Talk:Common English usage misconceptions/Archive 2

Preposition entry
I reverted the change to the lede sentence of the preposition entry. It was changed from "A sentence must not end in a preposition" to "Ending a sentence is not how prepositions were intended to be used." It seems like a concise description of the misconception as worded by the sources was changed to a wordier and more convoluted way of saying a slightly different misconception. But since the sources directly support the first statement (e.g., Fogarty says it's a "myth" that "You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition"), the first sentence seems better on multiple levels. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this reversion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hyphens, dashes, quotes - misconceptions vs simply not knowing
In discussing two entries above (Misconception: Hyphens and dashes have the same meaning and Misconception: Straight quotation marks (or "dumb" quotes) are the same as quotation marks.) it came out that these entries have the following problems:

1)There is no citation given indicating that anyone is actually making these assertions. (And I can't find any by searching the web.)

2)The consensus (so far) is that the general public just doesn't know about these issues as they are part of the fairly specialized field of typography.

My view is that these are not actual misconceptions. As Mark Twain put it, “''It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.''” To label something as a "misconception" it should be an example of the latter, not the former. If it's just something where the general population lacks specific knowledge, it's not a misconception and it doesn't belong in this article.

Since neither entry is adequately sourced (who, exactly, is claiming that hyphens and dashes are the same? Anybody?) and since neither is really a misconception I propose removing those two entries. Airborne84 asked that I wait for other editors to weigh in before removing the items, and I agreed to wait long enough to give other editors a chance to state their opinions. So, who agrees or disagrees with the removal of these two items? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of retaining the hyphen/dash one. I think the material supporting it is sufficient. The quotes entry is borderline, so I understand the objection. I favor retaining for this only because I think it might be of interest to the general reader, who probably doesn't understand the difference. But, if other editors feel strongly that deleting this entry improves the article and Wikipedia, I won't argue. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I performed a Google search on the phrase "Hyphens and dashes have the same meaning" Results are at https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Hyphens+and+dashes+have+the+same+meaning%22 Every single hit ultimately originates from this article.  Nobody is claiming "Hyphens and dashes have the same meaning" other than this article.  This is a case of Wikipedia driving a meme instead of following and reporting, and that's a clear violation of wiki policy.  At the very least, we should rephrase the misconception to reflect what someone other than us is actually claiming. I'll give it another day or so for another editor to weigh in and/or change the entry to something supported by a reliable source, but the entry cannot stand in its present form. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very possible that the misconception may be better reworded to reflect the sources. What do you suggest? --Airborne84 (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, I'm not overly concerned about a web search not coming up with anything verbatim. Web searches turn up what's on the web. I paraphrased from Strizver's and Jury's books for this entry, so even if they are available through Google books or another web venue, a search isn't going to match these words. But Jury and Strizver describe a misconception. Jury descibes a lack of knowledge driving people to use hyphens in place of dashes. Strizver notes that, even though they have different meanings, people confuse and misuse them. This could be phrased very precisely to match their words, but I think the paraphrase of the misconception is reasonable and an accurate reflection of what they are stating. If you think the misconception is phrased better another way though, please send it. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If your sources describe it as a misconception, please cite the quote where they say it is a misconception. Lack of knowledge does not equal misconception.   If it does  then so would every other factoid, and we'd be looking at entries like:


 * Misconception: An SM-58 is the same thing as an MD-421
 * Misconception: An Albacore is the same as a Jet-14
 * Misconception: Stilton is the same as gorgonzola
 * Misconception: Javascript, Java, and J# are the same language
 * Misconception: John Roberts is not the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court


 * Granted, most people can't tell the difference between one microphone or sailboat and another. Few people know a lot about cheese or computer languages.  Survey after survey says most Americans can't name the Chief Justice.  But are these misconceptions?  No, it's just stuff most people don't know.  I agree that the distinction between hyphens and dashes is interesting and useful material, I just don't think it belongs here.


 * Bottom line: this is not a misconception, neither of your sources call it a misconception (at least from what I've seen), and jumping from "lack of knowledge" to "misconception" is a logical leap that we as wikipedia editors shouldn't be making. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like it would be similar to the misconception about "irregardless." People don't know it's not a word because they have a lack of knowledge that it exists in dictionaries. It sounds like you've experienced this lack of knowledge contributing to that particular misconception personally, so I'm not sure why it's a leap.
 * Interestingly, if a reliable source identified your above examples as misconceptions, they would be candidates for inclusion here. We don't decide what's a misconception; we just report what reliable sources say are misconceptions. I know you know this already though.
 * You've touched on a subject that we haven't covered here, but has been discussed at great length at List of common misconceptions. How to define "misconception"? There, and here, "myth" is synonymous enough to merit inclusion. As far as lack of knowledge, we can certainly discuss it, but I don't know that it's really a controversial idea that a lack of knowledge can contribute to a misconception (e.g., "irregardless" is in the dictionary). Consider also that Oxford Dictionaries defines misconception as "a view or opinion that is incorrect because based on faulty thinking or understanding". Is faulty understanding not very similar to a lack of knowledge? Faulty understanding could come from misinformation, of course, but it could also come from lack of information. For my part, I think this particular entry is sufficiently sourced. Perhaps a slight wording modification will make it better. If you disagree, however, we will need to (1) discuss how to further refine an inclusion criterion regarding "misconception", and/or (2) wait for other editors to weigh in to reach a consensus.
 * If you feel that a rewording won't work and that the entry is not sourced adequately, then we simply disagree and will need other editors to pitch in.
 * If I might, I've found that these issues are rarely bifurcated as much as they appear to be. There are likely multiple potential compromises and areas on which we can meet on common ground here. It doesn't have to be "delete" or "keep". I'd encourage you to consider and suggest a variety of possibilities. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a big difference between this and "irregardless" - there are multiple citations of people claiming "irregardless is not a word", and several are cited by the article. I have yet to see a single cite of anyone claiming "hyphens and dashes are the same" (or some variant - we don't need exact match, but something, anything close is required before it's adequately sourced.)   It's not that people don't know that irregardless is a word, there are many people actively making the claim that it isn't. That's what qualifies it as a misconception.  No one that I have observed is actively claiming "hyphens and dashes are the same".  The article does not provide a source for this claim.
 * As for rewording, I can't come up with a rewording that works, but I haven't concluded that a rewording won't work; I'd encourage you or another editor to give it a try. If it's adequately sourced and reflects the source's content, the entry can stay.  Agree that keep or delete are not the only options, but I don't see any easy way to reword it to wiki standards and still call it a misconception.  As currently written, I think it is unsourced (or actually a misinterpretation of the source) and a violation of policy.
 * Perhaps it's time to ask for a third opinion? We appear to be at an impasse.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think we got into this conundrum because of the formatting or the entries. Each one starts with "Misconception: Statement X" which requires us to come up with a Statement X for each entry. For these two "problematic" entries coming up with a supportable Statement X is difficult if not impossible. If we relaxed the formatting convention then I think we could come up with a version for each of these two entries that would be acceptable. Something like:


 * Hyphens, em-dashes, and en-dashes all have different purposes, but they are often confused and misused. Although the hyphen is commonly used for all dashes, this is due to the technical limitations of typewriters and computer keyboards.

This follows the convention of the sibling List of common misconceptions article and states the correct information instead of the misconception, which I think is a better approach since you owe Orin Kerr a beer: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1190078746.shtml

Our choice should we adopt this convention for these items would be to either adopt them for just these two entries or to convert the entire page. I think it would be a bit strange to adopt it for just the two entries; changing the entire article is more than I'm comfortable doing without more buy in from the other editors. Your thoughts? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions. I'm fine with your idea of relaxing the formatting standard for these two entries, but I'm not necessarily in favor of removing the misconceptions for all. After massive confusion on the List of common misconceptions a couple of years ago, I strongly recommended there that each entry begin clearly with what the misconception was. The amount of confusion that arose from not doing that was staggering to me. What happened was people came across an entry, formulated in their mind what they thought the misconception was, and argued against the entry if it didn't match well. The problem was, that the misconception, as sourced, was actually something else. For example, people argued against the "end sentence with a preposition" entry because they thought it was saying that it was always ok to do so, or that it was the best choice, or various other things. What the sources stated (but wasn't necessarily clear in the entry) was simply that it's a misconception that a sentence cannot end with a preposition. To remove all of the clearly defined misconceptions (as sourced) here is to invite this confusion to this article. I'm ok with adjusting these two entries though. Perhaps placing them at the end of their respective sections and noting the consensus regarding the format change at the top of this talk page in a FAQ will be sufficient. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When you talk about "confusion that arose", do you mean "confusion that is still arising"? As far as I know, List of common misconceptions still begins each entry with the correct statement, not the incorrect one. I definitely support this change. Not only for a more uniform style, but also because it could alleviate many objections to the tone that I have raised. That's not to say that careful wording is no longer needed. In the preposition ending example I would write a heading similar to "it is acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition". Connor Behan (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would also be acceptable to clearly state the misconception as sourced in a positive manner. Why don't you propose a first sentence for the entries in the first (or another) section and we can discuss if it is an improvement? --Airborne84 (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that words like "misconception" and "myth" should be used minimally unless you are prepared to ever say that something is incorrect. The thesis of this article is that everything is correct. Start as many sentences with conjunctions as you want. End as many sentences with prepositions as you want. Say irregardless as many times as you want. Indent as few paragraphs as you want. Use one space after as many periods as you want. Use contractions as many times as you want. Split as many infinitives as you want. Say "healthy breakfast" as many times as you want. A better title for this article would be "list of manifestations of the misconception that English has rules" but that wouldn't roll off the tounge. Connor Behan (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're still talking past each other. You keep using words like "you are prepared to ever say" or "we say". We only report what reliable sources say the misconception or myth is. If you disagree with their use of those terms, the remedy lies outside of Wikipedia, perhaps in contacting those authors or their publishers directly or even writing your own works on the subject. For example, Cutts and the Oxford University Press included an entire section in the Oxford Guide to Plain English on English "Myths". If you feel that this term is simply wrong and brings the wrong tone, you should contact the Oxford University Press or Cutts and explain your concerns. We simply report what these reliable sources say. You and I can disagree or agree with them, but our opinions as editors are simply not relevant in identifying misconceptions and myths here at Wikipedia.
 * And the thesis of this article is not that "everything is correct." It's that there are no firm rules in English, but people erroneously think there are.
 * We apparently aren't going to agree on the "tone" of this article since you seem to assert that the editors here are identifying these as misconceptions rather than reporting that reliable sources say they are. Given that, we will have to work to find common ground on the entries themselves. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

''Thanks for your suggestions. I'm fine with your idea of relaxing the formatting standard for these two entries, but I'm not necessarily in favor of removing the misconceptions for all.''

I can go either way on reformatting all the other entries. That said, I tried recasting the hyphen entry to use a format other than "Misconception: Statement X" and it didn't work visually - without the bold "Misconception" leading the paragraph it looked like a continuation of the previous entry. If we're going to go with a different approach to those entries we need a way to signal that it's a different topic than the previous paragraph. Ideas?

