Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

"Trickle-down economics"

@Squatch347 and Macrakis: I don't consider this a common misconception, just a bad-faith framing by political opponents. Nor would I consider an article talking about a study saying tax cuts for the rich don't work to be worthy of inclusion. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's first try to clearly state what the misconception is, it is possible my re-wording of the original entry isn't as clear as it reads to me. The misconception here is that there is a theory called "Trickle-Down" or that there are economists who advocate for something called "trickle-down." I agree with you that the source describes this as bad-faith framing by opponents, but it also describes this usage as widely and commonly used. The usage doesn't seem to be clearly a nickname or a derisive term in many of the examples, but describes it as being used as if it were an actual title or theory used by proponents. That reads to me as a misconception, at least in many cases. Squatch347 (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC) 18:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the term "trickle-down economics" is pejorative. But let's look at the theory itself, not the name:

Reducing taxes on the rich to stimulate investment and thus create job or growth ("trickle-down economics") generally does not work.

The name is only mentioned parenthetically in this description, and certainly, the name used by supporters of this theory, namely supply-side economics, should also be mentioned, though it covers more than tax rates on the rich.

For something to be listed as a "misconception" we need evidence that it is widely believed and that it is wrong.

We don't expect professionals in a field to hold to misconceptions: physicists don't believe that microwave ovens operate at a resonance frequency of water; constitutional scholars do not believe that the First Amendment limits restrictions on free speech by private organizations; linguists don't believe that the Spanish /θ/ sound comes from a lisping king. So we don't expect that professional economists subscribe to trickle-down economics.

But I do agree that the one source given isn't enough. We should be able to do better than that. There should be plenty of sources in the supply-side economics and trickle-down economics pages. --Macrakis (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there have been two items on this topic included in the article recently. One about whether or not economists actually advocate for "trickle-down economics" and one about the efficacy of supply-side economics. I don't think the former should be added because (1) some economists do seem to advocate for something very similar to that, and (2) as I said, I think this is mostly a bad-faith framing by opponents instead of a true common misconception. But I also don't think the latter should be added because it's just a minority economic theory rather than something that can be conclusively proven false. The source used doesn't really establish that it's a common misconception, and one scientific paper certainly doesn't mean it's definitely incorrect. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with CWenger related to the second entry not meeting the criteria for entry. There seem to be two points for us to resolve on inclusion here.

1) Is there a theory labelled "trickle-down" or is it a characterization? This seems the easiest one to resolve. That it is the latter. The source included makes that argument in depth. We could also include [1], [2], and [3] if we wanted to. The parent article here on wiki even discusses this as a label added by opponents.

2) The second is whether it is a misconception. IE do people widely use this as if it were a real term? Again the source referenced points out this wide spread usage as do the three sources added. A recent Reuters/IPSOS poll and Gallup poll used the term in their question sets as if it were a commonly understood economic model [4][5]. The most telling to me is the parent article, which uses the term as if it were the actual title. It's opening sentences state is as an actual economic proposition, not just a framing by political opponents. It certainly does go on to reference that, but the initial description along with a good portion of the body of the article go on to use the term interchangeably as if it were the actual title of the theory or model. I think the sources, along with our own article on the topic give plenty of evidence that the label has been used as if it were an actual economic theory, not just a framing of an idea. Squatch347 (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that there is a "common misconception" that the term "trickle-down economics" is used by economists who are in favor of reducing taxes on the rich.

It is not clear to me whether there is a "common misconception" that reducing taxes on businesses and on the rich causes economic growth that benefits all. It is a claim that has been made by many politicians, notably Reagan, Brownback, and Trump, so presumably they believe that voters will believe it. Do voters actually believe it? I don't know -- do we have any evidence one way or the other?

Is it true? Probably not. But I agree that one article is not the way to show that. --Macrakis (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that could be the case. Two major polling firms used it as a description of an economic theory. The respondents clearly understood it to be a description of an economic theory in their responses. There are multiple articles referencing it as a term that is commonly used. What, specifically, would you look for that would meet the criteria?

I'd agree that it isn't clear to me either whether there is a common misconception about the economic impacts of reducing taxes on upper income brackets. I don't think I'm discussing that topic at all here. It certainly isn't clear that there is a misconception, and we probably shouldn't include anything of the sort given it is an active field of debate within economics itself. Are you reading the text I am referencing as discussing the merits/demerits of the underlying policy? If so, lets talk about that because I'm only referencing the use of the term. Squatch347 (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The polls are using language that the general public understands. When people talk about flat-earth theory, surely they're not claiming that it's supported by any scientists. --Macrakis (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

But they are using it as if it is the legitimate name for that set of beliefs and positions, which is my point. They aren't referencing some different term used pejoratively by people to describe them. That is the term that proponents themselves use as well. Squatch347 (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I am surprised that you re-added the "trickle-down economics is not a theory" point to the article, because we have not reached a consensus here. I do not see evidence that this is a misconception. Yes, I agree that it is a loaded term. But it is a loaded term that is used by serious economists such as Paul Krugman and Peter Cornell -- as reported in Sowell's footnoted article.

Loaded terms are not "misconceptions". We don't have a section in this article saying that "pro-life" does not actually mean opposition to all killing, or that "pro-choice" does not mean supporting all kinds of life choices, but that both refer specifically to abortion. We don't have a section in the article pointing out that "freedom fighter" and "liberation army" are terms of propaganda, not neutral descriptions, or that "people's republics" were not in fact republics run by the people.

In any case, one article by a highly partisan writer is not good evidence. -- Macrakis (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

We do have additional sources, listed above, for this being a widely used misconception. I'm not sure your examples hit the mark though because those are the labels that those positions use themselves. It would be a better analogy if a term like "pro-abortion" had been created and then widely used as if that were the pro-choice side's chosen name. We probably would have that listed, and discussed (as we do here) on the parent talk page. Squatch347 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Reopening this after the removal of the misconception by Volteer1. As to the inclusion criteria:

1) Clearly the case. 2) There are multiple sources both here and in the host article as to this being widely use and being a misconception. The talk page there is replete with exactly the discussion we are having here with a general consensus being formed that it not only was worthy of inclusion, but common enough to be featured prominently in the parent article. Add to this the multiple polls above about the widespread use of the term and Sowell's writing about its widespread use in journalism. 3) Reiterating 2 here, this is a prominent piece of the host article and a general consensus on the talk page has been formed that it is a widespread misconception and worthy of a prominent place in the article. That the article spends almost as much time discussing the term's origin as it does that actual economic idea and impact should be a good indicator. 4) No one has brought this up as an issue, clearly still a term in modern usage.

Squatch347 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Pejorative names for things are not "misconceptions", and focusing on the name misdirects attention from the substance. To take an example from the other side of the political spectrum, should we write, say,

"Welfare queen" is a racist term that is not used by sociologists to describe welfare fraud, which in any case is rare.

or should we write more neutrally:

Welfare fraud is rare, accounting for about x% of welfare spending in the US, despite the common political stereotype of the "welfare queen".

Or maybe not even mention "welfare queen" at all. --Macrakis (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree on neutrality, hopefully the current phrasing doesn't come across otherwise. I'm not sure there is a primary misconception we are drawing attention away from here (we, rightly didn't include the part about effectiveness).

To use your example, it would be like if people generally understood that women on welfare were actually categorized as "welfare queens" by sociologists. In that case, a statement like "'Welfare Queen' is not a term used by sociologists or other social scientists", would be justified. It is hard to read the talk page of the parent article or the sources given without getting the sense that the term is being widely understood as a serious title, not just a pejorative. Squatch347 (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Serious people certainly use the term "trickle-down economics" to describe policies which, by reducing taxes on the rich, claim to improve the lives of the less rich: Paul Krugman (Professor of Economics, Nobel Prize) used it [6], as did David Stockman (Reagan's Budget Director) [7]. Is it pejorative? Sure. Does anyone claim that it is a formal economic theory rather than just a set of economic policies? Well, in many ways it's just another name for supply-side economics, which was supported by actual economists like Arthur Laffer and Robert Mundell. So is the "misconception" just that people who support such policies don't use the name "trickle-down economics"? Hardly seems like a misconception to me. It's like saying that it is a misconception that "pro-life" people support human life in general (capital punishment? war?) rather than just opposing abortion in particular. Of course it's a partisan term, but it's not a "misconception". --Macrakis (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I would argue that it isn't just another name for Supply-Side economics, and I would point to the parent article that makes exactly that distinction. That the two are conflated is a good argument for why this should be included here. To follow this logic would it be fair to simply say that welfare queen is just another name for welfare recipients? Or would we point out that it is a derogatory term used by critics of social policies and racists?

Obviously we would do the latter, as we do in that article. The difference between that case and this is that people aren't generally using the term welfare queen as if that were a legitimate term used by economists. Squatch347 (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This all seems like semantics to me. What's the actual misconception here? Something like "Certain tax policies of the Reagan administration, and subsequent similar policies, are trickle-down economics," I would think. Is that wrong? Hard to say. No, economists do not have a formal theory called "trickle-down economics", but the meaning of the term is widely understood to refer to economic policies that are promoted. So that doesn't seem like a proper misconception to me. Is the understanding of the policies they call "trickle-down economics" correct? Well, I think that gets into matters of economic theory and politics that lack a strong consensus, and as such calling it a misconception seems dangerously close to POV-pushing. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Related to your latter point, I would definitely agree. Discussions of the details of the policies, their effectiveness, etc all stray way too far into active discussions and minutia for an article like this. Addressing your first point, I would say that the misconception is that their is a set of policy proposals and economic models that economists call "trickle-down theory" rather than it being a political moniker. That the term is widely used in a serious manner by journalists and pollsters and that the public generally understands the term as a serious term, rather than a pejorative would seem to be a relevant misconception. It was certainly relevant enough to take up a good portion of the parent article and the majority of the talk page. Squatch347 (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no misconception here. There is a family of policies that is nicknamed "trickle-down economics" by journalists, pollsters, and even economists (Krugman). Is it a negative nickname? Often. Are there articles in the technical economic literature using that term? Surprisingly, perhaps, yes. A very quick search finds these, for example: [I0021-3624480217, [8], [9]. --Macrakis (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Mansa Abu Bakr II

I have been having a debate with Macrakis regarding my addition of the following to the article: "The early 14th-century West African monarch who preceded Mansa Musa as ruler of Mali and apparently disappeared during an attempt to cross the Atlantic Ocean was not named Abu Bakr II or Abubakari II, as no such mansa ever ruled, but probably was named Muhammad. The misconception originated from a mistranslation that incorrectly assumed Mansa Musa's ancestor Abu Bakr reigned as mansa between Mansa Muhammad and Mansa Musa." This misconception was treated as fact by Wikipedia for over a decade, but I recently revised the article on the voyage to reflect the historical consensus that there was no Abu Bakr II. Given that belief in the existence of a Mansa Abu Bakr II seems to be widespread (among people who pay attention to West African history), but the historical consensus is strongly against it, I think it qualifies as a common misconception. It's perhaps a little niche, but it's not like this article doesn't have some fairly minor or niche misconceptions already. Most relevant sources:

• Levtzion, Nehemia (1963). "The Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Kings of Mali". Journal of African History. 4 (3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 341–353. doi:10.1017/S002185370000428X. ISSN 0021-8537. JSTOR 180027. OCLC 1783006.
• Fauvelle, François-Xavier (2018) [2013]. "The Sultan and the Sea". The Golden Rhinoceros: Histories of the African Middle Ages. Troy Tice (trans.). Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-18126-4.

Additionally, a quick few Google searches will reveal that belief in the misconception appears to be more widespread than the correct belief; there are lots of webpages that mention Abu Bakr II's existence as fact. The voyage in question is central to a fringe theory that there was significant contact between West Africa and the Americas during the 14th century. I would regard the fringe theory as beyond the scope of the article, as it's not a simple matter of factual incorrectness, but the existence of the fringe theory makes the factual misconception about the identity of Musa's predecessor noteworthy. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The same sites that mention Abu Bakr II's existence as a fact presumably also mention the fringe theory as a fact. An erroneous detail about the name of a personnage mentioned in an erroneous theory reported on by non-reliable sources (ancient-origins.net, etc.) seems beyond the scope of "common misconceptions". --Macrakis (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

"Another fallacy that follows from De Slane's mistranslation is that Abu-Bakr himself reigned in Mali. Thus all the commentators put in ther genealogical tables 'Abu-Bakr II'"(Levtzion 1963). "We often read that Musa's unfortunate predecessor was called Abu Bakr or Abu-Bakari...author after author diligently repeated it." (Fauvelle 2013, trans. Tice 2018). Again, until earlier this year, when I fixed it, Wikipedia itself treated his existence as fact on multiple pages without treating the fringe theory as correct. There appear to be thousands of web pages calling Musa's predecessor Abu Bakr II, some of which do not mention the voyage. Are the pages reliable sources? No, but their existence supports the idea that it's a widespread misconception, as stated by my sources. And, look, here's a National Geographic article that contains the misconception: [10] Again, it's not just a detail about what name to give a specific figure: it's inserting an entire additional monarch who never existed into the history of an empire. Is that really a more trivial misconception than whether some actress wore a specially-designed bra in some movie? Or whether the name Big Ben is technically accurate for the entire bell tower? Or whether the Beatles were the first musicians to use a specific type of speaker to process sound? Ornithopsis (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You have a point about the triviality of some of the other items on this list!:

• The Big Ben item seems to be a harmless synecdoche (as the article itself says), not a misconception at all. It's no worse than calling the Office of the President the White House. So I would support removing it.
• The Jane Russell bra item is also trivial, and the footnotes to the relevant paragraph in the Jane Russell article do not support the claim that there were "countless media reports" that she wore the bra that Hughes designed, only that Hughes thought that she wore it (I have added a cn tag). So I would also support removing that item.

Getting back to Abu Bakr II, this page doesn't report on the errors in fringe science and history. We say nothing about either the major claims of Velikovsky's theories nor about the Nephites traveling from Jerusalem to the Americas nor about the phantom time hypothesis, let alone the numerous factual mistakes proponents of these theories make.

Now, I admit that I'm disappointed that National Geographic doesn't fact-check its children's encyclopedia more carefully (and probably cribbed the claim from the Wikipedia article), but that in itself isn't evidence of a common misconception.

Here are some candidates for misconceptions that are much more widespread than the Abu Bakr II one, and which probably do belong in the article:

• There was never a female pope (Pope Joan).
• The Pyramids were not build by slaves.
• The Israelites were not enslaved by the Egyptians.

Best, --Macrakis (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've more or less made my case: I've provided two different reliable sources that say it's a common misconception, pointed out that it's a misconception Wikipedia itself promoted for over a decade, and provided an example of the misconception being repeated by a source most would consider fairly trustworthy. It is not a misconception unique to a fringe theory; the misconception long predates the fringe theory and continues to be repeated by sources that do not promote the fringe theory. I won't deny that it's somewhat niche, but it's certainly a common misconception within that niche and would not be unique on this page in being niche. I don't think I have anything else to add, so I would like to hear others weigh in on the matter. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it's certainly a judgement call on how niche and how trivial this issue is, and I'll be happy to hear from other editors. --Macrakis (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If other editors do support the inclusion of this item in the article, perhaps it would be better to phrase it as something like the following: "There was no mansa of the Mali Empire named Abu Bakr II. The Atlantic voyage commonly attributed to him did occur, but probably was led by Mansa Muhammad, who was Mansa Musa's predecessor according to historical sources. The misconception originated from a mistranslation that incorrectly listed Mansa Musa's ancestor Abu Bakr as a ruler." That might make the emphasis clearer that it's about the nonexistence of a particular alleged ruler, not merely semantics over the proper name of someone. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Saying that the voyage "did occur" is much stronger than what RS supports. Both Gomez and Thornton report on the story, but don't conclude that it "did occur".

As for whether the item should be included at all, see my comments above. --Macrakis (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, "did occur" is strong phrasing, but what I mean is that the misconception regarding the identity of the central figure involved in the event is a separate issue from the validity of the event, and that the event has a credible basis. In light of the overall attitude that I've seen on the talk page that this article needs stricter criteria for inclusion than it currently has, I agree that under such stricter criteria, this issue would not make the cut. I maintain that this issue is at least as noteworthy of a misconception as several entries currently on this page, however. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Should mathematics be separate from "science and technology"

Hi, I have edited this article for some time. But I found the subsection "mathematics" under the section "science and technology", which is weird as math is not a science in most cases. Should I separate the subsection from "science and technology"? 2409:4061:2DCF:43B5:49D5:B250:408A:123F (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This is just the fruits of trying to find extremely broad groupings of subjects (arts and culture, history, science and technology). As it stands I think it does make sense to put math in with science and technology, as even if mightn't technically fit under either it's extremely related and giving it its own section would be overkill. Maybe just naming it "science, mathematics and technology" would help?

However, I have thought before about adding in a common misconception about philosophy, and lord knows where that would go in these three groupings (would probably fit more naturally with mathematics if anything). This does seem like a very general problem, though – is there somewhere else in Wikipedia where the question of how to group basically every disparate subject into a few broad categories was hashed out? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think renaming the section would make sense, and philosophy might either be a separate section in its own right or be a subsection under "arts and culture". 2409:4061:2DCF:43B5:49D5:B250:408A:123F (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that would make the most sense. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"Common" misconceptions

I read the sources for maybe the first 25 or so entries, and none of the source material state these misconceptions are common, just they are misconceptions. Seems like synthesis. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole article is pretty much a disaster area. Yes, there are some common misconceptions here, but most of the entries are rubbish entries from people with the view "Someone said this, but I'm cleverer than them and I know they're wrong." And too many entries are restricted to very narrow geographical areas, so not common at all. Having so many poor entries destroys the value of what could be a useful article if it was well policed. Several of us have made these observations on many occasions, to no avail. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

To improve this situation, why not start by proposing some specific item to delete on this Talk page (or maybe, following WP:BRD, just deleting the item and waiting for a revert). The subsequent discussion could establish some "case law" for handling items.

