Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

4, 5 or 6 primary tastes?

This page states five tastes, the article on umami presents six, including "metallic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.64.130 (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I went to the umami page and checked out the reference for metallic as a taste - the claim seems dubious at best. The paper used in the citation only refers to a metallic taste which they found to be due to a smell process rather than a chemical receptor. Additionally, it's not clear to me that they were claiming that metallic is a basic taste, just that they were looking for the mechanism by which people sense the familiar "metallic" taste. At the moment, I've suggested its removal from umami if there's no objection over there. I don't think it should be added over here unless someone has compelling evidence. --0x0077BE (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As an addendum to my above note, the same "metallicity" type language using the same citations had been added to the Taste page. I've since removed them, but if you know more about it and would like to comment, I've added a section in the Taste talk page. --0x0077BE (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the shifting sands of reliable sources! I could have sworn that source supported "five", back when I verified it last year. --Lexein (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have also heard claims of that one particular taste receptor also works for tasting CO₂. Additionally, why is "spicy" or "peppery" not included in the list?--75.137.4.80 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a whole discussion appropriate for Talk:Taste, but as far as I know there are several additional proposed "basic tastes", pungency/piquancy (spicy) is one of them, but they haven't been proven to be basic tastes (i.e. it's only a basic taste if there are unique receptors for it), so until then we have the 5. --0x0077BE (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Fan Death

I noticed the fan death section of this article is written in a way that does not make it clear that the misconception is that you certainly cannot die from suffocation or hypothermia by sleeping in a sealed room with a fan on. It's worded as if it's a priori absurd. Additionally, I think the large number of quotes from people who believe in fan death are counter-intuitive. Here's my proposed rewording:

In South Korea, it is commonly believed that sleeping in a closed room with an electric fan running can be fatal - often attributing the cause of death to suffocation or hypothermia. The belief is so common that warnings about "fan death" are echoed by the Korean government and even knowledgable medical professionals - often advising citizens to set electric fans on timers or to sleep with doors left open. Unlike air conditioners, which actually transfer heat out of a room to cool it, fans merely move air around a room - increasing the evaporation of sweat and increasing the rate at which a hot body will reach thermal equilibrium with its environment. Due to energy losses and viscous dissipation, a fan will in fact slowly heat a room, and as such will not cause hypothermia. As fans do not affect the composition of the air at all, it is not possible that they could cause or exacerbate death by suffocation.

Before adding it I'll probably have to find a new reference for the thermal equilibrium thing, and the fact that fans do not alter the composition of air, but that shouldn't be particularly difficult. I think the new addition about fans being counter-productive at high temperatures is unnecessary, as there's no reason to believe that "counter-productive" means anything like "fatal", and the misconception is traditionally framed as suffocation (it is sometimes erroneously believed that the fans can "chop up" the oxygen molecules) or hypothermia (you become too cold because of the fan), and not anything about overheating due to the paltry contribution to the heat from the fan. --0x0077BE (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this change is an improvement to the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually you can become too hot from a fan, but someone deleted my addition. [1] Frankly, I feel like this is being either US-centric or South Korea-centric, as there is no doubt that there are places where 'fan death' by this means is plausible. But I'll admit, a problem I have with my source (even though it's an official EPA document) is that it claimed a "heat index" of 99 F was enough to make fans counterproductive, whereas surely it is the temperature only, being over 98.6 F, that matters. Wnt (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the misconception isn't that you can die from heat I felt that your addition wasn't really relevant to the rest of the section, and that it might be understood as proof that there is some substance to the belief after all. Sjö (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Sjö here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fans are extremely effective at cooling human bodies even at temperatures above 100 degrees. The fans increase circulation of air, thereby increasing the evaporation of sweat, which is an endothermic process, and will continue to provide cooling even at temperatures well into the 100's of degrees F. Other electrical appliances (without fans), therefore, are much more likely to create this incredibly unlikely scenario of death by heat you are positing for fans. There is really no validity to the "fan death" concept, from hypothermia, suffocation, or heat. siafu (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Evolution

(I've never edited a semi-protected page, but I'm trying to follow protocol by discussing this here. If this is the wrong way to begin a suggested edit, please let me know what protocol I should use)

I'd like to enhance the first point:

The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms.^[1]^[2] "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable,"^[3] and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation.^[4]

to read as follows:

The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity, nor does it imply a single unified theory; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms.^[5]^[6] "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable,"^[7] and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation.^[8]

Providing evidence for or against one aspect of the Theory of Evolution, does not necessarily provide any positive or negative evidence for other non-similar aspects of the Theory of Evolution.

This suggested change is brought to you by constant frustration when people (on both side of the issue) make stupid statements like "Because horses have grown bigger over the years, Genetic drift is a proven fact!!" or "Since Piltdown Man was a fraud, your evolutionarily stable strategy methodology is flawed!"

This additional concept is already written about in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory, and I am not 100% certain of the best way to cite/reference it. User:Svdsinner

I don't think I agree. The misconception is mostly about the equivocation fallacy regarding the term "theory" (equivocation is like if you say, "All rivers have banks. All banks have vaults, therefore, all rivers have vaults."). There's no need to specify any further than is already specified to clear up the misconception. --0x0077BE (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When reading your suggested text, it seemed really confusing. Only with your explanation did it make any sense. I suggest you try to reword it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Me or the original author? I am not the original author of this section. I think the unsigned comment above is from User:Svdsinner--0x0077BE (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to the original author. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Misconceptions about Wikipedia

I'm sorry for breaking convention in regard to suggesting new things to add, but I don't have enough time to do intensive research (I'm just about to pop out). So I'll just say that there are many well-documented misconceptions regarding Wikipedia that should be added to this page, probably the most notable one being that "because Wikipedia is an unreliable source, nothing you read in it is true". This is something that, as well as reading many articles about, I have witnessed many people say in real life... and it is actually rather infuriating because I know how heavily monitored all the articles are, and how tight the system is. I think these Wikipedia misconceptions should be discussed in this section of the talk page, so we can work out which are notable enough to be in the article.--Coin945 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Common misconceptions about wikipedia are not really common misconceptions. siafu (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Common misconceptions about Wikipedia are common misconceptions if they are sourced as such. There might be something we could use in articles that compare Wikipedia to other encyclopediae(correct plural form?), but we'd need it to be explicitly stated (NO:OR).Dr bab (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, here's one: "Now, this is Wikipedia, so anyone can go in there and change anything and a list of common misconceptions seems like a pretty great place to troll. That being said, every item on the list cites at least one source, often 3 or 4, which I assume means that the statement is accurate. I don’t look at the sources or anything, I just assume blue, superscript numbers are markers of truth. Somebody add that to the list of misconceptions."--Coin945 (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This source is not indicating that this is a common misconception, but is apparently falling prey to the supposed misconception. As such, use of this source for this purpose would be a violation of WP:OR. siafu (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This podcast starts off by saying: "In this episode I reveal the truth behind some common misconceptions about Wikipedia and discuss why and how you should embrace it in the classroom". An audio version is here --Coin945 (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

While this is a podcast, not generally a reliable source, it does appear to be a podcast created by university librarians, and so I'll leave that issue aside. Regardless, this merely identifies potential misconceptions without demonstrating their commonality. siafu (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There is also the Wikipedia:PressKit source here.--Coin945 (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be a source of information for other wikipedia articles; this one won't do us much good. siafu (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] --> all these sites have useful information about common misconceptions about Wikipedia too.--Coin945 (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Occupedia indicates "misconceptions about wikipedia", no indication of actual commonality.
- The Signal also doesn't establish commonality, but does attempt to do so with a number of interview quotes showing that misconceptions repeatedly came up. Would be WP:SYNTH to extrapolate to the rest of the population.
- Hispance Business Same problem as above, uses a quote from Mr. Wales regarding "common misconceptions about wikipedia".
- Wikipedia: The Company and Its Founders Not available for viewing. Can't evaluate easily-- anyone have access to a hard copy of this book?
- Moving at the Speed of Wikipedia This blog at least makes the claim that "many people" believe these misconceptions, but doesn't really demonstrate how this was determined beyond the author's opinion; as such, this falls for the usual pitfalls of blogs.
- Wikipedia essay Existence != Notability This is again wikipedia on wikipedia, not an acceptable source. siafu (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that none of these really demonstrate that these misconceptions are in fact common ones, merely that they exist. In order to demonstrate that these belong in this article, it needs to be clear from the sources that they are commonly held overall. siafu (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think there isn't enough evidence that these misconceptions are common, and what more would we have to provide to prove to you that they were?--Coin945 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

While these show that amongst people interacting with wikipedia, these misconceptions are common. The question that needs to be answered is whether or not these are misconceptions that are common to the population in general. Previously on this talk page, Hairhorn put this rather succintly:

There are common misconceptions about multivariable calculus, no one would suggest they are common misconceptions

The criteria listed at the top of this page put it more clearly, though. Also, as regards the first criterion, while some of these misconceptions may have wikipedia essays about them, this is not the same as having articles about them due to notability. I don't see anything in what you have presented so far that indicates that these are misconceptions actually held by a large segment of the population. I will respond to the individual source above, under each bullet. siafu (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been hearing from various teachers since grade school (both in Canada and US) that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" (and that one should use "traditional information sources" for research) despite numerous studies showing that Wikipedia is approximately as reliable and factually accurate as traditional encyclopedias. I would say that makes the unreliability of Wikipedia a pretty common misconception. Varodrig (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your personal experience does not substitute for a reliable source. We need actual sources to this effect. siafu (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read though every one of those sources Colin specified, but I'd like to point out some things in response to your argument that the sources don't say these misconceptions are common. First, with that podcast, the phrasing for the first sentence is "common misconceptions". Next, I found another link to an article on "dangerouslyirrelevant.org" (http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/2008/11/teaching-administrators-about-wikipedia.html). This is a ".org", so typically it should be a reliable source. Here is the main excerpt that gets the point across:

If all of this is true, then why are so many educators, librarians, and media specialists upset about Wikipedia?

The person doesn't go own to illustrate why the misconceptions are common. It is only substantiated by his or her opinion. However, as I said, this is a ".org" site, and we generally consider them reliable enough to rely on their opinions. Elsewhere on wikipedia, people take these opinions as reliable without giving it a second thought. I don't think the fact that they are unsubstantiated opinions is a strong enough argument against their inclusion in this article. Charles35 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Also:

https://p2pu.org/en/groups/open-access-wikipedia-challenge/content/wikipedia-philosophy/history/10400/

One fairly common misconception about Wikipedia is that it's hostile to experts. - again, a ".org".

I don't think you properly understand wikipedia's sourcing policies. Having a .org address does nothing to either render a source reliable or unreliable. siafu (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

However, as I said, this is a ".org" site, and we generally consider them reliable enough to rely on their opinions.

This is a ".org", so typically it should be a reliable source.

It might not technically make a difference on wikipedia, but overall, as a society, .org's are more reliable and we consider them to be more reliable.

Again, I don't think that the fact that they are not demonstrated to be common is a strong enough argument for exclusion from the article. 9 times out of 10, we will take the source's word for it. The fact that it is a .org is an added bonus. Charles35 (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, this doesn't seem to be such an important criterion for the other misconceptions listed here. For example, the footnote that talks about the life expectancy misconception (footnote #5 - http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/01/falsehood-if-this-was-the-ston/) doesn't give a study or anything like that about how common of a misconception it is. He says:

People often...

It is generally thought that...

The statement “I’m 40 years old, along with other statements of fact about “The Paleolithic” demonstrates widespread misconceptions about the past.

And I suspect that the vast majority of sources here do not go into any depth to mention how common these misconceptions are. Charles35 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Another example - if you look at footnote #36 for the Revolutionary War misconception, it says nothing at all about how common it is - http://www.breedshill.org/revolutionary_war_myths.htm.

There are so many misconceptions, inaccurate quotes, and downright lies told about the American Revolution...There’s a fine line between sharing what you know and telling someone they are wrong. Funny thing, people don’t like to be told they are wrong. During the last election and inauguration I kept finding my jaw on the floor as newscasters stated “facts” that I knew were wrong to millions of unsuspecting viewers. Not one of my helpful e-mails to various news departments got a response or a correction. - this is just this guy's opinion. He doesn't demonstrate anything. Charles35 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The claim:

It might not technically make a difference on wikipedia, but overall, as a society, .org's are more reliable and we consider them to be more reliable.

is both irrelevant, and also completely ridiculous. By this logic, timecube.org should be taken as "more reliable" than cnn.com. I believe you will find that the willingness of other editors to patiently explain policy is directly proportional to your own willingness to read the policies for yourself. In this case, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:SYNTH. Not that the science blog you linked to cites sources, and is on a site partnered with National Geographic, and that the claims made regarding the revolutionary war come from the Breeds Hill Institute, a historical society. The blogs you are citing have neither clear sourcing (or any, for that matter), nor a reliable endorsement (like being an official blog of a research institute, or on the front page of a respected newspaper like NYT). But that aside, apparently only three of the sources (all unsourced blogs) you put forward regarding common misconceptions about wikipedia even attempt to make assertions about commonality at all, and these aren't really reliable sources, despite having a .org address. It's important, lastly, to distinguish between assertions of fact (which are being discussed here) and matters of opinion. When a blogger (or anyone) states something like "X is a common misconeption", or "Y is believed by most people", this is an assertion of fact. It could be wrong, and it represents the opinion of the speaker about whether or not the statement is true, but the statement itself is not an opinion as ultimately the statement is either true or false, with a certain allowance for ambiguity in the meaning of the words "most" or "common". The way wikipedia works is that the source itself is either held as reliable or not, not the facts within that source, so these statements coming from a reliable source are to be accepted for wikipedia or not. siafu (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

^ I said "overall, as a society". I am not saying that every single .org is more reliable than every single non-.org. I never said it's so cut and dry. It's just a tendency. However, this is not that big of a deal and largely irrelevant. Charles35 (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I havent had the chance to revisit this conversation for a while, but if i had, I would have basically argued the exact same thing Charles35 has above: Siafu, why are you giving overly-strict restrictions on this topic, when these restrictions have been given to hardly any, perhaps none at all, of the sources already in the article? Theoretically, if what we have provided if still not enoguh for us to discuss the common misconceptions of Wikipedia, what more must we add? Doy ou need to see the same misconception discussed into over 100 sources before you consider its "commonality" proven? I just don't understand how you can be so (excuse my french) anal in this matter, when it simply seems unreasonable... :/--Coin945 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Siafu, please don't get caught up on the .org side issue. Let's stick to the matter at hand.--Coin945 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Displaying ignorance of wikipedia policy, and then accusing me of being anal for pointing it out, is entirely inappropriate. Your "french" is also not excused-- see WP:NPA. siafu (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack or not (i don't think that was a PA at all, but...) please can you answer my question? I can't comment on your analyses of the links i provided until i can get some idea of what you 'mean' by common misconceptions. How common must a misconception be until you are satisfied of it's commonality.--Coin945 (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get too worked up over this. The bottom line is that siafu is technically justified in excluding these misconceptions from the article. However, if we stick to siafu's principles, then we must remove most, if not all, of the ones that are already here. As colin said, let's not focus on the .org thing or the difference between assertions of fact and opinions; that doesn't really matter. But I contend that not only in this article, but in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia, we consider the "assertions of fact" made by reliable sources to be appropriate for inclusion (even if not substantiated by a study). I believe these sources are reliable. Honestly, your points about this source compared to the historical source weren't very clear, so I'm not sure what you meant.

And this is nothing personal against you. I hope it doesn't come across that way. Charles35 (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What would satisfy my objections would be reliable and verifiable sources that make the actual claims in question, namely that the particular misconceptions about wikipedia that are being discussed by the source are, in fact, widespread misconceptions. The book cited earlier, Wikipedia: The Company and Its Founders, may well already satisfy this for all I know (really, if anyone has access to this book, this could be resolved rather quickly). Otherwise, something similar to the blog posts (which actually do make the commonality claim) but from a more reliable source would probably do it. I should note that your statement: "...in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia, we consider the "assertions of fact" made by reliable sources to be appropriate for inclusion..." is exactly the point I was trying to make in the discussion of fact vs. opinion, and is not just true for the "vast majority" of articles, but is in fact representative of the policy for all articles on wikipedia. If it seems that I 'hung on' to the .org issue, it is simply because, while you seem to be willing to spend time reading the sources (commendable), you are obviously not reading the policy pages (just as important in this discussion), which, IMO, would clear up the whole sourcing confusion for you. Also, I'm going out of the country for awhile, so I won't be around to be "so anal" for awhile. siafu (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the p2p source is unreliable... I can see why you'd say the dangerouslyirrelevant source is unreliable because it's just a blog post, but I don't get what the problem with p2p is. Forgive me, I don't know much about p2p, and I couldn't find out from just looking at the website - is it a blog as well?

Also, I have seen sources like these allowed on wikipedia plenty of times. If you want, I can look through the sources already used here and let you know which ones are just as poor as these. I speculate that many of them are. I don't have access to that book, sorry. And please know that we aren't "ganging up" on you or anything like that. I am not going to add anything to the article before you agree to it and we come to a consensus on the sources. Charles35 (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Change layout of this talk page?

At the moment, previously discussed and resolved points are erased. This is unfortunate, because the topics might be debated multiple times, and people's useful contributions are lost. I feel it would be worthwhile changing the structure of this talk page into 3 main sections like below: 80.7.96.98 (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Old entries are not erased, they are archived. There are now 17 pages of archive material. Agree that old topics often come up again and again - perhaps a "sticky' list with pointers to previous discussions would be useful, but I don't think changing this page's structure, thereby making it out of step with all the other talk pages on Wikipedia, is a good idea. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps then a 'sticky list' as you suggest, with summary a link to the debate, is the right thing to do. I too don't think it would be fair to expect any potential contributor to wade through megabytes of unnavigable material. And is there evidence of it ever happening? Some structure to facilitate navigation I feel would be beneficial in allowing potential contributors to see if they would be actually contributing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.96.98 (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

////////////////BEGIN example of proposed new layout ////////////////////////////////////////////

Debates about current entries

Here existing entries are being actively discussed. Once some consensus is reached, or the debate has ended, please summarise the arguments and conclusion, and make an entry in either the #Removed entries and rejected suggestions or the #Resolved debates on current entries section, depending on whether the entry stays or goes.

History

Emancipation Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation did, in fact, free the slaves in Southern territories occupied by the Union army. Also, as news of the proclamation spread quickly among the slaves, it inspired a number of slaves to escape their Southern masters to the North. It is true that it did not free the slaves in Northern states loyal to the Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.239.159 (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Science

Psychology

"Photographic or eidetic memory is the ability to remember images with high precision—so high as to mimic a camera. However, it is highly unlikely that photographic memory exists, as to date there is no hard scientific evidence that anyone has ever had it... There are rare cases of individuals with exceptional memory, but none of them has a memory that mimics a camera."
I believe this to be false - what about the case of Stephen Wiltshire, an autistic architect who was able to reproduce an entire cityscape in minute detail after one tour over the city in a helicopter? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Wiltshire and http://www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk/biography.aspx )

Please provide a source that corroborates this view; I don't believe that Mr. Wiltshire's personal website is acceptable. siafu (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Biology

Bananas do not grow on trees. There is no "true" or correct definition of what a tree is or what it is not. The only approximately universal definition is "A plant with a stem that hold the leaves a long way above the ground". Since the banana meets this definition and is accepted to as a tree by the UN FAO (http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/t7540e/T7540E04.htm), and many university professors (http://people.umass.edu/psoil370/Syllabus-files/Agroforestry_Principles.pdf, http://www.as.miami.edu/qr/arboretum/what_is_a_tree.html), it is hardly a myth to call it a tree. I'm sure many people do not consider bananas to be trees. The real myth here seems to be that there is some standard of "tree" that is accepted by a majority of botanists that can be applied plants to determine whether they are trees.Mark Marathon (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Proposing addition to "Evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.": (This misconception might mainly originate from the over simplification that entropy is disorder. Which is about as good an approximation as saying that gravity is "everything drops down".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.191.211.68 (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for new entries

Biology

There is no such dinosaur as a brontosaurus

Apatosaurus is the correct name. There are articles such as BBC Focus magazine: Brontosaurus to back this up. I for one wasn't aware of this until a short while ago. 80.7.96.98 (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just that the scientific community has decided to discard the name "brontosaurus", which is not the same thing at all. This is not a misconception, just a matter of science and popular parlance being out of step on synonyms. See our article. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think 80.7.96.98 intended this as an example of the proposed new layout, not as a serious suggestion to be discussed here. But I may be mistaken. If so, I agree with Dweller. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed this was somewhat to illustrate a proposal for a new layout. Having googled around a little, this article by Mike Tailor, along with the comments above, should pack the brontosaurus off to the land of #Removed entries and rejected suggestions. Mr. Swordfish , it's early days, but do you think there's a chance this new layout could be working out? 80.7.96.98 (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

...do you think there's a chance this new layout could be working out?

Emphatically, no. It's just confusing people, and the sooner it's archived out, the better. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if this isn't going to be adopted then fair enough.. It might not get archived automatically, though, since not all the sections have valid timestamps. If you want to purge it, I'll not grumble. 80.7.96.98 (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Language

I think there ought to be a section devoted to human language, with the current content of "English Words and Phrases" as a subsection. Some rough proposals:

Myth: Writing is fundamental to human language, and provides the best means for understanding the structure and use of a language as a whole.

Though in many societies literacy is a matter of prime social and economic importance, writing is a technological invention much more recent than spoken language, is often used for a narrower set of purposes (e.g. for trade or scholarship but not conversation), and is not as widespread or diverse. In fact, most spoken languages are not normally written down. Therefore, linguists more commonly consider the spoken language to be the primary object of study, though textual artifacts can be an important source of evidence (for instance, in philology and corpus linguistics).

Myth: Sign language is essentially a form of pantomiming, less complex and conventionalized than spoken language.

Gestures, hand shapes, and facial expressions, which take a secondary role in spoken language, become the primary mode of communication in a signed language. The grammatical complexity, communicative power, and regularity of a sign language is no different than that of a spoken language.^[9] Different sign languages vary and develop naturally over time just like spoken languages. American Sign Language, for example, is not a word-for-word translation of English.^[10]

Myth: Hereditary factors predispose individuals to learn to speak some languages more easily than others.

While much about language acquisition is disputed, children are capable of natively acquiring any language given sufficient exposure at the right age. Inability to do so is attributed to a mental or communicative deficit or disability.

Myth: After a certain age, it is impossible to become fluent in a new language.

Many factors are believed to influence one's ability to learn a nonnative or "second" language, a process known as second language acquisition. It is relatively rare for a nonnative speaker to acquire fully native-like abilities, but many adults succeed at becoming fluent in a second language.

Also, the paragraph about nonstandard/slang words in English could be generalized to a statement about prescriptivism vs. descriptivism. --neatnate (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Geography

Possibly also a new section on misconceptions about geography? Starting Proposal (although I'm sure users can contribute many more):

The canary islands name is not derived from the bird (named after latin word for dog), nor the whistling language that is spoken there (as I believed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.102.189 (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved this query to a new section at the bottom of the page, where it is easier to spot. Dr bab (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Physics

Removed entries and rejected suggestions

Here is a list of things that have been removed from the article, or never made it on there, along with a brief rationale. You should disrupt the timestamp in the entries here, otherwise the archive bot will remove them after a couple of weeks.

Human Biology

Exposure to cold weather leads to the common cold

This is not a misconception, it is perhaps a controversy. See Common cold#Weather.

History

The Dark Ages where not as (intellectually) bleak as common wisdom suggests

The arguments put in support of this were fallacies, unsourced or non sequitur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qed (talk • contribs) 02:14, 21st Dec '12

Resolved debates on current entries

Here is a list of the more debated topics, organised in a manner similar to the article. Each entry should have a brief rationale about why the topic is broadly justified. You should disrupt the timestamp in the entries here, otherwise the archive bot will remove them after a couple of weeks.

////////////////END example of proposed new layout ////////////////////////////////////////////

Merge instead to Urban Legends

As noted at top, Internet Urban Legends was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 12 December 2012 with a consensus to merge the content here. Look at the debate: not really consensus, just a late proposal, an agree, and close.
But I think Internet Urban Legends should be merged into Urban Legends, as was suggested earlier in that discussion. Comment/!vote ? --Lexein (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Support as nom. --Lexein (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Moot There is really no useable information in the article to be merged (beyond the Blair Witch Project mention), so it frankly doesn't matter what we "officially" do with it. siafu (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Question Were the editors of List of common misconceptions notified of the merge discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Only by the placement of the topmost merge tag you see here. --Lexein (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears as if the merge discussion[8] was closed at the same time we were notified of it.[9] Shouldn't we have been notified the discussion was talking place before the close so we could participate in that discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, now that I take a closer look at that article, I don't think there's any content that's usable for this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Support as nom. My take:

1) The editors of this page should have been notified before and merge decision was made and the discussion closed.

2) Reading the discussion, it is far from clear that merging it into this article received anything close to what might be called consensus.

3) There's no usable content in the current version of the article, so the issue is probably moot.

4) Looking at previous versions of that article, there may be some things that could have been preserved; if so, I would vote to merge Internet Urban Legends into Urban Legends, not this article.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Misconceptions about meteorites

"Frictional heating then melts a meteor's outside layer"

This statement is incorrect. The heating is due to the compression of the air in front of the meteorite as it falls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.170.233 (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

US centric

Most of the examples in the history sections relate to western and particularly American history. What would people think about either changing the titles of these sections to reflect this or pruning out some of the less notable American history examples? Garemoko (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think that it would be better to find more examples based in other countries, rather than just prune sourced content here. --Lexein (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think that it would be better to delete the whole article. It's a mish-mash of often poorly sourced, arbitrarily chosen items with, as Garemko says, a massive US bias due to the massive American systemic bias in our editor base, allowing what is effectively voting to overrule common sense in allowing entries here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should keep the overall structure as is, splitting sections or the entire article can wait. Regarding pruning of less notable American examples, I say they should definetely be pruned if they are not notable or (as HiLo48 claims, and which is probably frequently the case) poorly sourced. We need to do it on a case by case basis though: find an item that seems unworthy of inclusion, post it to the talk page, then improve/remove.

Regarding US-centric items (or elsewhere-centric), it would be beneficial if the location of the misconception is clear from the entry on here.

Regardging the general state of the article and the inclusion/deletion debate, I think it would be very hard to get the list deleted, and would advocate improvement within the inherent limitations.

Dr bab (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's bloody impossible to get the list deleted. We tried. Everyone who has ever added an item is an owner, so argues against it. Again, voting works. Logic, and creation of a great encyclopaedia doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

tech/computing - sweeping claim

a simple edit i'd do if i could. there are currently two sentences in the computing section: the first sentence cites an emag article based on data from a single firm (that may as well have been written by the firm's CEO, btw... but that doesn't discount the data) which near the end says "Secunia agreed that straightforward comparisons aren't possible,..."; the rest (of the wiki entry) reads "Although much less frequently than computers running Microsoft Windows, they can and do get malware" and cites an article about a single mac virus. while it may be true in numerical terms, in that there are more pcs than macs, that is not the subject of the cited article, which doesn't mention any statistics or comparison of any kind. so imo delete the second line, but you could keep the citation and attach it to the first sentence as an example of mac malware. otherwise quite an interesting read... thanks 203.213.90.41 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Banana trees, again

The latest edit makes the "bananas do not grow on trees"-entry almost absurd: "Bananas do not grow on trees, but on herbs that are considered trees". Time to remove this whole thing once and for all? This was discussed before. Personally, I do not think that inconsistancies between biological and dictionary definitions are misconceptions. (We have removed the one about tomatoes not being vegetables). Dr bab (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not an inconsistency between biological and dictionary definitions. I've provided references to universities, journals and the FAO that state that bananas are trees. The problem is that there is simply no biological definition of a tree. Every botanist makes up his own definition to suit his purpose. Some of those botanical definitions exclude bananas, some exclude palms, some even exclude oaks. And some do not. The problem is that somebody somewhere has got the impression that there is a single, widely-used botanical definition of a tree when there is no such thing. As it stands, I've worded it so that the misconception is that bananas are not trees, when in fact they are. But as I lay out below, the whole article is error ridden and fails Wikipedia own policy guidelines. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I say this definitely needs to be removed. Dr bab (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the banana tree entry should be removed. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

US centric

Most of the examples in the history sections relate to western and particularly American history. What would people think about either changing the titles of these sections to reflect this or pruning out some of the less notable American history examples? Garemoko (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think that it would be better to find more examples based in other countries, rather than just prune sourced content here. --Lexein (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think that it would be better to delete the whole article. It's a mish-mash of often poorly sourced, arbitrarily chosen items with, as Garemko says, a massive US bias due to the massive American systemic bias in our editor base, allowing what is effectively voting to overrule common sense in allowing entries here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should keep the overall structure as is, splitting sections or the entire article can wait. Regarding pruning of less notable American examples, I say they should definetely be pruned if they are not notable or (as HiLo48 claims, and which is probably frequently the case) poorly sourced. We need to do it on a case by case basis though: find an item that seems unworthy of inclusion, post it to the talk page, then improve/remove.

Regarding US-centric items (or elsewhere-centric), it would be beneficial if the location of the misconception is clear from the entry on here.

