Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 31

Alcohol is a drug
For #Alcoholic_beverages

With a long history as one of the oldest beverages, alcohol consumption is normalized in many cultures, leading to unique drinking cultures. This leads to the misconception that alcohol is separate from other drugs. Phrases like "drugs and alcohol" unintentionally reinforce this idea, implying alcohol isn't a drug itself. Some people might not consider alcohol a drug because it has different effects and legal status compared to illegal drugs. However, according to scientific definition, alcohol is a drug. 94.255.152.53 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source that supports that this is a misconception, and is this "misconception" mentioned in any of the topic articles? We'd need both of those to meet the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No, but many adult people that I've talked to say "alcohol and drugs" (see above). I bolded the text above + cn that we need to find a source for. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Alcohol, sometimes referred to by the chemical name ethanol, is one of the most widely consumed psychoactive drugs in the world and falls under the depressant category. It is found in fermented beverages such as beer, wine, and distilled spirit – in particular, rectified spirit. With a long history as one of the oldest beverages, alcohol consumption is normalized in many cultures, leading to unique drinking cultures. This leads to the misconception that alcohol is separate from other drugs. Phrases like "drugs and alcohol" unintentionally reinforce this idea, implying alcohol is not itself a drug. Some people might not consider alcohol a drug because it has different effects and legal status compared to illegal drugs. However despite being legal, alcohol, scientifically classified as a drug, has paradoxically been demonstrably linked to greater social harm than most illegal drugs. 94.255.152.53 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I bolded the text above + cn that we need to find a source for. Who is "we"? This doesn't seem to be any particular misconception, rather a use of the word drug in different contexts with alcohol. signed, Willondon (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Please be kind. I found this "The alcohol industry has been keen to emphasise that alcohol is not a drug" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1995479/ --94.255.152.53 (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * (no need to ping here) People have varying understandings of how the concept of drug and alcohol intersect, and in varying contexts. That doesn't indicate any conceptual confusion as to whether alcohol is or isn't a drug. And your argument that it's a common misconception is the efforts of The alcohol industry has been keen to emphasise that alcohol is not a drug, even though it's a common misconception.  signed, Willondon (talk)  01:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "(no need to ping here)" -- You're boring. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As the ethanol article itself says, it is the "second most consumed drug globally behind caffeine". Should we also mention that people don't think of coffee, tea, and Coca-Cola as drugs? By the way, the phrases "marijuana and other drugs", "heroin and other drugs", etc. are not uncommon either. Not to mention that "drug" is a very broad and vague word. The "drugs" referred to in "penicillin and other drugs" are presumably not the same as the ones being referred to in "heroin and other drugs". --Macrakis (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I decided to use "Alcohol is a drug" for this Talk section to make it consistent with Alcohol (drug) (which describes that it's a psychoactive drug). So, I agree, "Alcohol is a psychoactive drug" is a clear and informative title for the section. It aligns with scientific definitions and how other psychoactive drugs are presented on Wikipedia. To delve deeper, we could add a sentence about the concept of normalization. The term "drug" encompasses a wide range of substances, including commonly consumed psychoactive drugs like caffeine and nicotine.  Unlike some illegal drugs, alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine are normalized in many cultures. This normalization can contribute to the misconception that because something is common, it's not a drug. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "By the way, the phrases "marijuana and other drugs", "heroin and other drugs", etc. are not uncommon either." -- Exactly, they are commonly referred to as drugs, while alcohol is often treated differently; As I said earlier, Phrases like "drugs and alcohol" unintentionally reinforce this idea, implying alcohol is not itself a drug. (which is equal to "alcohol and drugs" but not "alcohol and other drugs). --94.255.152.53 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But very few people would deny that alcohol, caffeine, etc. are psychoactive (although they might not use that word). It's just that the word "drug" that has come to mean "illegal drug" or "illicit drug", to the point that medical professionals seem to avoid talking about "drugs" and instead talk about "medications". By the way, the definition in drug is clearly inadequate. It reads: "A drug is any chemical substance that when consumed causes a change in an organism's physiology, including its psychology, if applicable." This would cover water, salt, and sugar as well as poisons such as cyanide. --Macrakis (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * " It's just that the word "drug" that has come to mean "illegal drug" or "illicit drug", to the point that medical professionals seem to avoid talking about "drugs" and instead talk about "medications"." -- Thank you, I don't think we can get broader than this. "The terms drug and medicine are used interchangeably, although the word “drug” has the connotation of an illegal substance, such as cocaine or heroin (controlled drugs in the UK)." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7120710/ -- I don't mind if we change the subject to: The term "drug" shouldn't be confused with "illegal drugs". What do you think about it? --94.255.152.53 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an article about misconceptions, not about ambiguous words, and it doesn't give advice like 'The term "drug" shouldn't be confused with "illegal drugs".' --Macrakis (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously I meant: The term "drug" is misconceived as "illegal drugs". --94.255.152.53 (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not a misconception, just semantic drift, to the point that it's becoming a skunked term that you can't use in the general sense for fear of misunderstanding. In that sense, it is perfectly true that alcohol is not a drug (sc. illicit drug). --Macrakis (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I appreciate your use of precise vocabulary. I added "Drugs can have a negative connotation, often associated with illegal substances like cocaine or heroin. This is despite the fact that the terms "drug" and "medicine" are sometimes used interchangeably." to Skunked_term. Do you think the text/article/section is correct? --94.255.152.53 (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Decline
"older people tend to underestimate their cognitive decline" Benjamin (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Curiosity's "Happy Birthday"
I would like to propose the addition of the following text under the "Astronomy and spaceflight" section:
 * Mars rover Curiosity does not sing "Happy Birthday to You" to itself each year on the anniversary of its landing. While its sample-analysis unit did vibrate to the tune of the song on the first anniversary, it has not done so in subsequent years.

