Jump to content

Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 48 external links on List of common misconceptions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Pages

Is there or should there be pages for lists of misconceptions specific to fields, with perhaps lesser inclusion criteria? Benjamin (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to water down the inclusion criteria if parts of the article are moved to a new article. If you thoroughly read the talk page archives and look at the history of the article before the criteria were reached by consensus, you can see that the article was a huge mess that included everyone' favorite idea of a misconception with no evidence that the misconception was commonly held by the general population. Even with the criteria, the article still contains items with little or no reliable sourcing that it is a common misconception. A mess in an article with a different name is still a mess. Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Organic food

It is widely believed that eating organic food is better for the environment and climate than eating conventionally grown food. But a new study shows that the typical organic diet does not reduce a person's carbon footprint, and it requires 40% more land.[1]Benjamin (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This misconception appears to me to meet all the inclusion criteria. Sundayclose (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The organic food article makes no mention of carbon footprint nor how much land it takes. Organic farming#energy efficiency say the results are mixed from multiple studies. The article linked by the OP perhaps cherry picked studies that prove the negative. Get the organic farming article to say something definitive and we can added it here. (Good luck with that.) Otherwise this fails criteria three "the common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/26/organic-farms-use-more-land-and-dont-decrease-carbon-footprint-11338

Inconsistent Structure of Statements

At the top, the page says "Note that each entry is formatted as a correction; the misconceptions themselves are implied rather than stated", but this is very often not the case, where the misconception is simply contradicted. 73.169.194.180 (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Daylight savings

I can't access the source for this entry. But I can access our own article on Daylight savings, which reads "American inventor and politician Benjamin Franklin proposed a form of daylight time in 1784. He wrote an essay "An Economical Project for Diminishing the Cost of Light" to the editor of The Journal of Paris, suggesting, somewhat jokingly, that Parisians could economize candle usage by getting people out of bed earlier in the morning, making use of the natural morning light instead.[2]" We ought to have some consistency. (And by the way, the other article explains why this one used to mention the word "Europe" in the text). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: I think the text in the lead of daylight savings has been poorly transformed from the main text and runs the risk of being misconstrued. The main text describes the situation better. The source referred to on this page doesn't discuss Franklin at all and is being used to back up the claim that standardised time didn't exist until the late 18th century. PriceDL (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
OK. If the source on this article doesn't mention Franklin, then it's useless for our purposes (verifying that there's a "common misconception" about him). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll remove it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think Franklin did raise the idea, but he didn't propose DST as we know it today. Therefore it's not a misconception. And, by the way, it's daylight saving, not savings!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Your last sentence appears to be a misconception, no idea how common it is though. Seems a fairly official term - and here are lots of RS using the term. In the UK, we just usually call it BST, as we rejoice in a unified time zone, while Scotland is still part of us, at any rate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article says: "Daylight saving time (abbreviated DST), also sometimes erroneously referred to as daylight savings time". The fact that government websites or media organisations get it wrong occasionally is irrelevant. I've written stuff for government websites, and I've spelt my own name wrong. There is no reason to pluralise "saving", and sources that are careful don't. Like any common mistake you can find plenty of sources to "support" it. The problem is, it's wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
On what basis is it "wrong". Because Wikipedia says so? Wikipedia needs to reflect reliable sources. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
[1][2][3][4].--Jack Upland (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Saul of Tarsus entry

In the mass of information for this entry, it's impossible to tell what the "common misconception" is supposed to be. The second of the two sources (which is rather weak in terms of asserting this is a "common" misconception ("Many mistakenly assume") but it seems to be saying that the misconception is that Saul/Paul ever changed his name. That's quite far from what we're trying to say here. The second source makes no assertion whatsoever about common misconceptions and also seems to be talking about a double name.

So, is "Many mistakenly assume" strong enough evidence of a "common misconception"? If so, I'll edit the entry to make it comprehensible. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll assume it is and edit it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Dweller. I've really seen the light here. Would be a crime not to correct it. Great to have a few things to muse on. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Black hole entry

Black holes have the same gravitational effects as any other equal mass in their place. They will draw objects nearby towards them, just as any other planetary body does, except at very close distances.[194] If, for example, the Sun were replaced by a black hole of equal mass, the orbits of the planets would be essentially unaffected. A black hole can act like a "cosmic vacuum cleaner" and pull a substantial inflow of matter, but only if the star it forms from is already having a similar effect on surrounding matter.[195] I have no idea what the common misconception is in this entry that is being put right. Anyone? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That black holes have special sucking power.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Erm. But we say that they do have sucking power. Is the nuance here that they have no more or less sucking power than other things with similar mass? I'm not sure that's a "common misconception". It would be if black holes didn't have sucking power. Most people don't give two hoots if black holes have the same, more or less sucking power than other large objects that may be encountered in outer space. I can't believe there's a commonly held perception either way about black holes' abilities relative to, say, planets or my stomach. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Black holes do have an innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO).[5][6][7] Particles with closed orbits that decay below this point will go into a death spiral. Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that either of the two sources presented refer to there being a commonly held misconception about this topic, so I propose to delete it. Happy to hear objections. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a common misconception that black holes actively hoover up things in the vicinity (source: every sci fi film ever), and while the existing sources (and the text) aren't great they should be improved rather than deleted. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, that's not what Jack Upland is saying. He says it's true that black holes do actually suck up things. That is what our text seems to be saying, too (A black hole can act like a "cosmic vacuum cleaner"). NB whatever we say here, we need an RS to say it's a common misconception (or words similar) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
That depends on what you call "suck up things". Does the Sun "suck up" things? I don't think so, and I would guess many others wouldn't say that either.
An example of the misconception is the idea that you could not orbit a black hole because it would "suck you in" if you come close. And that is clearly wrong. --mfb (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, it happened in Interstellar. And I bet that really sucks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's start again with this entry, because it's a horribly tangled mess. Can someone find a good RS (or even better, two or more) that says there is a common misconception about black holes? If we can find them, we can chat about what the misconception is, because this is pointless without RS. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Relocated comment.
Sorry, I'm too thick to understand what that means / how it's a reply to my comment. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
My response was misplaced. Sorry. Praemonitus (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a reference for you, but as an astronomer who has given plenty of public talks and observatory open houses, the question "will the black hole at the center of the Milky Way suck us all in eventually" does come up quite a lot. I'm not sure how one would go about finding a reference that that's something that people believe, though. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

A couple of sources I found in about one minute:

Sundayclose (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a common misconception. You shouldn't delete entries because you don't understand them.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Jack Upland that's uncalled for. I started a discussion, I didn't delete, precisely because I didn't understand. I've been quite clear about that from my first post here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Shucks. Editing Wikipedia, eh? Sometimes it feels like being sucked into a black hole. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Dweller, I misunderstood the thrust of your comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Kind of you to post that, thank you, I appreciate it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sundayclose That's really helpful, thanks. The Futurism source using the right language for an entry here ("I am afraid that this is a common misconception about black holes.") I think what he's saying, in lay terminology, is that they only suck things in if they get too close, not anything in their gravitational field. So they do suck things in, but they don't have as much power as people commonly think. Is that right?

The other source is interesting because the author thinks that there are common misconceptions about 3 things, 2 of which I'd guarantee that most ordinary people don't have conceptions or misconceptions about. For the third (black holes don't suck things in) I think he's saying that black holes don't suck things in that are in an established orbit, is that right? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump - Russia

Would the Trump-Russia saga be a suitable addition to this page? Many people now believe wholeheartedly that Russia influenced the election or colluded with Donald Trump. Many also seem to be convinced that evidence exists, despite all relevant in-the-know parties on both sides of the political debate unequivocally stating at various times that there is absolutely no evidence, and recently now the CNN leak confirming the whole story is in fact fabricated.

I'd argue the story has reached common misconception proportions. At the very least, the evidence of consensus reaches the same standard as does the argument that a very high X% of scientists believe climate change is real and man-made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.183.176 (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

That you would argue does not make it true. You'd have to actually argue it, and do so quite persuasively. But not here.

The four criteria for this list are at the top of the page. The first thing you'd need to do is go to the talk page of the article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and discuss changing the article to say this is a misconception. Once done, come back here and discuss. A hot political topic can be a challenge to discuss, so I'd suggest you prepare by carefully reading How to disagree brilliantly, The Rules of Polite Discourse, Consensus and perhaps No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You'd also have to find a reliable source stating that it's a common misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2017

Under the section titled "Senses," the second bullet point states that it is a common misconception that human beings only have five senses. It then attributes this misconception to Aristotle, who only identified sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. The text goes on to list a few other senses that Aristotle did not include, such as thermoception.

This bullet point is itself based on a common misconception: that modern scientists and Aristotle thought about senses in the same way. Modern scientists distinguish the senses on the basis of their mechanism, but Aristotle distinguished them on the basis of their object (i.e., the kind of thing that the sense senses). In the beginning of [1]of Aristotle's De anima for example, Aristotle discusses the possibility of there being more than 5 senses. In the discussion, he defines the sense of touch as that sense by which we perceive tangible things by immediate contact. In the list of the qualities of things that we can perceive by this sense, he includes hotness. Therefore, Aristotle explicitly acknowledges that human beings have the sense of "thermoception." The difference is that he includes this as a part of the sense of touch.

What follows from this is the conclusion that Aristotle would have included all of the "extra" senses listed in the second bullet point under the sense of touch. The bullet point is therefore erroneous. It accuses Aristotle of not being aware of more than 5 senses, but it does this on the basis of the false assumption that Aristotle and a modern scientist would number the senses in the same way. They clearly would not.

It is therefore not a common misconception that we have more than 5 senses, but rather, it is a common misconception among scientists that Aristotle, and people who - knowingly or not - base their understanding of the senses on his philosophy, don't know what they're talking about. 108.31.128.114 (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


I am supposed to include in this request a copy of the text to be removed and a copy of the text with which to replace it. However, I think that it is best that this bullet point simply be removed, since it is based on an erroneous assumption. Perhaps better yet, it should be replaced with a bullet point about how it is a common misconception in the scientific community that science has discovered more senses than Aristotle accounted for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.128.114 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The stated misconception is "... the commonly cited five senses". Whatever the merits or demerits of any vague characterization of science's understanding of nuances Aristotelian philosophy, the idea of five senses is firmly embedded in Western consciousness (see "five+senses"+biology&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLlMawpvbUAhVIOD4KHeSJB_wQ6AEIMTAC#v=onepage&q=%22five%20senses%22%20&f=false this primary-school textbook) or identifies five "special senses" (see this college-level Human Biology text. See also this policy supplement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This is true, but the text in the article states that "sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing" are the "senses identified by Aristotle," and then goes on to list several others that Aristotle apparently did not mention. However, the text that I cited shows that not only would Aristotle have accounted for all of the senses mentioned, but explicitly mentions one of them. This statement regarding Aristotle is therefore erroneous and in need of correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.128.114 (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You will need to provide reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that "...which were the senses identified by Aristotle..." is incorrect. The link to De Anima is a primary source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Book III

This academic article from Richard Sorabji on Aristotle's demarcation of the 5 senses lists "hot and cold" as things that Aristotle thought were perceptible by the sense of touch. See pages 69 and 70. The article in question lists "thermoception" as one of the senses that Aristotle did not account for, but the article that I just cited shows that he clearly did account for the ability of organisms to perceive temperature (via the sense of touch). Further, the article in question lists "nociception" as one of the senses that Aristotle did not account for, but this academic article by Pascal Massie includes "pleasure and pain" (page 78) as qualities that, according to Aristotle, animals can sense by means of their sense of touch. Clearly, then, the way in which the article in question uses the term "touch" is not the sense in which Aristotle understood this term, otherwise it would not list thermoception and nociception as senses that Aristotle did not account for. Therefore, at least, the reference to Aristotle should be removed, since it was argued above that the list of five senses come from "Western consciousness" and it may well be the case that many Westerners would not include thermoception or nociceptoin within the sense of "touch." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.128.114 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This is all moot as far as this list is concerned. It should be discussed at Talk:Sense. As far as the list of misconception goes, we only need to describe the misconception (the number of senses is 5) and the correction (there are as many as 20). There isn't space here to give details and origins and justifications. That all belongs on the subject articles. So just delete all the excess detail and carry on this debate over there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


The whole point, Dennis, is that there is no misconception. The (Aristotelian) system of enumerating the senses according to which there are only 5 senses would include all ~20 of the senses listed in the article. I wish therefore for the article to stop blaming Aristotle or Western Consciousness or whatever for miscounting the number of senses when they have not. The systems of enumerating the senses are simply different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.128.114 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017

Change "purchased" to "acquired" under the point about George Washington's false dentures under the Ancient to Early Modern History heading. As it is, it seems like the slaves were compensated. 74.77.238.144 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The citation given in George Washington does say they were purchased from Washington's slave, either by the dentist or by Washington himself, and that slaves often sold their teeth for money. The slave narrative Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl describes a slave who operated a small business for herself, keeping much of the money, though in that case the owner eventually confiscated all the profits. This was considered cruel, but perfectly legal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

H.G. Wells misspelled

H.G. Wells is misspelled. "Welles" "Both Welles and CBS, which had initially reacted apologetically,"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.180.233 (talk)

That refers to Orson Welles, not H.G. Wells. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

One of "The 5 most common winter driving myths"

One (You are safer in an AWD (All Wheel Drive) vehicle) of the "common winter driving myths" is documented as such by a reliable source and should be added to this article. --Cornellier (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The item fails criterion 3: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." The four criteria were determined as minimum criteria for inclusion to avoid the article becoming bloated with everyone's favorite idea of a common misconception. Look at the article history and talk page history. Many items have been removed because they did not fulfill one or more of the criteria. You haven't made a convincing argument that your item should be an exception. Sundayclose (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
In what way is the criterion that the "common misconception is mentioned in its topic article" not met by the title "common winter driving myths"? --Cornellier (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstand. The topic article is the Wikipedia article Four-wheel drive ("All Wheel Drive" redirects there), and there is no mention of the misconception there. Look at other items. They have a topic article in Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Caption for photo of South Korean electric fans

The caption for the photo regarding the South Korean misconception that sleeping in a room with a running fan might kill you claims that South Korean fans include timers because of this belief. In reality, fans in South Korea, Japan, and many other countries (especially in Asia) have, and have had, timers built into them for many years before this. The purpose of the timers is simply for energy conservation. When I lived in Japan in the late 90s, almost all fans had timers, and I used a fan made in the 1970s that also had a timer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.113.16 (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, so this is a misconception about a misconception and the List of common misconceptions article is spreading this misconception! I will rephrase the caption a so there is no mention of timers. The misconception itself should be reviewed against the citations. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of misconceived misconceptions.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The "8 glasses" misconception

Eight glasses, or two to three liters, of water a day are not needed to maintain health.[306] The amount of water needed varies by person (weight), activity level, clothing, and environment (heat and humidity). Water actually need not be drunk in pure form, but can be derived from liquids such as juices, tea, milk, soups, etc., and from foods including fruits and vegetables.

Google query "1 cup in ml" says that 8 cups are even less than 2 liters. It says it's 1892,7 ml instead. I also wanted to add the "8 oz" mention since in my town (Troitsk, Moscow) 1 cup is 200 ml. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.215.80.1 (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It's unclear why you made the comment. If you're asking for the item to be added to the article, please note 3 of the 4 criteria for inclusion and address them:
1. The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own.
2. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
3. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
Sundayclose (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I can see why the OP made the comment -- the suggestion is that eight glasses is not "two to three liters", it is actually a bit less than two liters. But this relies on a "glass" being one cup in volume, and there is no reason to say that. A typical drinking glass holds more than one cup. Looie496 (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Article misnamed?

