Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 20

LDS church and polygamy
The article says that the LDS church no longer practices polygamy. For all intents and purposes, that's correct, but it's not entirely true. Their doctrine is that their marriages are sealed to last for eternity. If a man's wife dies, he remarries, and his new wife has not previously been sealed, he can be sealed to her. Legally, it's not polygamy, but canonically the marriages are eternal, and there will be polygamy in the next life. Here's a source for at least part of this: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/08/uniting-blended-families?lang=eng — DanielLC 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Color of Sun needs clarification
The articles Sun and G-type main-sequence star/Yellow dwarf say "yellow dwarf" is a misnomer and it's a misconception that the sun is yellow. This needs better explanation, specifically, who popularized the term "yellow dwarf"? If you can see that sunlight (seen on Earth's surface) is yellow, and you've been told it is a a "yellow dwarf", then why wouldn't you think the sun is yellow? See. Note also how often our yellow dwarf sun is contrasted with others by color: red dwarf, white dwarf. The terminology strongly reinforces what you see when you look out the window. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose that part about "when you look out the window" is technically correct, since the sun probably won't be visible through the window unless it's low in the sky, but it's still pretty misleading. When the sun is high in the sky, not enough light is scattered to make a significant difference in its color. — DanielLC 19:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it's photos like we see here: White dwarf. It seems to me we've entered into another of those physics-related "misconceptions" where the kind of exact terminology that's necessary in one specific field is inapplicable to everyday life. At the very least, we should say something like, "the terminology astronomers have frequently used for dwarf stars, yellow dwarf (such as our Sun), blue dwarf, red dwarf, etc, is misleading to the public, and the colors do not match physicists' definition of color."It's a non-sequitur to suggest that the perception of color is in error compared with something called "true" color. There is no objective definition of red or green or white. It's a combination of our biology and psychology that creates the concepts of color in the first place, arbitrarily eliminating some colors, like ultraviolet and infrared, while giving names to colors as we perceive them. See Color psychology and Color theory. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources
Some sources on this article, particularly those under [277] (e.g. "Cosmo Beauty Q&A: Facial Hair Post-Shave – Cosmopolitan". Cosmopolitan.com) seem unreliable to me. I find this to be more yellow press than trustworthy source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill M. D. (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yellow press? Is Cosmo trying to defame beard hair to sell more magazines? It's true they publish celebrity gossip along with grooming tips, but then so does the NYT. We have no choice but to make distinctions between which parts of a publication, or which subjects, they can be relied on for, and which ones to take with a grain of salt, or treat as opinion. Identifying reliable sources mentions this multiple times: context matters and we judge it case-by-case. Since Cosmopolitan is in compete agreement with two other sources given here, WebMD and Mayo, what is the point? I would take this as a compelling example that Cosmo is reliable on subjects like shaving. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dennis. Each source must be considered on its own merits.  In this case, I find it to be reliable.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I see, this makes sense. I misinterpreted citing guidelines and made a rookie assumption. Bill M. D. (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-scientific source for Linux-related security claims
The claim that Linux is potentially more secure is not sufficiently supported by sources. This sentence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6F:8C39:470F:BD1A:6F29:D248:92DB (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015
Add misconception on "Plant can depollute indoor air" Plant can't remove air pollution from indoor environment. In fact, the misconception comes from a 1989 Nasa's study. A careful examination of studies does not find convincing evidence that the use of plants indoors can result in meaningful reductions in indoor VOC concentrations.

--Efficks (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The misconception isn't described in a linked article, per the criterion "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.". You need to go to Talk:Indoor_air_quality and find come consensus on what exactly the misconception is. Indoor air quality makes it seem more complex than you assert. NASA Clean Air Study also doesn't support your assertions; you should go to that article and expand it with follow-up evidence.To me this sounds a lot like "It's a misconception that X is a panacea; in fact YMMV". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Great Wall of China in Astronomy

 * It is commonly claimed that the Great Wall of China is the only human-made object visible from the Moon. This is false. None of the Apollo astronauts reported seeing any specific human-made object from the Moon

I believe this should be rewritten as being visible from the Moon seems rather irrelevant. Space is defined by most authorities as being anything above 100km a.s.l.. So maybe this could be rephrased, maybe something along the lines of: "Although the Wall of China can be seen from low-Earth orbit, it isn't as easy to see as many other man made objects such as road due to the small contrast with its surroundings. From further out in space, for example from the Moon, none of the Apollo astronauts reported seeing any specific human-made object"

JunCTionS 08:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that the common misconception is that it's visible from the Moon and that makes it relevant. I'm sure there are people saying "visible from space" but I'm not sure it's common enough to complicate the paragraph. Sjö (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And this list has a problem with excess length that we're working on trimming down. Each of these topics has a main article where the subject can be expanded on in detail. Here we just need to state common belief that is false and leave it at that. The shortened version looks like this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Napoleon's height
Th Napoleon wikipedia article has a different height than in this article, which is correct? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon#Image Confusion about his height also results from the difference between the French pouce and British inch—2.71 cm and 2.54 cm, respectively; he was 1.68 metres (5 ft 6 in) tall, average height for the period.[note 11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcardazzi (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Internet and computers invented by Bill Gates
Many people think Bill Gates was the actual inventor of computers or the internet. Sometimes Steve Jobs is credited instead. They were just pioneer manufacturers of what we call micro-computers today. I think we need to point this out. - - Alumnum (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You need sources, and you need a main article which covers this misconception in detail. See the list criteria. Bill Gates doesn't mention this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the purported Eva Peron quote really belong here?
"Eva Perón never uttered the quote "I will return and I will be millions". The quote was first formulated by the indigenous leader Túpac Katari in 1781 shortly before he was executed. The misattribution to Eva Perón originates from a poem by José María Castiñeira de Dios written in Eva Perón's first-person narrative nearly ten years after her death. The quotation could have been inspired by a similar one in the contemporary film Spartacus."

I think this entry should be removed. First, there is no mention of this in the Eva Perón article. Second, this is not so much a misconception as a misattributed quotation, and as such belongs on the list of misquotations. Third, the only source is in Spanish, and thus I suspect this misquotation is really more prevalent in the greater Iberosphere.

If there are no objections, I'll move it in a few days. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The Immaculate Conception
I feel as though the section on the Immaculate Conception is very ambiguous and confusing. Where it currently says:
 * 1) The term "Immaculate Conception" does not refer to the virgin birth of Jesus,[note 1] nor does it reference a supposed belief in the virgin birth of Mary, his mother. Instead, it denotes the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was not in a state of original sin from the moment of conception.[47]

I think it should say:


 * 1) The term "Immaculate Conception" does not refer to the virgin birth of Jesus,[note 1] nor does it reference a supposed belief in the virgin birth of Mary, his mother. Instead, it denotes the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was not in a state of original sin from the moment of her own conception.[47]

without such, the ambiguity and the mentioning of the birth of Jesus makes it seem like it refers to the conception of Jesus.

(sorry if I screwed something up, this is the first thing I have ever done on Wikipedia :D ) Algag96 (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Algag96

✅ Your suggestion was fine and you are correct. Per the reference, it is Mary's conception that was immaculate. The Catholic Encyclopedia makes it clear as well. Good catch. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Swallowed spiders myth fails criterion #1
Copied this new addition from list. Missing a linked article that contains the myth, so fails criterion #1: This has good backup: --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The widespread urban legend that one swallows a high number of spiders during sleep has no basis in fact. A sleeping person causes all kinds of noise and vibrations by breathing, the beating heart, snoring etc. all of which warn spiders of danger.


 * Not sure what you mean...wouldn't it be enough to link spiders? Rule #1 just says "The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own". --Fixut͉͇̞͖͉̼̭͉͓͑̈̉́͑ȗ̹̲ͨͮ̂̂̄ṙ̫̥͚͚̜͙͍̰́̈́ė̺̩̞̗̓̉ͧͩ̿ͤ̎̆ (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Criterion #3 states: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." If you can put it in spider and keep it there this might work. But the science purists might fight you to get it out. There might be another article where you can put the myth, but at this point I can't think of one. Sundayclose (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I now see why my entry was removed but this criteria makes no sense. Isn't this article called "List of common misconceptions" and not "List of common misconceptions which are featured on other wiki-articles"? I don't think it's a proper way to benchmark the "common" part of it. There are probably other ways to better evaluate the commonness - such as requiring multiple, notable sources saying it is a common misconception or something like that. Not sure if I should create a new section for that. --Fixut͉͇̞͖͉̼̭͉͓͑̈̉́͑ȗ̹̲ͨͮ̂̂̄ṙ̫̥͚͚̜͙͍̰́̈́ė̺̩̞̗̓̉ͧͩ̿ͤ̎̆ (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you really think every single criterion for every list belongs in the title? Could that work? Or, as WP:LISTNAME, says, "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself."Keep in mind that this list is very long and we're in the process of shortening each entry to just the minimal essentials (Draft:List of common misconceptions), or else splitting the list if that doesn't work. So you actually need some other article where you have room to expound fully on all the reasons and and causes and effects of the misconception, and to mention various notable sightings of it, possible harm it could have caused, and so on. All we can say here is basically a quick, "People do not swallow spiders in their sleep" and that it. The rest goes in the linked article. I would put it in Arachnophobia, or else shoe-horn it into Cultural depictions of spiders. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No - what I meant to say was that this list fails to meet its titular objective. The example on the page you cited is:
 * the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article
 * In the same way that the inclusion criteria of that page is "strong association and existent wiki-article" the inclusion criteria would seem to be the "commonness" of the misconception here.
 * I think just "constructing" exemption-criteria just to keep a list short isn't a good way to go about it - that doesn't evaluate the content nor meets the article's objective. I'd support splitting the article if it being too long would be problematic.
 * But in any case getting it onto the Arachnophobia article seems like a good idea. However for other potential additions that might motivate people to cram trivial/irrelevant/misplaced content onto other articles just to meet the inclusion criteria (and as said doesn't seem like a well-chosen inclusion-criteria [encouraging it is something else]). --Fixuture (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis Bratland. Regarding the criteria, if you look at the archives you'll see that there was very lengthy and heated debate about what should be included. That became necessary because everyone wanted to add his/her favorite misconception without regard to whether it is a common misconception. Every once in a while a news outlet would mention the article, and then the floodgates really opened! The article was bloated with obscure misconceptions that most people had never heard of. It's still bloated, but at least there are a set of criteria for inclusion. The criteria were a result of a lot of arguing and compromising. If I remember correctly, this spider misconception was in the article in the past but just not as well documented as a common misconception. I think it can work. You just might have to fight a battle or two to get it to get it to stay in the topic article. Sundayclose (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cultural depictions of spiders looks like a good place, and since it already pertains to myths, with your sources you might not get any objection. I would support you if you want to try that. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Global Warming Hiatus
I want to add the myth about there being "no global warming for the past 15-16-17 (depending on who you ask) years" Yes, it's controversial among the general public, but scientists have this pretty much settled. Where on the page should this go? Sarr Cat ∑;3 01:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/pause-in-warming-debunked
 * Start with Global warming hiatus. Once that article states unambiguously that the hiatus controversy is over, then it's a candidate to be added here. When your topic is under General sanctions it suggests, to me, the existence of an unsettled debate. But if the other editors on Global warming hiatus have a consensus on the existence of a common misconception, and say so in the article, then all good. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea, Sarr, and Dennis offers good advice. I'll make a post over there.

Pineapple tree
Pineapples don't grow in trees. They grow in a bush. 108.168.15.84 (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Any secondary sources saying that's a common misconception? (Plausibly is one, but need source)  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never heard that before... but then again, having been a hobbyist gardener for most of my life, i'm probably more "botanically literate" than most folks. Just see if you can find a reliable source, that's all that matters here. Sarr Cat ∑;3 22:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not quite all that matters. This article has a specific list of criteria for inclusion that were determined by consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Asteroid deflection
Hi Sundayclose - thanks for your feedback about my change; as this was my first edit to this article, I wasn't familiar with the requirements for the page. I was inspired to add this after watching yet another TV show repeat this misconception, which has been popular ever since the film Armageddon. To meet your criticism, I added in a reference to a researcher working on asteroid simulations:


 * The usual reaction is one of encouragement. I find that people are fascinated with this topic of using nuclear explosions to divert potentially hazardous objects from hitting the earth. There seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the general public as well.


 * Many times I get asked: "If you blow up the asteroid won't there be an even greater threat from all the pieces then hitting the Earth?"'

The article on Asteroid impact avoidance already has an extensive section on the use of nuclear weapons for mitigation (although it could be improved with data about the latest simulations). I went ahead and added the reference to the misconception there as well.

Is this now sufficient, in your book? I of course want something mutually agreeable. :) -- Rei (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * One researcher stating "Many times I get asked ..." is insufficient evidence that this is a common misconception. Also, it was not mentioned in the parent article until you added it about five hours ago.  I'd say start at the parent page and see if you can get the regular editors to agree that this is a "common misconception".  Until it's been vetted there, it doesn't belong here.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mr swordfish. Rei, I know you edit in good faith, but this article has a long, ugly history of being bloated with misconceptions that really were not very common. Lots of people added their favorite misconception, assuming that most people held the misconception but with little or no evidence that it actually was common. Look through the talk page archives and you'll see lengthy and intense debate about this problem, which is how the four criteria came into being through consensus. Some editors are trying to trim the article of excess, but it's still bloated. If the four criteria are not followed strictly, it again will get out of control. You need unequivocal evidence that the misconception is common. Note that I'm not denying that the misconception is common; I really don't know. But your sources don't convince me. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. :)  First off, just a correction to be clear: deflecting asteroids with nuclear weapons has had a section in the article long before I ever went to that article; I didn't write it. I just wanted to be clear on that.


 * Now, I'm a bit confused as to the standard. This page lists the main objection that you raised as "The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception". If I go down the entries in this article, I see it being very poorly applied. Let's start at the top (where we'd expect things to be best referenced). Searing: I don't own the book for ref #2, but ref #1 doesn't say it's a common misconception. Sushi doesn't either. The microwave metal has no reference at all to its exact claim, only a dead link to a patent showing that metalized browning sleeves exist (which to me sounds like WP:S). Edelweis and Twinkle Twinkle Little Star only have vague "many people think" statements. The Buddha articles do not reference it as being a widespread misconception. I had to use google translate on the judo reference - it doesn't appear to say that it's a common misconception directly, although you might read it between the lines. Despite the multitude of references for "fuck", none of them ever actually say that it's a common misconception. The snopes link to back up the "crapper" article is actually about whether he invented the toilet, not where the name comes from - it does mention the name issue, but doesn't say it's a common misconception, only that there exists a "related legend". The "gringo" Snopes reference says "The rather improbable saga of the origins of the word "gringo" has it..." but doesn't say that it's any sort of common misconception.  Both links to back up the "library of Alexandria" claim only say that "some writers" believe it.  Note: I didn't check out many of the ones I passed through, and a lot of ones I couldn't check because of dead links or book references. Overall it looks like about 25% of the misconceptions in the article fail even the "weak" version of the standard (more on that in a second).


 * The other part that my addition has been said to fall afoul of is "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.". So lets go through the list again and see what passes and fails.  Cooking with alcohol addresses alcohol content but doesn't say that there's a misconception. Sushi doesn't mention a misconception. Microwaves mention a misconception for "inside out" but not for metal nor water. Fortune cookie mentions a legend but doesn't say it's common. Entrapment doesn't even mention the issue at all. Twinkle Twinkle Little Star and its related articles don't mention a misconception. If one wants to be picky, Forbidden Fruit fails because it says that it widely was depicted as an apple (past tense). The articles on Buddha not only don't mention a common misconception, but come perilously close to contradicting the "not a god" claims, describing him as having all kinds of abilities that most people would consider those of a god, and "It is important to stress that, despite modern Theravada teachings to the contrary (often a sop to skeptical Western pupils), he was never seen as being merely human". There is no article at all given for Jesus's birthday, but if we assume Christmas, it fails this test. I'm getting weary of going through these, but you get the point. About half of the entries on this page fail the test by a "moderate" standard.


 * Now what do I mean by "weak" or "moderate" standards? Well, in the case of #2, we could say "We're going to go easy on this standard, if anyone at all, in any sort of reference, says it's a common misconception, even implying that it's a common misconception, then that's good enough." Many sources, where they exist, aren't even WP:V. By contrast, I provided a WP:V reference to one of the top researchers in the field, stating that there's both great interest and widespread misconceptions about the topic. Yet you have declared that this fails the standard and suggested that it requires even more than this.


 * One could of course create a standard that requires even more than what I provided. You could say that there has to be a peer-reviewed reference to it being a common misconception. Or you could require references to multiple experts in the field - although 1/3 to 2/3rds of your articles don't even have one person who's an expert, depending on how you define expert. If you made either one of these the standard, around 90% of the article would need to disappear.


 * Likewise, there's different standards one could apply to #3. One could go with a very weak standard and say "If the issue is even mentioned, even without there being mention of a widespread misconception on the topic, then that's good enough". Even this standard, somewhere around 10% of your entries fail. A "moderate" standard would require covering the article and mentioning that it's a misconception, but not covering how common it is and referencing it. As mentioned, about half of the articles on the page fail that. Dare we apply a strict standard?


 * I'm fully happy to comply with whatever standard you set, and have no interest in trying to make standards more "loose" if people don't want them to be more loose. But I do ask for standards to actually mean what they say, and be applied at least mildly consistently - and I'm sure you can understand that. If you want a standard to be "Multiple experts have to say that it's a common misconception" or "A peer-reviewed reference has to say that it's a common misconception", then it's not an unreasonable request that this be what it actually says as the standard for inclusion. And if you should choose that to be the standard, it's not unreasonable to expect that you'd make more than 10% of the article be in compliance if you actually cared about the standard. Am I being unreasonable here, in your opinions?


 * The same thing of course applies to references to other articles. Asteroid impact avoidance has more coverage of the topic of deflection by nuclear weapons than about 90% of the misconceptions in this article do in their individual articles. The article doesn't presently say that it's a common misconception, but neither do half or more of the articles referenced herein. And more to the point, it would right now say that, except Mr. Swordfish removed that reference I added, on the grounds of "insufficient evidence that this is a *common* misconception", hence forcing my changes to fail #3 because of a claim of failing #2. So the failing of #3 (in a manner that half of the article already does) is merely an imposed dependency of failing #2 in the view of Mr. Swordfish (no offense meant by that), not an independent rule failure.


 * Again, I'll reiterate, I'm not here to try to set the standard. I fully understand where you're coming from - you have my sympathy, I'm sure this article gets a lot of bloat. But I would like to see some consistency in the standard if you actually plan to enforce it. And if you want to make the standard stricter than what is written, you really should change it to match the level of strictness that you actually want. My concerns only exist sofar as my changes appear well to pass the standards as-written, while much of the article does not. And surely you can see how that would give me pause.


