Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 15

Life Expectancy.
It's common to hear that in some historical era life expectancy was quite short, say 35-40 years. People always misinterpret this to mean that people aged faster back then and were dead by 40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.32.170 (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that to add something to the article we need an independent reliable source that describes such a belief as a common misconception, or similar? (Plus a fair biT more.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And frankly, I've never heard anyone interpret it this way. Cresix (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about aging faster, but I do know people who believe that no elderly people existed in periods where there was a low life expectancy. I think its worth investigating. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolution's Status as a Theory
Current article includes this:
 * The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms. Evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory, gravitation, or plate tectonics.

I don't see how this point's inclusion is helpful in any way.

The current scientists do not doubt evolution any more than their predecessors doubted phlogiston, eugenics, or the miasmic theory of disease. The very nature of science and scientific advancement, however, speak against the definitive nature of scientific consensus, which is what the religious are pointing out. There is indeed a difference in kind between observable and verifiable theories such as germ theory and those seeking to explain previous behavior such as the formation of the solar system or the evolution of mankind. The point is simultaneously misleading to people who agree with it, and unconvincing and aside the point to those who disagree. — LlywelynII  22:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The point here is that it's common for religious people not versed in science to dismiss evolution as "just a theory", using the word "theory" as a synonym for conjecture or hypothesis. The very nature of scientific advancement strengthens the theory of evolution every day, which is what the religious seem to miss. And evolution is observable and verifiable, with corroborating evidence and findings spanning multiple scientific disciplines, it has explanatory power, and predictive power. In that sense it is no different from germ theory.
 * The religious believers won't be convinced regardless of arguments and evidence, so nothing written in this article will change their minds, nor is it the job of this article to attempt it. All we can do is explain that the word "theory" to a layman means something quite different than what it means to science. Can you suggest a clearer way to phrase this entry? ~Amatulić (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Who says the word 'theory' implies mainstream scientific doubt regarding evolution's validity? I think when 'religious people' say "its just a theory" they mean "that's just one group's unproven opinion". And, no, its not "proven". Its the best/only theory which explains the origin of species and adheres to scientific method. I do think its silly to say that there is only one theory of evolution (especially one particular version which is infallibly correct), its like saying 'there is only one true understanding of quantum mechanics'. The article plainly shows a distinction between Darwinism and Lamarkism, and yet they are both theories of evolution.


 * Maybe it would be better to describe those who believe that a theory is a hypothesis which might later become a fact. Follow by describing that, in scientific method, a theory is always a theory regardless of its observability; etc, etc.


 * Edit: I think rewording is important because the present wording of the sentence is a response to a theological debate, and thus does not only describe a common misconception. The common misconception is not that 'evolution is just a theory'. It is a theory, although the use of that fact in the example argument is faulty reasoning. The misconception might be that anything called a 'theory' is random conjecture. However, I'm not sure this is even a common misconception. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mussels
While studying biology, we were told by our Professor that the reason you don't eat unopened mussels is purely to avoid eating mussels which had been contaminated by certain types of bacteria. Ideally, you should have live mussels, immerse them in water, and after 20 to 60 minutes, they should all open a little and slam shut again when you touch them. This establishes that they aren't dead and unlikely to be diseased. Then when they are cooked, they generally all pop open providing they are healthy. Telling someone that they're safe to eat when they evidently were not testing using diseased mussels seems a little risky. Not everyone can differentiate between a normal odor and an abnormal one if they don't know what they're smelling for. The advice really is meant as a "safety first" strategy. Will try to find scientific articles to back this. --Waterspyder (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the item because of several problems. In addition to the one you mention, the source does not identify this as a common misconception. The section on preparation as food in the article Mussel is completely unsourced. Cresix (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What misconception? Every instance over my lifetime where I or someone I know ate an unopened cooked mussel, the result was a case of food poisoning. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The plural of anecdote is not data. However, the removal stands due to the above-mentioned reasons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.146.162.10 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion: Ancient sculptures
Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures were brightly coloured, not white. See http://museum.stanford.edu/news_room/true-colors.html. P. S. Burton (talk)  20:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Are there reliable sources that show that this is a common misconception? – ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion: half zero naming for train model scaling
Many Americans, Canadians and Australians believe the right way to refer to the half zero scaling is by using both letters HO while in fact this scaling is invented in Germany were it was named 'half zero' and therefore they used the abbreviation h0 which is still used in most of Europe. As a source you can check the discussion page on H0 scale. 195.169.227.2 (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please address all of the following:
 * Does the misconception's including topic have an article of its own?
 * Provide a reliable source that it is a common misconception.
 * Is the misconception mentioned in its topic article with sources?
 * Is the misconception current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete?
 * Cresix (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cresix (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Gestation gender
There is a common misconception, even amongst midwives and other medical personell, that foetuses begin life as female - this is in fact false, unless the definition of female is 'lacking a penis'. Before becoming structurally male/female, foetuses are genotypically so from the moment of conception. This should be included, but I cannot seem to add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.173.96 (talk • contribs)


 * You need to find a source that this is a common misconception. I've never heard anyone clueless enough to say this about genotype, but I do hear it mentioned in relation to phenotype and morphology, where it's not entirely incorrect. Hairhorn (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's only anecdotal evidence, but I have been told by multiple people that all fetuses start as female. You seem to miss that most people aren't making such distinctions in their claim.  If you want evidence of it being a common misconception (or at least question) just search online for "are all fetus female at conception" (without the quotes), with a prime example of the issue on Yahoo answers here, but I think doing a web search to see how common something is would count as original research.  If you're just looking at phenotype and morphology without genetics, I would have to say they're genderless at this point, since any progress there may be on sexual organs in such an early stage of a fetus can proceed in either direction and one cannot sensibly pick developmental pathway as default when the path requires a malfunction in someone with a Y chromosome. Jbo5112 (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, hits with a web search are original research as well as quite unreliable as evidence of anything. The number of hits you get varies widely with how the search is worded, and a simple count of number of hits makes no distinction betwen whether the discussion is about confirming or disconfirming the misconception, or the numerous other possible uses of the phrase that may have nothing to do with a misconception. I never cease to be amazed at the wild conclusions people leap to on the basis of number of search hits. For example, if you google the phrase "Earth is flat", you get over 14 million hits. Is that evidence that there currently is a common misconception that the Earth is flat? If you believe it is, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you really cheap. Cresix (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of androgen, or in cases of androgen insensitivity syndrome in which the masculinizing hormone does not work, the fetus develops with a female external appearance, and after birth is likely to be raised as a girl rather than a boy, etc. The notion of a "definition of female" is well beyond the scope of this article. --FOo (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Female" is not an appearance or designation. Being female means to possess female reproductive organs. There is nothing complex about that. Some things can be referred to as being of one sex (Like a car or a ship) but they are not literally any sex. The question is whether or not all fetuses generically have female organs. There is no need to go farther than that. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "definition of female" could possibly be very complex at this point. Not yet having any sexual organs or ones that aren't developed enough to differentiate between male and female should obviously make them gender neutral, not female, when using a physical definition, but given a second widely recognized method (if rarely used) of using chromosomes for sexual identification, calling them all female at this point seems quite incorrect.  How a person is raised and behaves does not yet apply, along with most other criteria. Jbo5112 (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that I d not have the time to do the research and linking, but I would suggest that you check out the page on "Jurassic Park Errors" since that is a likely source for any misconception there might be. There is also extensive discussion on this point about whether sex determination in dinosaurs is XX/XY or whether it is the ZW sex determination method as is sen in bird. There are article on errors in Jurassic Park, XY sex determination andZw sex determinationTeigeRyan (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

biology addition
Even Velociraptors were portrayed in Jurassic Park as bigger than humans, they were in fact 2,5 feet tall. The "raptors" portrayed in Jurassic Park were modeled after Deinonychus (11 ft). Also, it is now known that both these dinosaurs had feathers.

Another misconception spread by Jurassic Park says that T. rex could only see moving objects. There is no evidence that suggests that dinosaurs had a vision mechanism distinct from those of reptiles or birds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesitoide (talk • contribs) 01:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are suggesting additions, please provide reliable sources that the misconceptions are common. Cresix (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

All of this is already on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_issues_in_Jurassic_Park. This also goes back t my above topic about sex determination. If you want to add soemthing you shoud just link it. TeigeRyan (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The color of the Sun
A common misconception that people have is that the Sun is yellow. It can sometimes look yellow through the Earth's atmosphere. But if you were to go out into space, you would find that the Sun is actually white. This should be mentioned on the List of common misconceptions page.

Here is a good source that talks about the fact that the sun is white. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/SID/activities/GreenSun.html

appple 2011 March 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appple (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to that source showing that the sun is white, you would need a source that states that it is a common misconception that the sun is yellow. Dr bab (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if it is likely to be challenged as a common misconception. Are you challenging that it is?AerobicFox (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? I would say that the source must always be there, or else what are we doing here except WP:OR? I also thought that was how the inclusion criteria were now to be understood. Dr bab (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is itself a common misconception. Per WP:Verifiability:
 * But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source...
 * It seems to me that the contention that this is a common misconception is reasonable. I myself thought the sun was yellow, and I know that most do. If you feel that it is not then that is fine also, but I'm not sure if you do or don't believe this is a common misconception.AerobicFox (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dr. bab that there needs to be source that the misconception is common, per consensus regarding the guidelines for this article. And one editor's opinion that a misconception is common is not sufficient. If necessary, I am challenging whether the misconception is common that the sun is yellow. Cresix (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that for this article at the present time, all new items are "likely to be challenged" and thus one is required to source it. Dr bab (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kk. AerobicFox (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source stating that the sun being yellow is a misconception. http://www.misconceptionjunction.com/index.php/2010/09/10-common-misconceptions-dispelled/

appple 2011 March 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appple (talk • contribs) 08:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You really have found an interesting source there. If that is accepted as a reliable source, it would seem logical to list every misconception from that site in this article. Do we really want to go that way? HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that's not a reliable source. Take a look at the About page: "The site is owned by Vacca Foeda Media (formerly Dazzleblab), which is my company which owns/manages a series of sites aimed at keeping me from actually ever having to get a real job.  If you would like to contribute to this dream, the dream of doing nothing, or just contribute funds to my Hot Pocket and Dr. Pepper addictions, feel free to send me a donation with the button below." The owners degrees are in Computer Science.
 * And to AerobicFox: the requirements for this article explicitly require sources that prove the items are a common misconception, without exceptions. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Qwyrxian on both points. Cresix (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your honesty Qwyrxian. In this case it means that we don't have a reliable source. Let's drop this topic now. HiLo48 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any need to challenge this as being a common misconception. The source does not use the word "misconception", but it does say that people from around the world believe the sun is a color other than white. If we only link to articles which use the word "misconception", we will wind up linking only Q&As format sources which deal with misconceptions; that's not my idea of 'reliable', especially considering that those types of sources don't usually show how they came to their conclusions. Perhaps it comes down to whether we want to hold to a specific article's rigid criteria, or to simply hold to Wikipedia's standards. We all know this is a common misconception, and the first source says it without using the words "common misconception".. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that doesn't work for this article. The problem is, everyone thinks they know what is common, and not everyone agrees. We just went through a train wreck of a deletion discussion because we didn't previously have clear inclusion criteria.  The "compromise" decision was that in order to appear on this list, we must, without exception, have a source that explicitly states that it is a common misconception or a very similar phrasing.  The source you provided isn't close to that, so its not sufficient for inclusion on this list. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. However, the source explains that it is a common misconception: "'It is hard for many people, even scientists, to admit that the Sun they are so used to living with is actually white... Sometimes the display color of the Sun is culturally determined. If a kindergartener in the USA colors a picture of the Sun, they will usually make it yellow. However, a kindergartener in Japan would normally color it red!'" It seems unlikely that the phrase "it is a common misconception that the sun is any color other than white" would ever be found in the wild. Its no problem to look for other sources, but we might not find one that exactly fits the criteria. --IronMaidenRocks
 * Do have a think about those poor kindergarteners. I'll bet they had to use white paper, so it would be stupid for them to paint a white sun! The colour they choose will be what they see someone else use. HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As you said, they are using the colors which others commonly use; but that's extrapolation. The point is that the source clearly illustrates that the misconception is international and does not vary by age or even educational background. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You ignored half my post. They may KNOW it's white, but are not silly enough to paint a white sun on white paper. Prove to me there's a misconception. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I ignored it because it sounds like a joke. You're asking me to extrapolate on the source material, that's pointless. But if you want to draw something white, use colored paper? Color the background? Why don't they draw snowflakes as blue or indigo? Most kindergartners I've talked to think the sun is as big as it looks to them; I doubt they understand that the particles which make up our atmosphere tint the sun differently than it appears in space. Why do you think the "why is the sky blue question?" arises so frequently? Because everyone knows the answer, of course! --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We are running into the "words to that effect"/"synonyms thereof" problem here. Is first writing "many people believe that the sun is yellow" and then going on to explain that it is not the same as saying that "there exists a common misconception that the sun is yellow?" I would think so. Dr bab (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Sacramento City College's Department of Physics, Astronomy & Geology maintain their own list of common misconceptions related to astronomy, and the "yellow sun" is on it.  (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we should not have a debate on what we should take as sources here. I apprecieate the Sacramento City College link is better than the one given above, coming from a source related to astronomy. But on their list they also put up the following items as common misconceptions: "Looking at any eclipse is dangerous"; "Mercury is always hot"; "The most important thing telescopes do is magnify stuff"; "Flying through an asteroid field is fast and dangerous"; and the rather astounding "The Moon can only be seen during the night" which they back up with the argument that "Most people don't look up in the sky unless there's a reason to." I would certainly not classify any of these as common misconceptions.


 * What are good sources? Can we use snopes.com? Can/should we put demands on whose authority we are willing to accept that something is a common misconception?
 * Dr bab (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article's criteria for inclusion seems to remove the possibility of quoting anything other than this type of source. 44 misconceptions is quite a lot for common misconceptions on astronomy, bound to be some weird ones? We also quote a source that contains 'Constantine made/approved the canon of the Bible' as the second 'biggest' misconception about the Bible. I don't think I've heard that one before. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The third inclusion criterion states that the misconception must be mentioned in the topic article. That is not the case at present.Dr bab (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The so-called "inclusion criteria" was not achieved through consensus and doesn't apply to most of the list. It's more of a goal than anything, and can't be used to exclude items.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It absolutely can. If this list does not have a clear, well-defined inclusion criteria, then it must be deleted for lack of notability.  WP:N states, "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."  If we cannot say exactly what the inclusion criteria is, then we do not have a notable topic, and then we're back to AfD.  Now, if we want to revise those inclusion criteria, we can certainly do so.  But there must be a criteria, and it must be completely clear.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the quote you mention is about inclusion criteria. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If notability is the problem, this is certainly notable. The argument against its inclusion is that it is not a "common misconception"; apparently that people know from birth that the sun is white with a very slight green tint. Time would be better spent deciding whether conceptions on the list are or are not false, rather than going into philosophical understandings of what "common" means.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, we must have some source stating that it is a misconception, otherwise we would have a "list of facts". And the philisophical debate about "common" was dropped based on the assumption that we could trust our reliable sources to defining it as common. But as I said above, I would really like a debate on what sources we can and can not accept. Dr bab (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, A Quest For Knowledge is right that my reference is not clear; I was way to tired last night to have been trying to explain policy/guidelines. Let me try to be more clear now. The real problem with not having a not having a clear inclusion criteria is WP:NOT, specifically "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".  A clear, specific topic is necessary to meet this standard.  For many stand-alone lists, we don't really need to be much clearer than the list title itself, because it's obvious what the list includes, like List of counties in Ohio.  In other cases, the definition of the title words is less clear, and needs clarification, like List of sovereign states. Note how the latter list has a whole section in the list very carefully defining what can be on the list. One thing that was abundantly clear from the last trainwreck AfD is that there is not a clear, obvious understanding of what a common misconception is.  Numerous questions arose before and after.  For example, I would personally argue that any belief that is held by more than about 20% of a specific population that is considered wrong by the majority of that population is a "common misconception."  Others disagree on threshold numbers.  Furthermore, I believe that it would be acceptable for this list to include something like "The Christian God exists," given that, even though I agree, the very large number of non-Christians in the world would disagree and consider this a mistake, hence a common misconception.
 * Even if we move away from my extreme relativist position, there were still numerous points of disagreement. Can this list refer to misconceptions among only a small group (like, misconceptions held commonly by physicians in the US)?  Can this list make comparisons in time (for example the prior belief in Europe that only foul elements existed in nature)?  In the end, as editors, we had to make a consensus decision, and that decision was the criteria as currently written.  Personally, I still don't think the criteria are clear, because we never settled on the question of what exactly we considered synonyms for "common" and "misconception".  But that's the best we have.  Allowing additional items in just because we, as editors, think the misconception is common is a form of WP:NOR.  Allowing in entries that have vague, unspecific language is bordering on violating WP:NOT and WP:V.
 * In this specific case, I absolutely challenge the notion that the reference given meets the burden of proof necessary to show that "the sun is yellow" is a common misconception. The fact that children draw it as yellow does not mean they actually perceive it as yellow (counter example--kids usually draw people as pink, often because it's the closest possible in the limited set of crayons).  Furthermore, I don't think that source is reliable for the assertion it makes--there is no evidence that the claim is anything more than the opinion of the authors, who don't appear to have any particular expertise in measuring this sort of thing.  Qwyrxian(talk)22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We should start out by making sure the criteria for inclusion does not violate Wikipedia's standards. To openly claim that "the Christian God does not exist" is unscientific and unverifiable. Its little less than the personal opinion of a relatively infinitesimal population (not having an opinion does not statistically count for or against an argument). Who would be referenced? Richard Dawkins? Family Guy? Very few scientists go farther than sharing their personal opinion, because science does not generally dabble in the unverifiable (outside theoretical quantum mechanics). Furthermore, many scientists alive and dead, including (apparently) most astronomers, have held belief in some form of deity.


 * What I'm getting to is that we must first consider what Wikipedia wants, and then consider what we want. As it stands, the criteria for inclusion on this article limits sources to nothing other than blogs and unreliable Q&As about misconceptions. We must consider what Wikipedia wants and remove the blogs and any other unreliable sources. If there is an article left in the aftermath, we shall continue to build the article on reliable sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Guidelines first, criteria second.


