Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 12

Birds are dinosaurs?

"Most paleontologists regard birds as the only clade of dinosaurs to have survived the Cretaceous Tertiary extinction event approximately 65.5 Ma.". --Birds —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 11:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Birds are NOT dinosaurs. Being descended from dinosaurs is not the same thing as being a dinosaur, any more than humans possibly being descended from some ancient species of rodents makes humans rodents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. We are Humans, homoids, apes, primates, mammals, reptiles, etc depending on the level you look at. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Coelacanth. 65.46.169.246 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude. I'm a Coelacanth too! 68.183.231.6 (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again. Didn't read the quote you were responding to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You have, again, removed cited information without any reasoning. You have been warned not to edit war on your discussion page. I have quoted the wiki page on birds as stating birds are an extant clade of dinosaurs. You have removed this correct information twice with no reasoning except 'birds are not dinosaurs' and 'wrong'. This are your opinions, and may be valuable to you, but cannot be used on wikipedia due to wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Birds are not dinosaurs. Being an evolutionary descendant of dinosaurs is not the same thing as being a dinosaur. The burden of proof is on you, which is also a wikipedia standard, and so far you have failed that test. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

clade n.[1] A group of animals or other organisms derived from a common ancestor species. The clade Dinosauria includes all dinosaurs as well as birds, which are descended from the dinosaurs Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on this topic at the science ref desk.[2] Your citation that "most" scientists this-and-that is sufficient to keep it out of the article. If the scientists can't definitively agree on it, then it's not appropriate to state it as if it were a blanket truth. It could be stated with appropriate qualifications, which it was previously lacking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that the misconception about humans and dinosaurs not interacting needs to be reworded. It's still true that humans never interacted with "classic" or stereotypical dinosaurs like t-rex and brontosaurus. If birds are to be considered as equivalent to dinosaurs, then the misconception needs to be written better than it was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, good point. Birds may be regarded as living dinosaurs, but if they are, then humans and dinos have definitely lived at the same time since we both exist now. Our Dinosaur article uses the phrase "non-avian dinosaurs" to refer to "classic" dinos like t-rex. Maybe we could use it in this case to clarify the situation? Doc Tropics 05:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

On further review, I see that "Non-avian dinosaurs" is already used, but not until near the end of the paragraph. Would moving it up into the first sentence help resolve some of the confusion? Doc Tropics 06:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As I just said at the science ref desk, I think we've got a misconception within a misconception. One is that early hominids interacted with "classic" (non-avian) dinosaurs. The other is that all dinosaurs went extinct at least 65 million years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I just left this note at WikiProject:Dinsoaurs in the hopes that one of our friendly Ph.D.'s can help clarify things. I'm sure it's just a matter of getting the right wording to eliminate confusion. Doc Tropics 20:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. This statement: "being an evolutionary descendant of dinosaurs is not the same thing as being a dinosaur" is utterly false under modern classification systems (or at least, the classification system currently used by 99.99% of paleontologists. In phylogenetic taxonomy, unlike old-fashioned, pre-evolutionary Linnaean taxonomy, groups are nested within one another rather than being split off into 'classes' etc. In this sense, the clade Aves is nested within the clade Dinosauria (which is in turn nested inside Archosauria, Reptilia, Amniota, Vertebrata, etc.). According to all modern experts in the field (save a vocal minority of about 2 researchers), birds are dinosaurs. I can even personally attest that there has been a very large, prominent banner with the words "Birds Are dinosaurs" hanging in the Saurischian Dinosaur Hall of the American Museum of Natural History, not exactly an institution of quackery, for the past 20 years. There are also dozens of sources from the giants of the field listed in Origin of Birds, Feathered dinosaurs, etc. if you want something citable. In short, Baseball Bugs is misinformed and/or following outdated information. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite true. As was pointed out in the science ref desk, "dinosaur" used to mean one thing, and its definition was broadened to mean something else, but in general the public thinks of T-Rex and Brontosaurus as "dinosaurs", and birds as "birds". And as I say, this leaves us with a misconception within a misconception. The standard "fact" is "dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago". That's true of the "classic" dinosaurs, but not of the avian ancestors. So the misconception needs to either be re-worded or jettisoned altogether. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was just responding to a request for clarification. I don't know what definition of "misconception" you guys are using. The fact is that in the past, "dinosaur" was a vague term that excluded birds but included certain extinct reptiles. It has since been given a formal definition where it includes a specific set of reptiles that happens to include birds within that set. This is in parallel with say, the definition of "planet" (note, not a 're-definition', as in both cases no formal definition existed in the first place). If you would say that it's a misconception that Pluto is a planet, than it is also a misconception that dinosaurs are extinct. If not, then it's not. Is it still a misconception if a definition changes and the general public doesn't know about the change? I think that's the central issue here, not whether or not birds are dinosaurs (they are, contra your initial posts asserting otherwise). MMartyniuk (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The misconception is that humans interacted with "classic" dinosaurs such as T-Rex and Brontosaurus, and that misconception remains intact. In general, people don't think of birds as being dinosaurs, because they are not "terrible lizards", they are birds. As far as Pluto is concerned, that wouldn't qualify as a misconception, because Pluto did not change, only the scientists' designation for it did, just as they decided to redefine what a dinosaur is; which is why scientists get ridiculed for stuff like this. Of course there was a "formal definition" of what planets and dinosaurs were - look in any old dictionary. The asteroids used to be called "minor planets". This term "dwarf planet" is likewise an invention of scientists, but Pluto is still a "planet" by strict definition of what a "planet" is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

By "formal definition" I meant a scientific one used by experts in the field, not the kind of vague, colloquial definitions given in dictionaries for scientific terms. (I actually have some popular kids books from the '70s which argue that there is no such thing as a "dinosaur to begin with, only a vague, informal term for certain unrelated prehistoric reptiles. The modern definition took over when it was recognized that classic dinosaurs actually do form a natural group. So it was as much a result of scientific discovery as changing definitions). Looking in a random dictionary right now, the definitions given there would make some "classic dinosaurs" true birds, since it defines "bird" only as "winged, egg-laying, warm blooded vertebrates." This describes Velociraptor as much as it does an ostrich. As for minor planets, the fact that different people were using the term planet in different ways at various times means that there were a variety of colloquial definitions, but no universally recognized formal one. Anyway, I agree with you that if it has to come down to an issue of semantics like this, it's probably not a common misconception. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientists are notorious for changing their minds about things, so the statement "birds are dinosaurs" is not a "fact", it's merely the way one group is classifying things this week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply put: Birds are dinosaurs, by today's standards, but this need not be included in the misconception due to its confusing nature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a fact if you simply use a full sentence. It is a fact that birds are dinosaurs in the most used phylogenetic model. Or cladistic model. Or whatever. That being the dominant model, saying it 'isn't a fact' is like saying "Earth being a planet isn't a fact." Well, in the relevant model, it is! In some model it may not be, but so what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree if someone wants to remove the bit about birds being dinosaurs. I only re-entered the edit four or six times, or whatever, because the argument against it was that 'birds aren't dinosaurs'. Which is wrong. But it is true that 'birds are dinosaurs' might not be really a necessary tidbit for this misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.79 (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the right way to say it might be, "Birds didn't used to be dinosaurs, but now they are." And if that seems like a joke, it is, but not for the reason you think. It's the scientists who are responsible for this shifting sand of definitions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, the nature of science is ongoing review when new data becomes available. The last thirty years has seen huge changes in how we classify organisms (cladistics) - we now know that birds are descended from dinosaurs, and that that means they are technically dinosaurs. Birds, dinosaurs (and crocodiles for that matter) share a more recent common ancestor (and are hence more closely related to each other) than other reptiles such as turtles, snakes and lizards. Hence they form a more natural group. I would add a final line "Ironically, birds are now considered to be dinosaurs by most scientists, so we are all coexisting with dinosaurs." once I find a nice consensus reference. Having a photo of the banner sounds cool. Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Update - added 3 refs showing consensus that birds = dinosaurs. This is a consensus view. Period. Casliber (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed this to "birds evolved from dinosaurs" which is the mainstream consensus simply stated. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

1st sentence, 2nd para, last sentence, first para, first sentence - um, "are" being the operative word, not "evolved" Casliber (talk • contribs) 13:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Birds are dinosaurs. In the same sense in which humans are apes, apes are monkeys, and whales are fish. Don't worry, I'm not about to try to make those changes. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this debate but now feel compelled to jump in. Casliber, the sources occasionally use the phrase "are dinosaurs", but there is also a generous use of phrases such "descended from", including the idea that dinosaurs and birds descended from a common ancestor, which does not make birds equivalent to dinosaurs. There is enough doubt about the bold statement "birds are dinosaurs" that it should not be stated as such in the article. Mention the possibility, including common ancestry, but don't state "birds are dinosaurs" as if it is unquestioned fact. Cresix (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"birds equivalent to dinosaurs"? "birds = dinosaurs"? Is there such a confusion about the statement that birds are dinosaurs? That "birds are dinosaurs" means that "dinosaurs are birds"? If there is such a confusion, then it counts as a common misconception, and there should be an explanation of that. "Tomatoes are fruit" does not mean that fruit are tomatoes. Maybe there should be an entry about cladistics, in which it is explained that a clade includes all the descendants of the last common ancestor (LCA) of all of the members of the clade. If "dinosaur" is a clade, and birds are the descendants of some dinosaurs, then that means that birds are descendants of their LCA, and birds are dinosaurs. Just as humans are the descendants of the LCA of chimps and gibbons (both of which are universally recognized as apes). Just as apes are the descendants of the LCA of titis and baboons (that is, monkeys). Just as whales are the descendants of the LCA of sharks and tunas (that is, fish). (Other examples of descendants of the LCA of fish are ostriches and anteaters.) TomS TDotO (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please Cresix, read about cladistics. And look at the sources. These museums do not make statements like this lightly. Each reference makes the statement "birds are dinosaurs" within it. Casliber (talk • contribs) 19:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite your condescending suggestion, Casliber, I did read the sources. You are selectively citing parts of sources, overlooking (as I have already said) that the sources also make as much use of phrases such as "descended from" as they do "are dinosaurs". Certainly the possibility exists that birds are dinosaurs, but you are imposing an inflexible interpretation on a matter that is not universally acknowledged, even in the very sources that you cite. Cresix (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me the problem here is just that there are clearly two senses of 'dinosaur' involved here. There is the scientific sense, which is rigorously defined, and in this sense birds are dinosaurs. There is a distinct, ordinary sense, which is not clearly defined, and in this sense birds are not dinosaurs. This is perfectly analogous to the term 'animal'. In its biological sense, humans are animals. In its ordinary sense, humans are not animals. (If you doubt the latter claim, try reporting child abuse to your local animal cruelty prevention organization.) Because there are two distinct senses of the same word, any revisions need to acknowledge explicitly that there are these two senses, and say unambiguously which is intended. MJM74 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

ISTM that everybody is agreeing that there is a common misconception or two which call for explanations, and what better place to have those explanations? TomS TDotO (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Whow, this is one of those problems even scientists themselves are not agreeing about. We are just having a nice discussion on this topic on one of the taxonomists list-serves. Anyway, the issue is that there are several paradigms used when we classify taxa. In the strict phylogenetic way, all extant species that originated from a single ancestor are preferably grouped together in a monophyletic group. If we do that, birds and dinosaurs are in the same group. A different way to look at it is from the perspective of changes, some critical characteristic. Here it gets fishy, because birds are traditionally defined on characteristics like having feathers, but feathered tetrapods have made taht a bit difficult and the current definition of birds is somewaht arbitrary set to Archeopteryx being the first bird. But if we ignore those details, birds have acquired some unique characteristics and for that reason should be considered a seprerate group outside of the dinosaurs. This would make the dinosaurs paraphyletic in the phylogenetic sense, but would be more representative for the crucial changes underpinning the group. Nowadays, there is a strong push in science towards forcing monophyletic groups in the phylogenetic context (especially by molecular phylogenetisists), but it is by no means the only voice (many more traditional taxonomists disagree). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The nested definition idea seems suspect to me. if birds are dinosaurs because they share a common ancestor, doesn't that mean that mammals are reptiles (or amphibians, or fish) for the same reason? I can't see that "descended from a common ancestor" means "is the same as" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But birds do not just "share a common ancestor" with dinosaurs. We share a common ancestor with dinosaurs, trees share a common ancestor with dinosaurs, crocs share a common ancestor with dinosaurs. Birds are nested inside dinosaurs, just as tyrannosaurids, ceratopsians, and sauropods are. (Follow the links in order to make any sense of things.) It's no different from dogs being nested inside mammals. And Velociraptor (or even Brachiosaurus) is more closely related to a house sparrow than to a Triceratops. Albertonykus (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"Birds are dinosaurs" does not mean "birds are the same as dinosaurs." Some dinosaurs were not birds. And the same "problem" of cladistics applies with "reptiles" (including "turtles", "crocodiles", and "snakes" implies including "mammals" and "birds") and "fish" (including "tunas" and "sharks" implies including "reptiles"). TomS TDotO (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Vomitorium redux

After reading the previous discussion on this talk page about vomitoria, I did a little source-hunting to see if I could nail down "misconception" and "common" sources (and convice myself that I'm not crazy and everyone else has heard this one too!). Here's what I came up with:

• Oxford Dictionaries entry for "vomitorium": "a place in which, according to popular misconception, the ancient Romans are supposed to have vomited during feasts to make room for more food".
• Google books preview for a book called "A Cabinet of Roman Curiosities: Strange Tales and Surprising Facts from the World's Greatest Empire": "There is a common misconception that rich Romans had a special room, a vomitorium, to which they withdrew to throw up so that they could continue eating. There is no evidence for such a room.", which goes on to define what a vomitorium actually was, in addition.

These both strike me as fairly reliable sources; I'd like to propose that we replace the vomitorium blurb in the article with the wording originally provided by IP 199.106.103.249, bulked up by my sources: In ancient Rome, there was no wide-spread practice of self-induced vomiting after meals, and Romans did not build rooms called vomitoria in which to purge themselves after a meal. Vomitoria were tunnels underneath the seats in their stadiums which allowed crowds entrance and exit.

Opinions? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me. Thanks for finding the sources. Cresix (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and nice work! Doc Tropics 22:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

Per the above discussion, please insert the following text into the "Europe" Section under "History". For attribution purposes, edit summary might need to include that the text, minus sources, was originally written by anon editor 199.106.103.249.

• In ancient Rome, there was no wide-spread practice of self-induced vomiting after meals, and Romans did not build rooms called vomitoria in which to purge themselves after a meal. Vomitoria were tunnels underneath the seats in their stadiums which allowed crowds entrance and exit.

keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Good work. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Can ancient Rome and Vomitoria be linked? The latter certainly should be and I think the former would be useful too. It looks a little too bare of links at the moment.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

already  Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Mediation

There is an outstanding request for mediation concerning this article. I would be willing to accept the role of mediator, but I have a couple of concerns. First of all, the request for mediation looks more like a request for support. That is not how mediation works. Secondly, the atmosphere on this talk page seems quite hostile and I see possible IP socking issues. Is this a serious request for mediation, or should I just close the case? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

How nice it was of the user to NOT notify us of that nonsense. As far as socking, he freely admits to using that IP, so that's not at issue. He does tend to show up and disappear, such as he did in mid-November, and also since about 3 days ago. The problem on this page is editors who run across something that has to do with a survey about misconceptions and then they present it as "fact". The wrangling is over trying to keep the page tight and neither endless nor dubious. The dinosaurs/birds issue is one. The point is it's being debated. The trouble with the user in question is that he doesn't understand that his posting something in an article doesn't mean he gets to own that posting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked my archives and I was definitely NOT notified of this so-called "mediation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. It doesn't sound like mediation is appropriate (or necessary) in this instance. I'll give it 24 hours for the requesting party to respond, but if I don't hear anything I'll close the case. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nor was I notified, and I'm directly named in the mediation request as a party to the dispute. This issue was discussed rather extensively on this talk page. This is an example of one user (TheThomas (talk · contribs)) trying to assert unilateral control over the consensus process repeatedly over a period of months and not accepting the fact that he does not form a consensus of one person. Both before and after requesting mediation, he restored the item with his "consensus of one". The first time he tried to do it "under the radar" editing as an anon and not leaving an edit summary. When called on that, he made the request for mediation. When that didn't get a response for a couple of weeks, he again restored the item with the edit summary "Added back in due to lack of consensus or reasoning for removal". Note also that some of this user's suggested additions to the article have been accepted with little discussion, so we have taken the time to consider his ideas and, when necessary, discuss. Cresix (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There is two cases that I have repeatedly added sourced material (usually days apart), which has then been repeatedly reverted by Cresix or Baseball Bugs.

1) I go to the talk page, discuss the removal. I get no response for five days, then I add in the removed piece--"Added back in due to lack of consensus or reasoning for removal". That is my understanding of consensus by silence in WP:CON. If nobody has a reason for removal of material, then it is consensus by silence.WP:SILENCE

2) The second case in which I post material repeatedly (again, days apart) is when the complaint against my material is that the source is bad (broken link, not specific, not a strong enough study). In which case I go find a study which meets the reasonable requirement set by the objecting party, and reinsert the material. Which is my understanding of consensus.building consensus Both parties (myself and objector) agree that the article could use stronger supporting references, then I add the references after waiting for any other objections.

I have tried, multiple times, inserting new material directly into the discussion section--in order to skip the insert/delete/insert/delete phase. This has resulted in zero, zero, responses. So, I must put the material into the page to test whether these two will delete it. So far, my experience has been that these two will delete anything they have once removed--no matter how many times I meet their requests for better documentation of the appropriateness of my inserted statement.

The short version; these two are repeatedly deleting good, sourced information without reason, or having given a reasonable standard to meet, deleting after the standard is met. That is edit-warring, and it is bad for wikipedia. Effective discussion has ended, since no reason is given for repeatedly deleting material--besides the circular reason, 'no consensus for addition.' TheThomas (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)72.187.99.79 (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

'Consensus for addition' is not policy of an unchallenged edit. It is the opposite of policy.Wikipedia:DRNC This page does not get its own policy because these two demand it.WP:CONLIMITED

Only when an edit is removed, and in the discussion or edit note, there is listed a reason for removal, which isn't addressed, is consensus needed. The edits I have repeatedly put in with more, and more, sources were not in need of consensus.Building Consensus If an issue was brought up, it was addressed, or the issue was dropped by me. If an issue was not brought up with the edit, I waited 5 days then re-entered the edit, per wikipedia policy.WP:SILENCE

Note: for the character of these edit wars. In this discussion section Baseball Bugs states that I warned him not to edit war after he repeatedly removed material. He feels he was in the right simply because he thinks what I put was " the blatant falsehood that 'birds are dinosaurs'." Apparently, not knowing much about dinosaurs, he feels he is the ultimate judge here. Despite me linking to the Birds article which I was very nearly quoting. The truth wasn't important to him, the quality of references weren't important. What was? His opinion, that's what.

This occurred again with the first iteration of another statement I have been trying to edit into this article. He started the discussion by simply saying, 'no that's wrong'. Without knowing a damned thing about the subject he feels he can flout peer-review, and professional opinions I cited [3]. At this point it has five separate references for one sentence. Not enough? Not if opinion is more important than fact. Having just two sentences in the conversation--one accusing me of being a shill for a corporation--he then baldly asserts "Yes, it's settled: It doesn't belong in the article." The conversation was between me and one other person(Cresix), no consensus whatsoever. Why is it settled? Cuz Bugs says so.

As for Cresix. He thinks I am bound by rules that he really doesn't pay attention to. Wikipedia:DRNC "Don't revert due to 'no consensus' ". He repeatedly says I can't enter things into this article without first having consensus. Guess who's consensus. Bug's and Cresix's. The only two people in the discussion channel. Bugs says no to everything he doesn't understand. With a three person vote, it will always be Cresix that decides the vote...this is not an excellent system. Ownership! Wikipedia policy states that "no consensus" for adding an edit is NOT a reason for keeping that edit out, except in highly refined pages, which this is not. Consensus is for removing material, but this bureaucrat missed that part, and repeats the circular reasoning, "No consensus to make any of the changes currently under discussion." Oddly enough, he usually doesn't even bother to claim a problem with an edit, just says there is no consensus.