 * I won't alter the article until we reach some sort of acceptable resolution. I look forward to seeing your comments on the subject. :) -- 31.209.204.176 (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Anon 31, are you user Rei? If so you should sign in and re-sign your name. I understand your issue, and I don't mean to minimize it or oversimplify it. But a common argument on Wikipedia is that "other inappropriate stuff exists, so why can't my inappropriate stuff be put in the article?" Unfortunately, Wikipedia is always a work in progress, and this article is no exception. I agree with you that some items in the article need to be removed for failing one or more criteria, and if all I had to do in life was work on this article, I probably would have removed them long ago. But I can only fight one battle at a time here. Adding to the problems that already exist helps nothing, and if we start making exceptions with new entries, the floodgates will open and we again have an unmanageable, overbloated article. Thank you for pointing out problems in the article. You might want to comment at Draft:List of common misconceptions, where user Dennis Bratland is in the process of paring the article down. By the way, I disagree that you have provided a source that clearly identifies the asteroid item a "common misconception", but if you can get a consensus to support you then that criterion would not be a problem for you. Sundayclose (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies - I use multiple browsers and multiple computers, so sometimes I forget to log in. I fully understand viewing the article as "needing lots of cleanup". If there is a consensus here (or even near-consensus) that 90% of the article needs to be removed and that you all want to change the standard from what it states now, to "multiple experts in the field agree that it's a common misconception" (although I may even be able to meet that standard, I stopped looking after one expert), then I will drop interest in adding it. But without there being agreement that 90% of the article should go and with the standards as they are at present, I must continue to be of the view that it should be added. What do you feel is the best way forward from here? Is it time to revisit the standards for inclusion and revise them to make them stricter (ruling out 90% of the article)? Or should the one new entry be added, as it meets the sourcing standards as they stand?


 * I should add that I'd be glad to help trim some less-well-sourced entries if that's desired - just so long as my addition is held to whatever standards are stated for the article, not tougher standards than what are stated.


 * You state that "I disagree that you have provided a source that clearly identifies the asteroid item a "common misconception". My source is an expert in the field (do you disagree that Bob Weaver of LANL whose career focuses on asteroid deflection is an expert in the field?) saying that in his (extensive) experience talking with people about the topic, the general public is fascinated by the topic (WP:N) and says literally 'There seems to be a lot of misconceptions' and 'many times I get asked "If you blow up the asteroid won't there be an even greater threat from all the pieces?"'. I really don't see how it could get any more clear than that other than a peer-reviewed poll of the public, which is a standard that I haven't seen a single entry in the article meet. -- Rei (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You have leaped to the conclusion that there is consensus to "change the standard from what it states now, to 'multiple experts in the field agree that it's a common misconception'". Slow down, Rei. There is no consensus of one editor, and so far you are the only person who has suggested that change. I, for one, oppose any changes in the criteria. Experts in the field may know whether a concept or idea in their field is true or false, but they don't necessarily know what is a common misconception. In fact one of the problems in this article several years ago was that editors who considered themselves experts in the field also thought they knew whether or not a lot of the general public held a misconception. They put in the article their idea about common misconceptions in highly technical subjects (like the behavior of subatomic particles) that most people had never even thought about. I myself am an expert in a technical field, and I have a hunch or two about some common misconceptions, but I also know that my opinion is biased because of my expertise. To an expert, a few people who articulate a misconception stick out like a sore thumb. We don't notice that a lot of other people don't articulate the misconception because either they say nothing or their perspective agrees with ours. We only notice the few odd ones. As for your claim that 90% percent of the article should go, I don't know if the percentage is that high, but if you want to point out which 90% fail the criteria, please do so. If you want to participate in the trimming, I'm sure you're aware that anyone can edit Wikipedia. Just be reasonable and prudent. If there is any doubt, raise the issue here. Your asteroid item may very well be a common misconception, and if it is there should be a reliable source to support that. Sundayclose (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The beer belly is a myth
Dalba (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting this as an addition to the list? If so, please provide information to fulfill the four criteria for inclusion that you can see when you open an edit window in the article. Your link does not satisfy criteria 1 and 3. Sundayclose (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a suggestion. I see. Thanks for the quick reply. Dalba (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, this would be a reasonable addition, . The main article is Abdominal obesity, which specifically mentions the "colloquial" name of beer belly, and includes a discussion of the lack of evidence relating the obesity to beer.  I think it would fulfill the four criteria.  Risker (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly. But I think the term "colloquial" is not necessarily equivalent to "common misconception". For example, the phrase "jelly legs" is a colloquial term, but it does not mean that there is a common misconception that weak legs are made of jelly. Criterion 3 states: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." I think the wording at Abdominal obesity should be tweaked with this in mind, which seems reasonable to me since "myth" and "misconception" are quite similar in meaning and one of the sources uses the term "myth". If the change is not challenged there, then I think the criteria have been met. From my personal perspective, I don't know many people who literally accept the idea that beer is any more likely to cause obesity than any other alcoholic beverage, but that's just me. I can accept it if it's reliably sourced as a "myth" in Abdominal obesity. Good job, Risker. Sundayclose (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought legs were occasionally made of jelly. Or is that jam? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Might need to address Light beer: "Reducing the energy content of beer is accomplished by a large reduction in the carbohydrate content and a small reduction in the alcohol content" which contradicts some of the above claims that alcohol is the main source of calories. The existence of (perceived?) low-calorie beer (very popular in the US) implies the existence of the belief that beer make you fat. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Light beer? Perhaps it makes you fat all over? Or maybe it just makes you smell. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be very careful about putting this entry into the article. There is a growing consensus that carbohydrate intake is correlated with obesity, and beer contains more carbs than other alcoholic beverages such as wine or spirits (although less than sweet mixed drinks - e.g. rum and Coke).

Recently, we removed the Exposure to cold temperatures causes colds misconception because while colds are caused by viruses, research has shown that exposure to cold temperatures makes one more susceptible to contracting a cold when exposed to the virus. I think we have a similar situation here. Beer consumption may not directly cause abdominal obesity, but may be an aggravating factor which would negate the status as a misconception.

In any case, I'd like to see a reliable source or two directly calling it out as a misconception before proceeding - we don't get to call it a misconception based on deductive reasoning (OR), we need to cite a reliable source that calls it that. Even then, we need to give the entirety of the literature due weight. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Additionally, there's this study: http://redheracles.net/media/upload/research/pdf/17885722.pdf which concludes that "Alcohol consumption in elevated amounts was associated with risko f abdominal obesity in men...". Granted, it doesn't discuss beer specifically, but seems to me that it blows this proposed item out of the water.


 * BTW, this study is treated in the parent article, so I think we wikipedia editors should get that article's ducks in a row before including anything here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Trendelenburg position
A recently-graduated doctor is suprised by the statement in the article: "The Trendelenburg position (lying on the back with the feet elevated) for treating hypotension or shock is not supported by evidence and may in fact be harmful." ...particularly regarding hypotension. There is a wealth of articles regarding the change (increase) in blood pressure when legs are put up, see for example (BP is "Blood Pressure" in this article): This is commonly used as a test for whether the low blood pressure is affected by a "fluid challenge". I suggest that the point is either removed, at least the part about hypotension, particularly since the cited article regards only shock: "The Trendelenburg position is still a pervasive treatment for shock despite numerous studies failing to show effectiveness." EdwardAndo (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The currect reference appears not to be WP:MEDRS -compliant. It's too old, may not be be a review, and only mentions shock in the title, not hypotension. Probably best to remove the whole thing. This might be a better source, and see Trendelenburg position - summary: not now used for shock or hypotension but is for some other things. Not sure this fiddly question, mainly for medical professionals, is suitable for this article. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Need information to fulfill criteria 1, 2, and 3 established by consensus for inclusion in the article. Criteria can be seen by opening an edit window in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed this from the main page Edwardando (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2015
Additional misconceptions:

Myth: Poisonous Watermelons Origin: Paraguay Explanation: Eating watermelon with any foods (especially milk) will cause you to die.

Myth: Temperature shock Origin: Brazil Explanation:Experiencing too stark of a change in temperature may cause you to die. Ex. Getting out of bed and stepping on the cold floor without shoes could kill you.

Ajorda13 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Not a myth for Chinese watermelons, apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources as well as information for each of the other four criteria for inclusion. You can see the criteria by opening an edit window in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2015
"Roman Catholic dogma does not say that the pope is either sinless or always infallible."

ie, please remove the word 'always'. It's tautological.

88.104.20.80 (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misinterpreted. It is a misconception that the Church teaches that the pope is always infallible. Are you arguing that the Church teaches that the pope is always infallible in everything he does in his capacity as pope? Sundayclose (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Harry Potter
deleted the Harry Potter myth of increasing literacy because it "Fails criteria 1, 2, and 3 for inclusion in article." Criteria 1 is "The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own." Sundayclose is trying to claim Wikipedia has no article on Harry Potter? There's about 1,000 of them. Criterion 2 is sources: they're right there, just read them. Number 3 is that it's mentioned in the article, and indeed it is right there in the social impacts section of the article Harry Potter. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to stir up controversy, but I really found very little in the sources to indicate that it is a common misconception. And where is it mentioned as a common misconception in Harry Potter rather than a misconception among literary critics and academics? Sundayclose (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "NEA chairman Dana Gioia said the series, 'got millions of kids to read a long and reasonably complex series of books. The trouble is that one Harry Potter novel every few years is not enough to reverse the decline in reading'.": That is a matter of opinion as to whether it is a common misconception, an opinion with which I disagree. This is a frequent problem for this article; what one person interprets as a common misconception is not the same as everyone's idea of common misconception. So we need a consensus to keep the item, or a more unambiguous source. Sundayclose (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You just quoted Harry Potter, but did you read the actual article that quote comes from? The New York Times article, whose headline screams common misconception: "Harry Potter has limited effect on reading habits", with the first sentence saying "Of all the magical powers wielded by Harry Potter, perhaps none has cast a stronger spell than his supposed ability to transform the reading habits of young people." The next sentence drives the point home: " In what has become near mythology about the wildly popular series by J. K. Rowling, many parents, teachers, librarians and booksellers have credited it with inspiring a generation of kids to read for pleasure in a world dominated by instant messaging and music downloads" and "the truth about Harry Potter and reading is not quite so straightforward a success story." Statistics are then cited showing that in fact reading continues to decline, mentioning, for example, the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Further examples of the widespread opinion that HP books increase reading is found in "Many parents, educators and librarians say that despite such statistics, they have seen enough evidence to convince them that Harry Potter is a bona fide hero." They cite a (conflict of interest) study by the US publisher, Scholastic, that the books increased interest in reading. Scholastic touted their poll as evidence that the books they were selling increased reading, but actual measures of literacy proved that the survey was misleading. Kids might have told pollsters they were more interested in reading, and the public believed it, but data show they actually read less. It's important to note here that this NYT article is a high-quality secondary source, in that it does the work of interviewing experts and interpreting primary sources for us. Wikipedia prefers to work from this type of source rather than primary sources. We could stop right there, but there are more sources that corroborate this.The Guardian cites a survey very similar to the one carried out by Scholastic, again asking kids about their attitudes and self-assessment of their own reading, and sure enough, the kids credit Harry Potter with increasing their reading skills. Yet in fact, the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study shows that in the UK, and the rest of the English-speaking world, reading continues to decline .Do I need to go on, because I can. The book Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter 2nd Edition has further evidence of both the misconception and the decline in actual reading. Other sources are cited in Harry Potter.How is this not a slam dunk?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For the sake of bringing closure, I will not object to fulfillment of criteria 1 and 2, even though I disagree; this article has a lot worse problems than this one. However, I do not accept that Goioa's quote at Harry Potter fulfills criterion 3. That should be an easy fix. BTW, I stand by my change of the convoluted sentence to something more stylistically acceptable. Reverting back to a 90-word sentence with six clauses is not an improvement. I'm open to suggestions for improvement. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's gracious of you to admit that Wikipedia does indeed have an article or two about Harry Potter. What would it take to convince you that this is a common misconception? Can you point out where you see a problem? Do you need to see more sources that say this is a common misconception? If so, how many?Nobody asserted that the one quote was the entirety of the evidence. The quote is an illustration from a respected source. There is much more evidence besides the quote, some of which has been specifically cites here. Did you read the New York Times article? Is there some part of it you think is false? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you seeking a solution or an argument? As I said, I make no further objection to criteria 1 and 2. Criterion 3 can be fixed with one sentence (or less) at Harry Potter. The item is in the article and will remain so. I'm simply suggesting improvement for criterion 3. But if you want to argue, I'm not taking the bait. Thanks for the discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm seeking a solution, most definitely. But a solution to what? You won't tell me what needs solving here.You've wasted a great deal of time, and now you're flouncing off instead of offering any clue as to what the actual problem is. Saying the article failed criterion 1 was patently absurd. Asserting it failed criterion 2 was a blunder but not quite so egregious -- perhaps one could have missed the social impacts section of Harry Potter, though out of consideration for others perhaps one should make an effort. That leaves criterion 3, which has been met with multiple sources.And now you are trying to accuse me of seeking arguments? You are the one baiting other editors with phony claims, and then being rude when your phony claims are refuted. This entire exercise was a pointless waste of time, and it could have been avoided had you 1, clicked on Harry Potter, 2, tried, say, CTRL+F "literacy", and 3, clicked on the footnotes and read the sources. You have made multiple assertions which a demonstrably false and then tried to make me into the augmentative one for going to the effort to point out how false these assertions were. Please don't do this any more. Make some effort before you nuke well-sourced content. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I just figured out what's going on here by checking the page history to find out who originally added this item. So I have one more comment and I'm finished on this issue regardless of how many accusations you throw out to entice an argument. My one comment: Stop telling me or anyone who is not violating Wikipedia policies what to do. Have a good day. Sundayclose (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well yeah I added the Harry Potter entry. Due to the fact that I had read the several sources on the subject and was aware that the claims about literacy in Harry Potter had been debunked. And now somebody comes along and says "no! because ...reasons..." and I'm in a good position to ask, "what reasons?" since I know the sources. WP:OWN does not create some kind of restriction against defending one's own edits. On the contrary, the verifiability policy says, under WP:BURDEN that the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". That editor is me. Once again, you started an argument, and you are accusing me of being argumentative. You. Baited. Me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Calm down Dennis; you'll live longer. This is Wikipedia, not the real world. Sundayclose (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to display maturity, why not admit that you have wasted our time here? When you falsely accuse someone of violating WP:OWN, you can expect to be refuted, just like you can expect to be refuted for your previous false statements. Telling those who refute your false accusations to "calm down" does not elevate you above them. It just makes your behavior all the more disruptive. We call it trolling. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Despite the NYT article; this argument is fallacious and unscientific. Perhaps reading rates are still falling, but according to both the New York Times and Wikipedia Harry Potter is one of the best selling books of all time, easily in the top five best-selling children's books with "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" alone selling more than 100 million copies. Additionally, the books that have outsold this single volume are relatively old. So perhaps Harry Potter has not caused reading rates to soar, but this wikipedia article (common misconceptions) makes this claim as a 'misconception': ″The Harry Potter books have been cited as motivating children and adults to read..." Given that this is one of the best selling books of all time, I frankly don't see how can we can back this up as a supposed misconception. Such a statement requires further statistical analysis to decouple the Harry Potter reading rates and sales from the overall trends ( e.g. the persistent decrease in reading rates) to show that - at the very least - it didn't slow the decrease by motivating some potential non-readers to read. The Harry Potter section should should be deleted unless these claims can be refuted... Frankly, it's a little like saying "Star Wars didn't encourage people to see movies" even though it was extremely popular " or "The moon landing didn't encourage kids to go into science because we see that NASA's funding has fallen." This, itself, is a common misconception and fallacy: correlation vs. causation. To put it another way- if extremely popular books aren't what's motivating the remainder of readers to keep reading, what is? If we took away all popular novels, would the same amount of readers presumably slave away at bad books just because they want to read? The central argument here makes no sense and stinks of someone having an axe to grind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artifexr (talk • contribs) 10:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many, many examples of the misconception that Harry Potter increased literacy: . This blogger discusses some of the arguments around this, and makes a better case than you in favor of increased literacy. If you click through the linked research, you'll see that your various hypothetical scenarios where somehow Harry Potter increased literacy have been debunked. They sold a lot of books at the expense of other books, and of those kids who read them, they did not read other books. They read this one series and stopped. The total amount of reading compared with previous generations, Harry Potter readers included, is much lower.It's sad to look at people excitedly congratulating kids for reading these seven books when a generation before kids were reading much more and nobody even remarked on it. I encourage you, against this trend, to read. Specifically, read the sources. You ask for your arguments to be refuted but how, if you won't read? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

My take is that one of the criteria for entry is that the misconception be current. The first HP book came out 18 years ago, HP-mania peaked a few years afterward, and it's been almost a decade since the last book. Seems to me that this "misconception" is quite ephemeral and probably should be dropped in a few years (if it even qualifies as a misconception - Like Sundayclose, I'm not convinced and I prefer to be pretty damn sure before labeling something a misconception). Or we could just drop it now. My preference would be for "now".

So far I've only seen one editor who has spoken in favor of keeping it. Any other editors in favor of keeping it? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a sighting from July 2016, to promote a new play. As long as there's new Harry Potter properties to market, they're likely to keep this myth alive. Normally in "controversies" between scientific data and anecdote, this list comes down on the side of data. Why should this be an exception?. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What our article says: "The Harry Potter books ... have not led to an increase in reading..."
 * What the cited source says: "Harry Potter has limited effect on reading habits"
 * Seems to me that we are misrepresenting the source material, and that there is some controversy, at least enough to give me and other editors pause about declaring this a "misconception". I don't have any personal stake in this issue, but I do have high standards of proof before labeling something as a misconception in this article.  This item fails my criteria, and it appears to fail everyone else's with one exception. Consensus appears to be to remove the entry. I'm willing to give it a couple days to see if anyone else weighs in favoring inclusion, but absent that it should be removed.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree there is insufficient evidence that this is a common misconception. My preference is to remove the item now, but I'll respect any consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I will also be happy to defer to consensus on this issue, but for now it appears the consensus is to remove it. It's been three days and I haven't seen anyone other than the author weigh in with support.  We can always put it back if consensus changes.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Diet & Detox entry
I removed the following entry from Human Body and Health:


 * Diet has a minor influence on the body's detoxification, and using specific diets to aid this process is not supported by evidence.[272][273] Toxins are removed from the body by the liver and kidney.[274]

I do not see anything in the cited references that clearly establish it as a common misconception. One may imply that from the proliferation of products available for sale, but I'm not convinced that we can make that logical leap here. Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for alerting the need for more evidence, and I have expanded the text to include this. The detox myth appears to have more justification than several other statements, e.g. vaccines and autism (a common misconception that was made up by a single person and soon after shown to be a medical hoax). I guess you would consider these "hoax" rather than misconceptions? If you compare Detoxification_(alternative_medicine) to MMR_vaccine_controversy, (and in this article), do you consider that the vaccine statement should stay, and based on what reference? I believe that there are several statements directly addressing it as a misconception, e.g. "Colon Cleansing: Money Down the Toilet" and "There's little evidence that detox diets actually remove toxins from the body. Indeed, the kidneys and liver are generally quite effective at filtering and eliminating most ingested toxins." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stenemo (talk • contribs) 09:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have edited the entry for clarity - we only need to point out the misconception once in the sentence rather than three times.


