Talk:Common English usage misconceptions/Archive 1

Problematic scope
Personally, I have a problem with the way some of the misconceptions are phrased, which isn't so much with the article as the territory it covers (i.e. it comes with the territory). e.g. "There is no rule against ending a sentence with a preposition." As the next sentence notes, there is a rule against it, it was just invented as a rule. But aren't all things invented at some point? Like capitalising sentences, or not capitalising nouns as in German. All these things must start somewhere. I think it could be better phrased to say that not all author/guides believe it wrong. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A fair point. Perhaps the lede section could identify that these are all modern misconceptions. That would be one way to handle it. Another would be using more precise langauge in the text as you note. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice my concerns have not been addressed: we are still told "there is no rule" when clearly there is, it's just not universal. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a conflict, but perhaps more precise language could be employed. Are you referring to the word "idea"? It's true that some people in previous centuries had the idea that it was wrong, but I don't think (IMHO) that translates to a "rule". Perhaps it would be clearer if it was identified that what is being taught today in schools is erroneous. That it is erroneous is explained on two counts. The first is elaborated in endnote 1 (no textbook supports it). The second is covered, in general, in the lede. There is no prescriptive "rule" in English. Thus, the idea that there is a "rule" that precludes ending a sentence with a preposition must be wrong. What authority could prescribe it? I am not aware of one. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at it again and saw that the use of the word "rule" could be confusing—especially as explained in the lede. I adjusted the text. Hopefully, it's more acceptable and less ambiguous. Thanks for pointing it out. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I wonder if some of these "rules" aren't really just "stronger than average suggestions" in order to make writing smoother, or less choppy, or just more interesting. In many of the cases here, such as Starting with And/But or Ending with prepositions, I tend to use the rule to go back and take a second look at my writing. But I only change the text sometimes. What do people think of this–or, alternatively, where could such a note fit into the article? StevenJ81, 14:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I would note that at least some is ingrained habit. I can hardly keep myself from typing two spaces after a period; I have been doing so for 35 years of typing. StevenJ81, same time
 * As far as the first note, we're interested in statements from reliable published sources (as I'm sure you know). For example, I have a source that also said (IRT the and/but misconception) that it's fine, but be careful not to begin too many sentences with and or but because it could seem repetitive. That seemed like unnecessary detail here because, IMO, that goes with just about any word, whether at the beginning or in the middle of a sentence. The same could be said about beginning a sentence with the word "however", for example. But we're not trying to address techniques for better writing here; that would smack of an essay I think. This article is devoted simply toward highlighting misconceptions in an encyclopedic manner.
 * As far as adding a note about it: if you can find a reliable and verifiable source that makes a relevant statement, perhaps as a note at the bottom, it might add to the article. I'd just be careful about straying too far from the crux of the article—illustrating misconceptions.
 * For two spaces between sentences, I know of a number of people that successfully made the change to one space after a week or two of practice. I doubt if anyone will complain about you using two spaces though, for most uses. People are pretty used to it. If you've read the sentence spacing article, you can just make informed decisions about it when needed.
 * Thanks for your interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Bolding the topic
Topic needs to be bolded at the lead section. - AnakngAraw (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

More instances of usage misconceptions
A great page, which fills a much needed gap.

One example:

This plane needs flying. I have for some time been looking for grammar examples of this usage. Many people seem to use it for some verbs but not others, e.g., "This shirt needs washing". I have always believed the correct usage is "This shirt needs to be washed." I have not found the construction approved in the english grammar guides I have looked in, but I also don't find too much criticism of the usage either. Would this misconception be valid for this page? (If references could be found). Geoffjw1978 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from my suggested inclusion criteria above, I don't think anything is off the table. The key thing is finding a reliable source that describes this as a modern "common misconception", or similar wording—like "myth". If you can find one or more reliable sources that do that, I think its fine. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Xmas - really?
Must we really include this silly drummed-up political canard among actual linguistic misconceptions? I see that it's taken from the same book as some of the other entries, but surely we don't actually include everything that appears in that book. The "Xmas" entry seems out of place. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be out of place. Then again, the article could develop in such a way that it's not. Perhaps we should wait for some others to weigh in. If the consensus is to remove, so be it. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the entry for xmas. I was under the misconception that it was a new slang term, a bit like text-speak, hence looked down on by traditionalists. To find it is centuries old makes me feel less guilty when abbreviating to xmas.  ;-)  Geoffjw1978 (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do, too. Perhaps the political issue can be downplayed in the original article, but the valid and substantial history is worth sharing–and the fact that people use that misconception to play it into a political issue is therefore also worth sharing. StevenJ81, 14:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this entry should be included, for the reasons cited above, although I do somewhat agree with Roscelese that "Xmas" is of a slightly different ilk from the other entries, which take the form of grammatical fiats. But extra care should be taken to strictly abide by WP's NPOV policy (note the split infinitive), because even the slightest reference to a political or religious issue (no matter how ill-informed the latter is) will inevitably attract contentious posts that miss the larger point.  (I can see/hear the headlines now....)  BTW Geoffjw1978, although "xmas" (uncapitalized) may be acceptable in text- and Twitter-speak, shouldn't the X be capitalized in other contexts, e.g., WP posts, because it's the equivalent in the Roman alphabet to the first letter in a Greek proper noun?  ;-)  Otherwise, abbreviate to your heart's content!  --Jackftwist (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dangling modifiers
This seems like it might be a good place to bring this up - not necessarily because it's a misconception, but because people who have done/are doing/will do research on this article might come across something. I've brought the issue up before, inconclusively, at Talk:Dangling modifier - namely, the history of the dangling modifier being designated incorrect, when many reputable texts use it. (eg. Shakespeare: "Sleeping within my orchard...upon my secure hour thy uncle stole"; Pope, "But seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure..."; there are also examples in Gilbert but I'm blanking on specifics.) Is this a change over time (so that now the dangling modifier is wrong), or is it simply that, as M-W suggests, there's nothing particularly wrong about it but the really funny ones get quoted as injunctions against the entire species? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Over-use of direct quotation
Over half of the words in the first paragraph of the section "Grammar" are enclosed in quotation marks, and most of those appear to be sourced to O'Conner and Kellerman (mislabeled as "O'Conner" in several footnotes). At the risk of being overly cheeky:
 * Misconception: It is OK to largely reproduce one's source materials, so long as proper sourcing is used. Although opinions vary, it is generally considered poor writing to overuse direct quotation. Similarly, although rules and legal opinion vary, an overuse of another writer's words may run afoul of copyright claims. (On the contrary, ideas and facts are not subject to copyright.) Wikipedia has advice for the use of quotations in encyclopedia articles, though these are not policy guidelines.

