Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

"Geography" section needed

It's sort of weird how this long listicle lacks "geography" section related to various countries. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey man, if you've got two or three common misconceptions about geography, I'd be all in favor of it. Joe (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

My experience is that most people are about as geographically literate as Miss Teen South Carolina, so there might be thousands of entries for a geography section. If we add a geography section we should be choosy about what to include. My two cents. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, here we go, feel free to be choosy about my picks. Just to clarify: I am in a rush, and I am from Russia, no pun intended.

1. Assuming "R" in "USSR" stands for "RUssia"...
2. ...not assuming distortion of sizes in Mercator projection maps (e.g. believing Greenland in Arctica is bigger, than Australia, because Mercator map shows so)...
3. ...assuming Japan to be the densiest-in-population country in the world, while it is not as densely populated as Bangladesh...
4. ...believing "Eastern Bloc" countries to be part of USSR (e.g. putting Bulgaria or Poland on same level of "sovietness" as Ukraine or Quzaq lands, Kazakhstan.)

Also, biology/geography mix: not knowing if penguins are Arctic or Antarctic animals. Also, biology/geography mix: Not knowing whether tigers are African or Asian big cats. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Coffee and other caffeinated drinks not dehydrating — updated

@Nachotacl:, thanks for your comment on my Talk page here: User talk:Ekpyros#Caffeine as a diuretic. Especially cool coming from a food scientist! Moving the discussion here, and definitely see what you mean; I saw the criteria for inclusion on the list and mistakenly assumed it meant the myth itself should be properly explained. I've removed the extraneous information—do please let me know what you think! Thanks kindly, ElleTheBelle 19:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Myth that U.S. Social Security Numbers contain racial information.

This seems to be common enough that the Social Security Administration has a web page devoted to debunking it. I'm a bit uncertain whether this belongs where I placed it (in the History/ Modern / United States section) in the Law, crime, and military section, or maybe in a new section of some sort. Feel free to move it. Mark Asread (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

When you opened the edit window to add this item, you should have seen four inclusion criteria very prominently displayed at the top of the page; it's almost impossible to miss. This items fails inclusion criterion #2 ("The item is reliably sourced, ... with respect to ... the fact that it is a common misconception"); The phrase "some people" in the source is vague and hardly describes a clearly common misconception. I, for one, have never heard this, and I'm 71 years old; I suspect most people have not heard of it. But if you can find a reliable source, please discuss here. It also fails inclusion criterion #3 ("The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.") Please don't restore the item without fulfilling all inclusion criteria, or getting a very clear consensus here. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation for the revert. Having someone 'kill your babies' always stings, but you're correct. I glanced at, but didn't really read the inclusion criteria. Mea Culpa and apologies, I was relying on my own experience - I've had to debunk this myth more than once for friends, but the inclusion criteria here are more objective. --Mark Asread (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mark Asread: Thanks for understanding. Sundayclose (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Is "Mutations are not random" a misconception?

There was a recent scientific paper showing that mutations are not random, as they had previously been believed to be. This is science: new things are discovered, and previous knowledge needs to be revised. This does not make "mutations are random" a common misconception, simply outdated scientific knowledge. Other cases where the scientific consensus has changed in the past century include:

• Continents do not move. cf. Continental drift
• Bacteria cannot live in the human stomach. cf. Helicobacter pylori
• Only crystals can be semiconductors.

Of course it takes some time for a new discovery to become first commonly accepted by scientists, then disseminated in textbooks, then widely known. But that doesn't mean that outdated scientific knowledge is a "misconception" by the standards of this article. --Macrakis (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we already have a "Mutations are not entirely random" entry, which may be referencing the study you're mentioning or older studies, I'm not sure.

Just as a preemptive note, the statement "mutations are not random" can be interpreted a lot of ways, and some of those interpretations make the statement true, while others make it false. Some biologists, Bret Weinstein for example, have argued that the fact that evolution works is evidence that mutations are truly random, in the same way that certain quantum phenomena are speculated to be truly random, and unlike the pseudo-random outcomes generated by classically deterministic mechanisms like dice. In fact, if I recall correctly, Weinstein once argued in a debate that the fact that evolution works at all is evidence that we do not live in a deterministic universe, because if mutations were not truly random, evolution could not function. This statement about evolution, and whether or not the universe is deterministic or not, is patently false, as demonstrated by the evolution of virtual organisms in computer systems that rely solely on pseudo-random number generation to produce mutations in their genomes.

A large number of scientists and mathematicians believe that true randomness is impossible, and that the universe operates strictly according to deterministic processes. If they're right, mutation is definitely not random in the absolute sense.

However, when people use the term 'randomness,' often they just mean it to describe any phenomenon which is unpredictable, and not necessarily to mean something which behaves in a non-deterministic way.

In that sense, mutation is random, but also not random. Like, imagine if I had a bag full of marbles, 20 of which are blue, and 5 of which are red. I shake the bag up and 'randomly' pick one of the marbles. You might bet that I'll pull out a blue marble instead of a red marble, and you could make money all day making bets like that, even though I'm 'randomly' picking marbles out of the bag, because even though there is a 'random' element to my selection, there's also a probabilistic bias. Now, in that sense, there definitely are biases to mutation. The genomes of different organisms mutate at different rates depending on all kinds of factors like histone packing, DNA repair mechanisms, and (in an extreme sense) whether the genome is made of DNA or RNA (retroviruses mutate way quicker than non-retroviruses because RNA is less stable than DNA), etc., etc., and some of those biases affect the mutation rate of specific regions in a single organism's genome. For example, more DNA repair mechanisms are focused on the parts of the genome that house the genes for the ribosome, because if the ribosome genes receive a deleterious mutation, that's the end of the cell line. Meanwhile, vast stretches of junk DNA might not be so carefully maintained.

There's also the fact that, when you're talking about a multicellular organism, each cell has its own genome, and cells that mutate in certain ways may commit suicide or may be killed by other cells if the mutated cell is misbehaving, which reduces the likelihood of certain deleterious mutations being observed in the cells of plants, animals, fungi, etc. - In that particular case, however, the mutation is not 'less likely to occur,' it's just less likely to persist through time.

But again, depending on what you mean by 'random,' the statement 'mutation is random' could be taken as true. There is no part of any organism's genome that is immune to being mutated, just like there's nothing stopping me from pulling a red marble out of my bag, and though you might be able to make generalizations about which regions are more or less likely to experience mutation, you could never predict exactly where a mutation would occur unless you were directing it somehow. Just like how you might predict I'll pull a blue marble rather than a red marble, but I'll still pull a red marble occasionally; and if I numbered the marbles 1-25, you'd never be able to reliably guess which one I was going to pull. In the sense that the word 'random' means 'an event which cannot be predicted,' mutation is random.

So, to sum up, it's quite a complicated subject, and depending on what you mean by 'random,' the answer is either 'yes,' 'no,' 'yes and no,' or 'maybe.' I think the current entry does an ok job by describing mutation as not 'entirely' random, which is certainly true, no matter what version of the word 'random' you're using. Joe (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the "mutations are not entirely random" entry. The point is not that the entry is false, but rather that it isn't really a "misconception". Yes, educated people have long thought that the location of mutations is random (in some more or less precise sense). And the recent study shows that that is not true. But I don't think it makes sense to have a new entry in this List of common misconceptions every time there's a new scientific discovery that contradicts the previous consensus. --Macrakis (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Misconception suggestion under "Environmental science": cooling towers

"Cooling towers in nuclear power plants do not emit smoke or harmful fumes, but simply water vapor, and do not contribute to climate change." Sources: Royal Society of Chemistry and Duke Energy Nuclear Information Center. --DannyC55 (Talk) 17:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Absinthe does have psychoactive properties, via ethanol (alcohol)

The line "Absinthe does not have any psychoactive or hallucinogenic properties, and is no more dangerous than any other alcoholic beverage of equivalent proof." seems to ignore the notion that alcohol is a psychoactive drug, e.g. as a depressant.

The Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_(drug) currently says "Alcohol, sometimes referred to by the chemical name ethanol, is a psychoactive drug that is the active ingredient in drinks such as beer, wine, and distilled spirits (hard liquor)."

So this so-called "common misconception" is, at least in part, internally inconsistent, or misinformation.

I have not checked the cited source, but consider amending to "Absinthe does not have any hallucinogenic properties, and is no more dangerous than any other alcoholic beverage of equivalent proof." 81.109.84.66 (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd add that this entry misrepresents what's stated in the parent article:

Recent studies have shown that absinthe's psychoactive properties (apart from those attributable to alcohol) have been exaggerated."

It's quite a leap from "effects have been exaggerated" to "there are none".

I'm removing the entry. Please discuss on Talk before restoring. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Biblical description of angels

I'm considering a new entry, under the section "Christianity", saying the following:

Although frequently depicted as beautiful winged humans (either young or infant) in art and popular culture, angels are not exactly described as such in the Bible. The angels in the Old Testament such as the cherubim, ophanim and seraphim have varying otherworldly appearances, some with multiple pairs of wings and many eyes, while angels in the New Testament such as Michael and Gabriel are human-like but not said to possess any wings. The modern depiction of cherubim was adopted from the ancient Italian art of putti, a practice by which winged babies were carved into child sarcophagi, while the idea of angels playing the harp is even more modern, originating from John Milton's 1667 epic Paradise Lost.

Search engines will show several sources referring to this, including this article, but I'm not sure if some Wikipedia article already mentions this as a misconception. Any thoughts? - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 17:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the conventional depictions of Jesus, God, and so on aren't supported by the text of the Bible, either. Is it a "misconception" that God looks like an old man with a long grey beard? How about the depictions of the dragon that St. George is slaying? Is it accurately portrayed according to the textual accounts?

The root misconception (if it is one) is that iconography accurately reflects textual sources (or reality!), but that seems far too generic to be worth mentioning in this article. --Macrakis (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Macrakis, I sort of agree and disagree. I mean, the idea that god is a humanoid man is definitely supported by the bible - Genesis 1:26, "And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness..." and Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."

