Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 9

Testosterone continued
I've restored this item as it seem to describe a common misconception and it's sourced to a peer-reviewed academic journal. If there's a valid reason to omit this, please let me know. I saw the previous discussion and reworded it to more closely match the source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus was reached to remove this, for the reasons listed in the discussion above. Per WP:BRD, before restoring it, you need to reach consensus here, so I've removed it. A quick search online returns numerous similar articles with varying explanations of the relationship between testosterone and aggression. Please do not restore the entry until/unless a new consensus is reached here. --hippo43 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the previous discussion only featured one editor besides yourself, so I'm not sure where you're getting this much ballyhooed consensus.  If you believe that Nature - one of the most highly prestigious academic journals in the world is wrong - fine, then cite your sources.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm an inclusionist when it comes to this article but I'm not sure whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to counter the conception people have about testosterone. If we can establish that, then I would change my !vote on this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to judge which scientific evidence is "sufficient". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quest, there were two other editors - Axelboldt and Lepidoptera, and the consensus was reflected in other editors' silence since. If you can persuade editors that your view is right, and outweighs the reasons explained above, there will be a new consensus and a new version can go in. My own view, FWIW, is that this isn't convincing (or well-sourced) as a common misconception and the scientific evidence is ambiguous. As I wrote above ("This may be worth a re-write to make it more measured, but I'm not convinced there is a single common belief here, or that it has been conclusively disproved, rather than just qualified") I'm open to being persuaded if there are good sources which shed more light on both points. --hippo43 (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry; I miscounted. You're right, there were two other editors.  In any case, what's the rationale behind not for this content?  Saying that the scientific evidence is not sufficient or convincing is not a valid rationale here on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia's policies on Neutral point of view and verifiability are not negotiable here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Saying that the scientific evidence is not sufficient or convincing is not a valid rationale here on Wikipedia"? Yes it is. NPOV requires that we proportionately reflect what appears in reliable sources - based on the range of reliable sources available on the topic, there was not consensus to include the bold statement that was in the article (ie there was insufficient evidence for the debunking). Likewise, WP:V (and WP:RS) depend on consensus among editors about the reliability of sources. In this case the evidence for the existence of a clear, widespread misconception was not considered compelling.
 * My own view is as I stated above: "For me, there are several problems with this one - recentism, reliance on a single, very limited study, the self-promotion and claims made by its author, and the exaggeration of the study's significance by the media. Not surprisingly, journalists don't use moderate language in covering this sort of stuff - writing something like "one recent study suggests that the relationship between testosterone and aggressive behaviour may not be as clear as some people have assumed" is not as sexy as depicting a more polarised situation with words like 'debunk' and 'myth'."
 * "The study's author's statements about how this "proves" such and such are not worth much - we need the views of acknowledged experts in the field about the significance of this work. Has there been a shift in consensus among the scientific community about the relationship between testosterone and human behaviour? I don't know that there has, and haven't found any reliable sources yet which really cover this - the exact role of testosterone in risk-taking, physical aggression, anti-social behaviour and recklessness may be more nuanced than was previously portrayed, but they are evidently still considered to be correlated."
 * "This may be worth a re-write to make it more measured, but I'm not convinced there is a single common belief here, or that it has been conclusively disproved, rather than just qualified." --hippo43 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Quest here. The source is reliable, it backs up the claim, so WP:V is met. NPOV only means that all viewpoints should be reflected, not that one cannot be present (unless you want to argue Nature has started publishing fringe theories). In regards to the previous discussion about this entry, I don't see a clear consensus established there because it is only three editors and is based entirely on silence which makes it weak (WP:SILENCE). I'm restoring Quest's reworded entry as I see absolutely no reason for it to not be in the article. Rpvdk (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BRD, Quest was bold, his edit was reverted and it is now being discussed. There is no consensus (yet) to restore the entry. You're right that the consensus established above involved a small number of editors, but there was no objection from anyone in a busy discussion page, and this is a regularly edited article which has attracted plenty of interest since. WP:SILENCE is just an essay; the relevant policy, WP:CONSENSUS, is clear - "If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus at this time." (Emphasis mine) Quest has essentially proposed a re-write - if a new consensus emerges, as it easily could, then we can restore the material; until then, it should stay out. --hippo43 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "NPOV requires that we proportionately reflect what appears in reliable sources - based on the range of reliable sources available on the topic" But you have not provided any reliable sources saying that this is not a common misperception.  Not one, even though I asked you to.


 * "Likewise, WP:V (and WP:RS) depend on consensus among editors about the reliability of sources." Umm...Nature is a peer-reviewed academic journal.  Are you honestly trying to saying Nature is not a reliable source?


 * "For me, there are several problems with this one - recentism, reliance on a single, very limited study" Then provide some sources that disprove Nature's article.


 * "the self-promotion and claims made by its author" This is nonsense.  The author's name isn't even mentioned in our article.


 * "the exaggeration of the study's significance by the media." What exageration?  Do you have any reliable sources to support this accusation?


 * Since you do not appear to have a valid reason to ommit this content, I am restoring it. If you can provide a valid rationale, I am all ears.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * One study does not disprove a "misconception". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, all it takes is one study to disprove a misconception. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not if that one study runs contrary to other studies. But that still leaves open the question of whether it's a common misconception, i.e. whether it's commonly believed that testosterone triggers aggression. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"One popular idea about testosterone is that it leads to more aggressive and less cooperative behavior in people." Where's the evidence that this is a common belief, first of all? And that has to go beyond one study claiming it's a common belief and then "disproving" it. That's probably the rationale behind the "at least two sources" stipulation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's in the very first sentence of the cited source: "The popular idea that testosterone always makes people more aggressive has been debunked by researchers". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's one source, making that claim as justification for their study. Where are the multiple reliable sources asserting that this is a common misconception? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't need multiple sources to say something in Wikipedia, you know that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This article stipulates multiple sources, and for reasons just such as this. I claim, with no supporting evidence (just like the first sentence of that article you cited) that it's still a common misconception that the world is flat. I present faultless evidence that the world is round. Therefore, I can post it in this article? Sorry, but no. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "This article stipulates multiple sources". It says that at the top of the article, but this has no basis in Wikipedia policy.
 * "I claim, with no supporting evidence (just like the first sentence of that article you cited)".  I don't even know how to respond to this one.  The fact that a reliable source says this is in itself evidence.  The threshold of inclusion here on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.   Bugs, can you go to the Nature article and verify that it says "The popular idea that testosterone always makes people more aggressive has been debunked by researchers"?  If so, then WP:V has been met.
 * "I present faultless evidence that the world is round." I don't care about what evidence you manage to come up.  That's called original research and it's not allowed here on Wikipedia.  Instead, we're supposed to follow reliable sources.   Nature is a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally staying out of this debate, but I want to make a point about a frequent problem on this talk page that I believe is occurring in this section. It is not unusual for someone on this talk page to refer to a source that dispels a possible misconception (e.g., "the misconception that human blood in veins is blue has been disproved by source X"), but that same editor doesn't seem to get it that the problem for this article is not just that an idea is not true, but it is equally or more important to demonstrate that the misconception is widespread (e.g., "source X identifies a widespread misconception that human blood can be blue"). I think that's where the "multiple sources" idea is important. Yes, generally Wikipedia does not require multiple sources (unless a source is challenged), but this article is unique in that sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a misconception is widespread. I favor the idea of multiple sources to confirm that a misconception is common, especially when it is challenged on this talk page. And how widespread the testosterone misconception is certainly has been challenged here. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @Quest "You have not provided any reliable sources saying that this is not a common misperception. Not one, even though I asked you to." Of course there aren't sources which claim that something is not a common misconception, just as there aren't sources which claim the Statue of Liberty is not made of marzipan. The question is whether there are reliable sources which do link testosterone to aggression.


