Talk:List of common misconceptions

Babies Feel Pain Entry Obsolete
Another entry likely failing criterion 4: Babies don't feel pain. People don't seem to believe this anymore: this Boston Globe article says the misconception was only really held by physicians and hasn't been believed for 20 years: "It probably goes without saying that infants can feel pain, as any parent or pediatrician could tell you." This implies that not only is this not a common misconception ("it goes without saying" that it's not true), but also that "any parent" would today actively know the opposite. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This was really about the technical definition of pain, rather than surgeons not thinking babies didn't feel something horrible. The idea was that a newborn (not an older baby) didn't have the level of consciousness necessary to form a memory and assign meaning to the horrible sensations.  That means it was 'merely' nociception instead of True™ pain, and therefore the significant risks of analgesic drugs outweighed the value of pain treatment when there wasn't any True™ pain present in the first place.
 * BTW, the same argument can be made for adults with severe cognitive disabilities, but I'm not aware of anyone actually doing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent spate of cn tags
This article recently collected a bunch of cn tags, most of which seem to be spurious. I've fixed up few, but don't particularly want to waste my time on all the others. Often, the cited source supports the entry if one bothers to actually read it. If there are problems with a specific entry this talk page is the right venue. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are some of the tags you've removed as spurious:
 * Thomas Crapper's name originating from the word Cropper: I apologise for missing this. The claim that his name originates the word 'crap' however, is not in any sources listed, which I have tagged.
 * 420 needs sources to say which misconceptions are common: The source article says "Indeed, most instead believe one or more of the many spurious explanations that have since grown up about this much abused short form" and then lists eight explanations. We only list the first two as the common misconception, despite the source equally saying the others are common misconceptions. Hence why I wrote that additional sources were needed to clarify which were actually common, or else all should be included as common. I don't think this is spurious.
 * "faggot" is not cited as a common belief: You've changed the misconception now to it being a misconception that gay people were never burned (I'm not sure what you're trying to write, I think there's been a typographical error), but there is still no source saying the belief is common. The closest that comes to that is "The explanation that male homosexuals were called faggots because they were burned at the stake as punishment is an etymological urban legend." This does not say the belief is common which is what the tag was requesting a cite for. This is not spurious.
 * "funnest" being called not a real word is uncited: Yes, there's no citation for this. I've just double checked. This is not spurious.
 * "All words in English became accepted by being commonly used for a certain period of time; thus, there are many vernacular words currently not accepted as part of the standard language, or regarded as inappropriate in formal speech or writing": No sources discuss this explanation for why it's a misconception. I don't think it's spurious.
 * The Monkees does not have a citation saying the misconception is common: The only source attached says that the misconception has been repeated in some high profile places. We do not generally accept that as proof of a belief being common.
 * Rolling Stones stabbing myth originated in Rolling Stone magazine's reporting: We just attached a contemporary Rolling Stones article that states the misconception, there is no indication they are the first to report this or originate it. Not spurious.
 * Rolling Stones were playing Sympathy for the Devil, got interrupted, and then started playing different song is uncited: yes, the only citation that could be discussing this (since the other is the Rolling Stones article which is perpetuating it) only says "Contrary to popular legend, “Sympathy for the Devil” was not the song being played when a young man was killed at the free concert. The band was knocking out “Under My Thumb” when 18-year-old Meredith Hunter was stabbed to death by a member of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle club." Definitely not spurious.
 * I haven't gone through all the things you've marked as spurious. To my eye, you've identified one error that I've made. I have identified several errors you have made. I am reinstating the tags you have deleted, please do not continue to wholesale delete tags based on a false assumption that they are spurious. The talk page is not the correct venue to take issue with specific items, it would quickly be overwhelmed and the comments would get lost. I have counted 46 items I don't believe actually have a source saying a misconception is common and I am not halfway through the article; too much to dump on the talk page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked at several entries that were flagged. A couple had a tangential factoid that was not adequately sourced, so I just removed that extraneous since it was not essential to the entry.  After looking at the three flagged microwave entries, which were either clearly sourced in the entry or clearly sourced in the topic article I began to wonder whether it was worth my time to address all the recently added tags.  I'll look into addressing some of these, but I could use some help. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Replying to specific entries:
 * ''Thomas Crapper's name originating from the word Cropper: I apologise for missing this. The claim that his name originates the word 'crap' however, is not in any sources listed, which I have tagged.
 * Can't find anything either. Claim is tangential to the entry so I removed it.
 * "''faggot" is not cited as a common belief: You've changed the misconception now to it being a misconception that gay people were never burned (I'm not sure what you're trying to write, I think there's been a typographical error), but there is still no source saying the belief is common. The closest that comes to that is "The explanation that male homosexuals were called faggots because they were burned at the stake as punishment is an etymological urban legend." This does not say the belief is common which is what the tag was requesting a cite for. This is not spurious.
 * The phrase " etymological urban legend" might be enough to satisfy the criteria.  I'd be interested to hear other editors' opinions.
 * "funnest" being called not a real word is uncited: Yes, there's no citation for this. I've just double checked. 
 * There was a source for this at one time. Can't find it now, and not worth pursuing. Tangential to main misconception so I removed it.
 * "All words in English became accepted by being commonly used for a certain period of time; thus, there are many vernacular words currently not accepted as part of the standard language, or regarded as inappropriate in formal speech or writing": No sources discuss this explanation for why it's a misconception. 
 * This language was the result of a long discussion on this talk page with this as a compromise. I never liked it so I'm happy to see it go, but there may be some pushback if those editors are still around.  I think the entry reads better now that it focuses on the word rather than a nebulous general concept.
 * The Monkees does not have a citation saying the misconception is common: The only source attached says that the misconception has been repeated in some high profile places. We do not generally accept that as proof of a belief being common.
 * The title of the cited article is "In 1967 Mike Nesmith Fooled The World..." That's good enough for me. Who is we?
 * Don't really know about the 420 entry. Need to look further into the Stones entries. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "faggot": Etymological urban legend isn't describing how common it is. We have a page for urban legends, whether they relate to etymology or not, and they shouldn't all be brought across just because they are described as urban legends.
 * "irregardless": I agree that it looks better, it was too messy.
 * "In 1967 Mike Neswith fooled the world": When I read this I thought that it was obvious this didn't show it was current, as the world got fooled in the 60s, but I'm now thinking it might just be saying "made people believe this" and wasn't referring to a time. I still think it's too ambiguous and should have a better source. The "we" is the talk page editors of this page, who generally don't add entries to the page just because someone can find some examples of the misconception being repeated, rather, it needs to be described as a misconception in a RS. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "irregardless": I agree that it looks better, it was too messy.
 * "In 1967 Mike Neswith fooled the world": When I read this I thought that it was obvious this didn't show it was current, as the world got fooled in the 60s, but I'm now thinking it might just be saying "made people believe this" and wasn't referring to a time. I still think it's too ambiguous and should have a better source. The "we" is the talk page editors of this page, who generally don't add entries to the page just because someone can find some examples of the misconception being repeated, rather, it needs to be described as a misconception in a RS. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Dark Ages Misconception Source Tension
The Lindberg source substantiates the first two clauses of the misconception: "The Middle Ages were not "a time of ignorance, barbarism and superstition"; the Church did not place religious authority over personal experience and rational activity"

The relevant text in the Grant text is "Reason, Christians argued, could neither prove nor disprove such revealed truths. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Christian scholars, usually theologians or theologian-natural philosophers, often tried to present reasoned analyses of revealed truths. They did so ostensibly better to understand, or to demonstrate, what they already believed on faith. We shall see that the use of reason in medieval theology and natural philosophy was pervasive and wide-ranging. Indeed, medieval scholars often seem besotted with reason. But there was one boundary line that reason could not cross. Medieval intellectuals, whether logicians, theologians, or natural philosophers, could not arrive at conclusions that were contrary to revealed truth – that was heresy."

This seems to imply the Church did place religious authority over rational activity. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Relevant quote from Jones source "The historian David C. Lindberg reports that “the latemedieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church” (Ferngren, 2000, p. 266)." Quoting Lindberg again Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "the latemedieval scholar" The Late Middle Ages cover the period from c. 1300 to 1500, roughly between the Great Famine of 1315–1317 and Vasco da Gama's voyages to the Indian subcontinent. The term Dark Ages is used as a synonym for the Early Middle Ages. It defines the period in terms of "economic, intellectual, and cultural decline", in comparison to the perceived "greatness" of the Roman era. The Early Middle Ages article does cover events like the breakdown of trade networks in the Migration Period and the depopulation caused by the Plague of Justinian. Dimadick (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is very helpful. It seems like the Lindberg is saying if we take the first and third sources together: it's a misconception that the Middle Ages had religious authority placed over rationality, and an extreme case of how wrong this is, is the late Middle Ages where this is definitely not true. This description of the state of scholarship seems very at odds with the Grant text. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed entry: Founding of Nazi party
A section should be added regarding the foundation of the Nazi Party. Something like:

''The Nazi Party was not founded by Adolf Hitler. It was founded in January 1919 as the German Workers' Party by far-right agitator Anton Drexler, with Hitler only joining in September of that year.''

Seeing as Drexler is almost never mentioned in any pop history books or articles (some AI's have even told me it was Hitler) and that this misconception has almost no attention from the media, I think it's a good addition. ManfromMiletus (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you show that it meets the inclusion criteria at the top of this talk page? Particularly in regards to criteria 2 and 3. I may be overlooking it but I don't see anything in Nazi Party about this misconception, for example. - Aoidh (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. I'll circle back around to this if I find any major articles addressing it, but for now I'll avoid adding anything. ManfromMiletus (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sushi entry
The sushi entry is back. It was removed in 2016 for failing the inclusion criteria, although I can't say we reached consensus to remove it at that time.

Please review the previous discussion at. I was in favor of keeping the entry at that time and favor including it now. Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did check the archives before submitting it because I wanted to remember why it got taken out. But yeah, the source used meets the criterion with "Contrary to popular belief". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that this entry belongs under Food and Cooking as opposed to Language. Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Up to you. I thought it looked out of place compared to the other food and cooking misconceptions, and the misconception is about a word's meaning, so I moved it. If you think it's more appropriate for the language section feel free to move it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

de-icing entry
I'm not seeing anything in the topic articles mentioning this as a misconception. Perhaps someone could point it out.

Everybody knows that applying salt to roads will melt the ice. What people don't know is the precise mechanism of the salt crystals interfering with the ability of water to form ice crystals thereby lowering the freezing temperature. So, my take is that this is not so much a misconception as a lack of understanding of the details at the molecular level. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's in the freezing-point depression article, under #Uses.
 * I think there's a difference between a reliable source saying: people don't understand how salt eliminates ice vs people have a misconception about how salt eliminates ice. The source is saying the misconception is the latter.
 * The misconception is that the salt is chemically melting the ice, not whether applying salt will result in the ice being melted. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh. There it is. I see you added it yesterday. We'll see if it remains there.
 * The misconception is that the salt is chemically melting the ice...
 * Do people really think that? Most people put salt on ice and see that it melts without going into the chemistry.
 * It's this kind of nit-picky entries that cause this page to be nominated for articles for deletion. "The Earth is not round, it's actually an oblate spheroid." Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this entry should be removed. There's no source saying that this is a common misperception, and doubt very many are aware of the difference between the mechanisms. For that matter, I think the whole claim that salt does not cause ice to melt is more than a bit questionable. It certainly does not first require tire friction to melt the ice as the entry claimed (before I removed it). Anyone who has ever salted a sidewalk in moderately cold weather (say above -10 C) has likely seen the phenomenon of a chunk of rock salt drilling a hole straight down through a layer of apparently dry ice. It may not be as quick as when if there is a visible layer of water to initially dissolve the salt, but it still works. It may be the result of salt dissolving into the molecular layer of water present at any interface between ice and water vapour in air, but it works. And of course, once it starts there is all the more water to make brine. Meters (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't know when it was changed, but the current version flatly claims "Salt used in deicing roads does not melt snow, " ... no "chemically melting ice" Meters (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Re; Swordfish: I don't know if people believe that putting salt on ice directly melts it, but we have multiple RS saying explicitly and implying they do. Maybe I overstated the chemistry angle? I just meant to draw a distinction between the salt physically causing it to melt, and the fact that the ice will melt as a result of putting salt on it which is what I'm seeing in the sources. I don't think it's particularly nitpicky, certainly not to the extent of oblate sphereoid. But if you think the inclusion criteria is insufficient for excluding entries you don't think should be included, I'm sure you can see I'm very happy to discuss changes. I'll remind you that WP:SAL requires "Inclusion criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." I don't think excluding entries because they're "too nitpicky" or "i don't believe people believe that" when we have RS saying they do is sufficient. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Re; Meters; as I mentioned above I might have overstated the chemistry angle. To line up with the RS, the entry should read that it's a common misconception that salt does not directly cause ice to melt. Thankyou for removing the tire comment, I was careless when writing it. Your experience of salting sidewalks sounds very true (I don't live around snow), and I think the salt melting ice will be written about in RS. I'll have a look, and if one of us finds such information in RS for WP:V purposes the entry should be removed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop moving the goal posts. What is it you actually want to claim? Ice only melts with salt if tire friction first melts it? Salt doesn't "chemically" melt ice? Salt doesn't "directly" melt ice? Salt doesn't melt ice at all? You've tried all four versions now. Meters (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "But contrary to popular belief, salt doesn’t melt ice." "the sun or the friction of car tires [melts] the ice." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So what you want claim is that salt will not cause ice to melt unless there is also tire friction or sunlight?. That is not correct. It will happen even without tire friction or sunlight. Meters (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is what the RS says (in fact, multiple) says. I believe if what you are saying is true, it will have been written in RS; there is no way salt melting ice without the application of outside heat is not discussed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've gone looking for these sources to disprove it. Popular Mechanics has an explanation: When you are slightly below freezing point, you have a surface layer that behaves like a semi-liquid. Introduced salt is attracted to the semi-liquid water, and "“to correct for the required thickness of the surface layer, as determined by the temperature, so more of the ice block melts to join the surface layer.”" I think this is at odds with the claim "the sun or the friction of car tires [melts] the ice." Thanks for discussing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Inflation
13% of Americans correctly answer that inflation tends to decrease and unemployment increase after an increase in interest rates: https://socialeconomicslab.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Understanding_Inflation_BNS.pdf#page9 Benjamin (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Coca-Cola Santa
Re; edit conflict: The quote "Santa Claus had already taken this form in American popular culture and advertising by the late 19th century" is unsourced.