Regardging the general state of the article and the inclusion/deletion debate, I think it would be very hard to get the list deleted, and would advocate improvement within the inherent limitations.

Dr bab (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's bloody impossible to get the list deleted. We tried. Everyone who has ever added an item is an owner, so argues against it. Again, voting works. Logic, and creation of a great encyclopaedia doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

tech/computing - sweeping claim

a simple edit i'd do if i could. there are currently two sentences in the computing section: the first sentence cites an emag article based on data from a single firm (that may as well have been written by the firm's CEO, btw... but that doesn't discount the data) which near the end says "Secunia agreed that straightforward comparisons aren't possible,..."; the rest (of the wiki entry) reads "Although much less frequently than computers running Microsoft Windows, they can and do get malware" and cites an article about a single mac virus. while it may be true in numerical terms, in that there are more pcs than macs, that is not the subject of the cited article, which doesn't mention any statistics or comparison of any kind. so imo delete the second line, but you could keep the citation and attach it to the first sentence as an example of mac malware. otherwise quite an interesting read... thanks 203.213.90.41 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Banana trees, again

The latest edit makes the "bananas do not grow on trees"-entry almost absurd: "Bananas do not grow on trees, but on herbs that are considered trees". Time to remove this whole thing once and for all? This was discussed before. Personally, I do not think that inconsistancies between biological and dictionary definitions are misconceptions. (We have removed the one about tomatoes not being vegetables). Dr bab (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not an inconsistency between biological and dictionary definitions. I've provided references to universities, journals and the FAO that state that bananas are trees. The problem is that there is simply no biological definition of a tree. Every botanist makes up his own definition to suit his purpose. Some of those botanical definitions exclude bananas, some exclude palms, some even exclude oaks. And some do not. The problem is that somebody somewhere has got the impression that there is a single, widely-used botanical definition of a tree when there is no such thing. As it stands, I've worded it so that the misconception is that bananas are not trees, when in fact they are. But as I lay out below, the whole article is error ridden and fails Wikipedia own policy guidelines. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I say this definitely needs to be removed. Dr bab (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the banana tree entry should be removed. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are the US Dept of Energy and University of Arizona not reliable sites

Swordfish, you have reverted two of my edits with an assertion that the references are not reliable. Can you please explain why you believe this.

The first reference is to the US Dept of Energy website, specifically to a statement made by this scientist ( http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/scicorps/calder_v.htm ). On what grounds is he and/or or his government department not a reliable source?

The second is to a page from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, The University of Arizona. Can you explain how a University's College of Agriculture is not a reliable source on an agricultural crop?

I look forward to your explanation of why these are not reliable sources.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/teachers/ is a crowd-sourced site and is not a reliable source.

No, it isn't crowd sourced. Where did you get that idea? The website lists the names of the freakin' scientists working for it. It is in no sense crowdsoucred.

http://cals.arizona.edu/fps/sites/cals.arizona.edu.fps/files/cotw/Sunflower.pdf is unsigned and appears to be someone's homework posted on a university server.

Absolute nonsense. It is part of the College of Agriculture's extension service(http://cals.arizona.edu/fps/) which features a Crop of the Week section (http://cals.arizona.edu/fps/COTW).

Nothing suggests that this is homework. If you can provide even a scintilla of evidence that this is anyting other than a standard extension brochure produced by the faculty of the university, I will take your claims seriously. But since it appears on the university's extension website, and since it doesn't say anything that multiple other references do not also say, this is not valid grounds for reverting multiple edits.Mark Marathon (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because a document is posted on a university server does not mean it has any academic credentials. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And just because you claim that an extension brochure on a univeristy website is "homework" does not mean it lacks academic credentials.Mark Marathon (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I do have to jump in on this one, without trying to cast a finalized opinion on this particular source, to point out that you are suggesting a reversal of the burden of proof. Sources are unreliable unless proven otherwise, not the other way round. siafu (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd also add that your addition to the article "glass is a highly viscous liquid that flows very slowly" is exactly the opposite of what's stated in the sources. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course.

One website says "a simple definition of a glass is a liquid with a viscosity that is 10,000,000,000,000 times larger than the viscosity of water"

ANother says ". A “glass” is a high viscosity “liquid”."

Yet another says glass "can flow, albeit very slowly. Over long periods of time, the molecules making up the glass shift themselves to settle into a more stable, crystal like formation"

A fourth says glass "never "freezes" into a solid. It just forms a stiffer and stiffer liquid! ...glass is very different from ordinary liquids

A fifth says "There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?". In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter that is neither liquid nor solid. The difference is semantic. "

But when I make an edit stating that glass is a high viscosity liquid that flows slowly over very long periods of time, that is clearly "exactly the opposite of what's stated in the sources". Clearly these sources really say that glass is a solid, with no viscosity, that never flows over any period of time.

Is that really your contention swordfish? That the references really say that glass is a solid, with no viscosity, that never flows over any period of time.?Mark Marathon (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with swordfish; you are misrepresenting the claims of the sources. Certainly, glass is not a fluid, as it does not deform continuously under stress but rather discontinuously (by breaking). The SciAm quote actually states the opposite of your contention, i.e. that with time glass becomes more like a crystalline solid-- this is somewhat akin to the curing of concrete over months, well after it has hardened into a solid. Indeed, a better characterization of SciAm's view is better described by this closing quote: A mathematical model shows it would take longer than the universe has existed for room temperature cathedral glass to rearrange itself to appear melted.The fact that there is no clear dividing line between the solid and liquid phases is also a red herring; this does not mean that there is not a clear distinction between cooled and hardened glass, and free-flowing liquid glass at high temperatures. This is also somewhat analogous to the behavior of water at high temperatures and pressures where the distinction between liquid and gas because similarly fuzzy; this does not mean that there is no difference between water vapor and water. Can you provide a source that says that glass flows like a liquid at room temperature? Extant samples of glass from, say, the Roman Empire show no apparent signs of flowing, despite the thousands of years of intervening time. Similar claims have been made about metals, for example, and though metals display a number of liquid-like characteristics, there are some, like common steel, that will theoretically never flow, despite these otherwise liquid characteristics.

Clearly, the question of glass is more complicated than the simpleminded liquid-solid dichotomy would suggest, but there is certainly a common misconception, which is that old glass objects, like windows, have "run" or "flowed" since they were created. These beliefs have been proven to be completely bogus, and there are plenty of sources to attest to both the commonality of these beliefs, and to their inaccuracy [10]. SciAm, for example, says the following:

In medieval European cathedrals, the glass sometimes looks odd. Some panes are thicker at the bottom than they are at the top. The seemingly solid glass appears to have melted. This is evidence, say tour guides, Internet rumors and even high school chemistry teachers, that glass is actually a liquid. And, because glass is hard, it must be a supercooled liquid.

Glass, however, is actually neither a liquid—supercooled or otherwise—nor a solid. It is an amorphous solid—a state somewhere between those two states of matter. And yet glass's liquidlike properties are not enough to explain the thicker-bottomed windows, because glass atoms move too slowly for changes to be visible.

This establishes that 1. The belief that glass is a liquid that flows at room temperature is commonly-held, 2. That glass does not flow, and 3. That glass is, in fact, not a liquid but an amorphous solid. This is an RS supporting the current statement in the list, not one opposing it. siafu (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So let's take this one point at a time:

1)Is it agreed that there are reliable sources that state that glass is a liquid? If so, do we accept that the statement "glass is a liquid" can be included in the article? If not, what is the precise objection?

2) Is it agreed that there are reliable sources that state that glass is a high viscosity liquid? If so, do we accept that the statement "glass is a high viscosity liquid" can be included in the article? If not, what is the precise objection?

3) Is it agreed that there are reliable sources that state that 'Glass flows just like liquids do"? (http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/05/050622.jamming.shtml ) If so, do we accept that the statement "Glass flows just like liquids do" can be included in the article? If not, what is the precise objection?

We'll leave it there for now. All these statements appear to be well referenced and not open to any sort of "misrepresentation", so I assume that nobody will object to them being added. We can get down to the nitty gritty once we have seen whether there is any suggestion that these statements have been misrepresented somehow.

FTR, nobody is disputing that glass windows are not thicker at the bottom because the glass has flowed. What is being dispute are the claims that glass is not a liquid, is not highly viscous and does not flow like a liquid. Since we have reputable sources that clearly make all these claims, I am assuming their inclusion will be uncontroversial. We can then take it from there.Mark Marathon (talk)

The claims that "glass is a liquid" all hinge on the fact that the classical understandings of the phases of matter do not capture the whole story. We could similarly argue that matter itself does not exist, since it is, in fact, only empty space and rest energy, per nuclear physics and general relativity. This, however, is being overly particular as it implies that this advanced understanding is both the final one (surely it isn't) and that the classical understanding fails to represent anything at all, which is also clearly untrue. Newtonian mechanics, for example, while failing to properly describe all dynamics, does a sufficiently fine job for colleagues of mine to calculate the positions of orbitting satellites to the level of centimeters well in advance. But, to take your points one at a time:

1)There are sources which "state" this, but none do so in the unqualified manner in which you are suggesting. As I noted above, the SciAm source actually states that glass is an "amorphous solid", and not, strictly speaking, a liquid. Simply claiming that the sources make glass out to be a liquid, like water or maple syrup, is misrepresenting what they actually say. So no, we are not agreed, at least on the phrasing you are using.
2)This is basically the same as #1, with only slightly more specificity, so I would reiterate the argument.
3)~~The source does not contain the quote~~ Apparently, it does say "Glass flows just like liquids do" btw, ~~and~~ again, this article makes a more in-depth and nuanced discussion of the topic than that statement would imply. Glass does not flow like water and maple syrup, or even like mineral oil (a la the oil drop experiment), and nobody claims that it does. Again, as SciAm pointed out, it would take timescales longer than the age of the universe for glass to flow in this manner, and on these timescales all matter is mutable, and in fact many of the atomic nuclei in glass would not last long enough for this to occur. So again, no, we are not agreed, again because of the over-simplified and misrepresented phrasing being used here. Addendum The source also says: “Glass doesn’t flow at all on even enormous time scales and really is jammed,” Corwin said. But under certain conditions, both glasses and granular materials begin flowing like liquids.

Given all this, and given that this article is not an article on the advanced physics topics required to truly understand the issue, I don't see any objection to simply using the more classical understandings of solid and liquid that are known to most people-- i.e., the very same people who are given to believe that the wider bases of windows are due to glass flowing over time. Given their own, not entirely inaccurate, views on solids and liquids, the claim that "glass is a liquid" would be patently and unequivocably false. siafu (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

1) Firstly, there is no see no evidence provided for this assertion. How much more unqualified can an author get than stating "A simple definition of a glass is a liquid with a viscosity that is 10,000,000,000,000 times larger than the viscosity of water "? If that isn't an unqualified statement tha glass is a viscous liquid, I don't know what is. Perhaps it coudl be explained what it is about that statement that you think is "qualified". And secondly, if it is misrepresenting sources to say that they make glass out to be a liquid, then in what sense is it also not misrepresenting them to claim that they make out that glass is not a liquid? If it is accepted (without evidence) that it is misrepresentation to claim that glass is a liquid, then it must also be misrepresentation to claim that glass is not a liquid, as the article currently does.
2)And I reiterate my objections: there is no evidence provided that it misrepresents the sources when to directly quotes them, and if it is misrepresentational to claim that glass is a viscous liquid, how can it must be just as misrepresentational to claim that glass is not a viscous liquid, as the article currently does.
3)The source most certainly does contain the quote "Glass flows just like liquids do". "Glass flows just like liquids do, but at such a super-sluggish pace that for all practical purposes it takes on the appearance of a solid at room temperature." If you want another"In a sense that glass can flow (even at very slow rate), it can be sometimes considered as supercooled liquid rather than true solid." ( http://micro.stanford.edu/~caiwei/Forum/2004-12-12-MD++/oldfiles/M02_MD++.pdf ) Those are a direct quotes of the entire sentences. As for the rest of this, again their is no evidence provided for any of it. No evidence that it is mirepresentational. And again, if "glass is a liquid" is "patently and unequivocably false" then the claim "glass is not a liquid" must also be "patently and unequivocably false".

At this stage, I'm not seeing anything that actually precludes the inclusion of the material as per WP policies. The material is verifiable. It is an accurate and complete quote from the authors, and the authors are reliable sources. Claims that direct quotes are somehow misrepresentational, without any evidence to that end, are not sufficient reason for reversion of the material. And just as importantly, the objection hinges entirely on the subject being so complex that it can't be accurately represented by direct quotes showing that about glass being a liquid that flows. But it has not been shown why this is more of a misrepresentation than the current statements that glass is not a liquid and that glass does not flow.

So perhaps we could see some objections based upon actual evidence or WP policy, rather than unverifiable claims that it is misrepresentational. And especially, we need some evidence that these claims are more inaccurate or misrepresentaional than the current claims that glass is a solid and that glass does not flow. Mark Marathon (talk)

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this, but the sources do not make the arguments you claim they are making. You are basically cherry-picking quotes to suit a particular view. The University of Chicago source quotes the author of the study as saying that "Glass doesn’t flow at all on even enormous time scales and really is jammed". Saying that this source characterizes glass as a liquid is entirely misleading; if anything, it characterizes is a collection of granular particulates, more like sand, and even then only under certain situations. The Stanford source contains the quote:

Glass is one of counter-examples, which is noncrystalline. We call it as amorphous material. In a sense that glass can flow (even at very slow rate), it can be sometimes considered as supercooled liquid rather than true solid.

Even this source is saying that glass is an amorphous material, that can only sometimes be classified as a supercooled liquid. Claiming that it says that glass flows just like liquids do is clearly misleading. siafu (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I should add that the only mention of the word "glass" in the Stanford source is in a footnote, and that the subject of the article is a description of a software package meant for analyzing crystalline structures. I doubt this particular source would satisfy WP:RS for this topic. siafu (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeating an assertion does not make it true. Nor does it constitute an argument. The sources do make the arguments I claim they are making. I can provide quotes of where they do make those arguments.

And we still have no evidence that these claims are more inaccurate or misrepresentaional or cherry picked than the current claims that glass is a solid and that glass does not flow.

Present some evidence that the quotes are misleading, not opinion, not original research, actual evidence. Present some evidence that these claims are more inaccurate or misrepresentational or cherry picked than the current claims that glass is a solid and that glass does not flow. Because until you can do that there are no grounds for removing the quotes. All we have is your baseless assertions vs my baseless assertions and direct quotes. Per WP policy, that means they get included. I contend that scientists believe that glass flows very slowly, and provide quotes to that effect. I contend that scientists believe that glass is a liquid, and can provide quotes to that effect. I contend that scientists believe Glass has the properties of a liquid and can be considered a liquid,and can provide quotes to that effect. You have no actual evidence that scientists do not believe those things. All you have presented is your assertion that the direct quotes are misrepresentational. I have evidence that they do believe them: their own words. Mark Marathon (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The "evidence" is the more complete quotes from those articles that I have presented. It's right there, look up. In all of the cases you've put forward, you have claimed that the sources support the view that glass is unequivocally a liquid, and in each of those cases I have shown that a more thorough reading of the sources in question shows that they don't present that view, but rather more complicated ones. Specifically: the U of C article specifically says that glass does not flow when quoting the author of the study, and compares it to sand instead of a liquid, and the Stanford source, in addition to being rather irrelevant on this topic, only says that glass can sometimes be treated as a liquid and is in fact an amorphous solid. The sources do not support the contention that scientists think that glass flows very slowly (some say emphatically that it doesn't flow at all, others say it's on timescales longer than the age of the universe), or that it is a liquid, merely that it can be treated like one in certain situations. Really, the misconception is pretty simple, and even making these more nuanced statements requires a very close reading of the concepts of "liquid" and "solid" that are way beyond the appropriate level for this, or almost any, article. siafu

(talk) 05:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you continue to disagree with the above, then I would suggest you do not have a solid understanding of wikipedia policy here. The best way forward is probably to start an RfC; feel free to do so, as I'd welcome outside input on this question. siafu (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed that anything was unequivocal. My sole contention is that it is no more equivocal than the current claims that glass is not a liquid, that glass is not viscous and that glass does not flow. I never claimed anything was unequivocal. The only claims that anything is unequivocal is the unequivocal claim that glass is a solid and that it does not flow and that it is not sa viscous liquid. Those are all claims that are represented in the article as unequivocal fact.

You have still presented no evidence that my claims misrepresent the sources.

And you still have totally failed to explain why my claims are more equivocal, less representative and more cherry picked than the claims already in the article. Why do you keep ignoring this issue? If a claim about whether glass is a liquid or solid has to be unequivocal for inclusion, then it seems we have to remove all statements about whether glass is a liquid or a solid, because any claim about the state of glass is going to be equivocal. Why does your preferred claim get to be included even if equivocal, but anything that challenges the claim have to be unequivocal?Mark Marathon (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a vote, but I support Siafu's reading of the sources.Dr bab (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I also support this reading and think the entry as currently written is an accurate description of the literature. If we're going to change it, let's try to reach consensus on any changes here on the talk page first. I also agree with Siafu below that there's no point in further engagement with Mark. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, Mark Marathon, if you want to go on like, start an RfC. I have some ideas of how we could rephrase the entry in the article to better reflect the sources here, but so long as you continue to hold this position (i.e., that it is impossible to continue), there's really no point. siafu (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

AN/I report

To Mr Swordfish - I told you so. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this comment? siafu (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ask Mr Swordfish. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am asking you, in the hope that you are not simply intentionally antagonizing other editors. siafu (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. I think I've got the time and energy to try to go over this again, again.... Earlier in these discussions I expressed an opinion that the whole article should be deleted because it's effectively unmanageable. Mr Swordfish, with less experience with this article and hence a much more positive outlook for it, expressed his view that it should be easy to remove and clean up a lot of the garbage. I repeated my view that there are too many "owners" of items here (maybe at least one different one for every item), and it's an unwinnable war. Ignoring my concerns (as of course is his right) Mr Swordfish began his cleanup project. In less than a day, he was take to AN/I for his extremely well intentioned and good faith efforts. In my mind this clearly demonstrated my point about the systemic problems with this article, and I simply wanted to draw his attention to proof of my point. The problems with this article are unsolvable. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I get that there's an edit war, you don't need to explain that. I'm trying to point out that comments like that only threw fuel on the fire, rather than working towards resolution. siafu (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone post a link to the AN/I discussion? I don't see it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mr swordfish reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Protected). You will note that the result is that right now nobody can work on fixing the article. It's unfixable! HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We certainly can work on it, right here on the talk page. It's only unfixable so long as you're not even bothering to try to fix it. siafu (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to fix it for bloody years!!!! You Johnny-come-latelys with your hypothetical wisdom, ignoring those with more experience on this article, just give me the screaming irrits. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to fix it by making snarky comments? Us "Johnny-come-latelys" should be exactly what you've been hoping for, and yet all you can do is continue to fight as if there's a war going on. siafu (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I said, based on years of experience here, that it can't be fixed. None of the poorly informed comments you have made so far, nor the failed attempts at fixing it, have convinced me otherwise. It about time you showed respect for MY views! HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your "view" is that we should give and go away. If you believe that, then lead by example. As it is, all you seem to be doing is trying to get in the way of improving this article by repeatedly claiming that it "can't be done", and then gloating when resistance is met. There's no respect to be offered; either list this article for deletion, help improve it, or leave. There's no productive end to your current line of argument. siafu (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, my view is not that we should give up and go away. Don't try to tell me and the rest of the world what I'm thinking and what I mean. HiLo48 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because you haven't used the actual words I chose to paraphrase, doesn't mean you haven't been advocating this view. In your own words: "The problems with this article are unsolvable." "I'm quite sick of newcomers telling me that our policies should be able to manage this article, when I'm telling them, from years of practical experience, that they don't.", "Our processes don't work for this article.", "It's bloody impossible to get the list deleted. We tried." So basically, you're arguing that it's impossible to improve it, and it's impossible to get rid of it, and we're all just a bunch of dumb johnny-come-latelies who need to just shut up. Does that capture it better? Because that's the same things as "give up and go away," unless or until you want to make a positive suggestion. siafu (talk)

I don't want you to go away. I want enough editors to see the problems with the article to want to do something about it. We can't fix it, so let's delete it. Or fix the policies that make it impossible to manage. Which path would you prefer. I reckon the former is the easier. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, quoth HiLo48: "It's bloody impossible to get the list deleted. We tried.". If you've changed your mind on that, take it to AfD. siafu (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No, hilo, that is not true. You missed the admin's entire point. The article was protected so that you and the other parties can focus on finding a consensus here on the talk page instead of unproductively edit warring. Charles35 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

WTF? It wasn't me who was edit warring. When will you pay enough attention to discover what's actually going on here? And drop the personal abuse? HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You may not have been edit war, but you certainly have taken a side, notbaly describing Mark Marathon's edits as being "in good faith" and Mr. Swordfish as being naive. Instead of actively making things worse, how about supporting this cleanup? siafu (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not made any such comments. I have no idea what you're talking about, and nor, it seems, do you. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Chill, bro. I didn't say you were edit warring; I said you should find a consensus rather than edit war (not saying you are currently edit warring, just speaking hypothetically). But you were at the edit warring noticeboard, after all, and I was basing my comment off of that. What personal abuse are you talking about? I said nothing against you, just that you missed the admin's point... We're only here to help, not to pretend we've been here the whole time and steal your "glory". So drop your Johnny-come-lately comments and focus on the issue at hand. Charles35 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You said "...so that you and the other parties can focus on finding a consensus here on the talk page instead of unproductively edit warring". It may not be what you intended, but to me that reads like a pretty clear allegation of edit warring on my part. I'll accept now that you didn't intend to say that I was edit warring. It was that false (and I now understand unintended) allegation that I read as personal abuse. Maybe you need to be more careful with your words. Now, my Johnny-come-lately comments are based on the fact that are showing absolutely no respect for my view, based on long experience, that this article is unfixable. All you and siafu seem to want to do is prove me wrong. It's pretty insulting. I DO have more experience on this article than you. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made like 4 comments here. I don't even know who you are. I don't know anything about your views. I didn't say they were bad. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I said "you and the other parties". That means you. But it also means the other parties. The other parties were edit warring, hence the ANI edit warring section. Not everything is about you. Charles35 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Having more experience doesn't mean anything; I have about twice as much experience on wikipedia as you do, myself, but I don't think this puts me in a position to declare by fiat that you don't know what you're talking about. All we actually want to do is improve the article, and you're purposefully getting in the way because you are convinced it's unfixable, which is just making it more difficult to fix. Your "Johnny-come-lately" comments sound an awful lot like the thousands of other comments I've seen by those who are convinced that they own articles. This is not your "turf", and your long experience working on this article doesn't grant special status. It would be commendable... if you weren't so busy being counter-productive now. siafu (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Having more experience on this article DOES mean something. It's stupid to say otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've been around the block a couple times, too, but I don't agree that there are any major problems with the article. Look, it if it bothers you so much, why not simply remove it from your watchlist? Wikipedia is a voluntary project. Nobody is forcing you to work on this article. Wikipedia has 4,137,303 articles. Surely, there must be other articles that you would find more enjoyable to edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice platitudes, but they don't fix this article or this encyclopaedia. I care. Don't you? HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Whereas insisting that it's hopeless and making snarky comments is doing what to fix this article, exactly? siafu (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My fundamental view, which I have expressed many times, and I'm not the first to say it by far, is that it should be deleted. Several other newcomers to the article like yourself have come along over the years, saying that it can be fixed, and it hasn't been. They say it can be managed, and they stop watching after a while, and things get worse again. Why should your faith be trusted now? It's a bad article. I've just explained how you won't fix and/or manage it in future. Over to you. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Why should your faith be trusted now?" There's nothing to trust; just stop trying to get in the way or make things worse, and we'll work on it without you, if you really don't think there's any point. Has it occurred to you that it should not be overly surprising if you argue this hard that it's pointless, that some people believe you, quit, and provide the "evidence" for you theory? siafu (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to realise how insulting you're being by not accepting what I'm saying. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to realize that disagreement is not an insult. Not just believing you that it's hopeless is not an insult. Telling you to stop trying to get in the way if you don't want to participate in improvement is not an insult. Telling people that they're just a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies who don't know what they're talking about, and are foolish for trying? Now that's an insult to my intelligence, and that of the other editors here. It would be nice if you would refocus your efforts on improving this article, or even still on just putting your belief that it should be deleted into an effort as well by listing it at AfD and actually trying to get it deleted, but really, if you don't want to do either of those things, the rational and best thing to do is just stop and walk away. So stop and walk away. Or join the other discussions, and we can sort through the crap and try to make this article encyclopedic. There are, by my count here, four editors (including myself) eager to do so, but five would make it easier. siafu (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's absolute bullshit. I've told you, in good faith, based on long experience, what the problems here are. One of them is that newcomers come here and say the sorts of things you're saying. You are choosing to not believe me. THAT'S INSULTING! Unless, of course, you're incapable of comprehending my point. It's one or the other. There is no other explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Or you could simply be wrong, so wrapped up in your own experience that you can't accept the possibility that the future could ever be different from the past. I get what the problems are, I don't get how they're unsolvable or insurmountable. Saying that because I take a different view and don't swallow what you're saying uncritically I must be insulting you is pretty silly indeed. Expect to be insulted in this way by many, many people in your life on an almost daily basis, if that's the view you take. siafu (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've told you, in good faith, based on long experience, what the problems here are. One of them is that newcomers come here and say the sorts of things you're saying. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

When you in your infinite wisdom just know better? I know. How dare we. Believe what you want, just leave us to it without any more pointless snarking. siafu (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've told you, in good faith, based on long experience (not "infinite wisdom"), what the problems here are. This thread began with me being able to say "I told you so" to someone just like you, only two days ago. Why should I not still feel the same way about you? What has happened to make me feel any differently? I submit, that by ignoring my observations, you are just making things worse. And please drop the sarcastic bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I should add that the protected status of the article ends in about 4.5 hours. We have about that much time to sort out the "glass is a liquid" issue and come to consensus without running the risk of further edit warring. I am not going to continue to waste it this way. siafu (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sunflowers

The current entry is a god-awful mess:

Mature sunflowers[clarification needed] do not track the Sun across the sky.[189] The heads point in a fixed direction (East) all day long.[190] The flower heads of the sunflower are heliotropic. The flower heads contain motor cells that allow the fully open flower heads to follow the sun across the [191]: as the sun rises they turn to face the east and slowly follow the sun across the sky ending in the west.[192]. this movement of the mature flower heads aids the plant in producing pollen [193] In an earlier development stage, before the appearance of flower heads, the buds also track the sun, and the mature flowers also lack a fixed alignment. It is only after the flower has ceased to require pollination and become a seed head that they cease tracking the sun.[194]

It states both that sunflowers "point in a fixed direction (East) all day long" and that "the fully open flower heads ... follow the sun across the sky." This is self-contradictory and an embarrassment to the article.

I'd suggest, as a start anyway, reverting to the previous version:

Mature sunflowers do not track the Sun across the sky.[189] The heads point in a fixed direction (East) all day long.[190] However, in an earlier development stage, before the appearance of flower heads, the buds do track the sun and the fixed alignment of the mature flowers is a result of this heliotropism.

Who agrees with this change? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this source http://www.geochembio.com/biology/organisms/sunflower/, I'd recommend replacing "Mature" with "Flowering" and adding that source to the cites. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I like this change, at least inasmuch as it clarifies an otherwise confusing and nonsensical paragraph. If there's no challenge to the factual claims it makes, I endorse making the change. siafu (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The caption for the image needs attention too - "Sunflowers and a sun spot." It isn't a sunspot which redirects from "sun spot". It is actually the sun, partially visble through the foliage. Moriori (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The above suggestion looks good to me. The picture caption could perhaps read "Synflower and a sunny spot""? Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

re-org Science section

Currently, the ordering of topics within the Science section seems a bit arbitrary. The ordering is as follows:

5.1 Astronomy
5.2 Biology
5.3 Material science
5.4 Human body and health
5.5 Mathematics
5.6 Physics
5.7 Psychology

I propose changing this order to go from 'hard' science to 'soft' science e.g.

Mathematics
Physics
Astronomy
Material science
Biology
Human body and health
Psychology

It just seems weird to find 'Material science' in between 'Biology' and 'Human body and health'. Comments? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Is mathematics really a science? It should go under its own heading at the same level as science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends who you ask, see Math#Mathematics_as_science. In practice the matter is largely settled, since for example mathematicians are awarded science degrees rather than something else, math is part of the National Academy of Sciences, and so on. On the other hand, I think it's silly to pretend materials science is a distinct field of study, rather than an interdisciplinary topic. Hairhorn (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that list was simply in alphabetical order, until Material science got added at a later stage? Alphabetical order rarely offends anyone. We could stick with that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly about this, but I agree that it is somewhat odd with the materials science section sandwiched between Biology and Human Body and Health, especially since the latter could easily have been a subsection of 'Biology'. Without taking the maths(≠/=)science into account, I think the order proposed by Mr. Swordfish is logical.Dr bab (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think alphabetically ordering is the most sensible. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current (as recently corrected by Petter) alphabetical listing. At least it makes some logical sense. I disagree with moving Mathematics to its own topic - mainly because it only has one entry. The two entries under Materials science could probably be placed under Physics and that sub-topic removed. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

ye -> the error

The article incorrectly describes why thorn (þ) was replaced by y. Even the cited source lists the correct reasoning - "Early printers, whose types were founded on the continent, did not have a þ, so they substituted y as the letter that looked most like it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efrankenberger (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying there's a misconception in our misconception? Yikes! :-O HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The current wording is:

Despite being commonly believed today, people during the Old and Middle English speaking periods never pronounced or spelled "the" as "ye"[138].The confusion derives from the use of the character thorn (þ) in abbreviations of the word "the", which in Middle English text (

) looked similar to a y with a superscript e.[139][140].