Cnilep (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we just disagree on this. I'm not overly concerned about copyright infringement. I've discussed this topic with a lawyer (American lawyer), although not this specific article, I'll admit. A copyright issue is only likely to arise if a significant portion of the work is directly quoted (putting aside graphics or photos). E.g., if this article quoted one entire paragraph of a five paragraph article, we might have a problem. The books referenced that you mention are lengthy, and the quoted material is a fraction of a percent of the total work.
 * I also understand that overuse of direct quotations can degrade writing. But I prefer direct quotations in many cases because there's no question about what the original author is stating. Since this article concerns controversial material, there are people who might question a paraphrase. Again, I understand your sentiments, and, in general, it can be a valid concern; I just think that it's ok in this article. Of course, I don't own this article, and I'm sure it can be improved. I'm just offering my opinion.
 * However, thank you for pointing out the issue with O'Connor & Kellerman attribution. That does need to be fixed. And thank you for your interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I thought that was a rather creative way to open a talk page thread here. :) --Airborne84 (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A (civil) suggestion on the split infinitives discussion
The "Grammar" section's discussion of the (misapplied) Latin source of the specious prohibition against split infinitives concludes with the parenthetical explanation that "in Latin, infinitives are unsplittable words, e.g., "amare, cantare, audire")" [italics added]. The term "unsplittable words" seems at best awkward, and at worst redundant—i.e., aren't all Latin words "unsplittable" in this sense?  I understand (and agree with) the point the writer is trying to make here, but isn't there a way of explaining this point that's both clearer and stylistically more polished?  I've thought about a few possible alternatives, but I'm not sure any of them is completely satisfactory.  (E.g., "Latin infinitives consist of only one word, e.g. [examples].  Because of this grammatical [or linguistic?] structure, they cannot be split in the same sense as an English infinitive can be.) Perhaps a more skilled writer could craft a better way to phrase this point. (And there may be a term other than grammatical or linguistic that's preferable or more appropriate in a technical sense.) --Jackftwist (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

English does not have infinitives — it just emulates their function by throwing "to" in front of the verb. The problem is intrinsic to how poorly conceived English is, because infinitives are *supposed* to call for inflection. Since we refuse to add that inflection, we're stuck with a preposition acting in its place. This results in the potential for some really awkward syntax.

"To boldly go where no one has gone before." - the adverb is splitting the infinitive "to go." This occurs naturally, since English syntax generally calls for adjectives and adverbs to precede the elements they modify. Reordering the syntax to avoid splitting the so-called "infinitive" doesn't make the sentence any less awkward, because then the adverb is going to seem out-of-place.

Instead of having these cyclic debates, I think we need to acknowledge intrinsic flaws within English and reform them. Infinitives *require* inflection. Plain and simple. We need to invent a form of inflection that would be suitable for English verbs. 70.153.112.253 (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

New entry
I hate to discourage additions, but I'm not sure about the latest one: "Modifying words near verbs always end in -ly." My biggest concern is that it's not sourced as a common misconception. I think that is a key litmus test for inclusion here.

Thoughts? --Airborne84 (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No comments, so I removed it. It might actually work beter if it was narrowed down to the "I feel badly" phrase. But the key issue is that it's not sourced as a widespread misconception. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Stranded prepositions
The current paragraph bothers me. First of all, referencing Grammar Girl? I've had to correct her own grammar on more than one occasion. While she is a generally useful, educational resource, she doesn't possess extensive knowledge of parts of grammar. Secondly, the Winston Churchill quote is absurd. His sentence uses a phrasal verb, where the preposition is considered a part of the verb itself. It's agreed that the prepositional elements of phrasal verbs do not count as stranded prepositions, since they don't serve the same function as a true preposition. This quotation does not belong, because it doesn't establish a valid argument.

The reason why it appears awkward to strand prepositions has to do with the logical syntax of the sentence. If you're indicating a direction / modification between various nouns, then the order calls for the preposition to precede or come between them. When you throw it at the end of the sentence, it's not necessarily clear which nouns are being modified by the preposition, since English doesn't inflect nouns to provide said context.

"This is the hole | that he fell into." - He fell into... what? There is no noun after the preposition. It looks like an awkward run-off sentence.

"This is the hole | into which he fell." - Clearer syntax provides a consistent relationship between the nouns.

70.153.112.253 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your points. Keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia doesn't represent truth, it represents verifiability. Mignon Fogarty's works qualify under Wikipedia's policies as reliable sources. Since her view is also representative of other high-quality sources, her citations should not be contentious—IMO anyway.
 * As far as the Churchill quote, I think that's something that the average Wikipedia reader might be interested in. It's not meant to be a refutation. Perhaps there could be a better transition to that sentence to note that it's just an interesting historical episode on the topic. On the other hand, if other editors think it should be removed, fine. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Churchill quote is probably not by Churchill (there is no evidence that he said it) and the attribution should be removed. You could take this opportunity to remove the whole thing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's probably apocryphal. It doesn't have to be true to merit inclusion though. It's so well represented in literature, true or false, that it merits (IMO) inclusion in an encyclopedia. However, note b identifies this as probably "invented", and the text doesn't say that he said it—just that it's been said that he said it. We could adjust the text to more clearly identify the saying as apocryphal though.
 * I wouldn't support removing the entire entry though. This one and the one on split infinitives might be the most prevalent English usage misconceptions in the US and UK. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted formatting