This article is called a list of misconceptions, but it's actually a list of facts, and the misconceptions themselves are presupposed. Shouldn't it be called something else, or shouldn't the misconceptions themselves be actually labeled in the article before they're proved wrong or explained? Abelhawk (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't match with my reading of the article at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I think Abelhawk is correct that most of the items don't explicitly state the misconception they address. And I agree with Abelhawk that the article would be easier to follow if they did (although significantly longer). Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
If there are items that don't clearly state the misconception, those should be fixed. But the title of the article precisely matches the intended content. It certainly is not simply a "list of facts". An article named "List of facts" would be absurd. That would encompass most of the entirety of Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems to belong to a subset of a list of facts, namely highly specific and widely-held knowledge with a high degree of specificity that is demonstrably incorrect; in more straightforward terms, misconceptions. Most of the items on this list will be common knowledge. We will have heard these 'facts' assumed or stated. However, we will never have had cause to look into their veracity. However, were we to do so, and presented with the evidence to the contrary, we will have no particular attachment to our original belief. Perhaps a better name would be a List of Urban Legends, or List of Incorrect Common Knowledge, but neither of these mesh with what this list has become. (An interesting counterpart to this list would be a List of Facts Incorrectly Regarded as Misconceptions.) Orthorhombic, 22:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Back in the talk archives, there was consensus a while ago that this list is way too long. We were going to start triaging the entries, deleting the less necessary ones, but nobody got started. I hoped to avert that by cutting down the number of words, keeping everything but making them much shorter. I began Draft:List of common misconceptions, cutting out all the extraneous details and only saying "X is not Y, it is a Z" or "Foo do not Bar, they Baz." So I changed

    The Great Wall of China is not, as is claimed, the only human-made object visible from the Moon or from space. None of the Apollo astronauts reported seeing any specific human-made object from the Moon, and even earth-orbiting astronauts can barely see it. City lights, however, are easily visible on the night side of earth from orbit.[188] Shuttle astronaut blah blah blah blah

to say only

The Great Wall of China, let alone any other man made structure, is not visible from the Moon, and is barely discernible from low orbit.[169][170][171]

Readers have to click the links to find all the details, to find out why it is a misconception, how it started, and all that. I only got as far as Vertebrates, about 1/5 of the length of the list. But it's worth finishing. You can easily reduce the size of the entries by half or more, and shorter entries, each worded in the same basic format, makes it easier to see exactly what this list is. The ones I edited can probably be cut even more.

These can be copied into the article namespace, and the draft can be finished with a little help.

There's no need to change the name of this list. "Searing meat may cause meat to lose moisture" is a fact. "Searing meat does not seal in moisture, and may actually cause meat to lose moisture" is a correction of a misconception. That's why it's 'list of common misconceptions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: That draft looks very good to me, and I fully sympathize with your efforts there. I think I'll watchlist it and start working on it, and hopefully, with some help from some others here, we can replace the current article with the draft soon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I completely understand what the OP means. Years ago, we discussed reformatting the list so it would look something like this:
  • Misconception: Microwave ovens cook food from the inside out.
  • Fact: Penetration depth of microwaves is dependent on food composition and the frequency, with lower microwave frequencies (longer wavelengths) penetrating further.
We all agreed that this format would be clearer, but nobody wanted to put in the effort to reformat the entire article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
These are great suggestions for when the myth is simple. But in many cases the myth itself takes many subtle forms, and the truth is nuanced.
For example, the myth that humans did not evolve from chimpanzees isn't a myth, it's true, humans did evolve from chimps according to some taxonomists. So then we start saying that we didn't evolve from any living species of chimp, which is not a claim I have ever specifically heard made. So we have to get down to the fine detail to explain what the actual myth is. It can be hard to condense these topics and remain accurate. "Myth: Humans evolved from chimps" isn't a myth since many experys agree with it. "Myth: Humans evolved from one of the extant species of chimp" isn't a myth I have ever seen or heard.
Similarly, "Myth:Islam teaches that martyrs receive 72 virgins" isn't a myth since this is taught by many Moslem preachers. "Myrh:The Koran promises martyrs 72 virgins" is problematic on two grounds. Firstly it's not commonly believed. The common belief is that Islam teaches this, not the Koran specifically. Secondly because other widely accepted Moslem scriptures do indeed make that promise, so it's misleading to state that it's a myth. It's like claiming that the Torah never mentions Satan. True enough, but the rest of the scriptures do and Jews and Christians believe in Satan.
These may be examples of myths that are too nuanced for inclusion on this list, but while they remain it's going to be hard to simplify the list and remain consistent. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like you need to re-open the debates over those two entries. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. There are popular myths in those topics and they belong on a list of popular myths. The problem is that they are sufficiently nuanced that either the myth or the truth can not be accurately summarised in one or two sentences, as proposed in this discussion. If we adopt that standard then these, and many other, entries will need to be removed from the list. That will require a consensus to change the criteria for inclusion. While the criteria stand as is, these subjects belong, but they can't be summarised with any accuracy. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I do understand you, and I think you're wrong. If your criticisms are true, the entries should not be on this list. If not, then the entries can be made concise. Since your assertions dispute the sources and their interpretation, you should start a new thread and present your evidence. Raising it here is off topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you need to contemplate what this discussion is about. My criticisms are correct, the items belong on this list and they can not be made concise and remain accurate. That's the problem you need to understand. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems with the article is that we overly complicate it for ourselves and get caught up on minutia. The misconception about chimpanzees is simple. The misconception is: "Humans evolved from modern day chimpanzees." There, that was only 6 six words. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Is that the Myth adressed in the parent article? Because if not, my reading of the guidelines of this article is that we can't adress that myth here.Mark Marathon (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • it's true, humans did evolve from chimps according to some taxonomists.[citation needed] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, most people would follow the links in this article. But if you want to make it hard you could follow the links in the logical parent article for the "myth": Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor. If that is still too much then I don't know how to help. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am familiar with each and every one of those sources. Mostly because, as soon as I saw such a mind-boggling claim in your comments, I checked them to see if we had inadvertently allowed a crap source to slip through. I still don't see where any of them reliably support that "some taxonomists" contend than humans evolved from chimps, unless one adds the caveat that those taxonomists are amateurs and idiots.
There's Jared Diamond of course (certainly not an amateur or idiot, but neither a taxonomist), but his claims are a far fetch from "humans evolved from chimpanzees". Also, while an highly respectable figure, his views on the subject are far from the consensus, and he's pretty much alone in voicing them. Not that this bothers him very much, because his claims seem mostly to be a rhetorical, memetic and literary device, not intended to be taken without a grain of salt. I suppose I can understand how you might take "humans are in the same genus as chimps", mash that together with the knowledge that there are currently chimps who are definitely not humans, and thereby conclude that humans ancestors must have also been chimps, but that doesn't really make it any less of a bizarre claim. Indeed, it seems to be a poster child for why we disallow WP:OR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. This is not a list of common misconceptions; it's a list of corrections to common misconceptions. I think it would be extremely helpful to actually list the misconceptions being discussed, followed by the correction. Lizard (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

After all this, I'm still confused. Do you favor the style I've been mostly using: The Great Wall of China, let alone any other man made structure, is not visible from the Moon, and is barely discernible from low orbit? Or...
  • Misconception: The Great Wall of China is visible from the Moon
  • Fact: No man-made structure is visible from that distance, and some are only barely discernible from low Earth orbit.
Or...
  • It is not true that he Great Wall of China is the only human-made object visible from the Moon or from space. None of the Apollo astronauts reported seeing any specific human-made object from the Moon, and even earth-orbiting astronauts can barely see it.
It does emphasize what is a misconception when you repeat the word misconception: on every entry, or the phrase it is not true that... But we would be repeating those words 177 times.

The way lists work is that you tell the reader that each item on the list is an example of the thing in the list title. The article Abisko National Park tells you at the very top it is a National Park in Sweden, per WP:OBVIOUS. But List of national parks of Sweden doesn't repeat that. It doesn't say...

  • Abisko is a national park in Sweden
  • Ängsö is a national park in Sweden
  • Björnlandet is a national park in Sweden
It just says "Name: Abisko National Park". We know if it's on this list, it's a national park in Sweden. We know if it an entry on this list, it is a misconception. We want a concise, clear and consistent format, but there isn't actually a need to identify what each item is. We only need careful phrasing to distinguish the misconception from the debunking or correction. And remember, we should try to stick to saying, no, you can't see Great Wall from the moon" but not interjecting, "by the way, here is some of the stuff you can see from low earth orbit..." Don't have room, and we have whole articles that give that information.

I hope nobody is asking for:

List of common misconceptions
  • Searing meat seals in moisture
  • Food cooked with wine or liquor retains no alcohol
  • monosodium glutamate (MSG) exacerbates migraine headaches or causes Chinese restaurant syndrome
  • Twinkies have indefinite shelf life
That would be the most concise of lists, but must we be that literal minded? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It is best not to state the misconceptions. There's abundant evidence that stating misconceptions, even in the context of debunking them, tends to reinforce the misconceptions; see Familiarity backfire effect. Debunkers are widely cautioned against inadvertently helping spread the misconceptions they're trying to correct [8][9][10]. I've never checked the talk page archives, but I assume this is why this page is set out as it is. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is that the misconception is not always obvious. The very first one reads:
Searing meat may cause it to lose moisture in comparison to an equivalent amount of cooking without searing. Generally, the value in searing meat is that it creates a brown crust with a rich flavor via the Maillard reaction.
What's the misconception? That searing meat causes it to have more moisture? That searing meat causes it to have less flavor? That meat should be cooked for a shorter/longer amount of time when searing for it to lose moisture as opposed to not searing? I'm assuming it's the first one, but without prior knowledge of what the misconception actually is, it may be tough for readers to know for sure. Or maybe not. I don't really know how best to present them. Perhaps you're right. Lizard (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. The additional information has obscured what the underlying misconception is. I suggest the solution is to stick to a consistent format whereby the the first sentence directly and concisely refutes the misconception. Additional information should be left for subsequent sentences. Thus:
The purpose of searing meat is not to help it retain moisture. The purpose is generally to improve flavor by creating a rich brown crust via the Maillard reaction. Searing meat may cause more moisture loss than an equal amount of cooking without searing.
Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • While I share Adrian's concerns about inadvertently reinforcing these misconceptions, I do not agree that they apply to an encyclopedia. Our duty is to inform in a neutral, disinterested tone. WP is a reference work, not a rhetorical work. We have no duty to correct misconceptions, only to make it possible for a reader to correct their misconceptions.
Furthermore, after examining the article in more depth, I now see a number of entries in which the misconception is not stated clearly. I think an RfC about how to go about re-writing the article to address this might be appropriate. Let us all decide on a format, and any textual changes can be made as we implement the format changes. Draft:List of common misconceptions was helpfully created by Dennis Bratland, and could be of great use in this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Menstrual cycles syncing

Should we add the urban legend that women's cycles sync? It's actually just confirmation bias, and noticing all the times they're synced, while ignoring the more often case that they aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.101.127.251 (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

See Menstrual synchrony. That article should be renamed to Menstrual synchrony myth. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Grammatical Error

I can't edit this article because of its' protected status, but in section 3.4.2 (Science and Technology->Human Body and Health->Skin and Hair), there is a grammatical error in the first bullet point: "which triggers localized vasoconstriction in response to wet skin, yielding a wrinkled appearance.[293][294] but a 2014 study showed no improvement in handling wet objects with wrinkled fingertips.[295]" The rest of the sentence implies this goes against something in the previous clause, but I can't see what it is. I think this should be its own sentence. So it would be: "...which triggers localized vasoconstriction in response to wet skin, yielding a wrinkled appearance.[293][294] "A 2014 study showed no improvement...". Sorry for any formatting issues. Bromeatmeco (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

"and Judaism?"

The section on "Christianity and Judaism" doesn't contain any Jewish beliefs. I'd recommend removing Judaism from the section title and possible making a section on Judaism addressing myths like Judaism having the concepts of hell or the devil, "sex through a sheet," and the idea that "kosher" means a rabbi blessed the food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.49.147.49 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The first item in the section addresses forbidden fruit that is part of both Christian and Jewish scriptures. Jewish scholars are specifically mentioned. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding additions about "hell or the devil, 'sex through a sheet,' and the idea that "kosher" means a rabbi blessed the food", please click on any edit window in the article and read the four criteria for inclusion. Those need to be addressed in your request. Specifically regarding "sex through a sheet", look in the archives. That item was argued ad nauseum a few years ago. No one could produce any evidence that the average person has ever heard of that misconception. That is why we have the four criteria. Sundayclose (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Linux viruses

I'd like to add a reference to Linux permissions, which limit the damage a virus can do compared with Windows, which doesn't really have this feature. Linux isn't immune to viruses, but this is an aspect of why it has fewer. Happy to add this myself, unless somebody has a reasonable suggestion as to why this shouldn't be mentioned. (There are plenty of sources.) Cosmogoblin (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about exactly what the new section would say? Looie496 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
That level of detail doesn't belong on this list. We've been working to trim down the size of the entries, and one way is to remove the why parts. Stick to "X is not Y, it is Z". We don't have room to say "X is not Y, it is Z, because blah blah blah blah blah". There are linked articles in the entry, like malware and so on where the specific reasons can be given. So rather than give more reasons why Linux might have less malware, we should probably remove explanation there is less malware in circulation for these operating systems because malware must be designed for a particular operating system, and Microsoft Windows is more common." It's good to give details and explanations, but they belong in a different place is all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
That would also work for me. In my opinion, the paucity of Linux viruses being entirely due to lower market share is, in itself, a misconception. I've been bold and made the removal you suggested. Cosmogoblin (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

re: Pain in infants

The belief that infants do not feel pain has and still exists in medicine. This 'fact' of this topic being a misconception among health care workers is also in the references. The refs state that this is a misconception, whether it is a misconception held by others is unknown by me and not mentioned in the sources. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thumbs up icon --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
@Barbara (WVS): To be sure I understand your comments, are you saying that there is no indication in the sources that this is a common misconception among the general public (not just healthcare professional)? If so, we have no evidence that it is a common misconception and it does not belong in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Good question. Parents sometimes don't believe that their infant can feel pain. The Twycross reference states this. A better description might be..."some parents, caregivers and health professionals believe that infants do not feel pain." This information is pretty valuable since the World Health Organization states that pain in children sometimes goes untreated - though I know that statement doesn't fit in the purpose of this article yet at the same time parents, health professionals and caregivers do read this article. I suppose that this is a little difficult to decide. But of course you can understand that this information is still encyclopedic and may actually ease the suffering in some children. Maybe I lack a NPOV on this, I'm not sure. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Barbara (WVS): Thanks for the reply. How does the Twycross source state it? I think it probably meets criterion 2 for inclusion ("The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception") but I want to be sure. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I will go back to online textbook and post as much of a quote here as possible. What is the limit for quotes and attribution? If you don't know off the top of your head I will ask another editor who knows a lot about copyrights. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Barbara (WVS): I'm not really looking for a huge quote, just a few words where they refer to parents or other people besides healthcare professionals. Something like "Many people believe that ..." or "Parents often believe that ...". If some healthcare professionals have the misconception, it's quite likely others have it too. I'm trying to get an idea of how common the misconception is. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
We've been discussing how to keep this list from exploding from bloat. Generally we want the entries short and simple. All the details about precisely who believes the misconception and why, who debunked it and why the whole world hadn't gotten the message all belong in the linked article. Readers should be curious when they read these entries, and the should be tempted to click through and read the full details. I we don't keep these short, we're going to have to start triaging entries and deleting a third of them, which isn't a choice we want to have to make. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to expand the entry, if that's your concern. I'm simply trying to be sure that it is sourced as a common misconception, as required for inclusion in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

eyes

Some myths about eyes.[1] Benjamin (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I posted this on the talk page in the past, and it got no replies, and I forgot about it for a while, so unless anyone objects, I'll go ahead and add it.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31596/will-sitting-too-close-tv-hurt-your-eyes http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/fact-fiction-myths-about-eyes

Sitting close to a television does not permanently damage the eyes. Benjamin (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: No, don't add it unless or until criterion #3 for inclusion is fulfilled: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." To see the four criteria for inclusion, open an edit window in the article and look at the top of the page. Sundayclose (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Can also be seen at {{Editnotices/Page/List of common misconceptions}}. TompaDompa (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20080731001016/http://www.agingeye.net/visionbasics/visionmyths.php

"I do"

One very common misconception is that, in the Anglican marriage service, the spouses answer "I do". (In fact it is "I will".) This belief is ancient - I have seen an example in Addison's Spectator from the early eighteenth century - and I have lost count of the number of novels and newspaper articles in which it is assumed, but these words do not occur in any edition of the Book of Common Prayer or any wedding I have been present at. But this is personal impression: can anyone find any sources? And what section of the article should it go it? Religion (Christianity)? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition to a reliable source confirming the that spouses answer "I will" in an Anglican ceremony, we also need the following, per the four criteria for inclusion in the article: The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own; the item is reliably sourced with respect to the fact that it is a common misconception; and the common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. Sundayclose (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Obesity

There are some issues with the point on obesity and metabolism.

