Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 6

Great example of a misconception. Mine.
''When a meteor lands on Earth (after which it is termed a meteorite), it is not usually hot. In fact, many are found with frost on them. A meteor's great speed during reentry is enough to melt or vaporize its outermost layer, but any molten material will be quickly blown off (ablated), and the interior of the meteor does not have time to heat up because rocks are poor conductors of heat. Also, atmospheric drag can slow small meteors to terminal velocity by the time they hit the ground, giving the surface time to cool down.[35]''

Good example of the opposite of what I just described in the previous section here. I would have said that meteors would be hot when they land, because they were obviously white-hot in descent -- which was ill-considered. They were at a very low temperature in space, and, if the above is correct -- haven't checked it -- they haven't had time to heat up much, explaining the frost. At terminal velocity, there would no longer be significant heating, so the heat at the surface would rapidly be overcome by the very cold interior, explaining the frost. What is visible, I'd gather, at the entry into the atmosphere, is the ablated surface, becoming white hot gases, which makes perfect sense; if it were just the meteor, it would be tiny, tiny bright thing, not very visible. Nice little piece. --Abd (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one of the few honest to goodness misconceptions. It still probably needs sourcing, but is the sort of obvious one (there are about 10 of them) that can wait. It's all the other garbage that's the problem -- not just a "misconception" must be established, but some measure of "commonality" must be applied to it.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with that -- that "misconception" and "commonality" must be established for each entry. From sources, not from personal opinion.  If you were really willing to stick to that, I think our conflicts would be largely resolved.  The only remaining conflict would be about whether unsourced but plausible entries could remain in the list pending further research.  However, I note that you seem to be willing to allow this entry in, despite it being completely unsourced as yet.--Father Goose (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There is something that should be understood about the project. It is full of unsourced information, only a few articles get closely examined. When I see something that I know from personal experience is reasonable, getting rid if it simply because it isn't sourced is rude. A source might be found. Putting a cn tag on it, when I think it is reasonable, accomplishes little, and the danger is that, then, someone else removes it merely because the tag has been sitting there for a while, and the one removing doesn't take responsibility for the research. Thus what might be perfectly good gets removed by someone who only cares about the technicalities of sourcing, when the survival of the item under examination of probably multiple editors (such as myself in the situation posited) provided a rough form of verification, though not establishing easy verifiability.

Hence I only place cn tags when I doubt the material, but don't know with clarity that it is false. Consider it a slow PROD for article text.

My recommendation here, and I will help as I can, is that parties to the dispute seek agreement, not on the difficult issues, but on the easy ones. Create a document that could eventually be a standard, and start by agreeing on what all (or almost all, but try for all) would accept as worthy of inclusion, and that all would accept as not worthy. Deal with the middle last, instead of trying to debate what is marginal.

Personally, as for something not allowable, it is totally clear that if there is no reliable source for the "correction," anyone can delete it, and that deletion should not be opposed unless by coming up with something at least reasonably reliable. For usages and opinions, even blogs might be useful under some conditions. But there must be a source. I don't think that is quite enough for the baseline. At the other extreme, if there is reliable source either describing the misunderstanding or evincing it, and this is a strong source, not just some offhand comment or the common "Contrary to popular opinion," which is really about the correction that follows, and the "popular opinion" may be just a straw man, or "common" is established in some other way -- our consensus is one way, because the "fact" that is asserted is another matter than the element of "common misunderstanding," it isn't crucial that the "misunderstanding" be solidly sourced ''as long as we don't have substantial disagreement here that it is common -- and then there is source or sources of higher reliability establishing the correction, and we have rough consensus that the correction is just that, not an error or mere opinion, then I think we would agree that the item should be kept.

I'd suggest refining the upper and lower limit as an abstract standard with high consensus (neglecting the marginal middle), then start discussing individual items in the light of it, come to consensus on each item in turn, and refine the standard so that it would predict our consensus. That's what guidelines are supposed to do, they are not authorities, but rather guides to expected community consensus.

If this is done, all participating editors will become bulwarks against maverick editing that will clearly not be accepted when examined, and new editors can be referred to the document. It is a reframe of our work here as seeking consensus rather than arguing one side or another. The document never becomes a fixed authority, new editors (and more experienced ones) being constantly able to suggest shifts or exceptions, but not disruptively. I.e., new editor comes here, adds item, it is reverted by someone making a specific objection, such as "Don't believe the misconception is common," and source isn't there, or "Don't believe the correction or would need reliable source to believe it," the new editor would quickly be referred to the document. If the editor persists in restoring the information without adequate discussion and explanation of why this item should be considered to satisfy the guideline, or why it should be an exception, and without acceptance, this would be edit warring against consensus, and the editor would properly be warned, etc. But the warning, even, isn't a brick wall, it contains an invitation to participate. --Abd (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Tags
Is it just me or are the weasel tags in the article messed up? The are pulling long redlinks to Articles with specific weasel tags in March 2009 or some such. I tested the tag in the sandbox and it came up fine but when I copy/pasted it to this list it pulled the redlink. Does anyone see this?--Adam in MO Talk 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Admin Rich Farmbrough broke the template an hour half a day ago and protected the broken version immediately afterwards. I asked for help at WP:ANI. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted Rich's edit. Since templates are a total mystery to me I'm not going to attempt to fix whatever Rich was trying to fix. Tonywalton Talk 16:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bicycle question
While I'm here, can someone explain the Physics entry on bicycles? It reads: ''Gyroscopic forces are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle. The stability of a bicycle is influenced by gyroscopic forces as well as by its geometry and the rider's ability to counteract tilting by steering.''. So gyroscopic forces are required. I may be missing something (should it read "Gyroscopic forces alone are not enough for a rider...", for example) but the sentence as it stands appears to contradict itself. Tonywalton Talk 16:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had noticed that the bicycle bit was strangely worded. David Jones built a bicycle with no gyroscopic action on the front wheel (by mounting a second wheel on a parallel axle rotating in the opposite direction) and had no trouble riding it.  So gyroscopic forces are not required.  However, the bike would not "ghost ride" so there is some indication that gyroscopic forces contribute to stability.  Rracecarr (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The text merely needs a tweak so that the second sentence is not read as contradicting the first. I'll fix it. --Abd (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sugar
As presented, this only shows that sugar causes hyperactivity no more than artificial sweeteners. I have removed it until the sources can be properly examined (I currently have no access to the papers cited by the website). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 01:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children. Double blind trials have shown no difference in behaviour between children given sugar full or sugar-free diets, even in studies specifically looking at children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or those considered "sensitive" to sugar. In fact, it was found that the difference in the children's behaviour was all in the parents' minds.
 * That's bullshit. The sugar companies must've paid to have that research done.  In large amounts, sugar does make some people more whinny and causes other problems.  I know, because I'm one of those people.  You are what you eat.   D r e a m Focus  19:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one that reads the above comment and notices the utter contradiction? Reports state that the change in behavior is in the mind of the interpreter, and the above states that that can't be true because he observes the changes in himself. Seems like Dream Focus needs a little bit of education in the placebo effect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed numerous badly- or unsourced examples
I've removed a load of these, and will paste them below in a new section. I removed most of them because they are not sourced as common misconceptions (or similar wording), and/or because the sources are not reilable sources, per WP:RS.

I know some people won't like it, but a gradual, case-by-case approach isn't working. The whole article was tagged as insufficiently referenced since at least as far back as mid-2007, though the tag has been removed in the interim. Many of the same examples were there and have not been thoroughly referenced since - that suggests to me that a more radical approach is needed - if we simply tag items that need to be improved, it won't get done. Removing them one at a time would have meant breaking the three revert rule about 18 times over. Please do not simply revert and put them all back in - that will get us nowhere.

As I understand it, there is broad consensus here that each example needs to have at least one reliable source which explicitly states that this is a 'common misconception' or something similar - it must include that this is common/widely-held as well as a misconception/misunderstanding/myth etc - and at least one reliable source (could be the same one), preferably from acknowledged experts, that explains the reality. Linking to another wikipedia article is not acceptable. There's also no point including them if they are trivial or of interest only to a tiny group of specialists, per WP:UNDUE. I removed the 'Crookes radiometer' example because it's clearly not widely known - it is not notable enough to include. As far as I can tell, it is not described as a common misconception in the sources. Some of the others I believe are actually common misconceptions, but I'm not sure if sources concur.

I also removed the bloated list of links - it wasn't conistent with WP:EL. --hippo43 (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your methodology. It seems as though you are deleting entries to make a point--that tagging has been ineffective.  Well, you've made your point, I do understand the importance of verifiability, and I am on the job of looking for sources now.  But it is harder to do if the entries are gone.  I have just reinserted everything.  Please give me a week to see what I can find, and then anything unreferenced can be moved to talk, and if you dispute the reliability of some references, we can discuss them.   On a side note, I strongly disagree with your removal of the Crookes radiometer.  It is sourced as a common misconception, and your removal of it appears to be based purely on a personal opinion that the source is wrong. Rracecarr (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Rracecarr. I don't know if we have a specific policy or guideline on this (I looked), but personally I would not do a blanket removal of items which appear to be factually accurate but lack cited reliable sources.  If you honestly believe that the information presented is wrong, that's one thing.  But based on above, it does not appear as if you are actually challenging the material, simply the lack of cites. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't do this to make a point, I did it to clean up the article. I am challenging a lot of it - some of it may belong in the article, but I believe a lot of it doesn't. In particular, the list is so badly referenced right now that it is not a credible article - it's an embarrassment. The examples are all here, so it's not at all difficult to find reliable sources and paste them back into the article. There's no benefit to reinserting unsourced material, so I'm going to take them out again. From WP:V


 * "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the template, a section with , or the article with  or  . Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page."


