Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Gender bias

"Contrary to the beliefs of laypeople and academics revealed in our forecasting survey, after years of widespread gender bias in so many aspects of professional life, at least some societies have clearly moved closer to equal treatment when it comes to applying for many jobs." [1] Benjamin (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Oceania vs. Australia (it's Oceania)

This should be added to the list, as most people think it's Australia when it's actually Oceania. Finntastico2 (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

That Oceania is considered a continent by some as opposed to Australia (continent) is at best a controversy not a misconception. That continents are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria (mentioned in the lead of continent) could be a misconception. We would need to find citations that present it as a misconception. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The antigay-'f-'word can't have come from immolation yet we don't know for sure

For me; it doesn't need be an officially sanctioned-punishment for any of this to matter. If one looks at the GLOBAL use of this term; everything related is denoted to fire! Words like "flamer," for example. Or a cigarette, in Britain. Or "finocchio," in Italian; A VEGETABLE THAT SMELLS LOVELY WHEN ONE BURNS IT AND WHEREBY THEY USED TO USE THOSE VEGETABLES TO COVER THE PUTRID SMELLS. AT. BURNINGS. AT. THE STAKE! It doesn't take much to surmise that the guy quoted in the sources from IASIP, was right. In that over the years; as any random schmucks would burn gays--I mean one was crucified a couple decades ago--would enable the average Joe to denote fire and said burnings with homosexuals. That, to me, is not a stretch, at all. And I don't understand South Park and this place trying to mitigate it and its pain if not for some kind of "God is a woman," freemasonry.... 2001:1970:5021:C100:512D:EE17:68C5:E082 (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have WP:SOURCEs? Mr Fink (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Fringe Theories

This list contains a number of fringe theories and this is potentially problematic. There is a big difference between fringe theories and most misconceptions. Misconceptions generally arise from a lack of familiarity with the topics they relate to and can easily be disregarded by experts. Fringe theories, on the other hand, arise from a reasonable amount of research that a person has done on a subject that has led them to form ideas about the subject that deviate from mainstream views. Does anyone else share my concerns about this list's inclusion of fringe theories? Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nezahaulcoyotl: what are some of the entries in particular that you're concerned with here? Elli (talk | contribs) 04:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

A vaccine-autism link is still asserted by some doctors such as Bob Sears and the potential risks of GMOs have been noted by some scientists such as Julie Nordlee. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not the venue for that argument. Please take it to Talk:Vaccines_and_autism and if you make any progress there then we can re-assess the entry here.

Granted, not all "fringe theories" rise to the level of "common misconception". This one certainly does. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed a fringe theory on James Webb disproving the Big Bang. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You removed my entry because it wasn't "common knowledge," which is fair. I don't think I would consider it a fringe theory since it was propagated by misinformed news outlets rather than continually asserted by a group (e.g. QAnon, other conspiracy theories). Misconceptions that arose from faulty and fraudulent media coverage are on this page, including the "War of the Worlds" radio incident, the murder of Kitty Genovese, and Tutankhamun's curse. Professor Chimp (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Identification

[2] "Contrary to a widespread myth, police officers have no advantage over civilians when making identifications." Benjamin (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Economy

[3] Americans think the economy is worse but it's actually better. Not sure how this should be phased. This is a specific example of a general phenomenon, I think. Benjamin (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Common means more than just among those Americans who have an opinion about their current economy. And the "current ecomony" is far too ephemoral to be a useful item in the list. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be worldwide to be common. Remember, we have the misconception about fans specifically in Korea. And it's not just the current economy, although that's what this source is about. People *generally* misconceive the economy. Benjamin (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Change ideology

[4] People incorrectly think extremists are more resistant to change. Benjamin (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal, but none of the sections seem right

The "AR" in AR-15 stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", reflecting the company (ArmaLite) that originally manufactured the weapon. They do not stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle".

Maybe this one makes sense in inventions? The misconception is mentioned at AR-15–style rifle (the first link) in "Terminology". ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a good addition to the page. Agree that the category is not obvious. Business, Inventions, or Law, Crime, and Military would seem like the appropriate candidates, but none are an exact fit. I'd say pick one and we can always move it later. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Didn't think of business, but that's probably the best fit for now. I've just added it. :) ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Studying economics

[5] "It is widely held that studying economics makes you more selfish and politically conservative. ... We find no discernible effect ..." Benjamin (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Liberty Leading the People entry

The topic article states "The painting is sometimes wrongly thought to depict the French Revolution of 1789. " but it does not state that this error is common. The supporting cite says:

It is the definitive image of the French Revolution - and yet Eugène Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People does not portray the French Revolution at all...This scene, it tells us, took place on July 28 1830.

Is this enough to justify inclusion in this article? My opinion is "no" but let's hear some other opinions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I would say yes. "It is the definitive image..." implies practically (if not in formal logical terms) that there is a common conception here. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I interpreted it more strictly than that. From what it says (as quoted above), it doesn't say that anybody many people think it is actually the French Revolution (the clue is plainly visible in the title). I applied a stricter standard than being practically implied. Consider "After fifty years since the first moon landing, Apollo 13 remains the definitive movie account of the dawn of crewed missions to the Moon, yet it does not portray the very first mission to the Moon at all." That's not to say people think it depicts the Apollo 11 mission. I landed on "No" also because the source is so solitary. It doesn't seem to represent a group of sources that might be able to support the notion as well. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It's possible that this may make the grade with more definitive sourcing. Note that the inclusion criteria only requires that the topic article mention the misconception, it is not required that it state that it's common. But we'd still need some sourcing establishing that it is a common misconception. So, the ball is in the court of those who advocate it's inclusion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I found an article on artnews.com saying "This iconic oil by Eugène Delacroix (1798–1863) is often wrongly thought to depict a scene from the 1789 French Revolution." Is this enough? Dexxor (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting. I wonder if it's a case of circular reference, though. In my above comments, I corrected "doesn't say that anybody" to "doesn't say that many people", recalling the actual words "The painting is sometimes wrongly thought to depict the French Revolution of 1789." When I reviewed where that came from, I checked the orginal source (The Guardian, from the topic article ) and found it didn't say anything about wrongly considered, just the "It is the definitive image". Consider:

• April 2, 2005 (The Guardian), source is published: "It is the definitive image of the French Revolution - and yet Eugène Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People does not portray the French Revolution at all."
• March 3, 2021 (Wikipedia) [6]: "The painting is often confused for depicting the French Revolution." (no source given)
• December 29, 2021 (Wikipedia) [7]: "The painting is sometimes wrongly thought to depict the French Revolution of 1789." (still no source)
• February 7, 2023 (ArtNews) [8]: "This iconic oil by Eugène Delacroix (1798–1863) is often wrongly thought to depict a scene from the 1789 French Revolution."
• December 10, 2023 (Wikipedia) [9]: a source is finally given for the statement (The Guardian, 2005), where we can see that it says nothing at all about anybody thinking it actually depicts the French Revolution. I emphasized the Wikipedia 2021 quote and the ArtNews 2023 quote to highlight the close similarity in phrasing. So I'm not so sure the source is totally reliable. I'm sure the Art News reporters know that Wikipedia can't be relied upon without checking its sources. But maybe not. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I found another source:

• Marcus, Lisa Algazi (1 July 2022). Mother's Milk and Male Fantasy in Nineteenth-Century French Narrative. Liverpool University Press. p. 99. ISBN 9781802070644.

It says: "Perhaps the most well-known representation of the female embodiment of the ideals of the French Revolution today is Eugène Delacroix's 1830 painting, Liberty Leading the People, which, contrary to popular belief, represents the July revolution of 1830 against the restored Bourbon monarchy rather than the revolution of 1789 (Yalom, 1997, 122)." Following the citation to

• Marilyn, Yalom (1997). A history of the breast. Random House. p. 122.

we find: "as in Delacroix's famous painting Liberty Leading the People, which was not about the revolution of 1789, as most people assume, but the bloody uprising of 1830 (fig. 49)." Dexxor (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Those sources look good to me. I'm reassured that the second source is published 1997, well before Wikipedia could be accused of misleading someone on this issue. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems like we have sufficient sourcing now. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Body size

[10] "It was found that men underestimated the average female body by an average of 38%, whilst women underestimated their own bodies by 16%." Benjamin (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT

[11] People believe they use ChatGPT more critically, ethically and efficiently than others. This is an example of Illusory superiority. People also think they're better drivers than average, etc, many such cases. Benjamin (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Three-fifths Clause

I hear quite often that the 3/5 clause in the US Constitution indicates the Founders basically considered slaves (or Africans in general) to be 3/5 of a human being, but this seems to be disputed by constitutional historians who would probably point out Southern states wanted slaves to count as a full person (in regards to Congressional representation) and Northern states wanted them to not count at all. (Which, frankly, makes the South look worse in my opinion, insisting slaves are property except in a scenario where their personhood would give the ruling class more political power, but whatevs.) I think this should be included in this article, but it seems it's not up to me. 2601:408:C402:2FA9:E1EB:174A:E187:BF91 (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for entries includes a requirement that the misconception be mentioned in the topic article. In this case, the topic article, Three-fifths_Compromise#Historical_interpretation, says it is a "persistent and sometimes contentious debate among historians, legal scholars, and political scientists" so it would fail the inclusion criteria here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

"Radiation is not always dangerous"

This item is tendentious and contradicts Wikipedia's own article "Radiation hormesis."

It begins by implyng that because low-level ionizing radiation is ubiquitous and survivable it cannot be dangerous. Yet this is fallacious. Air pollution is ubiquitous, the human race survives in its presence, and it is dangerous; background radiation could, logically, be similar.

In fact, scientists do actively dispute whether background radiation contributes to human disease. The answer depends on the correctness of the linear no-threshold model of radiation damage. That model is contested, but as Wikipedia's "Radiation hormesis" notes, institutional expert opinion presently supports it and rejects hormesis (the hypothesis, which this item overtly plumps for, that very low-level ionizing radiation is harmless or beneficial). I copy the relevant paragraph from "Radiation hormesis" to the bottom of this comment.

In short, this item advances a controversial claim as fact. It is advocacy for one side of an active, unresolved scientific debate and should be deleted.

======================================

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis (sources are cited in original):

Reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) argue that there is no evidence for hormesis in humans and in the case of the National Research Council hormesis is outright rejected as a possibility. Therefore, estimating linear no-threshold model (LNT) continues to be the model generally used by regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure. Lgilman909 (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It begins by implyng that because low-level ionizing radiation is ubiquitous and survivable it cannot be dangerous. It begins "Radiation is not always dangerous. Radiation is ubiquitous on Earth's surface, and humans are adapted to survive at normal Earth radiation levels.", implying that it is "not always dangerous", not that "it cannot be dangerous".