The claim that "There is no evidence that obesity is related to slower resting metabolism" is badly worded, or false, depending on the interpretation. Obesity certainly can be related to slower resting metabolism, most famously in hypothyroidism, and the sources supporting this statement are very careful not to state that obesity is never related to changes in resting metabolic rate. It's certainly true that most cases of obesity aren't related to reduced resting metabolic rate, but that isn't what the point in the list statement says. Indeed, the Mayo Clinic source given in ref325 states "But slow metabolism is rare, and it's usually not what's behind being overweight or obese — that's ultimately a result of interactions among genetics, diet, physical activity and other factors." In addition, the Hall article in ref325 states "In absolute terms, obese people expend more energy than do their lean counterparts. However, this observation should not be overinterpreted to infer that low REE is not a risk factor for obesity. This is because obese people might have had a lower REE than that predicted for their body size and composition before gaining their excess weight. Therefore, it is unclear the extent to which obesity results from reduced energy expenditure, but it is clear that the maintenance of obesity is not due to reduced energy expenditure."

"Weight gain and loss are directly attributable to diet and activity". Again, this point should include the word "generally", not "directly".

"Overweight people tend to underestimate the amount of food they eat, and underweight people tend to overestimate". This is true, but it's is an odd additional fact to include. I feel it would be more effective to state that, in general, excess energy intake (on a background of "normal" energy expenditure) is sufficient to produce obesity.

Hughsain (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree it should be reworded, but that odd fact is good for explaining why it's a misconception. Benjamin (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, although it's only one factor underlying the misconception - eg, obese individuals tend to have an impaired ability to estimate physical activity levels - and causality between food intake estimation and obesity hasn't, and can't, be determined. Perhaps a rewording to something like "Weight gain and loss can most frequently be attributed to altered dietary energy intake and physical activity. The misconception that weight gain and overweight is typically the product of reduced metabolic rate probably results from inaccuracies in self-assessed energy intake and expenditure; for instance, overweight individuals tend to underestimate the amount of food they eat, whereas underweight people tend to overestimated."? Hughsain (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Benjamin (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Einstein

I just noticed that "Einstein never failed math." was in this article, but not in Einstein's article. I added it to Einstein's article. How did it manage to be added here in the first place? Benjamin (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on List of common misconceptions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

John Cabot relevant to the Columbus entry?

The Columbus entry was recently amended to add:

and uncertainty over where John Cabot landed during his voyages further north mean that he may have also reached the North American continent (possibly as far south as what is now Maine) in 1497 before Columbus reached Central America in 1502.


Is this relevant to the entry? My take is to keep these entries as short as possible and that this is an unnecessary tangent to the main gist of the misconception. (i.e. that Columbus visited what would become the United states and that he was the first European to visit the new world). In the interest of conciseness, I'm going to remove the addition. We can discuss whether to restore it here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Good call. Unless there's a common misconception about Cabot I think that text is an unnecessary addition. Sjö (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to add some information about MSG

There actually are some placebo-controlled studies showing dietary problems and ill effect. [1] [2] [3] [4] This last one specifically talks about migraine and discusses why it might have found something different from other studies.

There are some also that failed to find a similar effect [5] [6]

It's possible some placebo designs in other studies did not adequately control for other sources of free glutamate in the diet, or other types of dietary inputs that might elicit a similar reaction (there are an abundance and not all are in the free glutamate category; see [7] ; there is a collection of very old research on dietary salicylates for example here [8] ).

Zegrid (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9215242
  2. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22766026
  3. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29140419
  4. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28298151
  5. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10736385
  6. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22696342
  7. ^ https://www.slhd.nsw.gov.au/rpa/allergy/resources/foodintol/default.html
  8. ^ https://www.slhd.nsw.gov.au/rpa/allergy/resources/foodintol/development.html

Suggestion: New misconception entry for Computing section

Computers do not interpret instructions as a series of numerals ('zeroes' and 'ones'). The use of binary values is human-readable shorthand, meant to represent activity in circuits as they alternate between high and low voltages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.246.4.240 (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Source? Benjamin (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
You're right that bits as zeros and ones are a representation for internal circuit states (and there even exist non-binary computers like ternary ones where more than two states are part of the design). I wouldn't call it a misconception but an abstraction, however. As Benjaminikuta pointed out, we'd also need to find a source which addresses it as a misconception. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually we don't need to find a source, not here at this list. We need to find a main article, that's criterion #1. The main article should say it's a misconception, and cite sources, and then here on this list we just copy it over in a brief sentence or two.

Bit is the main article, from what I can tell, for criterion #1. Bit#Physical representation explains that this can be thought of as 0 and 1, but it can also be yes/no, or +/-, and so on. What we don't have is criterion #3: Bit needs to say that a common misconception exists today which is that these instructions are ones and zeroes. This is very similar to the hydraulic analogy: it's an incorrect but useful way of explaining something, so when electric current is introduced, the water analogy is used, and then as the explanation became more advanced it corrects the oversimplification.

So do we consider an oversimplification that is commonly taut when a topic is introduced a "common misconception"?

I started the discussion over at Talk:Bit#Is it a common misconception that instructions are ones and zeroes? If that is done over there, then it can come here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Since this list's inclusion criteria appears to include WP:WTAF I agree with the above; thanks for the additional details. —PaleoNeonate – 23:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

humans and dinosaurs

This entire section is wrong. First in that birds are dinosaurs and second in that there was/is no overlap. Crocadilians in one form or another have been around for over 200 million years and several species have been largely unchanged for over 80 million years.

100.7.58.111 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The distinction between avian and non-avian dinosaurs is there, and it's right at the top of Dinosaur. Crocodilia does not say they are dinosaurs. You should first go to Talk:Crocodilia and Talk:Dinosaur and explain what changes you want to make over there. If those articles are change,d then this list would change to reflect that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Pencil test (breasts)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil_test_(breasts)

Wearing a bra does not prevent breasts from sagging. Many women, in the mistaken belief that breasts cannot anatomically support themselves, think that wearing a brassiere will prevent their breasts from sagging later in life.[6] Researchers, bra manufacturers, and health professionals cannot find any evidence to support the idea that wearing a bra for any amount of time slows breast ptosis.[7]

Benjamin (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll add it. Benjamin (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
We've been trying to shortein this list by removing redundant wording. Keep in mind that everything on this list is a misconception, so you don't need to say "X is a common misconception. Many people believe X, but in fact Y is true." All of this is a given, or it wouldn't even be here. Sticking to the point we can just say:

Whether, or how frequently, a woman wears a bra is not a factor in the likelihood of developing ptosis, or sagging breasts, during her lifetime, and the so-called 'pencil test' is meaningless. [FOOTNOTES HERE]

We should keep it simple and let readers click through to bra and Ptosis (breasts) for all the details. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Good, thanks, but I wouldn't say it's meaningless. Benjamin (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Has no "medical, scientific, or physiological meaning"? It's a social construct. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I prefer that wording, as well:
Whether, or how frequently, a woman wears a bra is not a factor in the likelihood of developing ptosis, or sagging breasts, during her lifetime, and the so-called 'pencil test' has no medical, scientific, or physiological meaning. [FOOTNOTES HERE]
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
"It's a social construct." I agree. It has social meaning. Benjamin (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Marconi/Radio

Removed Marconi/Radio because it did not match the lists own "Criteria for entries to this list" note re:"The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.". The linked topic article says "radio", the "technology of using radio waves to carry information", was invented by Marconi in the form of "a wireless telegraphy system". The other linked article, Invention of radio says "Guglielmo Marconi developed the first apparatus for long distance radio communication". Doesn't help that this was sourced to a "Joe-Blow" website. It would be a misconception that Marconi discovered radio waves or invented a way to transmit them, but that is another matter and I don't see any topic article matching criteria #2 "that it is a common misconception". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This addition about "insanity" in serial killers raises are broader misconception: the difference between a psychological diagnosis of a mental illness and the vague concept of legally insane, which can refer to a successful insanity defense, and may or may not also overlap categories such as legally incompetent, grave disability, and/or subject to involuntary commitment. In this example, it may be true that accused serial killers rarely are successful in using the insanity defense (depending on which decade you care to examine, and in which legal jurisdiction), they are often diagnosed with one or more mental illnesses, of varying severity. In short, "legally insane" isn't really a thing. Not guilty by reason of insanity is a prosecution outcome, and involuntary commitment is also a thing that may happen, with or without a crime, a prosecution, or an insanity defense. This covers a lot of possible articles, so it's a matter of isolating which one or two are main article for the misconception. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The object of a list is to direct readers to articles with the same aspects (the ones the list covers). So it would be kinda backwards to come up with an aspect, and then try to find an article to match it. Lists are for navigation, not making some kind of statement. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Did you look at the articles I linked? It’s already there. And even if that weren’t the case, there is absolutely no reason why I or another editor couldn’t go from this list to an article and add verifiable facts about a misconception, if the sources support it, and then return here to add an entry. The sausage gets made in many ways. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Well... you linked five articles. If you mean Insanity defense, it doesn't say what you said. You are right in that you can (and should) expand the parent article first. That is where the experts on the subject are and content (and claims) should be hashed out there first (so we avoid WP:CFORKing). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Home mortgage interest deduction

I removed the new entry on the Home mortgage interest deduction. Over the last few years, "misconceptions" over whether trickle down economics works or doesn't work, or whether a given government policy had expected or unintended effects have been removed from this list. When two political factions are deeply divided over something, Wikipedia's voice shouldn't weigh in. Also, the assertion that it's a misconception and the correction are entirely based on a NYT Magazine article that is more of a personal think piece than straight news. The thinking is limited: while Congress in 1913 might not have had the goal of widespread home ownership in mind, every Congress since then implicitly chose not to repeal the deduction. When the deduction had "evolved into a birthright", it was believed to have the effect of enabling ownership and that's exactly why it wasn't repealed.

All highly political and debatable. Not an objective fact that this list is meant to cover. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I have re-added the Home mortgage interest deduction entry, with two additional references which both state: "Contrary to popular belief, the MID was not CREATED to encourage home ownership." CREATED is the term used in the entry. Also another reference which details the history of the deduction, and states that is was clearly never Congress's intent to CREATE this deduction, but that it remained after it became popular.
Just because it remained because it was liked says NOTHING about the reason it was CREATED: The 55mph speed limit was created to save gas, but then was advertised as good because it saved lives....which it did.
The political debate around this subject is around whether this deduction should continue to exist, based on the people who like and benefit from it vs. economists....this entry says NOTHING about either side of that issue.
In addition, your logic about being re-authorized implicity meaning "created" is outright wrong: By your logic as soon as credit cards were created and became popular, it was therefore Congress's intent to encourage consumers to accumulate credit card debt by not repealing the personal interest deduction, which now applied to credit card debt....read my last reference.
Avatar317 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Avatar317
My logic is that what Congress was thinking in 1913 matters less than Congress's intent in 1914, and 1915, and 1916, and 1917, and on through 2016 and 2017. That's all. For a misconception to be common it has to also be relevant. The intent in that one year is less relevant than the intent in the other 105 years that followed.

If multiple sources shared Roger Lowenstein's opinions on this, and shared his concern for what Congress was thinking in 1913, I'd be forced to change my mind. Do we have a single entry here on this list that cites one and only one source, either here on the list or back on the topic article? We have one source for the mortgage interest entry, and it appears to be a personal essay. The first sentence is "One of the first financial lessons I learned from my father was that when you buy a house, you get a tax break from deducting the interest on your mortgage. ". The second paragraph begins with the word "I", and the word "I" is dominant in the third, fourth paragraph, and behind. It's not a sober, straight factual research article. It's about Roger Lowenstein and a lot of his feelings and personal anecdotes. We need something a lot better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland Read my last reference (the fourth on the reverted edit.) A full history by a law professor. Avatar317 (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Avatar317
It's a big step forward to have more sources now. I'll grant you that. But where in this history does the professor name anyone who believes the misconception about the intent in 1913? Why would anyone, for or against, let their arguments hinge on what Congress in 1913 intended the deduction to do? Those who favored either keeping or repealing it were basing that on its present and future effects, not it's past intent. Again, this isn't a debate over how to interpret a statue. Why be committed to such a red herring? There's a lot of evidence that this is a strawman used for rhetorical purposes, to paint political opponents as misinformed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Reverted it out again on technical basics. Fails list criteria #3 The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. Could be true, could be false, but it needs to be a stable claim at the parent article first to avoid WP:CFORKing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC) ....ooops, actually didn't revert due to edit conflict. But agree with TompaDompa as well. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
In addition, this was something that Republicans and Trump consistently said they would never touch, and then unexpectedly a couple months ago they flipped and suddenly decided to cap the deduction. Now we have supporters scrambling to provide post-hoc justification for yet another erratic flip-flop. How much more political can you get? We don't have partisan political spin on this list.

And we lack evidence of anyone saying they believe it was created to encourage home onwership. We have examples of arguments in which rhetorical use of this possible strawman claim appear: defenders of the deduction are accused of historical ignorance, but no evidence of this is given. We see lots of coverage that indicates a widespread awareness that the 1913 intent and the modern effects are not the same (e.g. [11]). Usually arguments about legislative intent are relevant to legal cases over how the law should be interpreted. There is no dispute over the interpretation, and no active legal battle here. The debate was over whether the deduction should be kept, and whether the effect did or didn't encourage home buying. Not over why it was originally created. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr about list criteria #3. The statements in that section of the reference article Home_mortgage_interest_deduction#United_States are weak and only referenced with one source. I will add more sources to that section. (which I found and used on this most recent reverted edit) Avatar317 (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Avatar317
@Dennis Bratland Did you look at my second and third references in the reverted edit? What criteria exist to sufficiently allow something to be called a "misconception" ? A poll of X Americans saying they believe statement Y? How many references are necessary to prove a misconception? Avatar317 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Avatar317
The claim that the misconception is widespread is implausible. Who believes it? Why would they? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I have two references that state: "Contrary to popular belief, the mortgage interest deduction wasn’t adopted to encourage home ownership." and "Contrary to popular belief, the mortgage interest deduction was not added to the tax code to encourage home ownership."

