Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

consumption smoothing

• Economists do not support the notion that individuals should at all stages of their life set aside money in savings. Rather, consumption smoothing is more utility maximizing. Benjamin (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Benjamin (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The cited source does not state that "Economists do not support the notion that individuals should at all stages of their life set aside money in savings". Sundayclose (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't need to use those exact words. It clearly draws a distinction between popular beliefs and academic conclusions. Why do you think it's such an inaccurate interpretation? Benjamin (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I never suggested it has to use exact words. The source may discuss the general concept of distinctions between popular beliefs and academic conclusions, but it neither supports nor negates the idea that economists in general "do not support the notion that individuals should at all stages of their life set aside money in savings." Sundayclose (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the exact wording, I think the source sufficiently identifies a common misconception. Is there an alternate wording you would support? Benjamin (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't support any wording because the information simply isn't in the source. Sundayclose (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think the source doesn't identify a misconception? Benjamin (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it just isn't there. There's discussion of the pros and cons of popular beliefs (not just savings), but there is no support for the idea that economists in general recommend one way or the other about saving in all stages of life. Remember, the WP:BURDEN here is on the editor adding an item to verify that a source supports it, not on others to disprove it. See Russell's teapot. Sundayclose (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Just looking at the abstract, it seems pretty clear that it's speaking in a somewhat general sense. Again, not sure what exactly your objection is. Benjamin (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I've stated my concerns, more than once. Let's wait and see if a consensus develops. By the way, the abstract has nothing about the specifics of popular ideas about savings and specific views held by economists. An abstract rarely is any reasonable basis for reaching conclusions, especially the sweeping conclusion at issue here. Sundayclose (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Not in those exact words, but it certainly does state the following in the table on page 2 of the paper:

Consensus popular advice: Save 10–15 percent of income regardless of age and circumstances during working life. // Benchmark academic advice: Smooth consumption over time. Low or negative savings rates when young, high savings rate in midlife.

and on page 3:

Economic theory targets an optimal consumption rate each period. The optimal savings rate is whatever the difference happens to be between income and optimal consumption.

and on page 4:

In contrast to the emphasis on smoothing consumption in economic theory, popular authors advise smoothing savings rates, which is also the default option for a typical retirement savings plan.

It's unclear to me what objection you have when you say that the source doesn't state that economists don't support always saving at every stage of one's life. Edderiofer (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It's one writer's (Choi) interpretation of one economic theory (consumption smoothing) held by some economists. We can't assume that Choi speaks for all (or even most) economists. If we were discussing the intricacies of economic theory as it applies to consumer savings, this might be one perspective. But it's not enough to make the sweeping generalization that "Economists (clearly indicating that it refers to most if not all economists) do not support the notion that individuals should at all stages of their life set aside money in savings." (comment in parentheses added). And if we have to add caveats to the "misconception", it is not really a common misconception. This is an appropriate area for discussion of economic theory and consumer saving habits, but not as one sentence to describe a common misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Consumption smoothing is literally an econ 101 concept, just check a textbook. You still haven't given any reason to think it's at all controversial. Benjamin (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Human heart is on the left - but only just

Many people (citable, just trying to find the most reputable source) believe that their heart is well and truly on the left - e.g behind the left breast. In reality, your heart is very close to centered, sitting behind the sternum and between the lungs; two thirds of the heart sit on the left, but one third is on the right.

I think this is a pretty widely spread misconception and (very scientific) I thought it was interesting to learn the truth. How do others feel about including this? RudolfClausius (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

In theory it sounds OK. But make sure you can fulfill the four criteria for inclusion. We need more than just a source that explains where the heart is located. Sundayclose (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Wait - I thought the misconception was the the heart was located on the right. - Munmula (talk · contribs) 02:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the average person would say it's on the left. But we need a source that it's a common misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not a misconception for everyone. For some people (including myself) the heart is on the right. - Aoidh (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This is why we need a reliable source that states either left or right is a common misconception. Wikipedia editors (including myself) are not reliable sources. Sundayclose (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Would we accept Dr. Greg Starmer, Director of Cardiology at the Cairns Hospital? As cited on a government health website in AU - ctrl+f "left side of your chest" on this page:

https://www.health.qld.gov.au/news-events/podcast/my-amazing-body-the-heart

Quote for posterity:

Host: Your heart is about the size of your fist and while most of us think it sits on the left side of your chest, Dr Starmer explains, that’s not entirely correct.

Dr Starmer: A lot of people think the heart is kind of on the left side and it sort of angles that way. But really it's directly behind the breastbone. So we're built fairly well and the reason that we're built the way that we're built is to protect the heart and the great vessels that enter and exit the heart. So, it's predominately behind the breastbone with a little sort of angulation over towards the left side. RudolfClausius (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

If you look at edit history, I made this change very briefly and then reverted when I realized it was meant to be discussed here first - but I already included a reference to Dextrocardia because it's (in some ways) an adjacent misconception. RudolfClausius (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The host says, "most of us think". Dr. Starmer says, "A lot of people think the heart is kind of on the left side" (italics added). That's two opinions, the most reliable of which is Dr. Starmer's. But the wording isn't exactly a resounding affirmation that it is a common misconception. In fact, you could interpret Dr. Starmer's qualification "kind of" as an indication that most people don't think it's fully on the left side. I think we need a better source to satisfy inclusion criterion 2 ("The item is reliably sourced, ... with respect to the ... fact that it is a common misconception."). Sundayclose (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The topic article has this to say:

The largest part of the heart is usually slightly offset to the left side of the chest (though occasionally it may be offset to the right) and is felt to be on the left because the left heart is stronger and larger, since it pumps to all body parts.

Feel free to go argue with the editors of that page and come back to us when they agree that the heart is not really on the left. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Dextrocardia calls offset to the right as "a rare congenital condition", not "occasional". Heart says, "The lower tip of the heart, the apex, lies to the left of the sternum." The issue here is whether there is a common misconception, and whether that misconception is that the offset is to the left or right. Sundayclose (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, we'd need some reliable source verifying any purported misconception and according to the inclusion criteria we'd also need a topic article that treats it as a common misconception. At this point we have neither.

Perhaps a substantial number of people think the human heart is farther to the left than it actually is, but until that can be confirmed via reliable sources we can't include that here as a misconception.

I seriously doubt anyone claims the offset is to the right, other than in rare (occasional) cases. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Source 459 doesn't support the Mantis misconception

The misconception is: "Female praying mantises do not always eat the males during mating." I'm quite new to actively partaking in Wikipedia so apologies if I'm going about this incorrectly.

The cited source doesn't really support this statement. The blog post talks about how a student observed, in artificial lab settings, that 1 in 45 males kill their female partners and 1 in 45 females kill their partners before mating. In the second video, the blog links, it also becomes more explicit, that it's actually 1 in 45 females decapitate their partners but then still mate with them, which for me personally is not the intuitive understanding of the phrasing of the post itself (I understood it to mean that they killed their partners before they could mate, so, in the end, they didn't mate). The post does not touch at all on the subject of female mantises killing their mates during or after mating, it simply states that they sometimes also do it before mating.

The wiki page on Mantises as an order of insects, has better sources for this under sexual cannibalism, stating "Sexual cannibalism is common among most predatory species of mantises in captivity. It has sometimes been observed in natural populations, where about a quarter of male-female encounters result in the male being eaten by the female. Around 90% of the predatory species of mantises exhibit sexual cannibalism." with four sources which tbf are mainly from the 90s and one from the 2010s. I personally don't have newer sources on this, so I think those actual scientific papers would be a better fit as sources for the misconception. Furthermore, I think an expansion of the misconception and a bit further explanation would also be appropriate, especially since some Mantis species apparently don't partake in sexual cannibalism at all. Another source for this could be this study which suggests that "pre-copulatory cannibalism is not a behavioural by-product but a result of direct selection." meaning the cannibalistic tendencies are species-specific, not specimen-specific. So mantises aren't cannibalistic out of their aggression but out of an evolutionary selective trait. If I understood that correctly. English is my second language, so it's best someone checks that. Strawbebbe (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Citation templates errors

Although most of the references used in this list are wp:Citation templates, some are Help:Shortened footnotes that are broken, no longer pointing to any reference, likely because the targets have been deleted from the Sources list. WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

it's safe to use the same password on multiple acounts

it's not safe have the same password on multiple accounts because if one account get compromised then all of your other accounts will be [1][2]

I think this should be added LJFIN2 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

What is the misconception?? That you should use a different password, or that you shouldn't use a different password? All the sources say is that you shouldn't use the same password, advice that is frequently given. So if you are suggesting that there is a common misconception that we should use the same password, we need a reliable source that clearly states that. It seems to me that you are confusing commonly given advice with a common misconception. Read the lead to the article: "A common misconception is a viewpoint or factoid that is often accepted as true but which is actually false." Sundayclose (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

the missconception is that people think it's safe. The PC gamer article says that %21 use the same password on everything so it's clear that many people think it's safe LJFIN2 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That people use the same password can be attributed to laziness, not a belief that its safe. Do you have a reliable source saying that people reuse passwords due to a misconception that it's safe to do so? - Aoidh (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, it's not clear that "people think it's safe". The only thing that is clear is that 21% use the same password. It is your synthesized conclusion that they use the same password because they think it's safe. There could be a number of reasons they use the same password. One such example: I've used the same password because I can remember it easily, not because I think it's safe. We need a source that specifically states that people think it's safe. Second point: It's questionable whether 21% can be considered a "common misconception". We would need a consensus here to make that determination. Third point: We don't know PC Magazine's method for collecting data. Was it readers of PC Mag, or was it a random, stratified sample obtained by a professional survey company such as Gallup? Sundayclose (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I found a article by UC Berkeley which says that %9 of people think it's okay to reuse passwords. The same article also says that %65 of people reuse passwords LJFIN2 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Selective use of statistics. From that same source: "91% of us know it’s bad". As Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." This is not a common misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

it looks like this isn't going to be included this thread should probably get archived LJFIN2 (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"My two cents" for the archives: Yes, it's original research to assume that those who use the same password believe it's safe. It could be that they can't be bothered (it is a hassle to maintain multiple passwords), and/or that they think the risk of compromise is not important. The "I have nothing to hide, so why should I be worried so much about security" belief. Just my "penny for your thoughts"... damn this inflation! _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Pencil lead

There's no mention on this article of the fact that pencil lead is actually graphite. The misconception is famous enough to get a mention on the article for Pencil:

"Because the pencil core is still referred to as "lead", or "a lead", many people have the misconception that the graphite in the pencil is lead, and the black core of pencils is still referred to as lead, even though it never contained the element lead."