 * I hate to discourage other editors contributing, but I personally didn't prefer the "new look" to the article (the cell-type formatting). Also, one of the editors who gave a peer review suggested taking the "List of" out of the title—somthing that merits consideration. If that's done, it'll be less of a list and more of an article, and the formatting would be a bit out of place.
 * Having said that, if a consensus of editors feel that the new formatting is preferable, I won't object.
 * And I hope I haven't discouraged contributors with my reverts. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Begs the question
I'm not sure that this should be included (the so-called misconception that "beg the question" means "raise the question"). There are two reasons:
 * 1) Unlike most misconceptions on the list, this has not to my knowledge been promoted by any writers on usage (hence there are lots of dubious old textbooks saying not to split the infinitive, but none saying "beg the question" means "raise the question").  Other entries on the list relate to hyperprescriptivism, not to words commonly misused or misspelt.
 * 2) There is an increasing acceptance that "beg the question" in popular speech can and does mean "raise the question"; Merriam-Webster online includes the definition "to elicit a question logically as a reaction or response the quarterback's injury begs the question of who will start in his place".  Soon you may be able to change this to a misconception that "beg the question" does not mean "raise the question", but the consensus is perhaps not there yet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair points. I could point to the "verifiability, not truth" policy of Wikipedia (now being hotly debated), but some potential entries on this article could have conflicting, and verifiable, statements. This one is a case in point.
 * I'll also point (as some added context) to the misconception that "comprise" is synonymous with "composes". So, many people (and about half of the professionally printed works I read) use comprise as in, "the parts comprise the whole," instead of its standard use—"the whole comprises the parts." Nevertheless, because of its widespread misuse, this use of comprise is starting to become more acceptable. It's just not to the level that it would be described as standard usage yet, IMO. Perhaps in 5–10 years it will be though.
 * What interests me is whether people that use these words/phrases in the "new" sense are doing so on purpose, regardless of "standard usage", or if they are doing so because they don't know the standard definitions? Because I think the latter still rules, on the average (and this seems to be supported by reliable sources), I support retention of this entry.
 * But, this all points to some grey area for the topic of this thread and for these other potential entries. I propose—like many such questions on Wikipedia—that it be resolved through editorial consensus. If a consensus emerges to remove this entry, I won't object. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nasuea entry

 * This is an interesting one. I'm not sure what to make of it though. It seems almost as if the misconception is by published writers such as the two noted, which is contradicted by the usage of the masses. The other entries are misconceptions of the masses contradicted by published writers.
 * I'll leave it since I hate to discourage contributions. I welcome additional thoughts though. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel bad entry
The entry about "I feel bad" versus "I feel badly" seems to contradict itself. It says that "I feel bad" means the same thing as "I am not feeling well," but that would seem to mean "I am not good at feeling things." Snakespeaker (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. I tried a rewording. Feel free to adjust if it still seems unclear. Thanks for your interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I feel badly could simply mean that the speaker's fingertips are numb. XOXO, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 16:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

New entry
The preposition/prepositional phrase entry needs some citations—both to support the passages and to support it as a misconception. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

because is also a conjunction
So should we add it to the third misconception about and, but, & so? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reliable source that specifically supports its inclusion, sure. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the only one I remember being taught - and that at an early age when it was probably appropriate. The use of "and" was always mentioned as "most times a sentence starts with 'and' it's a mistake." And I think here, the fact that many "great writers" do start sentences with "and" simply shows that by-and-large they are know what they are doing. Rich Farmbrough, 01:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Common?
"Inflammable" means something that cannot burn for example... that's common. I doubt it. Also the stuff about typewriting - never mind the fact that "professionally published books" (whatever that means) don't really have the conept of "a space" or "two spaces," space is dynamic these days, particularly in a well set book, and indeed even in the days of hot-metal was way more subtle than "one or two spaces?" Rich Farmbrough, 01:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

Clean up
An example being "'Misconception: A sentence cannot end in a preposition. It is a myth that it is incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition. This myth probably began in the 17th century, due to an essay by the poet John Dryden, and it is still taught in schools today. But, 'every major grammarian for more than a century has tried to debunk' this idea; 'it's perfectly natural to put a preposition at the end of a sentence, and it has been since Anglo-Saxon times.' 'Great literature from Chaucer to Milton to Shakespeare to the King James version of the Bible was full of so called terminal prepositions.'"
 * It doesn't seem to flow correctly... perhaps a table like this:

and so forth. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. It doesn't seem like a cleanup issue that merits a tag though; more like a suggestion for a style/format change.
 * Since you suggested the change, I'll note my opinion: I don't mind either way of doing it. The format in the article is consistent with other similar article such as List of common misconceptions, List of misconceptions about illegal drugs, List of misquotations, and Common misunderstandings of genetics, but that certainly doesn't mean this article has to maintain that format, of course. There's merit in your recommendation. Let's let others weigh in on this matter. If the consensus is to make the change, that's fine. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Removing tag; tabling can wait until others weigh in. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that such a table format would work out quite well, and it would be easier to read than the current prose. It is visually easier to process, and it gets the information across quite well. If there's any move to switch to tables, I'm all for it. We could begin with this article, and see how the end result turns up. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, for all of these misconception articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm ok with change via a consensus, but I'd like to see more people weigh in. To make a widespread format change, there are probably three ways to proceed: (1) make a recommendation at Wikipedia's manual of style talk page, (2) Recommend the change at the most frequented page of this type: List of common misconceptions, and (3) try it here to see if it will catch on. Numbers 1 and 2 would get the most visibility from other editors. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Add me to the list of supporters. For many of the items, I would argue against using words like "misconception / refutation" because many of them are NOT misconceptions (see neutrality section and irregardless section) but I support the basic idea of this change. Connor Behan (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory reasoning
I attempted to outline this before, but I've finally got round to thinking about it a bit:
 * "Infinitives must not be split." ~ commonly held to be a rule, but technically isn't. We say: go with the technical.
 * ""Healthy" is an incorrect adjective to describe a food." ~ technically held to be a rule, but commonly isn't. We say: go with the common.
 * "I feel badly" is the correct negative response to "How do you feel?" ~ commonly not a rule, technically not a rule. We say: go with both/either.