But I would suggest starting with cases where you believe that the items are in fact not common misconceptions, not just those which don't have strong sources showing that they are common misconceptions. For example, a quick Google Book search on the very first item (searing meat) immediately finds many sources using the exact expression "common misconception" (which of course isn't required) starting in 1958. In cases like that, it would be more constructive just to add the sources. --Macrakis (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Nah. It's not individual items that's the problem. It's the whole article, primarily made up of rubbish entries from people with the view "Someone said this, but I'm cleverer than them and I know they're wrong." And I say that DESPITE what sources may be able to be found. It's not encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Self Harm

"Self-harm is not generally an attention-seeking behavior." does not follow from the claim in the article on self-harm that "A common belief regarding self-harm is that it is an attention-seeking behaviour; however, in many cases, this is inaccurate" Sources need to be inspected. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle

First two sources don't refer at all to claim that "The Bermuda Triangle does not have any more shipwrecks or mysterious disappearances than most other waterways" , the third , according to the relevant article concludes "The number of ships and aircraft reported missing in the area was not significantly greater, proportionally speaking, than in any other part of the ocean." which doesn't explicitly justify the claim in this article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Source for extreme poverty

Looking at the source for the extreme poverty misconception, reason.com, a libertarian economics magazine responding to an opinion piece featured in a left-leaning magazine, the guardian, it seems like this article has picked a side in an ideologically charged debate, which has been responded to further on the original poster's blog. Our own article on the subject of extreme poverty features a large section noting the controversy around and lack of consensus on the $1.90 baseline. Up for discussion whether it deserves to stay in, and if so, without qualification. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

There are two topics you raise here. The first is related to sources. Neither are noted to be an issue on this topic on WP:RSP so I don't see an issue with them. The $1.90 is noted as controversial in the parent article, but it is also still adopted there. And it is referenced in the referenced sources for the misconception here. The $1.90 number specifically isn't really the point of the misconception, rather the direction of daily income per capita; so quibbling over the exact figure doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me. Squatch347 (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by your reference to WP:RSP (have been off-wiki for a while so somewhat out of touch on policies), but with the second half, obviously the website the response from the linked doesn't constitute a noted quality source, he is a published author, with his published work seemingly covering the same content, and his blog notes that raising the income threshold to what he considers an academically justified line of above $7 eliminates the trend of extreme poverty reduction, which the misconception if you read it again is clearly about, no "the direction of daily income per capita." Sorry if my response isn't super clear. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rolling, I'm referring to this list WP:RSP where you can find up to date assessments of perirenal sources. To the extent that there is an ongoing debate, I don't think we are here to referee that. We are simply reporting what reliable, secondary sources state. The parent page notes that controversy appropriately, adding it here would seem a bit pedantic given that it isn't noted in any of the sources. Squatch347 (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing, I have some qs (i.e. it seems from my perspective that there are two reliable, secondary sources in conflict, and a page listing common misconceptions would require some consensus in the truth of matters), but it seems like I'm missing something on the wikipedia policy end, and me flagging it for review has been met, so we can let the matter rest if other editors don't have opposing perspectives Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed Entries

Removed several entries here, largely due to article bloat justifying strict interpretation of rule 3: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources" as it referring to the misconception, and noting it as being a common misconception. In some cases where the misconception is noted, it is sometimes called an urban legend, which we have a list article for already, duplication is wasteful and bloats.

• Spices: Not mentioned in only article linked, spices
• Microwaves & Cancer: Not mentioned in its role as a misconception in articles on microwave or microwave ovens.
• Microwaves & Eyes: Not mentioned in article on microwave ovens
• Spanish fricatives: Relevant article refers to notion as urban legend, not misconception
• Chevrolet Nova refers to notion as urban legend, not misconception
• Sign languages several misconceptions are listed as such in the article as such, which would qualify them for inclusion but this is not
• Irregardless: controversy mentioned on article pages but not as a common misconception or misconception at all, instead frames as controversy over what constitutes 'real' words per prescriptive vs descriptive understandings
• Easter: No pages linked make mention of misconception, failing even basic criteria 3
• 420: No mention in any linked pages, also fails basic criteria 3
• Fuck: Called both misconception and urban legend in the article, debateable which article should contain
• Wetback: No mention of misconception in article, fails basic criteria 3
• wop: Not referred to in article as misconception, rather as a false etymology, which we already have a list article for: List of common false etymologies of English words
• Cement shoes: No mention in article as being a misconception
• Absolute pitch: Not removed, but some information was missing
• Mozart: Two misconceptions removed, first (baa baa black sheep) fails basic criteria 3, second (Mozart's nationality) has an article actually at odds with the concrete terms the misconception is stated in
• Minuet in G major, BWV Anh. 114: Misconception mentioned, but in a historical sense, failing criteria 4
• Minute Waltz not mentioned in article as being a misconception

@WikiDan61: ah yeah my keyboard is missing 8 keys so it's a bit of a slog to write things out on this talkpage Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: First, blaming your keyboard for failing to make the proper talk page comments before removing content is a poor excuse. If you don't have the proper equipment to properly edit, get the proper equipment. Second, while I agree with most of your reasoning above, I have the following specific disagreements:

• Spices used to hide the spoiling of meat

  See Spice#Function

• Microwaves cause cancer

  See Microwave oven#Direct microwave exposure

-- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah my keyboard just broke so didn't think it would take nearly as long to type out; making adjustments to process as I get used to it. Thanks for catching the spice one, I searched for 'rot', the word used in our article and did a general scan through and must have missed it. The cancer one however doesn't call it misconception, rather implying it, and doesn't speak at all to how common it is. I will avoid removing that one for now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Extras being removed

• Twinkies: Referred to in article as an urban legend rather than as common misconception
• Expiration date: Misconception states "Most food is edible long after its expiration date, with the exception of some perishables." Clearly region specific as our article on it states "The legal definition and usage of terms will vary between countries and products.", even for the US, beyond the article does not mention this as a misconception.
• Poisoned candy myths: Referred to in article as an urban legend rather than as common misconception

I'm not sure that urban legends and popular misconceptions are necessary mutually exclusive. So something being an urban legend isn't necessarily an automatic removal from this list if it is still believed widely or labelled as being believed widely. I also think we need a bit more of a defense of these, there is a wall of text here and just reviewing a handful (spices, easter, wop) randomly found that all of them met the criteria. Squatch347 (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That's very true, they're not mutually exclusive, the issue I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) is that we already have pages for list of common misconceptions, list of urban legends and List of common false etymologies of English words. The value of having much of the same information being listed across multiple pages seems minimal, especially when both of these lists are already linked to in the page, and with the misconceptions page and urban legends pages faced with bloat. Besides this, much of the information populating the urban legends and false etymologies pages would comfortably meet the criteria: if crossover is okay it opens the floodgates (maybe a bit hyperbolic). If we just look at the opening lines of the page for folk etymologies, "A false etymology (fake etymology, popular etymology, etymythology,[1] pseudo-etymology, or par(a)etymology) is a popular but false belief about the origin or derivation of a specific word." every non-historical folk etymology, being a popular but false belief, would be a misconception and have grounds for being included on the page.

We did address the spice issue above, but for Easter I believe you're referring to this part of the text in the Inanna page "In his 1853 pamphlet The Two Babylons, as part of his argument that Roman Catholicism is actually Babylonian paganism in disguise, Alexander Hislop, a Protestant minister in the Free Church of Scotland, argued that the modern English word Easter must be derived from Ishtar due to the phonetic similarity of the two words.[384] However, according to a Scientific American article published in 2013 by Krystal D'Costa the "word Easter does not appear to be derived from Ishtar, but from the German Eostre, the goddess of the dawn."" which I caught on the first time around for the page edit, failing it on grounds of it not being listed as a common misconception, or not just being historical.

Wop is listed as "One false etymology or backronym of wop is that it is an acronym for "without passport" or "without papers",", which also doesn't note it as a common misconception, rather it being a false etymology.

I am sorry the list is so long requiring evaluation

Rollinginhisgrave (talk)

The cost of having items across multiple different pages is also, likewise, minimal. In fact, it is zero. Having that information in all the categories it could be labelled as creates a more complete experience for readers though. It is why you see the same discussion of the 100 years war in entries for both France and England.

Easter is listed as a misconception both on the page you reference on the Ishtar page and, of course in the references. Without Papers is also mentioned on the parent page. Here I think you might be conflating that the misconception is listed on the parent page with the idea that it is listed as common. The wording of the inclusion criteria is that the common misconception is listed, not that it is listed as common. If we strike out your inclusions based on those readings we are left with:

• Microwaves & Eyes: Not mentioned in article on microwave ovens -Agreed, doesn't appear to be noted as common in the attached sources either. Support removal.
• 420: No mention in any linked pages, also fails basic criteria 3 -Referenced in citations (15) and in the sourced articles on this page. Support Inclusion.
• Wetback: No mention of misconception in article, fails basic criteria 3. -Agreed here as well. The sourced article here is also a 1972 book, so I'm not sure how common this misconception is. Support removal.
• Cement shoes: No mention in article as being a misconception. -I think this is listed in the parent article as a common trope. Support inclusion.
• Minuet in G major, BWV Anh. 114: Misconception mentioned, but in a historical sense, failing criteria 4. -Listed on parent page as incorrectly attributed and as some of the best known pieces, I think this meets criteria. Support inclusion.
• Minute Waltz not mentioned in article as being a misconception. -I am a bit of mixed mind on this one. It does seem pretty clearly a misconception and the parent article does talk about that as a misconception in detail. I would tentatively support inclusion.
• Expiration date: Misconception states "Most food is edible long after its expiration date, with the exception of some perishables." Clearly region specific as our article on it states "The legal definition and usage of terms will vary between countries and products.", even for the US, beyond the article does not mention this as a misconception. -So lets add the qualifier "its US regulated expiration date." Support inclusion with modifier.

Squatch347 (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look over, I appreciate it. On doubling up on pages, there are a lot of misconceptions that warrant inclusion on this page as part of a larger project in making this page not just geographically restricted to the Eurocentric, English-based model that this page is, and it is already very long. It is already protocol on this page to segment off areas of misconceptions, such as Tornado myths, Urban legends about drugs and Common misunderstandings of genetics: if we didn't find doubling up problematic at all we would integrate these pages into the list so it was more comprehensive. Why don't we do this, and continue to segment them off, avoiding doubling up? The same reason I'm proposing segmenting off false etymologies and many urban legends. This is a lot more analogous than the 100 wars discussion on pages of England and France. Beyond this, the talk page has reached a consensus that the inclusion criteria should be tighter, not looser, and interpreting in favour of opening it up to false etymologies seems against that spirit.

I did note the conflation initially in "justifying strict interpretation of rule 3: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources" as it referring to the misconception, and noting it as being a common misconception.""

• 420: Criteria 3 notes "mentioned in its topic article with sources.", not in the sources but rather the article.
• Cement Shoes: I chose to exclude this since trope refers to a more media-based usage; obviously millions of tropes seen on TV by credulous audiences would fall into this category rather than a more society-wide misconception. Such strict interpretation is arguably unjustified with the current criteria.

Other than that your assessment seems good and fine, did you have any comments on the Mozart misconceptions ? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Continuing Evaluation of articles

Reminder: inclusion criteria 3 requires "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources," requiring the mention to be in reference to the item in its role as a misconception, and more tenuously, a common one. I've tried to include more detail so my justifications can be more easily assessed / rebutted.

• British Invasion: "[...] attempting to confirm or debunk the claim that the British Invasion devastated American music." Claim herein has no reference to popularity in culture as a misconception.
• Shea Stadium: "it was the first concert to be held at a major stadium and set records for attendance and revenue generation" article actually seems to include misconception.
• In the Air Tonight: Referred to as urban legend (noting for where we come down on this in discussion)
• Don't Worry, Be Happy: misconception listed "is commonly believed to be sung by the reggae musician Bob Marley" while article notes "Contrary to popular belief, the famous reggae musician Bob Marley never recorded a version of "Don't Worry, Be Happy"" these are not the same thing.
• Burqa: Closest quotes I can see within article say burqas are something "that is worn by women in some Islamic traditions", as far as I can see not implying existence of misconception, failing criteria 3.
• 72 virgins: "the belief that the term houris only refers to females who are in paradise is a misconception" contentious whether this responds to misconception listed in article.

"Infants can and do feel pain"

I am not denying that this is true, because it obviously is, and that is exactly my problem with it. I get that people can stupid, but I have a hard time believing that is a "common" misconception that babies are immune to any sense of pain. I have never heard anybody claim this, nor have I read anybody claiming this. There is no way that this is a common misconception. 199.120.30.207 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal. Have a look at that entry's linked article pain in babies. It was recently a common misconception and likely still is among a large population of adults. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Who. Herostratus (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Do we have a source establishing that a significant subset of the population still believes it? The pain in babies thing is odd. There was indeed a time when established medicine really preached that babies couldn't feel pain, and it was only until the mid-to-late 20th century that this was widely accepted to be false. See this, or the article linked above for a brief explanation. This belief is basically obsolete now, so it would possibly fail 4. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete, depending on how strict you take "current" to mean, if there isn't a surviving misconception in some significant subset of the population. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Do we have a source saying the belief is obsolete, when most of the population who was alive when this was a common misconception is still alive today? A misconception doesn't have to be believed by a majority to be considered "common", it just has to be believed by a significant number of people. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I perhaps confusingly worded that because "obsolete" also appears in that quote, but I meant it is obsolete in the medical field (as that news article or our own in-house article explains). For us to say that despite it being known to be false some significant minority of the public still believe it, we would need a source that establishes that, no? For instance, lobotomies were still performed and believed to cure mental illness also in the mid 20th century, but if you were to poll the general public I would image that almost no one today would think that hammering an ice pick through your eye socket is an effective cure for depression. I don't think it's enough to say that hey lobotomies were still happening in the 60s and even the 70s so probably some still believe it today. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This does appear to be a common misconception. Referenced that as here [11] (clearly to a lay audience), here [12] (who knows if this is a great source or not, but it appears to be aimed at parents). Squatch347 (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ticks

I'm a mathematician, not an entomologist, but I have personally walked by a river on a path without grass, but covered by trees, and was practically showered by ticks. So, the line on ticks should be edited to read that most ticks hang out in grass, but some do fall from trees. I don't know, but it may also be true that ticks in grass are more likely to carry disease than the ones in trees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:fdf0:aa40:f91f:b96d:8824:dada (talk • contribs) 21:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree. I've had a similar experience. There are woodlands in Maine with nothing but rocky ground, no grass, and you don't have to touch anything but you tend to collect ticks when walking under trees. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Personal experiences cannot be cited. Apparently the scientists who study these bugs do not get out to your neck of the woods. Googling "ticks falling from trees" results in several sites denying it can happen. You guys aren't editing Wikipedia from another planet are you? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Richard-of-Earth: Obviously personal experience cannot be cited, and obviously my comment was about the state of Maine, which is on this planet. And nobody is trying to change the article, this is just a discussion. The fact remains that actual observation contradicts what some sources say. I haven't actually observed ticks falling from trees, but did observe the presence of ticks on myself after walking under trees with no grass. The OP reports being "showered by ticks". Sure, there may be an alternative explanation for these observations. The fact that there are sources denying it doesn't mean that there aren't any reliable sources that confirm these observations. They just have to be found. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you misinterpret me. I am more willing to believe you guys over the scientists. Maybe I should have said maybe the scientists are studying ticks on another planet. Mind you, I think science is generally reliable, but I do not see how scientists can know for sure that ticks do not jump from trees. Since it seems to be the consensus among the experts that ticks do not, it would take extraordinary evidence to change that. And really how could you prove it? You could set up cameras and hope to get lucky have the camera focused on the right limb at the right time to get video of it happening, but I am sure it is less likely to happen then you think. I am sure the technology is way off where entomologists can catch and release ticks with little nano-trackers on them. Basically, I believe you, but I would not hold my breath waiting for a citation to appear to support adding it to Wikipedia. (Of course, now someone will find one just to make me look stupid.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

gapminder

[13]

"Many wrongly believe that fossil fuels are no longer the major energy sources." "In people’s heads there are 10 times more refugees than in reality." and a few others. Benjamin (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting survey. Quite a few in there. Squatch347 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Elephant Graveyard Phrasing

First let me say the back and forth on the page was ridiculous. That is a horrible example of editing here. Gents, lets keep the discussion civil.

I've reverted the language back to the form before anyone made a change as it was the long standing consensus. I'm open to any change, but we need consensus here first.

Do we go with either of these options or something else?

• Old elephants that are near death do not leave their herd and instinctively direct themselves toward a specific location known as an elephants' graveyard to die.
• Old elephants that are near death do not leave their herd instinctively directing themselves toward a specific location known as an elephants' graveyard to die.

Squatch347 (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Squatch347: Hey Squatch347- first off, to clarify, the IPs on the page were from a WMF-banned editor who has been following me around for a little under 2 years now. You can read more about it at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Projects. The editor is banned by the Wikimedia Foundation and may not edit any WMF project, all edits by them can and should be (and were) reverted. This was an edit that I made a few days ago but they likely found through my contribs. So it's not really "edit warring", and I'll also let you know the other party involved will not be allowed to participate in this talk page thread due to their active WMF ban (if they attempt to, it will be considered ban evasion)

However, given that you are a legitimate editor here (to my knowledge at least :P) I am willing to discuss my change with you, and I'll consider you reverting it and discuss the content here.

The initial text was the first one, but to me it reads like "do not leave their herd but do instinctively direct themselves"- this isn't what the text meant, because they don't do either. Which is why I changed it to be more clear in the second one. Does that make sense? And did anyone read the first one the same way I did? Naleksuh (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

How about "Old elephants that are near death do not leave their herd to direct themselves towards a specific location known as an elephants' graveyard to die."? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Squatch347 (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Since that is all of us involved in the conversation I will add it now. Naleksuh (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of that. Have you reported this to an Admin, or is there a finding that this IP specifically is related to that project? Just want to be sure before I write someone off.

Interesting read. I didn't see it that way at all. I actually read the second option more that way. That it seems to indicate they do instinctively direct themselves toward a graveyard, but just don't leave the herd. I think that is because it reads as if there should be a semicolon in there. The 'and' reads more as two separate actions, neither of which the elephant does. That's my read anyway. I'd be curious how other editors read it. Squatch347 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm putting them on AIV as they show up and the IPs have been blocked now, mostly by User:HJ Mitchell and User:Widr.

And yeah now that I'm reading the second one, that also could have the problem if ther'es a comma "do not leave their herd, instinctively". Is there a good wording #3 anyone can think of? Naleksuh (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Should this article exist?

The subject matter is infinite since anyone can have misconceptions about anything. I will read I don't see its value except as a repository for people to make their points. I think this article will also be prone to endless disputes. Just my opinion, I will check what policy says about it.Sammyeugene (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a list of every misconception. It's a list of common misconceptions, meaning misconceptions that are widely held. There are criteria for inclusion that are designed to help avoid everyone adding their favorite misconception that is not very common. Open an edit window and you will see the criteria. Note particularly criterion number 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". (bold added) A lot of eyes are on this article to prevent violation of that criterion. There have been quite a few disputes if you look at the archives, but those have diminished since creation of the inclusion criteria. It's not unusual for a popular article (popular both on Wikipedia but also covered in the press) to have disputes. There have been a lot of disputes about The Beatles, but no one is suggesting that it be deleted. The article has been nominated for deletion four times. Only one of those nominations was after creation of the inclusion criteria, and it was clearly defeated. I suggest that you take a thorough look through the archives for previous discussion of this issue so we don't have to rehash all of it. Sundayclose (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The Amazon rainforest does not provide 20% of Earth's oxygen.

Added by Corsicanwarrah:

• The Amazon rainforest does not provide 20% of Earth's oxygen. This is a misintepretation of a 2010 study which found that approximately 34% of photosynthesis by terrestrial plants occurs in tropical rainforests (so the Amazon rainforest would account for approximately half of this). Due to respiration by the resident organisms, all ecosystems (including the Amazon rainforest) have a net output of oxygen of approximately zero. The oxygen currently present in the atmosphere was accumulated over billions of years.