The reference 139 is the one Efrankenberger points to above. The reference 140 is to a book, where one would assume there is something about the "Y with superscript e". Someone would need to get the book I suppose. I do not think the details are too important here, the point is that it was never pronounced as "Ye", but that it was a substitution for thorn. What about this new wording:

Despite being commonly believed today, people during the Old and Middle English speaking periods never pronounced or spelled "the" as "ye"[138]. The confusion derives from the fact that the letter Y was used as a substitution for the character thorn (þ) in printed text [139][140].

Regardless of wording, I would also suggest that we get more and better sources for the first sentence. 138 is from a "list of common errors in English Language" which in my opinion is not the best source for establishing this as a common misconception. A quick google search reveals a ton of blogs etc. discussing this, so there is little doubt about there being some sort of prevalence here. Not living in an English-language country it is hard for me to gauge whether this is really a common misconception (do people believe that it was pronounced like that?) or if it is just some "tradition" as it were, to spell it as "ye olde Outhouses" when implying that something is from "yesteryear".Dr bab (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Shorter and more to the point. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Geography

Possibly also a new section on misconceptions about geography? Starting Proposal (although I'm sure users can contribute many more):

The canary islands name is not derived from the bird (named after latin word for dog), nor the whistling language that is spoken there (as I believed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.102.189 (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that establish that there is a common misconception that the Canary Islands are named after the bird, or that they are named after the whistling language. Dr bab (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

About the proposed new structure

While I think he(?) had some good points in wanting to make old discussions visible to new visitors making suggestions for new entries, I do not think the structure suggested by 80.7.96.98 is feasible, mainly because of the volume of entries being added to this talk page. It is also more difficult to locate new additions when they are not added to the bottom of the page under their own heading.

Should we perhaps archive the whole example now, to prevent it from remaning "active" and thus not being auto-archived? Dr bab (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I would support archiving the entire example now. There seems to be no support for adoption, and the example structure is confusing people. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Space Pen

From the article Space Pen:

"A common urban legend states that, faced with the fact that ball-point pens will not write in zero-gravity, NASA spent a large amount of money to develop a pen that would write in the conditions experienced during spaceflight (the result purportedly being the Fisher Space Pen), while the Soviet Union took the simpler (and cheaper) route of just using pencils.[1] Russian cosmonauts used pencils, and grease pencils on plastic slates until also adopting a space pen in 1969 with a purchase of 100 units for use on all future missions"

It might be worth adding to this article. See also [11] 195.114.168.250 (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

gringo

There is no way gringo comes from griego. There is no mechanism that turns "griego"'s e phonetically into an n. It is also an unsubstantiated claim; I think it should be removed. 107.200.61.187 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states something to this effect? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The claim has been challenged, as is explained in the article Gringo, but it has been advanced since at least 1787, so it is considerably better substantiated than any of the other suggestions that have been made. see WorldWideWords. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest deletion

I stumbled across this page while working on another article, and having read it, I'm going to suggest that it be deleted. On the following grounds:

1 ) It’s contentious at best, and often outright erroneous

This is my major reason for wanting it removed. A lot of these "myths" aren't myths at all. They are, at best, the subject of dispute even amongst experts.

One of these is what brought me here in the first place: the claim that bananas are not trees. There is no botanical definition of a tree; every botanist decides that for herself. Since many botanists consider bananas to be trees, claiming that this is a myth is at best misleading.

And that is certainly not the only example. Looking through the Biology section below the banana “myth”, I see the following:

Sunflowers do not track the Sun across the sky. They certainly do. They do not track the sun after they mature, but young heads certainly are heliotropic. (http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2008/mitchell_sara/Adaptations.htm , http://cals.arizona.edu/fps/sites/cals.arizona.edu.fps/files/cotw/Sunflower.pdf , http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2010/08/sunflowers-follow-the-sun.html) . So this isn’t a myth, it’s a piece of bar-bet trivia that depends on the “myth” meaning “all sunflower heads all the time”. Many sunflower heads certainly are heliotropic, so this isn’t a myth.

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life[or the origin and development of the universe. This is just plain wrong. Anyone willing to put the phrase “"prebiotic evolution” onto Google will be able to see that instantly. There is a still a great deal of controversy concerning the role and nature of prebiotic evolution and the degree to which it is simultaneous with or predates life, but there are at least a dozen article every year published in top-ranked journals which contend that evolution does indeed explain the origin of life, via Darwinian selection. For a good recent overview on the topic, try Scheuring, István, et al. "Spatial models of prebiotic evolution: Soup before pizza?." Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 33.4 (2003).

Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Once again, a scientific controversy, not a myth. A great many experts, including Jared Diamond, contend that humans are chimpanzees, and thus the last common ancestor of humans and modern chimps must also have been a chimpanzee (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAF62.htm , http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html. IOW humans evolved from chimps just as we evolved from monkeys.

Dinosaurs did not go extinct due to being maladapted or unable to cope with change. Well of course they did. That is extinction is the definition of failure to cope with change. Just because what they failed to cope with was extraordinary climate change due to a meteor impact, that doesn’t change the fact that they failed to cope with the change. A great many other species did cope with that change. The section doesn’t even present any evidence that this claim is a myth

Glass is not a high-viscosity liquid at room temperature. Once again, this is contentious science, not a myth. The phases “solid” and “liquid” were coined many centuries before we understood physical chemistry, much less quantum mechanics. There are many substances that don’t fit neatly into such categories, and glass is one. Which is why many scientists quite happily describe glass as a high viscosity liquid at room temperature (^[11]

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). )

Now, I’m not going to go through the entire article providing references from universities and journals that show that many entries are scientific controversies and not myths. But the fact that I am able to do so with 6 out of the first 11 articles I selected speaks volumes. It appears that over half the entries are not myths at all, just someone’s bias concerning the science.

2) It inherently fails Wikipedia’s “NPOV” and “verifiability, not truth” policy

The article states in the lead that the views expressed here are not truth. That is in direct contradiction to “verifiability, not truth”. Moreover, there is no way to effectively challenge a viewpoint or introduce balance. In a normal Wikipedia article, alternative viewpoints can be aired with neutral wording and the reader can make up their own mind. That isn’t possible here because the reader is told right form the lead that the view is erroneous. No matter how many, or what quality of, contradictory references are added, the article still states that the viewpoint is wrong: a misconception.

3) It's ill defined

The lead says that a misconception is a “widely held, erroneous ideas and beliefs about notable topics which have been reported by reliable sources”. But who gets to decide what qualifies as erroneous? Because there is no objective standard of “erroneous”, the whole page can only exist by editors taking votes on the facts. That isn’t an effective way to produce accuracy

To highlight what I mean, it seems that ATM the article could state that evolution is a “Common misconception”. After all, it is a widely held beliefs about a notable topics which has been reported by reliable sources. So long as those who believe it is erroneous can outvote the rest of the editors, evolution will remain in the list of “Common misconceptions”. The fact that there is no way to remove it from the list aside from the number of supporters highlights why the article is ill defined and fails NPOV.

4) It is full of biases.

Not just the obvious American bias discussed multiple times above. There is also the glaring anti-creationist bias. While I’m personally all in favour of debunking creationism, Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be. And more importantly it should be done with accurate facts, not misrepresentations of the science. Because of the problems of being ill-defined and failing NPOV outlined above, the page is destined to become horribly biased because there is no mechanism for providing balance.

The bias you perceive is a direct outcome of WP:NPOV, which states that undue weight must not be given to minority views, particularly when they are WP:FRINGE views. Creationism, where it attempts to masquerade as science, undeniably falls into this "fringe" category, well outside of mainstream science. We strive for neutrality. That doesn't mean all views get an equal say. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the above section, I think it will be difficult to get this deleted, but you raise some very good points. My first suggestion is that we keep the discussion on this page for a while before taking it to an afd. It has already been through three of them (1,2,3).

Regarding misconceptions that are "disputes among experts", I think they should all be removed. Dr bab (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The dinosaur extinction is fixable with light editing. The ancestor of humans have to my knowledge never been thought of as a chimpanzee in science, merely that the chimpanzee was a good model for the type of organisms that humans evolved from. The recent find of Ardipithecus has shown that chimpanzees too have evolved since we split from them, so the notion of "evolving from chimpanzees" is clearly wrong. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to get too bogged down on one example, but if humans are chimpanzees (as the scientists in the references I provided claim) then how can our ancestor not be a chimpanzee? Are you suggesting that chimpanzees evolved twice from the same non-chimpanzee ancestor? That contradicts not only Charlie Darwin, but a central tenet of modern taxonomy: that a valid taxon can not be polyphyletic. If humans are chimpanzees, and bonobos are chimpanzees, how can the most recent common ancestor of humans and bonobos be anything other than a chimpanzee? It's like claiming that the most recent common ancestor of humans and dogs wasn't a mammal. Put simply, we have plenty of scientists stating that the last common ancestor was so genetically and anatomically chimpanzee-like, that it should be classified as a member of the chimpanzee genus /tribe as Pan prior (Homo prior, tribus Pan) (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=LavQGJVq5ScC&pg=PA124&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false). So according to some scientists, humans evolved from creature that looked like a chimpanzee, was genetically a chimpanzee, was a member of the chimpanzee genus, behaved like a chimpanzee and gave rise to chimpanzees, including both Pan sapiens and Pan pansicus. So by what possible definition of "chimpanzee" was Pan prior not a chimpanzee? Either Pan prior was itself a chimpanzee, or else the term chimpanzee is evolutionarily and taxonomically meaningless, and thus anything can be described as a chimpanzee or not. Mark Marathon (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Which "scientists" describe glass as a high-viscosity liquid at room temperature? Glass does not "flow" or "run" at room temperature, even over timescales of thousands of years, and the solid phase is both quite stable and clearly distinguishable from the liquid/fluid phase. siafu (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I did include references, though they didn't come out. But we have:

Glass does not have a melting point but increases its viscosity, upon cooling, to values so high that the glass cannot be deformed at room temperature. The fabrication of glass objects makes use of its high viscosity. www.physics.emory.edu/~weeks/lab/glass

A simple definition of a glass is a liquid with a viscosity that is 10,000,000,000,000 times larger than the viscosity of water. http://www.physics.emory.edu/~weeks/lab/glass/

A “glass” is a high viscosity “liquid”. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem07/chem07548.htm

However, there is no precise temperature at which glass turns "liquid." There can't be such a temperature, since glass' internal structure is already that of a liquid.http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=159

Like liquids, these disorganized solids can flow, albeit very slowly. Over long periods of time, the molecules making up the glass shift themselves to settle into a more stable, crystallike formation http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-fiction-glass-liquid

There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?". In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/General/Glass/glass.html

And so on and so forth. We have references from government scientists, scientists at reputable universities and Scientific American stating that either glass is a liquid at room temperature or that it flows, albeit exceedingly slowly. And you can find dozens more with a few minutes on Google. Maybe they are all wrong. I am a biologist, not a physicist, so I won't venture too much of an opinion. But the pertinent point is that this "fact" is believed by multiple scientists working in the field, so it can hardly be described as a misconception. Scientifically contentious perhaps, but not a misconception. And this article is riddled with these.

And that is my point. I'm not really interested in going through this whole article and providing references to debunk it point for point and then struggling to remove them. I know from experience how hard many editors fight for things they just 'know to be true, regardless of evidence to the contrary. My point is that these "misconceptions" are verifiably believed by many scientists employe in the fields, yet they are still listed as misconceptions. And this article seems to be composed of over 50% of such contentious topics labelled as misconcpetions. This is symptomatic of the fact that there is no objective standard by which material is included in this article, and no way to remove it beyond taking a vote in the facts. Because it lacks any mechanism for imparting neutrality or alternative points of view, it's going to inevitably collect material which is dubious at best. Mark Marathon (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Mark,

You raise valid criticisms of some of the entries on this page. I would suggest that you put your energies into fixing individual entries - either rewording to make it more accurately reflect the literature, or nominating individual entries for deletion. Suggesting that the entire article be removed is a non-starter. It's not going to happen. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it ever happen? I'm not saying I support his stances, but he raises concerns not about simply content, but about systematic errors with this article. For example, he says Moreover, there is no way to effectively challenge a viewpoint or introduce balance and It's ill defined. Regardless of whether or not these concerns are sound, they are certainly valid and could potentially be grounds for deletion, no? Charles35 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What he said. For example, it seems clear that this article conflicts with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and there is no apparent way to correct that aside from deleting it. We have an article that starts out telling the readers that certain viewpoints are inherently incorrect. How can we possibly fix this article so that it is NPOV when the whole purpose of the article is to expressly highlight that conflicting POVs are "erroneous"? If you would care to suggest a way that I could introduce a NPOV to material in this article, then I would be very interested. But if you are just telling me that the only way to introduce balance is to delete individual entries, then that is a clear violation of NPOV, and that should be grounds for deletion. No?

Either this article allows both sides to put forward their views on whether humans evolved from chimps, for example, or it violates NPOV. Correct me if I'm wrong, but WP policy doesn't allow one side to have its say, then as soon as presented with evidence to the contrary, it's allowed to delete the whole section and forbid anyone to mention it ever again. For example, if a creationist can successfully challenge all the anti-creationist material with references, then that means that it just gets deleted. The opposing view has been published for years, but the creationist POV isn't allowed to get an airing for longer than the few hours takes to delete the section. That seems a clear violation of NPOV.

The only alternatives would seem to be:

1) We delete the whole mess.

2) We leave challenged material there, and to maintain balance we also include the alternative POV as the misconception. So , for example, we have one entry titled "Bananas are trees" and another titled "Bananas are not trees". Because if we just leave it all under the heading "Bananas are trees", that is stating that a belief that bananas are trees is a misconception. And that is clearly not a NPOV.

If you can see another solution, then please let us know.Mark Marathon (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you choose to incorporate responses to assertions of misconceptions, you should structure it this way: the section should be called "Bananas", and then the sub-sections should be (1) "bananas are not trees" and (2) "criticism" or "response" or something like that. This way, you don't presuppose that the misconception is "more true" than the criticism/response. Charles35 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to go any way towards solving the problem because:

1)The header explicitly states that this article is about beliefs that are erroneous. So "bananas are not trees" is being called erroneous simply by virtue of being in the article. Imagine, for comparison, that we had an article titled " List of criminal political organisations" that started with the statement "This is a list of political organisations that have been proven to engage in illegal behaviour". Now, if i place "The Democratic Party" on that list, do you really think that it's NPOV just because someone else then added a subsection titled "Criticism"? Of course it isn't. The article is titled "List of criminal political organisations" and it starts out by telling us that any organisation on the list has been proven to engage in criminal behaviour. Having another editor add a sub heading about controversy doesn't make it NPOV. And the same applies to this article. Simply being on the list tells the reader that the belief is erroneous.

2) How do we decide which version is the misconception? For example, I believe that the misconceptions are that bananas are not trees and that humans did not evolve from chimps. So I want those as the subject headers. How do you propose to decide which is the misconception? Or shoud we be allowed to include both as separate, and mutually exclusive, misconceptions?

3) This seems to open the floodgates to adding anything remotely contentious to this article. Why, for example, can I not add "The Theory of Evolution Explains the Diversity of Life", "Global Warming is Caused by Humans" and "Negroes are Equal to White People" to the list of misconceptions? Since we are not going to remove material even when it is shown to be accepted by a majority of experts, it seems like this list will need to include every major Wikipedia article in order to be complete. Because we all know that there is some aspect of every major article that the experts are arguing over. And if this article does need to contain references to the major points of millions of other articles for completeness, is it practical?

Once again, we have the problem that the subject of this article is ill-defined to the point of being utterly undefined. By proposing that it includes material that is under debate by experts, in addition to material that is provably incorrect, it seems the article is no longer a list of misconceptions and no longer corresponds to the definition in the lead. After all, we don't seriously argue that "Humans Contribute to Global Warming" is a misconception, do we? Yet it seems that we need to include it if this article is now going to include material that is widely accepted by both experts and laypeople, as in the case of Banana Trees.

So is that you contention: that this article will now list any subject that can be shown to be believed by laypeople, regardless of how many experts scientists also believe exactly the same thing? And if not, where do you propose that we draw the line? Why shouldn't I include Global Warming and fire up that debate in here as well? In short, what is this article about, since it apparently is no longer just about beliefs that are verifiably incorrect?Mark Marathon (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The argument "it's ill defined" is a poor one. The current specification is quite explicit, or at least as explicit as other wikipedia inclusion criteria. Moreover, the spec is a work in progress that can be refined and improved. I would hope that other editors would strive to improve the article rather than merely throwing up one's hands and deleting.

To deal with the two relevant examples: I agree that the banana tree entry is arguing over semantics and the correct approach was to remove the entry. This has been done, and the article has been improved. As for the chimp entry, the misconception is that "humans evolved from modern chimpanzees" when in fact both modern chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor - whether it is correct to call that common ancestor as a "chimpanzee" is arguing over semantics. The upshot here is that this entry needs some attention. There are others in need of editorial attention (or removal). But this is not a good reason for deletion.

Putting a finer point on it, it's false to suggest that we only have two choices ("delete the whole mess" or "leave challenged material there, and to maintain balance we also include the alternative POV as the misconception"). The obvious third choice is to improve the article by removing or rewording problematic entries.

As for my comment that deletion is "not going to happen", the article has been through three AFD discussions and nothing remotely approaching consensus appeared in any of them. Perhaps a fourth attempt would get different results, but I doubt it. Why go there? If there are problems with the article, let's concentrate on fixing them. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You haven't actually addressed my points. Can you perhaps address the points I specifically raised?

1) I do not want the banana article removed. The proponents of the viewpoint that bananas are not trees have had their position published on Wikipedia for years. Now I have highly reputable references that support the contrary viewpoint. So, in order to retain NPOV, I now want my viewpoint published in this article. So what is your solution to this? We can't delete the article and retain NPOV, can we? We can't maintain NPOV and balance by allowing one veiwpoint to be aired for years, and then forbidding anyone from discussing the topic on this page ever again once it is challenged, can we? So how do we maintain NPOV? Of course this is just an example, but I ask you to address it so that we can understand what you mean when you contend that this article can comply with NPOV.

2) Why can I not add ""The Theory of Evolution Explains the Diversity of Life" and "Global Warming is Caused by Humans" to the list of myths? If the "current specification is quite explicit", then you should be able to tell us why these "misconceptions" don't belong here. They are certainly widely believed by many people, and certainly held up to be erroneous by reliable sources. So why don't we put such controversial topics in here

And no, the factual issues I raised haven;t been addressed for the most part. Editors have made semantic changes while ignoring what has been plainly said int he references I provided in order to continue to push their POV. I'll make a few corrections using actual quotes to show you what I mean. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to my skepticism regarding the available of reliable sources for the claims "The Theory of Evolution Explains the Diversity of Life" and "Global Warming is Caused by Humans" being untrue, it would be a gross violation of WP:UNDUE for such statements to receive any mention here at all as they are believed by an infinitesmal minority of the experts in the relevant fields of evolutionary biology and climatology. It's not unreasonable to suggest that you can probably find at least one person with some credentials who were spout any sort of nonsense in this modern age of internet self-spokesmanship. This does not mean that we are unable to separate the wheat from the chaff on talk pages (like this one) through discussion and, if necessary, various dispute resolution apparati. siafu (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the first issue at all. I do not want the banana article removed. The proponents of the viewpoint that bananas are not trees have had their position published on Wikipedia for years. Now I have highly reputable references that support the contrary viewpoint. So, in order to retain NPOV, I now want my viewpoint published in this article. So what is your solution to this? We can't delete the article and retain NPOV, can we? We can't maintain NPOV and balance by allowing one veiwpoint to be aired for years, and then forbidding anyone from discussing the topic on this page ever again once it is challenged, can we? So how do we maintain NPOV? Of course this is just an example, but I ask you to address it so that we can understand what you mean when you contend that this article can comply with NPOV.

As for the second point, are you proposing that the new standard is that some non-infinitessimal number of experts believe something?. So I could, for example, include "String theory is unscientific and fails to explain the structure of matter" or "Democrat economic policies are harmful for the US"? I'm sure we both agree that I can find plenty of experts who would argue either of those positions. So can I add those positions to the list of misconceptions?Mark Marathon (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely the case that wikipedia represents the consensus view on the sources, and not the unanimous one, since the latter does not exist. WP:UNDUE dictates the amount of space given to a particular viewpoint; the claim that global warming is not caused by humans is discussed in depth, but not in the contentual discussion of global warming itself, but because so much hot air has been created about it. As for your examples, there doesn't seem to be anything "common" about those beliefs at all, so I can't see any rationale for their inclusion. Wikipedia is not created by robots or AIs operating on simple algorithms, but by smart people who are capable, through discussion, of achieving consensus. siafu (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the first issue at all. I do not want the banana article removed. The proponents of the viewpoint that bananas are not trees have had their position published on Wikipedia for years. Now I have highly reputable references that support the contrary viewpoint. So, in order to retain NPOV, I now want my viewpoint published in this article. So what is your solution to this? We can't delete the article and retain NPOV, can we? We can't maintain NPOV and balance by allowing one veiwpoint to be aired for years, and then forbidding anyone from discussing the topic on this page ever again once it is challenged, can we? So how do we maintain NPOV? Of course this is just an example, but I ask you to address it so that we can understand what you mean when you contend that this article can comply with NPOV.

As for the second point, I can't parse it in a way that makes sense. Are you saying "Democrat economic policies damage the US" is not a commonly held belief? Or are you saying that large numbers of experts (policticians, economists, think-tanks,political scientists) do not agree with the belief? Because either claim seems utterly incredible and either is easily disproved simply by putting the phrase into Google. So if I can find some experts who believe that Democratic policies are economically damaging, can I ad that to the page? After all plenty of people believe it, and we have a non-trivial number of experts who argue the same case.Mark Marathon (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You will not likely find a consensus view that either political party's views damage the US, or that this is a misconception. People are split about 50-50 on this one in the US, and the experts generally see it as a matter of opinion or interpretation, subject to debate and review and thereby not a hard fact, so I can't see any interpretation that would allow this to be labelled and included as either commonly-held misconception. Some people do spout it that way, like TV pundits, but I can't see anyone accepting any of them as neutral sources. As for the other point, I don't really care know about the banana issue specifically as I know very little about botany. I think the thing to do in cases like these is bring it up here-- if it's the case this is either fallacious itself, or not a well-known or commonly held misconception, then it does not belong. Alternately, we could include a slightly more detailed discussion, representing what the sources say if that's what consensus decides to do; since there's no clear definition of "tree" this might be appropriate. If the field of botanic experts are completely divided on a particular definition of tree, this would sound a lot like "Democratic/Republican policies damage the US", and would simply need to go.

The base fact here is that wikipedia neutrally represents the verifiable consensus view of reliable sources (wikipedia policies exist to clarify the particular meanings of those ambiguous terms). For inclusion on this list, it must be established that something is both commonly held (e.g., the belief that GPS does not provide weather and climate measurements is a misconception, but not at all commonly held since most people don't think much about it) and that it is a misconception (i.e., that it is factually untrue in a verifiable way). We determine these things, as well as how to properly phrase, state, or represent the information, through discussion here on the talk page; that is what talk pages are for. As a result, I'm having trouble understanding NPOV is being brought up here, as it doesn't really seem to be the problem; here, as everywhere else on wikipedia, just finding some source somewhere that includes a phrase stating your view does not make it acceptably NPOV to have it included verbatim. Lack of active review is the problem, and these issues are resolved by being brought up here and discussed. You obviously have plenty of energy to spend on it here, so I'm guessing this won't be a major problem once we focus on that instead of silly pseudo-arguments for deleting the article. siafu (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As this short discussion already shows, what I said before it started is true. Normal AfD processes won't work here. For most articles proposed for deletion there has only ever bee one or maybe three or four significant contributors, so article ownership is not a huge issue so long as enough other editors participate in an impartial way in the discussion. But here, every separate item has it's own owner, or disciple, and you get arguments like "Yeah, delete that other rubbish, but not my favourite item." And there's a different supporter for almost every alleged misconception. Whether policy says it's what we should do, or not, it becomes a vote, with the article's own systemic bias meaning there will always be a lot of "Keep" votes. I hate the article. Most of the items come here from someone feeling like a smart arse. (Or ass if you're American.) They think "You think that. I know you're wrong. The truth is this..." It's one of the worst articles we have, and our policies won't let us fix it, so the discussion about deletion becomes one of our worst. That doesn't mean it's right to keep it. It means the policies don't work here. We need a new approach to get rid of it. HiLo48 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The intention is not to be a smart-arse or a smart-ass. The intention is that there are some "facts" that are universally accepted by experts in the field (historians, scientists, etc.) that are misunderstood by many lay people. This article puts them in one place and gives the "correct" answers (correct in the sense of overwhelming support by reliable sources). And before you get all NPOV on me, a pillar of wiki is that not all sources are to be treated equally - as editors we are derelect if, for instance, we treat the shape of the earth as "some people say it's round, some say it's flat, who can say for sure?". Now, few modern sources claim the earth is flat, so shape of the earth is not a candidate for this article. But there are other instances where the expert consensus is overwhelmingly clear, and if despite this many people continue to harbour the opposite notion then that topic is a candidate for this article.

I understand that you hate this article. I would suggest that instead of campaigning to delete it that instead you work towards improving it. My own take is that the article would be improved if it were reduced by half and I would be sympathetic to nominations for deletion of individual entries. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tried deleting items. As I've said several times now, every item has a different owner. It means a new fight every time. I don't have the energy. Our processes don't work for this article. That makes it a bad article. (Or are our processes bad?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, at Mark Marathon's suggestion we deleted the banana tree entry, with no objections. We've also modified the Glass entry and the Sunflower entry as a result of his comments. Saying the processes don't work is a sweeping overstatement.

That said, I think when an editor comes in loudly proclaiming that his intention is to delete the entire article he will encounter resistance to deletions of individual items. Perhaps if you changed your approach you wouldn't encounter so much resistance. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us that you don't like honesty here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying that you catch more flies with honey... Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I come from a culture where truth and what you might call bluntness are regarded as virtues. Obfuscation and pretending to be or want something that's not true are not seen in a good light at all. I'm not likely to change. And in this environment, where words are all we have, we shouldn't beat around the bush. It will only lead to confusion. And I note that Mark Marathon is providing you with exactly the sort of opposition I predicted. So far, you've been lucky. A lot of people are still on a holiday break. HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll also make the point that you're watching this article closely right now, and so am I because I'm on a break from work, but when nobody is watching daily to vet new entries, garbage builds up very quickly. This article requires constant vigilance. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Many articles require vigilance; wikipedia has some facilities for help with this problem, like noticeboards, wikiprojects, RfCs, etc. This is not an insurmountable problem. siafu (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been so far. Do you promise to watch for problem additions twice a day for the rest of your life? HiLo48 (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you promise to remove simple vandalism until you're old and grey? If not, does this mean that we should simply abandon the concept of wikipedia? This whole project requires constant maintenance; if you truly believe that this is a dealbreaker, then you must logically conclude that wikipedia cannot be successful even in principle. Since you're still here, I can only conclude that you don't actually believe that. siafu (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an illogical response. We're discussing this one article, not the whole of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me shorten it a bit, then: "So what?" The fact that it requires vigilance does not mean that said vigilance cannot be obtained through the usual crowd-sourcing methods of wikipedia. siafu (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't worked so far!!!!!! The article is full of crap. (Anyone else notice the circle were going round here?) I'm quite sick of newcomers telling me that our policies should be able to manage this article, when I'm telling them, from years of practical experience, that they don't. Idealism vs reality. Reality wins every time. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which I find more absurd, the suggestion that I'm a newcomer (my first edit), or the suggestion that that would mean I'm incorrect in my view. I agree, it does appear that this article has a good deal of crap in it, but I don't see any reason why it can't be improved. If you're really so jaded, you are free to walk away. siafu (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: You're basically arguing that a surmountable problem is an unsurmountable one, an argument well refuted at WP:SUSC. siafu (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Jared Diamond does not represent the mainstream of paleoanthropology. To call us a chimpanzee, is to suggest that there is a sharp distinction between us (common chimps, bonobos and h. sapiens) and the other great apes (gorillas, orangutans) that is more significant than the difference between h. sapiens and the rest of the great apes. However, if we simply look at our hair length/pattern, brain size, bipedalism, manual dexterity, language, natural habitat (nearly everywhere) we can see that we are quite distinct from the rest of the apes. The common ancestor is usually taken to be something similar to Sahelanthropus Tchadensis, who lived 7 million years ago. If we were to compare genes, we would find that S. Tchadensis was closer to the common ancestor with gorillas than to either h. sapiens and the chimps. S. Tchadensis was not a chimp, and neither are we.