How are we to judge whether you should be a prescriptivist and go with the "expert"/"tradition"/whatever over the common masses? We argue for both positions in a single list. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "We" as Wikipedia editors shouldn't say to do anything. We only report what reliable sources have to say on the topic. I think that if each entry, (1) provides a source stating that it's a common misconception, and (2) provides additional reliable sources with further information about it, then that's what we can do here. This isn't an essay, so there's no requirement to choose a side by starting the article with a thesis (rules start with x, but people should go with y) and supporting it with a common thread throughout that points to a conclusion. IMO, the only thread that needs to hold this article together is the "common misconception" thread.
 * Having said that, this article isn't "finished." If you'd like to work on it to make it better, please feel free! Thanks for your interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, recommendations go in the MOS. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 21:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the MOS has to do with anything. Anyway, to elaborate, the way the article phrases things is indeed taking sides: when I said "We say", that's what the article does; like you I believe it shouldn't. Take for example " Misconception: Straight quotation marks (or "dumb" quotes) are the same as quotation marks." The reader is going to take "don't use straight quotation marks" as the correct answer from that. Yes the article then says that many publications do, but we're setting this against a conclusion that's already there.Take another example " Infinitives must not be split. " ~ inevitably, the reader will conclude that they can. What follows may be a reasonable discussion of competing views, but still we draw the conclusion then present the reasoning. We are taking sides, and we shouldn't. On the whole, the paragraphs do a good job. Therefore, I suggest replacing the parts of the paragraphs such as the ones I've quoted with a neat statement of "Splitting infinitives" for example, that identifies the debate without a conclusion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. And it's a reasonable discussion. My thoughts are that (1) it's OK to put "conclusions" when those conclusions aren't ours, but those of reliable sources; that's done everywhere at Wikipedia, (2) we should note observations and conclusions of reliable sources here in the appropriate weights, and (3) I would oppose removal of passages in an effort to make the entries more "balanced". For example, the weight of reliable sources' opinions on a topic may not be balanced. That should reflect here. Removing passages also goes against the spirit of WP:Preserve—especially where it states to consider before removal of material, "adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced".


 * What I would support is the addition of commentary from reliable sources to balance entries out—if appropriate. For example, an editor added this sentence at the end of the "begs the question" entry: "However, Merriam-Webster dictionaries allow both meanings". Bravo. I think additional additions along those lines would be improvements as long as they don't violate WP:weight. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you actually wanted to report what reliable sources say about the topic, you would've written an article objectively describing Paul Brians' perspective, Mignon Fogarty's perspective and so on. As soon as you call something a "misconception" in the article, you are taking sides. Connor Behan (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Straight quotation marks
This 'misconception' is very misleading and, I would argue, not a misconception at all. 'Straight' or 'dumb' quotation marks have precisely the same grammatical function as 'smart' or 'curly' ones, and the reason for their widespread use is given at the end of the description: 'curved quotation marks are not included in the ASCII character set' - in fact, they play hell with computer systems in a variety of ways (I speak from years of experience in content management). The quotes from Strizver and Bringhurst are clearly about professional typography using systems designed specifically for that purpose, eg book or magazine layout, where there is no need for straight quotation marks (the point about using them to distinguish the beginning and end of a quotation is a red herring: quotations within marks are typically short enough that their beginning and end is obvious; with block quotes, the issue doesn't arise). The vast majority of people however tend not to be layout specialists but rather composers of emails, blogs, tweets, Facebook updates, etc, and in these contexts straight quotes are not only perfectly acceptable but also typically superior to their 'smart' counterparts in that they don't gum up the works.

I strongly suggest that this 'misconception' be removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneedy (talk • contribs) 01:38, 24 July 2012‎


 * I agree. My rough impression is that the discussion of types of quotation marks was written by someone trying to promote a particular point of view, and it is about typography and character sets, not English. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern here lies in the last sentence of Sneedy's first comment. There are clearly some strong opinions IRT this topic. Please be careful to not fall prey to "I don't like it". This has been sourced to fall within the guidelines for inclusion in this article—that it is a misconception and it is properly sourced as such by reliable sources.
 * Of course, there's no reason why the entry cannot be modified. If you reference WP:PRESERVE, for example, an option to consider is "adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced", among others. Please consider these options IAW Wikipedia's policies before recommending the deletion of properly sourced material.
 * This path has been chosen for various entries in this article. For example, more material was added to the entry on contractions to reflect that some reliable sources eschew contractions. The final sentence in the "begs the question" entry was added to moderate it somewhat. These are improvements to what might be interesting and useful material to the average reader—while preserving content.
 * Thanks for your interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have tried but failed to find a citation that "Straight quotation marks (or "dumb" quotes) are the same as quotation marks" is a common belief. Is there a citation for this? If so I'm not seeing it.

To put a finer point on it, the idea that there's a "rule" against using straight or vertical quotation marks sounds like exactly the kind of thing this article is trying to debunk. So Ilene Strizver doesn't like seeing vertical quotes in professional typography - she's entitled to her opinion, but I don't think that her displeasure with a common-as-dirt practice meets the bar for inclusion in this article. My vote is to just remove the entry or move the material to some other article on typography. Unless someone can provide a cite that this is a common misconception we need to remove the entry as unsourced. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The source for this being a common belief is Strizver's words that the "misuse of 'dumb' quotes is one of the most common typographical faux pas". I think her point is not that she doesn't like the practice. It's that people don't know the difference between typographic quotation marks and straight quotes. I guess I'm not sure how this one doesn't meet the three criterions at the top of the talk page. Strizver is a reliable source according to Wikipedia. This idea can also be found elsewhere: it's mentioned here as "a common slip". And James Felici, the author of The Complete Manual of Typography, states that "The use of typewriter-style quotation marks instead of typographic ones should always be seen as a mistake". --Airborne84 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Strizver says people mis-use vertical quotes; she does not say that "people think they are the same thing". Implying that from her quote is jumping to a conclusion. By analogy, if a noted fashion consultant says it's a faux pas to wear shorts instead of long pants, the fact that many people wear shorts anyway does not imply that they can't tell the difference. Most likely, they just choose to ignore that advice. I still do not see a reliably sourced cite for this being a common misconception as written.


 * As for Felici's assertion, it's in the same vien as "periods must be followed by two spaces", "The passive voice is always incorrect", "A sentence must not end in a preposition" etc. Yes, we can find many sources for any of the various misconceptions presented in this article (otherwise they would not be common misconceptions) but the overall tone of this article is that there are no hard and fast rules in a living language and attempts to state such "rules" is fraught with error.  This "rule" about straight quotes is no exception. To be fair to Felici, he's operating in the realm of typography and layout as a professional graphic artist, not as a mere author of written English.  Applying his standards more generally is taking it out of context; the "proper" dress for an attorney pleading before the Supreme Court is different than a software developer giving a talk to her peers. Context matters.