 * I think 2 years is long enough to wait, another week of these being in the article would be too long. I too agree with Rracecarr, at least what he said about this article last year: "It is against wiki guidelines to add material without a source. If you can't find a source that supports the crap you want to add, you must not add the crap." --hippo43 (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You've quoted this twice now. The editor was adding crap that was wrong.  Policy is written in order to be easily enforceable, but of course the end goal is to have a lot of stuff that's right, and none that's wrong.  Using WP:V as a tool to keep wrong stuff out does not make it hypocritical to protest against the deletion of right stuff that just isn't adequately sourced yet. Rracecarr (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is that you're removing content that is factually accurate. I mean, do you really think that item about, for example, evolution and abiogenesis is wrong?  There are far worse articles on Wikipedia that this one.  If you really want to be a stickler for reliable sources, our 9/11 Truth Movement uses fringe sources for the first 5 cites on statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, other stuff exists, but I'm interested in this article. I am not really an expert in any of these fields, so whether I believe something is factually accurate or not isn't really useful. If the evolution example you mentioned is so straight-forward, someone will quickly supply good reliable sources and put it back in - this seems a desirable solution to me. Factually accurate information should not be in the list if it not verified. In most of these cases, the issue of whether it is a common misconception is badly sourced. --hippo43 (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First, WP:WAX is about article deletion, not content deletion. Second, my point about there being far worse articles on Wikipedia was not that "There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that so let's keep it".  Instead, my point was that it is far more constructive to work on the most egregious violations of WP:V and WP:RS than relatively more benign articles such as this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, but the principle applies here - "what about X?" could be used to justify doing or not doing just about anything. I don't see this as necessarily a benign article, which is why I got involved. It purports to be serious, rigorous and scientific, and could be a really useful article, yet contains some really low-quality material, and has done for years. I know you're right, there are articles which are much worse, but I feel a lot of readers will see straight through fringe opinions and sources more readily than the kind of examples we've had here. --hippo43 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Re "Linking to another wikipedia article is not acceptable" — wouldn't it make more sense to think of this list as an index to common misconceptions corrected in other Wikipedia articles? Under that interpretation, linking to another Wikipedia article as the "source" would not just be acceptable, it would be the norm. If an alleged misconception isn't mentioned in the article on the subject, then I don't see how it has any business being here. If it is mentioned there and is adequately sourced, I don't see the point of copying those sources here; a link to the section of the article seems sufficient. If it is mentioned there and is inadequately sourced, that problem ought to be corrected there, not here. Among other things, the article on the subject is a lot more likely to be watched by editors who will be able to dig up good sources on the subject. Digging up good sources for this article directly would be a huge cross-disciplinary effort, and what would be the point? In the end, if the sources were any good, they would be worth copying or moving to the real article, but then they should have just gone in that article in the first place. -- BenRG (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For me, we just can't use Wikipedia as a reference. Not only is it clearly against policy, it would require more upkeep than the alternative. If an example here linked to another article, we would constantly have to be checking that the target article was consistent with the example here, and hadn't been altered to make it worthless as a reference. The problem of different sources being used in different articles about the same subject already happens. Why not copy sources across? Is it difficult? Inevitably this page will be edited more and more by specialists - editors who contribute to lots of History articles would edit the History examples here etc. --hippo43 (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Examples

 * Queen Marie Antoinette was not the first woman to whom the sentence "Let them eat cake" was ascribed. The phrase is first found in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Confessions, of 1770, when Marie-Antoinette was fourteen (prior to marriage or revolution). Countess Madame de Boigne recalls in her memoirs that Madame Victoire was a woman of "very little wit and extreme kindness. It was she who said, her eyes full of tears, in a time of famine when one spoke of the suffering of the unfortunates who lacked bread: But, my God, if they would only resign themselves to eating paté crust!"
 * It seems to me that the myth is that Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake." This reads like the myth is Marie Antoinette is the first woman to whom the sentence "Let them eat cake" was ascribed, which is very different. I'm not sure how best to resolve this one. Let them eat cake offers more sources, but there seems to be no clear de-bunking done there - reads like sources are inconclusive. Perhaps someone can clean it up? --hippo43 (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Although many young people in the 1960s were actively opposed to the Vietnam war, evidence from opinion polling in the United States showed consistently that younger people were more likely to support sending US troops to Vietnam than were older people. A Gallup poll in March 1966 found that 21% of Americans in their 20s thought the US made a mistake sending troops, which rose to 30% of those over 50. Four years later the percentages had risen to 49% of those in their 20s (a statistical dead heat with supporters), but 61% of those over 50 (a clear majority regarding the war as a mistake).
 * Not referenced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Napoleon Bonaparte (pictured) was not especially short. After his death in 1821, the French emperor's height was recorded as 5 feet 2 inches in French feet. This corresponds to 5 feet 6.5 inches in modern international feet, or 1.686 metres, making him slightly taller than an average Frenchman of the 19th century. The metric system was introduced during his lifetime, so it was natural that he would be measured in feet and inches for much of his life. His nickname, "le petit caporal." There are competing explanations for why he was called this, but few modern scholars believe it referred to his stature.
 * Not referenced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Italian dictator Benito Mussolini did not make the trains run on time. Much of the repair work had been performed before Mussolini and the Fascists came to power in 1922. Accounts from the era also suggest that the Italian railways' legendary adherence to timetables was more myth than reality.
 * Not referenced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Common misconceptions about vikings: Vikings wore helmets, but not the horned helmets often depicted in media (Viking Helmet from Gjermundbu); horned helmets were used in Celtic religious rituals, but are unsuited for combat, the horns easily catching on weapons – the imagery of horned vikings is believed to come from 19th century Scandinavism romantic nationalist movement. Nor did they drink from skull cups.
 * Not referenced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Al Gore never said he invented the Internet, though he did state that "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet"(emphasis added). Gore was the original drafter of the High Performance Computing Act of 1991, which provided significant funding for supercomputing centers, and this in turn led to upgrades of the Internet's precursor, the NSFNet, and development of NCSA Mosaic, the browser that popularized the World Wide Web.
 * Not referenced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Entrapment law in the United States does not forbid police officers from going undercover, or from denying that they are police. It is a common misconception among persons engaged in low-level crime that if an undercover police officer is asked, "Are you a cop?" that they must reveal themselves to avoid entrapment.
 * Not referenced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no dark side of the Moon; every part of the Moon's surface (except perhaps deep craters near the poles) is illuminated by the Sun roughly half of the time. The phrase uses the word "dark" in the less-frequent sense of "unknown" or "obscure" to refer to the far side of the Moon, which because of tidal locking is never visible from Earth.
 * Not referenced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