BTW, since I think the statements as written are incorrect and unsourced there is some urgency to fixing it. I'd like to see something better in a week or so. I've refrained from removing the entries thus far, but I feel pretty strongly that they must change or go. Let's put our heads together and try to come up with text/formatting that works. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a requirement for urgency on the hyphens entry since you and I are in disagreement on whether the sources support it as a misconception. However, I don't mind working to reformat that as well as the quotes entry. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Adjustments to entries
I didn't have an issue with most of Connor Behan's recent changes. However, please be careful when editing passages that are already sourced if you have not read the sources. For example the passage "It is a myth that it is incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition" was replaced by "Preposition stranding was in use long before any English speakers considered it to be incorrect." The three sources to support the former did not necessarily say the latter. I kept the latter sentence, but reinstated the former. Cutts, for example explicitly uses the word "myth." Since that is central to the entry's inclusion in this article, it should remain. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You cite O'Conner and Kellerman to say that preposition stranding was in use in Anglo-Saxan times. Doesn't that mean my addition was supported by sources? Anyway, it did sound a bit awkward so I'm not going to make a big deal about this one. Connor Behan (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the sentence. I just delinked it from sources that didn't necessarily say support it. And Mr Swordfish moved the sentence to a location where it fits in the prose nicely. If I might say, that's what improving articles here is all about. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dictionaries
It might be useful at this point to add a separate portion to the references section called "Dictionaries" since they are listed in the notes section but not in the reference section. Short citations with ref tags will bring the new entry in line with the rest of the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow. Do you want the dictionaries that were combined into a single reference to again be separate references, just in a different section? And should we cite "irregardless", "funnest", "conversate", etc as all coming from that dictionary? Or just cite the dictionary and let the reader figure out what words are in it?
 * I misunderstood another thing too. It seems that while I was waiting for you to edit my sandbox (Mr. Swordfish), you were waiting for me to give permission or something. I don't have a problem with most of the edits you performed in the end. What you called "pejorative verbiage" I think is just a statement of a fact, and some of the citations you removed would've been enjoyable reads for people who look at cited blogs in depth, but these aren't important. What's important is that the reader now has appropriate context before reading a bold statement like "irregardless is a word". If "irregardless" and not "regardless" were a word in Anglo-Saxon, this would be truly surprising and would justify a point-blank statement like that. However, when I first read the entry, all it did was repeat what I knew about "irregardless" while adding that my point of view (that there is a place for prescriptivism) is pretentious. Connor Behan (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the current version, as adjusted, is fine. "Irregardless" fits well in the prose as it stands. The misconception is noted and follows immediately with an example to clarify. And irregardless seems to serve that purpose well.
 * As far as the dictionaries, the formatting of the references is now uneven. It's not a showstopper, but it degrades the quality of the article, if only slightly. To be consistent, the same sources are used, but edited to be "short cites" in the text, e.g., O'Conner and Kellerman 2009. p. 21. For that to work, the full citations for the dictionaries should be added to the Bibliography section with a reftag added at the end of the citation template, e.g., |ref=CK09}}.
 * The dictionaries could simply be added to the Bibliography in alphabetical order; but, I suggest it might be a bit better to add a separate sub-section to the Bibliography called "Dictionaries" to separate them into their own categories. That's not unprecedented here at Wikipedia and I think it would be useful for readers to see what dictionaries are used to reference this article without having to sort through the Bibliography. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I created the relevant bibliography section. Just to be clear... you think the two "mega-citations" we have now should be replaced by six citations? One refers to the 11 dictionaries that include "irregardless", one refers to the 9 dictionaries that include "thusly", etc? Connor Behan (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of lumping citations under one endnote separated by a colon in the manner of footnotes 4 and 14 of Sentence spacing. I'd recommend adding the word referenced in quotation marks after the short cite. It might look like the below, with the title hyperlinked by the short cite formatting to the Bibliography entry.


 * Oxforddictionaries.com, "Mentee"; Collinsdictionary.com, "Mentee"; Allwords.com, "Thusly"; etc.