 * My reason for quoting that text was to show that the first source understands the conception of the color of the sun to be a common misconception; not that it logically proves there's a common misconception by citing kindergartners. And you also ignored that the source says "most people, including many scientists..." not just kindergartners (but Caucasian skin is a pink-tan color :D). The source is certainly of the same quality - perhaps greater in quality than most of the other sources which have allowed 'misconceptions' to be allowed into the article. There's no difference between the second source and the source on natural selection which I discussed earlier; that was held as correct because "its from a college". So was the source above. Is there a random element in deciding which sources are acceptable? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Source contacted: page now clearly reads that the color issue is a common misconception. Link. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's another source. It calls it a "popular misconception".  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems to solve the problem. Thanks!  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sun IS yellow
No, it is not a misconception. This is what I get for not monitoring this talk page so conversations like this can be nipped in the bud. I used to teach astronomy. Our Sun is classified as a yellow star by astronomers. See Stellar_classification, or any college astronomy textbook. Quoting some non-authoritative source that disagrees with what scientists in the field actually say doesn't make for a good item to include in this article. Fortunately, I don't see anything in the list about a yellow sun. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source? We're talking about the color as it appears to the eye in space. The Wikipedia article on our sun does not describe its color at all. Also, you're saying that Stanford.edu is not an authentic source; while I agree that these college websites hand out false information like its candy, but we need an actual scientific source to contradict it.
 * Edit: Sun says "The Sun's stellar classification, based on spectral class, is G2V, and is informally designated as a yellow dwarf, because its visible radiation is most intense in the yellow-green portion of the spectrum and although its color is white, from the surface of the Earth it may appear yellow because of atmospheric scattering of blue light". If that's correct, it seems that you were not a very good astronomy teacher :)--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a little personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.89.96.247 (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a joke. But he is using his credentials to make an edit (something not allowed on Wikipedia; we work with sourced material, not the assumed background of editors), and despite those credentials he might be wrong about the subject. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because a star is classified as a yellow star doesn't mean that it is yellow. According to Stellar classification, "Our Sun itself is white. It is sometimes called a yellow star (spectroscopically, relative to Vega), and may appear yellow or red (viewed through the atmosphere), or appear white (viewed when too bright for the eye to see any color). Astronomy images often use a variety of exaggerated colors (partially founded in faint light conditions observations, partially in conventions). But the Sun's own intrinsic color is white (aside from sunspots), with no trace of color, and closely approximates a black body of 5780 K (see color temperature)." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

caffeine
I noticed the following was removed from the page with the comment that it is not a common misconception:

''Caffeine does not cause dehydration. ''

I've heard countless times that caffeine does cause dehydration, so I think this is quite a common misconception. Of course what I've heard said is original research, but surely this could find it's way into the article in some form? (albeit with an ameliorated write up) Coolug (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You may have heard it countless times, but Wikipedia needs someone to have documented in a reliable source the "fact" that it's a common misconception (or words to that effect). We have to have strict inclusion criteria. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It needs a reliable source that it is a common misconception in the general population, not just a common misconception among physicians. The sources that were provided did not state it as such. Cresix (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand why it couldn't remain in the article as it was, when I have the time I might try and seek out some sources that are suitable for inclusion in this article. cya Coolug (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Last paragraph in "Evolution" section
The last paragraph in the "Evolution" section seems to be poorly worded, if not misinformed. Many theories and general explanations of evolution hold that natural selection has some unknown property in determining what features of an organism should change, rather than all changes occurring by random chance as the article suggests. That natural selection isn't entirely random is central in explaining animals that use camouflage. That section seems to be suggesting that most people's understanding of evolution is really Lamarckism, yet the example given about Lamarckism here does not match examples given on that article. For example, Lamarckism seems to hold that evolution is very direct ("a blacksmith builds up muscles, his son will more easily develop muscles"), and yet the misconceptions article applies Lamarckism to the idea that natural selection is more than a description of random incremental change.

The article says " Evolution does not plan to improve organism's fitness to survive", but I'm prettye general theory of natural selection holds that an organism will strategically develop to survive in its environment. For example, it seems impossible that an insect would ever start looking exactly like a stick or leaf by completely random chance. The source given simply states given says similar to "no, there is no objective involved with natural selection", yet it doesn't say why. Just because its on the Berkley University website doesn't mean we have to include it; surely there are much better sources that explain natural selection than some Q&A. On a side note, please forgive me if this is hard to understand; my sleeping is messed up.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article does not suggest "all changes occurring by random chance". It simply dispels the myth that "evolution" has anthropomorphic characteristics such as being able to "plan" or "try" something. It's that simple. You're reading way too much into what is stated in the article. Until you can provide reliable sourcing (and your opinions or statements here do not suffice) that evolution can "plan" or "try", the sources provided in the article are quite sufficient and reliable. The article is not a dissertation on evolution; it simply dispels one of the misconceptions. Cresix (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The central point of that paragraph is not that there is no sentient planning or trying. The paragraph clearly states that "Evolution doesn't see a need and respond to it[...] A mutation resulting in longer necks would be more likely to benefit an animal in an area with tall trees than an area with short trees, and thus enhance the chance of the animal surviving to pass on its longer-necked genes. Tall trees could not cause the mutation nor would they cause a higher percentage of animals to be born with longer necks." This text says that change does not occur in response to features of an organism's (indirect?) environment. That goes against every concept of evolution that I've heard. Perhaps the fact that such trees are indirect features of the environment makes this excusable, though. Also, you don't need sources to add a 'citation needed' tag: neither do I really need sources to question the value of one source we are using, as long as you are familiar with the subject. If the information were presented in more than one source I would find its inclusion acceptable.


 * Also, I find it questionable to judge theories on natural selection, a theoretical process, as "wrong". It should be made clear that an idea is not the mainstream scientific outlook, yes; but it seems dubious to go further. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that "Change does not occur in response to features of an organism's (indirect?) environment" is correct when taken to mean change at the individual level, which is exactly what "Tall trees could not cause the mutation nor would they cause a higher percentage of animals to be born with longer necks" means. The same number of animals are born with long necks as if there were no tall trees around, but the fact that there are tall trees around mean that a higher proportion of long-necked animals will survive. Thus when talking about change on a population level it makes sense to talk about changes in response to environment, but it is important to understand that the mutations are not a response to the environment.


 * I agree that on principle it must be allowed to question a source without having a secondary source.
 * Dr bab (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely disagree that a secondary source would improve the item; I just don't see a problem with the current sources. Let me suggest, rather than arguing about what is intended in the item, perhaps IronMaidenRocks (or anyone) could suggest a rewording of the item with source(s) to support it. Without a source to back up a challenge to the item, I don't think we can proceed. If you take each sentence in the item individually, on face value there is no mistaken information. The problem arises when we try to infer what is meant beyond the literal statements. That's why I think a rewrite would be helpful. BTW, I don't think the item is judging natural selection as "wrong"; it's just shedding some light on a misconception about evolution. Cresix (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to go too deep into theories on giraffe evolution, but if the paragraph's interpretation of natural selection is correct it does not seem as if the species which became the giraffe would continue having their necks grow longer. Even if they did achieve a mutated, longer neck, and that helped them to survive, why would their necks continue to get longer? According to the paragraph, the figurative force of natural selection would be perfectly content with the animal's current neck length. They're already getting the food from trees which helps them survive, so why go further? It would only be by means of another random mutation which causes the proto-giraffe to receive a longer neck. Of course, it seems fallacious to assume that the giraffe's genes/whatever would be able to detect food in tall trees. Does anyone else see this conflict? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Examining the source shows that Darwin believed it to be due to over-feeding on trees, where an animal with a longer neck would be more likely to obtain food and thus live to reproduce. But why didn't other members of the pecora infraorder develop such long necks? The way Darwin puts it, developing a longer neck would be a natural trend because it would benefit any 'browsing feeder'. And yet, giraffe is the only species which obtains the mutation. Lamarck seems to be commenting on the origin of the giraffe's long neck, whereas Darwin comments on the neck's further development after it was already a feature of the giraffe. It also seems that the same rules could not apply to the walking stick, for example; the odds of a creature looking exactly like a stick or leaf would be astronomical under such an understanding of natural selection. Well, anyway, it seems between Bab's comments and my checking the source, that my problem with the section is solved. Although, I would still recommend adding a source which accurately describes the modern concept of natural selection in detail, rather than such a "Q&A". --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a simple matter of cost vs. benefit. Longer necks require more energy and make it harder to run and drink.  Therefore, longer necks grant a reproductive advantage over shorter necks only in environments where they make it significantly easier to obtain food.  In other environments, the cheaper alternative (i.e. shorter necks) wins.  DES (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain the question I posed. Your answer assumes giraffes are the only type of Pecora in regions giraffes inhabit. That's not the case. The idea here is that there is no 'selection' in natural selection; in this explanation there is no 'cheaper alternative winning out' and advantage just increases the likelihood of reproduction. You could think of it as a numbers game involving the likelihood of values being repeated with factors narrowing down the available numbers. That is, at least, my understanding of Darwin's theory. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The giraffe example is poor anyways and I feel it should be changed. While longer necks do allow a giraffe to reach higher food, they do most of their feeding at shoulder height anyways, and this advantage is balanced out by the added difficulty of reaching water from such a height.  The main advantage in the longer neck is believed to be as a sexual advantage in necking battles with other males.  While this is not particularly relevant to the topic of evolution, it is ironic that the list of common misconceptions uses a common misconception as an example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.169.74 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

New section: "Lisping King of Spain" under History
I have heard in several Spanish classes and found several articles (which you have to look up, because they're blackisted) that claim that the reason Spaniards pronounce the C in "ci" or "ce" as θ, known to English speakers as th. However, the reason certain regions of Spain have that specific lisp is an example of regional dimorphism of language. (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceceo.)This is further explored in the wiki article on Ceceo. In fact, this myth is mentioned in the article, as well as how it was disproved. Other articles: (spanish.about.com/cs/qa/a/q_lisp.htm)

Fundamentally, this myth holds no water, as Castillian Spanish pronounces "S" the exact same as other regions, so it can't be the result of a lisp, as a person with a lisp would be unable to pronounce the "s" sound. I think that even though it's mentioned on the Ceceo page, it deserves a spot on this article, because of how widely accepted it is.) El erico (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to find a reliable source that declares this to be a common misconception, or something very similar, and that explains the truth of the matter. Click on Edit for any part of the article to see the full inclusion criteria. HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Added with plenty of sources. We already had this at Distinción. Hans Adler 15:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Color of water
Should we include this in the article? Color_of_water
 * It is a common misconception that in large bodies, such as the oceans, the water's color is blue due to the reflections from the sky on its surface. Reflection of light off the surface of water only contributes significantly when the water surface is extremely still, i.e., mirror-like, and the angle of incidence is high, as water's reflectivity rapidly approaches near total reflection under these circumstances, as governed by the Fresnel equations.

--Andy0101 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the section you link (and most especially the "common misconception" part) is unsourced. That is a minimum requirement for inclusion in the article (Wikipedia cannot source itself). BTW, oddly, there was a discussion about whether it is a common misconception that the sky is blue because it reflects the color of water (Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 7). That was not sourced either. Cresix (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hot Water Freezes Faster Than Cold Water
Wasn't sure where to put this and I suppose I can't anyway since the topic is locked. I don't even know how to edit wikipedia or make a suggestion so I hope someone can do something about this.

"Hot water can in fact freeze faster than cold water for a wide range of experimental conditions. This phenomenon is extremely counterintuitive, and surprising even to most scientists, but it is in fact real.  It has been seen and studied in numerous experiments.  While this phenomenon has been known for centuries, and was described by Aristotle, Bacon, and Descartes [1—3], it was not introduced to the modern scientific community until 1969, by a Tanzanian high school student named Mpemba.  Both the early scientific history of this effect, and the story of Mpemba's rediscovery of it, are interesting in their own right — Mpemba's story in particular providing a dramatic parable against making snap judgements about what is impossible."


 * The first thing you need to do is find a reliable source that there is a common misconception that cold water freezes faster than hot water. BTW, one statement made by the source you cite about hot water freezing faster is flat wrong: "it was not introduced to the modern scientific community until 1969". I learned about it in seventh grade, long before 1969. I even tested it myself, before Mpemba "introduced" it. Cresix (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon
The caption below the picture of Napoleon contains awkward grammatical structure. Consider this rewording:


 * Napoleon on the Bellerophon, a painting of Napoleon I by Charles Lock Eastlake. Napoleon was taller than his nickname, The Little Corporal, suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howrad (talk • contribs) 06:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I made the fix. I also thought it was awkwardly worded when I first read the article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't got a source I'm afraid but I've heard on TV that his shortness was simply made up by british cartoonists during the nepoleonic war. Coolug (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So, "the Little Corporal" as a nickname probably was "[not referring] to his physical stature." Hmm -- then, to what was it referring to? Twipley (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was referring to the british obsession with creating some form of comedy disability for anyone we ever find ourselves fighting a war with (such as hitlers alleged singular testicle) :) Coolug (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Article says "Some believe that he was nicknamed le Petit Caporal (The Little Corporal) as a term of affection." He wasn't a corporal either, so why would the nickname 'little corporal' have to imply that he was small in stature? It doesn't imply he was a corporal. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Monkeys
The article claims that humans did not evolve from monkeys. What is meant is that humans did not evolve from any extant monkey species. But what is wrong with calling the common ancestor of e.g. all Catarrhini a monkey? According to the article Monkey, monkeys are primates that are not prosimians or apes. It also talks about extant monkey species, which implies that there are also extinct monkey species, which means that extinct primates can be monkeys. I think we should remove the word “monkey” but am not willing to start an edit war. —Quilbert (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The last real discussion about this is now archived at Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 12. Here is the current text:


 * Some problems:
 * "Evolution does not claim" is creationist jargon.
 * The first two sources (PBS and San Francisco Chronicle, i.e. general media) are weak for a tricky statement about science.
 * The remaining (strong, academic) sources are only used for providing background information, so presumably they do not support the main claim.
 * The first source does not actually say it is a common misconception that humans evolved from monkeys. It presents "Did we evolve from monkeys?" as a frequently asked question, selectively provides only part of the necessary background, and then answers the questions incorrectly. (The source says that humans derive from apes, not monkeys, but suppresses the fact that the common ancestors of apes and monkeys would nowadays be regarded as monkeys.)
 * The official definition of monkeys is odd: The term subsumes both New World monkeys and Old World monkeys, even though they branched off the evolutionary tree of primates at different points. Basically this should be referred to as "monkeys other than apes" in the same way that "animals" is usually short for "animals other than humans". And just like "animals other than humans" becomes problematic when we go too far back in time, the same happens with "monkeys other than apes". Therefore monkey as a precise biological term only makes sense for relatively recent species.
 * Given the problem with the term monkey, I don't know whether biologists refer to the common ancestors of monkeys and apes such as Aegyptopithecus as monkeys. Apparently they have characteristics of both monkeys and apes, so neither term really fits. But from a non-technical common sense point of view they are clearly monkeys. The general public does not have misconceptions about highly technical details of biological nomenclature for extinct species. When we say that humans descend from monkeys, we mean that we have ancestors who were much smaller than we are, had fur and a long tail, who lived in trees, and who would nowadays not be out of place in a zoo next to the gibbons (though they are apes) and baboons.
 * I will try to address these problems. Hans Adler 12:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I see only two possible definitions of monkeys that are logical and fit the official definition: Simiiformes excluding Hominoidea, or Simiiformes excluding all species whose last common ancestor with Hominoidea has no extant descendants other than apes. In both cases Aegyptopithecus would (probably) be a monkey. —Quilbert (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think the current version of the article is good. Let’s hope it survives. —Quilbert (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ""Evolution does not claim" is creationist jargon" How so? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Evolution itself does not claim anything. It is the framework based on which questions such as whether we derive from monkeys can be decided. It is a generally accepted theory in biology, not an active research field (or at least not to the extent that would justify such a formulation). Saying "Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys" is like saying "Gravitation does not claim the Moon must fall on the Earth." This kind of abbreviation is only common in contexts in which people doubt evolution (or gravitation, hypothetically). In terms of absurdity it's one or two steps below "evolutionists", but it's still not appropriate in what is supposed to be an NPOV article.
 * A more neutral (though still too imprecise) way of putting it would be "It does not follow from evolution that...". In contrast, "Evolution does not claim..." presents evolution as an ideology that claims things rather than concluding them from evidence. This touches the very basis of "Teaching the controversy": The claim that evolution and creationism are equivalent on a very fundamental level, or in other words, treating science as just another religion or ideology. Hans Adler 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you might be over-analyzing it. How about "Evolution does not say..."  Let's try and keep things simple so the reader understands what we're trying to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Do you think "Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees or any other modern-day primates" is harder to understand than "Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys, chimpanzees or any other modern-day primates"? The misconception was a coatrack for incorrectly debunking a silly objection to evolution that dates back to Darwin's time. I would not have minded that except for the incorrectly part. I fixed the problem by removing the unnecessary reference to evolution. Hans Adler 16:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your post which said, "A more neutral (though still too imprecise) way of putting it would be 'It does not follow from evolution that...' ". "Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees" is fine.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I just meant it as part of the explanation, not as a concrete proposal for article space. Hans Adler 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These misconceptions about evolution were originally sourced from Q&A pages intended to shoot down common 'Creationist' arguments. That's why the sentences are/were worded like they're dealing with the creationism vs evolution debate. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Great Chicago Fire
I added an entry for the Chicago Fire and had a legit source, but was quickly removed. I want to add it again, and I have a book to back it up saying it's a common misconception (in fact the whole book is about misconceptions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.231.253 (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this meets all the criteria now, go ahead and add it back. Other editors will modify it as needed. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 19:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. With the additional source it appears to meet all of the criteria. Cresix (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, why didn't you raise objections to the addition before? It is in a 1996 book of popular misconceptions so that is a reliable source saying it is a common misconception. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 06:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't always sit here waiting for odd additions. I am sceptical about this being a common misconception. We cannot look at the source to check if that's what it says. And since the person who made up the story debunked it himself in 1893, as I said in my Edit summary, surely only an idiot would believe it now. How can it be a common misconception? HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Catherine O'Leary reports that many still believe it. I've asked for a cite there to see if anyone comes up with anything. Within the past 5 years or so, there was a "history recreation"-type show on a cable channel that tested the "theory" to see if the fire could have happened that way. They treated it as a reasonable theory. In grade school (early 1970s), we learned the song and I recall the music teacher basically telling the story, treated as a simple fact. Yes, anyone who bothers to research the story would quickly find the truth, but most probably simply accept what they hear about such things. Based on the little evidence we have so far, I'm fairly convinced that the story does have current believers. In terms of citing the currency, I'd say the relatively recent "misconceptions" book is a solid start. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I support including this item. It meets all of the 4 criteria, including #4. It may have been debunked officially in the nineteenth century, but that doesn't mean than many people don't continue to believe it. Cresix (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still haven't seen evidence that the source says it's a "common misconception". It gets too hard when the link is to a book sales site, not the actual contents. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed. The source doesn't have to use the exact phrase "common misconception". This source uses "popular [common] legend [misconception]" (bracketed words are mine). I think most people (but not everyone) would equate the two. That seems to be the sentiment among three or four editors in this discussion. If it had simply said legend, misconception, "You've probably heard ...", or "Some people believe ..." I would not accept it. I personally have no doubt that this is a common misconception. I've heard it my entire life going back to childhood, and from a wide range of people. Cresix (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point me to exactly where the source discusses the fire. All I can see is a Google Books site seemingly trying to sell me a book. And to balance your absence of doubt, I'll just add that I've never heard of it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Despite the popular legends, the Great Chicago Fire of October 8, 1871, was not started by Mrs. O'Leary's cow kicking over a lantern while being milked." (from Myth Information, by J. Allen Varasdi, 1989, published by Ballantine). It goes on to explain how the legend was started, and how the Chicago Fire Department never determined how the fire started. Cresix (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have, but I'm from Chicago. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard it all over the United States, and even in Canada. Cresix (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, back we go to one of the big concerns about this article. Is "popular legends" the same as "common misconception"? Where do we draw the line? We must not try to decide if the writer meant the same thing. That's original research. I submit that we can never know. So there is no source available describing this as a "common misconception." It cannot be in the article. As for my "I've never heard of it" claim, I was playing a little bit of a game there. I'm in Australia. We don't pay all that much attention to fires in Chicago. I'll bet there are many misconceptions here that you have never heard of, and I would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting them added to the article. So why this one? HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Deciding what terminology might be equivalent to "popular misconception" may be a matter of disagreement, but it is not original research any more than deciding whether "minute" (the adjective) is a synonym for "miniscule". Wikipedia is not that rigid. Previous discussion of the 4 criteria acknowledged that reasonably equivalent wording would be acceptable. It's one thing to debate whether "popular legends" is equivalent to "common misconceptions", but it is entirely another to argue that the term "popular misconception" must be used with absolutely no variation. And popular misconceptions for a particular country are acceptable for the article, as long as they meet the four criteria. Currently the article has an item of a popular misconception in Korea. If you add popular misconceptions in Australia that meet the four criteria, you would get no objection from me, and I'm one of the main deleters for this article. Cresix (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I do recall words like "reasonably equivalent wording" being agreed to, but they're not in the criteria editors see when they attempt to edit the article. Should that be fixed? I still see all of this as evidence that this is one of the worst defined articles in Wikipedia. We have to constantly discuss things like "What is really meant by..." All very sloppy, and time consuming. And quite frankly, I don't think trivial examples of ignorance among my neighbours in Australia is worthy of inclusion here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with modifying to "reasonably equivalent wording", although that may encourage some rather heated debates about what is "reasonably equivalent". This is not the only messy article. Others have such problems, just not for the same reason. That's inherent in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The 4 criteria have gotten the problem down to manageable proportions, though. Cresix (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: In my opinion, a legend/popular legend is not the same as a misconception. To me, a legend is acknowledged to be "factually challenged", a fairytale with some basis in truth perhaps, whereas a misconception is an erroneously held belief. Dr bab (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus One from me - a legend is not a misconception. I would also argue that "Y was the cause of the fire, not X" is not a misconception. Neither is it a fallacious idea or fallacious belief comparable with "the sun evolves around the earth" which is the kind of item I feel belongs on this page. (I might agree to "erroneous belief" though which brings us back to squabbling 'bout words.) --Echosmoke (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cwenger's "Yes"
Let me suggest to all that we leave the criteria in place, but let CWenger handle all of the requests for new additions, any additions added (with or without talk page discussion), and any challenges to additions; and that this will be the procedure for the next couple of weeks. Activity has occurred in the article and on this talk page since CWenger gave his unelaborated "Yes". I don't anticipate any major change in amount of activity over the next couple of weeks. So let's see how thing go with the criteria in place, then we can discuss whether to temporarily suspend the criteria to see how CWenger handles things. Cresix (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he's got three to work on immediately, the Chicago fire, where at least three editors disagree with him, plus Voting, and Porcupines. I'll hold back for now. I wonder if he sleeps? HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

