Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 32
Latest comment: 4 months ago by Mudwater in topic Emphasize source article
 | This is an archive of past discussions about List of common misconceptions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 |
New Entries Proposal
Hi all, I know this is going to seem like WP:POINT, but I was already intending to add several of these entries (likely 80% depending on what issues get flagged in adding to topic pages). I am putting them here for now, if there are any issues you would like to flag or entries you'd like to support, please do so below.
Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose this is somewhat beside the main point, but this table is confusing because in some cases the first column makes a false statement (a misconception) and in some it makes a true statement (a refutation of a misconception, like the article does). For example, "
the North Star... is not the brightest in the sky
", "[phases of the moon are] not due to the shadow of the Earth on the Moon
and "a concussion does not usually knock a person unconscious
" are true, but "The Moon is only up at night
", "there is one good sitting posture — and that if they sit like that they will be fine
", "flu shots can cause flu
" and "a person who's had a bang on the head shouldn't be allowed to go to sleep in case they slip into a coma
" are false. CodeTalker (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)- I know it's a bit confusing. It's because I was trying to quote directly from the sources so I wouldn't be paraphrasing or reinterpreting. Some sources say "it is a common misconception that..." (affirmative) while others say "despite the common misconception, ..." (negative). I hope the presence of "don't" or "are not" should generally clue you in. I think for most of them it's pretty clear what the misconception is. I've got another 70 common misconceptions that I've generated since I posted this one, I'll post below later today and I'll try to note if misconceptions are refuting. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Some more proposals below. I have flagged these as needed caution in adding to topic articles (discussion may be needed), as needing more sources, or taking care in wording them. These won't be attempted to be added until their issues are addressed, if they can be addressed. If you would like to support one (or criticise), please note it down below.
Controversial, less secure proposals, more research needed
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps you would care to explain why you are spending all this time and effort to add entries to this page while simultaneously arguing for it to be deleted over at AfD? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've been adding entries since before the afd, didn't initiate it, and particularly since no one seems interested in addressing the LSC requiring OR, it doesn't look like the page is going to be deleted.
- It's a fun page. That's why it gets so much attention. People like reading about common misconceptions, I like reading about them. That obviously doesn't mean it belongs on the Wiki. It does upset me how people include things, saying a RS says it's a common misconception when it says "some people believe" or something equally tenuous, as it seems particularly blatant, but I also think things like "many people believe" doesn't mean it's common, which I know is more controversial (i.e. many people believe the Earth is flat, doesn't make the belief common). I think that if the page is going to be kept, it's better if we try to avoid the "words to that effect" problem I discussed in the afd.
- One way is by going through and seeing which entries don't say it's a common misconception. Only you are evaluating, and you seem to hate it because there's 500 or so misconceptions to evaluate and because arguing if this source *really* says it's common sucks (fair enough), and entries that I flagged weeks ago as not saying it's a common misconception are still up and aren't flagged in the article body as currently unsourced. Another way I can ensure entries actually say it's a common misconception is by just adding them myself, and finding multiple RS that attest it's a misconception. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Some more common misconceptions, I cut down the 70 to 39 to ensure they're strongly sourced, they will likely be cut down further in adding to topic articles. As always, criticise or advocate below. Also CodeTalker I've reformatted them to be corrections, thanks for the suggestion.
Misconception proposals #1
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to discuss any of these proposals, but waiting for a "second" for specific entries before continuing the discussion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also, you might get more editors to engage with your list if you made the links clickable. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip, I've added in links to the entries and reformatted them for reviewability. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll try to go through all of these and give you a second opinion, though I don't have the time right this moment. Seeking editorial comments before adding these entries is very good of you, User Rollinginhisgrave, however, I do want to point out that it is not strictly necessary. If you think something is reliably sourced, you may simply add it, and if no other editors object, that's how ~95% of material gets onto Wikipedia. That said, there's certainly nothing wrong with seeking comments before adding, and I will try to do so as soon as I've got some free time to go through it all. Cheers! Joe (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- That was my understanding as well, and I added quite a few, but they got deleted here. If we're on the same page that the proposing on the talk page isn't mandatory, I'll add them back in (and lay them out in a table below so they're easy to review in case someone wants to). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, you don't just "add them back". That's edit warring. While the three of us are on the same page that it is not required to propose new entries on the talk page, if an edit is contested WP:CON requires that it obtain consensus on the talk page before restoring it. At this point none of your proposed entries have garnered any support for inclusion. There are a couple that I plan on nominating for inclusion, but I'm waiting for AfD to run its course before spending any time on it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- That was my understanding as well, and I added quite a few, but they got deleted here. If we're on the same page that the proposing on the talk page isn't mandatory, I'll add them back in (and lay them out in a table below so they're easy to review in case someone wants to). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- The reason you cited for deleting the entries was "Removing recently added entries that did not reach consensus on the Talk page." There is a consensus that this is not required. Therefore there is a consensus that the removal was unjustified; enforcing a rule that isn't there. If you have a different reason you believe the entries should be excluded, then please feel free to list it and we can discuss whatever that is. I won't add them back in until/unless you're satisfied the discussion is concluded. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- here is a consensus that the removal was unjustified
- No, there is not. Who is saying this other than you? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't want to waste your time. Is the reason the entries were removed because they didn't gain a consensus on the talk page first, per the wording of the edit notice "It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first"? If so, do you stand by this; if not, do you have a different reason you contest the entries? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to waste my time commenting on each one individually. I oppose most of them for various reasons. If any particular one gets support from some other editor I will elaborate at that time. For now, none of the proposed entries have any support other than one editor. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate? Maybe a policy that you think I'm ignoring that multiple breach? Genuinely surprising to me you that you oppose most of them. Is there a sin I'm falling guilty of repeatedly? I don't think it's fair to revert edits and then not comment on them. But I also don't think it's fair for you to have to sink so much time in, all at once. Could we evaluate 5 entries a day maximum as a compromise? Is there an alternative you would like to pursue? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a typical example: "snakes [don't] hibernate through winter".
- This directly contradicts the Hibernation article.
- It would have taken about ten seconds to click on the topic article and see that it contradicts the proposed entry. If you're not willing to exert that minimal level of effort I don't see why I (or any other editor) should waste my time explaining why each of these dozens of proposals falls short. If some other editor expresses support for any of these proposed entries I'll be happy to engage. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate? Maybe a policy that you think I'm ignoring that multiple breach? Genuinely surprising to me you that you oppose most of them. Is there a sin I'm falling guilty of repeatedly? I don't think it's fair to revert edits and then not comment on them. But I also don't think it's fair for you to have to sink so much time in, all at once. Could we evaluate 5 entries a day maximum as a compromise? Is there an alternative you would like to pursue? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to waste my time commenting on each one individually. I oppose most of them for various reasons. If any particular one gets support from some other editor I will elaborate at that time. For now, none of the proposed entries have any support other than one editor. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't want to waste your time. Is the reason the entries were removed because they didn't gain a consensus on the talk page first, per the wording of the edit notice "It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first"? If so, do you stand by this; if not, do you have a different reason you contest the entries? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- The reason you cited for deleting the entries was "Removing recently added entries that did not reach consensus on the Talk page." There is a consensus that this is not required. Therefore there is a consensus that the removal was unjustified; enforcing a rule that isn't there. If you have a different reason you believe the entries should be excluded, then please feel free to list it and we can discuss whatever that is. I won't add them back in until/unless you're satisfied the discussion is concluded. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Ultsch, Gordon R. 1989. Ecology and Physiology of Hibernation and Overwintering Among Freshwater Fishes, Turtles, and Snakes. Biological Reviews 64(4), pp. 435-515. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1989.tb00683.x
- That's fair, I have highlighted the ones I've reviewed the topic article of, and linked in what I estimate to be the topic article. When I was saying that I need a comment on why things were removed, I wasn't talking about those entries that haven't been put in, I was talking narrowly about the ones that have been removed per BRD.