 * The fact that it contradicts Wikipedia's own manual of style is just icing on the cake. If you really think vertical quotes are forbidden, perhaps you should wander over to the MOS talk page and try to implement that change site-wide. Good luck. In the mean time, we either need to properly source this section or remove it.Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I see what you're saying. I'm relatively certain that the average person makes this "mistake" because they don't know the difference, not because they know and forget. However, it's not sourced exactly like that. I don't have access to my library right now, so if you feel strongly that the article is improved by removing this entry until it is properly sourced, I won't object. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with your assessment that "the average person makes this "mistake" because they don't know the difference, not because they know and forget". And it's also not because they have some other idea in their head that they are sure is right.  In other words, we're dealing with plain ignorance here, not a misconception.


 * I have the same criticism of the entry "Hyphens and dashes have the same meaning". Most people just don't know the difference; as far as I can determine, there's nobody proclaiming this anywhere.  The citation talks about a "prevailing lack of typographic knowledge" but doesn't assert that anybody is actually making the claim that "Hyphens and dashes have the same meaning".  This is ignorance, not a misconception.


 * So, until we can find reliable sources supporting the assertion that many people are claiming that "Straight quotation marks are the same as quotation marks" and "Hyphens and dashes have the same meaning" we should remove these two entries.


 * The treatment of both curly quotes and hyphens/dashes is well within the mission of wikipedia, but I don't think it's correct to label simple ignorance as "misconception". Typography is a specialized discipline and until recently few people had the tools at hand to practice it, so it shouldn't be surprising that most people are ignorant of it's basic concepts.  But ignorance != misconception. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have fair points. However, I'm not sure that, if we keep the average reader in mind, that these entries won't be useful and interesting for them. It seems we agree there are misunderstandings regarding them, and if it's not splitting hairs, it is approaching it, IMHO.
 * Would it be fair to ask other editors to weigh in on these two entries before removing them? --Airborne84 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree that this material is useful and interesting for the readers, but neither item is adequately sourced and my view is that there's a big difference between having a misconception and simply being unfamiliar with a topic.  Which is to say that this material belongs on wikipedia, just not in this article and not presented as a misconception.  I'll wait to hear what other editors have to say before removing the items; to that end, I've started a new section to continue the discussion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Contradictions in tone
I've raised this issue before but it has never been resolved or explained. The article circulates between sides as necessary, almost playing devil's advocate: But you can pick a dozen further examples where we're picking one side out as right which shifts from item to item. Sometimes it's the rarely done, sometimes the common, sometimes the pedantic, sometimes the inclusive. Sometimes, as in Every paragraph must be indented. it's hard to tell at all. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase "begs the question" is synonymous with "raises the question". We say "wrong", agreeing with Paul Brians against Merriam-Webster.
 * "Irregardless" is not a word. we go with the masses against "the style guides of many universities".


 * The whole "we say" thing smells suspiciously like cut-and-pasted content. We are an encyclopedia and the only place where we should be making English usage recommendations is in the manual of style. And that of course is only with respect to English usage here on WP. The use of English elsewhere is the department of someone else's problem. We should just yank all the "we say" sentences. Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 19:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We naturally take sides with what we put in the article. We could have equally put "Irregardless" is a word. in. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is we are not supposed to take sides. I kind of like that we do because this page generally agrees with my own idiolect (which is awesome) but we are supposed to be objective. In order to fix it, we would have to relabel the "Misconceptions" to "Controversies". But if we did that then we should probably rename the page to Common English usage controversies or some such. Is it my imagination or is that just déja vu all over again? Didn't we entertain this notion before, way back in the dusty past, back when I was someone besides who I'm being now? Do we want to go down this road? Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 03:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please consider the criterions in the first post at the top of this talk page. To be included, these entries should be sourced specifically as a popular misconception by a reliable source. It's also important to consider WP:Weight here. For example, it would be difficult today to find a reliable source on English who says that it is incorrect to start a sentence with "and" or "but." I would not call this a dispute. And I would not call it taking sides. We don't take sides there, the reliable sources do. And it's OK at Wikipedia for us to report on which side reliable sources fall.
 * My feelings are that, if entries to this article are limited to the criterions I proposed at the top of this page, then it is OK since that is how the scope of the article is defined in its title and lede. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If one view really is overwhelmingly dominant, the cited passages should speak for themselves. A user should be able to read that 99.99% of people start sentences with conjunctions, grammarians with PhDs in English start sentences with conjunctions, style guides start sentences with conjunctions and go on believing whatever he or she wants to believe without feeling like Wikipedia told him or her what to do. The word "misconception" in this context is arrogant. If somebody spoke to me using "thee / thou / thine" instead of "you / you / your" in an effort to promote underappreciated grammar, I wouldn't say "Wrong!" like Mignon Fogarty, because as rare as this is, it's a valid point of view. I think you should be prepared to drop the word "misconception" in a lot of places. Either that, or move the grey areas into disputes in English grammar. Connor Behan (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a few of the entries that could be moved into the Disputes in English grammar, I agree. But, entries that meet the criterions listed in the initial post at the top, fit within the scope of this article. It's possible to change the scope of the article through consensus, of course. But to what end? There are already articles that exist to cover these other areas. And we'd be taking the position as Wikipedia editors that, "irregardless" of reliable sources identifying misconceptions in the English language, that none exist.
 * If there are disagreement with reliable sources using the word "misconception" or "myth", there are other platforms besides Wikipedia that these should be discussed at. We only report what reliable sources say on the subject.
 * For editors here who feel a fuller description of the facets of each of these entries is desireable (e.g., the disputes and magnitude of common usage), there is a way to handle that. The misconception aspect of the entry can be handled here, and the other aspects can be addressed in Disputes in English grammar or the like. A wikilink then takes people from this article to that one. --Airborne84 (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (undent): There are plenty here that could have been labelled the opposite, because as I say each of them has a different balance of popular usage, dictionaries, and writers on each side. I cannot emphasis enough that the article is taking sides if it possible to construct an alternate heading. So, for example, "Irregardless" is a word. is one that would fly completely. Close to opposites to what he have are Passives are equally good as the active and Contractions are appropriate in academic and formal writing. Overall I think most of the article would be better off phrased as disputes.
 * Put it another way, usage among the general population for each of these things varies widely. We have one with "widespread public belief" (another "begs the question" is something loads of people do), some which would be split like that about the passive voice, "Two spaces must follow each sentence." is apparently "widely overlooked" but I only know one person to do this, and I have never known anyone to say "healthful". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns. But this article doesn't currently consider the opinion of the average person. And for good reason. Hundreds of millions of people think that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. That doesn't make it true. Reliable sources (usually people with PhDs) provide evidence to the contrary. Many people think that the only thing on the Earth that can be seen from the moon is the Great Wall of China. But the fact that plenty of people think this doesn't make it true either. Reliable sources (various space agencies, etc) tell us that they are mistaken. It's not taking sides to report this on Wikipedia, and it doesn't move this from the "misconception" to the "dispute" category even if various Chinese government agencies report that this is true.
 * I understand the position that the subject of this article is different because there is no right or wrong in English. But that's exactly the point as explained in the lede. There are no firm rules in English. But lots of people think there are. Yet, the fact that lots of people think that you cannot split an infinitive doesn't make that supposed "rule" true. Reliable sources tell us that.
 * Let me finish by saying that there are a few entries here that are borderline. I'll even concede that if reliable sources are split on whether or not "irregardless" is or is not a word (on that point specifically), that it's probably not value added to the article. I haven't done the research to ascertain the weight of reliable sources on it (although its inclusion in most dictionaries and the fact that reliable sources indicate that is a criterion to be a word seems telling). It seems to me that most of the "dispute" about irregardless is not whether it's a word or not, but on whether it's a good idea to use it. But that discussion is outside of the misconception as explained in italics after the word "Misconception". --Airborne84 (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an entire discipline that produces PhD's who think that any manner of speaking that accurately communicates your point is "correct" and that the notion of "correct usage" is itself a misconception. Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Much of what you wrote Airborne is interesting and needs to be said. There are reliable sources supporting the statements in this article. But these reliable sources don't justify the tone of this article -- if you take a statement that is part of a polarized debate and call it a "misconception", the burden of proof grows enormously. Take the abortion debate for example (No I will not state my position on this one and I hope no one else does either!) It is easy to find high profile doctors, lawyers, researchers, policy makers, etc who say that life begins at birth. It is okay for Wikipedia to quote these individuals to argue that the pro-choice position is a widely held view with a lot of weight behind it. It is not okay for Wikipedia to call pro-life a misconception. As you suggested, we can continue to keep this article about misconceptions, introducing wikilinks to disputes in English grammar when the discussion veers away from that. However, I would then be very careful about what you call a misconception. Some examples are "misconception: begging the question meant raising the question when the phrase was originally coined", "misconception: the term free reign existed before free rein", "misconception: English scholars who advocate good grammar do not consider irregardless to be a word", "misconception: the trend of starting sentences with a conjunction began in the 20th century when people decided to ignore a long standing grammatical rule." Connor Behan (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. It seems like we've reached an agreement. When expansion of the entries roams into the "dispute" category, that material is added to the Disputes in English grammar and is wikilinked here to provide access for those who want to delve into it. That sounds reasonable as it provides more information to the interested reader.
 * Thanks for your inputs and interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * IAW this agreement, I have added a few links to Disputes in English grammar to give a hint that some things are not cut and dry. I also modified the misconception titles slightly so that they emphasize history / etymology whenever possible. That makes them contribute virtually the same information with a less abrasive