* Black holes, unlike the common image, do not act as cosmic vacuum cleaners any more than do other stars. When a star evolves into a black hole, the gravitational attraction at a given distance from the body is no greater than it was for the star. That is to say, were the Sun to be replaced by a black hole of the same mass, the Earth would continue in the same orbit. Due to a black hole's formation being explosive in nature, the object would lose a certain amount of its energy in the process, which—according to the mass–energy equivalence—means that a black-hole would be of lower mass than the parent object, and actually have a weaker gravitational pull.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The human body can briefly survive the hard vacuum of space unprotected, despite contrary depictions in much popular science fiction. Human flesh expands to about twice its size in such conditions, giving the visual effect of a body builder rather than an overfilled balloon. Consciousness is retained for up to 15 seconds as the effects of oxygen starvation set in. No snap freeze effect occurs because all heat must be lost through thermal radiation or the evaporation of liquids, and the blood does not boil because it remains pressurised within the body. The greatest danger is in attempting to hold one's breath before exposure, as the subsequent explosive decompression can damage the lungs. These effects have been confirmed through various accidents (including in very high altitude conditions, outer space and training vacuum chambers). Human skin does not need to be protected from vacuum and is gas-tight by itself. Instead it only needs to be mechanically compressed to retain its normal shape. This can be accomplished with a tight-fitting elastic body suit and a helmet for containing breathing gases, known as a Space activity suit.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no cure for split ends or damaged hair. Shampoos and conditioners that advertise themselves as being able to reverse damage or reduce split ends are incorrect. Scientifically, the only way to cure split ends is by a simple haircut. Once the cuticle of the hair shaft is split, it can often still grow split, but can never be mended. Haircare products can be used to soften the texture by using fillers that attach to the hair shaft, making the hair appear healthier.
 * The number of human senses is often said to be five; however, this count is inexact, for the senses of balance, acceleration, temperature, proprioception and pain—all distinct senses—are often grouped together as the sense of "feeling".
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. No source for the counter-argument. --hippo43 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The indigenous people of North America can grow facial hair, contrary to the misconception that they cannot.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Warts on human skin are caused by viruses that are unique to humans (Human papillomavirus). Humans cannot catch warts from toads or other animals; the bumps on a toad are not warts.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Shaving does not cause hair to grow back thicker or coarser or darker. This belief is due to the fact that hair that has never been cut has a tapered end, whereas, after cutting, there is no taper. Thus, it appears thicker, and feels coarser due to the sharper, unworn edges. Hair can also appear darker after it grows back because hair that has never been cut is often lighter due to sun exposure.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mammal blood is bright red or scarlet when oxygenated and a darker red when not oxygenated. It is never blue. Veins appear blue through the skin because of Rayleigh scattering, the same effect responsible for the blue sky.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim that individuals with a different number of chromosomes can never produce viable offspring is false—Przewalski's Horse, for example, can produce viable offspring with the common horse, despite a different number of chromosomes. Such hybrids are also common in plants.
 * An earthworm does not become two worms when cut in half. An earthworm can survive being bisected, but only the front half of the worm (where the mouth is located) can survive, while the other half dries out or starves to death. If one cuts the worm too close to the saddle (the fat pink section where all of the worm's vital organs are located) then the worm may die. On the other hand, species of the planaria family of flatworms actually do become two new planaria when bisected or split down the middle.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is sometimes claimed that half, or more than half, of all humans who were ever born are alive today. The claim itself is poorly defined, as there is no definite starting point for the human species. However, even adopting conservative values regarding the origins of humanity, a significantly lower proportion of the human population is currently alive. See also World population: Number of humans who have ever lived.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Biological evolution does not address the origin of life; for that, see abiogenesis. The two are commonly and mistakenly conflated. Evolution describes the changes in gene frequencies that occur in populations of living organisms over time, and thus, presupposes that life already exists. Evolution likewise says nothing about cosmology, the Big Bang, or the origins of the universe, galaxy, solar system, or Earth, although the term 'evolution' in the sense of a slow unfolding is used to describe such processes, e.g. Stellar Evolution, Cosmic Evolution.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "theory" in "the theory of evolution" does not imply doubt in mainstream science regarding its validity; the words "theory" and "hypothesis" are not the same in a scientific context (see Evolution as theory and fact). While "theory" in conventional usage tends to denote a "hunch" or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles which, via logical induction, explains the observations in nature. The same inductive inferences can be made to predict observations before they are made. Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Humans did not evolve from monkeys or from any current non-human apes. Rather, humans and other modern simians—chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, baboons, etc.—all share a common early ancestor. It is believed that humans are more closely related to modern fellow apes than to monkeys, and humans and other apes share a later common ancestor that lived around 7 million years ago in the late Miocene epoch. However, fossil discoveries of "recently" (as in, only millions of years ago) extinct species are, in the experience of paleontologists, rarely direct ancestors of living species (cf. missing link).
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The process of biological evolution is not necessarily slow. Millions of years are not necessarily required to see speciation (a change in characteristics of a kind of organism, typically rendering offspring infertile with the previous species). Indeed, it has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Evolution is not a progression from "lower" to "higher", and evolution does not require an increase in complexity (see Evolution of complexity). A population can evolve to become simpler with less genetic information, and have a smaller genome—often called "devolution", but that is a misnomer.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim that "almost all mutations are harmful" is strictly speaking false. In fact, most mutations have no noticeable effect, mainly because most mutations do not occur within coding or regulatory regions of the genome. One study gives the average number of mutations that arise in a human conception to be around 128, with an average number of harmful mutations per conception of 1.3. However, most mutations that have an effect on phenotype are indeed detrimental to the organism.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim that evolution makes no meaningful predictions is not true—for example the discovery of the relationship between chromosome 2 and chimpanzee chromosomes at the end of the completion of the human and chimp genome projects was predicted, and makes meaningful sense as evidence of a common ancestor.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The characterization of evolution as the "survival of the fittest" (in the sense of "only the best-adapted organisms will prevail", a view common in social Darwinism) is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any organism which is capable of reproducing itself before dying is considered "fit". If the organism is able to do so on an ongoing basis, it will survive as a species. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Several incorrect explanations have been circulated for what causes a Crookes radiometer (pictured) to turn. The earliest incorrect explanation – that its motion is caused by radiation pressure – was posited by its inventor, Sir William Crookes.  A common subsequent explanation, still offered by references such as Encyclopaedia Britannica, is that its motion is caused by expansion of gas near the black side of the vanes, due to its absorbing more radiation and passing on that heat to gas molecules that strike it.  This explanation only explains a part of the force exerted on the radiometer.  A fuller explanation includes the effect of thermal creep – the tendency of a gas to flow from hot to cold areas (in this case, around the edges of the vanes).
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. Trivial, because it is specific to such a narrow group. Most people haven't a clue what a Crookes rdaiometer is, let alone how it might work. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Albert Einstein was neither religious (in the traditional sense) nor an atheist. He did not believe in God in a "personal" sense and discounted the existence of a creator; rather, he was a rationalistic pantheist and follower of Baruch Spinoza.  Many people misinterpreted his words in public, to which Einstein himself responded by saying: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (See also: Einstein quotes)
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrase "separation of church and state" does not occur in the U.S. Constitution. It was first used in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, reassuring them that religious minorities (such as Baptists) would be protected under the Bill of Rights. His expression "wall of separation between church and state" was a description of an intended effect of the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise provisions, not a quotation therefrom.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in the Bible is the fruit eaten by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden referred to as an apple. The fruit is called the "fruit of the tree" (that is, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil), and neither the fruit nor the tree is identified by species. In Middle English, as late as the 17th century "apple" was a generic term for all fruit other than berries but including nuts. However, in continental European art from that period representing the Fall of Man the fruit is often depicted as an apple.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The term Immaculate Conception does not refer to Jesus's conception by the Virgin Mary (see Virgin Birth of Jesus), but rather to the Roman Catholic teaching that Mary herself was conceived without the stain of Original Sin. (See also Blessed Virgin Mary.)
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in the Bible is Mary Magdalene ever referred to as a prostitute. Before her seeing the risen Jesus, the only other mention besides the listing of her name is the mentioning in Luke 8:2 that she had been possessed by seven demons. In fact there are several sinful women mentioned in the gospels, one of whom is "caught in adultery". Pope Gregory conflated this woman with Mary Magdalene in one of his sermons and thus propagated this idea.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The canon of the New Testament was not selected by Constantine at the First Council of Nicaea. Constantine did not personally have a vote on the council, and the canon had been settled mainly by common consent among the clergy from the early second century. Furthermore, the council did not consider the matter of canon in its proceedings. (See Development of the New Testament canon.)
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in the Bible does it say exactly three wise men came from afar on camels to visit "Baby Jesus" It was assumed that there were three Biblical Magi because three gifts are described.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Gospel accounts of Jesus' birth say nothing about an inn-keeper or even an inn. The Greek word for an inn is pandocheion, while the word used to describe where Jesus was supposedly born is kataluma, which is better translated as "guestroom".
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Qur'an promises martyrs will be awarded virgins in heaven but specifies no number. There is a Hadith attributed to Muhammad stating that there will be 72.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Niqāb veil (and by extension, Burqa) is not considered by all Islamic scholars to be obligatory. Some view it as a voluntary show of piety. The passage in the Quran instructing women to "…not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to…" is interpreted by some to require covering off the hair, while others say it simply calls for modesty of dress.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Allah does not refer to a Muslim, as opposed to a Christian, God. It is simply the Arabic word for "The God". Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews also refer to God as "Allah".
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Jihad is not an "Islamic war on the western world" but rather a verb meaning to struggle or to strive. One can have an internal jihad, family jihad, or religious jihad, which may or may not include violence towards non-Muslims. A comparison may be made with the term "crusade", which is sometimes considered by Muslims to mean Western violence against Islam, when it is more often used as a metaphorical struggle; for example, "a crusade against drugs".
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A fatwā is a religious opinion on Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar, not a death sentence. The popular misconception likely stems from the death sentence pronounced as a fatwā on the author Salman Rushdie in 1989 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not all pagans are polytheists: some are pantheists and others are monotheists.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Johannes Gutenberg was not the first to invent the printing press or movable type; these were in use in China centuries before. Gutenberg was the first European to use movable type, and he probably invented it independently; the printing press did have a larger influence on Western than on Eastern culture.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Henry Ford did not invent the automobile or the internal combustion engine. He added conveyor belts to the assembly line for automobile production, and used it to bring the cost of automobiles into reach of many more people.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * George Washington Carver did not invent peanut butter, although he developed many other uses for peanuts. Other individuals of Carver's era had patents for peanut butter.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is commonly believed that Neutron bombs are nuclear weapons whose blasts exclusively affect living tissue. This is not true. There is still some heat and blast energy but at only a fraction of the intensity of a conventional thermonuclear warhead.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ENIAC, (1946), was not the first digital computer; rather, it was the first general-purpose all-electronic computer. The Atanasoff-Berry Computer (ABC) (1942), was the first digital electronic binary computer. The partly-electromechanical Z3 (1941), was also among the earliest digital and general-purpose computers. The first Colossus computer (1943), but was not general-purpose, being designed only for particular applications.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The ship Mary Celeste was not called Marie Celeste. Arthur Conan Doyle used the Marie Celeste spelling in his fictional story J. Habakuk Jephson's Statement, based on the incident.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Charles Lindbergh was not the first man to fly the Atlantic Ocean, although he was the first to have flown across it solo. The first flight had been done first in stages between May 8 and May 31, 1919, by the crew of the Navy-Curtiss NC-4 flying boat which took 24 days to complete its journey. The first truly non-stop transatlantic flight was made in 1919 by John Alcock and Arthur Whitten Brown in a modified Vickers Vimy bomber.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The German Autobahn was not designed by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich cabinet. It came into design 20 years before Hitler's reign, and was first implemented a year before he came to power.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Black box, used for aviation accident investigation, is actually bright orange.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Toilet waste is not dumped overboard in aircraft. All waste is collected in tanks which are emptied on the ground by special toilet waste vehicles. A vacuum is used to allow the toilet to be flushed with less water and because plumbing cannot rely on gravity alone in an aircraft in motion.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several misconceptions related to the colored belt ranking system in martial arts. First, the system was invented in the early 20th century, contrary to the myth that it is based on the ancient practice of students starting with a white belt and gaining a black belt through accumulated dirt, sweat, and blood on an unwashed belt. Second, receiving a black belt usually does not mean mastery, as there are always several levels of black belt for each martial art, and standards for attaining a belt can vary greatly. Third, a prevalent American myth is that black belts must register their hands as a deadly weapon with law enforcement agencies.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Abner Doubleday did not invent baseball (see The Abner Doubleday myth).
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The ice hockey term "Original Six", contrary to its implication, does not refer to the six original members of the National Hockey League. It actually refers to the six teams which formed the entire league from 1942 to 1967. Only two of them were actually charter NHL members, but all six were founded within the NHL's first decade.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another common ice hockey misconception, mainly among Americans, is that the game known as the "Miracle on Ice" in the 1980 Winter Olympics clinched the gold medal for the USA team. Even though Team USA stunned the heavily favored Soviet team in that game, it did not clinch the gold medal. Under Olympic hockey rules at that time, the medal round was contested in a round-robin format. Team USA went into its final game against Finland with the mathematical possibility of finishing in any position from first to fourth. The Americans defeated Finland to secure the gold medal.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Michael Phelps has not won more Olympic medals than any other athlete: Larissa Latynina has this distinction, having earned 18 medals in comparison with Phelps's total of 16 (as of 2008). Phelps, rather, has won the most total gold medals as well as the most total medals at a single Olympic Games, and is tied with two other athletes for the most individual golds at a single Games.
 * Not reliably sourced as a common misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI - I added a cite for the black hole as a vacuum cleaner item. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - looks great. --hippo43 (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Would either of these  suffice for Abiogenesis vs Evolution? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've restored the item about the Abner Doubleday myth with a proper cite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oy, rather than just remove them all, why not just fix them. Kingturtle (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the article back to before the mass deletion. I'm sorry, Hippo, but you can't come to an article that so many people have worked on for so many years and just cut it to pieces. That is hurtful and disrespectful to the hard work and dedication put forth by these editors. They, you...we can find proper references for these items. There is no need to destroy people's work like that. With all due respect, Kingturtle (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Tag them if you want, but there is no reason to through and mass delete so much of an article.   D r e a m Focus  19:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, please don't do a mass reversion. Several of us have started adding proper cites into the article. If you do a mass reversion, we lose those new cites. If you want to add all the items back into the article, that's fine with me, but please don't do it as a mass reversion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Kingturtle, I didn't destroy anyone's hard work. I only moved unsourced and badly sourced entries to the talk page, and they are still available in the page history. People may have worked on it for some time, but some of that work is not consistent with Wikipedia policy, so it should not be left in the article to mislead readers. The article has been tagged for two years as insufficently referenced - tagging hasn't worked here. It is very simple to paste them back in if sources are found. --hippo43 (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here? It is clearly stated from the five pillars down through policy and guidelines that Wikipedia should be verifiable and that contentious unverified content may be removed. There's really no question or room for debate on this. See my reasoning in the sectionRemoving unreferenced examples section below for more details. In a nutshell, any editor can remove unreferenced content because the fact that they believe it wrong makes it by definition contentious (provided that they are acting in good faith). Thus the only way, consistent with the five pillars, to restore deleted unreferenced material, is to reference it as soon as it is restored. There's really no way around this: its in the five pillars. The simple solution here is to remove unverified contentious content and userfy if you believe it can be verified until such time as you have actually found supporting references. It seems like that solution should satisfy everyone as it will allow article improvement while keeping the actual article verifiable and reliable. Locke9k (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've stopped working on the article pending decision on reverts
I'm going to stop working on the article until we come to some sort of concensus on the reverts. I added a proper cite for Abner Doubleday here which was lost in the last revert. I was about to add a cite for blackboxes being orange using one or more of the following:, and. But there's no point if this article is in a state of flux.