The Snopes piece does not include the phrase "19th century." It only includes one date from the 1800s, "Clement Clark Moore's 1822 poem "A Visit from St. Nicholas"" which doesn't have claim Santa had taken this form in American popular culture advertising by the late 19th century.

It later includes the quote "[the depictions] were common long before Coca-Cola's first Sundblom-drawn Santa Claus advertisement appeared in 1931, as evidenced by these examples from 1906, 1908, and 1925, respectively. This doesn't say it was fully formed by the late 19th century, we don't know if it was earlier or later than then.

The Santa Clause article doesn't include the phrase "19th century." It only includes one date from the 1800s, "White Rock, founded in 1871" which doesn't have anything to do with Santa.

I don't think I'm missing something, I've checked the archived versions of the pages as well. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Huh. I suppose I'm imagining this section of the article: Santa_Claus.
 * But I you want to replace "the late 19th century" with "the early 20th century" I don't think it really matters. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Haha, I don't have a preference for what the article contains, as long as it's verifiable. I've had a look, and it does seem to be wrong: he had taken the form in popular culture, but not in advertising, as the 1915 White Rock advert was the first to include him. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Literature Misquotations
The sentence "Commonly misquoted individuals include Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, William Shakespeare, Confucius, Sun Tzu, and the Buddha." is referenced with the book What they didn't say: a book of misquotations. All relevant quotations to substantiating this are included below:


 * Twain: "I am the American: Words which are frequently attributed to Mark Twain"
 * Einstein: "God does not play dice: A statement which is often attributed to Albert Einstein."
 * Hitler: Not mentioned in book
 * Churchill: 'He’s always backing into the limelight.’ (Nigel Rees, in his 1997 Cassell Companion to Quotations, records it as being employed by Winston Churchill ... however", "An empty taxi drew up outside Downing Street and Attlee got out: A quip which... was attributed to Winston Churchill." "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made: ... In more recent online sources it has frequently been attributed to Winston Churchill." "Rum, sodomy, and the lash", "soft underbelly of Europe"
 * Lincoln: "A succinct statement of the views of Abraham Lincoln... however... the reconstruction could not be accepted as solid evidence of use." "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong: Attributed to Abraham Lincoln by Ronald Reagan."
 * Shakespeare: 8 attributed
 * Confucius: Not mentioned in book
 * Sun Tzu: Not mentioned in book
 * Buddha: Not mentioned in book

It is ambiguous whether "commonly misquoted" means many misquotes are attributed to them, or whether the event happens commonly where someone misattributes something to them (even if it's just the one quote misattributed frequently (if you get what I'm saying, this might be confusing)). Either are unsourced, since 5/9 aren't mentioned in the book. The former is particularly unsourced, because only 2/9 have more than one misquote attributed to them. Even if we are taking that as evidence, Edmund Burke, Benjamin Franklin, Harold MacMillan, Napoleon, Alexander Pope, Adlai Stevenson II and Tom Stoppard have more entries than 7/9. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * My recollection is that this particular list was the result of a compromise following a long discussion that resulted in several entries being consolidated into this one. I have no particular fondness for this particular list and doubt that it is optimal in any meaningful way.  As for sourcing, I'm sure you can find plenty of sources by doing a bit of research at [].  In particular, the one source we cite here is not dispositive.
 * We do not claim that this list is exhaustive or that it contains the most often misquoted individuals, only that the nine listed are commonly misquoted.
 * Perhaps you could look through the volumes of material at wikiquote and assemble a better list along with sources. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Citation needed tags part 2
Reading the help page WP:CITENEED, I'm wondering if the tag is being used here properly.

Under "When to use this tag:"


 * Tag thoughtfully. Avoid "hit-and-run" or pointed tagging. Try to be courteous and consider the hypothetical fellow-editor who will, we hope, notice your tag and try to find the citation you have requested. When adding a tag, ask yourself: Is it clear just what information you want cited? Is the information probably factual? (If it is not, then it needs deletion or correction rather than citation!) Is the knowledge so self-evident that it really does not need to be cited at all? (Some things do not.)
 * Some tags are inserted by people well-placed to find a suitable citation themselves. If this is the case, consider adding these articles to your watchlist or a worklist so that you can revisit the article when you have the opportunity to fix any verifiability issues yourself.

My reading of the help page, although it doesn't explicitly say it, is that the citation needed tag is intended to flag factual statements that are inadequately sourced. I'm skeptical that the intended use is to flag material that might not be relevant to the article. In particular, if a statement is factually correct and supported by sources it should not attract a citation needed tag. In our case, we have a list of inclusion criteria that requires more than what's required at WP:V. If there's a dispute regarding whether a factual statement is adequately sourced, then the cn tag is appropriate. But if the issue is that it fails one of our inclusion criteria, the proper venue for addressing it is here at the talk page, not tagbombing the article.

Right now we have recently attracted a substantial number of citation needed tags that undermine the credibility of the entire page. I'd like to get them cleared up in a timely manner. There are several entries that may not be sufficiently sourced as common or current that I would either support removing or at least not object to removing. But it seems to me that the proper place for that discussion is here, not via tagging the article.

Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't think I was misusing the cn tag to point out failures to source something as a common misconception, since the entries are explicitly implying things are a common misconception: it is a rewording of "it is a common misconception that...". Tagging with cn therefore appeared appropriate for criterion 2. I'm not sure I tagged any entries as missing in their topic page per 3, if I did then they should be removed and discussion brought to the talk page. Criterion 4 is hard. I think ? the talk page consensus was that something being a common misconception means it is necessarily current (otherwise we're including these), which means if it is disputed that it is current, it is being disputed that it is common. It's difficult for me to look at sources from the 50s saying something is a "common misconception", and believing the claim is referenced that is common. I understand if you disagree, if you feel strongly against it such tags regarding whether misconceptions are obsolete should be removed to the talk page for discussions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pending further comment from other editors, I'm going to remove the cn tags that are only about inclusion criteria rather than lack of sufficient sourcing.  A fair number of entries currently flagged as not meeting the inclusion criteria would meet no objection from me if they were removed, but we should probably discuss their removal on the talk page, perhaps before, perhaps after removal.
 * I'll also remove contested assertions that are tangential to the main thrust of the entry to resolve the cn tag. This will probably resolve a large majority of them. We can always put anything back if there's lack of consensus to remove them here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've finished removing the cn tags for entries that were flagged for allegedly failing our inclusion criteria. My sense is that about one third of them should just be removed, another one third are problematic with regard to sourcing that confirms the inclusion criteria but can probably be retained by finding better sources. And the remaining one third are BLUE assertions.


 * Now that I've removed the cn tags that relate to inclusion criteria rather than factual assertions (I also removed any recent cn tag that didn't say what the issue was) there's only one left. And that's an entry that I've argued against in the past, but I don't own this article so I'll leave it up to the other editors to  rule on it.
 * There's still a fair amount of work to do to look at all the flagged entries and decide whether to remove or fix them, or to agree that the sourcing is enough as is. Please bring up these "problematic" entries on the talk page so we can address the sourcing that confirms that each entry satisfies the inclusion criteria.
 * BTW, since there's only one cn tag left, I'm removing the banner. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed Citation Needed Tags
Thanks for removing the tags Mr Swordfish. I've removed the last one since it was also about a source not identifying it as a "common misconception." I'm listing the entries below. I will work through them, trying to find sources identifying them as common. I don't think I should have to do this, as entries should be removed if they meet the criteria, and the burden of proof for including should fall on editors claiming that there are sources that provide the inclusion criteria be met.


 * "The word fuck did not originate in the Middle Ages as an acronym for either "fornicating under consent of king" or "for unlawful carnal knowledge""
 * "The anti-Italian slur wop did not originate from an acronym for "without papers", "without passport" or "works on pavement""
 * "Chalk outlines in crime scenes are rare in modern investigations, despite being a popular trope in fiction."
 * "The US Armed Forces have generally forbidden military enlistment as a form of deferred adjudication (that is, an option for convicts to avoid jail time)"
 * "Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein is named after the fictional scientist Victor Frankenstein, who created the sapient creature in the novel, not the creature itself, which is never named in the novel and is now usually called Frankenstein's monster."
 * "Ernest Hemingway did not author the flash fiction story "For sale: baby shoes, never worn"."
 * "The musical interval tritone was never thought to summon the devil"
 * "The Monkees did not outsell the Beatles' and the Rolling Stones' combined record sales in 1967."
 * "Concept albums did not begin with rock music in the 1960s."
 * "The Bible does not say that exactly three magi came to visit the baby Jesus, nor that they were kings, or rode on camels, or that their names were Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar, nor what color their skin was."
 * "Roman Catholic dogma does not say that the pope is either sinless"
 * "St. Peter's Basilica is not the mother church of Roman Catholicism, nor is it the official seat of the Pope."
 * "Saint Augustine did not say "God created hell for inquisitive people"."
 * "Most Muslim women do not wear a burqa"
 * "The black belt in martial arts does not necessarily indicate expert level or mastery."
 * "The Japanese government did not pass a law banning Square Enix from releasing the Dragon Quest games on weekdays due to it causing too many schoolchildren to cut class"
 * "Galleys in ancient times were not commonly operated by chained slaves or prisoners"
 * "The Minoan civilization was not destroyed by the eruption of Thera."
 * "The ancient Greeks did not use the word "idiot" (ἰδιώτης) to disparage people who did not take part in civic life."
 * "The Roman salute, in which the arm is fully extended forwards or diagonally with palm down and fingers touching, was not used in ancient Rome."
 * "Julius Caesar was not born via caesarean section."
 * "Vikings did not drink out of the skulls of vanquished enemies."
 * "There is no evidence that iron maidens were used for torture, or even yet invented, in the Middle Ages."
 * "Old elephants near death do not leave their herd to go to an "elephants' graveyard" to die."
 * "Bulls are not enraged by the color red"
 * "Not all earthworms become two worms when cut in half."
 * "Houseflies have an average lifespan of 20 to 30 days, not 24 hours."
 * "Though they are often called "white ants", termites are not ants, nor are they closely related to ants."
 * "Carnivorous plants can survive without food."
 * "Humans are animals, despite the fact that the word animal is colloquially used as an antonym for human."

Currently common


 * "Scipio Aemilianus did not sow salt over the city of Carthage after defeating it in the Third Punic War."

In topic article


 * "Bulls are not enraged by the color red"

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Rollinginhisgrave, you are not required to find and add sources confirming that each entry satisfies the inclusion criteria.  It would  certainly be helpful, but nobody is requiring you to do so.
 * Every entry on this page was added at some time with the editors at the time finding consensus that it met the inclusion criteria. Consensus may change and some of these entries may no longer be deemed as meeting the inclusion criteria.  Since "common" and "current" may be somewhat subjective, it is up to the editorial judgment of us editors to collectively use our editorial judgment to make those decisions.
 * That said, I'm not sure what you are asking for in the list above or in the sections below. Perhaps you could elaborate.  I'll try to address some of the entries in a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

wop entry
Posting this here to "agree that the sourcing is enough as is" per Swordfish. Two misconceptions are unsourced as common.

wop means "without passport"


 * Origins of the Specious: Myths and Misconceptions of the English Language: "You'll find more etymological bologna if you google the word "wop," an ethnic slur an Italian. Supposedly it's an acronym for "without papers" or "without passport" or "works on pavement." Nope, nope, and nope.": Doesn't comment on if belief in misconception is common
 * The Atlantic: "Also in 1971, the syndicated columnist Hy Gardner shared yet another folk etymology for wop. “‘Wop’ reverts to the turn of the century when millions of Calabrians and Sicilians came off their ships holding a slip of paper with the name of the foreman they had been assigned to,” Gardner wrote. “U.S. immigration officials rubberstamped the papers ‘W.O.P.’—meaning ‘without passport.’”": folk etymologies are common misconceptions (they are AKA popular etymologies), but the source is unclear whether this was a folk etymology in 1971 or today.

wop means "works on pavement"


 * Only Origins of the Specious quote above.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Chalk outline entry
Chalk outlines in crime scenes are common in modern investigations


 * "Dear Cecil: There is a common scene on TV and in the movies where there has been a murder.": Does not indicate it is believed (there are many common TV tropes), or how widespread such a belief is.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * TV and movies present a lot of unrealistic or rarely used technologies and a lot of viewers will think they are accurate hence a misconception. The chalk outline appears to be one of them, but I don't see anything special about it and the sourcing seems to be lacking at this point.
 * I would not object to its removal, but I'd prefer to wait a few days to give other editors to weigh in. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Join military rather than prison entry
Join military rather than go to prison as a sentence


 * Liveabout.com: "Many Vietnam and Korean War veterans have heard tales of fellow soldiers who were in the Army (or other branches of the military) as an alternative to prison. Stories abound of military members who were told by a judge, "join the military, or go to jail."" Source says it's commonly heard among Vietnam and Korean vets. Clarification should be made that it is common among this population, or removed.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've added a cite for the policy changing in the 1980s. Another cite supporting commonality is https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/military-myths.html Fell free to add it.
 * "join the military, or go to jail." was a common thing not very long ago. It's changed and many people still think it's a thing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding this, I'll add it in. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

For sale, baby shoes entry
For sale, baby shoes, never worn: written by Ernest Hemingway


 * "For sale: baby shoes, never worn.” For a long time, legend held that this was one of the world’s great short stories, by one of the world’s great short-story writers: Ernest Hemingway. There were different versions of the myth, but the most popular was that Hemingway won a bet at a boozy lunch that he could write a story that suggested an entire novel in six words or fewer.": "Legend" (not all legends are common misconceptions and the two aren't interchangeable). Also legend described in past tense, not implied to be current. "the most popular" is talking about of legends about the authorship of Hemingway, not whether it was "the most popular misconception".