As for "There is some evidence to suggest that this is true for ionizing radiation; normal levels of ionizing radiation may serve to stimulate and regulate the activity of DNA repair mechanisms.": It does seem to advance a controversial claim as fact. I would support removing that part. I didn't investigate which of the four sources given could be dispensed with if it were deleted. _signed, Willondon (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that not all radiation is ionizing to begin with, and thus that alone would justify the statement that "radiation is not always dangerous". Though it seems this point focuses more on the axiom that the dose makes the poison. I guess the problem here is that it compares the danger of ionizing radiation with the toxicity of oxygen and water, which implies that radiation has no damaging effects at low levels, when it still has the potential to cause damage at low levels, it's simply less likely to do so. Nevertheless, I think this point could be kept in some capacity, as there certainly is a tendency among the general public to greatly overestimate the damaging effects of low levels of ionizing radiation, not realizing that they are constantly being exposed to low levels of ionizing radiation, even miles away from civilization, and at these levels it generally isn't particularly harmful. Though that questionable claim about radiation helping DNA repair seems too contentious to be included here. Alex the weeb (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The misconception seems akin to the sentiment that "chemicals are unnatural". (Not that I know how that should guide our editing of the article.) _signed, Willondon (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Radiation is always dangerous" is the common misconception addressed by the correction, "Radiation is not always dangerous." In addition to being attested to by multiple RS (please see the entry), and several Wikipedia pages, this particular common misconception about radiation is easy to debunk with a little application of WP:BLUE. The electromagnetic radiation emanating from the screen that you are using to read this sentence is not dangerous. There is absolutely nothing contentious about this, and I see no need to change the entry in any way, much less remove it. Joe (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the objection is that the point is actually claiming that IONIZING radiation is not always dangerous. For some reason, it doesn't discuss non-ionizing radiaion, and only talks about how low level exposure to ionizing radiation is unlikely to cause harm. Alex the weeb (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On removing the Taj Mahal entry

Hi! I recently added an entry to the page about the Taj Mahal myth that the emperor, who commissioned it, ordered the hands of the architects and workers to be cut off. This was then removed by @Mr Swordfish with the reason that it wasn't mentioned it the "topic article" and thus fails the inclusion criteria. I am confused about that, does it mean the wikipedia article on the main theme of the myth (Taj Mahal) or the myth needs an article of its own? Since I checked the main Taj Mahal article before editing the page and it does mention the myth in it's Myths Section.

It would be very helpful if swordfish makes the reason more clear so as to avoid future mistakes. I am new to editing wikipedia so sorry for the bother, thanks! Blackout Sea (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The entry began with:

Shah Jahan, the Indian Mughal Emperor who commissioned the Taj Mahal, did not cut off the hands...

I went to the Taj Mahal article and searched for "cut" and "hand" and didn't see anything so I concluded that the myth was not mentioned in the topic article hence the entry failed the inclusion criteria. However, it is mentioned in the Myths section of the article using different language:

No concrete evidence exists for claims that describe, often in horrific detail, the deaths, dismemberments and mutilations which Shah Jahan supposedly inflicted on various architects and craftsmen associated with the tomb. Some stories claim that those involved in construction signed contracts committing themselves to have no part in any similar design. Similar claims are made for many famous buildings. No evidence exists for claims that Lord William Bentinck, governor-general of India in the 1830s, supposedly planned to demolish the Taj Mahal and auction off the marble. Bentinck's biographer John Rosselli says that the story arose from Bentinck's fund-raising sale of discarded marble from Agra Fort.

So I was incorrect about it not meeting that inclusion criteria. I remain unconvinced that it is current and sufficiently common to be included here, but I'll butt out of this discussion and leave it to the other editors to decide that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Here's an article from The Hindu, a very well respected daily here in India. The article directly confirms that it's a very popular myth.

From the article :

The fact remains that this is a well-known urban myth.

I could maybe link other recent article that even go into it's political ramifications but that would be very out of scope. It's a very popular trope even today in stories or poems and has been overplayed by the current politics. You could confirm it's popularity by asking any Indian editor you might know (specially north Indians). I would ask you to reconsider your choice, but if not, that's fine too. Thanks! Blackout Sea (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blackout Sea Here's where we are: in the middle of a WP:BRD process. You made a bold edit, I reverted it, now we are discussing it on the talk page. I realize I made an error am withdrawing my main objection, you have provided sourcing and intelligent commentary in support of your position. I'd give it another day or so to see if any other editors weigh in and if there are no more objections go ahead and restore the entry.

We're not doing breaking news here, so there's no urgency. Thanks for your contribution, and welcome to Wikipedia. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off as too impatient. Blackout Sea (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for here on your part. Cheers! Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we can revert now? Blackout Sea (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen any objections, so go for it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Night of the Living Dead

This entry doesn't seem to involve any misconception. It mentions that the movie is considered the first modern zombie movie, and that its undead are called "ghouls" rather than "zombies". For there to be a misconception here, it would have to be that people mistakenly believe the creatures are called "zombies" (do they?) or that they mistakenly believe it's a zombie movie (but it obviously is one). Thefringthing (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Dubious source in the "fuck" section.

It ["fuck"] is most likely derived from Middle Dutch or other Germanic languages, where it either meant "to thrust" or "to copulate with" (fokken in Middle Dutch), "to copulate" (fukka in Norwegian), or "to strike, push, copulate" or "penis" (focka and fock respectively in Swedish).

As a native swedish speaker, this stuck out to me. I have never heard this usage. The source for this (ref 100 and 101) is a Snopes article that itself references a post on the alt.usage.english newsgroup. The usenet post has no source, but claims it is dialectal. I looked it up in Svenska Akademiens Ordlista and Project Runeberg's dialectal search:

A "Fock" is a dutch/german loan word from the 1500s denoting a type of sail.

"Focka", meaning to fire someone from a job, is indeed dialectal but it has only been in recorded use since 1891, meaning "fuck" came first. Note that "focka" has been used like "fuck" but the swedish dictionary notes that this use is borrowed from english.

Runeberg has no recorded uses of the word "focka", and "fock" only appears in the form noted by the swedish dictionary.

From a quick glance at ordbokene.no, the same seems to hold for norwegian. Note that I am not a speaker of norwegian, just relying on mutual intelligibility. 98.128.186.110 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

As a native Norwegian speaker I can confirm that "fukka" does not mean "to copulate" in Norwegian. We can say that something "er fucka", meaning that it "is fucked up/terrible/bad", but this is derived from the English "fuck", not the other way around. Forteller (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The first cite does not seem to meet our WP:RS standards. While Snopes.com is a reliable source, the usenet group alt.usage.english is clearly not, so while Snopes may rely on it, we cannot.

The second cite does not address Swedish or Norwegian. It's available at [12] if you have a Harper's subscription. Since I do, I've reviewed it and there's nothing to support the assertion.

