Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Established Misconceptions

I would like to have a section for, or point out, when misconceptions are more established than the demonstrable truth. Any belief that is held by more than 50% of the population even though it is disproved would be my definition of an established misconception. Saying that 85% of U.S. citizens believe Chiropractic is effective medicine, or 60% of people taking vitamins think it is good for them but are harmed by it, is markedly different than saying a lot of people(7%) believe MLK was shot on stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment. I'm not entirely sure what you are requesting, so feel free to elaborate. But the part that I think I do understand could be problematic. If you look at this talk page and the archives, you'll see MANY disagreements about what is a COMMON misconception (and that doesn't even include the hundreds of examples that were deleted from the article and never discussed). It has been a challenge to get agreement about what is or is not a common misconception. I think if we try to narrow it down even more to misconceptions that "are more established than the demonstrable truth", we're headed for some huge disagreements. But maybe I have misinterpreted your request, or maybe I'm just wrong about this. What do others think? Cresix (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The item he added about people not really remembering major events any better than other events was not only totally unsourced, it was totally wrong. I don't remember much about 1963, but the JFK assassination and its followup certainly sticks with me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally I agree, Bugs, although there are some elements of accuracy in the anon's edit. His comments about remembering events such as JFK's assassination in general are probably not true, but it tends to be the very specific details or specific emotional tones that we hang on to. I think if you question people about some of the events of 11/22/63, you'll get a wide variety of responses beyond the simple response "JFK was assassinated". The anon's statement about long-term memory not being reliable has some validity to it. If you look at the research of Elizabeth Loftus, memories are very much subject to distortion. Ten people can be eyewitness to the same event, and you get vastly different statements about what happened. I might trust what you have to say about what happened on your 21st birthday, but I definitely would be skeptical if you were testifying in court about a robbery you witnessed. Our memories are very imperfect, even about some things we are certain we remember correctly. But I have digressed into an academic discussion, so I'll just end with a statement of agreement that the items need to be sourced. Cresix (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the emotions are remembered more than a lot of the details. The shock and horror of 9/11/01 was the closest I can compare to what 11/22/63 felt like. Even at that, there are only certain specific details that stick with me. Like the scene at the Trade Mart, with the well-dressed black man (presumably a waiter at the planned luncheon) daubing his eyes. And the incessant replaying of Oswald's being gunned down by Ruby (as with the incessant replaying of the towers collapsing on 9/11). And the previous day, Oswald telling the reporters in the police station (yes, they had brief access to him) in a remarkably calm and cool voice, when asked if he had killed the President, "I have not been accused of that, in fact I didn't even know about it until you asked me that question", which is when I became convinced he was "dirty", but that's another digression. I think what you're onto is that we remember things for the impact or emotional effect they had on us, maybe better than we remember very many specifics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why it is an established misconception guys. Ten seconds in google scholar and you will see people vastly overrate the accuracy their "flashbulb" memories. Your opinion is wrong about how clearly you remember it. My hard part is proving it is more than 50% of the population which believes this.

That's my arbitrary, though logical, definition of a belief more well-established than the fact. B/c if more than 50% are wrong, it must be more common to be wrong. I appreciate the active responses guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wrong. But if you don't have the time to find sourcing, it stays out anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So, in a way what I am introducing is a caveat to "common". It is "proven to be believed by more than 50% of the population", or more well-established as a belief than the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sticking to your guns even though the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. Good for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What "evidence"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/14/5/455.abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

1 study of 54 college-age kids. Yah sure yoo betcha, that's definitive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So, the question here, is not whether what I put was true, b/c those were just examples. Do you editors want a section dedicated to beliefs that are empirically proven to be held by more than 50% of the sample population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

First, studies like that don't "prove" anything. Second, how is an "established" misconception any different from a "common" misconception? What's the dividing line? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aUjbnt5zskwC&oi=fnd&pg=PP15&dq=confidence+in+flashbulb+memories&ots=sip8wMjo0X&sig=HntcSY1pLARLl9xTbRsOgMnRRRo#v=onepage&q=confidence%20in%20flashbulb%20memories&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 00:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the bolded part. 50% since logically that means it is more common than the truth. 'Established better than the truth' in the minds of the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 00:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is a worldwide site, any study of opinions in the US (or wherever) is a bit moot. And the common/established line isn't a particularly interesting line to draw.... Hairhorn (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Many of the "common" misconceptions here could be significantly higher than 50 percent. Also, we've had discussions before about claiming misconceptions based on "studies". Doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If you aren't basing it on studies, you're not really basing it on anything at all in my opinion. Until you establish it empirically, it isn't worth anything to say some belief is common. But, point taken. You tried it already and you failed, therefore it can't be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"This is a worldwide site, any study of opinions in the US (or wherever) is a bit moot." So, you think this whole page is essentially worthless? Since none of these misconceptions is universal?72.187.99.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

There is no such thing as a "universal" misconception. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Since many of the beliefs here may be held by more than 50 percent of the population are we going to try to show that? Are we going to try to show the prevalence of any of these misconceptions at all. Using "common" as your only measure is very uninformative.TheThomas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

I wouldn't call "common" uninformative. Yes, it often has been a matter of debate here, primarily because many newcomers to this page have the mistaken impression that a misconception that they hold is most certainly held by most people. But as Baseball Bugs has suggested, previous attempts to attribute percentages of people through "studies" who believe a misconception has never worked. For the most part, the items that are added and remain in this article will always be a matter of debate, and thus determined by consensus. But that doesn't mean the article is worthless. It is interesting and informative. Cresix (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with list studies? (read: listing studies) Some disagreement between them? List multiples, so the reader can see the facts. If you have two studies showing 40 and 60% of the population believe in big foot, have the article reflect that. Is the issue that simple to fix? When you say consensus, do you mean between the 3-4 wiki editors?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "list studies", but I never said that there is anything wrong with studies; I said every attempt here in the past to attribute percentages of people who subscribe to a misconception has met with major problems. First of all, there are not very many scientifically valid studies about misconceptions. Googling can produce lots of websites that claim this percentage or that percentage, but when you dig a little, you find out that almost all of them are very unscientific surveys, such as asking people at a meeting of enthusiasts about the paranormal whether they believe in Big Foot (that's a hypothetical example), or distributing a questionnaire to a class of college students (hardly a representative sample), or simply a POV-pushing website that pulls its facts and figures out of thin air. I don't have a problem with legitimate studies, but let's not assume that because someone puts forth statistics on a website that it necessarily reflects the truth. But if you can find scientifically valid, published studies that cite percentages to misconceptions, be my guest. (BTW, you sign your name with four tildes [~~~~]; that avoids a lot of confusion). Cresix (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So, the only problem with listing studies is finding good studies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 03:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Finding scientifically valid studies; if you can find studies that use random, stratified sampling and carefully worded questions that do not confound the results (such as used by Gallup), you'll probably be on the right track. But good luck. Cresix (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That contention was already addressed. "List multiples, so the reader can see the facts. If you have two studies showing 40 and 60% of the population believe in big foot, have the article reflect that. Is the issue that simple to fix?" Can't find one great study, use multiples. It works for metastudies, it works for 583, or whatever, the NYtimes political polls column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Two, five, or ten unscientific or biased studies are just as worthless as one, if not more so because of giving the false impression of multiple sources of support. Cresix (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One biased person saying 'this study is no good', 'that study doesn't prove..' is much worse than citing pilot studies, or case studies. Citing a study is better than you getting to arbitrarily assert your will. No matter how good you think your will is, it is a poor shadow of a case study, or pilot. Citing studies would be a significant improvement over the system you have here, but it doesn't need to replace your system, just supplement it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about pilot studies or case studies? You just created a straw man to attack without any basis in what has been discussed. No, biased studies are not better than anything. Biased studies are misleading. Anyone who has had a college science course can tell you that. And no one is "arbitrarily asserting their will". That's why we have the consensus process; please familiarize yourself with how consensus works on Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A biased sampling for a poll may be 10% off the real statistic. That's insignificant for our use here, "common." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A biased sample can be off by 100%, or 1000%. If it's biased no one knows how far off it is. I'm not talking about sampling error; every study has a margin of error. That's always acknowledged and factored into the results. You're totally confusing typical sampling error with error resulting from bias. Again, that's basic science and statistics covered in an entry-level science course. Now, I don't care to continue quibbling over details that have nothing to do with the consensus process here. Please wait for consensus before restoring the information to the article. I'm finished here unless new and important information is discussed. Cresix (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many ways that paragraph is wrong, but it is quite a few. The first sentence is right, the second is wrong. It is easy to tell how far off a biased study is, compare it with an unbiased one.(Exactly what I am suggesting--listing multiple articles) 3 is right, four is wrong. I am not confusing anything, an example of a 10% difference from biased studies is the polling company Rasmussen, which always reports presidential favorability more negatively than real polling companies. Ten percent or less is common b/c more biased than that and even dull people will notice. Five is wrong. Dead Wrong. I've taken every basic science course available, b/c I am in a competitive academic trivia league, and your made up fact that basic science courses teach anything about academic studies is dead wrong. It is good that you aren't interested in quibbling, it is bad that you think this conversation has anything to do with some externally applied consensus. This section is for discussing pros and cons of a measurably common section. The consensus is formed here. The discussion is leading to consensus, except it seems you want to avoid that. --TheThomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can find out how far off a biased study is if you have an unbiased study! In that case, you don't use the biased study; you use the unbiased one. Elementary logic. No, you're wrong. Every study does not have a sampling error of 10%. Each study has it's own degree of sampling error. Reading Sampling error. That's why Gallup or other pollster states "plus or minus 4.5%" or whatever the percentage is. And the sampling error is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than error from bias. If I select a stratified random sample and ask whether Obama is a good or bad President, the study will have a small sampling error (probably in the range of 3 to 5%). If I have a biased sample (such as 100 dedicated Democrats), then I will likely have a HUGE bias error that has nothing to do with the sampling error found in any survey. How much the error is can only be determined with another unbiased study, but even the unbiased study will have the small sampling error. PLEASE. Read about basic inferential statistics and Sampling (statistics) methods before you accuse someone who has expertise in statistical analysis and has published two dozen articles in peer-reviewed journals of making mistakes here. Now, I am finished quibbling with you because this has absolutely nothing to do with the consensus (unless you wish to cite a statistical survey) you need for the edits you have tried to make here. If you wish to have an academic discussion, go to a statistics blog. I don't care to have an academic exchange with someone who has such an unjustified condescending attitude about basic science. So write all you want here; just wait for a legitimate consensus before restoring your edits. End of discussion between you and me on this issue. Have a good day. Cresix (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr. First three sentences weren't responding to what I said, but what you read. Skipped down, saw this. "I don't care to have an academic exchange with someone who has such an unjustified condescending attitude about basic science." Don't care to know what kind of mental gymnastics lead you to that--I even said I have taken multiple basic science courses for extracurricular activity. Logic: Copi/Cohen —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to call it by it's name. The logical fallacy you repeatedly committed was the stawman fallacy. You not only failed to argue effectively against what I said, most of what you were 'responding to' wasn't in what I said. You were assigning me a stupid stance, then arguing against it. Example, I never once said, suggested, hinted, sampling error and bias were synonyms. So, despite your experience in statistics, you managed to be wrong.

Again, this section isn't in need of consensus(just like with the bicycle). I'm not putting forward a stance(Just like with the bicycle). What I am doing is wasting my time arguing with someone who doesn't separate things mentally in a pattern like I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 21:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree you are wasting lots of time, especially mine and anyone else who doesn't want to read incomprehensible rants. But as I said, end of discussion between you and me on this matter. Cresix (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for confusing you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The question still stands. Does anybody like the idea of either, adding hard numbers from studies or adding a section with misconceptions that are more common than the truth which are all backed by hard numbers, to this article? Thereby establishing some measure of "common", which is lacking in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 11:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No consensus to do so thus far. Cresix (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The bicycle misconception is wrong.

And who the hell deleted my sourced material? And who honestly thinks gyroscopes aren't stabilizing? The bicycle section makes a factual statement. "The stability of a bicycle is determined by its geometry and the rider's ability to counteract tilting by steering." That statement is wrong because it is incomplete and missing two components of stability. Also the first sentence is misleading, "Gyroscopic forces are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle." Because gyroscopic forces are helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because sourcing a phenomenon (such as the science of balancing a bicycle) is not enough for this article. Take a look at this talk page and the archives. Items added must be sourced as representing a COMMON misconception, not just a misconception; or alternatively (which is usually what happens), it is determined by consensus here that the misconception can be considered common. I can find sources that explain that the earth is not flat; and I can find sources that the idea that the earth is flat is a misconception among some people; but I can't find a source that the flat earth idea is a COMMON misconception. Cresix (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't make any sense. Is it supposed to be responding to what I said? There was a factual error, I corrected it and sourced it. Then you erased it. That's bad. Don't erase sourced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 04:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I will delete anything that is not properly sourced as a common misconception, or consensus is determined here, and properly so. That's the way it works here. Look at this talk page, the archives, and above all, WP:CON. Now, you and I are finished interacting for a while. Cresix (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, that makes no sense. MAybe if you hadn't erased without thinking you would be able to see your glaring error. The page had a factually incorrect statement, which I corrected, sourced, then you deleted. The misconception wasn't a part of this discussion. What I edited was the reason for the common misconception, which was factually incorrect. There is absolutely no need for me to prove anything is a common misconception. The misconception was proven already by someone else. Your comment makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 04:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

--Handled —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you delete everything new, you are not collaborating

You are destroying. If all you contribute is the button "undo" then this page would do fine without you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 04:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.72.187.199.192 (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's good to know that you agree with yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I was agreeing with your assertion. Though, I can see the reason for your mistake.

On a more serious note, what's with the habit of wikieditors stalking certain pages and removing every new entry b/c it doesn't meet their personal standards of "good citation" or in this case "proof of commonness"? To me, it is disgusting to see someone on a collaborative site, spending their day erasing other people's entries. Doesn't that go against the very nature of collaboration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you consider this your page just b/c you visit it so often? What is it that compels so many of you backroom arguers to continue to delete honest attempts at adding information to wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why has it become your wont to destroy new entries that aren't up to your standards? When did you stop attempting to put a better citation--attempting to improve, and not remove, the material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

72.187.199.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TheThomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A survey of the topics of interest make it pretty clear these are the same guy. He's not ready to be taken to WP:ANI yet, but he's working on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree; and not only topics of interest, but other similar editing patterns. TheThomas and anon 72.187.199.192, editors occasionally forget to sign in, but they usually change the signature after realizing this to avoid confusion. If the two of you are one and the same, please acknowledge that and the problem will be resolved. Otherwise you are building a case for a sockpuppetry investigation. Cresix (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One, sockpuppetry is allowed. Whether you like my signing-in habits is of no concern to anyone but you. Two, I've not done any sockpuppeting. Your assuming malevolence b/c there's something wrong with you, not b/c of anything I've done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is not allowed if it is done to give the impression in a consensus discussion that two different people are editing when it is only one. So once again, tell us if TheThomas and anon 72.187.199.192 are one and the same person. If you can't give a simple yes or no to that question, the next step will be a formal sockpuppetry investigation. Cresix (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

He owned up to it at 11:32 in the previous section. However, saying "there's something wrong with you" is not exactly a collegial comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Bugs. So we have no malevolent sockpuppetry, just one editor expressing his opinion with a username and an IP. Cresix (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither of you lovely gentlepeople actually addressed what I said--seems to be a habit. At what point did you give up on collaboration? Btw, I love the well poisoning phrase "owned up". As if I were doing something wrong by confusing you. TheThomas (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to your apparent expectations, "collaboration" does not mean cowering in response to your every demand. So far, some of your additions to the article have been accepted. Others have not been supported, and with good reason. Look around. That's how it works on Wikipedia. It's called consensus. An editor does not get everything he or she demands simply by repeatedly making the demands. This section on the talk page does not address any particular proposed items for or changes to the article; as such, it does not continue to serve any purpose. If you have additional suggestions for additions or changes to the article, please address them in another section. I'm finished here. Cresix (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr. What I read was all crap. I've made no demands whatsoever. Your whole spiel is another strawman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Perceived increase in crime rate

I'm interested in other opinions about this item added at List of common misconceptions#Law. Are there problems related to WP:RECENT? Specifically, is it possible that this item will become outdated within a year or less? The source notes some variability through the years in perception of crime rate, but it is expressed in terms of decades, not years. Cresix (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe what's missing are the reasons why people think crime is continually on the rise. One important factor would be the way media cover these things. Another could be the number of security-related products and services that exist nowadays. This much I know: In the old days, a lot of people didn't bother locking their doors. Nowadays, anyone who took that approach would have their sanity questioned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