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This slate article is from 2013. That's recent enough for me. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Tritone summoning devil
Using the interval tritone was believed to summon the devil (one of three misconceptions in entry, only one unsourced as common)


 * Happy Mag: "You’re playing the devil in music and could be summoning occult spirits, so please stop. And if you think it sounds a little scary, don’t fear, you’re not the first to think so.": Doesn't indicate belief is common, just that multiple people have believed it. It also identifies a different misconception: that people still think it can summon evil, rather than historic belief in summoning devil.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Monkees outsold Beatles
In 1967 the Monkees outsold the Beatles and Rolling Stones combined.


 * Flashbak: "In 1967 Mike Nesmith Fooled The World", "Ever hear the story about how in 1967 The Monkees sold more records than The Beatles and The Rolling Stones combined?" Lists three times it was recently repeated in major outlet. "The story of The Monkees being bigger than The Beatles and Rolling Stones combined has made it into books, including The Beatles Wikipedians, a book compiled by Wikipedia experts.": May have been common in the 60s when he "fooled the world", but while still repeated today, isn't shown to be a common belief.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "Fooled the world" is hyperbole, but if we were to take it seriously it meant that all ~200 million people believed this 50 years ago, and many of us are still alive.
 * The fact that it's been repeated in otherwise reliable sources indicates to me that it's still common enough to warrant inclusion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why we would take it seriously when it is hyperbole. Is the principle of "still alive" you are creating for evaluating if a misconception is current, that if it was common up to ~60 years ago, with many people still alive, it is still common? Not being hostile, just trying to iron out how we evaluate if something is obsolete, if you are willing to defend it, I'm fine with it as a rule. Something wrong being repeated in otherwise reliable sources isn't generally read to indicate whether something is common, only that it is a misconception. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Three Magi
Bible doesn't call them Caspar, Melchior and Balthazar


 * Iconography of Christian Art: "The names so familiar in the Middle Ages - Melchior, Caspar, Balthasar - first appeared in writing in a ninth-century translation of an Alexand": Names described as familiar in Middle Ages, misconception of them being in the Bible not identified.

Bible doesn't identify their skin colour


 * Iconography of Christian Art: "They were also regarded during the Middle Ages as representing the three known continents, Europe, Africa and Asia. This is why the second king appears as a Moor, sporadically from the twelfth century onwards and frequently in Late Medieval and Baroque painting.": Again, regarded in the Middle Ages, belief not identified that this comes from the Bible.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We could devote an entire article to things that people think are in the Bible but are not. Here, it's clear that the Bible does not say how many, name them, or describe them.
 * There are thousands of paintings of three white men as the Magi, which obviously leads people to think the paintings are accurate. Christianity is not my field of expertise so my inclination is to leave this one for those who are more well versed in the subject, but think the entry is appropriate. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that it is clear the bible doesn't name them or identify race, the question is whether we have RS saying it's common so the entries can meet the inclusion criteria.
 * If you are saying there are thousands of paintings of three white men as the Magi, and this has convinced people they are all white, this is the opposite of the misconception. the misconception is that one of them is identified as not white. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is that the misconception i.e.  that one of them is identified as not white? The entries on this page are worded as corrections; the misconceptions themselves are implied rather than stated. My reading is the implication is that the misconception is that any of these details (the number, their royal status, how they got there, their names, or a physical description) are in the Bible.
 * I'll leave it to others to decide if this misconception is common enough to warrant entry. It sounds good to me, but I'm not a biblical scholar. As it stands now, the article correctly states the fact that the popular conception of the three wise men visiting the baby Jesus does not come from the Bible.  If it was factually incorrect there would be an urgency to correct it.  For now, let's give the other editors a chance to voice their opinions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the misconception is that they're multiracial. See for example, here (this source does not say people think this comes from the Bible). The entry is five misconceptions, smushed into one entry, so they should be evaluated one by one as to whether they are common. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Invention of Fortune Cookies Source Conflict
Taking a break from whether sources say something is a common misconception for a source conflict.

The article currently says "They were invented in Japan and introduced to the US by the Japanese."

The sources in the article say:


 * Snopes (May 21, 2008): "The fortune cookie - that staple of Chinese cuisine in America - came not from China, but from California."
 * NYT (authored by Jennifer 8 Lee, January 16, 2008): "Fortune cookies come from Japan"

Some other sources:


 * Institute of Culinary Education (February 9, 2021): "While there has been mild controversy about who exactly gets the credit for the treat in its existing form, the birthplace is certain: California. And the DNA? Likely Japanese": deferring to Jennifer 8 Lee. Another quote "In flavor and appearance, they most closely resemble a cookie called tsujiura senbei that originated in Kyoto, Japan, in the 1800s."
 * National Museum of American History (July 8, 2010): "fortune cookies are not a Chinese creation but rather an American one by way of Japan": Based off interview with Jennifer 8 Lee.

I don't know what to make of this. According to the Institute of Culinary Education article, Lee is the "preeminent source", but articles by her and those interviewing her are making different claims. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * While the snopes article says they came from California, it also says "...it's impossible to authoritatively state precisely where, when, or by whom the fortune cookie was invented." As with many popular culture items it hard to trace origins due to the lack of written records from the early stages.
 * That said, Fortune_cookie seems to clearly establish that similar cookies were served with a fortune in Japan much earlier than the fortune cookie appeared in its present form in the US. I'll defer to the editors at that page.
 * I'm going to change "invented" to "originated" in the article, and I think this will more accurately reflect the possible controversy over their provenance. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Marco Polo entry
According to Marco_Polo "Marco Polo describes in his book a food similar to "lasagna", but he uses a term with which he was already familiar." along with the following citations:

Now, I don't have access to many of those cites, but I think it would be appropriate to actually chase them down before applying a cn tag. Not every reliable source is immediately available on the web.

That said, I'll remove the sentence about Lasagna since it's tangential to the entry. I'll leave it to the editors at the Marco Polo page argue about it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * All a citation needed tag is saying is that the statement isn't in the sources provided. It doesn't reflect whether it's sourced elsewhere on the wiki. It's also not clear to me that it's a better use of time to track down sources for information when they're not in the sources listed, compared to flagging where information isn't listed in the sources provided.


 * All of the sources you listed can be found on Internet Archive which has free accounts, and if you're comfortable using it, Library Genesis.


 * That being said, I had a look through these sources. I had already looked through 3/4 before, but the fourth one didn't include any information about lasagna or his Travels . On the pasta myth page, the source listed is this page, which seems to say it was someone else who used a term for lasagna, and this was in a different context. The information just seems to be wrong. I think this lends credence to the practice of adding citation needed tags to many items, flagging where verification is needed, independently of finding the actual sources. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

St Augustine; hell for inquisitive
Augustine said before the world was created he was creating hell for curious people (this is a misquote, unsure why it's in the Christian section rather than the misquotes section just because it's a Christian misquote):


 * Catholic Scientists: The story is often told[1] that when St. Augustine was asked this, he replied, “God was creating hell for people who ask such questions.” [1]: "Robert Jastrow told this story both in his popular book God and the Astronomers (Norton, 1st edition, 1978) and in an article “Have Astronomers Found God?” New York Times, June 25, 1978. But he merely gave new life to an old myth that has been repeated in many places.": An author wrote about this frequently, 46 years ago, giving "new life to an old myth". This seems unsufficient at establishing it as common. It's also different to the quote the article gives, "Saint Augustine did not say "God created hell for inquisitive people"."

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've never really understood this entry, so I won't object to it's removal. If other editors want to stick up for it I'm also ok with retaining it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Most Muslim women wear burqa
Most Muslim women wear a burqa:


 * Neither source provided really even identifies it as a misconception, let alone common.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I would say that most westerners have a fuzzy understanding of the difference in Muslim women's attire, confusing the burqa with the hijab. There might be a common misconception here, but I'm not sure what, exactly, it might be.
 * This article says it is a myth that "Muslim women are forced to wear headscarves. " and that "...about 40% of Muslim women in the U.S. wear a headscarf all or some of the time." but there are countries where women are forced to wear a headcovering so I wouldn't include that as an entry.
 * As it now stands, the entry is factual and adequately sourced so I don't feel an urgency to remove it. If nobody proposes a way to address the shortcomings with regard to the inclusion criteria within a few days I'd say it's ripe for removal.
 * . Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of retaining this one, I just reworded it a little to highlight the misconception 'the burqa is not the only type of head-wear worn by Muslim women'. Having the entries phrased as corrections is much better than actually stating the misconceptions and having people think that the stated misconception is correct - however, it does occasionally give rise to instances like this where someone might not be entirely certain what the original misconception was. Hopefully its clearer now. Joe  (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I like your rewording. It would be good to have a second source affirming that this is a misconception. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Article addressing foreign spending misconception
From Brookings


 * Opens with: "You’ve probably heard the statistic: “On average, Americans think 28 percent of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid, when it is about one percent.”": Implies it's not a common misconception since it's probable you've heard a correction to overestimation.
 * "The problem is, that statistic is quite misleading... Americans commonly think of foreign aid as including military spending."

I bring this up because I was looking at sources to bring this into the article, and decided against it based on this Brookings article which seems to "debunk" the misconception. And I have just seen it is already in the article.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Black belt means expert or mastery
Black belt in martial arts indicates expertise or mastery:


 * R25: "Even in the Olympic selection matches, it's cool to see athletes wearing black belts. However, it seems that the best judo players wear red belts. Then, the editorial department said, "Please come and throw me as a first-degree judo dan." What an honor! But when I asked the Kodokan, the headquarters of judo, Abe Ichiro (85 years old), a tenth-degree judo dan who holds a red belt, simply said, "Oh, it's fine." Seriously?": This is translated using Google Translate from the Japanese original, but it's pretty obvious it doesn't call identify it as a common misconception.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * http://fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=472
 * https://www.usadojo.com/black-belt-realities/
 * https://mmafutures.com/black-belt-really-mean/
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20140606221959/http://www.judo-chikara.nl/2014/06/myths-and-misconceptions-part-1-vol-44.html
 * Take your pick. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Dragon quest weekday release ban
"The Japanese government did not pass a law banning Square Enix from releasing the Dragon Quest games on weekdays due to it causing too many schoolchildren to cut class":


 * IGN: "I’ve been told the story more than once, and always in the same way.": Author in a expert niche hearing a story multiple times obviously doesn't imply commonality.
 * 1up: "Although tales of a law requiring Dragon Quest games only be released on the mornings of weekends or holidays are the stuff of urban legend"
 * Games Radar: "Here’s an urban myth that will not die: there’s a Japanese law that prohibits any new Dragon Quest game from coming out on a weekday. As the legend goes, Dragon Quest III was such an anticipated game that upon its weekday release, thousands of kids and adults played hooky to line-up for the game. The Japanese legislator was so concerned by this, they quickly drafted a law saying all future Dragon Quests must be released on weekends or holidays. It’s an interesting story and we all liked to believe that the series is so popular that there needs to be a law, but seriously, this rumor needs to die.": I think it's debateable if persistent urban myths, urban legends that have existed for a long time, are the same as urban legends that are commonly believed. I firmly don't think they are. If you think I'm being too pedantic I'll add this in. As an aside, when evaluating if I would accept a phrasing as equivalent to "common misconception", my heuristic is I'll go onto a source we've accepted as reliable and see if I would accept some or most misconceptions as common based on the same or very similar wording. Here are three, tell me if you would accept these: [1], [2], [3].
 * Electronic Gaming Monthly: Doesn't mention ban/misconception (I don't want to write out a quote, I've linked the page).
 * GamePro: 18:09: "Person A: Dragon Quest 3 was when it - like supposedly Japan banned games from being sold on anything but national holidays or something because it was actually registering a measurable dip in productivity like this urban legend. Person B: I actually did some research on that and while it is an urban myth that there was a government decree that Dragon Quest not be released on a weekday, it is true that Dragon Quest continues to be released on Saturday.": Just identifies as an urban myth, doesn't comment on commonality.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't know anything about or care about Dragon Quest so I'm not going to spend any time on this entry. I'll defer to the other editors for this one. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems well-sourced enough for inclusion to me. Joe  (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which of these sources do you think appropriately sources this? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Galley Slaves
Galleys were not operated by chained slaves:


 * Casson (1966): "The expression " galley slave" has two distinct meanings. The student of antiquity, dealing with a slave society, automatically takes it in the sense of a human chattel who, as his assigned duty, helps man the rowing benches of a warship": "Students of antiquity" believing something doesn't make it common (especially today). Especially when the source is describing "students of antiquity" 58 years ago.
 * Sargant (1927): "The first significant fact which appears from a general survey of the evidence is that rowing was by no means considered one of the most menial of tasks, as is commonly asserted, for which only slaves and the riffraff of all Hellas were used.": Source is 100 years old. Doesn't refer specifically to galleys, although does encapsulate it. Cannot be used to indicate belief is common today.
 * Unger: "Roman merchant vessels, unlike the galleys, were manned by slaves. In fact even the master was often a slave.": Doesn't comment on if belief was common (or even a belief that they were manned by slaves).'