The above seems like a good entry, however it fails criteria 3: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." I am posting it here in hopes we can fix it up to be put back in the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Articles to consider linking: Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest#Impacts, Atmosphere of Earth, Oxygen#Biological production and role of O2, Rainforest

Rainforest mentions "Rainforests are also responsible for 28% of the world's oxygen turnover, sometimes misnamed oxygen production." That does not say misconception, but could be satisfactory. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Support that phrasing and linking. Squatch347 (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions here. The exact phrase "common misconception" doesn't need to be used as long as it is reasonably clear that is the meaning. The phrase "misleading yet oft-repeated claim" meets that standard. By the way, trendsupdates.com doesn't seem to be a currently used URL. Sundayclose (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I found an archive of the trendsupdates.com citation here. Unfortunately I also found an archived description of the site here. It looks like a violation of WP:SELFPUBLISH along with the %28 claim. But even if it was not self published, the citation does not support the misconception, but in fact repeats it as fact. I am going to remove it from the rainforest article. So we are back to fails criteria 3. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Richard-of-Earth and Squatch347: Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the National Geographic source supports it with the phrase "a misleading yet oft-repeated claim about the rainforest’s importance: that it produces 20 percent of the world’s oxygen"? Sundayclose (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You are missing criteria 3: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." and it is not. It is an important criteria because it sets a notability standard. If it is not notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article, then it is not notable enough to go on this list. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the NatGeo article also cover that phrasing in the parent article? Squatch347 (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Richard-of-Earth: Oh I fully agree that criterion 3 is essential, but like Squatch347 I think the misconception supported by the National Geographic source could easily be added to any of the potential parent articles mentioned above. Sundayclose (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree and when somebody does, we can add the item back to the list. It will not be me, because I do not like writing prose. I always end up spending too much time fretting over the details. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I added a segment to the Amazon Rainforest page. Squatch347 (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Criticism of Criteria 3 "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources."

The primary justification for this criteria is summed up succinctly in the recent comment by Richard-of-Earth where he notes "it sets a notability standard. If it is not notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article, then it is not notable enough to go on this list." There are some issues with such a justification and the criteria in general:

• Overstated: The article already has a notability standard: entries are notable by virtue of being "common". Furthermore, misconceptions being common and widely discussed in reliable sources would justify adding mention of the misconception into the topic article.
• Easily Circumvented: If someone wants to get an entry into the article, they can merely add the entry into the topic article to pass criteria 3. This isn't necessarily bad: if it is notable as a misconception, independently of its place in the article, there is a strong argument that it should be in the topic article already. If such considerations are made, then criteria 3 is just adding steps to the debate of whether the misconception is notable.
• Better Alternatives: Determining notability is much better done by reference to reliable sources, per criteria 2, rather than whether a particular editor at a particular time decided to add it to a particular page. This particular temporal aspect is notable: the entry likely wasn't always mentioned on the topic article, and in the future mentions of things being misconceptions will likely be added to more topic pages: it is strange to judge notability by such an unreliable indicator of notability.
• Eurocentric: This article has long been criticised for its Eurocentric focus ; it's called "list of common misconceptions" but it might as well be list of anglo-misconceptions, plus fan death. One promising method of expanding the contents of the article is going to other language wiki's version of the article and seeing which misconceptions are featured there which aren't on here, the issue with this being almost all such entries would fail criteria 3, as English speaking editors aren't exposed to misconceptions other languages carry and are thus significantly less likely to add them to a topic article. This carries over to almost all attempts at expanding the article away from a Eurocentric standpoint. If exceptions are made for this issue, allowing for the addition of the misconception to the topic article, this essentially admits that misconception's notability can be assessed independently of Criteria 3. The General Notability Guideline accounts for Eurocentric issues by specifying sources don't have to be in English, this notability guideline instead bakes it in.
• Vague: The guideline doesn't describe the context the misconception is included in the article as: there are numerous cases where misconceptions are mentioned in topic articles, but not as misconceptions. In such cases, the purpose of the guideline, in demonstrating notability, is minimised as it isn't used as proof of it being a common misconception, but rather a misconception in any sense.

Hope this generates some discussion on the removal, modification, or replacement of this criteria.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rollinginhisgrave, I tend to agree with you that that criteria isn't really helpful, but it does have some good functionality that would need to be replaced if it is removed.

Overstated - I agree with your point here.

Easily Circumvented - Here the functionality is that if you were to go add the segment to the parent article, you are necessarily drawing in editors with greater interest (and presumably familiarity) with the subject. That is a good feature to have.

Eurocentric - This is a criticism that wiki has in general. It makes some sense that a site in english updated by english speakers would have an english focus. I'm not sure why those additional items couldn't be added to the parent article as well.

Again, I would support the removal of the criteria if we could replicate the validation function it serves.

Squatch347 (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Easily Circumvented: This seems almost the complete opposite of what Richard-of-Earth describes as the criteria's functionality, which I think is a natural reading of the criteria. In terms of the criteria allowing for verification, this functionality of drawing in more experienced/interested editors only really comes in with the addition of entries, as pieces of information that have been in articles for years are hardly achieving this result, and the longevity in appearance doesn't necessarily speak to its validity. The function of verification also ties into my point 'Vague', as the current wording only requires the misconception is mentioned, not necessarily as being common, making the verification only that it is a misconception, not that it is common. Besides this, shoehorning misconceptions into articles isn't necessarily a good approach, there are better ways to engage more interested/knowledgeable audiences.

Proposed alternative: 'The entry is mentioned on the topic page, as a common misconception, or a note has been left on the topic article's talk page mentioning the entries inclusion.' Bit wordy, but addresses most of the issues.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Re Eurocentricity, I certainly agree. There are surely misconceptions in China, Kenya, and Bolivia that aren't recorded here. Alas, a quick review of several other versions of this article shows that they are largely subsets of this article, probably translations of earlier versions of this article... though the Thai version does have a few unique entries very specific to Thailand. --Macrakis (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Re "Overstated": Looking at pervious discussions and attempted additions it is not enough that it needs to be common as that is vague.
• Re "Easily Circumvented": Yes a person could just add it to the target article and that is good for Wikipedia as it expands it. Also the discussion of the notability is moved to the target article and the people who edit that article. If they think the addition is not notable enough to be in the target article and take it out, then we should remove it from this list as well. I often watch the target articles to see if the addition is removed. We could require that a note be put on the talk page of the target article that the entry here is dependent on the target article
• Re Vague: Often additions to this list require the good judgement of the editors who watch this page simply because what is and is not "common misconceptions " is a judgment call and no amount of rules is going to change that. What is needed is rules to support that good judgment.

It is really simple: if it really is a common misconception then it should be mention in some article that an entry can target. That way our readers can click on the link and read about the misconception in context.

Another thing to consider is the last deletion discussion. The list was kept, but there a lot of !votes to delete. If we lower the inclusion requirements this list will become more indiscriminate and more likely to be deleted. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I think a lot of this is covered by the proposed alternative I list above 'The entry is mentioned on the topic page, as a common misconception, or a note has been left on the topic article's talk page mentioning the entries inclusion.'

Some more comments:

The major issue with ascertaining an entry's notability as a common misconception from reference to the topic article is it exacerbates the ongoing issue of determining if something is a misconception or a common misconception: a wikipedia page on quantum information science correcting a misconception speaks very little to notability as a common misconception, which is the priority when determining whether something is going in the page 'list of common misconceptions'

We don't need policies promoting good judgement of what common means, we need a definition and a more fixed criteria. Common misconceptions can mean a misconception believed by a lot of people (which covers misconceptions within academia which the discussion seems to have moved against), or it can mean a misconception widespread among a general populace. Clarification on this would address many talk page issues. This can further be addressed by modifying criteria 2 to prioritise or only cover sources addressed to popular audiences, rather than more academic audiences. This would address the recent discussion of Abu Bakr II. At the more extreme end notability could be derived from requiring reference to opinion polling, which would severely shorten the article, but would create a solid criteria, which, 15 years since the first AFD is long overdue.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Misconceptions that aren't misconceptions

We have a curious tension between the entries for irregardless, which from my reading takes the position that dictionaries should take a descriptive approach, determining meaning from how it is used, while the entry for entry for pedophilia takes a prescriptive position, saying the popular understanding of a pedophile as a child abuser is wrong because academics use the word in a different sense.

The entry on Mozart's nationality: "Mozart was not Austrian" is countered by the article's own lede: "The two main labels that have been used to describe Mozart's nationality are "Austrian" and "German".[1] However, in Mozart's own time, these terms were used differently from the way they are used today, because the modern nation states of Austria and Germany did not yet exist.[2] Any decision to label Mozart as "Austrian" or "German" (or neither) involves political boundaries, history, language, culture, and Mozart's own views. Editors of modern encyclopedias and other reference sources differ in how they assign a nationality to Mozart (if any) in light of conflicting criteria."

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Defining Misconceptions and Pseudoscience

Taking the Cambridge definition of misconception: "an idea that is wrong because it has been based on a failure to understand a situation", many entries which aren't featured on this list could be. Most pseudosciences/alternative medicines could be included (i.e., acupuncture, astrology, Traditional Chinese medicine... many entries on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience) as they maintain a popular following and meet the definition. Including these entries in the article, however, seems intuitively wrong on a few grounds:

• Popular: Popularity, if understood as held by a large portion of a general populace, isn't met by this criteria for many such entries (except perhaps a few (i.e. acupuncture), as they are held by a subset of a populace motivated by an interest. This understanding of popularity, however, discounts many entries already listed on the article which fail such a definition of popularity, such as Jane Russell (possibly already failing criteria 4, and if not certainly concentrated among those with an interest in film history) and the Beatles and the Leslie speaker (almost certainly not held by the majority of a population but rather those interested in the Beatles and music history), but most prominently fails the entry on vaccines causing autism, as such a belief is primarily held by a motivated group.
• Intent: Such misconceptions around efficacy are undermined as they are promoted and maintained by groups with financial interests in maintaining the misconception. Under such an understanding, a misconception is maintained by its status in 'popular knowledge' rather than being the product of concerted disinformation campaigns. However, such an understanding of misconceptions further discounts the entry on vaccines, but also the entries on the First Amendment, Violent Crime and others.
• Faith: Misconceptions such as these can contain spiritual aspects, such as Traditional Chinese Medicine. This disqualifies them from inclusion, since entries included in the article implicitly do not correct popular misconceptions when they are rooted in faith, such as the historicity of the Great Flood. This however does not seem to extend to misconceptions emanating from defences of faith, seen in the evolutionary myth section: this could therefore justify inclusion of many such entries as popular misconceptions rooted in faith are often justified, perpetuating further misconceptions, when challenged. This can further be overcome as understanding of many pseudoscience's/alternative medicine's efficacy doesn't necessarily come from understanding the supposed mechanism for working.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed entry "Ishtar" per criteria 2

There are a lot of equivalent phrases to "common misconception" (i.e. it is popularly believed), but the phrase in the only source listed, "There is a meme floating around Facebook that some people have rallied around and are sharing as a "truth" of Easter." is not equivalent. Even beyond that, the source listed for debunking it makes no mention of the word Ishtar, although the page quoted before does debunk it. Revision Here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The reason for the equip link I think is that it is a rebuttal of the origin of the claim by Hislop. I don't think it works here and I agree with removing it. I think the Scientific American article and this reference would meet that requirement.Brown, Peter Lancaster (1976), Megaliths, Myths and Men: An Introduction to Astro-Archaeology, New York City, New York: Dover Publications, p. 134, ISBN 978-0-8008-5187-3

As for the notability aspect, I kind of agree with your point. It was noteworthy enough to be referenced on Ishtar's page, but not noteworthy enough to be on Easter's page. I also believe Macrakis has supported removal along similar lines. Personally, I think it is fine being left in, with the new reference, but if both you and Macrakis would like to remove it, I'll support that. Squatch347 (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't have access to the book by Brown, so I don't know whether it actually says it is a common misconception, or words to that effect, as required under criteria 2, and the article on Ishtar using it as a source isn't using to source such a claim, if you have access or a link to evidence that it includes this could you provide it ? thanks Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea how common this misconception is. Is it just one of a gazillion random bogus factoids that circulate as memes or in pseudo-scientific literature? Or do we have evidence that it's "common"? --Macrakis (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly troubled by the tagline of the article previously providing evidence for it being common being "Don't believe every meme you encounter." Even if the Brown text brought up claims the misconception is common (which we don't know it does), previous discussions of criteria 4, establishing a metric for determining if a misconception is current, have raised the possibility of only including sources that have been published in the last 50 years which claim misconceptions are currently popularly believed, which I think is a promising approach. The Brown text, at 45 years old, barely makes this cutoff, and won't in just a few years. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The Brown work does not touch on how widespread this misconception might be, it is primarily addressing it in a scholarly manner. The original justification, as far as I can tell, was the reference in the Scientific American article and the fact that, generally, that periodical would not pick up random tidbits to address. Squatch347 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

a) The Scientific American article isn't an article, it's a blog entry, as would have been clear if the person who'd added it had pointed to the source rather than to the Pocket copy. (I've corrected this.)

b) The SciAm blog entry explicitly refers to a meme: "There is a meme that some people have rallied around and shared as a 'truth' of Easter." and says that "some" people have "shared it as a 'truth'". Beyond that, the blog gives no evidence that this is a "common misconception".

c) More generally, it's true that it's hard to separate misconceptions from pure nonsense or propaganda. For example, we correctly do not mention Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories or Pizzagate conspiracy theory on this page, even though probably more people know them and even believe them than ever thought about the Beach Boys' session musicians or spiral staircases in castles. We also don't mention ridiculous things like the Phantom time hypothesis or Velikovsky nonsense. This suggests that we are missing an important criterion in our "Criteria for entries". Not sure what to call it. Maybe "no made-up nonsense". --Macrakis (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Given that both of you think this should be removed, we should be good to remove it. Squatch347 (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

if we want to modify the criteria to define a misconception, there are plenty of things we could define it as not being: abstractions, misnomers, pseudoscience, a product of changing technical terms, prejudice, controversies (particularly manufactured ones), not something where people have been lied to by someone they trust, when misconceptions generated because a technical definition contrasts with a popular one, not dogma and many more definitions of misconception this talk page has implicitly endorsed as justifications for non-entry to the page.

The problem with the page in this regard is the requirement of a presence in a RS stating something is a common misconception, is a product of it being hard to define these terms, and fears of bordering on WP:OR. You can see this in comments like these: "it is irrelevant what we Wikipedia editors think is or is not a common misconception; what matters is whether there is a reliable source that says so". The page has effectively functioned similarly to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, but the lack of "characterised as" allows us to get a lot mushier with it, with this ambiguity causing a lot of grief in AfDs due to its non-compliance with the WP:LISTCRITERIA guideline.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Wetback Entry

The source seems to be some biography of a guy's interactions with them in the post-war period in a text published 50 years ago. It doesn't seem to mention the misconception (at least from my search of it , the sweaty part or , and it certainly doesn't refer to it as common (failing criteria 2). The wetback page doesn't mention the misconception, failing criteria 3. A cursory search for wetback and misconception only really comes up with this page as a result, and the only page i can actually see replicating the misconception is urban dictionary. No discussion of it in the archives that I can see. The addition seemed to slip past editors. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support, there is a short discussion of it on the parent talk page, but all parties agree there is no sourcing for the misconception. I can't find a single source that references the misconception, common or otherwise. Squatch347 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Summary of Talk Page discussions on Criteria

Following is an imperfect summary of the discussions of criteria and adjacent topics through 23 pages of archives. This does not include summaries of AfD, or talk page discussions from "Trickle Down Economics" onwards, as links to these would break when archived. Hope this works as a resource for looking at past discussions.