Your use of the term "prebiotic evolution" is just label abuse at best. 1) The first life form would not be competing with other life forms. 2) Before self-replication, pre-life form states would not "pass on genes to offspring". I am sure you can invent a term like "prebiotic evolution", but it is not biological evolution, which is the point. Qed (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Testosterone

The claim about male testosterone levels in this article has been contradicted by other research -- see here for an example. — C M B J 05:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all: CMBJ, regardless of the point you are making here about the testosterone information maybe being wrong, this would not affect the main claim of the entry: that sex before a sporting event is not detrimental to performance in sporting events. Removing the whole entry was thus a bit over the top. The discussion, based on your new source, should be to remove (or modify) the last sentence of the entry, making the claim about testosterone levels.

I had a look at the source from Natural Geographic which is cited for the claim "Additionally, it has been demonstrated that sex during the 24 hours prior to sports activity can elevate the levels of testosterone in males, which potentially could enhance their performance." The closest I could find to a supporting claim are "some studies suggest that pre-sports sex may actually aid athletes by raising their testosterone levels, for example." and "Jannini has found that sex in fact stimulates the production of testosterone, thus boosting aggression. ' After three months without sex, which is not so uncommon for some athletes, testosterone dramatically drops to levels close to children's levels,' he said." [emphasis mine]

There is no mention of 24 hours, and one interviewee is actually talking about a period of three months abstinence. My first suggestion would be to remove the claim about 24 hours, and I do not expect any objections to such an action unless further sources are found.

With regards to the whole last sentence, we now have a single primary source going against the claims of the Natural Geographic article. The National Geographic source never establishes that anything has been demonstrated. I would suggest that we change the wording to "suggested", which would still be true even if there are contentious views. My suggested wording is then:

There is no physiological basis for the belief that having sex in the days leading up to a sporting event or contest is detrimental to performance.[284] In fact it has been suggested that sex ~~hours~~ prior to sports activity can elevate the levels of testosterone in males, which could potentially enhance their performance.[285]

I do not know anything about the 'Journal of Zheijang University', but forgive me for saying that it does not sound as a renowned medical journal. Unless an expert on testosterone can inform us otherwise, I'd suggest leaving the claims as sourced from the 2006 Natural Geographic article as is. As CMBJ is someone who knows about research in the field, he/she may be that expert.

As a temporary measure, I will change the wording to my suggested version to remove the whole 24 hrs business. Dr bab (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit: removed "hours" from the sentence, it was not intended to be there.Dr bab (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dr bab. An in-house journal is a good start, but let's see if the article or author has been cited by others. It's good to keep a look out for new published research on this topic. The Chinese and Russians have seriously researched athletic performance fine tuning, and I would be surprised if they have not addressed this question in the lab and with their athletes. --Lexein (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That sex does not hurt athletic performance is supported by the evidence. That it improves performance is pushing a currently unsupported position. If we were to say anything about a positive effect would need to see a proper secondary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

We can do it / Rosie the riviter

Is this really a common misconception? It's unclear from the cited documentation. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say not. This might be a common misconception about the poster, but that doesn't make it a common misconception (since many people may not know the poster or Rosie the Riveter). Hairhorn (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The what? Never heard of either of these so they can't be that "common". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously a local to one country issue, which is an ongoing problem for this article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say that in this case the source did not justify this as being a common misconception. But what if it did, or what if such a source was found? Should it be excluded for only being relevant in a single country? If yes, in how many countries would a misconception need to be sourced as common before it is "common" in the sense necessary for inclusion in this article? I do not feel it is right to exclude items based on geographic distribution, since any lower-bound limit for exclusion other than "worldwide" would feel arbitrary, and no misconception is common worldwide.

Then, if "discrimination" based on geography should not be tolerated, why should discrimination based on topic be ok? Misconceptions about sub-atomic particles are frequently mentioned as something that can never be common based on the low number of people that have any sort of a conception about these sort of things. But how many people are knowledgeable enough about history to have misconceptions about King Canute, Marco Polo or emperor Nero? I'm sure there may be more of them than the people who know about sub-atomic particles, but at present the dividing line seems somewhat arbitrary to me. And how many people know about the We can do it! poster compared to Cinco de Mayo? Is a misconception about one of them more or less common than one about the other?

I feel that we might need to go back to the drawing board on the inclusion criteria to address the arbitrary way in which "common" is defined from case to case. Dr bab (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"Cinco de Mayo" - is that some American thing? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Dr bab - thanks for that. You've just highlighted some of the many fundamental problems with this article. I think we need to go back to the drawing board about whether the article can be saved at all. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Rosie the Riveter and We Can Do It! are hugely notable and well known in the U.S. Just read the articles. The misconception is widespread too. The New York Times got Geraldine Doyle's obituary[12] right but others incorrectly called her the "real" Rosie the Riveter[13][14]. Even Jeopardy got it wrong with the 11/23/2011 Final Jeopardy question.[15]. CallawayRox (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And there, CallawayRox, you've completely missed the point of this discussion. Your final sentence about Jeopardy just makes the situation worse. HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you want from me? I showed tht the misconception is common in the U.S. U.S.-centric and single country is a completely separate issue. CallawayRox (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What do I want from you? A recognition that using a narrow American cultural reference (Jeopardy) to justify another narrow American cultural reference (Rosie) is just silly. Do you have any idea how much non-Americans know or don't know about what goes on inside your country? How much do you know about mine? HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Entropy is not disorder

It is a widespread over simplification that entropy is disorder. This however is false. Entropy rather is a measure for the reversibility of a process which is dependent of the number of possible combinations (micro states) of a state. This correlates to disorder, since in most cases there are more disordered combinations then order ones, but disorder is (a) not a well defined physical concept and (b) many more ordered states can have a higher entropy. For example: foam over a liquid poping and forming a flat liquid surface leads to a more orderly state (complex foam vs. smooth surface) but the entropy increases since the water molecules are no longer entrapped between the bubbles but can move freely through the volume of the liquid.

I moved this item away from the "proposed new structure" as I archived it.Dr bab (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Single country "misconceptions"

I think we need to tackle on of those matters on its own. I know this has been addressed before, but we keep getting new editors here, and maybe someone has a great solution. Should we include "misconceptions" that only exist within one country, an unknown to others, such as the Korean fan death item? If we do, do we accept that because the biggest proportion of our editors are from the US, the article will be saturated with American items. After all, this is a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we can establish a difference for ones that are only known to be common in one country (e.g. fan death) and ones that inherently limited to one country (e.g. misconceptions about the American Revolution). The former category is inherently more of interest to the article as they represent misconceptions that all people may, in principle, be subject to, whereas the latter will only ever matter to or be held by residents of that country. siafu (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that misconceptions about the American revolution are inherently limited to the US. Is Napoleon's stature only of interest to the French? Do only Scandanavians care about Viking helmets? Are only Italians interested in whether Mussolini made the trains run on time? Seems to me that these region specific entries have more broad appeal, as do some of the US revolution entries. That said, I'd be supportive of removing several of the US Revolution entries as being insufficiently notable or common for the article.

Apologies in advance for presenting a US analogy, but this article needs a Mendoza line for inclusion based on notability and commonality. I'm not sure exactly how to phrase it, but the degree of parochialism would certainly be a factor.Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I know you apologised in advance, but Mendoza line really is a bad example. To even understand the article, one needs to know a fair bit about baseball and baseball statistics, which most people outside North America and Japan don't have. It doesn't work. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Siafu, people may have interests across country borders. If anything, I would say the oposite, that misconceptions that only exist in a single country are better candidates for exclusion (and creation of a separate "Common Korean Misconceptions" aricle) than those about a single country.

Excluding single-country-entries also raises the question of how prevalent a misconception must be beyond the first country to be worthy of inclusion. Two countries? A continent? A single country plus some people who went on vacation there?

How's this: We do not exclude anything based on geography until, in each case, there is so much that is obviously single-country-specific that we can create a separate article. Then we move the whole lot. Dr bab (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably the Revolutionary War example would have plenty to constitute its own list, so this may be a bad example. But the point is that people in most countries aren't subjected to the apocryphal stories of Paul Revere, Betsy Ross, or George Washington in the first place as their treatment of American history would be significantly less in-depth than it is in the United States. In order to have a misconception, someone has to first have a conception. So, while this may not have been the most illustrative example of my point, I think it still stands. Things like fan death aren't tied to South Korea in any inherent way, i.e. there's nothing inherently Korean about the misconception. A better counterexample might be the common misconception in the United States that the US president is largely responsible for the behavior of the US economy [16][17], or for the price of gasoline [18][19]. These are about the American government, were only discussed in the US, and are generally not relevant outside of the US, as I doubt many people outside the US spend a great deal of time examining the relevant laws and economic figures and those that don't likely genuinely don't care. siafu (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Humans and chimpanzee example

User Amatulić wrote a long post on several points he (?) felt was wrong with the article. I would like to answer the chimpanzee example in one collected go, as it is not spread over several part of the discussion. Amatulić wrote:

Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Once again, a scientific controversy, not a myth. A great many experts, including Jared Diamond, contend that humans are chimpanzees, and thus the last common ancestor of humans and modern chimps must also have been a chimpanzee (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAF62.htm , http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html. IOW humans evolved from chimps just as we evolved from monkeys.

Then the user Mark Marathon (who may be the same person) wrote:

if humans are chimpanzees (as the scientists in the references I provided claim) then how can our ancestor not be a chimpanzee? Are you suggesting that chimpanzees evolved twice from the same non-chimpanzee ancestor? That contradicts not only Charlie Darwin, but a central tenet of modern taxonomy: that a valid taxon can not be polyphyletic. If humans are chimpanzees, and bonobos are chimpanzees, how can the most recent common ancestor of humans and bonobos be anything other than a chimpanzee? It's like claiming that the most recent common ancestor of humans and dogs wasn't a mammal. Put simply, we have plenty of scientists stating that the last common ancestor was so genetically and anatomically chimpanzee-like, that it should be classified as a member of the chimpanzee genus /tribe as Pan prior (Homo prior, tribus Pan) (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=LavQGJVq5ScC&pg=PA124&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false). So according to some scientists, humans evolved from creature that looked like a chimpanzee, was genetically a chimpanzee, was a member of the chimpanzee genus, behaved like a chimpanzee and gave rise to chimpanzees, including both Pan sapiens and Pan pansicus. So by what possible definition of "chimpanzee" was Pan prior not a chimpanzee? Either Pan prior was itself a chimpanzee, or else the term chimpanzee is evolutionarily and taxonomically meaningless, and thus anything can be described as a chimpanzee or not.

I think there are several misunderstandings that need to be ironed out. First of all, the phylogenetic tree of humans and chimpanzees look like this (extinct branches omitted for simplicity):

Common ancestor

savannah dwellers

Humans

forest dwellers

	Bonobo

	Common chimpanzee

This is the consensus view, and is found in all books more recent than 50 years or so that I have ever seen on the subject. From a purely phylogenetic POV, the two chimpanzee species and the human branch represent two clades with a common ancestor, see chimpanzee-human last common ancestor. The chimpanzees form their own little unit, and to get to our position, you would have to go back in time to the last common ancestor and then climb up our branch. The online sources cited by Amatulić confirm to this. It seems there is a misunderstanding about what the sources actually say:

Article 1, Chimps and humans: what's in a name?, is about a genetic researcher suggesting abandoning the genus Pan and put the chimpanzees in Homo. The phylogeny as described above is not in question, it is merely a suggestion of combining two genera. While this has been suggested from time to time, it remain an extremely minority viewpoint, and still would not make humans descend from chimpanzees.

Article 2, Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says, is similar to the first one, with a research group arguing we might take better care of the chimpanzees if they were in our own genus. Again, the phylogeny is not in question, and even if we did do what is proposed, it would not make us descend from chimpanzees.

The third extract, from Mark Marathon, is about the proposed Pan prior, a suggestion forwarded by Richard Wrangham more than a decade ago. However, Pan priori was possibly only meant as an informal name, it has never been formally proposed and is not listed in any of the relevant databases. It is also an extremely minority position. Reporting it as consensus would go against WP:FRINGE.

Back when the name was suggested, our view of the last common ancestor was largely based on guesswork from living species. Today, we haw fossils that show us the last common ancestor did not look like a chimpanzee. It did not knucklewalk. It was a somewhat capable bipedal, it has shorter snout and smaller teeth than the modern species. It was also smaller than either. I very much doubt Wrangham would had proposed Pan prior today with our new knowledge. Also, the title of the book "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond is not a formal proposal to combine the two genera, it is a literary tool to emphasize our closeness of our two genera. And again, the phylogenetic tree is still not in doubt. So, to sum it up: No, humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's another nice essay, but it highlights one of the many problems with this article. You haven't found a single, irrefutable source that tells us directly that there is a "Common misconception" here, and what the "truth" is. You have produced some (very good) original research in an area where debate obviously still exists. While your work is good, I can't see how we can simply list this stuff as a "Common misconception", or not. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Creationists often ask the question "If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today?" http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/21/humans-evolved-from-apes . http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html . Real debate does not exist on this topic. Nobody is seriously trying to argue that Sahelanthropus Tchadensis, or Orrorin Tugenensis or Ardipithecus Kaddaba was a chimpanzee Qed (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the real problem is that we are getting a bit too in-depth here. The misconception, as often touted by creationists, is that humans evolved from either of the modern species with the common name "chimpanzee" (Pan troglodytes or Pan paniscus). We can find plenty of references to indicate both that this is common, and that it is a misconception (these aren't great, but doing a simple google search turns up [20] and [21] for starters). The taxonomic particulars of where chimps and humans belong on the phylogenetic tree are not "commonly" thought about at all, being basically the purview of experts in evolutionary biology, and ipso facto not common misconceptions. siafu (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There's certainly a common misconception (especially from creationists) that humans evolved from another present-day ape species. The problem here, if there is one, is the pedantic nature of the Internet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that it's not even "commonly" known that there are two modern species of chimpanzee. Most people would think there was only one. Pinning these things down is darned near impossible. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? PBS[22] managed to do it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Do what? HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Explain this in a plain and simple manner without getting bogged down in pedantic details. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman,

Thanks for your informed discussion. It appears the mainstream scientific consensus is to not refer to the common ancestor of humans and modern chimpanzees as "chimpanzees". If this is the case, I would support reverting my last edit of this section. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is wrong to focus on chimps. The common belief is that man evolved from apes. Eg, this faq says, "If Man Evolved From Ape, Then Why Are There Still Apes?" [23] The answer says that "man did not evolve from modern apes." Yes, but evolution teaches that man did evolve from ancestors that are commonly classified as apes. The article should explain this, if it is going to delve into this silly issue. Roger (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The "why are there still apes"? misconception is a separate issue. The current question is regarding the common belief that humans evolved from existing species of simians, the "humans evolved from monkeys" or "humans evolved from chimpanzees" misconception. Let's deal with one first, then we can move on to the other. siafu (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, we did evolve from an ape, scientifically we are apes. That we evolved from an ape is not a misunderstanding, the only real misunderstanding here is that we evolved from chimpanzees (which are modern species). I'll look at a rewording. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the main misconception is that humans evolved from a present day species (monkeys, chimps, apes, whatever) as opposed to a common ancestor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it's worth pointing out that the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps resembled neither species very much, both species having significantly changed ever since, and there are arguments to the effect that the human–chimp MRCA may have rather resembled orang-utans, if anything.

I think that the misconception that at some point, our ancestors looked like chimps, regardless of whether they were technically chimps or not, is indeed quite widespread, while it's quite likely that chimps are no more basal than humans are in many respects, but highly derived, as well, their genome having changed a real lot ever since the split, too.

As models for early human ancestors, chimps are not really suitable, then. That Kanzi is able to manufacture Oldowan-type stone tools whose appearance postdates the human–chimp split by several millions of years might be taken as confirming this, although, admittedly, the MRCA might well have had the same ability, just didn't come up with it yet (apparently). Kanzi also learned this skill rather than coming up with it on his own. What this does teach us, however, is that just because humans and chimps have something in common doesn't mean that the MRCA had it, too; for example, that chimps use signs even in the wild does not necessarily mean that the MRCA did the same, and the origins of language may be considerably younger than the chimp–human split. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

In the discussion of the We can do it entry above, Dr bab mooted a discussion of inclusion criteria. Rather than have that discussion in the context of a minor and short-lived proposed entry, I thought it deserved it's own section.

My take is that the 'We can do it' entry is an example of a "misconception" that springs from mere ignorance or unfamilarity with the subject. That is, there is not an active promulgation of the incorrect notion, it's just that most people don't know the details of this perticular subject and may give the wrong answer if asked. To my mind, these sorts of "misconceptions" do not qualify for inclusion in this article. When I'm trying to judge whether something (say, statement X) qualifies as a "common misconception" I'm looking for a) clear consensus among reliable sources that statement X is false, and b) numerous examples of non-reliable sources stating statement X is true. Without b) I don't think it qualifies as a "common misconception'.

In the case of We can do it, I did not see many examples of websites, pamphlets, booklets, etc stating "the woman in the We Can Do It poster is Rosie the Riviter". Likewise, I don't think there are enough examples of websites, pamphlets, booklets, etc stating "Cinco de Mayo is Mexican Independence Day" to support inclusion, so I would support removal of that entry.

By contrast, there are numerous non-reliable sources presenting the Equal Transit Time theory as fact, claiming sunflowers track the sun across the sky, or stating "Irregardless is not a word", to take three examples of well-sourced misconceptions.

I have not yet crafted proposed language to place in the criteria for inclusion to reflect the above. Suggestions and dissenting views welcome.

_____________________

Regarding the "single-country" issue, I do not think that should be a barrier to entry. For instance, the "Fan death" misconception seems to be specific to South Korea, yet it is an interesting and well sourced entry. I am sympathetic to complaints that the article is US centric and would support removal of some of the less notable US-only entries (perhaps moving them to another article on US misconceptions).

_____________________

Another idea for better QA would be to suggest (require?) that proposals for new entries be presented on the talk page for review before adding them to the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank's for moving this to a separate section. I was thinking of doing so myself, but I also wanted to adress the Rosie the riveter issue.

I suggested inclusion criteria similar to yours during the last afd debate (I read that whole thing last night, man it's a mess). My suggestion was that only misconceptions wrongly propagated by reliable sources should be included. The counter argument was that by definition this could not work, as we could not claim that a reliable source is false. Perhaps your suggestion is better thought through in requiring unreliable sources.

I would also add a third requirement however (you might have implicitly implied it): Every misconception on this list must be described as a misconception in a reliable source. Without this requirement, if we only look for "statement X is true" in unreliable sources, and "statement X is false" in reliable sources, and then add that item here, we are doing synthesis.Dr bab (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that entries should not be the result of synthesis.

Your proposed requirement Every misconception on this list must be described as a misconception in a reliable source. may already be covered by requirement 2 in the intro to this talk page: The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception., but I think the new phrasing is more concise and to the point. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, you implicitly implied it. Your suggestion would then be to expand the existing criteria 1-4 with your criteria a) and b) above. What are other people's thoughts on this? Dr bab (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Glass is a liquid misconception

Recently, the repeated claims that glas is a "highly-viscous liquid" have been inserted in the article. Is this claim justified, per a consensus of the sources cited in the article and the discussion above? siafu (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

The current (VER 1) wording of this section is:

Glass does not flow at room temperature as a high-viscosity liquid;[220] although glass shares some molecular properties found in liquids, glass at room temperature is an "amorphous solid" that only begins to flow above the glass transition temperature,[221] though the exact nature of the glass transition is not considered settled among theorists and scientists.[222] Panes of stained glass windows are often thicker at the bottom than at the top, and this has been cited as an example of the slow flow of glass over centuries. However, this unevenness is due to the window manufacturing processes used at the time. Normally the thick end of glass would be installed at the bottom of the frame, but it is also common to find old windows where the thicker end has been installed to the sides or the top.[221][222] No such distortion is observed in other glass objects, such as sculptures or optical instruments, that are of similar or even greater age. One researcher estimated in 1998 that for glass to actually "flow" at room temperatures would take many times the age of the earth.[221][222][223][224]

The version (VER 2) last put up by Mark Marathon:

Glass does not flow at room temperature as a high-viscosity liquid; glass is a highly viscous liquid [220][221] that flows very slowly [222]. Glass shares some molecular properties found in liquids, glass at room temperature is considered by scientists to be a highly viscous liquid [223][224] or an "amorphous solid" that only begins to flow above the glass transition temperature,[225] though the exact nature of the glass transition is not considered settled among theorists and scientists.[226] Panes of stained glass windows are often thicker at the bottom than at the top, and this has been cited as an example of the slow flow of glass over centuries. However, this unevenness is due to the window manufacturing processes used at the time. Normally the thick end of glass would be installed at the bottom of the frame, but it is also common to find old windows where the thicker end has been installed to the sides or the top.[225][226] No such distortion is observed in other glass objects, such as sculptures or optical instruments, that are of similar or even greater age. One researcher estimated in 1998 that for glass to actually "flow" at room temperatures would take many times the age of the earth.[225][226][227][228]

Not justified I believe, per my arguments made above and the discussion of the sources there, that the claim that glass is a liquid is not justified, and should not be included in the passage. siafu (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be helpful to put the "any times the age of the earth" higher up, and note that on such time scales, all non-crystalline solids would run. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Many crystalline solids (like aluminum and many other metals) would run as well, due to creep. siafu (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. I suggest the following amendment (MOD1) replace the current first sentence -- Glass does not flow at room temperature. It is an "amorphous solid" which shares some molecular properties found in liquids, but it only begins to flow above the glass transition temperature. The exact nature of the glass transition is not considered settled among theorists and scientists.. With the relevant refs of course. Moriori (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the MOD1 label to make finding the suggestion easier. --Lexein (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I do think it's important to note explicitly that glass is not a liquid, though it sometimes can be treated as one. How about something more like: Glass does not flow at room temperature, and though it is sometimes described as a "high-viscosity" liquid, it is more accurately described as an "amorphous solid"... continuing on as you've written it. Would that be acceptable? siafu (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose There is plenty opf acadmic research that out there in public domain that coudl reference it, but on side note it has been proven glass is a liquid but not in the convetioal form that we see a liquid as, it like liquid nitrgeon its liquid only under certain criteria but generally a gasAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying; glass is not like liquid nitrogen, and the sources discussed so far all agree that glass is not actually a liquid, but can only treated like one under certain circumstances. Do you have any references that say otherwise? siafu (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

i was using a anologay to describe glass as aliquid. i am not saying glass is a liquid in the conventioal form only in the form like nitergeon only under certain circumstnces and i dnt mean when it been melted. as for source i said ther eplenty of acadmeic research into it, i dnt want to be invovled in this discussion i am respond to the rfc with regard to the change, i basically saying what you said "but can only treated like one under certain circumstances." just i might have came across rightAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand now. Would you support Moriori's suggestion above, then, as being a better representation of scientific consensus? siafu (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Appears i mis read what is current and getting replaced with as discussed above why i support thisAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose My take is that this article should deal only with the misconception - i.e. the belief that glass flows at room temperature - and sidestep the issue of whether glass is really a liquid. Glass shares sufficient similarities with liquids that it may be correct to think of it as a liquid in some circumstances; that doesn't mean it is a liquid, but a full discussion would take more than the two or three sentences we have here. I would suggest that this issue be explored in depth at either the Glass or Amorphous solid articles.

I support Moriori's suggested language. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose VER2. Keep VER1 with MOD1 modification. As the editor who sourced this item and added it to the Glass article to meet the new four criteria for the List, I'm quite disappointed that this RFC was even necessary.
@Mr Swordfish, at the List we generally try to state both the misconception and the correction where needed. Sometimes this is done too concisely, leading to confusing sentences. --Lexein (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose VER2. Keep VER1 with MOD1 modification. Dr bab (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I also oppose VER2 and support keeping VER1 with Moriori's MOD1 modifications. -- Hi Ev 03:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Question RfC brought me here and it is unclear which of the following questions discussed here we're commenting on:
- Is glass an amorphous solid?
- Should this item be included in the list of misconceptions?
- Do we prefer VER 1 or VER 2

-—Kvng 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The question at hand is whether the article should be modified to use VER2 instead of VER1. A side question is whether to adopt MOD1. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

VER1 References [223] and [224] do not support the contradictory assertions in VER2. MOD1 is problematic because if transition temperature is truly unsettled, it could conceivably be below room temperature. -—Kvng 02:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Scrap metal entry

The criteria for inclusion is quite clear that only current misconceptions should appear on this list. The scrap metal misconception is from WWII - is there any evidence that it is current? I deleted it in conformance with the requirements at the top of the talk page, and it was reverted. Let's hash this out on the talk page.

What's the consensus about leaving or removing this entry? I think it should be removed as non-current. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this clearly fails the inclusion criteria, since it's not current. Although the entry says "During and after World War II", the most recent ref is from 1961, and even that doesn't clearly establish it as a common misconception at the time. Hairhorn (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Remove all non-conforming content on sight. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that it was strictly non-conforming. I had this chat with another editor recently: it seems to me that an item should stand as "current" as long as there are plausibly people alive who believe or have heard of the misconception. 1961 is not that much of a stretch.

I mean, not only are my parents, but my grandparents are alive, and they still become enraged over misconceptions spread by propaganda and yellow journalism, and this scrap steel item wound them up all over again. I won't revert the deletion now, because I know this item is a perennial, and it's going to come up again, with a newer RS source. --Lexein (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that other editor, and I'm old too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Wassat, sonny? --Lexein (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As for currency, the idea of trying to keep such a list strictly current is crazy because it neither is possible to maintain currency without maintaining a corps of editors doing nothing but keeping up with ill-defined moving targets, and in any case, to prove non-durrency is to prove a negative; you have never heard of such a belief? Good grief; my auntie has believed it for decades; what about *her* auntie and fifty thousand other aunties that you never have met? Look we have enough trouble just keeping up with misinformation and showing it to be probably bona fide; let's not waste our substance on arguing the toss about its currency as well! JonRichfield (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it will be difficult to define currency, but we must have some sort of cut-off mustn't we? Or else there could be all sorts of ancient and outdated misconceptions on here. I was that other editor which discussed this with Lexein on my talk page, where I said that Lexein's suggestion is "a good definition, or at least a good starting point for a definition."

Another way could be to demand that at least one of the sources that describes X as a common misconception is no older than Y years (say 50 or 100?), and that this source describes the common misconception X as something current, not "it was once thought that". What number to draw the line at however, would have to be decided somewhat arbitrarily. Dr bab (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, if the list is not supposed to cover early dynastic Egyptian and Chinese superstitions, but even if we keep it to post-Newtonian times, there are plenty of extantly current superstitions that are centuries old, and others that are just decades old, but only lasted a few years. Consider say N-Rays and polywater, and compare them with the legacies of Mesmer (over 2 centuries, and counting) that still sell 21st Century magnets by the billions of dollars. Just examples...! I don't favour a sharp cut-off for items that are still of interest. You might wish to omit the belief casting a clout ere May be out is bad luck, but if in doubt, it is less harmful to leave it in than omit it. Not that there always is much doubt! JonRichfield (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence the problem with this article which has been discussed much in the past. The article has no natural boundaries. It is my opinion that this article is already out of control, with no end in sight. There is nothing stopping this article from become an encyclopedia of it's own.--Asher196 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You're 100% correct. As usual we will get some well meaning editors say in response that "It can be fixed. We only have t be vigilant." In a few days they will have lost interest, moved on from this article, and stopped being one of the vigilantes. The article is an unmitigated disaster. Now, before anyone disagrees with what I've just said, are you willing to make a public commitment here to watch this article every day, fixing every sloppy addition, forever? HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Lexein and JonRichfield may be correct. It is possible that this is still a current misconception. But a pillar of wikipedia is verifiability. If we're going to list this as a current common misconception then we have to provide a reliable source that supports that it is current. Unfortunately, the opinions of elder relatives of wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. Contrary to JonRichfield's assertion, our task is not to prove non-currency in order to remove the item; just the opposite - in order for the item to remain, we must find a reliable source that implies currency. As the only sources cited were over 50 years old, the claim of currency was unsubstantiated. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 January 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add to the "Senses" section about the five different tastes the following: New studies also suggest the addition of a sixth taste bud, which can sense Calcium.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). Jimmij132 (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Let's hang fire on this one for a bit. It is not clear and is not explicitly claimed in the article cited that the taste bud does in fact give humans any new taste sensation at all. I would like something a lot more positive before wanting to see it posted. It doesn't after all make or break the article if we have a few months delay to decide it one way or the other. JonRichfield (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Source does not describe anything as a "common misconception". -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

One frequently given (at least in German-speaking countries) explanation (among several) for the common belief that Einstein was a poor student is the Swiss grading system, which is the inverse of the scale used in Germany (where 1 is the best note rather than 6), and therefore a photo of Einstein's grade report can easily mislead those familiar with the system in Germany but not the Swiss scale. I wonder why this is not mentioned. Has it been decided that the article only plainly describe misconceptions and the contrasting consensus, without providing explanations for their genesis? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The genesis of misconceptions are sometimes included when they can be reliable sourced. Is there a reliable source supporting this one? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

the common cold

It seems to me that one common misconception which should be really high on anybody's list is the idea that you can "catch cold" by exposing yourself to cold temperatures and/or rain, whereas the truth is that the common cold is cause by viruses which you can only get from other people who already have the virus.

