. He didn't invent the Internet but he did claim credit for creating it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct "alcohol has positive health benefits when used moderately"

Under "Nutrition, food, and drink" and the fourth subhead "Alcohol does not kill brain cells", there is a statement that "alcohol has positive health benefits when used moderately". This is a common misconception and does not belong under that subhead. Possibly it should have it's own subhead as a misconception to avoid confusion and digression. Maybe it should just be corrected.

Studies have shown that red and white wine are beneficial to heart health due to their ability to help with cholesterol. There have also been indications that it can help with certain cancers, among other things. Many of these beneficial effects are shown to also be gained through the drinking of non-alcoholic wines and grape juices, as the benefits are derived from the grapes themselves. More research still needs to be done, however, as not all benefits are shown to be gained from non-alcoholic wines and grape juices as are gained in alcoholic wines.

A glass or two a day of red wine, white wine, or champagne(which is a mixture of red and white wines) is beneficial, but more than that and the benefits may be outweighed by the other potential risk posed by alcohol consumption. -

There are many scientific papers written about this. The blanket statement "[all] alcohol has positive health benefits when used moderately" should be corrected or pointed out.

Osaka35 (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what moderately means? HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Moderately is an ambiguous term that varies depending on the individual's perception. Some could believable say 4-6 glasses a day is moderate, which is double or triple what the research intends when it says "moderate". I feel there's no need to be ambiguous when it's just as easy to be precise Osaka35 (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Equally, some people use larger glasses, etc. Do you want to change the wording to list exact measurements? HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

No, I'm not questioning the inclusion criteria. What I am questioning, however, is the criteria being on front of the page. Is it really necessary? When you edit the page, it immediately shows a big hand on a stop sign telling you to read the criteria. I don't think we need to mention it twice. I say we remove it and just keep the warning when editing. GuyWithoutAUsername (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a point. The inclusion criteria seem awkward put on the front of the page. They serve as editorial guidelines, so should only appear in editing. Maybe rephrasing into a more encyclopedic manner helps.Kuphrer (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)