Collapsed for space

Caption text Information Link Policy of linking to topic page to provide context and promote verifiability per Wikipedia:Verifiability, allows article to sum up misconceptions 1 Entries listed as common misconceptions can be contested (i.e. space is cold, per whose definition?) 2 Criteria set at "described by multiple reliable sources as widely held by the general populace" 3 Page US-Centric 4 The article should be held to a higher sourcing standard since truths aren't self-evident, being misconceptions 5 Misconceptions held by a specific group should be labelled as such 6 Scholarly sources must be held to a higher standard due to differences in academics use of language 6.5 Sources showing a misconception is common must be used when there is reasonable doubt Multiple RS must describe something as common 7 Common refers to popular 8 A misconception requires some self-belief in knowledge 9 "Popular theory" ≠ "popular misconception" Truth cannot be contentious 10 ""Probably the most common idea" does not equal "a common misconception."" 11 Sources debunking many misconceptions in succession have a lower bar for determining what is common 12 Conventions aren't misconceptions 45% is a sizeable amount Best discussion on what misconceptions are A misconception is not a prescription 13 Misconceptions need to be about facts 14 EAbsolute factual standard (falsified) for misconception would rule out microwaves and metal 15 Misconceptions are not misnomers 16 "When I was little I used to think that gas prices were cheap, but little did I know that the gas was ‘per gallon’! Should this be considered a misconception? No because it’s not a wide consensus. But, what if I found 1000’s of people who had thought the same thing?" "My own preference would be to rewrite this article so that it summarizes only those misconceptions described more fully in other articles." + Notability Point 17 Corrections must be unqualified; falsified 18 Most popular myths does/doesn't imply common Editors must be able to assess whether a fact can be disproven Cliches/Stereotypes are not misconceptions Widely repeated not the same as widely believed 19 "Popular myth" ≠ "widely-believed" "It has to be false beyond all reasonable doubt or qualification" "shown to be factually untrue and is not merely a matter of ethics, etiquette, style or opinion" 20 Sources calling something a misconception can be challenged. 21 Longstanding myth isn't common misconception 22 "a pop-culture misconception does not equate to a popular misconception" 23 Opinion polling is problematic as it polls a specific populace 24 Polling on recent issues could be challenged under WP:RECENT 25 Misconceptions are falsifiable 26 Presence in popular culture does/doesn't qualify an entry for inclusion 27 Fallacy from intuition vs misconception 28 Misnomers aren't misconceptions 29 Old Wives tales aren't misconceptions 30 Misconceptions are completely false 31 Beliefs from children cannot be considered misconceptions 32 Misconceptions are challengeable, controversies aren't. 33 Using surveys is bad because the line is arbitrary 34 "a misconception must be commonly held among outsiders" Should be for matters which "there is no legitimate academic dispute." 35 Misconception belief can be challenged, conspiracy theory belief cannot 36 Misconceptions cannot be from those within a group, i.e. religious 37 Support for changing article name to characterised as common misconceptions 38 Widespread counterintuitive beliefs are misconceptions (0.999…) 39 "Items that will trigger an "Oh, i never thought about that" for most people hardly count as common misconception in my book" 40 Proposes a criteria at "Required: one or more reliable source(s) stating "common misconception" or words to that effect in the topic area audience." 41 Criteria added 42 Criteria finalised in current form "Since an agreement on good inclusion criteria may be some time away, I suggest we put up a non-perfect, non-terrible set of criteria as a temporary fix." 43 Proposal to change name to list of notable misconceptions "Common" is a value judgement Misconceptions are notable if printed in RS, independent of being widespread 44 Not all of X, only some, therefore not a misconception 45 "does a "common legend" qualify? what about an "well-known urban legend"? how about something that is "regularly taught in school but is actually incorrect?"" Geographical consideration in defining common Subset of populations (teachers etc.) in defining common The article should be deleted since "common" is a vague concept Opinion polling reveals 20% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth/6000 years old Reliable sources calling something "common misconceptions" is enough 46 Criticisms of definition of Common: Geography: Common on what basis (worldwide, nation, locality, town) Adjusted for population? Groups: Misconceptions within fields? Within groups/religions? Adjusted for population? Response A: Defer to RS to identify "common" A: Quote sources using phrases (i.e. many) or statistics which don't necessarily imply common. Response: including these quotes on the page "list of common misconceptions" requires a minimum standard A: Include local misconceptions B: Exclude excessively restrictive demographics, leaving this undefined, and to "common sense" C: Take things on a case by case basis when evaluating if statistics are "common" Criticisms of definition of Misconception Need to distinguish between urban legends, old wives tales, superstitions Inclusion of text books perpetuating misconceptions is synthesis Misconceptions can be politically/financially encouraged 47 Misconceptions must absolutely false, not usually 48 Criteria 1 fails WP:CIRC Response: Not using for sourcing; for establishing notability Criteria 2, when including synonyms of misconceptions (including statistics), fails WP:OR and WP:SAL, requiring unambiguous criteria Response: Not violation as concrete criteria from reference to RS Criteria 4 doesn't define modern ("1950? 1700?"), fails WP:OR and WP:SAL Common implies current 49 "a misconception is held because of a lack of information but a superstition is held in spite of information to the contrary" 50 "Can we hold misconceptions based on a lack of information or must it be based on a presence of misinformation?" Response: RS list it as common misconception Re; synonyms exist, misconception needs to be defined in such circumstances to evaluate appropriateness of inclusion 51 Dogma is not misconception Difficulty in classifying political material due to difficulty parsing out dogma vs lack of access to fact checking sources 52 Lacking a clear inclusion criteria makes the article fail WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE 53 "a legend is acknowledged to be "factually challenged", a fairytale with some basis in truth perhaps, whereas a misconception is an erroneously held belief" 54 ""Often confused with" is not the same as "common misconception"." ""Often confused with" = "common misconception" is a borderline call to me." 55 "No there wasn't consensus for the above criteria" ""urban legend" does not equate with "common misconception"" 56 "religious belief rather than a misconception" [Jesus Caucasian] 57 Misconceptions are not an "expression of a cognitive bias" [Monty Hall] Response: Reliable sources say it is "As an analogy, many people probably would have a misconception about the behavior of subatomic particles if they thought about it, but the vast majority of people rarely, if ever, think about it" Debate over whether large amounts of people exposed to something shows "common" 58 "Why does an entry in this article need a parent article?" "To assure that the entry's parent topic itself is notable per WP:N, having enough sources to justify an article." 59 "I disagree that "persistent legend" is equivalent to "common misconception"" 60 "WP:LIST says the inclusion criteria should be explained in the lede" 61 Source assessed for political leaning when evaluating politically charged misconceptions 62 "Great point, people will change their mind when a misconception is explained to them" 63 "I see this as a misunderstanding of evolution by people determined to misunderstand evolution. Not a misconception at all." 64 Semantic Issue: Experts define Dark Ages one way, word also has popular meaning, is the popular meaning less valid per prescriptionism? 65 "I think we can agree that causality is irrelevant, and was never important in this list of common misconceptions. Doesn't matter who started it, who failed to correct it, who marketed based on it, or who was finally forced to admit its falsehood" 66 Good discussion of merits of afd args, appropriately discusses policy, questions whether the policy falls under Wikipedia:NOT "The idea that a "misconception" is purely subtractive (it's merely a matter of lacking some fact which, were you presented with it, would immediately enlighten you), whereas conspiracy theories and dogmas of the sort in question are additive, i.e., clearing them up requires eliminating certain bad rules for processing information and faulty data points/experiences, not just adding new data points into the mix" 67 Entry removed when misconception not absolutely proven (consensus among researchers) 68 Professional definition refuted as justification for calling something misconception due to popular definition 69 Common synonym "its description of it as ubiquitous" 70 Quoted from Cwenger: ""a misconception is something that people know, but is actually incorrect—not something they answer incorrectly when it is presented to them" 71 "If people believe something wrong about what the Bible says because someone in a position of power and authority told them the wrong thing, it's not a real misconception. They have been lied to by someone they trusted" 72 Controversy vs Misconception 73 "I don't think a conclusion was reached, although I tink consensus was probably leaning towards misconceptions from any geographic region being legit (see Korean Ceiling Fans)" 74 Cwenger misconception definition used to delete entry 75 US Centric nature of article highlighted 76 Scientific controversies are included in the article as misconceptions. Article a violation of NPOV policy: Article violation of "Verification, Not Truth" Response: Article not, contentious entries can be fixed Several versions of misconceptions exist: which one is presented The article doesn't present global warming as false, despite RS to the contrary, per WP:UNDUE 77 Call for discussion of the "arbitrary way in which "common" is defined from case to case" 78 Inclusion of country-specific misconceptions can be assessed by if the misconception is contingent on being in the country to be held 79 [Upholding criteria 4] "Another way could be to demand that at least one of the sources that describes X as a common misconception is no older than Y years (say 50 or 100?), and that this source describes the common misconception X as something current, not "it was once thought that"" 80 "Hotbutton issues where two opposing factions disagree about fundamental facts… don't belong on this particular list" TV/media tropes are not misconceptions even when wrong 81 Nitpicky entries are less valued (i.e. earth not round, elliptical sphere) 82 "I would add a fifth criteria requiring multiple RS for broad historical misconceptions, but this is already covered in WP:RS: extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing" 83 Hoaxes can be misconceptions if widely believed 84 [GMOs] "(possibly manufactured) controversy than a misconception" Too Political Response: Shouldn't disqualify Response: Unlikely to succeed in maintaining NPOV 85 Entries should be "simple, cut-and-dried [in] nature" 86 Political misconceptions are not appropriate for the article "it seems the line is drawn ambiguously based on differing definitions of "misconception," source of the misconception, or other factors not clearly stated here" Political misconceptions are harder to generate consensus on incorrect state 87 The current four criteria came into being via consensus We should put more scrutiny on field expert's claims of misconceptions being common due to the Curse of knowledge 88 Common doesn't pertain to specific audiences 89 A misnomer is not a misconception 90 Political groups holding misconception too narrow Pseudoscience aren't examples of misconceptions Misconceptions are ~folktale/old wives tale 91 Technical terminology changing doesn't generate misconceptions 92 Criteria 3 doesn't disallowing adding entries to articles. 93 Prejudice isn't misconception 94 Controversies aren't misconceptions 95 Interpreting what words to the effect of common entails is difficult in sources aimed at academic audiences 96 "it is irrelevant what we Wikipedia editors think is or is not a common misconception; what matters is whether there is a reliable source that says so" (ironically immediately after commenting on a post defining common as not restricted to academic audiences) 97 The criteria may not have been intended to apply retrospectively Reply: Yes it was Discussion of justification for Criteria 3: verification by bringing in more experienced editors 98 Splitting pages doesn't justify watering down inclusion criteria 99 Historical consensus on making the article smaller 100 Abstractions aren't misconceptions 101 Criticisms of article Article fails WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Establishing a belief is common is hard, if not impossible Tone unencyclopedic Defences of article Passes WP:SAL per Navigation Follows WP:LISTCRITERIA 102 For entries argued to be controversies rather than misconceptions, multiple sources claiming misconception is "common" required. "describe it as a myth (a false story), not a misconception (a false belief)" Criteria 3 has the role of establishing notability 103 "The criteria you are bludgeoning every other editor here with was implemented without consensus, ignored by the majority of editors and new criteria is being discussed above" 104 "There are plenty of sources that identify "common" misconceptions, but a lot of arguing over whether that's accurate." Proposal: Expert designation as misconception Studies showing commonality are problematic (90% common, how about 30% etc.) "There is no consensus for radically changing the inclusion criteria" 105 Controversies aren't misconceptions per WP:YESPOV Response: Overstatement, Verifiability not Truth 106 Discussion of page's Western bias Require entries not be geographically restricted as they are overly trivial Response: If they are trivial they will be removed of their own accord Describes entries in other language's Wikis Suggestion to ask Wikiprojects for other countries for misconceptions 107 "It doesn't matter if sources use the exact words "urban myth" or "urban legend" or "folk tale" rather than the specific phrase we happen to have chosen for this list, "common misconception". If a number of people think it's true, or at least think it has a strong basis in truth, it's a common misconception. If a significant number of people think it's probably true, it's a common misconception" Hair-splitting urban legend and misconception is wikilawyering 108 Multiple reliable sources showing misconception is common required per WP:V 109 "You are making a WP:OR statement that what is listed is a "common misconception", a secondary source has to make that assessment, not us." "The difference between "X is a common misconception" and "most people think X, even though it is incorrect" is merely a difference of wording, not a different viewpoint." "We all know this list is way too long" 110 Cognitive biases aren't misconceptions 111 "We can't include every false or questionable political claim" 112 Mathematical sampling biases aren't misconceptions 113 "slightly outdated scientific theories don't belong here" 114 WP:SYN okay 115 Journal articles citing something as misconception don't represent a scholarly consensus 116 ""misconception" connotes "ignorance due to honest mistake"" 117 Consensus that current criteria satisfactory 118 Entries that are too technical should be rejected. Response: Technical is subjective 119 Sources claiming something is a common misconception, whose audience is not a general audience (i.e. academic texts) isn't proof of being common Response: standard unrealistic Rfc concludes in response's favour "I also tire of the vagueries of how to define "common misconception"" 120 Rfc: Should current inclusion criteria be removed? Aren't being universally applied: rather more harshly towards additions, and current entries are being defended. Response: Could be more rigorously enforced. Re; controversy more over whether similes for "common misconception" are acceptable 121 Fallacy not misconception Response: Not a fallacy when contingent on circumstances 122 "Surely, this article should be confined to major misconceptions" (per OP's judgement) 123 "some people think" doesn't imply common 124 Misconceptions cannot be "too vague" 125 Deliberate misinformation can be considered a misconception, when sources call it that. 126 Popular belief = common misconception 127 Common and misconception are undefined within the criteria Incorrect beliefs aren't necessarily misconceptions 128 Misconceptions can be overturned when RS conflict with claim 129 Misconceptions aren't words with multiple meanings (common vs authentic) 130 Criteria 3: current status in article indicates notability 131

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this, very helpful! --Macrakis (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Deleting Mozart Nationality Entry

The only source listed from my reading doesn't nearly approximate what is said in this article: it does not list the belief that Mozart was Austrian as a misconception, or necessarily even wrong, and certainly doesn't refer to it as common, failing criteria 2 on both counts. The criteria itself has been ignored historically when something is deemed a controversy, which is defined as not being the same as a misconception, seen here: 1 2 3 4 5. Our article on Mozart's nationality starts with "Any decision to label Mozart as "Austrian" or "German" (or neither) involves political boundaries, history, language, culture, and Mozart's own views. Editors of modern encyclopedias and other reference sources differ in how they assign a nationality to Mozart (if any) in light of conflicting criteria."

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support, per OP. Squatch347 (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Bad Sources

• Candy Apples: Use only Tertiary Source which itself mainly cites from articles published in the 80s.
• Microwave Ovens and Water Resonance: Use only a science blog.
• Microwave Ovens and Cancer: Only cites 2 primary sources.
• Casablanca: City boys doesn't show that Bogart ​was *always* wanted for the part.
• Divine: I can't access the reference, needs formatting.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Cont.

• Online Etymology Dictionary, used for several entries as a source, is described in its Wiki article as "It is cited in academic work as a useful, though not definitive, reference for etymology," will need supporting sources
• Sloan (1990) and Miranda v. Arizona are primary sources and need secondary sources backing them up.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Squatch347 on the microwave source edit: from my reading of the claim "Any heat or radiation that could harm the eyes is contained within the oven," the previous source is the one actually being sourced from, as that article contains the phrase "Overexposure to radiation, including microwave radiation, can lead to clouding of the lens, known as a cataract. But microwaves are designed to keep radiation in, so there's really no danger of exposure." in the context of the safety of looking into microwaves, while the FDA article, apart from obviously only referring to American regulations, doesn't directly address the issue of looking into microwaves being safe (i.e. it lists the sensitive areas as the eyes and testes, idk if men are putting their testes up to the microwave while they wait for food) and so is a weak source for addressing such a claim. Can be kept up if you think that's fine. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If you read through that section and the next, it references that US manufacturing regulations require the device to keep the levels of stray radiation below what would cause these types of harm. The way I am reading the FDA link is, paraphrased "this radiation can do damage, but we require manufacturers to keep the level of radiation low enough that it won't. IE there isn't any danger." Squatch347 (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Re Online Etymology Dictionary, a lot of Wikipedians seem to use it because it is available online for free. Feel free to check the cites with the Oxford English Dictionary or other standard references, and to update the source. I've certainly done that for many articles, though it's rare that the OnlineED disagrees with the OED. --Macrakis (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

PS Note that the OED's revision cycle is measured in decades, and that it doesn't cover some words that have been in use for as long as a century. An example I came across recently is Jung's coinage lethologica (ngrams) which is even covered in Oxford's own Lexico product, but not the OnlineED.

No source is perfect, and OnlineED is pretty good. --Macrakis (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Pop Quiz: Which of these meet Criteria 2 (these sources say the item is a *common misconception*)

Original formatting collapsed

"The best-known explanation of a cooking method is probably... Yet this myth lives on, even among professional cooks." "like many people, Purrington believed" "We [Americans] joke that they're made from so many chemicals that they'll last forever." "That's just one of the urban myths surrounding the snack cakes" "The cakes' sturdiness and longevity have led to the myth" "Many claim it is ALL in the seeds" "The presence of tryptophan in turkey may be the most commonly known fact pertaining to amino acids and food." "We’re cautioned not to throw rice at the bride and groom, because the grain will prove harmful to the birds who swoop down to eat it. The rice expands in those little birdy stomachs, causing our avian companions to explode, we’re warned. This rumor was so pervasive, that in 1985 a Connecticut state legislator introduced a bill" "It's not clear where this urban legend came from, but it got a popularity boost in 1985" "People see it and think of it as a Chinese food dessert, not a Japanese food dessert" "a number of common myths have been effectively disposed of" "had led me to believe the widely repeated myth that" "is persistently and erroneously attributed to" "gives this sauce a retroactive identity that is appealing and enduring, however false it may be. " "It’s a common misconception that" "Although heat is produced directly in the food, microwave ovens do not cook food from the "inside out." "These reports have led to a great deal of concern among the general public and scientists as well. Unfortunately, in discussions of potential health effects, these two types of nonionizing radiation (ELF and RFR) are often equated." "you've likely been told at one time or another that it’s not safe to" "It’s a fascinating piece of trivia that has been casually mentioned and cited in countless books, articles, sound bites, and quiz shows for years now. And it’s wrong." "It’s one of the most ubiquitous pieces of “What if?” alternative Hollywood history" "the most famous anecdote about the production recounts that" Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Cont. "Despite the myth, this has nothing to do with" "Classic business legend holds" "It’s the classic cautionary tale about the pitfalls of doing business in foreign countries" "This anecdote is frequently used to illustrate the perils of" "Contrary to popular belief" "Whorf's claim... has received a great deal of scholarly attention." "Most people familiar with his name know him as a celebrated figure in Victorian England, an ingenious plumber who invented the modern flush toilet" "Indeed, most instead believe one or more of the many spurious explanations that have since grown up about this much abused short form" "Nonetheless, so many readers have forwarded it to us accompanied by an “Is this true?” query" "Other versions of this etymological legend attribute the singing to" "there has been an effort to boycott its traditional usage" "Rule of thumb has received a bad rap" "Just how did the false account originate, and how did it achieve authority and currency?" "the word often misread as “ye” in Middle English" "The ethnic slur wop is said to represent "without passport," "Many people mistakenly believe that “wop” originated at Ellis Island" “Who took Christ out of Christmas?” somebody always asks [at Christmas]. The usual suggestion is that “Xmas” is a secular plot" ""The whole 24-hours-before-reporting-someone-is-missing thing is a myth," he said." "You do not have to wait 24 hours to report someone as missing." "You do not have to wait 24 hours before contacting the police." "Ask anyone who's heard of Dan White -- and there are fewer and fewer people who have" "Many Vietnam and Korean War veterans have heard tales of" [FAQ Context] "I thought that" "it doesn’t mean quite the same thing as many people think it does." "Contrary to common belief" "Americans tend to believe crime is up" "This scenario illustrates one of the biggest misconceptions people have about the" "Although rumours abound of mobsters and murderers hiding their victims at the bottom of the ocean" "There’s a lot of urban legend to this" "But popular usage has created a monster of its own: Frankenstein has come to refer to the creature itself." "This figure has been repeated for over six decades, is cited internationally and in a variety of influential and contemporary research articles and is now widely available through online reference sites" "So who composed this famous tune? Many people think it was..." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The goal of this list is to assess whether entries meet criteria 2, "The item is reliably sourced, with respect to the fact that it is a common misconception." I tried to divorce the phrasing of how common misconceptions were from the entries themselves so the words could be assessed on their own merits, but many required context, and divorcing it from this hindered understanding. I've numbered them this time so they can be referred to explictly. If a source has a quote which meets criteria 2, it can be kept.

Searing

• 1: Harold McGee... "This is probably why well-seared meat is often credited with greater juiciness despite the fact that searing squeezes more of the meat’s own juice out."
• 2: "The best-known explanation of a cooking method is probably this catchy phrase: “Sear the meat to seal in the juices.”"
• 3: "Yet this myth lives on, even among professional cooks."
• 4: "Liebig and his followers were wrong about meat juices, but they were right that searing makes delicious meat."

Twinkies Longevity

• 5: Washington Post... "We [Americans] joke that they're made from so many chemicals that they'll last forever."
• 6: "The cakes' sturdiness and longevity have led to the myth, say Hostess officials, that Twinkies have a shelf life measured in years, even decades."
• 7: "That's just one of the urban myths surrounding the snack cakes that were invented in 1930."
• 8: NPR "Like many people, Purrington believed Twinkies are basically immortal, although the official shelf life is 45 days."

Halloween Candy

• 9: Jan Harold Brunvand "The widely believed rumors that sadistic people frequently prey on children at Halloween by offering them poisoned candy or apples spiked with hidden razor blades or needles have been thoroughly debunked by folklorists, sociologists, and law enforcement officials."

Chili Peppers

• 10: New Mexico State University "Where does the "heat" reside in the chile pepper? Many claim it is ALL in the seeds."

Turkey Meat

• 11: British Medical Journal... "We generated a list of common medical or medicine related beliefs espoused by physicians and the general public, based on statements we had heard endorsed on multiple occasions and thought were true or might be true."
• 12: "The presence of tryptophan in turkey may be the most commonly known fact pertaining to amino acids and food."

Birds & Rice

• 13: Snopes... "We’re cautioned not to throw rice at the bride and groom, because the grain will prove harmful to the birds who swoop down to eat it."
• 14: "This rumor was so pervasive, that in 1985 a Connecticut state legislator introduced a bill... to outlaw the practice:"

Fortune Cookies

• 15: NY Times... "Now a researcher in Japan believes she can explain the disconnect, which has long perplexed American tourists in China."
• 16: "“People see it and think of it as a Chinese food dessert, not a Japanese food dessert,” he said."

Spices

• 17: Paul Freedman "Few aspects of medieval studies have seen as much progress in recent decades as has the field of the history of cuisine. Not the most important evidence of accomplishment, but at least worth mentioning, is that a number of common myths have been effectively disposed of—that Marco Polo brought pasta to Italy from China[1] or (the most venerable fable) that spices were used to cover up the taste of spoiled meat."
• 18: Andrew Dalby "it is worth laying to rest one particular myth about medieval cuisine. It has often been said that one reason for the heavy use of spices was to disguise the taste of bad or spoiled meat."