 * "Are you honestly trying to saying Nature is not a reliable source?" Yes - 'Nature News' is not an independent source on the significance of a study which Nature (the journal) publishes. The Nature News article is a puff piece talking up a study which appears in Nature - it is not in any way a neutral source on the study's standing within the scientific community. The Nature News blurb is not a peer-reviewed publication. Can you point us toward independent secondary sources which discuss the significance of this single study in scientific circles? Moreover, whether Nature is a reliable source on what is or isn't a common misconception is to be determined by consensus. Does it have some expertise in the field of misconceptions?


 * "The author's name isn't even mentioned in our article." I didn't say it was mentioned in the wikipedia article. The claims in Nature News about the significance of the study, made by its author, are self-serving and are not a secondary source.


 * More importantly, WP:MEDRS applies here. It states clearly "In general, medical information in Wikipedia articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources (emphasis added) whenever possible. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care, but there remains potential for misuse" and it supports using reviews of the literature to reflect broader scientific thinking. If there are inependent secondary sources, such as literature reviews, which state that this belief is both widespread and generally viewed as false among experts on the subject, then I would support including this example.


 * MEDRS continues "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim." I don't currently have access to the journal article. Could you point out any passages which cover the extent of this misconception, and what data they used to determine that it is a widespread misunderstanding? --hippo43 (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You admit that you have no reliable sources to back up your position. Good, we agree that you have no reliable sources to back you up.  Now as to your claim that Nature isn't a reliable source, I believe that you couldn't be more mistaken.  Not only is Nature a reliable source, it is among the most prestigious journals in the world.  If you don't believe me, I'd be happy to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard and let uninvolved editors determine whether Nature is reliable or not.   As to the issue of a secondary source, the article cited,  is a secondary source; the primary source being the study itself, so that objection is answered as well.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the reliability of that magazine in general, you're taking both the claim that it's a common misconception, and the proof that it isn't true, from the same source. That's not kosher. You need to provide independent evidence that it is, in fact, a common misconception. You can't take the word of the one conducting the test. That's the point I was making about the flat earth. I could provide a source that says the earth is not flat. That does not prove that the earth being flat is a misconception even the falsifier claims it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So you're saying you can't use the same source for two different claims? That's ridiculous.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. They're making a claim and then providing proof refuting the claim. Where is the evidence that the claim that it's a common misconception is valid? Just because they claim it is, don't make it so. They might just be hyping their test results. For that matter, where's the independent source that examines their test results? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Where is the evidence that the claim that it's a common misconception is valid? Just because they claim it is, don't make it so." Actually, on Wikipedia it does make it so.  Bugs, you've been around long enough to know that the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, right?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. The item is reliably sourced, WP:V has been met. NPOV does not apply, it only means that other viewpoints can also be present, not that this item can't. Those are the core pillars. The "single study" argument, which I think is flawed, I have addressed by bringing in new sources (which Hippo removed). These are from 1995, so it's not from the same study, and they also mention the misconception.  and a third from 2003: . Quote from the last article: "There is a popular misconception that aggressive, hostile, angry, violent men are that way because of testosterone, and the fact is that they are not," by a Dr. Bain, a University of Toronto professor of medicine.
 * If need be, the item could be reworded to match one of the sources more closely, but the core policies have been met and that should be it. Rpvdk (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is the evidence that "testosterone causes aggression" is widely believed? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've moved your comment down so my previous response isn't split in two. The quouted text says right there it is a "popular misconception". That, by definition, makes it widespread. Rpvdk (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Those three links are useful, especially for all the hedging and question marks. Hardly definitive, unless you want another article "List of popular ideas that may be misconceptions." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quest, If you don't want to reply to what I actually wrote, please at least read what I write before you start typing. I'm not trying to propose an alternative view, so have no need to cite reliable sources. Try a quick web search to find all manner of reliable sources on the relationship between testosterone and aggression.


 * You have shown in the past that you will reflexively disagree with my position on discussions over this article. This time I think you need to take a moment to think things through. You've shown in previous discussions that you're an intelligent person. I'm sure it's not really your view that Nature News is an independent secondary source on the scientific significance of a primary source published by the same company, to the standard required by WP:MEDRS. --hippo43 (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is utterly ludicrous. Nature News is a reliable secondary source basing itself on a study and even mentions peer review (comments from an expert in the field). WP:MEDRS is meant for in-depth articles about various medical conditions so it doesn't really apply here, and even if it did, it explicitly mentions Nature as a reliable source. Additionally, the issue of whether or not this is a misconception certainly doesn't need a medical standard of sourcing.
 * In the interest of progress, I've dug up another source stating the misconception and will restore the item with the added source. Rpvdk (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS relates to information, not articles ("Therefore, it is vital that biomedical information in articles be based on reliable published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge"), so it applies here. Consensus determines whether particular sources are reliable on any particular point. Does this one study and accompanying blurb "accurately reflect current medical knowledge"? That is open to debate.
 * Far from supporting conclusions based on a single primary source, MEDRS states "These guidelines supplement the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources with specific attention to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related aspects of all articles. Ideal sources for these aspects include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies." (emphasis mine)
 * There is no consensus to restore this. While the discussion is ongoing, please quit edit-warring. --hippo43 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me in the light of day that I've been mis-stating myself a bit. What's needed is evidence that it is "widely believed". One author saying so and then going on to refute the premise of the claim that it's "widely believed" is self-serving and hence insufficient. Most everyone knows that "testosterone" is often used when commenting on aggressiveness. Wide usage does not demonstrate that it's actually believed. We talk about the sun rising and setting, yet we know that's an illusion; it's just a convenient metaphor. So the "widely believed" premise might be false in and of itself; it might be nothing more than a joke that everyone understands; hence the study may be interesting for it's own sake, but that's not enough to make it relevant for this article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) I think this article is better off without the testosterone item. It's hard to manufacture a "common misconception" and a clear "it's not true" statement out of such a complex piece of physiology, where what is described as a misconception is in fact partly true, and the refutation is couched in "it all depends" terms. Nature News is certainly a reliable source, but that is beside the point. The problem is that neither the misconception nor its refutation is clear-cut enough. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed Quest's latest attempt to force this in. There is, at least for now, no consensus to include this entry. Continuing to shoehorn it in without further discussion is edit-warring. The additional sources and text added by Quest made this even less clear, both the "misconception" and the explanation. --hippo43 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Per Snalwibma, leave it out for now. --John (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The item is now supported by Nature, The New York Times, Scientific American and Discovery Magazine - all reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)


