Talk:List of common misconceptions

"Radiation is not always dangerous"

This item is tendentious and contradicts Wikipedia's own article "Radiation hormesis."

It begins by implyng that because low-level ionizing radiation is ubiquitous and survivable it cannot be dangerous. Yet this is fallacious. Air pollution is ubiquitous, the human race survives in its presence, and it is dangerous; background radiation could, logically, be similar.

In fact, scientists do actively dispute whether background radiation contributes to human disease. The answer depends on the correctness of the linear no-threshold model of radiation damage. That model is contested, but as Wikipedia's "Radiation hormesis" notes, institutional expert opinion presently supports it and rejects hormesis (the hypothesis, which this item overtly plumps for, that very low-level ionizing radiation is harmless or beneficial). I copy the relevant paragraph from "Radiation hormesis" to the bottom of this comment.

In short, this item advances a controversial claim as fact. It is advocacy for one side of an active, unresolved scientific debate and should be deleted.

======================================

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis (sources are cited in original):

Reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) argue that there is no evidence for hormesis in humans and in the case of the National Research Council hormesis is outright rejected as a possibility. Therefore, estimating linear no-threshold model (LNT) continues to be the model generally used by regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure. Lgilman909 (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It begins by implyng that because low-level ionizing radiation is ubiquitous and survivable it cannot be dangerous. It begins "Radiation is not always dangerous. Radiation is ubiquitous on Earth's surface, and humans are adapted to survive at normal Earth radiation levels.", implying that it is "not always dangerous", not that "it cannot be dangerous".

As for "There is some evidence to suggest that this is true for ionizing radiation; normal levels of ionizing radiation may serve to stimulate and regulate the activity of DNA repair mechanisms.": It does seem to advance a controversial claim as fact. I would support removing that part. I didn't investigate which of the four sources given could be dispensed with if it were deleted. _signed, Willondon (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that not all radiation is ionizing to begin with, and thus that alone would justify the statement that "radiation is not always dangerous". Though it seems this point focuses more on the axiom that the dose makes the poison. I guess the problem here is that it compares the danger of ionizing radiation with the toxicity of oxygen and water, which implies that radiation has no damaging effects at low levels, when it still has the potential to cause damage at low levels, it's simply less likely to do so. Nevertheless, I think this point could be kept in some capacity, as there certainly is a tendency among the general public to greatly overestimate the damaging effects of low levels of ionizing radiation, not realizing that they are constantly being exposed to low levels of ionizing radiation, even miles away from civilization, and at these levels it generally isn't particularly harmful. Though that questionable claim about radiation helping DNA repair seems too contentious to be included here. Alex the weeb (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The misconception seems akin to the sentiment that "chemicals are unnatural". (Not that I know how that should guide our editing of the article.) _signed, Willondon (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Radiation is always dangerous" is the common misconception addressed by the correction, "Radiation is not always dangerous." In addition to being attested to by multiple RS (please see the entry), and several Wikipedia pages, this particular common misconception about radiation is easy to debunk with a little application of WP:BLUE. The electromagnetic radiation emanating from the screen that you are using to read this sentence is not dangerous. There is absolutely nothing contentious about this, and I see no need to change the entry in any way, much less remove it. Joe (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the objection is that the point is actually claiming that IONIZING radiation is not always dangerous. For some reason, it doesn't discuss non-ionizing radiaion, and only talks about how low level exposure to ionizing radiation is unlikely to cause harm. Alex the weeb (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Rabbits regularly eat carrots

Not part of their natural diet, not good for them, can be deadly if fed regularly Started w Bugs Bunny (itself a reference to a scene in "It Happened One Night") Celdin7 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it passes #3 of the criteria, "the common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." A string search on Carrot finds no mention of "rabbit", and on Rabbit, no mention of "carrot". _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The rabbit article does, however, state that the rabbit's diet consists of grass and hay, and thus at least implicitly supports this. The point would obviously include the fact that rabbits eat grass and hay, so maybe this would be enough? This misconception seems like a good fit for the article, and it seems wrong that it should not be included due to what amounts to a technicality. Alex the weeb (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It does seem to count as a common misconception. [1][2] The information should be added to the rabbit article first, though. It would also be nice to get a reliable source for the claim that Bugs Bunny introduced this belief. That apparently started as a spoof of a scene in a Clark Gable movie [3], but of course Quora is not a RS. This article alludes to the connection, but doesn't make it explicit. --Macrakis (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that we have reached consensus about including this entry. The entry was added, but it reads more like a WP:HOWTO than an encyclopedic article. I'm going to remove the recently added entry pending more discussion here. And we really need to do better than saying "rabbis don't eat lettuce, they eat leafy greens instead." Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There are no guidelines as to how big a consensus is needed to add something to the page, so I'm not sure removing it on those grounds makes sense. Furthermore, it seems your main issue with the point is how it was worded, which makes me wonder why you didn't adapt the wording to be more appropriate, and instead removed it entirely. Alex the weeb (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There are most certainly guidelines for reaching consensus - see WP:CON, but this entry is fairly easy. The misconception is not mentioned in the topic article so it fails the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact it is now mentioned in the article. The only remaining criteria are that there is a reliable source for debunking the misconception, and that it is a current common misconception. Which of these criteria do you not believe are met? Alex the weeb (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that various sources say different things. The cite at the Rabbit article says

Rabbits don't naturally eat root vegetables or fruit.