Is this sufficient to prove that this is a common misconception? I note that most statements on the page have 1 - 2 sources total. Thanks! Avatar317 (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

The proposed material is not suitable here. This list is for clear misconceptions, not political bickering that is incapable of resolution with an objective study of the subject. The four entries at Law, crime, and military concern straightforward matters of fact that are resolved by simple investigation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Did you READ my reverted addition to this list before offering your opinion?
The political debate on this subject is whether or not this deduction should continue to exist, based on the people who like and benefit from it vs. economists....my entry says NOTHING about either side of that issue. This entry is simply to clear up a factual misconception about the origin of an argued over deduction, and from the below link, (a law professor's article about the history of the MID) you can read for yourself that this is simply a matter of history and people's misconception about it.
This entry speaks NOTHING either way as to whether this deduction should or should not exist.
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1561&context=lcp
Avatar317 (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Avatar317
The addition in question was diff which of course I examined. As explained above, it is not possible to resolve, as a simple factual matter, whether the deduction was created by Congress to encourage home ownership. Those voting would have had different motivations and without an explicit statement from Congress concerning their collective motivation, the statement is not suitable for this list. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Catholic married priest

I'd like to include one common misconception regarding married catholic priests. A catholic priest can, in fact, marry under certain circumstances. These circumstances can include:

1. Pastoral Provision 2. Eastern rite churches (Maronite, Melkite, Ukrainian) who are in communion with Rome allow their priests to marry.


Albliu28 (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to supply a reliable source to support this addition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Albliu28: @MPants at work: Sources can be found in the Pastoral Provision article & the Eastern_Catholic_Churches#Clerical_celibacy section. Peaceray (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, right. I forgot to include my sources. For eastern rite churches, see https://www.catholic.com/index.php/qa/why-are-eastern-rite-married-men-allowed-to-be-ordained-priests

As for pastoral provision, see http://www.pastoralprovision.org/History.htmlAlbliu28 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

In most normal situations in English speaking areas, the term 'Catholic' is used sloppily to mean Roman Catholic. So the general belief that 'Catholic priests can't marry' rests on that assumption. Eastern, Greek, Russian, etc Catholic churches are not even thought of in casual dissensions in the English speaking world. You could call that in itself a misconception of some kind, but really it's just a fact about vernacular language: "Catholic" means "the usual Catholics, i.e. Roman Catholic", while all the others are only included if they have been explicitly named. Take the article titled Priesthood in the Catholic Church, which is primarily about the Roman church.

Anyway, Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church) does say there are exceptions, but it lacks a clear statement that there is a common misconception on this subject. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, I agree with you and disagree. When you say "the term Catholic is used sloppily," I agree and that's why there is a common misunderstanding that catholic priests can not marry. That's the problem. But, where I disagree is when you wrote "it lacks a clear statement that there is a common misconception." Why would they state that there is a common misconception?!? That is within the realm of the public. If you want further proof, there is a book called the Dictionary of Misinformation written by Tom Burnham. There is no online copy of this book but you can probably find it at your local library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albliu28 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Whether that other article should or shouldn't mention that it's a common misconception is something to discuss over at Talk:Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church). Show secondary sources that explicitly say the misconception exists, and is current and is widespread, then other editors over there will likely be convinced to add it to the article. Regardless of whether they do or don't, "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources" is the third criterion for inclusion on List of common misconceptions. So that has to appear on some other article Catholic Priest or Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church) or some article. Until it does, it can't be added here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Tom Burnham's book talks about that but I understand you want me to supply an online source. Here's a link:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/wcrb.htm

("Fundamentalists, and even some Catholics, are surprised to learn that celibacy has not been a rule for all Catholic priests. In the Eastern Rites, married men can be ordained...")

Karl Keating tries to set the record straight in his book that contains 52 chapters "each devoted to a common misconception about the Catholic faith."Albliu28 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Number 3 above - "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.". This list is an index of articles that (somewhere in their content) describe a misconception as a misconception. That doesn't exist so far. Needs to be a stable claim somewhere in Wikipedia before it is listed here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)#Simplified_physical_explanations_of_lift_on_an_aerofoil in the section on lift should be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)#Simplified_physical_explanations_of_lift_on_an_airfoil 104.129.196.167 (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

New Section Logic

There are many misconceptions about logic,math and statistics, which may not necessarily fit well under the math section.

Ethanpet113 (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You could add quite a bit about people assuming that informal fallacies like an appeal to authority are always fallacious arguments. I see that misconception constantly and have had to fight to keep it out of articles. Unfortunately, there are no sources documenting it as a common misconception, only sources documenting the actual truth (that it's not a fallacy to cite an expert in a relevant subject as evidence supporting an argument) and sources making the common mistake. I think the ones you've listed might be supportable with enough editor effort, however the existential fallacy page is supported by a citation to a single paragraph, which is no good. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Programmable thermostat

I find the part with "decreasing the temperature setting on a building's programmable thermostat" confusing. It is not clear which parts are true and which are not true. E.g. is the first sentence the one that is not true (like in the other sections/misconception) or not?

I think this part should be rewritten to be more clear.

--Mortense (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Water draining due to the Coriolis effect

I've removed this statement pending a rewrite, or clarification:

  • Water does not consistently drain in a counter-clockwise vortex in basins in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern due to the Coriolis effect. The claim that the Coriolis effect is far too weak to influence the draining of liquid from a basin is also incorrect.[1][2][3] The Coriolis effect is indeed real and does impact the draining, but its impact is tiny compared to that of residual current, debris or imperfections in the basin, or a host of other possible factors, and sinks may be found draining either counter-clockwise or clockwise on either side of the equator.[4] Nevertheless, a team led by Ascher Shapiro and MIT filled a special cylindrical tank with water, sealed it, and let it sit for a day; when drained, it eventually did form a clear counter-clockwise whirlpool, which confirmed the hypothesis that the Coriolis effect does impact even small-scale drains. (The experiment was successfully repeated multiple times elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere; identical tests in Sydney produced the opposite effect, as predicted.)[5]

It's confusing - the very first sentence says "Water does not consistently drain in a counter-clockwise vortex in basins in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern due to the Coriolis effect" - and is backed up by sources, yet in the middle of the paragraph it says "The Coriolis effect is indeed real and does impact the draining", and the very last sentence clarifies this with "Nevertheless, a team led by Ascher Shapiro and MIT filled a special cylindrical tank with water, sealed it, and let it sit for a day; when drained, it eventually did form a clear counter-clockwise whirlpool, which confirmed the hypothesis that the Coriolis effect does impact even small-scale drains" - thus stating that water does drain consistently depending on the Coriolis effect. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

How about this?

The Coriolis effect does not cause water to consistently drain from basins in a clockwise/counter-clockwise direction depending on the hemisphere, nor is the effect too weak to influence the direction. Rather, its impact on the direction is small and thus usually easily outweighed by other factors affecting the direction. Experiments designed to eliminate the effects of other factors have demonstrated the directions of drain predicted by the Coriolis effect.

I'll admit that I didn't find the first one all that confusing, so I'm not sure if this is any clearer. TompaDompa (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I followed TompaDompa's lead and rewrote and reinstated the paragraph. It is listed in a full section description as a popular misconception at Coriolis effect and thus meets all the criteria for this list (even in its old form). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Frasier, Alistair (October 16, 1996). "Bad Coriolis". ems.psu.edu. Penn State College of Earth an Materials Sciences. Archived from the original on 2013-10-11. Retrieved August 29, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "Which Direction Does Toilet Water Swirl at the Equator?". msnbc.com.
  3. ^ "Verifying a Vortex". MIT Technology Review.
  4. ^ David Adam. "The great plughole debate". the Guardian.
  5. ^ "Scopeweb". mit.edu.

Term "Polish death camp"

I add this term without discussions.It was removed. OK. I have wrote: „* The term "Polish death camp" is contradictory to historical facts and grossly unfair to Poland as a victim of Germany. The extermination camps, in which several million people (also Poles) were murdered, were not Polish. These were German camps in Poland occupied by Germany (1939-45)”. May it be in article. KrzysG (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Jesus's date of birth

This article mentions that Jesus was likely not born on exactly December 25. Should it also mention that Jesus was likely born around 4 BC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.8.110 (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@174.97.8.110: Got citation? Peaceray (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
They're probably reading 4 BC in the article Jesus.

I know it's hard to tell because of the glacial rate of progress, but we're actually trying to shorten all of these entries in order to keep teh overall size of this list manageable. We would likely instead trim the entry down to something like this:

  • December 25 is not mentioned in the Bible as Jesus's birth date, and there is no other evidence for that date.[1] Pope Julius the First is said to have made the 25th of December the official date of celebration in 350 CE.[2][3]
The idea is to only say "X is not Y. X is actually Z". Or "X is not Y. Y was made up by So-and-so". All the details, like why X was believed to be Y or when we realized X is not Y or whatever are found by clicking through to the linked articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Biblical Evidence Shows Jesus Christ Wasn't Born on Dec. 25". gnmagazine.org. United Church of God. Retrieved November 24, 2014.
  2. ^ "Christmas – Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts". History.com. Archived from the original on 2014-03-07. Retrieved December 23, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "Why Christmas Celebrated on the 25th December? – Christmas Customs and Traditions". Whychristmas.com. Archived from the original on 2013-10-16. Retrieved December 23, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Why not just split this article into several, so we wouldn't have to worry about length? Benjamin (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The original proposal was to do just that, but consensus shifted a bit to attempting to trim all the entries and see if the results were good. My reasons for supporting that included the awesomeness of having all these different misconceptions in one place. Reading this entire list top to bottom is impressive and enlightening in a way that is greater than the sum of its parts. Break it up by topic and fewer readers will have that experience. Another major reason is that brevity is the soul of wit. Each entry is better if honed down to the essentials. Give editors license to take all the words they want, and they will. It’s boring when these entries start to ramble. And we have links to whole articles that go into all the depth you could ask for. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, yes, it is good to have one main article, but if sourced entries are removed, I would hate to see them not find another home. Benjamin (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) TompaDompa (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


List of common misconceptions → List of common errors – Wikipedia has been the subject of criticism for gender bias. By renaming this article to List of common errors, we can eliminate any possible gender bias for this article. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Where is the gender bias in the current title? HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Are you pulling our legs? "mis- (1) prefix meaning "bad, wrong," from Old English mis-, from Proto-Germanic *missa- "divergent, astray" (source also of Old Frisian and Old Saxon mis-, Middle Dutch misse-, Old High German missa-, German miß-, Old Norse mis-, Gothic missa-), perhaps literally "in a changed manner," and with a root sense of "difference, change" (compare Gothic misso "mutually"), and thus from PIE *mit-to-, from root *mei- (1) "to change." Productive as word-forming element in Old English (as in mislæran "to give bad advice, teach amiss"). In 14c.-16c. in a few verbs its sense began to be felt as "unfavorably" and was used as an intensive prefix with verbs already expressing negative feeling (as in misdoubt). Practically a separate word in Old and early Middle English (and often written as such). Old English also had an adjective (mislic "diverse, unlike, various") and an adverb (mislice "in various directions, wrongly, astray") derived from it, corresponding to German misslich (adj.)." There is no gender involved in "mis-" 128.135.96.56 (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
"miss (n.2) "the term of honour to a young girl" [Johnson], originally (c. 1600) a shortened form of mistress. By 1640s as "prostitute, concubine;" sense of "title for a young unmarried woman, girl" first recorded 1660s." "mistress (n.) early 14c., "female teacher, governess," from Old French maistresse "mistress (lover); housekeeper; governess, female teacher" (Modern French maîtresse), fem. of maistre "master" (see master (n.)). Sense of "a woman who employs others or has authority over servants" is from early 15c. Sense of "kept woman of a married man" is from early 15c." Not related. 128.135.96.56 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
A word's etymology is irrelevant to its current usage and meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
That was a reply to the nominator, not to you. The etymology shows the nominator's idea that "mis" involves gender is wrong. 63.139.68.83 (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
His problem is the "conception" part. -- Netoholic @ 03:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Problems with this article and a proposal

As noted, this is not the proper venue for pursuing deletion of this or any other article, see WP:Deletion venues. Even if it were, WP:CONSENSUS is so firmly against that it qualifies as WP:SNOW. TompaDompa (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This entire article is an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This article does not use encyclopedic tone, see Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone. This article is not covering a notable topic, why do we care what other people's wrong beliefs are? See Wikipedia:Notability. This article is not factually accurate: how do we know that many people wrongly believe something? See Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. This article has 427 references but still has room for a "citation needed" tag. I propose that we delete this entire article, and merge it's content into the articles it references. For example, if a misconception is about microwave ovens, move that misconception into the microwave oven article. The reason I am not adding the articles for deletion template tag to the top of "List of common misconceptions" is this article is very frequently viewed and I understand that my proposal may be very controversial for some readers and editors. I can provide more rationale if needed. Thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

My impression is that an awful lot of those secondary sources telling us that a misconception is common are quite poor sources, also strongly sending the message "I'm smarter than the silly people who believe this stuff". HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I read that the first time you posted it. I'll ask you again to point out which ones, specifically, so we can fix them. If nobody ever tells us which sources, that I would expect mere handwaving at poor sources somewhere will be ignored. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland, my argument is that none of the 427 sources in this article can reliably say that "many people think this, but they are wrong". Can you please point us to a reference that reliably says: "many people believe this, but they are wrong"? Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
One entry I added was about storing car batteries on concrete. It has two secondary sources that say it has been widespread folk wisdom for generations, Snopes and Car Talk, and I added several examples of this myth being spread by mainstream sources such as Popular Mechanics and published technical books.

If you take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, you'll see that your reasons for wanting to delete this list are all surmountable problems anyway. Sources that can be replaced or incorrect facts that can be deleted are never a reason to delete an article or list. You are trying to assert that all 427 are inaccurate and unreliable, but right here I've just demonstrated that you did not actually read the sources cited for the car battery entry. Nobody is going to believe your generalizations about these 427 citations that we all know you have not checked.