 * That said, I think the entry is still problematic. I'm not seeing anything in the cited sources to support "Diet has a minor influence on the body's detoxification." Here's what one of the cited articles says:


 * "A healthy diet that includes enough fiber and water is nature's way of cleansing your colon," Johnson tells WebMD. A diet that is low in fiber and water, on the other hand, usually results in constipation. You can think of fiber as acting like a "toothbrush" passing through your colon, she says. So every day that you meet your recommended daily dose -- between 21 and 25 grams per day for adult women and 30 to 38 grams for adult men -- you're literally consuming a colon cleanser. Up your fiber intake slowly by making room in your diet for foods like fruit, vegetables, beans, and high-fiber cereals. Keeping your body moving as much as possible is important, too, Johnson says. Physical activity increases blood flow throughout the body, and the better your blood flow, the easier it is for your colon to work efficiently. http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/colon-cleansers-are-they-safe?page=2


 * That says to me that diet is actually a rather important factor in "detoxification" and that the idea of leaving it all to the liver and kidneys is not what physicians recommend. I'm not trying to stick up for the purveyors of colon-cleansing snake oil, but we do owe it to our readers to accurately reflect what the reliable sources say, and I do not think the entry in its current state reflects that.


 * I'm reminded of the (removed) enrtry on cold temperatures causing colds - it is very clear that colds are caused by viruses and that without the presence of the cold virus there are no cold symptoms. But research has shown that exposure to cold temperatures increases the  liklihood of developing symptoms when exposed to the virus, so we removed the entry because it's not really a misconception - exposure to cold temperatures does make it more likely that you'll catch a cold..  I think there's something similar going on here - "colon cleansers" don't really work and it is the liver and kidneys that actually remove "toxins", but diet does play a factor so calling it a "misconception' is over doing it.  Perhaps we can salvage the entry by focusing more on the snake-oil nature of the products than diet in general?  In any case, I'd like to see some other editors' opinions.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Tone in the "Paul changing his name" section
Right now under the Christianity section, a bullet point opens up with "Saul of Tarsus is not recorded as having deliberately changed his name." To me, this reads as if we don't know exactly what happened. However, later in the bullet point it say "He stopped using his Jewish name "Saul" and used instead his Roman name "Paul" when he became an international missionary." To me this sentence reads like we know exactly what happened. If this bullet is saying "there's no record of exactly what happened, but here's an explanation of how Saul changed his name to Paul that isn't the common one" then it should read like that the whole way through. Otherwise, if it's saying "We know exactly what happened" it should have that tone the whole time. Unless I'm the only one who read it this way. Lukejodonnell (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Horned Viking Helmets
The section attributing the false belief that Viking warriors went into battle with horned helmets is not entirely true. While Wagner undoubtedly helped to popularize the idea, it has its sources (which was propagated by many other agencies than Wagner's) in horned helmets form the Iron Age excavated in Danish peat bogs during the 19th century. The helmets would have been impractical in battle, and are believed to have been worn in religious ceremonies.

Here is a little something about them: http://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-bronze-age/the-viksoe-helmets/

75.132.220.112 (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Title is inaccurate
A list of misconceptions would simply state the misconceptions. These are debunked misconceptions, some without even stating the original misconception and just answering the question.-Mr. Man (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a suggestion for a better title? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we add one for the primary colors?
The RYB color model is frequently taught in schools. The RGB color space is much better at representing colors, although no three primary colors can truly fill the whole color space. Can we add something about that? — DanielLC 01:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * RYB describes the subtractive model for paint mixing. RGB describes a simple additive model for light mixing.  Printing uses CMYK.  NTSC broadcast uses YIQ.  Compression schemes typically use YUV.  None of these models are "wrong".  With the exception of paint mixing and print, the other models are transformable to each other.  The paint and print models can be derived from the light model.  You might argue that RGB is more true because our rods and cones have independent R, G, B, sensitivity, but this does not take into account that our eye is more sensitive to G than R and more sensitive to R then B.  This bias is better captured by the YUV model, for example. Qed (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits in the evolution section
Right now this evolution section declares that humans are a species of chimpanzee. This is not right. Humans are not classified as chimpanzees by mainstream biologists. It also makes it sound like the common ancestor was bipedal like Ardipithecus. This isn't good, since Ardi lives millions of years after chimps and humans diverged, so I recommend deleting this sentence.

I suggest the following rewording or something similar to correct these mistakes:

"Humans did not evolve from any living species of ape or monkey.[228] Humans did however evolve from an extinct species of ape. The two modern species of chimpanzees (common chimpanzees and bonobos) are humans' closest living relatives. Anthropologists and primatologists accept that humans are not only descended from an extinct ape, but are themselves a species of living ape.[231][232] The most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived between 5 and 8 million years ago.[233] Contrary to the idea of chimpanzees as "primitive", they too have evolved since the split, becoming larger, more aggressive and more capable climbers.[234] Together with the other apes, humans and chimpanzees constitute the family Hominidae. This group evolved from a common ancestor with the Old World monkeys some 40 million years ago.[235][236]


 * How about this:


 * "Like any other distinct species of animal, humans did not evolve from another contemporary species of animal. But humans and chimpanzees had a single common ancestor that lived 5 to 8 million years ago. Anthropologists and primatologists consider humans to be a species of ape, not a species outside of this category. Together with the other apes, humans and chimpanzees constitute the family Hominidae. This family evolved from a common ancestor with the Old World monkeys some 40 million years ago. After the species (human vs chimp) and subspecies (bonobo vs western and common, then western vs common) split, each group continued to evolve.  In general, chimpanzees have become larger, more aggressive and more capable climbers.  The bonobos have evolved to be more matriarchal and overtly sexual in their behavior.  The western chimpanzee split is very recent, and thus is appears and behaves very similarly to the common chimpanzees, despite its genetic distinctiveness.  The ancestors of humans were quite varied, with many subspecies, but ultimately only Homo sapiens, a variant of Homo heidelbergensis, survived from this group." Qed (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Licorice
"Red licorice" isn't really licorice yet almost everyone in America seems to think so. 71.223.106.218 (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's more of a misnomer than a misconception. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Black Holes
"If, for example, the Sun were replaced by a black hole of equal mass, the orbits of the planets would be essentially unaffected" is a poorly chosen example, since it is wrong. Our sun loses about 5 million tons of mass per second converted to radiation energy. While not all of it dissipates, a noticeable amount does, and Sol inevitably loses mass (at astronomical scale, this is a very small amount, but nevertheless). The orbits of the planets therefore very, very minutely get larger over time as the sun's mass is reduced. A black hole, on the other hand, can only ever gain mass (and energy). Light -- or radiation-- by definition, does not leave a black hole. Its mass tends to grow (and never shrinks), and planetary orbits can only stay the same or get smaller, never larger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.192.37.112 (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The statement is essentially correct, and certainly so for illustrating the misconception about black holes. The timescales involved in the secular perturbations of planetary are extremely large, and numerous other small but complicating factors (like solar light pressure) are also neglected in this example because they are not particularly relevant. Regarding another common misconception, black holes are predicted to lose mass over time. siafu (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The very minor differences Siafu pointed out are covered by the word 'essentially'. Gap9551 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that, as discussed above, all these entries need to be brief, and an upcoming revision of this page will -- I hope -- make most of them much shorter. The only way that can work is to lean heavily on the linked articles for a complete explanation of the misconception. All we do here is state the correction and encourage readers to click through if they want to learn more. Which they should do. You could say about the same for most Wikipedia lists. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015
The misconception about lead acid batteries has a minor mistake. Change "impermeable polycarbonate cases" to "impermeable polyproplyene cases". This is easily verified by looking at the recycling symbol (5 for polyproplyene) on nearly all lead acid batteries. See here: http://batterycouncil.org/?page=lead_acid_batteries 2604:6000:1006:C02D:79ED:2C17:7C28:9258 (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I found one of the citations mention this exactly. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Typo on Mathematics
Since I can't just quickly edit the page, I'll just point here that there is a typo under Mathematics - "For example, a die that has rolled a six ten consecutive times".79.23.62.28 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no typo in that sentence. siafu (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Die is the rarely used singular of dice. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Twinkie defense
Seems like the Twinkie defense myth would be a good addition here. It appears to meet all the criteria. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Humans evolving from chimpanzees
The Evolution section of this article contains the following line: "Humans did however evolve from a species of extinct chimpanzee, dubbed Pan prior." This is dubious at best, and probably should be removed. ~ Lord Marcellus  05:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not my field of expertise, but the entry in this article is at odds with what appears in the parent article:


 * Richard Wrangham (2001) argued that the CHLCA species was very similar to the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) — so much so that it should be classified as a member of the Pan genus and be given the taxonomic name Pan prior.[5] However, to date no fossil has been identified as a probable candidate for the CHLCA or the taxon Pan prior.


 * In general, issues like this should be hashed out at the parent article with the brief synopsis here reflecting the consensus view there.  "Pan prior" is presented as a speculative  rather than a mainstream view.  In particular, there appears to be some dispute among experts as to whether the common ancestor was a member of the genus pan while this entry states this as fact.  I agree that this is an issue and will edit the entry to bring it in line with the material presented in the parent article.  Thanks for calling this to our attention. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Christianity and Judaism - Noah
I think it is a pretty well-repeated misconception that the Bible says Noah took 2 of each animal on his ark for 40 days (and 40 nights), whereas Genesis 7:2 onwards says 1 pair (2) of unclean but 7 pair of others (clean animals), and they were in there for longer than forty days (that is just the amount of time it rained continuously... even after 150 days they didn't leave the ark). Is this something that should be added to the list? Maitchy (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked link
I tried to add this edit, but it was refused by content filter. Much of the modern image of Santa Claus was created by the Swedish postcard illustrator Jenny Nyström. Esquilo (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Albert Einstein and the Nobel Prize
A comon misconception is that Albert Einstein was awarded his Nobel Prize for his work on General Relativity. However he was awarded the prize mainly for his contribution on the photoelectric effect. here Lenkense (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2016
Add, to section "Computing", the entry: "Pornographic websites are not more likely to give a user a virus than any other commonly used website. " with the following citation: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/05/malware_and_computer_viruses_they_ve_left_porn_sites_for_religious_sites_.html Neito (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Neito (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: At the top of this talk page are some guidelines for inclusion, the first of which is: "The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.". Is there an article that exists about this? --allthefoxes (Talk) 08:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would argue that it falls under Computer Virus, much like the other two entries under Computing.Neito (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If you look to the top of this talk page, it also states that the misconception should be mentioned in the article. It seems Computer worm would be the appropriate article to discuss how computers get infected and how to prevent it. But until the information is there, we can't put it here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Spelling error
In the Music section, the Austrian national anthem is written as "Land der Berge, Land am Ströme", which does not make any sense (wrong grammar). Actually it is "Land der Berge, Land am Strome". I would change this myself, but apparently the article is blocked for me, so I have to ask some of you to do the edit. (de:Benutzer:Jaax) --Jaax (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

✅ Alcherin (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Danke für die Hilfe. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

New Entries
Hey Guys, I am currently reading the QI Books of General Ignorance, and there are so many misconceptions in there that I just had to try to get them into this page. I will be updating this message with misconceptions, which, due to my study habits, I am unable to add. If you go through this list, can you please if you think it is suitable and is not already in here, do a tiny bit of research, and then reword and put it into this article. I understand that some of these things don't have much meaning attached, so if you have any questions, just tell me the question on my private page and I will give you extra information on it. Things in quotation marks are from the books, with me starting on book 1 and working my way on, with things not in quotes excess information. I will do them in batches of 10s. Here is Batch 1. "How many wives did King Henry the 8th have? 2. 4 If your Catholic." 4 Wives were annulled. "How many nostrils have you got? Four. Two you can see; two you can't." We used to have 4 as fish but they moved to the back of the throat. "Where is the driest place on Earth? Antarctica. Parts of the continent haven't seen rain for more than 2 million years." "Where are you most likely to get caught in a hailstorm? The Western Highlands of Kenya in Africa." "Where is the highest mountain? It's on Mars." "What's the name of the tallest mountain in the world? Mauna Kea." "What's the largest living thing? It's a mushroom." Armillaria ostoyae found in Malheur National Forest. "What bird lays the smallest egg for its size? The ostrich." It is less than 1.5% of the weight of its mother. "What has a three second memory? Not a goldfish." "What’s the most dangerous animal to have ever lived? Half the humans that have ever died, perhaps as many as 45 billion people, have been killed by female mosquitoes." Thanks, have a nice day. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Batch 2
 * "What do chameleons do? They don't change colour to match the background."
 * "How do polar bears disguise themselves? They cover their black nose with their white paw, don't they? Adorable but unfounded, unfortunately. And they're not left-handed either."
 * "How many galaxies are visible to the naked eye? Five thousand? Two million? Ten billion? The answer is four - although from where you are sitting, you can only see two, and one of those is the Milky Way." You can see the Andromeda in the Northern Hemisphere, and in the Southern Hemisphere you can see the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. Some people claim to be able to see M33, M81 and M83, but that is hard to prove.
 * "What man-made artefacts can be seen from the moon? Deduct ten points if you said the Great Wall of China."
 * "Which of these are Chinese inventions? - Glass - Rickshaws - Chop Suey - Fortune Cookies." Chop Suey is a traditional dish to Toisan. Glass isn't a Chinese invention, as it was first invented in Egypt. The rickshaw was invented by a American missionary for his wife in Japan. Fortune cookies are American.
 * "Where did Marco Polo come from? Croatia." He was born in Korcula, Dalmatia which was then part of Venice.
 * "What is Croatia's most lasting contribution to world business? The neck tie."
 * "Who introduced tobacco and potatoes to England?" it wasn't Walter Raleigh.
 * "Who invented the steam engine?" Heron from Egypt invented it, but it was seen as a novelty item.
 * "Who invented the telephone? Antonio Meucci."

JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Antonio Meucci invented the phone if you consider a string and two tin cans a telephone - nearly every major invention has antecedents that someone, somewhere has used to claim to be the inventor of such and such an item - but wasn't really. His patent did not mention the use of electrical current, which is central the the telephone. The airplane is also a case in point - the Wright brothers were not the first to fly a powered airplane, merely the first to have power and a measure of control over roll.
 * As for Marco Polo, he can't have been "from" a country that didn't control where he was born, when he was born, and which not not recognize him as a citizen. Venice did, and how is croatians putting ropes around their necks a misconception?NiD.29 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, JoshMuirWikipedia. While those are to varying degrees interesting tidbits of information, they don't correct the sort of very widespread misconceptions that are featured in this article. For example, the Biology section in the article largely focuses on misconceptions that I myself have heard about for years. The closest example in your list is the idea that polar bears are all left-handed, but I first heard that claim last year and have only heard it from one person. In the articles, the ideas that daddy long legs are super-poisonous and that sharks can't develop cancer are (based just on my own experience) not a whole lot more widespread than the polar bear idea, but the other ideas (again, based just on my own experience) are more widespread. I see the article on the History of tobacco credits Sir Walter Raleigh with taking the first Virginia tobacco to Europe, but it doesn't reference a misconception that he was the first to introduce any tobacco to Europe, so that may not be a super-widespread misconception. The issue of color change in chameleons is murky. I've heard it claimed that they don't change color for camouflage, but also that they actually do. The article on Chameleon does include camouflage among other reasons they change color, so it would be fair to say that camouflage is just one reason, but I'm not sure that makes the popular view a misconception--just an over-simplification. Jbening (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The chameleon entry was removed a couple years ago at this edit, and recieved no objection when it was discussed on the talk page. The problem is that some chameleons do change color for disguise and some of them don't, so it's not really a misconception to say they do. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay Guys, I have taken on what you have said. Sorry I haven't been on for a while, I have had school, but I have some more. I have decided to only include ones that I have heard firsthand, but due to the shear number of them, I have not checked whether they all fill in the criteria.


 * Kilts, bagpipes, haggis, whisky & tartans are not Scottish inventions.
 * Tikka Masala comes from Glascow.
 * Champagne was invented by the English.
 * 'La Mareillaise', the French national anthem, was not written to inspire the French revolution, and was written by a royalist.
 * Swiss Rolls and Cuckoo Clocks were not from Switzerland.
 * The Swiss do have an army.
 * St Bernards do not carry brandy barrels around their necks.
 * Almost all frogs do not ribbet. Only one type, the Pacific Tree Frog out of 4360 species does.
 * Owls do not go 'Tu-Whit, Tu-Whoo'
 * Ring-A-Ring o' roses is not about the plague.
 * Nelson's last words were 'Drink Drink Fan Fan Rub Rub' although he did say 'Kiss Me Hardy' earlier.
 * Nelson did not wear an eyepatch.
 * The normal state of glass is solid.
 * Mercury is not the only metal at room temperature, Gallium, Caesium & Francium also are.
 * Copper is not the metal that is the best conductor, silver is.
 * The Richter Scale is not used now days, the MMS scale is.
 * The moon doesn't go around the Earth, they both go around each other.
 * Oxygen is not the most common ingredient in air, it is Nitrogen.
 * The seaside does not have any more ozone than anywhere else.
 * Light's speed is not always constant, it is only constant in a vacuum. In fact, scientists managed to stop light by shining it through a Bose Einstein Condensate of Rubidium.
 * Moths are not attracted by fire, they are disorientated by it.
 * No centipede has ever been found with 100 legs.
 * Rhino horns are not made from hair, they are made of keratin.
 * The only species of venomous snakes is the Japanese Grass Snake due to the difference between venom and poison.
 * The name of the statue in Piccadilly Statue is Anteros, not Eros or Cupid.
 * While Rome burned, Nero raced there and helped with the firefighting, and did not play the fiddle.
 * Roman emperors did a thumbs up to kill a gladiator.
 * Julius Caesar was not born by Caesarean section.
 * A vomitorium was the name of the entrance to an amphitheatre which Romans did not vomit in.
 * The typical Roman did not wear togas, as this was too uncomfortable.
 * The number of the beast is 616, not 666. This was found in a 2005 retranslation of the Book of Revelations.
 * There is little evidence that chastity belts were used in the middle ages, and in first known drawing, the key is clearly visible, suggesting the woman was in full control.
 * There was no such thing as Tutankhamun's curse, it was made up by the newspapers.
 * In the famous 1968 'Miss America' beauty contest, feminists did not burn their bras.
 * Mars' surface is not red. The redness we see is dust in the atmosphere.
 * When you look at the ocean, it is not blue because it is reflecting the sky, it is blue because water is blue.
 * Camels do not store water in their humps, they store fat.
 * America is not named after Amerigo Vespucci, it was named after Richard Ameryk.
 * George Washington's teeth were made mostly of hippopotamus teeth.
 * The game of rugby did not begin at Rugby School when William Webb Ellis picked up the ball and ran with it.
 * You can fold a piece of paper more than 7 times.
 * Eskimos have no more than 4 words for snow.
 * Charles Darwin did not invent the phrase 'the survival of the fittest', Herbert Spencer did.
 * The chalk used to write on schoolboards is not actually chalk, it is Gypsum.
 * Robert Bunsen did not invent the Bunsen burner, Michael Faraday did.
 * Film is not made of celluloid anymore.
 * Cockroaches would not be the most likely survivor of a nuclear war. Parasitic wasps can survive 9 times more radiation, and Deinococcus radiodurans can survive 75 times more.