As for the particular accusations : "We have a user who insists, despite lengthy talk page discussion, that he has a right to post a particular theory despite the lack of consensus to do so." -- I have no idea what this is referring to. Nearly everything I have posted (all with citations) has been immediately reverted. Often while displaying a lack of understanding in the appropriate field of knowledge. Note "Birds are dinosaurs."

"This user apparently thinks he constitutes a consensus of one person, despite being told repeatedly there is no such thing." --This is wrong. A consensus by silence is a consensus of one person. Which I have been clear about. If no one discusses any complaint about an edit for five days I put it in b/c that makes sense. "Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, sometimes it is best to assume that silence implies consensus." WP:SILENCE

"He first tried to restore contentious material "under the radar" by editing as an IP with no edit summary." --Yes...all edits that aren't declared as "Hey Cresix, I'm editing" are insidious...

Cresix claims, TheThomas gave a gratuitous warning "...to me after I reverted him one time." In fact, nearly all my (many, cited) edits were reverted by one of these two users.

I'm simply trying to make this article better by adding well-sourced material. Unfortunately, instead of this being a cooperative activity it has become a competitive one.TheThomas (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please try to follow the usual conventions for indenting comments. The above is confusing, and the problem is exacerbated by flipping between your account name and IP address. Secondly, it seems clear to me that the problem here is lack of editors. This is typical with "list of..." articles (may they all be damned) because they are so often subjective. Thirdly, the debate has descended into a series of terse comments of dubious good faith. If mediation is truly desired, I will be happy to help. That being said, I will primarily be involved in facilitating collegial discussion, during which I will expect everyone to behave like timid nuns and basically follow the tried-and-trusted approach of proposing changes on the talk page before attempting to implement them. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI: This article has been a WP:BATTLEGROUND for at least a couple years. Things have actually died down significantly from its heyday. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, AQFK! Thank you for the info. I will bear that in mind if mediation is accepted by the parties. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe locking down both the article page and the talk page for awhile might help. Like for 6 months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I think I might have given a false impression. If I am not mistaken, Bugs, Cresix and TheThomas are relatively new editors to the article. I was referring to past disputes with different editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I once gave a false impression. I tried doing Sylvester, and they told me I was Daffy.

I ran across this page a few months back, I don't recall exactly when; and there was indeed constant arguing, all going back to the attempt to keep the standards rigorous or you'd have every alleged "misconception" that was revealed by some researcher's survey or that someone remembered from childhood turning up here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have followed this article for about four years. I did some minor editing originally as an anon. Then after registering I became more active. I've witnessed a lot of the battles. Cresix (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

@AQFK - It's okay. I read it as an historical issue, rather than something current. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

@Bugs - That seems a teeny bit extreme, akin to "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit." -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hence the "maybe". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Scjessey. I'll simply comment that TheThomas has provided no new information in this section. The fundamental issue is whether the item that TheThomas wishes to add is a "common" misconception. In my opinion (and I believe Baseball Bugs will agree) it is not a common misconception, and TheThomas has not provided adequate evidence that it is a common misconception. This is a frequent issue for this page: There are millions of misconceptions. Are all of them "common" misconceptions? Some misconceptions are held by a few people ("the earth is flat"). Some are held by a group of people with enough knowledge of the subject to even have a misconception (the behavior of subatomic particles). Some are held by a broad range of people, and those might be considered common. Sometimes an item is added after an editor finds clear evidence that the misconception is common; for example, see the excellent work above by keɪɑtɪk flʌfi regarding Roman vomitoria. That issue was debated back and forth as to whether it is a common misconception; then keɪɑtɪk flʌfi did the research and found very good sources supporting that it is common. Even then, keɪɑtɪk flʌfi was thoughtful enough to get others' opinions before adding the item. Without unequivocal sourcing that the misconception is common, items are sometimes added by consensus that the misconception is common. I don't believe TheThomas has provided that unequivocal sourcing, and there is no consensus to add the item. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good summary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - I would argue that there is no consensus not to add the item either. A meaningful consensus is hard to obtain with so few editors. Perhaps a Request for Comment would be more useful? It would bring in extra eyes on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone, of course, can post an RfC. I would urge that if it is done, in the spirit of neutrality, the explanation should include a clear distinction between sourcing that an item is true (e.g., the earth is not flat) and sourcing that it is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, as for no consensus not to add the item, that certainly is true, but until there is a consensus, the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to add or restore the item. Cresix (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, and that's the crux of the current issue. Thomas and his IP alter ego think that if they read some magazine article that claims that (1) this is a common belief and (2) my survey indicates otherwise; that somehow it qualifies for this wikipedia article, without discussion. Wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

With respect to WP:BURDEN, that is indeed correct; however, my purpose as mediator is to mediate between parties, and part of that is to make sure all reasonable points of view are considered. While I have my own feelings on the matter, I will not be taking sides. I would like to help parties come to a mutual agreement by promoting reasonable discussion and mutual respect. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks for your efforts. Cresix (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's simply a question of sourcing, WP:RSN should settle the matter in a couple of days. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

RSN may be helpful, but again, let's make distinction. An item can be reliably sourced as true ("the earth is not flat"), but that is not equivalent to being reliably sourced that it is a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The tricky part is this article's two-pronged requirement of a "fact" being both a commonly held belief and being untrue. One author claiming that something is both a commonly held belief and that his survey proves otherwise, is nowhere near sufficient. The "commonly held" part needs to be broadly demonstrated to be "commonly" believed; and the "untrue" part needs to be broadly demonstrated to be untrue. One guy taking a survey demonstrates neither. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If an editor is combining two sources to state a conclusion not reached by either, then it's a violation of WP:SYN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, but it's not exactly that, in this case. It's finding a magazine article somewhere and concluding that that one article is the truth and therefore it qualifies, without looking into other studies that might demonstrate otherwise... or looking into studies of those studies, which would take away the "primary source" aspect of it, while supporting the "widely held" requirement and possibly the "untrue" requirement. I say "possibly" because surveys are notoriously suspect for being worded in such a way to prove the researcher's point. I've said before, I know exactly where I was on 9/11/01 and 11/22/63 when I heard the news, and no survey in the world can prove otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the proposed text and associated sources could be represented in a new section below. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

See below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I must be missing something, because I'm having a hard time believing flashbulb memories are a misconception at all, let alone a common one. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To some extent, I believe you are correct. I believe this particular "misconception" falls into the group I described above as held only by people who have enough knowledge to even have a misconception. It may be a misconception among some with knowledge of memory research (or those who think they have that knowledge), but most people have never heard of it. Cresix (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The alleged misconception is that people don't remember things as well as they think they do. That's hardly a news flash, as there is no end of conflicting testimony of eyewitnesses even right after an event. And you're right, this "flash memory" business is an obscure term. This vaguely reminds me of something from a few months back about how Louis Armstrong supposedly had a different birthdate than was "commonly" thought. Trouble is, the average citizen nowadays barely knows who Louis Armstrong was, never mind what his birthday was. That one, obviously, was kept out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And again, the premise is unprovable anyway. I can tell you precisely where I was and what I said when I first learned of JFK and 9/11 and the Shuttle explosion, but I haven't a clue what I had for lunch on those particular days. Some things stick with you and some don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Things have gone quiet. Will one of you file an RfC over this issue, or shall I just close the medcab case and exit stage left? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Those two options are not mutually exclusive, of course. I suggest closing if you see no need for mediation. Any editor can post an RfC at any time. Thanks for you help. Cresix (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is so sad. Cresix just repeats "there is no consensus" while bugs makes up some nonsense about citing one magazine article. The one statement has five citations, and no consensus is not a reason. It is nonsense to say that hasn't met the burden of proof, it has several citations which say it is a common misconception, several which say it is common, and several which say it is a misconception. But, at least spitting out nonsense is better than the edit warring you two have been doing--not even having claimed a reason to support your actions. I don't care to spend an infinite amount of time discussing this topic, so I probably won't attempt to find a six, seventh, and eighth citation for the bloody-fucking obvious.72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"...the premise is unprovable anyway." You've repeatedly said things like this (scientifically and logically illiterate, or nearly so) about this, and other, edits I've made. I want you to consider that scientists were the ones to state that 'flashbulb memories aren't more accurate'. It wasn't me. What you are citing is your opinion of how accurate your memory is. The facts say that memory is no more accurate than other memories you have. Note: forgetting what you ate that day has nothing to do with this discussion. It is a discussion of accuracies of memories, not retention of memories.72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I don't think you should be doing much more than editing when it comes to topics you don't understand. I understand your need to tamper, go ahead, but if you've never learned a significant amount about a topic, please don't remove/revert it. Note: In the "Birds are Dinosaurs" discussion we had to get a professional to specifically tell you that you were completely wrong...then you argued with him. 72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The point of my "There is two cases that I have repeatedly added sourced material..." material up top was to point out that you were both consistently breaking policy to revert my material. The fact that you feel that 'adds nothing to the discussion' disgusts me. I normally wouldn't even think to explain why breaking policy repeatedly is bad. But, apparently you two need that done. When you break policy you undo what is good and great about wikipedia, and degrade it. Doing harm to a great thing is bad, it means you are foul and that the rest of us must undo your harm rather than enjoy wikipedia.72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Rant about the issues as much as you wish, but watch the personal comments about editors ("you two are foul"). Cresix (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not foul at all. In fact, I went into the gap for extra bases. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

TheThomas' edit

• 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.

References

Humans, dinosaurs and birds, oh my

OK, I've stayed out of the bird/dinosaur issue, but having just read the item,[4] it's confusing and appears to contradict itself. The item needs to be clearly explained or removed. Or just remove the last sentence. The last sentence is probably a violation of WP:SYN anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

We now have discussion on this topic going on on two sperate places on this page. What is synthesis about it? Birds = dinosaurs in the sources provided. I guess you could take out the word "conversely", is that what you mean? Actually a better idea is to change the misconception to "Dinosaurs are extinct. They are not. Birds are dinosaurs"Casliber (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's not WP:SYN, but the last three sources aren't about this common misconception. I think the problem is as you said, there are (at least) two different defintions of the word 'dinosaur' but our article doesn't explain this. Just axe the final sentence and it's fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you studied biological sciences at all? Have a read of cladistics. Leaving off the last line reinforces an antiquated view of vertebrate biology. Casliber (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A week or so ago, it stated that the last non-avian dinosaur went extinct 65 million years ago. I thought that was a nice, concise way to say it. So what happened? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

{EC}I dissected a frog once. I think you're being too clever for your own good. When most people think of dinosours, they're thinking tyrannosaurus rex, brontosaurus, pterodactyl, etc. See this. In fact, dictionary.reference.com defines dinosaur as "any chiefly terrestrial, herbivorous or carnivorous reptile of the extinct orders Saurischia and Ornithischia, from the Mesozoic Era, certain species of which are the largest known land animals."[5] If you want to correct the common misconception that there are no living descendents of dinosaurs, I suggest you create a separate item. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't see anyone disputing the misconception (that humans existed in the eras in question), all I see is a debate about wording which looks increasingly pedantic. I'm sure this is a relevant debate somewhere, but's not all that relevant on this page. Hairhorn (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that "birds are dinosaurs" is not a "fact", it's this week's classification by scientists who think they own the English language. The simple wording that was there a week ago was just fine. The current version is an attempt to browbeat the public with the scientists' current definition of dinosaurs, and it's not appropriate. It's pedantic, as you say. The animals did not change, only science changed its definitions. Like when they haughtily declared that Pluto was no longer a planet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact. It's not this week's current definition but the culmination of 150 years' worth of investigation. The more fossils are found indicating a great many dinosaurs had feather-like structures as well as evidence for their warm-bloodedness, shows how wrong earlier conceptions were. Anyway, BB, beyond that the wording reflects the sources. Wording something as "descended from" implies exclusion, which is in error and conflicts with the sources. Casliber (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved (at present) with your discussion, but will just comment on your (Casliber's) statement, which contains a logical error: "Wording something as "descended from" implies exclusion,..." No, "descended from" implies" "descended from", not exclusion. It can still be inclusive and definitely implies relationship, not exclusion. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The only "fact" is that scientists co-opted the term and assigned their own meaning to it and expect the public to kiss up to it. In any case, the wording a week ago was fine, and somebody screwed with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ummmmm, Baseball Bugs, the level of knowledge (or otherwise) you are happy with I have no problem with, but please don't foist your opinions on issues when they differ with experts such as the various museums cited. Casliber (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, there is strict wording (i.e. the sentence makes no comment on inclusiveness), and there is implication. But okay, I'll conced the point. The next issue then is that the statement which uses "birds are descended from dinosaurs" without saying "birds are dinosaurs" is cherry-picking material from the sources and potentially misleading by omission. Casliber (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We could resolve this issue nicely by deleting everything from "The issue is complicated..." and onwards. It really does "complicate" the picture and really isn't part of the whole point. It's only an issue for pedants. It sidetracks and detracts from the main point....humans and dinosaurs didn't exist at the same time. That's the point and we should just stick to it.

If one really wants to save that material, then bury it in a footnote. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, let's not. As it is right now I can live with. Casliber (talk • contribs) 01:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Bugs, Brangifer and others have said. Casliber, you seem to be the only one championing this. If this is the case, I suggest you drop the issue so we can move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this doesn't present the opportunity of clarifying another "common misconception". The common misconception that cladistics clarifies by classifying humans as apes, apes as monkeys, and birds as dinosaurs. TomS TDotO (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge, these arguments aren't about numerical advantages. Plain fact is, if people won't read sources or value their own opinion over Reliable Sources then I am at a loss as to how they can contribute. You can't cherry-pick sources to suit your arguments...which contrast with all the museums I've linked to thus far. Casliber (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not just drop that discussion? Screw the sources because all this discussion about birds and dinosaurs is another topic than the main point....humans and dinosaurs didn't live at the same time. Period. Keep it simple.

Casliber, if you want to start a new section about the bird/dinosaur matter, then do it, but don't let it confound and create confusion about this simple matter. Humans and dinosaurs aren't even slightly related, so we don't have to worry about it. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Casliber: You keep confusing two different definitions of the word 'dinosaur' as if they're the same when they're not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I favor the suggestion to remove the entire mention of the bird issue. Neither the article nor this talk page is a dissertation on evolutionary biology. Casliber, you are alone on this. Consensus has been achieved. Please move on. Cresix (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. This leaves a section that stays very strictly on-topic without any distractions. The previous version would be a constant target for edit wars, and all over a side issue. There is no point in that. What's left should be safe.

Now can we mark this section as "resolved"? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You are all ignoring half of what the sources say in favour of your own misconceptions. The version with the removal of the bird information is outdated and incorrect. This is an encyclopedia not some witty repository of one-liners. Still I will not edit war about it. But Bullrangifer suggests another section so that is a place to start. Casliber (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point here. Sticking to the main and only point of that entry ("humans not coexisting with dinosaurs") is what counts. The existing reference documents the matter quite well. Was there anything in the refs that were removed with the other content that shed light on the point here, or were they about the other matters that sidetracked the whole matter? If there were any of them that were relevant to the "humans not coexisting with dinosaurs" matter, then you are more than welcome to restore them at the appropriate spot(s). Otherwise the idea of starting another section about birds=dinosaurs is still open. If you can find good sources without using any OR or SYNTH, then go for it! I'd love to learn from it. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning: incoming xkcd readers

This article mentioned in the latest xkcd webcomic (http://xkcd.com/843/), which may mean an edit or two... 69.243.228.209 (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a note on the talk page. Would semi-protection be appropriate? 24.15.185.156 (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Whenever pop culture which hundreds of thousands of people take part of specifically mentions a certain wikipedia page, there's a reason for semi-protecting the page. Ran4 (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Samvaran.sharma, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} under "human body"

• Alcohol does not in fact make one warmer. The reason brandy and other such drinks create the sensation of warmth is that they cause blood vessels to dilate and stimulate nerve endings near the surface of the skin with an influx of warm blood. This actually results in making the core body temperature colder, as it allows for easier heat exchange with the cold external environment.

Samvaran.sharma (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception; not just that alcohol does not make one warmer, a source that it is a common misconception. 15:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresix (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I added it while you replied. But I think it can stay, there are a number of sources, like this one. I'll add a few in a minute. Regards SoWhy 15:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Three sources added, from 1967, 1977 and 2004. If you want more, check GNews archives, there are hundreds :-) Regards SoWhy 15:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ronligt, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} After Cow Tipping there is a empty reference: Maybe this should be removed.

Ronligt (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done SPat ^talk 09:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong

Is there any citation for "One small step for 'a' man..." having its 'a' "lost in transmission back to Earth"? I don't really see any way it can be possible for that to happen without causing an audible gap in the recording. Unless, of course, the recording had the gap edited out, but why would anyone bother? Interference and gaps are audible in other parts of the Apollo recordings, why pick out that bit? Gordonjcp (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same thing myself. If nobody objects could we tag this "citation required" for now? Splateagle (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, this is an old misconception that's gotten some more traction in recent years. See this Snopes article Alereon (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.141.47.181, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the biology section, please change 'shark' to 'sharks' where needed; this would be really easy for me to do if not for the so-called protection!

70.141.47.181 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry for the protection. I love xkcd but unfortunately every time Russell mentions a Wikipedia entry, it gets a flood of vandalism and similar attacks. Regards SoWhy 12:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean Randall. Turkeyphan^t 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request for "Cooking" section

{{Edit semi-protected}} There is a slight misspelling under the "Cooking" section. The bit about alcohol and cooking says "However, a study dound that much of the alcohol remains" while it should read "However, a study found that much of the alcohol remains". Change the word 'dound' to 'found'. Idamelio (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Done: Now fixed. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 14:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, G Buddha was not an ascetic. He experimented with asceticism but ultimately rejected it. Calling Buddha an "ascetic" is like calling the Pope a "Jew". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.66.210 (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

food

i just thought i'd mention that there is a spelling error in the bit under the food section about wine in cooking. the results of a study 'dound', should be changed to results of a study 'found'. 76.3.171.21 (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Done: Now fixed. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 14:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

The Palin entry keeps being reintroduced without discussion, after a clear consensus to delete. Hairhorn (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 64.119.210.82, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the cooking section which could be changed for food I would add a note about the fact that spicy food does not actually burns but only stimulates the nerves. See Capsaicin for reference.

64.119.210.82 (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. I don't think that fits into this article. People might say that something feels "burning" but they are usually quite aware that it's not actually burning them. It's merely a verb used to express a sensation of spiciness. Regards SoWhy 15:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, some "spicy" compounds can in fact cause tissue damage, aka a chemical burn. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1306205/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jrtimon, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the Evolution category, all statements are made with the presupposition that Evolution has been proven. There is a great misconception that evidence equates proof, when in fact are not equatable. Similarly, proponents of Creationism have many evidences that their position is true, however nobody ANYWHERE has absolute proof. If the section is only meant to clear misconceptions about evolution, it should be rewritten in a way that doesn't mislead readers to believe that Evolution is a scientifically proven fact. Maybe adding a section above the Evolution section (entitled Origin of Life or something to that nature) that explains that a common misconception is that there is a scientifically proven law of the origin of life and that Evolution itself is a misconception would be the appropriate action to take, in order to provide neutrality in this discussion.

Jrtimon (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Declined. Evolution is as proven as gravity is. That there are people saying otherwise is correct and covered in our article Objections to evolution but irrelevant for this article. This article lists misconceptions about evolution itself, not about its validity or acceptance. Also, nobody anywhere has absolute proof about anything, so that argument is moot. On a side note, if you read the section in question, you will notice that it's also a common misconception that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life. Regards SoWhy 15:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Gwenkern, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The last item under "Human body and health" contains duplicative language. The last sentence reads: "Other senses sometimes identified are the sense of time, heat, cold, pain, itching, pressure, hunger, thirst, need to urinate, and need to defecate." Heat, cold, and pain should be deleted, since they were mentioned in the preceding sentence.