On the other hand, Jesus is often depicted as Caucasian, sometimes even with blue eyes and blonde hair, when the 'real' Jesus (historical or mythical, whichever) would've been Semitic, specifically Hebrew, and would've been quite swarthy. If there were sources to the effect that Jesus' common depictions are in error, and it was mentioned on other pages, etc., etc., I'd be all in favor of including something about that as a common misconception. Just like the common misconception that the Buddha was fat (which, itself, is an excellent example of a common misconception). Joe (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I sort of agree. Misrepresentations, even if there are plenty of them, are not misconceptions. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 12:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd say this angel thing is a common misconception and a misrepresentation at the same time. For an example, most Westerners believe the Buddha was fat, and he was not, and they're confusing him with another character. Fundamentally, misrepresentations can be misconceptions. That said, I haven't thoroughly checked to see if there are pages where this is mentioned as a misconception. It might need to be added to Angel, Christian angelology, Hierarchy of angels, or another page first before it can be added here, per the inclusion criteria. Regardless of whether it ends up getting added on the Common Misconceptions page, it's probably worth adding on one or more of those pages. Joe (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It just seems pointless for us to debunk religious iconography, whether it's Sallman's clearly wrong, but widely distributed, Head of Christ or God as portrayed on the Sistine ceiling. It's also pointless for us to debunk Biblical miracles.

The fat Buddha is a different case -- it is not adherents of Buddhism who are confused about it, but westerners who are clearly misunderstanding a non-western tradition. --Macrakis (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what's 'pointless' about it. Listing common misconceptions (which this is an example of) surely is the entire point of this page. The Buddha being fat isn't any different as far as I'm concerned. A common misconception is a common misconception, regardless of whether it's held by a Westerner or an Easterner, or an adherent or an apostate. Besides, I bet tons of non-Christians think Christian angels look like simple winged humans. But never mind for now, it's pretty moot until we're actually sure it meets the inclusion criteria. Maybe I'll look through some pages to see if it's already mentioned. It seems like a notable piece of information, it certainly should be listed somewhere on Wikipedia if it isn't already. Joe (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, there are inconsistencies between literary and artistic descriptions of supernatural beings. Since we have no objective knowledge of their appearance, what is the misconception? That artistic representations faithfully follow literary representations? Should we also point out the inconsistencies between the various artistic representations of Sherlock Holmes and the way he was described in the original stories? Are those misconceptions? In the case of the "fat Buddha", we know objectively that westerners have misinterpreted a piece of Buddhist iconography. --Macrakis (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on what you both said, I have an idea: what about creating a similar page called "list of common misrepresentations", "...misdepictions", or something? It would focus on common discrepancies between traditional textual descriptions and iconography/art, which seem to be pretty common not only in religion, but also in history, literature and other areas, so there will definitely be enough to fill a page of its own. I definitely agree with Joe in that what I brought up is something worth mentioning, but I also agree with Macrakis in that it may not be exactly a misconception, unless there are people who actually believe angels are described in the Bible as winged humans with white clothes. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 21:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't a range of artistic representations of literary figures the norm rather than the exception? Each visual interpretation (in whatever medium) of Homer or of Revelation or of Dante or of Jules Verne, etc. etc. will be different, and be more or less faithful to the original (even if the original is clear and consistent, which it often is not). Heck, we have whole articles on angels in art, God the Father in Western art, and a whole category Category:Jesus in art including dozens of pages. --Macrakis (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Making a List of Common Misrepresentations page sounds like fun, but I expect there would be some overlap with that page and this page. Not all misrepresentations are misconceptions, and vice versa, but plenty of misrepresentations are misconceptions. Take for instance, the common representation of Jesus' birth as taking place during winter. That's another good example of something which is both a common misrepresentation and a common misconception. Anyway, even if we were to make such a page, that wouldn't be a reason not to include any of the misrepresentations which are also misconceptions on this page (duplicate information is par for the course on Wikipedia, and this page particularly). I could be swayed otherwise, but right now, I'd say there isn't a pressing need for another page (unless there are a ton of common misrepresentations that aren't also misconceptions, and I just don't know about it).

The modern conception of biblical angels as winged humans is definitely a misconception when you compare it against the biblical descriptions of many-headed, many-limbed, many-eyed, or sometimes even geometrical angels - and there do seem to be some sources to the effect that this is a common misconception (and no surprise, the idea that Abrahamic angels are winged humans is extremely common, both within and outside of Abrahamic faiths) and we should definitely add it to this page if it meets the other inclusion criteria. It doesn't matter if a misconception is about a little thing like the girth of the Buddha or a gigantic thing like whether angels are humanoid or not, a misconception is a misconception. Again, I'm still not sure if it meets the inclusion criteria as yet, I need to check some pages.

I'd like to remind everyone that, fundamentally, there can be misconceptions about mythical things (see the three examples already discussed in this section). If there are common misconceptions about Jesus' appearance which meet the inclusion criteria; sources calling it a common misconception, pages that mention the subject (which is sounds like there might be), etc.; then we should definitely include that as well, though its an entirely separate discussion to the angel thing. Joe (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable analysis, Joe. But I'm still unsure about what to do. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 09:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything to do right now on this page. We should consider adding this into other relevant pages. I'll try to get on it some time. Joe (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Iconography is not realistic
• 
• 

The difference between the "fat Buddha" case and the "winged human angels" case is not a question of little vs. gigantic difference. It is that the "fat Buddha" figure unquestionably and objectively does not represent the Buddha in Buddhist iconography, but has been misinterpreted by westerners as representing him. This is an WP:NPOV fact.

Angels are described in various ways in the Bible, and are depicted in various ways in Christian iconography. Cherubs, for example (an order of angels) are sometimes depicted as bodyless heads with wings, sometimes as four-winged humanoids with eyes on their wings and feet [1], sometimes as chubby babies with stubby wings [2].

All of these are artistic representations. Since we do not know whether cherubs actually exist, let alone what they look like, these are not misconceptions, just artistic conventions, aka iconography. When an artist portrays St. George (a fourth-century saint) as wearing 15th-century style plate armor, it is not an error, it is simply conventionally representing him in contemporary military gear.

There are multiple conflicting descriptions in literature and art of these various mythical beings, and none of them is a misconception. --Macrakis (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Macrakis, this isn't a misconception about 'iconography,' it is a misconception about the contents of the bible. Speaking of iconography for a moment, I disagree with your assertion that there can't be misconceptions about iconography; depictions of Christmas, and of the Buddha's girth, and of the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and, indeed, of the Roman salute, could all be said to be misconceptions about, or derived from, or at least related to, iconography. Of course there can be misconceptions about iconography: there can be misconceptions about anything that can be a concept. But that's all quite irrelevant: fundamentally this isn't a misconception about iconography, but rather, about the general public's perception of biblical angels. It is all quite moot, of course, I don't believe we've established that this meets all the inclusion criteria, and until we do, we certainly shan't be adding it. Joe (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Phones and rice

An entry was recently added:

Submerging a phone in rice does not influcence its working state.[416]

With this article as its citation: https://www.theverge.com/2015/9/14/9326035/can-rice-actually-save-your-wet-phone

Reading the cited source, the gist seems to be that using rice to repair a wet cel phone is probably not very effective most of the time. From the cited source:

1. So, does the trick work? In 2014, Gazelle.com ran a semi-formal test that indicated it didn’t. (emphasis mine)
2. Craig Beinecke, co-founder of TekDry, a company that provides "emergency electronic device rescue services" says so too. ... Of course that study should be taken with a grain of salt. The research was entirely funded by a company whose business depends on the rice trick being ineffective.
3. Countless testimonials speak to the efficacy of rice. I have my own: I’ve personally dried my phone in rice a number of times.

I don't think the source material supports the definitive statement that "Submerging a phone in rice does not influence its working state." Perhaps there are better sources to be found or the entry can be rephrased to better reflect the reliable sources. I've removed it pending a better version or better sources. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've recast the intro to the parent article Phone_repair_with_rice_myth to better reflect the source material:

Submerging a mobile phone or smartphone which has suffered from water damage into rice has not been shown to be effective in repairing them. Although submerging these devices into a desiccant may or may not be more effective than leaving them to dry in open air, uncooked rice is inferior to other common desiccants such as silica gel or cat litter.

Perhaps it's now in a form where we could add it back to this article. My concern is that wikipedia is not a how-to guide so it's not the place to give instructions on how to repair a wet cel phone. It's probably ok, but would like input from other editors before re-adding the material. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish Thank you for editing the article after reading the source more carefully. I think it can be added as an entry to this article again, but if you'd like to wait for input from other editors that's fine of course. I think WP:NOTHOWTO only applies when instructing users in the imperative mood and not when describing the process that was featured in the source. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Stress/Relaxation - section seems self-contradictory

Under "Disease and preventive healthcare", one paragraph says: "Stress does not play a major role in hypertension. Specific relaxation therapies are not supported by the evidence. Acute stress has been shown to temporarily increase blood-pressure levels. Chronic stress may cause a sustained rise in high blood-pressure." That's it in its entirety.

I did not read the two sources given; my problem is with how this item presents on the face of it:

• Acute (temporary) stress temporarily increases blood-pressure.
• Chronic (lasting over time) stress causes a sustained (lasting over time) rise in blood-pressure.

It actually says "rise in high blood-pressure", which I think may be a mistake for "rise in blood-pressure", not meaning that only in high blood-pressure does it cause a rise.

• So the two types of stress, acute and chronic, both cause a rise in blood-pressure.

Granted, a "rise in blood-pressure" is not the same thing as "hypertension".

• But "stress does not play a major role in hypertension"?

Is the real misconception being debunked that "specific relaxation therapies are not supported"? It seems to say stress has some role in increasing blood pressure, if not major. The paragraph just seems odd and contradictory at first blush. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Tarantula venom

How about the popular myth that tarantula bites are harmful or even deadly to humans? 2601:644:100:9F20:458D:E447:7DC1:C664 (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

From the criteria list: (1) has an article of its own; there's Tarantism and Tarantella. (2) misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete. I don't know if it would still be considered a thing anymore. Also, the conception is not that the bites are deadly, but that they induce hysterical dancing, which could be considered harmful, I suppose, especially if you're a really bad dancer. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"R" in USSR doesn't stand for "Russia"

Proposal: add "Abbreviation "USSR" stands for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", without mentioning Russia"...