Also, I was waiting feedback on whether or  would suffice for Abiogenesis vs Evolution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking deleted entries
As this diff shows, I have not replaced nearly all the entries that have recently been deleted. Some of the entries no doubt deserved deletion, other perhaps not. I plan to copy deleted entries which have not been restored to the article here, so they can be discussed. Rracecarr (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Asia

 * The belief that gunpowder, even though it was a Chinese invention, was first used for war by the Europeans is a misconception. The Chinese used flamethrowers and gunpowder arrows for military purposes from the 900s CE onward.

The Americas

 * Christopher Columbus was not the first European to discover North America. The earliest physical evidence of European colonization comes from the Norse: Greenland was settled by Icelanders in 984 CE, and a Norse settlement was established at what is now L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland ca. 1000 CE. Scholars are divided on whether Norse explorer Leif Ericson established the L'Anse aux Meadows settlement.
 * The Spaniards did not conquer the Aztecs with a "hundred men and a handful of cannons". Although Cortes only brought with him (approximately) 400 soldiers, 100 sailors, and about 10-20 horses, the conquest of the Aztec was a complicated affair which included thousands of natives who allied themselves to Hernán Cortés and a smallpox outbreak.
 * The German crowd witnessing John F. Kennedy's speech in Berlin in 1963 did not mistake Ich bin ein Berliner to mean "I am a jelly doughnut." It is an incorrect American notion that he should have said "Ich bin Berliner" rather than "Ich bin ein Berliner". Different areas of Germany refer to a jelly doughnut as a Berliner.

Europe

 * The trenches on the Western Front in World War I are often said to have stretched "from the frontier of Switzerland to the English Channel". The trenches reached the coast at the North Sea, not the English Channel. In fact much of the British war effort was a bloody but successful strategy to prevent the Germans reaching the Channel.


 * It is a common misconception that the Scottish Tartan has always identified the clan of the wearer. Tartans were more commonly associated with a region, and it is only in modern times that the connection between a pattern and a clan came into being.
 * Common misconceptions about vikings: Vikings wore helmets, but not the horned helmets often depicted in media (Viking Helmet from Gjermundbu); horned helmets were used in Celtic religious rituals, but are unsuited for combat, the horns easily catching on weapons – the imagery of horned vikings is believed to come from 19th century Scandinavism romantic nationalist movement. Neither did they drink from skull cups.

Politics

 * Former UK prime minister Tony Blair never said that he remembered sitting behind the goal at St James Park watching Jackie Milburn play for Newcastle United. As Milburn retired from football when Blair was four years old and seating was not introduced until the 1990s it was suggested that he lied about it, in an interview in December 1997 with BBC Radio 5 Live, to boost his working class credentials; however he was misquoted, saying his time as a supporter came just after Milburn.
 * UK prime minister Gordon Brown never claimed to be a fan of the Arctic Monkeys nor that he wakes up to them. He did say that if they were playing on the radio it would certainly wake him up.
 * Peter Mandelson never mistook mushy peas for guacamole. The mistake was made by a young American researcher working for the then Labour leader Neil Kinnock who mischievously attributed the mistake to his colleague Mandelson.
 * Sarah Palin never claimed to be able to see Russia from her house in Alaska, an attribution to Tina Fey's parody of Governor Palin. She said, in a September 11, 2008 interview with Charlie Gibson: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."  In a September 25, 2008 interview with Katie Couric she added: "It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state."  Two islands in the Bering Strait called Big Diomede, which sits in Russian territory, and Little Diomede, which is part of the United States are only separated by about two miles and can be seen from one another. The sea between them freezes in the winter.

Cooking

 * French fries (or French fried potatoes) did not originate in France. The term comes from frying potatoes in the French method (frire, meaning "to deep fry"). French fries were invented in Belgium.
 * Adding salt to water does not make it boil faster, the salt is just an impurity that allows the water to come to a higher temperature. Furthermore, adding a "pinch" of salt to water will make little or no measurable difference. The salt does, however, introduce free ions to the water, which will help prevent superheating from taking place were the water to be heated by microwave.

Law

 * In the United States, Police are not required by law to immediately give the Miranda warning when arresting a suspect, and the Miranda warning is not given only to suspects under arrest. Rather, according to the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, a suspect in custody or in a custodial situation must be informed of these rights before being subject to interrogation. If the Miranda warning or similar warning is not read, incriminating statements made by the suspect while in custody are not admissible evidence in court.
 * It is not illegal or unconstitutional, in the United States, to pray in a public school. Supreme Court cases going back to Engel v. Vitale (1962) have held it unconstitutional for a public school to lead students in an officially sponsored prayer. However, the Court has also consistently recognized a right of students to pray and to organize religious extracurricular activities, for instance in Widmar v. Vincent (1981) and Good News Club v. Milford (2001). Another misconception is that opponents of official school prayer are largely atheists. Rather, the plaintiffs in many Establishment Clause cases have been members of minority religions, such as Jews in Engel v. Vitale or Catholics in a largely Baptist school district in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000).

Astronomy

 * Modern spacecraft returning from space do not suffer a communications blackout. While the heated atmosphere in front of the spacecraft prevents direct communication with Earth, and in the early days of the space programs of the world indeed meant that no communication was possible during reentry, systems like the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System have removed this problem.
 * Liquids will generally freeze when exposed to space, such as in the movie Mission to Mars. A hard vacuum greatly lowers the boiling temperature of most liquids. This causes heat energy to be boiled away until the liquid freezes.

Biology

 * Koalas are not bears. Koalas belong to the marsupials infraclass of mammals, a separate lineage from the placental mammals of which bears (along with most mammals found outside of Australia and South America, such as rodents, primates, canines, etc.) are members.
 * The Platypus is often heralded as the only egg-laying mammal. However, there are four species of Echidna, also of the order Monotremata, which also lay eggs.
 * Plants do not metabolize carbon dioxide (CO2) directly into oxygen (O2). Light-dependent reactions capture the energy of light and consume water, producing high-energy molecules and releasing oxygen as a by-product. Light-independent reactions use the high-energy molecules to capture and chemically reduce carbon dioxide, producing carbohydrate precursors and water. See Photosynthesis.