so should be included here as a result as well. 81.109.152.157 (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this is a good candidate for inclusion. I would support this entry pending appropriate citations to reliable sources and may take a crack at it myself soon. Thanks for the suggestion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

this would be a good inclusion LJFIN2 (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Entry added to the article. Not sure if we should include the misconception of getting lead poisoning from being stabbed by a pencil, so I left that out for now. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

coconut.jpg

In 2020 an internet meme began stating that there is a file in the source code Team Fortress 2 called coconut.jpg and were to be deleted the game wouldn't be able launch. Some tellings of this misconception claim that a developer working at Valve said that they were unable to remove the file from the game. Although there is a file in the source code called coconut.vtf the game can still run if the file is removed. LJFIN2 (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that is a very common misconception. It might be common in a few small fan communities, where the internals of TF2 are discussed in great detail, but not generally. We need to keep the article at a reasonable length so we don't want to include items like this. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

fair enough but the myth is circulated outside hardcore TF2 fans, it's been reported on by many more general gaming news outlets and the meme went viral outside spaces exclusively related to TF2. LJFIN2 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Among the varying opinions of what this article should be, I've said that the original intent for inclusion was probably "things that everybody believes, but ain't so", while recognizing the problem of "who is everybody?". So I've argued against beliefs held by a small subset of the general population. Expanding the misconception from TF2 fans to more general gaming news outlets doesn't exceed that bar in my opinion. The word viral in Internet context mimics its biological origins in that something might be spread within a particular population, but not worldwide. It's the difference between epidemic and pandemic. How many people consult gaming news outlets to form their general opinions? On that count, I say "no". To further agitate discussion on this article: considering a Korean belief that sleeping among air circulation fans can result in death, I wonder whether the whole concept of the list is very North American-centric, or whether there can be a worldwide application of what is and is not a common misconception. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

there is a section for videogame related misconceptions which includes entries related to Dragon Quest and Sid Meier's Civilization if both of those can be included I see no reason why a TF2 related misconception can't be included seeing that TF2 is similar in popularity. LJFIN2 (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

True, there is a section for "videogame related misconceptions" (dibs on this for my new band name). So given that, I would support your addition. My niggling here questions the criteria for inclusion and the existence of the entire article. Much discussion over the years regarding inclusion has gravitated to the sheer size of the article. Some have suggested deleting the entire article. I'm thinking there may be an argument for splitting it all up, in a list of lists. I don't mean to hijack the thread from a discussion of coconuts, but I think the existence of this article is vexed by the very real difference between European and African swallows. _signed, Willondon (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

given the size of this article it should probably get split up. There are many many more media related misconceptions not on here. Also List of common false etymologies of English words is pretty much a splitter article already LJFIN2 (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Foster's

Although Foster's Lager is the most popular Australian brand of beer globally but it is not the most popular beer in Australia nor is it brewed in Australia. According to The Guardian in 2015 there were only ten venues that sold Foster's Lager on tap. It was once the most popular brand beer in Australia but its popularity has been overshadowed by other domestic beers such as Carlton Dry, Victoria Bitter and international beers such as Corona. The misconception that it's the most popular beer in Australia largely comes from the "Foster's is Australian for beer" and "How to speak Australian'' ad campaigns. LJFIN2 (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence for inclusion criteria 2 (sourced that it is a common misconception) or 3 (misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources). Sundayclose (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the sources? Source 1 and 2 is about how Foster's isn't brewed in Australia despite many thinking it is and Source 3 is about how it's a common misconception that it's popular in Australia, all three of them are about misconceptions related to Foster's. Source 4 is a chart of the most popular beer brands in Australia to give further evidence. This fits all the inclusion criteria   LJFIN2 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how Source 3 (or any of the other sources) supports the claim that the misconception is common; we would need a source that states something such as e.g. "many people believe that Foster's is brewed in Australia". I also don't see where in the topic article on Wikipedia the misconception is mentioned. Edderiofer (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

source 1 says: "Let's be clear: Foster's lager, as we know it in Britain's pubs and supermarkets, is an Australian brand; it is not an Australian beer. "Australian for lager" it may claim to be, but 1.2bn pints of the amber nectar a year are brewed in Manchester, not Melbourne. And almost all of them are drunk in Britain, making Foster's this country's second best-selling standard lager, behind Carling."

source 3 says: "Believe it or not, finding Foster’s beer in Australia – what international drinkers think of as the country’s beer of choice – isn’t easy"

I consider those direct statements declaring common misconceptions. Also since when is the misconception being included in its own wikipedia article an inclusion criteria LJFIN2 (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"Australian for lager" it may claim to be, but 1.2bn pints of the amber nectar a year are brewed in Manchester, not Melbourne. And almost all of them are drunk in Britain, making Foster's this country's second best-selling standard lager, behind Carling.

This does not support either the claim that "Foster's is the most popular beer in Australia" is a common misconception or the claim that "Foster's is brewed in Australia" is a common misconception; only that these statements are false. I don't think anyone here is arguing against the idea that the statements are false; the debate is over whether the sources you've provided support the idea that these statements are common misconceptions.

what international drinkers think of as the country’s beer of choice

This says nothing about where most people think it is brewed, and at best only shows that the misconception that "Foster's is the most popular beer in Australia" is common among "international drinkers".

Also since when is the misconception being included in its own wikipedia article an inclusion criteria

For at least the last four years now (and probably a lot longer). This is inclusion criterion #3 (all inclusion criteria are listed at the top of this talk page):

3. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.

To reiterate, what you have here is really two different common misconceptions; one being "Foster's is the most popular beer in Australia" and the other being "Foster's is brewed in Australia". You'll need to satisfy the inclusion criteria for both of them, by finding reliable sources that support the statement that these are current common misconceptions, and by making sure that both common misconceptions are mentioned as such in the article for Foster's Lager. Edderiofer (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote from source 1 says "Let's be clear: Foster's lager, as we know it in Britain's pubs and supermarkets, is an Australian brand; it is not an Australian beer" in the context of the article it's clear that they mean that it's not brewed in Australia.

For the other one I think the source provided will work if I instead say that the misconception is that Foster's is popular in Australia.

here's a workshopped version of the entry:

• Foster's Lager is the most popular Australian brand of beer globally and many are under the impression it's a popular brand in Australia but in actuality it's not a popular brand in Australia nor is it brewed in Australia. According to The Guardian in 2015 there were only ten venues that sold Foster's Lager on tap. It was once the most popular brand beer in the country but its popularity has been overshadowed by other domestic beers such as Carlton Dry, Victoria Bitter and international beers such as Corona. The misconception that it's the most popular beer in Australia largely comes from the "Foster's is Australian for beer" and "How to speak Australian'' ad campaigns.

I think the misconception is large enough that it can be added to the topic article which I can do LJFIN2 (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, LJFIN2 I read the sources. Did you? This is not a common misconception. And I suspect if you try to shoehorn it into the topic article it won't stay there because it's not notable. Sundayclose (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote from source 1 says "Let's be clear: Foster's lager, as we know it in Britain's pubs and supermarkets, is an Australian brand; it is not an Australian beer" in the context of the article it's clear that they mean that it's not brewed in Australia.

Again, that doesn't support the claim that "Foster's is brewed in Australia" is a common misconception, only that it is a false statement. We need a statement of the form "many people believe that Foster's is brewed in Australia" that directly talks about what people believe, instead of merely implying it by pretending that the reader is under this misconception.

Also, I did a bit more research. Foster's isn't brewed only in the UK, but is also brewed under license in other countries like Canada; further, Foster's Group certainly owns some breweries in Australia, so it's not out of the question that some of those breweries might brew Foster's Lager (for the small segment of the Australian population who drinks it). The articles you provide are from UK or US sources, and with that context they might easily mean that all instances of Foster's sold in the UK (resp. US) are brewed in the UK (US). It sounds to me like the misconception is more specifically now "Foster's Lager, when sold in the UK/US, is brewed in Australia", which seems way too specific to the UK/US to be a common misconception.

For the other one I think the source provided will work if I instead say that the misconception is that Foster's is popular in Australia.

Your sources still don't show that the misconception is common, except maybe among "international drinkers".

here's a workshopped version of the entry

I think we can cut that down for the sake of WP:EPSTYLE and succinctness (also removing the "Foster's Lager, when sold in the UK, is brewed in Australia" misconception, as that one's under contention):

• Foster's Lager is currently not the most popular brand in Australia. Although it was the most popular brand of beer in Australia at one point, other beers such as Carlton Dry, Victoria Bitter, and Corona are now more popular. This misconception largely comes from the "Foster's is Australian for beer" and "How to speak Australian" ad campaigns.

and we would need sources to support the italicised statements with tags, in addition to sources for the inclusion criteria (again, we need a source supporting the claim that this is a common misconception). In short, this entry needs a fair bit more work before it can be added to the article. Edderiofer (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

References

induced vomiting to remove poison

When someone ingests poison inducing vomiting to remove the poison can cause damage to the throat, airpipe, or lungs and the increased pressure in the stomach may cause the poison to be absorbed faster. In most instances it's recommended that if a person ingests poison they should contact emergency medical services so medication or a gastric lavage can be provided. Syrup of ipecac, a medicine used to induce vomiting used to be a recommended emergency treatment for vomiting but is now no longer in use. LJFIN2 (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a plausible misconception to add. Can you show that it satisfies the inclusion criteria? I'm not immediately sure what the parent article should be (probably Poisoning, but this misconception isn't mentioned on that article), and it doesn't seem like any of the sources you've provided demonstrate that it's a common current misconception (the paper is from the 1980s, and the other two sources don't show that it's a common misconception). Edderiofer (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Splitting proposal

This list is very long, enough to cause performance issues on some devices. I recommend it be split in accordance with the naming conventions at WP:NCSPLITLIST.

• List of common misconceptions: Arts and culture
• List of common misconceptions: History
• List of common misconceptions: Science, technology, and mathematics

Proposal withdrawn, I didn't realise this was already proposed relatively recently. Zerbu ^Talk 22:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We had this discussion six months ago, with the result to not do that. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_27#Splitting_this_article Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Applying urine to jellyfish stings

It can be hard to locate studies on misconception prevalence, but I found one for urinating on jellyfish stings:

• "...one in six (17%) Brits would even ask their nearest and dearest to urinate on them to help alleviate the pain."
• "Of those surveyed, those in the East of England (37%) and the East Midlands (32%) are firm believers that urine works best when it comes to treating a jellyfish sting..."
• "Those located in Yorkshire and Humber and the North West of England (24%), close to seaside resorts [...] believe the myth the least."
• Rumor is $n\geq 1000$ and poll conducted by Censuswide in late 2022 (on behalf of the Sea Life London Aquarium).