- For stuff like snakes hibernating, it's obviously about how you word the misconception. The sources are saying it's a common misconception that (my very colloquial wording of possible misconception) "snakes sleep all winter; they wake up and can be active at points, and people don't expect that". This isn't at odds with the hibernation article, and it's not even a technical vs colloquial dispute which people on the article take issue with (i.e. bananas grow on trees, they actually grow on herbs or whatever), but a factual dispute (snakes don't wake up all winter). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dear User Rollinginhisgrave, please forgive me, when I said "If you think something is reliably sourced, you may simply add it, and if no other editors object, that's how ~95% of material gets onto Wikipedia" - I wasn't aware that User Mr. Swordfish had already requested editorial review. I missed the section before this one. Given that Mr. Swordfish has requested the material be reviewed, it's entirely appropriate that you removed it to this location for editorial review. I'll try to go through the sources soon! As long as we don't find any that have problems with reliability, or any where new sources imply that something has changed (as often happens, for example, we once had an entry about saliva not helping to heal wounds, but then the relevant page got updated with new sources that said that saliva actually does contain healing factors, and so the entry was removed in light of that) - assuming there's nothing like that in the review, I expect we'll add most of your proposed entries! Cheers, I'll try to get to it soon when I have an hour or five to set aside. Joe (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- No worries Joe, I wasn't sure if you were aware of it hence why I wanted to bring your attention to it and get your confirmation before I started adding stuff back in. I'll write out the removed entries in a table below so they're easy to review. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Removed entries
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Myths Busted books
I have links of some books where they talk about and bust various myths. If you feel like any of these myths belong in this page, add it in, as long as you find reliable sources from the Internet that relate to the myth as well.
https://archive.org/details/mythsbustedjustw0000krie
https://archive.org/details/mythsbusted3just0000krie 128.235.85.35 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Bread in the fridge
As with many candidate entries here, it's complicated.
"Many experts claim that you should never refrigerate bread, but the reality is a little more complicated." Refrigerating Bread Isn't Always Bad
Refrigerated bread goes stale more quickly than unrefrigerated bread. Unrefrigerated bread grows mold faster than refrigerated bread. Which is more important? Depends... Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The misconception reads "Storing bread in the fridge makes it go stale faster than leaving it at room temperature." and the article you've linked says "Indeed, scientific evidence shows that refrigeration changes the structure of the starches in bread, causing them to crystallize, which makes the bread hard (aka stale)."
- I don't think it's complicated. Maybe we can add an addendum noting that it grows mold slower? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have mixed feelings about entries like this. You could make the argument it's not really clearly a misconception, when the truth is not the opposite, just somewhat off. Benjamin (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really understand what you mean? Don't people think that putting it in the fridge will make it go stale slower, but the opposite is actually the truth, where it makes it go stale faster? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you ask people why they put bread in the fridge, most will say something on the order of "to make it last longer".
- I'm unconvinced that enough would respond about it going stale. At the very least, we should include something about mold and the benefits of refrigeration to prevent it. Or just drop the entry as being in dispute. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you feel strongly against it then I'm fine with dropping the entry. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say we should clarify rather than delete. Joe (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Kind of funny source contradiction; Dog sweat
The article states: "Dogs do not sweat by salivating. Dogs actually do have sweat glands and not only on their tongues; they sweat mainly through their footpads. However, dogs do primarily regulate their body temperature through panting."
But a Washington Post article from 2012 says: "Unlike humans, dogs and cats can’t sweat to cool themselves. A common misconception is that cats and dogs sweat through their paws, but, says Kimberly May, a veterinarian with the American Veterinary Medical Association, “any secretions there or from their nose, mouth or tongue are not for sweating; they’re for protection and moisture and are insufficient to cool the blood,” Cats and dogs are able to release heat in other ways, though." And then that it happens through convection, and panting.
Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- We should make sure that this page (and the subject page) is using the best sources for this matter. I can't look through it all right now, so in the meantime I'm going to hide the entry. Someone please restore it after you do your due diligence, if you get to it before I do. Joe (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Dragon quest weekday release ban
"The Japanese government did not pass a law banning Square Enix from releasing the Dragon Quest games on weekdays due to it causing too many schoolchildren to cut class":
- IGN: "I’ve been told the story more than once, and always in the same way.": Author in a expert niche hearing a story multiple times obviously doesn't imply commonality.
- 1up: "Although tales of a law requiring Dragon Quest games only be released on the mornings of weekends or holidays are the stuff of urban legend"
- Games Radar: "Here’s an urban myth that will not die: there’s a Japanese law that prohibits any new Dragon Quest game from coming out on a weekday. As the legend goes, Dragon Quest III was such an anticipated game that upon its weekday release, thousands of kids and adults played hooky to line-up for the game. The Japanese legislator was so concerned by this, they quickly drafted a law saying all future Dragon Quests must be released on weekends or holidays. It’s an interesting story and we all liked to believe that the series is so popular that there needs to be a law, but seriously, this rumor needs to die.": I think it's debateable if persistent urban myths, urban legends that have existed for a long time, are the same as urban legends that are commonly believed. I firmly don't think they are. If you think I'm being too pedantic I'll add this in. As an aside, when evaluating if I would accept a phrasing as equivalent to "common misconception", my heuristic is I'll go onto a source we've accepted as reliable and see if I would accept some or most misconceptions as common based on the same or very similar wording. Here are three, tell me if you would accept these: [1], [2], [3].
- Electronic Gaming Monthly: Doesn't mention ban/misconception (I don't want to write out a quote, I've linked the page).
- GamePro: 18:09: "Person A: Dragon Quest 3 was when it - like supposedly Japan banned games from being sold on anything but national holidays or something because it was actually registering a measurable dip in productivity like this urban legend. Person B: I actually did some research on that and while it is an urban myth that there was a government decree that Dragon Quest not be released on a weekday, it is true that Dragon Quest continues to be released on Saturday.": Just identifies as an urban myth, doesn't comment on commonality.
Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't know anything about or care about Dragon Quest so I'm not going to spend any time on this entry. I'll defer to the other editors for this one. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seems well-sourced enough for inclusion to me. Joe (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Which of these sources do you think appropriately sources this? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Seems well-sourced enough for inclusion to me. Joe (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Most Muslim women wear burqa
Most Muslim women wear a burqa:
- Neither source provided really even identifies it as a misconception, let alone common.
Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would say that most westerners have a fuzzy understanding of the difference in Muslim women's attire, confusing the burqa with the hijab. There might be a common misconception here, but I'm not sure what, exactly, it might be.
- This article [1] says it is a myth that "Muslim women are forced to wear headscarves. " and that "...about 40% of Muslim women in the U.S. wear a headscarf all or some of the time." but there are countries where women are forced to wear a headcovering so I wouldn't include that as an entry.
- As it now stands, the entry is factual and adequately sourced so I don't feel an urgency to remove it. If nobody proposes a way to address the shortcomings with regard to the inclusion criteria within a few days I'd say it's ripe for removal.
- . Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of retaining this one, I just reworded it a little to highlight the misconception 'the burqa is not the only type of head-wear worn by Muslim women'. Having the entries phrased as corrections is much better than actually stating the misconceptions and having people think that the stated misconception is correct - however, it does occasionally give rise to instances like this where someone might not be entirely certain what the original misconception was. Hopefully its clearer now. Joe (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I like your rewording. It would be good to have a second source affirming that this is a misconception. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of retaining this one, I just reworded it a little to highlight the misconception 'the burqa is not the only type of head-wear worn by Muslim women'. Having the entries phrased as corrections is much better than actually stating the misconceptions and having people think that the stated misconception is correct - however, it does occasionally give rise to instances like this where someone might not be entirely certain what the original misconception was. Hopefully its clearer now. Joe (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
27 Club
I propose adding an entry for the 27 Club in the "Popular music" section. Something like this would be good, I think: Popular musicians are not more likely to die at the age of 27. The notion of a "27 Club" arose after the deaths, in a ten-month period, of Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morrison, and later the deaths of Kurt Cobain and Amy Winehouse. Statistical studies have shown that there is no scientific basis for this idea.[1][2][3]
References
- ^ Butler, Jack (July 7, 2021). "The Myth of the 27 Club". National Review. Retrieved July 4, 2024.
- ^ McKinney, Kelsey (May 23, 2015). "Despite the Huge Myth, Musicians Don't Die at 27 — They Die at 56". Vox. Retrieved July 4, 2024.
- ^ Starkey, Arun (October 4, 2021). "Debunking the Central Myths of the '27 Club'". Far Out Magazine. Retrieved July 4, 2024.
— Mudwater (Talk) 14:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- This looks ok to me. Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. I'm trying to track down a copy of 27 by Howard Sounes, but it will take a few hours, so I'll add that as a source if there's relevant quotes. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Everybody seems happy with it, I've gone ahead and added it. Thanks User Mudwater! Joe (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Very good. Thank you. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Everybody seems happy with it, I've gone ahead and added it. Thanks User Mudwater! Joe (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. I'm trying to track down a copy of 27 by Howard Sounes, but it will take a few hours, so I'll add that as a source if there's relevant quotes. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment on proposed entries and current entries
Many of the entries that I have proposed be added to the page in the #Disease and preventive healthcare and Nutrition, food, and drink sections do not meet WP:MEDRS. I will strike these proposals out until/if appropriate sources can be found. I'm not sure Mr Swordfish would appreciate [medical citation needed] being tagged to the relevant items that are also failing WP:MEDRS that have made it onto the page; what would we like to do with this insufficiently sourced information? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Every factual assertion we make on this page appears in the topic article, hence we can assume is that it meets Wikipedia's verifiability requirements, including WP:MEDRS. While the implied assertion that it is a common misconception may not always appear in the topic article, this is not a medical claim subject to WP:MEDRS. I don't think we need to do anything here. If someone wants to go around to all the topic articles and challenge the sourcing, nobody is stopping them. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I truly don't know why you think that sourcing on the topic articles would meet WP:MEDRS. This page has a problem with requiring entries be discussed on their topic articles, and not being able to see when information is deleted or changed. Let alone the quality of the sourcing. Looking just at the second entry in #Human body and health for waking up sleepwalking being dangerous:
- Source one in this article is sleepfoundation.org: Not a MEDRS.
- Source two in this article is MedicineNet: Not a WP:MEDRS [1][2]
- The topic article, sleepwalking, only references the sleepfoundation source. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Take it up with the editors at Talk:Sleepwalking. If that article changes in a manner that makes our entry fail the inclusion criteria we can address that at the time. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I truly don't know why you think that sourcing on the topic articles would meet WP:MEDRS. This page has a problem with requiring entries be discussed on their topic articles, and not being able to see when information is deleted or changed. Let alone the quality of the sourcing. Looking just at the second entry in #Human body and health for waking up sleepwalking being dangerous:
- Just a reminder that medical sources are only needed for the underlying medical fact itself, not the claim that it's a misconception. Benjamin (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, wasn't trying to make that claim. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:RSN discussion on Snopes Authorship
Dropping here that I've started an RSN discussion on authorship of Snopes articles. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
"These entries are concise summaries of the main subject articles, which can be consulted for more detail."
This isn't true. It might be aspirational for some, but often this article includes more information than is contained in the topic articles.
Why should it not be aspirational? Because the topic article chosen is the sole relevant factor. If "the slaves built the pyramids" claim has Egyptian pyramids as its topic article and the text is added, writing extensively on whether slaves built them would breach WP:UNDUE. If a more niche article is chosen, like Slavery in ancient Egypt, more niche information could be included. The natural trend for the article is that topic articles chosen are as niche as needed to submit an entry. Why is this a bad thing? A major point of adding entries to topic articles is for verification, to draw in interested editors. The less niche a page is, the more scrutiny is applied to edits. By structuring the article as summaries of topic articles, the verification function is undermined, often severely.
Even if it is accepted as aspirational, it should be rewritten to reflect that it is an aspiration rather than the reality that it pretends to be. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree this is poorly worded. I would suggest:
- These entries are concise summaries; the main subject articles can be consulted for more detail.
- Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your wording is definitely better, although as I note above, I object to the concept of stating the entries are summaries of subject articles which contain more detail, since they aren't, and we shouldn't aspire to that. Do you think we should note that the entries aren't summaries? I.e. "These entries are intended to be concise summaries of their main subject articles." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- As this wording is seen as a step in the right direction I'll make the change. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your wording is definitely better, although as I note above, I object to the concept of stating the entries are summaries of subject articles which contain more detail, since they aren't, and we shouldn't aspire to that. Do you think we should note that the entries aren't summaries? I.e. "These entries are intended to be concise summaries of their main subject articles." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy with User Mr. Swordfish's proposed edit. Also, doesn't this rewording take care of your concern about them being concise summaries of the subject article, User Rollinginhisgrave? I agree that the entries are not summaries of the entire articles, and User Mr. Swordfish's rework seems to explicate that nicely. Joe (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is that entries in this article will often contain more information about a misconception than the article being linked to. So if anything those articles contain a summary of content on this article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- The original statement is accurate:
- It says these are concise summaries. I think we can agree that they are not lengthy or unnecessarily wordy.
- It says the main subject articles can be consulted for more detail. I think we can all agree that anyone can, indeed, click the link and consult the main subject article for more detail.