A perfect example of this is the Disney cartoon Peter Pan, where Captain Hook falls into the ocean and the following day he has a terrible runny nose, sneezing, and a fever. From whom did he contract the virus? Was it from the crocodile? We, the audience, are expected to believe that his illness is a direct result of prolonged contact with water.

Even among educated people who supposedly know the germ theory of disease, I see this misconception over and over again. If I forget my hat or my umbrella, there's a good chance someone will say to me "I hope you don't catch a cold!"

I was about to just add this in as an entry on the page but I wanted to check and see if maybe I'm missing something here. Has there already been lengthy discussions about the catching a cold misconception? Was it once included and then was removed for some reason that I'm not seeing? I propose that it definitely should be included.

I will admit that there is a small controversy regarding whether exposure to winter weather may affect the probability cold viruses being transmitted from person to person. My point is that you can't transmit something that isn't there. If you put send 50 people (none of whom are carrying cold viruses) out into a rainstorm, you will get back 50 people who are soaked and miserable, but not a single one of them will catch a cold. The question of whether cold weather affects the probability at all is the subject of some dispute. Is this reason enough for us to exclude "Exposure to winter weather causes the common cold." from the list of common misconceptions?

I look forward to your replies. Sbunny8 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the section of the top of this page titled Please read before proposing new entries. See if you can fit your ideas into those rules. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought I had already addressed each of the four bullet points in the Please read section. Okay, here goes.

The misconception's main topic is the common cold, which does have an article of its own.
The belief that you can catch cold from exposure to cold weather is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents (You can't catch a cold virus if the virus is not there.) and the fact that it is a common misconception (It's in many lists of old wives tales such as this one: [24]). Also, multiple examples exist in popular media where a character catches cold merely from exposure to cold air or cold water (It's a Wonderful Life, Peter Pan, The Great Muppet Caper), none of which would make sense unless the audiences were familiar with the misconception).
The misconception is mentioned in the wikipedia article on common colds, with sources.
The misconception is current, not ancient or obsolete. As I said, people say it to me quite frequently, and it appears in popular media from the 20th century.Sbunny8 (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Over at the main article on causes of the common cold it states the role of body cooling as a risk factor for the common cold is controversial. Since the consensus among reliable sources is unsettled, it would not be appropriate to list this as a "misconception". Yes, colds are caused by viruses, but Cold temperatures and damp weather may be risk factors, so the misconception is not clear. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

...which begs the question, is this minor controversy sufficient to warrant excluding the misconception from the list? There is no controversy over the fact that the common cold is cause by a virus, not wet hair, not exposure to cold air, not immersion in cold water. The only controversy is over the possibility that MAYBE winter weather affects the transmission rates of the virus while many others insist it does NOT affect the transmission rate of the virus. So, I ask again, do you think this indirect, tangential controversy is sufficient to exclude "Common cold is caused by a virus" from the list?

There is a controversy regarding the question of precisely where did Christopher Columbus land in 1492. Numerous attempts have been made to reconstruct the location and none have had 100% success. Yet, we haven't concluded that Columbus should be removed from the list.Sbunny8 (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Sbunny8 has established that this meets the criteria, i.e. that this is both a clear misconception, and a common one. The question of whether or not temperature affects transmission rates is rather minor, and seems to be notable specifically because of the existence of this common misconception, whereas other factors affecting rhinovirus transmission are not so notable or controversial. I support inclusion. siafu (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The "Weather" section at Common cold make the following points:

The traditional folk theory is that a cold can be "caught" by prolonged exposure to cold weather[20]
The role of body cooling as a risk factor for the common cold is controversial.[21]
Some of the viruses that cause the common colds are seasonal[22]
Some believe this to be due to increased time spent indoors in proximity;[23] it may also be related to changes in the respiratory system that result in greater susceptibility.[23]
Low humidity increases viral transmission rates potentially due to dry air allowing small viral droplets to disperse farther and stay in the air longer.[24]

The only relevant point to our inclusion here as I see it, is the second point. The abstract of reference 21 reads:

"There is a constant increase in hospitalizations and mortality during winter months; cardiovascular diseases as well as respiratory infections are responsible for a large proportion of this added morbidity and mortality. Exposure to cold has often been associated with increased incidence and severity of respiratory tract infections. The data available suggest that exposure to cold, either through exposure to low environmental temperatures or during induced hypothermia, increases the risk of developing upper and lower respiratory tract infections and dying from them; in addition, the longer the duration of exposure the higher the risk of infection. Although not all studies agree, most of the available evidence from laboratory and clinical studies suggests that inhaled cold air, cooling of the body surface and cold stress induced by lowering the core body temperature cause pathophysiological responses such as vasoconstriction in the respiratory tract mucosa and suppression of immune responses, which are responsible for increased susceptibility to infections. The general public and public health authorities should therefore keep this in mind and take appropriate measures to prevent increases in morbidity and mortality during winter due to respiratory infections"

Is this article talking about the common cold at all? It is published in "The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease". Dr bab (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this article talking about the common cold at all?

The article concerns itself with respiratory tract infections, of which the common cold is one example. So, yes.

My objection about including this item is based on my inability to find a single source making the claim "cold temperatures cause the common cold". Every web page I've visited states that the common cold is caused by a virus. Granted, many claim that "cold temperatures cause the common cold" is a myth, but is this myth actually current? If so, it should be easy to find examples of it being spread, but I can't find any.

Furthermore, a preponderance of the evidence shows that cold temperatures are a risk factor in getting infected, so admonishions such as "don't go out without a coat, you may catch a cold" are not entirely incorrect.

All that said, it may be possible to include this item in the article, but it will require some very careful writing. And I'd like to see more evidence that it is a current misconception actively being spread. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources indicating that this is a common misconception abound, see [25], [26], [27], [28], which all indicate that this is both common, and a misconception. The fact that cold weather correlates with the common cold is secondary; even if cold weather increases susceptibility (not clear that it actually does from the sources), the misconception is still present. Cold weather doesn't cause colds, viruses do. siafu (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The NY Times article listed directly above, is actually less about the misconception and more about a recent study by the Common Cold Center in England, conducted on 180 volunteers, and showing that exposure to cold temperatures increased the rate of infection by nearly 3 times (29% from 10%). This "misconception" may instead be just an example of poorly worded conventional wisdom. Yes, of course, viruses cause colds, and exposure to cold temperatures may increase the likelihood. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Poorly worded conventional wisdom" is a bit confusing of an objection. The misconception is that the common cold is caused by being cold, and is commonly held (as indicated by the sources). There may be a related truth about increased susceptibility to transmission, though it's not entirely clear, but that's not invalidating the misconception. Being in proximity to people with colds or being otherwise immunocompromised increases the susceptibility of transmission far more than being cold, for example, but the "conventional wisdom" doesn't cover that, and the fact that this particular risk factor (being cold) is so hotly debated and investigated really only serves to highlight the prevalence of the misconception. siafu (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good luck verifying that people think that viruses is not responsible for colds. The NY Times article states "scientists have for years insisted that colds are more common in the winter largely because the weather drives people indoors, allowing germs to jump easily from one person to the next." That suggests that the NY Times thinks the misconception is about why viruses are more successful at causing a colds at sometimes rather than other times. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there is too close a link between "being cold" and "catching cold" to unequivocally state that "It is a misconception that being cold causes cold." I realise that the virus is actually what causes you to catch it, but is it a misconception that "not wearing a condom may cause HIV?"Dr bab (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying yes to that question, personally, but it seems that there is unlikely to be a consensus supporting this position, so I'm fine with just dropping it at this point. siafu (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting point about HIV, but there's two major differences here. #1 There is overwhelming evidence and clear logic that condom use actually does affect transmission rates of HIV, in a cause-and-effect fashion, but there is no clear consensus about whether wearing a jacket actually affects the transmission rates of the cold virus at all. #2 I've never seen any examples in popular media of someone catching HIV from masturbating without a condom, but I've seen plenty of examples of someone catching a cold from going outside alone without a jacket. So, yes, hypothetically, if large numbers of people actually believed that you could catch HIV by yourself from not using a condom then I'd call that a misconception and add it to the list. A better analogy would be what if people believed you could protect yourself from HIV by putting on a condom after having sex? Then would you agree that's a misconception? A similar thing is going on here with the common cold. Many people believe that you can stay indoors during winter months, in close proximity to hundreds of other humans, some of whom are carrying viruses, and then when you go outside you'll be protected if you wear a jacket. That's a misconception.Sbunny8 (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Swordfish that some careful wording would be required. We'd need to say that the common cold is caused by viruses, not by exposure to water or cold weather alone. In the description, we could mention the fact that transmission rates correlate to winter weather but it's unclear whether this is due to some suppression of the immune system or just the fact that people tend to spend more time indoors with other people when the weather is unpleasant. We could also mention ways to avoid catching cold that actually work, like frequent hand washing, sneezing or coughing into your elbow, encouraging workers who are sick to just stay home, et cetera.Sbunny8 (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Xmas

I totally agree... I learned this several years ago when i started Greek....you can indeed see for yourself that

Xmas

and

Χmas look very similar

However, as a language purist, the latter (Χmas) would be more properly pronounced as "Khee-mas" rather than "Ecks-mas"

Just my idea... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.203.120 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Embassies and consulates misconception

It seems like this misconception is slightly misstated in a way that makes it obviously incorrect. I don't think that there is a misconception that embassies and consulates are, for instance, physically part of the sending nation. Rather than a misconception, saying "the embassy is Russian territory" is usually a shorthand reference to the legal immunity that the grounds and some of its occupants enjoy. Nathan^T 20:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this is a very common misconception, and frequently appears in the plots of TV shows, movies, and books. For some sources to back this claim up, a 10 second google search turns up a few: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33],[34], [35]. siafu (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

But I think that in virtually all those cases, it's used as a shorthand to refer to the legal protections; i.e., the "sovereign" nature of the embassies with respect to law enforcement or physical penetration by the host nation. Nathan^T 21:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the cases all point to a common misconception that embassies are sovereign territory of the countries they represent. siafu (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Siafu, Snowrise, Swordfish and discharge

I hope someone is awake, and I don't want to get involved in a time-wasting slanging match, never mind edit- or wikilawyering war, so I can only hope that someone at that end is listening.

It is common clinical knowledge that the colour and clarity of a discharge is not a precise and repeatable sign, even within the course of a single case, but it still is an important indication of progress, such as whether or when bacterial activity becomes significant. There is nothing mystical about this; the appearance simply reflecting the content of cellular fragments and detritus, as well as microbial cells and metabolites, which in turn are helpful in assessing the appropriateness or need for particular measures such as antibiotic therapy. Such signs are not to be interpreted in isolation, but in combination with other signs such as changes in fever or levels of pain.

On the other hand it is difficult to locate reliable and nontrivial citations for such informal or semi-formal signs. In an example such as this I strongly deprecate radical deletion of an entry simply because no explicit, adequate and peer-reviewed citation has yet been produced. In particular, as critics may readily verify for their own purposes, such citations as one might find tend to be so fragmented and qualified that though they are indeed adequate in sum, it is not easy to present them as coherent citations. To produce 4 or 5 citations to support a single point might be justified in an article dedicated to the subject, but in a non-technical discussions such as this it would look suspiciously like Wikipedia:Citation overkill.

At the same time, citations are necessary, and surely suitable sources must exist; this seems to me like a classic case for the citation needed tag, not for arbitrary deletion simply because the existing citation is inadequate. That in the long run is the best way of fishing for a good source. I vote for reinstating the paragraph with such a tag, and stopping the slanging match. JonRichfield (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The question, IMO, is more whether or not these details are really relevant for the misconception, and if they are, whether there is even a misconception left at all. Do the sources speak to this, or just to the particulars of specific colorations? siafu (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading that comment, I realize it may not come off too clearly. The questions, to my mind, are what exactly is the misconception, is it common, and is it in fact a misconception? The first one is obvious: that people with the common cold produce mucus/sputum that has a green tinge. The sources support that this is commonly believed and that it's not true, to answer the second and third. Adding additional material is irrelevant here, as it doesn't have anything to do with the statement of the misconception, its commonality, or its veracity, and should be reserved for the article on the common cold, unless there is something relevant to these questions in the new content, and IMO, there doesn't seem to be. If there is reason to invalidate or just thoroughly cloud the issues, we might be better off just removing the entry altogether. siafu (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Mmm yes. I must agree that as stated the misconception does not come across clearly. There certainly is a lot of lay ignorance about the matter (no pun) but that is nothing unusual in medicine and hardly counts as a misconception. I think at the very least for this article the passage should include a reasonably supported statement of what the lay view is, reasonably articulated, rather than just bolted on to fit the article. The technical facts would then sit comfortably as a correction. I suspect that if that can be achieved successfully, then selecting a suitable citation for a statement of that type, as opposed to a citation to support the technical realities, should be easier to find. If that presents problems, the rational thing to do would be to move the statement to some other article where it belongs more naturally. It is not as if the information were intrinsically without value or interest. JonRichfield (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; note #3 in the edit warning for this article indicates that the information on the list must already be included on the relevant topic article (in this case common cold), so that should happen anyway. siafu (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for arriving late to this discussion after previously taking a strong stance; my time has been limited the last two days. I feel that JonRichfield has already quite adequately addressed both the clinical issues relevant to the edit and the complexities of citations in cases such as these, and I won't belabour either point. As to the newer and larger issue of whether the entry as a whole is even warranted here, I'm hesitant to speculate one way or the other; I will say that I also questioned just how common that misconception is when I first read the entry, but obviously it's difficult to establish a universal and empirical standard or metric for "common" on an article such as this. If the consensus view is that the entry should be removed, I certainly have no objection to my added content going with it -- the entire point of my edit was to try to make an important clarification as, the way the original entry was written, I was concerned that the average reader might extract to generalities and falsely assume that the color of discharge does not typically reflect the pathogen involved, which is certainly not the case. Obviously that concern is moot if the entry is removed in full. If someone relocates the statements to another article entirely and sources are found wanting there, I can be of assistance in that regard. Snow (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, this information is quite pertinent for the article on the common cold; since you are the author of the text in question I defer to you to place it there. As I mentioned in my previous comment as well, this is also considered a precondition for inclusion of information on this article. siafu (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not confident enough that the original statement belongs at either location to make such an edit -- I'll leave that to consensus here too. As stated above, my addition was for the sole purpose of clarifying a statement which I feared might be promoting a misconception (on an article with the very purpose of dispelling misconceptions). But as yet, I've no particularly strong position on the necessity of the original statement, nor support or opposition for keeping it, moving it, making a redundancy of it on Common cold to meet this article's criteria, or deleting it outright. I only feel that if the original statement stays that the clarifying addition (or something very like it) should be also included. Snow (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if i was a bit brusque in reverting the edit, but please understand that this article receives a lot of inappropriate edits and when something is posted that clearly violates the submission guidelines it will get reverted fairly quickly. My hunch is that someone else would have done it if I hadn't gotten to it first. Note that when something is reverted the material is not gone for good, but remains in the history; if reliably sourced citations can be provided the material can be restored. Also, please don't infer that it was reverted because I thought it was wrong; it was the lack of cites and lack of treatment by the main article that served as the reason for reversion.

As for whether the added material is right or not, i think that the issue is murky enough that it needs careful wording at a minimum, and your attempt to provide balance is laudable. My take is that I don't think the misconcepiton is established clearly enough for the issue to appear in this article, so I would support removal (pending further clarification with sources, of course). I look forward to seeing the issue addressed clearly on the parent page (common cold). Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the additional text under discussion is as follows:

However, the color and consistency of discharge associated with a secondary infection of the eye that results from a cold may in some cases give an indication as the precipitating pathogen as viral infections will typically be accompanied by a serous discharge that is clear or only vaguely yellowish, whereas bacterial infections are much more likely to cause a purulent or mucopurulent pus that is distinctly yellow, green, white or even brown.

In my view, this is not relevant to the misconception, which is simply the idea that having a cold causes one's mucus to turn green. While the statement in the addition is true, according to the sources already cited, it is not addressing this misconception at all as it is about a secondary infection (i.e. not the cold itself), and only says that it's possible to have discharge of a number of colors as a result of said secondary infection. I think the entry should stay as it is, without the additional text, and if the additional text proves necessary (per consensus), I would argue that we would be better off removing the entry entirely rather than presenting a lengthy and confusing version which does not support the existence of a common misconception. siafu (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ferdinand Magellan

It seems to me that most people believe that Ferdinand Magellan was the first man to circumnavigate the globe when, in fact, it was only his expedition that was successful as he died Philippines. Is this belief widely enough held to warrant inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErixTheRed (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be very helpful to find a reputable source that states that many people hold that misconception. Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ratio of Neurons to Glia

An entry in the 'Brain' section actually includes a common misconception, perpetuated by textbooks for many years:

"People do not use only ten percent of their brains. While it is true that a small minority of neurons in the brain are actively firing at any one time, the inactive neurons are important too.[294][295] This misconception has been commonplace in American culture at least as far back as the start of the 20th century, and was attributed to William James, who apparently used the expression metaphorically.[296] Some findings of brain science (such as the high ratio of glial cells to neurons) have been mistakenly read as providing support for the misconception.[296]"

The misconception I'm referring to is the 'high ratio of glial cells to neurons' bit. Here is a Scientific American article discussing this misconception, and here is the new research which suggests the ratio is not high,(10-50) as was once thought, but is rather very close to 1. Wikipedia's page for 'neuroglia' also perpetuates this misconception of a high ratio.

The misconceptions page could reference the fact that the majority of our neurons (~80%) are concerned with the non-cognitive function of coordination (as they exist in the cerebellum), but these neurons are for the most part very small, and do not make up 80% of the brain by volume--as they are very densely packed--but the fallacy did not mention whether its percentage was by number or by volume.

I'm new to the editing-wikipedia scene, so I just wanted to make sure people who weren't knew about this--two wikipedia pages, and maybe more, are in error.

132.162.91.6 (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Neuroscience student

Your facts are correct, but I wonder if these misconceptions can be described as common for purposes of this article, given that the great majority of non-scientists have no idea what glial cells are. These could be described as common misconceptions held by neuroscientists (as I know from experience), but I'm not sure that is what is needed for this article. (Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way!) Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for calling this to aur attention. I've removed the questionable material on the ratio of glial cells to neurons, which was only tangentially related to the entry. I agree with Looie that the ratio of glial cells to neurons is not a common conception or misconception, moreover it appears that this is emerging science and may not be settled. So, I don't think it is appropriate to include an entry for the ratio of glial cells to neurons in this article. However I would look forward to seeing the matter treated at the neuroglia page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

News, archive period

New Zealand Listener noticed the article. And I increased the Talk archive period from 2 to 4 weeks. A month seems more reasonable for open questions and hot topics. --Lexein (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Followup: Why was there a 32x traffic spike on January 8 (Jan 7:4K, 8:130K, 9:16K, 10:7K)? The xkcd comic referred to the first Tuesday in February (Feb 5). It's freaking me out. --Lexein (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Being a celebrity

What about adding misconceptions to do with things like acting, being in show business, or being a celebrity? A good starting point might be here or here.

Discuss:--Coin945 (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 February 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I wanted to edit the section in the cooking area on using oil in cooking pasta to keep it from sticking. As a chef I know that using oil in cooking pasta to keep it form sticking to the pan or pot is crucial unless it's a non-stick pan. While it is true that oil is a hydrophobic substance, during a rolling boil the water and oil intermingle and the oil is brought to the bottom of the pan coating the pasta. This helps create a barrier between the pasta and the bottom of the pan. Often the pasta sticks to the bottom of the pan because it is added to the water before it is a rolling boil. The pasta sears to the bottom of the pan due to the heat from the stove's element. By adding oil and properly cooking the pasta by waiting until the water has come to a boil the pasta doesn't stick. The misconception is that the oil is added to the water to keep the pasta from sticking to each other. This isn't so, nor does it actually work in this sense.

Lordrelentless (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Not done According to the sources we have, this is not true-- even during a boil, oil and water will not mix, and oil, being less dense than water, will remain at the top. Unless you have a secondary source that says otherwise? siafu (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

America is not named after Amerigo Vespucci

This was in the 'QI Book of General Ignorance (Extended Version)'. America was most likely named after a British backer of an expedition to America, called Richard Ameryk. There are a number of reasons for him being a likely candidate, the most important of which is that newly-discovered locations were named after the surnames of the wealthy backers of the expedition that found them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.124.193 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This has come up before -- nobody actually knows for sure what the truth is. See Note 2 of our article on Amerigo Vespucci for a summary of the current state of affairs. Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It might be better just to remove the bit about Vespucci; the misconcpetion is only about Columbus, anyway. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and do that. siafu (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Water consuption

"Moreover, consuming things that contain water, such as juice, tea, milk, fruits, and vegetables, also keeps a person hydrated, and can supply more than half of the needed water."

This sentence confuses me. It seems to imply that people can acquire most but not all of their required water by consuming things that contain water. This is simply not true. 100% of required water intake can be supplied by consuming things that contain water. Drinking an actual glass of water is not necessary. The last part of the sentence seems ambiguous to this and should be changed. Louis.Marti (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right. I've removed everything after the final comma. The citation was dead, so I removed it too. HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

72 virgins in Islam

I have a problem with this misconception because it seems to be pedantic with whether it's from the Quran or not. I don't think that really matters since the misconception is just associated with Islam, and doesn't specify where it comes from. The entry then goes on to say that it's from a weakly sourced hadith, and that it shouldn't be believed by muslims... I mean hell, you might as well say the Quran itself is not well sourced and there's no evidence for god if you're going to say that. I say it should be taken out. ScienceApe (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that it is, in fact, a very common misconception that the Quran promises "72 virgins" to martyrs and, moreover, that this belief in free virgins in the afterlife is a motivating factor for suicide bombing ([36], [37], [38], e.g.). The difference between the Quran, nominally the sacred text accepted and revered by all Muslims, and hadith, which are supposed sayings, either uttered by or in some sense agreed with by Mohammed, and are hotly contested amongst Islamic scholars, is also significant. The contents of the hadith are extremely varying, and are notionally similar to the various differences in doctrine and theology amongst Christian denominations, and as such have widely varying levels of acceptance and use. Pointing out that something is a from a weakly-sourced hadith is not the same as just pointing out that a saying is from a religious text in general, whatever views you or I may have on the validity of religious texts; one (the Quran) is avowedly followed by literally billions of Muslims, whereas the other is sporadically varying followed or denounced by different communities of Muslims. This is reflected in how the misconception is currently written in the article, which says that hadith "must not necessarily be believed by a Muslim", and refers to Islamic doctrine (i.e., one must believe the Quran to be a Muslim, but the hadith not necessarily), and is sourced (see ref. 379). Perhaps this could be worded a bit more clearly, but it's not incorrect as written. siafu (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

At least reword it. I don't think Wikipedia should be telling Muslims what they should or should not believe whether it's sourced or not. ScienceApe (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That is reasonable as an immediate minimum. However, it is not enough. Unless someone can pretty soon produce a statement on the subject that is doctrine-free (read NPOV), encyclopaedic, materially factual, properly documented with appropriate citations, and non-controversial, it does not belong in the discussion of "misconceptions". As soon as the claim that anything is a "misconception" is based on religious discussion, whether fundamental or liberal, core or peripheral, informal tradition or sacred text, it should either be deleted, or at the very least be removed to a separate article on the relevant doctrinal topics. As matters stand, we have quite enough trouble with science/religion spitting matches or mutual mockery, without getting into theological hair splitting. If we accepted topics on doctrinal differences within any religion as "misconceptions" we soon would be swamped with nonsense, beginning with pre-classical mythology, and not ending with Mormons and Moonies. If this item does not get cleaned up pretty smartly, I'll delete it myself. JonRichfield (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We (wikipedia editors) are not "telling Muslims what they should or should not believe"; we are simply reporting what mainstream Islam doctrine says. There is a big difference. At the risk of gross oversimplification, the Quran represents mainstream doctrine while hadith does not. Hadith is not part of the Quran. None of this should be controversial.

As it stands, the entry is NPOV, encyclopaedic, materially factual, properly documented with appropriate citations, and should be non-controversial. The 72 virgins assertion is not in the Quran (that is a simple fact) yet many people think it is (that is the misconception). Whether it's true or not is beyond the scope of this article. I think the entry is pretty good as it stands and do not think it should be removed without first reaching a consensus here on the talk page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We had a somewhat related debate on satan and the bible before. In that entry as it was written when the debate arose, the "misconception" was phrased something like: "The devil is often portraied as blah blah blah in popular culture/media, but the bible says blah blah blah". Ie. it was phrased as "Many people believe X, but the bible says Y". At that time, the consensus was that the item could be kept if sources could be found so that the entry could be rephrased to "Many people believe the bible says X, but it really says Y". As no sources were brought forward establishing this fact, it was removed. If this establishes presedence, an entry like "many people believe the Koran says X, but it really says Y" should be perfectly fine, as long as it is properly sourced. To me, it is not immediately clear that the sources provided are sufficient for this. I would love to have a source that really states something that can be interpreted to mean "It is a common misconception that the Quran says that martyrs receive 72 virgins". The guardian source seems to be talking about actual believes of the afterlife: "It is widely believed that Muslim 'martyrs' enjoy rich sensual rewards on reaching paradise". I do not have access to Riyad-Us-Saliheen, but as it is a collection of the sayings of the prophet Mohammad, i doubt it would say much about misconceptions about the Quran. Are the straight dope and a theuglytruth.wordpress.com reliable sources? Dr bab (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Striaght Dope "... presently appears in more than 30 newspapers throughout the United States and Canada. Ballantine has published five collections of his work..." so, yes, I think it qualifies as a RS. theuglytruth appears to be just a blog, so I don't think so. And answers.yahoo.com is clearly not RS. Agree that better/more sourcing would help this entry, and that an entry of the form "many people believe the Koran says X, but it really says Y" is perfectly acceptable if sufficiently sourced. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I literally grabbed the first three results from a google search, and did not intend that to be a list of solid RS's, but rather just a quick illustration of the pervasiveness of the myth. I agree with your interpretation of the utility of those sources, though, and I think we can do better. siafu (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle twinkle little star

The sourcing for this being a common misconception seems awfully thin ("Many people think it was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" could mean as few as 100 people hardly making it commmon) , but it's arguably close enough that I feel I should ask for consensus before removing the entry. What do other editors think? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Birth control misconceptions

There are a bunch of these. One includes "A common misconception is that certain methods of birth control such as the intrauterine device works by causing abortions.^[12] The mechanism of action is in fact a prevention of fertilization per the World Health Organization.^[13]" A number of US politicians repeated this during the last election their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

One thing that Hot Stop may have been referring to in his revert, and which I hadn't remembered myself, is the third inclusion criterion: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." The place to bring this is first is intrauterine device, as this article is just a list. siafu (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yea my edit summary was in regards to the info not appearing on that article. But I also doubt the myth is common enough to be listed here. Hot Stop (Talk) 01:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this myth 10 or so times from the articles in question. Added here for example [39]. Have added to the IUD article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

refs

^ "Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation (TOC)" (PDF). Revised Proceedings of the BSCS, AIBS Symposium. MSU.edu. 2004. Retrieved January 13, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)^{[page needed]}
^ "It Is Not Just a Theory… It Is a Theory!". Chandra Chronicles. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. July 7, 2008. Retrieved April 8, 2009.
^ Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Third ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-226-45808-3.
^ "Misconceptions about the Nature of Science". UMT.edu. University of Montana, Div. Biological Sciences. Retrieved April 8, 2009.
^ "Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation (TOC)" (PDF). Revised Proceedings of the BSCS, AIBS Symposium. MSU.edu. 2004. Retrieved January 13, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)^{[page needed]}
^ "It Is Not Just a Theory… It Is a Theory!". Chandra Chronicles. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. July 7, 2008. Retrieved April 8, 2009.
^ Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Third ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-226-45808-3.
^ "Misconceptions about the Nature of Science". UMT.edu. University of Montana, Div. Biological Sciences. Retrieved April 8, 2009.
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_language#Linguistics_of_sign
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_language#Sign_languages.27_relationships_with_spoken_languages
^ http://www.stevens.edu/e344/15_fall_2008/core/section_4/FL&O_section_4.pdf , http://www.physics.emory.edu/~weeks/lab/glass
^ Kinetics, Human (2010). Health and wellness for life. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. p. 223. ISBN 9780736068505.
^ al.], [edited by] Steven G. Gabbe ... [et. Obstetrics : normal and problem pregnancies (6th ed. ed.). Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders. p. 528. ISBN 9781437719352. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |first= has generic name (help)

Origin of Summer Vacation

One common myth I've heard and used to believe is that America's long summer vacation was designed so that children could help their families in the farms over the summers. Some research reveals that they actually helped their families for planting and harvesting (spring and fall), and used to go to school over the summer. Summer vacation actually only started so that middle- and upper-class families could leave the cities during the hotter months (http://a-teachers-view.blogspot.com/2009/09/summer-vacation-at-risk-based-on-myth.html, http://www.infoplease.com/spot/schoolyear1.html). Derektom14 (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

American Army

In the "Ancient to early modern history" section, it states that "The American Revolution was not won by the use of guerrilla warfare. Though there were battles in the American Revolution in which guerrilla and other non-traditional tactics were employed, they were not the norm. The war was won by the American army learning to fight according to European warfare doctrine, and by America's alliance with France"

At the time of the American Revolution there was no "American army" (which links to the US Army page). What did exist and should be linked was/is the Continental Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimm4973 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"Elementary, my dear Watson"

In the misquotations portion of the article it claims that "Elementary, my dear Watson" was first spoken in film in 1929. The quote is actually first found in P.G. Wodehouse's book Psmith Journalist (1915)^[1] . The article may not be specifically wrong but it misleads the reader into thinking the 1929 film was the first instance of the phrase.

