Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Entry Under Food and Cooking: Wine and Cheese Parties

{{Edit semi-protected}}

I would like to request that the following be added to the "Food and Cooking" Section under the title "Wine and Cheese Tasting Parties"

The consumption of cheese has been shown to dull most flavors that one can taste in red wine [1] and in general can "suppress the expression of particular wine attributes" [2]. Conversely, dry white wine has been shown to dull the flavors of certain blue cheeses [3]. Wine and cheese pairings can be considered pleasing [4], however the concept of a "wine and cheese tasting party" is fallacious if the intent is tasting (and not simply consumption), as wine and cheese mutually diminish each others' taste.

[1] "Sensory Effects of Consuming Cheese Prior to Evaluating Red Wine Flavor" Berenice Madrigal-Galan and Hildegarde Heymann, Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 57:1:12-22 (2006)

[2] Wine Tasting: A Professional Handbook by Ronald S. Jackson. Food Science and Technology International Series, Elsevier Ltd. (2002)

[3] Nygren, I. T., Gustafsson, I.-B. and Johansson, L. (2003), Perceived flavour changes in blue mould cheese after tasting white wine. Food Service Technology, 3: 143–150.

[4] King, M. and Cliff, M. (2005), Evaluation of Ideal Wine and Cheese Pairs using a deviation-from-ideal scale with food and wine experts. Journal of Food Quality, 28: 245–256.

--Camillawillis (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. I see no common misconception described in the proposal above. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Would it be considered acceptable with the following revision?

It is a common misconception that wine and cheese make an ideal pairing when tasting wines, as evidenced by the commonplace occurrence of "Wine and Cheese Tasting Parties". However, the consumption of cheese has been shown to dull most flavors that one can taste in red wine [1] and in general can "suppress the expression of particular wine attributes" [2]. Conversely, dry white wine has been shown to dull the flavors of certain blue cheeses [3]. Wine and cheese pairings can be considered pleasing [4], however the concept of a "wine and cheese tasting party" is fallacious if the intent is tasting (and not simply consumption), as wine and cheese mutually diminish each others' taste.

--Camillawillis (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to believe "wine and cheese make an ideal pairing" is a common misconception; as for me, I only believe that they go nice together, which your wording acknowledges. Now, admittedly, the line between a trivial nitpick and pointing out a misconception can be pretty fine, but this one seems more like a nitpick to me. Hairhorn (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To expand on Hairhorn's comment:

I know it's common to pair wine and cheese. I see wineries do it. Are parties specifically for the purpose of tasting wine and cheese together truly commonplace? I'd never heard of them. I've been to wine tasting parties that happen to have cheese served along with other things. I've seen many parties were wine and cheese were served, but the point of the parties wasn't "tasting"; the wine and cheese were simply accompaniments to the party.

For this entry to qualify as a common misconception, there needs to be a source that says it's a common misconception that wine and cheese can be paired beneficially. Do any of the sources you cite (you didn't provide links) explicitly state that this is a common misconception? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If you google, in quotations, the words "wine and cheese party", that exact wording and order results in >94,000 results. If you google, again in quotations, the words "wined and cheese tasting party", that exact wording and order results in >65,000 results. Removing the quotes in the search "wine and cheese" gives > 1,800,000 results and (again, quotes removed in search) the words "wine and cheese tasting party" give >720,000 results. This seems like adequate evidence of their commonality. I am sure I could hunt down some blogs that would discuss the commonality of such events, probably even some news articles, but would those be acceptable references? I get the impression that even if I were to do that, there is a bias working against me (as is common with common misconceptions), and I will be again rebuffed.

--Camillawillis (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source (newspaper article would work, blogs do not, nor do search engine hits) that verifies not that "wine and cheese parties" exist, but that it is commonly believed by people that tasting those two foods together enhances their taste or that they act as complements to each other. As a side note, the way that google works, you can't actually compare results in that way, because Google doesn't handle complex searches in simple, predictable ways. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lemmings

Maybe it should be pointed out that the belief that lemmings dive off cliffs was majorly propagated by the famous video game. Shai Deshe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.65.152.24 (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

SamanthaSnail

Wrong.... That myth was widespread decades before the Lemmings game appeared. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Walt Disney is usually pointed out as the culprit. Hairhorn (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's a common misconception that the video game propagated the misconception that lemmings dive off cliffs? I know I believed that (the video game was the culprit of the myth) until I read this article. Someone find some sources! VegaDark (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The myth might have originated by Disney, but the Lemmings video game was a major contribution to it's being so common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.245.153 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual behavior in animals--not a misconception, just political nonsense

Another popular myth regarding human sexuality is that homosexual behavior occurs only among humans, and is "unnatural". In reality, homosexual behavior is widespread among other animals, and is very common in nature.

While it is commonly argued by leftwing activists that homosexuality is "not unnatural" because it occurs in nature, it's hardly a misconception that homosexual behavior does not occur in nature. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that. I doubt anyone believes it. This is simply political propaganda unnecessarily inserted into an otherwise whimsical and informative article about misconceptions. All three of the "citations" are articles raving about how gay animals are, with not one documented case of anyone claiming that homosexual behavior does not occur in animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.139.3 (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I do think that is a common misconception, because I've heard many people argue against homosexuality because it doesn't (ever) occur in nature. Luckily for Wikipedia, though, my personal opinions are irrelevant. I've removed the item from the article until such time as there is a clear citation which verifies that this is a commonly held misconception. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. My favorite citation related to this is:

Moeliker, C.W. (9 November 2001). "The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard Anas platyrhynchos". DEINSEA. 8: 243–247. ISSN 0932-9308. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)

The author won the 2003 Ig Nobel Prize in Biology for this. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Another editor just re-added the section, claiming that the first citation does indicate it's a common misconception. Actually, it's discusses the issue of whether or not biologists consider the practice among animals to be a "natural" one among animals--that is, whether it's evolutionarily beneficial or just an aberration for sexual pleasure. It says nothing about this being a common misconception. Until you get a full clear reference, this has to stay out. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

this article isn't designed to become the arena of political arguments. Obviously, if you have a political opinion, you will claim that your opponents suffer from a misconception. This does not belong here. There is no common misconception regarding non-occurrence of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom. If there is any misconception here it is the idea that it makes sense to derive sexual norms from the observation of other species. This cuts more than one way. --dab (𒁳) 22:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Coriolis Force

This is rather minor, but in the Physics section the article states, "Generally speaking, the Coriolis effect is only significant at large scales, such as in weather systems or oceanic currents." This is not at all general, or true. As I understand it, the Coriolis effect appears to any inertial observer watching something moving in a straight line in a rotating frame. Wikipedia's own article on the Coriolis effect states such. I realize that the article is talking about the Coriolis effect applied to the drain water, but making the statement as above and calling it general is misleading. So it should be removed. Skipper per (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What you say is technically correct for the general case of any rotating reference frame. The context of the entry, however, is in the reference frame of the rotating planet Earth. As such, it is significant at large scales, larger than water draining in a bathtub. The coriolis effect influences things at smaller ranges too, such as the aim of large guns. I will clarify the statement to remove "generally speaking" and adding that the Coriolis Effect on the Earth is significant at large scales. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from ThoAppelsin, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The Fictious Centrifugal Force must be added to the Physics section on this article, in my opinion. It's a common misconception among many people, who haven't specialized at physics.

ThoAppelsin (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done A proper request should provide citations that verify your claim that a common misconception exists. The statement you made above doesn't explain what the common misconception actually is, and where one would go to verify that it's common. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

heh, it is true that there are a lot of misconceptions about it, and Wikipedia has seen its epic share of them. But they are all semantic. Whether the statement that "the centrifugal force is fictitious" is a misconception depends on whether you use the term "fictitious" correctly in this context. --dab (𒁳) 22:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.153.159.118, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Could an entry be added in the "United States politics" section stating that the United States is not a democracy? It is more a republic than a democracy, as the entire U.S. population does not vote on bills to be passed. A note could be added stating that elections are democratic.

24.153.159.118 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. While I have witnessed people making this error a number of times, where is the evidence, cited in reliable sources, that this is a common misconception? I think most people know the difference between a republic and a democracy. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not a misconception, it's just a matter of terminology. A Democracy is any polity which has a government that is publicly elected. The USA still qualifies for this. What you are saying is that the USA is not a direct democracy and I have never heard about a misconception assuming that it is. "It is more a republic than a democracy" doesn't even make sense, see Republican democracy. Is this some sort of trolling based on the names of the "Republican" vs. "Democratic" parties? --dab (𒁳) 18:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Retostamm, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please make Eyre Highway a link to the relevant Eyre Highway page (add [[]]) Retostamm (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done! ~Amatulić (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Regnak1, 13 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please Change:

Fever does not harm the brain or the body, though it does increase the need for fluids. Fever does not cause brain damage or death in children if untreated. In fact, fever is normally a signal that the immune system is working well.

To Something Resembling:

Fever does not harm the brain or the body, unless temperatures reach 107.6 °F (42 °C), though a fever does increase the need for fluids. Fever does not cause brain damage or death in children if untreated. Fever is most commonly a sign of an infection, and is evidence that the body's immune system is fighting that infection. A fever will only rarely rise above 105 °F (40.5 °C), and for an adult or child over 1 year, this is the temperature at which medical advice should be sought, so as to determine what may be causing the fever. For a child under 1 year, the temperature is 102.2 °F (39 °C), and in an infant under 3 months, 100.4 °F (38 °C).

Source: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003090.htm

--Suggesting that a fever cannot in any circumstances be dangerous, and is not a cause for alarm is irresponsible and incorrect. I suggest changing this entry to reflect that.--

Regnak1 (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this has been more or less  Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bigroundhead, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Add a section to physics

A motorbike stops more quickly than a truck. or The heavier your car is the longer it takes to stop.

If the brakes of a vehicle can dissipate the energy the weight of the vehicle does not change stopping distance. It is a popular misconception that weight increases stopping distance.

Friction is proportional the the normal force and the coefficient of friction. In a car the usual limiting area is the friction between tyre and road. Here the normal force is weight. So as you increase weight you increase friction available.

Friction = uN (where u is coefficient of friction and N is the normal force)

N the normal force is given by MG where M is mass of car and G is gravity

so Friction = uMG

Deceleration is given by the force and mass. F=ma As the mass of the car increases the force required to decellerate the car increases. Here that force is given by the friction between trye and road.

so stopping force required = F = Ma which equal friction uMG

gives us Ma = uMG

so a=uG

Maximum deceleration equals G by the coefficient of friction. For cars this means about 0.8G is max stopping acceleration.

http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/ftp/arxiv/papers/1008/1008.5041.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigroundhead (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Bigroundhead (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You need to provide a source that gives evidence that this is a "common misconception." In addition, you would need to format the explanation in a far simpler way--not a complex set of physics calculations. Finally, I'm not clear what that paper is--is it from a peer-reviewed journal? The solution also needs to be a reliable source, so if that is from a journal article, we'll need the full citation. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Roger will get better references when I get a bit of free time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.22.70 (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Microwaves cooking from the inside out

For thin objects, this is not a "misconception": a one-centimeter piece of meat will be heated approximately equally in all volume, but the surface will dissipate heat by convection, radiation and water evaporation, while the inside will mantain its heat and will reach higher temperatures than the outside. So "cooking from the inside out" is a misconception only for thick objects, like a chicken leg, which, however, will reach the highest temperatures under the skin, while the skin will stay relatively cold. Which is the reason why people prefers grilled, rather than "microwaved" chickens.--GianniG46 (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

About Kennedy's speech “Ich bin ein Berliner”

The article says that Kennedy did not use the famous sentence referring to himself, but in the following context : “Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is Ich bin ein Berliner!” This is at the beginning of the speech. But the speech ends like that : “All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin. Therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words Ich bin ein Berliner!” ([1]) English isn't my native language, but is he not clearly referring to himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.18.0.130 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right, this appears to be (incorrect) "original research". I simply removed it. Hans Adler 13:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Other people are convinced he said "I am a Hamburger". Should we put this in? Tkuvho (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 165.91.222.124, 13 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

James Watt did not invent the steam engine, as is popularly attributed. He actually invented the separate condenser as an improvement to the Newcomen steam engine which was originally powered by a single cylinder that was repeatedly heated and cooled. Prior to the separate condenser the Newcomen steam engine was primarily applied to raise water out of mines.

165.91.222.124 (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. The burden is on you to provide sources backing up the claim that this is a common misconception. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Gravity NOT a theory.

The part of the article under evolution that discusses the misconception on the definition of theory, gravity is called a theory. Gravity is not a theory, but rather a law.

A hypothesis accepted after repeated tests becomes a theory. A theory is composed of one or more hypotheses (that have been often tested and never rejected) that adequately explain some phenomenon. A scientific law is different from a theory. Laws are descriptions of what we observe in nature; laws typically are mathematical generalizations describing the precise relationships between two or more variables.

 Not done. The article on gravitation disagrees with you. While we do have Newton's law of universal gravitation, it is a simplified statement and not the same thing as the theory of gravitation. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Signifier and signified. Gravity is just an aspect of reality. The theory of gravity is a theory. Evolution is just an aspect of reality. The theory of evolution is a theory. This is semantics. This article isn't named "smart-assed reflections on semantics and solipsism", it is called "list of common misconceptions". --dab (𒁳) 08:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

fatwā before Salman Rushdie

I have no proof at hand, but I'm pretty sure a fatwā had the death sentence connotation before Salman Rushdie. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Heat lost through head

"Although it is commonly believed that most body heat is lost through a person's head, this is not correct. The head loses as much heat as any other part of the body." This is only correct if one does not count breathing as heat loss through the head (incl. heat carried away by evaporated water in the breath), which is IMHO quite misleading. The citation does not address this issue at all. 81.182.216.151 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence needs to be changed regardless. "loses as much heat" implies that the misconception is that one might mistakenly believe it loses less heat. "loses no more heat" would be a better wording, though I think it's wrong: thermal imaging tends to show the head as warmer than most other parts of the body, and therefore a prime (though probably not to the extent of 40%) site of heat loss, because that's how thermodynamics works. I also have issues with the cite itself: it's a journalistic take on a scientific paper, and as a scientist, I'm very aware of how misleading those can be. Careful reading indicates that the core principle... that for maximum heat retention you should wear a hat when it's cold, because otherwise much of your heat loss will occur through your uncovered head instead of your covered thighs, torso, etc. ... seems valid (note in particular the Army study mentioned in the citation itself). It's clear that the belief that the head in particular somehow loses more heat than similarly sized parts of the body, all else being equal, is wrong, but all else is usually not equal: a person is much more likely not to wear a hat when it's cold than they are not to wear, say, pants when it's cold. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This may be true of humans, but what about animals such as elephants and desert foxes that use their ears as heat regulators? In order for this to be considered a misconception I think it needs some clearer, more directly scientific sources. 151.201.118.97 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The original made me uncomfortable because it applied a study on a very specific condition to all conditions generally. The citation I gave focused on sedentary patients in a warm environment (chilled intravenously, as a heart surgery patient would be), and showed that under normal conditions, the head seems to lose heat approximately in proportion to it's surface area. As hypothermia sets in, the head's contribution increases, but is not "The majority." I have seen statements (though I wouldn't cite them) that during moderate exercise (before sweating), the head also loses a disproportionate amount of heat due to increased blood flow (somewhat paradoxically).

Another issue, on top of what you mentioned, is that the head is generally more exposed to wind and the elements, which isn't addressed at all in any of the citations.

I tried to make it less strong, but I still find it problematic (I left the Guardian citation so people without access to journals can see something, but I agree that it is pretty weak too.) I'd support further changes or removal. I think that it is a very common exaggeration, but it doesn't seem to be a myth from what I have seen thus far. Kjsharke (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd support removal for two reasons.
First, it's not clear to me that the misconception actually exists. People might say, by way of shorthand, that much of our heat loss is through our heads -- leaving unsaid "if you are otherwise dressed for the weather".
Second, the evidence is not quite as simple as is presented in the Guardian article. Though the Guardian article is a third hand source it accurately reports on the British Medical Journal article "Festive Medical Myths". That BMJ article bases its conclusions on another article in the Journal of Applied Physiology. These data are far more nuanced.
The original study does indeed say that heat is lost from the head in proportion to its surface area (more or less). The same study also says that heat loss increases by more than 45% (298 kJ to 440 kJ) if the head is uninsulated and the rest of the body is insulated - which approximates the misconception. Interestingly, some of this increase in heat loss occurs because the rest of the body loses heat faster when the head is exposed to cold.
Furthermore, the core body temperature declines even more quickly than would be expected when the uninsulated head is exposed to the cold -- regardless of whether the rest of the body is insulated or not.
I think that in this case the apparent misconception is actually more accurate, on a practical basis, than the debunking and that failing to act on the apparent misconception could actually be dangerous in some instances. --Bill WHO (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The present wording seems like all the problems above have been resolved reasonably well. Is there an outstanding problem that I'm missing?Ccrrccrr (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: "it's not clear to me that the misconception actually exists", do a Google search on [ cold feet cover your head ] for page after page of people who believe it. Guy Macon 05:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This entry needs to be removed entirely. The misconception is not that one loses most body heat through their head. The misconception is among those who attempt to debunk this perfectly sound statement--- they misconceive the meaning to be that the head radiates or conducts heat away faster than any other part of the body. The statement is almost always made to emphasize the need for a winter hat in situations where people are, outside of headwear, dressed for the elements. In this case, most heat that is lost is lost through the head. If it were common practice for people to wear proper winter gear over their whole body save their left elbow, the phrase would have been "most heat is lost through your left elbow." In this bizarro world, people would be just as wrong for debunking the statement by proving that the bare left elbow indeed radiates heat the same as the bare right elbow or any other bare body part. --88.64.13.153 (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sports->Cow tipping: "killing it"?