When, in fact, it seems those who are neurotic about locking all their doors should be questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 11:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem leaving your doors unlocked if you have nothing worth stealing. Burglars will go for the easiest way in to a house in a neighborhood - and an unlocked door might as well have a neon sign on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Paranormal

I'm sure this has been covered before. Can we consider belief in the paranormal as a misconception?TheThomas (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's like other religious-like beliefs: it's not possible to prove it false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool.TheThomas (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Invention of radio

Tesla played only a minor role in the Invention of radio. The concept was clearly invented by Maxwell and first demonstrated by Hertz. As shown in the article on the subject, many others from several different countries played important roles. Tesla does not stand out as being particularly important. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

At any rate Reginald Fessenden is even more overlooked than Tesla. Hairhorn (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in the development of radio but not in its original invention. Popov and Bose are more relevant in the earlier stages of radio invention but in the end I would say it was Maxwell, who invented the concept, Hertz, who first produced the waves theorised by Maxwell, and Marconi, who made it work commercially. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fessenden is overlooked precisely because people conflate radio as broadcasting and radio as technology, even if some of his advances were technical in nature. At any rate I agree that there is little point adding a list of also-rans to the Marconi entry. Hairhorn (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What is your view on the entry as a whole? I suspect it was added by one of the avid Tesla supporters that we had a while back. Is it really a common misconception that Marconi invented radio? Martin Hogbin (talk)

I believe it a common misconception, but more importantly, there is a reliable source that identifies it as a common misconception. It should remain in the article unless there is a serious challenge with additional sources. Cresix (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It really is not a very reliable source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why it is not a reliable source regarding misconceptions about invention of radio (not about any other aspect of radio). How does it fail WP:RS; give specifics? Thanks. Cresix (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It also depends on how you define "common". Of the (probably not high) percentage of Americans who think they know who invented radio, dollars to donuts most would say "Marconi", being unaware that Tesla won a (token) patent suit on the matter. Obviously there were a number of pioneers in the development of radio. Marconi, as with Edison and his inventions, had superior marketing skills. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I remember specifically reading in my elementary school textbook that Marconi invented radio. I think among the general population who have ever thought about such an idea, Marconi is the most common response you would get if you asked. BTW, I added two more sources. I think all three are acceptable. This article is about popular culture, not the science that underlies many of the misconceptions. Reliable sourcing is important, but Wikipedia does not have the higher standards for this type of article that it would for more academic topics. Cresix (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a stretch to call this a "Popular culture and fiction" entry. I don't see that at all. The source has sketchy reliability at best. Hairhorn (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I just googled [who invented radio?] and many of the first entries that popped up assert it was Marconi. In primary and secondary school they told us it was Marconi. I don't recall Tesla ever being mentioned in school under any circumstances. Maybe things are different now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hairhorn, please read again. I didn't say "fiction". I said "popular culture". Please tell us why the article does not pertain to popular culture. "Common" misconceptions. Misconceptions that are found widely among much of the culture. How is that not "popular culture"? Or do you view this as a "science" or "art" article? How would you categorize this article better than popular culture? As for the sources (and BTW, you said "source"; there are three sources for the Marconi item), if those sources aren't acceptable, then about 95% of the article needs to be scrapped as poorly sourced that any of them are popular misconceptions. Out of the approximately 80 items, give us about 10 examples of items in the article that are better sourced as common misconceptions. I think if we took a close look, a substantial number of them have no source that they are common misconceptions. A few were accepted by consensus, but many of them aren't. I'm not sure exactly what kind of source you expect? Peer-reviewed academic journals? Cresix (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing really in common between "popular culture" and "popular misconceptions", other than the word "popular". Hairhorn (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's the full extent of your explanation, I wholeheartedly disagree. This article has as much or more in common with popular culture as almost any such article on Wikipedia, for the reasons I noted in my previous comment. And the sources are perfectly acceptable. Cresix (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture is a fairly broad term. It carries with it an implication of lemmings, truth to tell. (And, yes, I know lemmings don't actually plunge into the sea.) That "lemming" factor alone links it with popular misconceptions. I don't know if this is covered, but there's a popular concept that the average American can't find America on a world globe. I don't know if that's true or not, but I would venture a guess that a lot of those folks are heavily into both pop culture and popular misconceptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I only asked the question. It seems from the replies that Marconi inventing radio is a common misconception and worthy of inclusion here. As for who did invent radio, I suggest a link to the Invention of radio article is the best way to go. I will add one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Martin. I see that you added the link, which I think is a good way to explain it. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly who invented the high-power, narrow band spark transmitter? Tesla played a major role: the invention of the transmitter, as well as the invention of CW transmission via a high frequency dynamo or "Alexanderson Alternator." Note well that if it had been left up to the secretive and business-incompetent Tesla, there might be no radio today. For that matter, if it was left up to Hertz there might be no radio today. Marconi founded a company based on Branly's coherer and Tesla's power-oscillator. Tesla founded a company based on secret unpatented devices to transmit industrial power in the low kilohertz range, with "radio" thought to only be a minor spinoff application. (Which philosophy and which business succeeded?) But Hertz invented radio (if not Maxwell!), and Lodge invented tuning. 69.71.180.53 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a sort of consensus, I'll remove the hidden comment buried in the article source code regarding Tesla/Marconi. It's become separated from the original Marconi entry and is now confusing.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions that may make it into the article once well-sourced.

This is a list of potential items to add to this article once sourced, spellcheked, maligned, and usurped.

1) --was moved into main article--

• It is a common misconception that some particularly emotional events (9/11, Challenger explosion) cause memories which are stronger (Flashbulb memory), and more reliable than normal memories. In fact, the details of any long-held memory are similarly very untrustworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 11:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

2)It is a common misconception that human memory is a reliable system. In fact human memory is very unreliable by many measures, especially older memories.http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-06-16/#feature

3) It is a common misconception in the U.S. that Chiropractic is effective medicine.

4)It is a common misconception in the U.K. that homeopathy is effective medicine.

5)It is a common misconception that caffeine promotes wakefulness even after years of daily use.

6) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

7) Math is boring.TheThomas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

8)8) It is a common misconception that a short nap will promote wakefulness after the nap. In fact, a nap shorter than an hour and a half doesn't complete the REM cycle, and you wake at least as tired as you went to sleep.TheThomas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

9) It is a common misconception in the youtube realm that The Twin Towers imploded

10)The U.S. President Barack Obama is misconceived to be the antichrist

11) It is a common misconception that Barack Obama has driven up the deficit.

12) it is a common misconception that Man and Dinosaurs coexisted http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312115133.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

13) It is a common misconception among the right in the U.S. that no communist country has lasted a substantial amount of years before collapse.

Time is relative, but I wonder if this is a reaction to the old civics/sociology (and Wm. F. Buckley Jr) maxim that no government has survived a takeover by its far right wing? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

14)Americans Still Perceive Crime as on the Rise "Two-thirds of Americans say there is more crime in the United States, and 49% say there is more crime in their local area, than a year ago. This reflects Americans' general tendency to see crime rates as increasing rather than decreasing, even as government statistics note a continued drop in crime rates." http://www.gallup.com/poll/144827/Americans-Perceive-Crime-Rise.aspx

15) "The idea that sleep isn't as important to good health for older people as it is for younger people is a common misconception. Recent studies have shown sleep is particularly important to help prevent obesity and a decline in mental acuity late in life. Yet just 32% of Americans aged 50 and older say they get a "good night's sleep" every night, according to a new study Gallup conducted for the International Longevity Center-USA*. Americans in this age group report getting a good night's sleep an average of 4.8 nights a week." http://www.gallup.com/poll/20323/Older-Americans-Dream-Good-Nights-Sleep.aspx

16) It is a common misconception that the signing of the Declaration of Independence occurred on July Fourth.http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx "Fifty-five percent say it commemorates the signing of the Declaration of Independence (this is a common misconception, and close to being accurate; July 4th is actually the date in 1776 when the Continental Congress approved the Declaration, which was officially signed on August 2nd.) Another 32% give a more general answer, saying that July 4th celebrates Independence Day."

17)*Twenty percent of U.S. citizens mistakenly believe the 44th president, Barack Obama, is a muslim. This belief among people is highly correlated with dissatisfaction with Obama's performance. Those who knew the President Obama's religion rated the job performance of the president higher on average. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

18)*According to PEW, 41% of the U.S. believes in at least one form of the paranormal. Some believe in multple types of paranormal phenomena.

19)*It is a common misconception that all Dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago during the KT Extinction. In fact, one clade of dinosaurs, the Birds(Aves), survives today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 11:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

20)*Twenty-five percent of U.S. citizens do not believe in the Theory of evolution. A lack of belief in evolution correlates highly with low educational attainment, and high religiosity.

21) It is a common misconception that Hiroshima was a military target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Flashbulb memory

The sourced material you removed pointed out, in the fourth citation, that we all have flashbulb memory, we believe they are more firmly rooted, and that is a misconception. That is a researcher in the field saying that this misconception is nearly universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how the source identifies it as a COMMON misconception, not just a misconception. My personal opinion is that most people have given it no thought; if that's true, it's not a common misconception. (Again, please sign your edits.) Cresix (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"MOST OF US CAN TELL STORIES LIKE THESE.[sic]" His emphasis, not mine. That should be sufficient I think. It is a misconception, which the all four citations show, and it is extremely common. He goes on to say false memories are extremely common, like these flashbulb memories, and "their confidence [in the memory] can be so strong as to be unshakable." —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 04:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. "Most of us can tell stories like these" does not equate with a common misconception. And the fact that four sources identify it as a misconception does not mean it is a common misconception; I can find four sources that some people think the Earth is flat. But as is usually the case, we now need consensus to include or exclude these items, not just your or my opinion. Cresix (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You're saying most people haven't thought about memory? That's obviously wrong. That people trust in a concept, without realizing it is a concept, does not change the fact that it is a misconception.~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 04:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You ignored half my statement to argue against it, does that make sense to you? This guy clearly says everyone has these memories, we trust these memories, these memories are misconceptions. You don't think that is enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 04:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is made by editing, not by erasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 04:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by that statement. But for what "consensus" means on Wikipedia, please read WP:CON. Consensus is determined by discussion on a talk page. Now, it's late where I live and I plan to depart Wikiworld for a while. Feel free to make additional comments, but please wait for the consensus process to play out. Good evening. Cresix (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I had to undo what you did to the article b/c you erased a lot more than what I think you meant to. You erased three separate sections I edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 04:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And that is entirely inappropriate when a matter is under discussion. Please don't do that again. Wikipedia has rules for appropriate behavior. Please read WP:CON and WP:Edit war. Cresix (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Quoting you, ""Most of us can tell stories like these" does not equate with a common misconception. And the fact that four sources identify it as a misconception does not mean it is a common misconception". The first part identifies it as a common belief, and all four identify it as a misconception. It is a common belief and it is wrong. It is a common misconception.

That is yet to be determined here, and not by just you and me. Now I am out of here for the next few hours. Again, please respect the consensus process. Begin by reading WP:CON. And please start signing your edits. Cresix (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.sagepub.com/bartolstudy/articles/Turtle.pdf Here's another one, page seven says nearly everyone will recall flashbulb memories with high confidence, but poor performance. High confidence is a strong belief in your capability to achieve the feat at hand. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 04:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that the editor's true agenda is to push that particular organization? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

To answer your rhetorical question: paranoia. Otherwise, I can't imagine why you would think I would have a secret agenda. I posted a half dozen links to all different locations, what organization would I be trying to advertise for exactly?

I see, sagepub, it came up twice in this comments section. Yes, in fact I am a stooge for 'the man'. Sagepub is paying me to argue on wikipedia. They consider it effective advertising to pay me for hours of arguing with one to two people on a backpage on wikipedia...

So often on wikipedia I am left arguing for the obvious. 'People believe their strong memories are more accurate.' If you argue with that, you're a bonehead. Sure, anyone can invent an argument against it. But for a person to actually believe it is wrong would require that person to have a mindset which is unfathomable for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A consensus was called for; was it found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Calling for a consensus does not mean that one will be produced instantly. So far, there is no consensus to include the information in question. There is no such thing as a consensus of one editor, and I feel certain that TheThomas and anon 72.187.199.192 are the same person. And even if the two are different editors, still no consensus to include. Cresix (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Same person...that would be why I didn't attempt to add another opinion. Consensus of one person exists. That is what happens when nobody reverts. Consensus of two people--us--is what should be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Semantic splitting of hairs; when one person makes an edit that goes unchallenged, no consensus is needed. Consensus is only necessary when there is disagreement, as is the case here. You asked whether a consensus had been achieved; my impression was that you did not understand the consensus process; thus my statement that there is no consensus of one person. My point is that you, nor I, nor any single editor determines consensus. So far there is no consensus for the additions you wish to make to the article. WP:CON and WP:BURDEN require that you wait for consensus before adding the information to the article. Cresix (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My point was that we need not wait for some external consensus. We're adults right? My argument was reasonable, my sources good, you're wrong. We can agree on that right?TheThomas (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"People often have vivid recollections of their own personal circumstances when first learning about attacks on major public figures." Brown and Kulik (1977) Often...common...a tenuous link at best! "In this study, memories of the 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan were obtained on questionnaires completed one and seven months after the shooting. Subjects responded either at one or both time periods. Most respondents reported flashbulb memories, despite a low incidence of reported rehearsal and low consequentiality ratings." Brown and Kulik (1977) Most respondents...common...a tenuous link at best! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T24-45RC7C7-5D&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F29%2F1984&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1545146040&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=52a67853b743ff8c93b745ef72621216&searchtype=a —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we consider this settled yet?TheThomas (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's settled: It doesn't belong in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Do you have anything to say? Or, were you just planning on making that bald assertion and leaving the conversation there?72.187.99.79 (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite lots of talk, only one issue has been raised. Whether this misconception is common. I added more links to show it is common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bugs. It's settled. No consensus to make any of the changes currently under discussion. Thanks to all for your comments. Cresix (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I'm sure that somewhere in the consensus page there is a section saying that citing 'no consensus' as a reason for reverting/deleting is a sign of ownership. 'You can't change our article unless we agree to it first.' Hope you'll consider that your behavior/reasons may be inappropriate per wiki's guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 10:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Don't pull this stunt[1] again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I'll also comment that the additional source that was added was a dead link. Regardless, there was no consensus to restore the item. Cresix (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the dead link. Any reason the revised edit, with even more sources supporting commonness and misconceptionness, was removed? How have I not addressed the concerns of commonness and misconceptionness that were raised weeks ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 00:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It was removed because there is no consensus to restore it. That's enough reason. You've acted unilaterally without consensus twice, and currently there is a discussion about it at WP:ANI#List of common misconceptions. If you have additional concerns about the consensus issue, take them to that discussion, not here. Cresix (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I'm sure that somewhere in the consensus page there is a section saying that citing 'no consensus' as a reason for reverting/deleting is a sign of ownership. 'You can't change our article unless we agree to it first.' Hope you'll consider that your behavior/reasons may be inappropriate per wiki's guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Muslims and Evolution

Any reasons you erased sourced material, from reliable sources, quoting these as misconceptions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 11:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Baseball Bugs, but I agree with the removal and his request to discuss on the talk page. Citing figures of 20% to 25% certainly raises some doubt about whether an item is a "common" misconception. Where do we draw the line? 15%? 10%? That's a matter of opinion, which is why such items must be included only by consensus. Cresix (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. You are against establishing a section requiring a set number (50%), but you're willing to arbitrarily remove low percentages? This page will always be deficient if no policy is established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

French fries

I'm sure if the average American were asked which country originated French fries, they would look at the questioner as if he had just asked what color the White House is. The attempt by some to rename them "Freedom fries" due to political issues with France speaks to the core assumption that they're of French origin. In France itself, these kinds of fried potatoes are called "fried potatoes" or simply "fries", which also has the the unfortunate side effect to a visitor (such as I was) of reinforcing the assumption that they're French, because why would the French bother to call them "French" fries? I recall many years ago when Harry Reasoner did a special called "An Essay on Doors". The only specific thing I remember from that program are his comment, "French doors are about as French as French fries - which aren't!" However, sourcing is needed. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a little different perspective on this. I suspect that most Americans perceive the name of the food as "frenchfries"; to them, it's just a name with no connotation of national origin. I think if they have a surprised look when asked which country originated "frenchfries", it would be the same look you would get if you asked for the country of origin for "hashbrowns" or "potato salad". Now if you emphasized the word "French", there might be a pause followed by "Uh ... I guess ... France??". But maybe I've just been hanging around people who don't think very deeply. :) Cresix (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Reasoner's comment subtly points out something. There are likely plenty of objects which have false labels. The public uses those false labels frequently and ignorantly. But does it matter enough to add it to a "misconceptions" article? Actually, the attempt to label them "Freedom fries" speaks directly to such a misconception. But it would be tough to prove that the average citizen really knows or cares what country these fries actually originated from. A parallel I can think of is chop suey, which is commonly assumed to be a Chinese dish, but supposedly was invented by a restaurant owner in Chinatown, San Francisco, which means the dish is not exactly "Chinese", but more like "American-Chinese". But it tastes the same either way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, whether they originated in France or Timbuktu, I prefer good ol' American burgers and fries smothered in catsup rather than a Royale with cheese and fried potatoes covered in mayonnaise. Cresix (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That raises another "misconception", namely that a "hamburger" might be made of ham. There's no end to this kind of thing, which is why it doesn't really belong in this article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And then there's the ancient mystery of which part of the chicken is the nugget. :) Cresix (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Parts is parts."[2] Beyond that, we're better off not knowing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about that commercial! LMAO!! Cresix (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually "French fries" are "French" in a culinary way, meaning that they are cut into silvers. 129.199.114.227 (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Carrots improving eyesight

I was wondering if we should add an item about carrots improving eyesight. This was propaganda from World War II to explain why the Royal Air Force was so successful in fighting the Luftwaffe. Germans didn't understand the significance of radar so the British came up with a plausible explanation about carrots improving their pilots' eyesight. I haven't looked for any sources yet. I wanted to get some feedback first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sourcing that currently it is a common misconception, it might be possible (I'd suggest posting the sources here first). A misconception from 65 years ago may not be very common today. For example, back then many people where I lived thought someone who is slender was unhealthy and needed to get some "meat on his bones" by eating lots of red meat. My personal opinion is that the carrot idea probably is not very widespread these days. But if you want to dig up some sources, that would be an interesting one. Cresix (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

i have heard this story and I agree, I remember as a child being told "carrots are good for your eyes/ seeing at night" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.143.26 (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In my experience it's a very common misconception but probably more of an old wives' tale. Turkeyphan^t 01:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Blueberries are what temporarily improve night vision, not carrots. The carrot one is also part of the old joke: "Carrots are good for your eyesight. Did you ever see a rabbit wearing glasses?" -- Brangifer (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm, at least anecdotally, that this misconception is commonly repeated to children in my area. I don't know whether people actually believe it or not though. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a very common misconception. --Spuzzdawg (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's likely a common misconception. Now are there RS to document it as such? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are some potential sources:

• Carrots & Night Vision
• Can eating carrots improve your eyesight?
• Carrots Good for Eyes?