So can we call this common enough to warrant inclusion? Any concerns about the trustworthiness of the survey? Jellyfish doesn't declare it as a misconception, but it does curiously include: "Rubbing wounds, or using [...] urine is not advised, as they can encourage the release of more venom." (Why mention urine if no one is inclined to suspect using it?) Anderjef (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that the mention in the topic article implies that it is a misconception, and perhaps a common one, I'd like to see a more definitive statement rather than relying on our ability to read between the lines and conclude what might be implied.

The topic article also advises against rubbing wounds, or using alcohol, ammonia, or fresh water. Should we include those too? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I make no claim about the prevalence of other non-remedies—urine would be the starting point for the proposed entry; the cited survey only concerns itself with urine.

I've seen multiple sources call urine application a "myth". Healthline claims it's "popular". Cleveland Clinic claims it's centuries-old.

I think the Censuswide survey should speak to the commonness (as far as this article is concerned) or lack thereof of the misconception, assuming we trust them. If you object only on grounds of Jellyfish stings not clearly calling out urine application as a myth (which I personally think is problematic for multiple reasons), I will attempt to expand their statement so that entry here can perhaps be revisited. Anderjef (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this seems to fit all the inclusion criteria except for #3. So we can first expand the statement on Jellyfish stings to explicitly mention the misconception and debunk it there, then add it to this article.

We could also look for other sources that mention-as-misconception/debunk other non-remedies to expand this entry and the Jellyfish stings statement. Edderiofer (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Satisfy inclusion criteria #3 and I will support its inclusion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Price of Space Pen is inconsistent with Space Pen article

The cited price for the Space Pen is of $6 apiece, but on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Pen, the price is cited as $2.95 apiece. There seems to currently be a discussion on that same topic due to conflicting sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Space_Pen#Is_the_%246_price_correct%3F, but it is not updated since 2014. 2A01:CB14:9AA:9C00:6E4B:90FF:FE0C:91A6 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Rivers flow from norh to south

I could be wrong, but I think nobody really thinks rivers flow all fom north to south. At least nobody older than a third grader. The two sources list rivers that flow north, like the nile, but I think nobody had to be convinced of that in the first place. Momo Diabang (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Momo Diabang: The common misconception is reliably sourced in the article. We can't change the article based on your personal opinion. That would be original research, which is against Wikipedia policies. You need to provide equally reliable sources indicating that it is not a common misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hand Dryers

Today's XKCD comic reads:

It seems like hand dryers take forever to heat up, but that's because the evaporation cools your skin, so the hot air feels cold until the water is gone.

This feels worthy of inclusion.

Further discussion on this topic is ongoing at Explain XKCD. Dave Hall (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, we'd need more than a comic strip and a user generated comments section to establish that this is a common misconception.

Also, the inclusion criteria for this page requires that the topic article, Hand dryer, treat it as a common misconception, which it does not at this time.

So, perhaps there are ducks to be found here, but they would need to be put in a row before adding this entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

New entry suggestion—chalk outlines at crime scenes

Also getting one phone call when going to jail 2601:404:CF00:95B0:8F:BB17:7B6D:8807 (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source with respect to the factual contents of the item as well as the fact that it is a common misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Items for this list also need to be mentioned in the corresponding Wikipedia article. Chalk outline has an article and mentions they are not used for investigations. The fact that they were once used so press photographers could get a picture showing where the body was without having an actual body is interesting. I am sure people have the misconception that you only get one call after arrest, but I do not know if it mentioned in any Wikipedia article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

A quick bit of searching turns up some sites that say the "one phone call" is a myth, and others that say it's not. e.g. "If you have been arrested by police, you have the right to make a local phone call." [[3]]

My take is that we'd need more/better sources before including this one. And it doesn't appear to be included in any topic article, so that's another hurdle.

Not sure about the chalk outline entry. The topic article says they are rarely used, but doesn't say explicitly that it is a common misconception. Seems marginal, but I suppose that an argument can be made to keep it; I'd go along with removing it if other editors agree. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

In my view, the chalk outline thing does belong as a common misconception on here. Jikybebna (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It probably is a common misconception, but as discussed earlier, we need to include a reliable source that states that it's a common misconception. See the Inclusion Criteria at the top of this talk page. Edderiofer (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Microwave nutrition

It's correct for vitamins and minerals, but these days fibers and starches are increasingly seen as part of nutrition and those can get altered in the microwave. Whether more or less than other cooking processes, I don't know. Jikybebna (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jikybebna:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Note particularly the four inclusion criteria. Sundayclose (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

0.999... entry

This entry was removed with the comment "More of a fun fact than a common misconception". I restored it since it is reliably sourced as a common misconception. It was removed again with the comment "A statement being counterintuitive does not make it a *common* misconception." I restored it a second time.

Please see 0.999...#Skepticism_in_education and 0.999...#Cultural_phenomenon for a well sourced explanation of why this is a common misconception.

I do not want to engage in edit warring, so let's try to reach consensus on the talk page. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is well sourced as a common misconception and (unlike many attempted additions) meets the four inclusion criteria. One person's opinion that it is a "fun fact" does not take precedence over reliable sources. And it can be both a fun fact and a common misconception -- the two are not mutually exclusive. Sundayclose (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source that it is a *common* misconception, that the average person actively believes that .999 != 1 Googleguy007 (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Googleguy007: Sources are already cited in the article. Also please click the links to other Wikipedia articles above. By the way, the misconception is that the value is less than one. Sundayclose (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The link in the article that references whether or not people believe that 0.999 = 1 shows that it is a counterintuitive statement that students have issues grasping. Skepticism in education shows about the same. Cultural phenomenon shows that there is disagreement on it on internet messageboards it is mentioned on, nowhere is it established that it is actually a *common* misconception, a common misconception is one that is held by an average person Googleguy007 (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I must disagree. "Common" misconception does not mean that everyone believes the misconception, or that the source must literally use the term "common misconception". The sources frequently use terms such as "most people" or "majority of students". That would not include, for example, second-graders, but it does include many high schoolers, as supported by the sources. I think we can safely conclude that none of the misconceptions in the article are believed by everyone. A number of entries have had disputes as to what "common misconception" means. You and I as individual editors could argue endlessly about the meaning of the term. But if you want to challenge the term for this entry, you'll need a consensus here to overturn the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS that is currently in the article. So far you are the only person claiming that the common misconception is not supported by the sources. That is not a sufficient reason for repeated reverts. Read WP:BRD. Sundayclose (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the items inclusion but consensus seems unlikely to change, so im going to drop it. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Gros Michel banana: barely seems like a misconception, to me

This page claims that banana-flavored candy "was not intended to mimic the taste of a formerly popular variety of banana" but rather that "it is mainly flavored with only one of the many flavors a banana has, isoamyl acetate." Meanwhile, the Wikipedia page for the Gros Michel banana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana) states that "The Gros Michel has a higher concentration of isoamyl acetate ... than the Cavendish." If this is the case, and the difference is large enough to warrant mentioning on the banana's Wikipedia page, it would be accurate to say that the reason banana-flavored candy tastes unlike bananas to us today is because it is flavored with a compound that is found in much higher quantities in a formerly-popular variety of banana. To call this a misconception, based on this information at least, seems tenuous at best. Is the misconception that this was "intended?" 65.246.46.196 (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You have done a nice job or succinctly summarizing the misconception: "...the reason banana-flavored candy tastes unlike bananas to us today is because it is flavored with a compound that is found in much higher quantities in a formerly-popular variety of banana."

It's a very common misconception, and quite well established as such by the reliable sources. Isoamyl acetate alone does not taste like any variety of banana, including the dozen or so that were around when the artificial flavor was first introduced, which occurred many years prior to the Gros Michel being available in the US. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Both of the sources state that artificial banana flavoring tastes more like Gros Michel bananas than Cavendish bananas. They both confirm that "the reason banana-flavored candy tastes unlike bananas to us today is because it is flavored with a compound that is found in much higher quantities in a formerly-popular variety of banana." ____318____ 04:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggested addition: chloroform alone cannot instantly knock out a person

This probably doesn't quite satisfy the inclusion criteria yet, but I feel it's a misconception worth noting.

Suggested addition: Although chloroform has an anaesthetic effect when inhaled, it is nearly impossible to knock someone out solely by holding a chloroform-soaked rag in front of their face. It takes at least five minutes of doing so to render a person unconscious. Even after a person has lost consciousness due to chloroform inhalation, the chloroform must continue being administered for them to remain unconscious. Most criminal cases involving chloroform also involve another drug being co-administered, such as alcohol or diazepam, or the victim being found to have been complicit in its administration.

Inclusion criteria:

• 1. Yes, Chloroform.
• 2. Yes for the factual contents, debatable on the common misconception (but I'm sure there are more reliable sources on this).
• 3. Yes for the factual contents, debatable on the mention of this as a common misconception.
• 4. Somewhat unclear, although this article suggests that the misconception is still prevalent in film as of 2017.

I suspect this will still need some work before it satisfies the inclusion criteria, but it's late here and I can't be bothered to search more at the moment. Edderiofer (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me this item meets all the criteria. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any reason it wouldn't satisfy the inclusion criteria BossBabyIsAMasterpiece (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

My reasoning for it possibly not satisfying the inclusion criteria is that I'd like to find a better source for the claim that this is a current misconception; that is, better than a single article that claims it's a prevalent falsity in films, or medical articles from the pre-2000s that claim it was a misconception at that time. Perhaps I'm being too strict with this last criterion, though. I guess I'll wait a week, and if nobody else objects or finds a better source by then, I'll add it in. Edderiofer (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've always interpreted the word current very broadly here; my sense is that the criterion is meant to eliminate truly outdated conceptions, like "the function of the brain is to cool the blood", or "it is a potentially fatal strain on the human body to travel at speeds above thirty miles an hour". Not that I'm on the cutting edge of nascent knowledge, but even I was misinformed about chloroform up until a year or so ago (mine took well over eight minutes and the considerable application of upper body strength). And as you note, it's still a prevalent trope in film as of relatively recently. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The article chloroform does not say that its instantaneous action is a common misconception. It does say that it is a cliché in crime fiction. Maybe we need another article for counterfactual clichés in fiction. Not things like faster-than-light travel, superheroes, and vampires, which everyone understands are fictional, but things which people have internalized as true or plausible because they see or read them often in fiction. But we should probably leave that to TV Tropes. --Macrakis (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Suggested inclusion: tax on charitable donations from customers

Suggested inclusion in the "Economics" section.

Businesses do not receive a tax benefit from collecting charitable donations from their customers, for example at supermarket checkouts. A business could only reduce tax owed by donating their own money, and thus reducing the profits upon which corporate taxes are assessed. A donation from a customer would neither reduce (or increase) profits or be an allowable deduction, and as such has no impact on the business' tax at all. It would also not make sense for a corporation (or an individual) to donate money to charity solely to reduce tax, since the amount saved in tax would be several times smaller than the amount donated. Corporate donations to charity, whether solicited from customers or not, are simply a means of generating goodwill and/or an expression of philanthropy, and do not give a net financial advantage to the corporation.