- The confusion apparently stems from the belief that it says, or at least implies, that you can consult the main subject article not "for more detail", but "for more detail about the common misconception". Obviously, it does not say that there is more (or any) information about the common misconception in the main article. It only says there are details there, which is true in every case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Citation cleanup - removal of quote: parameter and invoke: directive
A lot of cites have been modified with the perhaps unintentional removal of the quote: parammeter or the #invoke: directive.
The #invoke syntax is explained in a fairly complicated manner at H:TLIMIT. This was recently added to facilitate faster processing by the wiki engine and seems to be recommended when there are several hundred references (as this article contains). We should be consistent with using it.
As for the quote: parameter I'm aware that a lot of editors do not favor using it, but my considered opinion is that it is a useful and helpful addition as per WP:FQ:
- A footnote may also contain a relevant quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible. However, caution should be exercised, as always, to avoid copyright violations.
We should restore the quotes that were removed from the cites, and use the invoke: syntax for all the cites that have templates that support it.
Perhaps these changes are artifacts of using the visual editor, which I have found has issues dealing with citations. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link on invoke:cite. I was removing them because every time I tried to edit them with the visual editor it would break the citation; I'll start to add them back in.
- I disagree on quotes. The reference list is already unwieldy. There's only about 60 pages on the entire wiki with more references. WP:FQ notes "In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article." I've left up quotes for the banana radiation, or the oldest colour film etc; basically anything that is too dense to parse or can't just be clicked through and found quickly. The most pages you'll have to click through of the ones I left is about 3, which seems reasonable. I'm not sure if you disagree on that line? People can always use control F within those 3 pages of content.
- I actually really like the idea of being able to hover over a cite and see what the quote is that is supporting the text. Ideally we would have that for every source. But we should be consistent if we're doing that and not just have a few items with blockquotes on every cite, and none on every other entry. They should be reserved for when the text is hard to access or otherwise way too dense. If you think I made a mistake with removing one then add it back in. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've just realised how much that page understates how many references there are here given references a, b, c are filed under 1 reference on this page. It's likely in the top 10. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think all the recently removed quotes should be restored and only the ones that are problematic either removed or shortened. Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm wary of adding entries back in, given I believe unproblematic entries have been kept. The quote I gave from WP:FQ says most of the time quotes are unnecessary. The most edge case entry I can see is How Do Wings Work, but if you do control F with "blow" you find the entry in literally two seconds. Downsides of inclusion > Upsides. Anyway. As you say, we'll see what other editor's opinions are. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not asking to restore any entries, only to restore the comments in the citations for the remaining ones.
- What are the downsides to including comments in cites? Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT that is. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Inconsistent referencing style throughout the article, arbitrary which entries get quotes
- Reference bloat, difficult to navigate
- WP:COPYVIO in the blockquotes it attracts
- Unnecessary when information is easily verifiable by clicking on a link instead of hovering over it
- Follows content guidelines more closely Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm wary of adding entries back in, given I believe unproblematic entries have been kept. The quote I gave from WP:FQ says most of the time quotes are unnecessary. The most edge case entry I can see is How Do Wings Work, but if you do control F with "blow" you find the entry in literally two seconds. Downsides of inclusion > Upsides. Anyway. As you say, we'll see what other editor's opinions are. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Taxation and Government Spending
New item for the economics section:
Under a system of fiat money, government spending is not funded by tax income or borrowing because the government is the currency issuer and so can never run out of money.[1][2][3] With a fiat currency, taxation and borrowing are used for liquidity control, which creates the fiscal space for the government to spend without driving the economy past it's productive limit and incurring inflation.
- ^ Mitchell, William (2010-04-19). "Taxpayers do not fund anything". William Mitchel - Modern Monetary Theory, Blog.
- ^ Murphy, Richard. "The Tax Research glossary: Taxpayer's money". Funding the Future.
- ^ Berkeley, Andrew; Ryan-Collins, Josh; Tye, Richard; Voldsgaard, Asker; Wilson, Neil (2022-05-24). "The self-financing state: An institutional analysis of government expenditure, revenue collection and debt issuance operations in the United Kingdom". UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose.
Matthew T Hoare (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is a consensus in economics that MMT's claims are wrong. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Seems to me that this is sufficiently disputed among economists that we should give it a wide berth here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- The third link in my new item is an institutional analysis of government spending in the UK and it quite clearly shows that spending is a "one-source" process and that the government creates money as it spends. The study is very recent and is the first of it's kind. Do you have any specific problems with the methodology or reasoning in that paper? Or a link to any papers that show contrary evidence? Matthew T Hoare (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Have a look at criterion 3. If you can get it to stay on the MMT page we can discuss, otherwise it can't be added. Also you might want to have a read of WP:PRIMARY. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Entry Reinstatement
I'm looking for some clarity on the process for getting removed entries back in the article. Following BRD, I'm unclear on the reason entries were reverted, so discussion is difficult. If a quote for a justification could be pointed in my direction it would be much appreciated. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does any editor other than you support reinstating any of these entries? If there's a second editor that weighs in with support then we can discuss that particular entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a reason for opposing these entries? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry User Rollinginhisgrave, I still haven't gotten to reviewing them. I'll try to do it as soon as I have the time. Joe (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's all good, I'm only talking about the ones that were in the page and got taken out. I'm still not sure why they were removed. If a reason can't be provided I'll reinstate per WP:BRD. If a reason is provided then we can take them back out and address the issue before reinstating. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are over a dozen active editors that have contributed to either this talk page or this article in the past two weeks. Any one of them could have taken a look at the over 100 entries that you have recently proposed and not a single one of these editors have offered support for any of those proposed entries. You're overwhelming the process and we need to slow down. That's why.
- So, instead of wikilawyering, maybe you should think about how to build consensus for some select few of your proposals.
- BTW, I explained why one of them (snakes don't hibernate) is a bad entry (it is directly contradicted by the topic article.) Others are also problematic, but I'm not going to waste my time pointing out why each and every one of them is flawed. If any specific entry is nominated I'll be happy to discuss it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will propose edits slowly to prevent overwhelming editors. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. As Mr swordfish says, "You're overwhelming the process and we need to slow down. ... think about how to build consensus for some select few of your proposals." Bulk proposals make it difficult to engage constructively and thoughtfully, whether to support or to oppose any particular case. --Macrakis (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will propose edits slowly to prevent overwhelming editors. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's all good, I'm only talking about the ones that were in the page and got taken out. I'm still not sure why they were removed. If a reason can't be provided I'll reinstate per WP:BRD. If a reason is provided then we can take them back out and address the issue before reinstating. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry User Rollinginhisgrave, I still haven't gotten to reviewing them. I'll try to do it as soon as I have the time. Joe (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a reason for opposing these entries? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Babies Feel Pain Entry Obsolete
Another entry likely failing criterion 4: Babies don't feel pain. People don't seem to believe this anymore: this Boston Globe article says the misconception was only really held by physicians and hasn't been believed for 20 years: "It probably goes without saying that infants can feel pain, as any parent or pediatrician could tell you." This implies that not only is this not a common misconception ("it goes without saying" that it's not true), but also that "any parent" would today actively know the opposite. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- This was really about the technical definition of pain, rather than surgeons not thinking babies didn't feel something horrible. The idea was that a newborn (not an older baby) didn't have the level of consciousness necessary to form a memory and assign meaning to the horrible sensations. That means it was 'merely' nociception instead of True™ pain, and therefore the significant risks of analgesic drugs outweighed the value of pain treatment when there wasn't any True™ pain present in the first place.