 * However, each of the current citations in the endnotes can be retained. Modifying them is just more consistent with the rest of the notes. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed endnote 53 to short cites as an example. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that presentation is a good one. I'm in favor of whatever makes the article more readable and consolidating citations helps improve readability; when the ratio of text to footnotes reaches a certain threshold all those superscripts starts to obscure the prose. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
There is no objective source of "correctness" in English, there are simply practices and opinions. This page affirms that position that the way some schoolchildren are taught English is actually incorrect. It would be more objective to say that these teachings are criticized or that the rules are disputed. It is also objective to point out cases where a majority accepts a certain practice in a given register, where widely accepted style guides all agree, and where professional practice in some or most cases runs against a minority opinion. The title is also non-neutral for similar reasons; I think it would be more object as "Disputes in English usage" just like we have Disputes in English grammar which should probably be merged. -- Beland (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence is correct and is the foundation of this article. If there is no objective source of "correctness" in English (as you note), how can there be a "rule" that one shouldn't start a sentence with a preposition or one shouldn't split an infinitive, or people shouldn't start a sentence with specific conjunctions? There can't be. Yet, reliable sources have pointed out that there are misconceptions (or myths) that these rules can and do exist. One criterion for inclusion here is that the entry is reliably sourced as a misconception. It's not POV when reliable sources couch it in these terms. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also offer that the concern about the title/content being POV is a larger issue than this article. See below:
 * List of common misconceptions
 * Misconceptions about tornadoes
 * List of misconceptions about illegal drugs
 * Misconceptions about HIV and AIDS
 * Common misunderstandings of genetics
 * Misconceptions about evolution
 * Short of putting POV tags on all of these and related articles, you may want to raise your concern in a different Wikipedia forum. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose to remove the neutrality tag on the article. Given that this article is similar to those listed above that do not have tags, I'd suggest that the problem, if there is one, needs to be resolved in a different forum than this talk page. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The other articles you point out concern scientific, historical, etc. claims about what is or was, which can be objectively assessed; this article concerns opinions about how people should speak. Apparently there is a dispute between a number of elementary school teachers and professional style guides, with the population of English speakers somewhat divided over which is correct.  Is there any particular forum you would suggest in which to solicit more opinions, if you still feel that is necessary? -- Beland (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand you think the article is about opinions regarding how people should speak or write. But it is actually a bit different. It starts out by pointing out that there is no "right" or "wrong" in English. However, misconceptions exists that there are firm rules about "right" and "wrong" in English. The inclusion criterions are listed at the top of the article.
 * I don't think that the title is POV because each of the included entries have to be sourced as a misconception. The sources state these as misconceptions, not the article, and the title simply reflects that this is a collection of sourced misconceptions. I understand that you think they are only disputes, but our opinions here as editors are not relevant. Only the opinions of reliable sources are.
 * Since you assert that the article violates WP:NPOV, please refer the rest of us to the specific passages in that policy that this article violates so that your concerns can be addressed. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Beland. An article with "misconceptions" in the title purports to know what is right and wrong. This is rarely possible in something as subjective as the English language. I have voiced my concerns about how the "irregardless section" is grossly biased but this is a symptom of a larger problem which is that this article probably shouldn't exist in the first place. Connor Behan (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit that I have a bias towards linguistics as a science, but I get the impression that that's an acceptable bias to have in this sort of situation. I certainly think that this article walks a fine line, but I don't think that it's unreasonable to have a neutral article of this sort if it is totally descriptivist. People do have common misconceptions about English language and usage. People get the impression that the use of "they" as a gender-neutral, singular noun is a recent addition to the language, even though it has been in use since the time of William Shakespeare. That is a set of facts, not a set of opinions about what is "right" in English. As a general rule, I hardly think it's NPOV to explain the scientific consensus on the nature of language, even though I can imagine people will have strong opinions on the matter. 0x0077BE (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hyphen/dashes section
Mr Swordfish, your point regarding the quotation marks entry was reasonable given the way it was sourced. However, I believe that the sources for the hyphen section support its inclusion here IAW the criterions at the top of the talk page. Thus I reinstated the entry. Since it currently has consensus, if you strongly feel that it should be removed, you should try to establish a new consensus. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The consensus over at List of common misconceptions is "a misconception is something that people know, but is actually incorrect — not something they answer incorrectly when it is presented to them." By that consensus definition, the "misconception" about hyphens/dashes is not a misconception.  I agree with that consensus definition, and think the entry needs to be removed or rewritten to bring it in line with what the source material actually says.  In particular, I have yet to see a single source for anyone claiming "Hyphens and dashes have the same meaning", so the entry remains unsourced (Jury and Shriver do not make that claim and there are no other sources cited.) Per wikipedia standards, unsourced material is subject to removal. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary to source the misconception if it is explained, with sources, afterward. However, I duplicated the Jury source and replaced your tag with it. I also adjusted the wording of the misconception to wording that you might see as closer to what Jury means.
 * I know you don't think that Jury's source supports the misconception. We simply disagree on that. But, according to WP:CONSENSUS, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." This entry achieved consensus when it was added and not disputed. However, consensus can change, so if you strongly feel that this article is better off without the entry, you can certainly pursue a new consensus. --Airborne84 (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not our job as wikipedia editors to divine "what Jury means", all we have is what Jury has written, and he has not written "Hyphens and dashes are the same glyphs" or anything indicating anyone else is making that claim. You are interpreting his writing to mean something different than what it says, and while perhaps this interpretation may be correct in the sense of that's what he meant to say, it is not our place as wikipedia editors to interpret meaning like this.