Inclusion criteria:

1. The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.: Yes, corporate taxation and charity (practice).
2. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception: Two sources provided, one referencing a widespread TikTok on the matter and the other from a major news source mentioning this being spread in Facebook.
3. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources: No, but it's not clear that it would fit in any specific article; should it be included in any? The misconception can be evidenced to exist.
4. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete: Sources are from the past couple of years.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foonblace (talk • contribs)

At this point I'm not convinced that this is a common misconception. One source states: "Some social media users are spreading misinformation". That's hardly an indication of a common misconception. Anyone can post misinformation; that doesn't mean very many people believe it. The other source describes one angry customer with the misconception. The number of Facebook "likes" is mentioned, but that's not an indication of a common misconception. People can "like" a video for dozens of reasons that have nothing to do with the misconception, such as liking that a customer got angry at a merchant that the "liker" doesn't like. Some people may "like" videos indiscriminately regardless of the issue. Whether the misconception can be mentioned in a topic article is dubious, but that remains to be seen. You could discuss the misconception in a topic article, but that doesn't mean that other editors will consider it valid or notable. By the way, one of the articles you link is a disambiguation page (Charity), which cannot include any content other than links to other articles. Sundayclose (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a very common misconception that in addition to being circulated on social media comes up quite frequently in any discussion of the charitable donations at checkouts, e.g. this Reddit thread has multiple people claiming it to be the case, and plenty of organisations have had to specifically refute it. Other links: AP News, Patriot Accounting, Charity Navigator, Misbar (this last link gives lots of examples of the myth being repeated). Foonblace (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear - I would argue that given that this misconception has had to be fact checked repeatedly by multiple different organisations based on social media posts, this is a sufficiently common misconception that it should be included. Foonblace (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion. Misconceptions about taxes are often US centric. There are a little less then 200 counties in the world and you are not likely to find an RS that has actually surveyed all of them for their tax practices. Although we do get a lot of suggested items about country specific misconceptions about taxes, so maybe a separate article about it is needed. The suggested item addresses an internet meme. Internet memes come and go. If we put it in today, next week, next month, next year, it will not be current because people will have moved on. Those are my general arguments about taxes and memes. Specifically to this item, I do not see evidence it is false. Certainly an honest business with honest accounting cannot reduce its tax owed be deducting these donations by customers. Obviously if the money received was not added to the business's income, then the business has no basis for deducting it. However my faith in human morality is pretty low and I think if someone thinks they can get away with it, they will try. An unscrupulous business owner or cooperate CFO might give the money to said charity, telling the charity that the company is donating it, getting a receipt that says it was donated by the company and then deducting from the company's income. For that matter they could tell the charity it is a personal donation and use the receipt to deduct it from their own income. Basically lying on their taxes. You do realize businesses have been known to lie and not just on taxes. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Foonblace, thanks for your additional comments. Reddit threads are meaningless for Wikipedia's purposes. Anyone can post a Reddit thread. What's the difference between 10 threads and a hundred threads? I disagree that fact checking is very much of an indication of a common misconception. Politicians are frequently fact checked; that doesn't mean very many people believe their claims. What we need here is a reliable source clearly stating that a large percentage of the general population believes the misconception, not that the claims have been fact checked or discussed on social media. Unless I missed something, so far I'm not seeing that. Sometimes misconceptions are not common because most people have never given it much thought. I suspect that's the case here. Sundayclose (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point the proposed entry does not meet the minimum inclusion criteria. We can return to the discussion if and when it does. Until then, there's not much more to say. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Yemeni women traditional costume.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

p-value misconception in Mathematics section

I would like some opinions about how common this misconception is, and whether perhaps a major change in emphasis is necessary. The specific misconception is stated, "The p-value is not the probability that the null hypothesis is true, or the probability that the alternative hypothesis is false; it is the probability of obtaining results at least as extreme as the results actually observed under the assumption that the null hypothesis was correct, which can indicate the incompatibility of results with the specific statistical model assumed in the null hypothesis." My concern is that the sources don't seem to identify this as a common misconception, except among people who are familiar with statistics and research. I don't think the average person has ever given any thought to p-values and the null hypothesis. On the other hand, one of the sources (Sterbe & Davey) states, "the medical literature shows a strong tendency to accentuate the positive; positive outcomes are more likely to be reported than null results." An example is that if there are 20 studies that show significance at the p<.05 level, one of those studies erroneously identifies a difference as significant and consequently as being more important than it really is. I believe there is a misconception here that doesn't need to be expressed with the technical references to p values and the null hypothesis. I think the misconception among the general population is that research results (for example, about a medical treatment) should be interpreted dichotomously as either "good" or "not good", when in reality the research results are more accurately viewed as a probability. I may not have explained this adequately, but if others have ideas I would like to hear them. I think the wording of the misconception currently does not indicate a common misconception, but I believe a common misconception may underlie the points made in the sources. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the "misconception" is that few people understand probability and statistics, perhaps myself included. How common is it to even have heard of the p-value? Not very I surmise. OTOH, most people have heard about the "95% confidence level", which is related to but not quite the same as a p-value of less than .05.

My opinion is that the confusion is due to assuming that p < .05 is the same thing as "95% confidence". But I don't have sources to back that up, and until we do we can't base the article on my opinion.

There's an entire page dedicated to Misuse of p-values with adequate sourcing to establish that it is common, at least among a certain population. Whether it is common enough among the general population to warrant inclusion here is debatable. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

About the issue of penguins not exclusive to Antarctica

I propose the addition of the misconception that penguins are not exclusive to Antarctica, but it was unfortunately reverted. I hope to find a source that mentions that this is indeed a common misconception, do people know of any sources that mention that? Windywendi (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Windywendi: I am the editor who reverted it. I think you may have a legitimate misconception but not as you worded it. The sources don't state that the misconception is: "Penguins are exclusive to Antarctica" Instead, the misconception is that penguins are found in the Arctic and/or at the South Pole. The same is true of the topic article. Perhaps you should reword the entry with that in mind. But if you prefer seeking a source to support your edit, that's fine. Sundayclose (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Sure, I'll rewrite my statement and make it match the sources I found. Windywendi (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The misconception that Catholics aren't Christian

I noticed that, at least in my experience, there's a common misconception among Protestants that Catholics aren't Christian, which has led to the term "Christian" being considered synonymous to "Protestant" for a lot of people. In fact, I've heard people say, "I'm not Christian, I'm Catholic", so I suppose this misconception has even spread to Catholics, with even some modern lay Catholics erroneously thinking Catholicism and Christianity are different religions. This seems to be a common trend in the United States and Latin America as far as I know. Would you say this misconception is notable enough to be included in this article since, though originally an exclusively Protestant misconception, has spread to non-Protestant people? Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I would want to see some good sourcing on the ubiquity of the misconception. I'm aware that some Christian fundamentalists think that Catholic and Christian are separate things, but I was skeptical hearing that some modern lay Catholics think that. Certainly anybody who attended a Catholic school and was paying attention would have learned of the Reformation, and be aware that Catholics could be considered the original Christians, and that Catholics are now a subset of Christians. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Even some Catholic sources cannot be considered reliable indicators that it is a common misconception. Many of those sources defend against misconceptions even if they are not common, including two that were cited to support this entry ([4], [5]. The misconception among some extreme fundamentalists and evangelicals certainly don't support that it is a common misconception. Even some of those acknowledge that their past comments were extremist (e.g., John Hagee, Jack Van Impe). To verify that this is a common misconception, we need reliable, neutral sources that don't have an agenda to push. I'm a 72-year-old Catholic, and I know hundreds of religious people of all faiths, and I have never heard one make the claim, even those who have serious disagreements with Catholicism. In the distant past this misconception may have occurred more often, but one inclusion criterion for this article is that the misconception must be current. Sundayclose (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this really a "misconception", or is it just sectarianism? Many Christians consider those who do not belong to their branch of Christianity not to be "true Christians". Some Republicans talking of RINOs. Many Orthodox Jews do not treat Reform Jews as true Jews. etc. When some fundamentalist protestants identify themselves as "just Christian", they are making a point, not mistakenly thinking that others are not Christian.

None of these cases are "misconceptions" -- they are sectarian positions. --Macrakis (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

True. It's just that I hear the claim that Catholics aren't Christian from Protestants all the time, and mamy of the Catholics I know use "Catholic" to mean "Catholic" and "Christian" to mean "Protestant". One Catholic in school told me "Catholics aren't Christians, don't be silly" when I was explaining that Catholics are Christian. But to be fair, I live in Southern California and haven't really interacted with a lot of Catholics from other parts of the country, so perhaps it's a regional thing? Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd have to guess maybe this idea of Catholics not being Christian among Catholics is mostly among those who didn't attend Catholic school growing up and grew up as non-practicing but still identifying as Catholic due to heritage. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It could be partially due to sectarianism, but I genuinely did not know Catholics were Christians until I was a teenager and like I said, this misconception or terminology or whatever you wanna call it isn't exclusive to Protestants. Like I said, I've heard Catholics say, "I'm not Christian, I'm Catholic," and they speak of "Christians" as an outside group. But to be fair it could be because I live in an area where religiosity is relatively mild, like I said. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions based on your personal experiences, but we need neutral, reliable sources. Sundayclose (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, there's a bunch of entirely secular disambiguation websites trying to explain "the "difference between Catholicism and Christianity", some of which do so erroneously. Even Encyclopedia Britannica thought this subject was significant enough to discuss on their website. If these articles exist then the misconception that Catholicism is a distinct religion from Christianity must be rather widespread, and is not restricted to sectarian Protestants, at least, not anymore.

https://www.britannica.com/question/What-is-the-difference-between-Christianity-and-Roman-Catholicism