In the sports section:

Cow tipping is commonly believed to be a rural practice in which a cow sleeping on its feet is tipped over, killing it.

I've never heard of cow tipping being intentionally fatal to the cows, and the cow tipping article doesn't seem to mention it either. Remove that bit? 99.50.96.218 (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone *could* tip over a sleeping cow, since they sleep lying down. Sometimes they kind of zone out a bit while standing up, but they're not asleep and they're still alert - otherwise they'd be easy prey. Anyone trying to tip over a cow like that would soon realise that it's a bad idea to be near an angry and spooked cow. 86.156.229.223 (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that cows (and horses for that matter) can lock their knees and sleep in a standing position. Is it a misconception?81.235.168.90 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

They don't really sleep; they just kind of zone out. If you have several horses in a field, you'll find that one or two will stay standing but "daydreaming", while the rest lie down. They will spot you as soon as you approach, though. Presumably this is to guard against predators, or maybe they just all wake up when they smell breakfast coming. 86.156.229.223 (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard that a tipped cow would die. This is clearly ridiculous, cows are large, strong creatures that wouldn't die from simply falling over. Clifsportland (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the myth isn't based around the cow being physically damaged by being pushed over, rather that the cow could not subsequently right itself and would eventually die of starvation. 82.18.86.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

The version of the myth I heard is that the "shock" of being tipped over while asleep would cause the cow to have a heart attack.TomasMartin (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

With three versions in the offing just here, doesn't seem to be much of a "common" misconception.Clifsportland (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to the common myth

I've reverted the following edit[2] which removed the phrase "Contrary to the common myth". While the phrase may appear redundant in an article titled "List of common misconceptions", this wording solves a problem with the article: this is a not a list of common misconceptions, it's actually a list of facts. A list of common misconceptions would read like this:

• Columbus thought the world was flat.
• George Washington had wooden teeth.

Etc.

What we should probably do is rewrite the article in the Misconception - Explanation format sort of like this. We've talked about this before but no one's volunteered to rewrite the article in this format. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "it's actually a list of facts". I foolishly thought that because it said it was a list of misconceptions, it was actually a list of misconceptions, therefore starting an item with "it is a misconception/myth..." was redundant. I see I was wrong, it is a list of facts. Perhaps you would be so kind as to change the article intro so that the less telepathically skilled among us can see why it would not be redundant to start an item in this way. Perhaps you could also be so kind as to explain why almost all the other items do NOT start with "it is a common misconception/myth". Perhaps this means that all these items should be edited to add this prefix? Andreclos (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I think the central argument here is flawed, and to follow the logic through would mean changing almost all items in the list. This is not a list of facts, it is a list of common miconceptions. Unless I see some decent arguments to the contrary, I intend to reinstate my edit removing the phrase "contrary to the common myth". Andreclos (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Silence. I will reinstate my edit and remove "Contrary to the common myth". It appears to me to be prima facie obvious that this is redundant in a list of common misconceptions. Trying to pretend this is actually a list of something other than common misconceptions doesn't cut it. Andreclos (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been online until today. I really wish you wouldn't. I would rather you follow WP:BRD. This issue has a come up several times before and the consensus is that we should follow one of these two formats. If I wasn't more clear, let me try to explain the difference again:

• George Washington had wooden teeth. --- This is a misconception.
• George Washington had did not have wooden teeth. --- This is correct, so it's not a misconception.

See the difference? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are trying to say, but I disagree. What we are really talking about here is the difference between:

• George Washington did not have wooden teeth - it is in a list of common misconceptions, so it is obvious that his having had wooden teeth is a misconception, otherwise the statement has no meaning
• Contrary to the common misconception, George Washington did not have wooden teeth - the first phrase is redundant

Almost all entries in this list are of the first form, so any entries including the redundant phrase stand out for having an obvious redundancy. It's a bit like saying in a list of notable bridges that "Brooklyn Bridge is a notable bridge". We should be consistent one way or the other, and at present most entries do not include the redundancy, so all should not. Andreclos (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

One further point; you imply above that if a statement is correct it is not a misconception, giving the example (corrected): "George Washington did not have wooden teeth. --- This is correct, so it's not a misconception." If it is correct and it is in a list of common misconceptions, then it is obvious that his having had wooden teeth was the misconception. Making a true statement in such a list does not make it "not a misconception". Logical fallacy here. Andreclos (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion simply replaces one problem with another. Probably the best way to handle this is to rewrite the article in a Misconception - Fact format like this. Unfortunately, no one has stepped up to the plate willing to reformat the article. Perhaps you would like to lead up this effort? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, please don't edit-war while discussion is ongoing.[3] And please don't mark such changes as "minor" and not leave an edit summary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "edit war" - please calm down, one revert does not make a war. Regarding the best way to handle this, I suggest we leave it for others to comment. If there is indeed the consensus that you referred to then I will be happy to go along with it. Until then it is just the two of us butting heads getting nowhere, so I suggest we leave it like it is. Personally I don't think a major reformat is cost effective in the case of this article, but if others feel like doing it... Andreclos (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I see this edit got reverted again. This discussion is too silly for words, but the change is too trivial to argue over. I will leave it in it's current irrational state. Andreclos (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I see that there is no sign of the claimed consensus for this reversion, so it is just one editor insisting on having their own way. There is not much that can be done about this in Wikipedia, if it doesn't interest more than one person then the most intransigent gets their way. Andreclos (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? I haven't been online the last couple days. In any case, did you try searching the talk page archives? IIRC, it was Baseball Bugs who suggested the the format change and since then, it's come up a couple more times. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Searching the archives is a good suggestion. I can see Baseball Bugs wrote many interesting things in the archives, but there is not much on the myth/fact format. The only thing I could find was in the section titled List of misconceptions? seems backwards in Archive 10, where there is one comment from you, two from an IP address and two from BB. I note that BB's first comment notes an item starting with "it's a common misconception", but BB comments: "except it could get repetitive". BB's second comment says maybe items should "ensure that the first line of each item states what the common misconception actually is". The discussion in that section looks like a weak consensus at best, and it is a consensus at best for stating what the misconception is. It does not at all appear to be a consensus for starting items with "contrary to the common myth". I don't mind if some or all items are stated in a myth/fact format, so in the case in question it would be something like: "Misconception: the Coriolis effect determines the direction that water rotates in a bathtub drain. Fact: The Coriolis effect induced by the Earth's rotation becomes significant and noticeable only at large scale...". This is very different from starting all items with the completely pointless and redundant "contrary to the common myth" in a list of common misconceptions. Andreclos (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Everthewatcher, 14 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under Everyday Life, can someone remove the spurious 'a' in "It is often believed that _a_ mechanical fans are used to cool rooms".

MTIA.

Everthewatcher (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How does this not fail WP:LIST

Someone removed the proposed deletion with an edit summary of something like "up until a week ago the article did not fail WP:LIST. I grabbed a version from back in October, and did not see anything that was any closer to meeting WP:LIST. Any attempt to "organize" the content will always violate WP:OR. This article will ALWAYS simply be an indiscriminate conglomeration of random items that will never meet WP:LIST, no matter how long we wait for "recent buzz" to settle down.

I will be bringing this back to AfD unless someone can provide a more convincing arguement than that claim in the edit summary. The original AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misconceptions was somehow closed as "no consensus" when the only keep arguments were WP:ITSINTERESTING. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a long comment on the above.

What's your preference: individual lists by subject? category? deletion?

This is not indiscriminate. I'm of the opinion that the most-interested editors have enforced some good discipline in preventing the list from becoming indiscriminate.

Most of these items (not all) are supported by sections of Wikipedia articles of established notability, as well as individual reliable sources. Most of these items (not all) are supported in books and magazine articles on the topic of misconceptions. This renders the "indiscriminate" argument null.

Misconceptions as a topic are a well-known problem in education, management, news organizations, parenting, healthcare, and so on.

Perhaps this article should not be called a list. This is an example of an expanded list, rather than a mere list of articles such as List of indie rock musicians, which could be satisfactory as a category, but not as compactly.

Cleanup is needed in terms of improved sources for some borderline items, which I'm making my way through, but deletion is not the answer.

Offered some rhubarb pie, I could see an argument to enforce limiting the list to only items which are directly supported in books and articles about misconceptions. But this has (mostly) already been done.

"It's interesting" as mentioned in the LfD discussion is not merely a statement of personal opinion, it has external, objectively measurable status, in the viewable traffic statistics at the top of the page. First, ~25,000 views in December 2010. This demonstrates definite utility to the Wikipedia audience, independent of the opinions of editors. If this were a very low-traffic article, or just an article for fans or info-hoarders, I'd see little utility in it. Then there were ~1 million views in January, up to the 13th. In my opinion, utility trumps too-narrow policies and guidelines.

Wikipedia is NOT only an encyclopedia. It suffers from the simultaneous freedom and burden of the rubric of "encyclopedia", with the encumbered false notion that things which aren't in other encyclopedias don't belong here. Well, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in the real world, too, and it applies to bad, narrowminded, page-limited dead-tree encyclopedias.

Without the "indiscriminate" argument, there simply is no deletion argument.

The LfD "vote" isn't a vote. There was no consensus, since the two week discussion period expired without consensus. There weren't strong pillar/policy/guideline/essay/consensus-based reasons stated for deletion, independent of the weak "keep" arguments. Therefore, it was kept.

Lest you think I'm not going to get around to citing guidelines supporting keeping this, please reread WP:LISTPURP. This is an annotated, structured, informative list. Keep.

--Lexein (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please make a strong case for deletion, that is, list specific reasons and list many of them. "Fails WP:LIST" will not convince many ppl. (WP:LIST sucks - it does not provide a single criterium a list must have, must not have or makes a list no-go.) Have this reason for a start: For every bullet an editor has to decide if the idea is common. Deciding how many people have to believe something so that it becomes common is inherently original research.--Echosmoke (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree a strong case should be made for deletion beyond the simplistic "fails WP:LIST" (and you're right, WP:LIST is a meaningless reason for deletion as it does not state criteria for keeping lists or deleting them). But it's not original research if there is adequate citation to reliable sources that the misconception is common. Until about a week ago many of the items were sourced that way. I'm all in favor of removing poorly sourced items (that is, sourced that they are common misconceptions), but not deletion of the entire article. Cresix (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, as much as I don't like lists of this type, I'd recommend against an AfD at this point. There was recently (now archived), a very spirited discussion at WT:N attempting to nail down more careful criteria for what makes a list notable. Unfortunately, discussions fell through, and if you look at the section on lists in WP:N, you'll see that the explicitly state that no consensus was reached. The odds on you successfully getting a delete vote are close to zero--more likely you'll end up with no consensus, which is just as good as a keep. Worse yet (from your perspective), if you did actually get a keep result because interest in this list is very high right now, you will significantly decrease the chances of a future AfD being successful. Instead, a better approach is that we just go harshly and aggressively through the list, trimming out anything that doesn't have the necessary sources (that it's commonly believed and that it is actually a misconception). That is, why not cut it down to only those things that everyone agrees are clearly verified as misconceptions--then we should all feel better about keeping this. I feel like the activity here is significantly lower even than a few days ago, but, as someone else recommended, it may be better to wait for the significant purging for a little while longer until the external interest dies down a little bit. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Atomic Model as Solar System

In the reasoning given for removing the entry on the description of the atom as solar-system-like was stated 'it is not a "common misconception", it is an intuitive, "pedagogical" way to describe atoms whitin the wave-particle duality frame.' This is incorrect and is just a fancier restatement of the misconception. First, the particle description of an electron in the potential of an atom breaks down and is useless; one simply cannot describe the motion of an electron in this potential by the motion of a centralized particle. Second, even if one could, the result certainly would not be in the shape of a planet-orbit-like elipse. This is a model that was never actually put forth by physicists or chemists, exists only in drawings from secondary school texts, and is known bunk since the late 1920s regardless. --88.64.13.153 (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Vinegar

Vinegar has been used to fight infections since Hippocrates, who lived between 460-377 BC, prescribed it for curing persistent coughs. As a result, vinegar is popularly believed to be effective against infections. While vinegar can be an effective antibacterial cleaning agent on hard surfaces such as washroom tiles and countertops,[28] studies show that vinegar – whether taken internally or applied topically – is not effective against infections, lice,[29] or warts.[30]~ 72.187.199.192 (talk) ~ —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception; not just that vinegar is is not effective against infections, a source that it is a common misconception. 15:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Vinegar is not an antibacterial agent it is an antifungal. Any premed book will tell you this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.128.12 (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 134.93, but what 72.187 is suggesting is that it is commonly believed that vinegar is effective against infection. --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Slavery and the US Civil War

I often hear (especially from folks from the Southern US) the claim that the US Civil War was not about slavery. Primary source documents from the time (articles of secession from the seceding states, the diary of prominent southerners like Alexander Stephens (VP of the CSA)) all emphasize slavery as the primary or sole cause for the war. --Thomas B♘talk 00:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Like many wars it was probably really about property and profits. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly was not the "sole cause" for the war; that's far too simplistic for such a complex topic. But I think most people would agree that it's the primary cause. The weakness of primary source documents from the time is that they lack the benefit of hindsight provided by time. Cresix (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading, but can't remember where, that southern states regarded removal of slavery as a threat to their income, so it wasn't the threat of removal per se that caused the war, it was the refusal of the southern states to accept the economic consequences, AND their refusal to accept being dictated to in what they saw as being none of the north's concern. Slavery is central to all this, so it can be said the war was about slavery, but it can equally well be argued, especially by the southern states, that slavery was at best a secondary issue. Given this, there is no clear misconception to refute, so I think this complex subject ought to be left to the history articles. Andreclos (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is something taught in Southern schools, I guess to white-wash history. It's actually illegal in Texas to teach any history that portraits Texas in a negative light. While there were numerous reasons, the primary reason was slavery, and every state that seceded issued a proclamation of why the seceded and they all listed slavery as a primary reason. Perhaps we could gather each state's statement into one document and kill this lie once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skintigh (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Jon Stewart recently did a segment on this. I think that probably puts it legitimately in the category of items that should be addressed in this article, and would probably also provide the evidence needed to support this.

I don't think there's any way to add this to this article, based on the reasons Adreclos says above--it's a pretty complex topic which is not agreed upon by serious historians. It's probably wrong to say it was caused entirely by any one thing, just like it's wrong to attribute any war to a single, definable cause. In that sense, we can say that every "belief" that "Historical event X was the sole and direct cause of Historical event Y" is likely to be a misconception (because it's always "more complicate than that"), but that would be beyond the scope of this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Serious historians actually do agree that the potential abolition of slavery was the primary cause for secession by all of the confederate states. This is stated quite clearly in each of their declarations of secession. Disagreement comes from pop-historians and essayists, not from academic scholars. As to whether this fits with the aim of the article--- that's another matter. It is a common misconception, but it is one that is purposefully spread. It's more deserving of its own article or at least mention in the article on historical revisionism. --88.64.13.196 (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State

{{edit semi-protected}}

Can we add one (under 'Law' or maybe 'Politics') that corrects the misconception that "separation of church and state" is in the constitution? I tried to add it, but for some reason I can't. It could read like this:

- It is a common misconception that "separation of church and state" is in the US constitution. That phrase does not appear in the constitution or any of its amendments. The first amendment to the constitution actually says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is currently credited to John Locke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.152.184 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see this also. Find a good source and I will add it.Asher196 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure how you cite the constitution.... "^ Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 29 ("It took John Locke to translate the demand for liberty of conscience into a systematic argument for distinguishing the realm of government from the realm of religion.")" Is the source for the fact about Lock from the Wikipedia Separation of church and state page. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on citing the constitution. You could cite usconstitution.net maybe? --75.189.152.184 (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Constitution would be a primary source. You need to read WP:CITE or Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for info on sourcing.Asher196 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the supposed misconception here? If it is that the constitution does not allow for separation of church and state, then as far as I can see it is not a misconception, the constitution does do this. If it is that the consitution does not include the exact phrase "separation of church and state" or anything close to it - is this really a common misconception? That sounds more like a strawman fallacy to me. Andreclos (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Should not be added. TFD (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If he can come up with the source, then we can add it.Asher196 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that is taking it too literally. It is easy to find an error by examining an issue in pedantic literal detail, but that does not make it a common misconception that is of general interest to Wikipedia readers. I vote to not include this. Andreclos (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a legitimate addition. I vote to include it.

I also oppose this item. I think adding this "misconception" is risky business unless it is worded that "the Consititution of the U.S. does not literally use the exact phrase 'separation of church and state'", and if that's the way it's worded, I'm not sure that is a common misconception at all (and would require a source that it is). There are two problems here. First, I think it is a political hot potato to make such a bold statement that the Constitution does not provide for (allow, encourage, or whatever other words are used) separation of church and state; I'm not taking a political side here on the issue, but there are lots of people who feel strongly one way or the other, and you'll get a lot of controversy over whether it is a misconception at all, let alone a common one (as a comparison, a more extreme example would be whether it is a "misconception" that abortion should be permissible; imagine the reaction you would get). Secondly, what exactly does separation of church and state mean (e.g., there can/cannot be state supported religion; religious symbols are/are not permitted in state-funded institutions; public prayer is/is not permitted, etc.)? Legal scholars have debated the issues surrounding the specific intent of the Constitution regarding church and state; the concepts are well beyond the scope of this article, whose purpose is not to take sides in political debates. This item should not be included because the issues involved are far too thorny for this article. The issue is discussed at Separation of church and state, which is a much more appropriate place for it. Cresix (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I worry that this is becoming an opinionated battle. I personally believe the separation of church and state is very prevelant in the American media and the public. News articles commonly cite the "separation of church and state" as if it were law, when in fact the establishment clause is much different, in both word and intent. I would venture to say a large percentage of the population, however, believe that the phrase "separation of church and state" is literally part of US law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.236.235 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: See section at bottom on "Requirements to be on this list" Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious ref

Examiner.com. This is NOT the San Francisco Examiner, nor any other established news agency with a fact-checking and editorial policy. Here's the full ref Billings, Katelynn. A Common Misconception about Islam. Baltimore Islam Examiner.com. May 27, 2010. examiner.com/islam-in-baltimore/a-common-misconception-about-islam --Lexein (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a no-brainer that most westerners think "jihad" means "holy war" or something similar. That's the reason that link is there, to establish that this is a common misconception. Notice that the link contains no http:// because examiner.com is blacklisted on Wikipedia.