A good use of your time would be to pick one of the entries, check the sources, and either discuss it or fix it yourself. If you really think you've got a winning AfD argument, then be my guest. Go to AfD and nominate it. The outcome will be no different than the other three AfD nominations. You should read all three of them to understand why. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose and snowball close on procedural grounds. Established articles are deleted after discussions at WP:AfD, not at the article talk page. There are plenty of other reasons but I don't want to add to this misplaced discussion. Sjö (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We've been through this before. The rationale presented here does not actually challenge the existence of the list, just its current quality. siafu (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is worthwhile.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Dennis Bratland (talk). If the sources for a specific misconception are of poor quality or don't support the claim, then lets address them individually. There is no reason to kill the entire article. Squatch347 (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SAL (and cleanup anything that doesn't follow WP:SAL). This article is a WP:LIST that fits the standard of an aid to navigation. It meets (or should meet) the WP:LSC that each entry article contains the identifiable attribute we are sorting for --> the linked article contains a clearly described and cited "misconception". Lists are not (and should not be) value judgments and actually this list needs no references... the linked article already contains them. If the list follows WP:LISTCRITERIA its pretty much all we need. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article has garnered press coverage. Is well referenced. Is interesting and has a decent readership of 45,000 per month. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
...which I see as really sad. It "showcases" one of our silliest articles. More like Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Not encyclopaedic at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Virtually everything said in the proposal is not only wrong, but off-topic. Even if the accusation that the article does not use encyclopedic tone were true (it's not), that would not be a valid reason to delete it. The only thing relevant (and also wrong) is whether the article's topic is notable and there are literally dozens of reliable sources containing lists of common misconceptions. One need only check all the references in the article itself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I would genuinely interested to know how many other encyclopaedias in history have included such a topic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Would that make any difference? I think the question was covered in the three AfD discussions I linked to above. I'd also suggest reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK telephone code misconceptions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HIV and AIDS misconceptions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic Misconceptions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common misunderstandings of genetics, and so on. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myths and misperceptions about Texas was successful, as was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photosynthesis misconceptions and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics misconceptions. These discussions provide a good guide on where the Wikipedia consensus is on this sort of list. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rust and tetanus

"Rust does not cause tetanus infection. The Clostridium tetani bacterium is generally found in dirty environments. Since the same conditions that harbor tetanus bacteria also promote rusting of metal, many people associate rust with tetanus. C. tetani requires anoxic conditions to reproduce and these are found in the permeable layers of rust that form on oxygen-absorbing, unprotected ironwork."

Is this a straw man? I don't believe it is a widely held belief that tetanus is directly caused by rust. Even the average person is aware of the germ theory of disease. What I have heard people say is that you can get tetanus through contact with rusty objects, because the bacteria can hang out there, and also because rust is sharp and could cause a cut by which bacteria could enter the body. People also tend to specifically mention rusty nails, the idea being that a rusty nail could simultaneously puncture the skin and carry bacteria that cause infection. If it was actually a widely held belief that iron oxide itself causes tetanus, surely it wouldn't matter what shape the rusty object was? --Alextgordon (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I think it's valid. The fact that the misconception doesn't make sense if it's analysed doesn't make it a straw man.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
But does the misconception actually exist? Does anyone really believe that rust causes tetanus? The source says "We grow up hearing that...." I didn't. HiLo48 (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I did.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you believe it? HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and I didn't question it till now.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I was told the same thing when I grew up. Wouldn't say I believe it now, but I certainly believed it at some point in my life. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I was told that too - and my mother was an SRN. I suppose she perpetuated the myth because it was easier to enforce onto a small child than the concept of germs and disease. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I googled "tetanus rust" and found numerous sources that verify it is a common misconception: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Here is an example dated 1900, and 1903. And so on.

It is really a waste of time to talk about whether Editor A is skeptical or Editor B personally heard it. Check the sources. Whether you believe it or not, our sources tell us that, yes, it is a common misconception. End of story.

The broader misconception isn't only "rust causes tetanus". Even people who know that rust (and dirt, jagged or rough surfaces) is merely associated with tetanus still have the misconception "a puncture from a clean nail will not cause tetanus". Even a sterile nail can carry bacteria from the skin deep into a wound. So: 1) there is copious sourcing that this is a common misconception, 2) It should probably say: "A puncture from an unrusted nail, and many similar injuries, can cause tetanus. While rust or other contamination are often associated with this infection, lack of vaccination and poor wound care are the typical causes." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"Rust and tetanus" fails bullet point #3 "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." - there is no misconception enumerated at Tetanus. That CFORK should be fixed before it is a listing here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
This is one of those “problems” that takes less time to fix that to complain about. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Its actually a slight problem of getting the cart before the horse. This list should not lead the parent article. Questions (such as this discussion) should be brought up there first. If the editors there (the experts?) think it is a "misconception" (and its a stable addition) then it should be added here. Conversely, if its shot down there, it should be removed here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
But why? What difference does it make in the end? The reason you don't put the cart before the horse is that carts are made to be pulled, not pushed, and it doesn't work to try. There is no such relationship between a list like this and the articles it depends on. If Wikipedia is better after you make an edit than if you hadn't made it, then it's a good edit. Yes, it's probably a best practice for editors who are most interested in and most knowledgeable about tetanus to make updates to the tetanus article and then come here and summarize. But it's not mandatory and it can't be made mandatory because it would violate WP:Editing policy.

This is really hairsplitting. The tetanus article already did say "Tetanus is often associated with rust, especially rusty nails. Although rust itself does not cause tetanus, objects that accumulate rust are often found outdoors or in places that harbour anaerobic bacteria." That is a hairsbreadth away from saying there is a common misconception that rust causes tetanus. If we dug through the history we'd probably find that at the time the editors were satisfied that this was sufficient to meet criterion #3. My minor addition just belabors the point -- mainly to answer the complaints of Wikipedia editors, rather than serve the interests of readers, who probably got the point without having to be led by the hand. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Want to add another recurring issue that has helped to bloat many of these entries. Instead of just saying "X is not Y", there is pressure to explain why X is not Y, and how we discovered that X is not Y, and to tell the reader how many experts will assure you that X really is not Y. If the reader isn't convinced by a simple "X is not Y", or they want to know how we found out or who says so, they should click through to the associated article for all that. And editors who are adding entries here should feel free to expand the target article with any details or explanations that are lacking over there. Target article doesn't have the space limitations (WP:NOTPAPER, after all), that this list has bumped up against. We should be encouraging editors to go to the target article and expound at length, confident that if they are brief on this list, nobody need be left uninformed. Links are for clicking. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

14th Amendment

I'd like to add something along these lines.

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment."[1]

Benjamin (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I added a less WP:AMERICENTRIC version. TompaDompa (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://fam.state.gov/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1110.html#M1113

Bra

  • Whether, or how frequently, a woman wears a bra is not a factor in the likelihood of developing ptosis, or sagging breasts, during her lifetime, and the so-called 'pencil test' has only social, not scientific, significance.[1][2]

Benjamin (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Female Intelligence Agency: Why do women wear bras?". 007b Breast. Retrieved 10 May 2011.
  2. ^ Cawthorne, Simon (November 2000). "Bras, the Bare Facts". Channel 4.

Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster

How do you feel about adding the misconception that the Tesla Roadster sent in to solar orbit, Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster, is out there all alone, just a car floating in isolation, something like the Corvette in the movie Heavy Metal, when in fact the car is permanently attached to a large rocket stage many times the size of the Roadster itself. If your spaceship found it out there, you'd see a rocket booster, and only upon very close inspection would you notice that this rocket booster has a car awkwardly stuck to its nose for some reason.

This is particularly relevant to the several kinds of reactions to the issue along the lines that the car is space junk or some other kind of solar navigation hazard, when in fact that if the car were not there, you'd still have this huge rocket booster orbiting the sun. If you read the majority of the media coverage, particularity the MSM, the non-space science media, you'd be led to believe it is just a car all alone.

This is a pretty recent thing, and maybe it needs more time to take root. But there isn't a formal time limitation on this list. It seems to meet all the criteria. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a worry

I have reverted the edit to the lead made by User:Brian Everlasting. It left a first sentence which stated "This list of common misconceptions corrects beliefs that are currently widely held about notable topics.". Not true, because all widely held beliefs about notable topics don't need correcting, only the erroneous ones, and that's why I reinstated that word. I also replaced the word "corrects" with "records" because as it was, it appeared our list (Wikipedia in other words) was doing the correcting. Much less ambiguous after my change, I think. What do others think? Moriori (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the wording now is awkward, and I had to read it a couple of times to make my brain connect "which are considered to be erroneous" to "beliefs" instead of "topics" . The sentence is also incorrect, since the article doesn't record the erroneous beliefs; it presents the correction. I prefer the original wording, or Brian Everlasting's. I disagree with your reasons for editing the lead, since the article (Wikipedia) does do the correcting and nothing in the sentence you changed said the this is a complete list. There is even a sentence at the very top saying that the list is incomplete. Finally, you didn't revert as you claim, you rewrote the lead sentence. Sjö (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2018

Add "Killer whales are not whales; "Killer whale" is another name for "Orca". Orcas are actually a type of dolphin." to the vertebrates section of the biology section. Alexandra Bootstraps (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Over at Killer whale it says "The killer whale or orca (Orcinus orca) is a toothed whale belonging to the oceanic dolphin family." Apparently dolphins are whales, along with orcas and porpoises. So you'd need to go over to Talk:Killer whale and Talk:Toothed whale, and get the edtiors there to agree to change it to say "orcas are not whales", which I think is not likely.

More generally, we don't really have any entries on this list related to folk taxonomy. We could nave numerous entries about various "bugs" not being bugs, not to mention sea horses not being horses. I could see having a list of species, at least well known ones, whose common name clearly contradicts their scientific taxonomy. But not killer whales. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Dennis Bratland --Danski454 (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Black holes??

It says "Black holes have the same gravitational effects as any other equal mass in their place. They will draw objects nearby towards them, just as any other planetary body does, except at very close distances"

Wait, planetary bodies don't draw objects, that are at a very close distance, toward themselves? This isn't right, or else my pencil would not fall to the floor. But I don't have the physics chops to even understand what exactly we are trying to say here, or access to the source. But some sort of fix by someone who has one or both would be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it is trying to say that black holes behave like planets gravitationally except at close distances, where black holes are weird Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I removed it since it fails criteria #2 and #3. Its not reliably sourced (unreadable book and a lecture video) - needs better sourcing stating unequivocally that this is a common misconception. It is also not mentioned in linked article (#3). Is/was here if it can be made to meet list-def. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Reverted it back, its in the article, just not very well. Added source and the wording " to the black hole.". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Wording question in discussion of MSG? Placebo/nocebo

Just a quick question from a total newbie...I can see why the editor chose to use the word placebo, given that the original research cited did, but from a logical perspective I'm curious why the original researchers used the word placebo, since placebos are by definition inert substances that in combination with the right rituals, authority, and belief of the consumer that cause a (perceived) improvement or beneficial response to some symptoms or condition (so long as the physical/mental condition isn't too severe). So it seems really logical that at a quick glance of the abstracts of the metastudies cited would have been randomized controlled nocebo (same sort of process, but tested against an inert substance)?

Which, is definitely a question for the research and researchers, but just hypothetically, if it turned out that the studies were nocebo (technically) and the researchers themselves used the world placebo, what would be the right way to paraphrase and describe?

SJcats (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)SJcats

The phrase you are referring to in the article is "... this has not been demonstrated in placebo-controlled trials." We try to use common phrases here at Wikipedia. I look around and found that the phrase "nocebo-controlled" is rarely used. Regardless as to whether a placebo or nocebo is use, I am guessing it is called "placebo-controlled". See MOS:JARGON. We like to keep it as simple as possible. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018

Change 'The word's true origin is unknown, but it existed in the Middle Scots period' to 'The word golf is thought to have originated from the old Dutch word for club or bat: "kolf."' Source: https://www.etymonline.com/word/golf Rdegregzz4004 (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a reference to the golf misconception about it not being an acronym of "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden". Instead of doing that I just removed it. The phrase "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden" is mentioned in the article, but not the misconception, so fails inclusion criteria. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Mayflies

There's a myth that mayflies only live 24 hours, when really that's just how long their adult stage lasts. It gets referenced here on the entry on houseflies, but I think it deserves its own bullet point. — DanielLC 20:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Per the inclusion criteria at the top of this talk page, the misconception should be mentioned in the article with citations. I do not see a misconception mentioned in the article. In fact the article seems to imply that the lifespan depends on the species and can be very short. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Surely this is just semantics, people taking the word "mayfly" to refer to the winged form, in the same way that most people take "butterfly" to mean this rather than this. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Recently added then removed section Discussion

Fountains of Bryn Mawr removed the addition by an editor I've pasted below with the note that it fails criteria two and three. If I understand it correctly those are:

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.

I'm not sure how it fails those two criteria. The Atlantic is a reliable source for this kind of misconception and it has sufficient evidence within the body of the article that it is a common misconception. Likewise it references it as a common misconception and references multiple examples within the body of the article. Given that, I recommend it for reinclusion.

Squatch347 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The entry (confusingly) linked three topic articles. hysteria contains the wording "some historians dispute" and vibrators has the wording "historians disagree", so that fails #3, no misconception mentioned. The source being used is brand new, again equivocates "probably a myth", has no supporting sources for claims of "common misconception" other than anecdote, is a single source, and we will obviously have no further sourcing as to this being a "common misconception", a requirement re:reliable sourcing - so fails #2.
We seem to still be at a disagreement amongst historians, which is not actually a misconception. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the multiple article links does make it confusing. My take is that this is a matter of taste for wiki editors, some like to link any and all relevant subjects (which seems to be what is happening here) while some (like you, and I think correctly) choose to link only those directly relevant to the sentence or topic. I'd be happy to limit the linkages to other articles, but I imagine someone will put them back in.
The misconception is definitely mentioned in the article, so I think we can dispense with objections based on criteria three. Rather it seems your concern centers around criteria two. I think there are some sections of the article that address those concerns.
The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
I'll assume we don't have any issues with the reliability of the Atlantic per se so I'll move on to whether or not the article discusses this as a common misperception. "And in the past few years, it has careened around popular culture. It’s given rise to a Tony-nominated play, a rom-com starring Maggie Gyllenhaal, and even a line of branded vibrators. Samantha Bee did a skit about it in March. A seemingly endless march of quirky news stories has instructed readers in its surprising but true quality, including in Vice, Mother Jones, and Psychology Today.
In short, the tale has become a commonplace one in how people think about Victorian sex. " This paragraph would seem to put forward that the misconception is, in fact, common. It references multiple sources referencing it, including from other journalists.
Your elaborated objection was based on whether it was, in fact, a misconception. I think the key phrase in the section you quote from the Hysteria article is, "some historians dispute Maine's claims about the prevelance..." The next sentence also details that Maine thinks the claim is a hypothesis, not a fact. We should also point out that there are more citations for the contrary position in that article than in the support.
If we are aiming at the historical consensus on this subject (which I think we are), we need to recognize that the only source of the vibrator hypothesis is Maines. Both the Atlantic and Wiki article only cite Maines as a reference. We have three dissenting sources in the wiki article, with an additional semi-dissent from Maines herself. There are five additional sources in the Atlantic article rejecting Maines' assertions.
Thus I think this entry does meet the criteria of being a misconception. Historians generally agree (with one exception) that victorians did not invent the vibrator due to female hysteria and we see that the belief that they did is common in culture.
Squatch347 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why we would consider sources pro/con on the claim itself, its not the topic of this article and disagreement amongst historians are covered by WP:YESPOV, we don't take sides. Items on this list have to be "common misconceptions", so multiple sources are needed saying specifically "X is a common misconception". Up to (a few weeks ago?) this was not a misconception, just several opinions. I doubt any other sources have cropped up in that time couching this as a "common misconception". As for The Atlantic, works of journalism are not that high on the reliability scale, no way to check fact-checking or accuracy, unless they cite further sources, which they generally don't. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is that the societal misconception itself needs to be more specifically sociologically studied in order to qualify? Or alternatively we need to see a few more articles like The Atlantic popping up on the topic? Deku-shrub (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be covered, period - we can't make a claim of "common misconception" based on one source. You kinda have it in a nutshell - its covered in the first sentence of WP:V - "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." We actually need to see many articles better than The Atlantic on the topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that is an artificially high standard. If we were to follow that inclusion criteria we would need to remove about 75% of what is on the page now. The criteria listed at the top of the talk page make no mention of needing a wide variety of sources. In this case, we have a secondary source that says the misconception is widespread and that it is false. We have additional research showing that it is false. That is plenty given the criteria on this page. Squatch347 (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:SALLEAD the List inclusion criteria is pretty clear, title "common misconceptions" and "erroneous beliefs that are currently widely held about notable topics". That would equal a very wide base of citations we can pull from about this being a misconception, so yeah... its a high standard. WP:OTHERSTUFF exist arguments are not considered very good criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If other items on this list are weak, they should be removed Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
And none of the criteria mentioned in the lead require multiple sources for the misconception do they? As long as the source referenced expresses that it is a misconception widely used, that meets the criteria as I read them. Perhaps you could elaborate on which criteria you feel requires more than one source? Squatch347 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Unless we are reading from different dictionaries, "common misconception" and "widely held" are very clear. The source referenced has to be reliable for that claim (a single piece of journalism is not) and once removed there is an extra criteria to prove that this is a "common misconception" i.e. more reliable sources making the statement. This list has many criteria (which I did not write) which seem to boil down to "do not unintentionally or intentionally WP:POVFORK claims here". Hence the requirement (which this item still fails) of it being covered in the linked article first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by your response. Are you under the impression that the Atlantic article's internal discussion about it is the only source referenced? IE when they reference the confusion that is all this comment relies on? If so, I think this is an easy fix. The Atlantic article references it being widely used. It references more than a half dozen uses in culture generally including several other journalistic entries. Does that help clarify the issue? Squatch347 (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
"If a reliable source says A (a claim is demonstratively false), and another reliable source says B (examples of that false claim's uses in culture), do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C (it is a common misconception)" (see WP:SYNTHESIS). So, no, we can not follow up those sources to support a conclusion. The Atlantic article is the only source referenced that draws a conclusion along the lines of a common misconception. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I've gone hunting for more misconception sources