- BTW, the same argument can be made for adults with severe cognitive disabilities, but I'm not aware of anyone actually doing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Deletion and split proposals
I noticed that it was proposed this article be deleted, I looked at the the reasons an article on Wikipedia would be deleted and I do not see any reasons for deleting this article. Can we talk about this proposed deletion. Also I find this article to be helpful and informative.
I would also like to address the proposal to split this article. Some of these common misconceptions listed may not be enough for a full article, and if they are a short description can be given with a link to the full article. Having the common misconceptions article is a great way for people to find many things that people falsely believe are true but in fact are not.
I don't see why we should remove this article.
I think it is important that we discuss the proposed removal/splitting. It is my understanding that "splitting" would also be removal because though it would keep most of the content the main article would be gone. Let's discuss removal/splitting before we decide if that's something that we really want to do. I for one really hope it is decided to keep this article and I do not understand why it was requested to be deleted.
Please reply with discussion about whether or not we should delete or split and why. Thanks. Jacob81 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- This article has been nominated for deletion at Articles for Deletion six times and the attempt has failed miserably each time. Feel free to read the most recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(6th_nomination), and follow the links there to read the five previous discussions. These discussions are now closed, so there's no point in rehashing them here.
- As for splitting, the thread above is the place for that - let's keep the discussion in one place. BTW, splitting would not be removal - the article would remain as links to the splits. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- this is one of the greatest articles I have ever seen. it should be retained, in my opinion! Sm8900 (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- User Sm8900 and I are of like mind :) Joe (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- this is one of the greatest articles I have ever seen. it should be retained, in my opinion! Sm8900 (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Inclusion Criteria / Edit Notice Changes (before discussing more substantive changes)
1. I will do an edit request on the template page for the edit notice to remove: "Whether an item should be included is at times a contentious issue. It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first." This is per my justification on that page:
- "As flagged on that entry by P.I. Eslworth, after implementing the change, the consensus that the text be included on the edit notice was lost as the discussion continued, after the change was made."
I am presenting this here before doing this to give the opportunity for editors defending the current edit notice to form a consensus that has been lost.
2. Remove the text in the inclusion criteria / edit notice "If you have an item to add that does not fulfill these criteria, which you still think should be included, please suggest it on the talk page." There seems to be a consensus on the talk page (from my reading) that all entries have to meet the inclusion criteria. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would oppose both of the changes.
- For No. 1, it is in fact preferred (see, preferred, not required) that new entries be proposed in talk.
- For No. 2, no, strictly speaking all entries do not have to meet the inclusion criteria. See WP:5P5 and WP:IAR. If the editors got together and agreed that an entry should be included without, for example, its own subject page, that would be fine. Imagine, for example, the case where a common misconception about common misconceptions (a meta-misconception) was proposed as an entry: the correct subject page would be this page, and so an exception might need to be made. Plenty of other such exceptions could conceivably occur, anything where including the entry despite the guidelines would, in the opinion of the editors, still improve the page overall. On a more practical and more frequently occurring note, there's nothing wrong with anybody suggesting we add something on the talk page: perhaps something that doesn't currently meet the standards for inclusion should be included after more RS have been found, after it has been added to a subject article and not been disputed there, etc. If someone has a common misconception which he or she believes should be added, but the entry isn't 'fully formed' yet, the correct thing to do is to post it here and get help/comments. Joe (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- 1. What do you think about clarifying in the entry that it is not required that new entries be proposed through talk?
- 2. I understand this is implicit in all of Wikipedia, but it isn't common to include it in an inclusion criteria. Naming it puts too much emphasis on it. I like the idea of specifying currently. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- 1, Yes, be I could get behind that, though I'd need to see a specific wording before saying yay or nay one way or the other.
- 2, I prefer the current wording, since there may be legitimate exceptions where an entry that does not meet all the inclusion criteria should be included, given a consensus from the editors to that effect. Also, there is something to be said for brevity. Joe (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- 1. "Whether an item should be included is at times a contentious issue. It is preferred, although not required, that new items be proposed on the talk page first."
- 2. Haha there is even more brevity if it were to be removed. But I understand your preference. I'll see what other editors say. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
The main issue for me is that the sentence "It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first." is included in the edit notice but not in the inclusion criteria displayed at the top of the talk page. These two should be in sync with each other to avoid confusion. My strong opinion is that 1) we should keep that sentence and 2) it should be expressed in the inclusion criteria as well as the edit notice.
As for the "If you have an item to add that does not fulfill these criteria, which you still think should be included, please suggest it on the talk page." I'm basically neutral with a slight preference for retaining it. As Joe correctly points out, this is covered by other general Wikipedia policies so it's not necessary, but I don't see the harm in stating it.
There are other differences in language between the two, and it would be best to have the same language in both places. For reference, here is the inclusion criteria at the top of the talk page:
 | 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:
|
And this is the edit notice:
 | READ THIS FIRST: Criteria for entries to this list
Whether an item should be included is at times a contentious issue. It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first. A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list does not exist, but an item added to the list should at least fulfill the following:
|
I propose the following language that's a hybrid of the two, and that both notices use this language.
| | Inclusion Criteria A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list has not been reached, and whether an item should be included is at times a contentious issue. It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first.
Any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following:
|
- I like your rewording of the inclusion criteria/edit notice and definitely think it's important they be aligned. I would prefer that my proposal for 1 was integrated, what do you think about the clarification I proposed? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Not required" is implied by the usage of "preferred" so is unnecessary. I'd prefer to keep this brief. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with User Mr. Swordfish, moreover, I don't really see the value of copying the "whether an item should be included is at times a contentious issue" wording in two places. I'm not in favor of these changes. Joe (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC):
- If we remove that clause, the notice looks like this:
- I agree with User Mr. Swordfish, moreover, I don't really see the value of copying the "whether an item should be included is at times a contentious issue" wording in two places. I'm not in favor of these changes. Joe (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC):
| | Inclusion Criteria A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list has not been reached. It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first.
Any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following:
|
- I'm Ok with this. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm Ok with this. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you both agree on the "not required" necessarily being implied by "preferred", then I'm happy. I would still prefer the edit notice and inclusion criteria to be aligned. I understand that you prefer the wording not being included in two places Joe, but it's just a bit confusing to have the notices out of sync, especially for editors (like myself) who assume they are identical. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Any further discussion about this change? If not, I'll make the changes on this page and request that the edit note be changed too.