The only potential issue here is that if you're suffering from a vitamin A deficiency, eating carrots is good for your eyes. What does everyone else think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The real misconception here is failing to understand the fact that the Germans in WWII knew exactly what radar was, and in fact had such powerful portable radar systems that they were in a constant capabilities and countermeasures race with the Allies on all fronts (in which low tech chaff, or strips of aluminum foil, became the most tactically significant development on both sides.) 71.198.176.22 (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Metal in Microwave Ovens

The citation titled "Is it Dangerous to Put Metal in a Microwave?" (http://www.wisegeek.com/is-it-dangerous-to-put-metal-in-a-microwave.htm) is an unsourced opinion in a blog. Does anyone have a citation to a reliable source to back up claim the that metal in a microwave oven can damage the magnetron by causing an impedance mismatch? An empty oven chamber has a nearly perfect impedance mismatch (basic physics; a perfect impedance match means maximum power to the load, and the walls and air of the empty chamber do not get hot, meaning very little power has been transferred, thus a nearly perfect impedance mismatch), yet microwave ovens survive that case just fine. Also, various types of automatic load impedance matching in microwave ovens have been around for years. See United States Patent 5512736 for one of many examples.

Although it would be original research and thus not usable as the Basis for a Wikipedia article, I would be most interested if anyone has ever burned out the magnetron in a microwave oven by putting metal inside of it. Where are the piles of burned out microwave ovens? Guy Macon 08:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The microwave oven article states, "Another hazard is the resonance of the magnetron tube itself. If the microwave is run without an object to absorb the radiation, a standing wave will form. The energy is reflected back and forth between the tube and the cooking chamber. This may cause the tube to 'cook' itself and burn out. Thus dehydrated food, or food wrapped in metal which does not arc, is problematic without being an obvious fire hazard." This suggests that you are right, an empty microwave is a near perfect mismatch and suffers high VSWR. From this description, I imagine that the magnetron itself absorbs most of the energy. While magnetrons may not appear to suffer any damage from this I wouldn't be surprised if magnetrons were actually significantly damaged and their life expectancy significantly decreased from such an action. My extremely limited experience with high power radar magnetrons suggests to me that magnetrons are very touchy. Their spectral and power output can be significantly affected by aberrations within the tube and temperature. Heating and general use slowly change the internal dimensions and eventually the thing stops working. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that a high VSWR would exacerbate this process. I imagine that it is far more likely that the user believes the magnetron has been unaffected because the microwave continues to cook food. Of course, all of this is pure speculation. If you decide to conduct an experiment for yourself, make sure you pass on the results. --Spuzzdawg (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have done a bit of work with both radar and microwave magnetrons. The difference is a lot like the difference between a fine Swiss watch and a sundial. The radar is a precision instrument that puts out a precise beam at a precise frequency, while the microwave oven just has to spray a broad beam of microwaves into the cooking chamber with no particular effort to control the exact frequency.

Alas, the microwave oven article also has a problem with citations to reliable sources, as can be seen by the "This section needs additional citations for verification" tag. Somehow, though, having unsourced and unproven claims about microwave ovens in the list of common misconceptions article seems especially wrong. I am going to hold off until the latest storm of edits caused by the mention on XKCD dies down, and then, if nobody has come up with a reliable source, I will fix the page.

I also question the oft-repeated claim that the reflected energy heats the magnetron. Looking at the various patents that have been issued for microwave ovens, it seems much more likely that the oven lowers the power output and changes the impedance matching to compensate for the mismatch. Once again going back to basic physics, the proof one way or the other would be to find a reliable source giving us magnetron temperature readings with and without food in the chamber.

Another potential issue is that, in the case of consumer products, you cannot count upon the manufacturers recommendations being accurate. Such recommendations are usually written by the legal department, not the engineering department. Thus we see white 100% cotton sheets with "dry clean only" instructions an Q-Tips with instructions saying not to use then to clean your ears. Guy Macon 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That source is totally unusable by our standards. The instructions from manufacturers of microwave ovens would be acceptable.

There is also another matter that seems to be ignored. Focusing on damage to the magnetron tube is only one problem. Just as with a shortwave diathermy machine Metal can quickly get very hot and damage things in the oven or the oven itself. If the writer of that blog article is correct, there are apparently ways to use the heat created to an advantage. It just as to be properly shaped and designed for the purpose. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the blog is unusable by Wikipedia standards, so I deleted the citation and added a citation needed tag. I don't agree that instructions from manufacturers of microwave ovens would in all cases be be acceptable; see above for my reasoning. I think the issue of metal getting hot and damaging the oven (or your fingers!) can be addressed by expanding the part where it talks about arcing, so I will go and try to fix that. Guy Macon 17:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dumb question in general here. But the title of this article is List of Common Misconceptions. Now, what is the common misconception in this case? The way I've been familiar with this is "Don't put metal in the microwave because it might damage [the oven]". How is this a misconception? This sounds like saying "It's a misconception that you need to look both ways before crossing the road, because in some cases the road might be closed to automobile traffic". If on the other hand putting any common household metal object (fork, bowl, pot) in any commonly existing microwave never resulted in any damage to either object or oven, then I might agree that it was a misconception that "putting metal in microwaves is bad", but as it stands it seems more like a technicality that gets around this fact. I suggest this entry is removed from the list. Thoughts? -Popoi (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The common misconception is that it is always dangerous to put anything metal in a microwave. The article should reflect that misconception. We know that sometimes it is a danger (arcing sets a bowl of popcorn on fire, the popcorn fire sets the plastic parts found in some microwave ovens on fire) and we know that sometimes it isn't (food containers containing metal that are designed for microwave use), so "it is always dangerous to put anything metal in a microwave" is indeed a misconception. As to whether it is a widely held misconception, every entry on this page raises that question, with no good way to get an answer from a reliable source. Personal experience is no help; you may live in a region that does not have a misconception widely held elsewhere. Guy Macon 16:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, that's just my problem. (A) We are trying to call it a misconception i.e. completely false, when it is not always false. Putting aluminum foil in a microwave might cause a fire - ergo, putting metal in a microwave can be dangerous. (B) We're trying to narrow the definition of the misconception to "Putting any metal object in any type of microwave oven will always be dangerous" -- but that is not the way the "saying" goes. Show me the money! 1) Is there research that this is a common misconception? 2) Is the misconception always stated the same way? I think we are splitting hairs here, and again "there is a common misconception that you need to look both ways before crossing a road. some roads are not open to automobile traffic and it is completely safe to cross without looking both ways" --Popoi (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, as to whether it is a widely held misconception, every entry on this page raises that "Is there research that this is a common misconception?" question, with no good way to get an answer from a reliable source. Personal experience such as asserting "that is not the way the 'saying' goes" is no help; you may live in a region that does not have a misconception widely held elsewhere. If you want to trade personal experiences, my mother, one former employer and a couple of friends all told me that any metal in any microwave will burn out the microwave's electronics. Not start a fire; burn out the electronics. That's the commonly held misconception as I heard it, which of course proves nothing. I might as well assert without evidence that that is the way the 'saying' goes. That, like your assertion ("that is not the way the 'saying' goes") are original research and unsourced material, and thus not acceptable as Wikipedia citations. Guy Macon 21:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there actually are entries in the article with sources that the misconception is common. A few others were settled by consensus. Feel free to challenge any that are not source or were not settled by consensus. But the argument that "other stuff exists" is not a valid one for adding unsourced information. Cresix (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of all the assertions of this and that, this is the only misconception that doesn't actually state what the misconception is. Its really quite confusing, I had to read the above comments to understand what was going on. So you could rewrite it from scratch so that it actually makes sense Guy Macon (its currently suffering from "too many authors syndrome" for sure). Personally I'd just remove it. --eean (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There are enough problem with this entry that I support deleting it until new version is developed that overcomes there problems.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it needs a rewrite. I have no position about whether to delete it pending the rewrite; either way is fine with me and I will support whatever the consensus is. Guy Macon 09:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Deoxygenated blood is blue.

Deoxygenated blood never becomes blue as depicted in many textbooks. It becomes a dark red. It is the veins around the blood that are colored blue.

Look at: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Blood#Color

Kienle, Alwin (March 1, 1996). "Why do veins appear blue? A new look at an old question" (PDF). Applied Optics. 35 (7): 1151–60. doi:10.1364/AO.35.001151. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

File:Blutkreislauf.png
Red = oxygenated
Blue = deoxygenated]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.242.211 (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Bloodbags.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.242.211 (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether blood is ever blue, but whether it is a common misconception. Please look at the archives. The idea of blue blood has been rejected as a common misconception several times on the talk page. As just a informal illustration, almost no one is shocked, surprised, or even a little puzzled when they always see red blood if they have a cut. Cresix (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been told by several people that they believe the misconception that blood can be blue. The reason that you don't see blue blood from a cut is that the blood comes into contact with air, and air is oxygen (note that is also a misconception). Sorry I don't have a source, but I'm sure someone could find one. 173.164.86.190 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, please read the archives, where this issue has been discussed several times. The fact that you "have been told by several people that they believe the misconception that blood can be blue" does not qualify as a reliable source. If you're "sure someone could find" a source, you need to be the "someone" who finds its. I have been in the healthcare profession for over forty years and have never met one person who thought that blood can be blue or who was surprised that it is red. Cresix (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I have read the archives. Here are a number of websites which state that the idea that deoxygenated blood is blue is a common misconception:

1. http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/upload/2010/09/is_blood_ever_blue_science_tea_2/Is_Blood_Ever_Blue.pdf
2. http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-Veins-Blue-Blood-Red-5204165
3. www.ehow.com/how-does_5164838_do-look-blue-under-skin.html (unlinked for spam-filter)
4. http://www.colourlovers.com/blog/2007/07/26/color-in-science-is-my-blood-really-blue/
5. http://www.misconceptionjunction.com/index.php/2010/09/deoxygenated-blood-turns-dark-red-not-blue/
6. http://blog.sciencegeekgirl.com/2008/06/07/myth-7-blood-is-blue/
7. http://www.sunriseequine.com/Documents/what_color_is_blood.htm

None are what I would call great sources, but I would hope that what they lack in quality is made up for in quantity.

I suspect that http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.3730690513/abstract mentions this misconception, and would be a *great* source, but I can't find the full text to check. Good enough? blahaccountblah (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sections titles inconsistence

Both sections 2 and 3 of the article talk about USA-based misconceptions only, however section 2 is called "United States politics" while section 3 is just "Law". Since no other section is named after a country, I request section 2 is renamed "Politics", and if in the future more misconceptions from other countries are added to the article then it can be split into subsections, just like section 1. 84.236.255.164 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

bike and gyroscope

The gyroscopic effect is disregarded. However there are two parts to a gyroscope: First it resists turning of the axis of rotation. This effect helps slow the time-constant of the bike falling over once you have some speed. This is why it is more difficult to bike along at pedestrian speed than to pedal at normal bike-speed. The other effect of a gyroscope is: if you try to turn the axis of rotation one way you'll get a force in another direction. This effect, I think is meant when the references say that it doesn't impact bicycle riding (much). Rewolff (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's right: the reason why it's more difficult to balance at low speeds is the transmission of your turns of the handlebar into leans depends on speed. The slower you go the longer it takes, and below a certain speed it's too slow: you can't correct your lean quick enough to stop falling over.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that without the gyroscope, balancing on a bike would be analogous to ice skating (on one foot) -- which is also harder at slow speeds, I think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.182 (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thirteenth Amendment

The article states that with the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment slavery was officially abolished in all of the United States. But that is in fact not true, since the Thirteenth Amendment allows slavery as a punishment for crime. Danvolodar (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ich bin ein berliner

My German teacher a native German told me this one. Are you sure that it is as misconcieved as stated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.76.21 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in and say that the German public were, in fact, amused by this secondary meaning of "Ich bin ein Berliner". Near everytime I would get doughnuts in Germany, somebody would smirk and asked if I knew the story. The way the misconception is stated, it seems to indicate that there was no secondary meaning, and that Germans didn't find it amusing. I'll buy the idea the German he used was correct in the way he intended, but the external links from the article and everything I can find indicate that the secondary meaning was understood and laughed at. 142.162.19.202 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a German native speaker born in Frankfurt, now living in Berlin. It is true, that it would be more common to say "Ich bin Berliner", without the article, but it does not sound wrong to me to include it. It's also true, that "Ich bin ein Berliner" would be what one would say to identify oneself as a jelly doughnut. However, as the article correctly states, the word "Berliner" for jelly doughnut is common in most of Germany, excluding Berlin. I don't think the average guy who grew up in Berlin even knows that the word "Berliner" carries a second meaning outside of Berlin. That didn't stop anybody from having a small chucke over the anecdote. In Berlin Doughnuts are called "Pfannkuchen". Everywhere else a "Pfannkuchen" is just what you get when you translate the word literally - Pan Cake. --87.162.104.206 (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The context of the phrase is misstated. See e.g. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkberliner.html so JFK was referring to himself, if only figuratively. 'All -- All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin. And, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."' Also, as a native speaker of german I can confirm the contribution from 87.162.104.206. 93.232.140.203 (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends on where you are in Germany. As the article states, "Berliner" isn't used for a Jelly Doughnut in Berlin; however, it is used in other parts of Germany. To Berliners, the meaning was quite clear. In other areas of Germany, the double-meaning was present and it is a good joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.66.210 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

When checking the cited source, it clearly states that, "Berliner" was not commonly used to refer to the doughnuts in the Berlin of the 1960s. As a German, I can verify that it is in fact a widely spread and very common word. I think most of the confusion arises from the fact that Germans nowadays think it's funny, but the Germans from that time didn't. I'd suggest changing "The word Berliner is not commonly used in Berlin to refer to the Berliner Pfannkuchen;" to "The word Berliner was not commonly used in Berlin at that time to refer to the Berliner Pfannkuchen;" (much to my own suprise as well btw ^^) --91.89.3.92 (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Male/Female mosquitos and crane flies

Crane flies are often mistaken for male mosquitos. This is due to the commonly spread knowledge that male mosquitos are larger than females, and that male mosquitos do not bite humans. Male mosquitos are nectar feeders, and can be larger than females, but mosquito size is rarely larger than 16mm (0.6 in), compared to the crane fly whose average size ranges from 2 to 60 mm (0.08 to 2.4 in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by StPuglo (talk • contribs) 11:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception; not just that crane flies are not mosquitos, a source that it is a common misconception. 15:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Date of Christ's Birth

The current entry in the list says the following:

"Contrary to popular belief[161], there is no evidence that Jesus was born on December 25[162]. The Bible never claims a date of December 25, but may imply a date closer to September.[163]. The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was likely chosen to coincide with the pagan holidays celebrating the Winter Solstice."