So, I'm going to remove that part as unsupported. If someone can provide a source to back it up we can restore. Thanks for the heads up. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the topic article, Fuck#Etymology, it also claims Swedish and Norwegian origin for the term. Unfortunately, I can't access the cited source so I'm hesitant to make changes there. I've raised the issue at the Talk:Fuck page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References

The economics section could use internationalisation.

At present, it's very focused on the US economy and the US dollar. In particular, the misconception about US marginal tax brackets is also a commonly-held misconception in the UK: See here. Perhaps this could be reworded to reflect marginal tax rates in general, rather than in the US specifically? Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 09:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Profit margin

"The general public believed the average profit margin made by American corporations to be 46.7%, while the actual average that year was just 3%." [13] Benjamin (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Bees

Further thoughts about potentially inaccurate claims.

Hi tgerogescu,

I think, ironically, this might be a misconception.

1) The effect of european honey bees on other bee species doesn't have particularly much to do with their role in agriculture. It would be uncontroversial to state that many practices are important for the human agricultural system but potentially harmful to many species. E.g: Excessive use of pesticides, nitrogen supplementation, and so on.

While European honey bees often pose a threat to other bee species, particularly in areas in which no native honey bee species are present (notably excluding Asia and Africa, which have their own native honeybee species, with Asian honeybees ironically posing a large threat to European Honeybees through the proliferation of varoa mite); this does not mean that they are not important to how food is currently produced.

For example, this study shows Honey bees specifically contributing $11.67B to US agriculture in 2009: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358326/

2) It's important to note that different bee species preferentially pollinate different plants. I wish I had it on hand, but there's a great section about this in "The Australian Native Bee Book" if you happen to be able to access a copy. Other bee species do not often preferentially pollinate the same crops that HoneyBees do.

3) The myth posed to other bee species by honeybees is greatly exaggerated. I might find some sources and write that up as a section, actually. Bryce Stansfield (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Bees in general are useful for pollinating lots of crops. Western honey bees are hugely overrated, and usually a threat to the rest of bees.

The extinction of bees would threaten many crops, but the extinction of Western honey bees not so much. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of European Honey Bee, food production misconception:

Hi, earlier today I edited this article to remove a "misconception" about European honey bees being essential to human food production.

This was reverted.

Unfortunately, I don't think this reversion was correct.

While the majority of calorie crops would survive, it would be hard to argue that the sum total of non-calorie insect-pollinated crops we use European Honeybees to pollinate are unimportant. This is actually outlined in the articles currently cited in this section, most of which point out the importance of specifically European Honey Bees (as opposed to other insect pollinators) in the pollination of many important crops.

The reversion of my reversion stated "Do not conflate bees in general with honey bees", however it's important to note that the majority of fruit and vegetable cultivation relies specifically on European honey bees (and to a lesser degree Bumblebees, Tetragonula carbonaria, and flies). Wild bees make up a much smaller part of agricultural pollination, especially in monoculture settings that are common across the world. Thus European honey bees would not be easily replacable.

As opposed to complete reversion, I wouldn't be opposed to pairing down the misconception to: "without European Honeyu Bees... humanity would starve or die out 'within four years'."; which is technically untrue.

@Tgeorgescu - Thoughts? Apologies if my formatting is correct, I've not done much wikipedia editing in the past. Bryce Stansfield (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The rub seems to be between "the Western honey bees perform this service now" vs. "they are irreplaceable". But I will let others chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Widening roads does not ease traffic congestion entry

This entry was recently added:

• Widening roads does not ease traffic congestion. In fact widening roads and building new roads increases traffic through the effect of Induced demand.

I'm not seeing anywhere in the topic article or the cite where this is described as a common misconception. Could someone point out the language that does that? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC) Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Receiving no response, I'll remove the entry as failing the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Does Bee Movie further popularize misconception?

In the "bumblebees should not be able to fly" section, I reverted the part about Bee Movie further popularizing the misconception [14] with edit summary: I don't think so; Business Insider only says "But Bee Movie is also spreading lies.", not that it was further popularized. The counter argument (edit summary) was I think that "spreading" and "further populariz[ing]" are synonymous. My thinking was partly informed by my personal assessment that the canard was popular as early as the 80's, if not before; I remember coming across it in many diverse sources (likely Scientific American and popular science books of the time). So that was some forty-plus years before the movie, and I guessed that very few who came across it in the movie, as I did, were encountering it for the first time. From that perspective, spread is not the same thing as further popularize. I've never made a mistake in judgement here at Wikipedia, but if it were to happen, I must say this seems my weakest argument yet. Given that, I'm happy to have had my say, here and in the revert, and leave the rest of you to consider it. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point about the misconception already being quite popular. In case there is any ambiguity, I do not mean to imply the bee movie is the only reason why this myth is popular. I can see how "further popularize" might have implied that, though.

I would be fine with an alternative phrasing if it would clear up that confusion. "Spread" from the source seems fine enough. Slamforeman (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention Bee Movie at all in this collection of short summaries. It seems like unnecessary cruft. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I can understand that for sure. I added it as a kindness to the IP editor who originally brought up the bee movie. I had thought mentioning pop culture that had spread common misconceptions, like the bee movie, might be useful, but I don’t have a good argument as to why it should stay there. Slamforeman (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a simpler argument against inclusion. The list items should have a brief reference, letting the supporting links fill in the details. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Bees don't 'fly'. Read Pennycuick's Newton Rules Biology.