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Catholicism_vs_Christianity

https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-catholic-and-christian/amp/

https://www.worldatlas.com/amp/religion/what-is-the-difference-between-catholic-and-christian.html

https://www.enkivillage.org/the-difference-between-catholic-and-christian.html

In fact, one secular disambiguation website, difference guru, which is understandably banned as a source on Wikipedia due to its poor verification, even falsely claims that Catholics aren't Christians at all, which is proof that this misconception is not at all restricted to Protestants. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on! Britannica and the other reliable sources don't discuss "difference between Catholicism and Christianity" (your words). Britannica states that "Roman Catholicism differs from other Christian churches and denominations" (bold added) and "all Roman Catholics are Christian". That clearly confirms that Catholics are Christians. There's little if any dispute that Catholicism differs from other types of Christianity (every denomination differs from every other denomination; otherwise there wouldn't be separate denominations), but that in no ways suggests that very many people believe that Catholics aren't Christian. I won't go so far as to say that you have intentionally misrepresented any sources, but you have seriously misunderstood them. The only reliable sources among those you list are Britannica and World Atlas, neither of which confirms a common misconception that Catholics are not Christian. Sundayclose (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess I did misunderstand the sources. I know these articles confirm that Catholics are Christians, but I thought that the title of the Britannica link being "What is the difference between Christianity and Roman Catholicism?" implied that somebody thought that they were different religions, and that the fact that the article even had to mention all Catholics are Christian in the first place shows that somebody thinks that Catholics aren't Christians. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not that the articles "discuss the differences between Catholicism and Christianity", I'm just saying the titles of them ask it, implying that someone thinks there's a difference. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me the Britannica article is, at the beginning of the article, is trying to explain that Catholicism is a form of Christianity to those who don't know that yet. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

That's speculation based on your reading between the lines something that's not there, or at least it's not there to me. You're grasping at straws. Still no evidence for the common misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It could be akin to a discussion about the differences between four-wheel drive and all-wheel drive. Not to say they are separate things, but that there are distinctions. Re Britannica, I don't think the implication that they are wholly separate things is there. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't saying there was an implication that they were wholly separate things, I was saying there was probably an implication that they were trying to disprove the idea that they were separate things, since they mentioned that all Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholics. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that any such implication exists. In any event, that is pure speculation and has no bearing on this issue. Sundayclose (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The encyclopedia article is apparently answering a FAQ. If it had asked "what is the difference between scarlet and red", would you (Sausage) conclude that there is a common misconception that scarlet is not a shade of red? --Macrakis (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I guess I'd just conclude people are hearing what "scarlet" is for the first time and never heard of that color before. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"there's a common misconception among Protestants that Catholics aren't Christian" An observation. I live in a majority Orthodox country (Greece). I had 6 years of mandatory theology classes in school, I voluntarily attended Sunday school in my early teens, and (as an atheist) I have a collection of books about biblical history, Christian history, and Christian atrocities and persecution. Catholics are the go-to example of heretic Christianity for most of the local clergy, but I have never heard anyone deny that they are Christian. Dimadick (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I overestimated the prevalence of this misconception. It seems that Protestants are far more likely to claim Catholics aren't Christians than Orthodox people. I live in an area where the proportion of Protestants and Catholics is roughly equal, and the Protestants tend to be more devout, while the Catholics are less likely to go to church, and Catholics and Protestants alike simply refer to Protestants as "Christians". But I suppose this may just be an American phenomenon, or even just a Californian phenomenon, though this terminology is also common among immigrants from Latin America. But I can't really find any sources that acknowledge this odd terminology at this time, besides some religious websites I found, which were rejected. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Another odd thing is that when Catholics where I live convert to Protestantism, they, or even their still-Catholic relatives say they've converted to Christianity. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me, in the grand scheme of things, that this is a local phenomenon. _signed, Willondon (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I've seen (albeit rarely) people write Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons aren't Christian, but I have never ever seen or heard anyone say Catholics aren't. Obscurasky (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right. This misconception isn't global if it's restricted to only certain parts of the world. I've seen Catholics be portrayed as non-Christians more than any other denomination but that's probably only because I live in an area with a high amount of Protestants, many of which are recent converts from Catholicism. But since I'm the only one in this talk page so far who's had this experience, I will admit this may most likely be restricted to parts of Latin America and the United States. In Mexico, if you ask someone, "¿eres cristiano?" they will usually respond with, "no, yo soy catolico." But this doesn't seem to be a thing anywhere else in the world, so yeah, maybe it isn't notable enough to be included here, especially since I'm the only one on this talk page to have experienced this phenomenon extremely often. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess I just live in a strange area when it comes to religious terminology. I find this phenomenon very odd and interesting, but since it's not found outside the US or Latin America, perhaps I can include this information in another article? Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't base Wikipeda articles on personal experience. We rely on reliable sources to support any material included in the articles. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I can confirm that Cummings and Wolf's A Dictionary of Hong Kong English (2011) outright defines "Christian" as meaning "Protestant", with the following unattributed quote:

“In Hong Kong the Protestants try to reserve Christian for themselves, and have had some success in influencing everyday usage. People who should know better will reply to the question ‘Is he a Christian’ with ‘No, he is a Catholic’.”

While this does lend credence to the idea that this misconception exists outside of America, the fact that the quote is unsourced (and that I can't find it anywhere online) may mean that this is not a usable citation; it also doesn't state how many people use the term in this way.

Once again, we would need a reliable source stating that the misconception is common and current (instead of merely implying it), in addition to satisfying all the other inclusion criteria listed at the top of this page. Edderiofer (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still don't understand why my Georgia Bulletin source was rejected though.

https://georgiabulletin.org/commentary/2011/10/catholics-arent-christians-common-myths/ Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Unlike Britannica, Georgia Bulletin is not neutral. It's a Catholic publication. Please read my previous comments. Look, I think you have beaten this dead horse enough. There is zero support here for your edit. If you have nothing new to say, please move on. Sundayclose (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's move on then. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that the Cummings and Wolf quote above is good support for the notion that this is a sectarian issue -- anti-Catholic propaganda from Protestants -- rather than a "misconception". --Macrakis (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

density

[6] Most Americans believe that high density is worse for the environment. Benjamin (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Melanoma

[7] Mayo Clinic Minute: Melanoma misconception — dark skin tones at risk, too Benjamin (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Water

"Contrary to popular belief, the supply of water is no more fixed than the supply of oil. Like all resources, water supplies change in response to economic growth and to the price." The Wall Street Journal, August 23, 1999, p. A14. (reprinted in Mankiw Principles of Microeconomics) Benjamin (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Travel day

"A common misconception is to assume that the Wednesday before Thanksgiving is the busiest air travel day in the United States. It turns out to be very low on the list." Thomas-Olivier Leautier. "Imperfect Markets and Imperfect Regulation." page 129 Benjamin (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The g-spot

What exactly is the misconception being corrected here? While it is true that the g-spot is not a specific anatomic structure, to quote one of the listed sources: "I think that the bulk of the evidence shows that the G-spot is not a particular thing. It's not like saying, 'What is the thyroid gland?'" Komisaruk said. "The G-spot is more of a thing like New York City is a thing. It's a region, it's a convergence of many different structures." To say that the general consensus is that there's "no definitive proof" seems misleading if not simply false. This could be salvaged to say that the g-spot is not a specific organ but rather a commonly shared region associated with a number of under-studied structures and that it's not even present in every vagina. But is that even a common misconception? This seems to only be countering the "misconception" that the g-spot exists at all, and it does. I wouldn't even need to provide additional sources to establish this- it's within the sources already provided (Once you look past the sensational headlines that don't reflect the body of text). I think the best course of action is to simply delete this entry but I'm open to suggestions. FinetalPies (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I don't really see what your objection is. Every single one of the RS on this page, as well as the G-spot page itself, says some variation on 'The existence of the G-spot has not been proven,' 'There is no scientific proof that the G-spot exists,' 'There is general skepticism among the scientific community that the G-spot exists,' etc., which is also what the entry here says. It's possible that we should reword the entry to include more of this paragraph from the G-spot page lede,

The existence of the G-spot has not been proven, nor has the source of female ejaculation. Although the G-spot has been studied since the 1940s, disagreement persists over its existence as a distinct structure, definition and location. The G-spot may be an extension of the clitoris, which together may be the cause of orgasms experienced vaginally. Sexologists and other researchers are concerned that women may consider themselves to be dysfunctional if they do not experience G-spot stimulation, and emphasize that not experiencing it is normal.

Though, really, I think we've already got the basic points down fine in the current, shorter entry. I'm certainly opposed to removing this entry, or the statement that the G-spot has not been definitively proven to exist. After looking through the RS, there really does seem to be a common conception that the G-spot exists, and that there is no conclusive scientific proof of its existence. Joe (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Morality

[8] "People everywhere are convinced that morality is declining – but people everywhere are wrong." Benjamin (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Flamin' Hot Cheetos were not invented by a janitor at Frito-Lay

• Flamin' Hot Cheetos were not invented by a janitor at a Frito-Lay plant, Richard Montañez, in the early 1990s. According to Frito-Lay records, Flamin' Hot Cheetos were developed at the company's headquarters in Texas starting in 1989, as part of a project led by Lynne Greenfeld, and introduced to test markets in 1990, before Richard Montañez joined the company.

I used to believe this for a long time, it is a rumor often circulated on social media. A quick google search for "janitor invented hot cheetos" gives several news articles saying this is a common misconception and that it's not true, though I'm not sure which sources to use. I got reverted when I tried to add this. Michael7604 (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria

A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list has not been reached, but any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following:

1. The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.
2. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
3. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
4. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.

For this item, the topic article would be Cheetos, and while that article treats the claims of the former employee, it does not say that it is a common misconception (or words to that effect). While that factual content (i.e. Flaming Hot Cheetos were not invented by a former janitor) is clearly established, it is not clear that anyone other than the person (falsely) making that claim believes it to be true. We'd need sources for that, and for the editors at the topic article to describe the erroneous belief as "common"

When I do a Google search on "janitor invented hot cheetos", it only returns eight articles, only one of which would be a reliable source : https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2023/06/10/flamin-hot-cheetos-movie-fact-check-how-accurate/70302709007/

That article links to this one: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-05-16/flamin-hot-cheetos-richard-montanez

And apparently there is a recent movie that treats the misconception as fact, so perhaps there's an argument to be made in favor of including the item i.e. it may not be common yet, but might become common if the movie is sufficiently successful. I'm not seeing it, but will defer to the consensus of my fellow editors here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Do You Become an Angel When You Die?

A common misconception that can go under Arts and Culture > Religion > Christianity, or really just under Religion - as it is a subject common to monotheistic religions - is that we become angels when we die. [9] With the exception of at least one sect in Christianity who claim otherwise (see Angel article) this viewpoint is not held among followers of Jesus. 2601:84:8802:FB0:710A:3F7B:93F7:B122 (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Fails the criteria "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources" Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Waterproof

[10] "However, one common misconception regarding weatherproofing is that items intended for prolonged outdoor use require the highest numerical IP ratings for moisture resistance." Benjamin (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Side effects of medication

This was explained in such a concise fashion as to be baffling, so I have reworded it more explicitly.

Attention Span

Note: The PDFs are hosted on my site, but are published journal articles.

There is a 2015 study saying that attention spans have fallen from 12-8 seconds (http://niplav.site/doc/psychology/attention_span/attention_spans_gausby_et_al_2015.pdf). This is unfounded (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790). Despite this, the claim is widely cited (http://niplav.site/doc/psychology/attention_span/social_media_impact_on_attention_span_carstens_et_al_2018.pdf, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JWAM-10-2020-0044/full/html, https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/11/health/short-attention-span-wellness/index.html, https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/02/report-shows-that-attention-spans-are-shortening.html).