A better source that confirms this is a misconception might be this one:

Louay M. Safi (2003). Peace and the limits of war: transcending the classical conception of Jihad. International Institute of Islamic Thought. p. preface. ISBN 1565644026, 9781565644021. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

...which says "...misinformed and misguided individuals ... confuse the Islamic concept of jihad with the medieval concept of holy war." I think that source would be preferable to examiner.com. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Examiner.com is blacklisted for good reason. Thanks, Safi is a very good source. Added. --Lexein (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Blueskyline, 15 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

• Adding salt to boiling water does not make it boil faster. Adding any solute to water will raise the water's boiling point due to its colligative properties, and thus it will take a longer time to reach boiling temperature. In reality, it does not significant change to boiling time very much. However, it is useful to chefs in that a higher temperature can be achieved.

Blueskyline (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. That's a self-published or blog source, and it doesn't actually say anywhere that it's a common misconception that adding salt to water makes it boil faster. It just says "the real question is whether water boils faster." I think most people know that salt makes water boil hotter, not faster. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Al Gore

Please stop removing the item about Al Gore saying that he invented the internet.[4] [5] This text has been in the ariticle for quite some time. If you want to change it, you need to gain consensus first. This is a very popular misconception so I don't know why you keep removing it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it was silly, no matter how long it has been here. Is the misconception that Al Gore said this, or that he did invent the internet? Your entry doesn't say which.

We seriously need to pause and reflect on the term "popular misconception" as opposed to "internet meme". I think Al Gore was made fun of online after he said something showing he was sort of full of himself. That's it. It was a joke on him, not a "common misconception". --dab (𒁳) 22:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, this wasn't an Internet meme. It received significant coverage in the news media. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't an episode of The Simpsons also made fun it. A joke remark can evolve into a misconception. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Uisgebeata, 16 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} This request is about the Human monkey eveolution section I'll repost here.

Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys,[92] chimpanzees[93] or any other modern-day primates. Instead, humans and monkeys share a common ancestor that lived about 40 million years ago.[94] This common ancestor diverged into separate lineages, one evolving into so-called New World monkeys and the other into Old World monkeys and apes.[95] Humans are included in the Hominidae family, which also includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Similarly, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, which lived between 5 and 8 million years ago, evolved into two lineages, one eventually becoming modern humans and the two extant species of chimpanzee.[92]

Because the misconception is so common the respons posted in the article(above) a simplified version of it became a misconception in itself. The misconception under manny non-professional evolutionist is that Humans did not evolve from a primate. In fact the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and bonebo's was an ape which became extinct. It is impossible that an animal which is the common ancestor of 3 apes but is not an common ancestor of 5 other apes that it shares an common ancestor with is not an ape.

Uisgebeata (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Uisgebeata. Welcome to wikipedia! We seem to have a couple sources for the above section (though I haven't checked them personally). How, specifically, do you want the section changed, and do you have any reliable sources which support that change? Thanks! Jess_talk|_edits 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Since this has been up for about 3 days without a response on what needs to be changed, I'm untranscluding. Feel free to make a new request if you have a specific point you wish changed

QI

Can there be a ***Thanks to QI*** in the article? Colt .55 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Myopia

There is no single theory that explains myopia, there are in fact four. Myopia is simply a refractive error of the eye. The causes of which can be attributed to curvature, axial length, index or a combination of refractive errors.

Myopia is a refractive error of the eye in which light rays from infinity focus in front of the retina of an uncorrected eye. There are 4 physiological causes:

1) Axial myopia is due to an abnormal long axial length of the eye.

2) Curvature myopia is due to the cornea being too steep or the crystalline lens being too convex for the axial length of the eye.

3) Index myopia is caused by a variation on the index of refraction of an ocular medium.

3) Total myopia is when the sum of all ocular refractive components creates a nearsighted refractive error.

While myopia has clear physiologic causes there is no evidence that low light or repetative close work will cause any more damage that a temporary strain on the eye. The muscles in the eyes can be fatigued like any other muscle, however there is no evidence that anyone has ever received permanent damage from either of these activities. 184.58.149.251 (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

About drowning people waving their arms

I removed this:

• A person who is drowning does not wave and call for help, as in fictional depictions of drowning. The instinctive drowning response prevents a person from vocalizing or raising their arms.

There's no misconception there. "Drowning", in the layman's sense of "Look, someone's drowning!" means that someone is in danger of drowning. When someone is in danger of drowning, yeh, they can wave and shout. The instinctive drowning response is only for the last stages of the fatal situation. Gronky (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced. I have read reports that a lot of people drown without going through the stage where they are able to wave and shout, especially children. In any case the misconception is that a person who is not waving or shouting cannot be in danger. The source seems more than adequate, and IMO the only reason for removing this bit (as opposed to rewriting to make it more accurate) would be if it was completely wrong. Hans Adler 13:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As a former lifeguard, I shed some light. On different occasions I have pulled drowning children from a swimming pool, one of whom was a teenager. In each case they didn't waive and shout. They simply got in over their heads (so to speak) and were unable or afraid to breathe. The sign that triggered "drowning" for me was the fear-of-death look of panic in their eyes.

I think that entry should be restored. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Drowning Doesn't Look Like Drowning is a great article on the situation, and has the most nightmarish statistics you're going to see in a while. Hans Adler is right about the misconception, and I am in favor of restoring it. I'll restore it (and perhaps change the phrasing, to make it more clear that the misconception is the idea that the trashing and shouting comes standard) unless there are objections. And probably if there are, since there's a strong argument here, but hey, politeness is a must. :P --Kizor 21:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, and to those who commented above. I see now that something about this misconception should be in the article. I think there's still something useful in my error though. To a layman, "drowning" includes what's referred in that article by "aquatic distress". Earlier stages can even be called "drowning". Rather than a misconception, the previous text read like a smarty-pants jab at the lack of precision in the terminology used by laypeople. Gronky (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

True. Can you think of changes to make? I'll make them if necessary, but your command of the English language is better than mine and you're up to speed now. --Kizor 22:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, this item was deleted. I'm restoring it per this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It was removed from the article (and placed here) because it was wrong. The explanations of why it was wrong are in the above discussion. I've fixed the text now: [6] Gronky (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Under the section Human body and health → The senses , there is a link to a page about Edwin Boring, "an eminent psychologist at Harvard". I suggest adding his first name to the link text, changing:
The original tongue map was based on a mistranslation of a 1901 German thesis by Boring (an eminent psychologist at Harvard)
into:
The original tongue map was based on a mistranslation of a 1901 German thesis by Edwin Boring (an eminent psychologist at Harvard)
Also, removing the aside about who Edwin Boring is would be prudent, considering there is a link to Edwin Boring's page which would describe who he is. 98.226.48.92 (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Done The aside didn't seem especially relevant to the misconception, especially since reading his article he doesn't appear to have been a psychologist at Harvard at the time he wrote the thesis in question.Number36 (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Protein Combining In Dispute

This article uses the Protein combining article to prove a point, although that article is currently in dispute. The neutrality of it and the factual accuracy of the research are disputed and should probably as a result not make up the primary basis for this argument (besides the 1981 source citation). See the talk section Talk:Protein_combining for more details on that controversy. Plus, the Protein combining article is in conflict with the Complete protein article content. A significant argument can be made that both articles represent current opinions on the topic, which would mean that it is not in fact a "common misconception" and should thus be removed from the article's list. -Chelsea99 (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - "both articles represent current opinions on the topic, which would mean that it is not in fact a "common misconception": Not necessarily. Disputed information in Wikipedia articles may not reflect how common a misconception is among people who don't edit Wikipedia. In any event, there are two other problems. First, drawing conclusions based on a conflicting Wikipedia information is a synthesis of original research. Secondly, Wikipedia cannot source itself. The article has a citation to a source outside of Wikipedia. Do you have any reason to believe that source does not identify this as a common misconception? I do suspect this is not a common misconception, but I have not read the source cited. Cresix (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

How does this article use the Protein combining article to prove a point?? That aside, I imagine Protein combining is much less a common misconception today than in the 80s, but it surely was back then, and it still may be. Again, that aside, the (only) source given does provide neither that is was nor is a c.m., so I was bold and took it out. --Echosmoke (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Misconceived to be a misconception

Some of these misconceptions are so dumb I have to assert that they are only "reportedly" common misconceptions, and aren't very common.

I'm trying to set up a dichotomy between "commonly reported as a common misconception" and "common misconception".

How common is it, really, for people to believe lightning never strikes the same place twice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What, you've never heard the expression? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is a common quote, but I don't think the people who say it believe it. I may be wrong, but unless there is hard data, I may be right. The quote may simply be older than towers tall enough to attract lightning commonly. The same goes for Europeans believing in the world being flat. This makes me think this article should be split into two halves. True misconceptions and reportedly misconceptions. Respectively With, and Without, empirical research into the commonness. "Commonly reported as a common misconception" and "common misconception".~ ~ ~ 72.187.99.79 (talk) ~ ~ ~ 72.187.99.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm pretty sure lots of people are convinced people used to think the Earth was flat before America was discovered. I'm pretty sure I was told that in Elementary school whenever Columbus Day came around, so I'm sure that is being told to lots of school kids and some never learn otherwise.68.94.91.172 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a content fork, but it does give me an idea. Maybe there could be a separate article (again, at risk of it being endless) that examines the truth or falsehood of "well-known sayings". For example, "Lightning never strikes the same place twice." Obviously false, but it could be taken as a metaphor equivalent to "Opportunity only knocks once." "Water finds its level." Probably true. "Criminals always return to the scene of the crime." It only takes one exception to "prove" that one false, but a more interesting result would be if there is any reliable info on what percentage of criminals return to the scene of the crime, assuming they're even able to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We may be able to get good statistics about one particular class of criminals returning to the scene of the crime; arsonists. It is common enough for arsonists to be in the crowd that watches a fire that investigators photograph the crowd. The same face at three or four unrelated fires is a dead givaway. Guy Macon 08:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

An improvement, not a fork. Interesting idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 11:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

72.187.99.79: Where are you going to get sources which specifically state something is a common misconception but there's no empirical research into its commonness? AQFK (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong agree. Many things mentioned here are far from genuinely believed. Turkeyphan^t 13:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a problem that I see no solution to. The only reliable source as to whether a misconception is commonly held would be an opinion poll, and nobody is going to pay for such a poll any time soon. Lacking that, (or perhaps convincing Snopes.com to put in "I was taught that was true", "I was taught that was a misconception" and "never heard that one before" buttons) all we have for a reliable source is someone who is of the opinion that a misconception is common, with no way for them to know that. And yet, there are beliefs listed on this page that I suspect everyone here agrees are commonly held, even if we cannot prove it. Guy Macon 21:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a solution and the issue of whether lightning strikes the same place twice is a good example of how to apply it. The phrase "lightning never strikes the same place twice" is said not as an statement of belief, but as an idiom. If you were to reply to someone saying it to you, "really? lightning doesn't strike the same place twice?" they would probably tell you that you missed the point of the phrase. My proposed solution is that if a phrase is an idiom, it's not a misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.13.153 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem with my 'refreezing defrosted foods' one (section 21, below). I'm struggling to find anything that specifically says it's a commonly-held misconception, but I think many people would agree that they think (or previously thought) that it is dangerous to refreeze thawed food - which turns out not to be true. So I would argue it's a commonly-held misconception, but won't be able to prove as much. 80.175.12.57 (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - Misconception: Re-freezing defrosted foods such as meat is dangerous

It is a common misconception that once food (particularly raw meat) has been defrosted, it must not be re-frozen. Many sources (such as http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/focus_on_freezing/index.asp#14) state that this is not true. While the quality of meat may be degraded by cell-wall damage with each freezing (including the first), there is no intrinsic danger in the defrost/refreeze process itself.

80.175.12.57 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure - I take your point. I'm going to find it difficult to find something that clearly states it's a common misconception - it's just one of those things that most people think they know. But I realise and agree that's not a 'reliable source' in itself, so I guess we'll have to leave this one out then...

80.175.12.57 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad you get the point. I'm afraid if it can be sourced or accepted here by consensus, it can't go in the article. My personl opinion is that this is not a common misconception. Most people that I've ever heard mention this only refer to it reducing the taste quality of the food, not any danger. I think refreezing is in the same category as eating molded bread: most people would never do it because of the taste, but they know it's not a health problem. Cresix (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Elephants (not) afraid of mice.

Mythbusters aired an episode concerning the popular "elephants are afraid of mice" belief. Video Link Considering the current source disproving this common misconception is of a small sample size (1) and that the only elephant tested was a trained circus elephant, I suggest removing the misconception altogether, as no truly verifiable source exists and the two that we have (ABC News/Mythbusters) are contradictory. If we keep the misconception, it could read "Not all elephants are afraid of mice" instead of simply "Elephants are not afraid of mice" — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoodyTrombone (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I think this is a myth. See this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "this is a myth". If you are equating "myth" with "common misconception", there's nothing in the sources verifying that it's a common misconception. Essentially, the sources ask the question ("Are elephants afraid of mice?"), and then answer it ("no", followed by some evidence that elephants aren't afraid of mice). There's nothing about the misconception being common. Cresix (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be a common cartoon theme but I don't see a source establishing that a greater number of people actually believe it. And come on, both the source given here and mythbusters are a joke as far as actual research goes. Indeed you would need a bigger sample size, check for variables like surprise, reaction to other unknown animals, color of the mouse, a variation of different ways of exposure...one could even claim the Elephant is carefully avoiding stepping on the mouse :) So again I was bold and took it out. --Echosmoke (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Zero is an even number

JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) restored this item. Before it is restored again, I am asking for quotation(s) from the source indicating that it is a common misconception among adults. I acknowledge that I have not looked at the source because it is unavailable online, but given the necessity for sourcing that a misconception is common (and the virtually infinite number of potential additions to the article without it), I think this is a reasonable request. Stating that it is sourced simply because it has a citation does not convince me that the source provides evidence that it is a common misconception among the general population. This is similar to the 0.999...<1 misconception, which eventually was accepted because of both reliable sources and consensus. I don't think we should expect any less from this item. Judging from the title of the source, it appears it is a book pertaining to mathematics for children. If so, I doubt that it provides such evidence for adults. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. This is far from a common misconception even if anyone anywhere actually thinks it! Turkeyphan^t 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, the alleged misconception is that zero isn't an even number right, the title of this section is confusing on that point. There's some information in the Parity of zero article that might be a starting point if anybody did want to pursue this. Quite surprised at the number of elementary school teachers who got this incorrect 2/3rds in one study mentioned there, but then is that a misconception, where they have an incorrect belief that it isn't an even number, or just a lack of knowledge/education when trying to answer the question, even the statistics about students are fairly surprising. Obviously will need a fairly convincing ref to support its inclusion here.Number36 (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify even further, it's not whether zero is even or not that is the issue - it's whether zero is actually a number at all that causes the intellectual problems: The Nothing That Is by Robert Kaplan is a work I'm familiar with about the history of this. Once the acceptability of zero as an actual number is resolved, its even-ness follows automatically. So I would argue against this entry. --Matt Westwood 09:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Cotton swabs

It's a common misconception that cotton swabs should be used to clear the inside of the ear and remove earwax, but doctors say otherwise. In fact, cotton swabs can damage the ear. Could someone add this since the page's protected? There're references on the Cotton swab and Earwax articles. 201.81.88.100 (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this one really need a source that it's a common misconception, given that so many others on this page lack sources. It's a very widely held belief not only that q-tips are useful for cleaning ears, but that this use is their main function.

Yes, it does. Each proposed new entry is judged on its merits alone, not in comparison to existing junk that still needs cleaning up. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics "reliable sources"/"primary sources"

Someone temporarily added a "primary source" tag to the "Mathematics" section. These are the sources provided:

• Eccles, Peter J. (1997). An introduction to mathematical reasoning: numbers, sets, and functions. Cambridge University Press. p. 167. ISBN 0521597188. Intuition suggests that this means that the repeating decimal$0.{\bar {9}}$ is also less than 1, and this is a common misconception.
• Maor, Eli (1991). To infinity and beyond: a cultural history of the infinite. Princeton University Press. p. 32. ISBN 9780691025117. Many people find it hard to accept this simple fact, and one can often hear a heated discussion as to its validity.

These references are both textbooks published by scholarly presses – they are not primary sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can have a primary source on mathematics. Sounds like nonsense to me. HiLo48 (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could call a research paper a primary source. But not a textbook. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The last remark is clearly not written by a mathematician. Textbooks aren't always just the things you use in a high-school math class. Many mathematicians publish textbooks on cutting edge topics, collecting the new results in the field from theirs and others' papers, as well as introducing new contributions. There's no reason to rule a paper a primary source but a textbook not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.22.7 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't claim to be an expert on the difference between primary and secondary sources, but doesn't "collecting the new results in the field from theirs and others' papers" make something a secondary source (at least that part of the information), i.e., a source that "analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research"? Cresix (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Finish reading the sentence you quoted: "as well as introducing new contributions." --88.65.240.64 (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Anon 88, snide, condescending remarks are neither necessary nor appropriate, and it does nothing to promote your argument. You would do well to read WP:CIVIL. I read the sentence. My point (which I clearly stated) is that the portion of the source that involves "collecting the new results in the field from theirs and others' papers" could be secondary, even though new contributions may be primary. Cresix (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

From WP:NOR Asher196 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:

• Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources; ancient works (even if they cite earlier lost writings) are generally considered primary sources.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

• Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary may depend on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source of material about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source of material about those experiences.