Whipped Cream

• 19: Maryann Tebben... "Crème Chantilly, sweetened whipped cream usually flavoured with vanilla, is persistently and erroneously attributed to François Vatel"
• 20: "The association of Chantilly castle with the king, and by extension with fine food, gives this sauce a retroactive identity that is appealing and enduring, however false it may be."

Catherine de' Medici

• 21: The New Gastronome: "This phenomenon [Gastronomy Myths] is currently very much in vogue, triggered particularly by marketing, and in general, from the need of valorization by telling past episodes of stories. One of the most remarkable examples of this phenomenon places Catherine de’ Medici at the origins of the exportation of Italian cuisine to France."
• 22: Barbara Ketchum Wheaton: "Fact and fancy alike are embraced in its pages, including the widely believed myths about Catherine de Medici’s influential cooks"

Microwaves & Water

• 23: How Everything Works: "It’s a common misconception that the microwaves in a microwave oven excite a natural resonance in water."

Microwaves, Heating Inside-Out

• 24: FDA "Although heat is produced directly in the food, microwave ovens do not cook food from the "inside out.""

Microwaves & Cancer

• 25: Chronic, Low-Level Study "Although a considerable amount of research has been conducted to determine if exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation causes undesirable bioeffects, many questions remain unanswered. One of the more controversial questions concerns whether or not chronic, low-level exposure to RF radiation induces or promotes tumorigenesis in mammals."
• 26: Chronic exposure of Study "These reports have led to a great deal of concern among the general public and scientists as well. Unfortunately, in discussions of potential health effects, these two types of nonionizing radiation (ELF and RFR) are often equated"

Microwaves and Eyes

• 27: Slate "you've likely been told at one time or another that it’s not safe to look into the microwave while it’s on."

Casablanca

• 28: Snopes... "It’s a fascinating piece of trivia that has been casually mentioned and cited in countless books, articles, sound bites, and quiz shows for years now."
• 29: "It’s one of the most ubiquitous pieces of “What if?” alternative Hollywood history"

Jane Russell

• 30: George Tiffin "The most famous anecdote about the production recounts that"

Spanish Pronunciation

• 31: Telegraph "Despite the myth, this has nothing to do with the Spanish imitating their king."

Chevrolet Nova

• 32: Snopes... "Classic business legend holds that the Chevrolet Nova sold poorly in Spanish-speaking countries because of a translation snafu."
• 33: "It’s the classic cautionary tale about the pitfalls of doing business in foreign countries"
• 34: "This anecdote is frequently used to illustrate the perils of failing to do adequate preparation and research before introducing a product into the international marketplace."
• 35: "The Chevy Nova legend lives on in countless marketing textbooks, is repeated in numerous business seminars, and is a staple of newspaper and magazine columnists who need a pithy example of human folly."→

Sign Languages

• 36: The Sustainability of the Translation Field "Contrary to popular beliefs, there is not one 'universal language' for the deaf"

Hopi

• 37: Malotki "In assessing the reasons for the rather cultish spread of the hypothesis,"

Irregardless

• 38: NPR "Though it may be underlined in red immediately after I type it, “irregardless” is indeed a word. Anne Curzan, a professor of English at the University of Michigan, confirms its legitimacy"
• 39: Merriam Webster "The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however."

AAVE

• 40: PBS... "Perhaps the most stereotypical feature of AAE is what linguists refer to as habitual be"
• 41: "Despite the stereotypes, people who use this feature do not use it in all sentences with the be verb, and they do not suffer from a lack of ability to conjugate be."

Thomas Crapper

• 42: Snopes "Thomas Crapper is an elusive figure: Most people familiar with his name know him as a celebrated figure in Victorian England, an ingenious plumber who invented the modern flush toilet; others believe him to be nothing more than a hoax"

420

• 43: Snopes... "Everyone who considers himself in the know about the drug subculture has heard that ‘420’ has something to do with illegal drug use"
• 44: "Indeed, most instead believe one or more of the many spurious explanations that have since grown up about this much abused short form"

Fuck

• 45: Snopes [Acronym] "The explanation I heard as a kid was that it stood for: For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge."
• 46: Snopes [Pluck Yew] "An account purporting to offer the historical origins of the obscene middle-finger extended hand gesture... is silly, and so obviously a joke that shouldn’t need any debunking. Nonetheless, so many readers have forwarded it to us accompanied by an “Is this true?” query"

Gringo

• 47: Snopes "The rather improbable saga of the origins of the word “gringo” has it that the term began during"

Rule of Thumb

• 48: Henry Ansgar Kelly "The venerable and innocuous expression rule of thumb has taken a beating in recent years. It has been given a phony origin as designating an allowable weapon for wife-beaters, and in consequence there has been an effort to boycott its traditional usage."
• 49: Christina Hoff Sommers "As it is told in the opening essay in one of the most popular textbooks in women's studies, Women: A Feminist Perspective, "The popular expression 'rule of thumb ' originated from English common law"

Ye

• 50: Washington State University "the word often misread as “ye” in Middle English is good old “the” spelled with an unfamiliar character called a thorn"

wop

• 51: Online Etymology Dictionary "The ethnic slur wop is said to represent "without passport,""
• 52: Origins of the Specious "Many people mistakenly believe that “wop” originated at Ellis Island, where inspectors supposedly used stamps or chalk or placards to identify immigrants without proper papers"

Discussion

Entries whose current sources could disqualify them per criteria 2:

• Twinkies longevity: "Like many people" is the closest, and many people believing something arguably doesn't imply the belief is common, if many is read as denoting a significant number (i.e. many people believe the Earth is flat).
• Chili Peppers: "Many claim" disqualification on same grounds as Twinkies longevity.
• Birds & Rice: "We’re cautioned not to throw" Ambiguous whether common is implied, could just refer to the existence of misconception.
• Whipped Cream: "is persistently and erroneously attributed to François Vatel" Misconception being held over a long time doesn't imply it's common.
• Microwaves and Cooking from the Inside Out: How common the belief is not mentioned
• Casabalanca: Misconception widely repeated doesn't mean the misconception itself is commonly held. Ubiquity unclear if in context of a general populace or among discussions of Hollywood "What ifs"
• Jane Russell: Most famous anecdote about the production doesn't make it common among a general populace, maybe among people who know about the film.
• Spanish King: Commonality not referred to.
• Chevrolet Nova: Misconception being depicted in many sources, per Casablanca, doesn't mean it's commonly held (WP:OR). Being a "classic" business legend doesn't make it commonly held among a general populace.
• Hopi: Cultish spread doesn't imply common.
• Thomas Crapper: Misconception among a subset familiar with his name doesn't reflect on common among general populace.
• 420: Misconception among subset of those familiar with drug culture, among those who believe they understand the etymology doesn't make it common.
• Fuck: Neither acronym nor pluck yew shown to be common.
• Gringo: Doesn't comment on if it is common.

I imagine some of these will be contested whether the RS says this is common or "words to that effect" as the criteria is often held to, for those not contested I will add a Citation Needed tag to them, leave them for some weeks, and if sources are not added, remove them.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Re Whipped cream: In the whipped cream article, this footnote cites a source which reads:

L’invention de la crème Chantilly est fréquemment et à tort, attribuée à Vatel en 1671 dans les cuisines du château de Chantilly. [my emphasis]

That seems pretty clear. Are you suggesting that sources supporting all 4 criteria need to appear in this article and not the source article? --Macrakis (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Rolling, is it your intent that we all review the 52 sources above and opine on them? Just want to understand what you are looking for from us.

For the ones you highlighted here in discussion; Birds and Rice is too vague, ditto Jane Russell, and I think we agreed on Gringo yesterday?

Squatch347 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Re; Macrakis: I would definitely say that for entries to meet this article's inclusion criteria of being reliably sourced in terms of being common and a misconception, the sources have to actually appear in this article: while the topic article can go into more depth on the context of being a misconception, the inclusion criteria actually has to be met here. Beyond this being what ?I think? is the status quo, at least for inserting entries, what an entry's topic article is isn't always clear: here is it whipped cream, or François Vatel ? For Mozart inventing the tune for Baa baa black sheep, Twinkle Twinkle, Alphabet song , which of these is the topic article ? Is Mozart the topic article ? (as an aside all of these don't include the misconception btw, failing criteria 3) Where are we looking for a source on this claim of commonality ? The issue of determining which topic article is sidestepped if we just include the source in this page. If the source for a misconception being common itself is actually within the topic article, as seen here, then the solution is easy: put it in this article.

I'm not convinced something being "frequently" attributed to something is proof of it being a common misconception. All frequently attributed to means is the misconception is common among discussions of the origin of this thing. It doesn't comment on how common discussions around the origins of whipped cream are, and therefore how widespread such erroneous attributions would be; i.e. if the misconception is common.

Re; Squatch347: Discussions of what entries to include have landed on reliable sources describing something as both common and a misconception. Since barely any sources actually do this, and there's not really a difference between "common misconception" and "widely believed, but wrong", we've landed on common misconception, or "words to that effect". You can see how much that phrase turns up in the archives. I wanted to lay out the spectrum of "words to that effect," to see where that evaluation fails, contextualising acceptability of phrasings. I would love it if each phrasing were evaluated, there only needs to be one phrasing per entry that you think succeeds. I don't think many people will do that, which is okay. I'm okay with just my assessments of whether entries fail the "words to that effect" test being reviewed.

You've highlighted which ones you approve of, could you tell me why you disapprove of my assessment of some others, e.g. the Spanish King one ? Sorry if it seems equivalent to gish gallop. btw, we agreed on the wetback entry, not the gringo one. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Re "commonness" versus "frequency", that's a problem with most of the entries on this list. Almost all are specific to particular groups. I bet hardly anyone in Europe has even heard of George Smathers or Benjamin Banneker or Dan White or the composition of George Washington's false teeth (is this a list of common misconceptions in the US?). The popularity of the slur "wop" seems to have peaked in the 1940s; how many millennials (even among English-speaking Americans) even know the term, let alone wonder about its origins? How many people have heard of Hypatia or the Fisher Space Pen? How many people think that daddy longlegs spiders are the most venomous in the world (certainly not Australians...) -- many other spiders (e.g. brown recluse) tend to be mentioned? Who thinks about the shape of corner flags in football other than UK football fans? How many people have heard of Divine or deferred adjudication or the chirality of medieval spiral staircases? etc. etc.

Subjectively, most (though certainly not all) of the entries on the list sound familiar. But a different subset will no doubt sound familiar to you or to an English-speaking person from Delhi or Melbourne or Hong Kong or Copenhagen. I can't think of any objective way to determine that some mistaken statement is "commonly" believed across the English-speaking world, regardless of age, place, education, religion, etc. So we need to rely on reliable sources, none of which as far as I know has actually even attempted an objective survey of the prevalence of incorrect beliefs. But that's the best we can do. --Macrakis (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Happy to help in that effort, but it might be a slow go, just so you are prepared. Wiki, and this page specifically are not major targets of my attention. Squatch347 (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Squatch, I think when I say "leave them for some weeks" we can make that until 2022: new year , new me (me being list of common misconceptions Wikipedia page). Take it at your own pace, I'm glad you're up for helping.

Macrakis, "So we need to rely on reliable sources" is a funny statement, since it's kind of begging the question. We are looking at a reliable source, and since it doesn't say "common misconception" we are seeing if the words it uses are equivalent. I'm saying that they're not, you are implying they are. It's definitely the case with most entries that they are restricted to a subgroup (nationality, religion etc.), and not the entire world, but you would be hard pressed to find an entry restricted to the subgroup of people who have engaged in discourse around the origins of whipped cream, or an equivalent, because most definitions of common wouldn't include that. And if you look at this source analytically, this is all it refers to. We've excluded misconceptions for being too niche, and therefore not common, even when sources describe them as common misconceptions, which I myself would err against as it falls into OR. But as one person said last month "I don't think a scholarly error, even if it makes its way into school textbooks, qualifies as a "common misconception" unless it has a life outside of academia." Even more limited than a life outside of academia: discourse on the origin of whipped cream, which is all the source comments on, extrapolating further constitutes OR. It's very possible this is a common misconception, but this source doesn't support it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

A source doesn't have to use the exact words "common misconception" to support the claim that something is a common misconception. For one thing, our use of "misconception" on this page is somewhat idiosyncratic.

Yes, of course not that many people think about the origins of whipped cream. Or for that matter about Ronald Reagan and Casablanca; or about the universality of sign language; or the chirality of staircases in castles; etc. etc. I'm not sure how you plan to quantify the relative commonness of all these things. --Macrakis (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This is such an interesting misunderstanding of what I'm saying. As I've said before, yes, sources don't have to use the exact phrase 'common misconception.' This is as when a source says 'popular misconception' or even 'popularly believed erroneous statement', the meaning is fundamentally identical to a source saying the phrase 'common misconception'. The phrase used to describe this assessment of similarity throughout the archives is 'words to that effect'; if a RS describes something as a common misconception, or 'words to that effect' it can be included in the article. There doesn't need to be some test from opinion polling to assess whether it's 'common' (interpreting such data would be WP:OR) that's not at all what I'm saying, This whole exercise taking place in this subsection of the page is saying "according to the line of argument that inclusion is contingent on a RS describing something as a common misconception, or 'words to that effect', per criteria 2, are entries meeting such a criteria."

Therefore, we are discussing whether since this entry does not include the words 'common misconception', whether the phrase 'frequently attributed' constitutes 'words to that effect.' Which it doesn't, per previous arguments. Sorry for belaboring the point, hope I've made myself clear on the actual discussion I'm trying to have. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems problematic to try to determine whether something is a popular misconception based on the details of the wording of the sources used. --Macrakis (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh absolutely, this is the great irony of the current structure of the article: we only include what RS say is a common misconception so that we don't have to construct definitions of common and misconception (because that's excruciatingly hard), but include many that don't say those exact words, saying we can assess whether the meaning is equivalent. This obviously presupposes a definition of common and misconception to compare a source's wording to. It's absurd on its face. Yet I'm just running with this current consensus that "words to that effect" is a good tool for assessing entry, and showing that many entries on the page fail that looser requirement, and the ones that do pass have to be assessed against an undefined common and misconception. I'd prefer to model the page's entry requirements on list of terrorist incidents, "Definitions of terrorism vary, so incidents listed here are restricted to those that are notable and described as "terrorism" by a consensus of reliable sources." but for "common misconception". Obviously this would generate a lot of kickback since things called "popular misconceptions" etc would be kicked off the page, but unless someone wants to define common and misconception (which I'm currently making an attempt at to see if it's possible), this is necessary to pass the WP:LISTCRIT guideline and generally to justify the article's existence. These stupid (although I find quite fun) analytical games, of determining whether "frequently attributed" is equivalent to "common misconception" are a requirement necessarily implied by this current model of not containing definitions for common and misconception, but also accepting "words to that effect". It has generated 23 talk page archives of discussion, and it'll probably generate 23 more in the years to come. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this criticism goes a little too far, these kind of interpretation issues plague all wiki policy. In some sense they plague language in general. There is a reason Wiki is a consensus encyclopedia, because a lot of these interpretations can be worked out if discussed. Ditto to a lot of the issues listed above, imo. I'm just not as worried about that level of ambiguity. Squatch347 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

RIHG, your argumentation above is skating awfully close to WP:POINT -- it sounds like you want to prove that the current criteria are "absurd" by taking them overly literally and seeing what pushback you get. I think it would be more productive to:

• Attempt a more explicit definition (even though it's "excruciatingly hard")
• Give examples of things that you do and don't believe belong in the list. (Often it's easier to discuss examples than abstract principles.)

Your listing of previous discussions is a good start, but we probably need to reorganize and rationalize them.

On the other hand, fine parsing of sources seems unlikely to be helpful. I doubt most writers think hard about the difference (if there is one) between "popular", "common", "frequent", and "widespread" misconceptions. --Macrakis (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Voltaire Entry

I wanted to put up a recent entry about Voltaire for some discussion. To whit;

Despite numerous pieces erroneously attributing the quote to him, there is no known historical account recording Voltaire, when on his deathbed, responding to a priest who urged him to renounce satan and return to the faith that it was, "no time to be making enemies."

I do not believe this entry meets inclusion criteria.

1) This is mentioned in the Voltaire article, but is not referenced as a misconception, but rather just one of various accounts of his death; none of which are definitive. 2) The item is sourced. One of the three entries is clearly WP:RS. However, none of the sources reference it as a misconception at all, let alone a common one. At most they call this as possibly an incorrect account of his last words. 3) Item is listed in parent article, with sources; but not as a misconception 4) Again, obsolete imo. Most recent account in the sources in mid-1970s and is from a single Nobel Prize speech.

I would vote for non-inclusion. Squatch347 (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This article doesn't cover incorrect quotations, whether they're supposedly last words or not. Otherwise, we could easily double the size of the article and still be grossly incomplete. See List of common misconceptions#Literature. --Macrakis (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this item does not meet the inclusion criteria and should not be included in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Humans and apes are monkeys

This is a new entry that I deleted. It has since been re-added.

My reason for deleting it is that it depends on what one means by the word "monkey" and is an argument about semantics not necessarily a misconception.

From the article on monkeys:

Traditionally, all animals in the group now known as simians are counted as monkeys except the apes, a grouping known as paraphyletic; however in the broader sense based on cladistics, apes (Hominoidea) are also included, making the terms monkeys and simians synonyms in regard of their scope.

The introduction to the article on Old world monkeys lists its genera and subspecies and excludes apes. It states "...they are more closely related to apes than to New World monkeys." implying that apes are not included in old world monkeys, contradicting the statement in the entry here.

This is not my field of expertise, and I do not disagree with the statement that humans and apes are monkeys (in a certain sense - any clave that includes both new and old world monkeys must also include apes/humans) but calling it a misconception seems a stretch. That, and I haven't seen it identified in the parent articles as a misconception. Maybe I'm missing something. I'll leave it up to the consensus of the other editors to determine whether to keep the entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What about Barbary Apes.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:]]21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

You mean Barbary_macaques? Not at all relevant. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Why, O Ravenmaster? Unriddle me that?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Barbary Macaques are not apes. Just as panda koala bears are not bears, seahorses are not horses, catfish are not cats, and turkey vultures are not turkeys. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

-Hello, I'm the author of the edit in question. I'll say up front that if people aren't sure about the edit, it's fine to remove it until we've discussed it, I won't mind. Anyway, here's the concerned entry:

• Humans and other apes are monkeys, specifically Old World monkeys. Although apes were traditionally considered to be a sister group to both Old and New World monkeys, modern molecular and paleontological data shows that this division is paraphyletic.

I recommend anyone interested check out the sources, (all of which are taken from the Old World monkey page) one of them goes into great depth about how this is a common misconception, even among scientists. It's not at all surprising that it's an extremely common misconception, (just like the misconception that birds aren't dinosaurs) because it was taught in schools for over a hundred years.

I made some diagrams to help explain this to anyone who wants to know about it. I was considering adding them to the article, but I think they'll be too bulky. I might add them to the Paraphyly page and/or the Old World monkeys page if people like them:

Paraphyletic (traditional) monkeys

The traditional view that apes are not monkeys results in an invalid (paraphyletic) grouping for both the monkeys as a whole, and the Old World monkeys by themselves.

Polyphyletic monkeys

Reclassifying Old World monkeys to exclude the most recent common ancestor between snub-nosed monkeys and apes can make the Old World monkeys into a valid (monophyletic) clade, but this excludes organisms conventionally defined as crown group Old World monkeys and still results in monkeys as a whole being an invalid group, though this time the monkeys are polyphyletic.