Galleys were not operated by prisoners:


 * Casson (1966): "[continuing from previous Casson quote] In common parlance-and certainly in popular literature-a galley slave is something totally different: a criminal condemned to hard labor at the oar of a galley": Quote from 58 years ago, doesn't establish misconception as current.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the agenda is here, but the citation needed tag for galleys being depicted as manned by prisoners in Ben Hur makes about as much sense as putting a cn tag on the assertion that Jaws depicts a shark. WP:BLUE. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I apologise, I feel like I have an okay understanding of film history but I didn't know galleys were a major part of the film or that they were iconic in it. Thanks for removing the tag. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Bread in the fridge
As with many candidate entries here, it's complicated.

"Many experts claim that you should never refrigerate bread, but the reality is a little more complicated." Refrigerating Bread Isn't Always Bad

Refrigerated bread goes stale more quickly than unrefrigerated bread. Unrefrigerated bread grows mold faster than refrigerated bread. Which is more important? Depends... Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The misconception reads "Storing bread in the fridge makes it go stale faster than leaving it at room temperature." and the article you've linked says "Indeed, scientific evidence shows that refrigeration changes the structure of the starches in bread, causing them to crystallize, which makes the bread hard (aka stale)."


 * I don't think it's complicated. Maybe we can add an addendum noting that it grows mold slower? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have mixed feelings about entries like this. You could make the argument it's not really clearly a misconception, when the truth is not the opposite, just somewhat off. Benjamin (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand what you mean? Don't people think that putting it in the fridge will make it go stale slower, but the opposite is actually the truth, where it makes it go stale faster? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you ask people why they put bread in the fridge, most will say something on the order of "to make it last longer".
 * I'm unconvinced that enough would respond about it going stale. At the very least, we should include something about mold and the benefits of refrigeration to prevent it.  Or just drop the entry as being in dispute. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If you feel strongly against it then I'm fine with dropping the entry. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say we should clarify rather than delete. Joe  (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Kind of funny source contradiction; Dog sweat
The article states: "Dogs do not sweat by salivating. Dogs actually do have sweat glands and not only on their tongues; they sweat mainly through their footpads. However, dogs do primarily regulate their body temperature through panting."

But a Washington Post article from 2012 says: "Unlike humans, dogs and cats can’t sweat to cool themselves. A common misconception is that cats and dogs sweat through their paws, but, says Kimberly May, a veterinarian with the American Veterinary Medical Association, “any secretions there or from their nose, mouth or tongue are not for sweating; they’re for protection and moisture and are insufficient to cool the blood,” Cats and dogs are able to release heat in other ways, though." And then that it happens through convection, and panting.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We should make sure that this page (and the subject page) is using the best sources for this matter. I can't look through it all right now, so in the meantime I'm going to hide the entry. Someone please restore it after you do your due diligence, if you get to it before I do. Joe  (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Removed Entries
Sharpening vs Honing: This is not just technical language difference. I don't love these sources, but they do explain, although the sources provided are enough that it is a common misconception:


 * [1]: "It isn't possible to use a honing steel to sharpen a blunt knife. It's simply not made for that."
 * [2]: "This is a very important tool, but I must stress again that it is not sharpening your knife and isn’t going to replace the act of sharpening."
 * [3]: "What I see often, is folks who do not understand that honing is temporary and instead of stopping, they increase pressure and keep at it until the knife edge just gets worse and worse and often it becomes quite distorted and the actual sharpening process is made more difficult."

Austrian wine: It doesn't rely on knowing the difference between antifreeze and a component, people were just calling it antifreeze when it's not what people are referring to when they say antifreeze.

Marination: Marination and brining are not the same thing (hence why they are different words). It does include brining, but people people think if they marinate something in a sauce/flavour/enzyme/acid it's going to penetrate the meat and infuse it. It doesn't, and we have RS saying this is a common misconception. A good source.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Cruft and Afd
This article has now been nominated for deletion again. One of the common complaints is that it attracts "cruft". A mechanism for avoiding cruft is in the inclusion criteria edit note that pops up when you go into edit mode: It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first.

So, I'm going to remove all the recently added entries pending consensus on the talk page to include them. Please see WP:BRD for details of how the editing process works. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That is not a quote from the inclusion criteria. If you wish to add that, please propose it. Otherwise, please do not enforce what is not in there. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is in the page notice which is displayed every time you click the edit button. Have you never seen it? Also, WP:BRD is a well established process.
 * Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologise for missing this. It is also not the inclusion criteria, it's the Editing Notice, the proposed change was explicitly not to the inclusion criteria. Further, the discussion that led to it being inserted actually seemed to conclude against inserting this in the editing criteria, so I'm not sure why it was added. I'm also not sure how this is in line with following the general principles of BRD, as in the discussion, you say "Please see the opening two sentences of WP:BRD which say "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of seeking consensus." This clearly implies the "well established process" of BRD is not to be followed according to this insertion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Obtaining consensus on the talk page is the preferred process here, at least according to the edit note. An alternative is WP:BRD and if the addition starts with a bold edit as opposed to following the preferred process then WP:BRD would seem to be the process we're using here. If you (or any of the other editors here) want to employ one of the other methods of achieving consensus that's fine too. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've finished this edit. Any of these recently added and now deleted entries can be discussed for inclusion and if a consensus develops to re-add any particular one (or all of them) we can put it or them back. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

New Entries Proposal
Hi all, I know this is going to seem like WP:POINT, but I was already intending to add several of these entries (likely 80% depending on what issues get flagged in adding to topic pages). I am putting them here for now, if there are any issues you would like to flag or entries you'd like to support, please do so below.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is somewhat beside the main point, but this table is confusing because in some cases the first column makes a false statement (a misconception) and in some it makes a true statement (a refutation of a misconception, like the article does). For example, "the North Star... is not the brightest in the sky", "[phases of the moon are] not due to the shadow of the Earth on the Moon and "a concussion does not usually knock a person unconscious" are true, but "The Moon is only up at night", "there is one good sitting posture — and that if they sit like that they will be fine", "flu shots can cause flu" and "a person who's had a bang on the head shouldn't be allowed to go to sleep in case they slip into a coma" are false. CodeTalker (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know it's a bit confusing. It's because I was trying to quote directly from the sources so I wouldn't be paraphrasing or reinterpreting. Some sources say "it is a common misconception that..." (affirmative) while others say "despite the common misconception, ..." (negative). I hope the presence of "don't" or "are not" should generally clue you in. I think for most of them it's pretty clear what the misconception is. I've got another 70 common misconceptions that I've generated since I posted this one, I'll post below later today and I'll try to note if misconceptions are refuting. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Some more proposals below. I have flagged these as needed caution in adding to topic articles (discussion may be needed), as needing more sources, or taking care in wording them. These won't be attempted to be added until their issues are addressed, if they can be addressed. If you would like to support one (or criticise), please note it down below.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would care to explain why you are spending all this time and effort to add entries to this page while simultaneously arguing for it to be deleted over at AfD? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've been adding entries since before the afd, didn't initiate it, and particularly since no one seems interested in addressing the LSC requiring OR, it doesn't look like the page is going to be deleted.


 * It's a fun page. That's why it gets so much attention. People like reading about common misconceptions, I like reading about them. That obviously doesn't mean it belongs on the Wiki. It does upset me how people include things, saying a RS says it's a common misconception when it says "some people believe" or something equally tenuous, as it seems particularly blatant, but I also think things like "many people believe" doesn't mean it's common, which I know is more controversial (i.e. many people believe the Earth is flat, doesn't make the belief common). I think that if the page is going to be kept, it's better if we try to avoid the "words to that effect" problem I discussed in the afd.


 * One way is by going through and seeing which entries don't say it's a common misconception. Only you are evaluating, and you seem to hate it because there's 500 or so misconceptions to evaluate and because arguing if this source *really* says it's common sucks (fair enough), and entries that I flagged weeks ago as not saying it's a common misconception are still up and aren't flagged in the article body as currently unsourced. Another way I can ensure entries actually say it's a common misconception is by just adding them myself, and finding multiple RS that attest it's a misconception. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Some more common misconceptions, I cut down the 70 to 39 to ensure they're strongly sourced, they will likely be cut down further in adding to topic articles. As always, criticise or advocate below. Also I've reformatted them to be corrections, thanks for the suggestion.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to discuss any of these proposals, but waiting for a "second" for specific entries before continuing the discussion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, you might get more editors to engage with your list if you made the links clickable. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip, I've added in links to the entries and reformatted them for reviewability. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll try to go through all of these and give you a second opinion, though I don't have the time right this moment. Seeking editorial comments before adding these entries is very good of you, User Rollinginhisgrave, however, I do want to point out that it is not strictly necessary. If you think something is reliably sourced, you may simply add it, and if no other editors object, that's how ~95% of material gets onto Wikipedia. That said, there's certainly nothing wrong with seeking comments before adding, and I will try to do so as soon as I've got some free time to go through it all. Cheers! Joe  (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That was my understanding as well, and I added quite a few, but they got deleted here. If we're on the same page that the proposing on the talk page isn't mandatory, I'll add them back in (and lay them out in a table below so they're easy to review in case someone wants to). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you don't just "add them back". That's edit warring. While the three of us are on the same page that it is not required to propose new entries on the talk page, if an edit is contested WP:CON requires that it obtain consensus on the talk page before restoring it.  At this point none of your proposed entries have garnered any support for inclusion.  There are a couple that I plan on nominating for inclusion, but I'm waiting for AfD to run its course before spending any time on it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The reason you cited for deleting the entries was "Removing recently added entries that did not reach consensus on the Talk page." There is a consensus that this is not required. Therefore there is a consensus that the removal was unjustified; enforcing a rule that isn't there. If you have a different reason you believe the entries should be excluded, then please feel free to list it and we can discuss whatever that is. I won't add them back in until/unless you're satisfied the discussion is concluded. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * here is a consensus that the removal was unjustified
 * No, there is not. Who is saying this other than you? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want to waste your time. Is the reason the entries were removed because they didn't gain a consensus on the talk page first, per the wording of the edit notice "It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first"? If so, do you stand by this; if not, do you have a different reason you contest the entries? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to waste my time commenting on each one individually. I oppose most of them for various reasons.  If any particular one gets support from some other editor I will elaborate at that time.  For now, none of the proposed entries have any support other than one editor. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? Maybe a policy that you think I'm ignoring that multiple breach? Genuinely surprising to me you that you oppose most of them. Is there a sin I'm falling guilty of repeatedly? I don't think it's fair to revert edits and then not comment on them. But I also don't think it's fair for you to have to sink so much time in, all at once. Could we evaluate 5 entries a day maximum as a compromise? Is there an alternative you would like to pursue? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's a typical example: "snakes [don't] hibernate through winter".
 * This directly contradicts the Hibernation article.
 * Some researchers and members of the public use the term brumate to describe winter dormancy of reptiles, but the more general term hibernation is believed adequate to refer to any winter dormancy.
 * It would have taken about ten seconds to click on the topic article and see that it contradicts the proposed entry. If you're not willing to exert that minimal level of effort I don't see why I (or any other editor) should waste my time explaining why each of these dozens of proposals falls short. If some other editor expresses support for any of these proposed entries I'll be happy to engage. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * That's fair, I have highlighted the ones I've reviewed the topic article of, and linked in what I estimate to be the topic article. When I was saying that I need a comment on why things were removed, I wasn't talking about those entries that haven't been put in, I was talking narrowly about the ones that have been removed per BRD.
 * For stuff like snakes hibernating, it's obviously about how you word the misconception. The sources are saying it's a common misconception that (my very colloquial wording of possible misconception) "snakes sleep all winter; they wake up and can be active at points, and people don't expect that". This isn't at odds with the hibernation article, and it's not even a technical vs colloquial dispute which people on the article take issue with (i.e. bananas grow on trees, they actually grow on herbs or whatever), but a factual dispute (snakes don't wake up all winter). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear User Rollinginhisgrave, please forgive me, when I said "If you think something is reliably sourced, you may simply add it, and if no other editors object, that's how ~95% of material gets onto Wikipedia" - I wasn't aware that User Mr. Swordfish had already requested editorial review. I missed the section before this one. Given that Mr. Swordfish has requested the material be reviewed, it's entirely appropriate that you removed it to this location for editorial review. I'll try to go through the sources soon! As long as we don't find any that have problems with reliability, or any where new sources imply that something has changed (as often happens, for example, we once had an entry about saliva not helping to heal wounds, but then the relevant page got updated with new sources that said that saliva actually does contain healing factors, and so the entry was removed in light of that) - assuming there's nothing like that in the review, I expect we'll add most of your proposed entries! Cheers, I'll try to get to it soon when I have an hour or five to set aside. Joe  (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries Joe, I wasn't sure if you were aware of it hence why I wanted to bring your attention to it and get your confirmation before I started adding stuff back in. I'll write out the removed entries in a table below so they're easy to review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede removal
The editor adding the section into the lede said "added paragraph to the lead, giving some context about what a 'common misconception' is. I generated it from the topics under "see also", and from the inclusion criteria edit notice."