the senses
"Humans have more than five senses. Although definitions vary, the actual number ranges from 9 to more than 20. In addition to sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing, which were the senses identified by Aristotle, humans can sense balance and acceleration (equilibrioception), pain (nociception), body and limb position (proprioception or kinesthetic sense), and relative temperature (thermoception).[106] Other senses sometimes identified are the sense of time, itching, pressure, hunger, thirst, fullness of the stomach, need to urinate, need to defecate, and blood carbon dioxide levels."

Surely pain, relative temperature, itching, pressure, and even "need to urinate" and "need to defecate" are the same as the sense of touch? Thefilmdude (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly some of those are stretching the idea to prove a point- "hunger" and "thirst" are simply excessive amounts of a certain chemical floating through the bloodstream- but I don't believe that sense of balance or acceleration fall under the category of "touch". I have also heard of read articles that mention that humans can sense electric fields. Even if Rudolf Steiner's 12 senses are not exactly right, idea that we have more than the basic 5 senses seems like a decent argument. Also, I don't know if this is relevant or not, but along similar lines, because the two are so similar, some people group taste and smell into one sense called "savor". Sesamehoneytart (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Porcupine!
As a guest here I thought I should list this one.

Porcupine can shoot its quills (like a projectile), when actually it has spines that stick in flesh and comes off easily.

From the Porcupine page "From ancient times, it was believed that porcupines could throw their quills at an enemy, but this has long been refuted." Unfortunately it is still around today, having to correct a fellow student during a wildlife observation (where we saw one).

50.17.221.68 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This might be a good misconception. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the quill firing porcupine equivalent to the Australian drop bear? HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That article is a good example of why I sigh heavily every time I log into Wikipedia. Its funny, but it links to blogs and joke websites, and doesn't properly describe how the story is spread or why its notable. Maybe I take Wikipedia too seriously. Yes, I think I do - I'm still obsessing that the Jazzercise article is in such bad shape. Anyway, uh, no. Its not supposed to be a different species of porcupine. Most people think porcupines fire their spikes as opposed to dislodging them - a fact they would know if they had ever watched Homeward Bound. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Book of Genesis: forbidden fruit
The phrase "the [Latin] word mali" should be revised in the first paragraph under "The Book of Genesis": the nominative singular form is malum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.159.10 (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that 'malum' was the word used in the Latin Vulgate? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is widely believed to refer to multiple personalities or split personalities. In fact, schizophrenia has nothing to do with those ideas and is instead a condition of disintegration between the cognitive and emotional faculties of the brain. It's hallucination and delusions, not multiple personalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.182.67 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception. A source linked in Schizophrenia identifies this as a misconception, but not a "common" misconception. This issue was previously discussed at Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 11 and Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 8. Cresix (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the "reliable source" requirement at a page on misconceptions is quite a catch-22. Anyway, here is the source. http://www.thebrainhealth.com/schizophrenia-vs-dissociative-identity-disorder.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuphrer (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Often confused with" is not the same as "common misconception". Catch-22 means "a logical paradox arising from a situation in which an individual needs something that can only be acquired by not being in that very situation; therefore, the acquisition of this thing becomes logically impossible." It is not impossible to find a reliable source for every common misconception. There are quite a few in the article with reliable sources. I think what you really mean is, it's impossible to find a reliable source that this is a common misconception; that could very well be because it is not a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I have a second opinion? I'm not interested in arguing with you. Is there anyone else who can authorize a content addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuphrer (talk • contribs) 01:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Opinions are plentiful on Wikipedia. So if a reader of this talk page considers it important enough, you'll get more opinion(s). No person "authorizes" edits. Except in cases of obvious policy violation (which does not include this issue), disputed content generally is determined by consensus; read WP:CON for details about how that works. Consensus is not determined by majority vote, but if the weight of opinion supports inclusion, it can be included. The burden of finding an appropriate source or seeking consensus for an addition or change is on the person seeking to make the addition or change. There are additional means of dispute resolution, but those generally are not implemented until the consensus process completes itself. So far (in this particular discussion; see archive links above for previous discussions of this issue) it's just you and me, which means no consensus at this point. Cresix (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm new here so i'm not familiar with the rules and not sure how the "semi-protection" thing works. The wiki page on it gave me the impression that someone has to obtain some authorization so as to apply changes, which might well be a misconception. Oops... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuphrer (talk • contribs) 01:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Often confused with" = "common misconception" is a borderline call to me. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 01:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Other sources:

http://www.schizophreniasymptoms.com/dispelling_the_myths.php http://www.academyofct.org/Library/InfoManage/Guide.asp?FolderID=1097&SessionID= http://health.discovery.com/tv/psych-week/articles/myths-about-dissociative-identity-disorder.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuphrer (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say include it with these new links: "common myth" (first link) and "contrary to popular belief" (second link). –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 01:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Between these sources we see this applicable phrases "common myth, "popular belief", "often confused with", and "lots of people confuse...". I think cumulatively these provide an adequate synonym to "common misconception." If no one has concerns with the status of these links as reliable sources, I support adding this misconception to the article. VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could someone check those links? When I click, two are dead links and one is to a page that has nothing with schizophrenia. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I edited them a few times and messed a few times, now it should work, and maybe adding some new sources:

http://www.mha-oc.org/10myths.html http://schizophrenia-info.net/schizophrenia-myths-misconceptions-hearsays.php http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Schizophrenia9&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=118290 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuphrer (talk • contribs) 02:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did check them while formulating my reply above; they all worked for me, appeared applicable to the topic, and were mediocre in terms of reliability (at a glance). VQuakr (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now they seem to be working for me. The composite of all the sources looks reasonable to me. I'm OK with adding the item with all sources cited. Cresix (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph, I hope there aren't any mistakes made. Kuphrer (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ring around The Rosie thing
Hey, I just thought this should be added on the list.

The theory that links Ring Around the Rosie with the Black Plague is false. Although the rhyme has consistencies with symptoms of the Black Plague, there is no records around this time that suggest that there is any connection between the disease and the rhyme. The earliest mention of the song is in 1790 in the United States, making this theory historically impossible.

Sure, it's unsourced, but there are tons of reliable sources that disprove that theory. I've heard many people say this and even some historians actually believe this and it still goes on, making this a common misconception.MubarakIsntCool (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please address each of the four criteria for inclusion in the article:
 * The common misconception's including topic has an article of its own.
 * The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
 * The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
 * The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.