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.

• Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself.

Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is not LSD reference John Lennon son Jules (Julian Lennon) made a drawing en he called it

{{edit semi-protected}} Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is not LSD reference John Lennon tells that his son Jules (Julian Lennon) made a drawing en he called it "lucy in the sky with diamonds" because the woman in de drawing was flying. Happiness is a warm gun and Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! both was misunderstood as he explains it in this interview from Dick Cavett in The Dick Cavett Show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dick_Cavett_Show) John Lennon talks about drugs & Kyoko Cox - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LftibKEA7U&feature=related Lvssvl (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Drinking a considerable amount of distilled (or "pure") water will kill you

I was going to add a section about this myth but it is surprisingly hard to prove that it is a common misconception in the first place. The facts are easy to source and are also basically covered in Purified_water#Health_effects and Distilled water, but help is welcome to find sources that comment on this being a misconception. --Echosmoke (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"it is surprisingly hard to prove that it is a common misconception in the first place": Therein is the problem. I doubt very seriously that many people have even considered this "misconception". Please provide a reliable source that's it's common. Cresix (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it is a common misconception in Germany only. w/e ;) --Echosmoke (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's probably due to conflation with regular water poisoning (see Leah Betts, et al.) Turkeyphan^t 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a common belief in the UK, too - perhaps because it's true ! See Leah Betts & Water intoxication ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm from the UK and I'd never heard that. Leah Betts died from drinking far too much bottled water. I've never heard anyone suggest that it was particularly pure in any way and would be very surprised if it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.195.51 (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That was my point. We're still waiting for sources that it's an actual misconception. I've personally never heard of it. Turkeyphan^t 22:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Leah Betts did not die from just randomly deciding it would be fun to drink a lot of water, she had taken a bad ecstasy pill at her birthday party, which made her feel dehydrated. She drank a lot of water very quickly and ended up with swelling on the brain, causing her death. Her dad was/is a policeman and started a big advertising campaign to alert young people to the dangers of taking ecstasy after the loss of his daughter. I am English, and I remember the 1995 story very well. BBC News- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.41 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a misleading summary on many levels. But the point is that she died from water intoxication, nothing to do with MDMA. For the purposes of this article and this talk page discussion, people have died from water intoxication.Turkeyphan^t 22:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it is common, it apparently is not a full-blown misconception - Water intoxication. --Kvng (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to actually read what people are saying in this talk section. Water intoxication has already been brought up and it's nothing to do with this (alleged) misconception. Turkeyphan^t 00:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

An expert stated at the inquest that if she'd have just drunk the water, she would have survived, and if she'd just taken the drug she would have survived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.41 (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ref is broken. Turkeyphan^t 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the "expert" was telling lies as they all do at these government-funded - anti-drug-hysteria-whip-up fests. For a start, all he would be able to say is that it was of his opinion that she might have survived. Bottom line is, she died of water poisoning. Whether the water is pure or has trace elements or is contaminated in any way is immaterial. Drinking that large a quantity of water is bad for you and will probably kill you. --Matt Westwood 06:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kittiquel, 17 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please add the following to the section titled Physics, because many people still believe Sir Isaac Newton founded the theory of gravity. The information supporting this can be found under the section titled "4. Astronomy and gravitation

It is a common misconception that Sir Isaac Newton founded the idea of the Inverse Square Law of Gravity; however, there is evidence that Robert Hooke, an English scientist and inventor, gave Newton the idea of this law and had even worked with Newton on other gravity related work. After the publication of Newton's Principia in 1687, Hooke was left with no credit of his efforts towards the work he and Newton had done on the gravitational theories. Source

Kittiquel (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. While that source is a fascinating read, it doesn't really establish that it's a common misconception that Newton formulated the inverse square law of gravity. I think a more common misconception may relate to the apocryphal story of an apple inspiring Newton by falling his head — but sources saying it's common would need to be found first. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The really interesting research would be to find the source of the apple myth. From a perspective of considering how this story could possibly have originated, all I can come up with is someone asking Newton (many years later, perhaps when he was a celebrity): "So how did you come up with your crazy idea about gravity?" to which he probably replied something like: "I was lazing around in the orchard one day when I happened to see an apple fall, and it got me thinking." Then the story probably got garbled, possibly by the influence of his enemies, "An apple fell on his head and knocked some sense into him ..."

Of course, unless one finds the original materials that were written at the time (there must be something written down) then it remains speculation. Maybe such material does exist in the public domain but just hasn't been made popular. --Matt Westwood 09:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

For discussion: double-jointedness

For some reason, lots of people think being "double-jointed" is a real thing. As if they have extra joints the rest of the human race doesn't have. Yes, it is just a colloquialism for flexibility, but it might be something worth discussing for inclusion in the list. I know, you want lots of sources to prove a misconception that everyone's heard of... Google "double-jointed" and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm just throwing this out there for discussion, not presenting a dissertation on it (as some people feel the need to do on here...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.64.91.43 (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A few potential additions

This article and the ones it links to seem like they may merit inclusion:

Believing in Treatments That Don’t Work

The article lists the misconceptions, and in some cases states itself that the beliefs are common, so it'd need to be sourced on a case-by-case basis. — MK (^t/_c) 20:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick read, including some of the links in the article. The only suggestion that any of them are "common" misconceptions is that they are commonly held by physicians. Without additional sourcing, I don't think we can include a misconception just because it's commonly held by physicians and not the broader population. If I missed something, please let me know. Cresix (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Standardize format

Most items in this list start with "xxx is/was/did not yyy", which clearly states a misconception. Some start with "it is a common misconception that yyy". The second format is redundant (we already know that it is about a common misconception) and confusing when contrasted with most items in the first format.

I propose that items should be standardised so that the misconception is stated in the first form, and that items not in this format be changed to conform to this format. It might help if a small section titled something like "Format rules for this list" was placed at the top of this talk page and not archived.

A similar issue has already been discussed above in the section "Contrary to the common myth" but has not reached a consensus because only one other editor apart from me has been involved. I would be grateful if we could get more than one person to comment here. Andreclos (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As previously discussed, I think that the best way to handle this is to rewrite the article in a Misconception - Fact format like this. Anyway, given the recent high traffic to the article and the constant edit requests, this probably isn't the best time to reformat the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I can see nobody else is interested, so it is not worth pursuing. Andreclos (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly agree with the Misconception - Fact format. As well as improving readability, having to explicitly set each item out that way would make it easier to put sources in a logical place, and point out where they haven't been supplied for either the misconception or fact. (Which is far too often in this article.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

After the edit requests finally die down and we've cleaned up the entries that don't belong, I'd like to try to address this issue again. Since the article is long, it might be a good idea to split up the work. Maybe each editor can volunteer to handle different sections. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I've seen a book about misconceptions that use a similar format. The misconception is stated as a heading, and the text underneath explains the misconception. We could do something like that, for example:

The moon is made of green cheese.

The moon is actually made of pumice. In 1969 the Apollo 11 brought back samples of... etc...

Then there would be no need to have the labels "Misconception" and "Fact" repeated over and over. In this case we would use the semicolon as the lead character for the header, as I have done above. That creates a heading on Wikipedia without including it in the table of contents. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a working copy of this page at User:Mann_jess/List_of_common_misconceptions. I'm having a hard time coming up with a format which fits this proposal but also looks good. Here are two versions:

“ 1)

• In ancient Rome, Romans built rooms called vomitoria to purge themselves after a meal

Vomitoria were the entranceways through which crowds entered and exited a stadium.

• Vikings wore horns on their helmets

There is no evidence that viking helmets were adhorned with horns.

• iron maidens were invented in the Middle Ages and used for torture

Despite being shown in some media, there is no evidence that this is true. It has been suggested that they were instead pieced together in the 18th century from several artifacts found in museums in order to create spectacular objects intended for (commercial) exhibition.

”

“ 2)

In ancient Rome, Romans built rooms called vomitoria to purge themselves after a meal

Vomitoria were the entranceways through which crowds entered and exited a stadium.

Vikings wore horns on their helmets

There is no evidence that viking helmets were adhorned with horns.

iron maidens were invented in the Middle Ages and used for torture

Despite being shown in some media, there is no evidence that this is true. It has been suggested that they were instead pieced together in the 18th century from several artifacts found in museums in order to create spectacular objects intended for (commercial) exhibition.

”

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Does anyone have a preference between the two, or another suggestion? Jess_talk|_edits 20:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with any format that formulates misconceptions as fact before debunking them. Formatting the misconception in bold makes it even worse. But the main problem is that the misconceptions will appear out of context in Google snippets and can easily mislead readers.

I prefer the following format:

• According to a misconception which one survey found to be held by 23% of French philosophers and mathematicians, the Moon is made of green cheese. However, the soft green material making up most of the Moon has only a superficial resemblance with cheese and has a low nutritious value.
• According to a survey commissioned by the Christian Science Monitor, 78% of Americans believe that the existence of intelligent life on Earth can only explained by an intelligent designer. However, recent astrobiological research based on election statistics and opinion poll outcomes has established beyond reasonable doubt that no intelligent being has come near our planet during the last 150 billion years.

Note how the first sentence recounts the misconception in indirect speech and gives as much specific information about the misconception's popularity as we have found in reliable sources. (In many cases this will be none, and we will just write "According to a common misconception...".) Hans Adler 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That style doesn't really qualify as compelling prose, don't you think? I can't see how Google search result snippets are relevant here.

As suggested in the criteria for good articles, text should be clear and concise. If someone is searching for information about a common misconception, wouldn't it be best to state that misconception up front, the way it is likely to be searched?

One could always prepend "Misconception:" before stating the misconception. That would solve the problem Hans Adler pointed out, while being more concise and readable. My own quibble with doing this is that it gets repetitive, but it's a minor quibble. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: The Misconception Concerning the Great Wall of China being seen from "Space"

Further evidence for the veracity of this section can be added by the words of Taikonaut Yang Liwei who was the first Chinese national in space, where he regretted to report that he could see no evidence of the Great Wall, although he had specifically looked for it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.34.107 (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

cold weather really does spread flu

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12808-cold-weather-really-does-spread-flu.html I saw the above article in 2007. I do not know if it has been verified by additional study. While I agree that Influenza is not the "common cold", the findings in the article do support the common conception. 98.116.27.157 (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Joseph Kohn MD, DrKohn@WeAreOne.cc

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood the above person, he isn't requesting something be added to the article he's suggesting something should be taken out.Number36 (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, my mistake. In that case, something would need to be decided on this talk page, as the article provides reliable sources that cold weather does not directly cause a cold (so I assume also the flu). I think the link provided above only asserts that the virus spreads more easily in cold weather, which is not the same as causing it. Cresix (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I have removed it from the article as dubious. Here it is for easy reference:

• Prolonged exposure to cold weather such as rain or winter conditions does not increase the likelihood of catching a cold. Although common colds are seasonal, with more occurring during winter, experiments so far have failed to produce evidence that short-term exposure to cold weather or direct chilling increases susceptibility to infection, implying that the seasonal variation is instead due to a change in behaviours such as increased time spent indoors close to others. Viruses spread more easily when humidity is low which is the case during wintertime. A lowering of body temperature can, however, reduce the body's resistance to an infection that is already present, and cause temporary sneezing and runny nose.

Hans Adler 22:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Experiments with short-term exposure to cold weather cannot disprove a claim about long-term exposure to cold weather, so this simply makes no sense as stated. It appears to me that to the extent this is is even correct, it puts up a strawman that hardly anybody actually believes in: That cold weather can cause the common cold in the absence of appropriate germs. What people do believe, and for good reason, is that the common cold germs spread more easily in winter and that hypothermia makes it more likely to break out. Hans Adler 22:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Phetcwhatever, 25 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In section 5.2.1 (Science > Biology > Evolution) I suggest that "Humans are included in the Hominidae (great ape) family" be changed to "Humans are part of the Hominidae (great ape) family".

It's only a small change, but I think worthwhile because (1) 'included in' suggests that humans are something apart from all the other species -- something to be 'included' in the evolutionary tree rather than naturally belong to it; and (2) shorter words are usually better.

Thanks.

Phetcwhatever (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Seems reasonable. -Atmoz (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.6.160.74, 25 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Request to add Jellyfish urine myth to the biology section. Contrary to popular belief, urinating on a wound inflicted by a jellyfish does not have remedial effect. Reference from article on treatment of jellyfish injuries:

Hartwick R, Callanan V, Williamson J (1980). "Disarming the box-jellyfish: nematocyst inhibition in Chironex fleckeri". Med J Aust. 1 (1): 15–20. doi:10.1023/A:1011875720415. PMID 6102347.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

80.6.160.74 (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. I don't see urine mentioned in that source, only methylated spirits and vinegar. By the way, while the pmid in that citation is correct, the doi in that citation is wrong - it leads to an article about jellyfish as food. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request from Castlemj, 25 Jan 2011

The following should be removed from the article:

It is often believed that mechanical fans are used to cool rooms, but in fact they only cool people who are inside the room. This is because the current of air that the fan produces remove the warm layer of air that is next to, and is pre-heated, by the skin.[42] This air also has the added effect of helping the subject's sweat to evaporate.

This isn't a misconception. Fans can be used to cool a room--provided the temperature is greater in the room than it is outside (e.g., a room that gets a lot of direct sunlight could be cooled by mechanical fans). While the information that fans will make a person feel cooler by creating air currents that remove local heat around the body is correct, it doesn't change the fact that fans can indeed be used to cool a room.

Castlemj (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's actually cited to a pretty good source. I have just added a link to the source on Google Books. The source also says it's a common misconception. Perhaps the entry should be stated better, but I don't see a reason to remove it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the source you added, I see what the problem is. "Mechanical fan" should be changed to "ceiling fan." The text is specifically addressing ceiling fans--which, obviously, can't be used to cool a room because they can't be used to move outside air into the room (a general mechanical fan, of course, can be used to cool a room by being placed in a window and bringing in outside air). Castlemj (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to "ceiling fan". ~Amatulić (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

0.999...

The widely known fact that students believe .999... to fall short of 1 is discussed, for example, by

• Tall, D. O.; Schwarzenberger, R. L. E. (1978). "Conflicts in the Learning of Real Numbers and Limits" (PDF). Mathematics Teaching. 82: 44–49. Retrieved 2009-05-03.
• Tall, David (1976/7). "Conflicts and Catastrophes in the Learning of Mathematics" (PDF). Mathematical Education for Teaching. 2 (4): 2–18. Retrieved 2009-05-03. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
• Tall, David (2000). "Cognitive Development In Advanced Mathematics Using Technology" (PDF). Mathematics Education Research Journal. 12 (3): 210–230. Retrieved 2009-05-03.

Additional references are given at 0.999.... It is widely known in education circles that a majority of the students believe that .999...<1. Tkuvho (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Several problems here. First, citations belong in the article, not the talk page. Secondly (and more importantly): the last two sources do not address it as a common misconception whatsover. The first source identifies it as a misconception among some first-year university students; that's doesn't make it a common misconception in general. Most people have never given it any thought, much less have a misconception about it. If you disagree, please wait for consensus before restoring the item. So far two editors disagree with you (Qwyrxian and me); thus currently no consensus for the item. Cresix (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The other editor "disagreed" for a reason that is diametrically opposed to yours, as I recall. He felt it is not a misconception but merely "unintuitive", but seemed to acknowledge implicitly that it is a common problem. As far as your last point is concerned, I am not sure what you are arguing exactly. That most people are not interested in this problem? Certainly many people attend the first year of the university. Furthermore, this problem is routinely treated in highschool as well. Dubinsky et al recently published an article where they describe a program geared toward convincing students of the correctness of .999...=1 by using the formulas for sums of geometric series. There are literally dozens of articles written about this. If you think people don't care, just check Talk:0.999... ! Tkuvho (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please let Qwyrxian speak for himself. And yes, I'm saying that most people other than mathematicians give it no thought, unless it is specifically pointed out to them by a mathematician. I've functioned in academic environments most of my life; I've never met one person other than a mathematician who has ever mentioned it. Looking at your edit history, I'm guessing you hang around mathematicians a lot; that would explain why you think it's a common misconception. If someone hangs around nuclear physicists a lot, he can come to the erroneous conclusion that the general population thinks a lot about the behavior of subatomic particles; in fact, most people never think about it. If this favorite misconception of yours is a common misconception among people in general, please provide sources. The fact that a mathematician developed a program to convince students does make it a common misconception. In any event, please wait for consensus before restoring the item. Cresix (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to user "Gump Stump", whereas Q seems to be bothered by the same sourcing issue as you. As I mentioned, many people do attend the first year of the university. Someone not majoring in the sciences is not likely to have heard about this, and I find nothing odd about the fact that in your "academic environment" this is not an issue. Incidentally, it is hardly an issue among mathematicians, either. The people mostly concerned are the students and the educationists, who have published voluminously on this, and find that a majority of their students feel that .999...<1. There are surely many people with little interest in this; but there are also surely many people with little interest in Roman circuses, as well. Tkuvho (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Someone not majoring in the sciences is not likely to have heard about this.": Precisely my point. Most people do not major in a science, making it less likely that it is a common misconception. I agree that most people have no interest in Roman circuses. In the past few days, tons of crap have been added to the article because it got some publicity. Eventually that will be pared down. In the mean time, the fact "other stuff exists" is not a legitimate reason to continue adding uncommon misconceptions. Cresix (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You are in error. The page had an extensive science section prior to the current wave of edits, as you can see here. Your current line of reasoning is a considerable radicalisation of your initial concern with sourcing. An anti-science position is merely another form of anti-intellectualism. Tkuvho (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How does having "an extensive science section" make your misconception a common one? If the article never had a single science item, would that make your misconception more or less common? If you can explain that, you might have something worth talking about. How many of those in the "extensive science section" were properly sourced as common misconceptions? How many were accepted by consensus? The article needs a lot of cleanup (I never said it didn't if that's what you consider being "in error"), but nevertheless that is not an excuse for you to continue adding uncommon misconceptions. One reason the article has so many items that are unsourced as common misconceptions is that so many editors like yourself insist that their misconception be included because "everyone else is doing it" or "I think it's common so it must be" or "I asked a few of my friends and it is a common misconcpetion among them" or some other ridiculously arbitrary reason. The article has been nominated for deletion more than once for that very reason. Read this talk page and the archives. There are pages and pages of debates about whether an unsourced misconception should be included. And once again, please read WP:OSE. You don't make a page with problems better by adding to the problems. Now this is my final time repeating this: wait to see if a consensus supports addition of this item. That's how things work on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, WP:OTHERSTUFF is one of the most misused guidelines on Wikipedia. It has to do with article deletions. It has absolutely nothing to do with article content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Quest. Technically you are right. My point is the priniciple applies to article content. "Other stuff exists" is no excuse for adding bad information to articles. Cresix (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Resp to Cresix at this indent level, a few msgs above
• First, citations in Talk are not a problem,, they're welcome here, since they serve to advance the discussion. It's wrong to object to their presence here, when the deleting editor would have hacked them out of the article without discussion. Since discussion is one of the WP:Five Pillars of Wikipedia, better to have them.
• If the argument is "it doesn't matter, the misconception is only held by college students,"

1. The first reference establishes that the problem stems from lack of mathematical preparation in high school, where the notion of sums of infinite series is discussed in pre-algebra. So the misconception exists in the (very large) set of all high school students, not "just" the somewhat smaller set of college students.
2. This article isn't about the importance-in-day-to-day-living of misconceptions, just their existence and prevalence. "Common" can mean commonly held among the population (everybody thinks it) or it can mean commonly heard (everybody knows that one guy who spouts this misconception) - it doesn't matter. Here, the misconception that "0.999... is not equal to 1.0" is commonly held - widely held by a large number of non-high-school-math-educated folks, even if it's not commonly professed. If asked, most people will spout the misconcept.