Because of scaling laws (the subject of the book), air viscosity is effectively higher to creatures as small as a bee. This means that instead of 'flying' (using Bernoulli's principle to generate lift over one surface of the wing) bees are instead able to 'swim' through the air, using viscous drag from both movements of the wing. At this scale that's more efficient and that's enough to make bees' flight viable. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Rabbits regularly eat carrots

Not part of their natural diet, not good for them, can be deadly if fed regularly Started w Bugs Bunny (itself a reference to a scene in "It Happened One Night") Celdin7 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it passes #3 of the criteria, "the common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." A string search on Carrot finds no mention of "rabbit", and on Rabbit, no mention of "carrot". _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The rabbit article does, however, state that the rabbit's diet consists of grass and hay, and thus at least implicitly supports this. The point would obviously include the fact that rabbits eat grass and hay, so maybe this would be enough? This misconception seems like a good fit for the article, and it seems wrong that it should not be included due to what amounts to a technicality. Alex the weeb (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It does seem to count as a common misconception. [15][16] The information should be added to the rabbit article first, though. It would also be nice to get a reliable source for the claim that Bugs Bunny introduced this belief. That apparently started as a spoof of a scene in a Clark Gable movie [17], but of course Quora is not a RS. This article alludes to the connection, but doesn't make it explicit. --Macrakis (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that we have reached consensus about including this entry. The entry was added, but it reads more like a WP:HOWTO than an encyclopedic article. I'm going to remove the recently added entry pending more discussion here. And we really need to do better than saying "rabbis don't eat lettuce, they eat leafy greens instead." Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There are no guidelines as to how big a consensus is needed to add something to the page, so I'm not sure removing it on those grounds makes sense. Furthermore, it seems your main issue with the point is how it was worded, which makes me wonder why you didn't adapt the wording to be more appropriate, and instead removed it entirely. Alex the weeb (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There are most certainly guidelines for reaching consensus - see WP:CON, but this entry is fairly easy. The misconception is not mentioned in the topic article so it fails the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact it is now mentioned in the article. The only remaining criteria are that there is a reliable source for debunking the misconception, and that it is a current common misconception. Which of these criteria do you not believe are met? Alex the weeb (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that various sources say different things. The cite at the Rabbit article says

Rabbits don't naturally eat root vegetables or fruit.

But this source[18] says

Rabbits really do like to eat carrots, but they don’t love them more than they love other vegetables.

This one[19] says:

So, if you’re wondering “Do wild rabbits eat carrots?” the answer is, “Yes, they will, but it’s not their favorite.”

This one[20] says:

A wild rabbit will very seldom eat carrots or any other root vegetable. Instead, they forage on surface grass and greens. However, they will occasionally find the top of a sweet carrot to eat...

And this one[21] says:

Bunnies will nibble on carrots, but they can't live on carrots alone.

Finally, this one [22]

Everybody knows that bunnies eat carrots, right? Except they don’t, really.

In the wild, rabbits aren’t in the habit of digging up root vegetables such as carrots, potatoes and beets.

So, it's a bit nuanced, and I'm not finding particularly good sourcing. Seems to me that the myth is that "Rabbits love carrots and their diet consists largely of carrots" while the truth is that carrots are "rarely" eaten by rabbits in the wild. But rabbits do eat carrots as part of their "natural" diet, at least some rabbits, but it's a very small part of their diet.

As long as we're careful with the wording I'd be in favor of adding this entry. It would be nice to have better sourcing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Finntastico2 (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that matters that much, it seems to work with this article. Finntastico2 (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"Can't prove a negative" misconception

There is nothing wrong with including "It is actually possible to prove a negative (such as "Unicorns do not exist"). Philosophers who study logic make no fundamental distinction between proving a claim and proving the negation of a claim"

"Fails inclusion criteria"

The inclusion criteria:

• The topic to which the misconception is related has an article of its own.

Negation and Burden of proof (philosophy)

• The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.

The source is a article published by Cambridge University Press, which is one of the most academically reliable publishers and clearly states how "you cannot prove a negative" is a misconception.

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

The negation and burden of proof articles demonstrate how a negative can be proven.

• The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.

The source indicate that it is current.

'"seems to be a matter of dispute"'

It's not a matter of dispute, it's literally the consensus in the academic field of formal logic.[23][24][25][26][27] Crasias (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

As a mathematician, I am quite familiar with proofs of the existence or non-existence of various mathematical objects. So, agree completely that it is possible to prove a negative. Any statement that can be proved or disproved has a negation that will be proved or disproved as a result of proving or disproving the original statement. This is trivial. But that's not what people are talking about when they use the phrase "you can't prove a negative".

For instance, is it possible to prove that ghosts don't exist? Not with a level of certainty on par with the non-existence of a real number who's square is less than zero. There are many other examples such as Russell's_teapot, and I won't bother to list all of them. What we have here is a bit of folk wisdom that is basically correct in context but not applicable to mathematics or formal logic. That doesn't make it "wrong". This is the kind of thing that sparks arguments about the meaning of the word "proof", and we should avoid arguments about semantics on this page. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of items like:

The Earth isn't round, it is an oblate spheroid.

Anyway, I don't see anywhere that the topic articles mentions it as a misconception. Perhaps you can provide a pointer? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

For instance, is it possible to prove that ghosts don't exist?

That's the topic addressed by the source except it gives the example of unicorns instead of ghosts. According to the source, it is possible.

What we have here is a bit of folk wisdom that is basically correct in context but not applicable to mathematics or formal logic

That's not what these sources say,[28][29], they use formal logic to disprove "you can't prove a negative".[30] specifically links the "folk wisdom" you are talking about to the study of formal logic: "Philosophers, logicians, and linguists will point out that there is nothing special, in general, about positive and negative statements...the statement that it is difficult to prove a negative is not a good rule of thumb because we could always rewrite a positive statement as a negative one and vice versa with enough grammatical acrobatics".

A philosophy textbook states: "Logicians universally reject the notion that you can't prove a negative. There are many ways you can demonstrate a negative claim is true".