Cresix (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand how this article could get out of control if there were not stringent standards for content addition. However, the first and third criteria above seem a little overly strict to me. Was there consensus for these? As an encyclopedia, we should strive to document common misconceptions based on reliable sources, independent of that topic's status on Wikipedia. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 06:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a really close look at the amount of crap added (i.e., everyone's favorite misconception with no regard to whether it is actually a common misconception) before the criteria were implemented (especially the first and third), and you'll see more than the article getting "out of control". Dozens of ridiculous items were being removed every week, for months. The talk page wars raged endlessly. The criteria work. They're not perfect, but they work. Cresix (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No there wasn't consensus for the above criteria. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of us wanted the article deleted because of the difficulty of effectively controlling what appears here. I finally agreed to a trial of the current criteria. Anything looser would not be acceptable to me at all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example of something that was added that you feel shouldn't have been, and is excluded by the first and/or third criterion? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 19:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Someone added a "common misconcepetion" that Jews can only have sex through a hole in a sheet according to Jewish law. The editor who added it argued vehemently and extensively that this is a common misconception, providing such evidence as a comment by one rabbi. The item remained in the article for considerable time because the single editor would not relent and a consensus to remove it could never be achieved. It was eventually removed after the criteria were implemented because it failed the first three criteria, and possibly the fourth. Cresix (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But a comment by one rabbi is not a reliable source, is it? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 20:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The source was legitimate; I don't remember the specific source, but that's not the issue. Let's say, hypothetically, that it was the NY Times; a source can be reliable without supporting the idea that it is supposed to support. In most articles that's enough to remove information, but that hasn't worked in this article. Some people think that if they think it's a common misconception, then it undoubtedly is common, and many of them refuse to accept that it isn't. As I said, the talk page wars raged for months with those kinds of ridiculous additions. That's the whole point of second criterion. A comment by one rabbi did not support the idea that this is a common misconception. The criteria avoid a lot of bickering back and forth about whether something is a common misconception (and the item I refer to had extensive debate); it doesn't prevent it entirely, but has reduced the endless arguing considerably. Cresix (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like we just needed stronger enforcement of criterion #2 then. We can (and do) require that a reliable source says it's a "common misconception" or something similar, rather than simply a reliable source repeating the misconception. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 21:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It's easy for someone to say, as has been said in the past, that we don't need formal criteria, we just need stronger enforcement. The problem is (and I'm speaking in general and not referring specifically to you), what ends up happening is that two or three editors spend countless hours fighting all the battles almost singlehandedly while everyone else runs for cover or just sits and watches. I speak from experience because I was one of those editors. Saying we need stronger enforcement is one thing; doing something about it is altogether different. It's more than simply removing an improperly sourced item; you then have to argue back and forth with the dozens of editors who are certain that their favorite misconception is "common". I can virtually guarantee that if some sort of agreement is reached that the criteria will be eliminated, the same thing will occur again. That's up to the consensus of editors. But if that happens, I can say a couple of things quite confidently. I won't be around to clean up the mess (and it's is a foregone conclusion that there will be a mess); we have already lost a couple of editors who worked diligently to keep this article from spiraling out of control. And I can also guarantee that the article eventually will be deleted because it will be a crap magnet, as it has been very often in the past. Either of those outcomes will be a shame (and I say that not because I am irreplaceable, but because it's always a shame when an editor gives up on a potentially good article). So ... if enough people agree that there just needs to be a little "stronger enforcement", we'll see how accurate my predictions are. If you're not around this article much at that time, I'll be sure to let you know. Cresix (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is we could accomplish the same thing with fewer rules. Surely that is a good thing. Otherwise it looks as though the rules are actually intended to dissuade editors from adding legitimate content. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And all I'm saying is that some of us have had vast experience with this article before and after the rules. If the past is any indication of the future whatsoever, "fewer rules" will result in disaster. Is that really "surely a good thing"? If it happens, let's see who can put his/her actions where his/her mouth is and spend all the hours cleaning up the mess. Cresix (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case why don't we add 20 more arbitrary rules so nobody will dare add content? Problem solved. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) That's quite an illogical suggestion, one sometimes made when there is no other basis for argument. You were making some reasonable points, despite my disagreement, until you made that suggestion. As an analogy, if 5 milligrams of a medication helps you recover from a disease, why not take 50 mg to be sure it does the job thoroughly. And if 50 mg is overkill, let's just not give you any medication. If the current penalty for driving 70 in a 55 mph zone is a $100 fine, why don't we make the penalty life imprisisonment so that no one is every injured as a result of high speed driving? And if that's overkill, let's just eliminate any penalties for speeding. We don't add 20 rules because so far four rules have worked rather well. Now, if enough editors agree with you to eliminate the criteria, so be it; I'll wish everyone good luck and say goodbye (I will hang around long enough to see who cleans up the mess). I've made my points, several times. No offense, but I really don't care to respond again and again to illogical suggestions, so let's see if others have comments. Thanks for the discussion. Cresix (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * CWenger, why won't you accept what Cresix is saying? The current criteria arose out of a time when the article was being filled with masses of absolute garbage. Those of us who were there at the time saw the problem and came up with a solution. It's working. Why change anything? Exactly what problem are you trying to address? HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is it seems like unnecessarily strict rules for adding something to the article. I still have not heard an example where careful application of criteria #2 and #4 would not be sufficient to exclude something that we can all agree should be excluded. I'm trying to avoid instruction creep that dissuades newcomers from contributing. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering my question, but I think the shoe is on the other foot. As I said, the present criteria solved a BIG problem. They are working, at least so far as keeping most of the trash out of the article. I think it's up to you to demonstrate that the current criteria are creating a problem of rejecting material that should be in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. What specifically are some examples of well-sourced misconceptions (including sourcing that they are common misconceptions) that have been excluded since the criteria were implemented? That is the true acid test of the validity of your argument. Cresix (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, you tell me, you've been watching the page a lot longer than I have. But I think the burden of evidence is on those wanting more instructions rather than fewer. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't know of any items that have been excluded, but you're arguing that the criteria restrict legitimate items?? OK, I'll tell you: There aren't any. And no, the burden of evidence is on you to make a legitimate case (with examples) that the criteria are too restrictive. Otherwise, this discussion is finished. Cresix (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, here's one:
 * That item does not meet criterion #3 as far as I can tell, in either the articles United States Constitution or Constitutional Convention (United States). Now I realize it is not exactly what you asked for because it is not a new addition that was excluded due to the rules, but it was easier to look through the current article than the talk archives, and I think it makes the same point.
 * Please understand that I am very appreciative of the work you have put into this article, I am simply trying to avoid biting newcomers and instruction creep. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I am very appreciative of the work you have put into this article, I am simply trying to avoid biting newcomers and instruction creep. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I intend to delete that item now. I would normally do it immediately when such a shortcoming was noticed, but this time I'll await further discussion here. To me, that's a classic example of inappropriate content. It would only be of interest to Americans, and probably only a small subset of them. It would be a misconception to an even smaller subset. It would be of absolutely no interest to the majority of readers. It's purely US-centric, a serious disease of Wikipedia that we must make every effort to avoid. Who's happy for me to delete it now? (PS: Can anyone tell I'm playing a little test case game here?) HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, that one fails criterion #2: there is no indication (unless I missed something) in the sources that this is a common misconception. Use of the term "urban legend" does not equate with "common misconception". There are lots of urban legends that many people have never heard of. And I doubt very seriously that it is a common misconception. Here's the problem that people who have very little history in dealing with this article are not very much aware of. Everyone has his idea of what is a common misconception. I have a few myself. Some of mine turn out to be unknown to most people. I must either find a source that it is a common misconception, or give up trying to put it in the article. It is pointless for me to argue endlessly on this talk page (not to mention a waste of a lot of people's time) if I can't provide that source. And that is exactly what happened before the criteria were implemented; repeated, endless wrangling about whether an unsourced item is a common misconception. All of the criteria are important, but if a misconception can't be demonstrated as common, that is an unfixable problem (unless someone can manage to find a source). The very title of the article includes the words "common misconceptions". 01:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am completely fine with requiring a reliable source which both says it is a common misconception and it is factually untrue. It's the other criteria that I find excessive. The one about Mussolini making the trains run on time probably fails criterion #3 as well, as it is only in the Benito Mussolini page as an external link. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 01:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, shall I delete that one too? HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CWenger, so you're OK with throwing out criterion #4 and including such misconceptions as "Contrary to a once-held common misconception, the Earth is not really flat"? It would be easy for that one to pass the other criteria. Would it be OK if I added that one? Or how about one stating that it was once thought that blood-letting could treat disease? Or how about the once-common misconception that women were unclean during their menstrual periods? Give me a few minutes and I'll come up with a few dozen more to add. Don't worry, it would only double the article's length. Cresix (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am fine with criterion #4 as well. Just #1 and #3. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 02:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So we can get rid of number 3. Then if the rabbi I mentioned earlier had stated in the NY Times that it is a "common misconception" (using those words) that Jews must have sex through a hole in a sheet, we would have to restore that one, right? Doesn't matter that it's not mentioned in Jew or Judaism (and trust me, add the hole in the sheet to those articles and I'll bet you big money that it will be removed within 24 hours)? Cresix (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What are the odds that the Times would have a story like that, and not challenge the assertion? I'm willing to risk it. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 02:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You sidetracked the issue. Let's say any reliable source. The rabbi made the statment in a reliable source. If the rabbi used the phrase "common misconception", we would have to restore the item, right? Cresix (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because a reliable source quotes somebody saying something doesn't mean they are claiming it to be true. That is an issue for all of Wikipedia, not just this page. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 02:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a similar point regarding the .999=1 section. The main source for that section comes from a book where someone stated it was a common misconception.  So if a notable person says something in a book, poof, it's a reliable source.--Asher196 (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I just remembered that I intended earlier to address the allegations of instruction creep here. The article was a mess. One set of criteria were "agreed upon", and things have been stable ever since. There is no creep. The allegation is false. HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CWenger, you're getting just a tiny taste of all of the arguing back and forth about what is a reliable source and how do we define a common misconception. And the current discussion has been reasonably civil. In many cases, editors who have attempted to add their favorite misconception (with no evidence that it is common) have been anons or very inexperienced editors who refused to take no for an answer despite overwhelming opposition. The debates went on and on. At times there have been dozens of these types of additions every day. Are you the one who will step up and spend hours and hours and hours every day to manage this problem in the absence of criteria that have clearly reduced the problem? I'd like for you to go on record about that, and I'll ask you not to evade the question by talking about how it's everyone's responsibility to take care of Wikipedia. In theory that may be true, but for this article it has been a very small number of dedicated editors. So will you make that pledge now that, if no one else steps up, you'll take care of all of these problems, and that you will do it in a timely manner so that dozens of bad additions don't linger in the article for weeks or months? A simple yes or no will suffice. Cresix (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * May I humbly suggest that that answer demonstrates either deliberate confrontation, or being out of touch with reality. You cannot do such a thing on your own. HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been days when I (stupidly) spent a total of 8 or 9 hours on this article alone. And that wasn't making my own additions or copyediting. It was entirely removing and re-removing and re-re-removing ridiculous additions, then making dozens of lengthy responses to all the complaints and arguing on this talk page (or my talk page when I was verbally attacked repeatedly). Then there's all the 3RR reports (those are very time-consuming) and ANI reports (and that doesn't even include basic vandalism). And in those days there were six or seven other editors helping me out (some of whom left in disgust). As ridiculous as this may sound, I am tempted to suggest a temporary suspension of the criteria, ask everyone except CWenger to leave the article alone, and watch CWenger's performance. I think I already know the outcome, but that seems to be what it takes to convince some people who have little experience with this article. CWenger, before you make your final committment, I'd like to ask you to read all of the archives, especially archives 7 through 15. Cresix (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin comment: To all of the above participants, I will point out an official guideline: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. That is essentially what you guys are discussing here. Cease and desist, please. This is a pointless exercise. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may have a very valid point, although I think barking out a "cease and desist" order (as if we had vandalized an article) over a talk page discussion is a bit of overkill. A simple comment or request would have sufficed and would not have given the appearance of trying to use admin rights inappropriately. The last time I checked, an editor is perfectly entitled to request that other editors voluntarily not make changes to an article for a while. You make it sound like we were inciting a riot, asking people to vandalize the article. In any event, it never amounted to anything because CWenger did nothing. And Amatulic, your removal of an entire section below threw the baby out with the bath water. I don't disagree with your point, but there were some legitimate and very relevant comments pertaining to the article. I think it's time to take a close self-examination of your admin privileges and responsbilities. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I issued no orders (as far as I know, the only time when an admin can issue orders is when enforcing ArbCom decisions, which doesn't apply here). The word "please" above was meant to express a request. Furthermore, I can't fathom how admin rights have anything to do with WP:REFACTOR, which is a very clear guideline that would justify anyone removing that section, which was unambiguously about another editor. Please accept my apologies if I came across too strong, but honestly, the conversation above followed by the section I removed did seem to me like a discussion to allow disruption deliberately (which is far different from "inciting a riot") to prove a point. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cease and desist" is an order, both in language and tone. No one on Wikipedia can literally issue an order, but admins can threaten, which was clearly your intent. Apology accepted. "To allow deliberate disruption"?? Not editing an article is not "allowing deliberate disruption", unless you somehow think that any of us volunteer editors are required to fix articles. And if that's the case, I imagine that you're as guilty as the rest of us in "allowing deliberate disruption" throughout Wikipedia. I understand that you overreacted with the "cease and desist" order, but I really think you had some (momentary) warped thinking in your interpretation of "deliberate disruption". Don't get me wrong; I have no reason to think that you're a bad admin. But it is not unheard of for an admin to have moments of "I'm the authority" thinking, and I believe you had one of those moments. Secondly, I didn't say your removal of a section below was an admin action. I said that, in addition to removing any problematic parts of section, you removed legitimate information. That wasn't an admin action, but it was wrong. Thanks for your reply. Cresix (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Refraining from editing wasn't the source of my concern; that would be ridiculous. Rather, I became alarmed by your discussion of an experiment to remove the guidelines for new entries to this article. I had the impression from the discussion above, and the one that followed, that you were getting serious about doing this to make a point to one editor, and I regarded that as disruptive.
 * If you feel that any content that I removed is critical enough to require restoration, feel free to restore it if you can do so without restoring the discussion about another editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, your clarification really does nothing to justify your comments about "allowing deliberate disruption". First, editors are perfectly entitled to discuss the guidelines on this talk page. Wikipedia has no requirement for the guidelines. They were decided on by editors. Editors can discuss whether they need to be enforced. Secondly, editors are not required to respond if someone else ignores the guidelines. So there are only two possibilities about what you meant in your "deliberate disruption" comment. You were either telling us we should not be discussing whether we, as individual editors, plan enforce the guidelines in others' changes to the article, or you were telling us that we are required to respond and fix the article if someone else ignores the guidelines. There was no "deliberate disruption". As I said, I'm not saying you are a bad admin, but you stepped over the line in suggesting some sort of policy violation (with implied sanctions: "cease and desist"). It's an understandable and certainly a forgivable offense (and I think perhaps even unintentional), but nonetheless one you need to not try to pretend didn't happen. I sympathize with admins. I would never want to be an admin even if I qualified. It's a thankless, often tedious job. But it is a job that is willingly taken, and without a standard means of recall (except for the most extreme cases), the only way for the admin system to work is for admins examine their own behavior from time to time. That's my only goal here; and I'm not singling you out. I've challenged other admin comments or actions from time to time. Fortunately, it's not often necessary.
 * Telling me that I can restore important content in the section you removed does not mitigate the fact that you were in error in removing it. Thanks again for your response, and for your concerns about the article. Cresix (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Long arguments over content might be more useful, at least, than long arguments over the criteria. At least less misinformation gets through. I, again, would state my opinion that the whole article should be scrapped and we make a common misconception article which describes what a common misconception is and gives a handful of examples. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree, based on long and torturous experience with this article. It's easy for CWenger and you to say it's better without the criteria, but when it comes to actually keeping the article under control, people who make such comments are nowhere to be found. You obviously haven't taken a good look at the archives, or been involved in trying to maintain the article when dozens of ridiculous additions were being made every week. Cresix (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. I don't think the article should not have a criteria, I see its value. However, I think its useless to have equally long and drawn out conversations about the criteria. As I said, I'd rather see the whole article scrapped. Its never going to return to Good Article status; its very nature contradicts several Wikipedia Policies. I also think, even with the criteria, it has as much chance of spreading misinformation as it does defusing misinformation. As another post pointed out, several of the included items have not even been peer reviewed yet. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with him ^ . But I don't have the energy for another RfD right now. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point about deletion, IronMaidenRocks, but you still are in error (again I think resulting from not having read the archives in detail or having a lot of experience with the article). There have not been "equally long and drawn out conversations about the criteria". There has been discussion of the merits of the criteria, but that pales in comparison to the heated and relentless arguments about the hundreds of useless items that some editors have attempted to add. There is simply no comparison. Deletion is another matter, however. Regardless of the merits of deletion, the possibility of misinformation, or Good Article status, the criteria have made the article immensely more manageable and prevented a ton of crap like what was been dumped in the article in the past. And BTW, IronMaidenRocks, feel free to be bold and remove items that have not been peer reviewed. You have as much right, and responsibility, to do so as the rest of us. Cresix (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Tasklist: some items that may be lacking sources
I have been going through the article and looking at the sources to check what items are actually really sourced as being common misconceptions. I have not come all the way through the article yet, but I have already constructed a sizeable tasklist of items that may need better sourcing.

I am not saying that these items should be removed, although in some cases this may be the correct conclusion. In other cases all we need is better sources, and in some cases consensus may be opposed to my impression and the item be deemed properly sourced as is. Nevertheless, I think it would be beneficial to take a closer look at the following items and sources:


 * Vikings did not wear Horned helmets.
 * A single off-line source with no quote. Nothing sourced at Vikings or Horned helmets apart from a straight dope article that lists two sources:
 * "The Invention of the Viking Horned Helmet" by Roberta Frank in International Scandinavian and Medieval Studies in Memory of Gerd Wolfgang Weber (2000), edited by Michael Dallapiazza et al.
 * and
 * "The Origin of the Imaginary Viking" by Johnni Langer in Viking Heritage Magazine, December 2002
 * It would be beneficial if we could find these sources and get some quotes.


 * Iron Maiden not used as a torture instrument
 * A single offline source in German with no quote given. Google gives a couple of "top ten misconceptions about history" hits.


 * Marie Antoinette did not say Let them eat cake.
 * Only source at present is howstuffworks.com. At Marie Antoinette the following source is used:
 * Lady Antonia Fraser, Marie Antoinette: The Journey, p.xviii, 160; É. Lever, Marie-Antoinette: The Last Queen of France, pp. 63–5; Susan S. Lanser, article 'Eating Cake: The (Ab)uses of Marie-Antoinette,' published in Marie-Antoinette: Writings on the Body of a Queen, (ed. Dena Goodman), pp. 273–290.
 * However, it is not clear that this establishes this as a common misconception, it may just as well only be a source for the phrase it is now generally regarded as a "journalistic cliché".. At Let them eat cake the sources seem to be mainly concerned about sourcing the quote to the right person.


 * George Washington did not have wooden teeth.
 * Currently sourced by an article from msnbc which deals with the real composition of the dentures. The existence of a belief in wooden teeth may be implicit in the article, but nowhere does it state that this is a common misconception. The article on George Washington cites an article at americanrevolution.org, where it states "Contrary to American legend, George Washington never owned a set of wooden teeth". Legend is not the same as "common misconception". Other sources at George Washington deal with the poor state of the man's teeth, the reason for this, and how the bad teeth may have caused the clenched-jaw expression often seen in portraits. The article at americanrevolution.org does list a bibliography where something may be found if anyone has access:
 * Callcott, George H., A History of the University of Maryland., Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, MD.
 * Hillam, Christine. Ed. for Lindsay Society for History of Dentistry 1990. Roots of Dentistry pub. by British Dental Assoc.
 * Hoffman-Axthelm, Walter. Translated by H. M. Koehler. History of Dentistry. Quintessence Pub. Co. 1981
 * Klatell, Jack DDS. Kaplan, Andrew DMD. Williams, Gray, Jr. illus: Caroline Meinstein. The Mount Sinai Medical Center--Family Guide to Dental Health. Macmillan Publ. Co. 1991.
 * The Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD
 * Prinz, Hermann. Dental Chronology: A record of the more important events in the evolution of dentistry. Lea & Fehiger, Philadelphia, PA.
 * Ring, Malvin E., Dentistry: An Illustrated History Henry N. Abrams, Inc., C.V. Mosby Co. 1985.
 * Stier, Charles J. papers, Baron Henry deWitte's Archives, Antwerp.
 * Weinberger, Bernhard Wolf. Introduction to History of Dentistry in America Vol. 1 & II. C. V. Mosby Co. 1948.


 * The United States Constitution was written on parchment, not hemp paper.
 * One source seems to be a pro-marijuana page citing the benefits of hemp paper and mentioning that the drafts of the declaration of independence was written on such paper. The other source is "constitutional FAQ answer #145", stating that "Urban legend is that the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights were written on hemp paper".


 * Benito Mussolini did not “make the trains run on time”.
 * A single source describing this as "a myth, nurtured and propagated by a leader with a journalist's flair for symbolism, verbal trickery and illusion." Trains are not mentioned in the Benito Mussolini article, but nevertheless there is an external link to snopes.com were two sources are given:
 * Montagu, Ashley and Edward Darling. The prevalence of nonsense. New York: Dell Publishing, 1967 ((pp. 19-20).
 * Smith, Denis Mack. Mussolini. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982. ISBN 0-394-50694-4 (p. 118).


 * Polish Cavalry mounting a brave but futile charge against German tanks using lances and sabres.
 * The source, Panzerwolrld.net, cites a source
 * ZALOGA, Steven J. Poland 1939 - The birth of Blitzkrieg. Oxford : Osprey Publishing, 2002.
 * and quotes the following: "If a single image dominates the popular perception of the Polish campaign of 1939, it is the scene of Polish cavalry bravely charging the Panzers with their lances."
 * The same source is given at Charge at Krojanty. Under Polish Cavalry an interesting source is given to an article in the Guardian:
 * "The column below repeated a myth of the second world war, fostered by Nazi propagandists, when it said that Polish lancers turned their horses to face Hitler's panzers. There is no evidence that this occurred."[1 ]
 * The polish Wikipedia may be a good place to start looking in this case maybe.


 * Entrapment law in the US requiring police officers to identify themselves as police.
 * Only source pointing to a common misconception is snopes.com article "It has long been accepted hooker lore. There is also a reference to a court case, from which I found the following snippet through google:
 * whatever its precise effect may be, the concept of entrapment involves as a necessary element the idea that an accused person has been induced to commit a crime which he or she otherwise would not have committed or would have been unlikely to commit’.
 * This seems to indicate that this second source did not deal with "common misconception", but with explaining the entrapment laws.


 * Searing meat does not "seal in" moisture.
 * Nothing in the online source, and through google books I was able to look at the paper-source:
 * "The pioneer of mass-produced meat extracts was Justus von Liebig, inventor of the mistaken theory that searing meat seals in the juices."


 * Placing metal inside a microwave oven does not damage the oven's electronics.
 * Only source is a patent, which is probably a primary source. A different source would be beneficial.

(This list is also at User:Dr bab/LOCM Tasklist, where I will keep adding to it, and where it may be more easily found after this thread is archived)

Dr bab (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding GW's wooden teeth, the MSNBC article says the false teeth "were not made of wood as commonly believed." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The parts about searing meat and US entrapment law should go. Regionally specific and outside the most trivial importance to non-US citizens, although it might be a common assumption in the US. The searing meat thing is just useless. The source doesn't show it as a common misconception; it just says one inventor had a mistaken idea. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to find source material for the Polish cavalry misconceptions. As I've stated many times, legitimate sources rarely take the time to bring out that something is a 'common misconception'. That's left to novelty books and bloggers. In time, however, even some books will start to source their material on Wikipedia articles; creating a vicious cycle of unreliability and misinformation. Anyway, we need to maintain this information in the list: its probably the biggest WWII myth and altogether well known around the world. Even if we transition the list into an article, I feel this would be a very good example of a common misconception. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Again we run into the problem of "common". I have never heard of this before but it may be a common misconception among people with a special interest in WWII. Or it may be a common misconception in Poland (or Germany?), in which case I would be much more comfortable with including it on this list than in the former case. But as I said at the outset, I don't put these items up for deletion: I think we could and should improve on the sourcing and I am grateful to IronMaidenRocks for making an effort. Dr bab (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The misconception is often made in the US. It is given as an example of Polish 'incompetence' or an example of why the Third Reich advanced so quickly across Europe. Sometimes referring to these 'polish cavalry charges' is used in the same vein as saying "the French are cowards; we saved the French" in that it invokes a feeling of national superiority among some Americans. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a source which says "most fanciful and enduring legends" and "References to the legendary charge occurred repeatedly since then in books, magazines, and so-called documentaries". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple more sources. The Guardian article is interesting because they admit they published this as fact and had to issue a retraction.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Al Capone
(I would not dare try to edit this page myself, since I have finals coming up, and the last thing I need is get into a drawn out battle here), but if someone wants to add something and can find a source/sources for it being a common misconception-

Al Capone was only imprisoned on tax evasion charges (and violating the Volstead act). He was not (as many people might think) imprisoned for Murder 1, and Bootlegging etc.TeigeRyan (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that most people have given a moment's thought to what crimes Al Capone was imprisoned for; they just know he was a criminal. But if someone can make as case with a reliable source and address the four critieria for inclusion, have a go at it. Cresix (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would actually argue the opposite—it is widely known that he was imprisoned for tax evasion. I think it is noted often due to the obvious irony. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 18:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Either way, it must conform to the four criteria, including reliable sourcing that it is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with CWenger. Its well known that Capone was imprisoned for tax evasion. Its a somewhat common pop culture reference in the US. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This foreigner from Australia is aware that Capone was imprisoned for tax evasion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But it must be known that Mel Gibson is, and always will be, Australian. Just so you know.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Spinach, Popeye, Iron and Decimal myth
This is very really interesting because it's a double misconception, both have gained enormous circulation and popularity. First there's a myth that spinach contains a high amount of iron, which leads to another myth that it's a misconception caused by fallacious data management, while we now find out that this is yet another myth. See http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Sutton_Spinach_Iron_and_Popeye_March_2010.pdf Kuphrer (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