 * Quite the contrary. The Times and other sources pointed out by Rpvdk are filled with qualifications like "may be". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I reworded the entry to better reflect the sources. Please examine my rewrite - sentence by sentence - and let me know which specific parts you think don't match the sources.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The statement "always leads to more aggressive and less cooperative behavior in people" is not the way I've ever heard it said. Excessive aggressiveness on the part of men has been linked with testosterone, at least facetiously, but that's not the same thing as saying it "always leads to" it. The question at this point is whether it's appropriate to include "may be" stuff in this article, vs. "for sure" stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On an article like this I'd say we have to stick with "for sure" stuff, hence this does not qualify. --John (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Bugs, that may be the way you remember it, but that's just your personal experience. The article clearly says, "The popular idea that testosterone always makes people more aggressive has been debunked by researchers."(emphasis mine). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you can think of a better way to word it, then go ahead and suggest it. Right now, the current wording accurately reflects what the sources say.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * At the very least, the "always" has to go. If the sources say "always", shame on them. "Always remember to never say 'always' or 'never'" is an old writers' axiom. The main issue, though, is that the stories about the subject that aren't written by the researchers themselves are filled with qualifications like "may be". So the tests are not definitive the way all or most of the info in this article is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Are there any other changes that you would make? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do "possible" misconceptions belong in this article? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Quest, can you explain which passages of these added sources (a) document a misconception that is widespread, and (b) explain the truth behind it?

From Scientific American, the headline itself is interesting - "Testosterone Alone Does Not Cause Violence" (emphasis mine in each case). It goes on to say "researchers expected an increase in testosterone levels to inevitably lead to more aggression, and this didn't reliably occur." So researchers expected more aggression - not the same as a widespread misconception at all; and this didn't reliably occur - not exactly a watertight debunking.

Published in 2007, it states "the latest research about testosterone and aggression indicates that there's only a weak connection between the two". Not "no connection". The article also says "castration experiments demonstrate that testosterone is necessary for violence ..." and two of the experts you didn't quote said "testosterone has a facilitative effect on aggression" and "the causal arrow goes both ways".

The sentence that sums it up for me - "No one really knows the answer..." This article neither documents a specific widespread misconception nor clearly debunks one.

From the NYT: "testosterone may not be the dread "hormone of aggression"", "The commonly held belief that testosterone produces antisocial behavior "may be a misconception"", "its influence on the brain and behavior remains largely a matter of creative speculation" and "as for the human studies, they are contradictory and open to various interpretations."

The Discover article is very interesting, but AFAICT it doesn't document a common misconception, or offer a clear 'that's not true' statement - it all depends, apparently.

What is the reliably-sourced misconception here? Where is the proof that it exists and is widespread? Where is the clear explanation of the truth from a reliable medical source? --hippo43 (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. It's the very first sentence in the article by Nature: "The popular idea that testosterone always makes people more aggressive has been debunked by researchers."  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll ask again. Can you explain which passages of these added sources (a) document a misconception that is widespread, and (b) explain the truth behind it? --hippo43 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How about the 2003 article: also published at  . Quote from the article: "There is a popular misconception that aggressive, hostile, angry, violent men are that way because of testosterone, and the fact is that they are not," by a Dr. Bain, a University of Toronto professor of medicine. The article goes on to describe how the misconception may come from coverage about steroid use, and also explains some other (physical) effects which are not in doubt. A different article at NewScientist has another usable quote:  says "Almost everybody believes that testosterone has these aggression-enhancing effects," Perhaps we could rewrite the entry to quote this professor? Rpvdk (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Except the sources provided by Quest show that the picture isn't nearly so clear, and the New Scientist article you linked to actually says "some of testosterone's alleged effects may be all in the mind ... This platitude may be true in some situations, but not all." It goes on to say that in another study, testosterone did make men act more greedily! Looked at together, the sources provided so far do not support a single widespread misconception and a clear alternative explanation which has scientific consensus. WP:MEDRS seems written with exactly this kind of situation in mind. What do academic reviews of the literature say on the subject? What do medical textbooks say?