• If the argument is "it doesn't matter, it affects nobody," it's such a widespread misconception that it impacts design, mechanical and electrical engineering, economics, navigation - everything which involves real-world "messy" math. Where the lack of comprehension of the meaning of numbers (really, just the labels we hang on the numbers underneath) contrasts with "common sense", there's trouble. Consumers, anyone? Why do price tags end in ".99"? Because consumers behave as if $9.99 is substantially different from $10.00, whether or not they know there's no practical difference. Sadly, there's probably no study relating this pricing vulnerability directly to knowledge of sums of series ...
• The fact that mathematicians care about the issue does not minimize its importance in any way. The widespread misconception that "0.999... is not 1.0" is a kind of canary in the coalmine of widespread (and apparently growing) willful, indeed prideful ignorance of math and science, as promulgated by... but I digress.
• "No consensus" is not a brickbat. If more independent sources (by other authors, in other journals, books or magazines) are found, I'll support the item's inclusion over the objections raised so far, because the objections are neither well-formulated nor persuasive.

--Lexein (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a mystery to me why we even have a 0.999... article. All this is worth is a brief paragraph at 1 (number). This isn't really a common misconception, it is just a didactic tool for math teachers to familiarize their students with the concept of Repeating decimal. Nobody would form the idea of "0.999... < 1" on their own. The entire story is that the teacher sets up the scenario, students answer to the proposed scenario that it is smaller, and the teacher then shows that it isn't. If we are going to include a list of standard elementary math lessons in this article, we would never see the end of it.

Can people please stay focused of what it is this article is really trying to do, and what it isn't supposed to turn into by well meaning but misguided additions of random concepts.

From the 0.999... article:

In popular culture: With the rise of the Internet, debates about 0.999... have escaped the classroom and are commonplace on newsgroups and message boards, including many that nominally have little to do with mathematics. (I rest my case at this point) In the newsgroup sci.math, arguing over 0.999... is a "popular sport", and it is one of the questions answered in its FAQ.

So, unless we want this page to become a mirror of all usenet FAQs ever compiled, we should draw the line here. --dab (𒁳) 22:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. And unless we want the article deleted, it can't be a repository for everyone's favorite misconception. Cresix (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Lexein:

• citations in Talk are not a problem,, they're welcome here: You're right, but you also misunderstood me (or, more likely, I expressed it poorly). Tkuvho was adding the item to the article without sources (three times). My comment simply was related to my request that he add them to the article if and when the item is determined to be appropriate.

Fine. It now has FIVE sources, count 'em. Cease the stubbornness. --05:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• The first reference establishes that the problem stems from lack of mathematical preparation in high school: I don't agree with your reasoning. High school students have lots of misconceptions, and high school students don't make up a majority of the adult population. We don't need to include every misconception held by high school students unless there is evidence that the misconception is more commonly held.

offs. Stop with the deliberate misunderstanding. It starts earlier than that, and is uncorrected as of high school, and carries through to college. It remains uncorrected, and therefore a misconception, in anyone who got no math in highschool or college. OK? --Lexein (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Where in the article does it state that it "carries through to college"? Please give us a direct quotation. Cresix (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that mathematicians care about the issue does not minimize its importance in any way: I never said it did. You twisted my point. I said that the fact that mathematicians consider it a common miconception does not mean it is common.

Again weirdly deprecating the profession and the subject, as if "it's only maths", or as if you're a troll. It's a mis-taught and uncorrected misconception in grade, middle, and high school, which survives through college to adulthood. School attendance is required by law to be attended, and math is required to be taught, yet the misconception remains. That mathematicians point it out, again, reduces its truth value not at all. It's a bar bet. It's ludicrously common, and is quite well sourced. --Lexein (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing "weirdly deprecating" about the statement that mathematicians are no better (or worse for that matter) at discerning common misconceptions than the other 99.9% of the population. If anything, stating that they are is a laughable falsehood. As for your "troll" comment, Lexein, you're a regular so I haven't templated you for personal attacks. But if you happen to need a warning, consider this a warning about personal attacks. Comment on the issue, even on your inaccurate assessment of my opinion of mathematicians, but leave the personal comments about me or any other editor out of this discussion. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• If the argument is "it doesn't matter, it affects nobody": Again, I never said that's the argument. If it affects the design of thousands of products, that doesn't mean it is a widely held misconception among the large majority of people who have nothing to do with the designs.
• If more independent sources (by other authors, in other journals, books or magazines) are found, I'll support the item's inclusion: So will I, if you mean more good sources that the misconception is common among the general population. The sources listed above provide little, if any, support for that.
• "No consensus" is not a brickbat: In matters of disputed content or dispute about how adequate sources are, consensus trumps just about everything except WP:BLP. In any event, if this article stays on its current trajectory of adding everyone's favorite misconception with very little evidence that the misconception is common, it will be soon be deleted. I truly fail to see the logic here: We add dozens and dozens of uncommon misconceptions because someone "likes it", only to have the entire article deleted. I have always opposed deletion of this article. But if this frenzy of adding anything and everything to the article doesn't diminish and more reasonable editors begin to accept limiting the article to the misconceptions that are clearly common, I'll support deletion. As it is right now, the article is largely a miscellaneous collection of favorites. Cresix (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Your current position represents a further radicalisation of your position. Your original contention was well-taken, namely that this particular misconception should be sourced. When the source was duly provided, you argued that scientific misconceptions are not relevant, and were only added in the current wave of edits. When I pointed out that even before the current wave of edits there was a substantial science section, you went on a further limb and apparently you currently hold that no misconceptions by highschool students should be included here. This apparently amounts to a proposal to delete the article, since most people after all do go through high school. Your deletion of this misconception is therefore misguided and the right address is an AFD if that's the course you wish to pursue. Tkuvho (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You're better off if you drop the hyperbole, Tkuvho. There is no "radicalisation" or "anti-intellectualism" or "going out on a limb" or a claim that "no misconceptions by highschool students should be included" or a "proposal to delete the article" or "anti-science position" (even more absurd since I have a medical degree). You're not improving your case by misrepresenting what I have said through ridiculous exaggeration or creation of straw-men to attack because you have no good source or consensus; those are very weak debating strategies that are used when there's nothing else to fall back on. You would serve your goal better by simply letting the consensus process play out. Now, unless much stronger sources are supplied or a consensus develops, I'm finished with this exchange. Cresix (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm leaving in just a few minutes, so I haven't read all of this, but I saw my name so wanted to leave a brief comment: my concern was that the entry had no sources to verify it is a common misconception. If the new sources state that unambiguously, then perhaps it can be included. Looking at just the comment above me: we absolutely should not have entries that are misconceptions of high school students, as, by definition, high school students hold countless misconceptions about the world, which is one of the reasons why they go to school. In any event, I want to see very strong documentation on this one, because at least at my school, we learned it in junior high school, and I didn't see anyone who disbelieved it; it's like saying that students have a "misconception" about the pythagorean theorem before they study it. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I went to google books and I found "Intuition suggests that this means that the repeating decimal $0.{\bar {9}}$ is also less than 1, and this is a common misconception." in An introduction to mathematical reasoning: numbers, sets, and functions Peter J. Eccles, 1997, Cambridge University press, p 167. I am sure there are many more such sources, because this really is a common misconception. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A claim about "intuition" by a mathematician provides no additional evidence that this is a common misconception held by people other than mathematicians. And if there are "many more such sources", please let's see them. But not sources written by mathematicians. Cresix (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What a ridiculous demand. Why should material about subject X be sourced only by people who are not knowledgeable about X? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't express it clearly. It's fine for mathematicians to claim that this is a common misconception, but what makes mathematicians better at determining what percentage of the populations holds the misconception? In my opinion, not much. Cresix (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would mathematicians make good sources for this fact? Because some of them write popular books about mathematics, which are thereby usable by us as reliable sources. People who are not mathematicians are less likely to do that, for reasons I'll let you guess at yourself. And also, because mathematicians are the ones that have to deal with students who hold this misconception. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Is your point that mathematicians are better at knowing the number of people in the general population who hold a misconception (not students; that's not the general population; this is an article about common misconceptions among people in general, not students)? If so, then it would logically follow that an expert on a subject (not just math, any subject: philosophy, biology, economics, etc.) is in the best position to determine if some misconception related to his/her field is a common misconception. Continuing to follow that logic, that means that if an expert publishes a statement that he/she has observed misconceptions in his/her field, they should automatically be accepted in this article. Is that your argument? Cresix (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A book published by CUP that directly says that something is a common misconception is a perfectly reliable source for the fact that it's a common misconception. The fact that it was written by a mathematician (if it was) would only make it a stronger source, since we can presume mathematicians are familiar with mathematics. There is no basis in policy for the idea that sources by mathematicians would be discounted.

You won't find anything more direct than a source that literally includes the phrase "this is a common misconception". However, the first source that Tkuhvo gave a bove is also pretty good: "First year university students in mathematics, fresh from school, were asked the question: "Is 0.999 . . . (nought point nine recurring) equal to one, or just less than one?". ... The majority of students thought that 0.999 . . . was less than one. " — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it was written by a mathematician (if it was) would only make it a stronger source: Yes, if the issue was what is mathematically correct, but no one is disputing whether 0.999... is equivalent to 1. The dispute is whether this is a common misconceptions. There's nothing inherent in mathematical expertise that enables someone to be a better judge of how many people hold a certain misconception. This is often the point of confusion in this article. I'm not asking for a source as to whether the misconception is true or false; I'm asking for better sourcing that it is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a book published by Cambridge University Press that literally says "this is a common misconception". That's a reliable source as far as Wikipedia goes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If anyone cares, here's the link to the exact page: Eccles, Peter J. (1997). An introduction to mathematical reasoning: numbers, sets, and functions. Cambridge University Press. p. 167. --Lexein (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source, btw: Maor, Eli (1991), To infinity and beyond: a cultural history of the infinite, Princeton University Press, p. 32, ISBN 9780691025117, Many people find it hard to accept this simple fact [that 0.999 = 1 — DE], and one can often hear a heated discussion as to its validity. The author, Eli Maor, is not so much a mathematician as a historian of mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm calling it sourced and putting the item back in with the above 3 sources. Stubbornness and shifting weak arguments are now swept aside in the face of overwhelming sourcitudiness. --Lexein (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's already in the article, Lexein. It was there 30 minutes before you made your official pronouncement. And I assume it will stay until the article is deleted. I disagree with your disdain for complete discussion. Cresix (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The irony (and my joke) missed. I was attempting to make light of the error made in this discussion: as sources were found, the arguments shifted to attack the sources, the authors, the field, the origin, the generality, anything but relaxing and seeing the point. My declaration was merely a mirror held up to the repeated declaration of "no consensus." --Lexein (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah ... right ... a joke. Cresix (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you happen secretly to believe that .999... is less than 1, there is good news for you: there is sourced material claiming that the students have been right all along, but simply misunderstood by their instructors. The infinite repeated "9" can be understood as a number less than one, just not in the complete ordered field misleadingly referred to as the "real" numbers. Tkuvho (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a question as to the word "misconception" is applicable here. To me, a misconception is something that most people believe but is false. The research on .999...=1 seems to indicated that many people doubt the statement when confronted by it, but I think most people give this little thought either way so it's hard to claim they actively believe the contrary statement. To me, the real misconception is that there is a one-one correspondence between real numbers and their decimal representations. I don't think this implies that the entry should be removed however, it belongs on at least one list of kind and, unless there is a "List of facts people find difficult to accept because they are misinformed on other matters" article, it should go here.--RDBury (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm slightly intimidated by the length of this discussion. But I would say that this belief is an extremely common misconception at the high-school level, and clearly suitable for this article. I see a lot of sources for it as well -- though I'm not going to review them now (I assume in the large discussion above their contents have already been discussed). CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I secretly believe that .999 is less than 1. I'm not sure how common this misconception is though, and this example shows the problem with this article. This article has no boundry to its growth.Asher196 (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Without reference to the 0.999... issue (which was added with a legitimate consensus), the article had adequate boundaries until the recent flood of "it's-common-because-I-like-it" newcomers. Only time will tell if the article can ever be restored to sanity. At this point, I'm not optimistic. Right now the article is largely an indiscriminant collection of favorite misconceptions. The ironic thing is that those who have shoved their favorite misconception into the article may very well see the entire article deleted because of it. Cresix (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

@Asher196: You don't know how common this misconception is, but a number of editors have mentioned ample sources stating this this is a common misconception. If this article is being flooded by items that are not sourced, by all means they should be deleted. @Cresix: I am glad we ere able to reach a consensus regarding this particular subsection. There are several administrators currently monitoring the page. If a strong case can be made that the page should be placed under stronger edit-protection, we should pursue this route. Tkuvho (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My problem is with the definition of "common" as used in this article. Is it common amoung American high school students? The general public? College math majors? This seems like a misconception in search of an audience.Asher196 (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sixty-something year old teacher of Mathematics here. Just came upon this topic. I just read this whole section because I didn't see the point of the heading. It's simply not a common problem. I have never heard the issue discussed outside the classroom, and never seen it to be a continuing problem after a brief explanation was given to a student. It seems trivial. Some may believe it. It would be interesting to meet them. This topic should not be in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

@Asher196: "Common" by wiki standards means that there are reputable sources that call it a "common misconception". @HiLo48: Do you teach decimals? Tkuvho (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Those "sources" which supposedly show that this is a common misconception only seem to show me why .999 is 1. I'm tempted to delete this entry if you can't show better sourcing than this.Asher196 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course they show that .999... is 1. Do you want them to show that it is less than 1? For that you have to look in the "infinitesimal" section of 0.999.... But in addition to showing the equality, the sources mention that is is a common misconception, as discussed above. Tkuvho (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't need the source to show WHY .999 is 1. I need them to show THAT IT IS A COMMON misconception, not just some guy saying "this is a common misconception".Asher196 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What would you like to see exactly: statistics on people holding such misconceptions? Tkuvho (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, reliable references that say it is a common misconception are all that we need for the article to claim it's a common misconception. The article is not trying to explain why it is a common misconception, so we don't need sources for that.

It seems to me that the standard being asked for here is higher than for the other items on the list: they also seem to just use sources that claim the misconception is common, without explaining why it's common or quantifying how common it is. So the references already provided in the article are (more than) enough, and they are just as strong as the references used for the other claims. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that many claims here will have to go. At any rate, here is what I have been able to find: K Weller, I Arnon, and E. Dubinsky. Preservice Teachers' Understanding of the Relation Between a Fraction or Integer and Its Decimal Expansion. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1942-4051, Volume 9 (2009), no. 1, 5--28.

The study by Weller et al (2009) states that "Tall and Schwarzenberger (1978) asked first year university mathematics students whether is equal to 1. The majority of the students thought that is less than 1."

Weller et al go on to describe their own controlled experiment, performed "during the 2005 fall semester at a major research university in the southern United States. Pre-service elementary and middle school teachers from all five sections of a sophomore-level mathematics content course on number and operation participated in the study." The results are striking: "On the question of whether .999...=1, 72% of the control group and 83% of the experimental group expressed their view that .999... is not equal to 1."