tone. Note that I did not touch irregardless yet! Connor Behan (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Irregardless entry
The "Irregardless" entry is supported as a myth by a reliable source. Our opinions as to whether it is or is not a word are irrelevant, as per WP:V which says Wikipedia's "content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors". Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Irregardless is a word". That statement is supported by many sources. "Irregardless is not a word". That statement is also supported by many sources. None of these sources are reliable because they are all highly opinionated. In particular, Mignon Fogarty's source that you cite has been vilified by many blog readers for being overly apologetic. Now I am not proposing that we change the "Irregardless is not a word" misconception to "Irregardless is a word". I am simply proposing that we not take a position on this one. If I said "no educated English speaker with proficient grammar considers irregardless to be a word", that would be a misconception and Fogarty's citation would prove that it is. Anything else about the word / non-word "irregardless" is a matter of perspective that does not belong in an article about "misconceptions". Connor Behan (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article will survive irregardless of whether or not we include this particular misconception. If it is listed in a RS as a word (where RS=a respected dictionary in this case) then I say we just delete it. Peace, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 04:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts.
 * I oppose deleting the entry because the same logic could be applied to many of the entries here. I've also found that this particular entry is a source of some surprise to many people, and thus seems to represent an interesting addition for the average reader.
 * Connor Behan, Mignon Fogarty is a reliable source IAW Wikipedia's policies. Blog readers are not.
 * But, I think we can find some middle ground. Please remember that we don't take a position on anything (or we shouldn't). But it is possible for undue weight to be given to a particular idea in an article. An acceptable fix for undue weight (if it exists) is to balance out the ideas based on reliable sources. That's less drastic than simply deleting material which can violate WP:PRESERVE.
 * Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, sources do not cancel each other out here, and multiple ideas can exist within the same article. For example, someone thought the "begs the question" entry didn't capture all the opinions of reliable sources and added another aspect—Mirriam Webster dictionaries allow both meanings. The "contractions" entry was improved by adding another idea from reliable sources: " A number of writing guides still recommend not to use contractions in academic and formal writing." The passive voice entry was tempered (pun intended) in a note by caveating that the reliable sources who say passive voice isn't wrong don't necessarily endorse its use in all instances.
 * This article is not "finished" and it is a work in progress. So, I propose that you simply find one or more reliable sources who think irregardless should not be defined as a word and add these ideas to the entry. I'd recommend adding a source that says it's not a good idea to use it even if it is a word, but Fogarty already does that.
 * That would be a welcome addition to the article and follows previous improvements which temper the positions taken by the sources listed. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the same logic can be applied to other items. This should raise warning bells about whether this article is encyclopedic. I am glad that you mentioned some misconceptions about the history of the English language because this is well defined. Before reading this article, I never new that "xmas" came from "chi" and not secularism. However, an encyclopedia that strives to be unbiased is necessarily incapable of answering the inherently subjective question about when a made-up word becomes a word. I am still in favour of deletion. But if preserving this section is so important to you that you'd rather have a statement and its negation both appearing as misconceptions, I have taken the liberty of writing that. Connor Behan (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition. I reinstated the material and sources that indicate irregardless is a word since, as I noted, both ideas can exist in the same article. I'm sure you deleted them inadvertently while adding material. At first glance, I'm not sure that your entry captures the proper WP:weight of reliable sources on this topic. For example, I could add more reliable sources who say the same as Fogarty. But, since I don't have time to investigate further right now, we can leave it as is and let other editors address weight in the future if they'd like. Thanks for your time and interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First, a procedural note. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. The process is to boldy edit. Once there is a revert, then editors discuss. You ignored this before after deleting the entry when you decided to simply delete again rather than follow BRD. Dusty relic then correctly restored the version that had achieved consensus.
 * Then, you deleted the material from Mignon Fogarty and changed the wording of the misconception explanation. I reverted it, while leaving your additions intact. The process is now to discuss if you disagree—not simply delete again. I have restored the previous version. If you'd like to discuss it further, please do so here. Once a consensus is reached, then we can make a change to that material.
 * I am confident that we can find middle ground. But the way you are approaching this is not the best way to achieve results here on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell whether you are being satirical or just unobservant. Please actually LOOK at the article. In its current state, the misconception "irregardless is not a word" complete with Fogarty's explanation appears twice! No, it is not correct to have the exact same paragraph appearing twice in a row. You have reverted my attempts to fix this because you thought I deleted something. I fear that if I were to fix the article now, you would instinctively undo my edit... so I will give you 24 hours to read this and realize that the article is broken before I attempt to fix it again. Connor Behan (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Connor was correct; the paragraph was duplicated. The only difference was that one version had irregardless wikilinked while the other did not. I removed the un-wikilinked version as I wanted to be able to click on the link to see what wiki says about irregardless! (And here I thought that Wikipedia was not a dictionary! Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 03:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My fault, and my apologies regarding the duplicated paragraph. Thanks for pitching in, Dusty relic. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that we are back on track for reaching a consensus, I have added another source to the "is not a word" misconception to try and balance out the weight. I also restored the bold heading on top of the "is a word" misconception. It seems biased to absorb one misconception as a subset of the other. This makes it look like one view is the mainstream and the other is a band of rebels. Connor Behan (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not find those edits an improvements so I reverted it. In particular, it serves no one to have an entry saying "Misconception: "Irregardless" is not a word." and another entry saying "Misconception: "Irregardless" is a word."  Perhaps the article can be more nuanced and reflect the disagreement of opinions, but a self-contradictory article is not an improvement.