''':::The spiciness in chillies does not come from the seeds, it comes from the membrane. ''':::A shoe size tells nothing about penis size.
 * Snakes are not sensitive to certain types of music in snake charming.
 * Violin strings have never been made of catgut.
 * The wren is not Britain's smallest bird, the goldcrest and firecrest tie.
 * Dogs mate back to back, not doggy style.
 * Fingernails and hair do not grow after death.

''':::Atlas did not carry the world on his shoulders, he carried the heavens. ''':::Champagne fizzes due to bubbles forming around bits of dirt, dust or lint, not carbon dioxide.
 * Raindrops are spherical, not teardrop-shaped.
 * Alex Fleming did not discover penicillin, Bedouin tribesman in North Africa discovered it thousands of years before. Also, a French doctor called Ernest Duchesne discovered it in 1897, although because he was only 20, his work was not acknowledged.
 * Stress or spicy food cannot cause stomach ulcers, the bacterium Helicobacter pylori is responsible.
 * The appendix is not useless, it stores Lymphoid tissue, which helps protect the body from bacteria.
 * Copernicus was not the first person to suggest the Earth went around the sun, Aristarchus of Samos, 1800 years earlier, did it first.
 * Christopher Columbus thought the world was pear shaped and a quarter of its actual size.
 * The brain is not grey, it is pink if you are alive.

''':::Alcohol does not kill brain cells, it makes new ones grow less quickly. :::James Bond's favourite drink was whisky, and not vodka martini. ''':::Virtually any liquid other than seawater will replace more water than it displaces including alcohol, tea and coffee.
 * Digestive biscuits do not aid digestion.
 * Teflon was not discovered as a by-product of the space programme.

''':::There is no evidence normal swimming in pools after normal eating is risky. ''':::Sitting too close to a TV does not cause damage anymore.
 * It takes more muscles to smile than to frown, although the muscles used for smiling are stronger due to more use.

''':::Hitler was not a vegetarian, he was recommended by his doctors to have one due to chronic flatulence. He also received regular injections of a high-protein serum derived from pulverised bull's testicles. ''':::Dog years to human years is not 1:7.
 * A day does not last for 24 hours, it depends, and can be as much as 50 seconds longer and shorter.
 * The blue whale is not the longest animal in the world. Neither is the lion's mane jellyfish. The longest animal is the bootlace worm, lineus longissimus, which have been found up to 50 metres long when unwound.
 * Flamingos are pink because they eat blue-green algae, not because they eat shrimp.
 * There is no such thing as a panther. The animals people think panthers are, are black leopards or black jaguars.
 * Bulls are not infuriated by the colour red, they chase the bullfighters cape because the movements anger them.
 * In the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the Oompa-Loompas were black, not orange.
 * Robin Hood's tights were red, according to the original ballads of the 15th century.
 * The word orange has things that rhyme with it, 'Blorenge' a hill outside Abergavenny in Wales, and Gorringe, a surname.
 * Carrots do not really help you see in the dark, as although they contain Vitamin A, which a deficiency of which can cause night blindness (where the eye adapts slowly to changes in light), the story of carrots helping to see in the dark was British wartime propaganda to protect the invention of sonar.
 * Bananas do not grow on trees, they grow on herbs.
 * Coconut water is found inside coconuts, and to get coconut milk, you need to boil the flesh and strain the fluid.
 * Captain Cook did not give out fresh limes or lemons, he simply ignored scurvy.
 * Kangaroo does not mean I don't know in Aboriginal.
 * The biggest rock in the world is not Ayers rock, it is Mount Augustus
 * Boomerangs were not used to hit kangaroos, they were used to imitate hawks to drive game birds into nets strung from trees.
 * There is no tradition of sticking pins in dolls to harm people in voodoo.
 * Friday 13th is not the unluckiest date, statistically, it is Monday 27th.
 * Cinderella's slippers were originally made from Squirrel Fur.
 * Pencils do not and never have contained lead. They contain graphite.
 * In the Bible, where it says the 10 commandments, it lists 13. If you count the 6 following which thou shalt not covert, there are 19 commandments. If you count the commandments that are in the Book of Leviticus, there are 613 commandments in the Bible.
 * There were 7 or 14 sheep, cattle, goats antelopes and locusts on Noah's ark, as in the Bible it says 'of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female.' This has been interpreted as either 7 or 14 of each species.
 * Methuselah is not the oldest man in the Bible, his father who's still alive is and is about 5397 years old (Feb 2016).
 * In knighting, the queen does not say 'Arise, Sir -'
 * Spaniards do not lisp.
 * Panama hats come from Ecuador.
 * St Patrick was not an Irish Saint. He was born a Briton.
 * The first Duke of Wellington was Irish.
 * When you reach 100 years of age, you don't receive a telegram from the queen, you receive a tele-message.
 * Octopuses have two legs, not eight arms.
 * The most southerly point of Africa is Cape Agulhas, not the Cape of Good Hope.
 * The hardest known substance is not diamonds, it is aggregated diamond nanorods.
 * Pure water does not freeze at 0° C, it freezes at -42° C.
 * The Dead Sea does not contain the saltiest water in the world, the Don Juan Pond in Antarctica does.
 * You cannot identify the age of all trees using rings, as there is little difference between seasons.
 * Whether the chicken or the egg came first is not a paradox, as evolution shows it was the egg.
 * The Mediterranean does have tides.
 * Finches did not inspire Darwin's theory of evolution, finches did.
 * The idea that you are 'never more than 6 feet away from a rat' really depends. The pest company Rentokil estimates a city dweller to be 70 feet away.
 * Elephants do not get drunk after eating the fermenting fruits of the marula tree.
 * Urinating on jellyfish stings does not relieve pain.
 * Normal pins and needles is not caused by poor circulation.
 * Hernia is not the strain of lifting something heavy.
 * Scientists never tested a bowl of peanuts in a bar and found traces of urine belonging to 27 different people.
 * Planes never have emptied the contents of toilets while in flight.
 * Vertigo is not fear of heights, that is acrophobia.
 * Moss does not always grow on the north side of trees.
 * Snakes do not dislocate their jaw to swallow things bigger than their head.
 * Sir Isaac Newton did not invent the cat flap.
 * Vertical stripes do not make you look skinnier, horizontal ones do.
 * Cirrus clouds are not the highest clouds, noctilucent clouds are.
 * Parachutes are not opened using ripcords anymore.
 * It is never too cold to snow.
 * You do not lose most of your body heat from your head.
 * The line 'Veni, Vidi, Vici' is not referring to Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain, it is talking about the battle of Zela.
 * Britain has a written constitution, just not all in the one document.
 * British judges have never used gavels.
 * European law does not force fishermen to 'wear hairnets'
 * Firemen's poles have not been banned.
 * Absinthe was never illegal and does not send you mad.
 * The French, not the English, killed Joan of Arc.
 * Mussolini did not make the trains run on time.
 * The story of George Washington and the cherry tree was made up.
 * Paris does not have the most Michelin stars in the world, Tokyo does.
 * Nadia Comaneci was not the first Olympian to score a perfect 10, Albert Sequin was.
 * Most bats aren't blind.
 * The image of Neanderthals is generally wrong, as the first reconstruction of one was of one with grossly deforming osteoarthritis.
 * Glass was not invented in China.
 * Eating chocolate does not give you acne.
 * Children to not become 'hyperactive' when given sugary foods or drinks.
 * Saunas do not sweat out the bodies toxins.
 * Alcohol does not stop antibiotics working except in 5 cases.
 * Defibrillators are not used to restart a stopped heart, it is used to stop irregular heart beats (too fast, random quivering).
 * Mayflies can live from a day to a week as a fly, but as a nymph they live for another 4 months to 4 years.
 * Butterflies do not come out of cocoons.
 * Edgar the Aetheling became king after the battle of Hastings, with William the Conqueror taking over 2 months later.
 * Huns were more of an army than a tribe, so did not come from Germany or Hungary.
 * When people get nosebleeds, tilting the head back can divert blood into
 * You should not tilt your head back when you get a nosebleed as this can divert blood into the throat, swallowing of which irritates the stomach and killed Atilla the Hun.
 * It is impossible to swallow your tongue, contrary to what you learn in CPR.
 * Leprosy does not make limbs fall of, it makes people not experience pain and constantly hurt themselves, resulting in scars.
 * Vikings never wore horned helmets.
 * Yak milk doesn't exist as yaks are the males of the species 'Bos grunniens'.
 * Sled drivers do not say 'Mush' to get huskies to move.
 * Lent lasts for 46 days, or 44 for Catholics. It runs from Ash Wednesday to midnight on Holy Saturday, the day before East Sunday. For Catholics it ends two days earlier, at midnight on Maundy Thursday. The 40 days refer to the time Jesus spent fasting and praying in the wilderness, but Sundays don't count.
 * On the whole, the Church of England reacted positively to Darwin's theory of Evolution.
 * The Pope is not 'always right'.
 * Gypsies are not from Egypt, Rome or Romania. They originated in India.
 * Robert Burns did not write 'Auld Lang Syne'.
 * Shakespeare did not introduce the most words to the English language, John Milton did.
 * Richard III's last words were 'Treason, Treason, Treason!', not 'A horse, my kingdom for a horse'.
 * Handwriting does not give a representation of a person's personality.
 * Counting sheep does not help you get to sleep faster.
 * Eating cheese before going to sleep does not give you nightmares.
 * The ploughman's lunch was not invented by advertisers.
 * Horses do not provide one horsepower, and can be up to 15.
 * The optimum driving speed for fuel efficiency is not 88.5 kilometres per hour.
 * Leaving a tooth in a glass of Coke overnight does not dissolve the tooth.
 * Frankenstein's monster was not green, it was originally yellow.
 * Dorothy's shoes in 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz' were originally silver, not ruby.
 * Things that are radioactive do not glow in the dark.
 * Francis Drake did not lead the English fleet against the Spanish Armada, Lord Howard of Effingham did.
 * There is no evidence that Cornish wreckers ever caused shipwrecks.
 * No US bankers jumped to their deaths after the 1929 Wall Street Crash.
 * The grounds of foreign embassies are not the sovereign territory of their state.
 * Steamboat Willie was not the first film to feature Mickey Mouse.
 * There are no documented cases of a real pirate ever drawing up a treasure map, let alone putting an 'X' on it to mark where the treasure is buried.
 * A lack of testosterone makes people aggressive.
 * Harry Houdini did not die from a punch in the stomach. He was already suffering from appendicitis.
 * Bottled water can be kept forever if kept in cool, dry, clean place away from light and strong odours or chemicals, not 2 years as stated on the bottle.
 * The Great Fire of London did not clear the city of plague. The crisis was over 6 months before the fire.
 * The Black Death did not turn people away from rats or witches, it turned them against water.
 * In no Tarzan book did he swing on vines.
 * Plastic bags are not made of oil, they are made of natural gas.
 * Popeye didn't eat spinach for iron, he ate it for the vitamin A. The iron in spinach is the same as other green vegetables.
 * Beavers do not eat fish.
 * Elephants do not drink through their trunk.
 * Prince Albert did not bring the first Christmas tree to England.
 * The Romans did not invent the Nazi salute.
 * There no documentary proof of baby booms six months after blackouts.
 * The Earl of Sandwich did not invent the sandwich.
 * Motorists have never had to carry red flags in front of them.
 * Ciabatta is not a traditional Italian bread.
 * Trappist monks have never taken the vow of silence.
 * A monkey was not hanged in Hartlepool because the locals thought it was a French spy.
 * John o'Groats is not the northernmost place on mainland Britain, Dunnet house is.
 * The Mayflower almost certainly did not land at Plymouth Rock.
 * JM Barrie did not invent the name Wendy.
 * Sherlock Holmes used abductive not deductive reasoning.
 * Sherlock Holmes never smoked a calabash (a curly pipe)
 * There is no evidence King Henry VIII wrote Greensleeves.
 * Lulach the Idiot succeeded Macbeth as King of Scotland.
 * The story of Greyfriars Bobby standing by his dead masters grave for 14 years was a publicity stunt.
 * Ivan Pavlov did not get dogs to salivate by ringing a bell.
 * You cannot catch anything from pigeons.
 * Cold water is just as effective to wash off bacteria as hot water.
 * If the Earth stopped spinning, humans would not be thrown into space.
 * The statue of Jesus in Rio is not the tallest statue of him in the world.
 * The Giant Redwood or the sequoia are not the tallest species of trees measured, it is a eucalyptus.
 * Crickets do not make chirps by rubbing their legs together.
 * Junk DNA is not useless.
 * Crick or Watson did not discover DNA, Johannes Friedrich Miescher did.
 * Dr Johnson did not write the first English dictionary.
 * Fleas if scaled to the size of a human could not jump 1200 feet in the air due to cross section of muscles.
 * If the population of China jumped at once the Earth would not knock the Earth into a different orbit.
 * The Isle of Wight cannot fit the entire world's population on it.
 * The largest body of dead water is the black sea, not the dead sea.
 * Swans cannot break arms.
 * Swans and penguins do not mate for life.
 * Elephants have two knees, not four.
 * Walt Disney was not cryogenically frozen.
 * Charles Darwin was not the naturalist on the Beagle, Robert McCormick was.
 * The sirens were half woman and half bird, not woman and fish.
 * The Birdman did not keep birds in Alcatraz.
 * Roman soldiers did not receive salary in salt.
 * Lady Godiva did not ride naked through the marketplace in Coventry.
 * Pepper was not used in the Middle Ages to hide the flavour of rotten meat.
 * Enid Blyton never used the phrase 'lashings of ginger beer' in any Famous Five stories.
 * There was no balconies mentioned in Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet.
 * Napoleon never said 'Not tonight, Josephine'.
 * Pythagoras did not invent Pythagoras' theorem.
 * Shouting in the mountains won't start an avalanche.
 * The average age of US combat troops in Vietnam was about 22 or 23, not 19.
 * By volume, the Cholula pyramid in Mexico is the biggest pyramid in the world.
 * Vikings did not burn their dead on ships.
 * You cannot legally shoot a Welshman in Chester after sunset with a bow and arrow.
 * London black cabs do not have to carry a bale of hay.
 * It is not illegal to die in English parliament.
 * This is the end of the misconceptions I have gotten out of the QI Books of General Ignorance. I have also made bold any misconceptions I have heard of so to narrow down the list. If you have heard of a misconception, and I have not made it bold, feel free to make it bold.
 * JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pencils never having contained lead and voodoo dolls actually reflecting an old European folk tradition strike me as borderline notable enough for the article. Both misconceptions are mentioned in the corresponding WP articles. Anyone else hav an opinion on those or any others in the list? Jbening (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The pencil misconception is notable enough and is even mentioned in Pencil. I'm not sure about the voodoo doll thing and it's somewhat dubious. Voodoo doll says the practice "does not have a prominent place" which suggests that it is used, just not as often as popular culture might have us think. Louisiana_Voodoo mention sticking pins in dolls, but not to cause pain. I think that one is to unclear to be included. Sjö (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Did they really write that the carrot=see in the dark thing was to protect the invention of sonar, the device you use to find submarines? Sjö (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Sjö, that was a personal error. I was going through fast and as I have read the book before, I looked at the heading for the page, and then wrote down the general gist of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshMuirWikipedia (talk • contribs) 08:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Mars' surface is not red. The redness we see is dust in the atmosphere." - mentioned here, but the article is self-contradictory ("The red-orange appearance of the Martian surface is caused by iron(III) oxide, or rust. It can also look like butterscotch..."). "When you look at the ocean, it is not blue because it is reflecting the sky, it is blue because water is blue." - mentioned here, but reflection of the sky is still stated as a contributing factor to the ocean's color. "The chalk used to write on schoolboards is not actually chalk, it is Gypsum." mentioned here and here, just needs to be clarified that in the past actual chalk was used. Alcherin (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of common misconceptions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120314144904/http://oyc.yale.edu/astronomy/frontiers-and-controversies-in-astrophysics/content/transcripts/transcript09.html to http://oyc.yale.edu/astronomy/frontiers-and-controversies-in-astrophysics/content/transcripts/transcript09.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Global warming denial
The biggest misconception of them all seems to be missing as there are plenty attached with [Global warming] thanks to the deliberate dissemination of disinformation by the oil industry and right wing media starting with the matter of scientific consensus, which is in fact agreed upon by over 95% of climate scientists. see here and here.NiD.29 (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "over 95% of climate scientists" is too vague and difficult to prove - hence why this number is not used in articles like Climate change denial,Scientific opinion on climate change, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and Global warming controversy. Alcherin (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You missed the point - I wasn't putting the 95% number forward to be included in the article, merely stating the point that a scientific consensus exists, and it covers the vast majority of those who actually have expertise in the field. FWIW, the list you included is pointless as it mostly contains the names of people whose expertise is NOT climate science, and have not studied the subject (and no, meteorology is not climate science), and so most of their opinions are not relevant to the discussion.NiD.29 (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * My main issue with including this is the narrow nature of this denial. It is only denied by conservatives in the United States, and by no one else, not even by conservatives elsewhere, and for that matter, even the oil companies admit it's real. But, propose some wording and I'll give it some consideration. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. While the nature of denial may be narrow, we have included the vaccines misconception, which is held by a narrower part of America. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be more like pseudoscience. It is like saying aliens did not really build the pyramids or the Holocaust was not an elaborate hoax. Its not the same thing as a "common misconception", which is more like a proverb or folktale that gets passed around and people take it for granted, like an old wives tale--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said before, propose what you think the entry should look like, with sources, and we can consider it. But it's really hard to just consider an idea without something concrete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified 2
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of common misconceptions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090524064530/http://www.ou.edu/cas/zoology/Hutchison.htm to http://www.ou.edu/cas/zoology/Hutchison.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 22:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The bot worked properly - but it turns out the source was useless anyway, and so it was removed. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding explosive decompression
There has been at least one documented instance of decompression causing a human body to be violently disrupted. A set of divers at the Byford Dolphin, in a highly pressurised diving chamber, died when a hatch was accidentally opened. The diver standing nearest the hatch did in fact have his skin ruptured and his viscera, er, dramatically rearranged. However, this involved an explosively rapid decompression from nine atmospheres of pressure to sea-level pressure, and even then divers situated farther from the hatch did not undergo this gruesome phenomenon. Decompression from sea-level pressure to vacuum is simply not able to produce this effect.

