Curious Violet
Welcome!
Hello, Curious Violet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
bibliomaniac15 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Misconceptions edit
Which you quashed for: "Not sourced that this is a COMMON misconception" I would submit that the 2nd and 3rd sources both establish that it is a common misconception, in that the first is a FDA doc for general distribution and establishes widespread belief and the second cites widespread controversy. I'll add a third ref to a journal article which concludes in the abstract "These results do not support the often-heard assertion that plastic cutting boards are more sanitary than wood" again documenting how common it is, and resubmit. Please review and approve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious Violet (talk • contribs) 23:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, the source you cited after "common" does not refer to it as common. Being in an FDA publication doesn't mean lots of people know about it or that it's "widespread belief". I'm fairly well read, and I've never heard of it. Other sources explain why wood is better, but don't identify it as a common misconception. "Often-heard" is not equivalent to "common". I've often heard that if a frog pees on you, it will cause warts. But I've never met anyone who actually believes it. Cresix (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, "often heard" is certainly a workable definition of "common". I do not accept your position - this is better documented, referenced, and is a clearer case of a common misconception than many others in the article. Finding a reference which explicitly states "this is a common misconception" in exactly those words is too high a hurdle; a scientific paper which explicitly states it is a "often heard assertion" has to be acceptable. Plus the last reference cites a widespread controversy. Be reasonable, review, and undo please. Please note re your comment "But I've never met anyone who actually believes it." your personal experience is not applicable to your edits or mine, verifiable published content is all that matters. Curious Violet (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Often heard" clearly is not equivalent to "common misconception". It is "often heard" that if a frog pees on you it causes warts; that does not mean that most people who have "heard" this concept actually believe it. If we added every erroneous idea that is "often heard" (but not necessarily believed) to the article, the length of the article would increase by a factor of hundreds; there simply aren't that many common misconceptions. Nor does controversy mean a "common misconception". And you're right that my personal experience is not applicable, but neither is your personal experience. I am not being unreasonable at all. I do recognize we have different opinions on this matter, so the other option for you to add the item is to obtain consensus on the talk page that it is a common misconception. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, "often heard" is certainly a workable definition of "common". I do not accept your position - this is better documented, referenced, and is a clearer case of a common misconception than many others in the article. Finding a reference which explicitly states "this is a common misconception" in exactly those words is too high a hurdle; a scientific paper which explicitly states it is a "often heard assertion" has to be acceptable. Plus the last reference cites a widespread controversy. Be reasonable, review, and undo please. Please note re your comment "But I've never met anyone who actually believes it." your personal experience is not applicable to your edits or mine, verifiable published content is all that matters. Curious Violet (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)