Talk:List of common misconceptions: Difference between revisions
→Tripitaka Koreana: new section |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} |
|||
<!-- PLEASE START YOUR NEW SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE --> |
|||
{{ |
{{Talk header|search=yes|disclaimer=no|bottom=yes}} |
||
{{Notice|image=Text-x-generic with pencil.svg |header=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. |
|||
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|||
|- |
|||
|<big><b>Please read before proposing new entries</b></big> |
|||
A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list does not exist, but any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following: |
|||
*The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own. |
|||
*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 common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. |
|||
*The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete. |
|||
If you propose an entry that does ''not'' fulfill these criteria but you still think should be included, please include your rationale for inclusion. |
|||
|} |
|||
{{ArticleHistory |
|||
| action1 = AFD |
|||
| action1date = 2006-10-29 |
|||
| action1link = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misconceptions |
|||
| action1result = no consensus |
|||
| action1oldid = 84390149 |
|||
Any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following: |
|||
| action2 = AFD |
|||
| action2date = 2009-03-24 |
|||
| action2link = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination) |
|||
| action2result = keep |
|||
| action2oldid = 279365308 |
|||
| topic = history |
|||
#The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own. |
|||
|action3=AFD|action3date=2011-01-31|action3link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination)|action3result=no consensus|action2oldid=411127760 |
|||
#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 common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. |
|||
#The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete. |
|||
If you have an item to add that does ''not'' fulfill these criteria but you still think should be included, please suggest it on the [[Talk:List of common misconceptions|talk page]] with your rationale for inclusion. |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{high traffic|date=4 January 2011|site=xkcd|url=http://www.xkcd.com/843/|small=}} |
|||
{{high traffic|date=12 January 2011|site=Boing Boing|url=http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/11/wikipedias-list-of-c.html}} |
|||
{{high traffic|date=3 February 2011|site=i am bored|url=http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=56483}} |
|||
{{auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=5 |units=days }} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|||
|counter = 14 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
|algo = old(21d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
|target=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive index |
|||
|mask=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive <#> |
|||
|leading_zeros=0 |
|||
|indexhere=yes}} |
|||
{{American English}} |
|||
<!-- PLEASE START YOUR NEW SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE --> |
|||
{{Section sizes}} |
|||
== Blue ice == |
|||
{{Article history|action1=AFD |
|||
|action1date=18:42, 29 October 2006 |
|||
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misconceptions |
|||
|action1result=no consensus |
|||
|action1oldid=84390149 |
|||
|action2=AFD |
|||
incorrect, there is one model of european aircraft that does flush waste directly out of the plane, but only when crossing sea. I suggest it be changed to reflect that. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.67.248.117|173.67.248.117]] ([[User talk:173.67.248.117|talk]]) 18:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
|action2date=9:29, 24 March 2009 |
|||
|action2link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination) |
|||
|action2result=keep |
|||
|action2oldid=279300637 |
|||
|action3=AFD |
|||
: {{fact}} [[User:DagErlingSmørgrav|DES]] ([[User talk:DagErlingSmørgrav|talk]]) 09:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|action3date=11:11, 8 February 2011 |
|||
|action3link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination) |
|||
|action3result=no consensus |
|||
|action3oldid=412627218 |
|||
|action4=FLC |
|||
== "Common misconceptions" in evolution == |
|||
|action4date=17:11, 25 April 2011 |
|||
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of common misconceptions/archive1 |
|||
|action4result=not promoted |
|||
|action4oldid=425807313 |
|||
|action5=AFD |
|||
I contest almost everything what is described as "common misconceptions" in evolution. Most of these are definitely not common misconceptions but rather religious-like beliefs by certain groups in the U.S. only. [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh|talk]]) 08:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|action5date=22:10, 26 September 2018 |
|||
:This is an inherent problem with this article, and more items should probably specify among what population they are common misconceptions. For the (mind-numbingly astounding) misconception about humans and dinosaurs, this could maybe be fixed by removing the first sentence and rephrasing the item as follows: |
|||
|action5link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination) |
|||
::According to the California Academy of Sciences, around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe humans and dinosaurs co-existed.[103] The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago. |
|||
|action5result=keep |
|||
:In this form, no claim is made about adults outside the US. |
|||
|action5oldid=861373608 |
|||
:Since there is such a lot of focus on the evolution-creationism "debate", surveys might exist on other of the items too, and they may be rephrased to give information about who these misinformed individuals actually are. Unless a source can be found that establishes that it is a "common misconception" that evolution is "just a theory" for example, it should be removed. This demand for sourcing obviously applies to all items on this list, and I anticipate that several items will be changed and/or removed as sources are sought and/or found. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 11:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::The second sentence of your suggested re-write also needs to be sourced to a source talking about it being a misconception, otherwise the content is in violation of [[WP:SYN]]. [[Special:Contributions/Active_Banana|''Active'']] [[User:Active Banana|<font color="orange">'''Banana</font>''']] [[User talk:Active Banana|<font color="orange">(<sup>''bananaphone''</sup></font>]] |
|||
:::Is it really? I thought SYN is if you state a conclusion that's not stated in either source. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 15:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think this depends on how we can understand 41% of americans. If we allow that "41% of americans believe..." is equivalent with the statement that "it is a common misconception among Americans that..", then the second sentence can be seen as "flavour", or "additional information" which I don't see can be a problem. However, we are running back into the "percentages-to-common" conversion problem. What if the source said 27%, 13% or 2%? I guess that what Active Banana claims is [[WP:SYN]] is that we have a source that says 41% of americans believe X", and another source that says "X is wrong", but we don't have anything that says that "X is a common misconception". It is the (correct) conclusion we deduce based on the two pieces of information. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 21:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
The main problem with this part is that one source is cited, and it relies on one group of people's beliefs. One could easily say that "41% of Americans CORRECTLY believe..." One cannot call something a misconception if there is no proof for either side. |
|||
:By that standard we could not include anything on the list. There are misinformed people who believe anything, for example that the earth is flat. Presented by any kind of evidence, it is very easy for these kinds of people to claim "that is just one side of the argument", as if these things were a matter of opinion. We must go with what is the main stream view of the matter and keep out fringe beliefs and hokum. Otherwise we might as well include the common misconceptions that earth has not been visited by calypso dancing cyber gnomes from outer space or that gravity is nothing more "than a theory". [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 07:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|action6=AFD |
|||
== Obama == |
|||
|action6date=22 December 2023 |
|||
|action6link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (5th nomination) |
|||
|action6result=keep |
|||
|action6oldid=1191265677 |
|||
|topic = history |
|||
I concur with this edit.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&curid=321956&diff=413193627&oldid=413128828] This item was added during the crazy period when 3 high traffic web sites in a row mentioned this article. Now that things have slowed down, I think we might need to take a critical look at some of the items that were added. In my opinion, this item is more a conspiracy theory than a misconception. It's appropriate for [[List of conspiracy theories]] article (where I'm pretty sure, it's already mentioned). [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 22:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|currentstatus=FFLC |
|||
*I added it, and the sources call it a misconception that more than 60 million people have. I also recently saw an article about this that said the belief wasn't just among tea party type people who "choose" to believe the misconception, but a good portion who believed it were democrats or African Americans, proving it is an actual misconception, not just a group of people who choose to ignore the truth. I'll have to see if I can find that again, but either way it is properly sourced as-is. I wouldn't be opposed to include additional information such as that some believe this misconception is propagated by his political opponents, should a reliable source be found that says that, but as long as it's sourced I don't think we can pick and choose and say "well, yeah, it's a common misconception, but..." Unless you're saying it isn't actually a common misconception. And it's sourced specifically as a misconception which 20-24% of Americans have (20% would be more than 60 million people) so if you aren't considering that "common" then we are going to have to have a discussion about what constitutes "common". And if you are arguing that it isn't a misconception, we have reliable sources that say it is, so you are going to have to provide equally reliable sources that dispute that. And, even if you did find that, I would still consider that worthy of a mention on this page that some sources consider it a misconception while others dispute it is a misconception. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] ([[User talk:VegaDark|talk]]) 06:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
::If "20% of americans believe..." is the same as "it is a common misconception that.." then I guess it is also true that "41% of americans believe.." also means the same? (look at the point about evolution above). Where do we draw the line here? Conversely, if we remove the Obama item, then we should also remove the dinosaur-item? |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=List|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Lists|class=List |importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject History|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Literature|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Sports}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Technology}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Popular Culture|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=High}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Press |
|||
|author= |
|||
|title=The end of Wikipedia as we know it? |
|||
|org=''[[Irish Times]]'' (subscription required) |
|||
|url=http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2011/0810/1224302179868.html |
|||
|date=8 August 2011 |
|||
|quote=Here's our Wikipedia Articles Worth Reading ''(first listed)'' |
|||
|archiveurl= |
|||
|archivedate= |
|||
|accessdate = February 21, 2013 |
|||
|author2=Toby Manhire |
|||
::What bothers me about this is that we will end up removing what in many ways are the most verified items: the items that actually rely on a survey and thus makes the "commonness" nice and quantified. Whereas if something is described using the ambiguous term "common misconception" with no further sources or elaborations, then we can include it as reliably sourced. I'm sure there are items on the list that are held by fewer people than 41% of Americans for example. I understand that we can't easily define a percentage limit for "common", but this nonetheless bothers me.[[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 06:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|title2=Common misconceptions: 10 of the best |
|||
|org2=''[[New Zealand Listener]]'' |
|||
|url2= http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/common-misconceptions-10-of-the-best/ |
|||
|date2= February 14, 2013 |
|||
|quote2=... one of its best pages ... |
|||
|archiveurl2=http://www.webcitation.org/6EbkZJJwp |
|||
|archivedate2=February 21, 2013 |
|||
|accessdate2= February 21, 2013 |
|||
|author3 = Alexis Kleinman, Maxwell Strachan |
|||
:::I'm sorry, but this matter is heading towards one where we could say that it's a common belief among non-Americans that Americans are stupid. If official Americans sources publicly say he is not a Muslim, yet Americans still "believe" he is, it's hard to come to any other conclusion, unless it IS politically driven, then it's not a misconception, is it? It's dogma. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 07:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|title3 = The 49 Most Entertaining Wikipedia Entries Ever Created |
|||
::::I think it's a matter of many Americans in question not paying attention to/not being aware of the public sources stating he is not Muslim, not so much distrusting the sources and choosing to believe he is a secret Muslim. At least I hope that's the case for the sake of the country. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] ([[User talk:VegaDark|talk]]) 07:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|org3 = ''[[The Huffington Post]]'' |
|||
|url3 = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/strangest-wikipedia-entries_n_6463488.html |
|||
|date3 = January 14, 2015 |
|||
|accessdate3 = March 8, 2015 |
|||
|author4 = Nick Douglas |
|||
:::::I think this highlights the difficulty of properly classifying content of a political or religious nature. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 08:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|title4 = Get Smart With Wikipedia's List of Common Misconceptions |
|||
|org4 = [[LifeHacker]] |
|||
|url4 = http://lifehacker.com/get-smart-with-wikipedia-s-list-of-common-misconception-1797840410 |
|||
|date4 = August 15, 2017 |
|||
|accessdate4 = September 10, 2017 |
|||
|url5=https://www.buzzfeed.com/eleanorbate/wiki-pages-to-keep-you-awake-add-yours |
|||
:How about adding that to [[List of conspiracy theories#US Presidency]] instead (with a "''Main article: [[Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories]]''" line similar to the "''Main article: [[Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories]]''" line that's there now), and then adding [[List of conspiracy theories]] to the See also section of this article. Would that be a good compromise? [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 17:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|title5=What Totally Fascinating Wikipedia Pages Have Kept You Reading All Night? |
|||
|org5=[[BuzzFeed]] |
|||
|author5=Ellie Bate |
|||
|date5=November 22, 2017 |
|||
|url6=https://mashable.com/article/best-wikipedia-rabbit-holes |
|||
::I'm fine with adding it [[List of conspiracy theories]]. I don't think a link in our See Also section is necessary. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|title6=10 Wikipedia rabbit holes to fall down instead of doomscrolling |
|||
|org6=[[Mashable]] |
|||
|author6=Cecily Mauran |
|||
|date6=February 5, 2022 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{To do}} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
|target=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive index |
|||
|mask=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive <#> |
|||
|leading_zeros=0 |
|||
|indexhere=yes}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
|counter = 34 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
|algo = old(30d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
|small= |
|||
}} |
|||
{{high traffic |
|||
|date=4 January 2011 |site=xkcd |url=http://www.xkcd.com/843/ |
|||
|date2=12 January 2011 |site2=Boing Boing |url2=http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/11/wikipedias-list-of-c.html |
|||
|date3=3 February 2011 |site3=i am bored |url3=https://web.archive.org/web/20150909223542/http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=56483 |
|||
|small= |
|||
}} |
|||
{{annual readership|scale=log}} |
|||
{{Xreadership}} |
|||
<br /> |
|||
:::It's been added back.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&curid=321956&diff=413519416&oldid=413466502] I don't think there was an consensus to add this. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 18:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
__TOC__ |
|||
::::On the contrary, I don't think there was a consensus to remove it. See the discussion below where multiple users are making an argument for its inclusion. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] ([[User talk:VegaDark|talk]]) 18:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- PLEASE START YOUR NEW SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE --> |
|||
== RFC on number of pages to split to == |
|||
::::There is clearly still a discussion underway, here and at the bottom of the page. Not a friendly move just sticking it back in. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 18:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{Closed rfc top|result=There is a rough consensus for '''three lists'''. <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 14:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
We have already [[Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#Split_proposal|established a consensus to split]] this [[Special:LongPages|very long]] list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Here are three options: |
|||
:::::VegaDark: The way [[WP:BRD]] is supposed to work is that you can boldly add the item, but if it's been reverted, then we proceed to discuss the change. Only after consensus has been reached should the item be restored. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 18:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
::::::As stated above, "This item was added during the crazy period when 3 high traffic web sites in a row mentioned this article" - It's basically been in there since then (over a month?). I think this isn't the case of me adding something and someone quickly reverting it, and me adding it back, it's the case of something that's been in the article for a while and someone out of the blue removes it after no clear consensus to do so. Additionally, before I originally added it I mentioned it first on the talk page and there was no opposition to it. Thus, I think the "status quo" is to keep it in the article until consensus deems otherwise, not to remove an item that's been in there probably more than a month now and only re-add it once consensus deems it is appropriate. I'm mostly concerned that everyone who seems to want to remove this wants to based on it essentially being a "manufactured" or "willful" misconception where nobody arguing this has actually provided a reliable source stating that. Right now the ''only'' reliable sources that have been presented say it is a misconception that 20-24% of Americans have. As of now any and all assertions that it is manufactured by Obama's political opponents or a willful misconception is conjecture and original research at best. I think it's a huge double standard to require items to be reliable sourced to add, but based on a whim of someone asserting something without sources backing them up gets to remove an item. Also, ''even if'' we get a reliable source stating that this 100% ''is'' a manufactured or willful misconception, that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be included in the article. There's no consensus that such misconceptions do or do not belong either way, and there's an ongoing discussion below. I don't think simply reverting (I'll note at this time that this was an inappropriate use of the "revert" function, as well, as that should only be used for vandalism and not good faith edits) my edit was very productive. I won't re-add it again until consensus decides one way or another, but I will say I think it is inappropriate to remove it at this time before consensus decides one way or another. [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] ([[User talk:VegaDark|talk]]) 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|+Options for simple splits |
|||
:::::::You're missing the point that the reason why it wasn't quickly reverted was because of all the contant changes and edit requests. In any case, I'll bet it was reverted out. Probably more than once. I'll look it up when I have more free time. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 19:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
!Two lists |
|||
::::::::I think the item needs to stay. Its a common misconception in the US that fits into the article well. I don't see what the difference is between including a misconception among 41% of males from California, and 21% of Americans. The list is incomplete, we know that: I don't see the need to make "only the most common misconceptions!" part of the article; how do you quantify that? --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 14:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
!Three lists |
|||
I have an editing question. Is it necessary to have "who prays every day", (though it is mentioned in the article)? Isn't that part of being devout? As a devout Christian myself, Lord only knows I pray all the time... I know it is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of Wiki-life, but it caught my eye. Thanks! P.S. I'm sorry but I don't know how to sign wiki pages... [[Special:Contributions/24.177.203.132|24.177.203.132]] ([[User talk:24.177.203.132|talk]]) 05:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
!Four lists |
|||
:It's what the White House spokesman was quoted as saying in the source. Are you telling us that someone who doesn't pray every day isn't a Christian? (You sign posts here by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your post.) [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 05:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|- |
|||
::Sorry if I implied that, not at all what I intended. But if he is devout than he prays, right? But, if it is there because of the article, no worries, I understand! Cheers! [[Special:Contributions/24.177.203.132|24.177.203.132]] ([[User talk:24.177.203.132|talk]]) 05:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
| |
|||
* [[List of common misconceptions about arts, culture, and history]] |
|||
== Proof that 0.9r = 1 == |
|||
* [[List of common misconceptions about science, technology, and mathematics]] |
|||
| |
|||
It might be a good idea to add a simple proof that 0.9 recurring equals one, rather than simply stating it as fact. A simple proof is that: |
|||
* [[List of common misconceptions about arts and culture]] |
|||
* [[List of common misconceptions about history]] |
|||
10*0.99999... = 9.999999...<br/> |
|||
* [[List of common misconceptions about science, technology, and mathematics]] |
|||
9.99999... - 0.999999... = 9<br/> |
|||
| |
|||
Therefore 9*0.99999... = 9<br/> |
|||
* [[List of common misconceptions about arts and culture]] |
|||
9/9 = 1<br/> |
|||
* [[List of common misconceptions about history]] |
|||
So 0.99999... = 1 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2.126.186.107|2.126.186.107]] ([[User talk:2.126.186.107|talk]]) 23:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
* [[List of common misconceptions about science, technology, and mathematics]] |
|||
:I don't think that's necessary. It's properly sourced. This is not a math article. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 01:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* [[List of common misconceptions about health]] |
|||
::Agreed, there is a link to the article, that is sufficient. I don't think any individual item should be any longer than this one already is. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 07:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
:::Thirded. If the reader is curious to learn more, there's a "main article" link they can follow. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 07:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
<small>Note to people who wish the page wasn't being split: There is an effort (explained [[Talk:List of common misconceptions#c-S Marshall-20241013082400-Rollinginhisgrave-20241013073000|above]]) to create a single page view for readers. Splitting the current list is a necessary prerequisite for accomplishing that goal. Even if you opposed the decision to split this page, you are still invited to express a preference about how the pieces will be arranged. We can make no progress towards the goal of reassembling the pieces into a single view until we agree on what the pieces will be.</small> |
|||
I have a different concern about this item. I'm not sure it can be called a common misconception when most of the people who allegedly have the misconception have never actually thought about it before the question is posed in some study of mathematical understanding. If you ask people to guess about something that they've never heard of before, and they guess wrong, that doesn't mean that they had a misconception before you force them to guess.[[User:Ccrrccrr|Ccrrccrr]] ([[User talk:Ccrrccrr|talk]]) 14:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I think this is an important point. Can we hold misconceptions based on a lack of information or must it be based on a presence of misinformation? [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 11:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::For that item, we have sources that directly say it's a common misconception. That's all that matters. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 12:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::: I disagree with two different aspects of that argument. Firstly, I don't think we have airtight evidence from the sources that it is a common misconception. "Many people find it hard to accept this simple fact" is not the same as "many people think it is false". it is true that we have a source that uses the term "common misconception", but I'm not sure that the author of that statement had a solid basis for making it. And what it seems we have the most solid information on is a study showing that people often get this wrong when posed the question. That means that they didn't figure it out correctly, not that they were walking around thinking incorrect things about it before they were asked. |