25 December (birth of jesus) is not a misconception
I am pretty sure everyone knows that it is not the exact date of the birth of Jesus.
 * I agree, but there are enough editors think there is enough evidence to include it here. I truly believe that we need an exclusion clause along the lines of "If only an idiot would believe it, then it doesn't belong", but I guess I'll be waiting a while. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From your comment I would guess that this has been discussed before, but do we have sources that confirm this as a common misconception? The sources 209-212 seem to only deal with why 25th of Dec. was chosen, and not talk about how many people do or do not believe this to be the actual date? Dr bab (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Most people in the West are told that Jesus' birth was on the 25th of December. Its commonly spread misinformation; if that doesn't meet the criteria, then we should remove the so-called misconceptions of evolution. Those 'misconceptions' are actually deliberate, widespread misinformation. The 'Jesus was born on the 25th' thing is a convenient lie to distract from the holiday's origins. Just because we know that Jesus wasn't born on the 25th, that doesn't mean the masses do as well. Very few people examine their religions or traditions, so why would they know? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The evolution misconceptions are sourced as common misconceptions. So far, no one here has produced a source that the Dec. 25 misconception is common. That's the bottom line. Cresix (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The widespread teaching of the 'December 25th birth' is well known to all of us - can we agree on that? While it needs a source, it should not be removed for not having one. There are plenty of other misconceptions listed that have not been peer-reviewed, so why single out this one which we in the West can observe? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be removed if there is inadequate sourcing. "Other stuff exists" is no reason bad information shouldn't be removed. No one is under any obligation to fix an entire article simply because they fix a part of it. And please, IronMaidenRocks, please do remove those items that you feel have not been peer reviewed. Cresix (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, then. I attempted to look for sources, but typing in similar to 'December 25th common misconception' unloads a plethora of blogs that deal with common misconceptions. Many of these contain extremist and absurd information from several different viewpoints. I don't really feel like sifting through all that garbage (over 200,000 hits) just to find a legitimate reference. I guess I'll just let it go. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly have a birth date for a mythical person. Oh, wait, I'm sure Thor has a birthdate.  Superman probably does too.  Never mind.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your religious perspective, Orangemarlin, you're ill informed. Most historians agree that the person Jesus lived approximately 2000 years ago. There are a number of non-Biblical references to him in historical texts, just as there are historical references to Muhammad and Buddha. In any event, this is not your forum (or any believers' or non-believers' forum) to place such banter. Cresix (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm ill-informed about very little about which I am informed. Please name one non-Biblical reference that withstands any scrutiny whatsoever.  Josephus?  Mostly rewritten by Xtian apologetics.  I could go on.  Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  And given I can find more evidence about an unnotable centurion than I can about the mythical Jesus, it leads to a certain amount of suspicion.  I think we should put in a misconception that Jesus actually existed, since he didn't.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For starters, read Jesus in this very encyclopedia, which includes substantial sourcing supporting scholarly opinion that Jesus actually lived. Are you challenging those sources? If so, please take your attempt at sardonic commentary to Talk:Jesus rather than this talk page. And where is your "extraordinary evidence" that Josephus' references to Jesus were "rewritten by Xtian apologetics"; and does your evidence stand unchallenged by other scholars? Even scholars doubtful of the veracity of many Biblical interpretations of Jesus, such as John Dominic Crossan, don't doubt that he existed. Most independent (not Christian-sympathizers) scholars disagree with you. If you are a scholar of history, you're views are in a very small minority. And there's nothing wrong with being in the minority, but let's not pretend otherwise. Cresix (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't stop slapping my palm to my face. Random conspiracy theories thrown into unrelated conversations are great and all, but I don't think Wikipedia is intended to be a launching pad for anti-religionist doubt-sowing expeditions. A quick overview of the user's talk page shows that this is not his first time using the Wikipedia talk page feature to attack religions. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that the presumption that this is a common misconception is self evident. I would like to see a reliable source that identifies the belief that Jesus was born on December 25 as common. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  I would reason that a common teaching which is false is basically the same as a common misconception. But a source for the common misconception is needed to meet the criteria. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I also looked for evidence of a belief in December 25th, and could not find polls or experiments showing that people believed it, or evidence that the Church made a point of taking it literally. While I think that the way individual churches and parents handle the issue leaves many believing that it was December 25th, the sheer one-sidedness of internet debate on the subject suggests that society as a whole tends to correct most who ever held it. That said, there might be evidence for a belief that Jesus was born in Year 1 (or at the exact start of the first millennium, however people count it). --Martin Berka (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"And the Lion shall lay down with the Lamb"
There is a very common misconception that the Bible says "the Lion shall lay down with the Lamb."

Isaiah, Chapter 11: "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play by the cobra's hole, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper's den." Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not advocating this being included. I am just bringing it up as a possibility. Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you even bring it up? If you have sources showing it as a common misconception, then just add it to the article, otherwise, it's just more garbage to debate here.--Asher196 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Easy Asher. Nothing wrong with seeking opinions on a talk page. Cresix (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate wikipedia page?
Don't get me wrong - I love the content.

But on some level isn't this a list of things that are not true? And if it's that, isn't its length potentially infinite?

Also, the idea of "common" misconceptions is a little weasel-y. How does one define common? My wife thinks that if you put meat tenderizer on a bee sting it will heal more quickly. Is that a common belief? How would I know?

Jeffreystringer (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First, there is a major flaw in your argument. This isn't an article of misconceptions. It's an article of common misconceptions. That prevents the list from being infinite. To restrict the content even more, there are four criteria that must be met before an item can be added. See the lead of the article. All of the issues you raise have been discussed quite extensively on this talk page, including whether the content is notable and how we define a "common" misconception. Peruse the archives for details. As for "weasel-y", the four criteria address that problem, not perfectly, but they have helped a lot. And finally, the article has been nominated for deletion three or four times, but it's still here. That's no guarantee about the future, of course, but you might want to read all the arguments, pro and con, in the Afd discussions. BTW, I think your wife may have missed it a bit; the way I heard it, meat tenderizer (as well as tobacco), helps prevent the venom from causing swelling. I'm not sure about meat tenderizer, but I know first hand that tobacco works. But then, that means it's not a misconception at all. Cresix (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just the fact that its a list of something which has no main article makes it troublesome to me. Perhaps bygone editors decided that there could be no free standing article on common misconceptions, but decided to make a list. I'm not sure. But this list should be replaced with a real article and avoid all the trouble that such a list brings. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cresix on every point, but I understand Jeffreystringer's concern. Things might be better if there could be some sort of introduction at the beginning of the article and every section, begun with The idea of misconception is that..., In the field of technology, many invention has been unduly attributed to some single person or group of people, while in fact in some cases it is... etc. Kuphrer (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also it might be better if the contents can get more organised than being a simple faceless list. Kuphrer (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State
I think this is a fairly common misconception that should be included in this article. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, though it is commonly cited word-for-word as being US law. There is a big difference between the establishment clause in the first amendment, and the phrase "separation of church and state," but it seems that the latter is more frequently used. So, that's my suggestion, what do you guys think? Does it warrant a spot in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tak618 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't think anyone is under the perception that the exact phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the U.S. Constitution. It seems there might be a perception that religious social conservatives in the U.S. think that proponents of the separation of church and state think the phrase "separation of church and state" is in the U.S. Constitution, which may or may not be true... in the end, what's necessary is a citation that states one way or the other.
 * Eldamorie (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The four criteria for inclusion should be address, including the need for a reliable source that it is a common misconception. This was discussed previously at Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 13 and not added because no source was ever provided. BTW, I agree with Eldamorie that most people probably do not believe it is in the Constitution (or they have never given it any thought), although more extreme religious conservatives may believe it. Cresix (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking about this. Some people do think "separation of church and state" is in the US constitution, or is some kind of federal law. I've even heard people claim that this phrase was used in the Bible. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not state those words in the Constitution, it says that the state shouldn't establish a religion. However, constitutional law and precedence, over the past 240 years have essentially separated church and state.  So, it to say it isn't there is technically correct, but legally not so much.  Those 240 years of court decisions have made it clear that the state must be separated from the church.  Thank you Thomas Jefferson for making that very clear to the country.  :)   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the United States, the state is the religion. Religions are usually better advocates of the US government than their own beliefs, being responsible for (very effective) recruiting and inspiring adoration of the state - for instilling in the minds of citizens that the country is being wielded or blessed by God. I guess you can take the religion out of the state (sort of; US politics is still heavily centered around Protestantism, and their actions show its influence), but not the state out of the religion. I don't see how its that much more comfortable this way. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about civil religion or some American variant on divine right of kings? I'm not sure how that's in any way relevant to the separation of church and state. eldamorie (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not related. I was responding to Orangemarlin's idle conversation. Sorry, probably shouldn't have on the talk page. Still, if you're wondering - I don't know what you'd call it as a concept - but most churches in the US base their sermons around supporting the state. Either by encouraging voting, joining the army, holding support rallies, or the general instillation of adoration for the state. This occurs in most denominations of Protestantism and so-called "non-denominational" churches. Even those who aren't religious are encouraged to pledge their undying allegiance to the state, to sing what are essentially 'hymns' to it, and to put the will of the state ahead of their own, among other quasi-religious attitudes and acts. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We actually have a really good article about separation of church and state in the United States, and the history of the expression "separation of church and state" in American law and politics. I'd suggest that anyone interested in presenting that topic here spend some time reading that article and its sources first, instead of arguing here about what they think the expression means. --FOo (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Arguing? We're not even talking about it. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant image
File:Blowing.jpg To the right of the Chemistry section is an image which may be pretty but it has little relevance to the text which deals with manufacture of glass. The image shows glass being used to fashion something. It does not show glass being manufactured. Moriori (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is being fashioned into a Christmas ornament. I removed the image.--Asher196 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesus is a Caucasian male with blue eyes and long brown hair should be on here under the christianity or bible section
It should be stated that the modern American view of Jesus is derived from a famous painting of him (DaVinci) and not from any kind of credible account of having met Jesus. In fact most countries have separate views on Jesus's race. It should later be said that Jesus was born of the line of David who was middle eastern and born to a middle eastern mother Mary. The bible also mentions that Jesus looked like the people around him (that he looked like an ordinary man so to speak) and that further suggests that he wouldn't have been a white man with blue eyes and long brown hair as that would not have looked like anyone else in Jerusalem at the time. I don't have sources right not but I know they're out there. I'm hoping someone who's more of an expert on the subject would be interested in researching and verifying this as a common misconception.

Tilton372 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "misconception" is the most appropriate angle to look at this. I think many Christians simply never thought about it and when asked would probably agree that as he was a Jew living in Israel who would probably have looked like the locals there do. Some Christians may strongly disagree, but I would see this a religious belief rather than a misconception. We don't treat transubstantiation, virgin birth of Jesus or resurrection of Jesus as misconceptions, either. Hans Adler 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I see your point that many christians simply haven't thought about it but I think that most have and have concluded that he is white. Hence the controversy when a non-white person plays a Jesus character.  (Family Guy's "Black Jesus" cutaway, or Jim Caviezel being the only white actor in Passion of the Christ where everyone else was Middle-Eastern, are two examples.  In the latter it's doubtful that someone didn't notice his race was off.  More likely they noticed and concluded that a white Jesus among all Middle-Eastern peoples was correct.)  I don't agree however that this is comparable to transubstantiation, virgin birth, or the resurrection of Jesus as those are all faith-based beliefs not facts.  Jesus was alive is a fact whether or not you believe he is the Lord and Savior.  Therefore he had a race.  His race cannot be someone's opinion.  It simply was what it was.  And many people commonly mistake his race for something that it is not therefore I believe it is a misconception.  68.59.73.31 (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Jim Caviezel being the only white actor in Passion of the Christ where everyone else was Middle-Eastern": Now that's a whopper of a misconception. Last time I checked, Italians (e.g., Monica Bellucci) are not considered "Middle-Eastern". In any event, unless we can find a time machine and go back about 150 years, the blue-eyed, white Jesus is not a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "150 years"? Do you mean 2000 or am I misunderstanding what you're implying. As for the time machine, you don't need to see something first hand to know that it was false.  None of us have met Beethoven but we know he wasn't African.  See what I am saying?  We have records of people and events that took place even before the birth of Christ and the races/ethnicity/heritages of people in different regions is something we have kept track of.  Jesus was not white nor did he have white features.  This is a fact because we have records of his birth and the heritage/race/ethnicity of his parents and of their parents and of their parents and so on.
 * Furthermore we have Jesus being born on the 25th of December as a common misconception and we didn't have a time machine to corroborate that. Again you don't need to experience something first-hand to know it was false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.73.31 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue here isn't whether Jesus was actually white with blue eyes. We know that is false. The issue is whether there is a common misconception that Jesus was white with blue eyes. And there is not. I meant 150 years. 150 years ago it might have been a common misconception. Today it is not. Cresix (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, well then I understand your point a lot better now. I do believe that today it is a common misconception.  Everyone I've ever talked to about this has believed he is White and has been shocked when I presented them with facts pointing to him being of middle-eastern descent.  Maybe we come from different places (I'm from the bible belt but have traveled across the world) and it's not so common in your area.  But I do believe that the average person (who knows of Jesus of course), until presented with factual information mistakenly believes that Jesus is of their own race.  I find this to be a lot more common a misconception than the fact that Jesus was probably not born on the 25th of December as most everyone knows.  If someone who's more knowledgeable in this area would like to present evidence to prove/disprove my claim that would be great.  I did a quick Google search but can't find any research on whether or not this is "common".  On a side note how common does something have to be for it to be featured here?  Is there some rule of thumb I can go by?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.73.31 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As for what is considered common, if a reliable source identifies it as common (or very similar wording), it generally is considered common. But it needs to be unequivocal. A source that simply says "misconception", or "you've probably heard that ...", or "all of my friends think ...", that's inadequate. And it must be a misconception among the general population. For example, nuclear physicists may have had a common misconception about the behavior of atomic particles, but that's not a widespread misconception. There's discussion in the archives if you wish to search. You should also click the "Edit" button for the article, not to edit but to see the four criteria for additions to the article. If you don't have a username, look at the criteria for some of the proposed additions above on this talk page or in the archives. Cresix (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've talked to several people who thought Jesus was black, or that he had long hair. In fact, most people in my area believe he had long hair for some reason. That seems pretty disrespectful or tongue-in-cheek, considering that the Apostle Paul said along the lines of 'Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?' (1 Cor 11:14). However, there's no evidence or discussion from the period as to what Jesus looked like. We can assume that he looked like a Jew of the period, and not so unusual looking as to generate any noted discussion about his looks. We can say that he kept the Mosaic Law by wearing a beard and kept it and his hair groomed; no discussion is made about him breaking the Law in these matters. If I remember correctly, for a Jew to grow their hair out meant they were either on a military campaign or they were making a special type of vow, etc. One thing is for certain: Di Vinci did not know what Jesus looked like. He was just an artist. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually he's on record (somewhere, can't bother to hunt it down atm) as being a Nazirite (not a Nazarene - Nazareth wasn't actually built till later in 1st century CE), and the Nazirites (like Samson before them) didn't cut their hair. So his hair was indeed probably long. But not light brown - probably black, and wavy or curly. --Matt Westwood 19:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? "Nazareth wasn't actually built till later in 1st century CE"? Moriori (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some disagreement among scholars, owing at least partly to the obscurity of Jesus' birthplace before he achieved prominence. Cresix (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * True, which makes it seem odd that someone can boldly state that "Nazareth wasn't actually built till later in 1st century CE". Moriori (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Beg pardon, thought that was common knowledge.--Matt Westwood 05:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then that will be the reason why our Nazareth article says Nazareth was built in 1st century CE. Does it?Moriori (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What we consider to be "short hair" today was at that time considered to be a Roman Haircut, as can be seen from the statues depicted in Tiberius and Julius Caesar. Roman soldiers cut their hair short enough that an opponent could not grab a handful. It is doubtful that a Jew would wear the haircut of a Roman. As for 1 Cor 11:14, how long is "long"? was the author saying shoulder length is OK but not waist length?


 * We do know that the biblical account has Jesus looking pretty much like everyone else. The mob that came to arrest Him could not tell Him apart from Peter or John or any of the others - Judas Iscariot had to point Him out. Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Matt, Nazarites were not a race or ethnic group. They were practicers of the Jewish religion who made an oath, which I referred to in my post above. Read Numbers 6:2-9. While there is little archeological data surrounding Nazareth (apparently none regarding its founding; Wiki article on it says earliest surviving secular reference was from 300 A.D), we do know that the Bible text called Jesus a Nazarene (and, due to statements made in the Bible, commentators figure that the place was isolated and unimportant).
 * Guy, you are right about the length of hair and that he wasn't easily picked out of a crowd. Apparently Paul's remark about the acceptable length of hair had more to do with conscious on the issue. Archibald Thomas Robertson said of the word 'nature' used in the sentence "Here it means native sense of propriety (cf. Rom. 2:14) in addition to mere custom, but one that rests on the objective difference in the constitution of things". However, I just meant to say I find it disrespectful to portray Jesus as having exceptionally long hair, and especially considering that ones who made such images were well aware of the verse at Romans 11:14. Of course, it serves little point to my argument. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rationality of voting
Many potential voters believe that casting their vote makes no difference. Some rely on naive mathematics to support this belief. However, researchers explain that voting is a rational behavior. Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science at Columbia University, summarizes his research findings in Yes, it can be rational to vote.. A more mathematical analysis is available in Why Vote.

Peer-reviewed publications are also available to cite:

Voting as Rational Choice (pdf)

Vote for Charity’s sake

[http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/probdecisive2.pdf What is the probability your vote will make a difference?]