The number is probably just the average time people spend on websites (http://niplav.site/doc/psychology/attention_span/attention_span_during_lectures_8_seconds_10_minutes_or_more_bradbury_2016.pdf).

I believe this qualifies as a common misconception.

Niplav (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it treated as a common misconception in the topic article? If not, then it fails the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The Nazis did not call themselves Nazis

There seems to be a misconception that the term "Nazi" was officially used by the Nazis to describe themselves but this is untrue as it was actually a derogatory term used by their opponents. JSAH42 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Some more misconceptions

1. Sugar makes dogs/cats/pets blind (there's no evidence to back thisup.) 2. Beavers eat wood (they don't, they only eat the soft part that's inside.) 3. Capybaras are the chillest animals (partially true, but not all of the time they are chill as they sometimes attack people.) 4. Hair dye can cause brain damage (Partially true, as some chemicals in many hair dye products may damage the head, but I think this assuming ALL hair dyes do this, which is wrong.) 2800:2145:B400:7C7:5801:61CF:9BE8:3F75 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Any WP:SOURCEs?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard of three of these misconceptions, and the remaining one, #2, seems to not really be a misconception in that one could reasonably refer to "the soft part that's inside" as "wood" as well. Are you able to show that these items satisfy the four inclusion criteria given at the top of this talk page? Edderiofer (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

> 2. Beavers eat wood

"Angry Beavers" cartoon depicts beavers treating wood like food, though. And that cartoon was popular in many countries. 109.252.65.192 (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Likert Scale

The following entry was recently removed:

• The Likert scale is not a single survey question where responses are scored along a range; this falls under the broader category of a rating scale. Instead, a Likert scale is a psychometric measurement tool in which a set of items are used to analyze the strength of respondent opinions by analyzing the sum or mean of responses across questions. A single instance of a ranged survey item when formatted within a set of questions may be referred to as a Likert item .

It was removed because it is "Not treated as a common misconception in the topic article." However, the topic article specifically mentions this misconception in at least two places:

1. "Likert distinguished between a scale proper, which emerges from collective responses to a set of items (usually eight or more), and the format in which responses are scored along a range. Technically speaking, a Likert scale refers only to the former." This juxtaposition of two methods and then specifically identifying only one of the methods as a Likert scale demonstrates that the label is commonly misapplied to other methods.
2. "[T]he term... is often used interchangeably with rating scale, although there are other types of rating scales." In this section, rating scales and Likert scales are introduced as two separate methods, and it is textually evident that the Likert scale is often misconceived as a rating scale.

I believe that these mentions meet the criteria for inclusion. If this doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, I'd be interested to hear what changes could be made to the language in the topic article to be more specific, as this particular misconception has become the subject of several academic articles in fields where survey-based methodologies are common. Ja Godfrey (talk) 16 July 2023

As the topic article states, there is a strict definition of the term, but the term is also often used to refer to scales that do not meet the strict definition. i.e. there's a vernacular definition and a strict definition. That does not make using the vernacular definition a "misconception".

For an analogy, there's no such thing as a seagull - there are some fifty something species of birds that could be called gulls, but they do not form a clade; careful writers will refer to specific species or genus or family, but if somebody at the shore points to a bird and calls it a seagull they are not exhibiting a misconception, they're just using common language instead of precise scientific terms. Similarly, there is no lava inside a volcano - technically the molten rock is called magma when it's underground and lava when it reaches he surface. Gasoline is not a gas. Sea horses are not horses. We could go on and on, but this article is not the place for such semantic nit-picking. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Lactose intolerance

Lactose intolerance is not an allergy. Lactose intolerance is caused by the lack of the protein lactase, which aids the digestion of lactose, and generally only results in mild gastrointestinal symptoms such as bloating, abdominal pain and diarrhea, whereas a milk allergy is an immune response triggered by proteins in milk, such as casein and whey (but not lactose, which is a sugar), which can have more severe and possibly fatal symptoms.

I was originally going to propose an entry about the misconception of cheese containing lactose and that lactose intolerant people must avoid it, but during my research it seems that this one is much more well-documented and pervasive. DannyC55 (Talk) 01:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Lactose intolerance and milk allergy are well established as different things, but it is not clear to me how common it is to think that they are the same thing. This section of the topic article states that it was once a misconception among researchers, but does not claim it is current or that it is or was common among the broader population. Other than that, I'm not seeing that it is presented as a common misconception in the topic article.

Also, people often use the term "allergic" in the non-scientific sense to mean that they don't like something or that they experience adverse effects, so this may be an example of people using imprecise common definitions instead of a scientific definition. My experience, for what it's worth, is that everyone I've met who claims to be lactose intolerant says it that way instead of saying they are allergic to dairy.

So, I'm not convinced that this entry meets the inclusion criteria. OTOH, a simple one-sentence entry of "Lactose intolerance is not the same thing as milk allergy." would be fairly harmless. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

In everyday language, the word "allergic" is used very loosely, meaning anything from "it will kill me" to "I don't like it". There are many other conditions which are mis-described as allergies. For example, favism is sometimes described as an allergy to fava beans. People speak of polymorphous light eruption as an allergy to the sun. etc. See food intolerance for other examples. This is not a "misconception", just a loose use of a technical term in everyday language. --Macrakis (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Here are a few more misconceptions

einstein invented gunpowder (he didnt) teeth are bones (they're not, they're an unique organ) hearts/arteries and veins are red (they are actually white and transparent/colorless respectively, it's just the blood that makes them look red in color) mosquitos bite people intentionally (female mosquitoes just bite to eat) wheels are a prehistoric invention (they never existed in prehistory at all) male (non-human) animals can get in heat (they cant) 2800:2145:B400:7C7:9C8A:7066:DADD:B5F6 (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

According to "was ist was" cyclopedias, men have 212 bones. Hmmmm... 109.252.65.192 (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you able to show that these items satisfy the four inclusion criteria given at the top of this talk page? (For instance, I am not convinced that "Einstein invented gunpowder" is a common misconception.) Edderiofer (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that these don't satisfy our criteria. Also, it's not clear what it even means to distinguish between mosquitos biting "intentionally" and in order to eat. The wheel was invented in the neolithic (prehistory). --Macrakis (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Social media

[11] "These findings challenge popular narratives blaming social media echo chambers for the problems of contemporary American democracy" Benjamin (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Vault Boy's "Rule of Thumb"

It is claimed that artwork of the character of Vault Boy from the Fallout game series is not giving a "thumbs-up" to the player, but is in fact applying a Cold-War era technique for measuring the danger of a nuclear explosion by how far away it is often called the "Rule of Thumb"[1]. This is not true. No such technique existed during the Cold War, and the character of Vault Boy is simply giving a thumbs up.

While a popular story on the internet for many years, even real world magazines and televised trivia game shows have shared this misconception as fact.

[1] The "Rule of Thumb" is most common explained that if one sees a mushroom cloud in the distance, if they outstretch their arm and hold up their thumb, they can estimate if they are in a safe range or if they must evacuate further back, depending on whether or not the mushroom cloud is larger or smaller than their thumb when their arm is outstretched.

I have seen this misconception for years, I think it only makes sense that it ends up here.

Links to examples (there are probably hundreds if not thousands you can find claiming either that it is real or false): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJIcsbVxidE https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/40x4b2/article_debunking_the_vault_boy_is_comparing_his/ https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/28918/is-measuring-the-size-of-a-nuclear-cloud-with-your-thumb-an-approximate-indicati https://gamerant.com/fallout-vault-boy-thumb/ https://dailycal.org/2017/09/25/rule-thumb-nuclear-war https://www.ladbible.com/news/rule-thumb-safe-nuclear-bomb-20221010

While it sounds silly, I suspect millions of people have heard some sort of rumor about the "rule of thumb" without knowing that it's just a made up video game conspiracy. Age of Sigmar (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Some more sources:

https://www.svg.com/166030/vault-boys-thumbs-up-has-a-deeper-meaning-than-you-realized/

https://screenrant.com/fallout-vault-boy-thumbs-up-real-reason-radiation/

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/woman-claims-rule-thumb-guide-28208961 Age of Sigmar (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Sunscreen

[12] Benjamin (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Inflation

[13] People think raising interest rates will increase inflation. Benjamin (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Even if one random guy's tweet was a reliable source (which it isn't), that's not what he's saying. Sundayclose (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Expiration dates

The misconception in fact is that "best by" dates are the same as expiration dates. People have associated dates on packaging with expiration dates on perishables such as milk, but "best by" dates are not expiration dates. They are simply dates by which the manufacturer will attest to their quality -- flavor, firmness, freshness -- but has nothing to do with their safety or potential for causing illness.

Dairy items which are perishable and will only last so long have expiration dates, usually with the term "EXP" or "EXP ON." Most other items, such as shelf stable items, will instead have "BEST BY" or "SELL BY" or "USE BY" or even just "BB" next to a date, which are best by dates.

It's wrong to say "things can be eaten past their expiration date," because expiration dates are the date when the product is no longer to be safe. But a best by or sell-by date has nothing to do with that, and things can be eaten safely past their best-by or sell-by dates, they just won't taste as good.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 11:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@KeithTyler: This information is already in the article, at least for the most part. See List of common misconceptions#Food and cooking. If you want to make changes or additions, we need reliable sources. And to avoid problems, please open an edit window anywhere in the article. You will see four inclusion criteria prominently displayed. Note particularly in criterion 2, the source must do more than confirm the factual content of the edit. It must also confirm that any misconception is common, not just a misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Stocks

[14] People think stocks go down, but they actually go up. Benjamin (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this dubious conclusion? Sundayclose (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It says it there already. Benjamin (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but one random guy's tweet is not even remotely a reliable source. Read WP:RS. I could tweet that lots of people think the Moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't make it true. Sundayclose (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, we have an article about that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

LOL! Someone stole my idea!. Sundayclose (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The source is not the tweet, just a convenient link. Benjamin (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, then you haven't provided a source because all you cited is the tweet. Sundayclose (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That taller people are healthier

[15] Benjamin (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

No evidence that this is a common misconception. Sundayclose (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"popular notion" isn't enough for you? Benjamin (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No, not from the abstract of a journal article. Sundayclose (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What sort of source would you expect? This is about the level of sourcing we have for most entries. Only a few are actually backed by surveys. Benjamin (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

More than a 200 word abstract. At the very least we need information from the entire journal article, and even that may not be sufficient. What do you have besides the abstract? Sundayclose (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Russia Day

While it is true that "Russian Independence Day" is not the official name, the holiday commemorates the end of the Soviet (Communist) era in Russia. Many people refer to it with common language rather than the official term but that doesn't make it a misconception. Other opiniions Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Apparently the day goes by a variety of terms: Russia Day, Russian Day, National Day, and (more formally) Day of the Adoption of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Is there another day that could be considered Russian Independence Day as there is for the USA? If you Google "Russian Independence Day", most of what turns up is June 12, which is Russia Day. Sundayclose (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

So, is there a consensus to remove this entry? It doesn't seem to be a misconception, just people using common language in a less than precise manner. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The link to one of the sources doesn't work. The other source says nothing about a common misconception, nor does the topic article. It looks to me like this item fails inclusion criteria 2 and 3. I think it should be removed. Sundayclose (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Scholarly opinion on Jesus' historicity

I suggest that the claim that theories of an ahistorical Jesus are "rejected by mainstream scholars of antiquity" should be better stated as "rejected by mainstream theologians and scholars of religious studies", reflecting the fact that the cited scholars are theologians or scholars of religious studies.