These sources make it clear that that the song was a one-time occurrence and that there is a misconception that the song is played annually. One or both of them could be used as references:
 * "'The reports of my singing are greatly exaggerated,' the rover’s Twitter account reported, presumably referring to news coverage about its fifth birthday. 'I only hummed "Happy Birthday" to myself once, back in 2013.'"



While the misconception is not mentioned in the current text of the Curiosity article, the fact that the song was sung is, and I believe it would be perfectly justifiable to add the misconception to the rover's article as well as to this one.

For full transparency, I will mention that I attempted to add this misconception to this article back in 2019, but it was reverted by another editor, and I gave up on it. However, this is a real misconception and I stand by my view that it warrants inclusion in this article.

- Sensorfire (✎&#124;‽) 01:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Where are the reliable sources showing that this is a common misconception? Meters (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the sources I linked are already sufficient to establish that, but if you want it laid out a little more explicitly, here you go, from CNet: "Some fans asked Curiosity about the widespread belief that the rover sings "happy birthday" to itself every year, but it turns out that's not quite right." (emphasis mine)
 * By the way, if you'd like some examples of the misconception appearing in published news, here are two:
 * From ABC13 Houston: Headline: "Mars rover sings 'Happy Birthday' to itself" (published 2017, a year in which that did not happen). "On the anniversary of its landing, Curiosity is programmed to sing the "Happy Birthday" tune."
 * From The Telegraph: "So, every year on August 6, Curiosity is programmed to sing a lonely birthday tune." (again, emphasis mine).
 * Also, both of these latter two articles end with the sentence "Perhaps someday, someone on Mars will finally hear it." So maybe ABC13 Houston plagiarized The Telegraph.
 * I hope this helps. Sensorfire (✎&#124;‽) 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Toad Wart Removal
Going to run stuff through here first haha before I remove entries in the future. I removed the toad's wart entry citing criteria #1 and #4. I meant to cite #2 and #4, I apologise. The reason I removed this is as of the two sources used for the entry, neither describes the belief as common, failing #2 (the second might imply it, it's debatable). However, the first, a WebMD article, opens with the sentence "By now, you probably know that the idea of catching warts from toads is nothing more than an old wives’ tale." Hence, failing #4 (obsolete), and #2. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The sheer volume of search results at should establish that it is both common and current. I'll leave it up to other editors to sort through all the results to find the reliable sources for it. Seems pretty solid to me. Granted, some sources say it's an old myth, but old is not the same thing as non-current. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I would be wary just looking at volume of search results, i.e. is friday 13 unlucky has a lot of articles "debunking" the notion, but if we have RS saying it's not common then I would err on removing the entry. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Struck through previous response as I don't think it's very coherent or really responds to your comment. I did find a RS which implies the belief isn't common: "The classic myth that warts are caused by touching toads is, of course, untrue.". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Fan Death entry removal
Hi Mr. Swordfish, you've reverted my edit removing the fan death entry for being obsolete, saying you "can't find anything there that implies it is obsolete." These are the quotes I based my assessment on:


 * The lede says: "While the supposed mechanics of fan death are impossible given how electric fans operate, belief in fan death persisted to the mid-2000s in South Korea"
 * The article later quotes a Slate (magazine) article saying ""A decade of Internet skepticism seems to have accomplished what the preceding 75 years could not: convinced a nation that Korean fan death is probably hot air.""