Where should this go on the Misconceptions page? Maybe "Legislation and crime" could move under a new "Policy" heading and this could fit there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turadg (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source that says any of this is a "common misconception"? If not, forget it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. I don't know the standards for such an assessment, but here is a list of articles explaining the irrationality of voting. Several of the authors are famed economists, to whom one might expect to be arbiters of what is "rational".
 * Don't Vote: It makes more sense to play the lottery (Landsberg in Slate)
 * Why Vote? (Dubner and Levitt in NYTimes)
 * Why do People Vote?: Voting is a supremely irrational act (Psychology Today)
 * Not Voting and Proud: Don't throw away your life; throw away your vote(Reason magazine)
 * Turadg 22:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turadg (talk • contribs)


 * As a rule of thumb on this page, we look for a source that states the fact as a "common misconception" or something to that effect. In addition, the (ir)rationality of voting is hardly cut and dry - it is largely dependent on individual utility gained by a sense of social responsibility, which is variable. Justintbassett (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dinosaurs and birds
Sorry about that. But I'm not going to look through a million pages of discussions. That being said, why wouldn't you state it, since it's quite untrue that dinosaurs went totally extinct at the K-T event. Birds are surviving members of the clade. Oh well, given the obvious ownership of this article, it makes no sense to discuss it again, and I'm certainly not going to read the discussions that end with an incorrect scientific conclusion. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 04:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Orangemarlin, feel free to express your opinions about this or any other issue pertaining to the article, but drop comments such as "obvious ownership of this article." They're not related to improving the aticle, and such baseless innuendo interferes with appropriate talk page discussion. Cresix (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with OM that the non-avian qualifier (or something similar) should stay. I think this is the archived discussion mentioned in Cresix's edit summary; this does not look anything remotely like "clear consensus" to me. Or is it being suggested that the idea of birds being dinosaurs should be left out of the article because it's "too confusing"? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've come to learn that WP:CONSENSUS means whatever an editor wants to so that they can continue with their edits. I agree, there's no consensus there.  I still find it quite amusing that throughout paleontology, birds are recognized as the last living members of the dinosaur clade.  And there are biological reasons why they survived the K-T event, which is totally cool.  This article should have cool, interesting, and verifiable stuff, and this is one of the most verifiable.  What's wrong with looking out at that robin walking on the grass, and not thinking it is a distant relative of a common ancestor to it and T. rex.  Since you and I have consensus, shall we add it back?  WP:BRD and all.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is NO consensus to remove birds. In fact, the vast majority, save two editors, understand that birds are fucking goddam dinosaurs.  By stating all dinosaurs died out 65.5 Ma is simply incorrect, unscientific, amateurish, and a bit snarky.  I can deal with the snark.  Can't deal with the rest of it.  Birds are part of the dinosaur clade, and the K-T extinction event article, by the way FA'ed, FA reviewed, peer-reviewed, and still well written, states very clearly that non-avian dinosaurs died out 65.5 million years ago.  Just because one editor believes that he personally owns this article, and the other editor has a slightly unscientific view of science doesn't mean we should follow those two down the primrose path of ignoring a scientific FACT.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 07:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can add it back if you'd like, I'll argue to include it if it gets reverted again. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I went bolder than bold.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 07:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that saying "non-avian" explicitly is absolutely correct and appropriate in the context where you did it. I guess Cresix' edit may have been a reflex based on the edit summary, without noticing that you didn't actually re-add the bogus misconception about the clade of dinosaurs being extinct but just tweaked existing wording. (Everybody knows that the dinosaurs in common speech sense are extinct. A lot of people don't know that biologists use the term dinosaur in an inclusive sense that covers birds as well. The difference between word definitions in common speech and in expert use is generally not a misconception.) Hans Adler 07:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Add my voice to this that the nonavian qualifier needs to stay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: I was reverted trying to add the misconception that dinosaurs were extinct due to lack of indep sources - here's one. I'll try and find others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether to say that birds are a sort of dinosaur, is a matter of definition. From dinosaur to bird there have been many changes. Compare: I am a mammal, but I do not class myself as a therapsid reptile, or a labyrinthodont, or a fish, although I am descended down the geological ages from all those. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of current reliable sources in paleontology classify birds as dinosaurs, and I think that's the most relevant issue here. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Anthony....from an evolutionary standpoint, mammals evolved from a common ancestor to dinosaurs and mammals. And read up on cladistics.  We don't say that mammals are a dinsoaurian clade.  No one does.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Correction to Ferahgo about the previous consensus: You linked the wrong discussion; you have to scroll down the page a bit. This was the discussion with the clear consensus. There was one editor who favored including a comment about birds; all others opposed. I realize that consensus can change, but I wanted to set the record straight about the previous consensus. I continue to oppose any inclusion of a statement about birds as dinosaurs. The definition of dinosaur is too slippery, and it creates too much confusion. The average person does not look at a bird and think dinosaur. Cresix (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for linking to the wrong discussion, I should have read further. Wikipedia is not supposed to reflect what the "average person" knows, it is supposed to educate the average person about what is actually true. That birds are dinosaurs is truth, recognized by a huge body of literature in paleontology and evolutionary biology. That dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago - with no exceptions or qualifiers noted - is simply untrue. As someone noted in one of the previous discussions, it's a mistake to perpetuate an outdated and inaccurate view of simple Linnaean taxonomy when we have a better model now. It's also more than a little ironic that in a page dedicated to undermining misconceptions, the article would knowingly perpetuate another. I think that OM's edit is the best way to leave it. It simply adds a Wikilinked qualifier without going into unnecessary detail, and people can click if they want to know more. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about the "average person", and I'll respect any consensus here, but this is not the article to educate people about such specific details related to evolutionary biology. There are other, much more appropriate articles. We are not compelled to include anything about birds here. That's a matter of choice, just as it's a matter of choice about the finer details related to many other items in this article. If readers are interested in reading more about dinosaurs, there's much more detail one click away. Cresix (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this in principle, which is why I think it's probably a good idea to keep a longer explanation about birds/dinosaurs out of this part of the article. Providing the Aves link, and nothing more, gives readers something to click if they're interested, while not bogging down the section with unnecessary detail but still having the sentence remain true. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact remains Cresix, that not all dinosaurs went extinct 65.5 million years ago. This is verifiable with reliable sources.  If you want them, I can put 20 in just to make a point, which I hope is unnecessary.  Aves is a dinosaurian clade.  If the readers wants more details, the 4 or 5 wikilinks should get them all they need to know.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"but this is not the article to educate people about such specific details related to evolutionary biology" Really? I should have thought that this is exactly the place, since they are misconceptions. Misconception 1 is that all dinosaurs went extinct. Misconception 2 is that humans and the non-Avian dinosaurs coexisted. BTW, I looked at the previous discussion, before anyone tells me to go and read, and it was pretty unconvincing that there was a consensus not the mention the bird/dinsoaurs issue. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 17:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no comments on your statements about the current discussion, but please explain how, in the previous discussion, one editor achieved a consensus to include the statement about birds. The weight of opinion was to exclude it. As I said, consensus can change (and it may very well change in this case), but I fail to see your point that there was no previous consensus to exclude the bird statement. And please don't respond that consensus is not a majority vote; I realize that. But when several editors express one opinion, and one editor expresses a different opinion, and there is adequate opportunity for discussion (as there was), consensus is achieved. This is largely a moot point now, of course, as we have a significant discussion underway now, but as a matter of principle I think I made a reasonable statement about the previous consensus. Cresix (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with the bird/dinosaur misconception as I see it is that "birds are not dinosaurs" is not a misconception at all. The word dinosaur is normally used in a sense that excludes all extant species, and even our article dinosaur uses language in this way. And presumably many scientists who write about dinosaurs do the same occasionally. So what is the actual misconception? That there may have been some kind of extinction event? If people just use language in different ways that's not a misconception (birds are not dinosaurs, herbal tea is not tea), and if they just don't know something (birds evolved out of dinosaurs, protons are built up of smaller particles called quarks) it's not a misconception either. Maybe there is a misconception, but in the precious attempt it didn't become clear what it was. Hans Adler 17:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Humans and non-Avian dinosaurs coexisting is a misconception, but not a commonly held misconceptions. Other than a few who believe it for religious reasons, pretty much everyone knows that it isn't true. Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I tend to be a deletionist on this article, Guymacon I must disagree. A sourced statement that "41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted" is rather compelling evidence that this is a common misconception. I think 41% is more than a few who believe it for religious reasons. Cresix (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cresix, we must be looking at different previous discussions then, because I saw more than one editor unhappy with the exclusion. More importantly I saw various unscientific statements made by both sides; evidently the misconceptions are widespread and need highlighting here.
 * Hans, the extinction of the dinosaurs article specifically states that the birds are dinosaurs and survived the KT event. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think we're looking at different discussions. Ferahgo inadvertently linked to the wrong discussion earlier in this section. In this previous discussion, one editor supported including the bird statement. Cresix (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried to insert a wording that would make the issue understandable to readers, but Cresix has reverted it. Looie496 (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And apparently you didn't read my edit summary, Looie. When disputed information is under discussion, it is inappropriate to change it without a consensus on this talk page. So far there is support to leave the information as it is right now (which includes a very brief mention of aves), and support to omit mention of aves, but there is no consensus for your extended changes. Feel free to comment on the disputed information, but do not change it again unless there is a consensus here to support your change. Cresix (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looie, not that I would normally agree with Cresix, but I think your edits are, well, weasel worded. I would have reverted them too.  Moreover, if we're going to explain all the reasons why birds are living dinosaurs (per se), it'd be a whole article in itself (and I'm kind of wondering why there isn't, but maybe it's elsewhere).  I think your changes are too much for a "list".   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I must not miss this chance to also agree with Orangemarlin. Your text was just too verbose for what at this article is just a digression. Hans Adler 18:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, I NEVER read the changes.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question what the misconception is. To be clear: I have no problem with the image and its caption that alludes to this point. But I have the impression that you want a new entry in the main text for a misconception, and I want to make sure that it is a misconception rather than something else. Hans Adler 17:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What image are you guys talking about?  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The top one in section Evolution. Its caption says: "Non-avian dinosaurs died out in the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous period." Provided that is correct (see Casliber's book link below, which suggests this may be a simplistic description -- but I haven't read it yet, so you probably know more), then that's fine because its reasonable as an illustration for the misconception that dinosaurs and humans existed and at the same time gives important related information. Hans Adler 07:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this discussion, I note that Baseball Bugs was content to leave the adjective "nonavian" in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I stand corrected. Two editors were OK with "avian". The consensus was to remove any mention of birds or avians. Cresix (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also Brangifer in that same discussion stated he'd be happy with a new section on birds=dinosaurs if source material statign it was a common misconception arose. I found one which I linked to further up this page. So Cresix, the consensus is not so clear cut.Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I support a new section on this too. How's this for a source? (page 93) -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! That makes two sources noting the misconception that birds ain't dino's hehehe Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you need more, I can provide them? Hehehehehe.  Ferahgo.  Good link.  I ended up reading a few dozen pages.  Very interesting.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone want to start writing a section on this, or shall I give it a try? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's a good idea to add this, but if you really want to try, make sure that you first find out what the misconception is and make that clear. It's not a misconception that birds are not dinosaurs, because the word dinosaur usually does not refer to the clade. I don't think it's a misconception that there is believed to have been an extinction event. So I guess what remains is the misconception that all dinosaurs died as a consequence of the extinction event -- or something like this. Hans Adler 22:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The book I linked to above says that the common misconception is that all dinosaurs died at the K-T extinction, so that's likely the angle I'd be taking on it. If others don't think it's a good idea, though, I won't bother. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh?
The last sentence of the astronomy section, talking about seasons, says "in tropical areas of the world, there is no noticeable change in the amount of sunlight." I couldn't source that in the refs. But anyway, Hawaii which is in the tropics, gets 38 percent more sunlight in July than December (293 hrs v 211 hrs) as can be seen here..Moriori (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed that sentence. As you say, it is simply false, and even if a correct version could be substituted, it doesn't really have any relevance to the issue. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DEFCON 5
I proposed to add a section to this page on the misconception about the DEFCON system. Cresix says that there is no evidence that this is a common misconception, but I would say that there definitely is, considering its widespread misunderstanding in popular culture: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DefconFive. 96.18.98.101 (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WTF is a DEFCON? How can there be a misconception about something nobody has heard about? Hans Adler 01:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have heard of DEFCON, but I have never heard of somebody mistaking the severity of the levels, and that source does not look reliable. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 01:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like from the source it is a pretty common mistake, and I do remember this happening in an episode of the office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbitybob (talk • contribs) 01:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bobbitybob, please clarify something. In the edit history, it was you who added this DEFCON misconception. Above, anon96.18.98.101 claims to have proposed the addition. Are you two one and the same editor? If so, it is a policy violation to express opinions in a discussion under two different usernames. See WP:SOCK. Cresix (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He didn't sign in with multiple names, he didn't sign in at all. That's why SineBot signed his post for him. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, Anon 96.18.98.101 and Bobbitybob are both me, I just hadn't logged in :)
 * Oh, man, I did it again. Bobbitybob (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgetting to log in is a common mistake. But why did you feel a need to repeat yourself here. You stated that you think it is a common misconception when speaking as an anon, and then you basically say the same thing when logged in? Cresix (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Anon 96.18.98.101, your source does not describe it as either a "common misconception" or a "widespread misunderstanding in popular culture". The only description about how common this "misunderstanding" is: "In some movies." If we accepted every misunderstanding presented "in some movies", the article would be hundreds of times its current length. "In some movies", dogs can talk; not a common misconception. "In some movies", people with low incomes live in very large, plush homes. Not a common misconception. And please don't claim it is a common misconception simply because your source presents 6 or 8 serious and unequivocal examples that misinterpret the DEFCON system. That is leaping to a conclusion from a very meager number of examples. Find a better source. A much better source. Cresix (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What...wait...you mean dogs can't talk? Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And TV Tropes is just a wiki, not a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The facts present are simply occurrences of this misunderstanding in popular culture, not scientific research, or anything like that, so I feel as though a lower standard of reputability could be accepted here.Bobbitybob (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But again, your source does not provide any significant evidence that this is a "misunderstanding in popular culture". It only provides evidence that a few movies (very few) got it wrong. Cresix (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Vegetarian/Vegan Section
I didn't want to edit it outright, as it's my first edit to this page, and there very well may have been a previous edit war over this, but as it stands right now, the vegetarian/vegan entry reads like an advertising campaign for a vegetarian diet:
 * A vegetarian or vegan diet can provide enough protein.[132][133][134] In fact, typical protein intakes of ovo-lacto vegetarians and of vegans meet and exceed requirements.[135] While lower in protein than non-vegetarian diets, adequate but low protein diets have been shown to be beneficial against cancer.[136] A non-vegetarian diet high in protein such as a typical diet in the United States in fact has been shown to be linked to several diseases including osteoporosis, cancer, impaired kidney function, and heart disease.[134] However, a vegetarian or vegan diet is not a cure-all for all human disease,[132] and a strict vegan diet does require supplementation of Vitamin B-12 for optimal health.[132]

The premise is fine - it is a common misconception that vegan diets are protein-deficient. But the section shouldn't include the anti-cancer claims, nor the detriments of a high-protein diet. This could be included on the vegetarian/vegan page instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justintbassett (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have trimmed out the offending statements. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea, purported by many Americans, is that a vegetarian diet will make a person unhealthy. So making a counterpoint to this argument should be included as part of denying the misconception. For what do you feel the paragraph is an advertisement? There's no one business linked to vegan and vegetarian diets. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Except the section, which seems to have been cleaned up, went too far the other way by claiming that a non-vegetarian diet (or one high in protein) leads to cancers, heart disease, etc. etc.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the myth is that "vegetarian diets are unhealthy", then it should state (and source) that. The sourced common misconception, though, is that vegetarian diets do not have enough protein. All that is needed to debunk that is what is current;y in the article. The previous version (found in the first-level post of this thread) contains a lot of needless pandering. Justintbassett (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Catharsis
The current iteration has a section about catharsis, claiming that cathartic acts actually are disadvantageous. A study that was recently featured in TIME may warrant inclusion as a counterexample: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/04/18/wtf-study-shows-swearing-reduces-pain/. The study came to the conclusion that swearing reduces pain. I'd argue that this is a form of catharsis that acts in exactly the intended manner. Justintbassett (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the item. It fails criteria 2 and 3. Neither source identifies this as a common misconception. Your source adds to the evidence for removal. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem
Someone raised the question of whether Monty Hall problem should be listed. My initial impression in no, but I am open to being convinced otherwise. Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue no also, because I don't think it's a misconception in the sense that most people do not have a conception about this issue to begin with. It is just something that most people would answer incorrectly if the problem was presented to them. Although by now the Monty Hall problem is fairly well known so people might be able to answer correctly because of that. Just my personal view but if sources say it is a common misconception or something along those lines I would be open to including it. ––CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say I hadn't heard about it until it was presented as an arb case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The other issue with this is, if you check out the arb case, whether or not the common assumption is false depends entirely on conditions not normally stated in the problem (i.e. which door is originally "shown.") The mathematical issues involve, as far as I'm concerned, make this issue more complex than is feasible for a "list" article. eldamorie (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The mathematical issues are as crystal clear as those behind 0.999... and naturally misconceptions about both are documented in this very talk page (see archive for 0.999...). Tkuvho (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The common nature of the misconception is clearly sourced at Monty Hall Problem. Rather than yielding to the delete reflex, please add a footnote here if that's the format you prefer.  Tkuvho (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Eldamorie's statement that "if you check out the arb case, whether or not the common assumption is false depends entirely on..." is incorrect. There is a long-running content dispute that resulted in bad behavior and an arbcom ruling on same (arbcom does not rule on content), but the content dispute is between two different ways of explaining that the 50% / 50% odds assumption is wrong and that 33.33% / 66.66% odds is correct. It has nothing to do withe whether the common 50% / 50% odds assumption is false. Everyone agrees that it is false. All citations to reliable sources say it is false. Some sources talk of other, related problems, but they all fall far short of the "commonly held" criteria and thus have nothing to do with this page Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The following sourced material could be included: ''In a game show, there are three closed doors, one hiding a car, and two hiding a goat. The player wishing to win a car guesses a door, which remains closed. The host proceeds to reveal a goat behind one of the remaining doors, and offers the player a chance to switch his choice of door to the remaining door. Should the player switch? The correct answer, contrary to a common misconception, is affirmative: the player doubles her chance of winning the car by doing so. When Parade published this answer, it received ten thousand letters of protest, testifying to the common nature of this misconception.'' Tkuvho (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Personally, I don't think it belongs in the article, hence why I deleted it. I'd be less likely to do so if you added an actual reference instead of just pointing to a different article. I don't think it should be included because what is commonly referred to as the "Monty Hall Problem" is actually multiple, slightly different problems. It is not as crystal clear as .999... = 1 because host behavior is the deciding factor (see []. In the form of the problem as it was presented in Vos Savant's column, this issue was not addressed, therefore individuals who are likely making different assumptions about host behavior are likely to come to different solutions that are entirely in line with their original assumptions. Not to mention the fact that the article remains controversial after the arb case (although I suppose that could be used as an argument for including the data...).