This is the kind of thing that sparks arguments about the meaning of the word "proof", and we should avoid arguments about semantics on this page

There should be no such arguments because of WP:TRUTH. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources say, not what editors believe. Crasias (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question about the "misconception" being mentioned in one of the topic articles. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Negation shows that a truth table can be constructed to prove the negative form of a proposition P, and Burden of proof (philosophy) states that a proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument can be used to prove a negative claim. The articles address the misconception Crasias (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please cite the actual text that supports your claim. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Negation:

"Classical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition, that produces a value of true when its operand is false, and a value of false when its operand is true. Thus if statement $P$ is true, then $\neg P$ (pronounced "not P") would then be false; and conversely, if $\neg P$ is true, then $P$ would be false."

Burden of proof (philosophy):

"A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim." Crasias (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It certainly isn't possible to prove that unicorns, or anything else, don't exist. You can draw that conclusion (and form a legitimate belief) based on the lack of evidence, but you can never completely rule out the possibility of their existence. Obscurasky (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source from logicians that says that? Crasias (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you say there isn't one that says that? (Sorry, I just can't help myself sometimes.) _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in your excerpts where these articles state anything about it being a "common misconception. Please wait for consensus to develop here on the Talk page before restoring the entry. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That source is saying two separate things. It first says that you can come up with negatives that can be proven (they give the example of double negatives, so you can prove that "Cows aren't nonexistent"), which I suppose would negate the statement if you interpreted "You can't prove a negative" as "You can't prove any negative" instead of "In general, you can't prove a negative". It then goes on to try to prove that Unicorns don't exist, but does so with flawed logic. Their first statement is completely false, as fossilization is a rare occurrence and only 1% of all species that have ever lived have been found as fossils, and their third statement makes a logical leap from "there is no evidence of" to "doesn't exist" that might work for a professor of philosophy (like the author of that paper) but wouldn't work for a logician nor does it mesh with the commonly understood definition of "prove". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Right. There are some negatives that can be proven and some that cannot e.g. the Earth is the only planet in the universe that has life. "You can't prove a negative" is about those sorts of claims.

Perhaps there's an entry to be found here, but it would need to be worded carefully.

BTW, I see that Crasias is attempting to get around our inclusion criteria by editing Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) - I reverted it thinking that it should be up to the editors at that page to accept or reject the edit. He's now engaging in edit warring and I'm not playing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

All Mammals being endothermic

Contrary to popular belief, not all Mammals are warm-blooded or endothermic. Some Mammals such as Sloths and Naked Mole Rats are cold-blooded or ectothermic, meaning their body temperature depends on external temperature. 37.47.187.207 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be solid sourcing of the claim that not all Mammals are warm-blooded or endothermic. The naked mole rat and sloths are poikilothermic or heterothermic not ectothermic. However, unlike most mammals they are not homeothermic, so the misconception would be "Not all mammals are homeothermic" which I do not think is all that common.

What I'm not seeing in any of these topic articles is that this is mentioned as a common misconception, so it seems to fail the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"Poikilothermic" (also "Heterothermic") is technically a synonym of "Ectothermic", so these mammals also technically count as ectotherms. 37.47.187.207 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, you're going to have to take that argument up with the editors at the various articles in the Thermoregulation in Animals category. Good luck! Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The name of Microsoft's paperclip-shaped Office Assistant

It seems to be readily accepted in popular culture that the anthropomorphic paperclip, the default Office Assistant included in Microsoft Office software in the late-90s and early-2000s, was named Clippy. The use of this name appears everywhere, from comedy sketches to factual articles about the infamous assistant.

However, it wasn't. The character's name was Clippit.

This might be invalidated as even Microsoft have begun to refer to the character as Clippy in recent years, but that was never the character's original name despite the seemingly widespread conception that it was. Valid entry or no? beeps (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

We would need to find some reliable source that states this is a misconception. Simply observing that most people called it Clippy when the official name was Clippit is not enough. See the inclusion criteria at the top of the page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Plastic surgery

Do we have any evidence that there is a misconception that "plastic surgery" has something to do with plastics? I don't see it in plastic surgery article. --Macrakis (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons has a page about misconceptions about plastic surgery here. [31] It doesn't mention this "misconception". That's not dispositive, but I haven't found anything else that supports the contention. I'd say yank the entry and if someone wants to restore it the ball will be in their court to provide support. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. --Macrakis (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Casual sex

[32] Contrary to stereotype, women who engage in casual sex don't have lower self-esteem. Benjamin (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed entry: mantis shrimp can see more colors than humans

A common myth on the Internet is that mantis shrimp can see more colors than humans can, even "unknown/unknowable" colors, because their eyes have more types of color receptors. Potentially started by this Radiolab episode [33] and later spread by a comic by The Oatmeal inspired by it [34], although I'm not sure. Article directly referencing the myth and its debunking from Nature: [35]

While mantis shrimp eyes do contain 12 unique photoreceptors for detecting color, some of which are sensitive to wavelengths outside the human visible spectrum, they do not compare signals from multiple receptors to perceive colors "between" each receptor's sensitive range, the way humans and other dichromats/trichromats do. Instead, they can only detect the 12 specific colors those receptors are tuned to, and use scanning eye movements to incrementally trigger those receptors to identify an object's position and color. [36] LooseElectronStudios (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a misconception so much as an exaggeration for the sake of website clicks.

Mantis shrimp can detect light with wavelengths between 300 and 720nm, compared to humans who can see wavelengths between 380 and 750nm. So, they clearly can see colors we can't. OTOH, we can see longer wavelengths that they can't. Does this really count as a misconception?

Mantis shrimp have 16 color receptors as opposed to our three which seems to be the main source for the claim that they can see more colors; this does not imply on it's own that they can see more colors, but it sounds cool so people hype it on the internet. In addition, some species can detect circularly polarized light which is an unusual ability. Add it all up and their compound eyes, 16 receptors, and limited brain power means that they see very differently than humans.

Anyway, I don't see anything in the topic article that mentions this alleged misconception, so it would fail our inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ending a sentence with a preposition - proposed entry?

Today's article got me thinking that this might be a candidate for inclusion: [37]

The topic article's treatment is at Preposition_stranding#Controversy.