I think these plus the Atlantic qualify things well, those are strong sources Deku-shrub (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Those would not be sources on a misconception because they predate the debunking of Maines re: they date 2014, 2011, 2017, 2012, 2015 respectively. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Your response does not match the scenario. Rather, a reliable source (A) uses six other sources (some reliable, some not) as evidence of a misconception in widespread use. The same relaible source (A) also points out that that misconception is incorrect using relialbe sources (B,C,D). That isn't synthesis, it is directly pulling from the secondary source.
The King reference is specifically rebutting Maines. Pgs 206-208 discuss, in part, how widespread the misconception is, though admittedly not with external sources.
The Guardian article references two popular culture references for this misconception as well.
That brings us up to three secondary sources with 10 references to this misconception in general use in the culture. That clearly satisfies the requirements for this page.
Squatch347 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
"rebutting Maines" is a "disagreement amongst scholars" and a disagreement is not a misconception. A misconception is a mistaken belief, a wrong idea, and people who read and believed there was a vibrator/hysteria connection, stories based on Maines' supporting scholarly paper, did not "mistake" what they read. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: "people who read and believed there was a vibrator/hysteria connection, stories based on Maines' supporting scholarly paper, did not "mistake" what they read" An interesting epistemological position. According to Maines herself as well as subsequent academics and many popular commentators they did mistake what they read. However are we saying because the Maines paper was a RS at the time, citations built upon cannot even retrospectively be considered mistakes? This creates a very high barrier to overturn misconceptions based on reliable sources, which was in fact the whole point of the Atlantic article, the damage that academic mispublication can cause. Are there not precedents in Wikipedia for overturning RS's and derivatives previously agreed to be as such? Deku-shrub (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
You didn't address the fact that there are 10 separate references in the links offered citing this as widespread and a misconception. We have at least two editors here who feel comfortable with this addition. Perhaps you could help us understand, what kind of source, exactly, would serve as evidence in your mind? Can you cite a source for any misconception that you think meets your idea of what the criteria are? Squatch347 (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

All of the sources, except one, predate this being a real misconception, so it doesn't matter how many of those you pile up, they do not make a statement this is a misconception, they describe a disagreement. Also 3 of those last sources describe it as a myth (a false story), not a misconception (a false belief). Those are two very different concepts and one is not covered in this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That didn't really answer my question though. I'm trying to understand, conceptually, what kind of sources meet your standards. Can you give me an example?
It also isn't accurate. You are conflating citation with reference. There is one citation (the Atlantic), but that citation offers six references related to the misconception being widespread. Additionally, the articles linked by Deku are post Maines' work, and deal with it being widely accepted, even if it was prior to it being rejected by the academic community, it is still a misconception. Geocentrism was still a misconception before Galileo.
Squatch347 (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not discussing "meet(ing my) standards", they are Wikipedia standards - which I have covered several times, please scroll up. The standard here is a source that has the ability to say "this is a common misconception". Please see WP:V and WP:RS if that is not clear. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Well no, the requirements for the page don't require multiple citations, which is what you are asking. That is solely your requirement. And the source offered contains six references as to this being a common misconception. It even ends one paragraph with: "In short, the tale has become a commonplace one in how people think about Victorian sex..." The need to have multiple sources, or to ignore some for this reason or that is coming from you, not from wikipedia. Unless you can show exactly where it requires multiple sources, I think we should move ahead with replacing the text given the status of the discussion. Squatch347 (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


I wanted to bump this with a suggestion of what text should be included. Feel free to make an edit or let me know if it is missing something.

Despite being referenced commonly in culture [Atlantic Article][Why the movie...] and society at large [Galen and the widow link][Buzzkill Article][guardian], the idea that Victorian Era doctors invented the vibrator to cure female 'hysteria' via triggering orgasm is a product of a single work[welcome collection] rejected by most historians[Atlantic][Guardian][Galen and the widow].

Squatch347 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's opposition to this; it seems a perfectly cromulent addition to me. I've found sources not listed here, and those sources listed here explicitly support the proposed addition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is it has to be a "common misconception", a misconception so widespread and notable that it is already covered at the target Wikipedia article as a common misconception. We do not have that here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
If so, that's a failing of that article, not of this proposal. The sourcing presented here (as well as others I was very easily able to find) establish that this misconception is certainly WP:DUE for the main article. If it's not there, that's because editors haven't added it. Taking that as an excuse not to add it here is a blatant violation of WP:IAR, which you might note is one of the five pillars. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Its a requirement of this list. If you disagree with the list criteria then start a discussion to change them. Not sure how I can commit a "blatant violation" of guideline that states ignore everything. If you think something belongs in a main article, add it, see if it sticks - those editors should know the topic. That would keep us in line with WP:CFORK (Wikipedia policy). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how I can commit a "blatant violation" of guideline that states ignore everything. Then you may lack the competence to edit here: WP:IAR clearly states that any rule that prevents us from improving this project is to be ignored. Refusing to ignore a rule even though doing so is a blatant violation of that principle. Arguing that IAR itself should be ignored in order to follow a rule over improving the project is the very height of wikilawyering and tantamount to announcing your own refusal to do anything except push your own interests. If your only objection is that this doesn't exist in other articles (and let's be clear: the rest of your objections above -such as claiming there's so RS support for the claim that this is a misconception, only that there's support for claiming this a s dispute among academics- are pure BS and barely worth responding to, so far removed from reality and rationality they are), then you should go add it to whatever article you feel most appropriate, instead of expecting good faith editors at this article to bend over backwards to accomplish goals which we both know won't change your mind, anyways. You are exhibiting clear ownership of this article and have been for some time, and I will happily ask ANI to to tell you to knock it off if you don't do so of your own volition. There are now three editors telling you that you are wrong. Listen to them before you are forced to listen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to skip the second part of WP:IAR "improving this project", hence why we have consensus discussions and even consensus criteria (like at the top of this page). As for all the name calling, maybe read WP:ETIQ. Despite what looks like WP:CANVAS[19] (definitely not " neutrally worded") you should join in consensus discussion (and not just name call or name call and revert). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you even reading my comments? Adding a common misconceptions to the list of common misconceptions is, inarguably, an improvement to this project. Stop grasping at straws, stop trying to own the article. Also, do you even know what the phrase "name-calling" means? Are you capable of understanding the distinction between "your argument is shit" and "you are a shitty person"? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Meyer, Robinson (7 September 2018). "Victorian-Era Orgasms and the Crisis of Peer Review". Retrieved 6 September 2018.

Lead was not encyclopedic

Re-wrote the List lead paragraph because it did not reflect the hidden list definition at the top of the page and read like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Selection criteria should be stated unambiguously in the lead for the reader as well as the editor (WP:SALLEAD). "notable topics" and "Each misconception and the corresponding facts have been discussed in published literature" is unnecessary, all Wikipedia content is notable and comes from published literature. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the change away from "This list ... corrects erroneous beliefs". I'm not sure about "that are described in Wikipedia articles" ([20]). As I understand it, this list existed for a long time before that inclusion criterion was added, so there may be many items that fail it. Plus, other Wikipedia articles can be edited at any time without this list being updated. I see that inclusion criterion as being one that helps Wikipedians decide what belongs in this list, rather than something readers need to know about. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Two of the four selection criteria state that there has to be a related article. I really have not looked into where the list criteria came from but it seems to be in line with WP:LSC re: common sense. List such as this are generally alternatives to Categories, being a list of articles that aids in navigation for someone who wants to find articles that cover a certain attribute - so - a list of articles. Its a "List of common misconceptions", so each entry should be notable enough to be covered at that article - its "common". To avoid POVFORKing, if the claim is not at the article it should not be here. "that are described in Wikipedia articles" could probably be removed, the reader does not need that stated and an editor will see the hidden selection criteria telling them it is a requirement. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

I've started an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination). I've also requested that the protecting admin add the AfD template to the page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Forbidden fruit

The fruit of the tree that Eve touched in the Book of Genesis was not simply a fruit but the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. This article does not clarify this. Vorbee (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

In the dinosaur section there is the sentence "Consequently, dinosaur descendants are part of the modern fauna". Since birds are dinosaurs, would suggest the word 'descendants' be removed and an 's' be added to the word 'dinosaur' so the sentence reads "Consequently, dinosaurs are part of the modern fauna". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Randy Kryn (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Pruitt-Igoe

I reverted this edit by Fountains of Bryn Mawr, which has been in the article for almost four year [21]. The argument to delete was:

Fails #3 - not at topic article. Fails #2 - PDF source "memory lapse on the part of architects in their discussions of Pruitt-Igo" in a single US housing project would not be a common misconception

However, Pruitt-Igoe, Architecture and History are topic articles. Although, I am not an architect, I have studied enough architecture and seen documentaries that covered the demolition, that I held the "common misconception" that it had won awards before being demolished. That demolition is extremely significant because it "signaled the death of Modern architecture" [22][23][24][25][26] and the birth of Postmodern architecture. It looks like there is enough WP:RS to create an article on "the death of Modern Architecture". --David Tornheim (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the list criteria. #1 is "The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own" - The linked articles are Pruitt-Igoe, housing project, St. Louis, Missouri and urban renewal... confusing but Pruitt-Igoe seems to be the relevant one. #2 is The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception - two sources state it was confused with another project that won an award but the Katharine Bristol source describes it as a "memory lapse on the part of architects in their discussions of Pruitt-Igo", so sourced, but the sources individually do not describe it as a common misconception, and we can't just add them up (see WP:SYNTH). #3 is The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources - we seem to have a fail there, no coverage at Pruitt-Igoe of a common misconception with sources. None of the extra links you provided describe a common misconception (the topic of this list). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I do not support the removal of that section. The criteria you are bludgeoning every other editor here with was implemented without consensus, ignored by the majority of editors and new criteria is being discussed above. Your continued inability to understand the sources properly is also not an sound argument for the removal. It is described as a "myth" which is functionally identical to a "misconception" in this context in the second source. The first source explicitly says "...and the ways the design community exaggerated the supposed design virtues of Pruitt-Igoe only to create a more poignant portrait of its failure. For example, Pruitt-Igoe is often cited as an AIA-award recipient, but the project never won any architectural awards." which is easily understood as "there is a common misconception that Pruit-Igoe is an AIA-award recipient." That is not interpretation, but simple summary.
You may be completely unaware of this, but we are supposed to summarize RSes, not quote them verbatim with all the cognitive facility of a photocopier. There is not, and never has been any requirement that a source use certain "magic phrases" before we can cite it for a given topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with MjolnirPants analysis (noting that I have not seen other similar removals). As for #3, we can easily add it to the article. I will do that. I hope you won't revert it simply to keep it out of this article. I do think requirement #3 is a bit odd FYI, and I might support removing it. For editorial purposes, I could see the misconception being significant without the need for it to be in the article on the subject. I see this page more like trivia, answering questions to a crossword, jeopardy questions, etc., but still what I would call "encyclopedic" knowledge. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I added it to the article here. Fortunately, the additional material is pretty seamless and flows well with the existing content. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The article entry still fails #3 because the linked article text does not claim there is some sort of "common misconception". List entries should follow criteria, including the list title. A misconception has to be significant to the point of being "common", something everyone everywhere general gets wrong. If its common it should already be described as such in the linked article, or be easy to cite and add without convoluted reasoning. Right now the entry reads "Some people at some time think a housing project in St. Louis, Missouri won an architecture prize when it was actually another housing project in St. Louis, Missouri that won it." That's not in any way a "common misconception". Please also note trivia is not considered "encyclopedic" (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE and related links). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The article entry still fails #3 because the linked article text does not claim there is some sort of "common misconception". Bullshit. I've already explained this to you. Your inability to understand or accept that explanation does not change what the source says. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • A misconception has to be significant to the point of being "common", something everyone everywhere general gets wrong. [emphasis added.] If that were the case, then there would be exactly zero items in the List of Common Misconceptions, because even the experts would get it wrong too and there would be no one who knew the truth.
Our core differences of opinion appear to be: (1) what is meant by a "common misconception" and (2) whether the item in question meets the threshold of being a "common misconception". We will have to agree to disagree. I agree with Mjpants on (2), that it meets the threshold. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Items meet the threshold of being a "common misconception" when reliable sources say "its common misconception" (in so many words). Claiming "this source means this and that source means that and its all significant re: some context" is original research, we don't make those declarations. A "common misconception" is always going to be a sliding scale. Is already covered at an article as a common misconception with RS - top of the scale, we just index it. Is covered by significant RS as a common misconception but week or missing at an article - middle of the scale/borderline - add it to the article, if it sticks it stays here. Is not covered by significant RS as a common misconception, not in an article, and all we can say is some undefinable group of people get this wrong - bottom of the scale, doesn't meet the threshold. I think we are bottom of the scale here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Once again, this has already explained to you, both in general terms as well as how it pertains to this particular instance. You've been told by two editors now that your insistence on requiring sources to use the exact wording of this article title does not fly. You've previously been told the same thing this by at least three other editors. You will not win any arguments by continuing to repeat yourself like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Apparently (in so many words) was not on someones vocabulary test. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Obviously so, considering that I quoted one source saying so in so many words and you're still not listening. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't have to use the exact wording in the title, that's ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to start an AfD to prove a point about how ridiculous this is. This whole process is ridiculous and both of you need to remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not get into ridiculous squabbles with each other. I'd rather this not have to go to ANI a second time. Smartyllama (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The AfD was because three editors claimed the article should be deleted when I filed an ANI case over Bryn's irrational behavior. And I will further note that there are a large number of "delete" !votes, including from very experienced editors, even one former Arb that I noticed. Clearly, there are quite a few people of the opinion that the article should be deleted. So keep your comments about ridiculousness to subjects you know enough about to speak on, please. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

First off, yes, I know about the AfD. I filed it. Let that run its course (which is looking like "no consensus" unless the closer really decides to completely disregard all WP:AADD arguments). This talk page is for discussing improvements to this article, so let's discuss improvements.