Monophyletic monkeys

The only biologically real (monophyletic) way to group the monkeys is to include the apes as monkeys, and further, to include apes, snub-nosed monkeys, and their most recent common ancestor together in the Old World monkeys.

It may not say that this is a common misconception on the Old World monkeys page, but it could (one of the sources already on that page is all about how it's a misconception). The whole, "Look at that monkey," "That's not a monkey, that's an ape" thing is so common I'm afraid even many scientists fall prey to it, just because it is the traditional way that Linnaeus defined things.

Someone above mentioned that Barbary apes are not apes, and this is true, and it is also a common misconception (so common in fact that it's in the name). If anyone had a good source for it (there probably is one on the Barbary macaque page), we could add that too, though it should be a separate entry. On an unrelated note, I was considering adding an entry about animals commonly misconceived as Dinosaurs (i.e. Dimetrodon, icthyosuars, pleisiosaurs, mosasuars, and pterosaurs). I haven't got all my sources in order for that one yet. We could also add a similar entry for Barbary apes, seahorses, catfish, and turkey vultures, assuming that someone had the RS to show those are common misconceptions. I'm afraid we'll have to exclude panda bears from that entry, but we might make a third separate entry about the common misconception that panda bears are not bears (pandas are, in fact, bears).

Please give me any suggestions/critiques about the edit (or make edits yourself), and any suggestions/critiques for these diagrams. Cheers. Joe (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

As a non-expert, I would say that differing positions about the way words ought to be used don't really constitute misconceptions. There seems nothing inherently wrong in attaching a name to one of these paraphyletic categories, if people have found it useful to do so (and I suspect it's quite a common situation). W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The first source certainly classifies this as a common misconception, and even mentions that laymen usually (correctly) identify apes as monkeys. There's a weird hierarchy of opinion on this, where the most uneducated assume that apes are monkeys, people who are familiar with biology have heard that apes aren't monkeys and so (wrongly) believe they aren't, and phylogenists agree that apes are monkeys.

'Monkey' may be an English word that means 'a simian with a tail' (in which case Barbary macaques wouldn't be monkeys either), but 'monkey' also has a scientific meaning. If someone pointed to a bird and said, "Look, a dinosaur!" and someone else replied, "Birds aren't dinosaurs." one could argue that the word 'dinosaur' is not conventionally used in English to describe birds, but 'dinosaur' is not just an English word, it's a clade. Monkeys are likewise a clade, and what is and is not a monkey is a matter of science.

Here, the lede to the Monkey article already says it better than I can:

Monkey is a common name that may refer to most mammals of the infraorder Simiiformes, also known as the simians. Traditionally, all animals in the group now known as simians are counted as monkeys except the apes, a grouping known as paraphyletic; however in the broader sense based on cladistics, apes (Hominoidea) are also included, making the terms monkeys and simians synonyms in regard of their scope. Monkeys are divided into the families of New World monkeys (Platyrrhini) and Old World monkeys (Cercopithecidae in the strict sense; Catarrhini in the broad sense, which again includes apes).

The term 'monkey' is used synonymously with 'simian' in the literature, and no modern evolutionary biologist will seriously claim that humans aren't monkeys. I could add a sentence, something to the effect that 'while the term monkey has a colloquial meaning which differs from the scientific meaning, humans and other apes are phylogenetically classified as monkeys...', if that was desired. Joe (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish:, @Jack Upland:, @W. P. Uzer:, how would ya'll feel about this edit:

• Humans and other apes are monkeys, specifically Old World monkeys. The term 'monkey' is sometimes used colloquially to refer to any simian which is not an ape. Although this colloquial use was originally in alignment with the scientific classification of apes as a sister group to both Old and New World monkeys, modern molecular and paleontological data shows that this division is invalid.

Thoughts? Joe (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm no kind of expert on this, but you seem to want to label as "misconceived" what is merely the use of a word in a particular (well-established but less scientific) meaning. For a true misconception in this area, I would expect to see evidence of a widespread factually wrong belief about the simian genealogical tree itself. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The first source goes into that in some depth. The statements "humans did not evolve from monkeys" and "humans are not monkeys" are actually the same statement, cladistically. That is the widespread factually wrong belief about the simian genealogical tree: that humans and other apes are not on it. I could also add something like "Humans and other apes are descended from monkeys." or "Apes and other Old World monkeys share a common ancestor that was, itself, an Old World monkey" if you'd like, (both of those statements are also supported by the sources) although I'd personally say that might be belaboring the point. Joe (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This is wacko. I thought that pandas were bears, and koalas were marsupials, but now you are rocking my world.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

After researching this further, my understanding is that the term "monkey" is a layman's term and has no fixed scientific meaning. "New world monkey" has an agreed upon meaning as the Ceboidea. "Old world monkey" may mean the Cercopithecidae (apes excluded) or the Catarrhini (apes included) and I would expect that any discussion among evolutionary biologists would include a clear specification of which. Ceboidea plus Catarrhini forms a valid monophyletic clade while Ceboidea plus Cercopithecidae does not. Historically, this latter grouping was called "monkeys". There is a good argument to be made that the term "monkey" should refer to the former grouping, but I'm unconvinced that this terminology is sufficiently established in the literature to declare a misconception.

By way of analogy, what is a Tree? Well, there are pine trees and oak trees and any valid clave that includes both must include a lot of organisms that few people would consider to be "trees" such as wheat. Is it a common misconception that wheat is not a tree? Of course not, because the term "tree" is not a useful concept from the perspective of evolutionary biology other than an example of parallel evolution. You can do the same thing with "fish" - any monophyletic clave that includes what most people would consider fish would also include mammals including humans. I don't think we're going to create an entry that says "humans are fish and it's a common misconception that we aren't."

I think the broader "misconception" here is that historical classifications and laymen's terms for organisms are sometimes at variance with the modern cladistic groupings. Perhaps there's an entry to be crafted that expresses that, but I fear we may be entering the realm of "most people don't understand science". As for the current entry, my vote is to remove it since it turns upon what is meant by the term "monkey". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I must say I intensely disagree with your tree analogy, Mr Swordfish: no reliable scientific source would use the term 'tree' to mean a monophyletic clade, but any reliable scientific paper will use the term monkey to mean a monophyletic clade (as mentioned above, and currently written in the lede of the Monkey article, monkey and simian are used synonymously in the literature). Further, with regards to your fish concern, it is a fact that humans and all other tetrapods are sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fish. That is not the subject of a common misconception, however. No one ever went to a zoo and pointed at the antelopes and said, "look, a sarcopterygian fish," and no one ever replied, "antelopes aren't sarcopterygian fish!" It may well be a misconception that lungfish are more closely related to goldfish than they are to dogs, but it is not a common misconception, at least not as far as I am aware (if someone has several RS to the contrary, well, that would be another thing). By contrast, the number of children who've gone to zoos and pointed at the bonobos and said, "monkey!" only to be corrected by a someone saying, "no, those are apes, apes aren't monkeys," - well, the sources make it clear that this is a common misconception which frequently occurs.

That having been said, it's clear not everyone is happy with the edit, so I've removed it. I'll add a modified version back in later, hopefully incorporating some criticisms and discussing the linguistic angle too. I'll try to remember to ping you and Mr. Uzer and this funny fellow Mr. Jack for comments, whenever. I might put up some drafts for you to read in the talk, if you don't mind.

You seem to be coming upon something which many scientists have struggled with, Mr Swordfish, that is, the unreality of certain traditional clades. Some clades are very badly constructed. The Insectivora, for example, is a totally defunct concept, it went the way of the dodo (aha) once molecular data came along and showed that almost every member was not closely related to any other member. Other clades which are quite bad, for example reptile, which is polyphyletic with respect to birds and paraphyletic with respect to turtles and certain fossils amniotes, have stubbornly stuck around despite their many problems. When I read, "my understanding is that the term "monkey" is a layman's term and has no fixed scientific meaning" I see you seem to be coming to the conclusion that 'monkey' is one such clade, a group fit only for common usage, but I tell you that this is not so. True, classically defined the monkeys are paraphyletic, but there are lots of old clades that were poly or paraphyletic with respect to one or two constituents, and scientists generally do not retire such classification, but instead broaden or shrink them where appropriate. Scientists have done this with the monkeys - the term has not gone out of use, and the fix scientists came up with is simple: include apes where they belong in the tree. The fact that the public hasn't caught up to this paradigm shift is why it's such a common misconception in the first place. 'Monkey' is not a layman's term only, it is used in the literature to mean 'simians,' a biologically real (monophyletic) group. Joe (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Common terminology is often at odds with evolving technical terminology, and not just in biology. Astronomy says that Pluto is not a planet. Chemistry classifies many substances as salts, not just sodium chloride. Botany classifies tomatoes as fruit (more specifically, as a berry), while common terminology says that they are not fruit, but vegetables (categories which are not mutually exclusive scientifically). (Begin addition:) Strawberries are not botanical berries, while bananas and peppers are. (End addition) Are there any misconceptions in there? I don't think so -- just differences in terminology.

For very good reasons, biologists work with monophyletic groupings. That doesn't make paraphyletic or polyphyletic groupings "misconceptions" -- it just makes them non-technical terms.

By the way, I would include the current item about the deep web vs. the dark web as a simple misuse of terminology rather than a misconception.... --Macrakis (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

George Washington’s teeth

Concern: “human teeth … purchased … from slaves”

The enslaved people would not be independent economic actors in the law at the time. One assumes that the teeth were purchased from the persons claiming legal title over the enslaved persons.

The sentence whitewashes the exploitation of the persons from whom the teeth were extracted, who I also assume received no compensation.

“Purchased human teeth that probably came from enslaved people” is possibly more accurate formulation, albeit it leaves the question of how healthy teeth come to be in dentures unasked.

I’m no expert in history, but would such an expert be able to review this? Hopefully to at least acknowledge historic exploitation? MrReaney (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

We only state what is in the cited source, assuming the source is reliable (and PBS is reliable). The source states that slaves sold their teeth. We cannot synthesize a conclusion based on our personal knowledge or opinions. I feel confident that slaves were able to sell small items to get money for personal use. Teeth were among the few things that they could sell. Sundayclose (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Other religions

Look at the religions section. I got rid of the 'other religions' subsection after someone deleted the Bahai faith entry (and good riddance, the only source was the Bahai faith website, not exactly what I'd call RS), leaving only a single other entry about Buddhism. Didn't seem right to have an 'other religions' section with only one religion mentioned. We could add the section back in though, and maybe put the single other non-subsectioned entry under 'other religions,' since that other entry mentions Jainism and Unitarianism. Alternatively, there must be other worthy misconceptions about a religion as widely misinterpreted as Buddhism - if anybody knows some that would fit on the list, maybe add one or two and we can put together a Buddhism subsection. Joe (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Of crabs and cockroaches - should we add a 'Taxonomy' section under Biology?

Someone mentioned that king crabs are not crabs, and speculated whether we should add this as an entry. I would personally advise against this, as while it may be a misconception that king crabs are crabs, I seriously doubt that it is a common misconception (I doubt most people even know what a king crab is). If someone has a RS stating that it is a common misconception, that would be another matter, of course.

Anyway, it got me thinking: there are probably a fair number of misconceptions of 'Organism X' being a member of 'Phylum A' (Koalas being bears, mushrooms being plants, termites being ants, for example). It may be worth starting a new section under biology that's something like 'Taxonomy' or 'Classification' or some such. I wouldn't want to start such a section without a fair few entries, however, so if anyone has any well-sourced examples that are already mentioned on their respective pages and meet the other general criteria for inclusion in this list, please add them below, or add them directly to the article wherever they'd currently fit best. I might add some over the next few days. Critiques/assistance welcomed! Joe (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be a good addition set. I wouldn't be surprised if we could use a single RS for a lot of those two as those are often the fun kind of trivia that organizations like to put out. I could see something like this, but a RS [14] Squatch347 (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful to have a single entry saying that common names for things are often different from their scientific classification, and that we're not going to try to list all those cases. Anyway, what are the criteria for inclusion?

1. All polyphyletic or paraphyletic names in common use?
2. All organisms whose common names include x which are not taxonomized as x?
3. All cases where some writer says "do not confuse x with y?

What about, say, killer whales? We are often admonished that they are dolphins, not whales,[15] but whale is a paraphyletic group which includes the Cetacea other than the dolphins, so in some sense, they are whales....

How pedantic do we need to get? Do we need to mention that sea horses are not horses?[16] That blue-green algae (a respectable name even in scientific discourse until a few decades ago) are not algae? That horseshoe crabs are neither horseshoes nor crabs? That starfish are neither stars nor fish (bio teachers like to call them "sea stars" to avoid this confusion)? That earthworms, tapeworms, silkworms, flatworms, shipworms, etc. etc. are taxonomically distant from one another?

What about other scientific terminology? Do we need to point out that a person who has a lot of "energy" in fact does not have energy in the physics sense?

When do we decide that the technical definition is the "true" one? A lot of technical terminology started out as common usage. Conversely, some technical terms (say "migraine") have entered common speech to mean something less specific ("bad headache").

It would be a huge mess to try to cover all this.... --Macrakis (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Macrakis, I think you've somewhat misapprehended the proposed addition. We're not saying that we should add all taxa which have ever been misconceived (if you wanted to make a comprehensive list like that, it should be its own page). I would only approve of suggestions which already stringently meet the requirements for inclusion on this page, and indeed, only for taxa which are the subject of common misconceptions, common being the operative word. I expect 99% of people have never even heard the word 'shipworm,' so adding it to a list of things which are 'commonly' misconceived would be silly. There are plenty of taxa, however, which are commonly thought to be 'not what they are.' You mentioned starfish, and I've always wondered if people actually think starfish are fish (like, I'm pretty sure most people know seahorses aren't horses, and that it's just a name). If there's a section on the starfish page that says this is a common misconception (I admit I haven't checked) and there are good RS for it, then we could add it. If not, then no.

Should we include "All polyphyletic or paraphyletic names in common use?" No, only the ones that constitute a misconception (as indicated by RS) and which are already mentioned on their main page.

Should we include "All organisms whose common names include x which are not taxonomized as x?" Again, no, only the ones that constitute a misconception (as indicated by RS) and which are already mentioned on their main page. Do any RS say that it's a common misconception that seahorses are horses? I'd question the reliability of such a source, if you presented it to me, as I have never actually met anyone who believed seahorses were affiliated with equines. On the other hand I've met multitudes of people who thought American bison were buffalo, so if you showed me a RS to that effect, and it was already mentioned on the Bison page as a misconception or a misnomer (and I just checked and it is) I'd be happy to accept an entry for that.

Should we include "All cases where some writer says "do not confuse x with y?" No, again, only the ones that constitute a misconception (as indicated by RS, not just 'some writer') and which are already mentioned on their main page.

After we make sure all our entries meet the general criteria for inclusion, I think we'll find that it will not be a burgeoning list. If we wanted to include all of any class of misconception, this page would swiftly balloon into a monstrosity, so we're only interested in the common sort of taxonomic misconceptions that can be well-sourced. Joe (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Squatch347:, I read through that list, and I think horseshoe crabs meet the criteria for inclusion on this list. It is stated on the Horseshoe Crab page that "Their popular name is a misnomer, as they are not true crabs, nor even crustaceans, as crabs are, but are chelicerates, most closely related to arachnids." and there are sources that state this is a misconception - I'll add a new entry shortly. If we get two or three more good ones, I'd say we should make it its own section. Does anyone have a name preference between 'Taxonomy' and 'Classification'? Joe (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources saying that horseshoe crabs are not crabs or that their common name is misleading.

There are also plenty of sources saying that killer whales are not whales (which they are, in the cladistic sense).

There are also plenty of sources saying that red mullets (Mullus spp.) are not mullets (Mugilidae).

As for the king crab case, yes, they are not Brachyura, but Anomura, like hermit crabs. But those two groupings together constitute the clade Meiura. So is it a misconception that king crabs are crabs? Or an error to consider that the common name 'crab' corresponds to the Brachyura rather than the Meiura?...

I don't object to creating a new page listing commonly confused species, but this page is long enough without that. --Macrakis (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Macrakis here. We really don't need to go down this rabbit hole - agree that it would be a mess. If someone wants to make a page listing species where the cladistic classifications differ with common terminology, have at it. But we don't need another hundred entries here nitpicking about definitions. (e.g. "The earth is not round. It is an oblate spheroid")

Please, let's try to arrive at consensus here before adding a bunch of new entries. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's a concrete, and I think constructive, way forward:

Go ahead and start an article on cases where common language names and scientific names aren't aligned. The intro can be analytical, discussing why this happens.

Add one item to this page with an overview of the issue, and pointing to that article as the main article.

If after a few months, that new page still seems small enough and focused enough that it wouldn't overpower this article, then propose to merge it back in. --Macrakis (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no rabbit hole to go down. Saying "it would be silly to include x, y, and z taxa," when 'x, y, and z' taxa haven't been proposed for inclusion is a non-sequitur, and further, saying that because 'x, y, and z' taxa wouldn't make good inclusions and so therefore no taxa make good inclusions, is a conflation. If someone wants to dispute a specific entry, I'm happy to have that discussion based on the merits of the RS. Making a generalization like 'there's no common misconceptions to be found in common terminology' isn't meaningful when the RS clearly do not support that conclusion. Joe (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Macrakis, if there isn't general support for a Taxonomy section, I won't add one. But you seem to be misunderstanding, still, the intention here. I'm not proposing that we add every single taxonomic misconception ever to this page. I'm only adding (and encouraging others to add) the common taxonomic misconceptions that already meet the criteria for inclusion on this page. Your proposal is interesting, and if you'd be interested in working together to make a page that's something like 'A list of taxonomic misconceptions' I'd be happy to work with you on that - but, and I cannot stress this enough, such a list would not comport to what should go on this page, as many of the entities on that list would not be common. Joe (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@JoePhin: I am not sure that it's feasible to determine which "taxonomic misconceptions" are "common".

We know, for example, that educators at aquariums like to underline that starfish are not fish, and in fact use the term "sea star" to avoid the misnomer. That might count as evidence of a common misconception. But does anyone who has graduated from kindergarten actually think that starfish are fish? They certainly don't look like fish in any way at all -- they have 5-fold symmetry, no fins, no spine, no gills, etc. And yet there are earnest sites like [17] telling us that starfish/sea stars are not fish.

Of course, seahorses don't look like either fish or horses, but I agree that no one actually thinks that they're equine or mammalian.

As for humans being apes vs. monkeys, that's exactly the paraphyletic situation of killer whales being whales vs. dolphins or birds being dinosaurs not, um, birds (?). Do we really want to consider it a "misnomer" or "misconception" that people use paraphyletic categories in everyday use? After all, even biologists used paraphyletic categories until very recently. Again, biology educators like to underline that birds are dinosaurs cladistically (is that a word?), but in everyday language, "dinosaur" refers to the Mesozoic fauna (and sometimes even to the Permian fauna...), not their modern descendants. Anyway, I don't think anyone (except of course creationists :-) ) denies that birds are descended from dinosaurs.

So, let's please keep all this in a separate article. --Macrakis (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite satisfied that the criteria for inclusion on this page are sufficient to prevent things which are not really common misconceptions from being included. In any case, I have no interest in adding anything which RS (not just any website, but reliable sources) do not indicate to be a common misconception, nor anything else which is not already mentioned on it's subject page.