Furthermore, most spacecraft and a few particularly high-flying aircraft such as the U-2 or SR-71 operate with reduced internal air pressure to save the weight of building the craft to contain full sea-level air pressure. Rapid decompression would still be quickly lethal to an occupant not wearing a self-contained pressure suit, on an effective timescale of seconds (see Time of useful consciousness), but neither bodily disruption nor boiling blood enters into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:5800:DC00:2DD2:DF23:A5FA:88FD (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified 3
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 one external links on List of common misconceptions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/marymagdalene.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.netplaces.com/women-of-the-bible/women-disciples-and-followers-of-christ/mary-magdalene.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lexic.us/definition-of/thusly
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scottishgolfhistory.net/golf_word.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/kade/adams/chap7.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/faq-shuttleglass_prt.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/30/more-booming-fireballs/#.UOtPp6x9SHU
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/284124-myth-busting-is-linux-immune-to-viruses
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-fiction-glass-liquid

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 11:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sushi
I asked at Talk:Sushi whether the raw fish myth should be in that article, and relatedly, in this one. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused. Read my edit summary. It has nothing to do with whether the misconception is mentioned at Sushi. I removed it because if fails one of the criteria established by consensus for inclusion in the article: "The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception" (bold added). There is no source that it's a common misconception. You can see the criteria for inclusion if you open an edit window for the article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree that the entry failed two of the inclusion criteria: that it is a misconception and that the misconception be addressed at the parent article. A minor bit of googling provides some support that it is a common misconception:  https://www.google.com/#hl=en&as_q=sushi+raw+fish+misconception&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights= .  I've personally got bigger fish to fry, but if someone wants to go through these sources, find the ones that qualify as WP:RS, put it into the parent article, and restore it here I will not object.  Seems like a perfectly reasonable entry for this article, but we need to back it up and follow the inclusion criteria if we're going to include it.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Photographic Memory
According to the article the existence of photographic memory is a misconception, but that seems like an overly general statement, considering that specific cases like this exist: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/nyregion/28about.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.143.163 (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

eyes
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31596/will-sitting-too-close-tv-hurt-your-eyes http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/fact-fiction-myths-about-eyes

Sitting close to a television does not permanently damage the eyes.

Benjamin (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bending Water
When holding an electrically charged plastic cup next to a falling stream of water the water stream will bend towards the cup. This is often attributed to the dipole moment of the water molecules. While it is true that a inhomogeneous field will induce a force to attract the water, this effect is much too small to bend the water this strongly. The real reason is that water is usually contaminated with ions. The electrons are repelled back into the pipe while the ions are then attracted by the negatively charged object.

source: Youtube - Veritasium

134.94.123.1 (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Add list of misconceptions about language learning to "See Also"? Suggestion
What do y'all think of adding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions_about_language_learning to the See Also section? Leostaley (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The ice age is not over.
It is a common misconception that the ice age is over.

There have been five known ice ages in Earth's history including the one we are in now. They are the Huronian glaciation, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan glaciation, Karoo Ice Age, and the Quaternary glaciation. We live in the Quaternary Glaciation. It can also be referred to as the current ice age. It began 2.58 million year ago and still continues today.

When people talk about the last ice age, they are actually referring to the last glacial period. That was a period of advanced glaciation that began 110,000 years ago and ended 12,000 years ago. The present interglacial period began after that.

An ice age is comprised of glacial and interglacial periods. We are in an interglacial period within an ice age. Compared to warmer times in Earth's history that were outside of ice ages, we currently have polar ice caps.

This is talked about in these articles.Ice age Quaternary glaciation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appple (talk • contribs)


 * It seems more that the technical terminology changed or at least became more defined. Per Ice age, Karl Friedrich Schimper coined the term to refer to the period of the glaciers. If we do add something about it, that should be mentioned. It would be nice if someone could figure out when the terminology changed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Putting alcohol or hydrogen peroxide does not help a wound to heal, except under some extreme circumstances.
Most sources say that hydrogen peroxide and rubbing alcohol are now known to do more harm than good when applied to minor cuts, but I think it's still widely popular to use them. In the grocery store you can still find rows and rows of hydrogen peroxide and rubbing alcohol (and I don't know of any other purpose people might be using them for that often). I think it's important to mention this misconception so that people stop wasting money and hindering their healing process.

Some of these articles mention or imply that many still believe hydrogen peroxide or rubbing alcohol help wounds to heal. The abundance of articles saying they *don't* itself implies that many people think they do.


 * https://www.amherst.edu/alumni/learn/bookclub/pastfeatures/dontcrossyoureyes/excerpt
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/health/19real.html
 * http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/456300_3 / http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/456300
 * http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/wound-care-10/slideshow-wound-care-dos-and-donts
 * http://www.dailyrepublic.com/projects/the-other-side-of-50/common-myths-about-wound-healing-debunked/
 * http://www.advancedtissue.com/debunking-myths-wound-care/
 * http://catchinghealth.bangordailynews.com/2014/07/28/im-not-your-mother-but/hydrogen-peroxide-cut/
 * https://www.zocdoc.com/answers/8747/should-i-use-rubbing-alcohol-to-clean-a-wound
 * http://dianeatwood.com/catchinghealth/hydrogen-peroxide-cut/
 * http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/12/vreeman.carroll.medical.myths/
 * http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049215

Most of the sources that cite studies tend to say that hydrogen peroxide neither helps nor hinders wound healing. At least one that cited a study said it hinders it, by killing the particular cells that aid in healing. The one article I noticed that mentions studies on the effectiveness of rubbing alcohol says basically that it's highly debated in the field. I'm not sure if others cited studies regarding rubbing alcohol too. Inhahe (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Marco Polo didn't invent the fork from chopsticks
I'm actually kind of surprised this one hasn't made it into the article, because I've been hearing this story for more than 40 years, and it's still widely circulated. It goes along the lines of: Marco Polo invented the fork in China by fastening two tines (broken chopstick perhaps) to one end of a chopstick because he couldn't use chopsticks, and then he introduced this new eating utensil to Italy.

While I find this apocryphal story all over the place, it's really hard to find reliable sources referring to it. There are ostensibly reliable sources that propagate variations of it, for example the publication Commonweal magazine, volume 34, p.520: "Take the matter of chopsticks, for instance. Did you know the fork was invented by an Italian? He modeled it as an improvement over the chopsticks brought from China by Marco Polo. But was it an improvement?"

I'm sure others here have heard a variant of this story too. Our article on Marco Polo mentions nothing about it, and our article on fork has an excellent overview of the actual history of the utensil. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. At the top of the page is the inclusion criteria for items. Since this misconception is not mentioned in the Fork article nor the Marco Polo article, it doesn't meet the criteria. You could try to get the information in one of those articles first. You will also need a ref that shows it is a current misconception. The citation you gave is from 1941. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of Fleas in Beermats, Germany?
The statement has been floating around for some time now: "In Germany, there is a type of flea which lives and breeds only in beer mats." Somewhere this was "identified" as the Dottheimer flea. It looks to originally been part of some kind of joke as there is absolutely no more information on it coming up in Google- Germany or elsewhere. Please correct if wrong- but if there is evidence then one of the sub articles on fleas can be updated appropriately.--Lmstearn (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Shocking lead.
This article begins with the statement


 * "Note that each entry is formatted as a correction; the misconceptions themselves are implied rather than stated."

It then consecutively lists 5 misconceptions beginning with the phrases:


 * Searing meat does not "seal in" moisture
 * Some people believe that food items cooked with wine or liquor will be totally non-alcoholic
 * Monosodium glutamate (MSG) has a widespread reputation for triggering migraine headache exacerbations and other symptoms of so-called Chinese restaurant syndrome.
 * Microwave ovens do not cook food from the inside out.
 * Placing metal inside a microwave oven does not damage the oven's electronics.

Please fix this. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But "Searing in meat does not seal in moisture" is not the misconception – it's the correction. The unstated misconception is "Searing in meat seals in moisture". Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, be that as it may, the page is littered with things that could and should be corrected. I will list them below.


 * Monosodium glutamate (MSG) has a widespread reputation for triggering migraine headache exacerbations and other symptoms of so-called Chinese restaurant syndrome, but there are no consistent data to support this relationship. Although there have been reports of an MSG-sensitive subset of the population, this has not been demonstrated in placebo-controlled trials.[5][6]


 * Some people believe that food items cooked with wine or liquor will be totally non-alcoholic, because alcohol's low boiling point causes it to evaporate quickly when heated. However, a study found that some of the alcohol remains: 25 percent after one hour of baking or simmering, and 10 percent after two hours; in either case, however, the amount consumed while eating a dish prepared with alcohol will rarely if ever contain sufficient alcohol to cause even low levels of intoxication.[3][4]


 * The forbidden fruit mentioned in the Book of Genesis is commonly assumed to be an apple,[28] and is widely depicted as such in Western art. However, the Bible does not identify what type of fruit it is. The original Hebrew texts mention only tree and fruit. Early Latin translations use the word mali, which can be taken to mean both "evil" and "apple". In early Germanic languages the word "apple" and its cognates usually meant simply "fruit". German and French artists commonly depict the fruit as an apple from the 12th century onwards, and John Milton's Areopagitica from 1644 explicitly mentions the fruit as an apple.[29] Jewish scholars have suggested that the fruit could have been a grape, a fig, wheat, an apricot, or an etrog.[30]


 * There is a legend that Marco Polo imported pasta from China[121] which originated with the Macaroni Journal, published by an association of food industries with the goal of promoting the use of pasta in the United States.[122] Marco Polo describes a food similar to "lagana" in his Travels, but he uses a term with which he was already familiar. Durum wheat, and thus pasta as it is known today, was introduced by Arabs from Libya, during their conquest of Sicily in the late 7th century, according to the newsletter of the National Macaroni Manufacturers Association,[123] thus predating Marco Polo's travels to China by about six centuries.


 * It is commonly claimed that the Great Wall of China is the only human-made object visible from the Moon. This is false. None of the Apollo astronauts reported seeing any specific human-made object from the Moon, and even Earth-orbiting astronauts can barely see it. City lights, however, are easily visible on the night side of Earth from orbit.[183] Shuttle astronaut Jay Apt has been quoted as saying that "the Great Wall is almost invisible from only 180 miles (290 km) up."[184] (See Man-made structures visible from space.) ISS commander Chris Hadfield attempted to find it from space, but said that it was "hard as it's narrow and dun-colored."[185]


 * Seasons are not caused by the Earth being closer to the Sun in the summer than in the winter. In fact, the Earth is farthest from the Sun when it is summer in the Northern Hemisphere. Seasons are caused by Earth's 23.4-degree axial tilt. In July, the Northern Hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun resulting in longer days and more direct sunlight; in January, it is tilted away. The seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere, which is tilted towards the Sun in January and away from the Sun in July.[188][189]


 * It is a common misconception that an earthworm becomes two worms when cut in half. However, only a limited number of earthworm species[214] are capable of anterior regeneration. When such earthworms are bisected, only the front half of the worm (where the mouth is located) can feed and survive, while the other half dies.[215] Species of the planarian flatworms actually do become two new planarians when bisected or split down the middle.[216]


 * According to urban legend, the daddy longlegs spider (Pholcidae) is the most venomous spider in the world, but the shape of their mandibles leaves them unable to bite humans, rendering them harmless to our species. In reality, they can indeed pierce human skin, though the tiny amount of venom they carry causes only a mild burning sensation for a few seconds.[219] In addition, there is also confusion regarding the use of the name daddy longlegs, because harvestmen (order Opiliones, which are arachnids, but not spiders) and crane flies (which are insects) are also known as daddy longlegs, and share the misconception of being venomous.[220][221]


 * Drowning is often thought to be a violent struggle, where the victim waves and calls for help.[267] In truth, drowning is often inconspicuous to onlookers. In most cases, raising the arms and vocalising are impossible due to the instinctive drowning response.[267] Waving and yelling (known as "aquatic distress") is a sign of trouble, but not a dependable one: most victims demonstrating the instinctive drowning response do not show prior evidence of distress.[268]


 * Until 1998,[318][319] medical experts believed that by the age of two years, humans had generated all of the brain cells they will ever have.[320] It is now understood that new neurons can be created in some parts of the postnatal brain. Researchers have observed adult neurogenesis in avians,[321] Old World monkeys,[322] and humans.[323] Adults of these species retain multipotent (see cell potency) neural stem cells in the subventricular zone of the lateral ventricles and subgranular zone of the dentate gyrus.[324][325] The newborn neurons generated in these areas migrate to the olfactory bulb and the dentate gyrus, respectively, and are believed to integrate into existing neural circuits. The function and physiological significance of adult-born neurons remains unclear. Some studies have suggested that post-natal neurogenesis also occurs in the neocortex,[326][327][328] an idea that is disputed.[329]


 * It is commonly believed that water drains in a counter-clockwise vortex in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern due to the Coriolis effect. Some also have claimed that the Coriolis effect is far too weak to influence the draining of liquid from a basin.[387] Both conceptions are incorrect.[388][389] The Coriolis effect is indeed real and does impact the draining, but its impact is tiny compared to that of residual current, debris or imperfections in the basin, or a host of other possible factors, and sinks may be found draining either counter-clockwise or clockwise on either side of the equator.[390] Nevertheless, a team led by Ascher Shapiro and MIT filled a special cylindrical tank with water, sealed it, and let it sit for a day; when drained, it eventually did form a clear counter-clockwise whirlpool, which confirmed the hypothesis that the Coriolis effect does impact even small-scale drains. (The experiment was successfully repeated multiple times elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere; identical tests in Sydney produced the opposite effect, as predicted.)[391]

Also,


 * When an event with equally probable outcomes comes out the same way several times in succession, the other outcome is not more likely next time. For example, if a roulette[note 2] ball ends up on black many times in a row, and not once on red (as reportedly happened 26 times on August 18, 1913, in the Monte Carlo Casino[376]), the next ball is not more likely to land on red; red is not "due".[377] For a fair wheel, neither is red less likely. This misconception is known as the gambler's fallacy; in reality statistical independence holds, and red is just as likely or unlikely on the next spin as always—sometimes expressed as "the system has no memory". If the event is physically determined, and not perfectly random, the repeated outcome may be more likely. For example, a die that comes up six on 10 consecutive rolls might be loaded or controlled by hidden magnets, and would be more likely to roll another six.

This is a fallacy, not a misconception.

Cheers - JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right that this article is in need of a good copyedit, and the kinds of edits you've been making are a welcome improvement. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with Adrian J. Hunter that the recent edits by JoshMuirWikipedia are an improvement.  I look forward to seeing the other examples he listed given the same treatment.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This article has been bugging me for a few days, and there has been something I could not lay my finger on. I have realised that the issue I have with this article is the use of the word not. This article begins by stating "the misconceptions themselves are implied rather than stated." It is not very well implied when if you remove the word 'not' you have the thing being implied. For the next few days, I will work on changing this so it is better implied. For example, instead of saying 'The Twinkie does not have an infinite shelf life', this will be changed to 'The Twinkie has a finite shelf life'. It would be appreciated if someone could go over my edits to check my wording, as occasionally I know I can re-write things badly. Cheers - JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * While I agree that in general this is a good approach, I'd be cautious about applying it too rigorously. There are several entries that I can't come up with a good way of re-wording  without tying myself into linguistic knots, similar to the kind of gymnastics one must sometime engage in to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition.  But you may be a better wordsmith then me, so proceed.  But if you can't reword all of them I think it's ok.  The important thing is that the article presents true statements, rather than the misconceptions themselves. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need this page
This is not encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:4080:5960:6D8B:582E:246:8DE3 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Encyclopedic" is a much-abused and misunderstood term. What Wikipedia means by encyclopedic and unencyclopedic is defined at What Wikipedia is not. Which kind of excluded content do you think this page falls under? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Atheists having no morals misconception
hello, I was wondering if I could put in the misconception that "Atheism are not moral or have no moral compass", along with info that refutes it. Is the belief that Atheists have no moral compass or morals a commonly held belief and should it be included in this list? Frogger48 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not a misconception that I would have intuitively thought of as "common." What sources have you seen that identify it as such? VQuakr (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought it's a fairly common characterisation - that the "godless" have no divine source of morals, and so are amoral. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what any of us might think, we'd need solid sourcing to add this item to the article. See the criteria for inclusion at the top of the page.


 * My take is that if we're going to get into the business of gainsaying incorrect stereotypes about various religions/beliefs/lifestyles we'll wind up with a very long article after all the edit warring is over. I'd rather not go there. (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we could go there, and we do, but not on this list. Even with all the sourcing in the world, the belief that atheists are immoral is a prejudice, not a misconception, so it's out of scope of this article. We include the common misunderstanding of the term jihad, but not the common prejudice that Muslims are somehow sympathetic towards or inclined toward terrorism. We include the fact that George Washington's teeth were not wooden, but not the prejudice that the English have bad teeth. The misunderstanding of the definition of Papal infallibility we do include, but not the prejudice that Roman Catholics are all servile agents of the Pope. The article prejudice and the Template:Discrimination sidebar provide a map to how we do cover these topics. Discrimination against atheists is the main article for this particular prejudice.<P>We probably could create a List of common prejudices if we wished, but it would take some committed effort by several editors to maintain. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The source that I referred to that this misconception about Atheists is common is the article from Psychology Today that includes an article by the American Sociological Review. The article is about data of a national survey made by Douglass Hartmann, Penny Edgell, and Joseph Gerteis on the topic of how Atheists are perceived in America (the United States). Here is the article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/200908/atheists-most-mistrusted-group-evil-and-immoral

Also I believe that Mr. Swordfish and, Dennis Bratland are right in that the belief that Atheists have no morals is more of a prejudice, than a misconception, in that it is not appropriate for this list. Frogger48 (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Petition for Removal
Agreed with the above stated demand for the removal of this list from Wikipedia. I don't even work here. But as someone who commonly researches misconceptions to show that people are misconceived about there being a misconception in the first place, I am just going to say get rid of this article. It is better to leave the myths and controversies to the relative pages that they belong to. Especially since already there are probably several misconceptions here that are genuine. You probably should just ditch the Evolution thing. Calling it a theory is a factual statement on its scientific status in terms of scientific hierarchical categorization. It has not been deemed a Law of Science, and even then a Law of Science may not be a true Law of Nature since Laws of Science have been disproven before. It is not a misconception. It is a common accusation of the scientific validity of the Theory which is still a Theory, and I really will state for the record every man, woman, and child is capable of scientific assessment, assessment by other accurate methods, warfare, governance, art, creativity, etc. Scientists are split, there are Evolutionists and Creationists. It doesn't matter what one group will accept over the other. They tried that with Michael Faraday and other scientists and their beliefs. In the end things will be viewed differently over time and only the truth is what matters. Unless we are to go over every last misconception then and confirm these are not just different beliefs and viewpoints, we have to state them as perception and not misconception. Mark the record of belief and fact separately and together, not the mainstream bias or slant.

There is also the Flat-Earth Myth. I dare say there is some reason to dispute this claim that it was just a mythological view of the medieval peoples, but the main point is you cannot do two things: Making such solid statements about controversies and debates or known, unknown, accepted, and unaccepted facts. Nor should you create a secondary list outside the articles which require their own time to develop and change as subjects in our world.