While the first couple of sentences are fine, the last sentence is itself a common misconception. The pagan holiday celebrated on December 25 was instituted by Roman emperor Aurelian (ruled 270-275 AD) as an attempt to unify the various pagan factions, due to his hostility with the Christians. The Christian use of December 25 was based on an old Jewish belief that the Prophets of Israel died on the same day as their conception or birth date. Early calculations (which were probably wrong) put Christ's death on March 25, hence it was believed that he was conceived on that day (now the Feast of the Annunciation, celebrating Gabriel's visit to Mary). Add 9 months to that day and you have December 25. Source: William J. Tighe, Associate Professor of History, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA as described in the article Calculating Christmas.

Bellde (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not correct. The Roman holiday of Brumalia was celebrated before on that day. The Greek Lenaia, Jewish Hanukkah and Roman Saturnalia also took place on or around that day. What you are referring to is the holiday of Sol Invictus, which was instituted by Aurelian later. Your theory is included in the article in the section "Sol Invictus and Christianity" though. Nevertheless, this article does not talk about the holiday of Sol Invictus and as I pointed out before, other holidays were celebrated on that day, long before the birth of Jesus. Regards SoWhy 12:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was indeed referring to Sol Invictus (see the source article I mentioned). Brumalia was indeed held on 25 Dec, as a celebration to Bacchus, and not the "sun worship" attributed by some to the Christian intent to take over the date. Lenaia was a minor holiday, and thus not likely a prime candidate for the early Christians to try and take over; Saturnalia was originally on 17 Dec and later made a longer celebration from 1-23 Dec, so close to 25 Dec, but not the same. The Sol Invictus wiki page refers to the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia as advocating for the pagan influence on the choice of 25 Dec, but that is an erroneous reading of the page (go check it out: [3].

The Sol Invictus article goes on to say that the view I expressed above is disputed by others (obviously true), including many Christians, but ignores the fact that the academically well-versed leader of over half of the Christians in the world (Catholics represent 50.99% of all Christians according to the CIA World Fact Book) does express this same view, so technically (although not necessarily actually) the Christian majority actually supports this view.

My suggestion for the misconception page would be to change the last sentence to something like "There are 2 primary schools of thought as to why December 25th was chosen to celebrate the birth of Christ: 1) it coincided with 9 months after an early calculation of Christ's conception being on March 25 (footnote: Calculating Christmas); and, 2) it served as a Christian replacement for the Roman holiday of Sol Invictus. Catholic Christians tend to express the former view whereas Protestant Christians the latter."

Bellde (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a sentence from Christmas instead which addresses all of those rather nicely. Regards SoWhy 15:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get all the verses out of the Gospels, however the bible, when taken at face value regarding the dates of John's conception, Jesus's conception, John's Birth, and then Jesus's brith comes out with a date of late December as the date of Jesus' birth. The first sentance regarding Jesus's birth says that there is no evidence, when there is some evidence that December 25th is the date when you put all the Jewish celebrations and 9 month gestation periods on a calendar. 155.13.48.128 (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What's your evidence? Cresix (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I like your final solution. Bellde (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

An alternate date of Christ's birth of April 17, 6 BC was proposed in the book "The Star of Bethlehem: The legacy of the magi" with further discussion on the author's website. This derived from planetary alignments that would trigger an astrological event significant to the magi. This would explain why no one in Judea noticed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheros3 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry: Water

I think that the single word "usually" needs to be taken out from the first bullet.

Completely pure water is not a good conductor of electricity.[146] In practical situations (such as bathtubs, flooded basements) water usually contains impurities (electrolytes) which allow for good electrical conduction.

In 'practical' situations (which I don't know what that means as many practical applications require pure water) or maybe better household applications, water ALWAYS has impurities. A perfectly pure water source would be lethal to humans due to Le Chatelier's principle as water becomes an aggressive solvent when pure.

This might clear up an misconception that in 'practical' applications there is sometimes 'pure water.' (It isn't even close in actuality.)

Merci. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.103.161 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that's just another misconception. That pure water is lethal, that is. It might be in the (very) long run as it, consumed exclusively in large quantities and without proper amount of electrolytes in food, causes elimination of electrolytes from the body, which in turn influences serum potassium concentration, which in turn fucks up your heart among other things. We should add that i think. --Echosmoke (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The item is about water as a conductor of electricity, not it's lethality if consumed. Cresix (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: TRANSPORTATION

• Finnish landing strips:

There is a "citation needed" tag concerning Finnish and Polish emergency landing strips (what would be cit. 192). The following url http://alk.tiehallinto.fi/julkaisut/pdf3/lo_2010-18_lentokoneiden_varalaskupaikat.pdf (author: Liikennevirasto/Finnish transport agency) contains Finland's traffic authority's instructions about technical and other requirements for such a strip and should be sufficient evidence for their existence.

83.150.92.192 (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

//correction, after cit. 197

83.150.92.192 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• US interstate highway system:

I have heard repeatedly that while the US interstate highway system was not designed to have emergency landings, it was implemented by Eisenhower so that the Military could quickly transport personnel and equipment across the country as quick as possible, and that the overpasses on interstates are of a certain high so that missile transport trucks can pass under them. In addition, there are supposedly parallel highway access roads on most of the original overpasses so that in the even the overpasses were bombed, military transports could still continue along to the other side by using the access roads. Any validity to these claims? if so they should be added to the transport section

 Not done. Please provide a source that this is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The common misconception is regarding the US interstate highway system being used for landing strips. While explaining this misconception the section illustrates that it is indeed true in some localities that highways have purposefully been designed as landing strips. In doing so it references Finland without a citation. This edit requests adds the citation requested but does not alter the section in any other way.

Please reconsider adding the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.27.102 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a source that this is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

edit request for History, Europe 88.195.167.85 (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that Vikings wore horns on their helmets.[18][19]" seems to me too unexplanatory. I suggest two additions: firstly, that common Viking soldiers wore plain metal or leather helmets if any (this is backed up by the references already in place). Secondly, to my knowledge one part of the misconception of horns originates from the towns and villages that were raided by the "devillish" Vikings; especially religious accounts of these horrible and fierce attackers attribute them with horns as a sign that relates to devil. This may have lead to some imaginative artists depicting Vikings with both devil horns and also a tail in some occasions.

Unfortunately I'm not able to provide a good reference for the latter information, so I do not insist its addition unless somebody else can help with that. 88.195.167.85 (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources for your claims. Cresix (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

air = oxygen?

Are there in fact significant numbers of people who think that air is mostly oxygen? Unlike most of the other examples here, I've never heard anyone espouse this belief, and doubt that it is in fact a common misconception. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the reference contains this "Children's misconceptions about weather ... Air and oxygen are the same thing (Stepans, 1994)." So someone made a study that shows that children commonly believe that Oxygen and Air is one and the same, as opposed to Air being a mixture of gases. I agree, however, that it does not show that it is a common misconception among the general population in the world/any particular country/area. So by the standards imposed elsewhere here, i think this entry has a weak reference. --Popoi (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Children's misconceptions are not what is being discussed here. It should be removed. Turkeyphan^t 01:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Snopes vs. LoCM

What is the actual point of this article? Is it to eventually grow and become some kind of debunk page of misconceptions and (urban) legends, along the lines of Snopes? I know it might sound radical, but does it need to exist at all? It just seems like a massive "random trivia" or "the more you know" page to me. --Popoi (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at the archives. Similar discussions in the past. The article is limited somewhat because items must be reliably sourced as COMMON misconceptions (or accepted by consensus as such). For every item in the article, there are HUNDREDS that have been removed as not common. So it's not exactly a random list of misconceptions. Cresix (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unlikely to grow much more. I think we've pretty much exhausted all the reliable sources we can find, though I do propose two additions above. But I don't see this article growing too much. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, to be fair, very few of the entries on this page seems to meet the criteria of being reliably sourced as being a common misconception. At least on some of them you specify in which culture or population the belief is common. For instance, the Air=oxygen entry only has a reference where a study was done on children. The Let them eat cake entry is another, where I can emotionally agree that i believed this to be true, and therefore think that it is a common misconception, but here no reference is made to support the fact that it is a common misconception. Most entries in the article follow the latter format, and when people suggest additions to the article they are met by Please submit a source that it is a common misconception. What about these other entries? Are they grandfathered in? Is there some kind of voting system in place? --Popoi (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You're "preaching to the choir", Poposhka. No need to demand from most of us that we "submit a source"; many of the contributors to this talk page prior to today (most of today's contributors are a flash in the pan because the article got some press) have thrashed out these issues quite extensively. Some items were accepted by consensus even though not reliably sourced. Feel free to seek a new consensus, but please review the archives first so we don't have to re-invent the wheel. For the remainder that might be poorly sourced, feel free to challenge them. Cresix (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand then. This page is more of a result of the organic nature of Wikipedia rather than how other articles tend to work. --Popoi (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It different from most articles because of the dual sourcing aspect: sourcing that the facts are accurate, and sourcing that the misconception is common. It's that second roadblock that kills the vast majority of items. Cresix (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what Popoi is referring to is the fact that unsourced material stays in this article since no one is challenging it (what you call consensus, basically). This however is true for all of WP, just usually ppl may be more keen on challenging. --Echosmoke (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from PhiloHippus, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In astronomy section, add the misconception that moon phases are caused by the earth's shadow:

• Lunar phases are not caused by the shadow of the Earth or umbra falling on the Moon's surface (this occurs only during a lunar eclipse), they are the result of looking at the illuminated half of the Moon from different viewing geometries.

PhiloHippus (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done You need to show us some sources that this is a common misconception. For me personally, this is the first I've heard of this; I thought it was common knowledge that lunar phases result from the direction of sunlight falling on the moon. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Addition request: Schizophrenia

Could somebody please add the misconception about schizophrenia and multiple person(ality) disorder? Request it because i'm not natural english speaker and don't want to leave a mess of language here ;) --84.61.4.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

 Not done: Please provide a reliable source that this is a COMMON misconception. Cresix (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence of the second paragraph in the article on Schizophrenia says that schizophrenia and split/multiple personality disorder are "often confused in public perception" and provides a source for that statement. --74.84.88.99 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a case of the writer of that statement in Schizophrenia not quite representing the source accurately. The source does not identify it as a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Then let's add another source :http://www.thebrainhealth.com/schizophrenia-vs-dissociative-identity-disorder.html, will this be enough?

Islam misconceptions

This TED video [4] exposes many misconceptions about Islam that could/should be added to the article.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good information, but it's only one person's ideas about misconceptions about Islam. Need more evidence that they are COMMON misconceptions. Cresix (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Deletions

Multiple editors have been deleting sections of this article on the basis of there not being a source showing that it is a misconception or there not being a source showing that it is a common misconception. These deletions have, in some cases been made without regard to ongoing discussions on the talk page concerning those exact issues.

If the issue is whether the alleged common misconception is true or false, a good policy is that if the section has been in the article for a long time but unsourced or has a low quality source such as an opinion on a blog, remove any low-quality sources and add a citation needed tag. If it was just recently added, deleting it with a note that it was unsourced or poorly sourced is appropriate. Editors are reminded that "Citation Needed" notices, unless many months old, are not a reason to delete a section.

An open question s whether it is reasonable to expect a citation from a reliable source showing that something is a common misconception. A reliable source saying that X is false and Y is true is evidence that X is a misconception, but not evidence that X is a widely held misconception It is hard to see how anyone could know that for sure without conducting a public opinion poll. I would favor discussing proposed deletions based on how commonly held the belief is on the talk page and seeking consensus rather than simply deleting them out of hand. Guy Macon 22:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed a discussion about these very issues under the rather non-intuitive title "Snopes vs. LoCM". Guy Macon 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be surprised to see you citing a wikipedia policy that states "unsourced material may not be deleted because people jabber about it on a discussion page" In fact, many templates state the opposite: "unsourced and challenged material may be removed." That's what people do and it is good and well they do it. It is, after all, not an issue to reinsert deleted content from a previous version IF someone actually comes up with sources AFTER a lengthy discussion (which I yet have to see, btw). But then again you are posting this at the top of the page which says a lot about the policies you follow ;) --Echosmoke (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. In this case the assumption is accurate; if I have failed to follow a policy it is because I don't know the policy. A link to the policy you are assuming I violated in bad faith would result in me studying the policy and doing my best to follow it in the future. Guy Macon 03:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So let's move it to the bottom of the page. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't fault the people editing this article for shooting first and asking questions later. They should still make sure that the questions do get asked. If an entry looks like there might just be good sourcing for it, the editor who removes it should bring it up on the discussion page if it isn't here already. Skipping this step means that the outcome is likely to depend on force, not facts, plus it's impolite. --Kizor 23:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Goldfish memory

Could someone update this entry to distinguish between memory and attention span, as goldfish attention spans are actually quite short, and this is the origin of the misconception (wouldn't want to create a misconception the other way) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.182 (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Danish Pastry actually Danish

It's a common misconception that the Danish term Wienerbrød means that the pastry originates in Wienna (where they actually are called Kopenhagener Gebäck, meaning roughly Pastries from Copenhagen). The true origins for the Danish name was that the they were created by Austrian bakers in Copenhagen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.88.105 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read this talk page and the archives. This has been discussed previously. Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception; not just where the term "Danish" originated, a source that it is a common misconception. 15:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that the fact that the term turned up in this liste in it self proves that it is a misconception, common enough to make the misconception turn up on this list as "the truth". But who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.177.14 (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon's Height

I think it's worth noting that, although Napoleon was far from being a dwarf, he was pretty short. Notably so by European standards. As stated in the article his height at time-of-death was 1.686 meters (5'6.5"), which is shorter than the average person in all of the European countries listed on Wikipedia's "Human height" page, and is in fact shorter than the average Japanese man (who are a notably short people). I think it's a bit disingenuous to include "Napoleon wasn't especially short" on a page of common misconceptions, when measured against today's standards, he was in fact a notably short man. Perhaps when measured against the people of his own time, Napoleon was of average or perhaps even above average height, but if that's so the article should mention and cite sources to validate such an argument.

I'm not really sure how to sign this, but I am...

Jon Samuelson—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.29.24 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Average_height#History_of_human_height, the average height of French troops in the mid-nineteenth century was 1.65 m, making Napoleon slightly above average for the time. However, nobility tended to be taller due to better nutrition, so he may have been considered somewhat short among his peers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.144.106 (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's cool. I think the article should mention this fact, and link to it. I know that Wikipedia is a user-edited thing, an in theory if I think there should be a change, that I should just do it. But honestly, I think I'd just screw it up, so perhaps someone else should take care of it? -Jon Samuelson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.29.24 (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dinosaurs & Humans

It is a common misconception even among adults that humans and dinosaurs (in the ordinary sense of the term) coexisted. According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed. Could this be a U.S.-only misconception? Evolution-scepticism is really a US phenomenon, and I doubt that most people in Europe, apart from small children, would ever claim this... 77.107.173.123 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does say that the "41%" figure is for US adults only. I agree that most Europeans would not think such nonsense but then again, a number of them do and so do (unfortunately) a number of people in other countries. That phenomenon may be most apparent in the US but I doubt you can say that it's an US-only-phenomenon. Regards SoWhy 12:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If this is to be changed, please provide a reliable source that this is not a common misconception outside the U.S. 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's an American problem, with some of it also in certain other regions, but not Europe. Science denialism in conservative religious circles is very strong. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What is your evidence that this is an "American" problem? Cresix (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Why should he need to provide such evidence? Our practice is definitely not "claim something until someone is able to prove the contrary". If the article claims this misconception to be "common", as it does now, it would need a source for that. But there is only a source for "common in the U.S." - which is not surprising since indeed almost no one believes this in, e.g., Europe. --131.152.41.173 (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This (may or) may not be a common misconception in Europe, but I would guess that it's commonness in the US has far more to do with popular media portrayals of humans and dinosaurs coexisting (e.g., The Flintstones), than with creationism. Some of these media portrayals may be popular in Europe as well. The Lost World was written by an Englishman (although perhaps it doesn't really touch on the misconception since it dealt with dinosaurs existing in modern times rather than cavemen and dinosaurs coexisting. I'm pretty sure one or more of Kipling's Just So Stories did have cavemen and dinosaurs.192.104.39.2 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This subject is already dealt with above. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not this aspect of it. --131.152.41.173 (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Holding a cooked egg under cold water makes it easier to peel

According to a german TV show (I do not remember which), this is incorrect. Fresh eggs are however easier to peel than older ones.