My reason for this suggested change, apart from being based in fact, is that I believe the current wording falsely conveys a breadth of scholarship that is not reflected in the sources. If I am interested in the physical properties of iron, I am mostly interested in the opinions of physicists. No doubt chemists, biologists and historians may have useful contributions to the topic, but a good encyclopaedic entry should give priority to the opinion of physicists. It should not be delegated to chemists on the grounds that iron is a chemical element - because it is the physical properties that are at question. If such an opinion cannot be found, it should be reflected in the encyclopaedia. Likewise, the question of Jesus' historicity should primarily be a question for historians specialising in this period, those who educate and research at institutions specialising on history and publish in historical journals about other historical figures from the same era. If such opinions cannot be found, a good encyclopaedic entry should not give a false impression.

In addition, there is currently no source on the claim that it would be a "common misconception" that Jesus was ahistorical. The current citations appear to suggest otherwise. Johanronnblom (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The issue of historicity of Jesus is not limited to theologians and can include historians, antiquarians, linguists, and other scholars, even sociologists and anthropologists. And there is no reason to assume that a scholar who has expertise in theology cannot have expertise in history or other academic areas. The two are not mutually exclusive. I think it's a safe assumption that a respected theologian who researches the historical Jesus has an abundance of knowledge of history and other scholarly areas. You assume too much without any evidence for your assumptions. It's not unusual for scholars to research and publish in a variety of areas. One example is Paul Erdős, a mathematician who often published in areas not exclusive to mathematics. You personally do not know the expertise of each of the scholars cited based simply on their academic title. And without those details, use of the generic title "scholar" is sufficient because you may be misrepresenting the type of scholarship involved. In fact, at least one of the scholars cited (Michael Grant) was not a theologian. The study of the historical Jesus goes well beyond theology. Sundayclose (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree that the study of Jesus is not limited to theologians! That is precisely why I believe additional sources are needed to show that the claimed consensus is broader than theologians and religious scholars. Until and unless such sources are added, the summary should accurately reflect the current sources.

If the only example found outside of those disciplines is Michael Grant, I must question the use of him as a reliable source of mainstream scholarly opinion on the following grounds, referring to the Wikipedia policy on Reliable sources:

a) Academic consensus: I quote from Wikipedia policy: "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."

b) Age matters: The quote from Grant is from 1977, almost half a century ago. If it is indeed a mainstream opinion, it should easily be supplemented with newer citations.

c) Preferring secondary sources: The quote is an opinion from Grant himself, not a review article, textbook, or other secondary source.

d) Reliable scholarship: The cited source is a non peer-reviewed book on popular history, written by an author who had at the time of publishing not been active in academia for over a decade, and had only ever worked in academia as an administrator (vice chancellor). According to the Wikipedia entry on Grant, he was scarcely considered an authority on history in his own time, receiving scathing criticism for his perceived overreach.

e) Questionable sources, personal opinions: From the introduction Grant's book: "The most potent figure, not only in the history of religion, but in world history as a whole, is Jesus Christ[..]". It is abundantly clear that Grant is not a neutral scholar, but is expressing his personal opinion on a subject he has very strong personal opinions about.

I argue that relying heavily on a single off-hand remark from such an old, non peer reviewed and relatively obscure book on popular history to establish a wide scholarly consensus is an example of cherrypicking.

I would furthermore refer to the following Wikipedia essay on reliable sources on the subject of history. In particular, I believe that far reaching claims of mainstream consensus should be backed up by scholarly and peer-reviewed sources. Johanronnblom (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You object to only having theologians as sources, and then you object to Grant, who is not a theologian. Sorry, but that makes little sense. But beyond that, let's assume for the sake of discussion that we remove Grant as a source, there are ample other sources to support the argument. Age of sources is not very relevant; we're not talking about cutting edge science. History and study of antiquities does not change in a matter of months. It's true that a consensus of respected scholars is needed, and several of the sources clearly note that consensus. I don't know what else you expect, unless you want hundreds of citations to scholarly sources, which Wikipedia does not require. The sources cited are respected scholars. No additional sources are required for the current consensus. A new consensus here is required to change that, so let's see if other opinions are expressed. Sundayclose (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I object to the overly broad statement implying a scholarly consensus, when it is only supported by citations of a narrow subset of scholars, and a single clearly cherry picked, non peer reviewed and non-scholarly citation, which could easily be outweighed by cherry picking similarly atypical scholars expressing an opposite view (Allegro, Brodie, Carrier, Doherty, Ellegård, Kryvelev, Lataster, Price etc.). That is simply not how to establish a scholarly consensus.

You say that there are ample other sources to support the argument. Great! Then I suggest that my proposed change from "mainstream scholars of antiquity" to "mainstream theologians and scholars of religion" is approved, and then when such additional sources have been added we can update the description to reflect these new sources.

Again, if the argument hinges on Grant, it is indefensible. If there are other sources, these sources need to be added. It is not enough to simply assert that they exist somewhere. Johanronnblom (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Repeating your arguments doesn't make them more valid. I've already explained that a scholar can have expertise in more than one area of study. And I never said that anything "hinges on Grant"; in fact, I have argued that sourcing is sufficient without him. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. Now, you and I disagree. The current version of the article is the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. We need a new consensus to change that. Until others weigh in I'm not responding repeatedly to the same argument. Sundayclose (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I have now submitted a 3O request and will await another opinion. Johanronnblom (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually the first step in dispute resolution is discussion by more than two editors on the talk page. Read WP:DR. This discussion likely will have more than you and me, and 3O is primarily for disagreement between two editors. This talk page gets a lot of views, so if others want to weigh in we must give them time. 3O is another opinion, but that's not sufficient to form a consensus, and at this point it will not resolve the dispute, especially since 3O is nonbinding. Sundayclose (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't weighed in on this, but my succinct take is no.

If you can convince the editors at the topic articles that your argument has merit and get them to change those articles then we can discuss further here. See the comments from -- Random person no 362478479 below. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you should start with the main article Historicity of Jesus. There it says "Virtually all scholars of antiquity argue that Jesus existed." Try to gain a consensus for change there first. The entry in the list here should reflect the main article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Either way, it requires consensus to change it. It's also well sourced in Historicity of Jesus. Sundayclose (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Similarly

• Historical Jesus: "Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory."
• Jesus: "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically."
• Quest for the historical Jesus: "While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus and a basic consensus on the general outline of his life, the portraits of Jesus constructed in the quests have often differed from each other and from the image portrayed in the gospel accounts."
• Christ myth theory: "In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that there was a historical Jesus who lived in 1st-century-CE Roman Judea, and that he was probably both baptized and crucified."

There are probably more articles that would be affected. But I think the place to have the debate would be at Historicity of Jesus. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no way this can be dealt with via a third opinion. It would require a debate and a widely advertised RfC. And honestly, I don't see an outcome that would lead to a change. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that making a change is close to impossible regardless of how any dispute is addressed. The sourcing and evidence are overwhelming for both the entry here as well as Historicity of Jesus. Sundayclose (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to take the discussion to Historicity of Jesus if the consensus here is that this is where the issue should be resolved. I'm just hoping it will not be an endless merry-go-round where the discussion never gets to the facts and just constantly refers to other articles. While consistency is a virtue, the source for the statement on this page is not another Wikipedia article, but a number of external sources, as is right and proper.

I will then examine the sources on that page and either suggest copying any additional sources to this page (and maybe others) or explain in even greater detail in that talk page why the current sources are insufficient. Johanronnblom (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Johanronnblom: You are free, of course, to discuss anywhere. But as has been noted by more than one person above, the likelihood of making your change is quite miniscule. So many editors may not feel that it's worth their time to discuss. So remember, absence of discussion does not form a consensus. At some point you have to drop the stick, stop beating the dead horse, and move on. Sundayclose (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If the sources on that page are no better, I don't think there can be any doubt that the consensus claim needs to be dropped. We shall see - but again, I would like to see more people comment on whether this is in fact the proper way to resolve the issue. Johanronnblom (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, so far you are the only one who supports that position in the face of considerable opposition, so there's plenty of doubt. But, OK, let's see. Sundayclose (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not just about who the authors of the sources are. It is about what the sources say. And the sources cited are quite unequivocal in saying that mainstream scholarship acknowledges the existence of a historical person. Pointing out that the quoted authors are theologians is textbook WP:OR. Even finding authors who say that Jesus did not exist would not be sufficient to support the change you want. What you would need is to find a substantial number quality WP:RS that say that there is no mainstream consensus that Jesus existed. So if your argument is based on the existing quotes it is a complete non-starter. You will have to provide other recent WP:RS that contradict the statement. I do not think you will find it. Although I would be very interested in seeing them if you do. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

To return to the second of the original objections - can someone clarify what the supposed common misconception is here? How is it (the existence and commonness of the misconception) supported by reliable sources and by specific WP articles on the topic? (I'm not saying it's not, I just can't immediately find such support.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Excellent point. Where is the evidence that "Jesus did not exist" is a common misconception?

It's not readily apparent to me. Can someone point to an excerpt from one of the topic articles that supports this entry as a common misconception? Sure, there are some fringe writers who claim this, but by all appearances it's a fringe belief, not a common one. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a valid concern, but I think looking at it from a different angle may inform us about whether the entry can be tweaked and retained. A major point of debate is not whether Jesus existed, but his role in establashing Christianity. From Christ myth theory: "[Per] Jesus mythicism, Earl Doherty, defines the view as follows: it is 'the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition.' [Earl Doherty (2009), Jesus: Neither God nor Man: The Case for a mythical Jesus (Ottawa, ON: Age of Reason Publications), vii–viii.] In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." Note that this is not a theological issue per se but rather a historical issue. So perhaps the question we should be asking is, did Jesus play a major role in establishing mainstream Christianity? Sundayclose (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, maybe it can be "tweaked" to meet the inclusion criteria, but I'm unconvinced that it does in it's current state. My opinion is to remove it, and if someone can massage it into something that meets the inclusion criteria we can evaluate the new version.