Although perusing most of these at the surface they seem alright, there are some disputes that are stated within and the inclusion of certain misconceptions should be done more tactfully and carefully. Some of these are controversies, not facts. I cannot tell you, if I had seen a common movie myth, there would have been an immediate correction on my part. Thankfully I don't see one. But many misconceptions include the belief that there are misconceptions, I am going to tell you now. Especially among historians, who relate much to you as if everything was based on a movie they are trying to deflect reality off of. But the reality is sometimes years of scholarly thought is being overshadowed and slowly replaced only to probably or actually be wrong. Point is, there are many things that should probably be moved back to their relevant articles, some discarded or stated as controversy and that is that.68.46.208.41 (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Petitioning to delete an article won't get you anywhere. The venue for proposing deletion is at Articles for deletion. You will need to back up your arguments with references to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not personal views and assertions. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

68, Your argument is kind of a muddled mess to me, but the gist I'm getting is that things aren't misconceptions because some people disagree, and they aren't because our understanding may change some day. For the first, two views aren't equivalent when one group constantly gets basic facts wrong (like creationists) while the other is based on careful accurate research (like biologists, who universally support evolution. For the second, we have the page WP:CRYSTAL which agrees we can't predict the future, but we can certainly accurately describe the now. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Death by Coconut
I have just found out via the Wikipedia page dedicated to the subject - Death by coconut, that only 19 people have ever been reported as being killed by falling coconuts, and that it is a misconception that there is more deaths via them than sharks. Is this misconception large enough to warrant a place on the article, as I may have just heard of it as I live in Australia where there are multiple shark attacks. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed new entry - women's menstrual cycle synching
Courtesy of Kevin Drum

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/menstrual-syncing-baloney

referencing this article:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2102956-do-women-sync-up-no-but-we-cant-resist-menstruation-myths/

Basis for a new entry? Like Drum, I've heard this all my adult life and this is the first I've heard it being presented as false. We'll need a bit more research before including it, but it seems like a good candidate for an entry. Thoughts? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, the parent article Menstrual_synchrony is fairly extensive, although it doesn't come out anss explicitly say that it's acommon misconception. The New Scientist article does.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The first time I heard of this misconception was of a debunking of it, and I have never heard it perpetrated as true. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Whereas I read of it repeatedly in New Scientist and in reputable (UK) newspapers back in the 1970s. {The poster formerly known as 97.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Rolling Stones entry
I have restored the recently deleted item about the Rolling Stones at Altamont.

The Salon article cited in the entry states:


 * Contrary to popular legend, "Sympathy for the Devil" was not the song being played when a young man was killed at the free concert. The band was knocking out "Under My Thumb" ...

Seems to me that this meets inclusion criteria #2. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have multiple sources that agrees on this. We should also rewrite it to clear up the confusion of the pronouns with the antecedents, and pare back the excess detail. What is this reference verifying? It might be better to mention that one of the reasons we even care that that there is a misconception over which song was playing was that it was alluded to in American Pie (song). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Detox
Detox in itself seems to be pseudo-science so anything connected with it is suspect. However as an example one of the sources used to justify the hoax allegation of detox says - "The only type of detox diet that is worthwhile is one that limits processed, high-fat, and sugary foods, and replaces them with more whole foods like fruits and vegetables. That clean-eating approach is your best bet to getting your body in tip-top shape." My point is detox is a hoax - so anything connected with is a hoax too. Detox diet is a hoax because detox is a hoax, not because the concept of healthy eating is unscientific, as the statement seems to convey. Needs editing. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Golden ratio belongs among the Arts sections
It should be moved from Science and Technology. 213.149.62.120 (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us why? It's a mathematical concept. Sundayclose (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Geneva Convention run on sentence
First the sentence below is way to long. Second saying the belief that it does not may have is much more confusing than saying the belief that it doesn't may have. Edits are disabled so someone else has to clean this up a bit.

The belief that it does not may have arisen from restrictions imposed by the U.S. military during the Korean or Vietnam Wars due to ammunition shortages; a similar tactically-based restriction on the use of the M40 recoilless rifle's .50-caliber spotting rifle may also have been erroneously applied to all weapons of that caliber under a belief it was legally mandated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B001:82E1:4AC4:7388:614B:813B (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 38 one external links on List of common misconceptions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2008/11/17/met_483813.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=27151&highlight=impeccable
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://michiganradio.org/post/irregardless-its-reputation-word-perseveres
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://bridgingtheunbridgeable.com/2012/03/21/thusly-is-not-a-word-2/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fuck
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/golf.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.snopes.com/language/stories/420.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6875436/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.napoleon.org/fr/salle_lecture/articles/files/Taillenapo_RIN_89_oct1963_2006.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0505_060505_cinco_de_mayo.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nypl.org/blog/2013/07/02/name-changes-ellis-island
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.polamjournal.com/Library/APHistory/Cavalry_Myth/cavalry_myth.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716022617/http://www.diis.dk/graphics/CVer/Personlige_CVer/Holocaust_and_Genocide/Publikationer/holocaust_DK_kap_5.pdf to http://www.diis.dk/graphics/CVer/Personlige_CVer/Holocaust_and_Genocide/Publikationer/holocaust_DK_kap_5.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzentgraf.de/books/tcw/works1.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://iacuc.tennessee.edu/pdf/Policies-AnimalCare/Cattle-BasicCare.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.collegenews.org/x2682.xml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode-tab-07.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode-tab-07.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/spidermyth/myths/daddyvenom.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flowers-org.com/helianthus-sunflower.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-human-race-evolvin
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/giraffe.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/05/fake-mac-defender-antivirus-app-scams-users-for-money-cc-numbers.ars
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hair-removal/an00638
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20411087,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.acefitness.org/blog/86/are-vegetarian-diets-safe
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/cold-guide/vitamin-c-for-common-cold
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203014334/http://www.tallshipschannelislands.com/PDFs/Educational_Packet.pdf to http://www.tallshipschannelislands.com/PDFs/Educational_Packet.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slate.com/id/2140685/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.cpb.or.kr/user/bbs/code02_detail.php?av_jbno=2006071800002
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200409/22/200409222123324579900091009101.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/streetcents/features/front_question_of_the_week.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.losethetrainingwheels.org/default.aspx?Lev=2&ID=34

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Dry ice in water cloud
When dry ice is placed in water, a fog forms. It is commonly (but mistakenly) assumed that this fog forms from atmospheric water vapor. It is thought that atmospheric water vapor condenses on cold carbon dioxide gas that sublimes through water to reach the water's surface. However, experimental data shows that the fog that forms in this experiment comes from the bulk water into which the dry ice is placed. See J. Chem. Educ., 2015, 92 (4), pp 643–648. This misconception is quite pervasive; many professional scientists and science educators mistakenly think the dry ice fog comes from atmospheric water vapor. Thus, it would be good to consider including this misconception in this article. Pchemstud (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. Per requirements for inclusion in the article, we need a reliable source that it is a common misconception (note that this is in addition to the source you cite for the factual contents of the phenomenon), and the fact that it is a common misconception needs to be mentioned and sourced in a parent article, probably Dry ice. Sundayclose (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose Thank you for the guidance! Upon Googling "How does dry ice form fog", the first response seen is "Fog forms when water vapor in the air condenses into tiny suspended droplets. This condensation occurs when warm, humid air is cooled. The warm air over the hot water is nearly saturated with water vapor. This warm air is cooled by mixing it with the cold carbon dioxide gas that sublimes from dry ice." A very similar explanation is also shown here Atmospheric water vapor being cited as the source of the dry-ice-in-water-fog is extremely common, but unfortunately incorrect. It is difficult to "prove" that this is a misconception, given that it is so pervasively common. Note that the parent "dry ice" article in Wikipedia already states "The fog originates from the bulk water into which the dry ice is placed, and not from atmospheric water vapor (as is commonly assumed)". Also, on p. 644 of J. Chem. Educ., 2015, 92 (4), pp 643–648 it notes that the atmospheric water explanation is a "persistent misconception". Finally, another article in the Journal of Chemical Education (J. Chem. Educ., 1998, p 60) also notes that the source of water in the fog is not atmospheric water vapor, but from the bulk water into which the dry ice is placed. Again, thank you for your response and any more guidance you could give on this would be much appreciated. Pchemstud (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The misconception could easily be added to Dry ice with proper sourcing. Here's the issue I have: Regarding misconception the abstract of the article states "many chemical educators suggest" followed by a description (I don't have the entire journal article). If the article describes the misconception among chemical educators or chemists that is not necessarily a common misconception among the general population. Since I don't have the journal article, if you find it explained differently please let us know. This is a common problem for this article. There are a vast number of scientific phenomena that are considered misconceptions among some scientists, but the general population has never even given it any thought. I could quickly come up with a dozen or so misconceptions among professionals in my field, but the average person has never even considered them. I suspect that's true in this case; this is only my speculation, but I suspect if you randomly select 100 people off the street, none of them would have ever considered it. All they know is, if you put dry ice in water it produces fog. If we included all of those the article would be a bloated mess most of which is not intended for general readership. But if I've missed something please let me know. As for "proving" something is a common misconception, if it truly is a misconception among the wider population, it's often quite easy to find a source that states this. That's true of most of the items in the article that I have looked at. Sundayclose (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose Thank you so much for the clarification. Before I let the issue go, consider the misconception written in the physics section of this article about blowing over a curved piece of paper: "Blowing over a curved piece of paper does not demonstrate Bernoulli's principle. Although a common classroom experiment is often explained this way,it is false to make a connection between the flow on the two sides of the paper using Bernoulli's equation since the air above and below are different flow fields and Bernoulli's principle only applies within a flow field..." The text of the article goes on to give a fairly complicated explanation that mostly only science educators - or those fairly well versed in science - would think about. I would argue that most of the general public has not even done this experiment, let alone thought about how it may or may not relate to Bernoulli's principle. (Actually, it was reading this portion of the text that inspired me to inquire about the dry ice in water experiment). By contrast, the dry ice in water experiment is very well known by the general public, and very commonly done in science classrooms. The incorrect explanation of the source of the fog, unfortunately, is also commonly applied. However, the correction of the misconception is very simply explained: The cloud does not originate from water in the atmosphere, but rather the bulk water into which the dry ice is placed. Given the popularity of this experiment, its inclusion in many science classrooms, and the ease with which the misconception can be explained away, I would ask that you reconsider your position. Whatever you decide, I'll let the issue rest here. Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pchemstud (talk • contribs) 21:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that example. I haven't checked every item in the article (as time permits I try to check one or two; sometimes I don't have access to the sources). But I find no reliably sourced evidence that the Bernoulli item is a common misconception. But I'll wait awhile to see if others point out an error on my part before removing the item. If you find others please point them out here. As for "the dry ice in water experiment is very well known by the general public", if you have a reliable source to that effect that would be great. I personally have my doubts that it is well known, but what matters here is reliable sourcing, not your or my opinion. If you click anywhere to edit the article, at the top of the page you'll see four necessary criteria for inclusion of an item. Those criteria were hammered out after long and heated debate that came about because the article used to have a tremendous number of items that were not reliably sourced as common misconceptions in general, many of them quite arcane. If you go back a few years in the page history you'll see some of them. We had to draw the line somewhere. Again, I appreciate you discussing this, as well as pointing out the problem with the Bernoulli item. Sundayclose (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding mis-applications of the Bernoulli principle, the inclusion criteria is well established by reliable sources in the parent article. See note 50 for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle#cite_note-50 Or just read the first four paragraphs of this article: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-9120/38/6/001/pdf;jsessionid=9D4FDF7F325480D014A7D7829E7EE5D8.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org


 * The above explanation is extremely wide-spread. It can be found in many textbooks and,to my knowledge, it is also used in the RAF’s instruction manuals. The problem is that, while it does contain a grain of truth, it is incorrect in a number of key places.

(emphasis mine) Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Should the fact that many children think that the phone number 911 being an emergency number was selected because of the terrorist attacks be in this article?
Should it? 00ff00 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it a common misconception? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

We can't simply assume "that many children think" it. Click "edit" anywhere in the article and you will see three criteria applicable in this case that must be fulfilled before the item can be included:
 * The topic the misconception is related to 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.

I personally doubt that this is a common misconception. I've never known of anyone -- adult or child -- who had that misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a joke that someone came up with and others didn't realize was a joke when they were retelling it. It reminds one of the story (which, for all I know, might be true) that it began being called "nine-one-one" (note how we render it in the article title:9-1-1) when spoken aloud instead of "nine-eleven" (which we all had called it up to about 1990 or so) because someone died when a child trying to call for held couldn't find the "11" key on the phone. In The Baby Train, the last of his urban legend books, Jan Harold Brunvand discusses this and thinks this goes back to one of those moron jokes that were popular in the late '50s or so, where someone calls, say, 555-1111 and, not recognizing the moron's voice answering, asks if they've called "five five five one one one one" and are told, no, they called five five five eleven eleven. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard of any kid thinking htis. How well do children understand 9/11, which would have happened years before they were born? Czolgolz (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Irregardless
I don't think this is a misconception. When people say "irregardless" isn't a real word, they mean it is not a word in standard English. All the dictionary definitions cited here, confirm that it is non-standard, if not flat-out wrong. The article Irregardless also confirms this. When people say "irregardless", they think they are using correct English. This is different from people using slang, who usually know they are using slang. So if you say "irregardless" isn't a real word, maybe you are using imprecise language — but so what? It's not a misconception.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Columbus visited the continent
The Columbus fact can be missleading. He visited America's mainland in his third and fourth voyages, including the Orinoco river, Honduras and Panama. (though he didn't visit the "USA")


 * The fact is misleading and pointless. It's really irrelevant whether he visited the mainland or islands. Islands are classed as part of the continent(s). It's really irrelevant whether he landed on territory that is now the USA.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Trinity
The cited quotation says that the Trinity cannot be "clearly detected" in the Bible. That's a lot different from "nowhere to be found". As the article on the Trinity states, the doctrine was based on .--Jack Upland (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is technically correct. The word "trinity" is not in the Bible, nor is an explanation of the doctrine. One Bible verse that simply uses the words "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" in no way explains the doctrine. As the article states, several hundred years passed before the doctrine was fully explained. A phrase different than "nowhere to be found" might be suitable, but "detected" is far too vague. I suggest:
 * "Neither the word "trinity" nor the doctrine of the trinity is found in the Bible. The concept developed over several hundred years after the New Testament was written and was formally defined by the church fathers in the fourth and fifth centuries."
 * Sundayclose (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be better. But saying the word "trinity" isn't found is problematic, because "trinity" is an English word and the Bible was originally written in Greek, Hebrew, etc. Also there is ample support for the doctrine in the Bible, as Trinity shows. So the doctrine can be "found" there, but it's not precisely formulated as it was at a later stage. I would think that's true of most Christian doctrines. So what? What makes this a "common misconception"? What is the conception that is false, and who holds this conception?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly no English word is in the original texts of the books of the Bible because English didn't exist at that time. The English word "God" isn't in the original texts of the Bible, but that doesn't mean words from the original text can't be translated into that English word. The explicit concept of the trinity is not in the Bible, although there may be passages from which the doctrine was developed. I disagree that "there is ample support for the doctrine in the Bible" if you mean that the doctrine itself is described; that's very much a matter of interpretation. Yes, the church fathers used their interpretation of the Bible to develop the doctrine. But the doctrine that mainstream Christianity understands it to be today is not unequivocally in the Bible. There are a number of Christian beliefs that are clearly described in the Bible (e.g., the event of the crucifixion). But not the full concept of the trinity as it is understood today. Sundayclose (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we are going round in circles. Of course, the Bible is interpreted. As is every other kind of communication. However, I think there are a fair few passages in the Bible which can be used to support the doctrine of the Trinity, as opposed to Predestination (maybe one verse) or the Immaculate Conception (basically nothing). Christian beliefs that are described in the Bible tend to be part of the narrative (like the virgin birth or the crucifixion). I think salvation is the only doctrine that is extensively explained in the Bible. In any case, the Trinity is usually described as a mystery, so it isn't really explained by anyone. The problem with saying the doctrine can't be found is that readers could pick up a Bible, find the verse I cited above, and say they've found it. And I think they'd be right. No sensible person would say that the Church Fathers didn't do anything, that the Council of Nicea was just a junket... But they did not make up the doctrine out of thin air. This is in contrast with the Immaculate Conception, which did, in fact, appear out of thin air 1000 years later. There is also a POV issue here. The Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, cites "proofs" of the Trinity from the Bible. That claim might be disputed by Unitarians, revisionist scholars, sceptics, etc — but that's their POV. This doesn't belong on a list of common misconceptions, any more than belief in God does! It's not on the level of saying that Adam and Eve ate an apple. To summarise:
 * (a) It is an overstatement to say that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be "found" in the Bible.
 * (b) It is POV to say this because many Christians (and others) maintain that it can.
 * (c) The "misconception" is undefined and unsubstantiated.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your points A, B, and C. One point that I may have some agreement with is that we are going around in circles. You and I can argue back and forth from now till doomsday and it is unlikely either of us will change our thinking. So we need to wait for other opinions here. Removal of the item requires consensus, so let's see if one develops. Cheers! Sundayclose (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Of course, the Bible is interpreted.": But we as editors, including you and me, don't do the interpreting on Wikipedia.
 * "readers could pick up a Bible, find the verse I cited above, and say they've found it: Which readers? All readers? No. Most readers? I doubt it. A few readers? Maybe. Only readers who agree with your interpretation? More than likely. But you and a few readers' interpretation of what passages in the Bible mean are irrelevant, unless you happen to be a Biblical and historical scholar and are citing your own publications in reliable sources.
 * "But they did not make up the doctrine out of thin air.": Of course not, but around 400 A.D. they didn't suddenly and miraculously stumble on a passage or two of scripture that no one had noticed for hundreds of years and, without much thought or discussion, put forth the entire doctrine of the trinity because it jumped off the pages of scripture fully developed. They developed the doctrine through extensive interpretation of both scripture and church tradition.
 * "This is in contrast with the Immaculate Conception, which did, in fact, appear out of thin air 1000 years later.": Sorry, but you clearly don't understand how the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception came about. It was in the tradition of the church for hundreds of years before it was formalized by Pope Pius IX. He didn't pull it "out of thin air". The primary effect of the formal doctrine as defined by the pope wasn't to create a doctrine that up to then had little support. The belief was already firmly established and widely held. What the pope did was to formally define a doctrine concerning faith that must be held by the whole Church.
 * "The Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, cites "proofs" of the Trinity from the Bible": Those "proofs" are a summary of Catholic doctrine as it is understood by the church hiearchy today, not when the New Testament canon was developed about 400 A.D.
 * I think we do need other input, but we also need sources. The sources quoted so far do not say what the article says. As another example, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, which is cited in the article, actually says:
 * This is as much as to say that all the evidence of whatever kind, and from whatever source derived, that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh, and that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person, is just so much evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity; and that when we go to the New Testament for evidence of the Trinity we are to seek it, not merely in the scattered allusions to the Trinity as such, numerous and instructive as they are, but primarily in the whole mass of evidence which the New Testament provides of the Deity of Christ and the divine personality of the Holy Spirit. When we have said this, we have said in effect that the whole mass of the New Testament is evidence for the Trinity.
 * That's far from saying the doctrine of the Trinity is "found nowhere" or is "not found" in the Bible.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Plucking one vague source out of all those cited (7 not counting the citation to the Bible itself) doesn't mean we need more sources. Have you looked at all the sources cited? I haven't because I can't access all of them. But even if another source might be necessary (and I'm not saying it is), that's not hard to find. I found these two in less than five minutes:
 * "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament. ... The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies." Encyclopedia Britannica
 * "Although early Christian theologians speculated in many ways on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no one clearly and fully asserted the doctrine of the Trinity ... until around the end of the so-called Arian Controversy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosopny
 * Sourcing is not the problem. The problem is whether the Wikipedia community decides by consensus to remove the item from the article. I don't really have much more to say until others weigh in. By the way, I think it's fine, based on the Britannica quotation, to add the word "explicit" before "doctrine" in the change I suggested above (i.e., "Neither the word 'trinity' nor the explicit doctrine ..."). That helps clarify the issue that the doctrine is based, in part, on the church fathers' interpretation of scripture, as opposed to "nowhere in the Bible". Sundayclose (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that none of those sources accessed say what the article says. Part of the ellipsis in that quotation from the Encyclopedia Britannica reads: "Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity." The Stanford Encyclopedia says: "Many Christian apologists argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is “biblical” (i.e. either it is implicitly taught there, or it is the best explanation of what is taught there) using three sorts of arguments." Saying "explicit doctrine" would be better. But the problem with making the text accurate, unambiguous, and neutral is that it becomes a completely uncontroversial statement, that can't be said to be a refutation of a common misconception.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ""The New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity" doesn't mean that the doctrine is fully formed and clearly stated in the New Testament. As I have said, the doctrine didn't spring forth from the pages of the New Testament fully developed. It developed over hundreds of years and was the result of a lot of Biblical interpretation and examination of church tradition. The Catholic Church states that there is Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but they don't claim that it is clearly stated in the New Testament, and they explain it as "revealed" through the magisterium of the church. The trinity issue is similar: Biblical basis but not clearly stated, and developed fully long after the New Testament was written. I disagree that there is no misconception, but that's based on personal opinion of what most people think about the doctrine, and neither you nor I have access to those personal opinions. You raise a point worth considering, however. Criterion 2 for inclusion in the article states, "The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception (italics added). I really don't know if one of the sources states something similar to "contrary to popular belief ...". We need access to all of the sources to determine that, and if it's not in one of the sources, then inclusion hinges on finding a source that says that. As I said, I personally believe it is a common misconception, but that's not enough for the article's standards. Sundayclose (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Frankly, reading this and the article itself, I'm not seeing any evidence that it is indeed a common misconception. What I'm seeing is that there are differences amongst individuals as to whether or not the elements of the trinity are present in the Bible. And since there are differing points of view, which are supported by scholarly works, it's pretty much impossible to call it a misconception without giving undue weight to one perspective or another.  The same is true of a lot of the entries in the article. I think we should be expecting evidence that the "misconceptions" are indeed common (i.e., that there is actual documentary evidence that the misconception was published and also that it is referred to as "common" or "frequent").  Huge chunks of this article just seem to be people showing off that they know something someone else doesn't know.  Risker (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. But a disagreement among two Wikipedia editors is hardly an indicator of how widespread the disagreement is. As for whether there is an actual misconception in general, I agree with you completely that we need evidence. I am a strong proponents of criterion 2 for inclusion. At one time the article was a huge bloated mess of everyone's favorite idea of what is a common misconception. It is much improved but I have no doubt that there are items that need to be removed. We usually rely on reliable sources to determine whether the misconception is common. In regard to the trinity item, I don't have access to the sources cited. If anyone does it would be helpful to determine if one of them identifies the trinity issue as a common misconception. I would not favor removing an item simply because some of us can't access the sources. Sundayclose (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I find it amusing that a well studied argument that is at least 340 years old continues here. --ssd (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that it's clearly disputed above, and it's apparently arguable, I think it'd be best to take it out. Lots of things are believed that are clearly wrong. I think we ought to stick to those. Otherwise we'll be going down the path of "Contrary to popular belief, Ronald Reagan was not a great president. Most historians rate him below average" or whatever. "The forbidden fruit mentioned in the Book of Genesis is never identified as an apple", fine. "The doctrine of original sin is not anywhere in the Bible", enh, let's stay away from stuff like that.