If this page is to be improved, we first have to examine the criteria given in the edit notice. Here are the current criteria outlined in the edit notice:

  1. The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own.
  2. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
  3. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
  4. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.
This list was created when the article talk page was in this state. I've linked directly to the only "criteria" discussion, which you can see does not result in an agreement on this. So these criteria were imposed without consensus.

To wit, I'm suggesting a new list of criteria. Below, you can see it.

  1. The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
  2. It is current, and not obsolete (so that we're not commenting on widespread false beliefs of the middle ages, for example).
  3. An expert in the topic has identified it as a misconception.

I left out the "needs to be reliably sourced" one because duh; of course it needs to be reliably sourced. The new last one is intended to address the bickering over "common". There are plenty of sources that identify "common" misconceptions, but a lot of arguing over whether that's accurate. So instead of looking to a tertiary RS by some staff writer to claim "common misconception", let's look to secondary sources by experts that claim "misconception". It is a perfectly reasonable presumption that experts regularly discuss or are asked questions about the subject of their expertise by people lacking their expertise. In many cases, the very job of the expert is to have these discussions and answer these questions. So if such an expert feels the need to publish something that addresses this misconception, it should then go without saying that it's "common".

Thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Asking that each factoid listed here needs an article of its own to qualify sounds like it would cause the deletion of a high percentage of the page. So am I misunderstanding, and you mean section topic, or overall topics, and not each bit? The criteria seems fine regarding information being included within another article, and not specifically requiring each bit of information to have a full article. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that's a phrasing problem of mine. No, what I'm saying is that, if you find some sources claiming that there's a common misconception about, for example, the suicide of Katelyn Davis (which was recently deleted as not notable here), you cannot add that. But you could certainly add a fourth or fifth entry about suicide in general with the right sources, because they all share the same "main" article.
Another way to look at it is to say that each entry ought to be able to (but doesn't necessarily need to) have a wikilink to an article about the topic in the body of the entry. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Except that Wikipedia does not, and never has, required that all sources be from experts, only that they be reliable. And the fact that some expert chooses to address some topic doesn't necessarily mean it's to address a common misconception, so that would just result in the list getting even more subjective. We'd be forced to analyze why the expert was addressing this topic, which could be significantly more complicated than just showing that the source is reliable. Often, if a belief is especially stupid and/or troublesome, like Flat earth theory, experts will respond to it despite it not being particularly common. Other times, if it's common but relatively trivial (like Napoleon's height, which from an expert's perspective is not a major aspect of him), they may not respond to it at all. I guarantee you there are more experts responding to Birtherism than to many of the entries in this article, but there aren't very many people who actually believe Obama was born in Kenya, just a lot of really vocal ones who have greatly influenced American politics with their beliefs. Not to mention that being an expert in, say, chemistry, doesn't necessarily make you an expert in how common a certain belief is. Other than perhaps some metapsychology expert who studies how people perceive psychology, it's unlikely they'd be an expert in both their own field and in public perception of it. So I'm not sure this would solve the issues anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Except that Wikipedia does not, and never has, required that all sources be from experts, only that they be reliable. That's why I'm proposing it (partially) as a criteria for this list. If it were WP policy, I'd not need to propose it at all. Notice how I removed the bit about entries needing to be reliably sourced. Also, I'm not proposing that all sourcing be from experts; only that the entry have at least one expert source calling it a misconception.
We'd be forced to analyze why the expert was addressing this topic No, that is the exact opposite of what this would mean. By simply having the requirement that an expert called it a misconception, we're explicitly avoiding any discussion about why they did so. They did so, and that's enough to satisfy the criteria. If you think there's a wording that would better convey this, please suggest it.
Not to mention that being an expert in, say, chemistry, doesn't necessarily make you an expert in how common a certain belief is. I never suggested that an expert historian would be able to comment on a subject in physics, for example. When it comes to a physics misconception, the historian is decidedly not an expert. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
This is in a separate comment because it's not that important.
I guarantee you there are more experts responding to Birtherism than to many of the entries in this article, but there aren't very many people who actually believe Obama was born in Kenya, just a lot of really vocal ones who have greatly influenced American politics with their beliefs. You should spend some time in The South. It will quickly disabuse you of that notion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I think I prefer the current criteria. Expert opinions are good, but we shouldn't prefer them over something like a study that shows a misconception is common. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
That would turn this article into a stub. Seriously, go count how many of the sources used actually have that quality. And the current criteria doesn't actually require that, anyways, so the current criteria comes no closer to meeting that standard.
Finally: I think we can all agree that 90% is "common". But what about 30%? What about 1%? 1% of the population is hundreds of millions of people, and most of us will encounter at least one of them every day (though we may not be aware of it). So what about 0.1%? I know I run across a thousand people in a week. Most folk who don't live in rural areas do, too. Is that "common"?
I don't think that even the studies you mention actually establish that something is "common", because the definition of "common" is subjective. So I think leaving it to an expert to at least imply that it's common by publishing a refutation is the only sensible way to reach a standard that we can all agree on whether or not it applies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, I think the original criteria are more liberal, because they allow either an expert opinion or a study that shows a misconception is common. We don't have to decide the threshhold. As long as the source mentions it's common, it's fine. I'm just saying we shouldn't focus only on expert opinion. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Nine "Keep" votes at the current AfD specifically noted the current inclusion criteria as a reason to keep the article. None recommended loosening the criteria. Pengo specifically noted:

  • "It's a summary article. References are not an issue as each fact is taken from another Wikipedia article. See the "official" criteria for inclusion on the talk page (and which also appears when you edit the article): "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." If the associated article doesn't also include the misconception with references, then its associated entry in this list should be removed."

Lists that index Wikipedia articles based on them having a certain attribute (such as requiring the attribute "U.S. citizens or nationals of French descent and heritage" to be in List of French Americans) is perfectly reasonable per WP:SAL. So, as Pengo points out, it makes it a dirt simple list - article has referenced text stating there is some kind of "common misconception"? - it goes in this list, you actually don't even need a citation at the List.

A list without a linked Article containing a common misconception would be an OR nightmare. Editors will simple google to find what ever they can and WP:SYNTH all those "hits" into "Yep, lots of hits so its not just a myth or little known fact, my tally shows its a common misconception". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I find it incredibly hilarious that you would perceive "content does not need to be duplicated from an existing article" to be mean "We can safely ignore our sitewide policies on this particular article". I mean, the sheer level of illogic that goes into that just alone is enough to make me laugh, not to mention the fact that it clearly stems from the same butthurt that's led you to make hypocritical personal attacks against me on at least two different pages. The rest of your comment isn't even about this proposal, so I'm ignoring it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

For my part, I like the current criteria, mostly. I disagree with the proposer that point 2 is unnecessary; omitting #2 introduces too many ambiguities. Of course the topic needs to reliably sourced, but so does the fact that it's a common misconception. Omitting #3 would do no harm though... if a common misconception is added to this list with proper sourcing, it's trivial to add a mention to it in the topic article with similar sourcing. That's just good practice, not a criterion for inclusion. I disagree with adding the requirement that an "expert" must identify something as a misconception. Reliable sources are sufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposer that point 2 is unnecessary; omitting #2 introduces too many ambiguities. I don't see how. Point 2 is merely the repetition of a site-wide policy.
I disagree with adding the requirement that an "expert" must identify something as a misconception. Reliable sources are sufficient. I actually tend to agree, but I think that proposal cuts off all the arguing about whether it's a common misconception, which has been at the root of many of the problems on this talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Summary so far

So far, I have seen two editors opine that finding an expert in the topic of the entry to call it a misconception is not a good idea. So here's a revision, since no-one else seems interested in proposing any.

  1. The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
  2. It is current, and not obsolete (so that we're not commenting on widespread false beliefs of the middle ages, for example).
  3. An RS has identified it as a misconception.

I still haven't seen any reasonable argument for including the original #2: It's a site-wide policy already. I've seen the suggestion that sources need to include a survey showing it to be common, but I've not seen any suggestion as to what sort of result of said survey would be considered common, so I don't see how that solves anything. Furthermore, such surveys are bound to be exceedingly rare (there are none in the RSes cited in the article at present as far as I've seen), so I fail to see how that would even be workable. Further comments are welcome. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I oppose #1 "The topic of the misconception has an article of its own." As long as it is covered in WP:RS as myth, I think that is sufficient. I agree with the others that it should not necessarily require an expert to articulate it, but I would be okay with additional language that it is preferred that the myth is articulated by an expert or by a journalist referring to the work of experts.
I would be open to trying to divide the material into multiple articles such as List of misquotations, List of common misconceptions about language learning, Tornado myths, and then taking the top 3-5 of each subject area as ticklers to generate interest in the longer list of myths in that subject area. The history sections are a bit unwieldy. Unfortunately, articles like Tornado myths, have a completely different format and do not have the nice bite-sized bits of information that makes this article interesting to peruse. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
So you would support an entry based on a single RS about the suicide of Katelyn Davis, even though we have no article about that topic? That would require us to summarize the topic in this list, which would require additions RSes. RSes that don't exist, hence why that article does not exist. As for breaking this up into multiple articles, that might be a discussion worth having. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think people are misunderstanding what criteria #1 means. To use the microwave oven example, we wouldn't necessarily need an article about Microwave ovens heating myth, we would just need a Microwave oven article, which we have. Assuming that's what's meant by that, I have no issue with #1. Smartyllama (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Microwave oven wouldn't even need to exist. It would be enough to have an article on some other topic, that also included a well-sourced description of the existence of the microwave oven myth. In practice I don't think we have many cases like that; often there are two or more articles that each mention the myth. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
In theory, I agree with this, but I don't think there will be many cases where it applies. Smartyllama is spot on with their comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind there are a lot of misconceptions that are covered in some random reliable source somewhere. Pretty much every college and university in the world has myths that, at least among those who have enough of a connection to the university to care, are fairly common misconceptions. There is a legend often repeated about my own alma mater, the University of Connecticut, that the campus was modeled after some school in Texas that was designed as a wind tunnel to cool things off, but that of course this was quite unpleasant in the harsh New England winters. It's completely untrue, but has been covered in a number of reliable sources related to the university, and is fairly common among people who actually care. On the other hand, the vast majority of people don't care one way or the other, so is it really all that common? If it's a misconception about some obscure subject that the vast majority of people don't care about, can it really be all that common? I guess it depends on what is meant by "common", then. Smartyllama (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, many people don't really care about much at all. Benjamin (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Smarty, I see what you're saying here. I could certainly get behind a "multiple sources" criteria, though I'm reluctant to set a number higher than 2 as the minimum, for obvious reasons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree about the need for "bite sized" entries. Some entries here are a bit too long and they all tend to launch into the debunk without stating what the misconception actually is. The best format is to state the misconception and the then give the debunk very, very briefly with a link to more details. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think #1 could be weakened to say that it must be covered in another article but that it does not need to be a stand-alone article. So, for example, the ones about microwave ovens would be OK provided they are covered in the Microwave oven article in a way that meets the other two criteria. I am also wondering if #3 needs strengthening. I'm pretty sure that you can find something on the weaker end of RS to say that pretty much anything is a misconception almost as easily as you can find an RS uncritically repeating a misconception. I fear that we may have to form an opinion on what separates a genuine misconception from a matter of genuine controversy in a world where some people seem to believe that there are no settled facts at all, others believe that no fact is settled until their tribe has the final say and many would grasp at any opportunity to label the beliefs of their opponents as misconceptions. We do not wish to invite arguments with creationists and flat earthers. If we had a couple of different RS, each referring to expert opinion, then we would be better placed to tell any such people to go and pound sand. Also, let us not forget that the misconception needs to be common. No necessarily common the whole world over but we will need an RS describing it as common. We may need to set a criteria for that too. We don't want to include things that are commonly held misconceptions in one village but we also should not exclude misconceptions which are common outside the English speaking west. For example, belief in Blood type personality theory is common enough in Japan that it could merit inclusion here. (Although then I guess we would have to include things like Astrology too.) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. I could get behind that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

"3-An RS has identified it as a misconception" is incomparable with the list title "common misconceptions". That would would make this a trivia list of "Things somebody got wrong". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I'm pretty much writing off everything you say because none of it helps even a little bit, and very little of it even makes any sense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that the addition "and is mentioned in the article with sources" is an important part of the quality control of the items anyone wants to add (the article about the topic of the misconception, that is). If every item on this list is required to be mentioned in another article, that means the great number of editors that watch those articles will help prune this article. Those who watch an article are generally interested and know more about the topic than the average editor on Wikipedia. Thus it's more likely that they will catch an addition to "their" article that e.g. misinterprets the source, is undue or uses a source that is outdated. Sjö (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I see that as part of our sitewide policy already, but I'm not immune to the number of people (at least 2 so far) who've opined that some repetition of sitewide policy might be in order. The next proposal I post will contain a reminder that all content must be reliably sourced, regardless of where it appears. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm mostly indifferent to the exact wording, but I'd like to see a few points clarified.

Are multiple sources necessarily required in all cases?

Does the source need to use the exact phrase "common misconception"?

Benjamin (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say Yes and No, respectively. The latter is a frankly ridiculous criteria with no precedent anywhere else on this site. Conversely, the former would address Smartyllama's point above which you also replied to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
It would depend on the quality of the sources, wouldn't it? I would think a reputable study with a large sample size would be sufficient on its own, for example. Benjamin (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Generally speaking, if a source does the research to establish exactly how widespread a belief something is, other RSes for it should abound, and thus it'd be trivial to find multiples for that entry. That being said, in the odd case that there's a widespread false belief that only one source covers (and that source is a very high quality one), I'd be inclined to support inclusion based on the quality of the source. And no criteria needs to be writ in stone: We're not establishing policy here, just a guideline as to what to include. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The best format is to state the misconception and the then give the debunk - DanielRigal hit on something that I noticed to. It seems to me this List is formatted for a Daily Mail columnist on a deadline looking for something to copy and paste and not made for anyone else. Namely bad SEO, nobody searching the web would ever hit on this article because they would be searching for something about a misconception, not searching for an unknown answer. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Now this is worth responding to. You both raise a very good point, and it was one I intended to open another section on. I agree that we should be describing the misconceptions as well as debunking them. I suppose anyone who disagrees can do so here. I'm soon to write up another version of the criteria taking the helpful commentary from this section into account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fountains of Bryn Mawr Can you give me examples that you consider a problem? I can see some advantage of stating the misconception first in most cases, but I would probably oppose a hard-and-fast one-size-fits all rule for that. Some stories of misconceptions might flow better if there is lead in to the origin of the confusion. What makes good writing is a good true story. A boring set of facts all of exactly the same rigid format will be more likely to put the reader to sleep. I prefer we engage the reader with top notch writing that includes variety.
Perhaps for some of the items you consider to be a problem, we could do some copy-editing and make them more interesting. Changing the rule may not solve the problem(s): The changes would still need to be made in the text of these items. That can be done without changing the rule. If editors are constantly adding items in a format that a consensus of us believes is objectionable and can be solved by a rule change, then I would be more likely to support a change in the rules. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I have never looked on Wikipedia as engaging or a "read" (probably why I write crap articles). [27] points to the problem - you won't see this List any time soon in that search. That this List is a bit of an internet WP:WG may make people who don't like it happy, not a problem because no ones going to find it. Stating the misconception may lead to a few deletions, some of these may sound a little silly once you read the actual misconception. Anyway, nothing I think is vital, just noticed an oddity about this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh. You mean this is about Search Engine Optimization (SEO). I have no knowledge about that. When I read the comment, SEO sounds a bit like CEO. I thought it might the abbreviations of some person. I am open to learning about how changing the formatting of the myths could change the rank in a Google search. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Round three

Taking the commentary from above into account, here's my third draft of the inclusion criteria:

  • The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
  • There are at least two references stating both the correction and that it is a misconception.
  • It is current and not obsolete (i.e., no common beliefs from the middle ages.)
  • It abides by all of our existing policies and guidelines.