|||
::: The second aspect I disagree with is the "that's all that matters" statement. There's all kinds of nonsense that can be found in lots of sources. As editors, we need to be critical readers of sources. |
|||
:::[[User:Ccrrccrr|Ccrrccrr]] ([[User talk:Ccrrccrr|talk]]) 02:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::We will rarely (perhaps never) have "airtight evidence" that any misconception is common. I think editors are on thin ice if they try to determine whether an otherwise reliable source "has a solid basis" for stating that a misconception is common. If we have to debate for every reliable source how much of it is "solid basis" and how much is "all kinds of nonsense", the debate will be endless and nothing will ever be added to the article. Wikipedia has guidelines for what is considered a reliable source; usually that works fairly well. If by "critical reader" of sources you mean does the source fit Wikipedia's standards for reliabiliy, and do the statements in the article accurately reflect what's in the source, I agree with you. But if by "critical reader" of source you mean which parts of a reliable source is "nonsense", I think that usually will be an unworkable endeavor. If a source is reliable, the usual procedure for challenging information contained in the source is to find another reliable source that contradicts it. So rather than us debating whether the information in the source has a "solid basis" or is "nonsense", the task for anyone wishing to dispute the source is to find another reliable source that disputes it. I orginally opposed inclusion of this item, but with a reliable source clearly stating that it is a common misconception, I must find contraditory evidence in order to challenge it. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 02:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Cross-checking sources often solves such problems. I don't think its ours to judge, on our own, what part of a source 'has solid basis', but it is important to make sure the source has their facts straight. If two or more sources came to the same conclusion independently or by using the best available information, that is when you can rest easy. There's no harm in finding secondary sources if individuals have concern. Of course, its no one's obligation to find more than one credible source. Perhaps that should change in order to improve Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 08:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::My issue was not with the credibility of the sources. My issue was that the hypothesis the sources support is "if you ask people to figure out this question, they come to the wrong conclusion." To me that is irrelevant to what I think is the criterion for inclusion here which is whether people are already going around thinking something that is false about this. That's a subtle point, and perhaps it appears that I am playing games to avoid playing by the rules here. But I would point out there's nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that says that a given fact has to be included in an article just because there is a reliable source for it. [[User:Ccrrccrr|Ccrrccrr]] ([[User talk:Ccrrccrr|talk]]) 22:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Hair regrowth. == |
|||
I dont think the source for the hair regrowth item is a scientific or otherwise researched source. It is almost a counter "myth" that shaved hair does not grow back thicker....Is there any source which shows measured results. I have seen a person who had surgery on one leg, and 9 months later the hair on that leg is definitely longer, darker, thicker. |
|||
[[User:Feebee06|Feebee06]] ([[User talk:Feebee06|talk]]) 09:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Looking at the lecture notes which was given as citation - it doesn't say that *nails* don't continue to grow after death. The citation in the Nail (Anatomy) article is more specific and should be used here as well. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.229.164.19|84.229.164.19]] ([[User talk:84.229.164.19|talk]]) 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Last paragraph in "Evolution" section == |
|||
The last paragraph in the "Evolution" section seems to be poorly worded, if not misinformed. Many theories and general explanations of evolution hold that natural selection has some unknown property in determining what features of an organism should change, rather than all changes occurring by random chance as the article suggests. That natural selection isn't entirely random is central in explaining animals that use camouflage. That section seems to be suggesting that most people's understanding of evolution is really [[Lamarckism]], yet the example given about Lamarckism here does not match examples given on that article. For example, Lamarckism seems to hold that evolution is very direct ("a blacksmith builds up muscles, his son will more easily develop muscles"), and yet the misconceptions article applies Lamarckism to the idea that natural selection is more than a description of random incremental change. |
|||
The article says " Evolution does not plan to improve organism's fitness to survive", but I'm prettye general theory of natural selection holds that an organism will strategically develop to survive in its environment. For example, it seems impossible that an insect would ever start looking exactly like a stick or leaf by completely random chance. The source given simply states given says similar to "no, there is no objective involved with natural selection", yet it doesn't say why. Just because its on the Berkley University website doesn't mean we have to include it; surely there are much better sources that explain natural selection than some Q&A. On a side note, please forgive me if this is hard to understand; my sleeping is messed up.--[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:The article does not suggest "all changes occurring by random chance". It simply dispels the myth that "evolution" has anthropomorphic characteristics such as being able to "plan" or "try" something. It's that simple. You're reading ''way too much'' into what is stated in the article. Until you can provide [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]] (and your opinions or statements here do not suffice) that evolution can "plan" or "try", the sources provided in the article are quite sufficient and reliable. The article is not a dissertation on evolution; it simply dispels one of the misconceptions. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::The central point of that paragraph is not that there is no sentient planning or trying. The paragraph clearly states that "Evolution doesn't see a need and respond to it[...] A mutation resulting in longer necks would be more likely to benefit an animal in an area with tall trees than an area with short trees, and thus enhance the chance of the animal surviving to pass on its longer-necked genes. Tall trees could not cause the mutation nor would they cause a higher percentage of animals to be born with longer necks." This text says that change does not occur in response to features of an organism's (indirect?) environment. That goes against every concept of evolution that I've heard. Perhaps the fact that such trees are indirect features of the environment makes this excusable, though. Also, you don't need sources to add a 'citation needed' tag: neither do I really need sources to question the value of one source we are using, as long as you are familiar with the subject. If the information were presented in more than one source I would find its inclusion acceptable. |
|||
::Also, I find it questionable to judge theories on natural selection, a theoretical process, as "wrong". It should be made clear that an idea is not the mainstream scientific outlook, yes; but it seems dubious to go further. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 05:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::My understanding is that "Change does not occur in response to features of an organism's (indirect?) environment" is correct when taken to mean change at the individual level, which is exactly what "Tall trees could not cause the mutation nor would they cause a higher percentage of animals to be born with longer necks" means. The same number of animals are born with long necks as if there were no tall trees around, but the fact that there are tall trees around mean that a higher proportion of long-necked animals will survive. Thus when talking about change on a population level it makes sense to talk about changes in response to environment, but it is important to understand that the mutations are not a response to the environment. |
|||
:::I agree that on principle it must be allowed to question a source without having a secondary source. |
|||
:::[[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 10:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't entirely disagree that a secondary source would improve the item; I just don't see a problem with the current sources. Let me suggest, rather than arguing about what is ''intended'' in the item, perhaps IronMaidenRocks (or anyone) could suggest a rewording of the item ''with source(s)'' to support it. Without a source to back up a challenge to the item, I don't think we can proceed. If you take each sentence in the item individually, on face value there is no mistaken information. The problem arises when we try to infer what is meant beyond the literal statements. That's why I think a rewrite would be helpful. BTW, I don't think the item is judging natural selection as "wrong"; it's just shedding some light on a misconception about evolution. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I don't mean to go too deep into theories on giraffe evolution, but if the paragraph's interpretation of natural selection is correct it does not seem as if the species which became the giraffe would continue having their necks grow longer. Even if they did achieve a mutated, longer neck, and that helped them to survive, why would their necks continue to get longer? According to the paragraph, the figurative force of natural selection would be perfectly content with the animal's current neck length. They're already getting the food from trees which helps them survive, so why go further? It would only be by means of another random mutation which causes the proto-giraffe to receive a longer neck. Of course, it seems fallacious to assume that the giraffe's genes/whatever would be able to detect food in tall trees. Does anyone else see this conflict? --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 04:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Examining the source shows that Darwin believed it to be due to over-feeding on trees, where an animal with a longer neck would be more likely to obtain food and thus live to reproduce. But why didn't other members of the pecora infraorder develop such long necks? The way Darwin puts it, developing a longer neck would be a natural trend because it would benefit any 'browsing feeder'. And yet, giraffe is the only species which obtains the mutation. Lamarck seems to be commenting on the origin of the giraffe's long neck, whereas Darwin comments on the neck's further development after it was already a feature of the giraffe. It also seems that the same rules could not apply to the walking stick, for example; the odds of a creature looking exactly like a stick or leaf would be astronomical under such an understanding of natural selection. Well, anyway, it seems between Bab's comments and my checking the source, that my problem with the section is solved. Although, I would still recommend adding a source which accurately describes the modern concept of natural selection in detail, rather than such a "Q&A". --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 04:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It's a simple matter of cost vs. benefit. Longer necks require more energy and make it harder to run and drink. Therefore, longer necks grant a reproductive advantage over shorter necks only in environments where they make it significantly easier to obtain food. In other environments, the cheaper alternative (i.e. shorter necks) wins. [[User:DagErlingSmørgrav|DES]] ([[User talk:DagErlingSmørgrav|talk]]) 09:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Case study of superstitions versus misconceptions: Egg balancing == |
|||
Are superstitions and misconceptions the same thing? A definition may be difficult, but in my mind a misconception is a wrongly held belief that you hold because you have been misinformed by bad sources, whereas a superstition is a belief you hold even though authorative sources and/or common sense tells you differently. In other words, a misconception is held because of a lack of information but a superstition is held ''in spite of'' information to the contrary. E.g. people think that most people in Columbus' day believed the Earth was flat because they have seen that description in popular culture, and they have never read "real history books" on the subject. But people who believe you should knock on wood to ward off bad luck probably know that there is no rationale behind this belief, but in my opinion the fact that they still choose to believe as they do does not make it a misconception. Also, when you hold a misconception and you are corrected, you are generally surprised and respond with "Oh really? I can't believe they thaught us that when it was wrong" or something of the sort. Whereas getting the "correct" information about a superstitious belief would not provoke that kind of reaction at all. |
|||
Which brings me to the egg-balancing. Being neither Chinese nor a reader of 1945 Life magazine I had never heard of this before seing it in this article and my obvious reaction was "Who the smeg believes that?". I think this should sort as a superstition rather than a misconception and thus does not belong in this article. |
|||
The [http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/errata/a/equinox_eggs.htm Urban Legends link] even refers to this belief as "the quaint superstitious belief". The [http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/mar/20/you-can-balance-an-egg-on-its-end-today-and-any/ Knoxnews source] uses first "an old wives' tale that just never seems to go away" but then later calls it "misconception" and "myth". |
|||
To summarise my concerns: |
|||
1-Can we differentiate between misconceptions and superstitions in any way? |
|||
2-If yes, can it be done generally, or do we have to try each case by itself? |
|||
3-If we can differentiate between superstitions and misconceptions, should we exclude superstitions from this page? |
|||
4-Based on 1-3, Does the egg-balancing act belong on this list? |
|||
My own answers would be: 1:probably, 2:case-by-case, 3: superstitions should be excluded, 4:no. |
|||
[[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 11:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:No one have any opinion on this? Would anyone oppose the deletion of this item? [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 08:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I interpret silence as no contention, and have moved the item here: |
|||
:::*It is not easier to balance an egg on its end on the [[equinox|first day of spring]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/science/equinox.asp|title=Egg Balancing on Equinox|publisher=Snopes.com|date=|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> In fact, the ease or difficulty of balancing an egg is the same throughout the year. This myth is said to originate with the ''[[egg of Li Chun]]'', an ancient Chinese folk belief that it is easier to balance an egg on ''Li Chun'', the first day of spring in the [[Chinese calendar]]. In Chinese ''Li'' means setup/erect, ''Chun'' spring/egg. ''Setup spring'' is a Chinese [[solar term]], literally interpreted as erecting an egg for fun. It was introduced to the western world in a ''[[Life (magazine)|Life]]'' article in 1945, and popularized once again by self-titled "urban shaman" [[Donna Henes]], who has hosted an annual egg-balancing ceremony in New York City since the mid-1970s.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Carlson|first=Jen|url=http://gothamist.com/2007/10/31/donna_henes_urb.php|title=Donna Henes, Urban Shaman - Gothamist: New York City News, Food, Arts & Events|publisher=Gothamist|date=October 31, 2007|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/mar/20/you-can-balance-an-egg-on-its-end-today-and-any/|title=You can balance an egg on its end today … and any other day|publisher=[[Knoxville News Sentinel]]|work=Knoxnews.com|date=March 20, 2008|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/errata/a/equinox_eggs.htm|title=Can You Balance Eggs on End During the Spring Equinox|publisher=Urbanlegends.about.com|date=March 25, 2009| accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> |
|||
::[[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 09:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Removed bottled water not healthier than tap water == |
|||
I removed the following item: |
|||
:*Bottled water, vitamin-enriched water, and sparkling water are not healthier than tap water.<ref name=NPR>{{cite news |title=Five Myths About Drinking Water |author=Aubrey, Allison |url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89323934 |newspaper=National Public Radio |date=April 3, 2008 |accessdate=January 16, 2011}}</ref> In fact, many studies have shown that bottled water often contains mixtures of bacteria, fertilizers, and a variety of pollutants.<ref>{{cite news |title=Bottled Water Quality Investigation: 10 Major Brands, 38 Pollutants|author=Olga Naidenko, PhD, Senior Scientist; Nneka Leiba, MPH, Researcher; Renee Sharp, MS, Senior Scientist; Jane Houlihan, MSCE, Vice President for Research|url=http://www.ewg.org/reports/BottledWater/Bottled-Water-Quality-Investigation|newspaper=Environmental Working Group |date=October 2008 |accessdate=January 20, 2011}}</ref> |
|||
The sources provided did not establish that it is a common misconception that bottled water is healthier than tap water. Furthermore, whether this is a misconception or not will depend very much on the quality of the tap water in whatever locale one is considering, as well as the bottled water available for purchase in the same area. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 11:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I concur, until it's strongly sourced ''as'' a common misconception. --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 11:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree that it depends on locality. Finding a source for it being a common conception would be easy. Proving that it is a misconception might not be possible, as it depends on the quality of local and imported water supplies. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 08:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Drugs == |
|||
There should be a drugs section, there are numerous misconceptions about drugs, like LSD being horribly dangerous and so forth <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.209.13.27|84.209.13.27]] ([[User talk:84.209.13.27|talk]]) 12:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:No, not without a ''specific'' misconception that is identified by a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] as a ''common'' misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 15:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::There's bound to be reliable material that considers this topic; however, I'm sure such a search would lead to several editors linking to sources which describe marijuana as a panacea. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 07:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Mathematical Misconception that Past Events Determine Future Probabilities == |
|||
It is a popular misconception that future probabilities depend on past events. For example, many people believe that since a coin flipped landed 'heads' 5 times in a row that it is very unlikely to land heads a 6th time. When in reality the probability of it landing heads the 6th time is the same as any other flip- 0.5. This seems obvious when you think about it for just a couple seconds, yet I see people make this mistake enough that I think it should be included on this list. I don't have a source for this, but seeing as this is a well known mathematical truth, it should not be difficult to find a reliable source. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/130.225.166.194|130.225.166.194]] ([[User talk:130.225.166.194|talk]]) 11:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::It's a common phenomenon that people prefer having a hypothesis to accepting randomness. This is not always unreasonable and 6 successive 'heads' gives tentative support for a hypothesis that the tossings are not fair. Even if the 7th toss is 'tail' the person may cling with [[confirmation bias]] to their hypothesis. [[Checking whether a coin is fair]] demands more stringent tossing and math that most will accomplish, and in practice it is '''not likely''' that one will demonstrate the ideal 50:50 probability. The alleged misconception could be generalized to lack of appreciation that mathematics uses abstract models (such as what the poster calls "mathematical truth") that '''<u>never</u>''' exactly match reality [[User:Cuddlyable3|Cuddlyable3]] ([[User talk:Cuddlyable3|talk]]) 14:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::This misconception is known as the '''[[gambler's fallacy]]'''. It is indeed fairly common. Here are two sources: [http://books.google.com/books?id=KH5GAAAAYAAJ&q=%22gambler%27s+fallacy%22+%22common+misconception%22&dq=%22gambler%27s+fallacy%22+%22common+misconception%22&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5 ''Data Matters: Conceptual Statistics for a Random World''] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=ayqEGljUVr8C&pg=PA617&q=%22gambler%27s+fallacy%22+%22common+misconception%22&dq=%22gambler%27s+fallacy%22+%22common+misconception%22&hl=en&ei=puhuTazHL8iC5Abz8fH9DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&f=false ''The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science'']. --[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 01:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Geometry == |
|||
The point, line, plane, circle, and sphere that are defined as fundamental elements in [[Euclidean geometry]] are commonly supposed to exist but in reality are impossible to construct. Source: [[Synergetics (Fuller)]]. [[User:Cuddlyable3|Cuddlyable3]] ([[User talk:Cuddlyable3|talk]]) 14:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:... or at least Plato thought so. This strikes me as more of a philosophical or mathematical issue than a misconception. Fuller isn't exactly a neutral source, either. [[User:Hairhorn|Hairhorn]] ([[User talk:Hairhorn|talk]]) 14:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Removed "knives are more lethal than guns" == |
|||
I removed the following item based on a lack of sources establishing it as a common misconception and a suspicion of [[WP:SYN]]: |
|||
:*It is often asserted that [[Knife fight|knife attacks]] are more dangerous than an attack with a [[firearm]] ("knives are more lethal than guns").<ref>E.g., [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3950331.ece The Times, 17 May 2008]</ref> While [[self-defense]] instructors often make a point of emphasizing that a knife attack may very easily result in death,<ref>E.g., [http://www.bladecombat.com/knifemyths.html bladecombat.com], [http://www.alljujitsu.com/self-defense-programs.html alljujitsu.com]</ref> there is no statistical evidence that knife attacks are more likely to result in death than an attack with a handgun. A 1968 study claimed that gun attacks are five times more lethal than knife attacks. This figure has since become a controversial point of dispute in [[gun politics]]. A review of several studies published in 1983 concluded that lethality of wounds from handguns is between 1.3 and 3 times higher than lethality of wounds from knives.<ref>Lethality Effects of Guns, in ''Guns in American Society'', ed. Gregg Lee Carter , 2002, ISBN 9781576072684, p. 356-358. The 1968 study cited is F. E. Zimring, 'Is Gun Control Likely to Reduce Violent Killings?', ''University of Chicago Law Review'' 35 (1968), 721-737. Zimring's study classes as "knives" any edged or pointed weapon, resulting in a reduced death rate compared to attacks with long knives. The 1983 study cited is J. D. Wright, P. H. Rossi and K. Daly, ''Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America'', New York (1983), pp. 199-209.</ref> |
|||
The source for the first sentence is a quote by the Chairs the Criminal Bar Association (in England?) stating "knives are more lethal than guns". The second source is Bladecombat.com which lists various myths about knives and guns which basically can be summarised as "It is really dangerous to have someone come at you with a knife, and using a gun for protection may not be very helpful". I could not obtain the third source, but based on the phrasing of the item it does not seem to ascertain that it is a common misconception that knife attacks are more dangerous than gun attacks. If it does, I suggest the item is re-written to highlight this before it is being reintroduced, and that the relevant quote is placed in the reference list.[[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 09:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Satan == |
|||
Odd. There's quite a few biblical passages that refer to him being in heaven, not on earth. The Book of Job certainly implies it, but [http://www.allonlinebible.com/Luke/10.html#018 this passage] says it in black and white. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 21:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} - Removed; no evidence this is a common misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 01:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: I don't think the wording "constantly on earth" merits removing the whole paragraph; the misconception was not about him "being constantly on earth", but that he 'lords over hell'. The wording could have been changed to "it often refers to his being in heaven and on earth" or similar. Perhaps examining the given source would help? Most people believe that the Bible refers to Satan as residing in "hell". References to "abyss" and "lake of fire" (KJV and etc. render several different Greek words/phrases as "hell") deal with him being "cast into" them rather than his living there. Perhaps commentary on the common conception of Satan which stems from (?) [[The Divine Comedy]] would also be in order? There's bound to be sources for that. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 07:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Robert Fulton == |
|||