- This doesn't forestall further discussion about changing the inclusion criteria - we can always make further changes if there's consensus, but it seems like we have consensus to apply these changes. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you both agree on the "not required" necessarily being implied by "preferred", then I'm happy. I would still prefer the edit notice and inclusion criteria to be aligned. I understand that you prefer the wording not being included in two places Joe, but it's just a bit confusing to have the notices out of sync, especially for editors (like myself) who assume they are identical. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Lede removal
The editor adding the section into the lede said "added paragraph to the lead, giving some context about what a 'common misconception' is. I generated it from the topics under "see also", and from the inclusion criteria edit notice."
Self explanatory OR, unsourced. Fails WP:CIRC, in a really weird way. They also don't "arise from" old wives tales, old wives tales are also common misconceptions, etc. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is one of those classic cases of MOS:LEADCITE and WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY, please see also the section in WP:NOTOR on paraphrasing. Moreover, even though the sources currently contained on the page amply support and source the lede, one could, if so inclined, make a strong argument that much of the lede's content falls under WP:BLUE as well. In short, this lede is extremely uncontentious. Joe (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- What source do you understand they're paraphrasing or summarizing? And I don't think MOS:LEADCITE covers lists to the same degree (not citing policy, just looking at featured lists). Do you have an example of another (ideally featured) list which has a similar application of BLUE in the lede in defining a key term? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:LEADCITE applies to lists just as much as any other page on Wikipedia. I could begin to list the sources that the lede reflects, but I couldn't finish before dying of old age. Summary is not OR. Joe (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've read back over LEADCITE and I'm not sure exactly what you're saying by citing it. Could you clarify? And since we're at a point where you believe there are many sources that reflect the information in the paragraph, could you provide one? Maybe for the statement that common misconceptions generally arise from stereotypes (rather than stereotypes arising from common misconceptions etc). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, check out the citations for the LDS polygamy entry. As for MOS:LEADCITE, I'm particularly thinking about: "Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." The fact that sources for the lede are left in the body on this page, and not included in the lede, is not evidence of OR.
- On a side note, User Rollinginhisgrave, do you have any particular objection to the current wording of the lede? If you have an idea on how it might be better worded to more completely summarize the page's content, I'd be open to modifying it. I certainly wouldn't suggest that the lede in its current form is perfect by any stretch, but it is definitely not OR, and while it might be improved, it is far from terrible. I'd call it quite serviceable in its current form. Joe (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I fully agree that citations being in the body instead of the lede doesn't make it OR, I just know that's not what is happening here. The person who wrote the paragraph wasn't summarizing sources, they make that clear in the edit summary which I wrote out in my first comment. They saw that "stereotypes" was in the see also section of the page, and decided that it meant that common misconceptions arise from stereotypes. Which is OR (and I also think it's the wrong way around, not based on any sources, but just my vibes of language; if I was constructing the lede from the see also section I would have come to the opposite conclusion). I would like to see a lede constructed that is actually a summary of sources.
- I had a look at the sources for LDS. I only saw one mention stereotypes, and that didn't mention the common misconception. So it couldn't imply or say common misconceptions arise from stereotypes. I might have missed something. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Could I ask you to rewrite the lede, to better conform to your understanding of the meaning of the phrase 'common misconception', and post it here for consideration? I reaffirm my belief that the current lede accurately reflects the content and purpose of the page, but maybe I'd change my mind if I saw an alternative presentation? Like I said, things can always be improved. We should be careful not to try to make it too perfect, though, and simply deleting it is not a practical option. Joe (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously per WP:BURDEN the burden of finding sources for unsourced material is on editors who wish to restore content. But we know for a fact finding sources this is summarizing will not be possible, as the editor said that wasn't what they were doing when they added it. Independent of any future addition to the lede summarizing article contents, this text should be removed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Rollinginhisgrave, equally obviously, per the Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems, if you see a problem, you should try to fix it yourself, not just point fingers at other WP:VOLUNTEERS and claim that it's their job to do things that you won't do yourself. That will only make people think you are bossy or arrogant.
- Also, I don't know for a fact that there are no sources defining what a common misconception is. Do you actually know this? Knowing this would require that you spent at least a few seconds looking for sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying WhatamIdoing. Here are some diffs showing me go through ~ the first 200 sources. You can also see above on this page that I've been through hundreds of sources discussing common misconceptions. If you look at the comment that starts the discussion, you can see that the person who put in the lede discussion of how common misconceptions came about admits they made it up. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Did you know that material can be verifiable even if you don't get it directly out of a source?
- For example, I could write "Smoking tobacco causes lung cancer" in an article, and it would still be verifiable, even though I just "made it up".
- Material is verifiable if a published reliable source says the same thing. It is not necessary for the Wikipedia editor to first consult the source or even know which specific source says the same thing. If the article and a source match, then the material is verifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I understand, I just didn't believe a source would be saying the stuff the source says, as I believe it to be wrong, and I have no reason to believe a source was being referred to rather than the original editor just vibing out a theory of how common misconceptions arise, such as what I just mentioned to User:CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath: "[common misconceptions] don't arise from general wisdom, rather, if general wisdom is incorrect it is by its nature a common misconception, there is no causality. AKA; if a source is saying despite the general wisdom that..., it is not saying that the general wisdom is creating a common misconception, it is saying it is a common misconception." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see no problem with the use of the words 'arise from' in this context: conventional wisdom can be wrong, and in cases where it is wrong, the teaching of incorrect conventional wisdom can result in the spread of beliefs that are incorrect, giving rise to a common misconception. If we wanted to be really wordy we could say, "the propagation of conventional wisdom can give rise to common misconceptions," but I much prefer the brevity of the current phrasing. Joe (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I really want you to consider a counterexample. Consider the inverse of a common misconception. A truth that people commonly know. Conventional wisdom can be correct. Would you say that correct conventional wisdom "gives rise to" a truth that people commonly know? Of course not! Conventional wisdom, by definition, is a belief (in this case truth), that people commonly know. They're the same thing! If something is conventional wisdom, and it's true, it's necessarily also the case that people commonly know this truth. One isn't giving rise to another. They're just synonyms in this context. And therefore, necessarily, the same with the inverse. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's more complicated than that. Conventional wisdom could be correct ("Sick people feel better if they eat soup") and also give rise to a misconception ("There's something uniquely healthful about chicken soup"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is such a good point. Thankyou. I was confused because most of the lede is listing things that are already wrong (superstitions, fallacies) and were about how the misconception became popular, which didn't make sense to me for conventional wisdom since it was already common. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's more complicated than that. Conventional wisdom could be correct ("Sick people feel better if they eat soup") and also give rise to a misconception ("There's something uniquely healthful about chicken soup"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I really want you to consider a counterexample. Consider the inverse of a common misconception. A truth that people commonly know. Conventional wisdom can be correct. Would you say that correct conventional wisdom "gives rise to" a truth that people commonly know? Of course not! Conventional wisdom, by definition, is a belief (in this case truth), that people commonly know. They're the same thing! If something is conventional wisdom, and it's true, it's necessarily also the case that people commonly know this truth. One isn't giving rise to another. They're just synonyms in this context. And therefore, necessarily, the same with the inverse. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see no problem with the use of the words 'arise from' in this context: conventional wisdom can be wrong, and in cases where it is wrong, the teaching of incorrect conventional wisdom can result in the spread of beliefs that are incorrect, giving rise to a common misconception. If we wanted to be really wordy we could say, "the propagation of conventional wisdom can give rise to common misconceptions," but I much prefer the brevity of the current phrasing. Joe (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I understand, I just didn't believe a source would be saying the stuff the source says, as I believe it to be wrong, and I have no reason to believe a source was being referred to rather than the original editor just vibing out a theory of how common misconceptions arise, such as what I just mentioned to User:CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath: "[common misconceptions] don't arise from general wisdom, rather, if general wisdom is incorrect it is by its nature a common misconception, there is no causality. AKA; if a source is saying despite the general wisdom that..., it is not saying that the general wisdom is creating a common misconception, it is saying it is a common misconception." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying WhatamIdoing. Here are some diffs showing me go through ~ the first 200 sources. You can also see above on this page that I've been through hundreds of sources discussing common misconceptions. If you look at the comment that starts the discussion, you can see that the person who put in the lede discussion of how common misconceptions came about admits they made it up. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously per WP:BURDEN the burden of finding sources for unsourced material is on editors who wish to restore content. But we know for a fact finding sources this is summarizing will not be possible, as the editor said that wasn't what they were doing when they added it. Independent of any future addition to the lede summarizing article contents, this text should be removed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Could I ask you to rewrite the lede, to better conform to your understanding of the meaning of the phrase 'common misconception', and post it here for consideration? I reaffirm my belief that the current lede accurately reflects the content and purpose of the page, but maybe I'd change my mind if I saw an alternative presentation? Like I said, things can always be improved. We should be careful not to try to make it too perfect, though, and simply deleting it is not a practical option. Joe (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we need a bunch of citations to support the plain statements in the lede.