Physics

 * When floating ice melts, it does not raise the water level (Archimedes' principle). However ice such as glaciers rests on rock, and is held above water: releasing it, or melting raises the level of the water that it is dropped in. The predicted threat of rising sea levels due to global warming is mainly due to the detachment or melting of inland ice, such as that on Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet in Antarctica, the melting of glaciers, and the thermal expansion of seawater. Melting of sea ice in the Arctic makes a tiny contribution, by lowering the global average salinity (and therefore the density) of seawater.
 * The melting of Antarctic ice is not predicted to be the largest cause of rising sea levels in the near future. Complete melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would be the largest of all potential contributions to sea level change. At worst, the partial melting of Antarctic ice is predicted to be only the fourth-largest potential contribution to sea level rise by the year 2100 (&minus;170 to +20 mm), after thermal expansion of the world's oceans (+110 to +430 mm), melting glaciers (+10 to +230 mm), and melting Greenland ice (&minus;20 to +90 mm).
 * There is no such thing as centrifugal force, or a force that pushes outward while an object is undergoing circular motion. What many people confuse for centrifugal force is actually just inertia, because the object in motion wants to maintain its velocity and move in as direction tangent to the path of its circular motion. The force people often confuse with centrifugal force is centripetal force, the force required for an object to remain in uniform circular motion. Centrifugal force is one of several so-called pseudo-forces (also known as inertial forces), so named because, unlike real forces, they do not originate in interactions with other bodies situated in the environment of the particle upon which they act.
 * It is not true that a mirror reverses left and right. It actually inverts front and back. The left and right sides of a person's mirror image seem to be reversed because we are actually accustomed to everyone else's left and right being reversed when they turn around to face us. If, instead of rotating on the spot to face us, people instead flipped over into a handstand, we would see their left and right remain the same, but their top and bottom being reversed from our own. The mirror image faces us without its left and right or top and bottom being reversed in this sense, which is why it is the reverse of what everyone else sees when they look at us. Another way to understand this is the following. The misconception arises because one compares the image in the mirror to an object already 180° rotated around a vertical axis on the plane of the mirror, and then notices a left-right reverse. However, if one takes this (subconscious) rotation also into account, the rotation plus the left-right reverse together actually mean a front-back inversion. (Image a rubber mask being pushed inside-out, as opposed to being turned around.)
 * Surface area does not have much influence on the frictional force between two surfaces. Although friction is not an exact science, a good approximation in many circumstances is that the frictional force between two surfaces sliding past each other depends on two factors: the coefficient of friction and the normal force between the surfaces. A common misconception is that increasing the width of a vehicle's tires will decrease the breaking distance.
 * It is not true that a nozzle (or a person's thumb) on the end of a garden hose makes the water squirt farther because the same amount of water gets forced through a smaller opening. The rate of flow of water through the hose is not a set constant; in fact, putting one's thumb over the end of the hose reduces the rate of flow. What is constant is the water pressure at the source. When water is flowing, the pressure decreases the farther from the source one gets due to friction between the water and the pipes it's flowing through. The faster the water moves through the pipe, the greater is the friction that cuts down pressure at the output end. A thumb over the end of the hose decreases the flow rate, causing the friction from the source to decrease, causing the remaining water to have more speed.
 * Surface area does not have much influence on the frictional force between two surfaces. Although friction is not an exact science, a good approximation in many circumstances is that the frictional force between two surfaces sliding past each other depends on two factors: the coefficient of friction and the normal force between the surfaces. A common misconception is that increasing the width of a vehicle's tires will decrease the breaking distance.
 * This is a nice one. The explanation is poor. I'd bet some source could be found for the general statement. Deacceleration of the car is proportional to the frictional force opposite to the direction of motion. If we could vary the width of the tire, keeping the force per unit area, pressing the tire against the road, constant, the force would increase with increased area. But the force per unit area declines proportionally with the increase of area because the weight is distributed over the increased area. The two effects roughly cancel each other out, I expect. (please move this comment to a better place if there is one, I don't understand how to approach this Talk section.) --Abd (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Evolution

 * It is misleading to claim that evolution is completely random. Normally, the random results of genetic mutation are filtered by ontogeny, natural selection, and other non-random mechanisms. On the other hand, some evolutionary changes result from genetic drift, which is random.
 * Speciation does not happen within a single organism: a chimpanzee cannot be born a chimpanzee and turn into a different species within its lifetime. Evolution to a new species deals with changes to the gene pool of a population, which accumulate only over generations. Nor does speciation occur on an individual basis. It is not meaningful to speak of the first member of a new species. However, plants may undergo speciation within a single generation through the production of fertile hybrids and/or ploidy changes.
 * Organisms cannot pass on acquired traits to their offspring; a bodybuilder's children are not born with bigger muscles. (See also epigenetics.)
 * The theory of evolution does posit "transitional forms", but not "endpoint forms". That is, every animal, plant, fossil that exists, is an example of a transitional form. Evolution is a continuous process that has no "goal" per se. (See also List of transitional fossils.)

Earth science

 * Mount Everest (pictured) is, indisputably, the highest point of land above sea level (8,850 meters / 29,035 feet) which, according to traditional measurements, means that it is the tallest mountain in the world. Given certain definitions, however, this can be challenged. One alternative method of measurement is the base-summit height. When this is applied, Mauna Kea (a dormant volcano in Hawaii) turns out to be much higher at 10,314 meters (33,480 feet). This takes into account Mauna Kea's base on the ocean floor, some 6000 meters below sea level. Its height above sea level is only 4,208 meters (13,796 feet). If the base-summit height is measured from land only, Mount Kilimanjaro is the tallest free-standing mountain in the world, meaning it does not belong to a mountain range or chain, measured from its base (at ground level) to the summit at 5,896 meters (19,344 feet). Another alternative method is to work out the furthest point of land as measured from the centre of the earth. Chimborazo, a volcano in Ecuador, takes this honor, because the Earth bulges at the equator. This peak is 2,100 meters further away from the centre of the Earth than the top of Everest is.
 * The Sahara is the world's largest hot desert, but it is not the world's largest desert (arid land). Antarctica has almost no liquid precipitation (rain) and is thus a desert. Almost no animal life exists in its interior at all (nesting snow petrels and scientists in research stations are about the only exceptions).

Judaism and Christianity

 * Although Christians and Jews agree that the Ten Commandments are ten in number, they are not explicitly separated from each other in the original text. Thus the interpretation of the precise text of each of the Ten Commandments differs between Jews and Christians, and between various Christian denominations (see this chart). The Bible mentions three sets of ordinances, in, and , that are all called by the name "Ten Commandments". The verses in Exodus 34 are not the Ten Commandments commonly referred to, and are called by some scholars the "Ethical Decalogue". They include an obligation to sacrifice the first born male of cattle, another to eat unleavened bread for a week and a final tenth commandment phrased as "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk".
 * Kosher food is not food that has been blessed by a rabbi. It is any food that is not prohibited in the Biblical laws, meets the requirements for slaughter enumerated in the Mishnah (in the case of meat), and is prepared and served in accordance with Jewish law. For kosher certification to be approved, a rabbi or other religious Jew who is well-versed in Jewish law (called a mashgiach) serves as a production supervisor. Jews make individual blessings over the food they eat; there is no blessing said by a rabbi or layman that would make a food kosher.

Hinduism

 * Throughout most traditions, the Bhagavad Gita is not equivalent to the Christian's Bible in level of scriptural authority. It is considered Smriti (that which is remembered) which is a class of scripture lower in rank than Shruti (what is heard), containing the Vedas. The Bhagavad Gita, though, is considered the most popular.
 * Hinduism is considered a family of religions and as such has no concept of God universal to all astika sects. Hinduism is thus not strictly polytheistic across all sampradyas (traditions), but can be pantheistic or panentheistic, or be distinctly henotheistic or monotheistic.
 * Hindus do not worship "300,000 gods". Someone arranged the various gods that were worshipped in his time in various parts of India, into 30 classes, using a Sanskrit word that means "a class" and also "ten thousand"

Paganism

 * Paganism is an umbrella term like Christianity - Lutherans, Catholics, and Protestants are all Christians just like Wiccans, Druids, and Shamans are all Pagans.
 * Not all witches practice magick (spelled with a 'k' to distinguish it from stage magic). There are forms of witchcraft that are completely philosophical or religious that exclude any magickal practices.
 * The witch-cult hypothesis -- the notion that medieval witch-hunts were the suppression of an ancient pagan religion which had once been common throughout Europe -- is not considered well-supported by modern anthropologists and historians.

Inventions

 * Neither did Guglielmo Marconi invent the radio; a patent was filed before him by Nikola Tesla, a claim that was ratified by the US Supreme Court in 1943 in Tesla's favor.

Computing

 * The .tv domain is not the domain code for television or broadcast. .tv is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the island nation of Tuvalu. Tuvalu created a licensing agreement with a large tech company to on-sell the domain code to consumers.

Other

 * There is no reliable scientific evidence that installing security lighting in outdoor areas actually deters crime; it may actually make crime easier to conceal. For instance, a burglar who is forced to use a flashlight is more easily spotted than one who can see by existing light.
 * Passive night vision devices do not actually illuminate an environment, rather enhancing the visibility of light reflecting off surfaces. Image enhancement night vision does not assist visibility in an environment with absolutely no visible light; thermal imaging would be required in this situation.
 * The number of megapixels in a digital camera is not a sufficient measure of image quality. The skill of a photographer, the quality of the lens, and the number, size and compression of individual pixels all impact image quality. Most viewers hold contrast, color saturation, and color accuracy to be more important than resolution.
 * Card counting in the game of blackjack does not allow the card counter to know specifically what cards are going to be dealt, and it does not guarantee positive returns to the card counter in the short term. Counting cards only allows the player to know that the remaining cards in decks will give the players an edge on the house in the up-coming hands (usually only a few percent), and so allowing the players to maximize the projected (not guaranteed) profits from this edge by betting larger amounts.
 * The Nigerian scam, or Advance Fee Fraud, is not new as is commonly believed and did not originate on the internet. It dates back to the early years of the 20th century when postal mail was used in place of email.
 * R.I.P. does not stand for "Rest in peace". It actually stands for Requiescat in pace (Latin for "May he/she rest in peace") and is an inscription on many Roman graves.

Removing unreferenced examples
I am going to again remove unreferenced entries frim the list. Tagging hasn't worked. Removing unsourced examples has worked - in the last few days several editors have found new sources and reinserted examples. The Abner Doubleday myth really illustrates the problem of just linking another article - not only does it breach WP:V, but the article it links to is itself very badly referenced. --hippo43 (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If, as you seem to indicate, you are removing entries to try to convince other editors to find references, you are editing to make a point, which is contrary to policy. I don't deny that is has worked: I, and likely other editors, realized "holy crap, hippo is destroying the article, better see what I can do..."   But besides being against the rules, it has become counterproductive.  For one thing, time spent edit warring is time not spent looking for refs, and I, for one, won't stop looking for refs just because you stop deleting things willy-nilly.  But more importantly, at least one editor (Quest for knowledge)  has become fed up and stopped working on the article; rather than stimulating more work, your pointy editing is chasing good people away.