 * To be clear, I'm not arguing that the "simple solution" is necessarily incorrect, just that the issue is not as clear cut as the simple solution would have us believe. Regardless, referencing the mhp article is insufficient to meet the criteria. Footnotes are vital. eldamorie (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Both the simple solution and the conditional solution lead to a conclusion that the common 50%/50% odds assumption is wrong, and thus have nothing to do with any proposed entry in a list of common misconceptions. It is a dispute among mathematics professors as to what the best way to explain that the common 50% / 50% odds assumption is wrong. No need for that level of detail here. Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(double ec) I don't really understand what the issue is in adding this, but I'm not a regular here (I'm here because of a thread at WT:WPM). That the Monty Hall problem reflects a common misconception is surely evidenced by the 1000 odd letters sent to Parade Magazine objecting to the solution. Under the typical interpretation of the problem statement, the solution is provably correct (although Vos Savant made errors in the presentation of that solution). There have been attempts to devise different interpretations of the problem statement, and different ways of going about solving it. But I think that's all secondary to the main issue that most people when confronted with the problem have trouble conceiving that, even under the standard interpretation of the problem, the contestant is better off switching.

Regarding specific sources for this as a "misconception", there is a section about Monty Hall in Statistical Misconceptions By Schuyler W. Huck. There is a discussion of the psychology of this misconception in Bayes for Beginners by David S Moore in the collection Advances in statistical decision theory and applications by S. Panchapakesan, N. Balakrishnan, Shanti Swarup Gupta: "Students find it very hard to distinguish between P(A|B), P(A and B), and P(B|A) in plain language settings." These are just the first two from the Google books search. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So add it with those sources - my main objection was that the content was being sourced to another wikipedia article. eldamorie (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Just as is claimed for the problem itself, my Edit summary for the first revert in this exchange was surely 100% clear. User:Tkuvho simply must have seen the article's inclusion criteria when he edited the article, and completely ignored them. Commendably, he uses Edit summaries himself, but chose to completely ignore mine when he reverted my revert. He is now on the edge of a violation of WP:3RR. Such behaviour by one of its fans will never help the case for inclusion of this material. The unacceptable behaviour inevitably takes attention away from the far more sensible discussion of whether there is something here worth including. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Over on Talk:Monty Hall problem there is now a consensus that the editors involved with that page come to an agreement as to the text of a proposed addition to list of common misconceptions with proper sourcing and no content before we actually propose it here. Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tkuvho just added this item. I'd like to ask Tkuvho (or anyone) to provide here the information from Schuyler W. Huck, Statistical Misconceptions that confirms that this is a common misconception. A direct quotation would be very helpful. Most of us don't have access to that source. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I stopped following this discussion when I was satisfied that the proposal to include the Monty Hall problem was rejected. I must have missed the new turn of the discussion. I was quite surprised to see it's now in the article. I am opposed to the inclusion because it's not a misconception in the normal sense but something with deeper roots. It's an expression of a cognitive bias. I have browsed through Huck's book and got the impression that he uses "misconception" in an unusually wide sense. My guess is that he wanted to write a book about popular false arguments in statistics and then went with "misconceptions" for the title because books about popular misconceptions are fashionable. Hans Adler 11:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hans, I really don't see why this bothers you to the point of challenging a consensus at Talk:Monty Hall problem. Obviously large numbers of people are aware of the problem, particularly since the Parade thing, etc.  People obviously don't believe the correct solution the moment it is presented to them (in this sense, this is very similar to .999...).  The fact that this may have deep cognitive roots does not negate the fact that it is a common misconception.  In short, it is a widely known math problem, and the correct solution is just as widely disbelieved.  Tkuvho (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I also question whether this item should remain in the article. I don't think it has been sufficiently sourced to be a common misconception among the general population. The source described it as a "famous example of a 'cognitive illusion', often used by psychologists, economists, and even law scientists". A "famous example" of something used by an academic does not necessarily translate into a common misconception. It may be famous among that select group of people, but I suspect that most people have never given it much thought. When they watch the actual game show, I doubt that statistical probability goes through their minds. I'm not necessarily saying that this is unequivocally not a common misconception; I just think we need better sourcing that this is something that enough people even think about to make it a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I also have my doubts. Clearly among those who have heard of the problem there is an overwhelmingly false misconception, but what percentage of the general population reads Parade Magazine? My original comment when I started this topic was made to explore this very question prior to including it on the list.  I am inclined to remove it until a citation or two showing general knowledge that the problem exists is provided. Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Maybe twenty years ago this could have been included, but Let's Make A Deal hasn't been syndicated since 1986, and I'd wager that an ever-larger portion of the population couldn't even tell you the format of the show anymore. Justintbassett (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not really clear how "common" something needs to be to be called a common misconception. (E.g., duck quacks don't echo? Is that really a common misconception? I've certainly never heard of it.)  The point seems to be what reliable sources have to say about the matter, and at least one source says that this is a common misconception.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sławomir Biały, please give us the details about your source that "says that this is a common misconception". It's certainly not this one linked in the article. That source only describes it as a "'cognitive illusion', often used by psychologists, economists, and even law scientists". It is described as a misconception, but not a common misconception. There's a huge difference. Listing everything here that is described somewhere as simply a misconception would expand this article to the size of the entirety of Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the remarkable assertion: That source only describes it as a "'cognitive illusion', often used by psychologists, economists, and even law scientists". No, it also describes it as having been popularized by Marilyn vos Savant's column in parade.  You'll note "popular" is a synonym of "common".  Anyway, here is a module published by the Pennsylvania Department of Education that actually uses the exact phrase "common misconception" in relation to the Monty Hall problem, although it's not clear how reliable that should be regarded.  Doubtless more sources can be found attesting to the commonness of this misconception, if you want to pursue the matter further.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing "remarkable" in my statement. "Popularized" in Parade magazine is not necessarily equivalent to "common misconception". That all depends on how many people actually read one article in one issue that mentions the Monty Hall problem and, perhaps more importantly, how many of those readers already knew the solution to the Monty Hall problem, how many didn't know it but were convinced by the article of the correct solution, and how many read the article and still didn't believe the correct solution. If you have those data, please provide them; otherwise an article in Parade magazine is no evidence whatsoever that this is a common misconception. And Sławomir, if there are "doubtless more sources", by all means please do the legwork, find them, and post them here. That's the way WP:BURDEN works on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. There were thousands of letters to Parade Magazine disputing the solution.  Those statistics are well-known.  I'll post them too.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the quotation already provided says that it is "the most famous example of a cognitive illusion" in a book on statistical misconceptions. That's already more than most entries have as far as direct sources calling them a common misconception.  But I'll add more sources, as you say.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "Doubtless more sources can be found attesting to the commonness of this misconception", I hope so, because if those sources are not found we are going to have to remove it from the list. I happen to personally like it being in, but the standards for inclusion are quite clear, and require reliable sources attesting to the commonness of this misconception.Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the Tierney piece discusses it being debated nationally. (I was also going to include the part about 10,000 letters being sent to Parade, per Cresix that we quote some statistics.) The Huck book, a book about statistical misconceptions says both that it is "popular" (and not just to readers of Parade&mdash;that is not the implication of the text, nor is it true), and that it is "the most famous example" of a cognitive illusion.  The Pennsylvania Department of Education actually uses the exact phrase "common misconception".  This seems like stronger sourcing for the commonness of the misconception than most of the other entries of this list!  If folks continue to argue for its removal, I'll start to wonder why there seems to be a double-standard.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There were thousands of letters to Parade Magazine: Thousands? Let's suppose it was 3,000 10,000. The population of the United States alone is over 300 million. That's about 1/1000th 3/1000th of one percent. If you think that's evidence of a common misconception, I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
 * You not-so-cleverly left out part of the sentence you quoted: "famous example of a 'cognitive illusion', often used by psychologists, economists, and even law scientists". I am a university professor; I sometimes use the "famous" Milgram experiment (famous among psychiatry and psychology professors) to illustrate a concept. The vast majority of the population has no idea what the Milgram experiment is. So what your truncated quote really says is that this is a misconception among some psychologists, economists, and law scientists. That's even less than 1/1000th of one percent of the general population of the United States.
 * Bottom line: no substantial evidence that this is a common misconception except among a very, very select group of people. Cresix (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini "Probability blindness: Neither rational nor capricious", Bostonia, March/April 1991, 28–35: "No other statistical puzzle comes so close to fooling all of the people all of the time....The phenomenon is particularly interesting precisely because of its specificity, its reproducibility, and its immunity to higher education." (As quoted in Rosenhouse, Jason: The Monty Hall Problem. Oxford University Press 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-536789-8, p. 31.)  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't how many people can accurately solve the Monty Hall problem. The issue is how many people actually have given it any thought, even the people who watched the gameshow. As an analogy, many people probably would have a misconception about the behavior of subatomic particles if they thought about it, but the vast majority of people rarely, if ever, think about it. Inability to solve a statistical probability problem is not evidence of a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if that is the issue, then how many people think duck quacks don't echo? How many people think gyroscopic forces are required to ride a bicycle?  In fact, as far as I can tell none of the entries on the list keeps track of what percentage of the general population believes them.  That's an impossible standard to hold any entry to.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be an impossible standard for this particular item, but that's because it's not a common misconception. It's not an impossible standard for the article in general. As for ducks and bicycles, every item is judged on its own merit. If you find an item in the article that is not reasonably sourced as being a common misconception, then by all means please remove it, or discuss it here. "Other stuff exists" is no reason to continue to add to the problems already in the article. Cresix (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But I just pointed out that no item in the list has precise statistics associated with it. Precious few even have sources that directly address the "common misconception" issue.  Other stuff exists is one thing, but it seems like you are inventing a different standard for this item to which none of the others is held.  (Oh, and if you wanted numbers as evidence at any rate of the commonness of the "common misconception", the Tierney article appeared on the front page of the New York Times.  At the time, that had a circulation in the millions.)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a quite a number of items in the article that are properly sourced as "common misconceptions", some with exact statistics. Please read the article and the sources that are cited. And once again, if you find items that are not sourced as being common misconceptions, please remove them. "Front page of the New York Times"? Once again, how many people read it; how many already understood the answer to the MH problem; how many were convinced; how many were not convinced. Give me those data, or front page of the NYT is meaningless. I didn't ask for an exact percentage. I asked for a reliable source that clearly and unequivocally identifies the Monty Hall problem as something that is given sufficient thought by enough people to be a common misconception among the general population. I'm not arguing whether most people can or can't solve the statistical probabilities involved; I'm saying most people have given it no thought. I want some evidence to the contrary, and more than 3/1000ths of one percent of the general population. Cresix (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's consider Parade (magazine): http://www.parade.com/corporate/parade_facts.html makes the following claims:

Circulation: 32.2 million. Readership: 74 million. (Wikipedia says "It reaches nearly 42 million monthly")

We know that among the letters sent to Vos Savant from the general public, 92% weree against her answer.

Assuming that two thirds of Parade readers skipped all of the several Vos Savant columns on the topic, that would be very roughly 10 million people.

The puzzle was mentioned in an episode of the first season of the CBS drama NUMB3RS, which averaged 10.77 million viewers.

The puzzle was also mentioned in 21 (2008 film), which grossed a total of $157 million dollars. If each person paid $10 to see it, that would be 16 million people.

We probably should assume that the movie and the TV show did a worse job of convincing people than Vos Savant did.

So at least twenty or thirty million have heard of it, and at least 90% of them have the misconception.

Is that enough? Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Being mindlessly exposed to something is not the same as thinking about it. I get Parade magazine. I only occasionally look at it. When I do, I might read one article. Even that one article might just be the first paragraph to see if it's interesting. How many people read every article in every issue; or alternatively, how many people read the one article of the one issue in question?
 * 92% of 10,000 people? Once again, that's less than 3/1000th of one percent of the general United States population. Not evidence of a common misconception.
 * How many people viewed the one episode of NUMB3RS? How many paid enough attention to the MH facts to actually give it any thought? How many already knew the solution to the MH problem? How many were convinced? How many were not convinced?
 * I'm not seeing much more than speculation that enough people have given the MH problem enough thought to even have a misconception. Cresix (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cresix here. Like I said several days ago, a misconception is something that people know, but is actually incorrect—not something they answer incorrectly when it is presented to them. For example, I bet most people would say 2 + 2 × 2 = 8, when it is actually 6 due to order of operations. Doesn't make it a common misconception. In the end though, what really matters is reliable sources saying it is a "common misconception" or something very similar. I don't think that threshold has been met yet. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 03:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please interpret the question "Is that enough?" as "Hey, I have no idea whether this is enough, but these numbers and assumptions might be worth discussing" not as "here are some numbers that I am implying are enough." If I had meant the latter, I would have written "That's enough." Remember, my position is that I haven't seen a citation to a reliable source establishing general notability,and that we need to delete the section if such a citation does not appear.  Actually, I originally suggested establishing general notability before adding the material, but another editor added it against my advice. Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are sources that say something very close to this, but they are basically being interpreted (by Cresix in particular) to mean among some very small segment of the population. There's a large research literature showing that the general population makes the wrong choice in situations like this that require Bayesian reasoning. So I imagine it would be less controversial to call it a "common cognitive illusion" or something like that.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong, and don't personalize this. There are no sources that clearly and unequivocally identify this as a common misconception (i.e., criterion 2). The 4 criteria weren't created by Cresix. They were created by consensus. Where we go from here is to remove the item, unless proper sourcing can be provided. We cannot add every statistical probability problem that most people can't solve. I have about 7 or 8 statistics textbooks. Give me a couple of hours and I could come up with several dozen probability items that most people could not solve. Solving statistical problems is not the issue here. Giving enough thought to the MH problem to have a misconception about it is the issue. Cresix (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not personalizing, just making a clear referent for a statement. We have one source that unequivocally says that it is a "common misconception" (with those exact words), another that says that it is a "famous 'cognitive illusion'".  Various sources attest to its popularity.  More sources still can be brought up that will support an assertion that it is a common cognitive issue with precisely this kind of Bayesian reasoning (not just as a "statistics" problem, but whenever this kind of decision needs to be made in the world).  Also, I think the cry to delete is premature.  We're still discussing.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The one source that uses "common misconception" has dubious reliability. And once again, you left out an important part of the "famous cognitive illusion" sentence; famous among psychologists, economists, and law scientists. "Various sources attesting to its popularity", but zero evidence about how many people actually paid attention to those sources. And please don't put words in my mouth. I did not make a premature "cry to delete". I said if sufficient sourcing cannot be found, it should be deleted, according to criterion 2. I understand that you are trying to spin this issue toward inclusion and I don't blame you for that, but please don't selectively quote sources (especially when it has already been pointed out) or misstate my words. Cresix (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be getting a bit adversarial. I'm going to take a break for a week or so and return to the discussion at that time. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate editor Cresix's efforts to ensure that any item added here is properly sourced beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, this particular item currently having 4 reliable references testifying to its common nature, to insist on further verification would seem like splitting hairs.  Tkuvho (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Tkuvho, but that is simply not accurate and I must repeat myself. A source identifies it as a statistical probability problem that is commonly used by "psychologists, economists, and law scientists" to illustrate that most people can't solve the statistical probabilities correctly (and that is not the issue here; as I've said, I could add dozens of statistical problems that most people cannot solve). Other sources refer to an article in a popular magazine, with absolutely no evidence about how many people read it, how many of those already knew the answer to the MH problem, how many did not know and were convinced, or how many read the article and still weren't convinced. Most people have never given enough thought to the MH problem to even have a misconception about it. Cresix (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that "psychologists, economists, and law scientists" think it is a common misconception does not mean that it is a common misconception among "psychologists, economists, and law scientists". It means that based on their work with laymen, such specialists come to the conclusion that it is a common misconception. Tkuvho (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It means that psychologists, economists, and law scientists use this statistical problem to illustrate that most people can't solve it. The misconception at issue here is not how many people can solve the problem; it's whether most people have even given it any thought. No offense, but how many times do I have to repeat this: I can literally post a couple of dozen statistical problems that most people cannot solve. Those are not common misconceptions. As CWenger stated above, a misconception is something that people know, but is actually incorrect—not something they answer incorrectly when it is presented to them. There are millions of bits of information out there in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc. that the average person cannot figure out; they're not common misconceptions because most people have never given them any thought. The MH problem is simply one more that most people have never given any consideration. Cresix (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Cresix; there's an equivocation here between "common misconception" and a question that people commonly answer incorrectly. Hairhorn (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A common misconception is precisely a question that people commonly answer incorrectly. The fact of people being commonly exposed to it makes it a common misconception.  As has been already mentioned more than once in this space, the nature of this particular question is such that people refuse to accept the correct answer, much like the 0.999... misconception.  Obviously, if they accepted the correct answer once they heard it, this would not be a common misconception.  But they don't.  Just check Talk:Monty Hall problem :) Tkuvho (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * People commonly answer incorrectly when asked the probability that a particular set of numbers will roll if four die are rolled, or what the odds are that a particular sequence will roll; not a common misconception, just uninformed. We could come up with thousands of these. These are not common misconceptions, just things people answer incorrectly because they've never thought about them. The MH problem is no different. Cresix (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are not responding to the point I am making. MHP is not in the category of "uninformed".  People continue to cling to their belief even after they are given the correct answer.  Same as 0.999...  There is no reason they should cling to their wrong value for the probability of four dice, etc.  The fact that they continue to cling to their wrong belief in the case of MHP is documented in the literature.  Tkuvho (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I clung to my erroneous beliefs about rolling die until it was explained to my level of understanding. Before that, I never gave it much thought. It was never a misconception on my part, just ignorance. Give me the unequivocal evidence that "people continue to cling to their belief even after they are given the correct answer", if it is explained to their level of understanding. And that does not include a source stating that it is used as an example by psychologists and economists, or that 3/1000th of one percent of people who might have read a magazine article wrote a letter. How many people in the general population cling to the belief? And BTW, I still don't consider the 0.999... item to be a common misconception, but it is reliably sourced as such, so I accept it. So far, that kind of sourcing has not been provided for the MH problem. Cresix (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Cresix and others have a point here, this is a mathematical problem most likely to be solved erroneously but not able to qualify as a common misconception. There is no real basis among the mass for the common thing to happen. Every media depiction would portray this as a "statistical illusion", but you will certainly not find any source and people mistakenly solve this problem and not realizing its falsehood(which actually, renders it impossible to be a misconception, as stated above). People would argue about, be skeptical of, feel hard to believe the right solution and takes a lot of time to finally come around, but they would not automatically believes the other way and naturally hold on to it as a fact, both because the inherent nature of this being a complex mathematical problem, and because it has almost always appeared in media and popular culture in its correct form, hence cannot encourage and shape a real common misconception. I also think of the PDE source as a really standalone source and like Cresix I question its reliability. I would desire more sources clearly stating it is a common misconception among common people.Kuphrer (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Cresix, and I think Kuphrer makes a very important point with "it has almost always appeared in media and popular culture in its correct form". I.e. you can divide the population into two parts: One which has heard about the Monty Hall problem and knows the correct solution, and one which has not (a large proportion of which will not be able to solve the problem). The MHP cannot be said to be a common misconception among either of these populations.
 * Personally, I think of a misconception as a piece of "knowledge" that a person would conceivably share with others (Napoleon was little, the great wall of china is visible from the moon), and to me, various miscalculations do not fit. Dr bab (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