If no-one objects to anything here (with a reasonable and articulate objection, please), then I'll post an edit request for a change to the edit notice. Otherwise, we can do another round of commentary and revisal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose I don't see this as an overall improvement over the current version. I see some things as better (more info. in #3: "no common beliefs from the middle ages" and possibly #4). But I do not prefer the new wording for #1, that gives the impression that the misconception must have its own article. I don't exactly like the language of #1 in the original either. It seems to me that all misconceptions can fit within one or more topics.
I recommend working on one sentence at a time, as I stated at the AfD, possibly even having one or more RfC's on it. [28]
Also, I'm not sure what problem we are trying to address with the new rules. [added 22:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)]
--David Tornheim (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
that gives the impression that the misconception must have its own article I don't see how. It explicitly says "the topic of the misconception" not "the misconception". But if you would like to suggest a wording, I'm all ears.
I recommend working on one sentence at a time, as I stated at the AfD, possibly even having one or more RfC's on it. I don't see any benefit to that. It would only drag things out longer. There's no reason not to let an editor who only cares about #3, for example, discuss that right now, as opposed to making them wait until two RfCs have run their course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
What do you think of "The entry must be able to link to a WP page that gives more information about the subject" or something to that effect? That's what I'm looking for; information pointing out that non-notable subjects shouldn't have common misconceptions about them listed here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding #1: Proposed new wording: "The misconception is to be placed under a topic or subtopic heading it is related to." Possibly adding: "That topic or subtopic must have a dedicated Wikipedia article (e.g. Astronomy, Biology, History, History of Science)"
If you don't want to wait for an RfC to run, I understand. The advantage is that if the RfC closes with a clear consensus, the arguing can stop. Right now, I don't see any progress towards ending the disagreement.
It's not clear to me what problem(s) you are trying to solve by changing the criteria. Is it because they are unclear? Because you want to make them stricter or looser? Without a clear agreed upon goal, I think it is all the more difficult to determine if the new language is an improvement. I do think the original language is confusing and vague. I would support making it clearer, but I would not support making the requirement for inclusion stricter.
--David Tornheim (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Right now, I don't see any progress towards ending the disagreement. You only cited one problem with the currently proposed criteria, then gave you approval to my suggested fix for that problem. That's progress, right there. Then, look at the objections above and how they've influenced both subsequent proposals. That's the definition of progress. The only problem is that Bryn keeps jumping in to disagree with anything I say, including going to such ridiculous extremes as claiming that a misconception is only common if "everyone everywhere" believes it, as you yourself have seen. So mentally subtract Bryn's re-occurring temper tantrum from this discussion and re-evaluate. It sure looks like it's getting somewhere then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to see more support than just you and me. What if someone else jumps in and sides with Bryn on something the two of us agree on? That's not progress. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
If other editor's can't be bothered to join in, that doesn't mean we should give up. And if you'll actually read through the section: you'll see most of them have explicitly supported most of the proposed changes. Only two editors have disagreed with more than one thing, and one of those is Bryn, who's disagreed with everything and said that any change to the criteria would be a license to ignore our policies on WP:OR. Oh, and those two aren't the entire "list of logically unhinged things Bryn has said on this talk page". I think they're about 1/3 of that list, at most. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I've explained why others don't join in: They are not interested in getting in the middle of your back-and-forths with Bryn. The above paragraph is an example of what hinders progress, where you criticize Bryn in very harsh hyperbole and invite him to respond in kind. There's no need for that. No, I have not read everything on this page, but I have seen enough of the interaction between the two of you to know that both are about equally guilty of this kind of paragraph, and that if you would stop focusing on each other's behavior and try to find wider support for specific positions/proposals, we would get progress. The advantage of an RfC is that talking about editor behavior is almost verbotten, and that, I believe would help a lot. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I've explained why others don't join in: They are not interested in getting in the middle of your back-and-forths with Bryn. Then maybe you and Bryn should shut the fuck up about it, eh? ;) I haven't been bringing it up all over the place. I've been actively trying to steer discussion to the article, and away from that, even though I've made it clear that I think Bryn would come out far worse than me. But you keep bringing it back up, over and over. And there has been plenty of participation, despite your dire warning. At least 6 new editors have shown up to weigh in, mostly with helpful commentary. You can't expect a coflict to die down when you won't let it, can you? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • What do you think of "The entry must be able to link to a WP page that gives more information about the subject" or something to that effect? That's fine. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There's no reason not to let an editor who only cares about #3, for example, discuss that right now. Nothing is stopping that. The problem is that the discussion on whether to include #3 can be separated from the discussion on the wording of #1. I know they are somewhat related, but I would prefer this not all get jumbled together in a big mess where it is hard to tell what editors want changed. I have no objection to running multiple RfC questions, as long as they are as discrete as possible. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no consensus for radically changing the inclusion criteria. Most editors mentioning the inclusion criteria at the AfD think its good as is (some recommend it be tougher). Current #3 is specifically recommended here and at AfD by multiple editors as a good "check" to make sure something is actually reliably sourced and "common". "#1 The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own" seems much less ambiguous re: "is related to" means it does not have to be an article about the misconception. Don't know why that one is a stumbler but it could always be reworded to remove any ambiguity. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus for radically changing the inclusion criteria. That is not true. Almost every editor who's commented on this page has disparaged the "repeated in another article" criteria, and the majority of the proposal I've made has been met with approval. You claim to the contrary is pure imagination. I guess you didn't read the "reasonable and articulate" part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Almost every editor who's commented on this page has disparaged the "repeated in another article" criteria. Can you give me some evidence of that, such as diffs and/or subject headings? If that's true, we could give a summary of these editors' comments, and make a proposal that addresses all of those concerns. If the concerns have enough in common I would think it should be easy to generate a wide consensus on new language that addresses the repeated concerns. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
David, there are only two possible pages to find those on, and this is not the only article on my watchlist. Just use your mousewheel and read the pages. It's really not that long. I will say that Randy Kryn, Smartyllama and Anachronist have all agreed with removing the original number 3 up above, It's been disparaged before in discussions higher up (and I believe, one below) and there were additional comments at the AfD disparaging it from multiple editors. I don't see the point in me spending a half hour collecting diffs just to save you 10 minutes of reading. Maybe if there were 4-5 pages to check, but with only two pages, you can read for yourself. I've yet to see anyone but Bryn defend it, for that matter. How can an inclusion criteria that is subject to the changing nature of other pages even be helpful, here? The only thing it boils down to is an excuse to edit war new content out of this article (which is exactly what set all of this off). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
If what you say is true, that indicates a strong consensus opposing #3, then we should easily be able to get rid of it. Some ways to do that: (1) simply delete it from the criteria on the ground that consensus already exists on this talk page (2) make a straw poll here on deleting #3 to make the consensus more overt (3) running an RfC to delete #3. I am happy to do (2) or (3). If you want to try (1), I would probably back you up, unless another editor in addition to Bryn declared there is no such consensus for its removal. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
No. Criterion #3 is fine and we should keep it. A large number of words have been posted here, but nothing convincing. You are allowed to go to the subject article(s) and edit them to meet the criteria here. I know many editors say you can't, that it's somehow "backwards", but no such rule exists. If your change on the subject article gets reverted, well, then obviously you don't have consensus. But if you go to microwave oven and change it so that it clearly says a misconception exists and is commonly held, and that reaches something approximating stability, then you're all set to include it here. We need to assume that if the editors who regularly edit the subject article are happy with the addition, then it stands on solid ground to be added here.

Anyway, no, there isn't consensus for criteria changes. As I said, the criteria aren't the source of the problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Thanks for letting me know. I have no intention on doing (1) unless I were to see evidence of the consensus Mjpants claims exists. I do think the rules are a bit confusing, and I am open to improving them, but believe the only way forward would be more discrete proposals, ideally no more than one sentence at a time. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not convinced there is even a problem in need of solving. Identifying reliable sources is an inherent part of editing any article. We already know how to establish consensus on a fact and don't need arbitrary criteria like "at least two sources". Some facts require ten sources, some need only one. It depends, and we already have structures in place to determine that.

    It's redundant to require following policies and guidelines. The need to even say "follow policy" arises from personal disputes; i.e. making a point, axe grinding.

    The individuals who have a problem with the rules of this list are locked in a WP:BATTLEGROUND and are locked in mutual WP:STONEWALLing. The problem lies with the individuals who are failing to assume good faith, to compromise, and recognize that their personal back-and-forth is disrupting the editing of everyone else. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination), these inclusion criteria change proposals, and other attempts to move the goalposts are all have a snowball's chance of going anywhere.

    It's time to either figure out how to collaborate and respect consensus, or drop it and work on something else. I predict an immanent interaction ban and topic ban for those who keep beating this dead horse. Let it go, guys. Let it go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, fuck this noise. If I'm the only one willing to stop wallowing in drama, focus on the content and not simply ignore everything I don't want to hear, then I guess I'm on the wrong page. Apologies to Squatch347, TompaDompa, Benjaminikuta and anyone else who saw this hot mess for what it is, but I don't have the patience to deal with this level of bullshit anymore. You guys are on your own trying to fix this mess. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly the response I predicted. QED. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Question: Do we need to change the criteria?

Question: Do we need to change the criteria? If so, what would you change? Are there any items in the current article you think are flawed partly as a direct result of problems with the current rules? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Neutral I'm not convinced there is a consensus to make any specific or general changes to the current rules. I am open to improving them if there is. I am also open to clarifying the rules to better reflect the historic defacto choices made in practice, especially if there is a discrepancy between the defacto rules and the stated rules. I do not feel the current rules are entirely clear, especially about what is meant by a "common" misconception. I would not support a change that created more rigid criteria for inclusion. I might support a less rigid set of rules. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Take six months off from rocking the boat. Go back to the regular business of editing one entry at at time, making it better, and seeking consensus on the talk page. After half a year or so (maybe a whole year, we have time), if you feel like things are going in the wrong direction, then present items that you think should have been added but weren't, or should have been deleted but weren't, due to some clear flaw in the criteria as written. If you can't point to several specific, real world examples of the system not working, then it's all WP:BEANS. If you can't cite any very compelling cases where the rules are failing, then the system is not broke, the problem is between the keyboard and the chair. IMHO, the problem is Wikipedia's collaborative editing process itself. Some can function in an environment that might sometimes might require treating Randy in Boise with a modicum of respect, and some can't hack it. If you can't, then no rule change on a single list. will help you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus and Flat Earth

I restored the material edited and deleted by TompaDompa. I agree that it needs to be merged with an existing entry on Columbus. I moved the entry to be closer to the existing entry to make that easier. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

These are the two entries that need to be merged:

Likewise it is also a myth that people of the Middle Ages believed the earth was flat (See: Myth of the flat Earth). This myth was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic teachings.[7]

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the second one can simply be deleted; all the necessary information is in the first one. We should avoid making the entries overly detailed as that hampers readability. TompaDompa (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I prefer having more details, such as:
Some of the language in the second is preferable to the first--more interesting IMHO (of course, I did write it.) For example:
  • "uncharted" is more active than "If the Americas had not existed".
  • "crew [dying] of starvation, thirst or scurvy" is more interesting to visualize than "running out of supplies".
  • "since at least 500 B.C." (reflecting Spherical Earth) is probably more accurate than "from the time of the ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, belief in a spherical Earth remained almost universal among European intellectuals", which lacks WP:RS, may overstate universality of agreement, and gives more credit to Plato and Aristotle than they likely deserve, rather than intellectuals like Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Eratosthenes who appear to have had much greater influence in moving beliefs towards the spherical earth. It's not clear to me if there was a step-change to acceptance of a spherical earth or if it was a gradual change over some centuries.
--David Tornheim (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC) (revised)
I think the extra details on the origins are unnecessary here. They can go on the respective articles. I don't feel strongly about the different phrasings. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay. That leaves far less in dispute. How do you feel about including more WP:RS refs? I can make the changes in the older version to reflect my preferences on phrasings. I assume you would have no objection to that? As for the origins of the myths, we need input from at least one other editor to break the impasse on that. I am not certain if it is better to start the change in the article now, or wait for additional feedback. What do you think? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
As long as it doesn't reach WP:OVERCITE levels, more sources is fine. I say start editing now. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm done with the merge/changes. Feel free to comment on my changes below. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Louise M. Bishop (2010). "The Myth of the Flat Earth". In Stephen Harris; Bryon L. Grigsby (eds.). Misconceptions about the Middle Ages. Routledge. ISBN 9781135986667. Retrieved 26 January 2014.
  2. ^ "Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
  3. ^ "Washington Irving's Columbus and the Flat Earth – Darin Hayton". dhayton.haverford.edu. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
  4. ^ Ferris, Timothy (2003). Coming of Age in the Milky Way. Harper Perennial. ISBN 978-0060535957.
  5. ^ "Everything You Need To Know About Columbus | AMERICAN HERITAGE". www.americanheritage.com. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
  6. ^ "Top 5 Misconceptions About Columbus". Live Science. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
  7. ^ "Science Versus Christianity?". www.patheos.com. Retrieved 2018-09-29.

Revised / Merged Version #1

I'm done making the changes/merge (12 edits, 2 more edits). Here is what I have (permalink):

I welcome feedback.

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
  2. ^ "Science Versus Christianity?". www.patheos.com. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
  3. ^ Louise M. Bishop (2010). "The Myth of the Flat Earth". In Stephen Harris; Bryon L. Grigsby (eds.). Misconceptions about the Middle Ages. Routledge. ISBN 9781135986667. Retrieved 26 January 2014.
  4. ^ "Columbus's Geographical Miscalculations". IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. Retrieved 2018-10-03.
  5. ^ Ferris, Timothy (2003). Coming of Age in the Milky Way. Harper Perennial. ISBN 978-0060535957.
  6. ^ "Everything You Need To Know About Columbus | AMERICAN HERITAGE". www.americanheritage.com. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
  7. ^ "Top 5 Misconceptions About Columbus". Live Science. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
  8. ^ "Washington Irving's Columbus and the Flat Earth – Darin Hayton". dhayton.haverford.edu. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
  9. ^ "Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-09-29.

Lightning Striking Twice

Support for adding misconception about lighting striking twice, using [29], [30], [31] and linking to Lightning#In_culture_and_religion? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This misconception is already on the page. (JoshMuirWikipedia on mobile) 1.127.105.227 (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Ooops. I did a search on it, and it didn't come. My search must have been a typo. That was a lot of time wasted looking for the best sources! LOL. Maybe one of them is better than what's in the article... --David Tornheim (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_21&oldid=1147975584"