This requires a good reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.219.31 (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously easier to peel in the sense that you won't burn your hand while holding an egg you just cooked.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.243.81 (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Male/Female Rib count and the Adam and Eve story

Based on Sunday school classes I always thought men had less ribs than women. The first time I vocalized something about this unquestioned belief I instantly fell in the shame of my own misconceptions. I'm not alone There are too likely places to add this religious and health/biological tidbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Displague (talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It is also already mention in the article on the human rib cage, here to be exact. Its been about 500 years since its been refuted and is something that seems to be exclusive to those that went to Sunday school, so I don't know how common it still is. Lando242 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was taught that men have one less rib than women, in church, as truth, when I was a kid, growing up in the Southeastern U.S., roughly 15-20 years ago. I am not entirely sure, but I think that qualifies it enough to be considered, "common." This is anecdotal, but warrants, for the time being, leaving this in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.112.115.99 (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is common enough that an article was written in 1995 about how many school children believe men have less ribs than women: http://discovermagazine.com/1995/sep/darwinsrib561/?searchterm=adam%20eve%20rib --Skintigh (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Sports: Bulls are not enraged by the color red...

This entry states that "Cattle are red-green color-blind." This is misleading (and might itself be deemed a common misconception). In fact, cattle are dichromatic (see Jacobs GH, Deegan JF 2nd, Neitz J., Vis Neurosci. 1998 May-Jun;15(3):581-4. "Photopigment basis for dichromatic color vision in cows, goats, and sheep."). While cattle might not be highly sensitive to the color red (which is what should be written to replace the quoted statement from the wikipedia article), it is not pertinent whether they are "red-green color blind" (deuteranopic) because the use of the cape in bullfighting does not rely on the distinction between the colors red and green. Furthermore, because cattle are not trichromatic (as are humans, where wild-type humans have three types of cone cells that detect red, green, and blue light), they don't have the opportunity to suffer "red-green color-blindness" as humans do. Red-green color-blindness can arise from mutation in either the red opsin or green opsin gene, leaving one less-able to distinguish the two colors. Because cattle don't have both a red opsin and green opsin gene, it is not possible for them to become clasically red-green color blind via genetic mutation.

The red color in the capes is used to hide the blood stains on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.28.224 (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

129.2.131.170 (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Forbidden fruit misconception

Something to add to this section, if you examine the etymology of the word 'apple' in, I think, Old English, you find that the word was just a generic word for a piece of fruit, and did not specify any particular one. It was only later when its meaning changed but the Bible did not that the misconception arose that the forbidden fruit was an apple. Essentially it came about as a translation error in the Bible. Haven't bothered to track down the article I read this in, but etymological references should not be hard to find. 118.210.47.181 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

They aren't. Wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apple supports you that aepple was used for fruit in general. Unfortunately, a) the Bible was, as far as I know, never translated into Old English and b) the word "apple" does not appear in Genesis at all in the King James Version; the relevant passages use the word "fruit". That doesn't mean the belief couldn't have arisen from some sort of similar confusion (for example, French pomme (apple) derives from Latin pomus (fruit)), it just means that Old English probably isn't directly involved. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin: I can see Russia from my house

Despite the decision in mid-2010 to remove this misconception, the following links (and there are tons more that can be found with a simple Google search) show that it is, in fact, a common misconception:

• "There is evidence that many voters attribute the SNL line to the real Palin"

• Palin: I can see Russia from my house!

• Sarah Palin "I Can See Russia From My House" Refrigerator Magnet

• I Can See Russia From My House

• Immortalize Sarah Palin's famous quote about why she's so qualified to be VP with unique, funny shirts, hats, bumper stickers, baby clothes, sweatshirts and more found here! (the link is blocked by Wikipedia, but you can see it at http://www . squidoo . com/funny-sarah-palin-russia-shirts by removing the spaces.

• I can see Russia from my house! - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please see the talk archives for why there was consensus to delete this entry. I see no consensus (or even discussion) that this should be re-introduced. Hairhorn (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's referenced in the List of Misquotations already, which is arguably a much better place for it anyway.68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It belongs in the politics section every bit as much as the Al Gore item. In both cases, a politician said something. In both cases, what they said was true. In both cases, a humorous misquote which makes the politician look like an ass is thought by very many people to actually be something the politician said.

There is no need for a re-consensus to overturn a prior consensus, particularly a narrow one which took place over 6 months ago. This is a sourced item and belongs where it is. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there would be a need for a new consensus. Unless an item is reliably sourced as a common misconception, it can only be included by consensus. The fact that the previous consensus is over six months old is all the more reason for a new consensus: things like this can change dramatically in six months. For example, Palin went from being an unknown to being a major national figure within a matter of weeks. We're not talking about hard facts; this is an "idea". Ideas change rapidly. Cresix (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a need for a new consensus. The citation stands on its own. To say otherwise suggests that certain editors "own" this article by virtue of having been here first. That's not how Wikipedia works. If there was a prior consensus (and I don't think there was), it isn't the consensus that matters, but the reasons given that there was a consensus about. The reasons are what pertain here; not the consensus. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Consensus doesn't matter if you don't like the reasons? Hairhorn (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"The citation stands on its own. Which citation? The meaningless Facebook page? The meaningless photo? The interview from over one year ago? Or The Amazon page selling a book by an unknown author? PLEASE. Read WP:RS. Cresix (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition, when I look at the "consensus" Hairhorn linked to, I don't see anything of the sort. Hairhorn wrote there "I don't see how this is a misconception, I don't see a good source for it as a misconception." I've posted sources for it as a misconception. Is ABC News not a reliable source for such things? You can Google it and see how common a misconception it is. The "consensus" to delete it was a matter of a couple of editors choosing to get rid of it. There was no objection at the time, but there is now. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of Google hits are not a reliable source. If you Google "I can see Russia from my house" and get 100,000 hits, how many of those are about people who don't think she said that? The answer is: you don't know. Not a reliable source. Cresix (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I Googled Palin AND Russia. That should cover the genuine quote and the Tina Fey one. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't be silly. When you Googled Palin AND Russia, how many of the hits disconfirmed the misconception, how many confirmed it, and how many had nothing to do with it. Please give specific numbers. Otherwise, it's not a reliable source. Don't be silly. Cresix (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to intrude on the arguments of quality of sourcing, but I think most people know Fey said it instead of Palin. Most people attribute it to Palin on purpose to make her sound dumb, but intentional slander/misquotation is not the same thing as misconception. It belongs in the article about misquotations, but not here. (Just my two cents.) Spidey104 20:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of revealing my lack of connection to popular culture, I thought Palin had actually said it; I stopped watching SNL about the time the original cast left, so I'm only vaguely aware of who Tina Fey is. I agree that it belongs in misquotations rather than here, but I suspect more people than you think do in fact believe Palin said it due to how widely it was quoted, without attribution, in the media. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

aluminum causes Alzheimer's

how about an entry for the misconception that using aluminum pans or deodorant cause Alzheimer's or dementia? http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=99 i would say this is virtually as common as the "humans use only 10% of their brain" misconception (although not used quite as often in movies). Gobo2001us (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

To possibly forestall the "please provide a citation that this is a common belief" objection, the fact that it's addressed at the cited site at least strongly implies that it's a common belief. After all, they don't have a section devoted to refuting the idea that, say, "bad karma" is responsible.68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't forestall the need for a citation that's it's a common misconception. It may be a misconception among the few scientists or other interested persons who even know enough to think about it, but that doesn't make it a common misconception among the general population. And I doubt very seriously that it is a common misconception. If we added every item that had been proposed simply because it is "addressed at the cited source", the article right now would have thousands of items. Cresix (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

don't really know how to go about finding a reliable citation that it is a common misconception, but the number of people i have heard express it is pretty staggering compared to the number i've heard say that a duck's quack does not echo (zero). the mechanism of the misconception is the same as the 10% of the brain myth: an early study seemed to suggest it and people latched onto that rather than the subsequent research. http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp Gobo2001us (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have heard countless people say they will never use aluminum cookware because of this belief. Often when there is a post on my favorite deals website for aluminum cookware someone brings it up. I also recall reading this article about cookware sales: http://discovermagazine.com/1992/sep/alzheimersstepch102/?searchterm=aluminum%20alzheimer That should be a good citation for how common this belief is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skintigh (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 198.160.139.1, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Under the evolution heading, the following clause exists:

"The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply doubt from mainstream science regarding its validity...."

A theorem might be valid, but a theory can only be strong or cogent. While this might be nitpicking, the logical import of the distinction is rather large. Thus, please replace the above clause with the following:

The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply doubt from mainstream science regarding its cogency...."

198.160.139.1 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a technical nitpick, which centres on the meaning of "valid" used by logicians, the lay use of "valid" is much broader. Hairhorn (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but since the main point is that common usage of a word may differ considerably from the technical usage of the same word, perhaps paying some attention to technical nitpicks is indeed warranted in this particular case. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a useful change. Hairhorn (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Especially since most laypeople probably won't know the meaning of the word "cogency" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.182 (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought this wording was actually weak. A hypothesis is an idea that fits known facts and observation, is testable, and is falsifiable. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested, has been agreed upon by the majority of the scientific community, is the best explanation available, and often ties many different fields of science together into one explanation. For instance, evolution ties together what we know about inheritance, paleontology, DNA, microbiology, and even complex systems like populations and computer science. Gravity ties together classical mechanics, astronomy, relativity, etc. Germ theory of disease ties together observations in medicine, biology, sanitation, etc. --Skintigh (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done While I agree the wording is weak, and I personally prefer "cogency", I agree it isn't a good layperson's word, so I think we can dispense with this particular request. If anyone has a different improvement to suggest, please post a new request or make the change to the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who WKT, the author of the supporting text, is; but they seem to be confusing the lines between theory and law. It seems to make the case that they are essentially the same thing. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528971/scientific-theory This makes the whole paragraph suspect as it seems to be the whole argument. (SPZ)

Declaration signing

There is dispute among scholars as to when the declaration is signed. Three of the signers themselves claimed it was signed on July 4th. "The" Declaration of Independence says July 4, 1776 on the back. It's possible the signers were lying or mistaken, and that the date was added by someone who didn't know any better, but I think there's enough doubt about this to warrant removing or at least modifying this to reflect that while it's pretty clear that not all the eventual signers were even present on July 4, we really don't know exactly when it actually was signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.72.35 (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources for your claims. Cresix (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this one: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Signing. I realize it may not be considered a "reliable" source in itself, but it does reference other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

it might be appropriate, however, to clarify that it was printed and distributed on july 4th and 5th (hence the misconception), though not signed and entered into the congressional record until august 2nd. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html Gobo2001us (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources for your claims. Cresix (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ummm.... if that government archive source provided immediately above your comment is not reliable, what is?  Done, for the final suggestion by Gobo2001us. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right Amatulić. This page has been so hectic today. I've missed a couple of things along the way. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The current wording is still perhaps a bit stronger than is warranted. See the discussion at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Signing, which includes citations both supporting and arguing against the August 2 date. I think the most it's fair to say is that we are not certain exactly when the declaration was signed, though the physical document most people think of as the Declaration of Independence (i.e. the one in the National Archives) may well have been signed at least primarily on August 2, with some signatures potentially being added later. (A bit further down, reference is made to the Dunlap Broadsides, printed the night of July 4, which while not having an actual signature included the phrase "Signed by order and on behalf of the congress" followed by John Hancock's printed name, with Thomson listed as witness.) It might be worth mentioning the distinction between the Declaration of Independence as an ideal, and the physical document on display in Washington. Actually, that alone would be sufficient to quell my reservations. Ptorquemada (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a specific wording to suggest? ~Amatulić (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

repair split hair

"Although there are hair care products which are marketed as being able to repair split ends and damaged hair, there is no such cure. A good conditioner might prevent damage from occurring in the first place, but the only way to get rid of split ends after they appear is by a hair cut." Wow..I mean, I basically agree, but did someone look at the sources? What happened to reputation for fact checking? glamour, cbc,disabled-world.com?? Also, one source is even differing. I would call that baseless opinions at best. --Echosmoke (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In a similar vein, no skin cream or other cosmetic product can "reverse aging", regardless of manufacturer claims. ArcheoPhyte (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Inertia, not Centrifugal Force

There is no such thing as "Centrifugal Force," meaning a force which moves an object away from the center during rotation - for example, when you tie an apple to a string and twirl it around, the apple is being forced away from your finger by centrifugal force. Rather, inertia means that the apple will continue moving in a straight line unless it is held back by a centripetal force (the tension in the string). So if the string breaks, the apple will move away from the person's finger, but this is as a result of inertia, not centrifugal force. wikipedia article: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Centrifugal_force

I'm not an expert at wikipedia entries, but this would probably qualify as a misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KC McGinnis (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It has to be more than a misconception. Please provide a reliable source that it is a COMMON misconception. Cresix (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in my experience, the more common misconception is that there is no such thing as centrifugal force. To cite the wikipedia article you just cited, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Centrifugal_force Centrifugal force is a force found only in rotating reference frames, much like the Euler and Coriolis (sp?) forces. As a matter of fact, the existence of a centripetal force, implies the existence of a centrifugal force under Newton's Third Law. (see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force)

Now you could possibly say Centrifugal Force is a subclass of inertial forces applied to rotational motions, or that it is a result of inertial forces, but to say that it does not exist is sort of like saying that Drag does not exist (as a force) After all, if you look closely at drag, you will see that it is really just friction. Jared Thaler (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The misconception that there is no centrifugal force is itself a misconception that is taught in schools. Links: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Centrifugal_force http://xkcd.com/123/ --Skintigh (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Who Invented What?

Spinoffs of the Space Program (Velcro, ...):

From http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/myth_tang.html

Are Tang, Teflon, and Velcro NASA spinoffs? Tang, Teflon, and Velcro, are not spinoffs of the Space Program. General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959. In 1962, when astronaut John Glenn performed eating experiments in orbit, Tang was selected for the menu, launching the powdered drink's heightened public awareness. NASA also raised the celebrity status of Teflon, a material invented for DuPont in 1938, when the Agency applied it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts' convenience in zero gravity situations. Although it is a Swiss invention from the 1940s, it has since been associated with the Space Program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgalassi (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have heard the Tang one a lot. There are many news articles about it. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tang_%28drink%29 --Skintigh (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you know Van Gogh did not invent The Starry Night? There were starry nights going back as long as recorded human history and plenty of evidence they existed even before that. Also forests don't exist. If you examine closely you will rather see that they are in fact nothing but a collection of trees. I'm not convinced that if you look even closer that trees even exist, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Gripdamage (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

69 5c 27 6d 20 6e 6f 74 20 73 75 72 65 20 77 68 61 74 20 79 6f 75 20 61 72 65 20 74 72 79 69 6e 67 20 74 6f 20 73 61 79 --Popoi (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

01010111 01100101 01101100 01101100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01110101 01101110 01100100 01100101 01110010 01110011 01110100 01101111 01101111 01100100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101010 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100110 01101001 01101110 01100101 00101110 Gripdamage (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

http://thefuturebuzz.com/pics/the-matrix.jpg --Popoi (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In other news there is still no way to repair split hairs... Gripdamage (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Bat blindness (grammatical change for clarity)

In the secion "Biology," we see "Bats are not blind. While most bat species do use echolocation to augment their vision, all bats have eyes and are capable of sight.[124][125][126]"

It might be more accurate to say "all species of bat have eyes and are capable of sight" instead, since surely not *every* bat in the world is sighted.

76.19.66.41 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think a few blind bats in the world really makes much difference in how this should be worded. Cresix (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe this edit is warranted, not only for accuracy but simply for consistancy in the sentence: "most bat species" is already in the first half the the sentence. Sexy plant lover (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Galileo was not sentenced to death

Nor was Copernicus. This is a VERY largely spread misconception about history. M.M. --82.120.133.118 (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read the talk page. Already discussed. Cresix (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Related with the discussion above --> Chapter 8 in: Ronald L. Numbers (ed.) Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). addresses the myth "That Galileo Was Imprisoned and Tortured for Advocating Copernicanism". In the concluding thoughts, it says:

In view of the available evidence, the most tenable position is that Galileo underwent an interrogation with the threat of torture but did not undergo actual torture or even territio realis. Although he remained under house arrest during the 1633 trial and for the subsequent nine years of his life, he never went to prison. We should keep in mind, however, that for 150 years after the trial the publicly available evidence indicated that Galileo had been imprisoned, and for 250 years the evidence indicated that he had been tortured. The myths of Galileo’s torture and imprisonment are thus genuine myths: ideas that are in fact false but once seemed true—and continue to be accepted as true by poorly educated persons and careless scholars. (p. 78)

Note: the first tree chapters of the book can be found here. --Leinad-Z (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I think you are confusing scientists. Galileo was threatened with torture by the church and imprisoned for life for his observations. Copernicus feared what would happen to him and waited until just before death until publishing.