 * If I had to sum this up, it seems like some people think testosterone causes aggression, whereas it now looks like testosterone (maybe) actually causes status-seeking behaviour. Which sometimes means aggression. It seems like there are a couple of editors here trying to synthesise a common misconception out of several sources referring to different studies and slightly different views of testosterone for the sake of adding one more entry to this article. There simply isn't a clear-cut misconception here. --hippo43 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought high testosterone caused aggressive behavior. So did a bunch of people when I asked around the office. Sounds like a fairly common misconception. Is there not a thing called common sense? The key here is that it's a COMMON misconceptions meaning many but not all people believe so. AQFK sources supply this evidence.85.76.4.154 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 85.76.4.154, thanks for the comment, but "a bunch of people" in your office is neither a reliable source nor a scientific poll. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are probably adequate to represent that it's a common belief, but they do not definitively prove that it's a "misconception". Too many "if", "maybe", "sort of", etc. in those studies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2003 article I linked above has a quote: "There is a popular misconception that aggressive, hostile, angry, violent men are that way because of testosterone, and the fact is that they are not," and the NewScientist article has the following quote: "Almost everybody believes that testosterone has these aggression-enhancing effects". These are direct quotes that the misconception is in fact a misconception, and that it is widely believed. As Wikipedia editors we don't get to decide which sources are right and wrong, we only need to satisfy WP:V. The other sources don't contradict these anyway, the differences are mostly semantics. The reliability of the sources is not in question, WP:V has been met; because those core policies have been met I don't see any reason not to include this section in the article. Rpvdk (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree - these are very selective quotes which don't represent the full picture portrayed by the sources. As Bugs has said, there are too many qualifiers in all of these sources. --hippo43 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the sources are not worded quite as boldly but they certainly don't contradict each other. We've met WP:V. Which policy does this item violate in your view? Rpvdk (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What it violates is the core premise of the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * According to your recent edit to this article, the core premise of the article is about common conceptions which are "factually incorrect". The popular idea that testosterone always results in aggression is clearly factually incorrect.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When the sources are full of "ifs" and "maybes" and various qualifications, it is not valid to assert unequivocally that the testosterone stereotype is factually incorrect. It "may be" incorrect is not the same as "it is incorrect". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's obviously incorrect. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe. --hippo43 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not at all obvious. The sources say it "may be" incorrect under some circumstances. Furthermore, notice I said "stereotype". I'm not not even convinced it's a common "belief", but just one of those "things people say". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, the situation is more complex than simplistic notion that "Testosterone = aggression" which is what this item is attempting to explain. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But the real point is that it's a lot more complicated than "Testosterone ≠ aggression". this article isn't 'List of complex situations'. There isn't a common misconception here. --hippo43 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nature disagrees with you, and on Wikipedia, we follow reliable sources, not your own personal opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually we follow lots of policies, including consensus. Discussion is used to determine what sources are reliable on a particular point, and what to conclude from the range of sources on offer. For medical matters, WP:MEDRS also applies. You do not have consensus to include this material, please let it go. --hippo43 (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You have to provide a valid reason why you disagree. WP:MEDRS is an ideal, not a minimum requirement.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We seem to just be going in circles here. Shall we take this to the reliable sources noticeboard? Will you give up your objections if they agree the sources are reliable? Rpvdk (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course not. I agree that most of the sources provided are, taken individually, reliable. They just don't say quite what you and Quest want them to say. --hippo43 (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. The sources don't say it's an unqualified misconception. Hence, it doesn't belong in the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with what I "want" them to say, they say exactly this: "There is a popular misconception that aggressive, hostile, angry, violent men are that way because of testosterone, and the fact is that they are not," and "Almost everybody believes that testosterone has these aggression-enhancing effects". We've established that the sources are reliable, and we have met WP:V. Are there any other objections (based on policy)? Rpvdk (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that you've got a couple of sound bites along with a lot of uncertainty about this alleged "misconception". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any uncertainty in those sources, and as editors it's not our place to play out sources against each other anyway. We have direct quotes fulfilling the requirements of the article and meeting policy. If you see any other reason (based in policy) that would necessitate keeping this out please advise, otherwise I'll restore it. Rpvdk (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You do, and it will get reverted. The sources are filled with qualifiers like "maybe" and "under some conditions". They fail to demonstrate what this article alleges to be, namely a list of common misconceptions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's put it another way: The articles say it may be a misconception. If the title of this article were "List of common possible misconceptions", you might be onto something. But that's not what the article is, it's definite misconceptions. And your picking out someone who says it is, while other sources say otherwise, demonstrates that it's not at all certain, and thus disqualifies it from this particular article. Now, if you want to bring up this debate in the testosterone article, that would be a different matter. It could belong there. But not here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason for threats to revert. I want to see a policy-based objection that would necessitate keeping this out, if there is one. The newscientist article does open with "may be all in the mind" but then has a very firm quote later on (which linked before). We don't argue semantics, there is a direct quote there which we can use.
 * I wasn't even the editor who added this item in the first place, but it is sourced and verifiable so it should stay. Content removal has a good guideline, it says that good faith edits should remain in the article unless they are patent nonsense. Sourced and appropriate content almost never qualifies for removal. Rpvdk (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. One policy, or at least an expectation, is that any article content has to fit the premise of the article! This item does not. The sources fail to demonstrate that it's unequivocally a misconception. "Possible" misconception doesn't cut it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The quote above is quite clear: "There is a popular misconception that aggressive, hostile, angry, violent men are that way because of testosterone, and the fact is that they are not,". No ifs or buts. If other sources don't state it quite as boldly, that's fine but not cause for removal as we don't get to play out sources against each other as editors, we only need the item it to be verifiable to a RS. Rpvdk (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case we DO have to "play the sources against each other", because this article is about unequivocal, certain misconceptions, not "possible" misconceptions. Since the sources don't agree with each other, there's enough doubt to keep it out of this list. If you want to add these references to the testosterone article, that could be fine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The scope and intent of this article
It seems to me this article's title and lede may be at odds with some of its content. The first sentence (when I last looked) says the list "corrects various fallacious, misleading, or otherwise flawed ideas that are described by multiple reliable sources as widely held" (emphasis added). This is, admittedly, a higher standard than normal WP:RS but in this case it seems like a good idea.

Some editors have opined that an entry should be allowed if a reliable source confirms it's accuracy, while others have opposed inclusion of any material, even if reliably sourced, that cannot be demonstrated to be "widely held" by multiple sources.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I fall into the latter group.)

My interest here is the whole of the encyclopedia. If a reader opens this article, he/she should find content that matches the title. Anything else can damage Wikipedia's reputation.

So, I'd like to toss this idea out for discussion: What do y'all think of either editing the article so it only discusses misconceptions that are described as widely held by multiple reliable sources or changing the name of the article (and the lead-in sentence) to something that is allows the inclusion of misconceptions that are less than widely held? The title change could be as simple as removing the word "common" or replacing with with another modifier.

And, if we do change the scope of the article, I have a whole list of really interesting aviation fallacies that could go here. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine as it stands. We require reliable sources to clearly confirm that X is both common, and a misconeption. I don't think a list of all kinds of misconceptions that someone holds is of any encyclopedic value. --hippo43 (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep it as is. Changing the title to simply "List of misconceptions" would open it to thousands upon thousands of entries and would likely be voted to be deleted on a variety of grounds. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Per Bugs, keep as is. Articles like this need a higher standard for inclusion or else they get clogged up with trivia. Open question though; does it need to be stated in the lede, or could it be better stated in an invisible comment or edit notice? --John (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards keep, in my view a single reliable source is sufficient though. A source is reliable or it isn't, no need for multiples. I would prefer the article stick to falsifiable beliefs though (as discussed over the Double Spacing topic)
 * However I would like to add some food for thought: how do we deal with historic misconceptions? The recent discussion about Louis Armstrong's birthday is a good example. From the information provided I have no trouble believing the misconception was widespread at one point but now that the man has been dead for 40 years, it fades. Should there be a section for historic beliefs? Rpvdk (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Outdated misconceptions clearly do not belong in this article. Otherwise someone inevitably will add "Hundreds of years ago most people thought the earth was flat ...", and thousands of others. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 71 beat me to it. I entirely agree and was going to use the same example. --hippo43 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with the thought, but not sure about the example. If "hundreds of years" means ten or 20, OK, but if it means 4 or 5, then no. I note we have an article Old wives' tale which might use a weaker standard, but that article has no examples in the article. Probably a wise decision.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the articles should be merged? In any case, things like the flat earth don't belong, but things like the no-longer-true statement that there are no Betty Rubbles in Flintstone Vitamins might qualify. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Exploring 10 Popular Sleep Myths
ABC News has just published an article, "10 Popular Sleep Myths", that we can use to expand this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I only see the 8-hour "myth" there. What I like most about it is that it clearly uses "myth" to mean "untrue" - the usage I've been complaining about on some of the Bible articles. Back to the 8 hours, it's clear that a range of 7-9 is necessary. The trouble, again, is finding a citation that can demonstrate successfully that 8 hours is a common belief. Intuition tells us it is, but you can't cite intuition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bugs. With the possible exception of the idea that humans need 8 hours of sleep per night, I see very little evidence that the "misconceptions" mentioned are both widespread AND definitively shown to be incorrect. The ideas from this article need discussion here before adding them to the article. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the other 9 items. The title of the article is misleading, because some of them are false, some are true, and some are "in between" or "it depends". I think that writeup could serve better as a source within the sleep article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with IP71 - we should discuss each one individually. Are there good quality medical sources covering this that we could use? --hippo43 (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the 8 hours of sleep item from the article. The source does not state that many people believe exactly 8 hours is required. It then states that, on average, people do need 8 hours, and that most people need between 7-9 hours. So about 8 hours! --hippo43 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The source does not state that many people believe exactly 8 hours is required. " Actually, it does say that this is one of the most common myths about sleep.
 * "It then states that, on average, people do need 8 hours" Correct, which is exactly what our article stated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Although the source refers to "most common myths", it does not say this is actually believed by a lot of people. It specifically says "Eight hours has long been touted as the gold standard", which is not the same thing at all.
 * As for how much sleep people do need, it says that most people need 7-9 hours. So, about 8. It's not a misconception, and it's not common. --hippo43 (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Although the source refers to "most common myths", it does not say this is actually believed by a lot of people. It specifically says "Eight hours has long been touted as the gold standard", which is not the same thing at all." You're splitting hairs.  It clearly states that it's one of the most common myths and has long been touted as the gold standard.
 * "As for how much sleep people do need, it says that most people need 7-9 hours." Yes, this is only an average.  Just like our article explained.
 * "So, about 8." Yes, that's an average.  Some people need as little as 4 and others as many as 12.  Just like our article explained.
 * "it's not common." The article specifically states that it's "common".  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not splitting hairs at all. "Long been touted as" means something has often been said, this is not the same as believed. "the gold standard" means an ideal, not what everyone really needs. The source does not actually state that a lot of people believe that everyone needs exactly 8 hours of sleep.
 * The reality is that most people do not need 8 hours of sleep. They actually need 7-9 hours. Not really a misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The source states that this misconception is long-touted, common, popular and popular.
 * The misconception is that everyone needs 8 hours of sleep, which is incorrect. This is something that depends on the individual which our article explains.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Concrete - Physical reaction
The "drying" of concrete is actually a chemical process, the water isn't drying but actually bonding with the mixture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs)
 * Yes. But the concrete entity, as a whole, is "drying", although maybe "solidifying" would be the more accurate term? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See Cement. --John (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Meta Instability
This site will make the common misconceptions less common, thus negating their justification for being on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.31.39 (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackbelts
I took out the following because the source given does not state what the following below says:

"* The black belt in martial arts is actually a recent invention from the 1880s, originally created for judo, and does not necessarily indicate expert level or mastery. It indicates competency of all of the basic martial arts techniques of that discipline. There are, however, varying degrees of black belt that eventually lead to master or grandmaster. "

-N

Extra Leg Muscle?
I have heard numerous times that African Americans have an extra muscle in their legs therefore allowing them to run faster. This is clearly false and what I would personally consider a racist stereotype. However, there is not a lot of verifiable information that I have found about this subject.

I found an article from the AAAS talking about an enzyme that allows for faster running, but I feel that this subject should be addressed as a common misconception. Not the enzyme, but the extra muscle.

Articles:
 * (These are the same articles from different sources)


 * http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/AAAS_peeringUnderTheHood.htm
 * http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5684/637
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15286361


 * (These are other subjects that may involve the misconception)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalenjin_people
 * http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/quokka_03.htm

Any thoughts? I don’t have enough knowledge on the subject, but I’m hoping somebody might. Andrew Colvin (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking you heard wrong. I've never heard ANYONE propose that African Americans have an "extra muscle." I have heard things about "longer or shorter muscles in the legs" or things like that, but they're really just a simplification of differing body types. Here's an article:
 * http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p2.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.140.63 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Colour of clothing related to weather suitability
This is an extremely widespread misconception - it is even taught to teenagers in school Science lessons as a hard fact. However, it just cannot be true. If there is an element of truth behind the idea, it cannot possibly be significant enough to affect people's choices! I'd be grateful if someone were to take a look and see if it's worth adding to the list. I hope it is! http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=6944&start=0&sid=fb96093d14bd79c9ee4d0920954ac889 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.244.238 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm seems interesting but where is the proof that it is taught in schools and known to be a common misconception? I have never personally heard of this issue; however, I may not be in an area where it is prevalent. See if you can find some more information on it. Andrew Colvin (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No. I refuse to accept this as a misconception. I lived in Singapore when I was a kid. I played little league. We were the White Sox. Yeah. Black Jerseys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.140.63 (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A popular myth regarding human sexuality
User 65.41.234.70 has reverted the above item. saying "The source does not identify this as a common misconception, and it provides no scieintific backing for its claims." This is wrong on both counts. First, I assume 65 must have missed the part where it says "The Most Popular Myths in Science". Second, I'm not going to argue Truth. It is not our place as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. See WP:V. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 65... is right. Quest is wrong. --hippo43 (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've waited a week and aside Hippo43's unhelpful non-response, there has been no objection. So I am restoring this item. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There have been objections from the editor who removed it, and myself. There is no consensus to restore, so I've removed it. Quest, please, please stop edit-warring over this article. My comment above is self-explanatory - I agree with IP65, and I disagree with you. --hippo43 (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus here. In such cases, the item stays out unless there a consensus develops otherwise. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hippo, I waited a full week and there was not a single objection. Even now, I have no idea why you reverted.  Can you please explain why?  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The claim that it's a misconception is based on just as faulty reasoning as the claim that it's true. It's not knowable either way. So it doesn't belong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is a very popular misconception that I've heard many times myself. But in any case, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  Do you have any objections that are based on Wikipedia rules?  So far, I'm not seeing any.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no possible way anyone can verify if this common stereotype is true or false. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not what WP:V means. Verify means that someone on Wikipedia can check the source and verify what it says.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quest, Hippo objected, so your statement that "there was not a single objection" is blatantly false. And the editor who reverted you (which was me at a different IP) objected by the revert. Now Bugs has weighed in. So I repeat: there is no consensus here. Leave it out. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quest, my initial edit summary explained my reasons - "rv. not actually a common misconception. everyone realises this is bullshit. not a reliable source, per WP:MEDRS". I also stated I agreed with IP dude's objection above, after you were reverted a second time. What do you find so hard to understand? You were bold, your addition was reverted twice, and since you opened this discussion, you have failed to create consensus in favour of this entry. You have added this three times now, and each time it has been reverted - please let it go. --hippo43 (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hippo, your first argument that you personally disagree with the truth of the statement is irrelevant here on Wikipedia. See WP:V.  LiveScience has a professional editorial staff  all of whom have degrees in journalism, science or both.  Their articles are frequently featured by other reliable sources such as MSNBC, New York Daily News, National Science Foundation, Christian Science Monitor, NASA, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no way to provide a valid source that proves what's in everyone's thoughts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Straw man. Nowhere does the content claim that they know what's in everyone's thoughts, only that it's a popular misconception. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * They have no possible way to prove it's any kind of misconception. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with reliable sources, that's your right, and you're free to post your opinions on your personal web site, blog or whatever. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not possible for any source, reliable or otherwise, to know whether this is true or false. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And you're entitled to your personal opinion. But I'm not going to get into an argument about The Truth.  Here on Wikipedia, the relevent policy is WP:V. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not verifiable by any source, no way, nohow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand what verifiability means. Verifiability means that somebody, somewhere on Wikipedia can verify that the material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No matter how reliable the source is in general, they can't possibly know the truth or falsehood of the given premise. So it can't be allowed here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Either the content is verifiable or it's not. I refuse to get into a debate about The Truth.&reg;  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not permissible to post something that is patently false, no matter what its source is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, not biting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And not posting, either. You can't get away with posting a falsehood. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a popular saying, not a popular misconception; it's a cliché that people pass on without necessarily believing. Hairhorn (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a cliché, a stereotype. There's no evidence whatsoever that any significant number of people actually believe this, nor is there any evidence as to whether it's true or not. Hence it doesn't belong here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * AFAICT, the source (which is not great, per MEDRS) does not actually state that this is widely believed. It also does not state that it is definitely untrue. So it is not really common nor a misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I've found other reliable sources which back this content. I could post them, but I shouldn't have to. LiveScience.com is a reliable source. There is no requirement in Wikipedia that every claim must be cited to reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no source on earth that can prove or disprove this every-seven-seconds thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not going to argue the truth with you. LiveScience.com is a reliable source and I think I did a fair job of writing our content to be faithful to the source.  If you think my wording can be improved, let me know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not about "truth", it's about the fact that no source, no matter how "reliable", can possibly demonstrate that this cliche is a misconception. Therefore, it can't be used in the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And there's something you don't seem to get: Verifiability is not a ticket for inclusion. Lack of verifiability is a ticket for exclusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Quest. It's verifiable, sourced and appropriate for the article, no reason to keep it out. The very first line in WP:V says it does not matter whether editors think it is true. Rpvdk (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I see Quest has taken this to RSN and restored the item without further discussion and while there was clearly no consensus here in favour of restoring it. He doesn't appear to have mentioned here that he had opened a discussion at RSN, and as a result there was only one response to his thread before he reverted to his preferred version. Most importantly, the main objection to this item is not the reliability of the source, and he did not make that at all clear at RSN. If there is no consensus achieved within the next couple of days to keep this, I will remove the offending item. --hippo43 (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As you can see, the last editor who weighed in on the discussion was Rpvdk who agreed with the addition. Since then, no one has objected and the item has remained in the article without opposition since then.  Because consensus has been reached on both this talk page and the WP:RSN, do NOT remove this unless you can get consensus to change.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a clear consensus that this should stay out. IP65, IP71, Baseball Bugs, Hairhorn and myself have all opposed it. None of those editors have indicated that they changed their mind and no longer object. Only you and Rpvdk have supported its inclusion. That other editors have simply grown tired of your refusal to accept defeat and your edit warring (4 reverts on this issue so far -, , , ) does not equal consensus in favour of your view.