Self explanatory OR, unsourced. Fails WP:CIRC, in a really weird way. They also don't "arise from" old wives tales, old wives tales are also common misconceptions, etc. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is one of those classic cases of MOS:LEADCITE and WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY, please see also the section in WP:NOTOR on paraphrasing. Moreover, even though the sources currently contained on the page amply support and source the lede, one could, if so inclined, make a strong argument that much of the lede's content falls under WP:BLUE as well. In short, this lede is extremely uncontentious. Joe  (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What source do you understand they're paraphrasing or summarizing? And I don't think MOS:LEADCITE covers lists to the same degree (not citing policy, just looking at featured lists). Do you have an example of another (ideally featured) list which has a similar application of BLUE in the lede in defining a key term? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * MOS:LEADCITE applies to lists just as much as any other page on Wikipedia. I could begin to list the sources that the lede reflects, but I couldn't finish before dying of old age. Summary is not OR. Joe  (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I've read back over LEADCITE and I'm not sure exactly what you're saying by citing it. Could you clarify? And since we're at a point where you believe there are many sources that reflect the information in the paragraph, could you provide one? Maybe for the statement that common misconceptions generally arise from stereotypes (rather than stereotypes arising from common misconceptions etc). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure, check out the citations for the LDS polygamy entry. As for MOS:LEADCITE, I'm particularly thinking about: "Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." The fact that sources for the lede are left in the body on this page, and not included in the lede, is not evidence of OR.
 * On a side note, User Rollinginhisgrave, do you have any particular objection to the current wording of the lede? If you have an idea on how it might be better worded to more completely summarize the page's content, I'd be open to modifying it. I certainly wouldn't suggest that the lede in its current form is perfect by any stretch, but it is definitely not OR, and while it might be improved, it is far from terrible. I'd call it quite serviceable in its current form. Joe  (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that citations being in the body instead of the lede doesn't make it OR, I just know that's not what is happening here. The person who wrote the paragraph wasn't summarizing sources, they make that clear in the edit summary which I wrote out in my first comment. They saw that "stereotypes" was in the see also section of the page, and decided that it meant that common misconceptions arise from stereotypes. Which is OR (and I also think it's the wrong way around, not based on any sources, but just my vibes of language; if I was constructing the lede from the see also section I would have come to the opposite conclusion). I would like to see a lede constructed that is actually a summary of sources.
 * I had a look at the sources for LDS. I only saw one mention stereotypes, and that didn't mention the common misconception. So it couldn't imply or say common misconceptions arise from stereotypes. I might have missed something. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Could I ask you to rewrite the lede, to better conform to your understanding of the meaning of the phrase 'common misconception', and post it here for consideration? I reaffirm my belief that the current lede accurately reflects the content and purpose of the page, but maybe I'd change my mind if I saw an alternative presentation? Like I said, things can always be improved. We should be careful not to try to make it too perfect, though, and simply deleting it is not a practical option. Joe  (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously per WP:BURDEN the burden of finding sources for unsourced material is on editors who wish to restore content. But we know for a fact finding sources this is summarizing will not be possible, as the editor said that wasn't what they were doing when they added it. Independent of any future addition to the lede summarizing article contents, this text should be removed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rollinginhisgrave, equally obviously, per the Editing policy, if you see a problem, you should try to fix it yourself, not just point fingers at other WP:VOLUNTEERS and claim that it's their job to do things that you won't do yourself. That will only make people think you are bossy or arrogant.
 * Also, I don't know for a fact that there are no sources defining what a common misconception is. Do you actually know this?  Knowing this would require that you spent at least a few seconds looking for sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying WhatamIdoing. Here are some diffs showing me go through ~ the first 200 sources. You can also see above on this page that I've been through hundreds of sources discussing common misconceptions. If you look at the comment that starts the discussion, you can see that the person who put in the lede discussion of how common misconceptions came about admits they made it up. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you know that material can be verifiable even if you don't get it directly out of a source?
 * For example, I could write "Smoking tobacco causes lung cancer" in an article, and it would still be verifiable, even though I just "made it up".
 * Material is verifiable if a published reliable source says the same thing. It is not necessary for the Wikipedia editor to first consult the source or even know which specific source says the same thing.  If the article and a source match, then the material is verifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand, I just didn't believe a source would be saying the stuff the source says, as I believe it to be wrong, and I have no reason to believe a source was being referred to rather than the original editor just vibing out a theory of how common misconceptions arise, such as what I just mentioned to User:CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath: "[common misconceptions] don't arise from general wisdom, rather, if general wisdom is incorrect it is by its nature a common misconception, there is no causality. AKA; if a source is saying despite the general wisdom that..., it is not saying that the general wisdom is creating a common misconception, it is saying it is a common misconception." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with the use of the words 'arise from' in this context: conventional wisdom can be wrong, and in cases where it is wrong, the teaching of incorrect conventional wisdom can result in the spread of beliefs that are incorrect, giving rise to a common misconception. If we wanted to be really wordy we could say, "the propagation of conventional wisdom can give rise to common misconceptions," but I much prefer the brevity of the current phrasing. Joe  (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I really want you to consider a counterexample. Consider the inverse of a common misconception. A truth that people commonly know. Conventional wisdom can be correct. Would you say that correct conventional wisdom "gives rise to" a truth that people commonly know? Of course not! Conventional wisdom, by definition, is a belief (in this case truth), that people commonly know. They're the same thing! If something is conventional wisdom, and it's true, it's necessarily also the case that people commonly know this truth. One isn't giving rise to another. They're just synonyms in this context. And therefore, necessarily, the same with the inverse. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's more complicated than that. Conventional wisdom could be correct ("Sick people feel better if they eat soup") and also give rise to a misconception ("There's something uniquely healthful about chicken soup"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is such a good point. Thankyou. I was confused because most of the lede is listing things that are already wrong (superstitions, fallacies) and were about how the misconception became popular, which didn't make sense to me for conventional wisdom since it was already common. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a bunch of citations to support the plain statements in the lede.
 * I do think that the last part about "often involved in moral panics." should be either removed or replaced with "sometimes involved in moral panics." Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All of them are contentious and not plain. Do they generally arise from conventional wisdom? Is conventional wisdom not a type of common misconception? Does conventional wisdom arise from a common misconception? Same with stereotypes, superstitions, fallacies (although less so). One thing I might add for instance would be scientific consensus changing. Misunderstanding of science is contentious (if it's a simplified explanation), and pseudoscience has been long contentious on the talk page. The relationship between urban legend and misconception is contentious. Agree that the text of moral panic should be replaced. Tl;dr, none of them fall under WP:BLUE, and the WP:BURDEN for sourcing is on editors reinstating. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Completely in favor of "sometimes" instead of "often". Joe  (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Do they generally arise from conventional wisdom? Is conventional wisdom not a type of common misconception?"
 * No, User Rollinginhisgrave, it's currently the correct way around. Conventional wisdom is not a kind of misconception, because conventional wisdom is not always wrong. However, in cases where it is wrong, it often gives rise to commonly held beliefs that are incorrect. Changing it to something like "common misconceptions often give rise to conventional wisdom" or "conventional wisdom is a type of common misconception" would be putting the cart before the horse. Joe  (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right that conventional wisdom isn't necessarily a kind of misconception, but if conventional wisdom is wrong, it is not "giving rise to" commonly held beliefs that are wrong, as it is already necessarily a commonly held belief that is wrong. There is no causality. Incorrect conventional wisdom is the same thing as a common misconception. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where to put this comment so I'm just replying to your original comment. I dont feel like I have much valuable info to add as others have weighed in quite heavily on the topic however in my opinion much of the lede falls under WP:BLUE and the rest of it is generally backed up by by the rest of the article. For example the lede mentions that misconceptions often arise from a misunderstanding of science and later in the article one misconception says this: "This myth likely comes from a flawed United States military experiment in 1950, involving a prototype Arctic survival suit where the head was one of the few body parts left exposed." This cited piece of info backs up the idea that misconceptions can arise from a misunderstanding of science which means per MOS:LEADCITE and WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY they don't need a seprate citation.
 * Here are some more examples of cited statements that back up the lede:
 * "The erroneous idea that women have one more rib than men may stem from the biblical creation story of Adam and Eve."
 * "Tzaraath, a Biblical disease that disfigures the skin is often identified as leprosy, and may be the source of many myths about the disease"
 * "Quarantine has never been a standard procedure for those with severe combined immunodeficiency, despite the condition's popular nickname ("bubble boy syndrome") and its portrayal in films."
 * "The belief that it does may have originated from World War II British disinformation meant to explain the Royal Air Force's improved success in night battles, which was actually due to radar and the use of red lights on instrument panels".
 * I could go on and find more examples however I don't think that is a productive use of my time. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. I think the arising from misunderstandings of science claim is well sourced. The reason I noted it was contentious is because there has historically been a consensus on the page to exclude entries that fall under "lie-to-children" that are commonly believed. I am not sure how the rest of your examples cite the lede; the only generalities I could draw could be propaganda is a source? And media consumers being too credulous to artistic licence? I'm also not sure what you make of my criticisms per WP:BLUE; i.e. that they don't arise from general wisdom, rather, if general wisdom is incorrect it is by its nature a common misconception, there is no causality. AKA; if a source is saying despite the general wisdom that..., it is not saying that the general wisdom is creating a common misconception, it is saying it is a common misconception. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My point wasn't exactly to give examples for each cause the lede gives but more so to show that many of the entries give info on where the misconceptions arose. As for your criticisms regarding WP:BLUE I don't fully understand what you're getting at as my brain is a bit foggy at the moment due to working today. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's okay haha. The WP:BLUE thing is just that if general wisdom is false (a common false belief), then it does not cause a common misconception (a common false belief) to come about, as it already was one. Same goes for other items in the lede. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with User CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath's diagnosis of WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY. Joe  (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Break for revert
Hi Joe, you reverted my edit again, citing WP:BLUE and claiming that there are a "significant number of RS in the body" justifying it.

From the lede of WP:BLUE: "Since all material that is either challenged or likely to be challenged must be cited, if someone else is already challenging material as false or misleading, then it needs an inline citation." The material has been challenged, at length (see above). It needs an inline citation. This should be easy, since you say there is a "significant number of RS" which support the text. I have only seen you cite one source, and it was unrelated to the text in the lede. I understand there is a "longstanding consensus", but per WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User Rollinginhisgrave, we are already overflowing with inline citations to source the lede. That most or all of the lede is also WP:BLUE is just the icing on the cake. Please, again, see MOS:LEADCITE. The fact that the citations appear only in the body, and not in the lede itself, is not relevant. The lede is already more than adequately cited, and that is not just my opinion, but the opinion of other editors as well. There is, indeed, a longstanding consensus to this effect. Joe  (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please list the sources you think "more than adequately" cite the lede content, per WP:BURDEN, or the text will be removed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User Rollinginhisgrave, sources are already provided in the body of the text. If you go through a few of them, not even very many, you will quickly find ample verification for the lede. If you do not think that the currently available sources are sufficient to demonstrate the lede, then that is your opinion and you're welcome to it, but if so, your opinion will not match the current consensus on the lede's applicability to this page.
 * I'd be curious to know the thoughts of other editors, as I'm afraid this important discussion about whether or not we should keep the lede might have ended up languishing behind a bunch of others. Who knows, perhaps my impression of the near-universal acceptance of the current lede is wrong. Might I ask for your thoughts,, , , ? (unsigned comment by Joe )
 * Can you please just link any of these sources you believe demonstrate the lede? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought we were done with this. It's just Sea lioning at this point. Unless some other editor weighs in, there's no need to continue this discussion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Brought issue to talk of some Wikiprojects to seek further comment. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources:
 * https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/misconception has the most general and important point, namely that a misconception is wrong.
 * The chapter "Students’ Misconceptions and Science Education" in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology, Oxford University Press ( ISBN 9780190874766 ) covers part of this content, including some of the history of the development of the concept of a misconception (as distinct, e.g., from a simple error).
 * The Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication ( ISBN 9780190498986 ) has a section, "Effective Refutation of Misinformation", that addresses an educational approach that directly addresses misconceptions. (This might be equally or more directly useful in Scientific misconceptions.)
 * I don't personally think the complained-about paragraph requires any inline citations, but I believe we can now proceed past the "is it possible to find sources for any of this?" stage of this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * None of this addresses the material that I contested. I was responding to a claim that this was all already in the article and it was merely summarizing it; not that these sources don't exist. For some of them I don't believe they exist. These sources are also not discussing common misconceptions generally, they are discussing common science misconceptions, particularly among students. They can't be generalized to a discussion of common misconceptions at large, as is this article's subject matter. This isn't me being nitpicky, these sources you list are pretty explicitly talking narrowly about science, rather than whether it's a misconception that red licorice is actually licorice, as the disputes on the talk page go. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you read the sources? I believe you will find that the first discusses purely the general case, as befits a dictionary.  The second source is not as specific to science as one might guess from the title.
 * For the pedantic point over whether misconceptions truly "arise from", e.g., misunderstandings of science, you could just copyedit the sentence to use wording that you believe to be more accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I read the sources. The general sources do not describe where they arise from. This is the definition in the second one for misconception: "The term “misconceptions” is commonly used to refer to people’s ideas that are different from those accepted by science." If the only RS describing where common misconceptions generally come from are talking about science misconceptions, then we run into problems of WP:DUE in presenting the info.
 * The pedantic case of where they truly come from is the entirety of what is being contested. It's also 75% of the content being discussed. An editor has just made up their interpretation from sources. I have tried to critique it to be more accurate, but multiple editors above have assured me that the current text is WP:BLUE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What did you learn about Piaget's idea of the misconception in that source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How he conceptualizes misconceptions emerging? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And specifically that he does not limit this mental process to science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User Rollinginhisgrave, please see also WP:NOTOR, particularly the section on "Not present in the cited source, but is present in other sources", most specifically:
 * By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
 * You cannot declare something to be original research merely because the current version of the article does not name a reliable source for that material. Content is only original research when no source in the entire world could be cited to support that material. If you are reasonably certain that any reliable source (anywhere in the world, in any language) says the same thing, then this is not original research.
 * This is yet another reason why all editors (besides yourself) seem to find the current lede so uncontentious. While I do make the argument that the current lede is well-sourced by RS that can currently be found in the body of the text, even if that were not so, it would be hard to imagine that such a basic concept as 'a common misconception' had no definition or conceptualization anywhere in the world. On a semi-related note, this is another reason why the whole page, not just the lede, is WP:NOTOR. Joe  (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Myths Busted books
I have links of some books where they talk about and bust various myths. If you feel like any of these myths belong in this page, add it in, as long as you find reliable sources from the Internet that relate to the myth as well.

https://archive.org/details/mythsbustedjustw0000krie

https://archive.org/details/mythsbusted3just0000krie 128.235.85.35 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria / Edit Notice Changes (before discussing more substantive changes)
1. I will do an edit request on the template page for the edit notice to remove: "Whether an item should be included is at times a contentious issue. It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first." This is per my justification on that page:
 * "As flagged on that entry by P.I. Eslworth, after implementing the change, the consensus that the text be included on the edit notice was lost as the discussion continued, after the change was made."