Gwenkern (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for spotting it. Regards SoWhy 15:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 200.138.222.128, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hey guys, first time edit-asking, I'm not quite sure if this fits here or if it should be at the talk page, but I read everything there and there was no mention to this misconception:

There is a misconception that there is a God.

200.138.222.128 (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Declined That's not a misconception, that's a religious belief. By definition, beliefs are not proven (or, as Terry Pratchett put it: "Seeing is not believing. It's where belief ends, because its not needed any more."). Regards SoWhy 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with SoWhy's explanation; if you believe something and it's wrong, it's a misconception. But we would need to cite a proper source that there isn't a god. I don't think there's going to be such a source: as far as I know, humanity has not yet found any way to prove there isn't a god. 109.255.182.203 (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to believe me but I think my point is still correct. A "misconception" is believing something despite evidence to the contrary. Religious belief on the other hand is by definition something you believe when no evidence exists one way or another. It would be a misconception once there is evidence/proof that god does not exist and people still believed it anyway. Regards SoWhy 16:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor request

{{editprotected}}

Please add a wikilink to Little Diomede Island on the text "from an island in Alaska" under the United States politics section. 71.84.199.50 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done! ~Amatulić (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pedrorui, 5 January 2011

I updated the list of words, replied to a comment and removed the last item.

{{edit semi-protected}} Linguistics

. The Eskimo languages do not have an unusual large number of words for snow. In particular, it is not true that these languages use special words in order to distinguish between an abnormally large number of types of snow. Simply, there are many words formed around the concept of snow, which is in itself unremarkable. For example, consider the list of English words that contain the element 'snow': snow (verb), snowing (verb), snowboard (verb), snowy (adjective), snowiest (adjective), snowily (adverb), snow (noun), snowiness (noun), snowplow (noun), snowstorm (noun), snowflake (noun), snowfall (noun), snowdrift (noun), snowboard (noun), snowman (noun), snowslide (noun), snowshoes (noun), snowbank (noun), snowcave (noun), powder snow (noun), snowmageddon (noun), etc.. Eskimo, like English, can form complex words from simple ones. In fact, there is no upper bound to the number of words containing 'snow' in Eskimo, only patience sets a limit, just like there is no upper limit to the English words about the concept of 'mother' as illustrated by "great-grandmother" , "great-great-grandmother", "great-great-great-grandmother", etc..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow#cite_note-Pullum.27s_explanation-0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow#cite_note-2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow http://people.ucalgary.ca/~kmuldrew/cryo_course/snow_words.html

. Linguists do not have to learn languages. Most linguists speak very few languages, other than their own. The goal of linguistics is to understand how human communication works, but this does not require linguists to be polyglots. Conversely, speaking multiple languages does not make one a linguist. Similarly, a zoologist does not have to become a chimp in order to study chimps. The following aphorism has been attributed to Lynne Murphy: "asking a linguist how many languages (s)he speaks is like asking a doctor how many diseases (s)he has." Ironically, many dictionaries still equate the terms 'linguist' and 'polyglot'.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000115.html http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/06/18/what_do_linguists_do/ http://linguistlist.org/studentportal/whatis.cfm

 Not done: Please provide reliable source that this is a COMMON misconception. Cresix (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The second URL provided above (Globe newspaper) shows this is common. Moreover, the fact that modern dictionaries like Merriam-Webster make such a mistake shows how established this is: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/linguist

No, the Globe source says nothing about anything being a COMMON misconception. And a dictionary mistake is not evidence for a common misconception; it's evidence for a misconception by a few writers or proofreaders. Cresix (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

But here are more sources for this misconception:

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~ling/ http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002399.html http://www.tomisimo.org/blog/2007/linguistics/a-linguist-does-not-necessarily-speak-many-languages/

NONE of these sources identify anything as a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There are at least two facebook groups about it; http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2201093513 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2263085928

Facebook pages mean nothing. I could set up a Facebook page devoted to the misconception that the moon is made of cheese. That doesn't mean it's a common misconception. Cresix (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

... Personally, I get asked by immigration services how many languages I know *every* single time I enter the USA via an airport.

What happens to you personally is not a reliable source. I just asked by friend who is a linguist, and she has never been asked how many languages she knows. Cresix (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedrorui (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a linguist too (as in, a scientist who studies the workings of language), and I also get asked by people how many languages I speak, but this is not a misconception (altho it certainly is common). If you are employed by the Armed Forces, for example, and are a "linguist," then you are a polyglot. The word "linguist" just has two definitions. An equivalent phenomenon would be if engineers (who build bridges etc.) got annoyed when people asked them what sort of trains they drove. Certainly we can educate the public that there is another kind of linguist out there, but to tell people their usage is wrong makes us no better than the prescriptivists against whom we rail during the first week of 101. --Signor Giuseppe (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, personal experience is not a reliable source. And this article isn't supposed to educate the public about linguists, unless it happens to pertain to a COMMON misconception. Try a blog or Facebook. Cresix (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Cressix, I think you should reread my entry. I have no evidence other than my personal experience, but I wasn't trying to push for this being included, I was reasoning why it should not. Further, as a fellow theoretical linguist, I was trying to put this in our own terms for Cresix. So while there may be a verified poll out there that says 89% of people think "linguist" describes a polyglot, that still means there is no misconception. In our own beliefs about language, in fact, that means "linguist" as scientist is a piece of jargon at odds with the standard definition.--Signor Giuseppe (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I misread. My apologies. Cresix (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy

The end of the speech of Kennedy goes:

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".

So he did refer Ich as himself (_I_ take pride). 95.91.1.157 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Proposed change? --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record: As a german i can assure you that the above wording is absolutely correct and not in any way funny. --Echosmoke (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, there is in fact a grammar error. The correct saying is "Ich bin Berliner." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.3.82 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

but kennedy wanted to tell "us", that he is _a part_ of the group of the berlin people ("All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin(...)", so the use of "ein" is correct, because so he can make a reference to what hey said before. otherwise he would just have told us, he is a citizen of berlin. but the meaning of his sentence is clearle, that he is "one of" (einer dieser = ein) those berlin people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.107.82 (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Mythical Polish Cavalry Charge

I was wondering if we should add an item regarding the common misconception that Poland made cavalry charges against Nazi tanks in WWII? Unfortunately, there don't appear to be a lot of sources online (not in English anyway), but I do have this source.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Done... Brickie (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

SCNR

How about adding "people commonly think that the article namespace is intended as a suggestion area and content has to be, if at all, sourced only later" ? sources/proof: Wikipedia, this article and discussion particularly? ;) --Echosmoke (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Naw. If we wanted newbies to follow the rules right off the bat, we'd make a comprehensible set of rules. It's best to point them in the right direction first, and laugh about it second.--Kizor 23:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And several other common misconceptions on this article and talk page:

• I don't need to add a reliable source as long as I place "citation needed" after it.
• If I repeat the same argument over and over on the talk page, that's as good as a reliable source.
• It's not important to actually read the article or talk page before making a suggestion.
• If I think it's a misconception, that makes it a common misconception.
• If it's mentioned on a website, that makes it a common misconception.
• Several people told me they believe it to be true. That makes it a common misconception.

Cresix (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up's a pain in the neck. Fortunately we're also getting good new entries and ones with potential, so the recent attention ought to be a net gain. Thanks for your tenacity. --Kizor 23:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Split?

This article has been growing consirabley today, no doubt because of the shout out in xkcd. I was thinking that we might want to split this article up and was taking a look at WP:SIZE. I estimate the readable prose length at about 75kb (actual size is 91kb) Currently the science section is the longest and could be split off into its own article. Any thoughts? --Leivick (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If this article is split, then it will also need to be renamed to "List of lists of common misconceptions", since the actual content will be moved to other pages such as "List of common misconceptions in science" and "List of common misconceptions in history". That said, I support such a move. Not only would it make it easier to find things, but it would help disperse the current XKCD traffic. --MarkGyver (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Three Magi are all men?

Has someone proven that Magi can only be male and that the Magi in the bible were 100% male? If not, why are we referring to them as wise men? Perhaps that can added as a common misconception.--Skintigh (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• The primary source, Matthew 2:1-12 describes them as male ("wise men from the East came to Jerusalem") and was almost certainly referring to the (exclusively male) Zoroastrian priesthood. See Biblical Magi for more. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

True, buy the word we translate as "magi" or "wise men" was supposedly a gender-neutral word. Here is a link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/02/10/uk.magi.reut/index.html --Skintigh (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As featured on XKCD

Once again Randall Munroe is trolling Wikipedia. It's probably more trouble than it's worth to fight the tide of new visitors today; maybe come back in a couple of days and clean up then? - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is an excellent opportunity to welcome newbies into the project as many of them can become good editors. We just have to remember to be welcoming and help explain our policies to them. I'm sorry I don't have more free time to devote to this page today. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that this page is under pending changes anyway, so all should be well in the world. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a misconception common to some is that XKCD has significant meaning to most of the world's population. What on earth is this section about? And how about a better heading please? HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

XKCD is a web comic that mentioned this article today. DustFormsWords gave a link to that very comic as the first thing he said in this section. — JediRogue (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't think one should have to click on a link with no obvious purpose to gain an understanding of a Section heading. It seems like a form of in-talk. That's exactly the kind of thing that leads to common misconceptions. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of where to draw the line on how popular something is. I don't think we have to explain what Google, FaceBook, YouTube, Twitter and CraigsList are for those who won't follow a link. XKCD, on the other hand, though quite popular, isn't on the Google list of the most popular websits worldwide (http://www.google.com/adplanner/static/top1000/), in the US (http://www.google.com/adplanner/static/top100countries/us.html), or the UK (http://www.google.com/adplanner/static/top100countries/gb.html). Guy Macon 03:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you stumped me with Craigslist, but I looked it up and now I know. I suspect my ignorance would be due to a practical geographic bias that would not apply to the others in that list. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the word "sushi"

The article asserts "The term sushi actually comes from the rice used, sumeshi, ..." and cites the webpage http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/menus/sushi.htm as its source.

There are at least two problems with that assertion.

1) The cited webpage DOES NOT currently say that, so it cannot be legitimately cited as a source for this information.

2) It is simply not clear that this is true etymologically. None of the kanji in question strongly lend themselves to this derivation. No etymological history that I am familiar with makes a clear and convincing case that this is true; in fact, I cannot think of any strong source even makes this claim, although I seem to remember seeing it in at least one popular source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.122.174 (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

XKCD effect

Congratulations, XKCD readers. views of this article went from an average of just under 1k/day, to 380k since its mention there.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Randall has some kind of love/hate relationship with Wikipedia I guess: He loves us enough to send us hundreds of thousands of editors but he always does it in a WP:BEANS-way. But we still love you, Randall :-D SoWhy 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Pluto as a planet

Might it be worth including the very common misconception (for cites, see Wikipedia's own article on Pluto) that Pluto was a planet until it somehow got "demoted"? Pluto is not now and never has been a planet. It was thought to be one for about sixty years, until scientists realized it was much smaller than they had thought (My CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics from 1982, for example, lists its estimated volume as about 70% of Earth's, when we now know it's less than 0.6%), not unique or even the largest of its kind, and that if one was going to draw a dividing line between, say, Ceres (which nobody considered a planet) and Neptune (which nobody considered NOT a planet), Pluto very definitely belonged on the Ceres side of the line for a number of very good reasons (size, orbit, non-uniqueness). This has been characterized (on this very page) as a "haughty" decision, but in fact it's simply a matter of "we messed up back in 1939, and now that we know better, we're finally getting around to fixing that." Ptorquemada (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this belongs. AFAIK, the public understanding was that Pluto was considered a planet, and now it is no longer considered a planet. That seems to be exactly what happened within the scientific community. If there was a common belief that, say, Pluto was miraculously blown into pieces and that's why it's no longer a planet, that would be good to include in the article. As it is, if there is indeed a misconception, I think it's just a semantic one. Jess_talk|_edits 19:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Pluto was, in fact, a planet. I can cite books published before September 13, 2006 that say "Pluto is a planet". Those books are not wrong. "Planet" is a somewhat arbitrary designation that was changed somewhat arbitrarily. - JefiKnight (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. Under the (for want of a better term) "definition" of planet that applied prior to 2006, which was: "a planet is what everyone agrees is a planet", Pluto was a planet. Now, there's a rather more scientific definition of planet. Like it or not, Pluto no longer falls within the new definition. So, it used to be a planet, and it is no longer a planet - but that's comparing apples and oranges because the definition changed (or, more correctly, a definition was created where one did not previously exist, not really). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And to continue to chime in: Pluto does not fall within the scientific definition of "planet", and strawberries and blackberries do not fall within the scientific definition of "berry", but in lay usage Pluto was (and possibly still is) a planet, and strawberries are still berries. For some reason (we can assign blame in another thread), the scientific jargon use of "planet" has gotten a lot more play than the scientific jargon use of "berry". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for "Evolution"

The first portion of the current article is currently written uses a bandwagon fallacy concluding validity of evolution which is not supported by the listed sources of the article.

Please revise to say the following which does not contain the fallacy, and is supported by its current sources:

The word “theory” in the “theory of evolution” does not necessarily imply doubt. The colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture but in the scientific process it is much more. In this case “theory,” or hypothesis, is a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; once the idea survives experimental testing it becomes a scientific theory. [149][150] The “theory of evolution” is a scientific theory that has been observed, tested and has very little doubt associated with it. Evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory, gravitation, or plate tectonics.[151]

Modernhobo (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• A theory isn't the same thing as a hypothesis. And using the term "verified" with scientific theories also gets you into muddy territory. Hairhorn (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

@Modernhobo I'd suggest reading Evolution as theory and fact and Level of support for evolution. The way you're using those terms is incorrect, and doesn't properly reflect the views of the scientific community. Jess_talk|_edits 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Wine and Cheese Parties

{{Edit Semi-protected}} I would like to request that the following regarding wine and cheese parties be added to the list:

The consumption of cheese has been shown to dull most flavors that one can taste in red wine [1] and in general can "suppress the expression of particular wine attributes" [2]. Conversely, dry white wine has been shown to dull the flavors of certain blue cheeses [3]. While certain wine and cheese pairings are considered pleasing [4], the concept of a "wine and cheese tasting party" is fallacious if the intent is tasting and not simply consumption of wine and cheese.

[1] "Sensory Effects of Consuming Cheese Prior to Evaluating Red Wine Flavor" Berenice Madrigal-Galan and Hildegarde Heymann, Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 57:1:12-22 (2006)

[2] Wine Tasting: A Professional Handbook by Ronald S. Jackson. Food Science and Technology International Series, Elsevier Ltd. (2002)

[3] Nygren, I. T., Gustafsson, I.-B. and Johansson, L. (2003), Perceived flavour changes in blue mould cheese after tasting white wine. Food Service Technology, 3: 143–150.

[4] KING, M. and CLIFF, M. (2005), EVALUATION OF IDEAL WINE AND CHEESE PAIRS USING A DEVIATION-FROM-IDEAL SCALE WITH FOOD AND WINE EXPERTS. Journal of Food Quality, 28: 245–256.

--Camillawillis (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Where's the misconception? I don't eat wine and cheese to conduct a scientific experiment. Hairhorn (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Gosh. And here I thought I had always enjoyed wine and cheese. Thanks for straightening me out!--158.111.5.34 (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about real cheese or American cheese? HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Science -> "There is no deity..."

"There is no deity that orders, governs, manages, controls, administers or otherwise participates in the functioning of any aspect of the universe."

Are you kidding? How can this be NPOV?

94.5.158.244 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why should I be kidding? It's a common misconception. It's probably the most common misconception when it comes to astronomy and everything else. Madler (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No way!. Wikipedia is not an officially atheistic organization and I'm removing that sentence as severe POV. You may be an atheist, but absence of god is no more a provable thought than his presence V. Joe (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Em..the point more is that he is not providing sources. --Echosmoke (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How is it POV? If I said a common misconception among American children is that Santa Claus brings them presents, would that be POV, too? Madler (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Madler, please provide a reliable source which demonstrates that no deity exists. Until we have a source, we can't include that content in the article. Jess_talk|_edits 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is HEAVILY POV. I'm removing it again. You can't outright say that there's no deity that controls everything. Santa Claus would not be POV, because that's a provable fact that is universally accepted (over a given age). Religion is a hot topic of debate, and cannot be de facto described as factually incorrect. (Gredelston) 23:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Gredelston, I believe Santa Claus exists. Please provide a verifiable source supporting your claim that he does not.Jefu (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

[7]--Banana (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Jefu, Wikipedia does not publish truth. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dcpelletier, 6 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the heading, "Law," the following entry is invalid:

"It is frequently rumored that the expression "rule of thumb", which is used to indicate a technique for generating a quick estimate, was originally coined from a law allowing a man to beat his wife with a stick, provided it was not thicker than the width of his thumb.[39] This misconception was broadly printed in papers and media such as The Washington Post (1989), CNN (1993), and Time Magazine (1983).[40] In actuality, domestic abuse against women has always been illegal in the United States, and in Britain since the 1700s.[citation needed]"

According to the wikipedia entry on "rule of thumb", linked to in that entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb#Origin_of_the_phrase) the phrase absolutely originated earlier than 1700:

"The earliest citation comes from Sir William Hope’s The Compleat Fencing-Master, second edition, 1692, page 157: "What he doth, he doth by rule of thumb, and not by art."

Consequently, the last sentence does not make any sense. Based on the information contained in this entry, it is certainly not clear that this is even a misconception at all. (While it is possible that the attribution of the phrase may in fact be errant, there is no reason to think so based on this entry.)

To be clear, I am not submitting this as a "talk" entry because the reasoning contained in the entry is indisputably wrong. If the phrase was coined before 1700, the legal status of abuse of women in the 1700s is irrelevant; if no relevant justification is given for this being a misconception, it does not belong in the article.

Dcpelletier (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the bolded section. If we could expand the section further with accurate context, that would probably be helpful too. Jess_talk|_edits 00:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "Science and Religion" section

I tentatively decided to remove the "Science and religion" section, which was added yesterday in the mass confusion after the xkcd comic. The section contained three entries, all of which were opinions the editor in question felt were incorrect, whereas this page is for listing verifably false beliefs held by some significant portion of people or regularly spread through media. The first entry, "no scientist has ever lost their life because of their views," is almost laughable--how can anyone verify this statement? In the entire history of the enterprise of science, no one has ever been killed because of what they believed? The second entry claims that the Catholic Church has never attempted to suppress scientific thought, which is, again, an arguable opinion at best and historically false at worst. The third statement says that science and religion have never been in conflict with each other, which is once again an extremely arguable opinion. All three of these "misconceptions" use the same link as their citation--an opinion piece published by the Faraday Institute. Additionally, instead of simply removing or editing the section, someone decided to add a huge amount of citation tags (which is an xkcd community in-joke and was probably added by them), to the point that the section was not even readable because of [citation needed] every three words.

