Talk:List of common misconceptions

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

Why was the Dark Ages section removed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on the nomenclature of Shelley's creature

re: the portion directed at the nomenclature of Shelley's Creature, I think this segment should either be further expanded to or link to resources (such as the wikipedia article on the Creature itself) that discuss how the Creature assumed the name of 'Adam,' how derivative culture has also named the Creature 'Adam Frankenstein,' how critical literary theory examines the nomenclature in respect to pseudo-parentage, and of course documentation from Shelley and her contemporaries referring to the monster colloquially as 'Adam (Frankenstein)'--to deny the Creature an identity in an article meant to dispell urban myths is contrary to the cultural literary history stemming from ad fontes itself.

I am willing and able to provide these details in edits myself, providing the permission to make these amendments, as I am quite passionate about this book, this character and its cultural history.

Illecebrous.abattoir (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Images on the left screw up the bullet points

I just noticed that something about images on the left is causing the bullet points not to display. Can someone who's familiar with image markup fix this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2012 King Christian X of Denmark in Modern History

Current Text:

• During World War II, King Christian X of Denmark did not thwart Nazi attempts to identify Jews by wearing a yellow star himself. Jews in Denmark were never forced to wear the Star of David. The Danes did help most Jews flee the country before the end of the war.

Proposed Text:

• During World War II, King Christian X of Denmark did not thwart Nazi attempts to identify Jews by wearing a yellow star himself. Jews in Denmark were never forced to wear the Star of David. The Danes did help most Jews flee the country before the end of the war. The "Yellow Star" story has many, more or less reliable, sources, one being a conversation between the king and his minister of finance, Vilhelm Buhl, during which Christian remarked that if the German administration tried to introduce the symbol of the Star of David in Denmark, "perhaps then we should all wear it."

141.100.10.220 (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2012

was first introduced into the Sherlock Holmes genera

I want to change this line to

was first introduced into the Sherlock Holmes universe

I want to change this because the word is not only misspelled, but it is also not the right word to use. This sentence can be found in part 8 of this page, the Literature section.

Apanduhbear (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Just like "universe" means something outside of cosmology, "genera" has a common meaning outside of taxonomy. — Bility (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 January 2012

If someone could read through, and fix the grammer (Such as "An herb") that would be great.

124.181.185.196 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As an Australian I would certainly never write "An herb...", but many Americans would, because they drop the "H", pronouncing "herb" as if it was spelt "erb". HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, not a specific request--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Myopia

There is a budding edit-war over the misconception that myopia is preventable.

The original reading was:

There is no known way to prevent myopia. Reading or watching television do not cause myopia, and neither does the use of glasses or contact lenses affect the normal progression of myopia

This was then changed to:

Myopia is preventable. While genetics do not cause the condition, they can predispose an individual to develop myopia as a result of the strain caused by excessive near work.

The source cited to justify the change states in its conclusions:

Although myopia was not significantly associated with time spent in near work after adjustment for other factors, there were significant independent associations with close reading distance and continuous reading. These associations may indicate that the intensity rather than the total duration of near work is an important factor [my emphases].

This seems as a weak argument to me. Additionally, if this source should be taken into account, then surely the correct action would be to remove the item altogether? The article originally implied a misconception that "reading or watching television cause myopia". If this is not a misconception, it does not belong on this list.

Then, when I looked at the source used to include the item in the first place, it really does not justify inclusion based on establishing this as a common misconception. One would have to interpret the following sentence as implying the existence of such a misconception:

"There is no way to prevent nearsightedness. Reading and watching television do not cause nearsightedness."

That is stretching it as far as I can see, especiually since this sentence is listed under the heading "PREVENTION".

In my opinion, this gives three options with the same outcome:

1-Trust source 1 but not source 2: Source 1 does not justify that this is a common misconception. Delete item.

2-Trust source 2 but not source 1: The misconception is not a misconception. Delete item.

3-Trusts both sources: Source 1 does not justify that this is a common misconception, while source 2 indicates that the "misconception" may hold some truth. Delete item.

I have deleted the item. Dr bab (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wise move. HiLo48 (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Distilled water

Should add a section to show that it's a *very* commonly held misconception that drinking distilled water leeches minerals away from your body and is unhealthy. The CDC recommends distilled water for immunocompromised people, the FDA says it's safe, and a number of doctors have said this misconception is bunk. I think more research/citation needs to be put together to add this, but assuming I'm right, it should be added.