I will tell you that I believe it is a common misconception that mosasaurs, icthyosaurs, and plesiosaurs are dinosaurs (I'm convinced countless people earnestly believe this falsehood), and I can produce countless RS to the effect that they are not dinosaurs, and that it is a common misconception that they are dinosaurs (this article, for instance). However, I have not made an entry about mosasuars, icthyosaurs, or pleisosaurs because (as far as I could tell) it is not mentioned on their pages that this is a common misconception, and that's one of the criteria for adding things to this page. If, at some future date, this misconception is added to those pages, and the edits stand and are not removed for being un-notable or some such, then I'd reconsider adding an entry to this page, but only then and not before.

In short, I find the criteria for this page not only adequate to prevent anything which does not belong, but a little constrictive, even; though I'm not suggesting we change that criterion, I can see the wisdom in it even if it's a little constrictive.

I don't want to be uncharitable, Macrakis, but have you considered that you may be subject (even slightly) to some of these taxonomic misconceptions? When you say "birds being dinosaurs not, um, birds (?)" it makes me worry that you do not fully understand what is being stated when someone says "birds are dinosaurs." If I said to you, "dogs are mammals," I doubt you would take that to mean that dogs are mammals and therefore not dogs. Birds are dinosaurs, and they are still birds. It is not that birds must be birds or dinosaurs. So, too, with humans and other apes being monkeys, incidentally. The statement 'humans are apes,' does not mean humans are apes instead of being human. The statement 'humans and other apes are monkeys' does not mean that apes are not apes, or that humans are not human. You could go on and on, and say humans and other monkeys are primates, humans and other primates are Euarchontoglires, humans and other Euarchontoglires are mammals, etc., etc. This is part of why it's such a big misconception: there's an old creationist argument that goes something like "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around today?" because people commonly assume, for whatever reason, that evolution is a chain or a ladder and not a branching tree or a many-fingered hand. Ostriches and Stegosaurus are fingers on the same hand, and the name of that hand is 'dinosaur.' Humans and howler monkeys are branches on the same tree, and the name of that tree is 'Simian.' Simian, funnily enough for this discussion, is a Latin word which means ape, though the term is not used today to mean 'apes,' but rather, monkeys. The scientific name of the apes is the Hominoidea, which, also funnily enough, is Latin which means Man's family.

Part of the reason why these are misconceptions is not just because there's a difference between the terminology used by scientists and the terminology used in common parlance, but because people really believe the the common parlance is accurate. That's why I wouldn't want to add an entry for seahorses, because I really don't believe that anyone thinks seahorses are equines. But people really do believe that Dimetrodon is a dinosaur, and some of the objections I've heard come off sounding like, "well, people are right about that. If people think 'dinosaur' means extinct reptile, than maybe that's just the common definition and there's no misconception at all." But the common definition is the misconception because, to believe that Dimetrodon is a dinosaur is to believe something false about evolution.

I am terribly sorry for going on at such length. I have no skill for brevity. Perhaps we should add some moderating statements to go along with something like 'birds are dinosaurs' to clarify that this does not, simultaneously, mean they are not birds. Joe (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Condescension not needed. --Macrakis (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I care about this subject. Doesn't mean I should be an ass about it. I apologize. Joe (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.

In everyday language, "dinosaur" is a paraphyletic grouping. Scientific terminology avoids paraphyletic groups, but everyday language does not. --Macrakis (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. In fact, if we include the common erroneous belief that Dimetrodon is a dinosaur, the way the word 'dinosaur' is sometimes commonly used becomes both paraphyletic and polyphyletic. That's the main reason why there are so many common misconceptions about what is and isn't a dinosaur. That, plus the fact that dinosaur anatomy and lifestyle were somewhat badly misconceived from the beginning.Joe (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

"Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill." -Bleak House, Charles Dickens, 1853

Joe (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Would you also say that porpoises and ichthyosaurs are bony fish (Osteichthyes)? Certainly true as a matter of cladistics, but absurd in common language. --Macrakis (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Whales and icthyosaurs (and all other tetrapods) are unquestionably bony fish, as you say, and more than that, they're lobe-finned fish (lungfish are more closely related to tetrapods than they are to coelacanths). I don't believe that's the subject of a common misconception, though. What would the misconception be? People either believe whales are fish, or they believe whales are mammals, and neither position is actually wrong. Perhaps it's a misconception that whale are fish and, therefore, not mammals, or vice versa? Or maybe you could make an argument that it's a common misconception that whales did not evolve from terrestrial ancestors and were always aquatic? That second one is probably only tangential to the whole bony fish thing you brought up. I'd need to see RS to the effect that one of those is actually a common misconception before I thought it was a good idea to add it to the page, and of course it would already need to be mentioned on another page etc., etc. I wouldn't really expect it to meet the RS requirements for inclusion, but I could be wrong. Joe (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(Oh, P.S., I don't think it would be absurd to call whales 'fish' in common language. Just imagine you were transported back to the 1700's and you were trying to convince people that whales were mammals, and after you went to all the trouble of showing someone that whales suckle their babies and therefore are mammals, they just turned around and said, "Well, yes, it may be true that whales are mammals by the laws of nature, but it would be absurd to call them mammals in common language!" Saying that whales (and all other mammals) are fish is, ironically, the exact same thing. Joe (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC))

"But people really do believe that Dimetrodon is a dinosaur" Where have you heard that? I used to read popular science books about prehistoric lifeforms as a child and an adolescent, and have watched relevant documentaries since my days in kindergarten. There were misconceptions, but I don't recall any source claiming that Dimetrodon or any of the Sphenacodontidae were dinosaurs. Dimadick (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I've personally met many people who suffered from this misapprehension, Dimadick, and I'm glad you're not one of them, but that's immaterial; anecdotes are not a substitute for reliable sources. Here's one of the RS that states it is a common misconception, and you can check out the others too if you want to. Joe (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that medium.com contains user generated content and is not a reliable source per wikipedia standards. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Dimadick, Where this comes from is neatly explained by this Smithsonian article, which is referenced in the parent article:https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-dimetrodon-in-your-family-tree-54302176/ Here's the intro:

Wherever you find dinosaurs, chances are that Dimetrodon is close by. The sail-backed creature is a staple of museum displays, boxes of sugar-saurus cookies, and sets of plastic dinosaurs, and I have to admit that it certainly does look dinosaur-like. Yet appearances can be deceiving. Not only was Dimetrodon not a dinosaur, it was not even a reptile!

If you want to jump from plastic "dinosaur" models or sugar cookies to infer that a) lots of people have heard the term "Dimetrodon" and b) they think since it's in with the rest of the plastic toys or cookies it must be a dinosaur, be my guest. Seems like a stretch to me. Perhaps it's a generational thing and that many people younger than myself are familiar with the term, but my experience is that while most people would recognize a picture of a dimetrodon vanishingly few know it's name or think much about it. I'm curious to hear from other editors if they thing the term is common enough to warrant inclusion here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Swordfish I see you neglected to mention that the name of the article which includes that quote is "Famous Prehistoric Animals That Weren't Actually Dinosaurs." One may infer from that what they will, given that Dimetrodon is included on the list. I see also that you didn't go into the other RS.

"The line of descent that includes all living mammals extends back in time over 300 million years. Many of the ancient relatives of mammals that fall along this line are very different in appearance from living mammals and are frequently mistaken for reptiles such as dinosaurs. This misconception is reinforced by the fact that these animals are often referred to as “mammal-like reptiles,” a term reflecting outdated methods for classifying organisms. In reality, these ancient mammal-relatives, known as synapsids, are more closely related to living mammals than they are to any reptiles."

That's from the abstract of the Angielczyk paper, "Dimetrodon Is Not a Dinosaur: Using Tree Thinking to Understand the Ancient Relatives of Mammals and their Evolution." Later in the same paper it says,

"Dinosaur Dimetrodon is a persistent and widespread misconception. No wonder a T-shirt sold at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology features an angry Dimetrodon shouting, “I am not a dinosaur!”"

That's more explicit than the majority of RS used on this page. No bones about it, Dimetrodon is commonly misconceived to be a dinosaur. There are also even more RS to this effect listed, if you'd like to read about it more.

I had never personally been exposed to the misconception that 'Monopolists try to sell items for the highest possible price' until I read through this list, nor am I aware of ever having known anyone who labored under such a misapprehension, but the fact that I am not personally familiar with something is not evidence that it is out of place on a list of common misconceptions. I remind everyone that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Dimetrodon is a famous prehistoric animal (one of the most famous, in fact) and it is (and I'll quote the RS), "frequently mistaken for reptiles such as dinosaurs." Joe (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

So what do we make of "Whales are not fish, but mammals". There are a gazillion sources for statements like this.[18][19] And it is clearly wrong cladistically: whales are mammals and mammals are fish, therefore whales are fish. So is "whales are not fish, but mammals" a "misconception"? Should we have an item in this article reading "Whales are fish"? I hope we agree that that would be silly. --Macrakis (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose adding a 'whales and fish' entry, yes. I remind everyone that not all sources are equally reliable, and I'd say there are two different classes of RS relating to this issue. If we were to add such an entry, I'd strongly argue that modern scholarly articles should trump non-scholarly books and websites (in just the same way that I wouldn't want us to remove the "The forbidden fruit mentioned in the Book of Genesis is never identified as an apple" entry just because there are tons of non-scholarly sources that call the forbidden fruit an apple).

I don't think this meets the requirements for inclusion on this page, not only because the sources you're putting forward disagree with current scholarship on the issue, but also because 'Whales are not fish because they are mammals' is not called a misconception on the Whales page (or even mentioned). If the whale page talked about the hilarious irony that whales went from being thought of as fish, to mammals, and then both mammals and lobe-finned fish, and the sources called that a common misconception, then maybe, but not without at least that. Joe (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I will tell you purely anecdotally, Macrakis, that there is a common misconception among certain paleontologists that whales are closely related to, or directly descended from, mesonychids, when whales are in fact artiodactyls much more closely related to hippos than any mesonychids, but as I say this is only a common misconception among certain paleontologists, and not the general public. I'm definitely not proposing it for inclusion on this list, but if you ever wanted to collaborate making a page of taxonomic misconceptions (common and uncommon) it would be something to consider. Joe (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Scholarly sources on taxonomy are appropriate if we're talking about scientific nomenclature. However, the whole question here is whether using non-scholarly language is a "misconception" or just a different system, namely folk taxonomy. --Macrakis (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't doubt that folklore is the basis of many common misconceptions. There's no area of human thought that's immune to misconceptions. You can have misconceptions in folk taxonomy and you can have misconceptions in 'scientific' taxonomy (also just called taxonomy). 'Bats are bugs,' or 'termites are ants,' or 'ringworms are worms' would be examples of misconceptions in folk taxonomy. 'Whales are descended from mesonychids,' or 'hedgehogs are insectivorans,' or 'turtles are archosaurs' would be examples of misconceptions in 'scientific' taxonomy. The latter sort of misconception will probably be less well suited for a list of common misconceptions, because they're the sort of thing only biologists and paleontologists think about in the first place. Of course, you can have misconceptions that belong to both folk and 'scientific' taxonomy, like 'birds aren't dinosaurs,' which was an errant belief held by both scientists and the general public for a long time. Now most scientists agree its not true, and happily some small portion of the general populace is aware of the true taxonomy of birds, but it's still a super-prevalent misconception.

The fact that lots of people agree on some statement (birds aren't dinosaurs, for example) doesn't make it true. If that was how this worked, then there would be no common misconceptions, because the language people commonly use to describe anything would be right by definition.

"Look at that woman, she's wearing a burqa."

"Actually, that's a niqab."

"Oh yeah? Do you want to put it to a vote? Oh, look at that, the majority agrees with me, it is a burqa."

"It doesn't matter if most people call something by the wrong name, that doesn't make it true!"

This is the essence of common misconceptions, lots of people agree on something but they're wrong about it. Exchange 'this garment is a burqa' for 'this Dimetrodon is a dinosaur' and viola.

Fundamentally, all it takes for there to be a misconception about taxonomy is for the human conception of the tree of life to differ from the actual tree of life. If 'eels are snakes' is a facet of folk taxonomy, but it's not true that eels are snakes, then of course it's a common misconception that eels are snakes. If, on top of that, a bunch of RS say that it is a common misconception, and it's mentioned on the eels page, etc., etc., then it belongs on this list. This is Wikipedia and we have to report what the RS say, and in this case the RS clearly say Dinosaur Dimetrodon is a persistent and widespread misconception. Joe (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Popular vs scientific terminology

There are two new entries that (correctly) state that Dimetrodon and Pterosaurs are not technically dinosaurs (according to modern cladistic classifications) and that this makes referring to them as such a misconception. Is it, or are we just arguing about the difference between casual language and terms that also have a strict scientific definition?

And if we are going to include these two entries, should we also have one about how King crabs are not technically crabs or any of the other hundreds of examples of covergent evolution that has produced unrelated species that get grouped together under a common term in everyday non-technical language? Or do we conclude that arguments about semantics are not really misconceptions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, even though the Dimetrodons lived long before the Age of Dinosaurs (Mesozoic). --Macrakis (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Popular terminology can be wrong, that's half the point of this entire article. What does the word 'dinosaur' mean?

• Dinosaur

/ˈdīnəˌsôr/

Definition: Whatever the public commonly conceives (or misconceives) it to mean.

(Taken from the recently made-up Dictionary of Unreliable Definitions)

This isn't a matter of 'semantics,' not unless you want to say that literally everything on this page is a matter of semantics. I could redefine '2' to mean '2.5' and say that '2 + 2 = 5,' but that doesn't mean 'you're arguing semantics' if you come back at me with a math paper saying that 2 + 2 = 4. Words have specific meanings. Wikipedia uses reliable sources to define what words mean. If we have reliable sources that say a word is commonly misconceived to mean something other than the actual definition, then that's an unalloyed common misconception by Wikipedia standards.

If someone thinks the sources aren't reliable, or has other sources that say different, that's one thing, but if someone simply disagrees with the conclusion the RS come to, well, 2 + 2 = 4, and it's not just a matter of 'semantics' if some significant portion of the population believes 2 + 2 = 5, at that point it's a common misconception.

The belief that Dimetrodon was a dinosaur (or lived with dinosaurs) is not just a common misconception, it's an infamous misconception, right up there with evolution being 'just a theory' and birds not being dinosaurs. Joe (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If more than 1% of the English speaking world knows what a Dimetrodon is I'll be shocked. I'm unconvinced that this is at all common, let alone "infamous". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Dimetrodon and pterosaurs are some of the most iconic prehistoric animals of all time and the sources are quite clear on that. If it is seriously your contention that they are not notable or commonly known, then this discussion has become silly. Joe (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Go ask ten random people if they know what a Dimetrodon is and get back to me if more than two of them have any idea. It may be "common" among paleontologists and the sources may say so, but it's not at all common among the general public. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

What you're suggesting would be OR, and inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor. The RS are already quite clear about both Dimetrodon and pterosaurs. If you have some source that contradicts the current RS, some source that suggests Dimetrodon or pterosaurs are obscure, I would be willing to entertain it, but I sincerely believe you will not be able to produce a single source to that effect. Dimetrodon and pterosaurs are some of the most recognizable prehistoric animals, no bones about it. This has become silly. Joe (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that a simple survey conducted yourself would constitute original research and would not be sufficient to meet the inclusion criteria. However, it is quite appropriate when writing for a general audience to share the material with non-experts to see if it makes sense. In this case, were you to show this entry to the average person, the most likely response would be "What is a Dimetrodon?" The fact that Dimetrodon does not have a common name is very strong evidence that any notion regarding it, correct or incorrect, is far from common.

Note that the inclusion criteria for this page is a minimum; more broadly, all the requirements for inclusion of anything in Wikipedia are also minimal requirements. Just because some reliable source states something doesn't mean that it is automatically guaranteed a place here. So I don't have to disprove anything here - it's up to the various editors to use their common sense and editorial judgement to reach consensus on whether to include this entry or not. My opinion is that it's impossible for there to be common misconceptions about a genus that does not even have a common name. At least the Pterosaur has a common term that most people will recognize (pterodactyl), which should be included in the entry since this is a page intended for the general audience. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

"The fact that Dimetrodon does not have a common name is very strong evidence that any notion regarding it, correct or incorrect, is far from common."

"My opinion is that it's impossible for there to be common misconceptions about a genus that does not even have a common name."

Mr. Swordfish, I wish to ask you, in all sincerity, if you have ever heard of Tyrannosaurus rex, also sometimes called T. rex with the genus abbreviated, quite possibly the single most famous prehistoric organism ever. Have you ever heard of Brontosaurus? Have you ever heard of Stegosaurus? Have you ever heard of Velociraptor? Have you ever heard of Triceratops? I could go on, but I believe my point is already made. Most of the most famous prehistoric animals are known by their binomial name, or by their genus. Your statement that Dimetrodon must be widely unknown because its common name is the same as its genus is patently absurd, and this discussion is now beyond silly.

This is one of the reasons OR is not allowed on Wikipedia. You may be suffering from some misconceptions about taxonomy, and some misconceptions about the state of public knowledge regarding prehistoric animals. Anyway, I have added yet more RS that clearly state that Dimetrodon is famously misconceived to be a dinosaur. There is no shortage of such sources, given how common this misconception is. You may expect me to continue adding more RS the longer this silliness goes on, until this becomes the single most well-cited statement on all of Wikipedia. Joe (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

T. Rex, Brontosaurous, Stegosaurous, etc. are commonly used terms that most of our readers will be familiar with. My opinion is that Dimetrodon is not sufficiently common to warrant inclusion here. This is a judgement call, not something that is subject to mathematical proof. Thus far, I have seen no support other than from you for keeping this entry. At this point I'm more interested in hearing from other editors as I'm fairly certain that I understand your opinion on this matter. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm don't think we're making much progress towards a consensus on the Dimetrodon entry, so I'm going to initiate a Request for comment. Hopefully by getting some more editors involved we can reach a consensus on the entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Penny dropped from Empire state building entry

The following entry was recently removed:

• A penny dropped from the Empire State Building would not kill a person or crack the sidewalk, though it could cause injury.

With the note that the source was poor. I think that assessment of the source is correct, however a brief search turns up multiple quality sources. I'm going to restore the entry with better sourcing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a good entry to keep, and it's a good edit, and looks like you got a good source. Joe (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

References

George Carlin

@Squatch347: I don't own that book and can't check it. But George Carlin is somewhat well-known for being misquoted. The article George Carlin references several Snopes posts which explain this. I would add all of them but don't want to refbomb for just one of the entries on the list. Would it be better to add just one of them? Naleksuh (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked through it on Google Books and it didn't reference Carlin. I don't disagree that he is oft misquoted, but I'm not sure the value of adding him to the entry, especially since it comes with a bunch of citations. Seems a bit synthy and overly wordy. Squatch347 (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That's just speculation on my part. On a quite unrelated note, if you've got a source saying George Carlin is often misquoted, and you're adding that RS and his name to a list of people who are often misquoted, I say go ahead. Someone said it seems synthy? Doesn't seem at all synthetic to me. "RS says X" and "reporting X directly with no changes to what RS says" is like, the opposite of synth. There's got to be a "RS1 says X" and "I'm reporting X, and I'm also reporting Y from another RS2, and therefore Z, but Z isn't explicitly stated by either RS1 or RS2" sort of thing for there to be synthesis. Maybe I'm just not seeing it? Joe (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Great catch on the IP edit! Yeah, maybe synthy wasn't the right word, perhaps something more like scope creep? The original misconception was that many people are misquoted. There is literally an entire article on that list and discussion, I'm not sure we need to fully replicate that list here. I'm open to an argument on why Carlin would be a great example to add, but right now it seems like we are just adding names to add names. Squatch347 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced modifiers

@User:VQuakr Please could you explain the reason for your revert? 85.193.252.19 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

VQuakr can answer for him/herself, but I think I know why this was reverted.