 * Until you can find a source that says "Hyphens and dashes are the same glyphs" (not simply that many people don't know the difference, but that someone is actually claiming this) the entry warrants a citation needed tag. And if no one can come up with a source in a timely manner the entry should be removed. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The source was not for the passage "Hyphens and dashes are the same glyphs", but for the passage, "Misconception: Hyphens and dashes are the same glyphs".
 * Wikipedia editors are allowed to paraphrase, and you appear to be taking an overly narrow view of Jury's words. But there's no sense in you and I debating this anymore since we simply disagree. If you'd like to leave the tag, fine. I'm not going to get in an edit war with you. But since I believe that the misconception is an adequate paraphrase of Jury's words, you will need to build a consensus that it does not. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I added some WP:RS web sources for the statement. There are more sources that say the same thing, but thought what I added should be sufficient. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither of the two added cites support the assertion: "Misconception: Hyphens and dashes are the same glyphs". It remains unsourced, and as near as I can tell there's only one person making this claim, despite all the claims of "consensus". Unsourced material gets removed.  That's wiki policy, I've given you a month to find a source or reword the entry so that it reflects what the sources actually say.  I'm restoring the citation needed tag, and if there's no source in a day or so the entry will be removed.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm really confused at this point. Anyway, I added three sources, not two. Which of the two do you not like and which do you agree with? --Airborne84 (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just reread your last sentence. Look, I don't really understand your annoyance with this particular entry, but you just stated that you intend to edit war in a few days. And I suspect that no source will satisfy you unless it uses the exact words "Misconception: Hyphens and dashes are the same gylph"; no paraphrasing allowed. Please refamiliarize yourself with WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Your opinion does not override mine on Wikipedia. Since there is an existing consensus for the material, you need to establish a new consensus before removing the material. However, I will not edit war with you; I'll simply report a further deletion of the material to an administrator for action.
 * I can offer alternative possibilities to edit warring. First, please read through WP:Preserve, specifically the section after "Instead of deleting text, consider". There is no shortage of sources on the Internet as well as print regarding this topic. Why not try to improve or reword the entry with the ample material available? I can't help you at this point since I truly don't understand your objection anymore.
 * Finally, I'm not sure if you're familiar with other alternatives. First, as noted, you can try to establish a new consensus with editors here. If no other editors pitch in, you can seek a third party opinion. I've done that a number of times. It brings in a neutral editor to comment on a dispute. There are other options as well, but that should be enough to get you started. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your considered reply. The consensus over at the main article List of common misconceptions takes a similar narrow view of what is and is not a misconception, and we have for instance removed sections on the Monty Hall Problem and .99999... because these are things people get wrong (or don't know) when asked rather than incorrect notions that they are carrying around.  I'm not sure what the policy is regarding consensus across article discussion pages,  but applying that consensus here would imply removing the hyphen entry.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * List article inclusion consensus is for that article only. That said, whatever arguments that lead to that consensus are probably valid here as well.  Gigs (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I didn't feel it necessary to apply a strict definition of "misconception" as used in another article. The hyphens/dashes entry as well as the quotation marks one removed were, IMO and others, useful and interesting additions to this type of article, which is not a general collection of diverse topics, but an article focused on the English language. I won't object further to the removal of the entry (although I will look for clearer sourcing in the future when I am able). However, I will state that it is rather unfortunate that these entries will no longer be available to interested readers who would learn the difference and clear up their lack of understanding. Their removal makes Wikipedia worse, not better.
 * Delete away.
 * If I might add, Mr. Swordwfish, that was rather a more reasonable path than the one you suggested above. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And one final request since we have a third party here. What wording is required to adequately source the hyphens-dashes misconception? I'm fairly confident that there is one regarding this topic--based on personal experience&mdash;and there is a great deal of published information regarding the magnitude of confusion/errors regarding hyphens and dashes. But, when I do eventually get time to reengage this, I'd like to know what wording is needed to be acceptable to all parties here. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For example, is the following sourcing adequate? "Many people think that dashes and hyphens are the same, but, in fact, dashes are used to structure sentences, while hyphens are used to connect the parts of compound words and between some prefixes and root words" (emphasis added), from the University of Houston-Victoria Education Center. Similar wording is found in a Cerritos college document available online called "Punctuation 6: How to Use Dashes and Parentheses": "Many people think dashes and hyphens are the same, but dashes are used..." --Airborne84 (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As I've stated above, I have two issues with this entry:


 * 1) The cited sources do not clearly support the assertion. However, with the addition of the U of Houston & Cerritos cites, we do have sources clearly stating "Many people think that dashes and hyphens are the same"; if these cites are added to the article it will meet the minimum standard of verifiability and will not be subject to deletion as unsourced.


 * 2)Even with the addition of these two sources, I still don't think it meets the criteria for a common misconception. This is an editorial judgment call, and I can see why reasonable people will differ.  I agree with Gigs which makes it 2-1 in favor of removal, but the article should be guided by consensus not a straight vote. If other editor(s) weigh in in favor of removal, then I think we can say we've arrived at consensus and remove it.  Until then, I'm not going to remove it myself, assuming the cites are added.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr. Gigs has not commented on the above sources, so it's only 2-1 regarding the entry as sourced without them. He would have to weigh in on the sources for us to determine how he feels about the entry with the sources added. (I will add them.)
 * I'm also not sure why it's an editorial judgment call. By your own criterion, it is "clearly" sourced as a misconception. The use of the words "many people" in conjunction clearly identifies it as a common misconception. But you didn't say why you think the addition of these sources still doesn't meet the criterion for a common misconception and why it requires judgement by editors. Perhaps you could clarify?
 * In any case, I'm glad I was able to find sources with wording acceptable to you. I'll add them to the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that the sources frame it more as a common error, rather than a common misconception. Sort of like misuse of "there/their", or "its/it's".   Things like two spaces after a sentence, ending with a proposition, etc, those are commonly believed "rules" that are either wrong, unnecessary, or lead to awkward writing.  That to me is more of a true misconception. Gigs (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I question whether it meets the criteria for a common misconception are two: 1) I still haven't seen anyone actually saying or writing it. We now have two cites of someone claiming that it's common, yet we can't seem to find an example of someone actually saying or writing "hyphens and dashes are the same".  Contrast that with, for example, the Equal Transit Time fallacy  where there are over a hundred published examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr_swordfish/List_of_works_with_the_equal_transit-time_fallacy).  If it's so common, why aren't there any examples?  Granted, the two recently added cites meet the minimum of wiki standards of verifiability, but I doubt either source has any evidence to back up their claim.  Most likely, they are just repeating something they heard somewhere (see the cites from Missouri University of Science and Technology, University of Notre Dame, and the University of Texas at Austin for examples of university styleguides getting it wrong on "irregardless").

2)As Gigs says, the question is whether this is a misconception, or just ignorance. The two of us seem to agree that it is the latter and not a misconception, so it doesn't belong in the article. If we're going to start including every topic where many people are just ignorant it will be a very looooong article.