This seems pretty conclusive that it is obsolete. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The full quote from the slate article is:
 * Ken Jennings, writing for Slate, says that based on "a recent email survey of contacts in Korea", opinion seems to be shifting among younger Koreans: "A decade of Internet skepticism seems to have accomplished what the preceding 75 years could not: convinced a nation that Korean fan death is probably hot air."
 * https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/01/fan-death-korean-moms-think-that-your-electric-fan-will-kill-you.html
 * This says to me that many younger Koreans do not believe the misconception. It does not say that the misconception has disappeared  or is obsolete, just that "opinion seems to be shifting among younger Koreans".  It will probably become obsolete over time, but I'm not seeing clear evidence that it is now.
 * This article from 2015 treats it as a current phenomena. . Here's another from 2020  which included the assertion that almost all fans in South Korea come with timers to turn them off after a specified amount of time.  I don't think this one is obsolete. Yet. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these sources. The NPR article is from a decade ago and says the belief is held by older Koreans (older when the article was written), which seems compelling that it is becoming obsolete. I would support adding some details to the entry clarifying that it is held by older Koreans and there is a consensus among younger generations that it is untrue. I'm also curious as to how these sources would be used to say the belief is obsolete: in 10 years do we notice that the older Koreans the belief was held by are now dead and remove it? Maybe a silly question. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a good question: how old is too old to include? Since the rise of the internet it is easier to come by material that debunks old myths, so I would hope that many of the entries on this page would "age out" and become obsolete. I think we have a better handle on the ancient part of "ancient or obsolete", but obsolete is harder to pin down.  Note that the only source we have supporting the obsolence of this entry is a "a recent email survey of contacts in Korea"  as reported in Slate - it sounds like the author just asked some of his friends in an informal survey. I don't think this is enough. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think if it's going to be removed on the claim that it is obsolete then there some be evidence of that, preferably by way of sources. That the 2015 NPR article is ~9 years old is relevant if there are newer sources that contradict it, but I don't see that here. The Slate article doesn't appear to support the idea that it's an obsolete misconception either, at best A recent email survey of contacts in Korea suggests... which looks to be a very small sample size or anecdotal accounts of a few individuals. - Aoidh (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The NPR article being published 9 years ago isn't relevant because it's old, but because then it was believed by "many older people" and that in 10 years that population shrinks. I'll also note that the survey isn't asking whether they believe it, but surveying beliefs in how many people believe it nowawadays. People have stopped publishing so much on it nowadays (likely because it's not as prevalent if at all). Of informal sources from the last few years commenting on it, all are saying it's becoming obsolete, if it isn't already. [1][2][3] ("I’m really not sure if anyone believes this these days or not.") A more [reliable source] says "the belief is in decline there." It's always going to be hard to get sources saying a belief is obsolete, because if it is, it doesn't need to be debunked and written about, but of articles writing about societal trends in belief, there seems to be a consensus that it's dying out, if not already dead. If there's a belief common among over 70s, and no-one else, I would also kind of argue that it's not really that common. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While other sources do, the NPR article doesn't say "many older people" it simply says "many people", and certainly doesn't say anything like "over 70s, and no-one else". Age brackets like that aren't given from what I've seen. These are conclusions not stated by the source. For Slate, while emailing a few colleagues to ask them for an anecdotal account isn't a reliable metric for such a claim, that source doesn't suggest the misconception is obsolete or even about to be in any reasonable amount of time regardless. According to this June 5, 2024 article it is indeed not obsolete. - Aoidh (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you don't think the NPR article doesn't say "many older people." You can do a control F search. The Slate piece also does explicitly say the misconception is obsolete even if you disagree with the methodology being conclusive: "A decade of Internet skepticism seems to have accomplished what the preceding 75 years could not: convinced a nation that Korean fan death is probably hot air." Your final source actually says that while many older Koreans still hold the belief, "for the most part, people have begun to realize that there is no validity in so-called fan deaths." If "for the most part" something isn't believed in a country, belief is uncommon in that country. This poses a more existential question: List of common misconceptions among who? Is a misconception "common" if it is held almost entirely by older people in South Korea? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ctrl+F on the NPR article shows 2 results for many people and none for many older people or even the word older. The Slate article comes nowhere close to even suggesting that it's obsolete, let alone being explicit about it. That sentence is lacking the preceding context and even selectively quoted does not say this is obsolete. Reading the entire paragraph shows that the only thing that article is claiming is that A recent email survey of contacts in Korea suggests to me, not that it is in any way a fact, and is only the younger generation. Which younger generation? It doesn't say and we can't draw our own conclusions as to what they might be. To suggest that every older generation has died off in the nine years since that article was written is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, especially without knowing which generations are being referred to. This is not an obsolete misconception, none of the sources come anywhere close to stating such and in fact show otherwise. - Aoidh (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aoidh, you might be looking at the transcript page for the NPR article? Have a look at the original article posted by Mr Swordfish. If you still can't see it I can archive it for you in case it's regional. Re; Slate, my position is that the author does overstep in claiming that it's obsolete (to my reading) and it shouldn't be used as a source, I was just disagreeing with the notion that it doesn't say it is obsolete. Re; Dying off in the past 9 years: I agree with you. I however don't think everyone who believed a misconception has to be dead to make it uncommon. We use the age of sources all the time to establish whether something is obsolete (i.e. if a source published in the 70s says a belief is common, even if we don't have sources saying people have changed their minds and there are still old people who believe it today, it doesn't make it common). I am definitely not saying this should be used to solely say it's obsolete however! What do you think about the discussion on the quote pulled from the Stars & Stripes source? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, yes I was looking at this 2015 NPR source that I linked above that was found in the article, not this version. The Stripes article does say people have begin to realize which suggests that perception is changing, but that's not the same as it being obsolete. The source you added here has a footnote at the bottom of page 9 that says that the fan death belief is "general knowledge" in South Korea, though it's in decline. That contradicts the idea that it is obsolete, and I'd give more weight to Paolucci's work than opinion pieces online which appear to be largely anecdotal, though not even those suggest obsoletion. - Aoidh (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have a look again at Paolucci's work, you'll see the "general knowledge" is about people in other countries "knowing" South Koreans believe this, not general knowledge in South Korea. If you're reading the Stars and Stripes comment as purely commenting on a recent change in belief, what do you think the phrase "for the most part" is modifying re; "people have begun to realise"? I don't think the sentence makes sense if you read the comment as narrowly referring to a recent change in attitude. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if this reading of what "general knowledge" means is accurate, that still doesn't support the claim that this misconception is obsolete, nor do any of the other sources, recent or otherwise. "On the decline" is the most that these sources say in that regard, and a declining belief is not the same as it being obsolete; I'd imagine that believe in quite a few misconceptions listed here are "on the decline", but that's not the criteria for removal nor should it be. - Aoidh (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's accurate. It is contained in a discussion of where the author heard about misconceptions, it's followed by how they heard about a German misconception from Der Spiegel and a friend. It's also a footnote to "one hears that some people in South Korea believe an electric fan can kill someone in his or her sleep." It's not being used to reference it being obsolete, just that it's on the decline. The Stripes article is being used to reference the claim that it is obsolete, as it says most people don't believe it, or words to that effect, which makes the belief uncommon. Maybe there's a disagreement here over what obsolete means: I think a belief is obsolete as a common misconception if it used to be common but isn't anymore, even if some people believe it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Overpopulation Entry Obsolete
Possible entry failing criterion 4: People fearing overpopulation. There's a lot of fear nowadays about fertility being below replacement rate; people now know what TFR stands for. From the Atlantic, 2019: "Already there are signs that local low fertility is becoming a folk issue in much the same way that global high fertility became one during the “population bomb” decades of the late 20th century." This implies overpopulation fears were a thing of the late 20th century. Some more quotes:


 * "Populists push “pronatalist” policies, including tax breaks to have kids, as a solution"
 * "fears of an ‘underpopulation crisis’ are rising"
 * "But if you listen to economists (and Elon Musk), you might believe falling birthrates mean the sky is falling"
 * "The first thing you need to know about the so-called demographic timebomb facing countries such as the UK and US is to never call it that."
 * "Fears about falling birthrate in England and Wales are misplaced"

I'm not sure any of these are compelling enough sources to refute the claim that it is a "common misconception" that the world is headed towards global overpopulation. Better sources may be found that refute this. I do not believe it is a common misconception anymore however. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed change to Criteria 3
Current Criteria 3: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources."

Proposed New Criteria: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article as a common misconception with sources."

Mentioning in a topic article has (at least) three justifications:
 * Verifiability: Get topic experts to evaluate claim
 * Notability: Should be notable enough to be included in a topic article, not trivial
 * Navigation: The list should function as a navigation tool to discussions of common misconceptions to be permitted through WP:SAL. (i.e. see here)

Not requiring the topic article to describe the entry as a common misconception fails all three or would be improved on with the proposed change.

An example of a page passing the current criteria 3 but failing a proposed new criteria is carnivorous plants Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Speaking entirely personally, I would be for loosening or even discarding this criterion [NB criteria is the plural form :) ] rather than strengthening it. It seems potentially disruptive to make inclusion on this list dependent on possibly quite minor editorial changes that might happen to be made from time to time in some other article. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying. How would you ensure there's a notability standard for items having entry? Would that just be consensus of RS saying a belief is "common"? And what do you think about the navigation justification? Is there another notability standard that the page meets, so it's not just WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I think the current criterion is the weakest option out of the 3 possibilities (eliminate, keep, strengthen). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The idea behind criteria 3 is that the editors here can't be experts in everything, and one rough proxy for notability is that if the presumed "experts" at the topic article think the misconception is notable enough to mention then that's a minimum for inclusion here. And if not, then it's probably too obscure to include here. However, criterion 3 does not require the topic article to establish that the misconception is common, although we require that as an additional criterion for inclusion on this page.
 * I have found criterion 3 useful to quickly dismiss left field proposals by referring the proposer to the topic article and to make the case there. However, I don't think we can necessarily depend on editors at the topic articles to research and present evidence of commonality. That is, we rely on the topic articles to establish existence and notability of a misconception; establishing commonality is left up to the editors here.  I think that is a good approach and favor sticking with the current criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see you most strongly support the second justification for criterion 3; what do you think of the third? I think it's interesting that it's referenced in the second sentence of the article as that seems to give it a more central importance.
 * Why do you think when establishing notability, it should only be in terms of the entry as a misconception, rather than as a common misconception (the page is not list of misconceptions after all)?
 * "referring the proposer to the topic article and to make the case there." I haven't been around so much lately, but I don't think I've seen an example where someone has gone to the topic page and failed to make the case there. Could you give me an example where this has occurred? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

First amendment entry cn tag
I removed the cn tag since the cited source says "Let’s look at some common First Amendment arguments; illuminated and debunked by a constitutional expert. "

Note the usage of "common" and "debunked" in the source.

It also says "Bottom line: It protects you from the government punishing or censoring or oppressing your speech. It doesn’t apply to private organizations." and "If it’s a private institution, it’s probably not a First Amendment issue."

This cn tag was restored with the reason "Please read the reason listed for tags before you remove them. The article quoted does not say it's a common misconception that it includes restrictions by individuals."

I'm not sure how someone can misread this, but maybe I'm the one misreading it. Source is here. Does the cn tag stay? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * So as with a lot of misconceptions on the page, we include more than one in one entry, separated by the word 'or'. It's easier to see in a case like the Adidas entry, where just because a source establishes it's a common misconception that Adidas stands for "all day i dream of sex", it doesn't mean that "all day I dream of soccer" is necessarily established as being referenced as a common misconception.


 * There are two misconceptions here in the first amendment misconception: that restrictions imposed by private individuals are a violation of the first amendment, and that restrictions imposed by businesses are a violation of the first amendment. The source you're referencing establishes the businesses misconception to be common. It doesn't establish the individual misconception to be common, which is what the citation needed tag is referring to. You'll notice that none of the text you quote refers to individuals, it all refers to organizations. The individual misconception is not mentioned in any of the sources. Even if you disagree with this framing of splitting the entry into two misconceptions, I think it's undeniable that the claim about individuals is unsourced. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The misconception is pretty clear: only government action runs afoul of 1A rights. Non-governmental entities, whether "organizations" or "individuals" can't violate 1A.
 * Some of your criticisms of the various entries here have merit. This one doesn't. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the misconception is that non-governmental entities can't violate 1A, then let's change the article to say that.
 * It seems weird for the entry to imply it's a misconception that specifically individuals can violate 1A, when no sources listed are discussing this.
 * Just a note: I really appreciate how lucid your writing style is. I'm sorry mine isn't as straightforward. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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