 * Only one editor, Blueboar, agreed at RSN that the source is in general reliable, but made no comment on the actual disagreement here. This was not an informed discussion - other interested editors did not comment on it because you did not advertise the fact that you'd opened a thread there. I wonder why not.


 * Rather than remove it right away, which I would be perfectly justified in doing, I am giving you yet another chance to convince us. If consensus is not achieved to keep it in the article, I will remove it within the next couple of days. If you revert yet again against consensus, I will take it to ANI. --hippo43 (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been in the article for about a month now which indicates there is a concensus to include it. It is up to you to convince us why it should be excluded. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A strange interpretation of consensus, and yet more dishonesty. It's been in the article for 19 days, not "about a month". From the start of the discussion above to your latest revert lasted longer - 22 days. I don't have to convince anyone to exclude it - the editors above who formed the clear consensus are convinced already. You have reverted numerous times against that consensus, and have failed to convince even one of them to change their mind. I'm open to discussing it, but you seem to want to obsess over the process instead. There has never been consensus to include it, so if you have not achieved consensus within two days, I'll take it out again. --hippo43 (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You claimed that LiveScience wasn't a reliable source. LiveScience has a professional editorial staff  all of whom have degrees in journalism, science or both.  Their articles are frequently featured by other reliable sources such as MSNBC, New York Daily News, National Science Foundation, Christian Science Monitor, NASA, etc.
 * I took the dispute to the proper venue, WP:RSN and uninvolved editors agreed that it was reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the dispute to the proper venue, WP:RSN and uninvolved editors agreed that it was reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Have to agree with Quest here, proper procedure has been followed to determine the source is reliable, we have met WP:V. I'm sure you are familiar with wikipedia policy on Truth. I don't see any policy-based reason to keep this out. Rpvdk (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Quest, "uninvolved editors" did not agree with you. One editor agreed that this is a reliable source, in general. Blueboar made no comment about the objections above.
 * Rpvdk, consensus is a policy, and quite an important one. There was never consensus to include this item, and Quest has edit-warred to get it back in. Irrespective of your view on other policies, consensus determines whether we consider this source reliable for this specific point.
 * My objection to the source is not that it is not reliable in general, but that it does not meet the standard of WP:MEDRS which applies in this case. The other objections from myself, Baseball Bugs, Hairhorn, and others are not about the source's reliability. Without consensus, it has to stay out. --hippo43 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a regular contributer at WP:RSN and the fact that only editor said anything is usually indicative of the fact that no one disagreed with Blueboar's analysis.  You usually only get lengthy threads when editors disagree.
 * I linked to this discussion so everyone on WP:RSN can see your WP:MEDRS objection. It didn't sway anyone.
 * In any case, you're free to bring it up again at WP:RSN.
 * Since the discussion at WP:RSN, no one has objected other than you. Do NOT remove it unless you change concensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your new explanation of what might have happened at RSN is interesting, but spurious and irrelevant. You wrote that "uninvolved editors" agreed with you. This was incorrect, dishonest even. One editor agreed with your view as expressed there. He did not address the objections raised by the other editors above. There is no onus on me to find a new consensus - your edits never had the backing of consensus here, you just kept reverting until everyone else gave up. Numerous editors objected, and at no time did any of them state that they had changed their mind. If there is no consensus for its inclusion achieved soon, I will remove this item. --hippo43 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