But this source[4] says

Rabbits really do like to eat carrots, but they don’t love them more than they love other vegetables.

This one[5] says:

So, if you’re wondering “Do wild rabbits eat carrots?” the answer is, “Yes, they will, but it’s not their favorite.”

This one[6] says:

A wild rabbit will very seldom eat carrots or any other root vegetable. Instead, they forage on surface grass and greens. However, they will occasionally find the top of a sweet carrot to eat...

And this one[7] says:

Bunnies will nibble on carrots, but they can't live on carrots alone.

Finally, this one [8]

Everybody knows that bunnies eat carrots, right? Except they don’t, really.

In the wild, rabbits aren’t in the habit of digging up root vegetables such as carrots, potatoes and beets.

So, it's a bit nuanced, and I'm not finding particularly good sourcing. Seems to me that the myth is that "Rabbits love carrots and their diet consists largely of carrots" while the truth is that carrots are "rarely" eaten by rabbits in the wild. But rabbits do eat carrots as part of their "natural" diet, at least some rabbits, but it's a very small part of their diet.

As long as we're careful with the wording I'd be in favor of adding this entry. It would be nice to have better sourcing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Does Bee Movie further popularize misconception?

In the "bumblebees should not be able to fly" section, I reverted the part about Bee Movie further popularizing the misconception [9] with edit summary: I don't think so; Business Insider only says "But Bee Movie is also spreading lies.", not that it was further popularized. The counter argument (edit summary) was I think that "spreading" and "further populariz[ing]" are synonymous. My thinking was partly informed by my personal assessment that the canard was popular as early as the 80's, if not before; I remember coming across it in many diverse sources (likely Scientific American and popular science books of the time). So that was some forty-plus years before the movie, and I guessed that very few who came across it in the movie, as I did, were encountering it for the first time. From that perspective, spread is not the same thing as further popularize. I've never made a mistake in judgement here at Wikipedia, but if it were to happen, I must say this seems my weakest argument yet. Given that, I'm happy to have had my say, here and in the revert, and leave the rest of you to consider it. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point about the misconception already being quite popular. In case there is any ambiguity, I do not mean to imply the bee movie is the only reason why this myth is popular. I can see how "further popularize" might have implied that, though.

I would be fine with an alternative phrasing if it would clear up that confusion. "Spread" from the source seems fine enough. Slamforeman (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention Bee Movie at all in this collection of short summaries. It seems like unnecessary cruft. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I can understand that for sure. I added it as a kindness to the IP editor who originally brought up the bee movie. I had thought mentioning pop culture that had spread common misconceptions, like the bee movie, might be useful, but I don’t have a good argument as to why it should stay there. Slamforeman (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a simpler argument against inclusion. The list items should have a brief reference, letting the supporting links fill in the details. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

On removing the Taj Mahal entry

Hi! I recently added an entry to the page about the Taj Mahal myth that the emperor, who commissioned it, ordered the hands of the architects and workers to be cut off. This was then removed by @Mr Swordfish with the reason that it wasn't mentioned it the "topic article" and thus fails the inclusion criteria. I am confused about that, does it mean the wikipedia article on the main theme of the myth (Taj Mahal) or the myth needs an article of its own? Since I checked the main Taj Mahal article before editing the page and it does mention the myth in it's Myths Section.

It would be very helpful if swordfish makes the reason more clear so as to avoid future mistakes. I am new to editing wikipedia so sorry for the bother, thanks! Blackout Sea (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The entry began with:

Shah Jahan, the Indian Mughal Emperor who commissioned the Taj Mahal, did not cut off the hands...

I went to the Taj Mahal article and searched for "cut" and "hand" and didn't see anything so I concluded that the myth was not mentioned in the topic article hence the entry failed the inclusion criteria. However, it is mentioned in the Myths section of the article using different language:

No concrete evidence exists for claims that describe, often in horrific detail, the deaths, dismemberments and mutilations which Shah Jahan supposedly inflicted on various architects and craftsmen associated with the tomb. Some stories claim that those involved in construction signed contracts committing themselves to have no part in any similar design. Similar claims are made for many famous buildings. No evidence exists for claims that Lord William Bentinck, governor-general of India in the 1830s, supposedly planned to demolish the Taj Mahal and auction off the marble. Bentinck's biographer John Rosselli says that the story arose from Bentinck's fund-raising sale of discarded marble from Agra Fort.