I am presenting this here before doing this to give the opportunity for editors defending the current edit notice to form a consensus that has been lost.

2. Remove the text in the inclusion criteria / edit notice "If you have an item to add that does not fulfill these criteria, which you still think should be included, please suggest it on the talk page." There seems to be a consensus on the talk page (from my reading) that all entries have to meet the inclusion criteria. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would oppose both of the changes.
 * For No. 1, it is in fact preferred (see, preferred, not required) that new entries be proposed in talk.
 * For No. 2, no, strictly speaking all entries do not have to meet the inclusion criteria. See WP:5P5 and WP:IAR. If the editors got together and agreed that an entry should be included without, for example, its own subject page, that would be fine. Imagine, for example, the case where a common misconception about common misconceptions (a meta-misconception) was proposed as an entry: the correct subject page would be this page, and so an exception might need to be made. Plenty of other such exceptions could conceivably occur, anything where including the entry despite the guidelines would, in the opinion of the editors, still improve the page overall. On a more practical and more frequently occurring note, there's nothing wrong with anybody suggesting we add something on the talk page: perhaps something that doesn't currently meet the standards for inclusion should be included after more RS have been found, after it has been added to a subject article and not been disputed there, etc. If someone has a common misconception which he or she believes should be added, but the entry isn't 'fully formed' yet, the correct thing to do is to post it here and get help/comments. Joe  (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. What do you think about clarifying in the entry that it is not required that new entries be proposed through talk?
 * 2. I understand this is implicit in all of Wikipedia, but it isn't common to include it in an inclusion criteria. Naming it puts too much emphasis on it. I like the idea of specifying currently. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1, Yes, be I could get behind that, though I'd need to see a specific wording before saying yay or nay one way or the other.
 * 2, I prefer the current wording, since there may be legitimate exceptions where an entry that does not meet all the inclusion criteria should be included, given a consensus from the editors to that effect. Also, there is something to be said for brevity. Joe  (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. "Whether an item should be included is at times a contentious issue. It is preferred, although not required, that new items be proposed on the talk page first."
 * 2. Haha there is even more brevity if it were to be removed. But I understand your preference. I'll see what other editors say. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The main issue for me is that the sentence "It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first." is included in the edit notice but not in the inclusion criteria displayed at the top of the talk page. These two should be in sync with each other to avoid confusion. My strong opinion is that 1) we should keep that sentence and 2) it should be expressed in the inclusion criteria as well as the edit notice.

As for the "If you have an item to add that does not fulfill these criteria, which you still think should be included, please suggest it on the talk page." I'm basically neutral with a slight preference for retaining it. As Joe correctly points out, this is covered by other general Wikipedia policies so it's not necessary, but I don't see the harm in stating it.

There are other differences in language between the two, and it would be best to have the same language in both places. For reference, here is the inclusion criteria at the top of the talk page:

And this is the edit notice:

I propose the following language that's a hybrid of the two, and that both notices use this language.


 * I like your rewording of the inclusion criteria/edit notice and definitely think it's important they be aligned. I would prefer that my proposal for 1 was integrated, what do you think about the clarification I proposed? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Not required" is implied by the usage of "preferred" so is unnecessary. I'd prefer to keep this brief. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with User Mr. Swordfish, moreover, I don't really see the value of copying the "whether an item should be included is at times a contentious issue" wording in two places. I'm not in favor of these changes. Joe  (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC):
 * If we remove that clause, the notice looks like this:


 * I'm Ok with this. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If you both agree on the "not required" necessarily being implied by "preferred", then I'm happy. I would still prefer the edit notice and inclusion criteria to be aligned. I understand that you prefer the wording not being included in two places Joe, but it's just a bit confusing to have the notices out of sync, especially for editors (like myself) who assume they are identical. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Any further discussion about this change? If not, I'll make the changes on this page and request that the edit note be changed too.
 * This doesn't forestall further discussion about changing the inclusion criteria - we can always make further changes if there's consensus, but it seems like we have consensus to apply these changes. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"These entries are concise summaries of the main subject articles, which can be consulted for more detail."
This isn't true. It might be aspirational for some, but often this article includes more information than is contained in the topic articles. Why should it not be aspirational? Because the topic article chosen is the sole relevant factor. If "the slaves built the pyramids" claim has Egyptian pyramids as its topic article and the text is added, writing extensively on whether slaves built them would breach WP:UNDUE. If a more niche article is chosen, like Slavery in ancient Egypt, more niche information could be included. The natural trend for the article is that topic articles chosen are as niche as needed to submit an entry. Why is this a bad thing? A major point of adding entries to topic articles is for verification, to draw in interested editors. The less niche a page is, the more scrutiny is applied to edits. By structuring the article as summaries of topic articles, the verification function is undermined, often severely.

Even if it is accepted as aspirational, it should be rewritten to reflect that it is an aspiration rather than the reality that it pretends to be. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree this is poorly worded. I would suggest:
 * These entries are concise summaries; the main subject articles can be consulted for more detail.
 * Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Your wording is definitely better, although as I note above, I object to the concept of stating the entries are summaries of subject articles which contain more detail, since they aren't, and we shouldn't aspire to that. Do you think we should note that the entries aren't summaries? I.e. "These entries are intended to be concise summaries of their main subject articles." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As this wording is seen as a step in the right direction I'll make the change. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with User Mr. Swordfish's proposed edit. Also, doesn't this rewording take care of your concern about them being concise summaries of the subject article, User Rollinginhisgrave? I agree that the entries are not summaries of the entire articles, and User Mr. Swordfish's rework seems to explicate that nicely. Joe  (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is that entries in this article will often contain more information about a misconception than the article being linked to. So if anything those articles contain a summary of content on this article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The original statement is accurate:
 * It says these are concise summaries. I think we can agree that they are not lengthy or unnecessarily wordy.
 * It says the main subject articles can be consulted for more detail. I think we can all agree that anyone can, indeed, click the link and consult the main subject article for more detail.
 * The confusion apparently stems from the belief that it says, or at least implies, that you can consult the main subject article not "for more detail", but "for more detail about the common misconception". Obviously, it does not say that there is more (or any) information about the common misconception in the main article.  It only says there are details there, which is true in every case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Entry Reinstatement
I'm looking for some clarity on the process for getting removed entries back in the article. Following BRD, I'm unclear on the reason entries were reverted, so discussion is difficult. If a quote for a justification could be pointed in my direction it would be much appreciated. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Does any editor other than you support reinstating any of these entries? If there's a second editor that weighs in with support then we can discuss that particular entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reason for opposing these entries? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry User Rollinginhisgrave, I still haven't gotten to reviewing them. I'll try to do it as soon as I have the time. Joe  (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's all good, I'm only talking about the ones that were in the page and got taken out. I'm still not sure why they were removed. If a reason can't be provided I'll reinstate per WP:BRD. If a reason is provided then we can take them back out and address the issue before reinstating. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are over a dozen active editors that have contributed to either this talk page or this article in the past two weeks. Any one of them could have taken a look at the over 100 entries that you have recently proposed and not a single one of these editors have offered support for any of those proposed entries. You're overwhelming the process and we need to slow down. That's why.
 * So, instead of wikilawyering, maybe you should think about how to build consensus for some select few of your proposals.
 * BTW, I explained why one of them (snakes don't hibernate) is a bad entry (it is directly contradicted by the topic article.) Others are also problematic, but I'm not going to waste my time pointing out why each and every one of them is flawed.  If any specific entry is nominated I'll be happy to discuss it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will propose edits slowly to prevent overwhelming editors. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As Mr swordfish says, "You're overwhelming the process and we need to slow down. ... think about how to build consensus for some select few of your proposals." Bulk proposals make it difficult to engage constructively and thoughtfully, whether to support or to oppose any particular case. --Macrakis (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment on proposed entries and current entries
Many of the entries that I have proposed be added to the page in the #Disease and preventive healthcare and Nutrition, food, and drink sections do not meet WP:MEDRS. I will strike these proposals out until/if appropriate sources can be found. I'm not sure Mr Swordfish would appreciate [medical citation needed] being tagged to the relevant items that are also failing WP:MEDRS that have made it onto the page; what would we like to do with this insufficiently sourced information? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Every factual assertion we make on this page appears in the topic article, hence we can assume is that it meets Wikipedia's verifiability requirements, including WP:MEDRS. While the implied assertion that it is a common misconception may not always appear in the topic article, this is not a medical claim subject to WP:MEDRS. I don't think we need to do anything here. If someone wants to go around to all the topic articles and challenge the sourcing, nobody is stopping them. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I truly don't know why you think that sourcing on the topic articles would meet WP:MEDRS. This page has a problem with requiring entries be discussed on their topic articles, and not being able to see when information is deleted or changed. Let alone the quality of the sourcing. Looking just at the second entry in #Human body and health for waking up sleepwalking being dangerous:
 * Source one in this article is sleepfoundation.org: Not a MEDRS.
 * Source two in this article is MedicineNet: Not a WP:MEDRS [1][2]
 * The topic article, sleepwalking, only references the sleepfoundation source. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Take it up with the editors at Talk:Sleepwalking. If that article changes in a manner that makes our entry fail the inclusion criteria we can address that at the time. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder that medical sources are only needed for the underlying medical fact itself, not the claim that it's a misconception. Benjamin (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, wasn't trying to make that claim. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

27 Club
I propose adding an entry for the 27 Club in the "Popular music" section. Something like this would be good, I think: Popular musicians are not more likely to die at the age of 27. The notion of a "27 Club" arose after the deaths, in a ten-month period, of Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morrison, and later the deaths of Kurt Cobain and Amy Winehouse. Statistical studies have shown that there is no scientific basis for this idea.

— Mudwater (Talk) 14:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This looks ok to me. Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I'm trying to track down a copy of 27 by Howard Sounes, but it will take a few hours, so I'll add that as a source if there's relevant quotes. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Everybody seems happy with it, I've gone ahead and added it. Thanks User Mudwater! Joe  (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Very good. Thank you.  — Mudwater (Talk) 10:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Salting Legumes before cooking
Hi all, making proposals (much more) slowly to avoid overwhelming editors.

Salting legumes before cooking will not prevent them from softening. When legumes do not soften, it is due to other factors, such as the presence of acid in cooking, hard water or legumes being old. Salting legumes before cooking results in a more even seasoning and softer skins, as sodium replaces some calcium and magnesium in the skins. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a how to manual. Many of the entries in the food and cooking section border on how-to advice - preparing beans, searing or braising meat, storing bread, cooking mussels, cleaning cast-iron skillets - as well as several of the proposed entries. I think this bears discussion, but is not necessarily a disqualification for this entry.  I'd like to hear some editors' opinions about whether we're adding too much cooking advice here.
 * Another concern is about methodology - it appears that many of the recent proposals have been "researched" by entering "common misconception" into a search engine and quickly reproducing the results here without doing further research to confirm the factual statements or whether the assertions are part of an ongoing dispute - e.g. the "snakes don't hibernate" entry. Moreover, if the proposed entry does not meet the inclusion criteria due to no mention in the topic article, the editor on many occasions has simply inserted it into the topic article as happened here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legume&diff=1230707655&oldid=1227535887


 * The idea behind that inclusion criteria is that if the editors at the topic article (who are presumably more familiar with the subject than we are) do not think it is important enough to mention it probably isn't important enough to include here.
 * I would like to see a more careful, studious approach to the editing process which is impossible if someone is adding entries at the pace of 100 a week.
 * I'm basically neutral about this particular entry; if other editors are in favor of adding it I won't object, but I'd like to see at least one comment in support before adding it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * MS; thankyou, sincerely for this detailed reply.
 * I hadn't considered the WP:NOTHOWTO angle. I'm not sure how to have common misconceptions about the topic of "cooking" that don't breach this, and I think many medical misconceptions would also fall afoul, but I'm going to do some research into how the policy has been applied in similar cases before I comment further.
 * As noted above in the section on proposed entries, I estimated I would be adding "likely 80% depending on what issues get flagged in adding to topic pages." I understood 20% with further verification would not be strong enough to outright add. You can see above the ones I have stricken out above since making the initial list of misconceptions to evaluate because I was not confident in the veracity/strength of sourcing; tl;dr the research goes a hell of a lot further than quote Google and reproduce.
 * Further, as I've noted above, you seem to be hung up on a technical language use dispute with the snakes don't hibernate misconception: the misconception is that people think snakes sleep all winter (and it puts them in dangerous situations). This isn't incorrect.
 * Finally, I have no idea what you're saying with me adding entries to topic articles. There is a page consensus that this is fine and good. Indeed, you have defended this practice before as the entire functionality of the criterion. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been reading into WP:NOTHOWTO, and there aren't many good discussions evaluating cases like this. This is the best discussion I could find on an application of the policy. From what I got out of the discussion; info with not too much detail that cites RS evaluating a practice is not WP:NOTHOWTO. The reading there would permit the medical misconceptions listed. With less certainty, I would say the reading of policy espoused also permits the cooking misconceptions. I think it is difficult, I wouldn't oppose posting this on the talk for WP:NOTHOWTO to solicit feedback as quite a few entries would be affected. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding this into the page and opening up a discussion as to whether cooking misconceptions violate WP:NOTHOWTO as such a large change should have consensus formed as a general principle before applying to individual entries. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussion on Snopes Authorship
Dropping here that I've started an RSN discussion on authorship of Snopes articles. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Citation cleanup - removal of quote: parameter and invoke: directive
A lot of cites have been modified with the perhaps unintentional removal of the quote: parammeter or the #invoke: directive.