Four out of five sophomores think that .999... is less than 1. And these are the future math teachers. Maybe they are right ? Tkuvho (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For me, life's too short to read all of the tedious (to me, excuse my impatience) waffle above. What I will say is that IMO it is a valid misconception at least as important as the ones about vomitoria, ostriches and lemmings. I have watched discussions on facebook getting quite heated on the subject. It appears to boil down to an inability to handle the concept of infinity. It certainly merits its one line on this page, and I also suggest a link to a page on infinite series might be worth adding. Oh by the way: shameless plug for proofwiki: 0.999...=1 --Matt Westwood 21:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to meet just one person who thinks that 0.999... does not equal 1. Can those convinced that it's a common belief find such a person and get them to post here please? If it's a common misconception that should be pretty easy to do. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not how we do things on Wikipedia (not that finding one person would confirm that the misconception is common anyway). Several sources, published by academic presses, have been presented for the fact that it's a common misconception. That means those who think it isn't common need to present some sources to the contrary, or at least sources that add some extra context. Lacking that, our policy presumes that books from academic presses such as Cambridge press and Princeton press are reliable sources for their claims. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is that the standard we use for inclusion on this page? Tracking down individuals who believe them? Personally, I wouldn't think this item should be included since it seems to me to be more of a counter-intuitive but really-true factoid, rather than a myth that gets spread around despite being untrue. That said, we seem to have reliable sources which explicitly state it's a "common misconception", which would seem to warrant inclusion on the page. Judging our sources to determine which items that are sourced as "common misconceptions" are really common falls into the realm of original research. Either having reliable sources which say it's a common misconception is enough, or this page has inclusion criteria which violates WP policy. Jess_talk|_edits 22:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, go on, add the darn thing. It just adds to the fact that this whole article is being filled with trivial garbage. We don't have a meaningful definition of the the term "common misconception". I really don't know what people are trying to achieve. In some cases I think it's a case of "I know something thing that you don't know." Not a very useful or meaningful article at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't come across clearly enough. Having reliable sources which explicitly state "this is a common misconception" seems to be a reasonable standard for inclusion in this article. Judging those sources by our own standards would also appear to be counter to WP policy. Therefore, it doesn't matter if we have a meaningful definition of the term or not... because we aren't the ones deciding. Our reliable sources are. Further, whether the article is useful seems to be rather irrelevant to whether it is notable, and therefore WP-worthy. Jess_talk|_edits 01:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what's bothering me here is that we are not working with a consistent definition of what a common misconception is. Logically, one should be able to key common misconception into Wikipedia, find an article of that name, and it would start off with a definition. But guess what? Common misconception redirects to this article! So the only way a reader can determine what a common misconception is is by some form of synthesis of their own by reading the list and trying to figure it out. Saying that a common misconception is whatever any source deems it to be seems just not quite right to me. It's all very clumsy. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That is because "common", by its very nature, is both subjective and dependent on the current social climate. We simply can't define "common misconception" because what that label applies to will vary significantly depending on numerous factors. This wouldn't be true if we could poll the world population about every fact imaginable, but we simply don't have those kinds of polls, so we have to work with what we do have. With that in mind, that doesn't mean the article is arbitrary. Some things are going to be presented by reliable sources as "common misconceptions", and others will not. The misconception that the Earth is flat, for instance, is not going to enjoy its own article in the NYT which labels it as such, so it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in this article. This is so even though some people really do believe it, even today. However, if a misconception is so prevalent that it does get printed in a major newspaper or another notable reliable source, and explicitly labeled "common", then it's certainly common enough to enjoy that kind of publicity, and per WP:V we have to represent what the sources say. That seems pretty non-arbitrary to me, and perfectly in line with how we choose what information to represent across the rest of the site. Perhaps you disagree... but if so, do you have a suggestion for determining what misconceptions we include which doesn't involve original research by means of editors choosing which proposals go in? Jess_talk|_edits 02:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Do I have a suggestion for determining what misconceptions we include? The more I think about it the more I'm leaning towards including none at all, i.e. scrap the whole article. Other sources, no matter how normally reliable, will inevitably vary incredibly widely in their usage and definition of the term common misconception. It will vary by topic, by author, but intended audience, by location, by culture, by time. I suspect this post is unlikely to convince anybody, but I really don't like the idea of a list of things satisfying such an ill-defined (or non-defined?) criterion. Leave the misconceptions to the primary articles on topics. This one, for example (0.999...), already has a primary article. That will do. Lemmings have their own article. Leave the misconception about their suicides in that article. Many others just shouldn't be here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Anecdote: This subject is so common that its discussion has been banned at several math forums I frequent. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

People who frequent math forums are, by definition, not very common. (They are, of course, very nice people.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't frequent math forums other than wiki discussion pages, but since the comparison of .999... and 1 is treated in highschool, we are talking about potentially billions of people exposed to this subject. The underlying issue is indeed tied to the treatment of the concept of infinity, of which there is more than 1. By the way, reliable sources have found the student intuitions to the effect that .999...<1 to be not erroneous, but rather nonstandard and fruitful. Read the article by Robert Ely cited at 0.999.... Tkuvho (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on our current loose definition of "common misconception," and the fact that one of the sources uses that exact phrase, I am comfortable with that entry remaining in the list now. As to whether or not the whole list needs to go...well...I'll table that for the moment. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I spent a large part of my life teaching mathematics in high schools. This misconception came up year after year. Time and again I found myself trying to teach the (to me) simple idea that saying a number is 12 to the nearest whole number means that it lies in a range with the bounds 11.5 and 12.5. Time and again, year after year, I was confronted by a blank refusal by whole classes to accept this. There were several reasons for this problem, but one of them was a conviction that the upper bound was 12.49999... rather than 12.5. This severely obstructed attempts to teach methods of dealing with ranges of possible values of measured values. Never once was it I who brought up the question of recurring decimals with endless strings of nines, as that was totally irrelevant to what I was trying to teach: it was my pupils who brought it up, because they mistakenly thought it was relevant. Anyone who thinks that this idea never occurs to anyone other than mathematicians, or that it only occurs to other people if mathematicians suggest it, or that it doesn't ever cause any real problems, is quite mistaken. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed comment. There does seem to be a consensus in this direction. What I was going to propose next is an even more common misconception among education professionals, namely that .999... must necessarily be equal to 1. Tkuvho (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In what sense is that a misconception? It is necessary within the accepted framework of the real number system. Outside that accepted framework anything is possible, such as that 2+2=1. That .999... equals one is no more and no less necessary than any other fact of arithmetic. Without context that indicates otherwise, it is reasonable to take the word "necessarily" as meaning necessarily within the accepted real number system, just as without context indicating otherwise it is reasonable to assume that statements about 2+5 refer to the accepted integer system, not (for example) the field of integers modulo 3. Therefore, unless there is context which indicates that something other than the standard real number system is under consideration, ".999... must necessarily be equal to 1" is not a misconception. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pursuing the idea that 2+2=1 is not a fruitful direction. What Robert Ely argues in his paper last year is that student nonstandard intuitions that ".999..." falls short of 1 by an infinitesimal amount are fruitful. Students are routinely told that .999...=1 before they are taught anything about the complete Archimedean ordered field (which is what I assume you mean when you refer to "the standard real number system"). The context you referred to is therefore generally only in the mind of the instructor. As we saw above, it is not in the minds of between 70 to 80 percent of the students. Tkuvho (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion that "student nonstandard intuitions that .999... falls short of 1 by an infinitesimal amount are fruitful" is an interesting one. Can you give a brief summary of how it is "fruitful"? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is getting a bit off the subject of "common misconceptions" and should eventually move to a talkpage, but the main point is that Robert Ely's article published last year in the top education journal argues that these are fruitful intuitions, if you get a chance to read it. Tkuvho (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Briefly, R. Ely reports the results of a field study suggesting that intuitions of an infinitesimal difference 1-.999... can be helpful in learning infinitesimal calculus. 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this item touches on an important distinction: something that people commonly reason incorrectly about when asked, and things that people commonly believe (already have thought about and have formed a belief about) that are incorrect. Here, people seem to be discussing which type the 0.999... issue falls into. It's not enough for it to be in the first, because then you get into a very large number of things that most people would reason incorrectly about if asked, but have never thought about before and thus do not hold any belief about whatosever. It's true that pointing out these errors of thought and ways of working around them is useful, but that's not what this page is for. This page seems more for things that people believe simply because they were told them by others. 72.48.75.131 (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent perspective. One I totally agree with at this stage. Yes, if most people never think about something, it cannot be a common misconception. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be four (at least) threads of thought here:

1. Professional mathematicians and educators, and enthusiastic amateurs, who regular encounter (through their activities in communication) the misconception 0.999... < 1. To them it is a common misconception which is prevalent everywhere. (I'm in this category, btw.)

2. Mathematically literate people who no longer have the need to think about such things, who understand well enough that 0.999 ... = 1 but no longer have any interest in thinking about it and the subject never arises in the course of day-to-day life. To them it is a misconception, but not a common one.

3. People who, if they think about it, intuitively believe that 0.999... < 1 and think the equality is a combination of fakery and deviltry. To them it's not a misconception in the first place.

4. People who haven't really thought about it because they hate mathematics, and having some intellectually challenging math suddenly appear in the middle of a wikipedia is offensive and upsetting. Because "mathematics" (or what they conceive as being "mathematics" does not even feature in their thinking) they can not believe that it would appear in anyone else's thinking except among those people about whom they have a mental stereotype based on their unfruitful encounters with their teachers in high school. To those people, whether 0.999 < 1 is or is not true is not the issue, it's: "But surely most people never waste their time even letting such a question enter their heads?"

To put the question into perspective: consider the furore if someone posted up the "common misconception" that, for example, a certain historical figure whose initials are commonly rendered "JC" is the direct son by biological descent of "God." Wikipedia would erupt in a flame war that would destroy the universe. --Matt Westwood 09:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I could add another closely related to number 2. People who were not aware of or have forgotten the equality, but when now confronted with it are mathmatically literate enough to understand and accept at least the simple proofs and explainations of why the equality exists. To these people it may be a misconception, but not necessarily a common one. Many in this group may regard it as just something thats counter to common intuition.

I fall into this group and in my own opinion I see it as simply counter intuitive. Not a common misconception. I will refrain from addressing your last statement for fear of igniting the flame war that will destroy the universe. Racerx11 (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the case, the current link to the 0.999... article is wrong. Please fix it. (68.67.44.250 (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC))

What's wrong with it? Tkuvho (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User "Racer" commented above that "People who haven't really thought about it because they hate mathematics, and having some intellectually challenging math suddenly appear in the middle of a wikipedia is offensive and upsetting." This could happen. I tried to soften the blow by pointing out that in a way they are right and the teachers are wrong. Tkuvho (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that. You quoted user Matt Westwood. Racerx11 (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out an error in this topic. It says 0,999... is exactly equal to 1 by definition. In fact it can be proved that 0,999... is equal to 1. But it is not by definition, which has a formal meaning in mathematics. 0,999... by definition is a numerical series. And this numerical series can be proved to be equal to 1. So please, someone take this by definition out. Omegaile —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

Schizophrenia

I added a point about Schizophrenia to this article. All I did was copy some text from the Wikipedia article on the subject, including this: "The term schizophrenia is commonly misunderstood to mean that affected persons have a "split personality"."

My addition was removed shortly after with this comment: "No evidence that this is a COMMON misconception. Please provide a source stating that, or take it to the talk page."

I'm no Wikipedia expert in any way, so I'm taking it to the talk page. What do you guys think? In my experience (not a reliable source, of course), most people believe that Schizophrenia == split personality. The Wikipedia article about Schizophrenia states that this is common. There are many articles out there that says (very nearly) the same thing: eHealthMD[7], Helpguide.org[8], BBC's h2g2[9], and many more.

Is this evidence enough? Or how is this really done?

This is my first time going to the talk page to solve a dispute, so I hope you'll be kind to me. :)

PS: Even though this is further proof that it is difficult to know what is common enough to be included in this article, I don't agree that it should be deleted, as some people are debating above.

--Forteller (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the item because the Schizophrenia article misrepresents the information in the cited source. Your eHealthMD source above states it more clearly; the other two links above are to the same eHealthMD article. For those interested, this item was discussed a few weeks ago. See Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 11#Addition request: Schizophrenia Cresix (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Forteller - Unfortunately for you, you have arrived at this article at a time when there is a major discussion underway on exactly how we decide something is appropriate content here. Don't know if you've had a chance to read the immediately preceding topics yet. In my opinion it's just really difficult to decide if your material fits. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(a) that wasn't much of a discussion in the archive, and it has been a pretty common misconception. The subjectivity of this page is considerable. Nevertheless there should be a source coming...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as I said, the eHealthMD article does identify the misconception as a "popular belief", if someone thinks that's sufficient to add it to the article. Cresix (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the links being all the same. I've fixed that now. --Forteller (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is also a common misconception in Germany. A half-okay source: [10]. I think that would be a good entry. --Echosmoke (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Daddy Longlegs

Under the Biology Section, in the Daddy Longlegs bullet, the similar-appearing harvestman is referenced. It is said in the bullet that the harvest is in the order Opiliones, which it says is not an order of spiders. In fact, Opiliones is an order under the arachnida class, so it is a spider. The segment " which are not spiders" should either be omitted or corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.68.148 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone more knowledgeable about arachnids may wish to comment. But all arachnids are not spiders; spiders are only one order in the broader category of arachnids. The article on Opiliones explains the distinction between opiliones and spiders. Cresix (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Obama Birth Certificate

My first edit request! Please be kind if I miss a convention. So... while I appreciate the discussion of what percentage of people would construe the "common" moniker, the little blurb on the birth certificate is misleading in its structure. The paragraph states that a certain percentage of people believe he is Muslim, but then does not cite an irrefutable source contradicting the belief. The only proof provided against the "misconception" is that the White House "describes" him as a devout Catholic. Given that there are several sites on the web that detail the birth certificate and have images of the certificate, I would suggest citing at least a few of them and linking to the certificate images to nail down the absurdity of the belief. One such link to a discussion would be here: Snopes.com and another here: Politifact.com. I am suggesting this change for completeness, considering the current evidence given is based on trust of the White House, and not on reviewable and verifiable fact. This is all presupposing the entry is kept after the conclusion of the pending discussions above. Ogradyjd (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see the need for additional sourcing that he is not a Muslim. If the White House's website describes Obama as a "devout Christian", why is that not enough? Religious belief is a very personal matter. It is almost universally the case that how a person states his/her religious beliefs is accepted on face value. If someone (including Obama) describes himself as a Christian, I don't see why an external source is necessary. Tell me one other case in which a public figure's self-stated religious affiliation is questioned; certainly not another President. I'm not questioning Ogrady's good faith request, but to me, stating that there is a need for additional sourcing is just pandering to the extremists who will go to almost any length to portray Obama as something that he is not. An additional source is certainly permissible within Wikipedia guidelines, but it is entirely unnecessary, and the item should not be challenged because there is not another source that Obama is not a Muslim. Cresix (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I endorse everything said by Cresix, and wonder how a birth certificate can prove anything about someone's religion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia publishes verifiable information not WP:TRUTH, Obama could pray 5 times a day, go regularly to mosque and insist his wife and daughters cover their heads and Wikipedia would still report that he is christian because that's what the reliable sources we have say and that's what he himself has said. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comeon people, linking the birth certificate really doesn't hurt as additional source. It also makes it more plausible that he never was a muslim. --Echosmoke (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No need for a "comeon people", as if any of us have been unreasonable. I never said an additional source "hurts"; in fact I said it is certainly permissible. And Wikipedia frequently uses multiple sources for a single fact. What I did say is that another source is unnecessary (for Obama or any other President or world leader), and I continue to feel that way. I would never challenge the addition of another source. I simply don't see the need for it, and I feel that it is no more than a response to extremists, and Wikipedia is not in the business of shaping itself to please extremists. But if someone wishes to add another source, feel free to do so. Just don't add text suggesting that the statement from whitehouse.gov is not sufficient. Cresix (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I still "wonder how a birth certificate can prove anything about someone's religion." HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh...Okay, now that's funny (or rather sensible and modern). US birth certificates don't have information on the parent's religion. Different here. --Echosmoke (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

New section

Just added a new section called 'Language and Linguistics' with a couple of good ones so no-one better delete it until vociferous argument has been had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulpesinculta51 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It seriously erodes my faith in the 'collaborative' nature of wikipedia when edits like this:

Language and Linguistics

• The pronunciation of Latin is often misunderstood, due the Ecclesiastical method (commonly used today) splintering from the antique Classical method during the Middle Ages. The Classical Latin alphabet has no 'w' or 'u' character (or J, K, Y, and Z characters) a role filled by a single character, 'v' and as such in the Classical method, (the manner in which the ancient Romans very likely spoke), 'v' is pronounced either as a modern 'w' or 'u.' The common greetings 'ave' and 'salve,' for instance, are not pronounced 'ah-vey' and 'sal-vey,' but rather 'ah-whey' and 'sal-whey.' In addition, the character 'c' was always pronounced hard, leading to modern confusion concerning the antique pronunciations of 'Cicero,' 'Tacitus,' and 'Lucullus' among others. In these instances, the correct antique pronunciations are 'Kick-ero,' 'Tack-IT-is,' and 'Luke-AH-liss.' Perhaps the most commonly misunderstood ancient Roman name is Julius Caesar (classical method Ivlivs Caesar), which instead of its usual pronunciation, 'Jool-ius See-zer,' is in fact pronounced 'Yool-ius Ky-sar.'