I scanned the source and can't find that it says there's a common misconception about this bloke. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 21:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} - Removed; no evidence this is a common misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 01:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Baseball == |
|||
I know there are a lot of Americans who use Wikipedia, but can the identity of baseball's founder truly be described as a common misconception? I'm sure it's a common misconception in America, possibly Japan, some parts of Canada... but in Europe? The rest of Asia? Australasia? Africa? South America? Is the problem here the usage of terminology by RS aimed at that RS's readership? There are some very obscure facts about cricket that cricket writers refer to as common misconceptions that would require significant deciphering for most Americans. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 21:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:My personal opinion is that if you can find a reliable source about a common misconception held in any country, it should be considered. Currently there is an item about a common misconception in South Korea that sleeping in a closed room with an electric fan running can be fatal. No reason any country should be excluded. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 01:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with Cresix, but I would like the items on the list to be phrased so that the source and/or the population in question becomes clear (i.e. "According to The New York Times it is a popular myth that baseball was invented by Abner Doubleday.", or "Several US media sources report it as a widely held misconception that.."). Baseball is actually such a special case that I guess everyone would assume it is a US-only myth simply by the fact that it is about baseball. Another concern I have is that when I went to the The Abner Doubleday myth on [[Origins of baseball]] it says that "The myth that Abner Doubleday invented baseball in 1839 ''was once'' widely promoted and widely believed. [emphasis added]". Does this disqualify this misconception as non-current? I would guess that plenty of sources abound, this being baseball and all, maybe some can be dug up by the US crowd? Or we could seek guidance on the Origins of baseball talk page. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 07:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== The color of the Sun == |
|||
A common misconception that people have is that the Sun is yellow. It can sometimes look yellow through the Earth's atmosphere. But if you were to go out into space, you would find that the Sun is actually white. This should be mentioned on the List of common misconceptions page. |
|||
Here is a good source that talks about the fact that the sun is white. |
|||
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/SID/activities/GreenSun.html |
|||
appple |
|||
2011 March 1 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Appple|Appple]] ([[User talk:Appple|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Appple|contribs]]) 07:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:In addition to that source showing that the sun is white, you would need a source that states that it is a common misconception that the sun is yellow. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 07:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Only if it is likely to be challenged as a common misconception. Are you challenging that it is?[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 07:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Really? I would say that the source must always be there, or else what are we doing here except [[WP:OR]]? I also thought that was how the inclusion criteria were now to be understood. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 08:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::That is itself a common misconception. Per [[WP:Verifiability]]: |
|||
:::::But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material '''challenged or likely to be challenged''' be attributed to a reliable, published source... |
|||
::::It seems to me that the contention that this is a common misconception is reasonable. I myself thought the sun was yellow, and I know that most do. If you feel that it is not then that is fine also, but I'm not sure if you do or don't believe this is a common misconception.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 16:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree with Dr. bab that there needs to be source that the misconception is common, per consensus regarding the guidelines for this article. And one editor's opinion that a misconception is common is not sufficient. If necessary, I am challenging whether the misconception is common that the sun is yellow. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 18:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I guess that for this article at the present time, all new items are "likely to be challenged" and thus one is required to source it. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 20:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Kk. [[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 22:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Here is a source stating that the sun being yellow is a misconception. |
|||
http://www.misconceptionjunction.com/index.php/2010/09/10-common-misconceptions-dispelled/ |
|||
The first option is "Two", and the second option is "Three", which could get confusing for the closer ("He said two, but did he mean two lists or the second option, which is three lists?"), so please spell out your vote in this format: |
|||
appple |
|||
2011 March 2 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Appple|Appple]] ([[User talk:Appple|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Appple|contribs]]) 08:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
* '''Two lists''' |
|||
:You really have found an interesting source there. If that is accepted as a reliable source, it would seem logical to list every misconception from that site in this article. Do we really want to go that way? [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 10:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Three lists''' |
|||
* '''Four lists''' |
|||
or in some other equally unmistakable format. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::No, that's not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. Take a look at the [http://www.misconceptionjunction.com/index.php/about/ About page]: "The site is owned by Vacca Foeda Media (formerly Dazzleblab), which is my company which owns/manages a series of sites aimed at keeping me from actually ever having to get a real job. If you would like to contribute to this dream, the dream of doing nothing, or just contribute funds to my Hot Pocket and Dr. Pepper addictions, feel free to send me a donation with the button below." The owners degrees are in Computer Science. |
|||
::And to AerobicFox: the requirements for this article explicitly require sources that prove the items are a common misconception, without exceptions. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 11:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agree with Qwyrxian on both points. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 18:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks for your honesty Qwyrxian. In this case it means that we don't have a reliable source. Let's drop this topic now. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* ''' Two lists'''. The consensus was reached to split for ''technical'' reasons, so no need to split any further than necessary to address the size concerns raised in the split discussion. STEM vs humanities is a natural divide. UPDATE: below, some editors are !voting for '''One list''' - that is my very strong preference. As explained in the split discussion, I reluctantly agreed to a split if ''necessary for technical reasons''. That necessity has still not been established. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 20:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::[http://discovermagazine.com/2003/jun/featsky] [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Three lists'''. The article is already divided into arts and culture, history, and STEM, so it'd be easiest and most natural to do it that way. {{summoned by bot}} [[User:Ships%26Space|<span style="color: #848482">Ships</span>]] & [[User talk:Ships%26Space|<span style="color: MidnightBlue">Space</span>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/Ships%26Space|Edits]])</sub> 22:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I don't think there's any need to challenge this as being a common misconception. The source does not use the word "misconception", but it does say that people from around the world believe the sun is a color other than white. If we only link to articles which use the word "misconception", we will wind up linking only Q&As format sources which deal with misconceptions; that's not my idea of 'reliable', especially considering that those types of sources don't usually show how they came to their conclusions. Perhaps it comes down to whether we want to hold to a specific article's rigid criteria, or to simply hold to Wikipedia's standards. We all know this is a common misconception, and the first source says it without using the words "common misconception".. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 08:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Unfortunately, that doesn't work for this article. The problem is, everyone thinks they know what is common, and not everyone agrees. We just went through a train wreck of a deletion discussion because we didn't previously have clear inclusion criteria. The "compromise" decision was that in order to appear on this list, we ''must'', without exception, have a source that explicitly states that it is a common misconception or a very similar phrasing. The source you provided isn't close to that, so its not sufficient for inclusion on this list. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 08:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Fair enough. However, the source explains that it is a common misconception: <blockquote>"It is hard for many people, even scientists, to admit that the Sun they are so used to living with is actually white... Sometimes the display color of the Sun is culturally determined. If a kindergartener in the USA colors a picture of the Sun, they will usually make it yellow. However, a kindergartener in Japan would normally color it red!"</blockquote> It seems unlikely that the phrase "it is a common misconception that the sun is any color other than white" would ever be found in the wild. Its no problem to look for other sources, but we might not find one that exactly fits the criteria. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] |
|||
:::::::::Do have a think about those poor kindergarteners. I'll bet they had to use white paper, so it would be stupid for them to paint a white sun! The colour they choose will be what they see someone else use. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 09:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::As you said, they are using the colors which others commonly use; but that's extrapolation. The point is that the source clearly illustrates that the misconception is international and does not vary by age or even educational background. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 09:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::You ignored half my post. They may KNOW it's white, but are not silly enough to paint a white sun on white paper. Prove to me there's a misconception. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 09:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::I ignored it because it sounds like a joke. You're asking me to extrapolate on the source material, that's pointless. But if you want to draw something white, use colored paper? Color the background? Why don't they draw snowflakes as blue or indigo? Most kindergartners I've talked to think the sun is as big as it looks to them; I doubt they understand that the particles which make up our atmosphere tint the sun differently than it appears in space. Why do you think the "why is the sky blue question?" arises so frequently? Because everyone knows the answer, of course! --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::We are running into the "words to that effect"/"synonyms thereof" problem here. Is first writing "many people believe that the sun is yellow" and then going on to explain that it is not the same as saying that "there exists a common misconception that the sun is yellow?" I would think so. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 12:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Four lists''', but '''three''' would also make sense. Splitting by existing sections makes a lot of sense, but, judging by eye, the expected content for Health is about the same size as History, and also makes a lot of sense to me as a conceptual split. I want to say I prefer not to see the arbitrary clumping of two lists, but this whole thing is arbitrary at a certain point, isn’t it? <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span> ([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 23:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The [[Sacramento City College]]'s Department of Physics, Astronomy & Geology maintain their own list of common misconceptions related to astronomy, and the "yellow sun" is on it.[http://scc.losrios.edu/~sah/physics/44Miscon.htm#Under_a_yellow_sun] <code>[[User:Decltype|decltype]]</code> <small>([[User talk:Decltype|talk]])</small> 10:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Four lists'''. If a separate page for "Health" is not benefiting [[WP:MEDRS]], it can be merged back in to three at a later date. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 23:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I wonder if we should not have a debate on what we should take as sources here. I apprecieate the Sacramento City College link is better than the one given above, coming from a source related to astronomy. But on their list they also put up the following items as common misconceptions: "Looking at '''any''' eclipse is dangerous"; "Mercury is always hot"; "The most important thing telescopes do is magnify stuff"; "Flying through an asteroid field is fast and dangerous"; and the rather astounding "The Moon can only be seen during the night" which they back up with the argument that "Most people don't look up in the sky unless there's a reason to." I would certainly not classify any of these as ''common'' misconceptions. |
|||
* '''One list, Keep as is'''. It's not that long (most of the text's body is made up of References), and it's a great read and popular topic, obtaining over 2,300 readers a day for the last year! I haven't read the entire thing, so thanks for bringing attention to it. Nothing wrong in keeping this well-known list (and importantly, splits lose readers, I think, because not everyone goes to every page of a split topic). <small>univolved in the discussion to split, missed it, was it every posted at the affiliated WikiProjects?</small> [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:'''One list''', much as Randy Kryn suggests, but if the insistence is on more, then someone will have to put a LOT of effort into cross-linking to the separate parts. If you are lost in one list you can always do a find for keywords, whereas trying that with multiple lists is cumbersome and confusing. |
|||
*:Furthermore, misconceptions do not come neatly packaged into categories. Plenty of examples are both science-related and art-related, and history-related. Either you make it cumbersome with multiple entries in more than one list (and keep the entries equally updated and consistent!!!) or you wish the reader pot-luck in finding the right place and getting the context right. |
|||
*:Probably a better investment of effort would be the insertion of a '''''lot''''' of illustrations, and a '''''lot''''' of careful editing of ambiguous or unhelpful entries that even if not wrong, are no more helpful than the original error. Consider the one about cells not outnumbered by microorganisms -- it is just one example. Plenty where that came from. [[User:JonRichfield|JonRichfield]] ([[User talk:JonRichfield|talk]]) 06:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*: @[[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] The split discussion was not an RFC (it should have been) and to the best of my knowledge was not posted at at the affiliated WikiProjects. Agree with keeping it as one list, as do several other active editors for this page. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Hello {{u|Mr swordfish}}, and yes, this is such an iconic and well-known page of Wikipedia that such a major proposed dissection surprised me (especially when not the subject of project alerts or other ongoing discussion promotion). Maybe you can boldface the words 'keeping it as one list' to make your comment clearer to readers and a potential closer. Thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]], we already have a consensus to split. If you wish to challenge that, then please see [[Wikipedia:Close review]]. |
|||
*:If you want to re-litigate the previous discussion, then please note that this list has gotten so long that we can't use regular [[Wikipedia:Citation templates]] in it because of the [[WP:PEIS]] technical limits, and at the current rate of growth, even the workaround will eventually break. Any attempt to keep this on one page needs to explain how you're going to make the sources visible when even the capacity of the workaround is exceeded. |
|||
*:After the split happens, we're looking at a way to re-assemble the page into a single view for readers who like that. But we can't do that until the split happens. So what would actually be helpful here is "I'd like the technical split to involve ____ subpages, and I want S Marshall's magic solution to be implemented as soon as possible so people can still read it on one page". What's not helpful is "I'd like to kick this can down the road until it's an emergency". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::[[File:Template limits PEIS post-expand include size screenshot.png|thumb|What the references look like when the [[w:en:WP:PEIS]] limits have been exceeded on this page: Links to the templates, and not a single source shown anywhere on the page.]] Just to be clear about the technical problem, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&oldid=1254363137#References take a look at the refs section in this version]. Do you see 891 refs there? I don't. When you put too many templates on a page, they stop being shown. From the reader's POV, it becomes a completely unsourced article. |
|||
*::Now, if that's what you want, then you can just say that. A !vote like "Who cares about sources, since readers don't look at those anyway" would do. I'd even back you up with a source that shows readers almost never look at the sources. But if you think that article content should be cited, and not just by hiding the information in the wikitext code, then we are going to have to change our approach, and the only question is whether we do it now, with plenty of time to work out solutions, or when the whole page breaks and there's no time to do it well. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by deliberately breaking the references and then claiming that the page is broken, but it's not a very convincing argument. The references all appear in the current version. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 21:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::The sources are there and look fine on my computer. As for criticizing my !vote of keeping the list, two things. The RFC title asks how many pages the list should be split to. I suggested one list, to keep the page. That's my opinion in answering the title question. Then look at the List page itself, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&oldid=1254363255 the opening template asks for comments about a split, on the page since July]. No split needed. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Agree that the opening template needs updating given a consensus to split has been found. What would be an appropriate template? [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 23:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Nothing to agree to, I did not suggest changing it. This RfC opened and has progressed under it, and my opinion to keep the page as one list also rests on both the title of this RfC and the message of the present template. Arguably, the time has passed to remove that template, which should now be linked with this RfC. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::Removed the template. For reference, the question this RfC aims to answer is {{tq|Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions?}} '''One list''' is answering a different question, that [[Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#Split_proposal|has already been asked and answered]]. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 00:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::"One list" is my answer to the RfC title. Since you removed the present template, and left no other<s>, this RfC is presently going unannounced</s>[Returned with the new date, October 2024]. The language on the template you removed seemed fine, just an update on the date and a link to this RfC should handle it. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::The RfC title is the topic, not the question. I did have a look at [[:Category:Wikipedia requests for comment|other current RfCs]] to find an applicable replacement template, and none seemed to indicate on the article page that an RfC was ongoing. |
|||
::::::::::The template text "It has been suggested that this article should be split into multiple articles." is outdated, given there is a consensus that the article should be split into multiple articles, and this RfC is determining how to implement that. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 00:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::There was no notice about a split discussion outside of the page itself, as far as I know, even though many Wikiprojects are involved in this article. If this RfC answers 'None', or 'Keep as is', then that's a perfectly good option. There is no "have to split" if consensus on this RfC chooses not to. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 00:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=1254366140 WhatamIdoing linked the notices above]. You are more familiar with Wikipedia processes than I. Is this a thing you can do? Disregard the RfC question and instead use the RfC to challenge the consensus it's implementing? [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 00:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::While there were some "notifications" outside this talk page, they did not reach a large audience. In particular, there was no notification to the standard places that an RfC would normally get i.e. |
|||
:::::::::::::* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography|History and geography]]''' |
|||
:::::::::::::* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics|Language and linguistics]]''' |
|||
:::::::::::::* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology|Maths, science, and technology]]''' |
|||
:::::::::::::* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture|Media, the arts, and architecture]]''' |
|||
:::::::::::::* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law|Politics, government, and law]]''' |
|||
:::::::::::::* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture|Society, sports, and culture]]''' |
|||
:::::::::::::* '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy|Religion and philosophy]]''' |
|||
:::::::::::::Trying to claim that posting a question at the village pump is adequate is not very convincing. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] observation that the split discussion was not adequately advertised is apt, and if a consensus forms among the wider audience of editors now made aware by the RfC not to split, well, [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]]. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 02:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::{{u|Mr swordfish}} if you think the consensus to split was inappropriately established, it's worth going through [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE]]. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 02:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Two or three.''' We should follow the precedent set by [[WP:REFDESK]] and split into lists according to those subject areas as needed. we can start with three lists: humanities, science and technology, and mathematics. Or two lists, humanities and STEM. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 03:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Three or four lists'''. To my eye the larger-scale topics are a bit ungainly, and as Ships&Space states, this article is already split into three topics. I wouldn't be opposed to spinning out health per HTGS's reasoning though. <b style="filter:blur(0.09em) sepia(1) saturate(99) hue-rotate(99deg)">[[User:Mir Novov|novov]]</b> <b style="font-size:0.6em;filter:grayscale(1)">[[User talk:Mir Novov|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Mir Novov|edits]]</b> 09:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::What are good sources? Can we use snopes.com? Can/should we put demands on whose authority we are willing to accept that something is a common misconception? |
|||
*'''Find any consensus'''. It really doesn't matter how many pages to split to. What matters is that we finally get on with splitting it in whatever way the fewest editors disagree with.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 22:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::[[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 12:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:*I want to add that it's needful to split this page for technical reasons, and "don't split" is an option the community has recently considered and explicitly rejected.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The article's criteria for inclusion seems to remove the possibility of quoting anything other than this type of source. 44 misconceptions is quite a lot for common misconceptions on astronomy, bound to be some weird ones? We also quote a source that contains 'Constantine made/approved the canon of the Bible' as the second 'biggest' misconception about the Bible. I don't think I've heard that one before. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 12:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* '''One list, Keep as is''', per Randy Kryn, Mr swordfish, etc. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 04:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I agree with 'one list' but not 'keep as is'. I think this article should be a singular much smaller 'List of common misconceptions' page, with references to other more detailed lists, the fact it's too long isn't just a technical issue, it's also much worse for the readers to have to scroll through pages of trivia to find the useful content. The 'main' page should actually apply the inclusion criteria, many, MANY of the entries do not have any evidence that they are actually common misconceptions. The very the first entry is missing any reference to evidence that it is , in fact, a common misconception. |