However, Giordano Bruno was slowly burned to death by the church for his scientific work that suggest the Earth was not the center of the universe and the Sun is just one of many stars. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Giordano_Bruno --Skintigh (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from F0r4n4, 6 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} For entry under Section 5.2 Human Body and Health of the page "List of Common Misperceptions"

The entry reads:

Vaccines do not cause autism.[114] Current scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis of causation for more-common disorders such as autism.[115][116] There is, however, significant biological evidence showing that mutations in the genes related to glutathione, a critical antioxidant involved in the removal of mercury from the body, are found to be significantly more common in people with autism. [117][118][119][120][121][122][123]

My proposed change:

Vaccines do not cause autism.[114] However, according to the National Autism Association, and a legal case involving the CDC and Hannah Poling; thimerosal – a leading preservative used in multi-use vials for childhood vaccines does. This is a failure in the manufacturing process as opposed to a failure in the safety of vaccines. The additional cost associated with producing single-use vaccine vials that do not require preservatives such as thimerosal to guard against the introduction of bacteria from multiple needle punctures in a single vial will successfully neutralize the threat posed from heavy metal neurotoxicity in children.

Citing Websites:

“Deal in an Autism Case Fuels Debate on Vaccine” NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/us/08vaccine.html (Mar 8 2008: Jan 5 2011)

Thimerosal. National Autism Association http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/thimerosal.php (Jan 5 2011)

“Vaccine Presentation in the USA: Economics of Prefilled Syringes versus Multidose Vials for Influenza Vaccination”. Medscape.com http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/733986 (Dec 15 2010: Jan 5 2010)

Reason for requested change:

The debate on Autism and vaccines is oversimplified in speech. Specifics were needed to convince the CDC during the hearing of Hannah Poling that there was merit to the claim of her parents. As such, the phrase "Vaccines do not cause Autism" is true, however, the claim that preservatives used in multi-dose vaccines are safe is false.

F0r4n4 (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

F0r4n4 (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, none of the sources provided makes the claim that thimersal causes autism. --Leivick (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   — Jeff G.  ツ 17:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Americas section

Since these are fundamentally stories from the mythology of the United States of America and not "the Americas" it would be nice if this section was renamed to something more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.200.75 (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first entry is about Columbus. I don't believe he actually got to the USA. The rest are USAian though. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Columbus didn't have much to do with the USA but he and his journey are certainly not part of the legends and stories that people believe about Canada (for example). I don't know about Mexico and Central and South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.200.75 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

While not 100% accurate, extremely good longitudinal estimating methods were available and in use by China's naval exploration fleet led by Zhang He in the late 1300s. See here for more details. Explorations by European explorers including Columbus did not have this ability until far later. 70.137.130.116 (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

More than 5 senses.

Under the heading "Human Body and Health," it states that there are more than 5 senses. While this is in fact correct, I would like to note that some of the other senses listed, such as relative temperature, pain, itching, and even the urge to urinate are all caused by touch. This seems fairly obvious to me. 98.16.208.55 (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing touch with physical contact. 111.69.248.240 (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

They are sensed by different kinds of nerves. Ultimately it comes down to semantics, and biologically it makes at least as much sense to count them as different senses as it does to throw them into one category called "touch". 68.105.72.35 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking about senses, you should also include the perception of polarization of light discovered by Heidinger, see Haidinger's_brush. The ability to detect polarization provides additional information that can be used to detect position of the Sun even if it is covered by coulds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.183.203.19 (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A few more

Here are a few more that I would like to see added. I may add some of these myself, if time permits:

• Alexander Graham Bell did not invent the telephone.
• there is no good evidence that foods such as chocolate increase acne, according to my internist and a dermatologist I once saw. I'm going to look for more evidence to support this.
• pre-ejaculatory fluid has never been proven to contain sperm. rather, sperm that already exists in the urethra can be carried out by this fluid. if no sperm is in the urethra (for example, due to urination), pre-ejaculatory fluid can not cause pregnancy.
• America was not founded on Christian values, it was founded on Enlightenment Era values.

64.203.5.246 (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I recommend against most of these. To take them point by point:

• "Bell did not invent the telephone" is at least as wrong as "Bell invented the telephone." The actual situation is rather complicated: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy. There's substantial evidence that Bell may have been aware of Gray's work, but the fact is that Bell submitted a patent for the telephone, and Gray did not (until much later, when he submitted a patent for a crucial part of a telephone, not the telephone itself).
• Actually, I don't have a problem with this one, as long as you find a citation saying it's a common misconception as well.
• This is a semantic quibble, and I think "correcting" it may cause more harm (in the form of undesired pregnancies) than good.
• Partly semantics, partly opinion, entirely controversial.

68.105.72.35 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your last point. To quote the Founding Fathers "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli --Skintigh (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on any of the rest, your third response - "I think "correcting" it may cause more harm" - is not a valid reason for exclusion. We're not in the business of censoring information for reasons like that. Jess_talk|_edits 18:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

arabic numerals and asia section under history

arabic numerals where not actually an arab invention but rather invented by persian mathematicians in india, might consider adding an asia catagory to the history section --RebAvi (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you do that, please add that actual arabic numerals differ from what we call arabic numerals in the west. 82.180.29.126 (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The article on Arabic numerals has sources to confirm that they were invented by persian mathematicians in India, but we need sources that this is indeed a common misconception. --Banana (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

the fact that they are referred to as arabic numerals isn't enough to say it's a common misconception?RebAvi (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Maitreya Buddha is not the second coming of Gautama Buddha

Maitreya Buddha is not the second coming of Gautama Buddha, it is the fifth, as correctly stated here: Pepa65 (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a common misconception? Citation, please. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Add link to list of logical fallacies?

I think a link to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Logical_fallacy would be appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand.prabhakar.patil (talk • contribs) 10:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Science and religion: "No scientist ever lost his life..." and Lysenkoism

While it may be true that the Inquisition did not execute any scientists due to their scientific beliefs, scientists have in fact been killed because of their belief in Mendelian genetics under Stalinism. While the excuse for their executions or imprisonments leading to death was that they were spies or sabotuers, as with other purges and show trials of the time the real reason was political, in this case their opposition to Lysenko's botanic theories.

182.239.133.206 (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Miranda rights

Would it be appropriate to add an entry on the misconception that, in the US, if a suspect is not read his Miranda rights he is automatically freed? Seems a pretty common misconception to me, though, as with many such things, it may be difficult to source how common it is. In reality, such a failure only means that anything the suspect says afterwords (such as a confession) can be ruled inadmissible in court. All other evidence, including eyewitness, material evidence, etc. is still admissible and can lead to a conviction. -R. fiend (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Show sources demonstrating people believe this. I doubt you can. Turkeyphan^t 18:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Number 2 in this list for a start. I can probably find others. How many do we need? -R. fiend (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Number 2 in this list too, though admittedly these aren't necessarily the best sources. -R. fiend (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Science/Religion Compatibility... equivocation

The discussion of it being a "misconception" that Science and Religion are incompatible, relies on an equivocation about all three terms: Science, Religion, and compatibility.

For detailed discussion of this by Jerry Coyne, please reference this article. However, my basic point would be to ask that it be made abundantly clear: There IS and will remain an intractable incompatibility between scientific thinking/epistemology with regards to the falsifiability of hypotheses, standards of evidence, and the necessary modification of theories to accommodate/explain evidence

AND

Religious, dogmatic thinking that makes a virtue of faith (belief without evidence), and protects pre-existing beliefs at the expense of new knowledge.

Religious thinking and scientific thinking about "truth" in the world are fundamentally incompatible, and the common misconceptions page should be edited to clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folboteur (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire "Science and Religion" section is more controversy than misconception and should be relocated or removed. Large portions of it are inaccurate (the Flat Earth model was supported in Europe by respectable scholars, such as the Archbishop of Seville, well into the Middle Ages), debatable or matters of opinion. ArcheoPhyte (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me add here that the basically one source, bloatet into 5, absolutely sucked. Past tense because I removed the entire thing after actually reading the source(s). Some of it certainly could reenter, better worded, more detailed and better sourced. Like, most likely "the church" did not hamper all or even most research (scientific or not), but is that what "people" imply when "they" say what they supposedly say (which has not been established by a source anyway). --Echosmoke (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A majority of this section requires citations, with more assertions requiring them than have sources (which are dubious but I'm not qualified to refute properly). As mentioned above - this is more controversy than proven misconception and should not be on this page. It is more apologetic than factual. --BTolputt (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Acronym etymologies

Would it be worth including a general comment along the lines that any word origin story that claims a word existing before the 20th century derives from an acronym is almost certainly false? Such etymologies are fairly common generally, even if individual ones (e.g. Fornication Under Consent of the King, For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge) may not be all that widely known. http://www.etymonline.com/baloney.php is an article debunking a particular one (Ship High In Transit) that also mentions the commonality of such false etymologies and supports the contention that acronyms were not at all in wide use before World War II and were practically unknown prior to World War I (the ones it does cite from prior to that are, with the exception of "okay", clearly abbreviations rather than actual words... we read 1:00pm as "one pee em", not "one pum"). 68.105.72.35 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That "S.O.S" stands for "Save Our Ship" could be another. I think that misconception is substantially more common than For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge or Ship High In Transit. -R. fiend (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions lead to misconceptions

An important point about misconceptions is that memories of misconceptions often fail to remember them as misconceptions. That is, telling someone that "it is a myth that the CRA caused the subprime mortgage" is likely to be remembered as "the CRA caused the subprime mortgage."72.187.199.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

Vomitorium redux returns

In the section on European history, the first bullet has two sentences on vomitoria. While both sentences are cited, the first sentence actually has two claims (that the Romans didn't vomit between meals and that they didn't build vomitoria to do so in) and only the second one is cited. Bastian964 (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've found these sources [5] [6] that mention the Romans vomiting. I'm going to remove the part about just vomiting in general until we get a cite. --Banana (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Pure Water

the following sentence was recently removed on the grounds that the editor did not see how it was a misconception: "*Purified water is not a good conductor of electricity. However, in practical situations (such as tap water, bathtubs, flooded basements) water contains impurities (electrolytes) which allow for good electrical conduction." The misconception is that people think that water is a good conductor, but it isn't. It is actually the impurities that are good conductors. 99.255.58.85 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And for that (people think that water is a good conductor) there is a source missing (I would also deny that this is a common misconception but that's not really the point) --Echosmoke (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me add once more. If you ask "people" "Is water a good conductor?" most will either say yes or no. When you ask them why, they will either say "I don't know" or have some basic notion of Ions/electrolytes. So I would argue that additionally this fails to be a misconception; it's just not knowing more exactly. --Echosmoke (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Infrared vs Heat

I propose we add a section to this article detailing the differences between thermal radiation and infrared. 74.68.114.111 (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! Do you have a source, or any kind of article, which describes this misconception? All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to differentiate between Near-IR and Far-IR, why not discuss whether Hi-Viz jackets are yellow or green ? It's down to vague boundaries and semantics, no ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Diamonds do not form from coal

Popular misconception answered on Answers.com and Yahoo Answers. Check answers 1, 2, 8 and 9 on Yahoo Answers, which are dead wrong, for helpful examples of the misconception. This popular misconception has been promoted by over-simplified classroom explanations of complex geological processes and may have been further popularized by a quote attributed to Henry Kissinger that “A diamond is a chunk of coal that is made good under pressure.”

Correct Answer:

Coal is an impure variety of carbon that is formed when decaying plant matter in a swamp or bog is shallowly buried beneath layers of sedimentary rock [1]. Small amounts of heat and pressure cause the plant matter to break down, liberating volatile compounds, however appreciable amounts of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur are contained in coal in quantities depending on its grade [2].

Diamonds, on the other hand, form from relatively pure carbon under extreme pressure but, contrary to popular belief, relatively low temperatures [3, figure 4]. Diamonds may be formed by meteorite impact [4]or subduction of continental plates in continent-continent collisons[5] but these diamonds are typically microscopic and, in the case of continetal subduction, revert back to graphite before reaching the surface.

All of the diamonds that humans use are erupted from the deep mantle by exotic types of volcanoes known as kimberlites or lamproites [6]. The majority of these diamonds formed from carbon that was present in the mantle when the crust formed, but a small minority of eclogitic diamonds appear to have formed from carbon carried down on subducting oceanic plates, most likely as carbonate minerals or organic debris.

So coal forms in shallow sedimentary basins on the continents, whereas diamonds form 150 km below surface or deeper and there is no known mechanism for getting coal to that depth and back up again as a diamond. Moreover, coal forms from dead plants, and the youngest diamonds dated at present are a hundred million years older than the first plants to colonize the planet's surface [7, 8].

Editors may wish to condense this significantly. ArcheoPhyte (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dcpelletier, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Under the Christianity heading,

"The Bible does not say Jesus fell to his knees under the weight or strain of carrying the cross and therefore the cross had to be carried by another. It has been assumed that Simon of Cyrene was told by soldiers to carry Jesus' cross because of Jesus being unable to continue due to weariness and exhaustion. Three of the four gospels (the synoptic gospels) give an account of Simon of Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross by soldiers (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26). None of the accounts mention Jesus falling to his knees or being unable to carry the cross himself."

The misconception described in this entry is not "Jesus didn't fall to his knees" (as it sounds currently), it is "The Bible doesn't explicitly say that Jesus fell to his knees." Below is my suggested revision.

"The Bible does not explicitly give a reason why Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry the cross for Jesus. Three of the four gospels (the synoptic gospels) give an account of Simon of Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross by soldiers, but none of them specifically mention Jesus falling to his knees or that he was unable to carry the cross himself. (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26)."

Dcpelletier (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Declined - Your suggested revision does not address a common misconception. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

5 senses of the tongue

Just so you know, gustatory neuroscience is still in contention about the presence of four or five types of taste. Umami is not widely accepted yet and is currently still in debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.236.82 (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This "list of common misconceptions" is completely backwards

This is supposed to be a "list of common misconceptions", but it is apparently list of facts. For example: one of the items on this list says "George Washington did not have wooden teeth." That is not a misconception. It should say "George Washington had wooden teeth". - JefiKnight (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Have a look at the talk page archives where this is discussed ad nauseam. Hairhorn (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A casual search only reveals one topic in the archives. It seems to agree that the list is backwards and the idea of changing it has some merit. - JefiKnight (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Meteorites are cool when they land

"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 meteoroid's great speed during entry is enough to melt or vaporize its outermost layer, but any molten material will be quickly blown off (ablated), and the interior of the meteoroid does not have time to heat up because the hot rocks are poor conductors of heat.[47] Also, atmospheric drag can slow small meteoroids to terminal velocity by the time they hit the ground, giving the surface time to cool down.[48]"

I do not doubt the logic of this entry (or that it is a common misconception that meteorites are necessarily hot). But this is currently written as if freshly landed meteorites are always cool or cold. First, the sources listed are not clearly attributed to the correct information in the article. For example, source #47 is talking about the conductivity of rocks in the Earth's Crust ("meteor" or its derivatives are found nowhere in the article). And while this statement may pertain to a stony meteorite, it's probably not true of an iron meteorite. Source #48 is a book, which I don't have, but I trust that someone here might. Second, the only reference I can find to the statement that "many are found with frost on them" is in a forum discussion, author anonymous.

Quoted from the American Meteor Society's FAQ: "9. Are meteorites “glowing” hot when they reach the ground? Probably not. The ablation process, which occurs over the majority of the meteorite’s path, is a very efficient heat removal method, and was effectively copied for use during the early manned space flights for re-entry into the atmosphere. During the final free-fall portion of their flight, meteorites undergo very little frictional heating, and probably reach the ground at only slightly above ambient temperature. For the obvious reason, however, exact data on meteorite impact temperatures is rather scarce and prone to hearsay. Therefore, we are only able to give you an educated guess based upon our current knowledge of these events."

I believe the language in this entry should be softened to match what the AMS FAQ actually says, which is that they are not necessary hot. If no one objects, I can do this ASAP. (Unless some other sources to the contrary are found in the Bad Astronomy book?)

As a note: The discussion on this entry is in Archive #6 from 2009. It pertains to adding sources, which I find ironic in this sort of article (isn't the lack of sources how these misconceptions get started in the first place?) Will.i.am (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent comments--I encourage you to proceed.Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

galileo put to death

apparently some people believe this? is it common? http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0138.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.145.40 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that it is pervasive. Not that I have any hard data or anything, just an interest in the time period and a phenomenal eye for other people's flaws. Note that the apologetic article only mentions one person who had the idea.