• The phrase 'begging the question' is not appropriate to use in the context of a situation from which a question appears to arise, but is rather a logical fallacy that refers to an instance whereby an argument dissolves itself by using as an a priori or a posteriori axiom what it is trying to prove. For example, if we say "evolution must be true because the bacterial organelle the flagellum is the result of random mutation and natural selection" begs the question because it assumes that evolution is true, while simultaneously arguing that fact. Likewise, if we say "a supernatural agency must be at work in nature considering the truly marvellous design of the bacterial flagellum" we also beg the question, for in arguing for a supernatural agency we simultaneously use its existence as an axiom.

are deleted. Why has this edit been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulpesinculta51 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that these are common misconceptions. The article cannot contain every misconception. Some misconceptions are held by a few people. Some are held by many people. And some are held only by a select group who have enough knowledge to even have the misconception (e.g., misconceptions among physicists about the behavior of subatomic particles). It's important to understand the distinction between a reliable source that a misconception is false, and a reliable source that the misconconception is held by many people. It's the second type of source that is missing in your edits. Let me suggest reviewing this talk page and the archives. They are loaded with hundreds of misconceptions that have been rejected because there was no evidence that the misconceptions were common. You might think the above misconceptions are common, but so did every one of the editor's who added items that were rejected as not common. My guess is that most people have never even thought about the pronunciation of Latin or the correctness of the phrase "begging the question", but that's just my opinion; you need reliable sources, not just your or my opinions. And BTW, "collaborative" also means that you have some resonsibility to review the talk page about issues such as this before editing the article; I wouldn't even be making this comment except in response to your statements about "no-one better delete it" and "seriously erodes my faith in the 'collaborative' nature of wikipedia". Cresix (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What you might call the pointy end of my wedge here is the pronunciation of 'Julius Caesar.' He is know virtually universally in the western world and i invite you conduct a little thought experiment. Ask every single person who has heard of him to spell and then pronounce his name. How many of them do you think come back with 'Ivlivs Caesar' and 'Yool-ius Ky-sar?' Wikipedia accepts common knowledge (and presumably common sense) without reference. A similar principle applies to the phrase 'begs the question.' It is common knowledge that it is used incorrectly far more often than not, and this gets it over the line that separates things that are truly misconceptions from things that are merely unintuitive.

The thing about wikipedia is that it is populated by quasi-intellectual idiots, and I have nothing to learn from anyone who has not written at least one work of academic non-fiction, or at least one novel/epic or narrative poem that had the title printed larger than the author's name. For someone who admires Ayn Rand so much, Jimmy Wales sure has created an intensely communist institution, in which the truly remarkable individual cannot secure agency for action taken unilaterally from his lessers.Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Ask every single person who has heard of him ...": Sorry, but that's original research and is not the way things are verified on Wikipedia. You need a reliable source.
• "quasi-intellectual idiots": Please limit your comments to the issues, not editors. If you need a warning about personal attacks, consider this your first warning. And for what it's worth, I have published 19 peer-reviewed articles in academic journals, but that doesn't make me a better or worse editor on this particular topic. It's irrelevant.
• "Jimmy Wales sure has created an intensely communist institution": You're more than welcome to create your own encyclopedia, or move on to more productive endeavors elsewhere. Cresix (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Seconded on all points. Continued incivility will result in a loss of editing privileges. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

While I would support the motion that the Latin part, generally and properly sourced, would indeed make a fun addition, I have a few comments:

• Considering how in English about every word is pronounced "wrong", from a purist's point of view, how is Paris (where for a start you don't hear the 's' in french) different from Caesar?

• Items that will trigger an "Oh, i never thought about that" for most people hardly count as common misconception in my book. Most people just never think about how some word is or was spoken different in another language, which is, they have no concept of it. We are not looking for common misconceptions among Latin teachers and catholic priests.

• You are off to a good start there but: Caesar is spoken EE-ool-ee-oos (like Ian, most likely no Y or J sound in latin) Ku-ee-sur (AE was a diphtong most likely spoken like today english 'I'). Timing the shift of C in front of light vowels like E and I away from "K" is difficult. Last time I checked (literally), it was not excluded it already happened in classical time when Cicero lived. 'Tacitus' and 'Lucullus' were spoken 'Taak-IT-oos,' and 'Lookoolooss.' You are stepping in your own trap there - most languages indeed do use one letter for one sound and vice versa, all Latin U vowels are spoken the same. Hard to imagine for an english speaker, I know. *SCNR* And yes, I did study just that subject. --Echosmoke (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Having had particular trouble with the nasalisation of the letter M (as in humanum when it doesn't happen to be slurred with the following word as in errare humanum est) when I learned Latin, and having grown up with a language in which the word for emperor is Kaiser, pronounced in precisely the same way that Caesar was once pronounced, – I get the point of this proposal, don't think it's particularly interesting, and insist that it be subjected to precisely the same rules as all other proposals. These rules were set up as a compromise after deletion of this silly page failed in spite of obvious lack of encyclopedicity. They require a reliable source that says explicitly that something is a misconception, and that it is common. Hans Adler 21:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It is probably correct that it is a common mispronunciation to pronounce the C of Caesar soft. This could possibly be sourced, but then we would have to deal with the question of whether a mispronunciation counts as a misconception, or whether a mispronunciation can be due to a misconception and so on and so forth. The example of Paris above is only one of a thousand french words that are mispronounced variously around the world, and I'm far from certain that the old greeks pronounced π to rhyme with sky. I am leaning more and more towards deletion of this article.Dr bab (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sincere thanks mr echosmoke. Regarding eveything else, it seems extremely arbitrary to exclude misconceptions on the basis of their having to be prompted out of people, as exactly the same applies to every misconception on this page. In addition, comparisons to the word 'Paris' for example seem incorrect considering that while people may regularly pronounce it (completely acceptably) in an anglicised fasion, when asked to pronouce it in the French manner you will get 'Pah-RI' every time. You would not replicate your results conducting a similar experiment with Latin, however.

Also, here are a few things that may convince various people concerning the 'begging the question' question. http://blog.writersdigest.com/qq/Begging+The+Question+How+To+Use+It+Correctly.aspx (This explicitly states that it is a "common misconception"). http://listverse.com/2009/03/23/10-misconceptions-about-common-sayings/ (I know this wouldn't be considered a reliable source but for god's sake it's number one!) Also this is from wikipedia itself: "Many English speakers assume "beg the question" means "raise the question" and use it accordingly: for example, "this year's deficit is half a trillion dollars, which begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" Most commentators deem such usage incorrect.[9]" Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Additions for the technoloy section.

What is the opinion of the wiki hive mind concerning the addition of the misconception that Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, as well as the distinction between the web and the net to the 'technology' section? Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That you should find reliable sources for this information stating that it is a common misconception. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Bell has been discussed before [11]. Also, once more strengthening my argument that most content of this page is already covered: Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy --Echosmoke (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely it bears mentioning somewhere that Graham Bell's questionable aquiring of his patent for the telephone, and that Meucci's claim to its invention was officially in-part endorsed by congress? Also, what is your opinion of inclusion of the web vs net misconception? Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, first and foremost, it needs to be demonstrated with a reliable source that it is a common misconception. As for the patent and actions by the U.S. House of Representatives, see my comments from a few days ago, below. Cresix (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Since this page has a habit of trying to re-invent the wheel, I've moved discussion on this same topic from just five days ago here:

This has probably been said before but if edison is up there for not inventing the light bulb then so should bell for not inventing the telephone. 121.44.216.48 (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work that way. The article needs a lot of cleanup. Items that are not properly sourced as common misconceptions eventually will be removed. But we don't fix the article by continuing to add more crap just because the article already has crap. Cresix (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Alexander Graham Bell Invented the Telephone.

I think it's pretty clear that this is a common misconception. Here are sources that show that the US Govt has formally recognized that the telephone was invented by an Italian inventor named Meucci: and JW Depew 19:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Jw depew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw depew (talk • contribs)

My personal opinion is that most people believe Bell invented the telephone. But there are a few problems here. First, the item does need a reliable source that it is a common misconception, or otherwise be accepted here by consensus. More importantly, however, a resolution by the U.S. House of Representatives is not unequivocal evidence that Bell did not invent the telephone. A House resolution has no force of law (it's just the opinion of the majority of members; and even U.S. laws must also be passed by the U.S. Senate); and even if it were a law, a law does not determine historical fact. The U.S. Congress could pass a "law" that the Earth is flat, but that wouldn't make the Earth flat. I realize that there has long been controversy about who invented the telephone, and I think if you look at reliable sources you will not get a firm answer. For one thing, how do we define "invent"? Bell was the first to get a U.S. patent; does that mean he invented the telephone if someone else had the idea first but didn't get the patent on time. And often it is not clear when the actual moment of "invention" occurred when two or more people have similar but not identical ideas. Bell got the legal rights with his patent. But who actually invented the telephone is very much a matter of debate. Cresix (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"I think it's pretty clear that..." and "...most people believe Bell invented the telephone" are perfect examples of original research, without reliable sources to back up the claims. To the latter comment I would respond "How many of the world's six billion people have you checked with to justify a claim of most?" and to the former "Well, that's a sample of one." Personally I'm well aware that there were a number of parallel efforts underway that together led to voice communication over wires. That's a sample of one too, but at least I'm honest about it. I wonder if there would be an American bias towards believing in Bell, an Italian/British bias towards Marconi, and a healthier mix elsewhere? No, we have not been presented with decent evidence that it's a common misconception. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the issue with Marconi is whether he invented radio (wireless telegraphy) -- he didn't-- not the telephone (a debate on that one is in the archives). In the U.S., the debate generally is between Bell and Elisha Gray for the telephone. Italians (and those of Italian descent) may be more likely to credit Antonio Meucci. Cresix (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Talking about his book on Bell/Gray, Seth Shulman calls the Bell misconception "accepted history". [12] Pepso2 (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 63.76.53.42, 28 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

It is a common misconception that the seasons of the Earth are caused by the Earth's distance from the sun. However, the seasons have nothing to do with the Earth's distance from the sun. In fact, the Earth's orbit around the sun is an ellipse with the sun at one focus. This ellipse an eccentricity close to 0, meaning it is almost a circle. Also, the Earth is actually closer to the sun during the winter solstice than it is the summer solstice. The seasons are actually caused by the Earth's axial tilt of 23.5 degrees. The Earth remains tilted throughout it's revolutions around the sun, so, from various points on the Earth, the sun appears to be higher or lower in the sky for a given point on the Earth, depending on the time of year. There are two main reasons why this causes a change in season: 1. The Earth is higher in the sky during the summer of a place on the Earth. During the winter, it is usually lower. This change in angle causes the sun to affect a greater area in the winter than it does in the summer, meaning the energy and heat are spread out. 2. The days are also longer in the summer and shorter in the winter. A long summer day means the sun affects any given area for longer than it would on a short winter day.

The source is Universe 9th Edition by Roger A. Freedman, William J. Kaufmann III and Robert M. Geller. 63.76.53.42 (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it really a common misconception? Anyone with any common sense, who knows that seasons occur at opposite times of the years in the northern and southern hemispheres, could not logically think that way. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception. Also see previous discussion on this topic at Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 5#Seasons. Cresix (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

MA Belts

The information in the martial arts belts section implies that there is some sort of standard belt structure for Asian martial arts. This is simply not the case. The prose should reflect this by noting that although there are similarities between the belt color structure of many systems, the color designations are purely arbitrary, vary greatly from system to system, and often are different or not used at all outside of the US (as in Buddo Taijitsu). Many styles do not use belts at all. For example, the uniforms of practitioners of many Wushu styles don't have any visual indicators of rank whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.88.228 (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Myth of Mithras and Christianity

I don't know who removed my section on Mithras and Christianity or when, but in case it was down to how 'common' it was, I'd like to point out that this is one of the very biggest and most repeated misconceptions concerning Christianity! Just read the Wiki pages concerning Mithras if you don't believe me!

This myth was even repeated as truth on the popular myth-debunking British TV show QI. Please contact me with your concerns before deleting this!

Ion Zone (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not we believe you doesnt matter. Nor does it matter what is in another Wikipedia article. What matters is that you present a reliable third party source that makes the claim that something is a common misperception. Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

comedy.com is not a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Your edit has been reverted. Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

and it is also inappropriate for you to take two sources and show how something is "wrong" Active Banana (^bananaphone 01:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is a transcript from the popular BBC TV show QI, which deals with common myths and misconceptions, the link I gave is to an official site and includes the relevant clip. Could you explain why it is not an acceptable reference as it is easy to verify that it is genuine? If it does not prove the widespread nature of this myth, could you help me find one which does?

Ion Zone (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

First, nowhere in the linked source is this identified as a common misconception. Secondly, a synopsis from a comedy website is not a reliable source. And finally, the vast majority of the world (including the Christian world) has never heard of Mithras, much less hold a misconception that it has any purported relationship to Christianity. This is not a common misconception. Please move on. Cresix (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

[After an edit conflict, so some overlap] Tackling this from another direction, you are constantly referring to a myth. In the section Question for the audience--who supports deletion? above, the question was asked - Is a myth the same thing as a common misconception? (See article title.) You see, there are some of us that think this article needs a little more rigour in the definitions behind it, or to describe my position more accurately, don't think we can ever achieve enough rigour to justify this article's existence. As for it being a common myth, I live in an allegedly Christian country and have a Christian background, and I have no idea who or what Mithras is. So firstly, you must convince us it really is common. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an unusual case. It is not just the usual attempt to get a misconception that is probably not all that important included here without proper sources. It is actually blatant pro-Christian POV pushing, although probably done innocently.

I grew up in a historically (and nominally still predominantly) Christian country in which the Mithras cult was once rather significant, and I don't think I ever heard of it until I was in my late twenties and happened to visit the foundations of the former Mithraeum in Riegel am Kaiserstuhl. What I learned there is that some Christian traditions are by no means as specifically (or originally) Christian as, uncritically accepting the common misconception, I had previously believed:

• ritual eating (in the case of the Christians the flesh of a deity, and the paintings in Mithras temples suggest the followers of that cult saw it the same way)
• Sunday (rather than Saturday, for instance) as the holy day in honour of the sun god.

This came in addition to what I already knew: That the miracle stories about Jesus follow a pattern of stories that were earlier reported about various Greek philosophers such as Pythagoras and Empedocles.

Christians tend to feel uncomfortable with these facts, since it is harder to believe uncritically in a cult that developed out of its predecessors and and adopted elements of popular other, contemporary cults. From that point of view it makes sense to exaggerate the inconvenient facts to the point that they become false and then debunk the resulting strawman as a misconception. Hans Adler 23:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

But obviously still not a common misconception. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, of course the strawman misconception is not common at all. Even the actual facts are relatively little known, although they do turn up in history programmes occasionally. Hans Adler 23:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

myopia

under the heading "Human body and health", under the subheading of "The senses". Citation is needed for the "studies show that so-called eyestrain from close reading and computer games can lead to myopia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merseyless (talk • contribs) 09:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed this entry:

"There is no single theory that satisfactorily explains myopia—in particular, studies show that so-called eyestrain from close reading and computer games can lead to myopia, but the underlying physiologic mechanism is poorly understood. There is also no evidence that reading in dim light or sitting close to a television causes vision to deteriorate.

At the very least it needs a rewording; The misconception(s) need to be more clearly stated and the sources reviewed. The 2 sources contradict each other directly. Google answers as source should go IMO. --Echosmoke (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Smalltux, 31 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Under the Biology heading ("It's a common myth that an earthworm..."), please change:

regeneration

to

regeneration

(capitalized R) so the bookmark works as intended. Thanks.

Smalltux (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

JFK's speech

It is actually NOT standardized German which allows for this. Standardized German would have his speech as "Ich bin Berliner," much akin to saying in English "I am American," although Berliner is a noun and not an adjective. "Ich bin ein Berliner" is Berlin dialect, and in the dialect it is grammatically accurate. As the article states, Berliner, elsewhere outside of Berlin, is a type of pastry, while in Berlin it is referred to as just Pfannkuchen. This is also Berlin dialect. Thus the above, "is standard German" must be changed, as it is not standard German, but rather dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.142.13.74 (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is simply wrong. Constructions that exist in standard German but are missing in most dialects are often considered to be more "correct", but sometimes, as in this case, standard German makes a subtle distinction that most dialects do not make. Kennedy did not mean to say that he was born in Berlin or that he lived in Berlin. He meant to say that being a Berliner defined him as a person. The way to express this in standard German is to say "Ich bin ein Berliner". According to Google Books, it is much more common to say "Ich bin Dreher" than to say "Ich bin ein Dreher". But it is more common to say "Ich bin ein Dichter" than "Ich bin Dichter". Presumably poets are more likely than turners to get the nuances of standard German right, and they are more likely to want to express that being a poet defines them as a person, rather than being a random occupation. See also my earlier comments at Talk:Ich bin ein Berliner#Not an encyclopedia --. Hans Adler 21:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the difference is between high German and colloquial German. The phrase "Ich bin ein Berliner" is understood to mean "I am a jelly donut" by all of my German friends and family. It is also possible that there is double-entendre in the phrase, akin to saying "I am a Frankfurter" (meaning both a person from Frankfurt, and a sausage). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.140.48 (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hailing from southern Germany (where "Berliner" is used for the pastry), I have never associated that Kennedy phrase with being funnily ambiguos. Now that I know I am supposed to, I am not 100% sure someone might not hear it like that. But: no person from Berlin would, as has been stated before, and the wording is not clearly wrong or uncommon in either Hochdeutsch or colloquial German. However, if one wanted to express he was that pastry, he would use these exact words. --Echosmoke (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: JFK's speech

The wording: "The word Berliner is not commonly used in Berlin [...]; they are simply called Pfannkuchen" should be changed to "The word Berliner had not been commonly used in Berlin of the 1960th ...". Nowadays every Berliner understand the word Berliner as a synonyme for the doughnut, the german article and Berliner_(pastry) do have it correct, that the time plays a more important role. -- Leonidas (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Obama is(n't) Kenyan

You might add to the point on Obama's religion that he is not Kenyan and is a natural born citizen. I couldn't find a source for the argument that he isn't but I found several sources dedicated to disproving the myth: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ,http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp , There was even a court case proposed because of this misconception that was denied: http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D1256P.pdf , http://www.scribd.com/doc/13033400/Dismiss-Memorandum A copy of his Certificate of Live Birth is available here: http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.210.236 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we drop this American politics topic forever please? It's apparent to me that any "misconceptions" about Obama's birth and religion are no accident. They are driven by his political opponents INSIDE America. It all has virtually no impact on the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Birthers are driven by right wingers just as much as 9/11 truthers are driven by left wingers. Let's not jump the gun here start accusing either side of being dumb enough to try to get a bunch of loons on their side. The rest of the world shouldn't believe that birthers are taken seriously in America; they just aren't.AerobicFox (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not discuss "birthers" and causes and politics since our point is to discuss the article. By the current inclusion criteria, if anyone can produce a reliable source stating that this is a "common misconception" along with the proof that it is false, we should include it in the article. If not, then we shouldn't. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

My point about the rest of the world having no interest in this matter at all (they just see Obama as a black American) is part of saying that even if it's common, it will only be within America, which makes it pretty rare in the whole world. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody in America believes that Obama in Kenyan. Sure there are the birthers, but then again there is also the Flat Earth Society, and lumping Americans in with these groups is so wrong. Besides a common misconception among Americans is notable, just as a common misconception among brits would be notable. You need to look at the notability of the common misconception and not how "common" it is amongst the entire world.AerobicFox (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

OR here, but I doubt that more than one or two in a hundred Brits associate Obama with any country other than the USA. If pushed hard, the remaining one might possibly rememember something or other about a link with Africa, without looking it up. So, the definition of "common" is being pushed rather hard. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it would make sense to add a line like For misconceptions involving U.S. President Barack Obama, please see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and let all of the anti-Obama stuff be handled there? 28bytes (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Obama is(n't) Muslim

I don't think that truly qualifies as a misconception. While many people do believe he is a Muslim, without much factual support, most (if not) all, have heard that he is a Christian. These people, however, choose not believe that as part of a conspiracy theory.