 * BTW, there is a similar discussion over at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions - I would suggest that no further changes be made to either article's "irregardless" section until some consensus is reached. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you intended to remove John McIntyre's reference so I have added a bunch of things back. In this discussion I expressed doubts about having a statement and its negation but I think that's better than not referring to the disagreement at all. Are these headings more nuanced to you? "Misconception: Irregardless does not meet the usual criteria for being considered a word.", "Misconception: Irregardless is a proper word." Connor Behan (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My swordfish: I see that you removed contradictory material. You could've done this by calling the first one a misconception or by calling the second one a misconception or by calling neither of them misconceptions. You chose to call the first one a misconception that clearly indicates which side of the debate you are taking. If you were going to do this anyway, I don't see why you suggested that no further changes be made until a consensus is reached. Anyone can implement his or her favourite edit to an article and then say "okay now I don't think any more changes should be made." Anyway, what do you think of my modified misconception titles? Connor Behan (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the original guidelines for this article: Any entry must
 * (1) show that the misconception is widespread
 * (2) focus on the misconception, not any dispute on usage
 * (3) be supported by at least one reliable source that outlines both 1 and 2 above

In particular, we should avoid getting involved in disputes on usage. Most sources say that irregardless is non-standard,, irregular, incorrect, or some such variant. That's fine, but it's not what this article is about. The relevant misconception is that a word that appears in nearly every dictionary is somehow "not a word". We should stick to that.Mr. Swordfish (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * One more thing: I don't think this entry deserves more than two or three sentences. It has it's own wikipedia entry, we should just put a concise summary here. With that said, I'm going to trim it down to the appropriate size. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the entry as it stands after Mr Swordfish's change. The previous version rather overpowered the other entries around it. I suspect Connor Behan will not agree with the change, so I will recommend that the nuances that were removed are reinstated at Disputes in English grammar as agreed below earlier.
 * If that brings any consternation, I propose that future changes to the irregardless entry be discussed here and agreed on before further adjusting the entry. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The entry is better than it used to be but you are right that I still don't agree with it. I'll admit that irregardless is technically a word - there I said it. But it's important to remember why people read style guides, Fogarty's blog or grammar misconception articles. They don't want to be told that there is no such thing as a mistake in language. They want to improve their use of standard English. So I think this article is still doing them a disservice.
 * Irregardless may be a word, but so are "alot", "pwnz" and "definately". Everyone who has read Jabberwocky knows that "galumphing" is a word that means "stomping" and every die-hard Simpsons fan knows that "cromulent" is a word that means "valid". People don't argue against "irregardless" being a word because they were fooled by a misconception. They do so because in so far as correct usage exists it is an incorrect word. This is why the author of a style guide can be "right" about saying that certain things are not words. The intended audience has, for the time being, parted with the "anything goes" ideal. The existence of this article necessary eschews the fact that commonly done things in English are automatically correct by virtue of being common. Then within that context it becomes a very loaded statement to say that "irregardless" is a word. Yes, it is correct to say that it is a word, but it is a cop-out. The only way to explain why it is a word, is to appeal to the arguments that nullify every other grammar rule.
 * I am okay with giving the impression that "irregardless" is a word and not mentioning anything to the contrary, but I would like the title of the misconception to move away from "irregardless". The real misconception should be something like this: "Words that display a spelling or pronunciation mistake are not real words." In the body of the explanation, we can then mention "irregardless" and other examples, state that they appear in dictionaries and other works and provide a wikilink saying that this needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Thoughts? Connor Behan (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind adding something to that effect if you can source it IAW the criterions at the top. However, since the "irregardless" entry is properly sourced as a misconception as it is worded, I don't agree with removing it. I read your assertion above about the reason why people argue against it being a word. My experience is different. It might just be the line of work I'm in, but I've heard dozens of people in recent years tell me or others within my earshot that "irregardless is not a word." When I mention that it exists in dictionaries, I get a stunned look. Again, this is my experience, and it's irrelevant here, but the fact that a reliable source describes this specifically as a "myth" indicates that this misconception is widespread.
 * Again, it's no problem adding entries to the article as long as they focus on the misconception as related by reliable sources and adhere to the criterions used until now through consensus. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Airborne84 here. I've heard the assertion "irregardless is not a word" my entire life.  It's almost a reflex action with some people when the hear the term. I am unaware of any other word that appears in the dictionary where people routinely claim that it is not a word.  There's something special and weird about irregardless - I'm not sure where it comes from, but it's particular to "irregardless".  So generalizing the article would be misleading.