 * I'm not a Bible guy and know nothing and care less about the merits of the question. But it's disputed and contended, and the disputation and contention seems to be on reasonable grounds. On that basis I figure we're better off without it, subject to reversal per WP:BRD (assuming that it has been there for a while), but then we maybe need to go to a formal RfC, and let's not do that. Let's let this article (which is not to short as it is) be confined to stuff that can be be proven to be false. Herostratus (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, an editor reverted my removal, as is entirely his right. So let's go an an RfC where the arguments can be laid out succinctly and the question resolved. Herostratus (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Not in compliance - Alcohol being destroyed in cooking
The articles Cooking with alcohol and Ethanol do not mention the misconception. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - Metal in microwaves
The article Microwave oven does not mention the misconception that metal in a microwave is intrinsically damaging to a microwave's wellbeing while describing scenarios in which it can be which is described in this article. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - Police identification from entrapment
This misconception is not mentioned in articles entrapment, police or sting operation. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - Mozart and Twinkle Twinkle
The articles Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star do not mention the misconception. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - Buddha was a god
While the article Gautama Buddha says Buddha was not a god, this is not identified as a misconception. Buddhism does not mention it. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - Trinity not being in the bible
The article Trinity does not identify the misconception as such. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Published Literature
In the middle of all the things not in compliance with Criteria 3, I just read this from the lead:


 * Each misconception and the corresponding facts have been discussed in published literature.

While this would be good if it was the standard for a reliable source, it is not the standard the article is being held to, and while finding published literature to replace the 425 sources would be good, it is not exactly feasible. I am of the opinion that the lead should be changed. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - Jesus's birthday
While there are many articles discussing this misconception's correction (Date of birth of Jesus) none of these identify the misconception as being that. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - Mary Magdalene
The article on Mary Magdalene contains this statement:


 * During the Middle Ages, Mary Magdalene was regarded in Western Christianity as a repentant prostitute or promiscuous woman, accusations not found in any of the four canonical gospels.

The fact that this misconception is identified as being believed in the Middle Ages leads me to believe it is in breach of Criteria 4: The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete. However, this may be up for discussion as some individuals may still believe it. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - LDS Church
Although the articles on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Polygamy correct the misconception, they do not identify it is as a misconception. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - Fatwa
The article Fatwa does not mention the misconception. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - Jihad
The article jihad corrects the misconception while not identifying it as such. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - Irregardless not a word
While the article on Irregardless does not identify it as a misconception, the article itself seems to me to say it is more controversial than just a misconception, leading to me questioning what warrants its inclusion. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - 420
The article 420 (cannabis culture) does not list the false etymology. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - Ye ever used
The article Thorn (letter) never identifies the misconception as being that. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in compliance - The enemy of my enemy is my friend Arabic origins
In the article The enemy of my enemy is my friend the misconception is never mentioned. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's all I have time for right now, it's 1:20 where I am. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Resting metabolic rate
Despite popular misconception, resting metabolic rate doesn't vary much between people. Weight gain and loss is directly attributable to diet and activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminikuta (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I added this, and it was removed, failing inclusion criteria two and three, but I don't understand why, as it is sourced, and in the relevant article. Benjamin (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read the criteria when you opened up an edit window? Criterion 2: "The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception"; not sourced that it's a common misconception. Criterion 3: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources"; parent article does not identify it as a common misconception. The article has a long, ugly history of people adding items that really aren't common misconceptions, which made it a bloated mess. I doubt that the average person has given any thought to whether resting metabolic rate varies between people. In fact, I doubt that the average person even knows what resting metabolic rate is. Remember, this must be a common misconception among people in general, not just people familiar with the topic. In any event, we need a source that it is a common misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, thanks, how about this? http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/989.full Benjamin (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, no indication in the source that it is a common misconception. Remember, the source must identify it as a common misconception among the general public, not those familiar with the topic. There must be more than a source about RMR itself; a source needs to specifically confirm that there is a common misconception. I really don't think you're going to find it because most people never give any thought to RMR, if they even know what it is. And there's also the problem with criterion 3. Sundayclose (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The source uses the phrase "popular beliefs". Did you read it? Benjamin (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I read it. "Popular beliefs" by whom? The article you link is in a professional journal for nutritionists. We can't assume that something that's popular among that group or related groups (medical professionals or scientists) is popular in general. Every group with specialized knowledge has "popular beliefs". Physicists have had popular beliefs about the behavior of subatomic particles, but that doesn't mean that the general public has any knowledge whatsoever about it. Again, this is an old problem with this article. Many, many people have added items that were misconceptions among a very select group of people, creating an article that was a huge mess of "misconceptions" that most people had never even thought of. Go back a few years in the article's history. Most of them have been removed. If this had continued unchecked, the article would be one of the largest in Wikipedia history. I could add a dozen "popular beliefs" among members of my profession, but I don't because they are not common misconceptions in general. Sundayclose (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that "popular beliefs" in that article does refer to the general public. I am not a health professional, but I certainly had that understanding. In fact, I don't think the issue has really been concluded: However, clearly, the "obesity excuse" is a common belief, whether or not it is a misconception.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether one or two Wikipedia editors are aware of the misconception is irrelevant; we rely on reliable sources, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors. At the risk of repeating myself, I could add a dozen misconceptions that I think might be common, but I haven't done so because I don't have a reliable source. And I see no evidence that the relationship between obesity and RMR is a common misconception; as I've said, I see no evidence that the average person has any awareness of any misconception related to RMR. Sundayclose (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, sources have been provided, but you're rejecting them.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

A source has been provided that there is a "popular belief", but the source doesn't state that it is a popular belief in the general population. So that's why I rejected it. There have been "popular beliefs" about the composition of atoms that turned out to be misconceptions, but only among the physicists who had the advanced understanding to even speculate about the topic. That makes it a common misconception among physicists, not among the general public who have little, if any, understanding of advanced physics. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, would it be OK if I added a dozen misconceptions to the article that are "popular beliefs" in my specialized area of work with sources stating that they are "popular beliefs" among experts in the field? No it wouldn't; I need to find sources that they are misconceptions in the general population. Again, go back a few years and look at the condition of the article. The article was abut two or three times the size it is now, filled largely with someone's favorite idea of what they considered a common misconception. The bizarre topics ranged from an item about Jews being required to only have sex with a sheet between partners to an item that there was a bill to make German the official language of the United States, or an item that glass does not "flow" at room temperature. Most people had never heard of these misconceptions. That's how the four criteria for inclusion in the article came about. After culling out those items that were only misconceptions among a very select group of people, the article became more reasonable. Yes, I have rejected the source because it does not identify a common misconception beyond a specific group including a Wikipedia editor or two who state that they are aware of the misconception. This article is no different than the other five million articles on the English Wikipedia: reliable sources are required, not just opinions of Wikipedia editors. We need to be working on getting rid of the items that are not adequately sourced, not adding more items with questionable sources. As for resting metabolic rate, if there is a widespread misconception about it, it should be easy to find something to that effect in a source that isn't directed primarily at those who already have an understanding of RMR. I googled it and found nothing, but google results vary widely depending on how the search is done, so I invite others to try it. Sundayclose (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it's easy find sources, e.g.:, , etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Slow metabolism" or other more general issues related to metabolism are not the same as resting metabolic rate; so that rules out the first and third sources as having any relationship to RMR. The second one does mention that "Skinny individuals almost invariably have slower resting metabolisms", which is perhaps a bit more on topic, but I'm not convinced that dailyburn.com is a very reliable source. I would be far more impressed if that "myth" was identified in The New York Times or Time magazine. But the reliability of dailyburn.com could be a point of discussion (we would need more opinions). Sundayclose (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I emailed the author of the article to clarify that the paper does indeed refer to the general population, rather than researchers. Benjamin (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but an email exchange between you and someone is not a reliable source. I know you are acting in good faith but anyone can claim that anything is confirmed by an email. The email is only a reliable source if it is published in a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you said that. I was about to ask Luke (a) what his view of the Trinity was, (b) how many wise men there were, and (c) who his father was.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, there are lots of people who think God speaks indisputable truth to them. Maybe they should create their own version of Wikipedia. The disputes here would pale in comparison to their talk pages. Sundayclose (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course the email isn't the reliable source, the source I posted is the reliable source. I'm just trying to clarify the meaning of it. Benjamin (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

More sources:

https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-7-19

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.175.4460&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/30/5/923.short

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7145476_Eating_habits_beliefs_attitudes_and_knowledge_among_health_professionals_regarding_the_links_between_obesity_nutrition_and_health

Thank you for your consideration.

Benjamin (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts here . Using an email for your own personal understanding is fine, of course. But it won't have any impact on what is included in a Wikipedia article. The only way to clarify the meaning of the article by means of an email is to cite the email, which would not be a reliable source. I think the first source you link immediately above ("Causal beliefs about obesity ...") and the dailyburn.com source linked by together do a reasonable job of demonstrating a common misconception, although I do have concerns about how reliable dailyburn.com is, but it won't hurt to include it. I really couldn't find much in the other sources you link, but maybe I missed something. Let me make a suggestion based on all of the discussion on this issue. I think if we shift the emphasis to obesity it gets to the basis of the misconception. A possible statement would be "There is little evidence that obesity is related to slower resting metabolism ..." followed by the other components of your phrasing. That's just one suggested version; I'm open to seeing others. That shift, I think, captures the essence of the misconception that many people have (i.e., some people are obese because they have slow metabolism). But I think we're getting close to resolving this issue. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we could go even simpler and say that in most cases obesity is related to diet and exercise, not the person's metabolism.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to go as far as saying that metabolism has nothing to do with obesity because it can. I think the crux of the misconception is that obese people have slower resting metabolism than non-obese people. I think most everyone would agree that diet and exercise can affect body weight, and they would be right. But the faulty thinking is "Some people can't lose weight no matter how little they eat or how much they exercise because they have slow metabolism." Sundayclose (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The point I was making is that people don't necessarily use terms like "slower resting metabolism". They say, "It's my metabolism". But (surprisingly for me) that's probably not true.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The misconception should be worded to be what people actually think. Benjamin (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree the misconception must be worded according to what people think (obesity is related to slower metabolism), but the correction of the misconception with facts must be worded according to the sourced evidence. Everything we've seen so far discusses "resting metabolism" or "resting metabolic rate". Let me be bold and make a specific suggestion for the wording: "There is little evidence that obesity is related to slower resting metabolism. Resting metabolic rate doesn't vary much between people. Weight gain and loss are directly attributable to diet and activity." Then cite the "causal beliefs" and dailyburn.com sources. There needs to be related information in at least one topic article. I assume that would be Obesity or Resting metabolic rate, or both. Note, however, that those are medical articles and require sources that conform to WP:MEDRS, which can be a challenge for editors not familiar with medicine. Sources that work in other articles get challenged frequently in medical articles. It might be worth discussing it on the article's talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Christmas Trivia
Since we're on the topic...
 * As queried recently, is there really a common misconception that Jesus was born on 25 December?
 * Is there really a common misconception that the Bible says the magi rode camels and were called Kaspar, Melchior, and Balthazar?
 * Is the fact that the Bible doesn't say that there were three magi really a big deal? It is a reasonable inference from the fact that there were three gifts. This is really kind of pedantic.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The names would be known to anyone who knows traditional carols (We Three Kings?), and various traditions in European Christianity, (I certainly grew up knowing these names) . The 'three' is an assumption in Xmas cards and European art, but not all branches of Christianity. The three gifts each have significance, which is lost to a modern person, they suggest portends rather than Xmas presents. I don't find these entries problematic however, but I've never heard of anyone who thought Christmas was date related, in fact the only Christian festival which attempts to be 'anniversarial' AFAIK is Easter and its 'off-shoots'.


 * A related misconception is that Joseph was a carpenter, in fact the Greek word used would be better translated as 'artisan' or 'skilled worker'. Pincrete (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As I have said several times on this talk page, it is irrelevant what we Wikipedia editors think is or is not a common misconception; what matters is whether there is a reliable source that says so. That said, however, I see no evidence in the sources for Christmas on December 25 to indicate that it is a common misconception. I'm not sure about the number of magi, as I don't have access to a source. I suspect there are quite a few items in the article for which the fact that it is a common misconception is not reliably sourced. Let's try to find those instead of the ones the each of us personally thinks might or might not be a common misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sundayclose, I understood that, I was mainly trying to characterise who might be aware of the names and why most people immediately think there were 3. There is a fair amount on the 'Magi' page about different traditions regarding names and numbers of Magi. Pincrete (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. I made the comment based on the overall pattern of discussion of this talk page, not your suggestion. Sundayclose (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree that what matters is what the reliable sources say. Here are a few:


 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2878741/Do-think-Jesus-born-stable-99-people-don-t-know-Bible-really-says-nativity-story.html
 * http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/articles/5-misconceptions-about-jesus.aspx
 * http://www.scmp.com/culture/article/2056594/five-common-myths-about-christmas-story-where-and-when-jesus-was-born-who


 * The Daily Mail piece seems to establish the common miscomception part. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the onus is on people supporting inclusion to provide sources. I think those sources are a bit fluffy, but they might be good enough. I'm not sure that mistakes made in a trivia quiz amount to a popular misconception. Also, a common misconception should be along the lines of: common belief is X, but reality is not X. Not: common belief is X, reality is "the Bible doesn't specify" (or something similar). Surely, for the belief to be mentioned here, the masses have to be clearly wrong. In the end, no matter what sources say it is a judgement call by the editors. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's disagreement about whether the sources are reliable, then I agree it's up to editors to decide by consensus. I generally agree that wording should not be "common belief is X, reality is 'the Bible doesn't specify'". But there are some circumstances in which "common belief is that the Bible says X, but reality is that the Bible does not say X". We can't use the Bible to dispute a common misconception, but it is possible that there are common misconceptions about what's in the Bible. Sundayclose (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * that "common belief is X, reality is 'the Bible doesn't specify" is not a valid thing to include in the article is in opposition to the precedent set with this misconception in the article: "The Quran does not promise martyrs 72 virgins in heaven. It does mention companions, houri, to all people—martyr or not—in heaven, but no number is specified." JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that is a borderline case. But essentially it's a case of ascribing something to the Quran that is found in another Islamic text. Common belief is that X is in the Quran; reality is X is not. My point is that for inclusion on this page the misconception must be clearly wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing an articulated or sufficiently demonstrated 'popular misconception', let alone notable one. I think that other than small children it's mostly known as just when the birth of Jesus is celebrated (except in churches celebrating it 6 January), similar to understanding that Washington's Birthday is not his birthday.  (a) I see the dailymail mention that 25% mention it as if it is, but were they sure or were they relating an apocyphal tale known common mythos and not factual ?  (b) I don't see why this daily mail item appears rather than their other list here or other sources  here here and so on.  Frankly, this whole article seems iffy, just doesn't seem a valid list article for WP:LIST.   Markbassett (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Appendix(organ)
Should the appendix be added as having a common misconception that it surves no purpose with a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendix_(anatomy)#Functions, or is it still lacking enough scientific studies? Stenemo 15:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Entries which do not meet criteria for entry
Entries marked with "/" are in opposition with Criteria 3 for inclusion: The Common Misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. If anyone can find the misconception mentioned in another article please let me know. I have started from the bottom and am working my way up, and will continue at a later time.