I think it's a good idea to add this one, since people constantly say "soviet Russia this", "soviet Russia that". 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Soviet Russia actually was a thing. It was the largest and most important of the Soviet republics. And even if you were right, we would need a good source mentioning that misconception. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 11:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

... How do I put it... RSFSR = was a thing. "Soviet Russia" - sometimes, a generalization. Imagine calling Pribaltika/etc. "a part of Soviet Russia". 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL INFO: It just so happens your counterargumentation is actually the proof to my claim. I had beed trying to claim "R in "USSR" stands for "Republics", not "Russia". You immediately jumped in to remind "Soviet Russia" is a nice term to use. No. People seem to keep confusing USSR and RSFSR. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a "common" misconception, if it's even an uncommon one. But the bottom line is, we can argue all we want here, and it's a waste of breath; the burden of proof is on those who want to add it, to find reliable sources saying it is a "common misconception", and at that point, I'll vote to support. But not before that. Mathglot (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Since USSR have disbanded 30 years ago, it ... may feel uncommon nowadays for people not old enough to remeber. However, every time there is a poster which combines something like "The Яussiaиs are coming" with USSR's flag, such a misconceptions occurs. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Size of minority groups

Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. [3] Benjamin (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The editing note offers these criteria:

1. The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own.
2. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
3. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
4. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete. (certainly passes)

So a challenge would be to identify a Wikipedia article on the topic of perception of or attitudes toward society sub-groups, or maybe the topic of minority populations in general. The source you gave directly deals with the fact that there is a misperception. Some editors may ask for more or better sources. My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The title of the article is "From millionaires to Muslims, small subgroups of the population seem much larger to many Americans" and its whole point is that "inaccurate perceptions of group size are not limited to the types of socially charged group divisions typically explored in similar studies". The overestimates include groups such as people with a household income over $1m and people who live in New York City. That is, people do a terrible job of estimating percentages. Using the word "minority" (which generally refers to "socially charged group divisions") to characterize this study is highly misleading (even though the article uses the term). --Macrakis (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Having no particular opinion about this subject in general, I'd just like to say that the word "minority" does not generally refer to "socially charged group divisions." The word minority simply refers to any subgroup which makes up less than 50% of the whole group. That's all. Joe (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a Wikipedia article that has elaborated on a topic that deals with this misconception. And as Macrakis says, it's not really accurate to say that the reference illustrates such a misconception. And I just want to go on record here that I call dibs on "Socially Charged Group Divisions" for my new band name. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Most people (not just Americans) tend to wildly over- or under-estimate just about everything that can be quantified. We could probably come up with thousands of entries like that. I'm not in favor of going down that road. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thousands? I think you're overestimating the problem. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps. Equally likely that I'm underestimating the problem. (c: Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I sort of agree: there is such a thing is "small but vocerous minority". 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Running

[4] Running actually strengthens your cartilage, rather than wearing it down. Benjamin (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

We need reliable sources that state, firstly, that what you say is true, and secondly, that it's common for people to think otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would rather say, my experience with running involves my joints to feel unwell, not blood vessels. Also... my problem was due to using hiking types of shoes, instead of proper running shoues. I would buy "quality" stuff on various sales without understanding which of shoes brands actually focus at sports. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed British Invasion paragraph

I removed the paragraph on the British Invasion as the cause for "the destruction of American popular music". First, it's not sourced what destruction or decline is even being referred to. Second, the source given says "A number of artists were quick to blame the Beatles for their declining careers, and many historians seized on one of the easiest explanations". So this ill-defined perception isn't said to be common among the general population. I think it's a non-starter. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Cliques

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_cliques#Common_misconceptions

Benjamin (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Question: What does "hide a cat in a nightingale[']s nest" mean? 2601:644:100:9F20:458D:E447:7DC1:C664 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Interpol entry

An entry about Interpol was recently added. The parent article says:

Contrary to frequent portrayals in popular culture, Interpol is not a supranational law enforcement agency and has no agents with arresting powers.

1) I think we need to let the editors at the parent article sort this one out before adding it here and

2) Just because something is frequently portrayed in fiction doesn't mean it's a common misconception: magic dragons don't exist, people don't have superpowers, animals can't talk - all are frequently portrayed in popular culture, but do enough people actually believe any if this is real to call it a common misconception? That's not at all clear to me.

I'm removing the entry. Please discuss here prior to restoring it. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish Okay, let's first clear up that I (the same user who added the entry here) was the one who added that [failed verification] tag, because I read the source you're now citing. However, the source that was cited in the common misconceptions article by my from The Atlantic states: "In fact, the popular image of Interpol as a global police force chasing down jet-setting rogues with stacks of fake passports is a myth.". Apart from this article, there are more sources. The Conversation writes: "The most common misconception about Interpol red notices is that they are international arrest warrants." ZDNet writes: "Rather than the common misconception that it's an international police force, Interpol's main objective is help the various disparate law enforcement agencies work together through the sharing of information." Just Security writes: "Most of the myths around Interpol stem from the misconception that it is an international police agency.". This whole misconception even triggered a newsworthy controversy, which was publicized in The New York Times. I think this makes it clear that the entry should be added back to the article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between common fictional depictions of fictional entities (such as dragons) and common fictional depictions of real entities (such as Interpol agents). With some truly rare exceptions, most everyone believes that Interpol agents exist. If people also believe that Interpol agents engage in activities that they don't actually engage in, as User PhotographyEdits's sources say, I'd consider it to be a misconception. Joe (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply @JoePhin. I have been WP:BOLD and add the entry back, explaining the rationale in the edit summary. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Spices section misses the point

The section on spices says that spices were expensive and therefore did not cover up off flavors in meat because rich people could afford good meat. This misses the point:

1. The actual hypothesis is that spicy foods are more commonly eaten in hot climate cultures because of the need to cover up off-flavors. It is an explanation for why Norwegian food is relatively bland compared to Indian food. Whether right or wrong, this has nothing to do with any rich/poor divide. 2. A corollary hypothesis is that the reason why spices, even in European recipes before the 20th century, were so abundantly used (often to the point that modern people who recreate the recipes find it off-putting) was that all meat has a certain off-flavor without modern techniques.

I think this item should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.232.137 (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The section refers to covering up off-flavours before refrigeration was available. It doesn't exactly say the misconception refers to hot climate cultures. I believe the misconception is meant to refer to both cold and hot climates. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "the actual hypothesis". The current section doesn't talk about climate or why Norwegian food is bland and Indian is spicy. In any case, the correlation is not strong: most Brazilian (except Bahia) and Kenyan food is not spicy; medieval European court food was spicy, some Korean food is very spicy.

The notion that "all meat has a certain off-flavor without modern techniques" is strange. People have eaten meat world-wide without spices throughout history, and Indian vegetarian cuisine can be very spicy.

In any case, we have good reliable sources backing up this item. --Macrakis (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Sleep

"[T]he popular expectation that short sleep is correlated with short life span and long sleep with greater longevity is not supported by the existing literature." [5] Benjamin (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a widely held misconception. The source is criticizing the writing of one Matthew Walker. For all we know, Walker is the only one with that misconception. _signed, Willondon (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

(To be clear, the actual source is the Encyclopedia of Sleep, I just used that link for convenience, and because that's where I saw it.) Benjamin (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I see. So the Encyclopedia of Sleep is quoted as saying: "[T]he popular expectation that short sleep is correlated with short life span and long sleep with greater longevity is not supported by the existing literature." I didn't know it was a popular expectation. I'd never heard of it, myself (I may have been asleep). _signed, Willondon (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Canines

[6] "A new study, published last week in the journal "Science" is putting a popular misconception about canines to rest." [7] Benjamin (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Baked potato

Despite the popular misconception that potatoes are fattening, baked potatoes can be part of a healthy diet.[2] Benjamin (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Political animosity

[8] "political animosity may be based particularly on partisans’ overestimation of the prevalence of extreme, egregious views held by only a minority of opponents but imagined to be widespread" Benjamin (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Spelling

Was to wasn't under the 'spinach' section 41.90.69.246 (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"was" appears to me to be the correct word. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Beach Boys entry

The parent article states "A common misconception is that Dennis' drumming in the Beach Boys' recordings was filled in exclusively by studio musicians." In the (recently removed) entry for this page, this was expanded to "The Beach Boys were not always replaced by session musicians on the backing tracks for their early studio recordings." i.e. not just the drummer but the entire band. This is unsupported by the cited source. Neither is the assertion that "The band members played on virtually all of their hits from the early 1960s."

Not only does it fail the inclusion criteria by not being mentioned in the parent article, but it makes claims that are not supported by the cited source.

The takeaway from the reliable sources is that The Beach Boys relied extensively, but not exclusively, on session musicians (i.e. The Wrecking Crew), especially in their later recordings. I don't know if there is a common misconception about the entire band being replaced by session musicians in their earlier recordings, but the cited references do not back this up. I was unaware until now of the misconception about the drummer, but I suppose it would meet the inclusion criteria if the entry was modified to include only the drummer, but I'm skeptical of whether such an entry would be sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm personally unfamiliar with this misconception (which doesn't mean it isn't a misconception, I just can't comment one way or the other) about the Beach Boys always being replaced by session musicians, and the source does not say that it's a common misconception that the Beach Boys were always replaced by session musicians, only that it's a common misconception that the drummer Dennis was always replaced by session musician Hal Blaine:

"Always overshadowed by brothers Brian and Carl, drummer Dennis fell victim to the common misconception that session player Hal Blaine manned the skins exclusively in the studio at Brian's behest. In actuality, Dennis made sporadic but dramatic contributions during even Brian's creative peak, steering the group towards surfing culture and nurturing rough-hewn musical talents before drowning off the shore of Marina del Ray in 1983 at 39."