The #invoke syntax is explained in a fairly complicated manner at H:TLIMIT. This was recently added to facilitate faster processing by the wiki engine and seems to be recommended when there are several hundred references (as this article contains). We should be consistent with using it.

As for the quote: parameter I'm aware that a lot of editors do not favor using it, but my considered opinion is that it is a useful and helpful addition as per WP:FQ:


 * A footnote may also contain a relevant quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. However, caution should be exercised, as always, to avoid copyright violations.

We should restore the quotes that were removed from the cites, and use the invoke: syntax for all the cites that have templates that support it.

Perhaps these changes are artifacts of using the visual editor, which I have found has issues dealing with citations. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link on invoke:cite. I was removing them because every time I tried to edit them with the visual editor it would break the citation; I'll start to add them back in.


 * I disagree on quotes. The reference list is already unwieldy. There's only about 60 pages on the entire wiki with more references. WP:FQ notes "In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article." I've left up quotes for the banana radiation, or the oldest colour film etc; basically anything that is too dense to parse or can't just be clicked through and found quickly. The most pages you'll have to click through of the ones I left is about 3, which seems reasonable. I'm not sure if you disagree on that line? People can always use control F within those 3 pages of content.


 * I actually really like the idea of being able to hover over a cite and see what the quote is that is supporting the text. Ideally we would have that for every source. But we should be consistent if we're doing that and not just have a few items with blockquotes on every cite, and none on every other entry. They should be reserved for when the text is hard to access or otherwise way too dense. If you think I made a mistake with removing one then add it back in. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I've just realised how much that page understates how many references there are here given references a, b, c are filed under 1 reference on this page. It's likely in the top 10. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think all the recently removed quotes should be restored and only the ones that are problematic either removed or shortened. Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm wary of adding entries back in, given I believe unproblematic entries have been kept. The quote I gave from WP:FQ says most of the time quotes are unnecessary. The most edge case entry I can see is How Do Wings Work, but if you do control F with "blow" you find the entry in literally two seconds. Downsides of inclusion > Upsides. Anyway. As you say, we'll see what other editor's opinions are. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking to restore any entries, only to restore the comments in the citations for the remaining ones.
 * What are the downsides to including comments in cites? Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT that is. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent referencing style throughout the article, arbitrary which entries get quotes
 * Reference bloat, difficult to navigate
 * WP:COPYVIO in the blockquotes it attracts
 * Unnecessary when information is easily verifiable by clicking on a link instead of hovering over it
 * Follows content guidelines more closely Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Taxation and Government Spending
New item for the economics section:

Under a system of fiat money, government spending is not funded by tax income or borrowing because the government is the currency issuer and so can never run out of money. With a fiat currency, taxation and borrowing are used for liquidity control, which creates the fiscal space for the government to spend without driving the economy past it's productive limit and incurring inflation. Matthew T Hoare (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There is a consensus in economics that MMT's claims are wrong. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that this is sufficiently disputed among economists that we should give it a wide berth here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The third link in my new item is an institutional analysis of government spending in the UK and it quite clearly shows that spending is a "one-source" process and that the government creates money as it spends. The study is very recent and is the first of it's kind. Do you have any specific problems with the methodology or reasoning in that paper? Or a link to any papers that show contrary evidence? Matthew T Hoare (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Have a look at criterion 3. If you can get it to stay on the MMT page we can discuss, otherwise it can't be added. Also you might want to have a read of WP:PRIMARY. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal
This page has Article size problems, and it is at risk of having Post-expand include size problems (i.e., that technical limit in which the refs break) if it continues increasing in size.

There are currently three main sections:


 * List of common misconceptions
 * List of common misconceptions
 * List of common misconceptions

The last is about half the page. I suggest creating three separate lists:


 * List of common misconceptions about arts and culture
 * List of common misconceptions about history
 * List of common misconceptions about science, technology, and mathematics

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This works for me. I was going to propose an alternative of splitting off List of common misconceptions about human body and health and List of common misconceptions about biology, but this seems too messy and the history section cannot easily be split like this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We could put most of the "STEM" section in the third list, and a List of common misconceptions about health and biology in a fourth list. That would reduce the risk that we would need to split the science list again in a couple of years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea and would help ensure WP:MEDRS is followed if it is a pure "med" article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We had a discussion about this exactly two years ago. Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_27.  There was no consensus to split and considerable opposition.
 * Is this a technical issue with the MediaWiki software or a content issue that that article is longer than most readers will find approachable? If it's the former, lets find out if this is still really an issue before rushing to judgment - from WP:TLIMIT
 * The inclusion limits were put into effect on the English Wikipedia by Tim Starling on 14 August 2006. A new preprocessor was enabled in January 2008, removing the "pre-expand include limit" and replacing it with a "preprocessor node count" limit.
 * Are we still using the same software and hardware that were in use in 2006 and 2008? I hope not.
 * If it's the latter issue, then it's just an editorial judgment. I'd call attention to how Joe Phin's analysis in the discussion two years ago:
 * There are currently 380 entries on the page. One year ago, in July 2021, there were 336 entries. Two years ago, in July 2020, there were 407 entries. Three years ago, in July 2019, there were 377 entries. Over the course of 3 years, we've had a net growth of 3 entries, one entry per year on average...
 * So, the number of entries in the article is not growing substantially over time. I oppose splitting the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The page gained 180k bytes between 2020 and 2022, a 50% increase, so Joe's analysis doesn't seem great. Even with leaving a lot of entries to be reviewed on the talk page, and with me just yesterday deleting 20k bytes by cleaning up references using unnecessary quotations, the page has still increased by 30k bytes. It's currently the 24th biggest page on the project. Using visual editor crashes constantly; you don't need to get bogged down in minutia at WP:TLIMIT to recognise the article's size is causing issues. An alternative to shorten the page could be strengthening the inclusion criteria. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My analysis was based on the number of entries on the page, nothing more. If people add extra citations, that increases the byte-size of the page, but doesn't increase the number of entries. Joe  (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Mr. Swordfish, PEIS is a technical limit. It is strictly, automatically, and universally enforced without exception.  This article is already using the #invoke workaround, and a quick test suggests that increasing the number of refs in the article by about 10–15% will make even that workaround stop working.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The PEIS of this article is about 1.5M while the limit is 2M. So we're at about 75% of max.
 * Might it be that the real issue is that many of the entries are over-cited? The factual statements should be adequately sourced at the topic article if the inclusion criteria is being followed, so we may not need to reproduce those here.  WP:V only requires that assertions need to be verifiable not that every one have a ref tag next to it.  Yeah, I know, many of these entries are controversial hence the over-citing.  The text itself is about 144K which is about 10% of the PEIS. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the citations take too much space. I propose the following guidelines:
 * If there is good source that discusses both the substantive fact and its being a common misconception, that one citation suffices, unless it is Snopes (because we don't want to just be a mirror of Snopes).
 * If not, exactly one (no more, no less) source should be cited for the substantive fact.
 * If there is a good source whose primary topic is the misconception, one source suffices for that. This must not be an example of the misconception, but a discussion of the misconception. If multiple weaker sources are used, there should be a maximum of two. If there are only examples of the misconception, and no explicit discussion, we're getting into WP:OR territory.
 * Footnotes should not contain quotations from the source.
 * Any notes that are removed from the misconceptions article should be moved to an appropriate place in the source article.
 * For example, we currently have 5 sources for the "five stages of grief" item, four of which are included in the Five stages of grief source article. But in fact the 1st source covers both the substantive discussion and the misconception quite well. And the 5th source (a brief obituary for Kubler-Ross) is irrelevant here, saying only "To debate the details or the validity of Kubler-Ross's thesis...is to miss the point of her life's work." (I'll remove it now).
 * Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In principle, I don't think that limiting the number of citations per fact is a good idea. For any given instance, of course, it could be the best choice (e.g., to reduce Citation overkill).
 * In other articles with very large numbers of citations (e.g., Donald Trump, with 830), many of the sources are narrow and could be replaced by a single biography. I doubt that would be possible for this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Donald Trump article is irrelevant here. Each point in that article needs to be supported by a source, and the article needs to reflect a variety of points of view (WP:NPOV). Replacing them with a single source makes no sense at all.
 * On the other hand, entries in this list of misconceptions are based on a source article. If the source article doesn't address both the substance and the misconception (inclusion criterion 2), then it's not eligible for this article. The reader can always consult the source article. There might be a case for clarifying in each entry in this list what the source article is (by using, say, a boldface link, ideally a section link to where the misconception is discussed); once that's clear, we don't need to repeat the sources found in the source article. --Macrakis (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I give Donald Trump as an example of an article that has 800 different sources and could probably have 400 different sources, with some sources being used many, many times.
 * I think this article has 800 different sources and probably needs 800 different sources. (We cannot rely on sources in the linked article, because (a) WP:V doesn't let us and (b) they could be removed from the other article without anyone here noticing.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We could save quite a few bytes by removing access-date from every web citation with an archive, and from every print source. No opinion on split just yet: still at work. Folly Mox (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favor of trimming the redundant content within citations (as User Folly Mox suggests), especially if it can easily be done en masse - but I'd be opposed to limiting citation numbers. Lots of the best entries on this page require more than one citation, and removing them would significantly negatively impact the article's quality. At that point, I'd rather just split the page. Reluctantly, mind. Joe  (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favor of splitting for reasons relating to readership/comprehensibility, however, if there is some technical issue that can only be addressed by splitting, then 'what can you do?' Might I ask, if we were to bundle more citations together with a format like a., b., c., would that help, or is the problem the total number of bytes in citations? I'm guessing it's the latter, but I don't actually know. Joe  (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If we did have to split the page, I'd prefer as little splitting as possible. So, for example, spltting things in half like: Not my first choice, but if we have to, that'd be my preference. Joe (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * List of common misconceptions about arts, culture, and history
 * List of common misconceptions about science, technology, and mathematics


 * I agree with Joe here. Oppose splitting for editorial reasons, will support splitting if it's technically necessary, favor the two-article split if we have to split. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Support splitting Other editors have made a brief mention of splitting affecting readability, comprehensibility, or "editorial reasons" like above. I think those who oppose should provide more detailed explanation since I do not really understand the reasoning why splitting would impact the above issues. Since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it is read on electronic devices, some of which are lower-range. Even my mid-end laptop struggles to load this page, taking around 7 seconds. I imagine it to be double in older mobile phones, with significant lagging while scrolling. I also don't think list will become less comprehensive when split. 100% of the information currently in the list will be divided into neatly organized sub-articles. No loss of content here. Some people above are discussed measures to decrease page size like removing details from the citations and in the last discussion, shortening summaries. That would actually decrease how comprehensive this list is. One editor also made mention of notability issues in the last discussion. This is not an issue since WP:SPINOUT recommends Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically. No one's argues that List of PC games (A) is not notable since no RSes discuss games that specifically start with A. Ca talk to me!  12:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have an incredibly old device, and I never have any problems loading this page, editing it, or anything else. People have made the argument that this page is too long to be comprehensible in the past, which is silly (most books are longer and they're not 'incomprehensible'). That said, the possibility that the page may have too many citations for Wikipedia to be able to handle (I'm not familiar with the technical details) has been brought up, and if that can't be resolved by removing redundant formatting or unnecessary publication dates or other information in the many, many cites we've got, it may be that splitting is the only option. I certainly agree that we shouldn't limit the number of citations or anything like that. If this technical issue can be solved by de-fattening the citations then I oppose splitting, but if not, eh, what can you do? Joe  (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Joe do you ever have issues switching from visual to source or vice versa? My device isn't old but I keep losing my edits when trying to switch due to time-outs, and only on this page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This doesn't surprise me at all. Editing a huge page with relatively complex formatting (e.g., all of those refs) is always going to be at risk of time-outs.  Time-outs probably might have more to do with your internet connection than with your device (how good your internet connection is, but also factors outside your control, like how much traffic there is in general and how close you are to one of the data centers [so, e.g., editors in Dallas, Texas are better off than Portland, Oregon, and Amsterdam is better off than Paris]).  Opening the editing environment is more dependent on your device.
 * When you are switching, I suggest doing a quick ⌘A and ⌘C to "Select all" and then "Copy" it. If you get hit by a timeout, you can re-open the same editing environment and paste it in.  (This will work best if you're switching from, and therefore copying, plain old wikitext.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see this working when going from source to visual, and I'll start using it in those cases, but I'm not sure about the other way with preserving page layouts. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Copying the 'visual' content usually preserves the layout but not the wikitext's whitespace. If you know that your changes were all in the same section, I'd suggest copying just that section if you're in the visual mode.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, I'll give it a go. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Very weak support the split for article size reasons.Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion and split proposals
I noticed that it was proposed this article be deleted, I looked at the the reasons an article on Wikipedia would be deleted and I do not see any reasons for deleting this article. Can we talk about this proposed deletion. Also I find this article to be helpful and informative.

I would also like to address the proposal to split this article. Some of these common misconceptions listed may not be enough for a full article, and if they are a short description can be given with a link to the full article. Having the common misconceptions article is a great way for people to find many things that people falsely believe are true but in fact are not.

I don't see why we should remove this article.

I think it is important that we discuss the proposed removal/splitting. It is my understanding that "splitting" would also be removal because though it would keep most of the content the main article would be gone. Let's discuss removal/splitting before we decide if that's something that we really want to do. I for one really hope it is decided to keep this article and I do not understand why it was requested to be deleted.