In short, this section was an opinionated mess that was added hastily and without debate, with only one questionable source backing up three very arguable statements that, even if true, are certainly not "common misconceptions." ShadowUltra (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Good job. LWG ^{I done wrong? Let me know!} 01:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This was a very misleading description of both the content of the section removed and the citations that were provided. I don't think you are acting in bad faith, but this justification for the removal is essentially an untenable straw man argument. Anyway, I think we can wait for the xkcd confusion to go away before further discussions. --Leinad-Z (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Just so ther's no misunderstanding:This section was added by above Leinad and he plans on putting it right back in ;) --Ettuquoque (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

snowboarding / skiing (speed down the hill by weight)

The post about a heavier snowboarder or skier reaching the bottom being false is not necessarily false. the only time at which two objects of dissimilar geometry and weight fall at the same speed is in the absence of air currents. a VERY light person with a large jacket will reach the bottom of the slope significantly slower than a heavier person, because the force of wind pushing up the hill versus the force (mass * acceleration) going downhill.

to further illustrate my point, see what happens when you drop a feather and a bowling ball on your bedroom fan. the first statement is true (heavier objects fall with the same velocity as lighter objects, but it does not follow that when you add in the force of wind, it still happens that way). it is patently irritating that a "list of common misconceptions" wrongly identifies a misconception...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.0.78 (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There are other concerns as well, including friction (which is related to weight). None of that really matters though, since the section was wholly unsourced. I already removed the entry - I believe prior to this section being posted - so we should be good to go. Jess_talk|_edits 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request re Lemmings, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under Biology->Lemmings Replace "The misconception is due largely to the Disney film White Wilderness" with "The misconception was popularized by the Disney film White Wilderness" The misconception itself is much older: e.g.,  :

 Done Thank you for taking the time to provide a source. --Banana (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: wording

{{Edit semi-protected}}

From Science/Human Body and Health: "Researchers have observed adult neurogenesis in avians, primates, and humans."

This wording has a flaw, (which is admittedly a pet peeve) in that it treats humans as separate from primates. Although many Wikipedia know this to be untrue, it is itself a common misconception, and I feel that the purpose of the page would be better served by a clearer wording, such as:

"Researchers have observed adult neurogenesis in avians and primates (including humans)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.134 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done The source we have refers specifically to Old World Primates, so I've changed the wording to "Researchers have observed adult neurogenesis in avians, Old World Primates and Humans." Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Japan and vending machines

I would like to consider adding that the belief that in Japan you can commonly buy little girls' used underwear in vending machines is actually false. This did actually happen at one point in the early 1990s, yes, but it was not "on the main streets in Tokyo" as I often hear people say. It was in one town, Chiba City, and at one pornography store in said city. There was also an immediate public demand that the underwear vending machines be removed, so it's not as though this is an accepted practice in Japan.

However, the reason I'm first posting it in Discussion instead of just adding it to the article is because I'm not sure whether this falls under the category of "misconception" and thought I'd ask here first. Xprivate eyex (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Misconception, yes. Common misconception? I doubt it. Hairhorn (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't doubt it. I agree that this is a common misconception, but I base this opinion on personal experience from talking to a dozen or so individuals about this exact subject over the past 15 years or so. Go to any anime convention in the United States and ask around; you'll find that this is a prevailing view. I can't say there are any reliable sources stating explicitly that this is a common misconception, however. It certainly seems common among western fans of Japanese popular culture. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: It isn't a misconception at all, it's still true: See the article on Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/risque/kinky/panties.asp ~Amatulić (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Great way to make money though. Buy $100 worth of girls' underwear, pee on it, then sell it for $5000. Cresix (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It IS a misconception that it is a common practice in Japan to sell girl's underwear in vending machines, which is what I stated. I have read the Snopes article and the article does not definitively state that it is still true. It says people claim they've seen the vending machines, when it's likely they've merely seen vending machines that sell underwear - new ones, for both men and women - because yes, you can buy just about anything in a vending machine in Japan. If you read the article you will see that what I initially said was correct - it was a single pornography shop in Chiba City, not the entirety of Japan. Xprivate eyex (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How about the misconception that Obama is Muslim?

Here's a reliable source stating that 1) "Nearly 20% of Americans believe Obama is Muslim" and 2) Wrongly. I'm not exactly sure what the threshold for what "common" consists of, but if 1 in 5 isn't common enough I'd be pretty surprised.. Here's on that specifically calls it a misconception and that it's 24% who believe it. VegaDark (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Does 20% of Americans being dumb equate to "common" for the whole world? HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

no it doesn't, which is exactly why it should be placed under the US history/US politics section, although that clearly leads to bias in coverage and could be accused of being undue. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Do most of the things on this page equate to "common" for the whole world? I'd bet the vast majority of China and India, a huge portion of the world's population, would have never heard of many of these. I'd imagine quite a few are common misconceptions only for the western world, just as there probably are quite a few "common misconceptions" in Asia or other places that most of us would never have contemplated. That doesn't mean it isn't a common misconception, it simply means it's a common misconception amongst a certain population. And if that population is big enough, such as, oh, the entire United States, I'd say it qualifies to be on this page. I'm going to go ahead and add it. VegaDark (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The other problem with a "misconception" like this one is that it is no doubt happily fuelled by Obama's political opponents. That makes a big difference. Should we really count a deliberately created misconception? HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's perhaps doubly important to point out deliberately created misconceptions in my view. While the belief in many of these might be dropping as time goes by (quite possibly due to viewing this list), deliberately created misconceptions are likely to increase. That brings me to another amusing question- If this list does its job (informing people of common misconceptions), wouldn't they no longer become common misconceptions, and thus each entry on this list would have to be deleted? Perhaps this page would have to incorporate former common misconceptions to be sustainable in the long run. VegaDark (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Buddha Siddartha Gautama was not an ascetic

As mentioned above in passing, Siddartha Gautama experimented with asceticism early in his "career", but rejected it. Saying he was "an ascetic who taught the Middle Path" is also misleading: the Middle Path refers to a moderate lifestyle, neither ascetic nor extravagant.

It is also worth noting that he is depicted as extremely thin (as he would have been in his ascetic period) as often as he is depicted as chubby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.11.102 (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Those sound like good corrections. Can you suggest specific wording, and provide a source?Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of dispelling common misconceptions, why not just say that G. Buddha (normally thought of as "The Buddha") is not the same person as the fat "Laughing Buddha" Budai. Otherwise it kind of defeats the purpose because we'd have to delve into the 32 signs of a great man and other such things which I can promise you would create more (not less) confusion. For sources, just link the wiki articles on G. Buddha and Budai. Simple, easy, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.97.254 (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

More misconceptions

The Lincoln cent is not primarily made of copper (see Lincoln cent)

Nero did not play the lyre while Rome burned (see Nero)

Carl Sagan never said “billions and billions” in the Cosmos series (see Carl Sagan)

Tommy John Surgery does not directly cause baseball pitchers to throw harder (see Tommy John surgery)

The poison ivy rash itself is not contagious (see Poison ivy)

Money is not the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10 (NIV): "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.")

“God helps those who help themselves” is not in the Bible (search for it at http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/ )

Genesis 1:3 (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

you need to establish that these are common misconceptions in the first place. I've never heard anyone suggest that "God helps those who help themselves" is supposed to be in the Bible, who would assume such a thing? Yes, the internet is full of cluelessness, but "somebody once thought so" doesn't make something a "common misconception". --dab (𒁳) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. The only one of these I've ever heard/believed is that poison ivy rash is contagious. Xprivate eyex (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Shutdown Button Action

I think it would be a good idea to mention the action of the shutdown button on most modern computer systems. Pressing it shortly usually sends the shutdown signal, which tells the operating system to initiate a shutdown routine. The computer will not do a "force shutdown" unless the button is pressed and held for a considerably long period, and even if this were to happen, it does not usually do harm to the computer system. Unsaved documents will be lost, that is true, but operating systems will usually be able to recover from a force shutdown anyways. 3000farad (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The result of pressing the shutdown button varies a lot with both operating systems and hardware. (Mac/PC/Laptops...) I think you would be opening a big can of worms. Do you also want to address some other oddities such as the fact that the Print Screen button doesn't do that? Or that Delete means different things on a Mac and a PC? Etc, etc, etc. Lots of illogical stuff. What to include? Maybe a whole new article about computer weirdities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)

I think, if we decide to create subarticles for larger sections, and we can round up enough computer-related misconceptions, a whole new article for it would be great. With that said, I don't think this, or any of HiLo's proposals, would warrant inclusion. I think they are out there, however. For instance, I've heard substantial confusion about Bill Gates' role in computing, including that he "invented software". The idea that a computer means something loaded with Windows software might be another. Sources would have to be rounded up to demonstrate these are common enough, of course, but I don't doubt we could track a few computing misconceptions down. Jess_talk|_edits 03:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to add this, then a just as common, if not more common misconception, is that pulling out a flash drive from the computer without going through the "safely remove hardware" process is going to somehow damage it or the data. I always chuckle when people second guess me when I do that. Not suggesting we actually add it, just a humorous thought. Oh, also we can add that the internet is not, in fact, a series of tubes, and the common misconception that Wikipedia is unrelaible. VegaDark (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

grammar

"The dish comprised of sushi rice and other fillings wrapped in seaweed is called makizushi" -- "comprised of" is ungrammatical and should read "composed of" 91.105.36.32 (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Or "comprises"... – ukexpat (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If the problem is grammar, just fix it. No need for discussion. Xprivate eyex (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol killing brain cells

There's a sentence under "human body and health" that says "...new brain cells are generated on a daily basis.[131]" This is not true, and the source does not say that new brain cells are generated, but rather that there is a repair mechanism. Big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.224.58 (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert by any means, but the cited source states, "And, as an added bonus, new brain cells are generated every day of our lives."[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Iran's president Ahmedinejad wants Israel wiped off the map and denies the holocaust

To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world.

According to New York Times (dated 2005-10-30) Ahmadinejad said:

"They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan... ...will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world." ...To long for modified political conditions in a country is a world-wide day-to-day business by all means. But to commute a demand for removal of a 'regime' into a demand for removal of a state is serious deception and dangerous demagogy.

...

The Iranian press agency IRNA: ..."'If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime...” Ahmadinejad said “some have created a myth on holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets."

So he said "In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth." and we were made to believe that he said it's a fairy-tale, two totally different things.

There is much more to hear from the article by Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann (translated from German to English by Erik Appleby) "Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust? An analysis of media rhetoric on its way to war against Iran - Commenting on the alleged statements of Iran's President Ahmadinejad ."

Icouldiwill (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass increasing at the speed of light

In the physics section, there is an entry regarding the myth that mass increases when travelling at the speed of light. The following explanation is fairly reliant on one having a solid understanding of physics. If someone who actually believed the myth read the explanation, I doubt if they would be remotely enlightened. Is there anyone out there who can simplify the rest of the entry so that those of us who took high school physics 15 years ago might actually comprehend? 137.186.43.139 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Steph

Proposal: remove potentially misleading "air contains five times less oxygen"

It is asserted in the current version of the page that "Pure oxygen does not explode. Since air contains 5 times less oxygen, things that burn in air will burn faster and hotter in pure oxygen." I propose that "Since air contains 5 times less oxygen" be removed from this statement because it is poorly expressed. The intended idea is to convey the fact that because burning involves combination with oxygen, and a given volume of pure oxygen has more oxygen in it than the same volume of air, we should expect things to burn faster in pure oxygen. The quantification "5 times less" adds very little to this, and is in any case a poor explanation, because important context (e.g. that the numerical comparison is by volume, and that such a comparison can only meaningfully be made when the same "unit" volume of both things is fixed in advance) is omitted. My feeling is that because of this missing context, a person with misconceptions about gases is as likely to misunderstand the meaning of the entry (in its current form) as he is to correctly understand it. I am, of course, a non-Wikipedian, or I would have made this change on this semi-protected page myself.

173.30.19.136 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request on "Human Health and Body"

Regarding the entry under "Human body and health" stating that "Shaving does not cause hair to grow back thicker or coarser or darker." This entry in no way refutes the conception that hair grows back thicker, coarser, or darker, and in fact provides the mechanism by which all three occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.127.48 (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Not done: Please state the desired change--HXL's Roundtable, and Record 07:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually wish to demonstrate that you believe this common misconception? It's wrong. It's time for you to learn from this and change your thinking on the matter. Read the source. The entry should not be changed. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the source is any good... The argument is, that if it does grow back thickler, coarser or longer, bald people could shave and get their hair back. By that argumentation you can say, that if caffeine makes you more awake, dead people could drink it and wake up! You have to have some experimental evidence to back it up! Not some hair-expert comparing hair and bamboo. I am sure that there is some scientific articles on the internet, so why not refer to them insted? Btw I haven't found any evidence that shaved hair doesn't grow back quicker... But then again, that isn't what is discussed here;) --130.225.29.254 (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A science show in Australia did an episode on this a while back. They took photographs of a particular patch of skin and counted the number of hairs as well as measuring their overall length. They shaved the patch multiple times and retook the photographs. There was no change in number of hairs, hair length or hair colour. They went on to give the same explanation that is covered in this article and I think they might have even quoted some more reliable scientific studies. I'm sure that someone more interested that me can dredge up the name of the show. --Spuzzdawg (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This entry is contradictory: "hair that has never been cut has a tapered end, whereas, after cutting, there is no taper. Thus, it appears thicker..." Something that is tapered is on average (over the its length) thinner than something that is not tapered. Therefore, this states that shaved-and-regrown hair is thicker than unshaved hair. Finishing the sentence from the article "... and feels coarser due to the sharper, unworn edges." Concerning one's perception of his hair, it's the feeling of coarseness that matters and not the microscopic coarseness. This again affirms that the regrown hair is in someway different from the unshaved hair, and in such away as to conform to the expectations of the "misconception." Likewise: "Hair can also appear darker after it grows back because hair that has never been cut is often lighter due to sun exposure." This suffers from bad writing. The hair doesn't "appear darker"; as stated by the author, it actually is darker than unshaved hair which has lightened from sun exposure.

Maybe the misconception is that "Shaved hair growing back coarser and darker is a misconception" ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.27.182 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The previous commenter stated the case much more elegantly than I did originally. The entry, as listed, actually explains why shaved hair is, in fact, thicker (by virtue of not having a tapered end), coarser (by virtue of having a sharp, unworn edge not present on unshaven hair), and darker (by virtue of not being sun-bleached). I did not submit an edit because it simply needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.127.48 (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

When people say that hair grows back thicker after you shave it, they don't mean that each hair is thicker, but that more hair grows (or it grows faster), and thus is "thicker". 70.92.246.13 (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept that's what you mean when you say it, but none of can confidently say what others mean when they say something. Humpty Dumpty demonstrated that very clearly in Through the Looking-Glass HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree; it should be reworded. Or possibly even removed. --76.22.247.48 (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Scientific method

This section is all but meaningless. What exactly is meant by "genuine science" and how is it determined? Get rid of it. Turkeyphan^t 13:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

...ie, not pseudoscience. The misconception is that fields that don't use "the scientific method" aren't sciences. See talk archives for more. Hairhorn (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't understand why this is MASSIVELY problematic, I'm not really sure where to start. Perhaps a basic philosophy of science course would help. That aside, please could you refer me to particular talk archives that attempt to show why this section isn't meaningless and in need of removal? Thanks. Turkeyphan^t 01:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're rather missing the point. The misconception is that fields that don't use the "scienctific method" so-called are ipso facto not sciences. But since there is no single scientific method, whether or not a field uses it is not a good way of distinguishing sciences from non-sciences. The archives are easily found using the search function, one relevant discussion is here. Hairhorn (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point - I'm pointing out the entire concept is fundamentally flawed and cannot be sustained. It needs to go. Turkeyphan^t 18:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to point which concept is flawed then... if you think the activity of distinguising "science" from "not science" is flawed, then it's moot whether you think there is a single scientific method or not. Hairhorn (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

To offer some light on where the objection is coming from, Larry Laudan's analysis offers a survey of attempts to demarcate science and pseudoscience and shows the flaws in each. Turkeyphant is right, this is still very much an unsolved problem. See also: the original article. M.Levin 20:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the misconception is that there is a clear line between science and non-science, and the line is "scientific method". So conceding that this is an unsolved problem only reinforces the view that there is a misconception at play. Since you don't dispute the issue at hand (that there is a single technique used by all scientists) feel free to suggest an alternate wording. Hairhorn (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole section ought to be removed. It is merely expressing an unusual philosophical view. It is not a misconception like the rest of the article. Roger (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing fringe or unusual about this at all. See for example, "RECURRING SCIENCE MISCONCEPTIONS IN K-6 TEXTBOOKS". Hairhorn (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should put this to a vote? People have mentioned reputable sources backing up my claim and almost all serious scholarship on this issue makes a similar point. Turkeyphan^t 23:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Which claim? I don't see you actually disputing the central claim in the description of the misconception. Hairhorn (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I dispute it and so do several others here. It looks like someone removed it. Good. Roger (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to question the Berkeley reference used there -- I fail to see why their definition of 'science' is necessarily more valid than others. They include no citations; the text seems reasonable, but so do many others on the subject. I admit I don't have access to the other listed reference, but I'm really not sure that the 'scientific method' should be kept in a 'list of common misconceptions', when the misconceptions depend on interpretation and aren't entirely agreed upon. Obonicus (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics is generally not considered a science, at least not in the sense of the scientific method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzort (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And your point is? Cresix (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics is definitely not a science, so it doesn't fit the "Scientific method" section. Mathematics is not a science for the simple reason that its subject is not Nature. Mathematics is the language of science, but this does not make it a science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.162.82.126 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• In fact there is an ongoing debate as to the status of Mathematics, see Math#Mathematics_as_science, it's premature at best to call the debate finished. Saying that "its subject is not Nature" means you are already taking sides. Hairhorn (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it shouldn't be included in a 'list of common misconceptions', if the answer is still in the air. Obonicus (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As just an IP, I'll avoid the presumptuousness of outright deleting the section in question myself. But the entire thing is ludicrous. Trying to describe a "common misconception" by getting the actual concept completely incorrect is lazy research at best, and an obvious bias (blatantly POV) at worst.

The scientific method isn't the "The rigid hypothesis to experiment to conclusion model" - the scientific method isn't about the steps or tactics you take, it's about the rules you follow while taking whatever steps or tactics you need to determine a good explanation for your observations. Rules like: don't come up with a new entity as your explanation when you've already got something to explain the results (Occam's Razor); make sure your hypothesis is falsifiable; make sure your process is repeatable and thereby verifiable by independent sources; and so on.

The individual steps aren't just dictated by the field you're working in (astronomy, paleontology) but even by the specific hypothesis you are testing - it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise, and it's downright insulting to people with scientific knowledge to pretend that the scientific method contradicts this. Just as a JREF million dollar applicant's test is tailored to the applicant's specific claims, any process of scientific inquiry is tailored to the specifics of the subject; the scientific method - the rules that make sure the results are sound and verifiable - still holds.

If the author of this section really thinks that astronomy and paleontology don't comply with the scientific method - the actual scientific method, rather than the straw man he or she has set up - then I'd recommend some more research on the subject. I'd also recommend that this entire section be deleted, or replaced with one pointing out the common misconception of the scientific method being a "series of steps" to take when conducting scientific inquiry...because it isn't. What a preposterous (and most likely deliberately biased) notion. The misconception here isn't about whether the scientific method applies to all fields of science (it does); the misconception is the author's own common misconception about what the scientific method actually is. 67.81.189.234 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As "just an IP" you couldn't delete the section anyway because this article is protected from edits by new or anonymous accounts.