|||
*:So, I think split into however many pages we want, then a long hard clean-up of this page. [[User talk:JeffUK|Jeff<span style="border-style:dashed;border-color:blue; border-width:1px">'''UK'''</span>]] 11:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Three lists''': The categories for two are ugly and awkward, but we should try to split as little as is reasonably possible. If a recent consensus hadn't been reached, I'd be against splitting at all, but since it has I am very against trying to override a recent consensus. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 06:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{u|LokiTheLiar}}, thanks for an interesting comment. You'd rather have one list but are going with a split that you don't like. This shows that the consensus reached was both premature and ill-timed, as it should have been reached at an RfC (preferably this one as an option). This RfC question is 'how many pages to split to', and your and other editors is 'none'. To not split. That seems the correct option for this long-term near-iconic Wikipedia page. The only split needed is the existing Table of Contents, which is used for that purpose. Readers know how to use a Table of Contents. Please reconsider, thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 12:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Randy, can I just ask: do you fully understand the technical considerations here? Do you understand that post-split there would still be a one-page version? Do you understand why and how the unsplit page is breaking Wikipedia's underlying code? We didn't decide to split on a whim.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 13:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Just got back to this, thanks {{u|S Marshall}}. No, I really don't understand the tech end of this, just seems that Wikipedia coding should be able to handle the page's uploading capacity on mobile (that's coming from someone not at all knowledgeable about code, or mobile, but expecting miracles and full functioning from both). I do know that the discussion had two sides, so keeping this as one page doesn't seem too much off the mark. In any case, I came in cold (or code) and answered the question about how many pages do I think this should be split into, and I opined about keeping it as is. That's still my opinion, given that I think that if the servers and coding can't handle the size of this page then they, and not the break-up of an iconic article, should be improved and brought up to speed even if it takes a Wikipedia/WMF Moon shot to do it. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Right --- no, it's not that. This isn't about server load and it isn't about whether the page will render on mobile. |
|||
:::::This is about the hard cap on the number of templates that will display. |
|||
:::::And I expect you're thinking, "What?" I know I did when I first came across this. |
|||
:::::Why is there a hard cap on the number of templates that will display? Well, it's necessary to protect the servers from certain kinds of sophisticated vandalism that amount to attacks. A clever vandal could set up templates that called each other recursively, so you end up with very large numbers of templates proliferating and absorbing our resources. There are good security reasons why we wouldn't want to change the cap. And the cap is set at such a high level that it almost never comes up (which is why it's confusing so many editors here). |
|||
:::::How does the hard cap affect this article? Well, all our references are in templates (and they rightly should be). So we've made this article unexpandable: we can't add further references. For a while now, editors have been using a workaround by adding special code into the references, but this too is on the point of failure. |
|||
:::::I've scratched my head about this and then devised a solution that keeps the whole article displaying on one page. The method uses selective transclusion. We can split the article into two, three, or four sections for editing purposes, but someone just wanting to view the list of common misconceptions as a whole will still be able to see it on one page. Some or all of the references won't be visible on the one-page view; but they'll still exist, and they'll be one click away. |
|||
:::::If you read the previous discussions, you'll find a link to a demo/mockup/proof of concept that I've set up. |
|||
:::::However, we can't proceed with this if we don't split the page.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Thanks {{u|S Marshall}}. You say the page will still be presented to readers as one page, and I can't say I understand the coding but will take your word on that. Which is all I was saying when presented with the question of this RM. If true, wasn't my 'one' already correct no matter how many pages the sources are split to? In any case, since you designed the work-around, I'll ease up on my comments above due to my misunderstanding the concept, but would still like to hear {{u|Mr swordfish}}'s analysis or objection in this sub-discussion. Mr swordfish, is it correct that the article's text will still be presented as one page? Thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 11:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I'm not really sure what S Marshall is proposing. I thought I did, but was told otherwise. Ideally, the article would look the same for most readers, rather than being N separate articles. There's a way to do this with transclusion and tags to suppress excessive templates, but I'm not sure that is what is in the works or whether it would be acceptable to have the citations "one click away" vs right there in-line. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 17:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]] Suppose we split the list into two, add in all the markup to make the transclusions work, create the one-page article, all in some sandbox. Then, suppose we decide later the split should be three or four (or more) sub-articles. How much work would it entail to make this change? Seems to me that it would just be a matter of adding a couple of lines to the one-page version and cutting and pasting material into the one-page version. i.e. the majority of the work would be the initial addition of the suppression markup and that a 2 vs 3 vs 4 way split would be a trivial amount of work in comparison. |
|||
::::Which is to say, what are we waiting for? Split it 2 or 3 or 4 ways in a sandbox somewhere, do the rest of the transclusion magic, and let's take a good look at the final result. I understand that there's a fair amount of markup to be added, but there are dozens of us that the work could be split among. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 18:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::: It's enough work that I'm not willing to embark on it speculatively. I want a community decision on what we're doing, which should precede the actual doing it. WAID asked about the "one click away" references on WT:V but didn't get much engagement from people who understood the question.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 18:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Solely based on the idea that technical problems require splitting, I support '''Three lists, transcluded into the main article'''. This way using the "find" tool still works, and although more difficult, it is possible to find the citations. There is a clear notice telling you where to find them; although of course people don't read notices I figure it won't be impossible. It would be useful to A/B test that with people who do not edit Wikipedia, but likely this discussion does not have the means. |
|||
:Personally, I'm finding I don't hate the the "transclude subpages" idea as much as I thought I would. The real annoying part will be the markup -- why not mark the citations as "noinclude" rather than marking the text as "onlyinclude"? Having to specifically mark stuff to be included will make it more difficult for newer editors who forget, whose contributions will simply not appear on the main page. Unwanted citations will also be easier to spot then missing content. |
|||
:As for the number of lists -- the "health" section is small and can be split out later if necessary, but currently does not warrant its own article. |
|||
:I think that transcluding is the right choice because it preserves the single "List of common misconceptions" format -- it doesn't introduce extra friction -- it can be read in one piece -- and so on. There are babies born when the article was put into this format who can now drive, and there it's semi-famous for being what it is -- let's not split it up (at least text-wise) if we can avoid it. [[User:Mrfoogles|Mrfoogles]] ([[User talk:Mrfoogles|talk]]) 03:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{bcc|Mrfoogles}}A small note that [[List of common misconceptions about science, technology, and mathematics]] would be 13000 words long, of which ~4000 would be health. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 04:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Four lists''' or '''three''' and then use technical wizardry to merge them together as has been proposed. The four lists will keep the page size down so that they can be expanded with references as needed, and merging them into one will solve the problem of diluting the lists. I prefer four to three lists simply to make sure this problem doesn't come up again in the future... I feel four lists is the best way to future-proof... but three might be fine, so I don't object to that. The talk pages for the split articles can be made to redirect to the main talk page. I think those !voting for one list should either challenge the close or move on. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] ([[User talk:Fieari|talk]]) 07:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''One list''' (splitting into sublists and then transcluding is fine). This is an iconic list in Wikipedia culture and has been referenced in materials like xkcd, and I think we'd be losing something if we split it. It's true that this list is longer than a typical article, but that's OK; unlike most articles, it's not meant to be read in a single sitting. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:For what sublists we could have, I'd suggest 4: "Social and behavioral sciences", "Natural sciences", "Math and engineering", and "History". [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Mockup==== |
|||
::The so-called "inclusion criteria" was not achieved through consensus and doesn't apply to most of the list. It's more of a goal than anything, and can't be used to exclude items. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 13:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
For ease of reference, my mockup/proof of concept is at [[User:S Marshall/Sandbox/List of common misconceptions demo]].—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 10:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::It absolutely can. If this list does not have a clear, well-defined inclusion criteria, then it must be deleted for lack of notability. [[WP:N]] states, "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." If we cannot say exactly what the inclusion criteria is, then we do not have a notable topic, and then we're back to AfD. Now, if we want to revise those inclusion criteria, we can certainly do so. But there must be a criteria, and it must be completely clear. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 13:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I expanded your demo to include the entire article. It's at [[User:Mr_swordfish/List_of_common_misconceptions]]. |
|||
::::I don't think the quote you mention is about inclusion criteria. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 13:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I can't say it's perfect at this point, and I'm not sure what we're going to do about the talk page or what happens when a naive user clicks the edit button, but it's a start. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 20:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I assume by treating them to a giant edit notice, although I can't say the edit notice already on the page has been given much heed. |
|||
::I assume you and S Marshall missed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#c-Rollinginhisgrave-20241028025000-Mr_swordfish-20241018190200 my comment for potential issues with transclusion], mentioning it again in case. I am sympathetic to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#c-WhatamIdoing-20241030170700-WhatamIdoing-20241030165800 WAID's comment since], but if that is our approach, it should be identified as such. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 20:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I didn't miss it. You raise a perfectly valid concern that I can't resolve. |
|||
:::Our choices are: |
|||
::::(a) Have an article that displays on one page; |
|||
::::(b) Have an article that displays all the references; |
|||
::::(c) Have an article that can be expanded with further references and entries. |
|||
:::Pick any two. You can't have all three. |
|||
:::The current version is (a) and (b). WAID's "split" proposal is (b) and (c), and my "transclude" proposal is (a) and (c). There seem to be editors with strident and passionate objections to every option. |
|||
:::WAID's comment is only tangentially related to yours; she's talking about how the software fails if we continue with our current (a) and (b) version and then try to add more content. |
|||
:::Hope this clarifies.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: A and C seems like a reasonable compromise. I think much of the opposition to the split is fueled by the risk that it doesn't actually end up as one page. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 03:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Closed rfc bottom}} |
|||
== Masturbation == |
|||
:::::If notability is the problem, this is certainly notable. The argument against its inclusion is that it is not a "common misconception"; apparently that people know from birth that the sun is white with a very slight green tint. Time would be better spent deciding whether conceptions on the list are or are not false, rather than going into philosophical understandings of what "common" means.--[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 14:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Popular belief asserts that individuals of either sex who are not in sexually active relationships tend to masturbate more frequently than those who are; however, much of the time this is not true as masturbation alone or with a partner is often a feature of a relationship. Contrary to this belief, several studies actually reveal a positive correlation between the frequency of masturbation and the frequency of intercourse. A study has reported a significantly higher rate of masturbation in gay men and women who were in a relationship.[52][64][65][66] [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 17:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Well, we must have some source stating that it is a misconception, otherwise we would have a "list of facts". And the philisophical debate about "common" was dropped based on the assumption that we could trust our reliable sources to defining it as common. But as I said above, I would really like a debate on what sources we can and can not accept. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 15:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm not understanding why you posted this "common misconception" here on the talk page. Can you help me understand your purpose? [[User:Penguino35|Penguino35]] ([[User talk:Penguino35|talk]]) 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: I am suggesting it be added to the article, of course. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 03:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[WP:BOLD|No need to ask for permission]]! [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 19:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Hey [[User:Closed Limelike Curves]] it's nice to see you here. I know I could, but it's often controversial and I end up here on the talk page anyway. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 10:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Suggested inclusion: tax on charitable donations from customers == |
|||
:::::::Sorry, A Quest For Knowledge is right that my reference is not clear; I was way to tired last night to have been trying to explain policy/guidelines. Let me try to be more clear now. The real problem with not having a not having a clear inclusion criteria is [[WP:NOT]], specifically [[WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE|"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"]]. A clear, specific topic is necessary to meet this standard. For many stand-alone lists, we don't really need to be much clearer than the list title itself, because it's obvious what the list includes, like [[List of counties in Ohio]]. In other cases, the definition of the title words is less clear, and needs clarification, like [[List of sovereign states]]. Note how the latter list has a whole section in the list very carefully defining what can be on the list. One thing that was abundantly clear from the last trainwreck AfD is that there is ''not'' a clear, obvious understanding of what a common misconception is. Numerous questions arose before and after. For example, I would personally argue that any belief that is held by more than about 20% of a specific population that is considered wrong by the majority of that population is a "common misconception." Others disagree on threshold numbers. Furthermore, I believe that it would be acceptable for this list to include something like "The Christian God exists," given that, even though I agree, the very large number of non-Christians in the world would disagree and consider this a mistake, hence a common misconception. |
|||
:::::::Even if we move away from my extreme relativist position, there were still numerous points of disagreement. Can this list refer to misconceptions among only a small group (like, misconceptions held commonly by physicians in the US)? Can this list make comparisons in time (for example the prior belief in Europe that only foul elements existed in nature)? In the end, as editors, we had to make a consensus decision, and that decision was the criteria as currently written. Personally, I still don't think the criteria are clear, because we never settled on the question of what exactly we considered synonyms for "common" and "misconception". But that's the best we have. Allowing additional items in just because we, as editors, think the misconception is common is a form of [[WP:NOR]]. Allowing in entries that have vague, unspecific language is bordering on violating [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:V]]. |
|||
Suggested inclusion in the "Economics" section - this is a resurrection of something I proposed back in April 2023, which I think merits inclusion as the concept now specifically has its own Wikipedia article that mentions the misconception specifically: |
|||
:::::::In this specific case, I absolutely challenge the notion that the reference given meets the burden of proof necessary to show that "the sun is yellow" is a common misconception. The fact that children draw it as yellow does not mean they actually perceive it as yellow (counter example--kids usually draw people as pink, often because it's the closest possible in the limited set of crayons). Furthermore, I don't think that source is reliable for the assertion it makes--there is no evidence that the claim is anything more than the opinion of the authors, who don't appear to have any particular expertise in measuring this sort of thing. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]]([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]])22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{tq|Businesses do not get a tax benefit from collecting charitable donations from their customers, [[checkout charity|for example at supermarket checkouts]]. In most jurisdictions, corporation taxes are assessed based on a business' profits; a corporation gains zero tax benefit from collecting funds from customers to then pass on to charities, since the donation would not reflect as either an expense of or income for the business. A business could only use donations to reduce tax owed by donating ''their own'' money or resources - this ''would'' reduce tax, but only by reducing profit. It would not make economic sense for a company (or an individual) to donate money solely to save tax, since the amount of tax saved would be significantly smaller than the amount donated.<ref name="corptaxusatoday">{{cite news |last=Link |first=Devon |date=2021-06-10 |title=Fact check: Stores cannot use checkout charity funds to offset their own taxes |url=https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/10/fact-check-false-claim-checkout-charities-offset-corporate-taxes/7622379002/|work=[[USA Today]] |access-date=2023-04-01}}</ref><ref name="corptaxtaxpolicy">{{cite web |
|||
| url = https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/who-gets-tax-benefit-those-checkout-donations-0 |
|||
| title = Who Gets the Tax Benefit For Those Checkout Donations? |
|||
| last = Zaretsky |
|||
| first = Renu |
|||
| date = 2020-11-04 |
|||
| website = [[Tax Policy Center]] |
|||
| access-date = 2023-04-01}}</ref>}} |
|||
Inclusion criteria: |
|||
# The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.: Yes, [[checkout charity]] |
|||
# The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception: Two sources provided, one referencing a widespread TikTok on the matter and the other from a major news source mentioning this being spread in Facebook. AP News has also fact checked this: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244 |
|||
# The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources: Yes. |
|||
# The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete: Sources are from the past couple of years, and it is a perennial misconception on social media. |
|||
[[User:Foonblace|Foonblace]] ([[User talk:Foonblace|talk]]) 18:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::We should start out by making sure the criteria for inclusion does not violate Wikipedia's standards. To openly claim that "the Christian God does not exist" is unscientific and unverifiable. Its little less than the personal opinion of a relatively infinitesimal population (not having an opinion does not statistically count for or against an argument). Who would be referenced? Richard Dawkins? Family Guy? Very few scientists go farther than sharing their personal opinion, because science does not generally dabble in the unverifiable (outside theoretical quantum mechanics). Furthermore, many scientists alive and dead, including (apparently) most astronomers, have held belief in some form of deity. |
|||
:I'm not seeing where a reliable source establishes that it is a common misconception. "Thousands" of facebook or tiktok posts wouldn't seem to be enough - there is so much misinformation floating through those and other similar social media sites that "thousands" is a drop in the bucket and I don't think we can list every single piece of misinformation that attracts 1000 or more posts. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 20:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::What I'm getting to is that we must first consider what Wikipedia wants, and then consider what we want. As it stands, the criteria for inclusion on this article limits sources to nothing other than blogs and unreliable Q&As about misconceptions. We must consider what Wikipedia wants and remove the blogs and any other unreliable sources. If there is an article left in the aftermath, we shall continue to build the article on reliable sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Guidelines first, criteria second. |
|||
::Surely it being something that both the Associated Press and USA Today have published pieces rebutting, as well as being mentioned on the Wikipedia page for the overall concept, establishes that it is common? [[User:Foonblace|Foonblace]] ([[User talk:Foonblace|talk]]) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{u|Foonblace}} both of these outlets post thousands of fact-checks [https://www.usatoday.com/news/factcheck/][https://apnews.com/ap-fact-check] and do not make claims that the facts they are checking constitute "common misconceptions" in general, nor in the linked articles. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 20:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::<strike>I think it's pretty common and should go into the article. The popularity of the social media posts is a reflection of the general misunderstanding around this. Anecdotally, it certainly feels like quite a common misconception. Another source here debunks it, again, they wouldn't need to debunk it if it wasn't relatively common. "TikTok And Other Social Media Posts Are Wrong About Charity At The Checkout"<ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2024/06/12/tiktok-and-other-social-media-posts-are-wrong-about-charity-at-the-checkout/</ref> , there's another source here 'fact checking' the claim <ref>https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244</ref>, here's a Canadian source, showing it's more of an international phenomenon "Why nobody gets a tax benefit when you donate at the checkout | CBC Radio"<ref>https://www.cbc.ca/radio/costofliving/checkout-donations-nobody-gets-tax-benefit-1.6524462</ref></strike> [[User talk:JeffUK|Jeff<span style="border-style:dashed;border-color:blue; border-width:1px">'''UK'''</span>]] 13:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I've changed my mind! having seen the issues about the article size, I don't think it's clear enough from the sources that this is a common misconception for it to be included. [[User talk:JeffUK|Jeff<span style="border-style:dashed;border-color:blue; border-width:1px">'''UK'''</span>]] 10:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I wouldn't worry about article size. If the article gets too long, we'll split it. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 19:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I get the feeling that maybe this list should be retitled "List of misconceptions" (dropping "common"). Three reasons for this: |
|||
::# The sourcing is generally not strong enough to actually establish they're "common", just that someone ''claims'' it is. Often these sources are weak, or only claim the misconception is common in passing. |
|||
::# Whether a misconception is "common" or not is an opinion that has to be attributed, not stated in Wikivoice. (What does "common" mean—5%? 20%? 50%?) |
|||
::# It lets a lot of misconceptions off the hook just because we haven't found a source using the exact word "common". (Even if the fact that someone's writing a piece to debunk it implies they think it's at least ''somewhat'' common.) |