- I do think that the last part about "often involved in moral panics." should be either removed or replaced with "sometimes involved in moral panics." Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- All of them are contentious and not plain. Do they generally arise from conventional wisdom? Is conventional wisdom not a type of common misconception? Does conventional wisdom arise from a common misconception? Same with stereotypes, superstitions, fallacies (although less so). One thing I might add for instance would be scientific consensus changing. Misunderstanding of science is contentious (if it's a simplified explanation), and pseudoscience has been long contentious on the talk page. The relationship between urban legend and misconception is contentious. Agree that the text of moral panic should be replaced. Tl;dr, none of them fall under WP:BLUE, and the WP:BURDEN for sourcing is on editors reinstating. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Completely in favor of "sometimes" instead of "often". Joe (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Do they generally arise from conventional wisdom? Is conventional wisdom not a type of common misconception?"
- No, User Rollinginhisgrave, it's currently the correct way around. Conventional wisdom is not a kind of misconception, because conventional wisdom is not always wrong. However, in cases where it is wrong, it often gives rise to commonly held beliefs that are incorrect. Changing it to something like "common misconceptions often give rise to conventional wisdom" or "conventional wisdom is a type of common misconception" would be putting the cart before the horse. Joe (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're right that conventional wisdom isn't necessarily a kind of misconception, but if conventional wisdom is wrong, it is not "giving rise to" commonly held beliefs that are wrong, as it is already necessarily a commonly held belief that is wrong. There is no causality. Incorrect conventional wisdom is the same thing as a common misconception. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where to put this comment so I'm just replying to your original comment. I dont feel like I have much valuable info to add as others have weighed in quite heavily on the topic however in my opinion much of the lede falls under WP:BLUE and the rest of it is generally backed up by by the rest of the article. For example the lede mentions that misconceptions often arise from a misunderstanding of science and later in the article one misconception says this: "This myth likely comes from a flawed United States military experiment in 1950, involving a prototype Arctic survival suit where the head was one of the few body parts left exposed." This cited piece of info backs up the idea that misconceptions can arise from a misunderstanding of science which means per MOS:LEADCITE and WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY they don't need a seprate citation.
- Here are some more examples of cited statements that back up the lede:
- "The erroneous idea that women have one more rib than men may stem from the biblical creation story of Adam and Eve."
- "Tzaraath, a Biblical disease that disfigures the skin is often identified as leprosy, and may be the source of many myths about the disease"
- "Quarantine has never been a standard procedure for those with severe combined immunodeficiency, despite the condition's popular nickname ("bubble boy syndrome") and its portrayal in films."
- "The belief that it does may have originated from World War II British disinformation meant to explain the Royal Air Force's improved success in night battles, which was actually due to radar and the use of red lights on instrument panels".
- I could go on and find more examples however I don't think that is a productive use of my time. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thankyou. I think the arising from misunderstandings of science claim is well sourced. The reason I noted it was contentious is because there has historically been a consensus on the page to exclude entries that fall under "lie-to-children" that are commonly believed. I am not sure how the rest of your examples cite the lede; the only generalities I could draw could be propaganda is a source? And media consumers being too credulous to artistic licence? I'm also not sure what you make of my criticisms per WP:BLUE; i.e. that they don't arise from general wisdom, rather, if general wisdom is incorrect it is by its nature a common misconception, there is no causality. AKA; if a source is saying despite the general wisdom that..., it is not saying that the general wisdom is creating a common misconception, it is saying it is a common misconception. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- My point wasn't exactly to give examples for each cause the lede gives but more so to show that many of the entries give info on where the misconceptions arose. As for your criticisms regarding WP:BLUE I don't fully understand what you're getting at as my brain is a bit foggy at the moment due to working today. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's okay haha. The WP:BLUE thing is just that if general wisdom is false (a common false belief), then it does not cause a common misconception (a common false belief) to come about, as it already was one. Same goes for other items in the lede. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- My point wasn't exactly to give examples for each cause the lede gives but more so to show that many of the entries give info on where the misconceptions arose. As for your criticisms regarding WP:BLUE I don't fully understand what you're getting at as my brain is a bit foggy at the moment due to working today. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thankyou. I think the arising from misunderstandings of science claim is well sourced. The reason I noted it was contentious is because there has historically been a consensus on the page to exclude entries that fall under "lie-to-children" that are commonly believed. I am not sure how the rest of your examples cite the lede; the only generalities I could draw could be propaganda is a source? And media consumers being too credulous to artistic licence? I'm also not sure what you make of my criticisms per WP:BLUE; i.e. that they don't arise from general wisdom, rather, if general wisdom is incorrect it is by its nature a common misconception, there is no causality. AKA; if a source is saying despite the general wisdom that..., it is not saying that the general wisdom is creating a common misconception, it is saying it is a common misconception. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with User CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath's diagnosis of WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY. Joe (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Break for revert
Hi Joe, you reverted my edit again, citing WP:BLUE and claiming that there are a "significant number of RS in the body" justifying it.