 * I have reverted the unsourced new addition on schizophrenia. I suggest we work on sourcing existing entries (and sourcing and re-adding entries from the section above) but that we accept no brand new entries without sources. If people have unsourced entries to suggest, they can go here on the talk page.Rracecarr (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, the only posts to the talk page in the last few days are by 6 editors: you, me, Quest, Dream, Kingturtle, and BenRG. You have argued for deleting massive amounts of stuff, and all the other 5 editors have argued against it (4 of them explicitly, and BenRG by arguing that a wikilink to an article with a cited misconception should be enough to save an entry from deletion).  As such, you are editing against consensus.  (edit conflict--a seventh editor has now posted here, but has expressed no opinion on deletions--other than to agree with Ben that linking to a cited article is sufficient). Rracecarr (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The addition about schizophrenia is well known and is cited at the very beginning of the article schizophrenia which is viewed about 10.000 times per day so it is ridiculous to remove it "because it is unsourced".--pokipsy76 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Reinsert if you want, I won't revert again. But I don't think it was ridiculous to remove it necessarily.  The relevant bit of the schizophrenia article is not at all prominent (in its own subsection, for example), and with no indication (such as "See schizophrenia for more information on this misconception.") editors cannot reasonably be expected to consider the entry adequately referenced.Rracecarr (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could put the "fact" tag?--pokipsy76 (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it would be better to add a "see also" link as outlined above, or, maybe better yet, copy the reference from the schizophrenia article here.Rracecarr (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * RRacecarr, you have counted editors in the last few days only - there have been several more in favour of removing crap over the last few weeks. To be clear - I am not editing to make a point. I am editing only to improve the article, and I think it has helped. At the moment, it is stuffed with unsourced crap. Removing it may be against consensus over the last few days, but it is consistent with policy. Reinserting contentious material which you know to be unsourced is surely not an improvement. Your recent actions re Schizophrenia show a certain double standard, to say the least.
 * However, I don't want to damage the article by discouraging editors, though I'm not convinced that's happening. As a form of compromise, I won't delete these en masse for one week. In the meantime, I'll try to look for sources, though I don't have much time. After that, crapectomy, without mercy. I hope you feel this is more constructive. --hippo43 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How come when I do it, it's a double standard and when you do it, it's a compromise? I removed schizophrenia because I think it's fair to demand that NEW entries have sources--the editor adding the entry presumably knows something about it, or got it from somewhere, and the time when it's first added is the easiest time to source it.  It's not a double standard to ask that good but unreferenced existing material not be deleted (undoing hours worth of cumulative work), and also that new entries be sourced.  Yes I jerrymandered a bit to make the case that there's a strong consensus against you, but as you acknowledge that you did in fact act against consensus, I don't see how you can argue that it was consistent with policy.  Anyhow, thanks for giving it a week.  I hope by then we'll have found good refs for at least some stuff. Rracecarr (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What, you've never seen a hypocrite before? :) You seem to think old unsourced edits good (at least for now), new unsourced edits bad. For me, unsourced edits bad - particularly as many of the current ones won't meet the standard when they are examined closely. I think it's fair to demand that ALL entries are sourced, and don't really think moving entries from the talk page to the article after references are found is strenuous. Hours of cumulative work is great, but shouldn't be kept if it's not up to scratch. I may have gone against a very temporary consensus, but WP:V and WP:NOR are clear about unsourced stuff. Anyway, let's see what we can find. --hippo43 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me this discussion has gotten off course. Arguably the single most important policy of Wikipedia is verifiability. It is simple policy that contentious material must be reliably and verifiably sourced or it may be removed. What is contentious material? Essentially, if any editor acting in good faith questions the veracity of a statement, then by definition it is contentious. Further, if there isn't any reference supporting a statement it is undebatably unverified. Thus, if any editor not clearly acting in bad faith challenges an uncited statement, then there is no matter of fact or policy open to debate: Wikipedia policy clearly support the decision to remove the material. The question of 'community consensus' is then a straw man, as there are no issues of fact or policy that can be debated. The solution is very simple. Any contentious material that is unverified can be removed, and should only be restored with appropriate sourcing. Alternatively, if all involved editors believe it is in the article's best interest, the material can be left on the page for a reasonable amount of time to allow sourcing. However, this is not a requirement; quoting from Five pillars: "unreferenced material may be removed". If supporting references cannot be found forthwith, I would suggest moving such material to the talk page or a user page while a longer-term search for references is found. Accordingly, in the interest of facilitating cooperation and article improvement, I'll abide by the agreement Hippo43 has set forth, and after that I hope we will be able to work together in improving this article by removing unverified material and potentially userfying any of it as seems appropriate.Locke9k (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But I don't think hippo is actually questioning the veracity of a statement, just the lack of cites, which are really two different things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the deletion debate, a great deal of concern (including by many voting keep) was put forth over the perception that many of the items in this list are not really common misconceptions. Since "common misconception" is such a subjective term, there is automatically ample reason to doubt the veracity of any statement to the effect that something is a common misconception.  I think that that is the sense that hippo is reflecting.  However, if you still have any doubt of his motivation, I'll personally short-circuit that problem by adding that I as an editor doubt the accuracy of any claim to the effect that something is a common misconception in the absence of a study showing otherwise, because I think that it is a 'common misconception' that society is riddled by an overwhelming number of common misconceptions.  This is a topic that is inherently a magnet for OR and unbased claims, so it is very reasonable to expect that claims have adequate sourcing.  Locke9k (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I believe many of these entries are horseshit. As well as being a bloated unsourced list of personal opinions, a problem in itself, I really believe lots are untrue, and many are simply not common misconceptions. --hippo43 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One more thing, prompted by Locke's mention of 'society'. Exactly where are these misconceptions purported to be held? As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia is written for a general audience of English speakers. How many English speakers in India, for example, are struggling under the misconception that Pong was the first video game, or that the Original Six were not actually the original six teams in the NHL? Moreover, how many English speakers in the Arab world share the 'misconception' that a fatwa is a death sentence, or that Allah is a Muslim-only god? --hippo43 (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, but you did a blanket removal without giving a specific argument why you thought each particular item was incorrect. If you had said something like, "I don't think that Abner Doubleday thing is myth.  I'm reading a book on the history of baseball and it says Doubleday really did invent baseball".  Then we could have discussed it.  Since you didn't even provide a reason why you objected, there was nothing for us to even evaluate.  In any case, it is obvious by this time that you clearly removed items that were correct as several of them are now properly cited.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought my objection was clear - they are unreferenced. No 'specific argument' for their being incorrect was required. According to WP:V, being unreferenced is sufficient reason for removal. Of course some have since been supported by references - this is evidence that my approach worked, unlike tagging them and discussing. --hippo43 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, no 'discussion' was necessary. Hippo was bold and removed unsourced material, clearly stating that the reason for removal was that it was unsourced and seemed incorrect.  What discussion should there be?  Simply source the material fully and re-add it or leave it out if sources can't be found. Locke9k (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, WP:V says "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed". If you are challenging the veracity of this material, what are your specific objections on an item by item basis?  Let's keep this simple.  Can you please tell us why you thought that the Abner Doubleday item was incorrect?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quest, your argument would move the burden of proof in Wikipedia from the party making an assertion to the party disputing it. That's not how Wikipedia works.  The burden of proof is to show support for a statement to meet the level of inclusion.  In the AFD discussion for this article, a primary argument in favor of keeping this article was that all of the items are purportedly linked by a common subject - being a common misconception.  Hippo seems to be clearly asserting that he doesn't think the Doubleday item, along with a list of others, are actually  common misconceptions.  How can he get more specific than that?  Simply saying that he doesn't believe an item to be a common misconception is a specific objection, and he's not required to somehow raise this point separately for each case; there is nothing wrong with listing material that all has the same problem.  It is totally acceptable to move such material to the talk page or remove it entirely in order to prevent extensive potential errors from filling an article.  If people really want to improve the page, they should find references for the material before re-adding instead of just reverting the removal. If one of the lines in this article is truly both correct and notable and actually a common misconception, then finding supporting references should not be very hard.  If they can't be found, the material is unverifiable and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Locke9k (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First, the rationale that hippo gave when he did his mass removal last week was "Not reliably sourced as a common misconception". So, hippo was not challenging the accuracy of the items.  Hippo was challenging the lack of cites.  These are two different things.  I've read WP:V several times now, and it does not say that all material need to be sourced, only material that is challenged or likely to be challenged need to be sourced.  Burden of evidence comes into play when someone challenges the material.  But hippo did not challenge the material itself, just the lack of cites.


 * Second, if the rationale is changing to 'these items are not actually common misconceptions', I submit that this challenge is demonstratably false on an en masse basis. Since Hippo's mass removal last week, it turned out that the following items were valid:


 * The 'Black holes myth'
 * The 'airplane toilet myth'
 * The 'Christian X myth'
 * The 'Abner Doubleday myth'
 * The 'Evolution versus abiogenesis myth'


 * And it's about to be proven wrong again with the 'blind as a bat myth'


 * If someone wants to challenge an item, then do so. But they should at least give a valid reason on a per item basis. Based on the track record above, it is clear that doing a blanket removal resulted in a lot of valid material being removed.


 * Third, I find this entire debate to be a counter-productive. Time spent arguing here could be spent improving the article as several editors are trying to do so in good faith. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This topic has come up before, but I can't remember if it was this article's talk page or some other article's talk page.

As I recall, for articles like this that are compendiums of diverse facts, inline references aren't necessary if there is a wikilinked article that is sufficiently referenced to explain the fact. With such a large list of unrelated facts, the list of references would become unwieldy.