So I was incorrect about it not meeting that inclusion criteria. I remain unconvinced that it is current and sufficiently common to be included here, but I'll butt out of this discussion and leave it to the other editors to decide that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Here's an article from The Hindu, a very well respected daily here in India. The article directly confirms that it's a very popular myth.

From the article :

The fact remains that this is a well-known urban myth.

I could maybe link other recent article that even go into it's political ramifications but that would be very out of scope. It's a very popular trope even today in stories or poems and has been overplayed by the current politics. You could confirm it's popularity by asking any Indian editor you might know (specially north Indians). I would ask you to reconsider your choice, but if not, that's fine too. Thanks! Blackout Sea (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blackout Sea Here's where we are: in the middle of a WP:BRD process. You made a bold edit, I reverted it, now we are discussing it on the talk page. I realize I made an error am withdrawing my main objection, you have provided sourcing and intelligent commentary in support of your position. I'd give it another day or so to see if any other editors weigh in and if there are no more objections go ahead and restore the entry.

We're not doing breaking news here, so there's no urgency. Thanks for your contribution, and welcome to Wikipedia. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off as too impatient. Blackout Sea (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for here on your part. Cheers! Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we can revert now? Blackout Sea (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen any objections, so go for it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Widening roads does not ease traffic congestion entry

This entry was recently added:

• Widening roads does not ease traffic congestion. In fact widening roads and building new roads increases traffic through the effect of Induced demand.

I'm not seeing anywhere in the topic article or the cite where this is described as a common misconception. Could someone point out the language that does that? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC) Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Dubious source in the "fuck" section.

It ["fuck"] is most likely derived from Middle Dutch or other Germanic languages, where it either meant "to thrust" or "to copulate with" (fokken in Middle Dutch), "to copulate" (fukka in Norwegian), or "to strike, push, copulate" or "penis" (focka and fock respectively in Swedish).

As a native swedish speaker, this stuck out to me. I have never heard this usage. The source for this (ref 100 and 101) is a Snopes article that itself references a post on the alt.usage.english newsgroup. The usenet post has no source, but claims it is dialectal. I looked it up in Svenska Akademiens Ordlista and Project Runeberg's dialectal search:

A "Fock" is a dutch/german loan word from the 1500s denoting a type of sail.

"Focka", meaning to fire someone from a job, is indeed dialectal but it has only been in recorded use since 1891, meaning "fuck" came first. Note that "focka" has been used like "fuck" but the swedish dictionary notes that this use is borrowed from english.

Runeberg has no recorded uses of the word "focka", and "fock" only appears in the form noted by the swedish dictionary.

From a quick glance at ordbokene.no, the same seems to hold for norwegian. Note that I am not a speaker of norwegian, just relying on mutual intelligibility. 98.128.186.110 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

As a native Norwegian speaker I can confirm that "fukka" does not mean "to copulate" in Norwegian. We can say that something "er fucka", meaning that it "is fucked up/terrible/bad", but this is derived from the English "fuck", not the other way around. Forteller (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The first cite does not seem to meet our WP:RS standards. While Snopes.com is a reliable source, the usenet group alt.usage.english is clearly not, so while Snopes may rely on it, we cannot.

The second cite does not address Swedish or Norwegian. It's available at [10] if you have a Harper's subscription. Since I do, I've reviewed it and there's nothing to support the assertion.

So, I'm going to remove that part as unsupported. If someone can provide a source to back it up we can restore. Thanks for the heads up. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the topic article, Fuck#Etymology, it also claims Swedish and Norwegian origin for the term. Unfortunately, I can't access the cited source so I'm hesitant to make changes there. I've raised the issue at the Talk:Fuck page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Night of the Living Dead

This entry doesn't seem to involve any misconception. It mentions that the movie is considered the first modern zombie movie, and that its undead are called "ghouls" rather than "zombies". For there to be a misconception here, it would have to be that people mistakenly believe the creatures are called "zombies" (do they?) or that they mistakenly believe it's a zombie movie (but it obviously is one). Thefringthing (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The economics section could use internationalisation.

At present, it's very focused on the US economy and the US dollar. In particular, the misconception about US marginal tax brackets is also a commonly-held misconception in the UK: See here. Perhaps this could be reworded to reflect marginal tax rates in general, rather than in the US specifically? Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 09:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Profit margin

"The general public believed the average profit margin made by American corporations to be 46.7%, while the actual average that year was just 3%." [11] Benjamin (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)