Perhaps this is a "controversy", but since "nearly all grammarians agree that it's fine to end sentences with prepositions, at least in some cases." it qualifies as a misconception. Thoughts? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how disagreements about good English style can qualify as "misconceptions". Are we going to add a section on other cases where prescriptive grammarians and popular usage disagree?: split infinitives, singular they, fewer versus less, inanimate whose, etc. etc.?

Are we also going to list other disputes about what is in good taste? Should we list "cheese must not be eaten with fish" as a misconception?[38][39] How about "red wine with meat; white wine with fish" -- wine specialists often call this a myth, but in the end, it's a matter of taste.

These aren't misconceptions one way or the other -- they are just disagreements. --Macrakis (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As it happens, As It Happens posted an article today to complement their radio broadcast. From the article: "Context always matters," [Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster editor] said. "It's true that because this is one of those superstitions or myths or bugaboos that people have, that if it draws attention to your writing in a way that distracts from your message, then maybe you would avoid it." It's treated as a misconception. I suspect there are still a large number of people that believe it's "incorrect English". The NPR article cited above describes it as a "stubborn taboo", and states "Many were adamant that a concluding preposition is lazy, or just sounded plain weird." _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If this were a matter of taste of style I would agree. But my understanding is that many people think this is a hard and fast rule of grammar, not just a matter of taste or style. Agree that there are other things that are not rules of grammar that many people think are rules, eg split infinitives, but this one seems to be the most pervasive.

Our entry on Irregardless mentions a few other words that are often claimed to not be words, but irregardless is the poster child for that genre so it is given more prominence with other examples provided later. Perhaps that would be a good model for this entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The underlying misconception for both irregardless and preposition stranding is that languages are defined by experts, whether dictionaries or (prescriptive) grammarians. It is the very notion of "incorrect English" that is the problem. --Macrakis (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The idea that there is no such thing as incorrect English grammar is an overstatement. (Or perhaps I should say: No such that idea is as the grammar English incorrect overstatement is an.) See the articles on Standard English and English grammar for details.

That said, I agree that the underlying misconception is that there is some official set of rules and I think we cover that in the irregardless entry. The alleged prohibition on ending a sentence with a preposition is similar to the irregardless is not a word claim, although irregardless is less accepted in formal written English than preposition stranding.

Seems to me that if we place this proposed entry immediately after the irregardless entry your concerns about the underlying misconception would be addressed. I don't know that we need to list other examples such as infinitive splitting but a select few might be in order. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed entry:

It is permissible to end a sentence with a preposition. This supposed rule originated in the 1500s in an attempt to imitate Latin, which has more strict grammar than English, but modern linguists agree that it is a natural and organic part of the language. Similarly, modern style and usage manuals allow split infinitives.

Comments? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I would strike the "which has more strict grammar than English" part -- Latin is "stricter" in some ways, but much looser in others (word order).

has a of English course grammar, but I was referring to the prescriptive grammarians' notion of "incorrect English". --Macrakis (talk)

Ok. Done. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish How about:

Prepositions are permissible to end a sentence with. This supposed rule originated in the 1500s in an attempt to imitate Latin, which has more strict grammar than English, but modern linguists agree that it is a natural and organic part of the language. Similarly, modern style and usage manuals do not require writers to always avoid split infinitives.

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Although it's clever to phrase this with a final preposition, that isn't really idiomatic. And both this and the previous (29 Feb) wording refer to a "supposed rule" which is never stated. How about:

It is permissible to end a sentence with a preposition. Starting in the 1600s [see source article], some grammarians deemed it bad usage because it did not follow Latin grammar, but ...

--Macrakis (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

From [40]:

Although many people were taught to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition, nearly all modern style guides say it's not a rule, and if your sentence sounds more natural with a preposition at the end, it's fine to leave it that way.

So I think we are on solid ground calling it a supposed rule. I could add this as a cite if requested. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Back to irregardless

I'm not entirely happy with the wording of irregardless. It reads:

Irregardless is a word. Nonstandard, slang, or colloquial terms used by English speakers are sometimes alleged not to be real words, despite appearing in numerous dictionaries. All words in English became accepted by being commonly used for a certain period of time; thus, there are many vernacular words currently not accepted as part of the standard language, or regarded as inappropriate in formal speech or writing, but the idea that they are not words is a misconception. Other examples of words that are sometimes alleged not to be words include burglarize, licit, and funnest which appear in numerous dictionaries as English words.

(my emphasis) This wording endorses the notion that being in a dictionary is what defines something as a word. Here's a proposed alternate wording:

Irregardless is a word. Nonstandard, slang, or colloquial terms used by English speakers are sometimes alleged not to be real words. Words in English become accepted by being commonly used for a certain period of time; thus, there are many vernacular words currently not accepted as part of the standard language, or regarded as inappropriate in formal speech or writing, but the idea that they are not words is a misconception. Other examples such words include burglarize, licit, and funnest. Dictionaries do not determine whether a word is "real"; they only document words after they have become widely used.

Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to say anything about dictionaries? The proposed entry looks fine without the last sentence Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Part of the misconception is that only words found in dictionaries are "real". --Macrakis (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That's obviously a misconception, but is it a common misconception? And do we have sources that say that? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It's easy to find sources for the commonness of the misconception:

• Generally, there is a common myth that dictionaries are the ultimate authority of language. In arguments, perhaps you have heard people say things like “The dictionary defines X as…” or “That’s not a word because it’s not in the dictionary.” [41]
• I'm a lexicographer. I make dictionaries. And my job as a lexicographer is to try to put all the words possible into the dictionary. My job is not to decide what a word is; that is your job.... Everybody who speaks English decides together what's a word and what's not a word. [42]

But our current dictionary article (which has many problems...) simply says that some dictionaries are prescriptive and some descriptive. --Macrakis (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps this would qualify as an entry.