In any case, speaking as a scientist myself, I agree with you. The claims made about astronomy and paleontology are ridiculous, and there is no "common misconception" explicitly described. The article is better off without it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Amatulic - on both counts! I'm not a Wiki expert, just an interested observer, so your point there is genuinely appreciated. 67.81.189.234 (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's help. Glad this got sorted. Turkeyphan^t 22:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lightning strikes and cars

What about the misconception that the reason why you are protected from lightning while in a car is due to being grounded through the rubber tires. The actual reason is the Faraday Cage effect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.38.154.10 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that this is a common misconception; not just a source to the Faraday Cage effect, but a source that the misconception is COMMON. Cresix (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I know this is anecdotal and that Wikipedia officially frowns on original research, but I personally have had far more people try to tell me this than have told me that air is mostly oxygen. I'm not saying "include this without a source", I'm saying let's apply the same standard.68.105.72.35 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have heard that one countless times. The Museum of Science in Boston lightning exhibit specifically debunks this. I have also heard people say that rubber soles will also protect you from lightning or electrocution, and this was even mentioned in the "furries" episode of CSI: Las Vegas, among about 5 other misconceptions in the first 5 minutes. As for links, the fact every safety site goes out of their way to debunk this says a lot:

"Most people believe the rubber tires on a car are what protect a passenger during a lightning strike. " http://www.weatherimagery.com/blog/rubber-tires-protect-lightning/

"Remember, rubber-soled shoes and rubber tires provide NO protection from lightning." http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/thunderstorms.shtm

"Rubber tires provide zero safety from lightning." http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_pls/vehicle_strike.html --Skintigh (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There was an excellent episode of Top Gear where they sent Richard Hammond to the Siemens High Voltage site in Germany, to be zapped with "artificial lightning" in a car. A quick google turns up countless YouTube links, so I won't bother to post them here. Anyway, surely everyone knows that cars protect you from lightning because the metal body conducts, and that the carbon black in tyres makes them very conductive? 86.156.229.223 (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it matters if the tires are made out of copper or 1 million feet of insulation. If the car really does act as a Faraday cage (do we know this for a fact?), that is what protects the passengers by keeping the charge on the outside and the inside neutral. But even if it doesn't act like a Faraday cage, it's not voltage that hurts you, it's voltage differential. In that Top Gear video he says he was told to keep his hands away form any metal objects in the car... If you are standing on a metal plate charged at 1,000,000 volts and touch a wire charged at 1,000,000 volts you are fine, likewise if you are in a metal car body and touch parts of the body. If you are standing on a the 0 volt plate, or 2,000,000 volt plate, and touch a 1,000,000 volt wire, then you are in trouble. (Though, maybe there are other dangers for quickly changing voltages, like with lightning, in non-Faraday cage situations?) I've seen this demonstrated with a Faraday cage at the Boston Museum of Science: while being struck by lightning the operator in the cage rubbed his hands along the inside of the cage. I think he mentioned something about not sticking his hands outside of the cage, maybe so the lightning wouldn't hit him first and use his fingers as a resistor? --Skintigh (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys

Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys, chimpanzees or any other modern-day primates. Instead, fossil evidence has shown that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor that lived about 40 million years ago. This common ancestor diverged into separate lineages, one evolving into so-called New World monkeys and the other into Old World monkeys, apes, and humans. Similarly, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, which lived between 5 and 8 million years ago, evolved into two lineages, one eventually becoming modern humans and the other splitting again into chimpanzees and bonobos. Thus, one cannot consider any present-day monkeys or apes as reflecting how humans "used to look" or behave. All extant animal groups have evolved over the same amount of time.

I think this is just wrong. Humans did evolve from monkeys. Humans are apes and apes diverged from the Old World monkeys. See here. However Humans didn't evolve from any modern-day primate, but this text is at least misleading. --92.199.199.217 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the important phrase is "modern-day primates", which would exclude Old World monkeys, right? Cresix (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Old World monkeys aren't extinct. My point is: Humans didn't evolve from modern-day primates, but from monkeys. --92.199.199.217 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And the article says that evolution does not claim that humans evolved from modern-day primates, so where is the problem? Maybe rearrange the wording to "Evolution does not claim humans evolved from modern-day monkeys, chimpanzees or other primates."??? Cresix (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is the reference that it is a common misconception that "humans evolved from modern-day primates". I don't see any of the references under this bullet point pointing to a reference that there exists such a common misconception among any group of people. --Popoi (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Old World in the phrase "old world monkeys" refers to the Eastern Hemisphere and has nothing to do with age. To the extent that I understand the original complaint, I think the objection seems to be that if we go far enough back on the evolutionary path leading to humans and somehow transferred a member of such a species to the present day, most non-specialists would call it a "monkey" and it would not raise many eyebrows if seen in a zoo next to, say, the gibbons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.72.35 (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Text says "Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys, [...]". That is just misleading since humans evolved from monkeys. "Evolution does not claim gibbons evolved from monkeys, [...]" is an equivalent sentence. --92.199.199.217 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

btw.: I think 131 is wrong.--92.199.199.217 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the PBS source is at best an oversimplification, if not outright wrong. The problem is the same as in the birds/dinosaurs dispute: there are two senses of the word, a precise cladistic one and a problematic common one. "Monkey" is commonly understood as excluding apes, and "ape" is commonly understood as excluding humans. These categories are ok for common usage about extant organisms, but there's no good way of extending them to apply consistently to the common ancestors. The cladistic terminology does make sense. So the common ancestor of monkeys (and apes) is best understood to be a monkey; the common ancestor of apes (and humans) is best understood as being an ape. Humans thus are monkeys that evolved from other monkeys, and apes that evolved from other apes. The common misunderstanding is that people imagine different modern forms as having evolved from each other, rather than from an ancestor that strictly should not be identified with either. The common ancestor may resemble one of the modern species much more closely than another, which can roughly be expressed as saying that the latter species evolved from the former. For example we quite reasonably say, "The Hawaiian Goose evolved from the Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)" even though strictly we ought to distinguish between the current Canada goose and the species as it existed before separation from the latter. The article needs clarification. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Man did not evolve from monkeys and apes because monkey and apes did not exist at the time man first evolved, so it is impossible to have evolved from them. We share a common ancestor. Think of them as very distance cousins. Would you claim you are descended from your distant cousin? Of course not. You may share a great-great-grandparent, but you most likely were not born directly from your cousin. Using incorrect terminology only confuses people and invites fallacious quips like "if man came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" --Skintigh (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's just wrong. Humans are apes and apes evolved from the Old World monkeys. See Ape#Classification_and_evolution. --92.199.199.217 (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, add the word "modern" in front of my use of monkeys and apes. The multiple definitions of all these words does not help the situation, most of all with the word "theory." --Skintigh (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that people don't realise that Monkey refers to any primate that isn't either an ape or prosimian. They see the word Monkey and assume that they are all the same family within the order primates, and by inference assume that if we evolved from Monkeys, then they must be modern monkeys. This is clearly a logical fallacy. 82.18.86.179 (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are we trying to use the word "monkey" at all? It's a very vague term that doesn't match any particular monophyletic clade, so of course it causes confusion, especially amongst people not familiar with cladistics. Unless you use it in a specific context to make clear which group you are talking about (Old World Monkeys) it's easier and clearer to just use "other primates" in most cases. There's no need to try to cram vague and colloquial terms into complicated and specific evolutionary groups.Dtipson (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tyrkeybloke, 6 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The text: Palin actually said "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." is incorrect. The quote is wrong, and has been paraphrased by a news company.

The true quote is: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.", without the part on the end which was added to the news report which this article references. I distinctly recall the interview and the final part of the sentence as written in this article was certainly never spoken. I've tried to find the youtube link for the full interview, but I can only find the excerpt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk While it is cut short, you can clearly hear the interviewer jumping in with his next question right before the excerpt ends. I'm sure the full interview still exists, I just couldn't find the correct search terms.

On a separate note, I would argue that alongside other significant misconceptions relating to Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, that a stupid comment by Sarah Palin is not of significant relevance to this article, and that countless other more significant examples could take that text space. I would propose the section be removed entirely.

Tyrkeybloke (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Already discussed extensively on this talk page and in the archives. Cresix (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And yet the entry is still there. I'd be happy for someone to rid us of it, I have already blanked it twice, so I'm disqualifying myself for now. Hairhorn (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The additional explanation looks like the kind of thing that an interviewee would add when authorising the interview. Spoken speech is often a bit sloppier than written speech, so in English-speaking countries interviewees traditionally get a chance to edit their responses for the written version. Of course this also gets abused for making embarrassing mistakes sound more reasonable.

The claim that one can see something Russian from somewhere in Alaska is clearly true (see Diomede Islands, and that's not entirely theoretical since Little Diomede Island is inhabited (apparently by less than 200 Inupiat people).

The real issue here was the embarrassing insinuation that Russia being a neighbour of Alaska somehow makes her competent on foreign policy. It suggests very strongly that Palin has not reached the level of conscious incompetence about foreign policy and is still unconsciously incompetent. Apparently this blunder wasn't handy enough in the context of a US election campaign, so people on one side jumped on a caricature of the statement ("I can see Russia from my house").

Altogether, this is just another case of the picture presented in the media being an over-simplification of actual facts, although not completely wrong. It may be appropriate to explain this in detail in a Palin-related article, but as a mere simplification it's not really appropriate for this article and should be removed. Hans Adler 08:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the points made in the previous discussion; this is here for polemic rather than educational reasons. So again I would call on someone to remove the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This item also appears in list of misquotations. I suggest deleting it here and continuing the disucssion there.Ccrrccrr (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Done per consensus above. -Atmoz (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

2012

The Maya calendar does not predict that the world will end in 2012, or in any date for that mater. This is simply the first day of the 14th b'ak'tun. In fact, Maya texts mention dates beyond this one. One extreme example is a data 41 octillion years in the future. (source for octillion date: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon#cite_note-S.26F-19)

All of this is well-documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon

RELIABLE SOURCES: "Sandra Noble, executive director of the Mesoamerican research organization FAMSI, notes that "for the ancient Maya, it was a huge celebration to make it to the end of a whole cycle". She considers the portrayal of December 2012 as a doomsday or cosmic-shift event to be "a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in."[14] The 2009 science fiction apocalyptic disaster film 2012 is based on this belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar#cite_note-13

POPULAR BELIEF NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon)

Many movies help to popularize the idea that the Maya thought the world would end in 2012 : In the Will Smith movie “I Am Legend” the setting was 2012. The latest Indiana Jones feature theorized that the world would end if all the crystal skulls were not collected by that date. The movie Death Race (the new one, not the classic) references 2012 as the year that the economy fails. One major movie, titled “2012: The War For Souls” is a Michael Bay production based on Communion author Whitley Striber’s book of the same name. The 2009 movie simply called 2012 stars John Cusack and Amanda Peet and is a science fiction apocalyptic disaster film 2012 is based on this belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_(film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrorui (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that there are a bunch of fringe ideas about 2012, but I don't see any common misconceptions. Can you specifically state what the common misconception is, and the source that backs that up?

It's a pretty common misconception that the Mayan calendar says the world will end in December 2012. There have been dozens of books put out - in a non-fiction capacity - in the last 5 years alone claiming that the world will end in 2012, and that's in addition to the numerous books and movies of the fictitious type playing on this fear. Xprivate eyex (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's important to note that the Mayan calendar not only not ends, but instead reboots or resets.Ivan0310 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Vegetables as complete protein sources

The section regarding the need to combine vegetables to receive complete protein intakes is poorly cited. The citation is a biased opinion article that is itself, poorly sourced. This 'misconception' is so widespread that some empirical evidence, or a reputed published article should be provided. To determine the truth of the misconception, it would be necessary to know the completeness of each food in a non-complementary paired diet; use this with the amount of each food eaten to calculate the total quantity of each amino acid absorbed; and compare this gram quantity to the recommendations. The source cited for this misconception simply asserts it is unnecessary to complement without giving any evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.68.50 (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That section, as written, also appears to contradict the article Complete protein. Genesis 1:3 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. From Complete protein: "...contrary to popular belief, do not need to be combined in the same meal."Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This section is misleading as vegetarians do need to be careful in their protein intake. The question is not whether vegetarians get enough protein, but whether the protein they eat gives them sufficient essential amino acids in the right proportion in their diet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.244.84 (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Defibrillators and heart stops

I think one important and common misconception which should be added to the health section is that defibrillators (the things which paramedics use to give an electric shock to a patient's chest) are not used to start a patient's heart but to stop it! If paramedics encounter a patient without pulse, they never use a defibrillator although television would indicate otherwise. It's actually only used to stop a heart if it has e.g. difficult arrythmia and the heart is expected to start itself after using its own sinus rhythm. Naturally if someone's heart is already stopped, there's no idea in stopping it again.

If paramedics encounter a patient without pulse, they resuscicate (chest massage and mouth-to-mouth).

For more information, see Defibrillation#Popular_culture_references Paukkumaissi70 (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm - as an Australian First Aider I have been trained to use them if there is any chance at all of getting a heart beating again. But I'm not a paramedic. I think we need to be very careful what we put in any health related topic. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the general public don't know the details of a medical procedure and when it is used for what doesn't qualify as a common misconception. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, although TV does show doctors/paramedics using a defibrillator on a flat-line patient, this does not qualify as a misconception. Both American Heart Association and Red Cross teach to hook up an AED any time the patient has no pulse; the AED analyzes the rhythm and decides if a shock is indicated or not. As a paramedic myself, I know the difference between v-fib, v-tach, v-pause, and flat-line (arrest), and I still laugh when I see TV doctors doing something that would cause a doctor to lose their license. Jhyrman (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming of Iceland and Greenland

It is commonly believed that the names of Iceland (mostly green) and Greenland (mostly ice) were switched to confuse invaders. There is no historical basis for this. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1965/shouldnt-greenland-be-known-as-iceland-and-vice-versa I just Googled to find that article, but I'm sure if this is a worthy misconception then a more solid book source could be found. –Jimmetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmetry (talk • contribs) 09:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is what I was told and believed when younger. But, as you said, it would need to be cited as a common misconception. Jhyrman (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove "Jews are not in control of the media, government, etc."

First off, to clarify, I do not believe in this idea that Jews control the world.

But the statement "Jews control the world" is not a misconception, it is a conspiracy theory and therefore should not be addressed by the page. Just as this page does not address the Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 truth movement, or the Bilderberg group, refutation of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories has a time and a page and it is not here. 71.212.191.35 (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is a conspiracy theory but not a misconception, then it is a true conspiracy theory. You don’t want to say that, do you? It’s a misconceived conspiracy theory, and one that is quite uncontroversially misconceived. I mean, not every single detail of the attacks on Kennedy and the WTC is known, but it is very easy to show that Jewish people don’t control the world (although they are on average disproportionately rich and powerful, just as black people are on average disproportionately poor and uninfluential). Jews definitely don’t run the world, and it’s quite commonly alleged in certain circles. — Chameleon 08:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. It was an obvious joke/trolling edit that at taken in the utmost good faith is still unsourced. VegaDark (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, if it's a conspiracy theory, it's not a "misconception" because people have been told they are wrong, and still insist on being wrong. A misconception is something which you always thought was the case but never bothered to look up. Unlike a conspiracy theory, when a misconception is debunked, it goes away. When you debunk a conspiracy theory, its believers will only assume you are part of the conspiracy too. We need to make sure this article does not overlap with our separate list of conspiracy theories. --dab (𒁳) 15:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Human Health and Body -> Mucus Production and Dairy

Under the [Human Body and Health] section there is an entry that a common misconception is people should not eat/drink dairy due to an increase of mucus production. Although the cited study does indeed show that no additional mucus is generated by the body, participants stated that their mucus and saliva felt thicker after drinking either cow or soy milk (not a good study to read during dinner). This is also the reason than singers and speakers do not drink any milk before a performance. So, I guess the actual discussion part of this is, should the semantics between "increased mucus production" and "thickening of existing mucus" be pointed out in this Misconceptions page, or should it be put in a page about dairy? Also, I believe the current reference (#87) be either replaced or supplemented by http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/24/suppl_6/547S which provides a fuller view of the study. Jhyrman (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Article structure

Why is "history" divided in "Americas" and "Europe"? And why is the alleged European belief in a flat earth listed under "Americas"? Why is Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation listed under "History/Americas", but the US Constitution under "US Politics"? This doesn't make sense. When does "History" end and "Politics" begin in the United States? 1776? 1861? 1989? 2008?

I tried to fix this but I was reverted. I don't insist on any particular arrangement, but the present situation is just stupid, and simply reverting without coming up with a better solution is unconstructive. --dab (𒁳) 14:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Your earlier fix clobbered (through edit conflict) some edits, which was unconstructive. If a new improved arrangement can be implemented without edit conflict clobbers, that will be constructive. Now that the rate of change has gone down, it might be easier to do. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

also, this isn't list of conspiracy theories. If 25% of US citizens state that they think that Obama is a Muslim, this isn't a "misconception" but a conspiracy theory, these people obviously believe Obama is secretly a Muslim, it's not that they didn't pay attention in school and were under the false impression he was a Muslim out of pure lack of education. --dab (𒁳) 14:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, as the source states, those people think that Obama openly is Muslim, and i am ready to believe that, by carefully chosing only the right media (like chain-emails) to get information, this is possible ;) --Echosmoke (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Let them eat cake

The exact sentence attributed to her is "Let them eat brioche". Ref: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brioche#Histoire There are two misconceptions here! Macaldo (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's covered. The sentence commonly attributed to her is 'cake', the correct quote is 'brioche'. Both she did not actually say. I suspect the cake (in german, 'Kuchen', the same, is used btw) version was coined due to 'brioche' being a quite unknown word/pastry outside of France. --Echosmoke (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Goodespeler, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

• Sarah Palin never said she "could see Russia from her house." Palin actually said, "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." in an on-air interview with ABC's Charles Gibson. It was Tina Fey who later, in an SNL parody of Palin, made the misquotation

Goodespeler (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. This issue has already been addressed several times, and even recently. See section 29 (as of this post), entitled "Palin: I can see Russia from my house", for more information. -- HXL's Roundtable, and Record 01:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference problem

A problem forms around reference 165/166 where the reference list gets out of sync with what they're actually referencing, e.g. the bit about 41% of US adults believing humans and dinosaurs coexisted is referenced as 165, but is in fact taken from reference 166. Some of the ones after this point are out too, not sure how many, I stopped checking. Fixing it is beyond my skill set/will to learn how to. Hoping someone who already knows how can fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.120.220 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Peanut butter references disagree

The references to George Washington Carver's supposed invention of peanut butter disagree. One says he invented it and one says he didn't. This poses a problem. Marcusyoder (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon

I maintain that 1.68m is in fact short, as in "below average", for a french man of that time and certainly for a french man of today. Even more so for a commanding officer who was thus bound to be much shorter than many of his officers and soldiers, which cetainly added to the perception (I expect he was on horse often though). But I realize that his shortness is often exaggerated even more. And yes, I arrived here via xkcd as will many others, I'm sure. And I don't give a fly's toss for what the article says and so will not supply reliable sources. Not that the article does, mind. ;) --92.202.104.35 (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Heights have been increasing over the past few centuries. --98.217.79.216 (talk) 14:09, 6 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.144.106 (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Coreycat, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Art Techniques

"Mixing Red and Blue makes Purple". This is something that nearly everyone "knows" and is in fact wrong, unless you are talking about a very specific blue (red shifted) and a very specific red (blue-shifted). Generations of teachers have simplified the "primary colors" as Red, Yellow and Blue, and they don't tend to teach anything about "shifts".

What most people are taught as the "primary" colors of pigment they learned as a kid: fire-engine red and a sort of medium blue (close to the color of a post box, a little less green and dark if they are lucky), and yellow. What you get when you mix that red and that blue can be nearly black- a gray muck with a suggestion of purple.

What are the real Primary Colors in pigment? You will find them in color printer cartridges: Magenta, Cyan and Yellow. If you look at the adult or professional caliber acrylic paints in a good art store you should find Primary Magenta, Primary Cyan and Primary Yellow. Sometimes children's paint companies will label magenta (which looks a little pink) or a magenta/red mix as "red" and it perpetuates the myth that red works, because that "red" does.

Mixing With True Primaries:

To get purple, mix Cyan and Magenta. A little bit of magenta and a lot of cyan will get what most people are taught is "primary blue". Cyan and yellow will get a full range of greens in a purer saturation than if you use blue and yellow (since blue contains some magenta, and will therefore neutralize the green a little). Yellow and Magenta will give you orange. A small amount of yellow added to magenta will give you what most people are told is "primary" red.

When one gets into professional oils and acrylics which use minerals things get infinitely more complex as transparency, reflection, opalescence, and opacity are introduced. I recommend Gamblin Oil's website for learning about that.

There are also some visual effects that change how we see pigment. The most known is that if you mix black and yellow you get something that looks green. It's an optical effect not a pigment reaction, one of many.