/Dairy consumption on mucus production
 * Articles on milk, dairy, influenza and common cold do not mention the misconception whatsoever.

Warts from toads
 * While this meets the critera, there is only one source to an English drug company and it is a dead link.

/Pull tabs for dialysis machine
 * Articles National Kidney Foundation, Beverage can and Dialysis as well as any others I could find do not mention the misconception.

/Diamonds formation from compressed coal
 * Articles coal, Diamond (gemstone) and diamond do not mention misconception, while diamond article does discuss correct formation. Article diamond formation refers to when individuals and aircraft etcetera form a diamond shape.

Air going over plane wings
 * While this meets criteria, it could be described as a fallacy, as shown in what it is sometimes called, "equal transit-time fallacy". I'm not sure, as while it is an error of thinking in an argument or explanation, it does not fit into any classic fallacy examples.

/Decreasing temperature on thermostat
 * Article on programmable thermostat never mentions the misconception in our article. Also, this article's claim that it "can save a significant amount of energy" is discussed in programmable thermostat's controversy section, which says "While programmable thermostats may be able to save energy when used correctly, little or no average energy savings has been demonstrated in residential field studies."

/Toilet waste being ejected from aircraft
 * Article on aircraft toilets, while correcting the misconception here, never actually mention the misconception.

/Car batteries discharging faster on concrete
 * Article on car batteries does not mention concrete and neither does he more general article on battery charge.

JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Historical note: This article dates to 2005, but the inclusion criteria was not developed until March of 2011.  Several of the entries you mention pre-date the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria was developed to stem the near-daily deluge of inappropriate additions to the list.  Not sure if it was intended to be applied retroactively.


 * I don't think any of these entries are sufficiently unsourced to warrant immediate removal. I've already provided additional sourcing for the Toad entry. I'll look at the others and hopefully I won't be working alone.  Thanks for the heads up. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the particular items in this section, regarding retroactive application of the criteria for inclusion, the criteria were developed by a substantial consensus, so any items in the article at the time of the consensus are subject to the criteria and can be eliminated if they don't meet them. Even our core policies on Wikipedia are mostly achieved by consensus, and we don't allow inferior information to remain in articles simply because it existed before the policies were clearly defined. In a very few cases the policy itself is established with a "grandfather clause" (e.g., not using email addresses in usernames).Anyone who wishes to restore a removed item can either provide appropriate sources or seek consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I should list all examples of misconceptions in non-compliance so we have a complete list together before we start deleting and reinstating but I agree that we should either delete things in non-compliance or change the policy which is a lot more difficult. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a third option: bring the entry into compliance by adding properly cited material to a parent article or adding citations here. I've done that with dairy, pull tabs, and diamond. I've added a cite here for warts, and I can't pretend to understand your beef with the equal-transit-time fallacy (which we both agree is in compliance).  That leaves the thermostat, airplane toilet waste, and car battery entries.


 * A comprehensive list of allegedly non-compliant entries is a good start, but I think it will be more productive to discuss each entry in the list in its own talk section rather than having a mass discussion of a dozen entries at once. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay I see what you mean, but it does raise the question of why are we bothering with having this 3rd criteria. I mean, why do we have it? It is not necessarily weeding out bad potential additions to the page, as it would take someone not completely and utterly lazy to just put the thing up on the misconception's page of its own which is described in Criteria 1 with sources discussed in Criteria 2. How is having it on another page adding to this page? Maybe this is only making sense to me. Maybe I'm crazy.


 * For now, I'll continue to add the things not in compliance in separate talk sections. Also btw my beef with transit-time fallacy is that a fallacy is different from a misconception, a fact I brought up with gambler's fallacy back in August and which is why it was subsequently removed. Why I wasn't sure if transit-time fallacy was a fallacy as such is because it doesn't fit into any of the traditional examples of fallacies. However, where misconceptions and fallacies overlap is out of range for me without substantial research. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The reason for criteria #3 (as I understand it) is that the editors at the parent page will presumably have more familiarity with the subject matter than the editors here. Requiring that the misconception appear in a parent article ensures that it's been vetted by presumed expert or specialist editors rather than a bunch of generalists.  When someone shows up here with their pet misconception we can say "get it past the specialists at the parent article first and then we'll consider it here." It's essentially a minimum bar that the proposed item must clear that reduces the amount of time and effort the editors at this page spend weeding out inappropriate proposals.


 * Agree that any non-lazy editor can edit the parent page first, but that entails placing the material in front of specialist editors where it will presumably face closer scrutiny than here. If it gets rejected there, then we don't have to address it here.


 * For the entries that don't have a mention in a parent article, if such a mention is added successfully then the item should probably stay. If there's pushback at the parent article and the material is rejected then that's a good reason to remove it here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Looking at this from a totally outside perspective, creating a dozen short "not in compliance" sections seems rather ridiculous. I'd highly suggest creating one section and moving all of them into it as subsections. Also, "not in compliance" with what? Where is this criteria you are discussing? It's going to be hard to get outside input if it's not obvious what you're talking about. Some guy (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I heard the mucus production misconception this month, with others agreeing with the person who said don't drink milk if you've got a problem with mucus. Doug Weller  talk 12:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the Christian trinity
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the Christianity and Judaism contain this entry:
 * The doctrine of the trinity and the word itself are nowhere to be found in the Bible. The concept was developed by the church fathers in the 4th and 5th centuries.

with these being the current refs:
 * The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, editors, 1993, “Trinity,” p. 782 - "Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon [i.e., actual Scripture]”.
 * The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1988, Vol. 4, “Trinity,” p. 914 The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, Paul Achtemeier, editor, 1996, “Trinity”.
 * The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Richard McBrien, general editor, 1995, “God,” pp. 564-565
 * The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985 edition, Micropaedia, Vol. 11, p. 928.
 * The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, editor, Vol. 2, 1976, “God,” p. 84.
 * Reproduced in The Sermons of Martin Luther, John Lenker, editor, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406
 * McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction Blackwell, Oxford (2001) p.324 Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * No. I have no opinion on the merits. What I do know is that it is disputed, and both sides seem to have reasonable points (see Talk:List of common misconceptions above). We should not include beliefs that we cannot pretty much unequivocally demonstrate is held in error. Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. As I said above:
 * (a) We have found no source that makes the sweeping statement currently used in the article.
 * (b) It is a POV statement. As Herostratus has said, the issue is disputed. For example, the Catholic Enyclopedia states: "To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament." At the same time, it acknowledges: "The writers of this school [Liberal Protestantism] contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, on the other hand, says that, "Many Christian apologists argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is “biblical” (i.e. either it is implicitly taught there, or it is the best explanation of what is taught there) using three sorts of arguments." And then goes on to critique those arguments.
 * (c) We have found no source that identifies this as a common misconception.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the citation to the Oxford Companion (cited in this article) says that it is "striking" that the term trinity is not mentioned in the Bible. I can check the other citations we have later, I'm on the road at the moment. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute that the "term" isn't used. This is also what Martin Luther said..--Jack Upland (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know this. Nonetheless, people, or at least many people, are surprised by this. Hence, its relevance here. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes for the reasons I stated above. No need to repeat it here. Sundayclose (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No I'm not certain that this is a "common' misconception, nor one that merits notability in the list.--Adam in MO Talk 04:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no evidence is offered that it is a common misconception that 'Trinity' is stated explicitly in the Bible. Vast amounts of doctrine in various branches of Christianity are interpretations of content in the Bible and proposed wording is fairly PoV. Why single this out as not being explicitly stated? btw, does anybody really think that Christ was born on 25th December? Well at least it's harmless. . Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No. This is an easy decision. Reviewing the parent article, I see no mention that it is a common misconception, thus it fails the inclusion criteria listed at the top of this page. I'll be happy to reconsider if the parent article is edited so that the item meets the (minimum) inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No Catholics clearly believe that the Trinity is found in the Bible. Defining it as a misconception uses Wikipedia's voice to characterize a religious doctrine as wrong.  Just because there are other Christian denominations that have different doctrines doesn't make one group of religious beliefs a misconception and attempts to do so are very WP:NPOV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: there is basically no dispute between Catholics and Protestants over the Trinity. The text by Luther cited above only says that the word is not mentioned in the Bible, which is undoubtably true.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No. There is no evidence presented that this is a common misconception. While the statement may be true, it doesn't belong on a "List of common misconceptions". Brad  v  22:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No - there is no 'common misconception' shown here and I do not think there is one related to this line. On the contrary, where a doctrine originated from  or what it is and what churches support it seems not something folks expect to be fixed items from within scripture.  I can expec that some feel it improper if it is not from scripture, but it's not something they're unaware also comes from elsewhere.   Markbassett (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No because the language of the proposed addition and the language of the to-date only source directly reproduced above to not even remotely agree with each other. Saying something is "nowhere to be found in the Bible" is a far cry from saying that the "term does not appear in the New Testament" or that "cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon". We are to my eyes talking about a potentially very serious WP:SYNTH problem with the proposed phrasing. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
See above at Talk:List of common misconceptions for the discussion preceding this RfC. Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be disappointed to see votes to the effect of "Yes; while I recognize that it is disputed, I personally believe it; therefore include it". I would consider that not a valid vote. What would be valid is "Yes; it is not disputed" (but that is not true) or "Yes, it is disputed, but we should make an exception in this one case and include a contended fact, because ________" (if you can find something novel and compelling to put in the blank, and good luck with that). Herostratus (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC) nowhere


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pregnancies from first cousins and birth defects
I feel that this section is highly misleading. While it's true that over a single generation the risk does not increase by a great deal, in cultures where marriages between cousins is normal, as well as among royalty, the risk increases accordingly as the dearth of new genetic material into the gene pool increases the risk of harmful recessive mutations becoming expressed over multiple generations of pregnancies between close relatives. Rimmer7 (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This is NOT a list of common misconceptions
Let's use sunflowers as a particularly strong example:

"Flowering sunflowers point in a fixed direction (often east) all day long."

That's not a misconception, is it? It's a seemingly random fact. You're assuming the reader is familiar with the notion that sunflowers always face the sun. If they haven't heard that before, they have to infer the misconception from the wording of the 'correction'.

Most of the article is formatted like this. There is a gigantic bulleted list of facts, many of them at least phrased in the "x does not actually y" format, but some which are seemingly random and do not describe the misconception that they are correcting. This article is more correctly a "List of corrections to common misconceptions". In fact, the only thing holding this page together is the title and the lead. Without those, this would appear to be a completely random list of trivia.

Many of the entries could be improved by clearly stating the misconception at the beginning of the article. The biggest problem I can see is that this would lead towards every sentence starting with "A common misconception holds that...". At the very least, the "x does not actually y" format should be applied consistently for every item. Some guy (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually think this is the ideal way to phrase these things. Repeating a misconception, even in the act of debunking it, often serves inadvertently to propagate it (I think there are studies showing things to this effect: that some false beliefs actually become more strongly held after a person is shown the correct information). Stating the true fact first is more conducive to what Wikipedia is all about. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In most cases it is obvious what the misconception is. It is much briefer to say what the fact is than to say there is a misconception X, but the reality is Y.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Stating facts rather than misconceptions might be preferred as it makes it easier to keep the statements short. There are several examples of misconceptions about microwaves that are well stated currently that would be a lot harder to read if they where rephrased without a clear "the myth is this" and "the truth is this" to mention all the misconceptions about them. I would suggest the following system in order to make it easier to follow:


 * 1. The myth
 * 2. The correction
 * 3. A longer explanation
 * For example:
 * Myth: The sun influence the direction flowering sunflowers point their flowers.
 * Truth: Flowering sunflowers point in a fixed direction (often east) all day long.
 * Explanation: However, in an earlier developmental stage, before the appearance of flower heads, the immature buds do track the sun (a phenomenon called heliotropism) and the fixed alignment of the mature flowers toward a certain direction is often the result.
 * Benefits of this system is that it 1) becomes a lot easier to follow and 2) find specific misconceptions by searching inside the article as well as outside (more people would find this page if the page included the misconception), and 3) the article will have a better structure (currently only stating facts which OP correctly points out looks strange for new readers that are used to something more similar to e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-markman-phd/past-less-intense-than-present_b_987726.html (one specific myth with its own article) and https://www.commonsensemedia.org/blog/5-myths-and-truths-about-kids-internet-safety (several related myths with a common theme that are too small for their own article). The only downside I can see is that people might solidify false beliefs as Daniel Case mentioned (I don't think this is an issue). Stenemo 11:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Section on International Sign Language
I just added an entry to words and phrases, but it would be better in a language section, but there's no such section. Benjamin (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I rephrased your first sentence because it was decided recently it is better to not state the misconception, but to state the way things are. I added a citation showing that ISL is a pidgin language. The article sign language does say it is a misconception, but I am not sure it is properly cited that it is a misconception. I have no doubt that it is, it would be good to have a citation that says so. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thermostat Myths reference URL update - Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017
Reference "Thermostat Myths" (422) website URL has changed. (The "blog." prefix has been removed)

WHERE IT SAYS: http://blog.srmi.biz/energy-saving-tips/residential-heating/thermostat-myths/

IT SHOULD SAY: https://srmi.biz/energy-saving-tips/residential-heating/thermostat-myths/

Ruanoj (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Ruanoj (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 16:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Bot edit mistakes
This bot edit appears to have deleted a dozen or more references. It was a mistake. Someone might need to re-add them. -- Green  C  15:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like the bot was trying to remove duplicate entries and mistaken these for duplicates. The reason it made this mistake is the archival links are the same, but actual sources are not. This must come from people cutting and pasting to duplicate an existing citation and editing it to make a new one and not removing or updating the archival link. What a a pain. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017
[ADD THIS TO HISTORY]: George Washington was not the first president of the United States. Peyton Randolph was the first and third president of the Continental Congress. In 1781, Thomas McKean became the first president of the Congress Assembled under the newly adopted Articles of Confederation. John Hanson, was the first president under the Articles of Confederation that served a full term. It wasn't until February 04, 1789 (8 years later) that George Washington became the first president of the United States elected by the electoral college after the ratification of the US Constitution in 1788 Jfrigoletto (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If you open an edit window in the article you will see four criteria for inclusion:


 * 1) The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own.
 * 2) The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
 * 3) The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
 * 4) The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.
 * You did not satisfy the first three criteria. There is also the difficult issue of defining "President of the United States". By every widely accepted definition it was Washington. Wikipedia does not give much weight to fringe theories. Sundayclose (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

self harm
"Interestingly, while it is common for people to assume that NSSI (Non-suicidal self injury) is more common in women, general population studies find equivalent rates between men and women.17,19,20 However, there does appear to be a sex difference regarding the methods of NSSI used; specifically, women are more likely to use cutting, whereas men are more likely to use hitting or burning.18"

Townsend, E., Ness, J., Waters, K., Kapur, N., Turnbull, P., Cooper, J., & ... Hawton, K. (2016). Self-harm and life problems: findings from the Multicentre Study of Self-harm in England. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, 51(2), 183-192. doi:10.1007/s00127-015-1136-9

Müller, A., Claes, L., Smits, D., Brähler, E., & de Zwaan, M. (2016). Prevalence and Correlates of Self-Harm in the German General Population. Plos ONE, 11(6), 1-17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157928 Klonsky ED, Victor SE, Saffer BY. Nonsuicidal Self-Injury: What We Know, and What We Need to Know. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie. 2014;59(11):565-568.

Benjamin (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "while it is common for people to assume": Which people? The general population, or professionals familiar with the concepts? The fact that the sources are professional journals suggest the latter. I doubt that most people have given this particular idea any thought. Most people have no idea about statistics related to suicide. I'd ask anyone seriously considering adding this item to go out on a busy street and conduct a survey of 100 people picked at random. Ask them which group has the highest rate of non-suicidal self-injury: old vs. young; men vs. women; Americans vs. non-Americans (we are only interested in the second one, but the others are to divert attention away from the true nature of the survey). And remember, statistically you need to get about 70% or more favoring one sex to rule out random error. If you're honest when you report back to us I think it will indicate that there is no difference in males vs. females. Sundayclose (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It does say "people", and not "experts", or "studies". Benjamin (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think female.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But, of course, it doesn't matter what individual editors here think. Sundayclose (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet you seem to insert your opinion into everything.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet you don't seem to understand the difference between an editor's opinion and an editor's question for others to consider. But let's not have a personal debate; instead, let's simply wait and see if others have anything to say. Sundayclose (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So. . . . . it is being suggested that people incorrectly believe that women are clumsy? Can we find citations that would suggest this common misconception is current? I see the studies were done in England and Germany. Is that an European thing? I feel that if I ever suggested that women were clumsy I would get a well deserved slap. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not clumsy, but intentionally self harming, usually because of mental illness. Benjamin (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry for being stupid about it. The article is Self-harm and the sections to look at is Self-harm and Self-harm. No mention of mis-conceptions per se, but older studies claimed more females then males, but the argument is made that the criteria has changes as men preform self-harm in different ways. I am willing to concede that there may be a mis-conception there, but we would want citations showing that and I do not believe the article specifies it clearly enough to support inclusion. It looks like a case of academic types not willing to admit they have mis-informed the public or let public mis-conceptions color their results. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Gender differences" section indicates that there remain "widely opposing views" on the issue, but it is certainly true that "gender differences". It doesn't seem very conclusive, and who's to say there might not be a further study the concludes that females are more likely to self-harm. Given that, I don't think we should list it as a common misconception.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Minor spelling issue
In section Physics the word MythBusters occurs in different spelling variants, which are title case and camel case. The name of the show should be consistently spelled in the camel case variant, like in the corresponding lemma. Messias der Stille (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, let us know if you see anything else that needs fixing. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Searing of meat reference is ambiguous
In the food section, the statement, "Searing meat may cause it to lose moisture in comparison to an equivalent amount of cooking without searing. Generally, the value in searing meat is that it creates a brown crust with a rich flavor via the Maillard reaction.[1][2]" is ambiguous as to whether the first part of the sentence is the misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelecyr (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2017
Please change "Breakfast is not the most important meal of the day." to "There is no conclusive evidence suggesting that breakfast is the most important meal of the day."

The former implies that breakfast is definitively not the most important meal of the day, which implies that lunch or dinner are. However, the evidence provided merely suggests that there is no strong research to indicate breakfast is especially important. Dontmitch (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed it entirely as it seems to fail criterion 2 for inclusion (see the top of this talk page) in being called a common misconception by reliable sources (the only source cited is a biased source, and the statement probably would normally require WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), and also scientific opinion is somewhat divided on this issue (per Breakfast). Alcherin (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Confederate Flag
If you go to the page on the Confederate flag, it shows what it really looks like. Most people think that the battle flag of Virginia is the same thing as the Confederate flag is. Shouldn't it be added that most people don't actually know what it looks like? 65.214.67.173 (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The following are required for inclusion in the article:
 * The topic the misconception is related to 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.
 * Sundayclose (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Click wheel
It is not widely known that Apple did not develop the click wheel; Synaptics came up with the design for the device. Benjamin (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The following are required for inclusion in the article:
 * The topic the misconception is related to 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.
 * Sundayclose (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)