That doesn't mean it isn't a common misconception that all of the Beach Boys were always replaced by session musicians, but this source does not support that claim. There's a whole other discussion about whether the proposed entry meets the general inclusion criteria for the page, but that's moot until there's actually a source to support the entry. We're certainly not including the entry, as is, without sources. Joe (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed someone restored this entry. I'm removing it, pending some explanation and consensus here on the talk page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

From source: "The Beach Boys were primarily vocalists rather than instrumentalists (Carl Wilson’s skill with the electric guitar was a notable exception), but they did hold their own as studio musicians. However, fans and critics have perpetuated the idea over the years that the band stopped playing their own instruments in the recording studio. While this was largely true for Pet Sounds and Smile, most of the band played instruments on every preceding album." ili (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Where, exactly, does the source claim that many people think "...The Beach Boys were replaced by session musicians for the backing tracks on all of their studio recordings." ?

My understanding is that the reliable sources state that the Beach Boys used session musicians extensively but not exclusively. i.e. the truth is a bit more complicated and nuanced than the entry makes it sound. I suppose it's time to do a RFC. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of reliable sourced citations to support the claims made in the entry I'm removing it. Perhaps there is some rewording of the entry that would pass muster and perhaps we could reach consensus about that here on the talk page, but until then the entry should remain unpublished.

I've re-read the parent article and the "misconception" is not included. I've also re-read some of the source material, including the 22 page chapter of "The Wrecking Crew" that details the Beach Boys extensive usage of session musicians, and the entry is at variance with both the parent article and the source material. The best I can say is that it's a bit complicated and the historical record is somewhat unclear (there are payroll records of the union session musicians, but not of band members). This is exactly the sort of "gray area" that this article should avoid. I'm removing it again. Please wait for consensus to develop here on the talk page before restoring. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"However, fans and critics have perpetuated the idea over the years that the band stopped playing their own instruments in the recording studio." It says right there that Common Misconception = Band Was Replaced By Session Musicians On Record. That line is followed by a nuanced explanation indicating that Truth = Band Was Not Entirely Replaced By Session Musicians On Record. Do we really need an RfC for this? ili (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We need consensus to include the entry. I'm not seeing that. Perhaps an RfC is the way to establish that.

My very strong sense is that this article should studiously avoid matters that are shades of gray, like this one. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This is hardly a "gray area". I have found a source that explains the situation better than others:

Conventional wisdom has told us for decades that after the early days of garage rock and surf jams, the Beach Boys became a vocals-only entity. Respected journalists have insisted for years that following their first couple of hits, Brian [Wilson] hired the best musicians in L.A. to play the instruments on Beach Boys recordings. He'd arrange, record produce, and then at the last minute the other guys would add their vocals, and voila...another Beach Boys release hit the record racks. This is largely a myth, but one with a nuanced vein of truth.

First off, the group's initial four LPs [...] are virtually self-contained efforts. [...] All of the lazy clip-job journalism, anecal quips, and revisionist propaganda that insist session musicians were dominating these early tunes is complete hogwash, and has been thoroughly debunked. [...] Other than the few exceptions above [omitted for brevity], the Beach Boys play all of the instruments heard on their first four albums, and their first five singles.

The myth-defying fact that the Beach Boys largely played their own instruments in the studio does not end after album four. In fact, on their next two studio LPs, released in 1964, [...] the Beach Boys again played the vast majority of the instruments. On two LPs released in 1965, [...] Brian significantly increased his use of studio professionals, but still the Beach Boys continued to play the instruments on many of the key tracks and single releases. The very first Beach Boys LP to feature session players on nearly every track was Brian's 1966 masterpiece Pet Sounds. He continued with this session-player-dominated recording method [until] 1967.

TL;DR:

The Wrecking Crew did not play on many Beach Boys' albums and singles in the 1960s. The vast majority of those recordings featured the Beach Boys playing their own instruments, with the only notable exceptions being Pet Sounds and Smile.

Very straightforward, and verified by the relevant session documentation. The Beach Boys retained many of their full session recording reels, which have been dissected to hell and back, and the players heard on those recordings often contradict the AFM documentation mentioned in The Wrecking Crew, as well as the recollections of the Wrecking Crew players themselves. That book should not be considered an authoritative source; it's just another reason why the misconception continues to take hold. For example, one of the Wrecking Crew players, Carol Kaye, is well-known for propagating a myth that she played the verse bass part in "Good Vibrations", even though the audio documentation indicates that she was not present at that particular session, as well as the parts that were played by James Jamerson on many Motown records (more info about that here). If there are still objections to this entry, then I will open an RfC. ili (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree that this material seems to be in conflict with the material presented in the book "The Wrecking Crew". Which do we accept as historically accurate? My take is that until there's clear consensus to accept one or the other we leave it out of this page. And the proper venue for that discussion is the talk page on the parent article, not here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC here. Cheers. ili (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

We've been at this for a while now. By way of compromise, I might not object to an entry with this or similar language:

The members of the Beach Boys were not replaced by studio musicians. While Pet Sounds and Smile were recorded with only studio musicians playing the instruments, all their other recordings utilized band members for the instrumentals backing, sometimes with additional musicians, and sometimes without.

Of course, pending the provision of reliable sources to support the claims. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish: That doesn't really work because there is no "popular misconception" that the Beach Boys were replaced by studio musicians. The misconception lies in when and how frequently it happened. And they did play their own instruments on several tracks from Pet Sounds and Smile. Since I've opened the RfC, I've found another reliable source that goes into excruciating detail about the myth. It should be enough to justify the edit I made yesterday. ili (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish: Here's my proposal:

The Beach Boys were not replaced on record by the Wrecking Crew after the early 1960s. The band members played most of the instrumentation heard on the albums that preceded The Beach Boys Today! (1965). Much of the relevant documentation, while accounting for the attendance of unionized session players, had failed to record the presence of the Beach Boys themselves. Overall, the Beach Boys played on the vast majority of their records between 1963 and 1967, sometimes with additional musicians, and sometimes without.

References

If there are no objections then I will add the entry to the list and withdraw the RfC. ili (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not acceptable. I would suggest working with the editors over at the parent article to arrive at some consensus regarding the Beach Boys use of studio musicians. The focus should be on an NPOV balanced treatment of the relevant reliable sources rather than focused on whether there are misconceptions about the subject. That said, if that treatment includes some reliably sourced common misconception that is accepted by the editors there then we can consider including it here. But until a stable consensus us reached at the parent article regarding any alleged misconception(s) it fails the inclusion criteria here.

I would also suggest making any proposed changes in your sandbox and asking for comment rather than editing the article itself. I think you will find more success that way. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception

"The Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not state that Jesus or his mother Mary was born to a virgin" - however, Christianity does teach that Jesus was born to a virgin, and this sentence might be misconstrued to state that it does not. I suggest modifying the entry to "The Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers to conception of Mary, not Jesus. It does not state that Mary was born to a virgin." Вечный подмастерье (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That might be its implication, but it does not formally state it. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that the article is about misconceptions, one has to be particularly careful with formulations. What can be misread, will be misread. And there is a viable alternative removing ambiguity, as suggested above. Вечный подмастерье (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yup, but the point is that the dogma takes for granted that Jesus is born of a virgin, but does not explicitly state it. So, the misunderstanding is that the dogma itself states that Jesus was born of a virgin. Of course, it does not deny it. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

True, but this is covered in my proposed edit above. Вечный подмастерье (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Here we don't write personal opinions, we follow the WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with personal opinions at all. If the suggestion above contradicts reliable sources, please show in what way it does. By the way, in some languages virgin birth of Jesus is called "immaculate conception" as well, so they add a qualifier - "Immaculate Conception of Mary", "Immaculate Conception of Jesus" - in order to distinguish between the two. Вечный подмастерье (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

BBC lists two misconceptions: that it would be about Jesus instead of Mary and that it would postulate that Mary was born of a virgin. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

And how does that contradict what I'm suggesting in the opening post? 93.73.63.191 (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

So, yeah, the proposed text is all right, I was responding to your other argument. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Job insecurity

[9] "There is a widespread belief that work is less secure than in the past..." Benjamin (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

What's the parent article and does it treat this material? Mr. Swordfish (talk)`3

Divorce rates

The idea that "half of all marriages end in divorce" is a misconception - in the US at least, divorce rates have never reached 50 percent and have gone down since their peak of around 41 percent in the 1970s and 1980s

Sounds interesting, but divorce does not seem to mention that. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 02:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolute pitch

@JoePhin: I agree that your wording is more faithful to the source, but at this point, it's not clear to me what the "misconception" is. --Macrakis (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what the misconception is, exactly, other than maybe "only 1 in 10,000 people have absolute pitch" with the number 10,000 specifically. I don't have access to some of the sources, so if one of them says that's the misconception, I don't know. The misconception definitely isn't "absolute pitch isn't rare," I mean, if absolute pitch occurs at a rate of 1 in 100 or 1 in 10,000, it's pretty rare either way. How do you think we should treat it? Joe (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no misconception here, partly because "rare" is such a vague term. It's true that 1/10,000 gets thrown around a lot, but if it turns out that the correct number is 1/1000, can we say that 1/10,000 is a misconception?

I say remove the item. --Macrakis (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur. If I saw a source that specifically said the "1/10,000" thing was the common misconception, I'd say we could put it back in and be more speicifc about it, but otherwise, the "rarity" of absolute pitch isn't a common misconception, since absolute pitch is rare. I'll remove it. Joe (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

'Girls mature faster than boys'

On the subject of brain development among other things, I would also wonder if this is worth tackling. It is also often very commonly stated that girls mature faster than boys, usually by about two years and usually on the subject of puberty, socioemotional development, or brain development. While it is somewhat true that the onset of puberty and its ending is slightly earlier in females than males, it is not at all a sharp contrast and I have not seen an empirical consensus that girls mature faster than boys when it comes to matters involving the brain. In fact, Most data I've looked at suggests that they reach adult levels in functioning at roughly the same ages. This has often been seen historically where the age of certain legal rights were granted for girls at 12 and boys at 14, or for girls at 14 and guys at 16, and of course girls at 16 and guys at 18. A 14 year old boy is obviously further along in puberty/brain development than a 12 year old girl, so I'm not exactly sure where this neurological folk wisdom arose from. Is it worth a mention?2603:7080:A500:7F3C:C4BC:F7DC:E067:CED7 (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Brain development, age 21, 25, 30? Should it be considered a common misconception.