From the lede of WP:BLUE: "Since all material that is either challenged or likely to be challenged must be cited, if someone else is already challenging material as false or misleading, then it needs an inline citation." The material has been challenged, at length (see above). It needs an inline citation. This should be easy, since you say there is a "significant number of RS" which support the text. I have only seen you cite one source, and it was unrelated to the text in the lede. I understand there is a "longstanding consensus", but per WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- User Rollinginhisgrave, we are already overflowing with inline citations to source the lede. That most or all of the lede is also WP:BLUE is just the icing on the cake. Please, again, see MOS:LEADCITE. The fact that the citations appear only in the body, and not in the lede itself, is not relevant. The lede is already more than adequately cited, and that is not just my opinion, but the opinion of other editors as well. There is, indeed, a longstanding consensus to this effect. Joe (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please list the sources you think "more than adequately" cite the lede content, per WP:BURDEN, or the text will be removed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- User Rollinginhisgrave, sources are already provided in the body of the text. If you go through a few of them, not even very many, you will quickly find ample verification for the lede. If you do not think that the currently available sources are sufficient to demonstrate the lede, then that is your opinion and you're welcome to it, but if so, your opinion will not match the current consensus on the lede's applicability to this page.
- I'd be curious to know the thoughts of other editors, as I'm afraid this important discussion about whether or not we should keep the lede might have ended up languishing behind a bunch of others. Who knows, perhaps my impression of the near-universal acceptance of the current lede is wrong. Might I ask for your thoughts, @Mr swordfish:, @CodeTalker:, @Sundayclose:, @Benjaminikuta:? (unsigned comment by Joe)
- Can you please just link any of these sources you believe demonstrate the lede? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I thought we were done with this. It's just Sea lioning at this point. Unless some other editor weighs in, there's no need to continue this discussion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Brought issue to talk of some Wikiprojects to seek further comment. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here are some sources:
- https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/misconception has the most general and important point, namely that a misconception is wrong.
- The chapter "Students’ Misconceptions and Science Education" in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology, Oxford University Press (ISBN 9780190874766) covers part of this content, including some of the history of the development of the concept of a misconception (as distinct, e.g., from a simple error).
- The Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication (ISBN 9780190498986) has a section, "Effective Refutation of Misinformation", that addresses an educational approach that directly addresses misconceptions. (This might be equally or more directly useful in Scientific misconceptions.)
- I don't personally think the complained-about paragraph requires any inline citations, but I believe we can now proceed past the "is it possible to find sources for any of this?" stage of this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- None of this addresses the material that I contested. I was responding to a claim that this was all already in the article and it was merely summarizing it; not that these sources don't exist. For some of them I don't believe they exist. These sources are also not discussing common misconceptions generally, they are discussing common science misconceptions, particularly among students. They can't be generalized to a discussion of common misconceptions at large, as is this article's subject matter. This isn't me being nitpicky, these sources you list are pretty explicitly talking narrowly about science, rather than whether it's a misconception that red licorice is actually licorice, as the disputes on the talk page go. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Have you read the sources? I believe you will find that the first discusses purely the general case, as befits a dictionary. The second source is not as specific to science as one might guess from the title.
- For the pedantic point over whether misconceptions truly "arise from", e.g., misunderstandings of science, you could just copyedit the sentence to use wording that you believe to be more accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I read the sources. The general sources do not describe where they arise from. This is the definition in the second one for misconception: "The term “misconceptions” is commonly used to refer to people’s ideas that are different from those accepted by science." If the only RS describing where common misconceptions generally come from are talking about science misconceptions, then we run into problems of WP:DUE in presenting the info.
- The pedantic case of where they truly come from is the entirety of what is being contested. It's also 75% of the content being discussed. An editor has just made up their interpretation from sources. I have tried to critique it to be more accurate, but multiple editors above have assured me that the current text is WP:BLUE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- What did you learn about Piaget's idea of the misconception in that source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- How he conceptualizes misconceptions emerging? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- And specifically that he does not limit this mental process to science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- How he conceptualizes misconceptions emerging? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- What did you learn about Piaget's idea of the misconception in that source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- None of this addresses the material that I contested. I was responding to a claim that this was all already in the article and it was merely summarizing it; not that these sources don't exist. For some of them I don't believe they exist. These sources are also not discussing common misconceptions generally, they are discussing common science misconceptions, particularly among students. They can't be generalized to a discussion of common misconceptions at large, as is this article's subject matter. This isn't me being nitpicky, these sources you list are pretty explicitly talking narrowly about science, rather than whether it's a misconception that red licorice is actually licorice, as the disputes on the talk page go. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please list the sources you think "more than adequately" cite the lede content, per WP:BURDEN, or the text will be removed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- User Rollinginhisgrave, please see also WP:NOTOR, particularly the section on "Not present in the cited source, but is present in other sources", most specifically:
- By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
- You cannot declare something to be original research merely because the current version of the article does not name a reliable source for that material. Content is only original research when no source in the entire world could be cited to support that material. If you are reasonably certain that any reliable source (anywhere in the world, in any language) says the same thing, then this is not original research.
- This is yet another reason why all editors (besides yourself) seem to find the current lede so uncontentious. While I do make the argument that the current lede is well-sourced by RS that can currently be found in the body of the text, even if that were not so, it would be hard to imagine that such a basic concept as 'a common misconception' had no definition or conceptualization anywhere in the world. On a semi-related note, this is another reason why the whole page, not just the lede, is WP:NOTOR. Joe (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Emphasize source article
As the inclusion criteria and the above discussions make clear, the "main subject article" for each misconception item has an important role, giving fuller information and sources. Most articles have more than one link, and the first one is usually to the main subject article, but not always. Even when the article is clear, where the misconception is covered in the article isn't necessarily clear. For these reasons, I propose that:
- The main subject article link be put in bold. This is similar to the way we bold the title of the article in its lead. Currently, we do not use bold in the body text at all.
- Section links should be used as much as possible.
Text fragment links should be used as well, to highlight the relevant text. Text fragment links can be created in Chrome by selecting a region of text and right-clicking "Copy text fragment link".
For example, instead of
- Seeds are not the spiciest part of chili peppers. In fact, seeds contain a low amount of capsaicin, ...
we'd have
- Seeds are not the spiciest part of chili peppers. In fact, seeds contain a low amount of capsaicin, ...
or even better (with text fragment link):
Seeds are not the spiciest part of chili peppers. In fact, seeds contain a low amount of capsaicin, ...
Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, I tested text fragment links combined with section links, and they seemed to work before. Now they don't work, so I've struck that material out above. --Macrakis (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- My first impression was "hmm, this sounds like a good idea" but then I looked through some of the entries and, while I think it would work for some of them, it might not work for others. In cases where the main thrust of the misconception and the link to the subject article overlap in the same bit of text, this works great. The problem is, the main thrust of the misconception is not always located in the same portion of the entry as the link to the subject page, and as a result the bolded text ends up seeming a little bit 'off.' I'm not sure, maybe we could reword entries like that to make it work? It's not a bad idea in theory, but I'm not crazy about it. Also, it would be quite an undertaking, editing-wise.
- I feel bad responding to a nice idea with "nyuh." It's good to be thinking about things like this! Joe (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the article is better the way it is now, without any of the links being bold links. I too think that for many entries there's not really one linked article that debunks the misconception. Additionally, this seems to go against Manual of Style guidelines for when to use bold type. So, let's not do this please. But I appreciate the "outside the box" suggestion for improving the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)