IOW, the ball is in the court of those advocating keeping this entry. Present evidence that it satisfies the inclusion criteria or it gets removed. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're likely correct. A common misconception probably doesn't exist. I'm good with removing the entry. Sundayclose (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Reputations

[16] "Contrary to popular wisdom, we find that most artists’ reputations peak just before their death, and then start to decline." Benjamin (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, we need more that an abstract of the article. If you have read the full article, give us some quotations to support this as an entry. Secondly, I question the validity of the method of "word-embedding" to determine an artist's reputation, but without details from the full article I can't really reach any solid conclusions. Again, if you have read the article give us some details about the method used. Sundayclose (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hypatia

The Hypatia article is fairly long and perhaps there's something there that satisfies inclusion criteria #3, but I'm not seeing it. Could someone point out where the topic article for this entry treats it as a common misconception. Seems fairly obscure to me...

Neoplatonism#Academies states that some of the details about her murder "...remains a matter of scholarly debate."

I'm hardly an expert on the historical figures behind Neoplatonism, but I'm wondering if the general population is sufficiently aware of Neoplatonism and the various historical proponents of it to justify an entry here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the sources cited or the topic article that supports a common misconception, thus failing criteria 2 and 3. If there's any dispute, it looks to me like it might be some disagreement among historians, and I'm not even sure whether any misconception is common among them. Socrates argued that the murder was for religious reasons. This entry may even fail criterion 4. I feel confident that most people don't know very much at all about this topic. Sundayclose (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. We seem to agree.

I'll remove the entry. If somebody shows up with some evidence that it meets the inclusion criteria we can always put it back. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Scipio Aemilianus entry

The entry begins with

Scipio Aemilianus did not plow over the city of Carthage and sow it with salt...

The topic article says:

Complying with the mandate of the Senate, he ordered the city evacuated, burnt it, razed it to the ground and plowed it over, ending the Third Punic War. It was formerly believed that he also salted the city, but modern scholars have found no evidence for that.

So, our entry seems to get it wrong, assuming the topic article is correct. Apparently, he did plow it over, but there's no evidence of salting.

Now, maybe the entry can be re-written to fix that, but it still leaves open the question of whether the alleged misconception is common or modern.

I'm removing it again since it mis-represents what's in the parent article. Is this alleged misconception both common and modern? Show your work. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The topic article is Salting the earth#Carthage, which documents the entry of the misconception of plowing and salting into the modern academic literature in 1930. In the second paragraph of the cited Ridley article (p. 140), it says "It seems that this sowing of the ruins of Carthage with salt... is a tradition in Roman history well known to most students." (underlines are my emphasis here) Susan Stevens' article speaks of "the modern belief that the city was sown with salt". B.H. Warmington speaks of the "frequently repeated story" and concludes "once the story of the plowing and salting of Carthage had been properly launched, its force was considerable, as is made evident by the number of 'authorities' listed by Ridley, and indeed by the incredulity with which distinguished scholars have greeted my own retraction when made verbally: surely (they have implied) it must have happened." --Macrakis (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The topic article says the following:

The salting story entered the academic literature in Bertrand Hallward's article in the first edition of the Cambridge Ancient History (1930), and was widely accepted as factual. However, there are no ancient sources for it and it is now considered legendary.

Apparently, the claim that Carthage was salted entered the academic literature in the 1930s and has since been discredited starting in the 1980s, although some sources seem to imply that it is still a matter of dispute. I'm not seeing enough evidence of modern and common. Maybe common among students of the Punic Wars back in the last century, but I'm not seeing it as common today among the general population.

Regardless, the latest version of the entry claims that "Scipio Aemilianus did not plow over the city of Carthage..." which is misleading at best and factually wrong unless you're willing to interpret and literally - yes he didn't plow and salt. He only plowed, but most of our readers won't parse the sentence like a logician.

Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

We can certainly remove the "plow" part from the misconception.

As for "modern" and "common", many of the listings in this article do not have good sources (or any sources) for the currency of the misconceptions, while this one has multiple sources. Naturally, misconceptions about Roman history will be best known by people interested in Roman history. Where is the evidence that people believe that microwave cooking causes cancer? That the lack of a Miranda warning is enough to dismiss a case? That concept albums were thought to have been originated in the 1960s? etc. etc. I certainly hadn't heard many of the stories here before. --Macrakis (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

For more recent evidence that the misconception continues to circulate, see for example JSTOR 48636452 (2020); Padilla (2010). A NASA article on Carthage (2006?) mentions the story. Bad Ancient calls it (2021) "a modern rhetorical marker". Imperium Romanum mentions (2020) the "popular belief". Most of these writers say that the story is disputed, but they do mention it as still circulating. --Macrakis (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hair care products: new technology calls for an entry update

The section on "Hair care products" currently states that products "cannot actually repair split ends and damaged hair." The sources cited are from 2011 and earlier.

Since then, a new class of hair care products has been invented. Bond repair treatments are marketed as repairing or replacing bonds within the hair shaft (either disulfide bonds alone, or disulfide bonds plus polypeptide chain breaks).

A few of the more reputable articles about bond repair treatments:

• https://edition.cnn.com/cnn-underscored/beauty/best-bond-repair-hair-treatments
• https://www.vogue.com/article/bond-repair-treatment
• https://labmuffin.com/how-does-olaplex-hair-treatment-work/

The first bond repair treatment product was launched in 2014, which explains the discrepancy.

I think the most accurate path would be to change the paragraph: "Most hair care products, etc, etc. Only one class of product is marketed as repairing the hair itself." Or, for simplicity's sake, I could just remove the paragraph. I'm open to suggestions from people with a better understanding of the milieu.

(talk to) Caroline Sanford 10:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This is hardly my area of expertise, but a quick look at the entry shows that it is not mentioned in the topic article so it fails the inclusion criteria for this page. I've removed the entry.

Thanks for the tip. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look at this - this is an elegant solution. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 20:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Jesus' Birthday

Seems to me that there are two separate but related misconceptions:

1. Jesus was born on December 25th
2. Jesus was born in the year AD 1 or 1 BC.

Should this be one entry or two? I don't feel strongly about this, but think the article reads better with two separate entries. I separated the two when I trimmed some extraneous material, but did not move the references. This attracted a tag, which was resolved by re-combining the entries.

Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd say one, just for the sake of brevity. Obscurasky (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Glasses

"Many people believe that glasses can make eyesight worse, but that's more myth than reality." [17] Benjamin (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Tontine

[18] "In most places in the United States using tontines to raise capital or obtain lifetime income is consistently upheld as being legal; however, outdated legislation in two states has fostered the incorrect perception that selling tontines in the broader U.S. is illegal." Benjamin (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: Donkey Kong

There's a common misconception that Donkey Kong from the game Donkey Kong is the same one we know today. It's actually Cranky Kong. Even the Wikipedia page for Donkey Kong (Character) incorrectly lists his first game as Donkey Kong in the sidebar. There's also similar confusion about the main characters and princesses in the Legend of Zelda series. — DanielLC 05:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If this information is incorrect the place to address that is the topic article, not this article. If or when the topic articles mentions it as a common misconception then we can discuss including it here. As it stands, the proposed entry would fail the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

only men are people

under the subsection of misconceptions about Islam, it says that “virgin female companions, houri, are given to all people, martyr or not, in heaven.” is this accurate, or should we include a separate entry outside of this subsection for the general cross-cultural misconception that women are not people? 2600:8807:5603:8800:44BC:EA72:9446:27A1 (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Tarleton’s raiders

Hello Mr swordfish (talk · contribs). Please clarify why you deleted my addition of Tarleton’s raiders to this article. The issue is addressed in the article Banastre Tarleton. Should the erroneous belief be described in some other place or in some other way? The documentation is thorough. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read the inclusion criteria at the top of this page. The entry failed that criteria, in particular the topic article does not treat it as a "common misconception". The closest it comes is

"The British Legion is occasionally referred to as “Tarleton’s Raiders“ in modern American sources.^{[citation needed]"}

Which is both unsourced and insufficient to meet the criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Mr swordfish (talk · contribs). I haven’t added to this list before but I read the guidelines carefully before doing so. The article Banastre Tarleton provides much more information than that single sentence at the beginning of the section about the name”raiders”. In particular, there are quotations for the correct name and a recent explanation of how the misconception arose. The only missing item is a source using the incorrect term “raiders”; I can add some if that is the reason my edit was rejected.

In accord with the guidelines, my addition was worded as a correction, the misconception being implied. “The British Legion was known as Tarleton’s Raiders” is often accepted as true but is actually false. It arose from stereotypes and was popularized by folklore and pseudohistory. Readers can consult the article Banastre Tarleton for more detail.

Therefore, I believe it is a common misconception and don’t understand your objection.

Please tell me what I must do to satisfy the criteria. I can only think of four possibilities, none of which are mentioned in the criteria:

- repeat the entire section in British Legion

- create an article called Tarleton’s Raiders

- use the exact words “common misconception” somewhere (but where?)

- find an additional source entitled “The name Tarleton’s Raiders is a common misconception”.

You will have noticed other misconceptions about Banastre Tarleton in that article. They, too could be added to the list so it is important that I present misconceptions correctly. Please help me to make the articles I improve even better. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You'd need to find a reliable source that states that it is a "common misconception" and include that in the article about Banastre Tarleton with citations. Even then, I'm doubtful that this disagreement regarding possibly ahistorical nomenclature is sufficiently common to warrant inclusion here. Perhaps other editors would feel differently. If so, their comments are welcome. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you don't need the exact words "common misconception". Benjamin (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Phineas Gage

'Although Phineas Gage's brain injuries, caused by a several-foot-long tamping rod driven completely through his skull, caused him to become temporarily disabled, fanciful descriptions of his "immoral behavior" in later life are without factual basis.'

It depends what you mean by immoral behaviour. The referenced article supports the idea Gage was prone to using bad language inappropriately after his injury. This may well have been considered immoral at the time. If there is some other description of his immoral behaviour that has no factual basis, then a separate reference is required.

Additionally, this sentence may cause the reader to assume there is no evidence for any adverse change in personality following his injury which is not supported by the referenced article. 147.28.105.172 (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a list of alleged behaviors at Phineas_Gage#Exaggeration_and_distortion_of_mental_changes that are either unsupported by or contradicted by known facts.

I think this entry could stand a revision in light of your comments. Or perhaps removed entirely since it's unclear to me that this is a common misconception. The topic article states that he "...has a minor place in popular culture." and I'm not sure that is enough to warrant entry here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)