It is commonly claimed the brain is only fully developed by 25 or 21. However, in recent years, there has been growing amounts of evidence contrary to the claim and many mainstream articles now claim that the brain (specifically the frontal lobe) doesn't reach adulthood until at least 30 or sometimes greater. The claim is copy + pasted (seemingly regurgitated) on a lot of major university websites most often without a source. If this is truly a myth, this presents a potential serious problem if mainstream websites and articles are propagating something that may not be entirely based in reality. A lot of research in recent years shows that brain development continues well into the thirties and forties involving the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that is responsible for impulse control.

I was able to include an article briefly discussing the myth of the brain finishing development at 21 (likely originating from G. Stanley Hall's book Adolescence as well as justification for American drinking laws, but I could not find an article talking exclusively about the myth of the brain fully developing at 25, despite being able to find counter evidence and data everywhere online. This is an important topic to me because it was recently used to justify limiting transgender healthcare to people under the age of 25 in Missouri, but it may also impact how we view youth/young adults and their ability to handle legal responsibilities such as tobacco, firearms, alcohol, driver's licenses, and much more. It seems to be setting a very dangerous precedent and I would like for there to be some healthy discourse on the subject considering its common citation (often without a true source) on social media.

I believe if this is tackled, it will potentially lead to people being slightly less misinformed. Many people read Wikipedia, and this page in particular is viewed by many. I hope for this to be discussed further and to see if something can be done on the matter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:A500:7F3C:C4BC:F7DC:E067:CED7 (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

My take is that we should studiously avoid entries that involve ongoing evolving research, gray areas, or where the full story would begin with "Well, it's complicated..." This would appear to be one of them. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Black

[10] Apparently average Briton overestimates black share of the population by 7 times. Still need to find a link to the actual poll. Benjamin (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Didn't we just do this a month or so ago?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_25#Size_of_minority_groups Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Retraction

In another thread I opined that the article would be improved if about 50% of the entries were removed. Today I read the entire article from start to finish, and think almost all the entries are solid. Perhaps 5% are candidates for removal and another 5 to 10% in need of some refinement. So, I"m retracting the previous comment. The article is long, and probably too long for very many people to read from beginning to end in one sitting like I did, but it's pretty solid overall. I guess I became jaded by all the proposed entries that failed to make it into the article. With only a few exceptions everything is worth keeping.

I'll have more to say about the few entries that may be "problematic", but each entry deserves it's own talk section so I won't elaborate here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You're an honorable and true editor Mr Swordfish. Love you! I could probably believe that 5% of the entries need pruning, and selection is definitely an important aspect of curation. We should go through and improve/remove anything that isn't up to snuff. Joe (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Opossums and ticks

This entry seems to be problematic. One parent article opossum treats the tick diet as a matter of ongoing research where the sources are contradictory, another Virginia opossum, which is about the specific species which may or may not eat a bunch of ticks, only includes the pro-tick-diet side. Seems to me that it is premature for us to come down on one side of the other while the controversy is still being debated at the various parent sites. The anti- side seems to have more reliable sourcing (published peer-reviewed article) but it's just one article. My take is to stand aside until the controversy is resolved by editors who are more familiar with the material than I am. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It seems inconclusive, and at the risk of injecting OR into this, just based on what I've heard on the internet, I don't think the commonly repeated claim is that "opossums eat ticks in the wild," but rather, that "opossums eat ticks," which they may in fact do in captivity. Possibly inappropriate OR aside, it's still inconclusive, and I'd be happy to remove this entry for the time being. Joe (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Mondegreens

• Bernie Taupin did not write and Elton John did not sing "Hold me closer Tony Danza. Count the head lice on the highway."

• The J. Geils Band did not sing "My anus is my centerhole".

• Hotel California does not start with "On a dark dessert highway, cool whip in my hair".

Yet many people think these are the lyrics. Is this a misconception? I think a good argument can be made that it is; it's certainly a related topic. Now, I'm not suggesting that we add a bunch of these to this article, but I do think its worth a link to the related page that covers this material. So I'm restoring that See also link. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Mondegreens clearly are misconceptions, and if we had the RS to back up that a specific mondegreen was a common misconception, I'd be happy to add an entry. Linking to the mondegreen page is appropriate. Joe (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Length of entries on this page

I was looking through the Talk page archives and came across this statement from ten years ago (2012):

The entries on this page are supposed to have an article of their own, and that's the place to elaborate; this article is best when the entries are short synopses rather than the definitive exposition on the subject.

I've always adhered to that idea when editing this page, but it's not stated anywhere in the inclusion criteria or elsewhere in the heading.

Comments regarding this idea? Any support for adding it to the the heading? Thanks.

FULL DISCLOSURE: the comment was mine, but it seemed to be received enthusiastically at the time. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I would support that. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I would not support making that a hard and fast rule. If, in order to fully explain a concept, you only need a few words, e.g.

• Infants can and do feel pain.

then that's fine. But if we were to just say

• The Nazi salute was not used in ancient Rome.

instead of

• The Roman salute, in which the arm is fully extended forwards or diagonally with palm down and fingers touching, was not used in ancient Rome. The gesture was first associated with ancient Rome in the 1784 painting The Oath of the Horatii by the French artist Jacques-Louis David, which inspired later salutes, most notably the Nazi salute.

That would be terrible. Not only is the context important for many of these entries, it is also nice not to have to read through a huge article to find the context for a statement on this page. Anyone reading this page is likely to disagree with many of the entries, we must give some explanation for some of the more complex ones. Also, I fear such a rule might exclude too many important misconceptions which cannot be boiled down to some arbitrary standard of shortness.

Also, Mr Swordfish, didn't you once chastise me for adding an entry that didn't give enough context? Didn't we resolve that by adding the full context? Perhaps I'm misremembering.

I oppose making this an inclusion criteria, but outside of making it a rule, I'm happy to agree that brevity is good, doubly so for a big page like this, and we should all strive for brevity when we add something (my own most recent entry was 16 words long) and, if Barkis is willing, we could go through on a case-by-case basis and try to shorten where we can. Although, that said, I'm not sure that will have much of an effect. Whether it's because brevity is an unspoken rule on all of Wikipedia, or because the editors like Mr Swordfish and myself who watch this page try to trim things when they get added if they can be trimmed, I think most of the entries are already individually about as long as they should be to get the point across. I'm sure there are some exceptions though. Joe (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Somewhere between "not enough" and "too much" is just right. I think most of the entries currently get it right. There are some that go into extraneous detail and would benefit from trimming. Perhaps this is best discussed on an entry-by-entry basis. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No physical test for virginity

We have an entry which states that "There is no physical test for virginity..." to which I have to beg to differ. There are probably dozens of tests, including checking to see if someone is pregnant. The existence of rape kits also seems to badly contradict the idea that there are no physical tests for virginity. What happens when you go to the police and say, "I've been raped!" Do they just say, "Sorry, there's no physical tests to determine if sexual intercourse has occurred or not, unless you've got a video we can't do anything one way or the other."

The fact that tests for virginity may not be perfectly reliable is a far cry from there being no tests for virginity. This is like saying there are no tests to determine if someone is dead, because sometimes when you run a test to check if someone is dead, you might come back with the wrong answer 0.1% of the time. I say, we should either remove or substantially alter this entry. Joe (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There are certainly tests to determine if a woman has recently engaged in penis-in-vagina intercourse. But there are no tests to conclusively prove that she has never engaged in it. Or to prove that she has; pregnancy may imply that she has, but it is also possible to become pregnant through other means.

See Virginity_test for more details on this archaic non-scientific misogynist practice. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the entry with text from the Virginity test page, plus some misc. copyediting, an archived link to one of the sources we were already using, etc. Joe (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sot sure you got the point about detecting recent intercourse vs virginity i.e. never ever. As Rape_investigation#Passage_of_time states, evidence degrades over time so it is impossible to declare never. I'll take a shot at revising the entry avoid language that may be confusing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I've edited the entry to make it more clearly address the topic at hand: virginity tests. I don't think the second part of the entry about forensic rape kits is relevant, but am leaving it in for now. Would like to hear other editors' opinions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm mostly happy with your edit, although forensic evidence of sexual intercourse is not limited to the recent. Indeed, evidence of sexual intercourse in humans and other organisms can be so long-lasting that it persists after death for literally millions of years, and the sexual activity of hundreds of historical figures has been confirmed through genetic testing. However, my main concern was the presence of a categorically false statement, "There is no physical test for virginity" and that's dealt with now. We don't want any misinformation on this page - if we're perpetuating misconceptions about rape on a page about common misconceptions, the credibility of the entire article is damaged.

I sincerely hope no one read that statement and, as a later consequence, decided not to go to the police because they sincerely believed there were no physical tests to determine whether sexual intercourse had occurred. Joe (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't the time to write a full response so here's the short version:

• Pregnancy can occur without penis-in-vagina (PIV) sex. Semen need only contact the vulva.
• Sex (and thus virginity) is not limited to PIV.
• Rape is not just PIV. (1) Objects, fingers, mouths, and other body parts penetrating the vagina or anus or (2) penetration of the mouth with the genitalia without consent is rape.
• Evidence kits collected by Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners do not focus on PIV assaults. Evidence is collected from the mouth, anus, fingers, etc as well.
• Are children victims of PIV rape not "virgins"?

Et cetera... EvergreenFir (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

As discussed above, various forensic analyses can determine whether sexual intercourse did or did not occur, and not just in the case of rape. It doesn't really matter how you want to define "sex," the occurrence of all kinds of sex can be determined hours, days, weeks, months, decades, centuries, and sometimes, eons after the act. We know for a scientific fact that Genghis Khan was not a virgin, and there are (as it turns out many) physical tests for sexual intercourse. As long as we're clear about that on the page, I'm happy. Joe (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

(And when I say, 'as long as we're clear about that,' I specifically mean clear about physical tests, not the non-virginity of Genghis Khan. I phrased that a little oddly. Joe (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC))

• CNN: "As doctors and scientists will tell you, there is no test or exam that can reliably and accurately determine whether a girl or a woman has had sex – and consequently assess whether she’s a “virgin.”
• New York Times: "There is no exam to verify virginity, medical experts say, and the attempt violates a woman’s rights."
• National Library of Medicine: "There is no physical sign that indicates the virginity of a woman: in fact, no physical examination will be able to evaluate the virginity of a human being, man or woman."
• The Atlantic: The World Health Organization is clear: “There is no scientific merit to, or clinical indication for ‘virginity testing’ or to a ‘virginity examination.’”

• Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health: "Despite medical evidence that there is no scientifically reliable way to determine virginity, misconceptions about the hymen and its supposed association with sexual history persist and lead to unethical practices like virginity testing, certificate of virginity or hymenoplasty, which can be detrimental to the health and well-being of females of all ages."

• PublicHealthPost: "There is no test to determine if a woman is a “virgin,” yet “virginity testing” still occurs."

Granted, there are tests that can determine that someone is not a virgin, but the scientific consensus is that there is no test to prove that someone is. I don't know where you are getting the idea that there is such a test. Perhaps you could link to a reliable source that makes that claim. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A test to determine if someone is a bachelor is, by definition, a test to see if someone is married, and vice-versa. You can't test for 'bachelor' without simultaneously testing for 'married' because, using the google definition, a bachelor is "a man who is not and has never been married."

A test for virginity is, by definition, a test for sexual intercourse, and vice-versa. You can't test for 'virgin' without simultaneously testing for 'sexual intercourse' because, using the google definition, virginity is "the state of never having had sexual intercourse."

Is it possible to test to see if someone is a bachelor? If one answers "yes," then one would have to answer the same way for virginity, if one wanted to stay consistent.

Of course, it's difficult to prove a negative (and bachelorhood and virginity, being the state of not ever having been married or having had sex, respectively, are both negative). But it is possible to test for negatives, and it's possible to have evidence which supports the negative claim that someone is a bachelor or a virgin. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but an overwhelming preponderance of absent evidence can be suggestive of absence, and depending on your probability threshold for when you start to lack belief in a positive phenomenon, you can absolutely have a scientific standard at which you are willing to say that it is reasonably likely someone never got married or never had sex.

"Tests for" and "definitive irrevocable proof of" are not the same thing. If the original entry had said "There is no definitive irrevocable proof of virginity..." rather than "There is no physical test for virginity..." then I wouldn't have objected to it on the grounds that it was untrue (though, admittedly, I would've had other objections to that phrasing), because there's no definitive irrevocable proof of any empirical claim. But you can test for something without definitively and irrevocably proving it. In empirical science, no test is definitive, not even for philosophically easier positive claims like "you are married" or "you had sex." In science, there are only ever probabilities, if you want proofs, you'll have to see a mathematician.

To sum up, the claim that "there are no physical tests for virginity" is wrong because:

1) There are in fact many tests for sexual intercourse, which are also tests for virginity by definition

2) Depending on your threshold for what counts as 'reasonably likely,' there is a reasonable scientific standard by which you could assert that something is likely a virgin, despite the fact that it's a negative claim.

Imagine you just helped give birth to a kitten and, holding it in your hand, you declared, "This kitten is a virgin, and also a bachelor, since it seems very unlikely that it could've had sex or gotten married at any point in its life" and someone pops up from a nearby bush to say, "But how do you even know the universe exists!? For all you know, extra-dimensional aliens just stopped time, had sex with the kitten, married it to a goat, and then left without a trace while you were none the wiser! There's no physical test you can perform to prove my hypothesis wrong, therefore it's impossible to prove that kitten is a virgin!" So too with bachelors, so too with the non-existence of god, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, angels, unicorns, leprechauns, etc., so too with any negative claim. If someone wanted to add an entry which said, "There is no test for bachelorhood," I'd take equal umbrage. Joe (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You have not provided a single reliable source that establishes a medically or scientifically valid virginity test exists. Meanwhile there are multiple very reliable sources stating clearly that it does not.

The original research and synthesis above may persuade you that the reliable sources are wrong about this and you are entitled to that opinion. But that's not how we edit articles here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I am offended by your imputation of OR. Not only did I supply several sources during this exchange, but my assertions of basic logic do not constitute original research. See Wikipedia:Inaccuracy and WP:NOTOR, specifically the part about WP:CK and basic logic. If a source makes a claim which is simply false as a matter of common sense, basic math, or basic logic, it isn't reliable. You could present a dozen sources saying that 2 + 2 = 5, but they wouldn't be reliable by definition, and 2 + 2 would still not equal 5. Take this CNN quote you provided: "As doctors and scientists will tell you, there is no test or exam that can reliably and accurately determine whether a girl or a woman has had sex"

Mr Swordfish, you yourself have stated that this is not true:

"Granted, there are tests that can determine that someone is not a virgin" -Mr Swordfish, 2022

Look, it's quite simple: my objection was to the (now removed) statement that there are "no physical tests" for virginity - a statement, I might note, which does not appear anywhere on the Virginity test page. Why is this statement false? I said it in my first post in this section: testing to see if someone is pregnant, or if they have biological children, is an excellent test to see if someone is a virgin. Slightly more than 1% of births in the US are the result of in vitro fertilization. In 2012 it was estimated that five million children had been born worldwide using IVF and other assisted reproduction techniques. Ignoring the fact that plenty of women who undergo IVF are not virgins, that means that less than 2% of births in the US could be virgin births. That means that testing to see if someone is pregnant, or has biological children, is an extremely effective test for virginity, and the statement "there is no test or exam that can reliably and accurately determine whether a girl or a woman has had sex" is false. Also, the effectiveness of such a test goes up to essentially 100% if you're examining an area of the world where IVF is rare, or a period in history when it didn't occur (unless you believe in parthenogenetic women). And further, testing to see if someone is/was pregnant or has biological children is hardly the only such test. I remind everyone again that rape kits not only exist, but they are extremely reliable. Courts, using a strict standard of evidence, often make convictions beyond a reasonable doubt based on the results of evidence gathered during rape investigations using forensic techniques which, to quote CNN, "reliably and accurately determine whether a girl or a woman has had sex"

The statement "there are no physical tests for virginity" is false. The statement "some tests for virginity are unreliable and unscientific" is true. The statement "there are definitive tests for virginity, a la rape kits, genetic testing, pregnancy in 99-100% of cases, testing to see if someone has STDs (and testing suspected sexual partners to see if they have the exact same strain), watching a video which purportedly shows a specific individual having sex, literally just watching someone have sex with your own two eyes in person, etc., etc." is also true.

It is not OR to make a common sense observation, nor is it OR to state a logical tautology like "bachelors are not married." If you take objection to a particular claim I made, please let me know, and if it isn't already adequately sourced, I will happily furnish you with the appropriate materials. Of course, this discussion is literally academic at this point: I'm happy with your last edit to the virginity testing entry, and we're using text from the virginity testing page, which is what we should've been doing in any case. I reiterate that I'm happy with the current incarnation of the entry. Joe (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current entry with text from the Virginity test page, BTW. Joe (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Caffeine is not dehydrating?

This is not treated as a misconception in the parent article caffeine. That article is based on the peer-reviewed paper http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eed2/f05d587dee338a73bf068eeb328ab2553b06.pdf which states:

Results The available literature suggests that acute ingestion of caffeine in large doses (at least 250–300 mg, equivalent to the amount found in 2–3 cups of coffee or 5–8 cups of tea) results in a short-term stimulation of urine output in individuals who have been deprived of caffeine for a period of days or weeks. A profound tolerance to the diuretic and other effects of caffeine develops, however, and the actions are much diminished in individuals who regularly consume tea or coffee. Doses of caffeine equivalent to the amount normally found in standard servings of tea, coffee and carbonated soft drinks appear to have no diuretic action.
Conclusion The most ecologically valid of the published studies offers no support for the suggestion that consumption of caffeine- containing beverages as part of a normal lifestyle leads to fluid loss in excess of the volume ingested or is associated with poor hydration status. Therefore, there would appear to be no clear basis for refraining from caffeine containing drinks in situations where fluid

balance might be compromised.

This entry needs to be revised to reflect the source material. I'll take a stab. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"Blind people see all dark"

There is definitely a popular conception that blind people "see" only complete darkness, but this is not necessarily true. Some totally blind people perceive colorful hallucinations with different geometric shapes, while others, especially those who are blind from birth, have no visual stimuli at all, something which may be difficult to comprehend for a sighted person.

Unfortunately, visual impairment does not seem to mention any of this.

Those may be some good reads:

• https://www.thoughtco.com/what-do-blind-people-see-4153577
• https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-ouch-31487662

- Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 20:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the parent article does not mention this or have words to the effect that it is a common erroneous belief, the place to argue for including that material would be the talk page for that article, not here. As it stands, the proposed entry does not meet the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Ye, Mr Swordfish is right, this is another "pink hippo milk" thing where we have to add it to the page first and make sure the other editors accept it. I have to look through the sources first, but I assume you've done your due diligence Munmula, so it probably belongs on those pages. I'll try to read through and see if I can help later. Joe (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Since this time the parent article is not a featured one, additions to it would be hardly met with the same opposition. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 05:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Pentecostalism entry.

Okay, I had added an entry under the Christianity section talking about, (at least from my research and personal experience) about many people having a common misconception about Pentecostals, thinking that they believe speaking in tongues is mandatory or required to be a Christian, because I've seen a lot of news and religious articles online, and I have talked to a lot of people who mistakenly think that way, which was the reason why I referenced that article from MassLive. The entry said, "Pentecostal Christians do not believe that glossolalia, or speaking in tongues, is required to be a Christian. Many people falsely assume because most Pentecostal and Charismatic churches and denominations teach about speaking in tongues being a sign of evidence of receiving the baptism with the Holy Spirit, that all Pentecostals teach speaking in tongues is required to be a Christian. To the contrary, because Pentecostalism is moreso a religious movement made up of many denominations and sects, many Pentecostal denominations and churches take various stances on speaking in tongues and most Pentecostal denominations and churches believe that it is a spiritual gift (regardless of whether they teach its temporary, for a one-time experience only, or permanent) that is given to someone as a sign to confirm their spiritual experience of being filled with the Holy Spirit, but they do not believe it is required or mandatory to be a Christian, nor do they believe it is required or mandatory to be a Pentecostal Christian specifically. Most Pentecostal denominations and churches have their own diverse stances and perspectives on speaking in tongues, but most do not teach that it is required to be a Christian nor do they teach that it's mandatory to be considered as “filled with the Holy Spirit."" However another editor removed the entry because they felt like it wasn't a common enough entry to be included. So I'm welcome to discuss with anyone if this entry should continue to stay deleted, or if it should be included and reinstated. I will also try to look up and include the articles and websites that I found that talk about common misconceptions about Pentecostalism as well, because I do think this misconception should be included in the list. IntellectualChristianWikiUser (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Please review the inclusion criteria listed at the top of this Talk page:

Inclusion Criteria

A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list has not been reached, but any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following:

1. The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.
2. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
3. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
4. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.