Therefore, if a common misconception is adequately explained and referenced in an associated wikilinked article, that misconception doesn't need an inline reference. The issue above regarding schizophrenia falls into this category. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quest, from WP:V - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." The entire article had been tagged 'unreferenced' for 2 years - I think that is a reasonable amount of time to allow editors to find sources.
 * Amatulic, that's not how I understand things. WP:Verifiability seems clear, though you seem to suggest there may be another policy which contradicts this - you could be roght. 'Unwieldy' is not a reason to have unreferenced articles, per WP:Abundance_and_redundancy. If the article is too big, it should be split into subject articles. There have already been examples here where editors have assumed a main article adequately references the misconception, without really checking. Moreover, there is no way of knowing if the target article is changed without constantly checking all of them. --hippo43 (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I haven't added or restored any material that didn't have a proper cite, and I did not participate in the edit war that went on last week.  If you're going to remove items, can you at least read through each one and attempt to decide on a case-by-case basis whether you think it's valid or not?  I mean, do you honestly think that the myth about "the word 'theory' in 'the theory of evolution' does not imply doubt in mainstream science regarding its validity" is inaccurate?  Because if you do, I can tell you right now that you're wrong. If evolutionary science isn't something your familiar with, leave it in.  We'll get to it as soon as we can. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please - 'if you think X, I can tell you you are wrong'. What kind of argument is that? Just find a proper reference. I don't know what you have restored personally, but others have restored large numbers of unreferenced and insufficiently referenced entries over the last few days. I did check through the entries I wanted to remove and decided on each one - that is wht I only removed some of them.
 * "If evolutionary science isn't something your familiar with, leave it in. We'll get to it as soon as we can." This is the kind of self-important rubbish that gives Wikipedia a bad name. I'll leave it in if it's referenced, otherwise it's gone. You haven't got to some of these for at least two years! --hippo43 (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't an editor 2 years ago and I have no idea who originally added what or why. What I do know is that you removed factually accurate material without providing reasons.  Even worse, it turns out that you were wrong on at least 6 or 7 items and counting.  If you are not familiar with a particular subject area, whether it be the origins of baseball or the gravitation pull of a black hole, I don't understand how you can come up with the conclusion that they were wrong.  Can you please explain your rationale of why you thought these items were wrong?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, this is very, very simple. There is no policy in Wikipedia whatsoever that supports an inherent right of inclusion for unreferenced material.  There is, however, a massive array of policy attesting to the central importance of refereces: WP:FIVE, Verifiability, Citing sources, No original research, WP, NOTE, among many, many more.  There are a host of statements in this article that are represented as "common misconceptions", with no source whatsoever to demonstrate that this is more than the opinion of the contributing editor.  Multiple editors, including hippo, myself, and many, many editors in the failed but highly contentious [|AFD] have indicated that we believe that many of these statements are not in fact 'common misconceptions' and have expressed the utmost concern that a wide range of original research and opinion is obscuring the real, verifiable facts in this article.  There is therefore no reasonable question that the subject is contentious, and there is no question that the statements in question are unreferenced. The overwhelming preponderance of Wikipedia principles therefore favors, at a minimum, removal to the talk page until such time as these claims can be sourced.  Your argument that you 'know these statements are correct' is irrelevant to any of the points above.  Your procedural argument that we must debate each statement on a line by line basis before action flies in the face of WP:BOLD, and will stymie improvement of the article.  Lets instead work to improve the article while ensuring its verifiability. Lets just create a section of the talk page explicitly for these excised statements.  For each one, put a citation requested ({fact}) template with a date.  If someone can come up with adequate supporting references, then fine, readd it.  If, say, a month goes by without them, then lets just delete it from the talk page. Locke9k (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out here, several of the items that were removed were, in fact, factually accurate and never should have been removed in the first place. I'm struggling to understand what made Hippo think that these weren't accurate.  If someone is going to challenge material that is obviously correct, is it too much to ask why? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the stuff I removed wasn't 'obviously correct'. It was dubious and unreferenced, in many cases both the 'common misconception' and the correction. Some of these may have turned out to be accurate, but it doesn't follow that they "never should have been removed in the first place." Being unreferenced is grounds for removal, so that is why. They had in many cases been tagged for years, so had been challenged for some time. --hippo43 (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The burden for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiable accuracy, not truth. The two issues are totally separate.  If Hippo did not believe that those items were verifiably accurate, he was right to remove them.  The fact that someone later was able to verify them sufficiently for inclusion does not bear on the matter.  At the time that Hippo removed them they were unverified and in his judgment may have seemed likely to be unverifiable.  Also I'm not sure what you mean by 'obviously correct'.  For something to be included in this article, it not only has to be a correct statement, it also has to be correcting a common misconception.  The [|AFD] made that very clear.  So the point is that there are presently items in this article that may be 'correct' in the sense of conveying accurate information but not 'correct' in terms of being correctly denoted as a common misconception for inclusion in this list.  It is appropriate to challenge or remove those items on that basis. Locke9k (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What I want to know is, did the removed material reference other Wikipedia articles that included good sources? If so, then the statements are referenced, just not in this article, and Hippo is free to go and add the references in. However, similar to the reason that we don't need to reference every statement in a lead section that would be referenced later, we don't need to reference every statement in this article if references to other articles that contain adequate sources are used. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again... linking to another wikipedia article is not acceptable. Material which is not referenced in this article is not referenced. --hippo43 (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While that is true, I'll have to agree with Amatulic that if the linked article does have valid references demonstrating that the statement is a common misconception and that the correction is accurate, that the best thing to do would be to try to simply add those references here rather than removing the content. Certainly you are not required to, but I think its the best way of handling that sort of situation to improve the article.  If you don't have the time to go through the article looking just then, maybe leave the line in until you do.  Its just best when there is an obvious way to reference something to do so rather than to remove.  Whats more, there are lots of claims in the article that have no referencing whatsoever for the claim that they are common misconceptions, so maybe those should be the first things considered for removal. Locke9k (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it would be constructive to check out specific articles to assess their sources and copy them over. Other editors are free to do that. I moved the offending articles to the talk page, so this is not difficult. However, I felt very strongly that this article was a disgrace. I chose to spend my time taking out sub-standard material, rather than getting bogged down chasing references and leaving countless poor quality entries in the article. --hippo43 (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * {ec}Sorry, I should have said "obvious to anyone familiar with the subject matter". The Abner Doubleday myth is common knowledge to anyone follows baseball. If you don't follow baseball, fine, but what I don't understand is what rationale hippo used to think it was wrong. Also, WP:V does not say that all material needs a reference, only material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reference. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Quest, you seem to be making a totally procedural argument here. Once Hippo challenged the material, it qualified as being challenged.  Obviously the person supporting inclusion doesn't get to decide whether the challenge is 'valid'- if that were the case nothing would be considered challenged.  So please lets try to move past that and get to the meat of the issue.  The point is that Wikipedia is not supposed to rely upon things like 'baseball fans know this is true'.  If it really is such a widespread belief among baseball fans, and if it really is incorrect, both of those facts should be reliably sourced somewhere.  I, as a non-baseball fan, shouldn't have to 'take your word for it' so to speak.  Its not the case that only experts on a subject are allowed to challenge something in Wikipedia, because 'only an expert has the contextual information to assess this'.  A Wikipedia article should be verifiable and informative to a person who is not an expert. Locke9k (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But several editors are trying to add cites to the article. I've only been editing this article for a week.  Please, give me some time.  I will try to get cites in for as many of the science and history related items as I can.  If, after that, we can't find reliable sources, I'm fine with removing items. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't see, however, that leaving unsourced material in the article while we seek sources helps the credibility of the article. The challeneged material has all been moved to this talk page. I don't accept that it is in any way difficult to move it into the article when sources are supplied. --hippo43 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I updated the 'bats are blind' myth. I removed a cite that was weak, added two more cites, removed the part of the item that was contentious, and reworded the item to better reflect the wording of the referenced cites.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I updated the 'evolution is a theory' item to include 3 cites. I also changed the link from Evolution as theory and fact to Objections_to_evolution since these are actually two different issues. When linking to a subsection of another article, does it matter what text to use name the link?  Should the text that appears in the article be the name of the article or the name of the subsection? IOW, "Objections to evolution" or "Evolution is just a theory, not a fact"?  I used the latter as I think it's more descriptive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki doesn't mean Wikipedia
I know, a bit self referential - but it is the first thing I thought when I saw the page. Cheers, MarkDilley (talk)

Section for contested material lacking citations
To try to smooth out the debate presently occurring on this page over contested unreferenced material, I am creating a rather unusual section for the talk page. If you remove an entry from the article due to it being contested and lacking sufficient referenced support, please copy and paste it here, adding a tag. This should only be for simple cases where there is obviously a lack of referential support for one of two things. A) The factual accuracy of the 'correction' or B) The assertion that the issue represents a "common misconception". Please don't turn this into a place for debate. It should just me a list. Just paste the material here, put an A, B, or both before it to help editors know what kind of support it needs, and leave it alone. On the other hand, if you can add sufficient references to an item on this list to merit re-inclusion, please add the newly referenced line back into the article and remove it from this list. Or, if you see that the reference needed tag has been there for over a month, we can assume that it is unverifiable for now and remove it from the talk page list. I recognize that this is unusual for a talk page, and if someone can suggest a more appropriate page to use for this purpose that would be fine, but we really need a place like this for now to facilitate improvement. Locke9k (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the first contentious unsourced item to start the list


 * A,B: Michael Phelps has not won more Olympic medals than any other athlete: Larissa Latynina has this distinction, having earned 18 medals in comparison with Phelps's total of 16 (as of 2008). Phelps, rather, has won the most total gold medals as well as the most total medals at a single Olympic Games, and is tied with two other athletes for the most individual golds at a single Games. Locke9k (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Locke9k (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A,B: The claim that individuals with a different number of chromosomes can never produce viable offspring is false—Przewalski's Horse, for example, can produce viable offspring with the common horse, despite a different number of chromosomes. Such hybrids are also common in plants.