Mr. IP's edit: "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution generally prevents government restrictions only on the freedoms of..."

Original: "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution generally only prevents government restrictions on the freedoms of..."

The original meaning of this statement is that the First Amendment puts restrictions only on the government, not private corporations. Your edit made it so that the First Amendment only deals with freedoms of X, Y, Z. Since the misconception is about the fact that the First Amendment doesn't necessarily bind private corporations, the original meaning is correct. If the misconception was about which freedoms the First Amendment dealt with, your edit would be correct, but that's not what the entry is about, so the edit is not quite right. Joe (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Joe I really appreciate your help. Unfortunately the rest of modifiers fixed by me were reverted again. But your help made my day. Thanks :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Explained in edit summary. This item was made incorrect by the proposed edits. Many of the others were made awkward sounding and had no risk of confusion before. VQuakr (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@User:VQuakr I fixed only what Joe recommended, and restored the rest of my edit. I did not want to start an edit war. Now I see that you rejected all of my fixes deliberately. So I have only one question; Have you ever heard of misplaced modifiers? 85.193.252.19 (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It is only necessary to make the word order awkward if there is risk of confusion. Prescriptively changing word order unnecessarily isn't an improvement. In that context, are there any of these that you still think should be changed? If so, which and why? VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Misconception suggestion: Women are not better at multitasking than men

This is a really common misconception. I was going to add it, but saw the warning and thought I better post in the talk page first. According to the Human multitasking wiki article, it states: Although the idea that women are better multitaskers than men has been popular in the media as well in conventional thought, there is little data available to support claims of a real sex difference. Most studies that do show any sex differences tend to find that the differences are small and inconsistent. I definitely think this should be added to the page, probably under the Psychology and neuroscience section. If you agree or disagree, please respond or just add it to the page yourself DreamlessGlare (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

My very strong preference is to not open this can of worms. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish: Is there any reason for this? (apologies for the previous comment, I removed it) DreamlessGlare (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, there are probably thousands of characteristics where 'there is little data available to support claims of a real sex difference. Do we list them all?

More generally, the phrase "little evidence" or "no evidence" is a red flag for poor science communication. See this recent essay: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence-is-a-red-flag For instane, there is little or no evidence in peer reviewed scientific publications that flossing promotes dental health or that using a parachute while skydiving reduces injuries or death; I don't think these would qualify as misconceptions. Gender differences re multitasking may well be real (although I personally doubt it) and the fact that there's "little evidence" supporting it doesn't disprove it. Our bar should be higher than "little or no evidence". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Here's what the parent article says about it: "Controversial discussion continues as the lack of data available to support the popular belief does not prove it to be wrong. There have been attempts to produce evolutionary explanations for the popular belief." i.e. the parent article claims that it is a "popular belief", but not a misconception. Ergo, it fails the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I just read through the multitasking article and the RS. Several of the RS state that there is little data on the issue, but of all the studies mentioned (and everything else I could find during a cursory look through Google Scholar), every single study conducted on this subject seems to come to roughly the same conclusion: either there is no empirical difference between men and women when it comes to multitasking, or if there is a difference, it's always small. I'm not going to say I think we should or should not include this, but I will say if we do include it, it should be worded to reflect the relative uncertainty of the claim, e.g., "Most multitasking studies do not corroborate the common belief that women are better than men at multitasking."

Just to state my general impression, it probably is a common misconception that women are significantly better at multitasking than men, and I think the RS could be interpreted as saying so, particularly Hirnstein et al., No sex difference in an everyday multitasking paradigm, "According to popular beliefs and anecdotes, females best males when handling multiple tasks at the same time. However, there is relatively little empirical evidence as to whether there truly is a sex difference in multitasking and the few available studies yield inconsistent findings." - Of course, whenever you're dealing with something out of psychology, you have to be a little wary about your sources. Joe (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for it so long as the RS say its a common misconception, or some such. What RS would you be adding? Joe (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@JoePhin: I'm sorry what is RS? DreamlessGlare (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, RS is jargon for reliable sources, I'm asking what the sources on the Human multitasking page say about this, do the sources specifically call it a common misconceptions or a myth or something along those lines? If so, I'd be all in favor of inclusion. I might just go and check the RS out myself after writing this, but that's the sort of thing you might bring up in a proposal like this in the future, eh? RS make the Wikipedia world go round and all that.

Also, DreamlessGlare, you shouldn't cast aspersions on Mr. Swordfish's intentions. Not only is it bad form for a Wikipedia editor to do so, but I happen to know Mr. Swordfish for an honorable editor, and I'm sure if he has some reservation, it's for an honest reason. I am, incidentally, interested in why Mr. Swordfish thinks this is a can of worms, it seems like a simple single self-contained entry to me, assuming the RS for it are good.

Anyway, Merry Christmas to you all! Joe (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@JoePhin: I didn't really look at the sources. I know it would've been a good idea to open with it, but I just wanted to get the discussion going. Did you have a look yet? if not hopefully I'll get around to it soon and post an update here. With the Mr. Swordfish thing, you're right -- this is poor form from me regardless of the editor. Apologies from me, I definitely agree with assuming good faith. I have updated my comment with him accordingly, I am also interested to know why he thinks this. Merry Christmas to you too! :) DreamlessGlare (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

readability

@Sundayclose After you reverted my two edits you wrote "The other changes a perfectly acceptable word". I understand that "endearment" has a bit broader meaning than "affection", but as for "commemorate" I cannot agree with you. The verb celebrate" is also "perfectly acceptable" but is way more common. Does readability matter or not?

Look what I found:

Google [All/Books] results:

• "the independence day is celebrated" 96k 674
• "the independence day is commemorated" 7 0

85.193.252.19 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a clear difference in meaning between celebrate and commemorate. I can joyously celebrate someone's birthday, but I will not be celebrating someone's death date. If I remember someone on the date of their death and make a speech about it, I will commemorate but I will not celebrate. Here's something that you don't seem to grasp in some of your edits: Words can have similar but not identical meanings. Words often have nuances of meaning. In the context of independence day, I can celebrate or commemorate, but how I do those two actions can differ markedly. These nuanced meanings can be obvious to native speakers, but not always to someone who does not have many years of using the language extensively. Sundayclose (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose I will not pretend that I was fully aware of that difference, though most people I know never admit their mistakes;-) So, thank you for the enlightenment. However, in the current context the word "celebrate" is more precise than "commemorate" because the independence day is rather joyful. But celebration not necessarily implies and includes commemoration. So we can write: Russia does not explicitly have an independence day, nor is there a date that officially celebrates or commemorates such an occasion.

As for language nuances - most native speakers are generally better than me but they often make mistakes that are very obvious to me. See the post below about my reverted edit, in which I fixed lots of misplaced modifiers. But again, thank you for your engagement. We met many months ago, and the discussion we had was very useful to me :-)
85.193.252.19 (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Although I appreciate what you're trying to do Mr. IP Editor, I have to agree with Sundayclose. I, individually, could celebrate something or commemorate something, but whole countries (Russia in this case?) generally only commemorate things. A country commemorates an event by making a holiday for it. The countrymen of a country might celebrate an event, but the country itself doesn't go to parties. I think it's a subtle but meaningful difference. All those thousands of google pings are probably referring to individuals celebrating independence. Thanks for trying to improve the article, sorry to push back like this when you're just trying to help. Joe (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

IP 85, your suggestion of using both words is both unnecessary and awkward. "Celebrate" is not more precise than "commemorate". The words refer to two different concepts. With respect, I'll ask you to drop the stick and move on. You are capable of making good edits, but your unfounded insistence on changing words is beginning to result in a net loss for Wikipedia because it takes up so much of others' time trying to reason with you. If you challenged my understanding of words in the Polish Wikipedia, I would not be repeatedly pushing you based on my lack of understanding. If this article was the only one in which this occurred, it might be manageable, but you have made numerous inappropriate word changes that have been challenged by several editors. And at some point, that pattern of editing becomes disruptive. I have no doubt that you have very good conversational skills in English, but conversational language is not always encyclopedic. I mean no disrespect, but in the interest of Wikipedia, I must say that all of us have better things to do than quibble about how you interpret the meaning of English words. Sundayclose (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose Of course you are right. I have gone too far, though it was a sobering experience. The analogy with the Polish Wikipedia was particularly convincing because I saw my activity here from a different perspective. Thank you for your time. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

PS. But not for the time you spent reverting my previous 11 edits. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Stress

Article currently reads:

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

So acute stress can raise blood-pressure acutely, and chronic stress can raise it chronically. Where, then, is the misconception? Should this be about relaxation therapies rather than about stress, something like this?:

Relaxation therapies are not effective in treating hypertension.

Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Origins of Artificial Banana Flavor

The following entry was recently removed: *Banana flavored candy does not mimic the taste of a formerly popular variety of banana. The reason it tastes different than bananas is because it only contains one of the many flavors either banana has, isoamyl acetate.

Your own link specifically states it DOES taste more like the Gros Michel, that chemical is WHY it does, and that was always the intent of the folks making it. How is this a 'misconception' when everyone involved agrees it's factual? Just because it "only" contains one of the ingredients does not disqualify it if that's the ingredient that produces the taste in question. Where do you get the idea that an artificial flavor must include all the chemicals the natural object does in order to qualify?

The article was removed for not fulfilling inclusion criteria #3 and possibly #2. However, I believe that the myth is still common enough that dispelling it would be of benefit. For example, this article refers to the myth as popular.

There seems to be little doubt that this misconception exists. A youtube video by ASAPScience, a channel dedicated to providing factual science based content, fell victim to this misconception and was viewed by almost 2,5 million people.. 

Given that millions have heard the misconception, it has fooled science communicators, and been debunked by an expert in the original article I provided, I believe the entry should be reinstated.

2.5 million views does not mean that 2.5 million people had the misconception. I see no evidence that this is a common misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I was personally affected by this misconception (assuming it is a misconception, need to look into it) but a quick glance shows a lot of people reporting this statement that "banana flavored candy tastes like your grandfather's bananas" or some such. I've got to look into it before 1) I'm willing to say that it is a misconception in the first place, 2) to see if there are RS that actually state it's a common misconception, and 3) determine if this is mentioned as a misconception somewhere on Wikipedia. I'll be back later with comments. If it is a misconception, then I'm a victim of it. Joe (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

References

RfC about the entry for Dimetrodon

Should the Dimetrodon entry in List of common misconceptions be kept as part of the article or deleted? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

* Argument in favor of keeping: it is described as a "common misconception" in reliable sources.

* Arguments in favor of deleting:

A) "Dinosaur" has a specific scientific meaning as well as a common non-technical meaning. Is using common as opposed to technical language really a "misconception"?

B) The word "Dimetrodon" may not be sufficiently common for there to be any "common" beliefs about it, correct or otherwise.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I weakly favor keep because, while I appreciate the arguments (A) and (B) and am new to this page, it seems like the categorization of Dimetrodons as dinosaurs is approximately as common as many other misconceptions in the article, such as mammals evolving from reptiles, the Yellowstone Caldera being overdue for a supervolcano eruption, and Gunnison, Colorado using protective sequestration to avoid the 1918 flu pandemic. It also seems like the page dinosaur endorses the specific scientific meaning, which I think rebuts argument (A). However, my view is weak, and I may be missing key information. This is an interesting discussion! Jmill1806 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep(A) is a reasonable argument, but i think a common but wrong definition counts as a misconception, if only barely. Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The RS are exceedingly clear: the Angielczyk paper titled "Dimetrodon Is Not a Dinosaur: Using Tree Thinking to Understand the Ancient Relatives of Mammals and their Evolution" says, "Yet, many people, ranging from college students to my friends and family to visitors at The Field Museum are surprised to learn that Dimetrodon is not a dinosaur but part of our family tree. Dinosaur Dimetrodon is a persistent and widespread misconception. No wonder a T-shirt sold at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology features an angry Dimetrodon shouting, “I am not a dinosaur!”" - and that's not the only RS to the effect that Dimetrodon is a famous prehistoric animal frequently misconceived to be a dinosaur. Wikipedia should be promoting science, not folklore. Joe (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I completely get the motivation for this (see discussion above). But if we're going to include this, I think we can make a more general statement, along the lines of "not all prehistoric reptile-like animals are scientifically classified as dinosaurs; in particular, Dimetrodon lived etc.". No need for a separate line item for pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, etc. By the way, when people say "dinosaur" in common language, do we think that refers to the Dinosauria, the Dinosauriformes, or maybe the Dracohors? --Macrakis (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to having a catch all 'many prehistoric animals are commonly mistaken for dinosaurs, including pterosuars, icthyosaurs, mosasaurs, etc.' entry, but I'm a little concerned that it might be confusing to include Dimetrodon on such a list, since "Dimetrodon isn't a dinosaur" is only half of the common misconception. The RS state it's also a common misconception that "Dimetrodon lived at the same time as the dinosaurs," and while that's a misconception about Dimetrodon, many other animals commonly mistaken as dinosaurs actually did live at the same time as dinosaurs. It's better to keep them separate, so as not to confuse that particular point. ... As for what people mean when they use the term 'dinosaur' in common parlance, I think the word gets used to mean everything from something that accurately approximates 'the Dinosauria' to something like 'all extinct scaly things,' depending on who's talking and their familiarity with paleontology. Joe (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Provisional delete My first reaction to seeing the entry a week or so ago was "What is a Dimetrodon?" I had to click through to the parent article to find out what this entry was about. Perhaps that's just my own ignorance, but I wonder how many ordinary people (ie not paleontologists) even know what a Dimetrodon is. Unfortunately, that's not something that's easily quantified so it's up to the editorial judgement of the editors here to make the call as to whether Dimetrodon is sufficiently common to warrant inclusion in a list of common misconceptions. I'm curious as to how many editors reading this were already familiar with the term and how many were not. That's not dispositive, of course, but it's something to consider when writing an article for the general audience: Will most readers know what we're talking about? Succinctly stated, I don't think we can assume that the typical reader already knows what a Dimetrodon is. I'll be happy to change my mind about this if enough editors think that we can make that assumption.

All that said, if we're going to keep the entry, we should include a picture and change the text to something like "The sail-backed mammal-like reptile known as Dimetrodon is not a dinosaur." Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The RS variously call Dimetrodon famous, iconic, culturally pervasive, etc., and say that it is commonly/frequently mistaken to be a dinosaur and/or a contemporary of dinosaurs. That said, the idea of adding a picture to make sure everyone knows what we're talking about is such a good idea that I've gone ahead and boldly done so. Check it out if you like, I basically just used the wording Mr. Swordfish suggested above for the caption, with one big exception:

I'd like to emphasize that, no matter what we call Dimetrodon, we must not call it a mammal-like reptile, as that term is obsolete, as mentioned in the RS. For example the Angielczyk paper says, "Many of the ancient relatives of mammals that fall along this line are very different in appearance from living mammals and are frequently mistaken for reptiles such as dinosaurs. This misconception is reinforced by the fact that these animals are often referred to as “mammal-like reptiles,” a term reflecting outdated methods for classifying organisms." (The term synapsid is the correct choice there). Joe (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - I was all for the argument in [A] when I first read it, but on second thought, Dinosaur really does have a specific meaning beyond "super ancient creature" and the fact that it is closer to mammals than birds was quite surprising to me, so I'd say that this does in fact fit the concept of commonly held misconceptions. It's certainly a misconception I had until just now! I reject argument [B] entirely... to be honest, I didn't know the name "dimetrodon" and I doubt many do, but I recognized the picture straight away, and I suspect the average person would as well. And if you showed that picture to the average person, they would say "oh, that's a dinosaur!" and be wrong about it. Fieari (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have closed this RfC because it is clear that we have a consensus to keep the entry. Thanks to all who participated - this sort of discussion and consensus building is what makes Wikipedia the success that it is. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Achievement

[20]

"This study demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, student achievement is not strongly linked to family income or socio-economic status."

Benjamin (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we can base a sweeping conclusion about a complex and controversial topic on a single study with a restricted sample. A broad overview that largely contradicts that study is at Achievement gaps in the United States. I don't mean to generalize from the USA, but the evidence is contradictory in a major educational system. Sundayclose (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pink hippo milk?

I have often heard a myth that the hippopotamus produces a pink milk, which according to this article is an already debunked myth that was reported as true even by National Geographic. However, I can't find anything on Hippopotamus about it. How to proceed? - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 02:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked through some sources and apparently there is disagreement in the scientific community. Hippos definitely do secrete hipposudoric acid, which is a red pigment that makes their sweat appear bloody. Some sources I read claimed this substance is secreted in hippo milk, turning it pink, while others said this substance is only secreted in hippo sweat, not the milk. One biologist directly reported that hippo milk is a white or beige color.

I got sick of the inconsistent text sources and went to find a visual source. Sure enough, there are plenty of sources that directly show hippo milk in pictures or videos (here's a video published by WLWT from the Cincinnati Zoo showing a hippo being milked) and hippo milk is not pink.

If you're so inclined, and if you've got sources that call this a common misconception, (this Snopes article for example) you could add something to the hippo page about this stating that it is a common misconception. If your edit passes scrutiny on the hippo page, come on back and we can see if it meets the criteria for inclusion here. There isn't a rule against adding stuff to other pages and then adding it here once it meets the inclusion criteria for this page, just so long as your edit on the other page is considered by editors and sticks on that page. I'd recommend making it clear that's what you've done - there's no rule that says you have to do that though, it is just a recommendation. As long as you're doing it all in good faith, it's fine. After looking into it I suspect this is a worthy entry. Joe (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Fine, I'll do it myself. Joe (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I was going to do it but I've been a little busy. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 11:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, @Munmula:, since you're interested in the whole pink hippo milk thing, I thought I'd let you know that there's currently a very spirited discussion going on in the Hippopotamus talk page about that very subject. Joe (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 11:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I've read the discussion. Since hippopotamus is a featured article, the highest classification a page can reach, the process for accepting new information into it is naturally very rigorous. In other words, users will not accept "okay" sources, only "excellent" ones. Perhaps we could add the info backed by the Snopes article and other sources you found on another page – I think milk is a good candidate, since it's not an FA. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 11:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty confident that we'll get it on the Hippo page proper (see the talk page there for updates in the discussion) but you're quite right, Munmula, the information can be added to other pages too (and should be really). I'd say Milk is an excellent candidate along with Hipposudoric acid, which is mentioned in most of the RS on this subject. Joe (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, bite my tongue, the thing about pink hippo milk was already re-added to the hippo article by one of the other editors. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time something got added and then removed. Keep an eye on the page, and let's think about Milk and Hipposudoric acid. Joe (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we are good to go now. I've added the entry to the list. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 06:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Very good. I would've personally waited about a week to make sure the edit on the hippo page is stable before adding it here, but as long as the other editors don't mind, it's fine. We can always update it if there are changes later. We should go about adding some version of this to those two other pages, too. Nice working with you Munmula! Joe (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)