So my view is that it's not a misconception, and it's only common in the sense that many people are ignorant, not that they have an incorrect notion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's rather surprising. I can't think of a clearer way of saying there is a false belief besides "many people think abc is the case, but in actuality, xyz is the case." This is not a mistake or an error that's described. The sources describe a false belief. If this doesn't descibe a misconception for the entry, I cannot fathom what would.
 * In any case, (to respond to Gigs), Mr. Swordfish asked for a very precise sourcing of the misconception&mdash;descibing a false belief&mdash;as it is written now. I have done that in Mr. Swordfish's own words ("we do have sources clearly stating 'Many people think that dashes and hyphens are the same'"). All three of us know that thought (or belief) is false. Thus the misconception is sourced exactly as it was requested to be sourced.
 * I'm also quite surprised at this new requirement for the entry&mdash;that verifiability is not sufficient at this Wikipedia article, whereas it is outside of this article. Mr. Swordfish, the entry is now sourced exactly as you requested. But now you are changing to add a new requirement that doesn't appear in Wikipedia's policies. It's not enough that a WP:RS states it is a misconception, but you, as a Wikipedia editor have to agree with that WP:RS? Sorry, but this is not Wikipedia policy. "So my view is", and "I doubt either source has any evidence" are views that are irrelevant in the face of a reliable source. We don't decide what misconceptions are. We just report what WP:RSs say are misconceptions.
 * Finally, you mentioned above that a simple vote is not enough here and a consensus is required. I agree. There are various possibilities for you to move on in your effort to remove this material (which is now sourced as you requested). First, please give an example of the wording from a source that you would accept as describing a misconception. Second, we can wait for more editors to weigh in. Third, if you are really bent on removing this entry as soon as possible, you can begin an RfC. That will certainly bring more editors in to achieve a clear consensus. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for inclusion. And since reliable sources can sometimes conflict with one another, sources must be weighed in context.  In short, just because you can find a cite for something, doesn't mean it automatically merits inclusion in wikipedia.  "Pasta is made out of wheat" is a true verifiable statement, but it doesn't belong in this article.  "There's a sea monster in Loch Ness" can be easily sourced, but that doesn't mean we should uncritically re-state it, even though many sources say this.  In other words, it may not be our job to determine what's a misconception and what isn't, but it is our job to weigh reliable sources.


 * From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources:
 * The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it...
 * Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.


 * Here, we have two style-guides from minor universities making a claim. Who actually wrote the articles?  Were they peer-reviewed, or otherwise edited?  Or were they just posted by a part time summer intern?  We have no way of knowing. Meanwhile, we can't turn up even a single source of someone actually making the claim "hyhens and dashes are the same". Again, I ask the question: if this misconception is so common, why are there no examples of it? That's truly puzzling, don't you think?  The Loch Ness Monster analogy above is apt -  we have two sources saying that something exists, but nobody can come up with an example in the wild.
 * So, I question the reliability of the sources, but not strongly enough to remove the entry as unsourced.


 * To answer your questions: 1) Unlike the previous cites, the two new cites contain wording that is sufficient to base the article on. I question whether these sources are sufficiently reliable.  3) I am not "bent" on removing this section; before today I thought it was unsourced since it required interpretation to get from what was written in the source to what was in the article, now I think it is sourced but question how reliable those sources are. Aside from the verifiability issue, there's the editorial decision of whether the entry makes sense in the context of the rest of the article - my view as an editor is that it sticks out like a sore thumb as distinctly different than the other entries on the page.  An Rfc makes sense, since it doesn't appear the 3rd opinion got us very far. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to the RfC over at List of Common Misconceptions, I'd like to chime in and say that, having never read this article before, the hyphens-dashes thing does stick out like a sore thumb to me for a few reasons:


 * 1.) I agree with Mr. Swordfish that I see no evidence that people will have ever been told, "hyphens and dashes are the same thing", nor do I imagine they've ever really encountered the problem, except in the context of Word auto-correcting a hyphen to an em-dash or en-dash, or someone saying that hyphens and dashes are used differently. Under the List of Common Misconceptions definition (which I strongly advocate as a general rule for these sorts of articles), this would clearly fall under the "you answer wrong if someone asks you" question. Put another way, no one would ever say, "Actually, hyphens and dashes are the same thing" like they would say, "You shouldn't split an infinitive" or "Don't end a sentence with a preposition." No one's telling people the wrong rule here, and as such it's very unlikely that this is a common misconception. If anything, I would even go so far as to say that people likely assume that dashes and hyphens have different grammatical uses, even though they don't know what they are.