Coreycat (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting and worthwhile information, but do you have any sources to reference for the claims you make above? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

RYB color model Gripdamage (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a misconception. The belief may be widespread, but that's at least partially because it's approximately true. Mixing just about any shade of red and any shade of blue will produce some shade of purple. It may not (in fact, probably won't) be a bright, clear purple, but it isn't actually wrong as such. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I came to say something similar. Schools teach the primary colors of pigment (or subtractive primaries) are red, yellow, and blue. This is FALSE, as you stated. They are magenta, yellow and cyan, which are the secondaries of the (additive) primary colors of light: red green and blue, which are determined by the red, green and blue color sensors in the average human eye, and that is why the screen you are staring at is made up of red, green and blue dots. There is no way to mix non-primary colors to form a primary color, so you could never mix red, yellow and blue pigment to form magenta or cyan pigment. Supposedly, the reason this falsehood is taught is because hundreds of years ago there was no way to make cyan or magenta paint, so approximations were used. As a reference I would use wikipedia, but someone deleted some of those details... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_color#Subtractive_primaries --Skintigh (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference, as it does not meet our standards for reliable sources, which you can read at WP:RS. In order to add that info, we'll need at least one source meeting those guidelines that verifies that information. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a common misconception ("the primary colors are red, yellow, and blue") and will look for reliable sources. It would be more correct (though still an oversimplification) to say that cyan, magenta, and yellow are _the_ primary colors. The problem is that no set of three pigments can mix to form every color humans are capable of seeing.

Not done: See section at bottom on "Requirements to be on this list" Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request for Human body and Health

{{edit semi protected}} In the section regarding heat being lost through the head, while I agree in normal situations that the head loses no more body heat than any other part of the body, it is also true that in situations of extreme cold the body attempts to warm the core and the extremities, including feet, hands, and head, lose their heat, which is why it is important to keep them covered. Seanhinds08 (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Seanhinds08

Please provide reliable sources. Cresix (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.coolantarctica.com/.../science/cold_humans.htm

http://www.manfredkaiser.com/cold_and_body.html

Seanhinds08 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Seanhinds08

"It is also true that" isn't grounds for including an additional fact here. There are many many things that are also facts.Ccrrccrr (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is cleat that you didn't even read after that line, because I didn't just state a completely irrelevant fact. My comments were to say that the misconception is not in fact false in all cases, but there are instances when the head and other parts of the body do lose heat faster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhinds08 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The first link is dead, and doesn't look like a reliable source, and the second definitely isn't. It may be possible to add the clarification, but only with a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Spain I'm untranscluding this and rejecting until we get reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hypothermia, frostbite, and other cold injuries 2nd edition, by Giesbrecht, Ph.D. and Wilkerson M.D., pg 14, confirms that the feet and hands are subject to greater vascular constriction in order to prevent heat loss.

"Rule of Thumb" Origin

Today, my government teacher told us that the origin of the phrase "Rule of Thumb" is that it used to refer to the maximum thickness of a stick with which a man was allowed to beat his wife. Being the smart-ass that I was, I immediately looked it up and found that this had been discredited. (See the Rule of Thumb page under the heading "Thumb used for regulation"). I would like to add the following (and its related references) to the LoCM:

It is often claimed that the term originally referred to a law that limited the maximum thickness of a stick with which it was permissible for a man to beat his wife, but this has been discredited.

But I do not know where this would be appropriate to go. Any suggestions? I'm a noob to editing Wikipedia so if anyone wants to do this instead of me, go right ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergamesoftoday (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I added it to the article under the "Law" section. Feel free to jump in and make any changes, or add any sources, which you have. Thanks for the suggestion! Jess_talk|_edits 09:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe for proper clarity that the time period in which this myth was supposedly originated be mentioned in this article as taken from the cited writing which discredits this myth. Simply stating that it has been illegal since the 18th Century to beat your spouse opens up questioning as to laws before this time. However, the article cited makes mention of the colonial time period being the origins of this myth.

Essentially in this case, lack of proper quotation is lack of proper evidence making this section incomplete and partially invalid. Ivan0310 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard this too, but always in the context of it being debunked. At the risk of stealing Cresix' thunder, "My teacher told me" is not the same thing as a reliable source stating this is a common misconception. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Writing "In actuality, domestic abuse against women has always been illegal in the United States, and in Britain since the 1700s." without providing a citation is inappropriate. The term, "domestic abuse against women" is a culturally defined concept, and any claim that such action "has always been illegal" without consideration of the historical record of what has met the legal criteria for bona fide "abuse" and what has been considered culturally or civilly permissible is also inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.163.9 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also false. There were no laws against wife-beating in the U.S. until the 1880s.[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.223.19 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, please make any changes which are appropriate to the section. I took the sources we had and put together some wording, but that wording might not be the best. Feel free to make it so. If you can't edit the article, you can provide the wording you prefer here, and another editor can make the change. Jess_talk|_edits 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, "rule of thumb" originates from a measuring method for heigts. the original "rule of thumb" sais: "If you want to know the height of an object, hold up your hand with the thumb up, so that in your line of vision the base of your thumb reaches the top end of the height to measure, and the hand-end of your thumb is at the base of the height. Then rotate your hand around the base and see where the end of the thumb lands. Walk to that point, and count the feet to the point where you set the base, this is the height." This is a quite simple measurement method, usable without tools in any given situation, though it's just an approximation to the actual height. Thus, a "rule of thumb" in general refers to "quick and dirty" way to achieve something without much effort. --212.23.105.74 (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The popular misconception might be fueled by the use of it in the movie Boondock Saints, in which this etymological explanation is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.159.194 (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.130.191.133, 7 January 2011

Misconception that Mormon men have multiple wives {{edit semi-protected}} Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) do not practice polygamy (plural marriage). The practice ended in 1890. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "has nothing to do with those who practice polygamy", and any members of the church who practice plural marriage are excommunicated (http://lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/what-are-people-asking-about-us-?lang=eng). Most widely recognized polygamists are those who call themselves "Mormon Fundamentalists". In a talk given by President Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until his death in 2008,he stated that "There is no such thing as a 'Mormon Fundamentalist.' It is a contradiction to use the two words together." (http://lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/what-are-people-asking-about-us-?lang=eng). 72.130.191.133 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty reasonable request, but I fear that we are headed down a slippery slope of taking sides in disputes between branches of religions that have forked, as to which are the heretics and which are the true believers. In this case it seems pretty clear that one side of the dispute has a clear majority and that the general public probably means, by Mormons, those who call themselves "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" rather than those who call themselves "Mormon Fundamentalists". But then again, if one group uses the label for themselves and the other doesn't, it gets confusing. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: See section at bottom on "Requirements to be on this list"--you need an RS to show that this is a common misconception. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Inallsincerity, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

• There are three main misconceptions about transsexuality. Transsexuals are commonly believed to be men who have had genital reconstruction (usually in Thailand) to become heterosexual women. To the contrary, a transsexual can be male to female (MTF), female to male (FTM), intersex to female (ITF), and intersex to male (ITM), in addition many transsexuals do not undergo genital reconstruction. The main component of a physical sex transition is not genital reconstruction but hormone replacement therapy which alters the secondary sex characteristics to those of the desired gender. People who believe themselves to be transsexuals must undergo rigorous psychological evaluations from one to several years according to the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care or the protocol of varying national healthcare systems before surgery is permitted. Transsexual healthcare is available in most countries and is free in countries with socialized medicine. Gender transition is not a "one size fits all" approach. The transsexual undergoes only the medical treatment necessary to relieve the symptoms of gender dysphoria. For example, an FTM who undergoes hormone treatment and/or chest reconstruction but not genital reconstruciton is considered to be "finished" or "fully transitioned" if all symptoms of gender dysphoria are relieved. Transsexuality is not related to sexuality. People who are transsexual can have any sexual orientation (gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, etc.)One's perception of one's own gender identity is not related to what gender one is attracted to sexually.

References: Transsexualism: The Current Medical Viewpoint http://www.kaffeine.freeuk.com/korner/bluboox/viewpt.htm, Trans Myth Busters http://www.pfc.org.uk/files/Trans_Myth_Busters.pdf, Gender Bootcamp: The Myths and Facts on Transsexuals http://etransgender.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=61, The Basic Facts of Transsexuality http://www.tsroadmap.com/notes/index.php/site/comments/the_basic_facts_of_transsexuality/, Myths and Facts about Transgender Issues http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/family/19234289.html?page=1&c=y

Inallsincerity (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that as a ready-to-go edit, but perhaps it could become one if the following were taken care of. First, there would need to be a source that showed that the misconceptions were in fact common. In the provided sources, the listings of "myth" and "fact" sounded to me like the myths were overstated caricatures, not anything that documents what is in fact a common belief. If there is one source in particular that supports the common misconception status, perhaps I missed it--could you point it out?

Secondly, the wording isn't clear to me. It says there are three main misconceptions, but I have trouble sorting out what those three are.

My overall impression is that the real concern is not that there are misconceptions, but rather just that there is a lack of solid understanding among the public. As with many things, this lack of understanding is lamentable, and efforts to combat it are commendable. But that does not mean that it belongs on this page. I suspect that a real poll result would show that most people are baffled by the whole concept rather than thinking they know more than they do. If my suspicion turned out to be correct, this wouldn't belong here, no matter how commendable to objective of educating the public is.

Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: See section at bottom on "Requirements to be on this list" Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus wasn't Caucasian

Shouldn't we include under the Christianity section the common misconception about Jesus' appearance. I think based on the vast collection of art depicting Jesus as Caucasian that we can consider it as a common misconception. Agreed? see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus 173.59.121.90 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As that article indicates, there is no firm evidence of what race he was. In fact, there isn't even a firm definition of what "Caucasian" means. By some definitions, a Jew from Levant would be considered Caucasian/white. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the point of the misconception - There's a misconception that he was definitely white, whereas in reality we don't know. We would of course need reliable sources for this, and I'm not 100% convinced that this is actually a common misconception, although certainly one propagated by art or other depictions of Jesus, in the western world at least. VegaDark (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.164.115.57, 9 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under "does alcohol make you warmer" it says that the drop in core-temperature is due to a higher loss of heat because more blood circulates closer to the skin, but this only applies when the external temperature is below the core-temperature. the fact is that even though there is no heat exchange between the blood and the environment (at alittle under the core temperature) the core temperature will still go down because of the stimulation of nerve-endings causes the body to sweat more to keep the skin cool. your body is tricked to think it is hotter than it is. there will be a temperature where the extra energy-exchange caused by the blood being closer to the skin will be higher then the energy-loss due to the body trying to cool down, but that temperature is way above the core temperature. I'm not really that good with defining a sentence to add but i think this would be a good addition because i'm experiencing that it's alot harder for most people to grasp. to satisfy the syntax: Please add something along the lines of "the drop in core temperature will also occur in higher temperatures because the stimulation of the nerve endings causes the body to register that it is warmer than it is, and it will compensate by sweating more, hence lowering the core-temperature" 85.164.115.57 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

i suggest that this go in an article on the effects of alcohol, and that it be linked from here. too mucxh detail for here.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Concur with Ccrrccrr. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Numbers of each animal on the ark

The common misconception is that animals went into the ark by two, and Genesis 7:2-3 does say that Noah was instructed to take seven of each clean animal, including birds, onto the ark, but it seems like Genesis 6:19-20 says he should take two of every kind, including cattle, things that creep, and birds. Can someone add in the details?Keepstherainoff (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to straighten out the phrasing of that item. Thanks for the heads-up! Fluffernutter, previously known as Chaoticfluffy (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah, your edit has made me realise things are even more complicated! The translations differ as well; I'd looked at the KJV[10], which commands Noah to take the unclean animals "by two, the male and his female", so I presume one pair, and the clean beasts "by sevens, the male and his female", which I assumed meant seven animals. The NIV[11] you've cited, however, says one pair of unclean animals and seven pairs of clean animals. Maybe I'm misreading the archaic English of the KJV, but I'm not sure I am. EDIT The NKJV [12] Is even less ambiguous: seven each of every clean, two each of every unclean... Keepstherainoff (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.103.220.97, 10 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In your article List of Common Misconceptions, under Religion, Book of Genesis, the following is stated:

Although common conception says that Noah was told in the Book of Genesis to bring two of each animal onto his ark[203], the book actually contains contradictory passages about the number of animals he was told to bring; in Genesis 6:19, he is told to bring "two of all living creatures", while in Genesis 7:2 he is told to bring "seven pairs of every kind of clean animal [...] and one pair of every kind of unclean animal."

Saying that this is contradictory is not true. The range of unclean animals is much greater than the range of clean animals. If I send someone to the store and say, "I want you to get two crates of all Pepsi products, and five crates of Pepsi itself," I am not contradicting myself. I am being more specific and adding instruction. It is less offensive to phrase this common misconception as follows:

Although common conception says that Noah was told in the Book of Genesis to bring two of each animal onto his ark[203], the book actually states that Noah was told to bring a pair of most animals, but to bring fourteen of every clean animal. In Genesis 6:19, he is told to bring "two of all living creatures," and in Genesis 7:2 he is told to bring "seven pairs of every kind of clean animal [...] and one pair of every kind of unclean animal."

99.103.220.97 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The entry has already been restated to remove the "contradictory" claim. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Vomitoria

Vomitoria or "Voms" aren't the tunnels. They are the arched entrances into the stadium. The term is still used today - the tunnels are where people are 'vomited' (Roman use) into the stadium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.78.69 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Entry has been reworded. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this page belong in Wikipedia?

There are many Web sites for endless lists of funny and interesting trivia, just as there are sites for funny pictures of cats.

Misconceptions that can be shown to be widespread and enduring, and have been proven to be incorrect, can be added to a related articles but lumping them all together here seems pointless.

I believe that articles like this really undermine Wikipedia's credibility.

Al8998 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Al8998 11 Jan 2011

I've been against deleting this article in the past, but recent days have shown me that this article could grow beyond control. Something needs to be done, I just don't know what.Asher196 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing that can be done is to move the descriptions of the misconceptions to the topics' parent articles, and treat this article as what it is: a list of misconceptions. This article could be restructured as a directory of misconceptions rather than a collection of full descriptions of misconceptions. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the items wouldn't remain in the parent article for a week. That's especially true of the items that have been added within the past five days (most of which are not common misconceptions, just someone's favorite misconception). The items would be removed very quickly from the parent article as useless or "unencyclopedic" trivia. For example, imagine the reaction of adding the "misconception" that Jews have sex through a hole in the sheet to Jews or Judaism. That one might stay in the article about five minutes. Cresix (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that imply that the entry doesn't belong here, either? If it isn't encyclopedic enough for the parent article, what makes it encyclopedic enough for this one? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100%, but try removing some of the items that have been added in the last few days and see what kind of response you get. Not only are most of them not common misconceptions, they have no consensus for inclusion in the article. But that matters little to those who demand that their favorite misconceptions not be touched. For the specific item I mentioned above, look above at Talk:List of common misconceptions#Edit request - Judaism section. Cresix (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Luckily, if the article does grow beyond control, that will draw in more controllers. I suggest waiting a couple of weeks for the traffic to die down, then seeing what (if anything) should be done. If we try to work out a cure before we agree that there's a problem, we'll have a problem when people try to implement it at different tiems. --Kizor 07:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to defend Wikipedia's credibility, you must begin by removing the "edit" button. No other measure will be effective until that's done. Personally, I've noticed that removing content for the sake of our pride, worth or credibility has brought us much more mockery than having that content in the first place. There's a quote I like: "To be honest, I think the thing that makes Wikipedia a "laughing stock" is not many articles on the minutia of television or other fiction, but the seriousness with which we take ourselves. --Ursasapien" --Kizor 07:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said in a deletion discussion for this article:

Lists of common misconceptions are a popular topic for the kind of book that one tends to find in remaindered book shops rather than in libraries or real book shops. If WikiBooks doesn't have a book of this genre yet, it should. There is a verifiability problem because many of the factoids in the list are sourced to such books, which generally have the very low standard of accuracy of a large part of the edutainment market. In other words: Such books are generally not reliable sources. There is a demarcation problem, because the choice of factoids from the thousands that have appeared in relevant books seems to be purely random. This list is no more encyclopedic than a list of interesting telephone numbers in Leeds, only more entertaining. [13]

Encyclopedias are about reducing the information to the absolutely essential, so that readers can get the most important information quickly. Lists of misconceptions, by contrast, are about entertainment and about feeling superior rather than about information, and they blow up trifles. Hans Adler 21:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you say Hans, although I take a more middle-of-the-road position. A few of the misconceptions in the article are well sourced as widely held. Those may be viewed as "entertainment", but I find them as informative as a substantial portion of Wikipedia. It has always been a struggle for this article to be kept to those well-sourced items. Over the last few days, the publicity received by the article has caused a radical shift in its content; as I said, most of those newer items are not common misconceptions, have weak or no reliable sourcing that they are common misconceptions, and haven't even been added by consensus. I can appreciate your sentiments when it comes to removing those items. Only time will tell whether the article can be brought back within reason after the dust settles. Sadly, the ruin that has been thrust on the article recently may very well lead to its demise, including the more worthwhile items. Cresix (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 203.41.133.81, 10 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

With respect to Noah and the number of animals he was asked to bring on the ship, he had to bring in the unclean animals two by two for preservation and the clean animals seven by seven for preservation and food for him and his family of survivors. See clean and unclean in Leviticus. So the unclean animals were one pair while the clean ones had to be seven pairs. Gen 7:2

203.41.133.81 (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. The entry already says what Genesis 7:2 says. No further elaboration is required. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bigdan43, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I have many acquaintances from France and they believe in a myth called "Hydrocution" where if you do not splash water gently on your extremities before wading in water you will immediately have a heart attack and die from the temperature change. Similar in nature to the "fandeath" korean myth. I will track down some sources, if someone can beat me to it so be it!

-edit: here is the link to the french wiki page to confirm the existance of the belief http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocution

They believe that apparently this sudden drop in temperature causes blood to coagulate rapidly and causes death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdan43 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

-todo: find article disproving myth

Big Dan 02:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's only in France (like "Heavy legs") it may not be "common". Hairhorn (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a point, I found evidence proving polar bear dips are safe thus this would though. if ever this gets put in here it is: (not the best source) http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/29/5734446-planning-a-polar-bear-plunge-how-your-body-reacts?gt1=43001 Big Dan 02:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdan43 (talk • contribs)

Not done: See section at bottom on "Requirements to be on this list": the French wikipage is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In reply to hairhorn: Wait..what? Are you seriously proposing that, well, really, what are you proposing? A common misconception that only exists in France does not qualify? Then what does? I am tempted to ask: only those from the USA because the states are more important?? Or do you believe we can establish "global" misconceptions? On that I can only tell you that most of the list's entries are not even known in Europe. --92.202.102.11 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

He didn't say that; you may be a bit too eager to hear it. What he said is that fr.wikipedia.org does not meet WP:RS standards (because it's an open wiki). If it can be sourced as a common misconception in France, that's fine; there are already non-US regional misconceptions in the list, like Fan death. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP was referring to my "heavy legs" comment above, but a simple trawl through the archives will show that in fact I have argued against including US-centric misconceptions in the past. Something can be common without being "global", but "common" is also vague, you can call it as you see it, and I don't see it here. Hairhorn (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol in Cooking

"Some cooks believe that food items cooked with wine or liquor will be non-alcoholic, because alcohol's low boiling point causes it to evaporate quickly when heated. However, a study found that much of the alcohol remains: 25% after 1 hour of baking or simmering, and 10% after 2 hours."

Yes, there is alcohol left over, however in proportion to the amount of food cooked, the alcohol content (when using wine) generally means that the item cooked has as much alcohol as a very weak beer. If you consider that not everything during the meal is cooked in alcohol (usually only the meat), you realize that the alcohol content of the average meal containing an item cooked in wine is negligible. (I'm not talking about when liquors are used, which I think most people realize produce slightly alcoholic dishes).