LiveScience has been republished by NASA, for Pete's sake. Are you honestly trying to tell us that it's good enough for NASA but not good enough for Wikipedia? Give me a break. In any case, there is no concensus to remove it. If you resume edit-warring, your next block is likely to be indefinite. Stop being so combative and try working cooperatively with your fellow editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am obviously not being combative or edit warring, unlike your action in reverting this 4 times without consensus. On the other hand, I continued the discussion here, giving you the chance to reach consensus rather than simply reverting to the consensus version. There clearly is consensus to remove this, as there was never consensus to include it. As IP71 said above, about a month ago, "There is no consensus here. In such cases, the item stays out unless there a consensus develops otherwise." Simply repeating your distorted view of consensus is not working cooperatively. --hippo43 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet again, since the discussion at WP:RSN, not one editor has objected to the content. Further, you have not even provided a reason why you think that LiveScience isn't WP:reliable source. Please explain why you think that it doesn't have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, the issue of this site's reliability has already been settled at WP:RSN. If you want, take up the issue there and if you can get them to agree with you, let us know.  Until then, do NOT edit against consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet again, that is an irrelevant, arbitrary distinction. Your question at RSN did not address the objections raised above, as you know. There was no consensus for inclusion before you went to RSN, there was no discussion there involving interested editors from here explaining their views, and there has been no consensus for inclusion since then. I have made my view clear on the supposed misconception and the source, as have other editors. I entirely respect that you disagree with my view, but you are in a clear minority here. I will give it some time to see if consensus develops - maybe some of the editors will say they have changed their minds. --hippo43 (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, I admire your persistence - you are relentlessly beating a straw man, and repeating your nonsense claim that there is/was consensus for your edits. The main objection is not that this is not a reliable source. In general, I would agree that it is (though I don't agree that it meets WP:MEDRS, which applies here). As you know, the key policy of consensus determines whether an entry is appropriate for this article, and for the various reasons detailed above, there is currently no consensus that this entry is appropriate to be included. If you can convince these objecting editors to change their minds and speak up, I will accept that there is consensus for your opinion. --hippo43 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I came here after reading the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hippo43. While I concur with the opinions that hippo43 is not explicitly edit warring, with regards to the actual edit in question, I don't see how the statement can possibly be excluded.  LiveScience, in general, meets the definition of a reliable source.  The reference in question points out both that this belief is commonly held, and that, "as best researchers can tell," the belief is wrong.  This article discusses myths that are commonly held but are believed scientifically or otherwise to be factually wrong.  How can this not qualify for inclusion?  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason it has been excluded is because for various reasons, the majority of editors who have commented do not believe it is appropriate for this article. I don't want to endlessly repeat the objections raised above, but one particular point is that the source does not state that this is untrue - it basically says that it is impossible to measure - i.e. the supposed mnisconception is not conclusively debunked at all. "...seems a gross overstatement, as best researchers can tell" is hardly authoritative. Given that this article is about beliefs that are both widely held and demonstrably false, it does not belong.
 * Second, the source does not explain that this is widely-held - it refers to the "most popular myths in science" but this is not the same thing. Widely-repeated is not the same as widely-believed, for example. (Where does it "point out ... that this belief is commonly held", as Qwrxian said?)
 * Given that this is a two-sentence blurb in a light-hearted article, which does not refer to any supporting sources, it it does not seem to me to meet WP:MEDRS, which is the standard for medical information in all articles. (Also note that in December 2009, Quest agreed that MEDRS could be applied to medical material in this article) If the sources which inform this article could be supplied, and actually do support the claim, I would probably agree that it should go in. --hippo43 (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I see where you are coming from that the terms used in the article don't exactly correspond to the purposes of this page.  However, I'm not familiar with WP:MEDRS, so I'm guessing the rules there are different?  You seem to imply that there is a preference for primary sources over secondary ones...if I have the chance I'll look that guideline over later; I wasn't aware that you were using those standards here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, my understanding of Wikipedia rules has changed over the last 6 months. After multiple lengthy and drawn-out discussions at our Climategate article, I have a better understanding of the difference between policy and guidelines.  For months, I argued against using "Climategate" as an article title citing WP:AVOID - which is only a guideline.  Eventually, I came to realize that I was wrong.  When in conflict, policy always trumps guidelines.  I now consider WP:MEDRS a "nice to have", not an absolute requirement.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS is for articles directly related to medicine, not for lighter material like this, and in any case it only requires a good standard of sourcing, which we have already established is there. Additionally, the matter of whether or not it is a misconception does not require a medical standard of sourcing. In all, I don't believe the MEDRS objection holds ground. Rpvdk (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rpvdk, I think you misunderstand (again) what MEDRS is for - it clearly states in the intro "These guidelines supplement the general guidelines at WP:RS with specific attention to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related aspects of all articles." (emphasis mine)
 * I can't agree that a good standard of sourcing has been met for this example. Compared to other entries in the list, especially medical/scientific ones, the referencing for this is an embarrassment. The source is a very light-hearted article, and is just two sentences, which state neither that this is widely-held (unsurprisingly, as only an idiot would believe this is true, after a moment's thought) or actually false (it's clearly, and the article admits as much, impossible to know). This article has long stated that multiple reliable sources are required, in my view for exactly cases like this. The Livescience article doesn't identify its author or give any information to support its statement - no mention of experts, or studies which cover this point.
 * So there are three very strong reasons why it doesn't belong in the article. The source is dreadful. It's not commonly believed. It's not a misconception. --hippo43 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That guideline is about medicine-related articles. Which medicine is being discussed?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the guideline again - "medical and health-related aspects". --hippo43 (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, medical and health-related aspects of medicine. Which medicine is being discussed?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Medical aspects of medicine"? Try again. "medical and health-related aspects of all articles". Seriously, read the guideline. --hippo43 (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, please read the guideline. It's about medicine.  It explains this through the text if you read it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Despite our differences of opinion, I used to take you seriously as an editor. Now you just appear obsessed with disagreeing with me. As well as still failing to grasp the core objection to this entry, you seem unwilling or unable to read this guideline. Of course it is about medicine. It explains this clearly in the lead - it covers "medical and health-related aspects of all articles". You should pay particular attention to the bold part. --hippo43 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm disagreeing with you because you are wrong. Yes, it's about all articles about medicine. Just like WP:BLP is about all articles with biographical material about living persons. You keep making arguments that reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But if you don't believe me, why don't you go ask the editors at WP:MEDRS? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be tying yourself in knots over this. It applies to all articles which contain material relating to medicine and health. The lead makes that crystal clear. Just as BLP applies to all articles which contain biographical info, not just articles which are biographies. (Both policies therefore apply to the relevant material in this article.) Seriously, you need to take a step back from this - you seem to be saying that medical info in medical articles needs to be held to a higher standardx of sourcing than medical info in non-medical articles (whatever they might be). This is obviously nonsense (as would be the equivalent argment involving BLP) on grounds of both common sense and an explicit guideline.