|||
::[[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::One could apply that logic to every article on Wikipedia, which merely re-reports what the [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say i.e. if a reliable source (''someone'') ''claims'' X to be true then we put X into the article. Here, the inclusion criteria requires that some reliable source states that it is a ''common misconception'' or words to that effect. We repeat what the reliable sources say. |
|||
:::If we relaxed that criteria and allowed entries for ''every'' misconception the article would be way way too long to be of interest to anyone. |
|||
:::That said, if there are specific entries where you don't think the sourcing is sufficient, please start a new thread here on the talk page. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 22:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{tqb|One could apply that logic to every article on Wikipedia, which merely re-reports what the reliable sources say i.e. if a reliable source (someone) claims X to be true then we put X into the article.}} |
|||
::::That's not always true: if a reliable source states an opinion (rather than a fact), it needs to attributed per [[WP:INTEXT]] and [[WP:RSOPINION]]. This is true even if the source is usually reliable—if a writer in the ''New York Times'' calls a film "the greatest of all time", we have to describe this as "Writer A described this film as 'the greatest of all time'". |
|||
::::{{tqb|That said, if there are specific entries where you don't think the sourcing is sufficient, please start a new thread here on the talk page.}} |
|||
::::I think almost all the entries don't have enough sourcing to establish the misconception is actually "common", because most of them don't provide evidence to back up their claims. Most of these are pop science or journalists making an offhand claim about the topic without backing it up. If we want to claim these misconceptions are common, we have to show the sources are genuinely reliable ''on the topic of public opinion''. Examples of reliable sources would be statistical analyses of standardized tests, social media posts, or polling by reputable firms. However, a [[WP:PASSING]] description of it as common by a journalist isn't enough—I'm sure journalists claim lots of things are "common misconceptions" even if they aren't. |
|||
::::{{tqb|If we relaxed that criteria and allowed entries for every misconception the article would be way way too long to be of interest to anyone.}} |
|||
::::Obviously we don't want to allow entries for every misconception, just the popular ones. However, every claim on Wikipedia includes two implicit assertions: |
|||
::::# The claim meets [[WP:VERIFIABILITY]]—there are enough highly-reliable sources to guarantee the fact is true. |
|||
::::# The claim meets [[WP:NOTABILITY]]—the claim is important. |
|||
::::A misconception needs to be discussed and covered in enough reliable sources to warrant being included in this list, which means it has to be common. [[WP:V#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion|Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.]] In other words, a "List of misconceptions" would still be a list of ''common'' misconceptions, because ''un''common misconceptions would not be notable—obviously we won't include every time someone was wrong about something in this article. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 04:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{u|Closed Limelike Curves}} |
|||
:::::#I disagree that this falls into opinion rather than assertion of fact. Could you elaborate on why you think this falls into the former? |
|||
:::::#Could you list three misconceptions that would meet these standards of proof? |
|||
:::::#Every claim on Wikipedia is obviously not required to meet [[WP:NOTABILITY]], only articles are. This list does not use GNG as a criterion for inclusion. |
|||
:::::[[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 04:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::# At what point does a misconception become "common"—5% of the population? 20%? 50%? (There's some extreme cases where e.g. >90% of people believe something, in which case any reasonable editor would agree it's "common", but lots of items on this list don't meet that bar—I doubt even 5% of people believe some of these, and most of this list would probably fall in the gray area.) |
|||
::::::# Here's 3: {{tq|Contemporary global warming is driven by human activities...}}; {{tq|The signing of the [[United States Declaration of Independence]] did not occur on...}}; and {{tq|Crime rates are declining...}}. These cite high-quality polls finding the misconceptions are common (or might be, if we had an objective bar for that). |
|||
::::::# There's no need to meet [[WP:GNG]], but there's still a need for facts to be somewhat notable—I probably should've cited [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] or [[WP:LSC]]. The point is just that retitling this article wouldn't force us to add uncommon misconceptions. |
|||
::::::[[User:Closed Limelike Curves|– Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 18:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::#{{u|Closed Limelike Curves}} What is "the population"? American? Global? South Koreans? The elderly of South Korea? The other point to make is that unless >90% of the group is the global population, you will never get universal agreement on something being popular. 90% of the US is 3.5% of the world. Without qualification as common in the US, can this be said to be "common"? The reason why I am leaning against attributing opinion here is because it is at odds with standard Wikipedia practice. How the community applies attribution will generally require the assessment (this is ''common'' being contested) being contested, i.e. being contradicted in another source. Perhaps this should not be the way it should applied, but it would require so much more attention; read a featured article on a biography and all the "he was a difficult child" stuff (almost all of it) would require breaking out of Wikivoice. |
|||
:::::::#It is OR to draw that line. It was considered a few years back and that determination was made, and what is OR has become stricter since. We would need polling, and then the source to analyse it and call it common, and then probably [[MOS:DATE|date]] it. Do you have three of these sources? |
|||
:::::::#Indiscriminate doesn't really apply, that pertains more to un-analyzed data, of which this is all analysed as reflecting a common belief. I don't think this list meets [[WP:LSC]]. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 19:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Probably not best to relitigate this at this time unless there is a more substantial groundswell, but the general critique is that a belief cannot be "common" in a vacuum, but must be qualified as common among a group (common among America but uncommon among the world etc). |
|||
:::If we try to exclude some groups from the page (i.e. if it's common in Texas that doesn't mean it's ''common'', if it's common among chemists it doesn't mean it's ''common'') we are trying again to define common in a vacuum, which is impossible. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 22:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I recommend not including this because: |
|||
:# It's only about the US tax structure. |
|||
:# The sources you're relying on for how the accounting works are – um, let's say "oversimplifying", because that sounds more pleasant than "wrong". |
|||
:This is 100% OR and therefore should not go in the article, but just so Wikipedia editors know, there are a couple of "correct" ways to handle such donations, and one of them results in "income" and a matching "expense". Additionally, most of these are going to raise the credit card processing fees, which is a deductible expense, and which therefore decreases income tax liability. |
|||
:A true statement would sound something closer to "Businesses do not pay income taxes on donations that they pass through to charities." |
|||
:A truer statement about common misconceptions might be "Americans often believe that there is a tax difference for businesses reducing their profits through donations vs reducing their profits through buying advertisements or through paying their employees more." Spending $500 to buy an advertisement at the local youth sports event produces the same tax benefit, down to the penny, as donating $500 to "sponsor" a youth sports program. I don't know if you could find a source for that, though. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<references/> |
|||
==Chocolate misconceptions== |
|||
::::::::My reason for quoting that text was to show that the first source understands the conception of the color of the sun to be a common misconception; not that it logically proves there's a common misconception by citing kindergartners. And you also ignored that the source says "most people, including many scientists..." not just kindergartners (but Caucasian skin is a pink-tan color :D). The source is certainly of the same quality - perhaps greater in quality than most of the other sources which have allowed 'misconceptions' to be allowed into the article. There's no difference between the second source and the source on natural selection which I discussed earlier; that was held as correct because "its from a college". So was the source above. Is there a random element in deciding which sources are acceptable? --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Rollinginhisgrave}} |
|||
I don't believe that the two recent additions about chocolate meet our inclusion criteria: |
|||
*The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.: |
|||
:We have an article on [[mole (sauce)]] in general which mentions mole poblano. And an article on [[History of chocolate]] which mentions Aztec chocolate drinks. |
|||
*The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception: |
|||
:I don't think there's any dispute about the factual contents. |
|||
:On the other hand, I see no good evidence that they are common misconceptions. Do people expect Mexican chocolate to contain cinnamon? No doubt. But does that rise to a "misconception"? There are salad dressings in the US called "French", "Russian", and "Italian" which are not found in those countries. Do people actually believe that they come from those countries? |
|||
:Does anyone believe in a pre-Spanish origin for mole poblano? The usual origin story (for what it's worth) is about some nuns in a convent in the 18th century. A more nuanced story talks about various sources and influences on the dish. [https://eatfarmnow.com/2019/09/12/nuns-and-napoleon-the-history-of-mexicos-mole-dish/ "Nuns and Napoleon: The history of Mexico’s ‘mole’ dish"] |
|||
*The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources: |
|||
:I see nothing in the topic articles about these misconceptions. |
|||
So I think we need to delete these two entries. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 05:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Macrakis}} thanks for flagging, I'm not opposed to deleting them although I'd like to dig out the sourcing to see if you think it verifies that they are common misconceptions beforehand. Narrowly on "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources"; I couldn't find a way to work in a link to [[History of chocolate]] to the mole without going too far into [[MOS:EASTEREGG]] although this was intended to be the topic article and was linked next to the entry. The mentions in the topic article are as follows: |
|||
:*"While mole poblano, a sauce that contains chocolate, is commonly associated with the Aztecs, it originated in territory that was never occupied by them, and the sauce was only invented after the Spanish invasion." |
|||
:*"While Aztec chocolate drinks are commonly understood to contain cinnamon, the spice was only introduced to Mesoamerica by the Spanish conquest." |
|||
:Both in the Aztec section. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 05:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Quote verifying common misconception for cinnamon: "But historical fact does not determine present-day accuracy. For example, a chocolate drink globally coded as a “real Aztec recipe” is expected to contain cinnamon, a flavor and spice only introduced to Mesoamerica through the Spanish conquest."[https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/what-is-mexican-chocolate/] I have argued in the past that sourcing of this kind, where it verifies it is a common misconception among people who have knowledge of a "real Aztec recipe for chocolate" does not verify it is a common misconception. My argument was rejected, so I put this forth. I'm happy to revisit it, from memory an example at issue was the Creme Chantilly item. |
|||
::Quote verifying common misconception for mole "In all of the pages of Sahagun that deal with Aztec cuisine and with chocolate, there is not a hint that it ever entered into an Aztec dish. Yet today many food writers and gourmets consider one particular dish, the famous pavo in mole poblano, which contains chocolate, to represent the pinnacle of the Mexican cooking tradition." This verifies it is held as misconception among many gourmets and food writers. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 06:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Agree with removal. They seems to be factually correct, but we don't have adequate sourcing that they are ''common'' misconceptions. |
|||
:As for the Whipped Cream entry, I think [[WP:WHATABOUTX]] would apply here, i.e. another entry being problematic is not a good argument for adding more problematic entries. I haven't looked carefully at the cites for that entry but would not object to its removal too. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 16:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::No worries, we can go ahead and remove them. I didn't intend it as a WHATABOUTX, but as something we had established consensus on as adequate sourcing. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 16:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks for pointing to the quotes in the History of Chocolate article. My impression is that the post-conquest origin of mole poblano is widely acknowledged since it's so obvious that it contains both indigenous and European ingredients. As for drinking chocolate, it is true that it was used as a beverage pre-conquest, although of course without cinnamon and sugar, so it's hard to know whether someone claiming that it is of Aztec origin is misinformed or simply glossing over the evolution of the dish. After all, pretty much all recipes evolve. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 23:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::For post-conquest mole poblano origin; I think simultaneously many people can acknowledge the post-conquest origins while also apparently being a misconception among food writers and gourmets (and perhaps beyond, this is whom we can verify at least). We see misconceptions being possible among multiple understandings for [[fuck]] for instance, where it people apparently both believe it originated from an acronym or from "pluck you"; just because there are multiple understandings doesn't preclude any one being a common misconception. |
|||
::::For drinking chocolate, I assume misinformed as the source implies; just as I do with basically every entry here. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 00:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Snake misconceptions == |
|||
:::::::::'''Source contacted: page now clearly reads that the color issue is a common misconception.''' [http://solar-center.stanford.edu/SID/activities/GreenSun.html Link.] --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Snakes are not deaf. Although you can't see them, all snake species have ears and are capable of hearing. You can look for reliable sources on [[Google]]. [[User:Jamgorham|Jamgorham]] ([[User talk:Jamgorham|talk]]) 19:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Here's another source. It calls it a "popular misconception".[http://www.space.com/803-great-star-south.html] [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 01:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::That seems to solve the problem. Thanks! [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 02:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I didn't know that anyone thought snakes were deaf. Is this a common misconception? <small><sub>''signed'', </sub></small>[[User:Willondon|Willondon]] ([[User Talk:Willondon|talk]]) 20:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===The Sun IS yellow=== |
|||
::Apparently, yes: |
|||
No, it is not a misconception. This is what I get for not monitoring this talk page so conversations like this can be nipped in the bud. I used to teach astronomy. '''Our Sun is classified as a yellow star by astronomers.''' See [[Stellar_classification]], or any college astronomy textbook. Quoting some non-authoritative source that disagrees with what scientists in the field actually say doesn't make for a good item to include in this article. Fortunately, I don't see anything in the list about a yellow sun. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 07:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::https://stories.uq.edu.au/news/2023/snakes-can-hear-more-than-you-think/index.html |
|||
::https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/snakes-can-hear-you-scream-new-research-reveals/ |
|||
::https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/yes-snakes-can-hear-sound |
|||
::And this paywalled article from the WAPO that says: |
|||
:::“There’s been this enduring myth that snakes are deaf,” says neurobiologist Bruce Young of the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, who was not involved in the new research. “Behavioral studies have suggested that snakes can in fact hear, and now this work has gone one step further and explained how.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/how-snakes-hear-without-ears/2011/12/29/gIQAuseoWP_story.html |
|||
::It's mentioned in the topic article [[Snake#Perception]] paragraph 4. |
|||
::So, it seems to meet the inclusion criteria, although it's more of a "scientific consensus has changed" sort of misconception. It's also based on just one study, so we might want to be careful here. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 01:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Snakes being able to hear seems like a good addition to me. I believe many people think that snakes can't hear, and according to one of the sources there are now multiple studies showing that they can. <span style="font-family: cursive;">— [[User:Mudwater|Mudwater]]<small><sup> ([[User talk:Mudwater|Talk]])</sup></small></span> 11:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Expiration dates== |
|||
== Wow, that revert was quick == |
|||
In [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=1260747829 this edit], @JeffUK removed the "expiration date" misconception, saying |
|||
:Remove package food entry, it's untrue as stated and therefore unsafe. The ‘use by’ is a safety date on all foods where it's used in much of the world. (EU: After the ‘use by’ date, a food is deemed unsafe in accordance with article 14 (2) of Regulation EC No. 178/2002 ) |
|||
*Understanding Probability: Chance Rules in Everyday Life |
|||
That regulation ([https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2002/178/article/14 Article 14 (2) of Regulation EC No. 178/2002]) reads (3b): |
|||
*The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science |
|||
:In determining whether any food is unsafe, regard shall be had:... (b) to the information provided to the consumer, including information on the label, or other information generally available to the consumer concerning the avoidance of specific adverse health effects from a particular food or category of foods. |
|||
*Data Matters: Conceptual Statistics for a Random World |
|||
This is at best ambiguous. But in any case, it doesn't apply outside the EU. |
|||
Did you actually check all three books or was your revert just a knee-jerk reaction to a new entry added to the article? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 19:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I have restored the section, qualifying it as applying only to the US, where we have good sources. It would be nice to find good sources for other jurisdictions. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 17:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:"Use by" is a food safety issue; fluid milk has a "use by" date and is expected to spoil (i.e., make you sick) soon afterwards. "Best by" is a food quality issue; potato chips have a "best by" date and are expected to be safe but perhaps a bit stale afterwards. I believe that "don't drink milk after its 'use-by' date" is a common correct-conception, but "don't eat potato chips after their 'best-by' date" is a common mis-conception. This list should differentiate the two, or only mention the best-by. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:We MUST have evidence that the exact words "common misconception" (or something very similar) have been used to describe the false belief. I cannot check the books. Those words WERE NOT used in the added text. In normal circumstances I apply good faith, but for this article we need much stronger evidence than sources we cannot check. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 20:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed. There is a difference between "use by" and "best by" in some jurisdictions. Our current [[expiration date]] needs some improvement to clarify which wording is used with what meaning in which jurisdictions (with better sources) and then we can update the misconception. For example, as far as I can tell (but I need to do more research), "use by" is not a legally defined term in the US. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 21:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== "Mama Cass" == |
|||
::No, that's not how [[WP:V|verifiability]] works. There is no requirement that sources be online or easy to check. See [[WP:SOURCEACCESS]]. If you dispute an edit, then go to a library or a book store or ask the editor to upload a scan of the pages in question. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::For what it's worth, in [[Gambler's_fallacy#Psychology behind the fallacy]], there are 6 references, and it is described as something "most people erroneously believe". I'd say there ''is'' clear evidence that this is a common misconception. – [[User_talk:Jaksmata|<font color="black" style="background:#FFFFDD"><font color="red">'''j'''</font>ak<font color="red">'''s'''</font>mata</font>]] 21:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::The inclusion criteria, if valid, says nothing about using the "exact words 'common misconception'". --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 22:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
This [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=1264117866 diff] seems to be advocating a decidedly left-wing ideological and polemicist position. The "average" ordinary person '''''regularly''''' uses the nickname "Mama Cass" as do countless 1960s music playing radio stations, both internet and in the real world. Plus, "average" ordinary people don't use the terms "fat shaming" or "connotations" and wouldn't readily understand them or care if someone tried to explain, especially the latter. IMO, the IP is applying something that should not be done so in Wikipedia's "voice". [[Special:Contributions/180.150.37.138|180.150.37.138]] ([[User talk:180.150.37.138|talk]]) 19:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I am happier about the new online reference, but not fully convinced. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 00:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:No need to characterize the edit as "left-wing" or comment on the phrasing used in the edit comment. The only question is whether we should include the name "Mama Cass" in the entry about Cass Elliot. That she didn't like the nickname isn't dispositive. The main question is whether including the nickname helps users identify her: is "Cass Elliot (of The Mamas & the Papas)" clear enough, or would it be helpful to write "Cass Elliot (Mama Cass of The Mamas & the Papas)"? According to Google nGrams, the name Mama Cass is [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Mama+Cass%2CCass+Eliot&year_start=1960&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=10 about twice as common as Cass Elliot], so I think it's reasonable to assume that it's more familiar. It is also a name used for her in a Mamas & the Papas song, and the cited NYTimes article says "she found it hard to shake her nickname". So the name is widely familiar and I agree that it should be restored. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 22:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::While it's pretty clear that she did not like the name (at least in later life), unless someone can point to some relevant Wikipedia policy regarding nicknames that are disliked by the person we should include the more common identifier to make it understandable to the average reader. The fact that the edit comment and the initial comment above included some irrelevant editorializing shouldn't affect our decision on whether to include the alternate, more common identifier. |
|||
::I'm in favor of restoring "Cass Elliot (Mama Cass of The Mamas & the Papas)". Unless someone can point to some policy prohibiting or disfavoring it. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 16:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::According to Wikipedia policy, when writing about an individual, the preferred name to use is the one most commonly used in reliable sources, which includes respecting a person's self-identified gender and preferred name, even if it differs from their legal name or how they were previously known in the public eye. Cass Elliot (which is not her birth name) is the name she chose for herself. Her father nicknamed her Cass after the Greek mythological prophetess Cassandra, and she chose the surname to honor a friend who died in a car accident. |
|||
:::"Cass Elliot of The Mamas & the Papas" would work just fine. Her Wikipedia article is called [[Cass Elliot]], not Mama Cass. <b>[[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle =]]</b> <small>([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]])</small> 16:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Which Wikipedia policy is that? The closest policy I can find is at [[WP:PUBLICFIGURE]] which says biographies |
|||
:::::... should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. |
|||