You have cited http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/elementary-my-dear-watson.html

Does this source qualify as a reliable source ? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Snopes indicates that it's unlikely that the film was the first mention of the quote. siafu (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've rewritten the entry so as not to refer to the first appearance, since this is tangential to the misconception. Thanks to both for calling attention to this. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the misconception here? Is it

A)"Fictional character Sherlock Holmes sometimes says 'Elementary, my dear Watson'" or

B)"Fictional character Sherlock Holmes sometimes says 'Elementary, my dear Watson' in the short stories written by Arthur Conan Doyle"

It can't be A, because Holmes does say exactly that in many movies, plays, radio dramas, etc. So, it must be B. But is there any evidence that this particular very specific notion is widely held? I doubt it, but if there is it is not cited in the entry. My assessment is that while this entry presents an interesting factoid, it fails to meet the criteria for this article and should be removed. Others opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Clearly it's B, but that's not supported by the sources, and I highly doubt that that's actually a common misconception. While Sherlock Holmes as a character is quite popular and well-known, this is primarily, nowadays, through the various film adaptations and extensions that have been produced and not the original A.C. Doyle stories, which I doubt are all that widely read (though I enjoyed them much myself as a child...). I would support removing this "misconception", per your rationale. siafu (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeing no objections to removing this entry, I'm going to delete it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Gavel in UK Courtrooms

It is a common misconception that judges in UK courtrooms use gavels. They do not and never have done. They are used in US courtrooms but not British ones. The only public events where gavels are commonly used in the UK is in auction rooms. Many British films however still show judges using gavels in UK courts. If anyone can find a proof link for that?...Martyn Smith (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Pasta cooking with admixture of oil

Oil would not necessarily stay at the top. If the water is boiling and therefore agitated, droplets of oil could be drawn down to the pasta, and some might stick to it. I recommend speedy deletion of this item. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.160.221 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at one of the sources for this statement, and it actually reads: "You may have heard that you can avoid sticky pasta by adding oil to the pasta water. This can prevent sticking, but at a great price. Pasta that's cooked in oily water will become oily itself and, as a result, the sauce slides off, doesn't get absorbed, and you have flavorless pasta." (My emphasis). This is in direct contradiction to the statement that oil in the water does not prevent sticking. I also feel, based on my own experience, that it is unlikely that the oil "just stays on top" during a vigorous boil. I support removal. Dr bab (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the cited sources and did a bit of googling, and it seems that some sources say the oil doesn't come in contact with the pasta, others say it does and this is bad since it interferes with the sauce sticking. I did not find any sources that I would consider really reliable sources. I've removed the item since it is contradicted by it's own source.

Also, this "misconception' is not included on the parent page so this entry fails to meet the criteria for this article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Another monosodium glutamate myth

It's a myth that it causes baldness in women who eat a lot of it. The baldness is actually genetic - the middle aged Chinese women go a bit thin on top and this is not uncommon among ethnic Chinese women in Malaysia about 50 years old, the hair still being black.203.106.160.221 (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read the "Please read before proposing new entries"-box at the top of this page, and provide sources that this myth fulfills the 4 criteria. Dr bab (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Schizophrenia (origin of the term)

I have read (but cannot provide a source, sorry), that the "split mind" definition of the word was intended to imply "split from reality". If someone is willing to find a source, would this be worthy of inclusion? 61.88.210.42 (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

see History of schizophrenia. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Computing

The sole entry in the computing section is mostly unsourced, confusing, and partly inaccurate. Maybe an expert could take a look at it? 91.153.231.146 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed a large unsourced portion of that section.--Asher196 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The current version is still not as good as it could be. In my experience, the misconception in question applies more to malware in general (as is suggested in the first sentence). The usual response among programmers and computer scientists is to point out that Mac and Linux may in fact be just as vulnerable to exploitation (hacking and malware) as Windows, but since they represent a much smaller portion of the market, there is a much smaller monetary incentive for criminals to write malware and hacks for these machines. Separately, there may be arguments to suggest that Mac and Linux are less susceptible to viruses because of their open source foundations (Mac is based on an open source system, BSD, and Linux is itself open source), but I would advise against including this point in the misconception itself since it isn't related to the much more significant reason for the misconception, which is smaller market share and thus less economic incentive. Jalaska13 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted all the hedging and rationalization. The point of the misconception is that Mac and Linux systems simply are not immune, as hyped so commonly and urgently, now (still) and in the past. --Lexein (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the part about "there is little that the operating system can do about this". OSes that are locked down, such as iOS, Windows Phone, Windows RT and Windows 8 (Metro-side only), make a huge difference in security against malware. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Biology

This section needs expanding. I'd suggest for example: the idea that tomato/pepper skins stick to the inside of stomachs causing problems. Also, the idea (in Eastern Europe especially) that air pressure affects people's moods (and causes headaches). It could be linked to meteoropathy. Oh, and for food: the idea that bananas have spiders/bacteria living in the end of them. I've heard that from many people. Malick78 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Persistence of data in powered-off RAM

There's a common misconception among computer programmers and hobbyists that when power to a computer's RAM chips is removed, the data stored therein becomes immediately unavailable. This is partly due to the fact that basic computer education usually contrasts RAM (random access memory) with more permanent forms of storage such as hard drives in an attempt to illustrate the difference in their uses. However, most RAM actually retains data for a period of seconds or minute at room temperature, and much, much longer when cooled significantly. Here's the source for RAM data persistence: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-536.html. However, I'm unclear on the requirements for this page in terms of what needs to be cited, and so I was hesitant to actually post it. Also, I can't find a good definitive source for the stuff about education that I mentioned above - this is mostly from my own experience. Jalaska13 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the popular conception that information stored in RAM is lost when power is removed is, by and large, correct. I don't know that there's a popular misconception about whether it's instantaneous or over a period of several seconds; I rather doubt it, but if you can source that part of it sufficiently, it would overcome that objection. siafu (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As an EE, I'd say that generally we just don't CARE whether RAM images are persistent after the power is removed. For a robust system design you have to ASSUME it disappears immediately when power goes away, even if it's just a short glitch. The fact that the image may still be valid is almost never of any use. Middlenamefrank (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A microwave ovens heat only the outer one centimetre?

This doesn't seem right.

I think the microwave oven does not cook the food from the inside out.I also agree that it probably heats the outer 1 cm more than than the centre, but I don't think the direct heating at depths greater than 1 cm is insignificant as alleged. If it were, then it would not be possible to cook a whole potato so quickly in a microwave oven. It would take about as long as it would to cook a potato with a radius 1 cm less in a conventional oven, which in my experience is clearly not the case.

Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the microwave oven heats the only the outer 5 cm directly, which would seem to make more sense.

If it is true that lean meat behaves like this, I would suggest that it is not true of all or even most foods, and is a somewhat misleading example.

I recommend considering trimming off that bit about the 1 cm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.160.221 (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The 1 cm limit is due to the penetration depth of microwaves, which is a function of the wavelength and the material in question. Since microwave ovens operate at short wavelengths (122 mm, corresponding to 2.45 GHz), the penetration depth is quite short, less than 1 cm in almost all cases. The precision of 1 cm as a metric is not terribly fine, but it's a good "average" for the variety of food items that go in microwaves, and it's also quite true that only a negligible amount of EM energy will penetrate beyond that since it falls off exponentially. The heating of the interior is due to indirect heating, i.e. it's heated by the outside material, and this obviously happens faster in substances with high heat conductance, like meat, potatoes, and other vegetables, all of which are mostly water. siafu (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If the interior is heated by the outside material, how is it that microwaving food heats the centre so much quicker than boiling it does? Jack 203.106.160.221 (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How is that microwave ovens are so much quicker than ordinary ovens or boiling water at heating the interiors of large lumps of food, if they heat only the outer 1 cm of the food? It doesn't seem to make sense. Jack 203.106.160.221 (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Both boiling and microwaves heat only the outside. Boiling heats just the surface, while a microwave heats the outer 1cm. The reason the interior gets hot faster with a microwave is that it heats the outer layer faster than boiling. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Word misconceptions

"Funner" and "impactful" could not be found in Merriam-Webster, Cambridge dictionaries online, or Dictionary.com. I am sure they appear in other dictionaries, but these three, especially Merriam-Webster, are fairly authoritative in this area. I would recommend that these words be removed from the given list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.60.125 (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The article does not consider "funner". The claim made for "impactful" is that it is alleged to be "not a word". You seem to be making precisely that allegation, thereby supporting what is maintained in the article. The reference to dictionaries does not limit itself to authoritative dictionaries; it is quite within the scope of Wikipedia to make generalizations about just about anything, including dictionaries that are not authoritative. Peter Brown (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, any lexicographer will likely tell you that there's no such thing as an authoritative dictionary either. A dictionary is a record of the usage of our language as it evolves, and dictionaries evolve with the language, they aren't intended to determine or restrict a language and its usage. If a word is not in the dictionary, it simply means the dictionary publisher hasn't caught up with it yet. There's an excellent blog post by a lexicographer on the subject here: http://korystamper.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/the-voice-of-authority-morality-and-dictionaries/ ~Amatulić (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. While your source denies that dictionaries are authoritative as regards lots of things, he does acknowledge that they are authorities "on the meanings and uses of words." Not, to be clear, on what people ought to mean by words or how they ought to use them or pronounce them, but how, typically, they actually do. They're also authorities on etymology. Peter Brown (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

historical Buddha was not obese?

historical Buddha was not obese? and how, exactly, would we know if someone who lived about 500 years before the oral traditions about him began to be written down, was in fact, obese?

14:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Michael Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.11.14 (talk)

I would support deletion of this item. In addition to the problem raised about establishing any sort of factuality about an ancient, I see the following issues:No mention of this misconception at Buddha or Physical characteristics of the Buddha, the source does not unambiguously state that this is a common misconception ("When westerners think of "Buddha," usually they don't visualize the Buddha of history, meditating or teaching. Instead, they visualize a fat, bald, jolly character"), and the reliability of about.com. Dr bab (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I also do not see that the other entry on the buddha, that he is not a God, is properly sourced as a common misconception. Dr bab (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Instead of "The historical Buddha was not obese", the entry could start by saying something like "The 'chubby Buddha' or 'laughing Buddha' does not depict the historical Buddha...", without definitively saying whether the historical Buddha was obese. Or we could instead say the historical Gautama Buddha was not known to be obese, perhaps mentioning that the Pali Canon describes him as athletic and fit, for what that's worth. A Google search along the lines of "was Buddha fat" shows that the idea of an obese historical Buddha is indeed a common misconception among Westerners. I found one decent source, and I don't have time to find others right this minute: [40] szyslak (t) 10:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Black hole

Using our sun as an example for a black hole is even more misleading, because its mass is insufficient to form a black hole on its own.

A more useful explanation: Black holes have exactly the same mass as the originating star had before it collapsed. Therefore, if the star system beforehand was stable, the same system with the star condensed into a black hole is equally stable. If on the other hand the black hole formed by the star system collapsing into the star in the first place, the conversion of star to black hole doesn't speed up nor slow down the already ongoing collapsing process either. 82.113.121.236 (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that helps. If the system were stable, then why would the star condense into a black hole? Roger (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Regular star development: At the end of a star's "lifetime", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_collapse is inevitable, and one of the possible outcomes is a black hole (a usual result for stars of a mass larger than 10 times our sun's mass). And that black hole has the same gravitational "pull" as the mass that created it. (I.e. it's not "sucking harder" at the planets in its system than the originating star did previously.) 2001:5C0:1400:B:0:0:0:939 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nero

While Tacitus does indeed deny that Nero played music while Rome burned, he also mentions the rumor, which existed for a clear reason: Nero's unpopularity. The story is not so much a common misconception as a vicious rumor that has been remarkably persistent. My concern is that the current wording makes it sound like a modern invention (as most of the other entries in the "history" section are). 72.241.211.53 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This entry has been recently edited to say "It is a matter of historical debate..." rather than stating the misconception. Since this article is not a list of matters of historical debate, we either need to restore the entry or remove it. My take is that it is indeed a misconception, not a matter of historical debate, but the sourcing is rather weak both in terms of establishing the misconception and its commonality. I'm going to restore it while stating that I'd like to see some more / better sourcing, but I will have no objection if it is removed pending improved citations.

Whether he "sang" instead of "fiddled" is a red herring.

Addressing 72.241.211.53's concern, it is irrelevant to the inclusion criteria how long a misconception has been around, only that it is common and current.Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Delving in a bit further, the only source cited by the entry is Tacitus, a contemporary historian writing in the first century CE. We have to be careful in interpreting primary source material; it is much better to cite secondary source material. Obviously, Tacitus can't be depended upon to establish that the misconception is current and common, so this entry plainly fails to meet the inclusion criteria.

Adding Suetonius ( a historian who was born about 5 years after the fire) puts us in the position of having to interpret two 2000 year old accounts and trying to reconcile their differences - this is beyond the scope of wikipedia editors. We really should be depending on a reliable source to compare and interpret them rather than trying to do it ourselves.

I'm also having trouble coming up with a clear statement of the misconception; while the phrase "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" is common, it's unclear whether anyone really believes this in it's narrowest sense (i.e. playing an actual musical instrument that wouldn't be invented for 1000 years). If this phrase is understood in it's figurative sense, the truth or falseness is open for debate, and it doesn't belong in the article.

Seeing that the criterion for inclusion is not met, that the sourcing is not up to standard, and that it may not be a misconception at all, I'm going to remove the entry. I tried to find some adequate sourcing, but I don't feel up to the task of sorting it out. For instance, I'm just not sure what to make of:

"But did Nero actually fiddle while Rome burned? In strictest terms, no. In slightly less strict terms, probably not. In very loose terms, perhaps so." (http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2012/03/did-nero-fiddle-rome-burned/)

Here are some articles I turned up - if someone else wants to carry the ball on this one, feel free. Just because I couldn't take the material at my disposal to craft an entry meeting minimum standards doesn't mean it can't be done.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Red Slash 20:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

dead link in reference 290

I believe the link in reference 290 should point to http://www.itwire.com/science-news/health/20268-diverticulitis-isnt-anti-nut-any-more/20268-diverticulitis-isnt-anti-nut-any-more?start=2

Wshackle (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any evidence in either article cited by the entry that this is a common misconception? Plus, I can't find the misconception treated in the parent article. So the simplest thing to do is to remove the entry as not meeting the criteria for the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

emancipation proclamation paragraph inconsistent with main article

This page's paragraph on the Emancipation Proclamation is inconsistent with Emancipation_Proclamation#Immediate_impact. The latter seems better sourced. I suggest the paragraph be removed from this page. (The paragraph could be corrected by reversing its claim, but this would call into question which position is the "common misconception".) --Allen (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a reasonable criticism; I'm going to remove the Emancipation Proclamation entry pending figuring out which sources to believe. We can always put it back, but if the info on this page is actually false (or more properly at variance with the reliable sources) it needs to be removed. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the this paragraph as contradicting the other article. Most slaves were not freed with the Emancipation Proclamation. There were about 4 million slaves. Even if the 20,000 number is accurate, that's still only 0.5% of all the slaves. Also, the sourcing of the article doesn't look better. In fact, it's citing newspaper reports from 1863. Surely, better sources exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like there are two misconceptions here: 1) the EP did not free a single slave and 2)The EP freed (all) the slaves. Of course, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The parent article discusses 1), while this article discusses 2). I don't see 2) treated in the parent article, so the entry fails the inclusion criteria.

That said, I think it's very likely that with a bit of cleanup and better sourcing this entry can be restored. Agree that the two articles are not really in conflict with one another, but entries in this article are supposed to follow what's in the parent article, not go off on their own. Nineteenth century US history is not my field of expertise, so I'd welcome others to deal with this entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Addition: Brain size vs Intelligence

It's commonly said that larger brains mean more intelligence for a species. In reality, it's not the size of the brain, but the ration of brain size to body size, that matters. Larger bodies have more cells, which in turn require more energy to maintain. This takes away from the energy used to improve brain cells and their connections, leading to lower intelligence. Brain size given a constant body size is, in fact, an indicator of intelligence, but as body sizes of various species differ, saying "big brains are smarter" is not necessarily true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.232.226 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not that simple. The encephalization quotient is generally considered the most useful measure, but it is far from perfect. Absolute brain size is not the only thing that matters, but it does matter -- a large brain is not sufficient for high intelligence, but it is necessary. I don't think an item on this would be appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed squirrels have a very high encephalization quotient, but are fairly dumb animals. Whales and elephants have larger absolute brain sizes, and are pretty smart, but not smarter than humans. Furthermore, among the largest brains in humans was probably André the Giant's whose contributions to mankind will be best remembered as a famous "professional wrestler" and minor actor from the film "The Princess Bride". Furthermore, people with autism usually experience a sudden spurt in brain growth during their first year of life. There is no way of judging the cognitive capacity or an organism from some crude external measure. Measuring grey matter or folds won't cut it either, since birds have no neo-cortex (Qed: fixed), and yet some, such as crows and parrots are easily more intelligent than your average mammal (say, a house cat). The last refuge of this kind of biometrics would have to be brain function regions, but even there you are going to have a hard time explaining why people who have hemispherectomies when they are children nevertheless have normal cognitive function. Perhaps this is made clear by analogy: Comparing brains by external means is tantamount to comparing computers by external means. Qed (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that birds have zero grey matter. That's not true at all. Looie496 (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Marie Curie for instance. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 05:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Or that one what wrote Fifty Shades of Grey Matter?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I can vouch for this. I have loads of brains, but I spend hours and hours editing an on-line encyclopedia, for no obvious reward. Hardly a sign of intelligence, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, me too.. -- Jimmy Wails

Reader feedback: Add a section about guns. As...

108.213.141.154 posted this comment on 8 January 2013 (view all feedback).

Add a section about guns. Assault rifles, assault weapons, clips, magazines, shoulder thing that goes up, etc.

Of course, I vascillated on this one, because clearly people who want to talk about this have an agenda. On the other hand, Wikipedia is clearly the best place to present NPOV information on whatever simple things should be known by people, I suppose, so I cannot object to that. Qed (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a good place for neutral facts on these things, but not List of common misconceptions. Might as well add a section saying "It is a common misconception that God does not exist..." Then right after that, say "It is a common misconception that God exists..." What's the point? Hotbutton issues where two opposing factions disagree about fundamental facts (global warming, health care, abortion, guns, etc here in the US) don't belong on this particular list. Besides the politically partisan aspect, much of what is proposed as a "misconception" is merely a disagreement over the definitions of words. Wikipedia has articles that can provide the breadth and depth necessary to give encyclopedic coverage on these topics, but they can't be given justice in a list like this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we should stay well clear of anything related to gun control, but there are misconceptions about gun physics that might be included. E.g.: shotgun blasts that throw a person several feet or underestimating bullet penetration. But, there is a risk that a section about guns will attract controversial edits. Sjö (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Much of that kind of thing is Hollywood convention or trope. Like the clicky sound effect they habitually add to TV shows and movies whenever anybody brandishes a gun. Or the improbable appearance progress bars on computer screens for the benefit of viewers, or amnesia caused (and cured) by a knock on the head. I'm surprised there is no list similar to TV Tropes, cataloging various cliches and tropes in film and TV. We should make a new list for these things. TV/movie tropes that also have good evidence that the public believes them could be candidates for common misconceptions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well my thinking, was not to address to issues of gun control or gun policy in the US directly. This is a page about misconceptions. So a discussion about cost-benefit analysis, or the constitutional effect or whatever should be considered off-top here. But pages like Gun politics contain both political debate and actual studies. The outcomes of many of these studies may fly in the face of common belief, and therefore may be considered a misconception (the onus on us would thus be to establish the common misbelief). I don't think we should decide on the content of Wikipedia based on what edits it will attract -- Wikipedia already has provisions in place for dealing with hostile edits, and self-censoring should not be one of those provisions. Qed (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The original question seem to be on some technical detail regarding guns ("shoulder thing that goes up"), but there are no specifics, and nothing resembling an indication of what the misconception might be. Until the something more substantial is asked for, I don't even think we need to discuss this one. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, obviously a misconception should be substantial. Details about how guns works is too esoteric. I am thinking more like: "Guns are a leading cause of death is a misconception", then some basic statistics showing that more people die from choking, or that it ranks as 26th cause of death, and is 1/1000th the impact of "home accidents" or something like that. And perhaps "Having a gun in your home will deter criminal incursions in the household" then show that the rates of domestic violence escalating to murder is increased by having a gun in home, and compare those rates to the estimated number of "deterred criminals". Perhaps even "Just having a gun in the house substantially increases accidental death significantly" (I suspect that's not actually true.) Qed (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Having said that

This misconception does not have its own article but I wanted to run the basics of it by you to get your thoughts on it. Essentially I think there are two main misconceptions:

Many people equate the phrase "having said that" with "consequently", when in reality it actually negates what they said before. Some possible sources are [41] and [42], [43], [44].

I also remember reading in a book that instead of saying "Having said that, I think blahh blahh blahh", as most people do, it should be "Saying that, ...". --Coin945 (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The English language is full of logical inconsistencies. (I'm just glad it was my first language. Don't know how non-native speakers ever learn it.) There's no point trying to list all those inconsistencies here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps a mention of that fact in the article would be of use.--Coin945 (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with language "misconceptions" like this is that, if the meaning is commonly undestood to be X when using a phrase that originally meant Y, then it is not actually a misconception when people say it in a modern context meaning X. It's just like phrases such as "I could care less" to mean its opposite ("I couldn't care less"). See etymological fallacy. siafu (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with siafu. English is a living language and usage changes over time. List_of_English_words_with_disputed_usage is probably better place to treat this item. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception." Sounds like a pretty valid set of misconceptions to me... What would you say to say to including something about *that* in the article?--Coin945 (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but the challenge here is to establish that there is a widespread "etymological fallacy", other than just stating it's existence. I mean do people really think that all English phrases make sense if properly broken down? My favorite example of this is "I could care less" and "I could not care less". Two phrases with basically the same meaning with a "not" stuck in the middle of one of them being the only difference. My guess is that people generally understand that the language is imperfect relative to the standards of reduction, and contains a non-trivial number of nonsensical idioms. Qed (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose it. The misconception described is the idea that words can only retain their historical meaning. Since everyone is fine using phrases like "having said that" in the way they do, it doesn't seem like this is at all a common misconception. siafu (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've moved on from "having said that". My question was whether it was worth including information on the misconception that a word/phrase has the same meaning it has always had, aka the etymological fallacy.--Coin945 (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I know, that's what I was responding to. It seems obvious a priori that this isn't a common misconception, since we're all quite happy saying things with their modern meanings and understanding them despite having different historical meanings. If you believe that's wrong, you will need to produce sources to demonstrate the commonality of that misconception. siafu (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh I see. you're not questioning the fact that it is indeed a misconception, but rather the misconception's commonality. I see your point.--Coin945 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ads/branding

What about the common misconception that brand names have to be accurate descriptions of the product? Along the same vein of "12 inch subs" actually being 11 inches. There are countless examples. Not to mention that infomercials like the Australian "BrandPower" are often mistaken for genuine awareness campaigns as opposed to sneaky ads.--Coin945 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I think this is in the same category as prejudice and stereotypes. The purpose of advertising is not to inform, but to manipulate. I do not recall the last time I felt I was informed by any commercial in any way; at least here in the US. The whole "a part of a healthy diet" nonsense is usually applied to food which is *not* part of any known medically approved "healthy diet". "5 hour energy" contains 0 calories -- which always makes me laugh. It is at best an energy *catalyzer*, in which case they should explain that -- obviously they don't. And the list just goes on and on. The problem is that these are not just run of the mill misconceptions. These, essentially, are active, sustained, intentional attempts at deception by corporations. It is a general phenomenon, like stereotypes, which I think is more general than merely a misconception. Qed (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hydrogen peroxide is an antiseptic

Two articles from mainstream media sources (NYT and CNN) are used as references for the claim that hydrogen peroxide is not, in fact, a bactericidal chemical. As a research student pursuing a Ph.D. in biochemistry, this assertion contravenes our basic understanding of biology and chemistry. Although mainstream media articles are used to support this claim, the only peer-reviewed research cited here actually finds that it is a potent enough antimicrobial agent that it kills keratinocytes and delays wound healing. It should be obvious that there is a contradiction in stating that a chemical is not an antiseptic but is lethal to eukaryotic cells. Indeed, hydrogen peroxide is used by living organisms (including bacteria!) as protection against pathogens (or the competition); as a byproduct it is the lynchpin of organismal oxidative damage. The controversy surrounding its in vivo efficacy is best addressed in this medscape article, though this is at the very least not a settled issue. It's worth noting that the rate of the reaction catalyzed by catalase increases with the concentration of hydrogen peroxide; and of course there would be no need for decomposition if hydrogen peroxide weren't harmful! Also worth noting that we've only begun to scratch the surface of hydrogen peroxide's role as a cell signalling molecule. In conclusion, regardless of the controversy over its effect on wound healing or infection, to my knowledge there exists no evidence of any kind to overturn the long-held understanding that hydrogen peroxide is an antiseptic; that's why it says so on the bottle. At the very least, this alleged "common misunderstanding" should be re-worded to state that otc hydrogen peroxide may not be efficacious as a wound disinfectant or topical wound-healing agent; it is nevertheless a (potent) antiseptic! Blacksun1942 (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the entry makes the leap from "not effective in reducing bacterial infections" to stating that it is not an antiseptic. It is also not clear to me that refraining from using hydrogen peroxide to treat small wounds is the conventional wisdom in the medical community. Pending further sources I'd advocate removing this entry since it is a matter of current dispute, rather than a clear misconception. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Anglican Church origins. Con...

121.74.132.9 posted this comment on 15 February 2013 (view all feedback).

Anglican Church origins. Contrary to popular myth Henry 8th. did not found the Anglican Church. This began in Roman times and developed over time into an essentially independent Christian Church in England. At the Synod of Whitby in 664 A.D., primarily called to determine the date of Easter the decision was also made - primarily through Wilfrid who had been promised a bishopric by Rome should he succeed - to cease its role as an an independent Christian Church in England to become instead under the authority of the pope and accept Roman Catholicism. Henry sought a divorce from the Pope which was frequently granted to those in high places but due to the papacy being at Avignon the King of France decided what messages passed through his territory to the Pope. Being at war with England there was no way he would allow the communication.
Henry restored the English Church by returning it to its original independent origins placing himself as its nominal head to avoid a vacancy that might be exploited.
The Book of Common Prayer, the liturgical source, reveals a remarkable blend of Roman Catholicism and reformation theology that became the foundation of orthodox Anglican liturgical practice and faith expression. Henry and many others re-established the orginal English Church in a much wider and more uniform democratic structure. John Marcon

My "knowledge" on this subject was just that Henry VIII wanted a divorce so he made up a church by cloning the Catholic church and modified it to allow divorce. The business of it coming about only because France was blocking access from England to the Pope adds something I was unaware of. In other words, there was no conflict between Henry and the church, but rather just an inconvenience of geography and state of war at a particular time. Any thoughts?

Qed (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an extremely tenuous theory based on a synod that had happened almost a millenium prior and a number of other assumptions (e.g. that divorces were "frequently granted" to those in high places) and that the King of England was a supporter of the antipope at Avignon and not the "true" pope in Italy. Certainly the theological argument for similarity between the Anglican church and Catholicism is rather sound, but the reasons for that are hardly mysterious (wikipedia has some very good articles on the history of the Anglican church) and have nothing to do with a desire to return to some mythical pre-rennaissance independent English church. In short, I am extremely skeptical of just about all the interpretations and claims made above. siafu (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Big Bang

I vote to remove the entry “The Big Bang theory does not provide an explanation for the origin of the universe; rather, it explains its early evolution.”