If you are muslim, a recovering alcoholic or a parent serving children, then some caution should be used I suppose, but otherwise, although I agree that this is a common misconception, the article is somewhat misleading by stating the 25% or 10% of the alcohol remains. Maybe I should just expand it to make things more clear... Szkott (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should also mention that most antibiotics might have side effects when taken with or before having an "alcoholic" meal. Some antibiotics have a warning about alcohol, indicating that no amount is a good amount (zero tolerance). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.67.44.250 (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon "Petit" as a term of endearment. "Our dear leader"

In the french language it is common to use the term "petit" as a term of endearment. This is similar to the spanish "cito" where the words for small are added to words to imply fondness, reminiscent of the British convention of likening things that are adored to the idea of littleness, or "cuteness"

http://www.wordmagicsoft.com/dictionary/es-en/pececito.php

Examples of this can be seen http://www.monpetitchou.com/ < A french website selling children's accessories with the popular term "My little cabbage".

It can also be seen here where "petit" is used to transform the word "ami" (friend) to "special friend", or, more commonly used, "boyfriend/girlfriend".

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Je_t'aime_mon_petit_ami_mean

Taking this into account it seems probable that the "petit" nickname was one of fondness and demonstrated the great love for Napoleon at that time.

This view is also supported in the following texts

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/bonapartenapoleon/a/napoleonheight.htm

http://spinellimd.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/short-sighted/

http://www.bspcn.com/2010/11/13/20-misconceptions-taught-at-school/

SamanthaSnail (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CarlKlutzke, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

I think the following text, derived largely from the article on the color Indigo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo), would be a good addition to the list of common misconceptions, under Physics:

Although traditionally considered one of seven divisions of the optical spectrum (as represented by "i" in the mnemonic "Roy G. Biv"), modern color scientists do not usually recognize indigo as a separate division[1]. Sir Isaac Newton divided up the optical spectrum into seven colors primarily to match the mystic significance of the seven notes of a western major scale and the seven known planets[2][3].

[1] J. W. G. Hunt (1980). Measuring Color. Ellis Horwood Ltd. ISBN 0-7458-0125-0.

[2] http://www1.umn.edu/ships/updates/newton1.htm

[3] http://home.vicnet.net.au/~colmusic/opticks3.htm

Thank you!

-Carl Klutzke

CarlKlutzke (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. This is interesting, but is there a documented misconception about this subject? I don't discern a misconception above. In fact the third reference shown seems to indicate that indigo is a distinct color. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Picking up baby birds

{{editsemiprotected}} Proposed addition to the Science::Biology section --

It is a common misconception that "if a baby bird is touched by a human, it's mother will reject it." If you find an unfeathered bird on the ground, carefully pick it up and place it back in the nest; a feathered bird on the ground is learning how to fly, and can be left alone.

Notes:

1. Lollar, Michael. "Fine feathered infirmary for sick songbirds." Knoxville News-Sentinel. 16 June 2008. Accessed 11 Jan 2011.

2. Jacobs, Shannon K. "Healers of the Wild: People Who Care for Injured and Orphaned Wildlife." 1998. Accessed 11 Jan 2011.

External Links

• snopes:Rejected Baby Birds
• What To Do When You Find a Baby Bird
• I Found A Wild Animal

Jhyrman (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Done I only used the first reference, because the second is in a flowchart form and thus I think is more difficult for us to summarize carefully. Since the first reference covers both the misconception and the proper care, is reliable, and quotes someone who appear to be an expert, it should suffice. If anyone else wants to add the other reference, though, feel free to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.108.156.91, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the section on the human body and health, it's claimed that alcohol does not kill brain cells. While seems true of acute exposure in healthy adults, in chronic, heavy alcohol users, abrupt cessation following heavy use can cause excitotoxicity leading to cellular death in multiple areas of the brain. Overactive gultaminergic transmission, leading to increased intracellular concentrations of calcium, causes such over-excitation. This is because alcohol acts as an NMDA antagonist and GABA-A agonist, so with chronic exposure to alcohol, the user's brain adapts to these effects, increasing basal levels of glutaminergic transmission.

reference: Lovinger, D. M. (1993), Excitotoxicity and Alcohol-Related Brain Damage. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 17: 19–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1993.tb00720.x

(sorry about the lack of proper formatting in the reference--this is my first edit suggestion)

AndyKohnen (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, in a more concise form. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion on linked article #75; length of discussion

The linked article, #75, links to a web archive, and looking through it I've found absolutely no difference between that and the web archive that hosts the page. However, I could have missed something, or it was linked to there for a reason. I only bring this up because that the web archive load-times are horrendous.

In addition, the discussion page length is extremely long. As I have no idea what I'm doing with wiki editing, could someone move the discussions that have been fulfilled, finished, or otherwise rejected into a sub archive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.120.242 (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lift

The article is only half correct in this matter. Equal transit theory is wrong, but saying it is "mainly" angle of attack is also wrong (very wrong). Newton and Bernoulli both can be used to describe lift. The problem with Bernoulli is that it is associated with the incorrect explanation (equal transit time). Air over the top of the wing flows faster, thus the pressure must decrease. Bernoulli explains this. Bernoulli sis a conservation of energy equation and is perfectly good for explaining the differences in pressure around a wing (even one flying upside down). The Newtonian conservation of momentum method is equally good, and in fact both can be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.22.70 (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bigroundhead, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Saying lift is mainly due to angle of attack is at the very least misleading and at worst incorrect. I have put a bit in the discussion over this. However Bernoulli (conservation of energy) and Newton (conservation of momentum) both adequately can be used to describe lift. The misconception of Angle of Attack is similar to the misconception of equal transit time. Lift over an aerofoil is due principally to the differences in pressure over and below the wing. Lift in curved wings can and does occur at zero angle of attack. The angle of attack misconception leads people to believe it is air hitting the underside of the wing and puushing it up. This is completely incorrect. The majority of lift occurs over the top of the wing due to the lower pressure there.

All that needs to be done is removing the angle of attack comment.

see the nasa discussion of this here

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html

note they say

Newton's laws of motion are statements concerning the conservation of momentum. Bernoulli's equation is derived by considering conservation of energy. So both of these equations are satisfied in the generation of lift; both are correct.

bigroundhead B.E. M.Eng.Sc

Bigroundhead (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Bigroundhead (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks! Both your link and Wikipedia's own page on Lift (force) confirm that it has little to nothing to do with Angle of attack. Rather than try to give a succinct explanation for why lift does occur, I just removed the last sentence, since the (now last) sentence already has clear links to a nice, full explanation of why lift does actually occur. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Requirement to be on this list

I am about to untransclude and decline a large number of edit requests to this page. The problem with all of them is that the requesters are not understanding that two distinct things need to be documented to be on this list. First, we need a clear, unambiguous reference claiming that the point in question is, in fact, a common misconception. This is the only thing we have from keeping this list from exploding with every single error in thinking, facts, judgement, or analysis that anyone at any point has had. There must be a reliable source that verifies that the idea is a common misconception. I believe that every single request I closed failed this point. Second, we need a clear, unambiguous reference explaining what the "truth" is. Now, these can be (and, ideally, should be) the same reference. But, without both, the requests should not be fulfilled and put on the list.

In addition, I think we have a problem if this page is getting legitimate edit requests every single day. If there are so many nonconfirmed users who want to edit the page, we're doing them a disservice by protecting the page, and adding a lot of work on the part of other editors of the page and editors like me who work through the Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. I'm not certain what the solution is, but I think we need to look for one. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Finally, the voice of reason speaks up. The article has already begun exploding with everyone's favorite unsourced misconception being added. A requirement to be included on the page has always been the need for "a clear, unambiguous reference claiming that the point in question is, in fact, a common misconception". That was fairly manageble until about six days ago; then it became impossible for those of us who usually monitor the page to keep things under control. As a result, many unsourced (and frankly ridiculous) "misconceptions" have been added. I'm glad you want to close the barn door, Qwyrxian, but about half the horses have already escaped.

I don't know what the answer is either, but I do know that the answer is not to remove protection. If that is done, we'll see all of the additions over the past few days multiplied a hundredfold. Cresix (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, my first suggestion would be to delete the page, because I personally hate pages like this--lists of vaguely defined, highly inclusive criteria that don't really have encyclopedic value as a cohesive topic. But I know that across Wikipedia I am in the minority on this point, so that's not really helpful.

Another thing that you can do is what I did in the section below--as soon as you reply to a request, untransclude it and either add it or declare that it cannot be added in current form. Part of the problem is the misconception about how edit requests work (in my opinion). Making an edit request is exactly like actually editing the article--the requester must have a complete, full copy of exactly what they want to add, as well as all necessary reliable sources. That is, WP:BURDEN applies equally to editing articles as it does to edit requests. In exactly the same way that we can and should immediately revert an unsourced addition to the article, we can immediately deny an incomplete edit request. Now, I don't know how much this will help, but it at least makes the job of responding less. I think part of what may have been overwhelming you is that, when I look at your responses above, you've been spending a lot of time trying to build up each of the edit requests, teasing out what may or may not valuable in them. Instead, place the burden clearly on the person who wants to add the info.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"either add it or declare that it cannot be added": Sometimes that can be done, sometimes it can't when an editor is hellbent on adding it and we are restrained by 3RR. After declaring, in a period of about six hours, that dozens of suggested additions cannot be added because of inadequate sourcing that the misconception is common, and then seeing them added anyway, I finally gave up (temporarily). I'm waiting for this "flash in the pan" because of publicity and the ensuing add-it-because-I-like-it frenzy to subside, and then try to pare down the new entries. Usually that occurs after new editors grow tired of an article, but if it doesn't happen, you may get your wish; the article, good and bad, may be deleted. Cresix (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Eventually, things will quiet down and we can go back and reassess the new additions and remove any that fail to meet the established criteria. FWIW, I posted appeals for help at the Village Pump, Jimbo's talk page and my talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was unaware of the cartoon (I tend to catch up on XKCD about a month or two at a time). That is a bother. Oh, with reference to Cresix, above, my point of "add it or..." is in response to edit requests. On the other hand, after looking at AQFK's comment at the Pump, I realize that there is a new user issue here too. Well, what I'll do, as I encounter the issue, is keep the pushback here brusque and policy centered, but try to make effort to talk to the user's on their talk page as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Vaccines and autism

While I realize I'm going to inject some controversy here; the claim that there's no biological basis for vaccines causing autism simply isn't true. The refutation of the vaccine/autism connection is typically based on population studies. There's solid biological evidence for a mechanism. Polymorphisms related to glutathione production are tremendously common in autistic children. Such a mutation wouldn't cause autism per se, but would make an adverse reaction to thimerosal more likely.

We compared levels of SOD, GSH-Px, and MDA in children with autism and controls. In children less than 6 years of age, levels of SOD, and GSH-Px were significantly lower in autistic children compared with their controls [14]

OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to determine whether ... improvement is associated with increased plasma concentrations of glutathione (GSH) and an increased redox ratio of reduced glutathione to oxidized glutathione (GSH/GSSG), both of which have been previously identified to be low in children with autism.

[15]

Early post-natal toxicant administration to mice has been used to model autistic regression. To test the hypothesis that genetically altered mice might be more sensitive to toxicant exposure early in life, mice with a deletion of glutathione-S-transferaseM1 (GSTM1; a gene associated with increased risk of autism that codes for an enzyme involved in the management of toxicant-induced oxidative stress) and wild-type controls were exposed to valproic acid (VPA; a toxicant known to cause autism-like behavioral deficits that, in part, are mediated through oxidative stress)... VPA treatment caused significant increases in apoptosis in granule cells of the hippocampus and cerebellum. There was a genotype by treatment by sex interaction with wild-type females exhibiting significantly fewer apoptotic cells in these regions compared to all other groups. VPA treatment also resulted in long-lasting deficits in social behaviors and significant alterations in brain chemistry. VPA-treated GSTM1 knockout animals performed significantly fewer crawl-under behaviors compared to saline-treated knockout animals as well as wild-type controls receiving either treatment. Collectively, these studies indicate that VPA-treatment causes cerebellar and hippocampal apoptosis and that having the wild-type GSTM1 genotype may confer protection against VPA-induced neuronal death in female mice.

[16]

The severity of autism is associated with toxic metal body burden and red blood cell glutathione levels.

Multiple positive correlations were found between the severity of autism and the urinary excretion of toxic metals. Variations in the severity of autism measurements could be explained, in part, by regression analyses of urinary excretion of toxic metals before and after DMSA and the level of RBC glutathione (adjusted R(2) of 0.22-0.45, P < .005 in all cases). This study demonstrates a significant positive association between the severity of autism and the relative body burden of toxic metals.

[17]

De-novo mutations and advanced parental age as a risk factor for ASD also suggest a role for environment. Systemic and central nervous system pathophysiology, including oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, and mitochondrial dysfunction can be consistent with a role for environmental influence (e.g. from air pollution, organophosphates, heavy metals) in ASD, and some of the underlying biochemical disturbances (such as abnormalities in glutathione, a critical antioxidant and detoxifier) can be reversed by targeted nutritional interventions.

[18]

Reduced glutathione regenerating enzymes undergo developmental decline and sexual dimorphism in the rat cerebral cortex.

Oxidative stress during development may predispose humans to neurodegenerative disorders in old age. Moreover, numerous ailments of brain disproportionately affect one of the genders. We therefore hypothesized that, activities of enzymes regenerating and utilizing glutathione (GSH) show sexual dimorphism and developmental differences in rat brain. ...Our results showed that sexual maturation had an impact on activities of enzymes that regenerate and utilize GSH and rat female cortex had more anti-oxidant capacity. Moreover, age-related decline in the activities of these key enzymes were observed. Reduced glutathione and NADPH protects the brain from oxidative stress. Thus, our results may have implications for neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's disease and developmental disorders of brain like autism in which oxidative stress plays a key role.

[19]

Cellular and mitochondrial glutathione redox imbalance in lymphoblastoid cells derived from children with autism.

Lymphoblastoid cells (LCLs) derived from autistic children and unaffected controls were used to assess relative concentrations of reduced glutathione (GSH) and oxidized disulfide glutathione (GSSG) in cell extracts and isolated mitochondria as a measure of intracellular redox capacity. The results indicated that the GSH/GSSG redox ratio was decreased and percentage oxidized glutathione increased in both cytosol and mitochondria in the autism LCLs. Exposure to oxidative stress via the sulfhydryl reagent thimerosal resulted in a greater decrease in the GSH/GSSG ratio and increase in free radical generation in autism compared to control cells. Acute exposure to physiological levels of nitric oxide decreased mitochondrial membrane potential to a greater extent in the autism LCLs, although GSH/GSSG and ATP concentrations were similarly decreased in both cell lines. These results suggest that the autism LCLs exhibit a reduced glutathione reserve capacity in both cytosol and mitochondria that may compromise antioxidant defense and detoxification capacity under prooxidant conditions.

--Ryan Wise (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

>That study only shows that people with autism have lower levels of glutathione, how exactly does that prove Vaccines cause autism? For that matter very few Vaccines use anything related to Mercury, so your statement that Vaccines verifiably cause Autism is wrong. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.101.9 (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The passage which I removed from the page claimed there was no biological basis for vaccines to cause autism. Glutathione is primary in the removal of mercury from the body. Autistic people have demonstrably more numerous mutations in glutathione related systems. Thus, there is a biological mechanism for people with autism to be more susceptible to vaccines. This does not, nor is it an attempt to 'prove that vaccines cause autism.' It may very well be that people with autism would still have autism, but would be more likely to have adverse reactions to vaccination because of their chemical sensitivity. Primarily, this post explains the removal of incorrect information, namely that the page incorrectly claimed there was no biological mechanism by which vaccines could cause autism. Currently mercury (in the form of thimerosal) has been removed from nearly all vaccines, however prior to ~2000 that wasn't true. The association is therefore relevant to children 10 or older with autism. Further, you are not only misinterpreting what I wrote to be a claim that vaccines have been proven to cause autism, you are misinterpreting it to be a claim that autism is caused exclusively by vaccination.--Ryan W (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, there was a segment on the news this very morning mentioning that several of the authors on one of the prominent papers (unfortunately, I didn't catch which one) linking vaccines and autism had withdrawn their names from the paper and were accusing the primary author not only of being wrong but of deliberate fraud. Any scientific support for the view that vaccines can cause/exacerbate/have anything whatsoever to do with autism seems to be fast eroding. 68.105.72.35 (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the now disgraced Dr. Andrew Wakefield (Globe and Mail) (Telegraph) TimothyPilgrim (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

... I'm glad this got tightened up, but I don't see any reason to believe this is a common misconception. It was a popular idea in certain circles, but no more popular than many conspiracy theories. Hairhorn (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is a common misconception. Many still believe this, even after Wakefield being discredited. I have had to correct Psychology professors on the issue, among others. As for sources...[20] [21] (Just in case somebody tried to remove it n those grounds). 71.238.163.251 (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

mislinked citation

this citation is wrong. It's listed and displayed as 168, but goes to 167:

Although frequently repeated as fact, a penny dropped from the Empire State Building will not kill a person or crack the sidewalk if it strikes either one.[168]

- I can't edit or I'd fix myself.

ERROR: Fix the Terminal velocity, it CAN exceed 50mph and has been calculated to reach 65 mph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.247.251 (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

NBD. This occurs often in Wikipedia. There might be a source that is used twice. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 04:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

works for me. Maybe it was fixed already. --Ettuquoque (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - Judaism section

Got here via Metafilter, so I'm guessing there may be a lot of activity on this page and didn't want to jump in if all edits are being deleted, but will gladly contribute this section with further details.
There are plenty of common misconceptions about Judaism, so I was surprised to see nothing included. Particularly these three -

• Religious Jews do not have sex through a hole in a sheet
• Kosher food is not blessed by a rabbi in any way
• There is no prohibition against being buried in a Jewish cemetery if you have a tattoo

Not to mention the American misconception that Jews make up a sizeable percentage of the US or world's population - the actual number is somewhere under 2% in the US and well less then 1% worldwide
thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchelly (talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never heard of any of these misconceptions. The "hole in a sheet" and "tatoo" ones are so ricidulous that I even wonder if your edit is serious. Not only are these not common misconceptions, I doubt that they're misconceptions held by more than a few people. If you disagree, please provide reliable sources that they are common misconceptions. Cresix (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

His edit is, indeed, serious. I've heard all these before. Whether or not a sizeable number of people actually believe them is open for discussion and will require reliable sources to show, but I can assure you that some people do, even as absurd as they are. In fact, the hole in the sheet thing was in some major movie or tv show... Seinfeld perhaps? Jess_talk|_edits 21:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sex through a sheet: Snopes, JewFAQ, Jewish Mythbusters ~~1.5mil google hits
• Kosher Food: My Jewish Learning, Jewish Cooking, ~~100k google hits
• Jewish Cemetaries: My Jewish Learning, Jewish about.com, Torah.org, NY Times, ~~44k google hits Jess_talk|_edits 21:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

None of these sources provides evidence that any of them are common misconceptions. Just my opinion, but I'm starting to think these ideas were picked up by a few Jewish people who found them so ridiculous that they shared them with their Jewish friends just for a laugh. Just like when I was a kid in Catholic school we joked about how all nuns had bald heads, knowing full well that it wasn't true. Cresix (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