Please reply with discussion about whether or not we should delete or split and why. Thanks. Jacob81 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This article has been nominated for deletion at Articles for Deletion six times and the attempt has failed miserably each time. Feel free to read the most recent discussion at Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(6th_nomination), and follow the links there to read the five previous discussions. These discussions are now closed, so there's no point in rehashing them here.
 * As for splitting, the thread above is the place for that - let's keep the discussion in one place. BTW, splitting would not be removal - the article would remain as links to the splits. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * this is one of the greatest articles I have ever seen. it should be retained, in my opinion! Sm8900 (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User Sm8900 and I are of like mind :)   Joe  (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Emphasize source article
As the inclusion criteria and the above discussions make clear, the "main subject article" for each misconception item has an important role, giving fuller information and sources. Most articles have more than one link, and the first one is usually to the main subject article, but not always. Even when the article is clear, where the misconception is covered in the article isn't necessarily clear. For these reasons, I propose that: For example, instead of
 * The main subject article link be put in bold. This is similar to the way we bold the title of the article in its lead. Currently, we do not use bold in the body text at all.
 * Section links should be used as much as possible.
 * Text fragment links should be used as well, to highlight the relevant text. Text fragment links can be created in Chrome by selecting a region of text and right-clicking "Copy text fragment link".
 * Seeds are not the spiciest part of chili peppers. In fact, seeds contain a low amount of capsaicin, ...

we'd have
 * Seeds are not the spiciest part of chili peppers. In fact, seeds contain a low amount of capsaicin, ...

or even better (with text fragment link):
 * Seeds are not the spiciest part of chili peppers. In fact, seeds contain a low amount of capsaicin, ...

Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I tested text fragment links combined with section links, and they seemed to work before. Now they don't work, so I've struck that material out above. --Macrakis (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My first impression was "hmm, this sounds like a good idea" but then I looked through some of the entries and, while I think it would work for some of them, it might not work for others. In cases where the main thrust of the misconception and the link to the subject article overlap in the same bit of text, this works great. The problem is, the main thrust of the misconception is not always located in the same portion of the entry as the link to the subject page, and as a result the bolded text ends up seeming a little bit 'off.' I'm not sure, maybe we could reword entries like that to make it work? It's not a bad idea in theory, but I'm not crazy about it. Also, it would be quite an undertaking, editing-wise.
 * I feel bad responding to a nice idea with "nyuh." It's good to be thinking about things like this! Joe  (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the article is better the way it is now, without any of the links being bold links. I too think that for many entries there's not really one linked article that debunks the misconception.  Additionally, this seems to go against Manual of Style guidelines for when to use bold type.  So, let's not do this please.  But I appreciate the "outside the box" suggestion for improving the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed entry: Caesar salad
Hello,

I would like to propose an edit about Caesar salad. It would be something like this:

Contrary to popular belief, Caesar salad was not invented in Rome by Julius Caesar, but by Caesar Cardini, an Italian-American restauranteur, in Tijuana, Mexico, in 1924.

Thank you.

Sussybaka6000 (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The first step would be presenting some reliable sources that identify this as a common misconception. I wasn't aware that anybody thought the salad was related to Julius Caesar.  signed, Willondon (talk)  05:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This misconception is addressed in a source already on the page: Origins of the Specious: "Julius bears no responsibility for Caesar salad, either. The king of the salads was invented in 1924 by Caesar Cardini, a chef and restauranteur in Tijuana, Mexico." (page 71) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Some more sources:
 * Snopes
 * Hindustan Times
 * NZ Herald: "contrary to popular belief" language
 * Book currently in article as ref 45: "What Caesar Did for My Salad: The Curious Stories Behind Our Favorite Foods"
 * Seems sufficiently covered in RS. Do any editors have issues with the entry? I think if it's added to the topic article and stays in (which it almost certainly will) it will meet the inclusion criteria, and I see no issue with adding this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Is this a 'common misconception' or just a mistaken claim? If the scope of this article is really just 'mistaken claims' that get corrected somewhere, it's going to need to be a bazillion times bigger (everything in Snopes, for a start). Bon courage (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, we include "mistaken claims" that "get corrected somewhere" if the belief is referred to in RS as common. I understand you haven't heard of this, but it's pretty well addressed in RS, including being the title of a book about mistaken beliefs, held as emblematic. The Caesar salad page is also currently WP:ECP partly because editors kept trying to say it was invented by Julius. If you think the current inclusion criteria are insufficient to keep the page from WP:INDISCRIMINATE, you could propose:
 * A) multiple RS describe a belief as common
 * This would potentially disqualify the Caesar salad entry.
 * B) Stricter requirements of what words are equivalent to "common misconception" to avoid editors being overly inclusive on interpreting sources as calling a belief common
 * Would probably not affect this entry, but will trim other entries that are more tenuously referred to as commonly believed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Cooking Section Violating WP:NOTHOWTO
User:Mr swordfish has flagged a few entries as having potential issues with Wikipedia not being a "how to" guide. Affected entries are:
 * "Searing does not seal in moisture in meat"
 * "Braising meat does not add moisture"
 * "Mussels and clams that do not open when cooked can still be fully cooked and safe to eat."
 * "Storing bread in the fridge makes it go stale faster than leaving it at room temperature."
 * "Salting legumes before cooking will not prevent them from softening."
 * "Using mild soap on well-seasoned cast-iron cookware will not damage the seasoning."

I don't think this is the case, as per WP:NOTHOWTO: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic." RS' assessment of efficacy doesn't strike me as making these fall into WP:NOTHOWTO.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of these entries run afoul of the WP:NOTHOWTO policy on their own. My concern is if we fill up the food and cooking section with dozens of similar examples we may be violating the spirit of the rules if not the letter. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would cross the line more if entries were going beyond analysing the veracity of a belief in society, into "searing meat does not seal in moisture. Sealing in moisture would require X technique be used" etc. I think we need to be wary of that, but not necessarily what is contained at the moment. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think these clauses that are currently in the article actually do fall under NOTHOWTO. What do you think about removing them?
 * "The best immediate treatment for jellyfish stings is to rinse them in salt water, which relieves some of the chemical imbalance that causes nematocysts to release venom."
 * "For dogs that get sprayed [by skunks], the Humane Society of the United States recommends using a mixture of dilute hydrogen peroxide (3%), baking soda, and dishwashing liquid."
 * Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. I think those go beyond refuting the misconception. For jellyfish, even if the first part (salt water) somehow "counterbalances" the misconception, the biochemical explanation goes far beyond that. For skunks, neither the chemical details nor the source (the Humane Society) belong here, but we could say "There are effective treatments for skunk odor." I will edit those now. --Macrakis (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing. I noticed you also removed how the myth came about for the jellyfish entry. Do you think this page should generally stick to correcting misconceptions rather than discussing the history of them? For example, when I recently added the misconception "Mussels and clams that do not open when cooked can still be fully cooked and safe to eat," the source I linked said it originated from:
 * "advice in Jane Grigson’s Fish Book, her bestselling 1973 cookery book, to “throw away mussels that refuse to open”, written at a time when there were still concerns over some European mussels being dredged from polluted beds."
 * The Jane Grigson page was promoted to FA a few years back, including a paragraph on how she started the myth, so this appears to be a noteworthy origin. I didn't add it because I felt it went beyond the page just being a list of corrections. If we decide to only include particularly notable origins of misconceptions, we would be getting rid of sentences such as:
 * Marco Polo Pasta: "The misconception originated as promotional material in the Macaroni Journal, a newsletter published by an association of American pasta makers."
 * Potato Chips: "The misconception was popularized by a 1973 advertising campaign by the St. Regis Paper Company."
 * Invention of PB: "An opinion piece by William F. Buckley Jr. may have been the source of the misconception."
 * I'm interested to hear what you think. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That full explanation seems too long; a more concise one seems OK, e.g., "The erroneous advice comes from a 1973 cookbook." The title of the cookbook, the fact that the it was a bestseller, and the possible connection with polluted waters seem unnecessary here. As for the author, even the source article doesn't mention Grigson's name in the main text. --Macrakis (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Dom Pérignon did not invent champagne
Dom Pérignon did not invent champagne. Wine naturally starts to bubble after being pressed, and bubbles at the time were considered a flaw which Pérignon worked fruitlessly unsuccessfully to eliminate.

Sources:
 * https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-many-inventors-of-champagne-11639083414
 * Champagne: How the World's Most Glamorous Wine Triumphed Over War and Hard Times [Chapter 1]

This entry meets inclusion criterions #1, #2, #3 and #4. It is accurate and reliably sourced. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * >Fruitlessly
 * Was that...a pun? Was that intentional? The y2k bug (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not intentional haha, I've changed it to "unsuccessfully". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Diabetes
Type II diabetes is mostly caused by being overweight and lack of exercise, rather than sugar consumption.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-022-01114-5 Benjamin (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Some more sources:
 * Australian Broadcasting Corporation
 * British Heart Foundation
 * University of Rochester Medical Centre
 * Seems to meet the inclusion criteria except for criteria 3, it's well sourced, and importantly, meets WP:MEDRS with the med review in Nature. If it's added to the topic article and stays I think it should be added. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From the topic article:
 * Type 2 diabetes primarily occurs as a result of obesity and lack of exercise. Some people are genetically more at risk than others.
 * But also
 * Dietary factors also influence the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks in excess is associated with an increased risk.
 * So, we need to be careful about the wording. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

98.6F body temperature
I don't have journal access atm to review what is being said in the sources, but "98.6F is not the normal or average temperature of the human body." and "Modern research shows... an individual's temperature fluctuates over time with a range of 36.5-37.5 (97.7-99.5 F) being considered normal." is contradictory. The Scientific American piece should also be replaced with the source it's discussing. Referencing the original piece is unnecessary, it seems like it is discussed in the journal articles and is only functioned as a see also, which is not what citations are for. It should also be noted that the reason that the study is old is notable is not because it's incorrect (it's not), but because human body temperature has decreased historically. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Umami misconception obsolete
Misconception currently listed as: "There are not four primary tastes, but five: in addition to bitter, sour, salty, and sweet, humans have taste receptors for umami, which is a "savory" or "meaty" taste."

NPR article from last year

"Umami is now considered the fifth primary taste — next to sweet, sour, bitter and salty"

"But it would take nearly a century — and the discovery of glutamate receptors on our tongues two decades ago — before Western cultures accepted umami as a primary taste."

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Does this indicate that the misconception is "obsolete"? That's not how I read it. It may be "now considered the fifth primary taste" but have enough people "accepted" that to make the misconception uncommon?  I'll restore the entry for now and if there's consensus to remove due to obsolescence we can remove it again. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how you get that reading. If a source says something is accepted in a culture as real, that precludes it being commonly believed to not be real.
 * Some more sources though:
 * Business Insider: "The term moved into more popular usage in the latter half of the 20th century. It's since gained a reputation as the "fifth taste" — the one that's not salty, sour, sweet, or bitter."
 * Springer: "Umami is now commonly identified as the fifth “basic” taste quality, joining sweet, salty, sour, and bitter."
 * None of my usual searches for finding resources identifying something as a common misconception have turned up anything from the last five years: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Each entry on this page is written as a correction, that is, a positive statement of fact. Every single one of them is generally accepted as correct; the umami entry is not unique in that sense. What makes something a common misconception is that a significant number of people believe the opposite. Which is the case here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying. What we know is that:
 * A) at some point it was a common belief,
 * B) the number of people who believe it has been going down, dramatically
 * C) there are no longer RS reporting it as common, and there haven't been for a few years.
 * If you read these points and you think it says we have RS saying the belief is obsolete (like I implied at the top) you are overreaching.
 * But by the same token, the criteria doesn't require entries be "not obsolete", its requires they be "current." Looking at points ABC I outline above that are reliably sourced, I would not say the burden is met.
 * If you think this is an outrageous case of SYNTH, I'd love to hear how you imagine we are meant to determine that something is current.
 * As an aside, a significant amount of people believing something doesn't make it common. i.e., six and a half million Americans is a significant amount. Common refers to a constituency. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Anybody who went to school in the 20th century learned that there were four tastes: salt, sweet, sour, and bitter. There are still a lot of us around, and many have not gotten the memo with the update. If any other editors want to weigh in on this and thinks this entry should be removed, please go for it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Same goes for if any editors want to step in to meet WP:BURDEN. We have sources saying it was common, and then something changed. Need RS to reestablish WP:V. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Entries with the most sources
Hi all, I've compiled a list of the entries citing the most sources to help with cutting down the number of sources in the article. For some entries this could make sense if more than one misconception is being included in one entry (i.e. the three magi misconceptions), but this is not the case most of the time. The entries with the top 10 most sources:


 * 1) 14 Sources (with a lot of blockquotes: some likely violating COPYVIO): "Blowing over a curved piece of paper does not demonstrate Bernoulli's principle."
 * 2) 13 Sources: "Humans and other apes are Old World monkeys."
 * 3) 12 Sources: "The human brain, particularly the prefrontal cortex, does not reach "full maturity" or "full development" at any particular age (e.g. 16, 18, 21, 25, 30)."
 * 4) 10 Sources: "The common cold and the common flu are caused by viruses, not exposure to cold temperatures."
 * 5) 9 Sources: "The macOS and Linux operating systems are not immune to malware such as trojan horses or computer viruses."
 * 6) 9 Sources: "Contemporary global warming is driven by human activities"
 * 7) 9 Sources: "Most cases of obesity are not related to slower resting metabolism."
 * 8) 8 Sources: "There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from genetically modified crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food."
 * 9) 8 Sources: "Vegan and vegetarian diets can provide enough protein for adequate nutrition."
 * 10) 7 Sources: "If one were to flip a fair coin five times and get heads each time, it would not be any more likely for a sixth flip to come up tails."

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)