A misconception would imply faulty thinking or understanding. While some might feel that such conspiracy theories are faulty, it crosses the line between encyclopedic and political. It is impossible to prove what some one actually believes as a religion.

This theory isn't even as common as JFK theories. Likewise, listing JFK was noy shot by Lee Harvey Oswald as a misconception would be inappropriate, but it is a similar circumstance.

I suggest that all discussion be moved to a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.251.177 (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• That is based on your personal opinion, but do you have any sources saying that it's only a misconception because people choose to believe he is Muslim? I think that scenario is far more likely the case for misconceptions about his place of birth, but I wasn't under the impression that people believed Obama was a "secret Muslim" rather than simply believed he was openly Muslim. Either way, we have sources calling it a misconception and that it's held by over 60 million people, so we would need sources combating that saying it's because people choose to believe it (and thus wouldn't necessarily be a misconception, but rather an opinion of questionable soundness). VegaDark (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course they choose to believe he is Muslim. Some quality sources have told them he is Christian, but they still say he isn't. That's obviously a choice, probably politically driven rather than rationally decided, so it's not a misconception. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Homo sapiens

I find it to be a common misconception that our species is called Homo sapien, as in, "I'm a Homo sapien" and "a robot that acts like me should be branded a Robosapien"Robosapien product website. Many people assume that Homo sapiens is the plural form ("We're all Homo sapiens.").

Does anyone agree that this should be included on this list?

Rlioz (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It can't be included until you find a reliable source that this is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A commonly mispronounced or misspelled word is a bit of a stretch as a common misconception. Hairhorn (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The misconception is that "sapiens" is a plural. I do think it is a common grammatical misconception, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for sourcing. I don't know that common grammatical misconceptions are really germane to the article either. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Same goes for "biceps" and "triceps", which are singular not plural. – ukexpat (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Using "it's" as a possessive is by far the most widespread grammatical error of this sort, but it's a mistake, not a misconception. Hairhorn (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Slight left-wing bias in 'Religion' section

The bit about islam feels distinctly like all those little 'facts' you find in various Islam-sympathising quasi-intellectual corners of the internet that extol you to think: 'Hey, Islam isn't so bad.' This gives it an uncanny left wing flavour, and violates wikipedia's neutrality policy. I suggest the two misconceptions that it mentions be replaced with a section that points out how Islam didn't use to be like this, and that the radical islam that everyday tightens its grip on rank-and-file muslims is largely a reaction to the rise of the american-led western world in the 1950's. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

How on earth does this make it left wing? Unless, of course, you're mixing up two meanings of right to declare that anything different from America cannot be right (wing?) HiLo48 (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to how these statements are biased or make any statements relative to the "goodness" or "badness" of Islam - as far as I can tell these are more linguistic clarifications than any sort of value judgment. They are also well-cited. I'm also unsure as to what "this" is that Islam didn't use to be like, but once again provided there are reliable sources that claim "this" is a common misconception (and this article survives the current WP:AFD) you're free to include it.Eldamorie (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing left-wing, right-wing, or middle-wing about those items. They're simple facts that are sourced. You could argue some sort of left, right, or middle bias about most any items related to religion if you yourself want the items to be more left, right, or middle. And we don't replace such sourced information with unsourced information simply because someone doesn't like it. Cresix (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's absolutely normal for people to have misconceptions about alien groups. For example see outgroup homogeneity bias to get an idea of the underlying mechanism that causes this. As a consequence, in an encyclopedia written in English, by speakers of English, for an English-speaking audience and mostly using sources in English, there will be more misconceptions about groups that are strange and uncomfortable to most English-speakers, and in most cases the misconceptions will be of a negative kind and debunking them will look superficially like sympathising with these groups. The corresponding page in the French Wikipedia, for example, might contain information to the effect that only a very tiny percentage of Americans are so fat that they can't leave their houses, that this problem is not the main reason why most Americans never leave their country, and that a non-negligible percentage of Americans do eat salad, occasionally. Or it might mention that religious fundamentalism to the point of rejecting well-established scientific theories such as evolution is actually not a majority thing even in the US. This kind of factual information may easily be misunderstood as sympathising with Americans, but that's not a problem. Hans Adler 16:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Hans for a succinct explanation of the issue. I just wanted to add that I do not feel that there is a 'left wing' bias, or much of any, in the description of Islam. Just because there exist many different viewpoints does not mean that we have to express all sides equally to have a NPOV. Especially if the facts simply fall on one side. 66.129.58.144 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Giraffe evolution

This is really picky, but it is borderline misconception to say that long necks evolved because giraffes who fed on taller branches had the upper hand (..no pun intended). The other main theory is that long necks are the result of sexual selection. It doesn't change the usefulness of the example (under evolution), but it struck me as funny while reading this list of misconceptions. The wikipedia page about giraffes discusses it a bit. BigFatPhoque (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)bigfatphoque 2/3/11

The "competing browser theory" is still a main theory for why giraffes evolved a long neck. There is the additional "sexual selection" hypothesis, which assumes that longer necks gave males an advantage in "necking" contests. The truth is most likely a combination of both theories. It is possible that the "necking" contests gained popularity (forgive my silly working) because it provided groups that participated a edge in browser competition. In any case, it certainly isn't a misconception to list the "competing browser theory", as it is still viable, and not disproved. 66.129.58.144 (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an addition to the article? If so, please provide a reliable source that any of this involves a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD notifications

After nominating the article for deletion, I left a notice to that effect on the talk page of every editor that discussed in any of the sections above the issue of what the inclusion criteria and whether or not this article should be deleted. In all fairness, the end result of that was that (I think) I notified more "delete" editors than "keep" editors, but only because that was on the page already. If anyone believes that there are other long term/regular editors of this page, I would welcome them receiving a (neutrally worded) notification as well, so long as those notifications don't run afoul of WP:CANVAS. This article isn't a part of any Wikiprojects, so I don't see anyone else I should nominate, but if you let me know, I will be glad to do so. My apologies if I missed anyone scanning through, and I promise it was not intentional. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I proposed these inclusion criteria at the AfD discussion, and want to open up the discussion here.

1. Required: an existing Wikipedia article about the item topic. Other good quality lists use the criteria that each listed item already have an article, and I agree with this criteria, since these articles, to exist, are required to meet WP:GNG, the General Notability Guideline.
2. Required: one or more reliable source(s) stating "common misconception" or words to that effect in the topic area audience. Examples of audiences include students, people asked on the street,
3. Required: the linked article (1) should also address the misconception, either in a linkable #section, or at least as a complete sentence, citing the same reference(s) used to establish that it is a common misconception.

Wikipedia is about sources and notability, and much less about the likes and dislikes of editors. We cite sources, and if sources, as a group, gathered together, comprise books, articles and essay about misconceptions, then those sources have established Common Misconceptions as a reasonable, notable topic for a list here.

Wikipedia is also about linking. See WP:MOSLINK. Both lists and categories support the connection of areas of knowledge to supporting information and to other areas of knowledge. This is a fundamental precept of Wikipedia itself. This list ties together an important category of knowledge - things and ideas to avoid, wrong thought paths to avoid going down, with the notable, reliably sourced topics themselves.

In my opinion, it is a defensible position that learning what a thing is not, is as important as learning what a thing is. What Wikipedia Is Not is just as important as what Wikipedia is - both as explained within each policy/guideline/essay, and summarized in one gathering place: WP:NOT.

Also in my opinion, this avoids some of the drama of having to decide on a case by case basis what "common" means, or what "misconception" means. We cite the sources, and leave it at that.

--Lexein (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your final sentence is seriously compromised by "...or words to that effect" in the second criterion. Much of the previous discussion on this article has been in just that area. We still don't have a definition so that we can decide what "words to that effect" would actually have to say. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything I've written as compromised at all. Since when don't we cite the sources, and leave it at that? The sources say. The English language is rich and diverse - to demand that only two words out of - how many? ~400,000? - can serve to satisfy a criterion is absurd on the face of it. Of course the words "frequent" or "universal" or "usual" can stand in for "common", and of course the words "misapprehension" or "wrongly learned" or "mistaught concept" can possibly stand in for "misconception". I can see the point trying to be made, but that overrestriction is ... distasteful and wikilawyerish. Either the sources are reliable, independent, notable sources, or they're not. I'll need to see a link to a concrete example of what's bugging you, to believe that my 123 criteria are insufficient to begin fairly pruning, and rehabilitating this list. --Lexein (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily pushing for restricting it to those items where the sources explicitly say "common misconception", just highlighting that in cases where they don't, there has to be a lot of judgement applied. Many individuals here feel they would have no difficulty in making that judgement, but experience watching the article tells me that someone is bound to disagree with your opinion. There is no mechanism or policy in place or proposed to assist in resolving such disagreements. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I am very much in favor of insisting that used sources say "common misconception" or words to that effect, now that we understand each other about that. Sources which make no clear statement of common or misconception (or words to that effect) can simply be considered NOT to support the claim of common misconception, and the entry gets summarily moved to talk or deleted, depending on if the removing editor is a deletionist or discussionist. That, to me is the way out of that conundrum: boldness without malice. Now, if we can reach consensus on 1234(5) inclusion criteria, post to top of article in hidden comments, and in Talk, certainly people may initially disagree, and this isn't a problem. With clearly stated criteria, the improvement in the list (removal of non-source-supported items) can truly commence and be quite rapid. All lists have been improved by clarifying inclusion criteria, and I want this to happen here. Quite a few lists are RS article-based, and this one should be too (in my opinion). The wisdom of this will hopefully gradually warm the hearts of even the AfDers, as it did for List of indie rock musicians. As for "There's no mechanism or policy for resolving such disagreements" - that's really false. Discussion is one of the WP:Five Pillars and is here for this purpose. Consensus is reached, or not reached, and there are indeed mechanisms for WP:DISPUTE resolution. So criteria #1(topic has article), #2(Com. Miscon. has sources), #3 (CM is in section in article), #4 (CM is current or labeled "old"), and #5 (sources support CM's generality, or list its population), I think answer the inclusion criteria issue you've raised, including the 06:07 challenge you offered. Sources rule, sources establish notability, sources and their specificity should govern here. Sources are the backbone of Wikipedia itself, and give us strength in our quest for improved lists. --Lexein (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think more important than words to the effect of "common misconception" is that the source must establish the common misconception as per WP:RELIABLE and not just use the words from a quoted source who is merely speaking in hyperbole. Quote from WP:RELIABLE: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. Lgstarn (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

new section: Weather; eye of the storm

Hi, I'd like to add a section about the misconception, often used as a metaphor or in cheap TV reporting, that the eye of the storm is the most intense part of a cyclone/typhoon/hurricane. Of course, it isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_%28cyclone%29

I'm not sure how to edit the article most effectively though- should it be a sub-section under science?

Titanium geek (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's what the metaphorical idiom 'being in the eye of the storm' is commonly used to mean, it seems to me fairly common knowledge that the eye of the storm is a calm spot, the idiom however refers to that other quality it possesses of being totally surrounded by, and at the centre of, extreme chaos. Also of course, and more importantly, anything for inclusion in this article needs to be reliably well sourced as specifically being identified as a common misconception.Number36 (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Should we remove the notice asking readers to expand the article?

The article has a notice at the top that says:

"This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries."

One of the problems with the article is that we get a lot of IPs and newbies who add entries that don't conform to our policy on sourcing, I was wondering if it might be a good idea to stop asking readers to expand it. IOW, should we remove this notice? What does everyone else think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Remove it. The last thing this article needs is to be further expanded with guff. --John (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with John. Remove it. --hippo43 (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This of course leads back to: should the article actually exist, since it has no natural boundary. The only thing limiting its expansion is sourcing. Asher196 (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Let's delete the whole thing. --hippo43 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a very unhelpful line. In the discussion on deleting this article there are many claims by those who want it kept that the article has excellent inclusion criteria. Can anyone see them listed? All the wrong things are at the start of an in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the template as phrased was unhelpful, and contained no explicit inclusion criteria. In the discussion at AfD, several "keep" editors proposed new criteria, to answer one reason for the AfD. But the "delete" editors have not responded to those proposals as such. I've removed the template, and added explicit criteria, to comply with WP:LIST#Lead_section_or_paragraph. Perhaps these should be in the lead para instead of the hatnote, but somehow that didn't seem right. Thoughts? --Lexein (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Eskimo words for snow

This one has been requested a few times, but doesn't seem to have been put in yet. The idea that Eskimos have hundreds of words for snow is a commonly held misconception (see here, where Geoffrey K Pullum list it as "commonly believed fallacious knowledge" as well as several other very close synonyms for "common misconception".) For more sources and information you can see the Wikipedia article we already have on the subject Eskimo_words_for_snow. I would suggest wording something like below.

Eskimos do not have an unusually large number of words for snow. In a popular 1940 article on the subject, Benjamin Whorf referred to Eskimo languages having seven distinct words for snow. Later writers inflated the figure in sensationalized stories: by 1978, the number quoted had reached fifty, and on February 9, 1984, an unsigned editorial in The New York Times gave the number as one hundred. (Source here). But in fact, none of the languages spoken by any of the indigenous peoples encompassed by the term Eskimo have anywhere near this many words for snow. Complicating the matted somewhat is the fact that many branches of the Eskimo-Aleut languages are polysynthetic, which allow noun roots to be incorporated to form compound words that are complete phrases. (Spencer, Andrew (1991). Morphological theory. Blackwell Publishers Inc. p. 38. ISBN 0-631-16144-9.) One way of viewing this method of word formation would give the appearance of thousands of words that deal with snow. But snow holds no special distinction, and the same could be said about any noun.

This could be parred down if felt too long. If you think the above is reasonably well documented, both as a misconception and as a common misconception, please included something similar to the above. I think the article would benefit. Personally, I know I've heard this misconception spoken as fact at least four times. 66.129.58.144 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that Eskimos really do have a lot of terms for snow. Ask English speaking people who are seriously into snow sports. Even they have lots of different names for snow in different conditions. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read the linked articles. They do not. In fact the Eskimo-Aleut languages have very few base words, in the vicinity of 2000. Most likely they only have a root noun for snow, at the most two. They then modify it with descriptors. Benjammin Whorf was likely wrong in his assertion that they have seven unique words. But that is beside the point. The point is, they certainly don't have anywhere near a hundred, which is the oft quoted figure. 66.129.58.144 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Anon 66, the main reason this item has not been added after being requested a few times is that no one has provided a reliable source that it is a common misconception. And sorry, but your personal experience of hearing "this misconception spoken as fact at least four times" is original research, not a reliable source. Cresix (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Geoffrey K. Pullum, published by the The University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-68534-9, stating that "Whole books have been published on commonly believed fallacious (non-)knowledge ... In the study of language, one case surpasses all others in its degree of ubiquity ... the notion that Eskimos have bucketloads of different words for snow." isn't a reliable source? I was just adding the bit about myself anecdotally. I thought I had already provided sources for the commonality of the misconception. 66.129.58.144 (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. That sounds like a solid source to me. Cresix (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've managed to get Cresix's nod of approval, I guess I'd like to try to build a concensus. Forgive me if this is going over the top with bureaucracy, but I'm new and I understand that this is a very sensitive article that gets nonsense dumped on it all the time. So I'm just being cautious. There are other sources documenting the rise of the misconception as well, like, "Laura Martin, 1986. "Eskimo Words for Snow: A case study in the genesis and decay of an anthropological example." American Anthropologist 88(2), pp. 418-423".

I suppose just indicate support or opposition to inclusion of the Eskimo snow misconception below. 66.129.58.144 (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is a documented misconception spread as widely as other examples in the article, of the same tone and character as other misconception listed. 66.129.58.144 (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support as a no-brainer. This article should be deleted, but so long as it exists it should mention this extremely notable misconception. Hans Adler 07:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Probably a good idea to be be overly cautious with this article for the reasons you suggest but it seems your sources for this addition certainly meet the general requirements for inclusion, I think you should just put it in. If anyone does want to dispute it, which I find doubtful they would, they can always raise it here.Number36 (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)