 * Spelling and pronunciation mistakes are an entirely different topic and beyond the scope of this article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've told you another word that people refer to as a non-word: "alot". I also heard my English teacher say that "gotten" is not a word (recall the use of "forgot" in V for Vendetta). I said that "irregardless" was a spelling and pronunciation mistake because I didn't know what else to call it. Uneducated people I've seen probably want to say "regardless" but they think it is spelt and pronounced "irregardless". Maybe it is more of a "logical mistake" because of the double negative. I need to find out what words to use. I have very little access to a computer for the next couple of days, but suffice it to say, I will write the "more general" section. Once it has been refined enough to be considered "well written" it will necessarily make the "irregardless" section redundant because it will include "irregardless" in its list of words. Then I will once again argue for deletion of this. Connor Behan (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well sourced edits and additions are always welcome on Wikipedia. I've found that it is helpful when making a significant change to the contents or structure of an article to first make the changes in your own user space, do some polishing / cleanup and then present the proposed change on the talk page of the article in question. Can I ask you to follow this procedure instead of editing in place?

I was unaware that there was any controversy about "gotten" being a word, but apparently there is. From my limited research, it's the past participle of "get", but fell into disuse in the UK a couple of centuries ago while continuing to be used in North America. So to British ears it sounds wrong or archaic, while in North America it is used when describing the act of acquiring: we'd say "he hasn't gotten any results yet" but "he hasn't got any money".

In this regard it's similar to "irregardless" in that it is a North American phenomena, although while irregardless is a neologism (or rather it was a century and a half ago), "gotten" dates to middle English, it just fell into disuse in England about 300 years ago while continuing to be used on this side of the Atlantic. I'd need to do some more research before writing an entry on "gotten". As for combining them as part of a general trend, my initial response would be to have them as separate entries unless we can come up with a few more examples of the genre "X is not a word". Three is probably the the threshold for combining entries under one umbrella, but I'm not wedded to that idea.

As for "alot" it's much more problematic. While "irregardless" and "gotten" appear in every dictionary I've consulted, there is litle support for "alot" being a word. It doesn't appear in any of the four paper dictionaries I have at hand; as for online dictionaries the following return no results for "alot": http://dictionary.reference.com, http://dictionary.cambridge.org, http://oxforddictionaries.com, http://www.scrabblefinder.com, http://www.vocabulary.com, http://www.collinsdictionary.com

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/alot only lists it as the name of a town in India, http://www.yourdictionary.com/ redirects to a list of abbreviations http://www.lexic.us/definition-of/alot lists it as a non-standard spelling of "a lot" http://www.allwords.com lists it as a misspelling of a lot. Paul Brians says it's a spelling error. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/alot.html

So the argument on favor of "alot" being a word is on the slim side. Probably the best we can say of it is that it might be on the way to becoming a word. My preference would be to sidestep the issue of whether it's a word or not and simply say something like "Misconception: it is proper usage to write the two-word phrase "a lot" as one word." That is, if we treat "alot" in this article at all.

I also just noticed that the spell-check built into Firefox is flagging "alot" as an error while accepting "irregardless" and "gotten". Not that we can use that as a reliable source for the article, but I thought it was an interesting observation. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Touché. —Airborne84 (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On my copy of Firefox, "irregardless" is flagged as an error, but I have it using a shared hunspell. My feeling is that there are plenty of words in the same boat. If people are shocked that "irregardless" appears in the dictionary, they are under a misconception about the purpose of dictionaries. Connor Behan (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, it seems like "X is not a word" is supported as a myth by sources that are just as reliable. See, , , , , , . Words that I would propose adding to the list are: conversate, orientate, funnest, impactful, expresso, mentee, guesstimate, anyways, misremembered, thusly, replayability. Most of these appear in the OED. How many of these make your cut? I'm sure that if you tried hard enough, you'd be able to cast each of these words in a light that makes it seem completely different from "irregardless" but please be honest. I can think of three criteria that could cause a made up word like this to receive very little attention:
 * 1. Hardly anyone knows the correct form so only those few people could make a big deal.
 * 2. Everyone knows the correct form so the people who would normally make a big deal have no audience.
 * 3. The made up word is only distinguishable from the correct form in written English, not spoken English.
 * "Irregardless" seems to have just the right balance so perhaps the paragraph expanding upon the misconception should emphasize "irregardless". But I don't think it belongs in the title of the misconception. Connor Behan (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * First, good job researching other "non-words". That's quite a haul.  I tend to agree with your first two cites (Good.is & Sentence First) and take an expansive view of what is allowed to be a word. Thus I don't think any of these examples are "completely different" than irregardless.  It's more a matter of degree. To take just one example, "impactful" is not in many dictionaries, so the support for it being a word is less than what's there for "irregardless" which is in every modern unabridged dictionary.  You and I might agree that "impactful" is a word, but if we're going to state that as fact in the article it's not as well supported as is the case for "irregardless".  At the other end, there are thousands of citations of people stating "irregardless is not a word" while the same can't be said for "impactful".  Thus, the difference is quantitative not qualitative.


 * That said, I think the quantitative difference is an order of magnitude, not a small difference, which is why I continue to think that irregardless is somewhat of a special case. However, in the light of these examples I retract my previous statement that generalizing the entry would be misleading. The real misconception is the "Not-a-Word Myth", of which "irregardless" is the most prominent but by no means the only example.


 * Crafting an entry to reflect the general misconception won't be easy; general cases are harder to solve than specific examples. With "irregardless", the case for it being a word was easy to state and examples of it being erroneously declared "not a word" were easy to find.  In the hyphen/dash thread here I've suggested that we get away from the rigid "Misconception: Statement X" format and just state correct information.  I think if we take that approach it will be easier to craft the general entry. I look forward to seeing your proposal for a generalized entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Argh, that took forever. My attempt at a general entry is in my sandbox. I'm going to bed now. Connor Behan (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a link to the proposed revision so that I and the other editors can review it? Thanks.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, here it is. Connor Behan (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)