::::[[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 22:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::[[WP:COMMONNAME]] says Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)." <b>[[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle =]]</b> <small>([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]])</small> 03:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The Wikipedia article is called [[Cass Elliot]]. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame calls her [https://rockhall.com/inductees/mamas-and-papas/ Cass Elliot]. She is known as Cass Elliot. eom. <b>[[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle =]]</b> <small>([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]])</small> 03:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:"We MUST have evidence that the exact words 'common misconception'".... definitely not. We need only evidence that the misconception is widespread. We don't need some catch-phrase to appear in a source. A journal article that describes statistical measurements that most people react to the 4-coin-toss problem the same way, and the fact that we already have an article on the [[Gambler's Fallacy]] with sufficient references, should be sufficient. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 01:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::The second sentence in [[Cass Elliot]] begins ''She was also known as "Mama Cass"...'' [[Mama Cass]] redirects to that page. |
|||
::See [[WP:UNCENSORED]]. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 16:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Re "the preferred name to use is the one most commonly used in reliable sources" -- yes, that is the policy for ''article titles''. It doesn't say that other names shouldn't be used. We document names like [[William the Bad]]. And in the case of Cass Elliot, it seems that Mama Cass is a better known name than the name she preferred, a bit like [[Ivan the Terrible]] and [[Bloody Mary]], which I think you'll agree are better-known names than Ivan IV of Russia and Mary I of England. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 13:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The 2nd inclusion criterion states - "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 second part of that was written (perhaps not as well as it could have been) to highlight that the words "common misconception" or something very similar MUST appear in at least one source. |
|||
::::See [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. <b>[[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle =]]</b> <small>([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]])</small> 13:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That policy is about [[WP:TITLE|article titles]], and if adhered to strictly would require renaming the topic article, [[Cass Elliot]], to [[Mama Cass]]. I don't think anyone is arguing for that, and this is the wrong place to have that discussion. |
|||
:::::As Macrakis points out, Mama Cass is a better known name than the name she preferred. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 15:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::No, if adhered to strictly, her article would be and IS Cass Elliot. We don't look to popular usage among people on the street. What matters is the name that she is referred to in sources. In biographies involving her she is referred to as Cass Elliot. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame calls her Cass Elliot. <b>[[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle =]]</b> <small>([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]])</small> 16:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::"People on the street" are ordinary people and it is an average person that defines the objective norm, not outlier populations such as tertiary-educated people. Professional orgs like the R&RHOF and poli-social activists like the diff maker i objected to, are also not ordinary. JMO and YMMV. [[Special:Contributions/180.150.37.138|180.150.37.138]] ([[User talk:180.150.37.138|talk]]) 04:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::No, actually, we don't base it on ordinary people or the average person. We base it on the usage in credible, notable sources. <b>[[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle =]]</b> <small>([[User talk:Kingturtle|talk]])</small> 04:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od |5}}There doesn't appear to be any Wikipedia policy that prohibits also mentioning the name under which she became famous, and which appears in most of the cites in the topic article. Or at least no one has been able to produce one. Given that, there appears to be consensus to restore the recent removal. I'll give it another day or so before making the change to see if anyone else wants to chime in. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== catholicism == |
|||
If you choose to continue this fight, I will resubmit this article for deletion. It was precisely because I expected that some editors would not be able to conform to the inclusion criteria that I agreed to let it live. Your attitude proves that its existence cannot be justified. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
i think u still cant disagree on what the church and pope teach: |
|||
:As much as I think there is a problem with this article, IronMaidenRocks is correct that we cannot reject the sources simply because they are offline. I would ask, though, that whoever it was that added the statement provide us with some sort of idea just what it was that the books said, so that we can better just whether it meets the 2nd inclusion criteria. I don't need a scan--I'll AGF a quote from someone. I think HiLo48 is being a bit extreme, but the underlying point is that we have to be careful just how far we are willing to stretch in terms of the sources what counts as a "common misconception." If we're going to accept "widely held belief (that is wrong)" then I'm going to have to insist that we also accept any percentage results that are over 25-30%, as those are clearly the same meaning (to me). [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 01:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
III |
|||
::HiLo48: You can submit this article for AfD to your heart's content. But you're still going to have answer the same question that you couldn't before: What policy(s) does it violate and how does it violate them? Content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 02:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH'S PASTORS |
|||
17. Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching. |
|||
:::When I first saw this section of the article it only had offline sources, and none of the wording included anything like the words "''common misconception''". I am now happier with the content, but agree with Qwyrxian that we must be very careful with what goes into the article. I don't want to repeat all that was said in the deletion debate, but there were a lot of awfully valid points highlighting the difficulties surrounding this article's existence. This is not simply a content dispute. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful. |
|||
::::Qwyrxian, the source from the Gambler's Fallacy article is available on Google Books. Just click the ISBN, then go down to "search for this on Google Books". --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 05:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
As far as I know, most of us above agreed the exact words "common misconception" don't need to be used. Also, offline sources can absolutely be used although I'll admit the possibility of abuse for sourcing something with offline sources is higher. That doesn't mean we should immediately delete it though ([[WP:AGF|AGF]]), but rather should try and verify it (Google books as mentioned above is a good idea). [[User:VegaDark|VegaDark]] ([[User talk:VegaDark|talk]]) 09:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html [[Special:Contributions/2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4|2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4]] ([[User talk:2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4|talk]]) 15:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Inclusion Criteria in Text of the Article == |
|||
:Please see [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]] for the applicable Wikipedia policies. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 15:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Please don't include messages to editors in the article's text. That's why we have tags. It would probably be in the article's best interest if you sought consensus with the main body of Wikipedia that an article can have a set list of inclusion criteria. It sounds like WP:OR to me. Do you have sources that define what a 'common misconception' is? Do those details given perfectly fit your rules for inclusion? |
|||
::Also, you need to be more specific about what changes you would like to see. Better to discuss things in the source article first, because this article is only supposed to summarize them. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== islam == |
|||
One user said that consensus was not reached about criteria - if that is so, stop trying to force the criteria onto the article and use only Wikipedia's guidelines. Its concerning to me that editors are inadvertently going above the rest of Wikipedia and make they're own rules. As we have seen from the preceding discussions, we have not, apparently, actually defined what items should be included in the list. Its also annoying that we're vetting new information by this criteria, and yet none of the older material has been examined; many of them having Snopes and blogs as sources. Reliable sourcing is much, much more important than adhering to these article specific rules. Please show me a Wikipedia policy suggesting that guidelines for individual articles are even allowed. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 22:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Please see my description above. Also, it is common practice on lists with unclear inclusion criteria to explicitly list that in the article. That is actually not for editors, but for the reader, so that they understand what this article is defining as a "common misconception". [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 22:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Its also common practice to avoid and delete lists like this. It would be better to have an article called "common misconceptions" (similar to the article on [[fallacy]]) and discuss misconceptions therein. Then it would have a rational to be further broken down into separate articles like "common misconceptions of/in..."; an article titled "list of common misconceptions of astronomy" would never be allowed to stay. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 22:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oh, I strongly agree with deleting this list. But if it stays, it must have specific, clear inclusion criteria. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 23:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::My position is exactly the same as Qwyrxian's. There was a very extensive and quite painful debate on this which only reached a very begrudging agreement from me to allow the article continue to exist ONLY on the condition that we applied very explicit inclusion criteria AND listed those criteria in every section of the article as messages to editors. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 00:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::"''begrudging agreement from me to allow the article continue to exist ONLY on the condition''" |
|||
:::::Nobody has to follow guidelines that you set out. The results were no-consensus, not appease Hilo with his demands for explicit inclusion criteria for every section.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 02:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::"me to allow the article continue to exist" |
|||
:::::Lol, I didn't realize you were allowing this article to continue to exist, I thought you just failed at getting it deleted.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 02:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I'm glad I got your attention with the strength of those points. Of course I don't have personal control over the article, but please recall that the result of the RfD was not a defeat. It was a train wreck, and that was due to the mass of poor quality of arguments presented. You will know which side I believe most of those came from. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 02:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::You don't need arguments. In Wikipedia's perfect form, its just a collection of paraphrased quotes with attached sources. Make the guidlines conform to sources and Wikipedia's standards. No debates or rivalries needed! Work together! ~Spreads Rainbow across the sky!~ Personally, I think the best COA is to move the article to [[Common Misconceptions]] or similar. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::One of the points I made in the RfD discussion (more than once because some didn't seem able to read or understand it) was that to understand a [[List of common misconceptions]], we need a [[Common misconception]] article where such a thing was defined. But we have the fundamental problem that while we do have an article with such a name, it redirects straight back to this article. That means that the content of this article is defined by the content of this article. Stupid really. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 06:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::First of all, please let's wait with another Afd until we've had a few more months to see how this turns out. If it were to be nominated now, the result would most likely be exactly the same as last time, with the addition of a lot of (rightfully?) angry comments about being too quick to re-launch the Afd. |
|||
:::::::::Secondly, I disagree that we should not be very strict with new items even though other items on the list may be in bad shape. By being very strict, it means that we avoid a lot of clean up later, and the items that do get added to the list will be so with much better sourcing than they otherwise might. Furthermore, people ''are'' working on re-phrasing, re-sourcing and removing bad content. |
|||
:::::::::Thirdly, that we require good sources to name somthing a common misconception is necessary in order to avoid a system based on [[WP:OR]] or [[WP:SYN]]. If a "common misconception" can only be sourced to blogs etc. then it is probably not notable enough for inclusion. Many of the items on the list have been covered as common misconceptions in major media, these are probably the kinds of misconceptions that should make up this list. Not the 43rd and 44th common misconception about astronomy. |
|||
:::::::::[[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 07:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I agree. We should hold to the standards you just mentioned. I do think that specifically looking for the words "common misconception" is going to steer us away from misconceptions which are actually common. From what I've seen of the article, blog pages and Q&As are the commonly accepted sources. That needs to change: the items we already have need to be reviewed and new items need to be held to those standards. Its better to use reliable sources that ''imply'' a misconception is common, rather than unreliable sources which plainly ''state'' that a misconception is common. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 08:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::I would say that we should use reliable sources that state that it is a common misconception, but I agree that we should not hunt for the exact phrase "common misconception". Maybe we agree, as long as the ''implication'' you're talking about is "explicit enough". From an above example, I don't think the information that children colour the sun yellow is sufficient, but the statement "many people find it hard to believe" is. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 09:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::About source quality: I favor weeding out blogs which are not affiliated with a newspaper or other [[WP:RS]] (that is, not under an editorial policy with fact-checking), and weeding out Q&As which aren't in [[WP:RS]]. We have the option of tagging ''any'' marginal sources with <nowiki>{{Dubious}}</nowiki> after better sources can't be easily found, or deleting really bad sources. In the AfD discussion and previously in Talk I advocated a thorough source review; in that light, I've reviewed several items, and found better sources for one or two, but haven't yet made the time to add them to the article. I figure ''patience'' is good. --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 08:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
corrections |
|||
== Vitaman C Does not Prevent or Cure Colds == |
|||
a sahih hadith mentions that u get 2 wives in paradise |
|||
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5184850 |
|||
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2735 |
|||
additionally, this article shouldnt make it look like hijab isnt prescribed in islam |
|||
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/cold-and-flu/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100172929 |
|||
https://quran.com/en/an-nur/31 |
|||
finally, this article shouldnt make it look like ahadith arent required for muslims: |
|||
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jul/18/medicineandhealth.sciencenews <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/12.20.4.100|12.20.4.100]] ([[User talk:12.20.4.100|talk]]) 19:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
https://quran.com/en/al-hashr/7 |
|||
:<s>{{notdone}} - Please provide a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that this is a common misconception, not just sources that vitamin C does not prevent or cure colds. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)</s> |
|||
https://quran.com/en/al-anfal/20 |
|||
::The first link says: |
|||
{{quotation|But, contrary to popular belief, a mega-dose of Vitamin C is not an effective cold remedy.}} |
|||
::I think that is sufficient. –[[User:CWenger|CWenger]] ([[User talk:CWenger|talk]]) 20:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
https://quran.com/en/ali-imran/31 [[Special:Contributions/2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4|2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4]] ([[User talk:2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4|talk]]) 15:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::CWenger is correct. We need to stop this machine-like insistence that a source must contain the exact phrase "common misconception". [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 20:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Actually I agree. It wasn't "machine-like"; just a careless error. I missed "popular belief" when I read over the sources. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 20:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:https://islamqa.info/en/answers/257509/number-of-huris-a-muslim-will-get-in-jannah#:~:text=%E2%80%9CEach%20man%20will%20be%20given,given%20in%20addition%20to%20that. |
|||
:::::While the application of the inclusion criteria need not be totally machine like, it does have to be pretty strict. The earlier failure to have strict inclusion criteria was precisely what led to the last RfD. In this case I can accept that "contrary to popular belief" is good enough, but I am still concerned that we have to have this discussion for almost all additions to the article. Very few other Wikipedia articles cause so much trouble with attempts to add garbage. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 21:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:https://www.anic.org.au/news/islamic-position-on-the-hijab/ |
|||
:https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/are-hadith-necessary [[Special:Contributions/2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4|2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4]] ([[User talk:2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4|talk]]) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:You need to be more specific about what changes you would like to see. Better to discuss things in the source article first, because this article is only supposed to summarize them. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I was going to add this, and thus had a close look at the sources to see how I could create a nice paragraph out of them, but then I noticed that there may actually be two different misconceptions here. On the one hand, it is the belief that mega doses of vitamin C functions as a remedy for flu and/or cold, and another is that daily intake of vitamin C ''prevents'' flu and/or cold. I went to [[Vitamin C]] to see if something could help to clarify, and found the following: |
|||
:::::::"''Routine vitamin C supplementation does not reduce the incidence or severity of the [[common cold]] in the general population, though the largest analyses suggest supplementation may slightly reduce common cold duration''".<ref name="Hemilä2010">{{cite journal |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub3 |pmid=17636648 |title=Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold |journal=Cochrane database of systematic reviews |issue=3 |pages=CD000980 |year=2007 |last1=Hemilä |first1=Harri |last2=Chalker |first2=Elizabeth |last3=Douglas |first3=Bob |last4=Hemilä |first4=Harri}}</ref><ref name="Audera2001">{{Cite journal| last = Audera | title = Mega-dose vitamin C in treatment of the common cold: a randomised controlled trial | journal = Medical Journal of Australia | volume = 389 | page =175 | year = 2001 | first = C }}</ref> |
|||
::::::This is suggestive that there may actually be an effect after all. Going to the first of the sources given here (which seems to be the original source for the other sources also), I found: |
|||
:::::::"''This review is restricted to placebo-controlled trials testing 0.2 g per day or more of vitamin C. Regular ingestion of vitamin C had no effect on common cold incidence in the ordinary population. However, it had a modest but consistent effect in reducing the duration and severity of common cold symptoms. In five trials with participants exposed to short periods of extreme physical stress (including marathon runners and skiers) vitamin C halved the common cold risk.''" |
|||
::::::The last sentence I guess may be what I have seen elsewhere written as "limited effect for extreme athletes". But what about "modest but consistent effect"? |
|||
::::::Do we have a misconception here, or is it simply a case of insufficient data? I think this comment by the author of the review may be suggestive of the latter: |
|||
:::::::''Despite finding that vitamin C did little to help protect people against common colds, however, Dr Hemilä said more scientific studies were required to investigate whether the vitamin helped to treat colds and pneumonia in children. Vitamin C was not a panacea, but neither was it useless, he said. "Pauling was overly optimistic, but he wasn't completely wrong."'' |
|||
::::::I don't have access to medical journals, so I can't check the second source quoted in the [[Vitamin C]] article.[[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 22:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== christianity == |
|||
:::::::It all depends on the wording. The title of the section says "...''prevent'' or ''cure'' colds" I'm not aware of any evidence that Vitamin C can do that. But there are certainly studies that suggest it can reduce the severity of cold symptoms. Higher up in this discussion the word ''remedy'' is used. I'm not sure if that means ''cure'' or ''relieve''. I would avoid it. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 23:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'm not sure about this. Its giving medical advice about something that seems uncertain. Could cause some people to stop taking vitamin C when they have a cold, when it could actually be helpful in some way. Is this really necessary, How many medicinal products with "it doesn't quite have this one effect" are we going to add? The source for commonality of the 'misconception' says "a mega-dose of vitamin C will not remedy a cold". I agree that that's a common thought in the US; when people get a cold, they think they should take excessive amounts of vitamin C. But it doesn't say "many people believe vitamin C prevents or cures colds" which is pretty extreme, ''considering how it is a common conception that nothing can cure a cold.'' --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 11:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I found the second source from the Vitamin C article, they sum up in their abstract that: "Doses of vitamin C in excess of 1 g daily taken shortly after onset of a cold did not reduce the duration or severity of cold symptoms in healthy adult volunteers when compared with a vitamin C dose less than the minimum recommended daily intake.". The article is available [http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/175_07_011001/audera/audera.html here].[[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 09:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
im not sure if im missing something but the catholic article source does not mention tertullian writing about 9 sins but rather 7 |
|||
== Back and to the Left == |
|||
and the 7 deadly sins are mentioned in the bible |
|||
JFK's head moving "back and to the left" when he was shot is often used as "evidence" that there was a second gunman on the ground. In actuality the head would move toward the shooter and not away. There's no shortage of people who believe in the conspiracy surrounding his assassination and I'm not going to address it as a whole, but this particular aspect of it is certainly a common misconception <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.69.172.148|70.69.172.148]] ([[User talk:70.69.172.148|talk]]) 05:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Right now it reads as if it's YOUR conspiracy theory. Wikipedia depends on sourced content, so to add that content you need to find an independent reliable reference that, firstly, describes it as a common misconception (or similar), secondly, has an article here, and thirdly, presents the "correct" interpretation. Good luck. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm<br /> |
|||
::The section headed "1HSCA178" addresses the source of the misconception. The movie ''JFK'' and Bill Hicks' stand up routines played no small part either. The sections headed "1HSCA403" and "1HSCA404" discuss the actual physics and experiments conducted. I can recall watching a video in which a ballistics expert shot melons wrapped in packing tape with a rifle, much to the same conclusion. Unfortunately, it's unlikely I'll dig it up on the internet. I'm sure there are plenty other credible sources from people who ran the same experiment. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.69.172.148|70.69.172.148]] ([[User talk:70.69.172.148|talk]]) 05:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::Again, the inclusion criteria for this article are quite explicit. Do have a look at the lead of [[List of common misconceptions|the article]]. What you have presented so far does not satisfy the second of those criteria. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 05:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%206%3A10%E2%80%9312&version=KJV |
|||