My intent wasn't to provide reliable sources (otherwise I would have added them to the article myself) but to show their prevalence generally. That said, I'm not sure you read through the links carefully enough. The NY times article definitely provides ample evidence that the tattoo myth is common: "Nearly every Jew, from those who go to synagogue only on holidays to those who dutifully follow Jewish law, has heard that adage." Similarly, I would expect of the nearly 1.5 million google hits for "jewish sex through a sheet", enough to spur a snopes article and countless entries on jewish FAQs, we can find plenty of reason to conclude the misconception is prevalent enough to be considered "common". Jess_talk|_edits 23:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, I did read the sources. But "hearing an adage" is not the same as a common misconception. Lots of people heard the adage that if a frog pees on you it will cause warts, but that doesn't mean that most people believe it. As for Snopes, that website does not limit itself to common misconceptions. If it did, there would be no need for this Wikipedia article. And as I've said MANY, MANY times on this talk page, Google hits are not evidence that a misconception is common; the number of hits you get depends on how you word the search; if I search "Jewish" + "sex through a hole in a sheet" I get a grand total of 6790 hits. And of the 1.5 million Google hits you got, how many of those actually confirm that it's a misconception, how many disconfirm that it's a misconception, how many refer to a joke about Jewish sex without either confirming or disconfirming, and how many fall into some other category. If you can't give a specific answer to that, Google hits is meaningless. Cresix (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll concede that it is anecdotal, however, on more than one occasion, I have asked for Kosher meat, only to be told that the store's meat was "Just like Kosher Meat, except it wasn't blessed by a rabbi." Anecdotal is not evidence, but since it's been stated elsewhere that in the absence of evidence one way or the other, the editors establish the "Common" part of "Common Misconception" through concensus, I just thought I would throw my 2 cents in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared Thaler (talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your two cents. Let's see if enough opinions for a consensus are expressed. Cresix (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the google count was sufficient in itself - I've been an active editor here for quite a while actually, enough to know it isn't. My point was that it does turn up a plethora of results, many of which are related to the misconception, and among those, surely a suitable RS could be found; I intended to address your initial concern that the OP "wasn't serious", or that the idea wasn't prevalent. Regarding the tattoo, I'm a little baffled that you don't find a NY Times article suitable which explicitly states that "nearly every Jew has heard it", or the various 'Frequently asked questions' pages I provided written by various Rabbis. I'll give you two more which use the exact terminology, http://www.ehow .com/about_4622123_does-judaism-say-tattoos-piercings.html (<-- eHow is blacklisted apparently. Bringing the issue up on RSN) and Ask the Rabbi. I still think the NY Times article is sufficient (even, stronger), and should be used as a source. I'm going to include whichever of these I can quickly find sourcing for in the article. If you still disagree, feel free to revert me and discuss it further. Jess_talk|_edits 02:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you're baffled, but again "nearly every Jew has heard it" doesn't mean it's a common misconception. I'm Catholic; nearly every Catholic has heard the idea that nuns (in the old days when they wore habits) have shaved heads; I've never met a Catholic who actually believes it; ergo, not a common misconception. As for the chabad.org, it's one person asking a question and one person providing an answer. That clearly does not make it a common misconception. If I ask on a blog whether the moon is made of cheese, does that make it a common misconception? Cresix (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And NO, do not add it without consensus. That's not the way it works on Wikipedia. When there is disagreement and there is ongoing discussion, the proper thing to do is wait for consensus, not add it just so it will be removed. Read WP:CON. Cresix (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cresix, I understand you've been working on this page for a good chunk of today, and I commend you for that. It's understandable that you might be getting a bit frustrated as a result, and if so, I'd advise you to take a short break to cool down. If I'm off-base, then my apologies, but let's try to keep the discussion a bit level headed if we can. I'm sure you're aware of the BRD cycle, so I'm confused why you would say "that's not how wikipedia works". Further, based on the discussion here, it would appear that consensus is against you for the exclusion of this info, as it seems we have 3 editors supporting the inclusion, which to my mind is reliably sourced with multiple citations. Could you please be more specific about why it is that you disagree with the inclusion, particularly so strongly, and what kinds of sources you'd like to see in order for it to be included? Jess_talk|_edits 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this item was under discussion when you added it, the "D" component of BRD. It's not appropriate to boldly add in the midst of a consensus discussion. But no harm done. As for what kind of sourcing I would like, a reliable source that unequivocally states that the misconception is common (which is more than "every Jew has heard it"; see my comments above) would be excellent. There are some items in the article that actually provide sources specifically stating that it is a "common misconception" or "a misconception held by most people" or even a specific percentage of the population that subscribes to the misconception. Additionally, even if "every Jew has heard it" and every Jew believes it, is that a common misconception in general, or a common misconception among Jews? This is just my opinion, but as a non-Jew, I'd be willing to bet money that most non-Jews have never even heard of this misconception. Finally, you can also add the items if there is a consensus on the talk page to do so. As for your statement that consensus is against me, there is no consensus either way at this time. Review this section. Mchelly presented the possibility that these Jewish-related ideas are common misconceptions, but not providing an evidence that they are. You provided some sources that you think support the idea of common misconception. I disagreed with your conclusions. That does not make a consensus. Consensus can take a while; sometimes there is never a clear consensus. The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to add the item. Cresix (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to back away and come back to the page later on, but I'd like to address a few things first. Adding content to an article for the first time is never discouraged, particularly when new sources have been introduced and with explicit acknowledgement that it may be reverted if there is disagreement. I'd suggest you're taking a rather harsh attitude about this issue, which is liable to discourage new editors (which we're getting plenty of today). Secondly, if it's a "common misconception among Jews", that still makes it worthy of inclusion in the article, which is a general compilation of misconceptions -- even among Jews. Thirdly, lots of the content currently in the article isn't sourced to your stated satisfaction here. The NYT article demonstrates that it's a common adage which has widespread acceptance. Orthodox union provides exact wording that it's a misconception which is widespread. That it's been in at least two popular tv shows (Curb your Enthusiasm and The Nanny) lends further support. The fact that I've provided multiple other sources, including chabad - which explicitly calls it a "common misconception" - should even be unnecessary to warrant its inclusion. I'm sorry to say, your opinion that these are insufficient seems unreasonable. Jess_talk|_edits 03:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Adding content to an article for the first time is never discouraged": Read WP:BRD again; it's not an invitation to ignore consensus and edit war. Boldly adding content before discussion is never discouraged. Adding disputed content in the midst of discussion is not appropriate. You're wrong about that one.
• "if it's a "common misconception among Jews", that still makes it worthy of inclusion in the article": So every misconception held by any specific group of people is acceptable? Common misconceptions among Quakers. Common misconceptions among Druids. Common misconceptions among Choctaw Native Americans? No, if that was the case the article could multiply in size by a factor of thousands. This article pertains to common misconceptions in general. Moreover, you haven't provided an adequate source that it's a common misconception among Jews. You've simply provided a source that "every Jew has heard it" (regardless of whether they believe it) and a source quoting one person asking a question and one rabbi answering the question, as if that's evidence of a common misconception.
• "lots of the content currently in the article isn't sourced to your stated satisfaction here": Read Other stuff exists. I've never claimed that the article is in perfect condition. I'm trying to keep the new additions properly sourced or included by consensus. That was a fairly manageable task until about 24 hours ago.
• "I'm sorry to say, your opinion that these are insufficient seems unreasonable.": That's your opinion, and you're entitled to your opinion. I'm sorry to say I disagree. And when there is such disagreement on Wikipedia, it is resolved by consensus. Currently there is no consensus, although it seems that the consensus process is not a consideration in your decision to edit the article. I find it interesting that until about two days ago, even though there were some heated debates about the content of this article, a disputed item rarely was added, re-added, and re-added again without consensus. The article gets some press, followed by people like yourself who have never edited the article. And that's fine; I welcome new editors. What I don't welcome is an editor who assumes that because he has never edited the article, he is entitled to run roughshod over the consensus process. But so be it; I'm taking a break from the article; but unlike most people who have commented here in the last 24 hours, I'll be back later to do the heavy-lifting of getting the article back in shape again. Cresix (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cresix, you're putting things into rather heated territory again. Once again, let's keep the discussion calm if we can. I'll address your points in order.

1) Please read WP:BRD again. Content is commonly added with new sources or new wording during an ongoing discussion as a proposal or to generate consensus. This is common practice, and besides which, that isn't what happened. You objected to the bit about sex through a sheet because it wasn't sourced to your satisfaction, so I improved the sourcing. You are now apparently objecting to the sources being improved... I'm not sure what to tell you - if you think the sources are still insufficient (which I'm just guessing, because you haven't said), you should address that point specifically, not yell at me for improving them. If you think this is a problem, you're welcome to take the issue to WP:RfC or WP:ANI.

2) Being a common misconception among a substantial demographic does make it worthy of inclusion in the article. I'd be open to discussing this with other editors if they'd care to take part, but otherwise, being printed in a NYT article certainly gives it enough notability. You say the article would expand dramatically. Can you give me an example of a misconception for one of the demographics you cite which is equally well sourced but which doesn't belong in the article?

2.5) The NYT article says "Nearly every Jew, from those who go to synagogue only on holidays to those who dutifully follow Jewish law, has heard that adage. It has deterred many from being inked". That seems fairly clear. But I also provided 3 more that use the exact phrasing you requested. The Orthodox Union says "This misconception is widespread amongst American Jews. References to it are often found in general American culture". To be clear, are you objecting because you don't think this idea is common, or because you don't think it's a misconception, or because you don't think the sources are reliable?

3) My point was about your standards of inclusion, but I'll sidestep this issue for now since it doesn't pertain directly.

4) I'll have to remind you that consensus is note a vote. Further, what you claim happened isn't what happened. I'm doing my best to keep this discussion from becoming contentious, but you'll have to help me with that. I'll leave the question on 2.5 open if you decide to come back to the article. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"if it's a "common misconception among Jews", that still makes it worthy of inclusion in the article" So every misconception held by any specific group of people is acceptable? Common misconceptions among Quakers. Common misconceptions among Druids. Common misconceptions among Choctaw Native Americans? No"

And yet the entry on Koreans believing in "fan death" is acceptable? 74.185.250.211 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that these aren't common misconceptions among Jews. They are commonly believed to be misconceptions by Jews. Very few Jews believe that some Jews only have sex through a sheet. There is a difference between a common misconception and a what is frequently believed to be common misconception. --Leivick (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple edits on the table here... so we have to be careful to discuss them individually. I get the impression that Cresix has been claiming that, at best, the tattoo myth is common among Jews. However, the "sex through a sheet" myth is sourced as being common among non-Jews. With that cleared up, do you have a problem for the current sourcing for either of the tattoo or sex through a sheet misconceptions? Here are both:

• Orthodox Jews do not have sex through a hole in a sheet, as portrayed in various films and tv programs such as Curb Your Enthusiasm and A Price Above Rubies. In fact, according to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, "Jewish law does not allow any articles of clothing to be worn during lovemaking", and using a sheet in this way could be considered a violation of that law.
• A person with a tattoo is not generally forbidden from being buried in a Jewish cemetery. This common misconception was depicted in the tv shows Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Nanny. While private cemeteries have the right to forbid burial on any grounds, there is no Jewish law to bar tattooed applicants, and it is uncommon to do so.

Jess_talk|_edits 20:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond with a couple of comments and then leave for a while. Jess, it's you who put things in heated territory by edit warring with no consensus. So take your own advice. Second point: Sorry but you are flat wrong that re-adding (and let's skip the sugarcoating that it was reworded) disputed material in the midst of a consensus debate is acceptable. I've seen editors blocked for it on a number of occasions. And finally (for now) Jess, your "I have consensus" argument (invalid in the first place) is kaput. And I never said consensus is a vote; please stop throwing around ancient platitudes; it's insulting to the rest of us. But there is no such thing as a consensus of one editor; and now you have even more opposition. There is no consensus. I'm out of her for now. I'll be back for the cleanup later. Cresix (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cresix, I'm not going to engage this here, because where it's going is not appropriate for this talk page. If you have an issue with my editing, you are welcome to take it to my talk page or a noticeboard. That said, I would much appreciate it if you stopped claiming I was edit warring. Adding material once is not edit warring in any sense of the word, and misrepresenting my actions and intent in the ways you are is disingenuous. I'm doing my absolute best to work constructively with you - when you asked for more sources, I provided them. When you asked for sources with exact wording, I provided those. When you objected, I asked you why. It's becoming very difficult to continue in that way, and I really have to ask again that you stop treating this discussion like it's a battleground. Any further inquiries regarding editors should be taken off this page. If you could respond to my queries above (notably 2.5), that would be appreciated. Jess_talk|_edits 20:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Once? Let's see . . . once . . . twice. Hmmm . . . oh that's right! You explained it on your talk page: "not sure how that happened, perhaps some silliness with edit conflicts". It's not edit warring . . . it's silly edit conflicts. At this time I'm not "responding to your queries above" because (1) responding to you doesn't seem to change anything, and (2) I'm avoiding this talk page for the most part right now. I'll be back at a future time for the cleanup. Cresix (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you're objecting to the content being added, but when I ask why you're objecting, you refuse to explain. I'm sorry, but that's not appropriate. If you decide to come back to the article and actually explain why it is that the proposal should not be included, then I'll be more than happy to work with you to fix it up. Until then, I don't see any standing objections to the tattoo bit being included in the article, so I'm going to reintroduce it. If another editor has an outstanding objection they haven't voiced, please revert me and discuss it here. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 22:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow... had no idea such a small thing would become so contentious -- Not sure how to further back up that these are common misconceptions, other than anecdotally and via Yahoo answers (1 , 2 , 3) as a very loose survey, with the agreement that the sex one is more prevalent among non-Jews, and tattooing being believed by a large percentage of non-religious Jews. Cresix, are you writing from a locale with a slight or nonexistant Jewish population? If so, that could easily explain why you've never heard these; if you rarely ever met a Jew, you would have no reason to have the subject ever arise. Anyway, didn't mean to cause a war here. Also, for the record: Jews don't have horns ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchelly (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mchelly, I've lived all over the United States and Canada. I know about as many Jews as I do non-Jews. It is unlikely that these are misconceptions that are believed by very many Jews, not just non-Jews (99.9% of whom have never even heard of these misconceptions). Your most accurate statement is that the only thing supporting these misconceptions as common is anecdotal evidence. And why not put an item in the article that, "It is a misconception that Jews have horns"? After all, by the standards for inclusion argued in this section, if Jews have heard of this, it must be common. Cresix (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Cresix, our reliable sources say otherwise. Your assertions that 99.9% of Jews have never heard of these are flat-out contradicted by multiple sources, including the NYT article which says that every Jew has. If you have a problem with the sources, then please answer my questions above to clarify. Jess_talk|_edits 17:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in my mouth, Jess. I said that 99.9% of NON-Jews have never heard of it. And I'll also kindly ask you not to place recent discussion of disputed content in the archives so that others will not see it. Once again, you do not make unilateral decisions on Wikpedia. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You are correct that I misread your comment. Allow me to rephrase: Cresix, our reliable sources say otherwise. Your assertions that 99.9% of non-Jews have never heard of these are flat-out contradicted by multiple sources, including the Orthodox Union article which says that it is "pervasive in American culture", and World News Daily which says "the vast majority of people actually believe this to be true". If you have a problem with the sources, then please answer my questions above to clarify. Additionally, I was quite transparent about archiving only discussions which were stale, and asked anyone who felt a section shouldn't be archived to place it back on this page. Since you have stated that you refuse to take part in the discussion, and no one else had recently commented, it seemed safe to assume the thread was closed. Since you feel otherwise, I'm happy to leave it out for now... though with you refusing to engage my questions, I'm not sure what good that will do. I'm not sure how else to ask you to assume good faith and not treat this talk page like a battleground, so I'm just going to repeat the request one last time. If you can't work collaboratively on this article, then I'll have to eventually seek input from elsewhere. Thanks. Jess_talk|_edits 20:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to suggest this as neutrally as possible: Jess, you might want to be careful with your words, especially with comments that could be construed as a threat. Your editing here hasn't exactly been a stellar example of respect for the consensus process and assuming good faith. I've largely avoided this page over the last few days without picking through all of your comments and edits to find problems, but it seems I can't make a comment here without you jumping on it and assuming that I am being uncooperative. So take your own advice, because if you can't let the consensus process take its course without parsing every word I say and "seek input from elsewhere", remember that your edits also will be examined. You might want to take a little time to reflect on your own edit history, and not just on this article. Now I suggest again that you just settle down and let the consensus process proceed. And if you don't want personal responses from me on this article's talk page, please don't make personal comments toward me here. It's quite possible that you and I could co-exist peacefully here if you would focus on the article instead of me. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right Cresix. Discussion of user conduct should be kept off this page and handled on respective talk pages. Can we both agree to keep this discussion on the article, and not on users? Perhaps we can start by explaining what it is that you object to about the current sources, so we can work collaboratively to clean them up to your satisfaction. Notably, I asked above whether you are objecting because the sources don't say the content is common, or the sources don't say the content is a misconception, or the sources are not reliable. I also asked you to clarify your position about the article getting out of hand by suggesting a misconception which was equally sourced and applied to a similar demographic, but was not appropriate to the article. Could you answer those questions? Thanks. Jess_talk|_edits 02:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have decided to focus on the article rather than me. I don't have a problem continuing to focus on the article. As I've told you, I've explained my reasons for objecting to the items added, but, as I said, I also am taking a partial break from this talk page. If I see a need to explain myself after others have a chance to comment (especially now that someone posted an RfC) I will do so. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you haven't fully explained your objections - or else I haven't understood them - since I'm still not clear on whether you agree that the sources claim it's a common misconception but don't agree they're reliable, or if you agree the sources are reliable but don't agree they claim it's common. Or, it's possible that you agree the sources are reliable and state the misconception is common, but you feel reliable sources are sufficient to demonstrate its notability. I'm just guessing here, because any time I've asked you to clarify, you haven't responded. That's why I've been asking... and until you explain that, I can't work with you to fix any supposed issues with the section. Jess_talk|_edits 04:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right: you're guessing; and there is no reason for you to do so in writing here (think your guesses all you wish). I've repeatedly said I'm taking a break from extensive discussion on this talk page, and I'll comment further if and when I see a need after others have had a chance to comment. Please respect that. That is my right as an editor; people often take breaks from articles and talk pages. It does not imply that I have changed my thinking on these matters. Your continuing to try to push me into getting into an extensive debate is not appropriate, but I'll assume this time that your comments were made in good faith. BTW (and I certainly don't wish to assume too much), my not commenting here also is not a reason to archive this section again, especially since someone posted an RfC for the issues in this section; RfC's typically stay up for a month or so unless a consensus is reached earlier. Cresix (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a debate. It never was a debate. This talk page isn't actually for debating to begin with. It's for collaboratively working to improve the article. You have opposed the inclusion of certain content, and have gone as far as to remove it due to your opposition. It is not outside of reason that I would expect you to discuss why you opposed it so that the section could be cleaned up. But, I'm not seeing much use in continuing this in any case... since for all my trying, you appear to be quite adamant about refusing to clarify what (if any) issues there are. So, once again, if you decide to come back to the discussion and clarify what problems you have, I'd be happy to work with you to fix them. Until then, Jess_talk|_edits 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"since for all my trying, you appear to be quite adamant about refusing to clarify what (if any) issues there are": I'll ask you not to make misleading statements about my behavior. If I am taking a break from this section, it simply means I'm taking a break, not that I am "refusing" to do anything. You still have not completely dropped your pattern of personalizing this issue as being about me. Let me suggest that you make no further references to me, as you agreed to do. Otherwise, however, thanks for stating that you're willing to work on our differences. As I have said repeatedly, after others have had an opportunity to comment I may have more to say; the RfC has only been up a few days. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the alleged sex through the sheet misconception, I don't think the citation of Curb Your Enthusiasm is correct, since it seems to imply that the show affirms the misconception as fact. In fact I think it debunked the misconception. If I remember correctly, Larry is propositioned by a Hasidic Jewish woman. After debating with friends, he decides to bring a sheet with a hole anyway. The woman is shocked and insulted by this. Loniousmonk (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Loniousmonk, you are correct. The reference to curb your enthusiasm isn't being used as a citation for a place "someone got it wrong"; It's intended to establish notability of the misconception in media, etc. The section should stand on its own without the references to media appearances, but I think their addition adds something to the content. If you feel these are out of place, is there a way we could better phrase their inclusion to make that clear? Jess_talk|_edits 20:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Theres debate about whether these misconsceptions about jewish people are common and should be included in the article MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm Jewish and have never heard about any of these. Maybe if I lived in an area with a greater Jewish population I would have? InverseHypercube (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• I've definitely heard and believed that kosher food was blessed by a Rabbi, but hadn't heard the other ones before. I'm ethnically Jewish, but not religiously. VegaDark (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)