 * 2.) Almost everything else on this page supports the now prevalent thinking among linguists that usage defines language, and as such if enough people use dashes and hyphens interchangeably, then the rule is that they can be used interchangeably, end of story. Every other entry here is consistent with this and the concept of prescriptivism is a known bugbear of the linguistic community, which is the one scientific community that would even be bothered with making a consensus about this. Almost every other entry here is saying, "The rule you are learning is archaic and not a part of common english usage", whereas this one is trying to re-introduce a forgotten rule. I strongly recommend removal. 0x0077BE (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I do understand the points made by editors here. On the average, to look critically at an entry in a Wikipedia article, some of them are fair. A few thoughts and then I'll simply let the RfC play out and I will accept the consensus from that.
 * 1. All of the assumptions by editors here above seem to lean toward WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or, at the least, unfavorably toward retention. We are apparently assuming that the two WP:RSs were interns and not seasoned professors? We are also ignoring that a work by a novice writer who gets published by the Oxford University Press gets credibility and oversight from that publisher. It's the same in this case. The school provides oversight for its publications. So, an intern is not likely to have a school publish her random and ill-considered thoughts on its website. Publishers are covered under WP:RS. Second, "if this misconception is so common, why are there no examples of it": there are plenty of potential examples of this sourced in the entry right now, and many more available. It's just that the editors here choose to interpret those described mistakes and "errors" as the result of ignorance rather than a falso belief. Why? Why are we assuming that 100% of these plentiful errors described in numerous sources are from ignorance and zero percent are from a misconception described by two reliable sources? The evidence is only lacking if you simply assume it away.
 * 2. I haven't mentioned it before, but people keep referencing List of common misconceptions. They are not the same articles, although the themes are the same. Last I saw, List of common misconceptions was a massive and still-expanding article where editors have had to take a narrow view of misconceptions in order to keep the article from ballooning to massive proportions. We don't have that problem here. This article is a fraction of the size of that article and entries are added rarely. I don't see this article ever expanding to the size of List of common misconceptions. Thus, we are projecting the solution to a problem from another article to this article where the problem doesn't exist. Since the entry would no doubt be of interest here to someone who would read that far into this article, there's a strong case to not be overly bureaucratic here and even to WP:Ignore all rules (although this entry actually meets the rules). Of course, the way the sentiments are going now, the entry may be deleted. That will shave this article which doesn't have a size problem to 22% of the size of List of common Misconceptions to 20% and remove a potentially interesting entry. Is that a "win" for Wikipedia? I don't think so.
 * 3. Finally, whenever another requirement has been levied on this entry I have attemted to provide it. First, I don't have the time now to do more research. Second, it appears that objections to this entry, even properly sourced, are more fundamental, and I don't have confidence that additional research efforts and evidence will be accepted.
 * I cannot devote any more time to this effort, and so will let the RfC run its course and accept the results. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I somewhat resent the thrust behind #1. My primary concern with the inclusion of hyphens vs. dashes is to do with the fact that it doesn't fit into what I see as the more appropriate definition of a misconception (i.e. incorrect knowledge you might harbor as opposed to simply not knowing something and having the wrong intuition if confronted with the question). That said, as for the citations - I see three citations here, two of which are university style guides which, whether or not they are reliable sources (we can even assume they are) are trying to convey something about the prescriptivist rules of typography in a specific setting. There are dozens of citations for the concept that any language is defined by usage (this point is underscored likely by most of the citations in this article alone), and what's an appropriate style for a graded university class is very likely stricter than the actual rules of English. The third citation is a book that I don't have access to at the moment called "Reviving the Rules of Typography", which in its title demonstrates the phenomenon that is a known bugbear of linguists - prescriptivist attempts to revive rules that have fallen out of actual common English usage. I don't doubt that the sources reliably explain the historical differences between en and em dashes, but by dictating that, in spite of the fact that the prevailing common use has changed, the rules of English typography continue to include a differentiation between hyphens and dashes, they are taking a specific non-objective stance in opposition to a strong linguistic consensus, which is unencyclopedic.
 * Even if I agreed that there is a "common misconception" among people on this issue (I don't think there's any conception, honestly), I would still oppose inclusion in the article because it's advocacy for a certain form of English, not a description of how English is actually used. If anything, the encyclopedic way to write it would be, "Although today most people make no differentiation between hyphens and dashes, there are actually three different glyphs represented by a straight horizontal line, differentiated by their length, which have historically had distinct uses." The problem for using that phrasing in this article, however, is that it admits that there is no misconception, but rather that a typographical rule is starting to fade away as hyphens and dashes have become interchangeable.0x0077BE (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Hyphens/Dashes misconception
Does the hyphens/dashes entry meet the criteria for inclusion in the article? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Summarizing my above statements, I'm going to say no, this does not meet the criteria for inclusion because I've seen no evidence that people actively harbor an active misconception about the usage of hyphens and dashes. 0x0077BE (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 30654 brings up another good point, one I thought of when formulating my third opinion but did not articulate well. Many of the other entries are based on normative "rules" that should not necessarily be followed since they have a weak, irrational, or groundless basis, this one is the opposite in a lot of ways. Gigs (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to list the criterions for the article (listed at the top of this talk page) in this RfC. I invite editors to determine if the entry meets these criterions and not bring in additional requirements that are in place at other articles. The criterions for inclusion are that an entry:
 * (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
 * A source from the University of Houston-Victoria Education Center states that, "Many people think that dashes and hyphens are the same, but, in fact, dashes are used to structure sentences, while hyphens are used to connect the parts of compound words and between some prefixes and root words". A second source makes a very similar statement. These appear to meet the criterions for inclusion. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think everyone agrees it's a common error. The problem is that there is no "rule" saying "use hyphens everywhere", that is widely taught, repeated, or believed, which to me is the essence of a misconception.  Error from ignorance is not the same thing as a misconception. Airborne I know you created this article and did the majority of the work on it, but at some point you need to let your baby leave the nest.  It seems to me that the inclusion criteria need to be refined a little, since now you have three editors agreeing that a common error and a common misconception are not the same thing.  Gigs (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I support removal, for all the reasons given above. I also think this page should adopt the convention agreed to at List of common misconceptions that distinguishes between misconception and simple ignorance. ("a misconception is something that people know, but is actually incorrect — not something they answer incorrectly when it is presented to them.") Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the opinions here unreasonable; I just think we're being overly bureaucratic to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist at this article. There are definitions for misconceptions that don't require a "rule" to be widely taught for a misconception to exist. For example, the Cambridge Online Dictionary (the first one I looked up) states that a misconception is, "an idea which is wrong because it has been based on a failure to understand a situation". The first example given is "We hope our work will help to change popular misconceptions about disabled people". "Failure to understand a situation" can happen from ignorance (and is likely the case for hyphen-dashes misuse), and I doubt people are taught "rules" or absolutes about disabled people. They are likely just ignorant. This dictionary definition is about a false idea based on ignorance. I understand why it was necessary to take a very narrow view of misconceptions at List of common misconceptions. But the problem which led to that requirement is not needed here.
 * In any case, not to worry. I will adhere to the consensus. But I wouldn't mind getting the opinion of some editors who aren't used to trying to manage the List of common misconceptions article. The RfC is only a day old and there is no particular rush that I know of. I doubt that there's a reason to wait 30 days either, but why don't we give it some time? Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Very strong points here. Definitely agree to letting it play out and seeing if we can get some other opinions in here.
 * As for your other concerns, I'm decently active in List of Common Misconceptions and I'd say that trimming the article down doesn't seem to be a significant concern of mine. I think that the operational definition of misconceptions that we use over there isn't specifically chosen to keep the article trim but to keep the article conceptually coherent, and I do think it should apply here. I don't think anyone's looking for a list of paradoxes or just poorly understood stuff when they come to a list like that - they're looking to weed out the stuff they thought they knew, but don't. I imagine a lot of people don't know when to use who/whom, but I would similarly not propose that for inclusion here because again I think that while people don't know how to use them, they aren't harboring mis-formed conceptions about them. I think the narrower definition of misconception is certainly appropriate here even though this list might not have as wide a scope as List of Common Misconceptions. 0x0077BE (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (shrug) According to the sources, "Many people think that dashes and hyphens are the same, but [they're not]" (my emphasis). I don't see how that's different than what you just said. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the difference is between not noticing that there are dashes with different length and thinking that the dashes of different length mean the same thing. If you showed me a picture of a bunch of penguins I might think that they're all the same kind of penguin, and if you told me, "Some of these are Emperor penguins and some are puffins" or whatever, I'd say, "Oh, I didn't know that." I never really would have formed an opinion as to how many kinds of penguin there were in the picture. If you asked me, I might even get it wrong, but I'm not actively harboring a misconception because I haven't really formed a conception in the first place. If instead you told me I could tell a male penguin from a female penguin because all female penguins have green feet, I'd think I knew how to tell a male from a female, but I'd be wrong. 0x0077BE (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can both agree that it would be nice to have someone (or something) available to let you know that "Some of these are Emperor penguins and some are puffins"...
 * But I think we've laid out our positions at this point. Let's see if anyone else cares to weigh in. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there doesn't seem to be any more interest in commenting on the RfC, I removed the entry. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Automatic archiving?
This page is getting a bit long - I didn't want to do anything out of turn, but maybe we should have the page archived by User:MiszaBot I? Not sure what the optimal parameters are for this, but maybe an incremental archive, 2 months with archive sizes of 70K looks good to me. the code for this is:

It seems like Airborne84 and Mr. Swordfish are the people who have primarily been active in this page, so if you guys agree I'd say we should go ahead. --0x0077BE (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would support "plain vanilla" auto archiving, and was under the assumption that it was already in place. If it's not, then let's do. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * According to this, it seems like the one I've posted above is the most common archive method. I don't see any archive code in the page, so I don't think it's implemented. Plus this page is huge, so even if it were implemented, the settings probably would need to be tweaked a bit. --0x0077BE (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Then I'd say put these settings into place, as they are the most common. If someone feels the need to tweak the settings later, I'm ok with that too. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I've put it at the top of the page. Not sure when it kicks in or if anything on the page qualifies yet because of the 2-month window. I'll check back in a week and make sure it's working. 0x0077BE (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that the archiving has occurred, I see that the Guidelines section that opened the page is no longer there. We probably need to make that "sticky". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll see about doing that. Done. --0x0077BE (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre entry
A previous user had hidden the following text, commenting--sagely, I think--that "this needs to be re-written to be more understandable, or removed. Perhaps better examples would help, assuming this entire entry is not merely a hoax."

I've gone ahead and removed it, given its unsourcedness, its pedantry, and its (as far as I can tell) total irrelevance and lack of notability. Made me chuckle, though.--Lemuellio (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ouch ... now that I read the above, I notice how mean it sounds in print. My sincere apologies to the writer of the entry!--Lemuellio (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Academic/Scientific Writing
Academic writing in the sciences such as dissertations and journal submissions follow many of these rules. For example double spacing sentences and not using contractions. You can check guidelines for submitting articles to Royal Society of Chemistry Journals. Scientific writing is also supposed to be written in passive voice. Furthermore Shakespeare was a poet? author? so why is his grammar being used to prove misconceptions? Authors have poetic license to do as they please it would similar to saying sentences do not need to be capitalized because e e cummings wrote without capitalizing his works. 163.118.206.80 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Scientific writing is also supposed to be written in passive voice."
 * The American Psychological Association prefers the active voice: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/15/ Airborne84 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Split infinitives
For the new editor adding the material to the infinitives section, please provide a source before adding the material again. Please also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on reverting and discussing.

A relevant source is needed because many people have their opinions on English, but it may not be the case that a particular opinion is held in high regard by reliable sources, or that those sources think a particular fact has any bearing on a topic. As editors, we don't note our opinions here; only the opinions of reliable sources. Thanks for your interest. Airborne84 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)