== New entry in section Astronomy: Center of the universe == |
|||
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205%3A19-21&version=KJV |
|||
Many people (I did so too) believe that our universe has a center where all matter constantly moves away from since the big bang. However, there is no center. Source: http://www.universetoday.com/36653/center-of-the-universe/ |
|||
I remember there used to be a wiki page dedicated to this topic, but it seems gone now. Wonder why... |
|||
([[User:Eroock|Eroock]] ([[User talk:Eroock|talk]]) 00:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)) |
|||
:If you're requesting an addition to the article, you must address '''all''' of the following: |
|||
:*Does the misconception's including topic have an article of its own? |
|||
:*Provide a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that it is a common misconception. |
|||
:*Is the misconception mentioned in its topic article with sources? |
|||
:*Is the misconception current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete? |
|||
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202%3A15-17&version=KJV |
|||
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2018%3A9%E2%80%9312&version=KJV [[Special:Contributions/2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4|2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4]] ([[User talk:2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4|talk]]) 15:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:You need to be more specific about what changes you would like to see. Better to discuss things in the source article first, because this article is only supposed to summarize them. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:[[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 01:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Article split & transclusion == |
|||
::It doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but this was not on the quite exhaustive list "[http://scc.losrios.edu/~sah/physics/44Miscon.htm 44 misconceptions about astronomy]" quoted in another discussion above. I couldn't find anything on [[Universe]] or [[Observable Universe]], but I didn't read the articles thoroughly, I only searched for "center" in the article text. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I've implemented the article split and transclusion of the sub-articles. Some implementation notes: |
|||
:::Just so that I'm on the same page... They're saying that we know there was a big bang because the universe is expanding? That's a logical fallacy. The absence of a center makes the concept of a singularity false, unless they have a reasonable explanation. Are they saying the whole existing universe, except to where matter has spread, is the area of the singularity's origination? --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 05:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*Having the sub-articles in a subdirectory did not work as well in the main space as it does in a user space so the three sub-articles are at the root of the main space. If anyone has a better way to do this, I'm all ears. |
|||
::::It's a more than three dimensional thing. One interesting analogy I've read is that of the surface of a balloon as it's being inflated. It's expanding in many (not really all) directions, but has no centre. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 06:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*I've spot checked "What links here" and the dozen or so links to this page that I checked seem to work. I did not check them all. |
|||
:::::Yes, the source related what you said about the balloon. I think I understand what it means, but a simple analogy can only say so much about such a theory. There was no real attempt to explain the analogy given in the source (I am weary of this: sometimes analogies are purposely vague so that audiences infer meanings convenient for the speaker). As I see it, the balloon did have a place of origination, a starting point from before it expanded outwards. Scientists who support the Big Bang theory claim there was a 'singularity' were all existing matter was contained, if I remember correctly, was so dense that it achieved critical mass and "exploded" from that central location. If this is the correct understanding of the theory, how can the theory still be held as viable without a detectable point of origination? The source is not saying there is no 'center because of dimensions' its saying there 'is no center because no place of origin can be detected'. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 07:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*There are still three cites that I can't figure out how to prevent from being transcluded so they show up at the end of the article. Would appreciate any help with this. |
|||
::::::I see now, its basically saying "the whole is the center" or that what was once the singularity is now everywhere. While I'm not sure that is a logical conclusion (such a 'singularity' left no trace, and yet it is said the big bang left high levels of radiation throughout the universe; how is that possible?), I at least see clearly what they mean. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 08:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*The new sub-articles have attracted attention from a few editors who don't seem to understand the context and have made some "helpful" edits - I expect more of this. |
|||
== Gestation gender == |
|||
*Each sub-article has its own talk page and its own history. I'd recommend adding them to your watchlist since changes to them don't appear in the history here. Not sure what to do about potentially four different venues for discussion, but maybe it won't really matter in practice. |
|||
There is a common misconception, even amongst midwives and other medical personell, that foetuses begin life as female - this is in fact false, unless the definition of female is 'lacking a penis'. Before becoming structurally male/female, foetuses are genotypically so from the moment of conception. This should be included, but I cannot seem to add it.{{unsigned|81.110.173.96}} |
|||
*Currently, there is no edit notice on the sub-articles. I'll take a look at adding these. UPDATE: the edit notice has been applied to the sub-pages. |
|||
::You need to find a [[wp:rs|source]] that this is a common misconception. I've never heard anyone clueless enough to say this about genotype, but I do hear it mentioned in relation to phenotype and morphology, where it's not entirely incorrect. [[User:Hairhorn|Hairhorn]] ([[User talk:Hairhorn|talk]]) 21:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 01:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Could we perhaps package the include control and the ref tag into a template to make it easier to edit entries? |
|||
:Something like <nowiki> {refnc|name=xxx|yyy} => <noinclude> <ref name=xxx> yyy </ref> </noinclude> </nowiki> and <nowiki> {refnc|xref=xxx} => <noinclude> <ref name=xxx /> </nowiki> . |
|||
:By the way, why did you use '''onlyinclude''' and not '''noinclude''', which seems easier to understand? --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 16:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not conversant with packaging controls into templates, but have no objection if it accomplishes what I think it accomplishes. |
|||
::I used onlyinclude because that was how [[User:S Marshall]] did it in the mockup. noinclude is probably the better way to do it, but I was not aware of that tag until now. I'll take a look at changing it, shouldn't be too hard since it's mostly just a find and replace exercise. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 18:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Romantic relationships == |
||
<nowiki>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/romantic-relationships-matter-more-to-men-than-to-women/52E626D3CD7DB14CD946F9A2FBDA739C#</nowiki> |
|||
A small thing, but I think this sentence means to use "smoothing" instead of "smooth": |
|||
"Women are often viewed as more romantic than men, and romantic relationships are assumed to be more central to the lives of women than to those of men. Despite the prevalence of these beliefs, some recent research paints a different picture." [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 10:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
"They can, however, prevent damage from occurring in the first place, smooth down the cuticle in a glue-like fashion so that it appears repaired and generally make hair appear in better condition." |
|||
== Article is broken due to syntax errors in included pages == |
|||
I don't see an edit button, so I assume this page is locked down or something, but I wanted to help. Spelling errors often make things appear less valid than they are. |
|||
:Not a spelling error. It's grammatical with parallel sentence structure (using the verbs prevent, smooth, and make). [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 15:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::{{done}}: It is a grammatical error, however, and I have changed it per the request. If you want to keep "smooth" the sentence structure would have to be altered somehow. –[[User:CWenger|CWenger]] ([[User talk:CWenger|talk]]) 15:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
No, it's not a grammatical error. It has perfectly parallel sentence structure. "Smooth" is a verb. So the parallel structure uses the verbs prevent, smooth, and make. This is fundamental English grammar. The only grammatical change would have to be preventing, smoothing, and making, which wouldn't make sense. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 15:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I see your point now. But in that case I recommend a comma after "repaired" so it is clear to readers that these are three separate potential benefits. –[[User:CWenger|CWenger]] ([[User talk:CWenger|talk]]) 15:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::No problem. A comma is optional before "and" in seriation. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks! I find it helpful in this case because the benefits are so long and the comma helps the reader realize a new one is coming. –[[User:CWenger|CWenger]] ([[User talk:CWenger|talk]]) 16:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I have not read the second half of the page yet, but in the first half, I have noticed multiple occasions in which segments were clearly swallowed by other segments. |
|||
== monty hall == |
|||
For example, the item about Du Bois reads |
|||
[[monty hall problem]] is the subject of a common misconception. Should it be added here? [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 17:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:This one has potential, although we need a source that it is a common misconception. It is similar to [[gambler's fallacy]], which is already in the article. If it is added, it might be appended to that item. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 17:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I know this isn't really a legitimate argument, but y'all may want to look at [[Talk:Monty Hall problem]] before adding it here--that page has ''''22 archives'''' of people debating the exact details of the various solutions, their merits, etc. I think that importing the problems there to this page might be more trouble than its worth. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::On the other hand, we could refer people who object (most likely because they don't intuitively consider it valid) to those archives to review all the discussion. I suspect all the arguing merely confirms how widespread the misconception is. I'll admit, when I first heard this one I didn't believe it. But after learning more about probability, I finally came to accept it. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 00:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{blockquote|text={{color|darkgreen|The African-American intellectual and activist W. E. B. Du Bois did not renounce his U.S. citizenship while living in Ghana shortly before his death. In early 1963, his membership in the Communist Party and support for the Soviet Union led the U.S. State Department to refuse to renew his passport while he was already in Ghana. After leaving the embassy, he stated his intention to renounce his citizenship in protest, but while he took Ghanaian citizenship, he never actually renounced his American citizenship.}} {{color|darkorange|It is not true that by using the indefinite article ein, he changed the meaning of the sentence from the intended "I am a citizen of Berlin" to "I am a Berliner", a Berliner being a type of German pastry, similar to a jelly doughnut, amusing Germans. Furthermore, the pastry, which is known by many names in Germany, was not then — nor is it now — commonly called "Berliner" in the Berlin area.}}}} |
|||
Two points... |
|||
clearly containing the correction for the myth surrounding Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech. |
|||
Firstly, as Cresix has said, it would need a reliable source to say it is a common misconception. |
|||
Secondly, must it be named after an American game show host? Even the [[Monty Hall problem]] article says that it had been described much earlier. I recall studying such a problem in high school well before it got the Monty Hall name. (Which I had never heard of until today.) Of course, that wasn't in the USA. We MUST avoid this US-centrism. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Also, I just noticed that there's an open Arbcom case related to the article. I think that spreading it here is a bad idea. If it does come, though, "Monty Hall problem" is, as far as I can tell, the standard name used, if in mathematical treatises on the subject, and certainly the most commonly used term for the problem. The treatment of the problem does postdate the show (per our article, first described in 1975). [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 01:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
The reason for this is that the included pages make extensive use of <code>onlyinclude</code>, and in some segments (such as the quoted one), this is done poorly: There seems to be some intention not to include the references, but by choosing to <code>onlyinclude</code> the text, rather than <code>noinclude</code>ing the references, every time someone forgets to re-open the <code>onlyinclude</code> after the last reference of an item, the start of the next item is swallowed, all the way up to after the first reference of that segment, ''if'' the editor "properly" re-opened <code>onlyinclude</code>ing after that reference. |
|||
::This is a common misconception, just not a very popularly known one. Most people will assume that removing all but two doors leaves their odds at 50/50, while not realising that their odds of picking incorrectly are much higher. However, probability doesn't matter in individual instances. The way I see it, if it is probable then at some point it will happen. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 06:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
This may be due to brute find/replace, since the page also includes numerous pointless empty <code>onlyinclude</code> segments, and in the given case, the error is caused by wrong usage of a self-closing ref-tag. |
|||
:::Are not the Monty Hall and the Gambler's Fallacy more "incarnations of human beings' inherently poor grasp of probability theory" than misconceptions? Several examples exist that shows how people will make the wrong choice when making judgements based on intuition or gut feeling rather than on careful calculations.[[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 07:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
In other words: It looks like somebody brutishly replaced <code><nowiki><ref</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki></onlyinclude><ref</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki></ref></nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki></ref><onlyinclude></nowiki></code>, and in those cases where people falsely inserted XHTML-style <code><nowiki><ref /></nowiki></code>-tags there was no closing <code><nowiki></ref></nowiki></code>-tag and thus no opening <code><nowiki><onlyinclude></nowiki></code> being included. |
|||
::::Most misconceptions result from a poor grasp of something, whether it's factual information or the weaknesses of intuitive decision-making. How is this one different? [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Well, I see a misconception as a "wrongly held belief", often based on poor information. These probability-items are not something that in my opinion define as "held beliefs", more as "problems that are incorrectly solved". An illustration: misconceptions can often show up in conversation; someone tells you that Baseball was invented by Abner Doubleday or that the great wall of China is visible from the moon. But no one will start a conversation about the Monty Hall problem without allready knowing the solution, and using it as a kind of interesting riddle. I know that there are no demands for misconceptions to frequently show up in conversation, but I still do think this illustrates a difference between these classes of "misconceptions". |
|||
:::::It may be that as very noteable (and named) problems, the Monty Hall and/or Gambler's Fallacy can justifiably be included here, but I think we should limit ourselves to a couple of items of this sort at maximum, since there are many more out there like them. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 08:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Again, I don't think we should get into defining what misconception means - we should rely upon reliable sources. If a reliable source supports something as a common misconception or easily identifiable synonym, that's enough. We don't need to limit ourselves to a couple of items, but rather only to the notable ones. Please see [[WP:NOTPAPER]] which states: ''Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content.'' [[User:Lgstarn|Lgstarn]] ([[User talk:Lgstarn|talk]]) 05:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Ok, I still feel the two are different, but unless there is a sudden influx of items of this sort I am happy to let the matter rest. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 07:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} |
|||
I still see no conceptual difference between this type of misconception and most other misconceptions. It may be true that "no one will start a conversation about the Monty Hall problem without already knowing the solution", but that doesn't mean that people don't have opinions about how someone should make such decisions based on their erroneous understanding of probabability; for example, I have no doubt that many people who watched Monty Hall's ''[[Let's Make a Deal]]'' had opinions about which door a contestant should select. The misconception is still held, just not articulated as the "Monty Hall problem". [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I have left it as is, both for documentary purposes as well as because this approach is something fundamental to be debated by the self-elected maintainers of this page and correction will probably require checking and editing ''all'' pages that make up [[{{PAGENAME}}]].<br> [[Special:Contributions/77.22.117.146|77.22.117.146]] ([[User talk:77.22.117.146|talk]]) 17:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|||
== Mussels == |
|||
:Thanks for the heads-up. I have fixed this issue. Are there any others that you noticed? [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 18:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|||
While studying biology, we were told by our Professor that the reason you don't eat unopened mussels is purely to avoid eating mussels which had been contaminated by certain types of bacteria. Ideally, you should have live mussels, immerse them in water, and after 20 to 60 minutes, they should all open a little and slam shut again when you touch them. This establishes that they aren't dead and unlikely to be diseased. Then when they are cooked, they generally all pop open providing they are healthy. Telling someone that they're safe to eat when they evidently were not testing using diseased mussels seems a little risky. Not everyone can differentiate between a normal odor and an abnormal one if they don't know what they're smelling for. The advice really is meant as a "safety first" strategy. Will try to find scientific articles to back this. --[[User:Waterspyder|Waterspyder]] ([[User talk:Waterspyder|talk]]) 16:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::The Islam section ends with unintroduced comments about Judaism. [[Special:Contributions/89.1.140.176|89.1.140.176]] ([[User talk:89.1.140.176|talk]]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) |
|||
:I removed the item because of several problems. In addition to the one you mention, the source does not identify this as a common misconception. The section on preparation as food in the article [[Mussel]] is completely unsourced. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks. Fixed. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 03:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) |
|||
::I have tested the [[RegEx]] <code><nowiki>/(?<=<\/onlyinclude>)(?:.(?!<onlyinclude>))*\n\*(?:.(?!<onlyinclude>))*/gs</nowiki></code> against both the old revision and the current one of the history subpage. |
|||
::It found five matches on the old revision, none on the current. |
|||
::So it does seem like you caught all the ones that were obvious. If you haven't done the other pages yet, feel free to try [https://regex101.com/r/HZInnB/1 the Regex] against their page sources. |
|||
::No guarantees it'll catch everything, but it'll at least narrow down spots you ''should'' check.<br> [[Special:Contributions/77.22.117.146|77.22.117.146]] ([[User talk:77.22.117.146|talk]]) 23:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|||
== Dodo misconceptions == |
|||
::What misconception? Every instance over my lifetime where I or someone I know ate an unopened cooked mussel, the result was a case of food poisoning. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 07:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
The [[dodo]] is one of the most famous extinct species, and one of the most commonly cited examples of recent manmade extinctions. However, there are many erroneous beliefs about the dodo popularised by pop culture and misconceptions that should be on this list |
|||
== Editorializing == |
|||
# "Dodo's were hunted to extinction due to their immaculate taste" This is untrue, as historical accounts wrote of its unsavoury flavour. Its extinction was mostly caused by [[invasive species]] as opposed to direct human predation like the [[passenger pigeon]] or [[quagga]]. |
|||
Can we remove the word "Although" from the phrase that begins "Although fraudulent research by Andrew Wakefield..."? [[User:DrSaturn|DrSaturn]] ([[User talk:DrSaturn|talk]]) 14:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
# "The dodo was too stupid to survive" This is also untrue, as genetic research has shown that the dodo had average to above average intelligence like other species of pigeons. Its perceived "stupidity" is more akin to [[naivety]] and [[Passivity (behavior)|passivity]] caused by living in isolation without significant predators similar to the [[Moa|moas]], [[Galápagos tortoise|Galápagos tortoises]], and [[Steller's sea cow]] prior to being discovered by Europeans or the [[Māori people|Māori]]. Sources: [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160223143148.htm Dodos might have been quite intelligent, new research finds | ScienceDaily] [https://books.google.com/books?id=bp8wK8zCg7wC The Dodo and the Solitaire: A Natural History - Jolyon C. Parish - Google Books] |
|||
:Why? Grammatically and contextually, it makes sense. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Edelgardvonhresvelg|Edelgardvonhresvelg]] ([[User talk:Edelgardvonhresvelg|talk]]) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|||
== Life Expectancy. == |
|||
== Tripitaka Koreana == |
|||
It's common to hear that in some historical era life expectancy was quite short, say 35-40 years. People always misinterpret this to mean that people aged faster back then and were dead by 40. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/115.128.32.170|115.128.32.170]] ([[User talk:115.128.32.170|talk]]) 06:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Are you aware that to add something to the article we need an independent reliable source that describes such a belief as a common misconception, or similar? (Plus a fair biT more.) [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 06:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::And frankly, I've never heard ''anyone'' interpret it this way. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
It is a popular misconception that the [[Tripitaka Koreana]] does not contain a single error;[23] a survey found that the text does indeed have missing characters and errors.[24][25] [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 04:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC) |
|||
==Edit notices no longer necessary in article body== |
|||
[[User:Mindmatrix]] has created a template displays the "criteria for inclusion" edit notice on '''any''' attempt to edit, so this notice is no longer necessary in every section in the body of the article, freeing up 23K of space. These edit notices have been removed (twice now) because it is now displayed automatically. This is a more elegant solution than including it over and over again in the article. Especially, if the notice requires copy-editing, it can be done in one place instead of many places. See [[Template:Editnotices/Page/List of common misconceptions]]. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 00:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: Excellent solution. Thanks for the explanation. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 04:39, 7 January 2025
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of common misconceptions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
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:
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
List of common misconceptions is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
To-do list for List of common misconceptions:
|
List of common misconceptions has been linked from multiple high-traffic websites. All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.
|
Daily pageviews of this article (experimental) Pageviews summary: size=76, age=120, days=75, min=1438, max=12199, latest=1898. |
RFC on number of pages to split to
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Here are three options:
Two lists | Three lists | Four lists |
---|---|---|
Note to people who wish the page wasn't being split: There is an effort (explained above) to create a single page view for readers. Splitting the current list is a necessary prerequisite for accomplishing that goal. Even if you opposed the decision to split this page, you are still invited to express a preference about how the pieces will be arranged. We can make no progress towards the goal of reassembling the pieces into a single view until we agree on what the pieces will be.