If you propose an entry that does not fulfill these criteria but you still think should be included, please include your rationale for inclusion.

I'm not seeing where this is mentioned in the topic article. Perhaps you could point out where it might be found. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, @IntellectualChristianWikiUser:, are you sure this is a common misconception outside of certain North American religious contexts? I've never heard of this idea personally, and I'm not sure most people know what Pentecostalism is, much less whether Pentecostals believe speaking in tongues is a requirement to be a Christian. The fact that I've never heard of this misconception doesn't mean it isn't a common misconception, but if we do add it in at some point, would you consider adding a clause to the effect that it is a common misconception within a certain context, among certain people, etc., something like that?

Anyway, neither Mr Swordfish or I can find a spot where this misconception is mentioned as such on another Wikipedia page, and that is a requirement for inclusion on this page. If we're just missing it, would you please point it out to us? Alternatively, if it is not mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia as a common misconception, you might consider adding it to another page, waiting to make sure the editors on the other page accept it, and then coming back to add it here. That's fine, so long as your edits to the other page are accepted by the other editors. I usually like to wait a week or so, to make sure other editors get a chance to review edits on other pages, before transcluding them here.

I'm still not sure this is a common misconception, but I could be wrong. Joe (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Homeopathy as "natural medicine"

I propose adding the following entry:

Homeopathy is not necessarily alternative medicine based on "natural" or "plant-based" medication, but rather alternative medicine based on the "like cures like" principle, and its medicines can be either natural or synthetic.

The article does mention that people think natural products are the basis of homeopathic preparations, and that homeopathic medication can come from plant, animal or synthetic sources. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 19:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that the main misconception about homeopathy is that it actually works. The parent article is quite clear about this. And while it doesn't come right out and say it's commonly believed, I don't think it's much of a stretch to read it as clearly implying that a lot of people believe in it establishing it as a common misconception. I'm not sure how many people think the preparations are all "natural" or "plant-based" as opposed to synthetic, but presenting that as the misconception seems to miss the broader point.

That said, we don't include every psudoscience topic in this article and I'm not inclined to start including them now. For one, there are too many of them and including them all here would bloat the article, and two, there already is a page listing those topics: List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience. I would however support providing a link at the top of the Science section in addition to the link in the See also section. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that Munmula's suggested entry is, in fact, a common misconception, and it's also a misconception that homeopathy works. I think we should include it, or something like it, and if we are including an entry about how homeopathy isn't just "natural cures," but specifically, a thing you do where you dilute a bunch of stuff down to the point where you don't have any of it left specifically for the purpose of curing something which the stuff you diluted causes (lol, I'm reading about homeopathy now and it is mind-bendingly stupid, how do people believe this shit?) - while we're mentioning that as a misconception, we may as well also mention that it's a misconception that homeopathy works at all. We don't need to include literally every pseudoscience on this page (mainly because some of them, like say phrenology, aren't common misconceptions), but if we already have an entry about homeopathy, we may as well add in that homeopathy doesn't work. Both statements (the thing about "natural cures" and also just that homeopathy doesn't work) are quite adequately sourced, it looks like. Joe (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

If the belief in any pseudoscience/conspiracy theory/bullshit in general is to be considered a misconception, then we should add the beliefs in things like Flat Earth, Moon landing hoaxes, palmistry etc. to the list because there are substantial amounts of people who believe them. But, of course, those belong to other lists such as the aforementioned. We should establish a clearer distinction -- it seems to me that this list only includes misconceptions one would not insist in after being presented the explanation, or, in other words, misconceptions people do not choose to believe.

I think the answer to your question as to why people believe in homeopathy is precisely because they think it is just "natural medicine" as opposed to the evil allopathy promoted by Big Pharma. Many people will advocate homeopathy without even learning about it and knowing what it actually is. And this all stems from the misconception that homeopathy is "natural medicine" or the same as naturopathy. If one believes this and reads that homeopathy is a pseudoscience, they may be inclined to think that all medication originating from natural sources is ineffective, which is not necessarily true (that would be a reverse appeal to nature fallacy). This is why I think we should add this entry. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 05:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Are flat-earth theories and moon landing hoax theories common? I hope not, and I don't think so, though I'm not sure one way or the other. Do we have sources saying those things are common? Maybe if we had sources saying they were common beliefs, definitely not otherwise. Joe (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

From Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories :

Opinion polls taken in various locations have shown that between 6% and 20% of Americans, 25% of Britons, and 28% of Russians surveyed believe that the crewed landings were faked.

From https://www.gallup-international.bg/en/40990/how-many-people-believe-in-flat-earth-and-everything/ :

...8 per cent agree with the statement “The planet Earth is flat and what is everywhere written that it has a form close to a sphere is untrue”. The rest struggle with answer. 74 per cent agree that people had stepped on the Moon, 9 per cent disagree while the rest are hesitant.

So, yes both these beliefs are common. I think if you drill down and follow the entries on the list of psudosciences you'll find some support that almost all many, if not most, of these beliefs are "common", at least for some values of "common".

So, do we add them all? Some select few? If only a few, how do we go about deciding which ones to add? My preference is to be highly selective, but I can't state a clear criteria for what to include and what not to. I don't think repeating dozens of entries from the list of psudosciences articles will improve this one. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I say, if someone wants to write up a moon landing hoax theory entry, and it's well sourced, and it meets all the inclusion criteria, etc., I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to including it. We do already have an entry about how vaccines don't cause autism, which I think is well-placed on this page. Again, I'm definitely not in favor of including every fringe claim, because not only are some such claims not common, but some few fringe claims are actually going to end up being proven true in decades to come (evolution through natural selection and general relativity were both considered fringe when they were first proposed, for example). Of course, there are fringe theories that might end up being widely accepted some day, and then there's the theory that the Earth is flat - what I'm saying is, I'm happy to include anything that naturalists have considered to be bunk for over two-thousand years, as long as the misconception is common enough. I don't know, maybe the whole flat Earth thing is common enough to add. Even if it's only ~10% of people who believe it when polled, how many children think the Earth is flat (just based on their own basic observations) before they learn otherwise? And even if it was just ~10%, that could be considered 'common,' with a certain interpretation of the word. Not super-common, but common enough. Maybe it should be included. I'm conflicted. Joe (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

In the "Literature" section, there is an entry about misquotations in general and a link to a Wikiquote list of common misquotations. Perhaps we could do something similar with "pseudoscientific claims", "conspiracy theories", etc. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 15:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should still add your proposed entry. If everyone thought that flat Earthers believe the Earth is banana shaped, but flat Earthers actually believe the Earth is disc shaped, then that would be a common misconception in the same vein as this misconception about homeopathy, and would not be, itself, a pseudoscientific misconception.

Whether we were to add a generalized "there are lots of misconceptions stemming from scientific charlatans" entry (which I think sounds like a generally good idea), I don't think the original entry you proposed counts as a pseudoscientific misconception, it's just a misconceptions about what homeopathy is. I say add it - especially if Mr Swordfish is happy with that(?). Joe (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest as an exercise taking a look at the entries at List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience and counting how many each of us think would be appropriate for inclusion here. I've been planning on doing that myself, but haven't yet. I think it would be prudent for each of us to have an idea of "how big is the elephant" before adding entries duplicated on that page.

Note the language from the introduction section of this page:

A common misconception is a viewpoint or factoid that is often accepted as true in current times. They often arise from conventional wisdom (such as old wives' tales), stereotypes, a misunderstanding of science, or popularisation of pseudoscience. Some common misconceptions are also considered to be urban legends, and they are often involved in moral panics. (emphasis mine)

Since we explicitly say that they often arise from the popularization of psuedoscience perhaps we should include some of the more prominent examples. We already have some duplication between the pseudoscience list and this one so a few more should be unproblematic. Deciding which ones to include and which ones to exclude will require some careful usage of our editorial judgment and there will likely be disagreement. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

My list of what I'd include:

1. Astrology
2. Lunar effect
3. Bermuda triangle (already included)
4. Lysenkoism (although may not be current?)
5. Biorhythm
6. Colloidal silver
7. Crystal healing
8. Digit Ratio (already included)*
9. Ear candling
10. Homeopathy
11. Palmistry
12. Phrenology

Why these and not others? I've excluded items that are 1) more obscure (e.g. Adrenal fatigue, Hexagonal water) 2) have enough acceptance among "experts" that labeling them a "misconception" may be unwarranted despite the lack of scientific evidence supporting it (e.g. Chiropractic, Polygraph tests) or 3) where the science is disputed or only very weakly supports the claim (e.g. Alexander technique, Acupuncture, everything in the psychology section)

So, that's a manageable ten additional items. I'll be happy to discuss additions or exclusions to this list, and still think there's a good argument to just keep the two lists separate and not duplicate items.

• regarding digit ratio, what this article says and what the other one says seems to be at odds. Worth digging into the source material to straighten this out. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favor of having an entry for all the subjects you listed, except for the already included ones (duh) and Lysenkoism and phrenology, neither of which are, as far as I'm aware, currently common. I'm almost tempted to say we should include Lysenkoism because I reeealy don't like it, but that's hardly a good reason. While it is an Ur example of bad science, to whatever extent anyone actually believed it, Lysenkoism (happily) perished along with the Soviet Union (unless it is still practiced somewhere and I don't know about it?) and as for phrenology, I don't think it's been a common thing since before the ~1850's (again, happily enough) at least not in the US. Otherwise, all good examples of stuff that belongs on this page.