The BBT/cosmological standard model says that some time ago the universe was extremely dense such that certain decouplings had not yet taken place etc. For the earliest moments we have no plausible and predictive model because of the lack of a theory combining the gravity and the other forces. These are the facts. In particular mathematical descriptions there is also a singularity, however, for the model it is quite irrelevant, we could as-well let our time start a bit later, since it does not contain predictions for the early history, it has to assume that the (non-singular) state at some point had certain properties. It is certainly not completely satisfying. But what would an “explanation for the origin of the universe” be? These are not physical terms, these are metaphysics. Even if there would be a nice quantum-gravity model describing dynamics which imply inflation and baryogenesis in a natural way, or anything like that, some people might still ask about the “origin”. The article cosmogony says “While this expansion is well-modeled by the Big Bang theory, the origins of the singularity remains one of the unsolved problems in physics”. There might be a misconception putting emphasis on metaphysical “implications” of the cosmological standard model, which are of no concern for physics. The statement “provide an explanation for the origin of the universe” suggests that in principle there are certain metaphysical aspects, however, this is not a physical consensus, but a particular philosophical POV. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Ph.D. student (biochemistry) and I can't make sense of what you're saying. The big bang is nothing more than the empirical description of the change in the geometry of the universe over time. The singularity is a mathematical artifact of incomplete physics, representing the boundary beyond which the big bang theory per se yields no insights (only highly theoretical branches of physics, such as string theory, can offer descriptions at this point). Regardless, as the entry was well-sourced by a popular book written by a well-known physicist, your reasons for removal appear to constitute WP:OR. Reverting your edit. Blacksun1942 (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually I retract the above; I think I do understand what you're saying, but your point is nevertheless consistent (perhaps even emphasized) by the entry. Whether or not the popular lay concept of a "question of origin" implicitly assumes the existence of metaphysics that are "missing" from the big bang theory, the entry elucidates a valid and useful distinction, and thus, is a valid response to such an assumption even though its underlying premise may be scientifically meaningless with regard to the big bang per se. Blacksun1942 (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That the Big bang theory says the universe began with a big bang is a very large misconception. This entry is to clarify that the Big bang is about the evolution of the universe during the period where the known theories can operate in, and the laws of physics can not be extrapolated back beyond the point of which the currently known theories break down (only a unified theory could do such a thing). I am not sure exactly what point you are making. Some writings may be written implying that we can, but this isn't meant to be taken literally, it is because it is conceptually simpler to talk about the "first femtosecond", "first yoctosecond" or whatever, without needing to mention that this time count is only under the assumption that current theories would be valid where they are not. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

@Blacksun1942 A removal of an entry can never constitute OR. The OR guideline refers to things said in the articles and Brian Greene is not a “common-misconceptionologist”.

However, tell me: What would be an “explanation for the origin of the universe”? How would I recognise such an “explanation”? Do you think the entry just wants to say that our current theories/cosmological model are not perfect? The cosmological standard model is heuristic, not mathematically rigorous, uses theories which “break down” and cannot describe the early dynamics, and of course it does not explain all empirical evidence we have. Yes… but the model actually gives a description of the/a universe from the beginning. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The theory assumes that the universe was once a singularity, and describes the behavior starting at some finite amount of time after the singularity "exploded". An “explanation for the origin of the universe” would tell us where the singularity came from. That said, I find these kinds of entries rather nit-picky, it's like saying:

"It is a common misconception that the earth is round. In fact, the earth is an oblate spheroid."

So if this entry goes away I will not miss it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It is in fact just a close approximation of an oblate spheroid... siafu (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is like saying

“It is a common misconception that theories of language acquisition from psycholinguistics explain how children acquire language skills; rather, they explain the early evolution of language skills.”

These theories do not give explanations by precise descriptions of neurological processes (that is not possible, like there is no established theory of quantum-gravity), they cannot describe the moment in which a child understands a word for the first time, and it is even questionable to define such a moment.

Regarding the source: I do not say that Greene does not make a valid point in his book (and I do not know what exactly he has written), but as stated in this list it is inappropriate as a “common misconception”. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Computer viruses

While the statement "Computers running Macintosh, Linux, or other non-Windows operating systems are not immune to malware such as trojan horses" is indeed valid and an apparently widespread misconception, the statement "due to the market dominance of Microsoft Windows operating systems, most malware is designed to target them rather than other operating systems" is rather misleading, suggesting that it is an accepted fact that the popularity of Windows on the desktop is the primary obstacle to producing successful viruses for Linux or Mac.

This makes sense only on personal computers - on embedded devices, mainframes, supercomputers, web servers, smartphones and tablets, Windows represents at most half of the combined *nix market share (inc. OSX and iOS; based on Usage share of operating systems). Due to (relative) cross-compatibility, developing a successful virus for one variant may, in principle, aside from specific zero-day exploits, not take a vast effort to port to many others. In some of those applications, an effective virus on just one variant would be sufficient to cause widespread infection. To cause disruption to the business sector, the financial sector, scientific computation, to internet websites or to mobile devices, focusing on Linux/Mac/BSD/etc. would make more sense, based on market share, than Windows.

While this is undoubtably a contributing factor, the desktop share of Windows is insufficient as a justifying reason for this disparity - other fundamental factors are discussed, not necessarily related to the software security, such as the prevalent habits of Linux users: sysadmins may be more reluctant to give software admin privileges or to install programs from third-party sources (nope, not cited, but neither suitable for putting in the article!). A single counterpoint article : http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Why-Linux-Will-Never-Suffer-From-Viruses-Like-Windows/ - as it points out, there are no known XBox trojans, despite it being a Windows system, suggesting that Windows market share isn't all there is to vulnerability. The Linux malware article provides more discussion.

While the article wording doesn't say explicitly that market share is the main reason for virus disparity, it certainly contributes to the misconception. Suggestion: remove the text after the semicolon.

Philtweir (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Dealing with a misconception we shouldn't accidentally imply another misconception. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It's just a dated statement. During the period when the perception arose, almost all devices in question were PCs. That's all changed, but the perception of OSX and Linux invulnerability has changed too, what's missing is the time period when the misperception was common and the time period the misperception refers to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, sorted - I think that the misconception itself is still valid, although the only stats I can find for Linux market penetration by AV products are on Popularity Contest for Debian (http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=clamav) which gives ~8% of registered users using clamav - I believe it is one of the most commonly used. Philtweir (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As a historical matter, those of us who were doing computers in the early 90's remember when it went in the opposite direction. Microsoft's operating systems were too pathetic to be worth hacking, and Linux programs were written with no attention to security at all, and consequently were hacked right and left. The result was that Linux was forced to deal with the problem in a comprehensive way before Microsoft even became aware that a problem existed. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(I'm keenly interested in any books/magazines/journals or even newsgroup discussions by Unix/Linux notable people who discuss systems being hacked right and left in the 90's. I have only personal OR about late 2008-2011 Ubuntu and Debian systems, when connected straight to a cable modem, being pwned very, very quickly upon being connected...) --Lexein (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Macintosh" is a line of personal computers, not an operating system (similar to iPad or ThinkPad). It should be "Mac OS" instead. 80.218.245.240 (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Decline of violence Violence

How exactly is it that the belief that the world is more violent in the past is not appropriate? It clearly meets the requirements for inclusion: For 1, this is mentioned in the article Violence under the history section, and there is plenty enough to make an entire article about the History of violence 2 - The book I cited goes into great detail about violence in the past and people's belief that violence is worse today 3 - Again, mentioned and source in Violence 4 - A very common belief today. This is, without a doubt, the biggest misconception about history there is. What exactly is wrong with this entry? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite. The "increase of violence" is a common misunderstanding/misconception that really need to be addressed, and there are impeccable sources to back it up. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Your grammar! You say "...the world is more violent in the past...". What on earth does that mean? HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur and will go further. The proper section is not "General", it is either "Sociology" or "Society" or something. The section needs significant work before inclusion. Just one source for a section isn't enough for such a broad claim of a misconception, and correction of it; it reads more like one European's opinion, than a summary of academic/scientific consensus on the subject. Petter, "impeccable sources" don't exist if they're not cited. Beyond that, "violence" is ill-defined: violence in the home? At work (unions/union-busting)? On the street (individual, gang, police, army, junta)? In war (chemical, biological, mass, improvised)? To address the focus of the section, the sort of violence practiced in olden times is nothing compared with the scope, frequency and lethality of violence both threatened and practiced today. I'm not against this section's eventual inclusion; it just needs work. I'll revert if not improved in 3 days. Keep in mind that this article is not a rough draft: please work in userspace or here, in Talk. --Lexein (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd also opine that the mention of a decrease of violence throughout history and the citation of Pinker's book in the Violence-article does not fulfil the criteria 3: The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. There is nothing there that mentions the existence of a misconception. The commonality of such a misconception must also be established.

Furthermore, as far as I know there has been some dissenting views to Pinker's. I am not familiar enough about the debate to judge whether these are the opinons of a fringe, but multiple sources backing up Pinker would be nice to establish that there is really a dominating expert opinion that violence has in fact decreased over time.

Also: what is "over time" exactly when we are talking about this misconception? When people talk about a rising level of violence, are they talking about changes from ancient and medieval times? Or are they more concerned about what they (think they) observe during their own lifetime? If there really is a misconception that violence is increasing, I am not sure if Pinker's book is the best source to disprove this, as (as far as I know), he is arguing on a much greater timescale. There is certainly a lot of anectdotal evidence to support the idea that many people belive the medieval period was particularly violent for example.

Like Lexein, I am not against inclusion on principle, but I feel a lot of work is needed to adress the issues raised, and that it may be difficult to find impeccable sources. Dr bab (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, some clarifications - Over time means both from tribal times to civilization - then from the Enlightenment to today. This decrease has been constant and consistent. So, whether you are looking at an individual's lifetime or the thousand of years of history, there is an unmistakable decline in violence - we live more peacefully than both the people of the Cold War and the ancients. As far as what kinds of violence, it is every kind of violence with the only exception being those that were technologically impossible in the past. That said, these new types of violence, like chemical weapons and bombings, have taken a much smaller toll than the mostly abolished forms of violence from the past, such as slavery and raiding. As far as the misconception that today is worse, there is an element of WP:BLUE here - just turn on the evening news or listen to a politician's speech and you'll hear warnings about rising violence, which are always wronger than wrong. As far as sources go, Pinker is far from the only source that has noticed this - he list dozens of other books that say the same thing - and his book is very detailed and comprehensive about the topic. Finally, since this is a misconception about the history of violence, I think it goes in the history section. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My $.02 is that the entry as it appeared was over-broad in it's assertions and lacked sufficient citations. I think a more narrowly written entry with more citations might warrant inclusion, but it would need some work. There's also the problem that due to movies and novels, many people think that certain periods, such as the 'wild west' of the US in the nineteenth century, were more violent than they actually were. See, for instance, http://cjrc.osu.edu/researchprojects/hvd/hom%20rates%20west.html Trying to sort all this out could be difficult. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Jared Diamond backs up Pinker. In his Guns, Germs, and Steel he asserts that the chance of dying due to violence is far, far higher in tribal societies than in imperial societies (Greece, Rome, the Inca empire), which again had fire greater violence death rate than modern societies. So, we have two (very good I might ad) sources for the general trend. Petter Bøckman (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good discussion. I concur with Dr. Bab (about not meeting #3) and Mr. Swordfish. I think clarifying/qualifying language, greater specificity, and quantification (approximate violent deaths per capita) where possible will help. Not everyone thinks of the same things upon encountering the word "violence." I, for instance, first tend to think of acute violent lethal (and non-lethal) acts perpetrated by individuals (IEDs, car bombs, mugging), as distinct from violations of human rights or economic oppression perpetrated by class against class. The section should make clear what is included and excluded from the discussion of violence. I know (radical) writers who assert that starvation due to government corruption is an act of violence. I'm saying let's be very, very clear about it. IMHO the section here (in 'History' will be fine) could concisely refer to the existing varying views. Feel free to propose rewrites here, or as a Talk subpage, or in User space, rather than in the article itself. --Lexein (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

With "violence", both Pinker and Diamond are referring to the more restrictive physical sort of violence (typically people being beaten up or killed). Pinker has a quite enlightening TED-talk if any of you want the quick run-down. The extreme end of the scale discussed by Diamond is found in the Yanomami tribe, where 50% (!) of all males are killed in warfare or duels or die due to wounds from combat. Compare this to the list of countries by intentional homicide rate, where Western countries typically have a couple of murders per 100.000 people... Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever definition of violence you use, whether you restrict it only to physical violence or if you include state-sponsored famine and state-sponsored poverty etc, the result is the same - way less today than in the past. Way more corruption in the past than now, way more starvation in the past than now, way more economic oppression in the past than now, so definitions don't really matter. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the deletion of Ego White Tray's addition is indefensible on the grounds given here, with the possible formalistic exception of where the term "misconception" need to be mentioned in another article. I have now edited what I believe to be the proper placement, the article the History section of the violence article to include a reference to misconception, citing Pinker. I appreciate that you guys may not be familiar with Pinker's work, but at least take the time to watch through the TED-presentation to have an idea of the science behind this. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion was utterly defensible. You may not know this, but the above four criteria are the product of a very hard-fought battle against deletion of this article; they strongly encourage creation of quality entries, very well (and multiply, it stands to reason) sourced. If the source(s) don't explicitly say it's a common misconception (or words to that effect), then it can't go in. A single source, for a topic this broad, is not enough. Video sources are not as a strong as published academic, book or magazine articles. Please understand we're actually trying to help formulate a better version of the section. This article is the place where existing cited material in Wikipedia articles is summarized, for the purpose of a compendium of common misconceptions. It is not the place to try stuff out and see if it sticks. It won't. Other editors here have agreed that the section has some merit, but it has to meet all four of the above inclusion criteria, and it doesn't yet. I would add a fifth criteria requiring multiple RS for broad historical misconceptions, but this is already covered in WP:RS: extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. The public-facing article is really not the place for material which doesn't meet the above four inclusion criteria. Please formulate and work on the section in User space or here, in Talk with discussion. Thank you. --Lexein (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am quite aware of this, I have contributed to this article before (cleaning up and reformulating most of the palaeontology-stuff). I have no problem with adding source to a topic, but simply deleting the whole section without even trying to amend it is in my view unnecessarily brutal and breach of WP:AGF. As for a "lone source", Pinker's book is in effect as summary work and should be sufficient. The only reason I mentioned the TED-talk is because some of the editors here seem to be unfamiliar with Pinkers work, and that was the easiest introduction in an easily digestible format I could find. For the article, the book will need to be the source.

I'll have a look at rewording and resourcing the entry later. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason why new additions are treated somewhat harshly on here, as I am sure you are aware, is that it is the only way to keep it maneagable. It is necessary to ask editors to back up new additions with sources that verify that the four criteria are fulfilled, as the editors of this page do not have the resources to do this work themselves. The criteria 3 that I mentioned is there to make sure that only "significant" misconceptions are included: I.e. if it is not important enough to warrant a place in its parent article it should not be included here either. There are examples of attempts to include information that was being cut from the parent article as being trivia, in those cases it is very helpful to be able to point to criteria 3. I am sorry if you feel that this was an obvious case for inclusion and that some of us have been acting pedantic, but as I admitted above I am not familiar enough with Pinker's work to evaluate whether that single source is sufficient. Dr bab (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for new entry

OK, let's do this constructively:

In addition to Pinker's book who details how the "myth of increasing violence" is very common in the modern (particularly the US) discourse, we have Nicholas Wade's 2006 book Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors, who (among other things) describing how the academic ideas of the peaceful tribal and pre-historic societies has been pervasive in post-colonial anthropology. Two paper article from reputable sources describing the book (which I haven't read) can be found here and here. This should have the commonality aspect of the myth sorted out.

The facts of the high death rate in primitive societies (tribal, proto-empires and empires) are further collaborated by Keely's 1996 War Before Civilization (a Washington Times article on the book here) and perhaps most convincingly by Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. Thus, we have multiple sources backing up not just Pinker's basic stance, that violence in all forms is actually declining, but also his assertion that the "ever increasing violence/tribal past was peaceful" is a common myth.

With these sources, we may get this one rolling I think. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft: While politicians, activists and advertisers frequently warn of danger and violence in modern society, today's societies are the most peaceful the world has even seen.^[2] Despite common belief, anthropological evidence shows that tribal societies have by far the highest rates of violence, with some tribes losing half their members to battle. Ancient and medieval empires had lower rates of violence, and the violence decreased as these empires became stronger and more organized. Modern societies saw still lower rates of violence, with significant decreases after World War II. This applies across all categories of violence, from large-scale warfare to murder. More recently invented types of violence, such as terrorist bombings, have had a much lower death toll than ancient types of violence that are mostly non-existant today, such as raids. - sources would be Pinker, Diamond, Keely, etc. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the many kinds of misconception here that I don't like include those which are not simple misunderstandings, but which exist because of deliberate dishonesty and misleading of the masses by a powerful sector of society, in this case by shock-jocks and sensation driven, tabloid media. I agree that it's important that people know the truth, but buried among a mass of other dross in this article doesn't seem the appropriate place to be correcting the dishonesty. HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why it matters why something is a misconception. Unlike you, I really don't care if the misconception is mere legend or deliberate lies, it still is worth correcting - in fact, the ones created by deliberate lies are even more important to correct. It's also worth noting that some of the items on the already list are the result of lies, such as Nero's fiddling, let them eat cake and vaccines/autism. Deleting these would unquestionably make this article worse. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I can find plenty of reliable sources that tell us that much of what is in the Bible isn't true. So, is Christianity a misconception? Or are lies by priests and pastors different? HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please God tell me that you see the differences between the decline of violence and an entire religion. I got an idea for a misconception - "Religion, legend and fiction are not true" since that's pretty much what you're suggesting. And you'll see in the article that numerous elements of Christianity are covered, and lies and deceptions used by creationists are covered in detail. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I would think what HiLo48 mentions makes it even more important to include this misconception in the article. If we are to take the agreed on criteria for inclusion seriously, they not only serve to exclude bad entries, but also to indicate inclusions. Using HiLo48's rationale of like and dislike, there is a lot that would be included here because people like the idea. We have the guidelines for a reason, and it would be unwise to flout them out of personal preferences. As for Christianity, I can not see it mentioned as being a misconception in article (nor editing in a wording to that effect lasting long), which by the same rules would exclude it from this article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

My suggested draft:

A common misconception often quoted by media, politicians, activists is that violence is on the rise and historically has been much lower.(ref. Pinker) Similarly, the trend in post-colonial anthropology has been to regard historically indigenous and tribal societies as more peaceful than contemporary Western society.(ref. Wade). However, archaeological evidence shows that previous societies had very high level of violence.(ref: Keely) Likewise, modern tribal societies typically too have extremely high rates of violence, with more than half of deaths being violence related in some cases.(ref. Wade). Ancient and medieval empires had lower rates of violence, and the violence decreased further as empires became more organized. Modern societies saw still lower rates of violence, with significant decreases after World War II.(ref. Diamond) This trend is general across all categories of violence, from large-scale warfare to murder and animal cruelty, and the trend is discernible on both millennium, century and decade scale, making modern societies are the most peaceful the world has even seen.(ref. Pinker)

Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement over the previously posted material. I have not read the cited material, but if it supports the draft I would be in favor of adding this entry to the article. One quibble is that you may get some pushback on "animal cruelty" - it could be argued that modern factory farms have brought animal slaughter to a heretofore unforeseen level. I don't want to get into a PETA argument here, so I'd suggest limiting the discussion to human-to-human violence. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone to read four academic books just for discussing an entry to this list, but if you want to see for yourself if the sources actually say what I claim they do, watch the TED-talk with Pinker, and read the Wikipedia entry on Keeley's War Before Civilization and Wade's Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (or read the paper reviews I linked to). Unfortunately, the Wikipedia entry on Guns, Germs and Steel does not mention this aspect of Diamonds book, but it is mentioned in passim in this review (chapter 14, From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy). The point about animal cruelty is about cruelty as entertainment (cat-burning, bullfighting etc), but can be removed without loss I think. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually just read Pinker's book on the subject a few weeks ago; I think this is a good description of the misconception and the reality. It may also be important to note that all types of violence are in decline, including the internecine warfare in post-colonial states (particularly Africa), reports of which commonly grace the news headlines. siafu (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone opposed to put the entry back in? Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I put it in, using your text, mostly (one slight change in wording). Ego White Tray (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This entry is much different than the rest of the items on this list. It's taking sides in a historic disagreement over the very nature of humanity. Were primitive people's lives "nasty, brutish, and short" or were they a pastoral utopia? It's extremely political in nature, and partisan to declare the views of one side of the political spectrum to be "misconceptions." I've read Diamond and Pinker's books, and I like them a lot, but they are not universally respected. Look at criticism section in Guns, Germs, and Steel and The Better Angels of Our Nature. On more technical grounds, the footnotes here and in Violence#History are insufficient. They give no specific page numbers, and only the most vague support for the claim that the "misconception" is common. Who specifically has voiced this misconception, and what exactly did they say? Much of what you find among media and politicians is about very recent violent trends in the US in the last few generations, not of the whole sweep of human history. And among historians, Pinker might accuse one of his colleagues of thinking early man wasn't very violent, and the response would be a debate over definitions that lasted 3 hours and never got resolved. It's an academic disupte.

In short, this is a highly nuanced issue, nothing as simple and clear as whether Napoleon was short or what a vomitorium was. Violence#History should be expanded with a full accounting of each side of this debate, but it doesn't belong on this list. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis here. This topic is very different than the other items on the list. Also, I don't see it referenced in a parent article - maybe it is, but if so there is no link to it - so it fails the inclusion criteria.. I'm going to re-delete it, ending consensus her on the talk page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me? "There's no link to a parent article, so instead of spending 3 seconds to add four brackets, I'll spend 10 seconds deleting the whole damn thing." The "nasty, brutish and short" theory has been shown true by years of anthropological evidence, so the misconception is that it's a political view - it's not, it's fact. Everything on that entry was pure fact, the only academic dispute about it is why it's declined - you'll notice the entry made no effort to say why. It's worth noting that "anyone opposed to put the entry back in" was ignore for a month until someone spent the time to do it and got reverted. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The place to make this case is in the Violence article. Expand the appropriate section to clearly and specifically describe what the misconception is, who believes it, and what their counter arguments are. The ideas about prehistoric man were a reflection of the times: the Enlightenment saw them one way, the Romantics another. Different social and political movements that followed constructed their own view of primitive society to support their modern agenda. Then proceed to show the specific facts that demolish the misconception. I know that's a tall order, but this is a huge topic. This list is almost entirely narrow points or single facts. The entries are too short for something so broad in scope.

I would compare it to the different ways that Americans perceive the rest of the world. Americans idealize other countries sometimes, other times they are demonized. You can't boil that down to a few sentences without perpetuating the error of stereotyping and oversimplification. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Or make a History of violence article that isn't about a movie. Either way, it ain't happening anytime soon, that's for sure. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

So, the reference in Violence#History will need a page number to be sufficient? I fail to see this in the guidelines for references, but if anyone can point me to the relevant policy, I'll edit in a page number. I must say though, that arguing for the removal of an entry on this list rather than add a "pages needed" template to the violence article is hardly constructive.

I do agree there are larger aspects to this entry, though I will not call them political as such. In my experience, what we are seeing is a shift from the more political paradigm in humanistic sciences of the 1960s and -70s typified by Margaret Mead, to a more statistically driven (some would say positivistic or even victorian) trends seen in Diamond's and Pinker's work. This coincide with a larger trend where the abhorrence of genetic explanations of human mental traits following the holocaust of WWII are slowly giving way under ever increasing knowledge of medicine and genetics. The nature versus nurture debate is tipping toward nature if you will. This is as Denis pointed out a way to large area to cover in this article, hence as Ego said, this entry is cut down to the factors that are matters of facts rather than opinion. Sure, there are voices that disagree with Diamond & Pinker over facts, but they are few and far in between, and drowns in the number of scientists who disagree with them in their interpretation of the facts. The very fact that this topic is hotly debated makes this entry one of the most important in this article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No, there were several issues that need to be resolved besides page numbers, as explained in the comments above. Nobody argued that it is unimportant. I think the most succinct way to say why this belongs elsewhere is that it is a broad stereotype about people in the past, not a simple 'common misconception'. You could just as easily explode this list by adding hundreds of discredited stereotypes about gender, race, nationality, etc. These things are covered in many other articles, and many of lists, (see also Stereotype#See_also, Category:Stereotypes). But not this list. Instead improve the coverage of the history of violence, or create a new article on it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this assessment, as the common misconception is that the modern world is a more violent and dangerous place than the world of the past, a misconception fuelled by newsmedia, politicians, and pundits while being demonstrably and factually wrong. It's not a matter of stereotyping individuals in the past to point out that war, terrorism, and murder are all at historic lows presently, nor of pointing out that most people believe the opposite. siafu (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you can't have this without Pinker and Diamond is evidence that it's not universally accepted. If it were such an uncontroversial truth, you ought to be able to find easily a half dozen other restrained, mainstream historians who say the same thing. You should have a slam-dunk without even mentioning the name of anybody with an air of controversy. There are many misconceptions of this type which deserve extensive coverage in Wikipedia articles, but are not clear-cut enough for this list. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Getting the entry in compliance

I have fleshed out the Violence#History sectin a bit, adding sources. I have detailed the reference to Pinker (it's page 2) and even furnished it with a quote (with a link to an online text):

In a century that began with 9/11, Iraq, and Darfur, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may strike you as somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. I know from conversations and survey data that most people refuse to believe it.

Now, I hope to have the "commonality" aspect cleared away. I must admit I feel that we are running up against a WP:BLUE situation here, the notion that crime and violence is on the rise is so entrenched, particularly in US media that even I, living in a non-anglophone country an ocean away, hear this often.

As for this being too broad, we have other just as broad, but much older changes in popular and scientific viewpoint cited in this article. The view of dinosaurs as "going extinct "due to being generally maladapted or unable to cope with normal climatic change" is an example. This was scientific as well as conventional wisdom well into the 1960s. The fall of that paradigm involved a number of changing notions, the "dinosaur revolution" of the 1970s, showing dinosaurs were far from "sluggish and dim-witted", the better ecological understanding of same decade, the introduction of computers making modelling evolutionary processes more easy, the realization of a "nuclear winter" of the late Cold War period, the realization that the Signor–Lipps effect meant the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event could have been very abrupt, the finally the ammonite work by Walter Alvarez that lead to the discovery of the iridium spike. It was an as spectacular and complex paradigm shift as there ever was (there are still grumpy geologists who refuse to accept it), and every bit as complex as the "noble savage/long peace" shift we are now seeing. The greatest difference is that the shift relevant to this entry is much closer in time. Petter Bøckman (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Part of the WP:BLUE problem you are citing is that the commonality of this conception is not limited to the present or the United States, but is something of a common human theme to believe that the present is the worst time, that the end times must be near, or that the young people of today are somehow worse than the young people of yesteryear. I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion, but we should be careful to prevent any framing in the text implying that this is either a modern or American belief. siafu (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it is the "Golden age" syndrom, common to all Western and many other societies. This cultural tradition is rather well covered in the introduction to Keeley's War before civilization. Petter Bøckman (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Since there has been no negative reactions so far, I'm preparing the entry for article space:

A common misconception often quoted by media, politicians, activists is that violence is on the rise and has historically been much lower.^[3] Similarly, the trend in post-colonial anthropology has been to regard historically indigenous and tribal societies as more peaceful than contemporary Western society.^[4]^[5] However, archaeological evidence shows that previous societies had very high level of violence.^[6] Likewise, modern tribal societies typically too have extremely high rates of violence, with more than half of deaths being violence related in some cases.^[7]^[8] Ancient and medieval empires had lower rates of violence, and the violence decreased further as empires became more organized.^[9] Modern societies saw still lower rates of violence from the medieval period onwards, with significant decreases after World War II.^[10]^[11] This trend is general across all categories of violence, from large-scale warfare to murder and animal cruelty, and the trend is discernible on both millennium, century and decade scale, making modern societies are the most peaceful the world has even seen.^[12] </ref>

I disagree that there have been "no negative reactions so far". Both Dennis have objected to the inclusion of this entry. I've tried following the cites, and what I've seen is a few interesting but iconoclastic books by Keeley, Pinker and Diamond. I am unconvinced that their hypothesis is sufficiently mainstream to warrant inclusion in a "misconceptions" article. That doesn't mean that I think that they are wrong, just that I haven't seen evidence of sufficient consensus among historians to justify it's inclusion here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see the article now meet all the points forwarded against inclusion so far. It is well sourced (if you feel it needs more sources I will provide them, but I do not wish to WP:OVERCITE. The entry suggestion as it currently stands meets all four criteria for inclusion:

The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own. This is in this case Violence#History. If you feel this is not enough, I will create a new article based on just section, though I feel it is better placed where it is.
The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception. There are now four well respected works by major names cited as sources. The misconception, and the commonality of it, is unambiguously sourced (Pinker).
The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. It is, again in Violence#History.
The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete. It is very current.

As for your point that the authors represent some sort of fringe theories, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to come up with recent reputable work saying otherwise. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think one error that's going on here is confusing the belief (which may or may not be accurate) among some Americans that violence in the US has increased in the period since WWII to the present, or others who believe that in the US violence/crime increased from the 1960s through the 1990s, then declined. Or other Americans who note an increase in crime/violence from 1900 to the present. All of these are observations about crime, and they are all US-centric. They don't lend evidence to the claim that there is a common belief that was an overall increase in violence of all kinds on the timescale from prehistory to the present.

If this misconception is really so common, can we please see a list of examples of this common misconception? It should be easy to produce a half dozen or so clear examples.

And can we have examples of mainstream historians who agree with Pinker and Diamond and Keeley? These guys are idiosyncratic thinkers, who make provocative, interesting points, but do they represent the general consensus? If so, please cite that.