--hippo43 (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This guideline is clearly named "Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)"
 * It says that the relevant Wikiprojects are WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology.
 * It repeatedly refers to medicine in the text: "A primary source in medicine...", "A secondary source in medicine...", "Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine...".
 * But this is simply solved. Why don't you go ask the editors at WP:MEDRS? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are becoming a joke with this approach. There is nothing to solve, the guideline is perfectly clear. If you want to expose your lack of understanding, go ahead and open a discussion there.
 * It is explicit that it relates to all Wikipedia articles which contain health or medicine related info. The quotes you listed - "A primary source in medicine...", "A secondary source in medicine...", "Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine..." say nothing about which articles this applies to. I don't know what point you are trying to make by listing them. Nowhere does that guideline say that it only relates to certain types of article. How do you separate articles about medicine and articles not about medicine? Maybe the same way the guideline does - "medical and health-related aspects of all articles"? --hippo43 (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your repeated personal attacks aside, why don't you go ask the editors at WP:MEDRS? I will abide by the consensus of editors there.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't I ask editors there? Because I understand it clearly. The consensus is right there in the lead of the guideline - please abide by it. If you need help with understanding it, you are free to ask wherever you want. --hippo43 (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, fine. If you don't want to ask the editors at WP:MEDRS, I can ask myself.  Even further, I am perfectly willing to commit in advance that I will abide by the concensus of editors at WP:MEDRS.  Are you willing to agree to abide by the consensus of editors at WP:MEDRS?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am already abiding by it - the question is why are you not? The consensus of editors at MEDRS is that it applies to all articles - it's right there in the lead: "medical and health-related aspects of all articles". It was discussed and agreed upon here, in response to a disagreement over this very article. You may remember that you subsequently agreed that it could be applied to this article. Perhaps you should let it go. --hippo43 (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break
That's not the question that I'm asking you. Are you willing to abide by the consensus of editors at WP:MEDRS? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am already abiding by the consensus of editors there. Do you think I am doing so unwillingly? Why are you not? I presume you've read the discussion there, and your agreement to apply MEDRS to this article. Why are you not honouring your commitment? --hippo43 (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? You're abiding by consensus there - even though no editor there has agreed with you?  I will absolutely honor my commitment there.  Since you are unwilling to open such a discussion, I will do it myself.  Although you have not made such a commitment, I promise to abide by the concensus of uninvolved editors.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus there is explicit in both the lead and the discussion - the guideline applies to all articles. So yes, I am abiding by the existing consensus there. Why are you not? You made a commitment in this discussion in December - why are you not honouring it? Because you will only abide by consensus if it suits you? And if it doesn't suit you, you will try to change it, by claiming to ask for advice on it? --hippo43 (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. If explicit consensus has been achieved at WP:MEDRS for your interpretation, then it should be easy for you to cite this consensus.  Can you please provide a diff which demonstrates this consensus?A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not your errand boy. I gave you a link above to the discussion - the consensus at the end of that discussion is clear. Do you disagree? Likewise the lead of the article is clear, and the relevant passage has stood for 8 months - consesnsus, per WP:CON.
 * Likewise I gave you a link to your acceptance of MEDRS being applied here. Did you accept that the guideline should be applied but dispute that there was consensus for it? If so, why have you kept quiet about it for the last seven months? --hippo43 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you provided a link to a discussion a half year ago and since then I've pointed out that the guideline is about medicine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, not only are you wrong about it not being about medicine, it specifically says, "See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular source". We've already sought advice at WP:RSN and the consensus there was that this was a reliable source.  So, your argument is wrong in at least two completely different ways. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed - you continually find new and inventive ways to misunderstand and misrepresent the arguments against you. Nowhere did I say that the guideline is not about medicine; it clearly is about medicine - more specicifically, the medical and health-related aspects of all articles. "We" did not seek advice at RSN, please try to be honest. You did, very quietly, and just one editor said he thought that Livescience is a reliable source in general, a point which is not contested. He made no comment on whether it is a reliable source for medical info, per MEDRS, or whether he thinks it is a reliable source on this specific point, and made no comment on the actual objections to the entry here. Again, the reliability or otherwise of the source is not the main reason this entry doesn't belong here, but ignoring that seems to give you some comfort. --hippo43 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm pretty much saying the same thing. WP:MEDRS is about medicine but this item has nothing to do with medicine. Further, even if this item was about medicine, it still meets WP:MEDRS since I brought up the issue at WP:RSN.  So you're wrong no matter how you look at it.  Further, if you disagree with the consensus at WP:RSN, why don't you bring it up with the editors there?   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * MEDRS is explictly about "medical and health related aspects of all articles". Which part of that are you struggling with?
 * As for RSN, there was no mention of MEDRS in your opening statement. I wonder why not. There was no consensus there, and no discussion. Only one editor expressed an opinion, and only that it "seems reliable" to him. There was no informed discussion about it, involving interested editors who had commented here, becasue you chose not to inform editors here that you opened that thread. I wonder why not.
 * And again, the reliability of the source is not why there is no consensus here. Ignoring that point and flogging the dead RSN horse doesn't make you less wrong. There is no need for me to seek consensus at RSN, as there is already consensus here that this should be excluded. Rather than repeating the same irrelevant and flawed arguments, why not try to convince editors here that it should stay in? I don't see any progress to consensus so far. --hippo43 (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU games. BTW, you still haven't provided a reason why you think that this source doesn't have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Not one reason. You're wrong on so many levels, this is surreal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've no idea what you mean by "stop playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU games". The reason I haven't explained why this source doesn't have a reputation for accuracy is because I haven't claimed any such thing. If you're going to edit war over this, at least take the time to read the objections above, and please stop producing these straw men. In any case, it doesn't matter of I'm wrong, or if you're wrong. The point is that you have never had consensus for your version, and you have edit-warred to shoehorn it in, and if you can't achieve consensus for it, it will need to be removed. --hippo43 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm arguing because this item doesn't belong in this article. The good reasons why it is inappropriate are clearly laid out above by numerous editors. If you can't be bothered to read them, that's not my problem. If you don't understand them, you should probably ask those editors what they meant. That might help you build the consensus you want. --hippo43 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You've been going on all day today and yesterday about how this source isn't reliable. Now you're saying you're not claiming any such thing.  I'm afraid that your argument is incoherent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that your ability to understand argument is limited. Among other reasons to reject this item, I've argued that this source does not meet the tougher standard set by MEDRS. I haven't said anything about its reputation for fact checking or accuracy. In fact I've said that in general I think it probably is a reliable source. Just not good enough for medical information in this encyclopedia. If you honestly don't understand the distinction, then you should probably leave this article alone. --hippo43 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So now you're saying that it's not reliable for this item? Perhaps you don't realize WP:V, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS are all about same thing: determining whether a source is reliable.  Or perhaps you don't realize that a reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking?
 * I'm afraid that your argument has become a such a tortured mess, it's not right. It's not even wrong.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hippo, your tone is uncivil and your insistence that this myth somehow connects to medicine is bizarre. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hippo, your tone is uncivil and your insistence that this myth somehow connects to medicine is bizarre. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin, you say I'm being uncivil and then describe my argument as "bizarre"? Thanks for your thoughtful input. I haven't insisted this "connects to medicine". I've insisted that, as a health-related aspect of this article, it is covered by WP:MEDRS - the guideline makes this very clear. --hippo43 (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Martin, thanks for adding new sources. Your rewrite certainly makes the entry more consistent with what the sources say. However, I'm not sure that these sources confirm that the supposed misconception is either widely-believed or factually incorrect. The article is not meant to be a list of things that are often repeated but that are impossible to measure. It's meant to be about things that a lot of people actually believe, and that are definitely false. --hippo43 (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)