I'll probably add some of these myself, time permitting, assuming no one has any outstanding objections. We can always remove and discuss of course, if someone has an issue. Be bold, I say! Joe (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I started to add the proposed entry on Homeopathy, but can't find where this misconception is treated in the parent article Homeopathy or a definitive source establishing that the preparations are sometimes based on synthetic material (the parent article makes this claim, but I haven't found it in the cited sources). Can't say I've spent much time on it, but we'll need cites for these two items before adding the entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I think Lysenkoism strays too far, because it isn't a common conception. (I understand why you reeealy don't like it. I've always said that Mother Nature has a very poor grasp of theory. It's a perfect example.) With homeopathy, I'd say it's at least a common conception, shared by those who think it valid, those that don't, and those that are curious. With Lysenkoism, I think there would be such a small fraction aware of it at all that it couldn't clear the common conception bar.

I've had the same thoughts about some other rececent items of discussion (e.g. Beatles not responsible for decline of American acts), where it's a misconception only among a small subset that concerns itself with music history. Also with "writing about music like dancing about architecture" attributions: it's a misconception among the small group that is even aware of the statement, from whatever source.

Just my two cents. It seems consensus (over the history of the article) moves further away from what I would have guessed was the original spirit of the article: stuff that everybody knows, but ain't true. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Willondon

• Lysenkoism - no argument here. When I suggested it I questioned whether it was still common. Absent evidence to the contrary, I'll accept the consensus that it is not and withdraw that suggestion.
• Homeopathy - Which conception do you support including? That the preparations sometimes include synthetic ingredients, or the idea that it works at all? Or both?
• Other concerns - I tend to agree with you about the article getting away from the original spirit and including items that are common among a select group of people but not common among the population at large. However, this can be difficult to determine definitively so we have to use our editorial judgment. As for the two specific examples you cite, we never reached consensus on including the dancing about architecture quote, so Wikipedia policy is to not include it. Looking at the archives of this talk page it appears you removed the Beatles not responsible for decline of American acts item with a cogent explanation of why on the talk page, but instead of spurring discussion it seems to have been summarily restored without explanation. But to forestall getting bogged down about the item at hand (Homeopathy), let's continue those discussions in another thread. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Re homeopathy, that it is not necessarily unmade of natural ingredients, I think again that it is a misconception of a minority. If there's a common misconception, it would be among the portion of those that think there's any worth in it at all.

Well, yes, I BRD'd with a cogent explanation (thank you!), but it didn't get traction, so I accepted the restoring edit. Also, when I described the intent as "stuff that everybody knows, but ain't true", I realized that the first question is "who is 'everybody'"? _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Now that we're bringing up this, I'm starting to think there may be several items on this list that are misconceptions but are not common, but rather obscure. I propose we establish a more solid criterium of "commonness". Items that do not fit can be moved to other pages such as, for example, Common English usage misconceptions, List of common misconceptions about the Middle Ages and so on. - Munmula (talk · contribs) 11:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of adding a hard and fast rule for "commonness." I think we should leave what counts as "common" up to the RS and up to the discretion of the editors. Trying to pin down an exact criterion for what counts as "common," say, "30% or more of people believe this" will always be problematic for a few reasons.

1) If we try to nail down the exact percentage of people required to believe a thing before it becomes a common belief, we instantly run into a Sorites paradox. Say your threshold was "30% of people have to believe this in order for it to be common" and then I found some thing that 29% of people believe. Would that 29% thing not also be common?

2) If we were to pick a threshold that was too high, say, "50% of people must believe something for it to be common," that would eliminate tons of things on this list that are arguably still quite common beliefs. If we were to pick a threshold that was very low to be generous, say "5% of people must believe something for it to be common," then we might open the doors for some things that aren't really common misconceptions, but still exclude things which are common within certain contexts - fan death leaps to mind as an example of an extremely common misconception in Korea, but not anywhere else in the world. Also, the Fat Buddha is a common misconception in the West, but not in Hindu or Buddhist countries. Would we need misconceptions to be in a global context? That might eliminate most of the examples on the page, since I doubt most humans living in the world today, globally, know what lactic acid is, and therefore can't have misconceptions about lactic acid causing muscle soreness, but I'd fight all day long to insist that, in the way I use the phrase 'common misconception,' the lactic acid thing is a common misconception (Ms. Frizzle lied to me!)

3) The vast majority of RS do not give exact stats regarding what percentage of people have a specific misconception, so if we were to establish some kind of hard and fast standard, and if we were to require the use of RS that give statistical data on what percentage of people believe something, we'd have to delete ~90%(? maybe 80%?) of the page.

I don't think we need a statistical analysis of the beliefs of people in order to know if something is or isn't a common misconception. If we have RS that say something is a common misconception, and the editors agree that it is, then that's the Wikipedia standard, and I'm happy if we continue using it. That said, Munmula, is there a particular entry or three that you think isn't/aren't really all that common? If the editors don't think something is a common misconception according to their common sense, we can remove it, of course. Joe (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any such inclusion. I removed "crystal healing" with this edit. @Mr swordfish: restored it saying see the talk page. I am confronted with this wall of text you folks have generated, that seems to be filled with opinions. A pseudoscience is something at least some people choose to believe despite the scientific community rejecting it, as opposed to misconception where people are not informed of accepted facts. We should avoid as much as possible duplicating the items from List of topics characterized as pseudoscience unless it is something that is a misconception about the subject that is stated specifically as a misconception in the Wikipedia article on the subject. The OP's original suggestion at the top of this discussion, "Homeopathy is not necessarily alternative medicine based on "natural" or "plant-based" medication", would be okay if it were mentioned specifically in the article Homeopathy as a misconception. Especially if the statement that is was a misconception was attributed to an recognized promoter of the pseudoscience. It is hinted at, but not specifically stated and in fact it is mention that Canada rules homeopathic remedies as natural health products. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  As I said in the "wall of text" above, I still think there's a good argument to just keep the two lists separate and not duplicate items. So, your point is a valid one.

  That said, there are entries such as the Bermuda Triangle, Digit ratio, and the Lunar effect that seem to be at least as much misconception as pseudoscience according to your definition. (A pseudoscience is something at least some people choose to believe despite the scientific community rejecting it, as opposed to misconception where people are not informed of accepted facts.) Do we really have to pick one list or the other for these items? As for the other entries I suggested above (including Homeopathy), your criteria would exclude them and I'm ok with that. It's a fairly well articulated criteria, which is helpful. But I don't have strong feelings against adding another eight or so brief one-sentence mentions of the more widely spread pseudoscience topics.

  I'll note again the intro from this page:

  A common misconception is a viewpoint or factoid that is often accepted as true in current times. They often arise from conventional wisdom (such as old wives' tales), stereotypes, a misunderstanding of science, or popularisation of pseudoscience. Some common misconceptions are also considered to be urban legends, and they are often involved in moral panics. (emphasis mine)

  which seems to indicate that the purview of this article includes items that are popularisations of pseudoscience. I'd like to hear from some other editors about this. Perhaps time for an RFC? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that an RFC might be a good idea. This section has extended far beyond my original proposed entry to a general discussion of what kinds of things should be included in the list, and I am (and I believe others are too) still largely unsure about what to do. By the way, I'm happy that Richard-of-Earth brought one of my points again: people do not choose to believe misconceptions - they're just misinformed. Perhaps this is a key point to differ them from items listed elsewhere. - Munmula (talk · contribs) 16:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Number of the Beast

If more sources are required I will provide.

666 is generally believed to have been the original Number of the Beast in the Book of Revelation in the Christian Bible. In 2005, however, a fragment of papyrus 115 was discovered, containing the earliest known version of that part of the Book of Revelation discussing the Number of the Beast. It gave the number as 616, suggesting that this may have been the original. One possible explanation for the two different numbers is that they reflect two different spellings of Emperor Nero/Neron's name, for which (according to this theory) this number is believed to be a code. GrayEquinox951 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

GrayEquinox951, you forgot to sign you post. I think your sources are fine, but please keep in mind, one of the inclusion criteria for entries on this page is that the parent article mention it as a misconception (or something similar). Looking through the Number of the Beast page, I'm not sure whether it talks about it that way or not, it seems to me to be right on the line. If I might be so bold, I'd suggest you try adding something specific about the original 616 number being later misconstrued as 666 on that page (which I think these sources back up, and which I think the Number of the Beast page is almost already saying anyway). If you made such an edit to the Number of the Beast page, and if your edit was accepted by the other editors after a period of time - a few days or a week maybe - when you came back to add the entry on this page, it would be much more likely to be accepted by all the editors here. Let me know if you need any help. Joe (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The parent article states "...theologians have doubts about the traditional reading." There's a big gaping chasm between "experts have doubts" and "this is a misconception". I don't think the inclusion criteria is currently met. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

References

I agree with Mr. Swordfish. There is an ongoing scholarly debate and it isn't even clear that the 616 number is the current consensus according to the parent article. So 666 is not a "misconception"; it is simply one of the respectable alternatives. If in fact there is widespread scholarly consensus that 666 is incorrect and 616 is correct, then that should first be incorporated into the parent article. For now, I don't see any reason to consider 666 a "misconception". --Macrakis (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Penis

[11] "Most men believe that the average length of an erect penis is greater than 6 inches" Benjamin (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

A misconception on display here is that most men even know how big an inch is. 95% of the world's population does not use inches to measure such things. This is a parochial American view of the world on display here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain entry

The topic article and the referenced source state "... rumors started immediately that it was Cobain, not his wife, Courtney Love, who wrote the majority of these churningly catchy songs."

"Rumors" are not the same thing as a commonly held belief. I think we need stronger evidence that this is a common misconception, but I'll leave it up for now pending other editors' opinions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't heard anyone voice support for inclusion. "Rumors" != "Common misconception". Removing for now. We can always put it back if there's support for including it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

As the person who posted the entry, I was actually thinking about removing it. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was more of an urban legend known only to grunge/alternate music enthusiasts instead of a misconception known by the general public (I personally only heard about it a year or two ago on some forum). So its removal is the right call. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)