While we're on Galileo, there's something to be said for the theory that his punishment had less to do with his findings and more with Operation Piss Off The Pope. Unfortunately, we cannot know that with the kind of definiteness that this page would require. --Kizor 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's very likely not a common misconception. I'm not sure about elsewhere, but in the USA about the only thing most people know about Galileo are that he demonstrated something about the speed of falling objects by dropping balls from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Many don't even know that much. Cresix (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Which by the way is another misconception; no precise enough clocks were available to measure anything like that. One of his students made that up. --Echosmoke (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a clock at all to see that a 10 pound ball and a 20 pound ball hit the ground at just about the same time rather than the 20 pound ball hitting the ground while the 10 pound ball is only halfway down. I'm not saying the story is necessarily true, simply that the lack of precision timepieces cannot be used to disprove it. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There are clearly some common misconceptions when it comes to Galileo being held up as an example of science vs. religion. At least in US schools that was always the spin put on his story.173.59.121.90 (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Typo (now fixed)

There is a typo in the Human body and health section. The item talking about the brain continuing to create neurons. It says "we no know" when it should read "we now know." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.187.181.169 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been fixed (not by me).Ccrrccrr (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Chevy Nova

Could we possibly list the myth about the Chevy Nova failing in whatever Spanish countries due to "Nova" supposedly translating as "no go" (no va)? I've had quite a few Spanish, history, and sociology teachers mention this bogus story as fact, and it's always annoyed me. Some guy (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We'd need a source for 1) this being a common misconception, and 2) something refuting its truth.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Dipping a sleeping person's hand in warm water does not cause them to involuntarily urinate

There is a commonly told summer camp prank that if you dip a sleeping person's hand in warm water, they will wet their bed. This myth was tested and debunked by the MythBusters show (2009 season, series episode #136 - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/MythBusters_%282009_season%29#Camp_Prank).

Do others think this qualifies as a common misconception?

Jhyrman (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think it probably does... but we'd need a source for it. Can you find a reliable source which specifically calls it "common"? Jess_talk|_edits 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a cite, but a suggestion: perhaps we could reasonably agree to call any belief the Mythbusters consider worth debunking "common". I'm not suggesting that we make this a "List of things Mythbusters has debunked", just saying that mention of a particular belief on a national science-oriented show should perhaps count as a cite from a reputable source that the belief is at least moderately widespread... otherwise, what are we left with? I somehow can't see Gallup conducting a poll to determine how many people are worried about warm-water induced urination. Ptorquemada (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If we start listing things from Mythbusters here, it will quickly open for us to list everything from Mythbusters here, which would probably result in creation of a "List of things Mythbusters has debunked" page anyway. Some guy (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, Wikipedia already documents everything that mythbusters ever did in way more detail than is called for. In addition, the criteria for inclusion in Mythbusters has more to do with entertainment value and controversy than being a widely held idea.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Timekeeping

This section is wildly off-base. None of the three references it cites state that it is a "misconception" that the numbered centuries and millennia begin in years ending in "1." And if it is a misconception, someone better send a memo to the rest of Wikipedia: 20th century, 2nd millennium, etc. This smells of original research and agenda-advancement via editing. Every authority on timekeeping and calendars I have ever consulted has been perfectly clear on the fact that, under the Gregorian calendar, the 20th century ran from 1901-2000. Will any editor step forward and produce an authority that says otherwise? (ISO 8601 doesn't even define centuries, so no soap there.)

You can say that the Gregorian calendar is "only a convention, man," to which the only possible response is yes--and so what? All definitions are conventional. You might as well say that it's a popular "misconception" that this comment was written in the year 2011. --158.111.5.34 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly support removal. The section as currently included in the page is at least misleading and arguably wrong. The existence of some alternative system that nobody actually uses (if you disagree, please provide cites showing this usage to be widespread, not merely showing that such a system does exist) does not mean that the system that everybody actually DOES use is now invalid. In the Gregorian calendar new decades/centuries/millenia do in fact start on years ending in 1, not years ending in zero. Ptorquemada (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I also strongly support removal of this section, it is completely at odds with many other articles in Wikipedia - Gregorian calendar, Civil calendar, etc. The ISO 8601 standard that it quotes is a standard for exchange of date and time information, it is not a calendar. Please either support with acceptable references (unlikely to happen!) or remove. Andreclos (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it since the above looked like a consensus to me, and I reviewed the citations and found no support for the central assertion. Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done, in my opinion. And let me just link to this discussion on the numbering of centuries from the United States Naval Observatory, as a fairly authoritative source endorsing the traditional understanding, in case this comes up again. Thanks.--158.111.143.22 (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Giordano Bruno's demise

Under the Science and Religion section, the statement beginning "No scientist ever lost his life because of his scientific views..." is inaccurate. It may be true that Bruno's support for Copernicanism was not the principle reason for his execution, or even a contributing one. However, one of the principle charges against Bruno was his heretical belief in the plurality of worlds (see the Wikipedia entry for Giordano Bruno and references therein). Bruno held that the sun was merely one of many stars, the Earth but one of many planets and possibly that humans were but one of many forms of intelligent life. Bruno offered a partial recantation, eventually appealing to the Pope, but the head Inquisitor demanded a full recantation and found him guilty of heresy when he refused.

Bruno's religious beliefs and his apparently near limitless capacity for p*ssing off powerful political figures certainly were major factors in his fiery doom, but his scientific views were a contributing factor.

This statement is at best Controversy, not Misconception and should be relocated or removed. ArcheoPhyte (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then I agree. Are there specific reliable sources which can back up the notion that his scientific views were a contributing factor in his execution? Jess_talk|_edits 19:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jess. I'm getting most of my information from the Wikipedia page on Giordano Bruno. The references are largely hardcopy and likely in Italian or Latin and thus inaccessible to me, so I'm relying on the author's of that page. The following excerpts from his wikipedia entry show that Bruno's belief in a plurality of worlds was a contributing, and possibly major factor in his demise (Emphasis mine in all cases):

"Still, the English period was a fruitful one. During that time Bruno completed and published some of his most important works, the "Italian Dialogues," including the cosmological tracts La Cena de le Ceneri (The Ash Wednesday Supper, 1584), De la Causa, Principio et Uno (On Cause, Principle and Unity, 1584), De l'Infinito Universo et Mondi (On the Infinite Universe and Worlds, 1584) as well as Lo Spaccio de la Bestia Trionfante (The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast, 1584) and De gl' Heroici Furori (On Heroic Frenzies, 1585)."

"When Bruno announced his plan to leave Venice to his host, the latter, who was unhappy with the teachings he had received and had apparently developed a personal rancour towards Bruno, denounced him to the Venetian Inquisition, which had Bruno arrested on May 22, 1592. Among the numerous charges of blasphemy and heresy brought against him in Venice, based on Mocenigo's denunciation, was his belief in the plurality of worlds, as well as accusations of personal misconduct."

"The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology. Luigi Firpo lists them as follows:

   * Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
   * Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
   * Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
   * Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
   * Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
   * Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
   * Dealing in magics and divination.
   * Denying the Virginity of Mary.

In these grim circumstances Bruno continued his Venetian defensive strategy, which consisted in bowing to the Church's dogmatic teachings, while trying to preserve the basis of his philosophy. In particular Bruno held firm to his belief in the plurality of worlds, although he was admonished to abandon it. His trial was overseen by the Inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine, who demanded a full recantation, which Bruno eventually refused. Instead he appealed in vain to Pope Clement VIII, hoping to save his life through a partial recantation. The Pope expressed himself in favor of a guilty verdict. Consequently, Bruno was declared a heretic, and told he would be handed over to secular authorities."

I hope this helps. ArcheoPhyte (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruno was not a scientist, and his view about other worlds were not based on any scientific evidence. Roger (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

pure oxygen and explosions

I think saying that things that burn "flare" in pure oxygen rather than "explode" is largely a matter of semantics and the difference, if any, is going to be lost on the typical observer. I don't see that the sentence in question really adds anything anyway. Ptorquemada (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition "five times less oxygen" is clumsy and inaccurate. This should be edited to state "air has 1/5th the oxygen".--207.106.239.81 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that this entry be deleted, because I don't see any evidence for there being a misconception that is common.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The science and religion paragraph is "christian-centric"

It seems to me that this paragraph is written by the point of view of the christian religion it seems to ignore the others. --SoliDreamer (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot tell which paragraph you are referring to. --Banana (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because it finally! got deleted for good.--Ettuquoque (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Are people in the northern hemisphere idiots?

In the Science/Astronomy subsection the article tells me that "It is a common misconception that seasons are caused by the Earth being closer to the Sun in the summer than in the winter." I'm trying to figure out how ignorant you would have to be and who you would be to believe that? To anyone who knows that the seasons are at opposite times in the northern and southern hemispheres (true for at least everyone I know in Australia), that alleged belief would make no sense at all. Does anyone really believe that? Who are these dumb people? HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Collectively we are much stupider then you would like to think, its kind of a weakest link in the chain type deal. Just look at most of the schmucks we elect to public office or the crap we allow our celebrities get away with just because they are famous. Anyway, that information is not exactly daily use type stuff. I'm sure most people get taught it once in school and forget about it soon after their last test on the subject. Just imagine all the stuff you learn in your life that you think is useless and forget about. One person's knowledge is another's useless factoid. Lando242 (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was reading a report a week or two ago about how many people don't know how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the Sun. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's based on two separate ideas. At one point in its orbit, Earth is indeed closer to the sun than it is at another point (See Copernicus) but I'm not sure whether or not this actually matches up with the same seasonal shifts caused by the wobble of Earth on its rotational axis. Also, Earth is a proper noun, Unless you're a Vortigaunt, there is no "the"Vennificus (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean Kepler, not Copernicus. The "wobble of Earth on its rotational axis" does't cause "seasonal shifts", unless you mean seasonal shift wrt the fixed stars. As for the definite article, as our Earth article is well aware, it's "Earth (or the Earth)".

the upshot here is, we need WP:RS saying that some misconception is "common". If we have that, we can carry it no matter how stupid. If we don't, it needs to go. Personally, I am familiar with children assuming summer is due to the Earth being close to the Sun. I do not think something counts as a "common misconception" if it's just something kids tend to assume or imagine. --dab (𒁳) 21:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions v.s. controversies

It seems that some distinction should be made between misconceptions (that people almost always stop believing when presented with evidence to the contrary) and controversies (where people usually refute evidence against their position with an argument of some sort) another way to state this would be that it is only a misconception if people believe it because they never heard otherwise if people have heard the evidence against their position and continue to believe it (however wrong that position might be)then it is a controversy or a fringe belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.83.19 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Any specific entry on this list that you think is a controversy rather than a misconception?--Banana (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I view that comment as good guidance for editors working on this page, rather than a specific complaint. I think that that is a concise statement of some of what I've been trying to do in the few comments and edits I've been able to contribute.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

MisQuotations - move these ?

Surely these belong in List of misquotations, instead ?

• Let them eat cake --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Al Gore never said that he "invented" the Internet --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Sarah Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house." --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• "Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is 'Ich bin ein Berliner!'" --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A beneficial side-effect of moving those would be to lose List_of_common_misconceptions#United_States_politics in its entirety - perhaps it was given undue weight in a global context, anyway - I guess many other countries mis-quote their politicians ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree about Gore and Palin; Palin is already there. Kennedy doesn't exactly fit there though. Perhaps I'll ask on that talk page whether it belongs there. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Common according to whom

What is a common misconception and what is not? Who has decided this and based on what criteria ? Gnevin (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In theory every bullet should provide a suitable source like a survey or an academic paper that evaluates if it is (not just claims it). However, the term "common" is as such so vague that several people have pointed out that there is no objective way. Is 10% of people already common? 40%? 50+? --Echosmoke (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe move to List of notable misconceptions ? Gnevin (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Shark Cancer

While I agree with the assertion that sharks can actually suffer from cancer, it would seem that it is a rare occurrence. I disagree with the final statement that "current data do not allow any speculation about the incidence of tumors in these fishes." There is a great deal of research being conducted in this field, and there is some evidence to imply that sharks show impressive resistance to various diseases, including cancer. [7] [8]

The myth that eating shark cartilage will prevent cancer is certainly harmful, and I am glad that it makes an appearance in this article. However, I think it should be added that shark cancer resistance is an exciting developing field for disease research, that may lead to new cancer treatments in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.8.49 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived Discussion

I archived all closed or resolved threads extremely early, because the page was simply unmanageable. If I archived something with ongoing discussion by accident, please pull it back in from archive 12 manually. If someone could go through and close out any remaining queries we have on the page, so we can take care of a few more as well, that would be fantastic. We still have about 100 open requests. Jess_talk|_edits 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dcpelletier, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Edit request from Dcpelletier, 7 January 2011

Under the Christianity heading,

"The Bible does not say Jesus fell to his knees under the weight or strain of carrying the cross and therefore the cross had to be carried by another. It has been assumed that Simon of Cyrene was told by soldiers to carry Jesus' cross because of Jesus being unable to continue due to weariness and exhaustion. Three of the four gospels (the synoptic gospels) give an account of Simon of Cyrene being forced to carry Jesus' cross by soldiers (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26). None of the accounts mention Jesus falling to his knees or being unable to carry the cross himself."

In response to my edit which would make the above entry conform to the format of the rest of the page, I received:

Declined - Your suggested revision does not address a common misconception. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If my edit did not address a common misconception, the original bullet point absolutely did not either, so I would like to request that it be removed. As written, it is wordy, redundant, vague (is he talking about a belief about an event (Jesus falling) or a text (Wording in the Bible)?) -- AND, apparently, does not address a common misconception, so...

Remove the above quotation from the article.

Dcpelletier (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. We need to remove the items that are not substantiated as having the status of "common misconception". And we need to apply a high threshold to the "common", they need to be common in an absolute sense, not common within some baroque expert field. --dab (𒁳) 21:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with this.  Done (in a minute or so from now). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Size of page is getting out of hand

I think editors are misunderstanding the "common" aspect of this article; we don't need an exhaustive list of every imaginable false belief listed here. See also WP:SIZE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that, for some of the bigger sections (like Science), we split it to a new article. We can keep a few of the more notable ones here with a "main article" tag at the top of the section. Just creating a "List of common misconceptions in Science" article would just about half the page size. We already have AIDS/HIV, and other more specific ones, so it would seem to fit. Are there any objections? Jess_talk|_edits 23:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that proposal is that it also splits the misunderstandings about what is a "common" misconception to multiple articles as well. At least with this article, all the discussions are collected in one place.

If the article were to be split up, I'd rather go all the way: Make this article a list of links to other articles, similar to a disambiguation page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

An advantage of breaking it up is that it would become possible for more editors to follow the changes in a topical area, and keep up with maintaining quality. As it is, the change list is overwhelming. A short term problem, perhaps but still a problem.Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As a long-time editor on this article, I urge waiting and taking a longer-term perspective before splitting the article. The frenzy in the article in the last few days will subside; the article got a lot of attention because it got some press, but that will change over time. Eventually some of these newer items will be trimmed or eliminated. Compare the changes in the article over the last two or three days with the changes over the previous two or three months. If the article is too long in three months, then there may need to be a need to split the article. Cresix (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I was a bit disappointed, when i read the article, that it is so short and arbitrary. I sense a bit of an 'Wikipedia inside Wikipedia' problem in that we can't really decide just by consensus on a discussion page, what can be included and what not since it is not up to us to define 'common misconception' - that would be OR, right? --Echosmoke (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Hi. I tried adding a brief entry under the Science heading reading:

It is commonly understood that scientific findings published in peer-reviewed journals should be replicable by other researchers. In fact, those who have undertaken studies of this have found that most published scientific findings are false, in that when other scientists try to replicate them, they typically cannot.

(First, astonishing as this may be -- it certainly was to me when I read about it -- please suspend your disbelief long enough to read the citations above, so that you can discover that this is, in fact, a misconception. Unfortunately, the best article is the one in the New Yorker, and the full text of that article is not available online except to subscribers.)

When I added this, User:Ohnoitsjamie deleted it and told me, "the article is too big as it is and doesn't need to list every misconception that exists. If you can get any kind of consensus on the talk page for it's inclusion, I'll leave it be." (Is it appropriate for one person to unilaterally deem an article too large and delete any further additions?) In any case, he apparently wants something like a poll of this page's followers to satisfy him that this is a common enough idea to merit inclusion in this article.

So, please reply to this comment to indicate whether you agree that the idea that "published scientific findings are reproducible" is commonly believed. Thank you. StepsTogether (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Couple of problems:

First, "the article is to big" isn't a valid reason to reject a legitimate new entry.