On the inherent problems associated with "I have never heard of that" or "everyone I know has that misconception":
We often see arguments of the form "I have never heard of that misconception" or "everyone I know shares that misconception." These arguments have a basic flaw; misconceptions may be common in one region or one social class and nearly unknown in another. For example, all my friends are well aware of the Double-slit experiment and its implications, but I seriously doubt that it is commonly known among the general population. On the other hand, I just googled "celebrity rumors" and found this little gem: http://www.nerve.com/content/the-40-best-celebrity-rumors-ever (not suitable for children). Not only had I only heard of one of those rumors (the one about J. Edgar Hoover), I don't know who half of the "celebrities" mentioned are. Again my experience is unlikely to match that of the general population. That's why we need citations to reliable sources establishing that a misconception is commonly held. Anecdotal evidence just isn't good enough. Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd like to see a lot less anecdotal evidence proffered on this page. Take Fan death as an example. If I walked around my (American) office right now, I doubt I could find a single person that believed it. In Korea, though, it is widely believed. Finding sources for a misconception is important, though I do believe we should develop better criteria for what qualifies something for common misconception status. Justintbassett (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Guy, as someone who (stupidly) has spent as much as 10 hours in one day removing dozens of I-like-this-misconception items added with absolutely no evidence, I fully agree with everything you say. That's exactly why the 4 criteria were established. I don't have a problem with editors making comments such as "I've never heard of that" or "All my friends know about that" because talk pages don't require sources, but such comments never substitute for appropriate sources in the article. Cresix (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't do it to argue that a misconception should stay. When I say something similar, I mean that I think the subject should be looked into further. Also, all of these misconceptions are regional. What misconception is there which people the earth over share? Perhaps 'the sun is yellow' came close, but not quite. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regional to some extent. Should we include misconceptions that are widely held throughout the United States, or Canada, or Great Britain, or some other country? Yes. Should we include misconceptions that are held in one county of one state of the USA (and there are some of those out there)? No. Cresix (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think maybe it always goes down to whether there are reliable sources. When proposing to add something to the page, just don't say anything beyond those supported by your source. Assume the I know nothing position and let the data and articles talk. That way we might save a lot of time used in unproductive arguments.Kuphrer (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Entropy and evolution
Unless I'm mistaken, an increase of entropy means an increase in chaos (therefore complexity). The second law of thermodynamics therefore states that EVERYTHING becomes more complex. It would therefore even corroborate evolution. So although "Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics" is still right, the explanation that follows is not and should be changed. KatzBlackblade (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are confusing chaos with complexity. They are totally unrelated. Complexity, or more precisely, diversity, is a exact demonstration of how much order the bio-system has. A rich and hierarchal network of organisms represents a low entropy. Kuphrer (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. I had to think about it, but you're right. Sorry. KatzBlackblade (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Myths about Language
Hi, We are a class at the University of Minnesota studying Language and Society. We have spent the semester working on common misconceptions about language and would like to share them on Wikipedia. Since this is a big addition, we are first putting the section in the discussion area, but we would like to move these myths over to the main page. Thank you. (Sara S. Loss, instructor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crayonzilla (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can add a brief summary hear and discuss if it warrants addition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justintbassett (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Myth: English is ruining other languages

As a common lingua franca, English is permeating the languages of other nation. Because of this, some believe that English loanwords are “ruining” other languages. However, lexical borrowings from English retain the phonetic　and morphologic structure of the original language. An example is the verb arrenji-suru (アレンジする, /ɑɾɛndʒi-sʊɾʊ/, “to arrange”) in Japanese, which takes the English word “arrange” and adds the infinitive verb suffix –suru. Similarly in Spanish, the word bistec (/bistɛk/) is derived from the English words “beef steak” and the French word “le weekend” share the same meanings as the original English word, it has changed to conform to the phonemes of their respective languages. --Scott (List of common misconceptions) 11:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the common misconception that is being claimed here?--Asher196 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's the reverse: Words from other languages continually get absorbed into English. Whether such assimilation (in English or not) qualifies as "ruining" is subjective. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No evidence whatsoever that this is a common misconception, very likely because it isn't. Cresix (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not All Romance Language Speakers Can Understand Each Other

It is well known that romance languages have many similar linguistic features. Despite this fact, not all romance language speakers can understand each other when they speak. Historically, all romance languages derive from Vulgar Latin. Local variants and creoles have developed through slavery, colonization, displaced people, and the forming of new countries, distancing the similarities amongst all of the romance languages. For example, phonological differences create a barrier for romance language speakers impeding their ability to understand one another. French, for example, drops all final vowels, and in many cases the last consonant is not sounded out. Spanish on the other hand pronounces all consonants and vowels at all times. Vocabulary differences and false cognates create another barrier for romance language speakers. “Sono” for example in Italian means “I am” but in Portuguese means “sleep”. These differences may lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Romance languages have many commonalities, however not all speakers of romances languages can understand one another in a conversation simply because the languages are similar.
 * With regards to Romance languages, I didn't know that was a myth at all. Since this is an English Wikipedia, I would guess that most wouldn't know what a Romance language is (well, other than maybe saying French is romantic, as in love and such).  Those who know what a Romance language is would assume that French is not at all similar to Spanish or Italian.  And let's not even go with Romanian which isn't even close to the other languages.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the common misconception being claimed here. Who believes that romance language speakers can all understand one another? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No evidence whatsoever that this is a common misconception, because it isn't. I'm 60 years old, speak two languages, and have never once heard this concept as even a remote possiblity. Who thinks up this stuff??? Cresix (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've actually heard something to this effect before, from my first Spanish teacher. In describing the development of the Spanish language, she noted the similarities to French and Italian, claiming that with some effort, a fluent speaker of one language could roughly understand the speaker of another. I have no idea if this is something commonly asserted, though. Justintbassett (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Double Negation

The myth that double negatives in English make a sentence illogical is untrue, especially when coupled with the myth that double negatives must be figured out mathematically. As in Romance languages, the use of double negatives was considered standard in Old English, and it emphasized the negation and showed agreement between the negative and the verb. When English was standardized using Latin rules, such as double negatives canceling to positives, the uneducated continued using double negatives with no loss of understanding. Today, some double negatives serve the function of litotes, such as saying that someone is “not unkind” to mean that he isn’t mean, but that he isn’t exactly kind either.


 * This isn't a bad proposal, although the double negatives article would need to have material about this misconception before it would be acceptable here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This one is interesting but very likely not a common misconception. It may be a misconception among linguists and language teachers, but probably not among the general population. And it will need a lot more than "the double negatives article ... [having] material about this misconception" to be acceptable for this article. Specifically, meeting criterion 2 is required. Cresix (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look at the first cited source, there's a lot in it about surveyed common perceptions of general population, not just linguists and teachers. There's enough in the source material to indicate that this is indeed a common misconception. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless I missed something (and please correct me if I have), there is not "a lot in it about surveyed common perceptions of general population". On page 114, the author uses the phrase "If you ask people why ...", with no indication of whether this might be two people or two thousand people. On page 115, the author picked ten people off the street in London (no indication of where in London; was this at or near a university campus where the sample is quite narrow? We don't know; no evidence this is a representative sample). Ten people??? Any statistician or pollster will tell you that is about as close to a worthless sample as you can get. I could asked ten people if they believe Osama bin Laden is dead, and I am unlikely to get an accurate image of what the general population thinks. As I said, please correct me if I didn't read far enough, but if that's all there is, that's a long way from "enough in the source material to indicate that this is indeed a common misconception". If I spent a little time, I could add a dozen or two "common misconceptions" that few people have heard of using that method. Cresix (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Surveys will often state that 100 people of diverse backgrounds represent the entirety of Americans. Obviously that doesn't account for individual opinion, but adheres to some strange philosophy that peoples of the same skin color, financial, or religious backgrounds all think exactly the same way. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Small Inaccuracy in Section on the liquidity of glass
The article is correct in that older panes of glass are often thicker at the bottom due to the manufacturing process instead of glass flowing, but that would not apply to stained glass, which is stated and linked in the article, as the manufacturing process that created the uneven glass panes would not be applicable to stained glass as the stained glass pane would actually be made of dozens of smaller pieces of glass separated by a metal, often lead. The reason the big panes of window glass (not stained glass) were thinner at the top is that during production the molten glass would be spun so the centrifugal effect would pull it flat, which would make the final round piece of glass that is to be cut into panes thinner in the middle than in the edges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.214.251 (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source? Cresix (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Still Technically Harmful to Pick Up Baby Birds in Nest
Though it is indeed a myth that picking up a baby bird from its nest will cause the parents to reject it, it can still be harmful to them. Predators will take notice of the activity in the nest area, and in particular the smell that a human leaves. This can obviously be harmful to the birds, so picking up an otherwise normal and safe chick will potentially cause it problems. That should probably be clarified in that section. Though I've heard this from actual ornithologists, I have no internet source to site as of right now.
 * Also, when a bird has a cut, and a person's hands are dirty, obviously the bird may get sick. Certainly the myth that a baby bird will be rejected is a myth, but there are some other factors.76.254.39.77 (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Cold weather and colds misconception?
I think this should be added: Contrary to popular belief, going outside without long sleeves during cold weather does not cause a cold. I'll try to find some sources for this. GuyWithoutAUsername (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While looking for sources, please keep in mind criterion 2 ("The item is reliably sourced ... with respect to ... the fact that it is a common misconception") and criterion 4 ("The common misconception is current"). You also might want to look at previous discussions on this topic: Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_1 and Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_13. On the level of personal opinion, I doubt that many people have this misconception today, although certainly in the past. Cresix (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Jalapeno Seeds
Cresix: can I ask why you deleted this section? ("*The seeds of the jalapeno (and other peppers) is not what contains the heat of the pepper. The seeds actually produce none of the chemical that cause heat in peppers. This chemical, capsaicin, is found mostly in the white pith that holds the seeds (and to a lesser extent in the other fleshy parts of the pepper). The seeds are often coated with capsaicin due to their proximity to the pith, and thus appear to be the hot part of the pepper.")Joriq (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because you either did not bother to read the four criteria that must be satisfied before adding an item, or you read it and deliberately ignored it. The four criteria are clearly visible every time you click "Edit". There is a [[File:Stop hand nuvola alternate.svg]] symbol that almost jumps off the page, followed by the four criteria. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the jalapeno claim. Read the four criteria, satisfy them, and your item will remain in the article. Cresix (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, I did pay attention to it, and I definitely did not deliberately ignore them. It was really my first time posting something on a page that has restrictions, so I'm doing my best. I'm not sure why you have to be rude about it. Joriq (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing rude about asking you to follow the criteria. If you saw the criteria and didn't ignore them, why did you add an item that clearly does not conform to them? You call it rude; I call it to the point. Sorry if you took my comment the wrong way, but I hope you can understand that if everyone did what you did, we would have dozens and dozens and dozens of items to remove every week. That's the way it was in the past before the criteria were implemented. If I can help you satisfy the requirements of the four criteria, mesage me on my talk page. BTW, I did fail to make an edit summary when I reverted your edit by accidentally clicking before typing it. I apologize if that caused some confusion. Cresix (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's rude to say I did not bother to read the instructions or I just ignored them. If you say I ignored them because there is no topic page of it's own, I thought there was.  There is a page about Capsicum that talks about this, so I thought that would cover number one.  I didn't interpret it that it meant the myth itself had to have a page. That would take care of criteria 1 and 3, in my opinion number 4 is met, and I sourced the fact.  So I did make the effort in my mind.  That's why I was looking for an explanation. Again, sorry that I did it wrong.  It was a first try, and I don't think I was being ignorant.Joriq (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so I fully understand, that's where I went wrong right? The MYTH has to have a page of it's own?Joriq (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize; just a misunderstanding as I see it. I think the biggest problem with the item is that there is no reliable source that this is a common misconception, which is a part of criterion 2. That's usually the point where most suggested additions run into problems. And even though the exact words "common misconception" are not required, there must be a very close equivalent. If a source simply says "misconception", "myth", "you've probably heard ...", "a lot of people think ...", etc., that won't work. If we accepted all of those, the article probably would be a hundred times it's current size, if not more. My honest opinion is that most people have never heard anything specific about which part of the jalapeno causes the heat, except for people who spend a lot of time learning about the details of cooking. It must be a common misconception in general, not just a select group of people. But I may be wrong. You may find a source that satisfies number 2. Cresix (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, to clarify, the Capsicum article uses the phrase "contrary to popular belief", but that doesn't appear to be supported by the source cited. The source says "Many claim ..."; to me that's not close enough. Wikipedia can't source itself. If I missed something, please let me know. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * THAT explanation is VERY clear. And thank you for it. The list of criteria certainly does not explain the necessary sourcing as you have.  I think I have a much better idea of the expectations for an article such as this one now. In my experience, the seeds of a pepper containing the heat is at least as common a belief as all the other misconceptions in the food section, except for the chewing gum, if not more.  I have heard people say it many times, and not just a select group of people, but I understand that my personal experience isn't enough. If I find a source, I'll revisit this idea.Joriq (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think anyone who has ever eaten a jalapeno has thought this. Enough of the spicy chemical gets onto the seeds that one might misconceive that the seeds are the hottest part, even if they were to eat each seed individually. You can always contact the original source and ask them for information which shows that its a common misconception. Have you ever eaten a jalapeno before, Cresix? The seedpod is the dreaded pepper appendage for which most eaters would get their two glasses of milk ready! --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IMR, I've eaten many jalopenas because I like them, and I already knew it isn't the seeds that are the major heat source. But what you or I think about the seeds is largely irrelevant, because you, Joriq, and I do not constitute a "common misconception". That's where a reliable source is needed. Cresix (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did the original post in the list give no source? All I can find on Yahoo Search are misconceptions about cross pollination. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Capsicum describes this as a "popular belief", but that is not verified by the source cited. Cresix (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Source says "Although many people believe the seeds to be the hottest..." Also says "many people believe" in the question. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Hair does not grow back courser or darker"
There seems to be a misunderstanding on both sides here, which the explanation of the "misconception" does nothing to alleviate.

The hair, growing back, grows the same as it always was, yes. However, the "explanation" immediately admits that, yes, the hair is darker and courser, because uncut hair is lighter and softer at the tips. So, if you have a full face of hair that is too light and soft, you could cut it all, and when it grew back, it would be darker and courser than it was the first time.

Unless the hair is somehow re-lightened and re-tapered, which the explanation does not mention.

I think a better restatement would be something like "Hair does not grow differently in reaction to being cut; cutting hair merely removes the lightened, tapered tips, and reveals the darker, courser bases that grow naturally all the time."24.13.125.86 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Coarser! Moriori (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to split hairs (pun intended), but it's now a moot point. I removed the item because it fails criteria 2 and 3. Snopes.com is rarely a good source. In this case, the misconception is not identified as common. Cresix (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Snopes can be an excellent source. Did you even look at the end of the Snopes article where they listed THEIR sources for this myth?  There are eight sources listed.  Also, I think this IS a common misconception, but short of finding a source that uses those exact words, I will wait to put it back.--Asher196 (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did look at THEIR (your shouting, not mine; apologies if that wasn't your intent) sources. Snopes is usually a bad source because, as in this case, they rarely identify how common a misconception is. They might do a good job of confirming that it is a misconception, but that's usually the extent of it. Cresix (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't shouting, just putting emphasis on those words. Probably not the best way to do it.--Asher196 (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. I use italics for that purpose. Cresix (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please quote the material in question, including any sources. Doing so, the evaluation process becomes much easier. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The item removed is: "Shaving does not cause terminal hair to grow back thicker or coarser or darker. This belief is because hair that has never been cut has a tapered end, whereas, after cutting, there is no taper. Thus, it appears thicker, and feels coarser due to the sharper, unworn edges. The fact that shorter hairs are "harder" (less flexible) than longer hairs also contributes to this effect.citation to snopes. Hair can also appear darker after it grows back because hair that has never been cut is often lighter due to sun exposure." Cresix (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Inexplicably, has begun to edit war on this item, despite the fact that this section has been here for over a week. If anyone has any opinions about this item, please express them here. As I indicated above, this item fails criterion 2. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In relation to previous discussions, has begun to edit war on this item, despite the fact that this item has been in the article for over a week year. If anyone has any opinions about this item, please express them here. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors, please note that the first comment in this section was made on 11 May 2011. Cresix (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, an edit that took place only a month ago should take place over a year ago? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First: You're talking about two different things, right? Cresix is saying that with this talk-page discussion being here for a week, and so A Quest For Knowledge should seek consensus here before putting the item back in. A Quest For Knowledge meanwhile, opines that since the hair regrowth misconception has been on the list for one year, a consensus has existed to keep the item in the list, and Cresix is wrong to remove the item without first seeking consensus in talk.
 * To the discussion: I see the point made by 24.13.125.86 that the misconception may not be a misconception after all, or it might be open to interpretation. In general, I think we should avoid these types of misconceptions.
 * As for snopes.com, I am in favour of always using the primary source. Snopes.com-sources may be good additional sources since they are available in an online-form, which makes the quest for further reading much easier for editors and readers of the encyclopedia.
 * However, using snopes articles as an only source for any claim is dubious, as snopes.com does not use inline citations and we have no way of knowing what claims are rooted in which of their sources. In this particular case it might be even worse, as the article makes 13 additional claims about hair, and several of the sources listed may be completely unrelated to the hair-regrowth-myth.
 * In general, I would not add an item (nor support its addition) based on a snopes.com-article, but I would be hesitant to remove an item unless I had first given my fellow editors the chance to check the primary sources of the snopes.com article or find other sources.
 * In this case then, I support the removal of the item unless further sources are being dug up, but as I don't think it unlikely that this might happen (e.g. snopes.com primary sources), I am somewhat sympathetic in A Quest For Knowledge's critisism of Cresix in being a tad too trigger-happy. Dr bab (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)