Debate about the above list
Since people seem insistent on using this as a debate ground rather than as an organizing tool for improving the article, I have created a separate subsection for debate to keep the list well organized and accessible. Locke9k (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That first one is easily verified by looking at List of multiple Olympic gold medalists and its associated references. At least part of the second sentence is factual, and should not have been wholesale-deleted due to one "fact" tag that could have easily been investigated. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tagging is not required. At the risk of repeating myself, the entire article had been tagged for some time. I don't believe it is a common misconception that he has won more medals than anyone else. That point was not referenced in this article. If I am busy cleaning up the crap that has filled up this article, the onus is not on me to follow links to other wikipedia articles and look through references there.--hippo43 (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Hippo. I don't believe that this is a common misconception and there is no reference here to demonstrate otherwise. Locke9k (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment was about the sourcing. I also agree this isn't a "common" misconception. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard this one, but admittedly I really don't know much about Michael Phelps. My rather short attempt at a Google search failed to find any good (or bad for that matter) cites on this which suggests to me that this one can be removed, but maybe someone else will have better luck.  FYI, I am focusing on the science and history myths as these are the subject areas that interest me the most (apart from baseball).  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The second example is a similar situation. Factual sentences, followed by one statement about plants that could have been deleted instead of removing the entire entry. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You've already made it clear that you don't agree with my approach. You are free to find sources for entries you think should be kept. --hippo43 (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean 'factual'? I don't believe that these kinds of horses can interbreed.  I don't believe that they have different number of chromosomes.  Source it if you want to prove it to me and keep in in Wikipedia. Locke9k (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean 'factual', and your argument from personal incredulity has no bearing here. Deleting a factual statement out of laziness instead of spending 15 seconds on Google to find a reference like this is inexcusable ("it is a different species from the domesticated horse, having 66 chromosomes as compared to the 64 of the domestic horse.... crosses between the Przewalski and domestic horses result in a fertile hybrid.") ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Inexcusable? Really? So is inserting an unreferenced statement out of laziness instead of spending 15 seconds on Google to find a reference, which would actually make it admissable to Wikipedia, also inexcusable? An argument from personal incrdulity sounds a lot like WP:V - if an editor doesn't believe something, it needs to be referenced. --hippo43 (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is inexcusable laziness to insert an unreferenced statement that makes dubious claims, but that isn't what was done here. You may consider it lazy, but then you would advocate compounding the problem by deleting a factual statement?
 * If an editor doesn't believe something that's known (or at least plausible) to everyone else, then perhaps that editor could spend a few seconds looking it up, as I just did.
 * I agree the burden of proof shouldn't be shifted, but we're all here to improve this project, not degrade it. I have often found references for things where I could have lazily slapped on a "fact" tag or deleted the unreferenced statement, because sometimes what it takes to improve articles is to assume good faith in other's edits and help them out. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Except these claims are dubious, at least to myself and Locke, as detailed above. And they were unreferenced. That you believe them to be true is irrelevant if they are not sourced. --hippo43 (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you find any source documenting that the chromosome crossbreeding issue is actually a "common misconception"? I moved it here for two reasons.  One was that its factual accuracy was unsupported.  The second was that there was no evidence demonstrating it to be a common misconception.  On the second issue, I can find no support.  Locke9k (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Genetics isn't my forte', but I've never heard this one, nor was I able to find any sources to cite. That's not to say they don't exist, but there is something to be said about this being relatively straight forward.  If it takes 5 hours to find a cite, then maybe it's not such a popular misconception after all.  Personally I'm unwilling to spend 5 hours trying to find a cite for something I've never heard.  I'm moving on to a new one, although I have no problem with giving other editors a few days to try to find a cite.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Items I plan on working on
I've spent the last week working on the items that I thought to be factually correct, but just not cited and I've been able to fix almost all the major ones that I thought should stay in the article. I plan on working on the following items:

Probably true, just not cited:
 * Chameleons Resolved (remove contentious statement, moved cite to end of item)
 * Neutron bombs exclusively affect living tissue Unresolved (validity in doubt, did not find sources to cite)

Possibly true, need to check for validity and cites:
 * There is no cure for split ends or damaged hair Resolved (reworded and added 3 cites)
 * Biological evolution is not necessarily slow Unresolved (validity uncertain, did not find sources to cite)
 * Johannes Gutenberg was not the first to invent the printing press Unresolved. This appears to be valid, but cannot find a good source for this. I recommend giving other editors a few days to find a source.  If none can be found, remove it from the article.
 * "Miracle on Ice" in the 1980 Winter Olympics clinched the gold medal Resolved (added 2 cites, removed unsupported phrase)

No idea if it's true, will check for validity and cites:
 * Daddy Long-Legs Spider is the most venomous spider in the world Resolved (existing cites were fine, removed 1 contentious statement)
 * claim that evolution makes no meaningful predictions is not true Unresolved (validity uncertain, did not find sources to cite)
 * Albert Einstein was neither religious nor an atheist Resolved (added 3 cites and reworded slightly)

If I do one a day, I should be done in about 10 days. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work, Quest. If you have time, try to make sure to look for references supporting that each of these is also actually a common misconception.  There are a number that I think are technically accurate but may not really be common misconceptions.  I'll see if I can find anything to help.  Thanks- Locke9k (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, if I can't find at least one decent source that explicitly states that it's a common misconception (or something similar), I will remove it from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've completed my work on the list above. There were 3 items that I was unable to find good cites for.  I left them in the article in case other editors want to take a stab at them.  Thank you to Hippo and Locke for allowing me the time to find cites for these items.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been a couple weeks so I've removed 'Neutron bombs exclusively affect living tissue' per the discussion above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion from another editor
On the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk, another editor gave the following suggestion which I will post here: "May I also humbly suggest that the points given in the article be presented in a structured way to avoid confusion? For example, one of the points says "Snapping or cracking one's knuckles does not cause arthritis.[59]". Now there will be a confusion for the reader whether the statement is a myth (i.e. snapping the knuckles does cause arthritis) or whether the statement is a myth buster (i.e. snapping the knuckles does not cause arthritis). May be we can add the word Myth, state the myth and then explain why it is a myth.". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

different species can breed and produce fertile offspring
Boa constrictor and Anaconda (Eunectes murinus) can produce offspring together. Notice that these are in two different genera. I'm not sure if these offspring are fertile, but I believe I have heard of different species of reptiles breeding and producing fertile offspring. I lost interest in reptiles more than 10 years ago, so unfortunately I don't remember more details. "Boaconda" should turn up results in a google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.138.222 (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok; Africanised Honey bee or killer bee was taken from two distinct species [] and they reproduce. Also cross breed Dogs would be a similar example...an actual list would need to be produced of all the cross species... Or do you mean can a Elephant breed with a Tiger? which i would state with out any evidence no. So i guess the ultimate answer would be along the lines of as long as the diffrent species come from a similar genus then yes it is possible. If they are so totaly diffrent then not with out biological manipulation(nothing is impossible but perhaps Improbable)Chromagnum (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Ultimate Sin"
There seems to be some confusion about the identity of the "ultimate sin" in Christianity. Many people believe that suicide is the only unforgivable sin, yet the Bible states that denying the Holy Spirit is. I think this would be a good additon to this page but am not confidant or expert enough to write it. Could someone with more knowledge than I have please prepare something? thank you. 165.91.64.196 (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)RKH

Chameleon changing colors not as camouflage?
I beg to differ. There is a video (Chameleon-Sunglasses) in which a man would put some green-framed sunglasses under his chameleon, & it would turn green. He repeated this process with many different-colored sunglasses, red, blue, black, purple, & the chameleon changed to the color of each, & very rapidly.

He even put several glasses in a row under the chameleon, & different parts of its skin turned into the very same colors right under it. Breathtaking really. But I think that pretty much means that chameleons DO change colors for camouflage (whether voluntary or involuntary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.36.26 (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've raised your concern at our Science Reference Desk here . A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * see Reliable sources and No original research. Anyway, that video looks photoshopped to me. Don't believe everything you see on YouTube (or other, similar sites). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Per discussion at the Science Reference Desk, I am removing this item. The video is not a reputable source, but neither is the reference used to support this item, and it is easy to find recent reputable sources (such as this) that state that color changes  do serve a camouflage function.  There is some dispute about whether this is their most important function, which is probably what led to the confusion, but there does not seem to be any serious dispute in the scientific literature about the claim that camouflage is one of their functions. Looie496 (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The sunglasses video is advertising for Ray-Ban. Their site doesn't allow linking, but if you go to RayBan.Com, click on "Features" and then "Never Hide Films", you'll this video and a bunch of other videos done in similar style. Including one where a cow gives birth to a full grown human who happens to be wearing sunglasses.
 * So I think it's safe to completely discount the sunglasses/chameleon video. APL (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

neutron bomb
http://tech.mit.edu/V112/N23/hersch.23o.html
 * To solve this problem, defense planners developed the enhanced radiation weapon, dubbed the neutron bomb. This device, a modified midget H-bomb, had the nifty quality of emitting most of its detonation energy as blast and prompt radiation, with very little of the radioactive fallout that tends to linger after the explosion. In battle, you could drop one on a column of tanks -- immediate neutron radiation would kill most of the tank crews almost instantly, but the meager blast and minimal fallout would keep local structures (also known as buildings) intact, allowing American forces to move into the area very quickly. Dubbed a "capitalist" weapon for its ability to kill people but leave buildings standing, the neutron bomb became held up in political squabbles in the early 1980s. For stopping lava flows in 1992, though, they may be perfect.
 * Can it do this, or not? They squabbled about it for years, so surely some do believe it is possible.  I heard this somewhere previously, and a quick Google shows other mentions of this as well.  Notice the link is from MIT, that nations greatest tech school.   D r e a m Focus  17:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)