Second, the community's agreement that "published scientific findings are reproducible" is a common misconception is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else here believe. What matters is whether you can find sources that state explicitly that this is a common misconception. I haven't looked at the sources you cite, but if one or more of them state that this is a common belief, then I'd say it's fair to include it in this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

By "too big," I meant that we have to establish some sort of cut-off to avoid listing every imaginable misconception there is. The additional source that StepsTogether added simly states that reproducibility is a core tenet of science; it says nothing about common misconceptions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Amatulic, that makes sense. The first reference in my entry ([9]) indicates the common understanding that reproducibility is a core principle of science. Ohnoitsjamie: obviously, the source that describes it as a common understanding is not going to be the same one that indicates it is a misconception. To be a common misconception, it must be (1) common, and (2) wrong. The first reference shows (1), and the other 3 references show (2). If you need more evidence of commonness than this, I think you'll need to go through the article and delete many of the existing entries.StepsTogether (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A problem with the wording in the quote at the top of this section: The common misconception is listed as being that results should be reproducible, where as the sources instead refute the idea that results are reproducible. I believe that it is true that results should be reproducible and it is also true that many are not. Glossing over that distinction is like glossing over the distinction between saying "everything in Wikipedia should be based on reputable sources" and saying "everything in Wikipedia is based on reputable sources". I trust the editors reading this talk page understand the difference between those two! Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect

This article is protected, so I can't edit it.

In the human body section, add a point for the myth that alcohol kills brain cells. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1103162109.html http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/10-brain-myths9.htm

 Not done: "Myth" and "common misconception" don't have identical meanings. Cresix (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion. I've added it to the article using your source as well as a couple more I found using Google. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In the physics section it says "Gyroscopic forces are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle". But there are gyroscopic forces, and they do help balance the bicycle, so how is this a misconception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.64.192 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources for your claims. Cresix (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

unprotect to propose deletion. This article is nothing but a collection of vaguely related factoids, and is not encyclopedic. WP:DIRECTORY. Also it's US-centric, Template:Globalize/USA, assuming American tropes are universal and but especially identifying a Korean trope with a foreign tone. It's basically a gripe-list for American former middle-school students. 216.145.107.181 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the number of suggested additions just today, I don't think you'll find much support to delete. As for it being US-centric, feel free to round it out with a few well-sourced non-US items. Cresix (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Gyroscopic forces are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle". Someone built a bicycle with two additional non-grounding wheels that rotated backwards, to cancel gyroscopic effects. Of course handling was affected, but it was still easily rideable. The forces exist, and are even helpful, but they are not essential, not necessary. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Astronomy Section on Black Holes

I think this item needs to be clarified or deleted. "Because black hole formation is explosive, 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." A differentiation between the gravity within the black hole's event horizon and the gravity outside of the horizon should be made. If the above sentence were true for both places it wouldn't make sense why light can't escape the "lower" gravitational pull of the black hole when it could escape the "higher" gravitational pull of the star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmieman (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can you suggest a clarification? "...at a distance"? "...outside its event horizon"? "...on orbiting objects"? --Kizor 21:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea of black holes being cosmic vacuum cleaners is that once things get trapped below the event horizon they don't get out (baring a very small bit of hawking radiation), where as matter approaching a star is repelled by the radiation pressure from the light (or more significantly for things like comets where there is a back pressure from water vaporising) and these effects do not exist for a black hole, there is simply gravity. Further more matter entering a star might well simply be blasted out as solar wind another effect not present with matter entering a black hole, although emission of x-ray frequency radio is fairly common from accretion disks. It seems the misconception is that black holes have a stronger asymptotic gravity field than the star they were formed from, rather then a serious dispute about their ability to "suck" stuff out of space. comment added by YetanotherDave (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Pyramid's Built by slaves

Various sources state that pyramids being built by slaves is a myth started a long time ago. 71.174.190.191 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide sources that (1) the pyramids were not built by slaves, and (2) this is a COMMON misconception. Cresix (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Our article Egyptian pyramid construction techniques says "Archaeologists now believe that the Great Pyramid of Giza (at least) was built by tens of thousands of skilled workers who camped near the pyramids and worked for a salary or as a form of tax payment..." So, not built by slaves. What's left is to demonstrate that enough people believe that they were built by slaves to justify labelling this as a common misconception. I suspect plenty do, but that pure OR on my part. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"This notion of a vast slave class in Egypt originated in Judeo-Christian tradition and has been popularized by Hollywood productions like Cecil B. De Mille’s The Ten Commandments, in which a captive people labor in the scorching sun beneath the whips of pharaoh’s overseers. But graffiti from inside the Giza monuments themselves have long suggested something very different." http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids

pedrorui Pedrorui (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, someone with editing privileges should add this. I've always thought of it as a classic example of ubiquitous erroneous knowledge. 98.111.202.57 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The best we have is "Archaeologists now believe...". That isn't proof that it was or wasn't built by slaves, so there is no real basis for stating a misconception. Andreclos (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Section on Christianity

While I doubt anyone but zealous fundamentalist would doubt this, you should also mention that there is also no evidence that Jesus was resurrected on the Vernal Equinox either and that a great many of the symbols that are devoted to both of these holidays in reality have nothing to do with anything Christian at all.

The early church had to compete for worshippers with the pagan religions which were, quite frankly, a lot more entertaining for the majority of the population. Go to church and listen to someone drone on in a language you don't understand (Latin) or go out to the woods, get drunk, get naked and dance around a bon fire? See the problem... And much to the horror of the many of the priests, church fathers, etc. at the time, many people were doing BOTH.

The solution was to have the Christian holidays occur on the same days as the pagan holidays and in order to make the local populations comfortable with this new and unusual religion, it dressed itself up in the same symbolism.

Instead of celebrating midwinter and the return of the solar diety, we celebrate the birth of the baby Jesus.

Popular Christmas symbols: Tree, Holly, Mistletoe are all of pagan origin. - The prophet Jermiah condems Jews in the Old Testment for cutting down trees and bringing them into their houses - Quoting "Jeremiah 10:2-4: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."

Furthermore, during the Roman celebration of the feast of Saturnalia, pagans did decorate their houses with clippings of evergreen shrubs. They also decorated living trees with bits of metal and replicas of their God, Bacchus. Tertullian (circa 160 - 230), an early Christian leader and a prolific writer, complained that too many fellow-Christians had copied the Pagan practice of adorning their houses with lamps and with wreathes of laurel at Christmas time. He also complains about many of the early Christians participating in both Christian and pagan activities.

Mistletoe was considered magical for its ability to remain green when the rest of the tree was dormant. The custom of kissing under a branch of mistletoe hails from Norse pagan religion. Because the mistletoe was used to both kill and then resurrect the son of a Norse goddess, she blessed it so that anyone standing under it was entitle to love and protection.

Instead of celebrating spring the resurrection of some harvest diety, we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.

Familiar easter symbols like the egg, rabbit, and lily. Since spring is a time of growth and promise, fertility symbols have always been prominent. Anyone who has ever heard the phrase "breeding like rabbits" doesn't need to have the rabbit explained any futher. And the egg should be equally obvious. Easter lily was associated with fertility because of its similiarity in appearance to a certain male appendage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.119.81.135 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems problematic to me to get into disputes over religious beliefs on this page. And if we did, we'd want to ensure that they were about truly common misconceptions whereas your preface to the whole comment doubts that this is a common misconception.

I think it's reasonable to have a common misconception about religion on this page if it's something like a common belief about a religion that outsiders hold, whereas practitioners uniformly believe otherwise. But we certainly don't want to get into deciding which side is right and which has a misconception where a religion has split over some issue. Nor do we want to get into "it is a common misconception that God exists, whereas actually...." or "it is a common misconception that God doesn't exist, whereas actually...". Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head, Ccrrccrr, in your comment that a misconception must be commonly held among outsiders. See Talk:List of common misconceptions#Edit request - Judaism section where one editor (claiming a consensus of one person) argues that if it's a common misconception among members of a religious group, it is a common misconception in general. Cresix (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok Cresix. This is getting a little silly. You're acting like you have some personal vendetta here, and it needs to stop. If you have a problem with the content, you need to actually explain what that problem is. Refusing to participate in the discussion, and then dredging up offhanded remarks elsewhere on the page about me is inappropriate. Handle the content dispute in the appropriate section, or let it go. Jess_talk|_edits 17:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jess, you have twice used the word "silly" about some matters that are not silly. You denied a second re-addition of non-consensus material as a "silly edit conflict". Now you call my comments "silly". Please stop doing that. And what needs to stop is your personalizing every criticism of inappropriate editing. I have already explained my objections to your misinterpretations of sources as supporting "common" misconceptions and acting without consensus. I'm not repeating myself endlessly, and I'm waiting to see what other opinions might be expressed before I take any additional action. You do not bolster a one-person consensus by repeating the same arguments and demands again and again. Just calm down and let the consensus process work. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Ccrrccrr in this instance. "Religion" and "misconceptions" are fundamentally different things, even if the case is they're both incorrect. This page should be about relatively trivial matters, for which there is no legitimate academic dispute. In the case of vaccines causing autism, for instance, we don't have notable doctors claiming there's any such risk. In the case of Christianity, however, there's an entire field of Theology to contend with. Jess_talk|_edits 18:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request : Section 3 Law

Unless there are additional topics added to this section, it would be more appropriately titled "United States Law" recognizing its content as exclusive much the same as the preceding section is titled "United States politics" to reflect its exclusive content. 99.241.16.65 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, one is about US law; the other is written with a bit of a US-centric view but if you read all the references and what they reference, etc., the discussion is as much about British Law as US law. So I don't see a need to change, and I think this structure welcome additions about law elsewhere better than having a US Law heading would. Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.205.71.150, 8 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the Physics section, please add "In a vacuum, an object, such as a spaceship does not need propulsion to keep on moving. That is because, according to Newton's Law, the law of Inertia states that an object will keep moving or or stay at rest unless an external force is apply, by which in space there are barely any air friction." Please make changes and edits accordingly, since I am not very good at writing. A good source would be Newton's book "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" or a blog explaining it http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/sciencefordessert/2011/01/08/propulsion-in-a-vacuum/

128.205.71.150 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done. No doubt that Newton is right about that, but we'd need evidence that it's a common misconception. Counterintuitive yes, common misconception, no. We could have an article on "counterintuitive physics facts" if we need a place for things like that.

Does the fact that Sci-Fi movies have spaceships use propulsion to move across the space count to make it a common misconception? Finding an article about it will sure prove difficult. Hope someone finds something on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.71.150 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Article moves screwed up the talk page

First, before renaming the article, consensus should have been sought first. Second, I now have 2 talk pages showing up on my watchlist. Can someone fix this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Move

{{Requested move/dated}}

List of notable misconceptions → List of notable misconceptions —

Common is totally undefined whole notable is a well defined concept both on wiki and off it Gnevin (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this so many levels I'm not sure where to even begin.

• First, and most obvious, this move is a major change and one that requires consensus. We haven't even begun discussing it, so a move is completely premature.
• Second, it's untrue that "common" is totally undefined. It's defined by reliable sources. IOW In other words, if a reliable source says a misconception is common (or words with that meaning), then it's a common misconception.
• Third, WP:NOTABLE is well-defined on Wikipedia, but it's about article notability. It has nothing to do with content inside an article, unless you want to change the inclusion criteria. Assuming you don't, then "notable" is just as well defined as "common". Except now we have to go back and review years worth of work to find sources. Again, this is because we've sourced the article looking for cites that say the misconception is "common" (or words to that effect), not "notable". Who's going to replace all 234 sources? What are we going to do with the ones we can't re-source?
• Fourth, I'm concerned that changing the name will also change the inclusion criteria. This would be a major change because that would mean each item would need to be notable on it's own. IOW, we'll need articles for each item on the list. This, too, has not been discussed.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

IOW? Gnevin (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

IOW = In other words. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree for all the reasons stated by Quest, and because it will not change the content of the article in the least. Not only is it a bad idea, it serves absolutely no purpose. Parenthetically, I'll also state that page moves should have discussion and consensus before the move, not after. Cresix (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD Gnevin (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:EQ Cresix (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what etiquette you are referring to Gnevin (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion. Cresix (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked no one disagreed on a highly active discussion page. So I was bold. Gnevin (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Using the speed with which you acted and your level of consideration for others' opinions as my guide, I could be "bold" and move about ten-thousand articles over the next few days. If I made such a major move on one article, however, someone should suggest that I be more courteous. Cresix (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Don't Move - I would also like to say it is well within the rights of a Wikipedian to boldly change the name of an article. I just disagree with the name change in this case.Asher196 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Asher196. I wouldn't disagree that it is an editor's right to move an article. In this case it is not a matter of what an editor has a right to do; it's a question of common courtesy. Cresix (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Bold edits, even for page moves, are actively encouraged. Gnevin was well within his rights to do so, with the goal of spurring discussion if the move was opposed - which it has. That said, I oppose the move per AQFK. Jess_talk|_edits 03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. AQFK has explained some of the problems well. While boldness is generally OK even for moves, this is only for cases when no objections are expected. Per Help:Moving a page#Before moving a page, all potentially controversial moves should be requested via the WP:Requested moves mechanism. As a rule of thumb, if an article or its talk page is big and active, then a lot of editors will have thought about the title, at least some of them will support the current title (or it would have been moved before), and therefore a move must be expected to be controversial.

It often happens that even when a move is only very very slightly controversial it is reverted as a matter of principle and the move is requested formally. There is no evidence in section #Common according to whom that anybody at all agrees with Gnevin that "notable" is better than "common". Lack of contradiction can be a sign of consent, but not after a mere 20 hours with no response in a tiny section, with a title that doesn't clearly state the intent to move, hidden somewhere in a large, active talk page. Hans Adler 08:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Physics: Cold does not radiate

Cold is the absence of heat and hence cannot radiate any more than darkness (which is the absence of light). Cold objects (above absolute zero) in fact radiate heat (blackbody radiation), just less so than warm objects. The illusion of cold 'radiation' derives from the cooling of air around cold objects as heat seeps into them. In a vacuum, you would nor feel any such 'radiation' of cold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.144.106 (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception; not just that cold does not radiate, a source that it is a common misconception. 15:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not an actual source, but a Google search for the phrase "letting the cold in" produces nearly 32,000 hits, which is fair evidence that a substantial number of people do think this way. On the "no, don't include it" side, the majority of hits on the first page are to sites objecting to the phrase on the grounds that it's scientifically incorrect.68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that it is inacurate. Indeed, I would even say that "letting the cold in is a misconception" is itself a misconception. Opening the door of a house on a cold day will physically let cold air flow into the house. This is nothing to do with radiation (and I don't know of anyone claiming it is), but rather Advection and/or Convection Wardog (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right: number of Google hits is not a reliable source. Google hits vary drastically depending on how you word it. I just Googled "cold radiates" and got a grand total of 1470 hits. And you don't know how many of your 32,000 hits could be about "letting the cold in" not being a valid idea. Google hits mean absolutely nothing, and it does not conform to Wikipedia policy. Cresix (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, what you say is untrue. In a vacuum without heat radiation (provided you keep your blood from splattering in all directions due to presure loss) you would feel cold, because your body radiates heat but recieves no heat radiation. Satellites, my area of expertise incedentally, have a hot side and a cold side. The cold side constantly looses heat and can cool down to a few kelvin, if it is insulated from the hot side.--87.162.104.206 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue you may be eluding to here may be that of heat rising (conversely cold falling) (which is substantively convection rather than radiation) which is the myth when in practice what is actually happening is hot air rising and cool air falling due to the associated densities. I don't have a source, but it shouldn't be too difficult to find one as its in every physics high-school text book. 82.18.86.179 (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fan Death

Can someone make "fan death" into a link to the main article? 216.243.36.162 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fan death is not really a misconception the way it is stated here. There are 2 misconceptions about fan death: how it happens and that fan death is a myth. Fan death is not a myth according to the US EPA. http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/pdf/EHEguide_final.pdf page 37 section 4.2.2 explains fan death and how and it happens. JaySee55 (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)JaySee55

From reading that reference, I get "fans make the air cooler" is a myth, and that improper use of a fan when the air temperature is above body temperature can actually make things worse (due to dehydration). It's a bit of a stretch to go from that to claiming "fan death is not a myth". 68.105.72.35 (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The EPA is warning people to not assume a fan alone will prevent death from heat stroke. The Korean doctor believe fans will cool a room until you die of hypothermia. I have personally met people who believed if they left a fan on in their room all day (with doors and windows closed) the room would be cool when they got home. --Skintigh (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is also common for shops to run a self-contained refrigerator with the door open, in the hope of cooling the whole premises ! (Ignoring the added heat pumping out of the back ...) Of course, it could be a useful dehumidifier ?

I also have my doubts about evaporative coolers that might cause a tiny temperature drop, at the expense of a huge increase of humidity !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)