Why can't this be put on a more appropriate list? It's so broad, and so much a stereotype about prehistoric humanity. It's not like the other items on this list, so why not find a more appropriate home for it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The entry does not claim there is a belief in a general increasing trend of crime, it deals with violence. Also, this trend is/was common to all or most of the Western society, including Europe, and not specific to the US (I should know, I'm an European and see the same scare mongering taking place in the press here too). Whatever the Chinese might believe is a bit beside the point, this is en:wp, and should cater to myths and misconceptions of the Anglophone/Western world. I have now put in a few more sources, indicating how the same belief permeated British and European academia. Sources saying violence is on the rise as you seem to want is not difficult to come by, but they won't do for this article. We need sources saying this is a common myth/misconception, and that is what I have provided.

If all entries of this article should meet the criteria you set forth for this entry, then this article would be very short. I have now backed up the entry with 11 sources, most of them just the textbook/summary article type thought ideal for Wikipedia. To be quite frank, I would like to see you provide some decent sources for your counter arguments, so that we can stop discussing opinion and start discussing facts. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If there are entries that fail the criteria, please point out how so and nominate them to be removed. I think maybe the one about the puritanism of the Puritans is a possible candidate.

If the belief about violence is so common, then would you please cite examples? Actual examples of mainstream authorities who think that violence has increased from prehistory to the present? The burden remains on the editor who wishes to add material to cite sources that directly support the addition.

I think what you've observing is that some Westerners take a Romantic view of the nature of man, or become overenthusiastic in their love of Pastoral literature. This was lampooned well in the Community episode Debate 109, "Is man evil?" Your entry could be summarized as "The stereotype of the Noble savage is false." But this list is not for stereotypes. It's not a list of broad attitudes about man. We don't want an entry saying "The stereotype of the ditzy blonde or the shrewish wife is false" for the same reason. These fundamental attitudes directly inform partisan political ideologies, for example, the belief that man is by nature selfish bolsters conservative or libertarian ideologues, while the attitude that man is altruistic is fodder for socialist, liberal, or progressive arguments. So by labeling one's opponent's philosophy as a "common misconception" one tries to de-legitimatize their ideology. Typical of Pinker and Diamond. I like Pinker and Diamond, I agree with much of their arguments, but they are partisans. We need more evenhanded sources for a list like this one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that this entry is about sterotypes along the line of the ditzy blonde or the shrewish wife. The draft entries as proposed by both Ego White Tray and Bøckman above are not focused solely (or mainly) on the difference between savage societies and late modern societies. Rather, they point out the existence of a demonstrateable continuous decline of violence throughout history in contrast to the common belief that we are living in a particularly violent world.

To my mind, the key factor in deciding the inclusion/exclusion of this entry is not so much how modern man sees ancient non-civilized man, but how modern man sees violence in the modern era, and whether it is believed to be uncommonly high by historical standards.

Looking at the quote from Pinker presented above by Bøckman ["In a century that began with 9/11...etc."], when going to the source linked at the bottom of this debate, there is a footnote. By going to (hope the link works) Page 429, the footnote is given as follows:

Survey data: Bennett Haselton and I presented 265 Internet users with five pairs of historical periods and asked them which they thought had higher rates of violent death: prehistoric hunter-gatherer bands or the first states; contemporary hunter-gatherer bands or modern Western societies; homicide in 14th-century England or 20th-century England; warfare in the 1950s or the 2000s; homicide in the United States in the 1970s or the 2000s. In each case respondents thought the later culture was more violent, by a factor of 1.1 to 4.6. In each case, as we shall see, the earlier culture was more violent, by a factor of 1.6 to more than 30.

Dr bab (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

References

^ ""Elementary, my dear Watson"". Retrieved 2 April 2013.
^ Pinker, Steven. "1 A Foreign Country -Human prehistory". The better angels of our nature : why violence has declined. New York: Viking. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3. In a century that began with 9/11, Iraq, and Darfur, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may strike you as somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. I know from conversations and survey data that most people refuse to believe it.
^ Pinker, Steven. "1 A Foreign Country -Human prehistory". The better angels of our nature : why violence has declined. New York: Viking. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3. In a century that began with 9/11, Iraq, and Darfur, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may strike you as somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. I know from conversations and survey data that most people refuse to believe it.
^ Chagnon, N.A. (1996).Bock, G.R & Goode, J.A. (eds.) (ed.). Genetics of criminal and antisocial behaviour. Chichester: Wiley. pp. 202–231. ISBN 0471957194. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
^ Keeley, Lawrence H. (1996): War Before Civilization New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195119126
^ Martin, Debra L., and David W. Frayer, eds. Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach, 1997
^ "The fraud of primitive authenticity". Asian Times. 4th of July, 2006. Retrieved 16 July 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Wade, Nicholas (2006). Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (4th print. ed.). New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 1-59420-079-3.
^ Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, germs and steel : a short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years (5th print. ed.). London: Vintage. pp. 155–292. ISBN 0-09-930278-0.
^ Eisner, M. (2003). "Long-Term Historical Trends in Violent Crime" (PDF). Crime and Justice. 30: 83–142. Retrieved 22 July 2013.
^ Lindström, Dag (2009). Body-Gendrot, S. & Spierenburg, P. (ed.). Violence in Europe. pp. 43–64.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
^ Pinker, Steven. The better angels of our nature : why violence has declined. New York: Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3.

Thank you for pointing out the survey, Dr. Bab!

Bratland: The inclusion criteria very clearly state we need sources saying this is a commonly held misconception (which I have provided), not sources saying showing the people believing the misconception. I have nothing against examples, so if that is what you are after, here are some for your reading pleasure:

Violence in society (USA)
Possible Cause Of Increased Violence Everywhere (USA, global claim)
The Increase in Violence in Society (USA)
Urban Violence on the Rise (USA)
Alcohol-fuelled violence on the rise despite falling consumption (UK, Australia)
Violencia de Género: un problema que aumenta en la Argentina (Domestic Violence: A growing problem in Argentina) (Argentina)
Hipótesis sobre el aumento de la violencia (Hypotheses about the increase in violence) (Guatemala)
'Drug trade related violence on the rise' (Trinidad)
Organised Violence On The Rise (Iceland)
Økende vold (Increasing violence) (Norway)
Steigende Kriminalität: Polizei beklagt drastische Zunahme von Gewalt in Deutschland (Rising crime: police complained about dramatic increase in violence in Germany) (Germany)

This was just a quick result of googling "Increasing violence" and similar in a few other languages. Here's another post from a US perspective, pointing out the very common misconception: Good Question: Are We More Violent Than Before?.

It is your right to be against the inclusion of this entry, but I would be very happy if you did not try to obscure the actual discussion by bringing ideology into it. The entry sticks strictly to facts, exactly to avoid being a very general entry about ideology. It is the facts that need discussing, not ideology of the source. A source is either factually correct or it is not. The sources I have cited directly support each statement in the entry. If you disagree, would you please point out where the sources fails to support the entry, or provide reputable sources showing the sources in the entry are incorrect? Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Since there has been no reaction to this argument for almost two weeks, I will put the amended text back in the article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a highly controversial topic, have a look at the reviews of The Better Angels of Our Nature. There is no consensus how to measure the amount of violence and there are significant problems with the historical data. I do not oppose such an entry. But the statement “there has been a rise in violence” is not the misconception (it is a certain opinion), but the lack of awareness that there are indeed substantial arguments against this assumption is a common misconception. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Very few of the reviews of The Better Angels of Our Nature question the factuality of the decline in violence, and the negative reviews and almost entirely concerned with the explanations for the decline proferred by Pinker based in evolutionary psychology. I do not think this is a relevant criticism to the misconception as defined. siafu (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The longer this goes on, the further from consensus we are getting. The number of opposed editors is increasing, not decreasing. Why not let it go? There are multiple other articles where it is OK to make the point about the changes in perception about violence in history, but just not this one. If every new round of points and counterpoints brings in another editor opposed, then the snowball clause has to apply.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You make it sound like there's some sort of groundswell of opposition, when it's really just you and two solo comments by other editors. The specific objections that have been raised-- i.e., that the misconception is just a stereotype about historical peoples, that the misconception is not common, and that the belief in the decline in violence is not widely accepted amongst historians-- have all been specifically discussed and refuted. What is the source of your objection at this point, beyond just alluding to some sort of silent majority? 14:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"...the further away", well, it's not what I am seeing. Whether the entry can go in or not is not about your (nor my) feelings in the matter, it is about whether the entry is in compliance with the criteria for inclusion or not. Either it meets the criteria or it does not. I have provided ample sources for all points, now it's actually your turn. Petter Bøckman (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a bunch of criticism, the data is questioned in many reviews. Have a look at this review by Ziemann. There is this book chapter arguing that some of Pinker’s sources for prehistoric times are invalid and the rest is a very biased selection. Herfried Münkler criticised the use of unreliable data from chronists who tried to impress the audience using large numbers of deaths. And he said it is currently impossible to make such statements for the non-European world. There is no doubt that this correction to a “common misconception” is a highly controversial assumption, which is currently discussed and not well-established. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The review by Zieman, while questioning the precision of Pinker's data, does not actually disagree with the basic premise that violence has declined in history; for example:

The basic point, to be sure, remains valid. Calculated as the chance of an individual to die as a result of homicide, torture and capital punishment, war or genocide (throughout the book expressed as the number of cases among 100,000 people per year), a person in the world society of the early 21st century is much less likely to suffer a violent death than one of our ancestors in the tribal societies and agricultural settlements of the period around 10,000 BCE.

The decline in violence and violent death in history is well established amongst historians. Certainly, there is a great deal of difficulty in determining the actual numbers involved, but as I mentioned before, even in highlighting these particulars the vast majority of Pinker's critics do not challenge the basic argument. siafu (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two basic critiques of Pinkers work: One is an academic discussion of details (how many actually died in this or that battle, Ziemann is an example of this), the second is a more popular a critique of Pinker's choice of useing death per capita rather than absolute death-toll. Non of these really disprove the entry as it now stands though, neither does the entry rely exclusively on Pinker. I understand a number of people have strong feeling on this subject, but here, as elsewhere on Wikipedia, source is king. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not have strong feelings on the question whether violence has declined. However: The critics you mentioned are not just a “discussion of details”, the whole methodology is questioned, many critics consider substantial parts of Pinker’s conclusions as false, based on unreliable, inprecise and biased sources. There is certainly no consensus about “This trend is general across all categories of violence, from large-scale warfare to murder and animal cruelty, and the trend is discernible on both millennium, century and decade scale, making modern societies the most peaceful the world has even seen”. This historian and journalist only agrees with a trend for the last 500 years. Sorry that my arguments are focused on Pinker but he is apparently the only source who made as far-reaching claims as this Wikipedia article and contrarily to the other sources there are a lot of reviews. Btw., I changed my mind: This entry is completely inappropriate for this list. There are a number of controversial hypothesises and of course there is a wide spread naivety, premature claims about history, romanticised views on tribal societies… This might be a social phenomenon, but it is not a concrete misconception, there is no concrete common false belief like “in the Thirty Years’ War the number of deaths per capita in the affected region was smaller than in the First World War”, there are just some tendencies in the beliefs, which are sometimes wrong and sometimes disputed. It is like adding an entry “the world was better in the past” or “politicians do not care about their voters”. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The source says unambiguously that it is a very common misconception, so it fulfils this criterium. If you have sources stating otherwise, please come with them.

Pinker's book has its critiques, but if you look over The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature#Reception, I think you'll see that actual critique of his methodology is in the minority. A lot of the critique of Pinkers work is also missing the mark. the chapter by Ferguson you linked to for instance goes to great length to adjust down the number of deaths in Pinkers examples (e.g the first one he adjusted from 40,7 to 9,8 percent), yet fail to note that the adjusted numbers are still leaps and bonds ahead of any violence related death rates seen today.

As for the entry being vague, I fail to see how "violence has declined through history" is vague. If the mention of tribal societies bother you, feel free to suggest an amended wording. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an important issue because it affects a public policy debate. Someone above noted it is goes to the golden age phenomena. I agree. It is also a more modern media phenomena -- specifically a feedback loop which can amplify the misconception. In the US after a recent mass shooting and subsequent pro and anti Second Amendment debate it was determined in polling and surveys that most Americans thought US gun murder was up, when in fact they had plummeted to about half (7.0/100,000 down to 3.6/100,000). Holding this misconception or not was directly tied to views on the US Second Amendment, with those who had the false impression more likely to support new limits. Common misconceptions that affect public policy debates are particularly importan.t108.18.70.239 (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@108… Sorry, but the list of common misconceptions should not be a political device.

@Petter I quote the article: “This trend is general across all categories of violence, from large-scale warfare to murder and animal cruelty, and the trend is discernible on both millennium, century and decade scale, making modern societies the most peaceful the world has even seen.” This is an extreme POV shared only by some scientists, namely Pinker. There is no doubt that this is controversial. You cannot argue that there is a consensus by saying that there are some positive reviews in the Wikipedia article about Pinker’s book. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. While there is certainly disagreement over the interpretation of Pinker's findings (which represent nothing more than a description of data accumulated by experts in their respective fields), I am not aware of the publication of a single credible source disputing the finding that deaths and violence relative to population are at historically low levels; these data are not issue in the "controversy." What's at issue is Pinker's thesis regarding what's driving these trends (ie humanism and enlightenment values). Blacksun1942 (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Chricho, your argument here seems to be similar to the argument you made for the removal of the Big Bang misconception. You are arguing that the very existence of a misconception in both cases, but you fail to understand that a reference to a credible source explicitly stating that the misconception does indeed exist is all that is needed to trump the personal opinion of any editor here. This is as much the case for Pinker as it is for the physicist Brian Greene mentioned below. If you believe that the existence of the misconception (that violence has NOT declined over time) is in dispute, then I don't see why you can't provide references stating as much. Your argument that Brian Greene (or Steven Pinker) are not "experts on misconceptions" has no basis whatsoever in WP:POLICY and certainly is not common practice when citing relevant references. Blacksun1942 (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have explicitly given sources above contradicting the claim “This trend is general across all categories of violence, from large-scale warfare to murder and animal cruelty, and the trend is discernible on both millennium, century and decade scale, making modern societies the most peaceful the world has even seen.”, but telling that it is impossible to make such comparisons for many eras (e. g. the source agreeing only for the last 500 years, or sources saying that the data by Pinker for tribal societies is completely insignificant) and many regions of the world. And please stop argumenting by trying to discredit me by refering to completely unrelated discussions. I know how to deal with sources. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources you have put forward to contradict the claim don't actually do so. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung article you posted says:

Niemand wird bestreiten, dass die Gewalt zwischen Klans und Staaten seit dem Mittelalter zurückgegangen ist, der Zivilisationsprozess manch dunklen Trieb eingedämmt hat, Hunger und Armut auf dem Rückmarsch sind und die Lebenserwartung, wahrscheinlich auch die Lebensqualität gestiegen sind. Das ist indes nichts Neues. Ob diese Entwicklung anhält, ist eine andere Frage, aber der Autor betätigt sich zumindest nicht als Prophet.

Which google translate renders (poorly, but still understandably) as:

Based on the last five hundred years, and to the west, Steven Pinker's thesis should apply, even if the violence is the measured parameters, the number of deaths, an abundant blunt instrument. No one will deny that the violence between clans and countries has declined since the Middle Ages, the civilization process has curbed some dark instinct, hunger and poverty are on the way back, and life expectancy, probably also the quality of life have increased. This, however, is nothing new. Whether this trend continues, is another question, but the author at least not active as a prophet.

Basically saying that the trend is at least true for the last 500 years, and then offers no real objections to the rest of it aside from claiming that Pinker isn't a historian and "doesn't understand historiography", claiming that he takes biblical records at face value, etc., without ever actually providing a critique or objection to the basic argument. Also, I recognize that German may be your native language and that German sources may have many interesting things to add to this discussion, but most users of the English wikipedia are not German speakers, so any use of German sources here would be a lot more helpful if accompanied by some translation or discussion of the contents. Sources that can't easily be evaluated cannot be easily used. siafu (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me quote the relevant parts:

„Auf die letzten fünfhundert Jahre und auf den Westen bezogen, dürfte Steven Pinkers These zutreffen, auch wenn der die Gewalt messende Parameter, die Anzahl der Toten, ein reichlich grobes Instrument ist. […] Steven Pinker versucht sich als Historiker, ist aber mit den Grundsätzen der Historiografie offenbar nicht vertraut. Quellenkritisch geht er unbedarft vor. […] Doch die Methode ist zweifelhaft, der Erkenntnisgewinn gering.“

“Steven Pinker’s claim is probably true with respect to the last five-hundred years although the parameter to measure violence, the number of deaths, is a very inprecise tool. […] Steven Pinker tries to be a historian, but obviously he is not acquainted with the basics of histography. He is unwary with respect to source criticism. […] But the method is questionable, there are only small insights.”

He questions validity in the long term, he does not see any great insights, criticises the methodology and says that the most important measure used by Pinker is very inaccurate. That is completely contrary to the very strong claims made in the entry in the list.

More and more criticism.

@Siafu “The decline in violence and violent death in history is well established amongst historians.” Please tell me: Who are these historian making such strong claims like Pinker and this list of common misconceptions or even telling that it is “well established”? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I would point you to the list drawn up above by Petter Bøckman for reference to some of the historians making such "strong claims". As regards the violence of tribal societies, we could also add Jared Diamond's The World Until Yesterday which discusses this topic in immense detail. The problem, again, is that the criticism you are presenting simple does not challenge the basic statement: violence has decline through history on all scales. In fact, when they do bother to mention it, they even reinforce this very fact, as has been noted with the Ferguson article (see the quote I pulled out) and now with the article from Neue Zürcher Zeitung which does the same for the last 500 years. The three new articles you put forward are, frankly, not particularly relevant (in the case of Gray) and not particularly RS (in the case of the HuffPost). John Gray does not present a historical argument at all, and spends that entire article discussing the philosophical issues with Pinker's humanist outlook and use of evolutionary psychology; you may recall that I pointed out that this was the primary source of criticism of Pinker's book in the first place, and this is indeed a prime example of that. People even noted that in the comments on the article! We're left with the article by S. Corry, which actually does attempt to attack the historical validity of Pinker's thesis, but only as regards tribal societies, since he simply by and large ignores the factual arguments for violence outside of that domain (he only uses actual sources for the tribal bits). I wouldn't consider the Corry article as an RS for anything beyond the tribal argument, but it's a separate discussion anyway as to whether tribal or traditional societies are more violent than non-tribal ones to the question of whether violence has been declining. Either way, Corry seems to not recognize that regardless of the fact that Pinker picked some of the most violent tribal societies for comparison, that even the most violent non-tribal societies are much less violent (orders of magnitude in terms of the death-by-violence rate) than the most violent tribal societies. But this is discussing source content, so let's just leave it as it is: the sources, at least those that actually take up the question, so far all support the contention that violence has declined on all scales in recorded history. siafu (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have cited concrete statements which clearly contradict the assumptions that there is a scientific consensus for the statement “This trend is general across all categories of violence, from large-scale warfare to murder and animal cruelty, and the trend is discernible on both millennium, century and decade scale, making modern societies are the most peaceful the world has even seen.” --Chricho ∀ (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources you have cited, as evidenced by the quotes I have pulled and the statements noted upon by other users, do not in fact contradict that statement, but in most cases actually support it. I don't know how much more clearly I can show that. siafu (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me give an example: How does the statement that there is no evidence to make meaningful comparisons with the time more than 500 years ago not contradict the statement that there is scientific consensus that violence has declined on millennium scale? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources you have put forward make such a strong assertion. The source that cites the last five hundred years, the pertinent quote of which you were kind enough to translate better than google or my meager German could accomplish, says simply that it's clearly true for the last five hundred, using only the number of deaths is imprecise, and then goes on to attack Pinker's reputation. Again, the primary argument is against evolutionary psychology and the causes put forward by Pinker and does not present an argument against the veracity of his historical claims beyond that; literally the paragraph I quoted is the only discussion of historical validity in the whole thing. Clearly the author doesn't believe Pinker's claims, but is nonetheless unable, unwilling, or more like uninterested in attacking the historical claim itself. There is no effort here to suggest that non believing in evolutionary psychology or the "civilizing process", as Pinker calls it, is a misconception. All that is being put forward is that the idea that the modern age is more violent than the past is untrue. The only actual objection so far from sources is that one believes that there isn't enough evidence to conclude about anything more than 500 years ago. Should I assume that you would prefer it be reworded to only refer to the last half millenium? siafu (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be a bad, arbitrary decision, a historian estimates “500 years”, just because of that we cannot write “500 years”. And for concrete statements you need concrete sources verifying that these are actually “common misconceptions”. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman was kind enough to provide a list of concrete sources above demonstrating exactly that. You have put forward a few sources which, except for one partial rebuttal, are irrelevant to the question at hand. Is that concrete enough? siafu (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. None of these sources claims “now there are more deaths per capita by warfare than there have been 200 years ago”. Some of them present vague claims without defining “increasing violence”. Most of them cover very specific developments. Do you want to say that Pinker’s research implies that it is wrong that drug-related violence has increased in Trinidad in the last few years? Or domestic violence in Argentinia? Some of the articles even seem to rely on empirical data showing increases in violence. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus?

Opposed Still. I don't get why anyone thinks they have consensus to add this. A few editors favor it. A few oppose. The deadlock isn't going anywhere, so why not let it go? Or move on to other disupte resolution venues. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Supporters have brought out source after source after source backing this up. I have yet to see a single source that disputes the decrease in violence. Remember, we're not even trying to address the reasons for the decline (which are in dispute), only that it has occurred. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

To oppose the points given in the entry you do not have to give sources for an increase in violence, it suffices to doubt that there is scientific consensus on a decrease in violence. I have given a lot of such sources. Furthermore it is questionable what conception is actually a common misconception, the sources (some media reports) are questionable to prove the spread of a certain misconception. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You have provided precisely one partial rebuttal to the claim, and then veered off in your final comment above in appealing to WP:SYNTH. The sources demonstrating commonality include research surveys as well as media reports, and in fact are stronger than those used for most of the misconceptions in the article. siafu (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You're way ahead of me. I haven't gotten past questioning that this entry even belongs on this list. What I see you guys doing is presenting your argument, then appointing yourself arbiter and declaring yourself the winner, ignoring everyone who objects with chutzpah and bluster. You do not have consensus.

You. Do. Not. Have. Consensus.

What you have here is an intractable disagreement and so your options are to: 1) Present new facts that haven't been considered yet, 2) Drop it, 3) Dispute resolution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

We have satisfied the requirements for inclusion listed on the top of this page. Indeed, one could just as easily say that what we have is two editors resisting the consensus of all other commentators. The facts have been represented, and the relevant requirements have not been disputed in any of the supposedly counter sources presented. siafu (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Opposed The section is overly broad and both the misconception and the correction thereof are quite nebulous. By contrast, all the misconceptions presented here, other than this one, are rather clear-cut; this one is different in kind than the others. And I'm still unconvinced that Pinker, Diamond, et. al. represent the mainstream views of historians. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If it's overly broad, then it could be reworded, but I don't see how it's overly broad. The misconception and the correction are not nebulous - the misconception is that the world is violent and the correction is that it's not. What's nebulous about that? And while you are unconvinced, you seem completely unable to find a historian that says otherwise. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

“the misconception is that the world is violent and the correction is that it's not”—that is nonsense, you obviously cannot legitimately give a statement like that. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Support - as somebody outside this debate I have to say it seems to me that the misconception clearly exists, as the sources given state. I think those opposed are being unreasonable. Malick78 (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Both sides have made reasonable arguments. On balance, I am not persuaded that this entry improves the article, but reasonable people can disagree. It does not further the discussion to accuse those making a good faith effort to improve the article of being "unreasonable". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It's disconcerting to be seeing experienced editors saying, "Well, it looks like I've won this dispute because I think you're wrong." Dismissing the other side for reasons inherent in one's own argument is known as begging the question. It might help for us all to review how consensus actually works. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene

I fail to see how what people may or may not have thought in the middle ages is relevant to this article. I also don't see any evidence that it is a current widespread misconception that people thought X in the middle ages. So the recent changes to this section should be reverted as per the criteria for inclusion. Other editor's opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not about what people thought in the Middle Ages, but what people now think that people thought in the Middle Ages - compare the two Colombus entries. You obviously don't follow this stuff, which has been tremendously popular for the last 20 years. That people now think she was a prostitute is presented as a continuation of the medieval view, which it isn't. Try googling "Magdalene prostitute" 642,000 links. The BBC intern-written link you have insisted on readding for example, para 2: "But the Mary Magdalene that lives in our memories is quite different. In art, she's often semi-naked, or an isolated hermit repenting for her sins in the wilderness: an outcast. Her primary link with Jesus is as the woman washing and anointing his feet. But we know her best as a prostitute". Many of the items in the list are far less current widespread misconceptions, and that they are is supported by a single non-RS link. I am getting a strong whiff of WP:OWN here. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to place material in this article stating "people now think that people thought in the Middle Ages..." you need to provide a reliable source for it. Absent such a cite, the material gets removed as unsourced.

As for the BBC link, it was shamelessly stolen from the parent article - if you don't think it's sufficiently RS for wikipedia, fight it out there, not here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Google News I ran right into a half dozen recent articles offhandedly referring to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. There's an anti-child prostitution group called Magdalene. It should be possible to find and cite a good sampling of these to demonstrate that the misconception is alive. But those citations need to be there for this list. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The misconception about MM being a prostitute is in the current version of the list. What was added (and reverted) was the additional misconception that "people in the middle ages thought she was a prostitute, and the modern misconception is based on a continuation of this belief, when in fact people in the middle ages did NOT see her as a prostitute." Dr bab (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. This (2nd one) was already around, but received a massive boost when it was a big point in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Teflon invented by NASA

From Polytetrafluoroethylene: "It is commonly believed that Teflon is a spin-off product from the NASA space projects. Though it has been used by NASA, the assumption is incorrect.[2]" I've heard that one numerous times. Joepnl (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Carl Sagan agrees. The entry should include ballpoint pens, pacemakers, and Velcro too. Or at least Velcro, since the article already mentions it.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

[1] "Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation (TOC)" (PDF). Revised Proceedings of the BSCS, AIBS Symposium. MSU.edu. 2004. Retrieved January 13, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)^{[page needed]}

[2] "It Is Not Just a Theory… It Is a Theory!". Chandra Chronicles. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. July 7, 2008. Retrieved April 8, 2009.

[3] Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Third ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-226-45808-3.

[4] "Misconceptions about the Nature of Science". UMT.edu. University of Montana, Div. Biological Sciences. Retrieved April 8, 2009.

[5] "Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation (TOC)" (PDF). Revised Proceedings of the BSCS, AIBS Symposium. MSU.edu. 2004. Retrieved January 13, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)^{[page needed]}

[6] "It Is Not Just a Theory… It Is a Theory!". Chandra Chronicles. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. July 7, 2008. Retrieved April 8, 2009.

[7] Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Third ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 7. ISBN 0-226-45808-3.

[8] "Misconceptions about the Nature of Science". UMT.edu. University of Montana, Div. Biological Sciences. Retrieved April 8, 2009.

[9] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_language#Linguistics_of_sign

[10] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_language#Sign_languages.27_relationships_with_spoken_languages

[11] ttp://www.stevens.edu/e344/15_fall_2008/core/section_4/FL&O_section_4.pdf , http://www.physics.emory.edu/~weeks/lab/glass

[12] Kinetics, Human (2010). Health and wellness for life. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. p. 223. ISBN 9780736068505.

[13] .], [edited by] Steven G. Gabbe ... [et. Obstetrics : normal and problem pregnancies (6th ed. ed.). Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders. p. 528. ISBN 9781437719352. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |first= has generic name (help)

[14] ""Elementary, my dear Watson"". Retrieved 2 April 2013.

[15] Pinker, Steven. "1 A Foreign Country -Human prehistory". The better angels of our nature : why violence has declined. New York: Viking. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3. In a century that began with 9/11, Iraq, and Darfur, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may strike you as somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. I know from conversations and survey data that most people refuse to believe it.

[16] Pinker, Steven. "1 A Foreign Country -Human prehistory". The better angels of our nature : why violence has declined. New York: Viking. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3. In a century that began with 9/11, Iraq, and Darfur, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may strike you as somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. I know from conversations and survey data that most people refuse to believe it.

[17] Chagnon, N.A. (1996).Bock, G.R & Goode, J.A. (eds.) (ed.). Genetics of criminal and antisocial behaviour. Chichester: Wiley. pp. 202–231. ISBN 0471957194. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

[Keely1-18] Keeley, Lawrence H. (1996): War Before Civilization New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195119126

[19] Martin, Debra L., and David W. Frayer, eds. Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach, 1997

[20] "The fraud of primitive authenticity". Asian Times. 4th of July, 2006. Retrieved 16 July 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[21] Wade, Nicholas (2006). Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (4th print. ed.). New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 1-59420-079-3.

[22] Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, germs and steel : a short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years (5th print. ed.). London: Vintage. pp. 155–292. ISBN 0-09-930278-0.

[23] Eisner, M. (2003). "Long-Term Historical Trends in Violent Crime" (PDF). Crime and Justice. 30: 83–142. Retrieved 22 July 2013.

[24] Lindström, Dag (2009). Body-Gendrot, S. & Spierenburg, P. (ed.). Violence in Europe. pp. 43–64.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

[25] Pinker, Steven. The better angels of our nature : why violence has declined. New York: Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]