What gives me pause about your proposal is that all the examples - irregardless, burglarize, licit, and funnest - are in the merriam-webster online dictionary so it's a weird segue. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

True. Maybe it's a separate entry:

Dictionaries record usage, they do not prescribe it, although they may label some uses as nonstandard.[43] There are also specialized usage dictionaries which do give advice on usage.[44]

Of course, we'll need to discuss this in the dictionary article. --Macrakis (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed entry: Wikipedia is not a reliable source

See title. Some sources:[45],[46], [47], [48], and [49] 68.188.156.135 (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You have not shown that there is a misconception that Wikipedia is a reliable source. Two of the sources are actually about bias rather than reliability, two explicitly say that Wikipedia is not a reliable source (one goes so far as to state ' “Wikipedia is not a reliable source” is a phrase we have all heard at least once in our lives.', the opposite of evidence of the misconception. The fifth source is about an attempt to identify who added hoax material in a biography in 2005 Meters (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

“Radiation is not always dangerous”

This item has been tweaked since January but still does not belong in this article.  It remains advocacy for one side of an undecided scientific question.  

The claim that “radiation is not always dangerous” directly contradicts the linear no-threshold (LNT) model affirmed by most major official bodies with relevant expertise (see Wikipedia’s Radiation Hormesis article).  According to LNT, some degree of danger -- however slight -- does exist down to zero dose. The LNT model is disputed, but that’s the point -- there’s a scientific dispute.  That alone should get this item cut from Common Misconceptions.

Given the above, it doesn’t matter what text follows the opening statement; the item can't be rescued by adjusting the text. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that the text is riddled with question-begging, irrelevance, and weaseling:

•  “Radiation is ubiquitous on Earth's surface, and humans are adapted to survive at normal Earth radiation levels.”  Irrelevant, because something that is ubiquitous, and which humans are adapted to survive, may still be dangerous; air pollution is ubiquitous, survivable, and dangerous. Gravity and viruses are ubiquitous, survivable, and dangerous. Whether low-level ionizing radiation is ubiquitous, survivable, and dangerous is an unsettled empirical question. The best-available official answer (e.g., BEIR VII) is, so far, “Yes” -- the LNT model.

•  “Everything is safely non-toxic at sufficiently low doses, even . . . high-energy forms of radiation.”  Begs the question. Whether high-energy forms of radiation  are “safely non-toxic at sufficiently low doses” is precisely what is at stake in the unsettled debate between LNT and hormesis.

• "everything becomes toxic at sufficiently high doses, even water and oxygen" -- True but irrelevant to whether radiation (or anything else) becomes nontoxic at sufficiently low doses.

•  “Indeed, the relationship between dose and toxicity is often non-linear, and many substances that are toxic at high doses have neutral or positive health effects, or are biologically essential, at moderate or low doses.”  True but misleading: that “many substances” have nonlinear effects does not tell us whether ionizing radiation has nonlinear effects, or effects nonlinear enough, and in such a way, as to make it harmless at sufficiently low doses. That is precisely what is at stake in the unresolved LNT/hormesis debate.

•  “There is some evidence to suggest that this is true for ionizing radiation; normal levels of ionizing radiation may serve to stimulate and regulate the activity of DNA repair mechanisms.”  Weasel wording. Yes, there is “some evidence to suggest” that hormesis "may" be real in humans, but there is also evidence to suggest that it may not be, and questions about interpretation of the evidence on both sides, which is why this remains an unresolved scientific question.

The fact that “there is some evidence to suggest” that a commonly held belief "may" be false does not suffice to make the belief a “common misconception.”

The item should be deleted in toto. Lgilman909 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you mean by "radiation". Light is radiation, and without it we wouldn't be able to see. Radio waves are radiation and despite the claims of the conspiracy minded there's no evidence that all those radio stations and cell phones are emitting dangerous levels of radiation.

That said, the entry doesn't seem to convey the fact that there are lots of ordinary, everyday encounters with radiation or to distinguish between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. So, I think the entry is problematic and I'm not even sure what the common misconception is. Does anybody really think light is dangerous?

I'm ok with removing it pending a better presentation, or just removing it without trying to salvage it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the affirmative reply, Mr. Swordfish. We're in agreement, so the following remarks are just for amplification: The item's use of "radiation" is indeed pop or soft. This could be fixed by saying "ionizing radiation" from the get-go, but the item as a whole would still be inappropriate for Common Misconceptions. It addresses what its author considers the popular misconception "All [ionizing] radiation is dangerous," but this is not a popular misconception; in the technical form of the linear no-threshold model, it's the official (albeit disputed) position of most major scientific bodies with relevant ambits (e.g., the US National Academies, which issues the BEIR reports, or the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). Lgilman909 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

So, we seem to have two "votes" for removing the entry. Anybody want to stick up for it? Otherwise lets put it on ice until a better version emerges. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, remove it. Meters (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. Less a misconception than people imparting negative attributes to a vague use of the word, like "processed foods are unhealthy because they have chemicals in them." _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We could just as well have an entry for "Chemicals are not always dangerous" if we apply the same criteria as in the radiation entry. Or "Falling is not always dangerous" or a wide range of others. I'll remove the entry and if someone wants to craft a better version I'll be happy to consider it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish: I feel like people generally tend to overestimate the risk posed by ionizing radiation exposure even in the context of LNT, but I recognize that might not be enough for it to meet the inclusion requirements of this article. Exposing to falling seems an imperfect analogy though; radiation stands out as a physical phenomenon with an exceptionally high number of orders of magnitude between "detectable" and "dangerous". VQuakr (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If you start from detecting gravity waves up to the danger zone, you might span equally unexceptional orders of magnitude. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what we consider the "danger zone". People killed in earthquakes from the tidal forces on the earth, or directly killed by tidal forces themselves? Either way, agreed it's several zeroes between the two! VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

ETA: I don't oppose the recent removal given how loosely-worded and poorly-sourced that version is. VQuakr (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)