The first option is "Two", and the second option is "Three", which could get confusing for the closer ("He said two, but did he mean two lists or the second option, which is three lists?"), so please spell out your vote in this format:
- Two lists
- Three lists
- Four lists
or in some other equally unmistakable format. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Two lists. The consensus was reached to split for technical reasons, so no need to split any further than necessary to address the size concerns raised in the split discussion. STEM vs humanities is a natural divide. UPDATE: below, some editors are !voting for One list - that is my very strong preference. As explained in the split discussion, I reluctantly agreed to a split if necessary for technical reasons. That necessity has still not been established. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Three lists. The article is already divided into arts and culture, history, and STEM, so it'd be easiest and most natural to do it that way. (Summoned by bot) Ships & Space(Edits) 22:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Four lists, but three would also make sense. Splitting by existing sections makes a lot of sense, but, judging by eye, the expected content for Health is about the same size as History, and also makes a lot of sense to me as a conceptual split. I want to say I prefer not to see the arbitrary clumping of two lists, but this whole thing is arbitrary at a certain point, isn’t it? — HTGS (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Four lists. If a separate page for "Health" is not benefiting WP:MEDRS, it can be merged back in to three at a later date. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- One list, Keep as is. It's not that long (most of the text's body is made up of References), and it's a great read and popular topic, obtaining over 2,300 readers a day for the last year! I haven't read the entire thing, so thanks for bringing attention to it. Nothing wrong in keeping this well-known list (and importantly, splits lose readers, I think, because not everyone goes to every page of a split topic). univolved in the discussion to split, missed it, was it every posted at the affiliated WikiProjects? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- One list, much as Randy Kryn suggests, but if the insistence is on more, then someone will have to put a LOT of effort into cross-linking to the separate parts. If you are lost in one list you can always do a find for keywords, whereas trying that with multiple lists is cumbersome and confusing.
- Furthermore, misconceptions do not come neatly packaged into categories. Plenty of examples are both science-related and art-related, and history-related. Either you make it cumbersome with multiple entries in more than one list (and keep the entries equally updated and consistent!!!) or you wish the reader pot-luck in finding the right place and getting the context right.
- Probably a better investment of effort would be the insertion of a lot of illustrations, and a lot of careful editing of ambiguous or unhelpful entries that even if not wrong, are no more helpful than the original error. Consider the one about cells not outnumbered by microorganisms -- it is just one example. Plenty where that came from. JonRichfield (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn The split discussion was not an RFC (it should have been) and to the best of my knowledge was not posted at at the affiliated WikiProjects. Agree with keeping it as one list, as do several other active editors for this page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Mr swordfish, and yes, this is such an iconic and well-known page of Wikipedia that such a major proposed dissection surprised me (especially when not the subject of project alerts or other ongoing discussion promotion). Maybe you can boldface the words 'keeping it as one list' to make your comment clearer to readers and a potential closer. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn, we already have a consensus to split. If you wish to challenge that, then please see Wikipedia:Close review.
- If you want to re-litigate the previous discussion, then please note that this list has gotten so long that we can't use regular Wikipedia:Citation templates in it because of the WP:PEIS technical limits, and at the current rate of growth, even the workaround will eventually break. Any attempt to keep this on one page needs to explain how you're going to make the sources visible when even the capacity of the workaround is exceeded.
- After the split happens, we're looking at a way to re-assemble the page into a single view for readers who like that. But we can't do that until the split happens. So what would actually be helpful here is "I'd like the technical split to involve ____ subpages, and I want S Marshall's magic solution to be implemented as soon as possible so people can still read it on one page". What's not helpful is "I'd like to kick this can down the road until it's an emergency". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be clear about the technical problem, take a look at the refs section in this version. Do you see 891 refs there? I don't. When you put too many templates on a page, they stop being shown. From the reader's POV, it becomes a completely unsourced article.
- Now, if that's what you want, then you can just say that. A !vote like "Who cares about sources, since readers don't look at those anyway" would do. I'd even back you up with a source that shows readers almost never look at the sources. But if you think that article content should be cited, and not just by hiding the information in the wikitext code, then we are going to have to change our approach, and the only question is whether we do it now, with plenty of time to work out solutions, or when the whole page breaks and there's no time to do it well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by deliberately breaking the references and then claiming that the page is broken, but it's not a very convincing argument. The references all appear in the current version. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- The sources are there and look fine on my computer. As for criticizing my !vote of keeping the list, two things. The RFC title asks how many pages the list should be split to. I suggested one list, to keep the page. That's my opinion in answering the title question. Then look at the List page itself, the opening template asks for comments about a split, on the page since July. No split needed. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that the opening template needs updating given a consensus to split has been found. What would be an appropriate template? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing to agree to, I did not suggest changing it. This RfC opened and has progressed under it, and my opinion to keep the page as one list also rests on both the title of this RfC and the message of the present template. Arguably, the time has passed to remove that template, which should now be linked with this RfC. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Removed the template. For reference, the question this RfC aims to answer is
Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions?
One list is answering a different question, that has already been asked and answered. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)- "One list" is my answer to the RfC title. Since you removed the present template, and left no other
, this RfC is presently going unannounced[Returned with the new date, October 2024]. The language on the template you removed seemed fine, just an update on the date and a link to this RfC should handle it. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)- The RfC title is the topic, not the question. I did have a look at other current RfCs to find an applicable replacement template, and none seemed to indicate on the article page that an RfC was ongoing.
- "One list" is my answer to the RfC title. Since you removed the present template, and left no other
- Removed the template. For reference, the question this RfC aims to answer is
- Nothing to agree to, I did not suggest changing it. This RfC opened and has progressed under it, and my opinion to keep the page as one list also rests on both the title of this RfC and the message of the present template. Arguably, the time has passed to remove that template, which should now be linked with this RfC. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that the opening template needs updating given a consensus to split has been found. What would be an appropriate template? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- The sources are there and look fine on my computer. As for criticizing my !vote of keeping the list, two things. The RFC title asks how many pages the list should be split to. I suggested one list, to keep the page. That's my opinion in answering the title question. Then look at the List page itself, the opening template asks for comments about a split, on the page since July. No split needed. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by deliberately breaking the references and then claiming that the page is broken, but it's not a very convincing argument. The references all appear in the current version. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- The template text "It has been suggested that this article should be split into multiple articles." is outdated, given there is a consensus that the article should be split into multiple articles, and this RfC is determining how to implement that. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- There was no notice about a split discussion outside of the page itself, as far as I know, even though many Wikiprojects are involved in this article. If this RfC answers 'None', or 'Keep as is', then that's a perfectly good option. There is no "have to split" if consensus on this RfC chooses not to. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing linked the notices above. You are more familiar with Wikipedia processes than I. Is this a thing you can do? Disregard the RfC question and instead use the RfC to challenge the consensus it's implementing? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- While there were some "notifications" outside this talk page, they did not reach a large audience. In particular, there was no notification to the standard places that an RfC would normally get i.e.
- Trying to claim that posting a question at the village pump is adequate is not very convincing. Randy Kryn observation that the split discussion was not adequately advertised is apt, and if a consensus forms among the wider audience of editors now made aware by the RfC not to split, well, consensus can change. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Mr swordfish if you think the consensus to split was inappropriately established, it's worth going through WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing linked the notices above. You are more familiar with Wikipedia processes than I. Is this a thing you can do? Disregard the RfC question and instead use the RfC to challenge the consensus it's implementing? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- There was no notice about a split discussion outside of the page itself, as far as I know, even though many Wikiprojects are involved in this article. If this RfC answers 'None', or 'Keep as is', then that's a perfectly good option. There is no "have to split" if consensus on this RfC chooses not to. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- The template text "It has been suggested that this article should be split into multiple articles." is outdated, given there is a consensus that the article should be split into multiple articles, and this RfC is determining how to implement that. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Two or three. We should follow the precedent set by WP:REFDESK and split into lists according to those subject areas as needed. we can start with three lists: humanities, science and technology, and mathematics. Or two lists, humanities and STEM. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Three or four lists. To my eye the larger-scale topics are a bit ungainly, and as Ships&Space states, this article is already split into three topics. I wouldn't be opposed to spinning out health per HTGS's reasoning though. novov talk edits 09:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Find any consensus. It really doesn't matter how many pages to split to. What matters is that we finally get on with splitting it in whatever way the fewest editors disagree with.—S Marshall T/C 22:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I want to add that it's needful to split this page for technical reasons, and "don't split" is an option the community has recently considered and explicitly rejected.—S Marshall T/C 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- One list, Keep as is, per Randy Kryn, Mr swordfish, etc. Benjamin (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with 'one list' but not 'keep as is'. I think this article should be a singular much smaller 'List of common misconceptions' page, with references to other more detailed lists, the fact it's too long isn't just a technical issue, it's also much worse for the readers to have to scroll through pages of trivia to find the useful content. The 'main' page should actually apply the inclusion criteria, many, MANY of the entries do not have any evidence that they are actually common misconceptions. The very the first entry is missing any reference to evidence that it is , in fact, a common misconception.
- So, I think split into however many pages we want, then a long hard clean-up of this page. JeffUK 11:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Three lists: The categories for two are ugly and awkward, but we should try to split as little as is reasonably possible. If a recent consensus hadn't been reached, I'd be against splitting at all, but since it has I am very against trying to override a recent consensus. Loki (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- LokiTheLiar, thanks for an interesting comment. You'd rather have one list but are going with a split that you don't like. This shows that the consensus reached was both premature and ill-timed, as it should have been reached at an RfC (preferably this one as an option). This RfC question is 'how many pages to split to', and your and other editors is 'none'. To not split. That seems the correct option for this long-term near-iconic Wikipedia page. The only split needed is the existing Table of Contents, which is used for that purpose. Readers know how to use a Table of Contents. Please reconsider, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Randy, can I just ask: do you fully understand the technical considerations here? Do you understand that post-split there would still be a one-page version? Do you understand why and how the unsplit page is breaking Wikipedia's underlying code? We didn't decide to split on a whim.—S Marshall T/C 13:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just got back to this, thanks S Marshall. No, I really don't understand the tech end of this, just seems that Wikipedia coding should be able to handle the page's uploading capacity on mobile (that's coming from someone not at all knowledgeable about code, or mobile, but expecting miracles and full functioning from both). I do know that the discussion had two sides, so keeping this as one page doesn't seem too much off the mark. In any case, I came in cold (or code) and answered the question about how many pages do I think this should be split into, and I opined about keeping it as is. That's still my opinion, given that I think that if the servers and coding can't handle the size of this page then they, and not the break-up of an iconic article, should be improved and brought up to speed even if it takes a Wikipedia/WMF Moon shot to do it. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Right --- no, it's not that. This isn't about server load and it isn't about whether the page will render on mobile.
- Just got back to this, thanks S Marshall. No, I really don't understand the tech end of this, just seems that Wikipedia coding should be able to handle the page's uploading capacity on mobile (that's coming from someone not at all knowledgeable about code, or mobile, but expecting miracles and full functioning from both). I do know that the discussion had two sides, so keeping this as one page doesn't seem too much off the mark. In any case, I came in cold (or code) and answered the question about how many pages do I think this should be split into, and I opined about keeping it as is. That's still my opinion, given that I think that if the servers and coding can't handle the size of this page then they, and not the break-up of an iconic article, should be improved and brought up to speed even if it takes a Wikipedia/WMF Moon shot to do it. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Randy, can I just ask: do you fully understand the technical considerations here? Do you understand that post-split there would still be a one-page version? Do you understand why and how the unsplit page is breaking Wikipedia's underlying code? We didn't decide to split on a whim.—S Marshall T/C 13:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- LokiTheLiar, thanks for an interesting comment. You'd rather have one list but are going with a split that you don't like. This shows that the consensus reached was both premature and ill-timed, as it should have been reached at an RfC (preferably this one as an option). This RfC question is 'how many pages to split to', and your and other editors is 'none'. To not split. That seems the correct option for this long-term near-iconic Wikipedia page. The only split needed is the existing Table of Contents, which is used for that purpose. Readers know how to use a Table of Contents. Please reconsider, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is about the hard cap on the number of templates that will display.
- And I expect you're thinking, "What?" I know I did when I first came across this.
- Why is there a hard cap on the number of templates that will display? Well, it's necessary to protect the servers from certain kinds of sophisticated vandalism that amount to attacks. A clever vandal could set up templates that called each other recursively, so you end up with very large numbers of templates proliferating and absorbing our resources. There are good security reasons why we wouldn't want to change the cap. And the cap is set at such a high level that it almost never comes up (which is why it's confusing so many editors here).
- How does the hard cap affect this article? Well, all our references are in templates (and they rightly should be). So we've made this article unexpandable: we can't add further references. For a while now, editors have been using a workaround by adding special code into the references, but this too is on the point of failure.
- I've scratched my head about this and then devised a solution that keeps the whole article displaying on one page. The method uses selective transclusion. We can split the article into two, three, or four sections for editing purposes, but someone just wanting to view the list of common misconceptions as a whole will still be able to see it on one page. Some or all of the references won't be visible on the one-page view; but they'll still exist, and they'll be one click away.
- If you read the previous discussions, you'll find a link to a demo/mockup/proof of concept that I've set up.
- However, we can't proceed with this if we don't split the page.—S Marshall T/C 00:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks S Marshall. You say the page will still be presented to readers as one page, and I can't say I understand the coding but will take your word on that. Which is all I was saying when presented with the question of this RM. If true, wasn't my 'one' already correct no matter how many pages the sources are split to? In any case, since you designed the work-around, I'll ease up on my comments above due to my misunderstanding the concept, but would still like to hear Mr swordfish's analysis or objection in this sub-discussion. Mr swordfish, is it correct that the article's text will still be presented as one page? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what S Marshall is proposing. I thought I did, but was told otherwise. Ideally, the article would look the same for most readers, rather than being N separate articles. There's a way to do this with transclusion and tags to suppress excessive templates, but I'm not sure that is what is in the works or whether it would be acceptable to have the citations "one click away" vs right there in-line. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks S Marshall. You say the page will still be presented to readers as one page, and I can't say I understand the coding but will take your word on that. Which is all I was saying when presented with the question of this RM. If true, wasn't my 'one' already correct no matter how many pages the sources are split to? In any case, since you designed the work-around, I'll ease up on my comments above due to my misunderstanding the concept, but would still like to hear Mr swordfish's analysis or objection in this sub-discussion. Mr swordfish, is it correct that the article's text will still be presented as one page? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @S Marshall Suppose we split the list into two, add in all the markup to make the transclusions work, create the one-page article, all in some sandbox. Then, suppose we decide later the split should be three or four (or more) sub-articles. How much work would it entail to make this change? Seems to me that it would just be a matter of adding a couple of lines to the one-page version and cutting and pasting material into the one-page version. i.e. the majority of the work would be the initial addition of the suppression markup and that a 2 vs 3 vs 4 way split would be a trivial amount of work in comparison.
- Which is to say, what are we waiting for? Split it 2 or 3 or 4 ways in a sandbox somewhere, do the rest of the transclusion magic, and let's take a good look at the final result. I understand that there's a fair amount of markup to be added, but there are dozens of us that the work could be split among. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's enough work that I'm not willing to embark on it speculatively. I want a community decision on what we're doing, which should precede the actual doing it. WAID asked about the "one click away" references on WT:V but didn't get much engagement from people who understood the question.—S Marshall T/C 18:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Solely based on the idea that technical problems require splitting, I support Three lists, transcluded into the main article. This way using the "find" tool still works, and although more difficult, it is possible to find the citations. There is a clear notice telling you where to find them; although of course people don't read notices I figure it won't be impossible. It would be useful to A/B test that with people who do not edit Wikipedia, but likely this discussion does not have the means.
- Personally, I'm finding I don't hate the the "transclude subpages" idea as much as I thought I would. The real annoying part will be the markup -- why not mark the citations as "noinclude" rather than marking the text as "onlyinclude"? Having to specifically mark stuff to be included will make it more difficult for newer editors who forget, whose contributions will simply not appear on the main page. Unwanted citations will also be easier to spot then missing content.
- As for the number of lists -- the "health" section is small and can be split out later if necessary, but currently does not warrant its own article.
- I think that transcluding is the right choice because it preserves the single "List of common misconceptions" format -- it doesn't introduce extra friction -- it can be read in one piece -- and so on. There are babies born when the article was put into this format who can now drive, and there it's semi-famous for being what it is -- let's not split it up (at least text-wise) if we can avoid it. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- A small note that List of common misconceptions about science, technology, and mathematics would be 13000 words long, of which ~4000 would be health. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Four lists or three and then use technical wizardry to merge them together as has been proposed. The four lists will keep the page size down so that they can be expanded with references as needed, and merging them into one will solve the problem of diluting the lists. I prefer four to three lists simply to make sure this problem doesn't come up again in the future... I feel four lists is the best way to future-proof... but three might be fine, so I don't object to that. The talk pages for the split articles can be made to redirect to the main talk page. I think those !voting for one list should either challenge the close or move on. Fieari (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- One list (splitting into sublists and then transcluding is fine). This is an iconic list in Wikipedia culture and has been referenced in materials like xkcd, and I think we'd be losing something if we split it. It's true that this list is longer than a typical article, but that's OK; unlike most articles, it's not meant to be read in a single sitting. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- For what sublists we could have, I'd suggest 4: "Social and behavioral sciences", "Natural sciences", "Math and engineering", and "History". – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Mockup
[edit]For ease of reference, my mockup/proof of concept is at User:S Marshall/Sandbox/List of common misconceptions demo.—S Marshall T/C 10:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I expanded your demo to include the entire article. It's at User:Mr_swordfish/List_of_common_misconceptions.
- I can't say it's perfect at this point, and I'm not sure what we're going to do about the talk page or what happens when a naive user clicks the edit button, but it's a start. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I assume by treating them to a giant edit notice, although I can't say the edit notice already on the page has been given much heed.
- I assume you and S Marshall missed my comment for potential issues with transclusion, mentioning it again in case. I am sympathetic to WAID's comment since, but if that is our approach, it should be identified as such. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't miss it. You raise a perfectly valid concern that I can't resolve.
- Our choices are:
- (a) Have an article that displays on one page;
- (b) Have an article that displays all the references;
- (c) Have an article that can be expanded with further references and entries.
- Pick any two. You can't have all three.
- The current version is (a) and (b). WAID's "split" proposal is (b) and (c), and my "transclude" proposal is (a) and (c). There seem to be editors with strident and passionate objections to every option.
- WAID's comment is only tangentially related to yours; she's talking about how the software fails if we continue with our current (a) and (b) version and then try to add more content.
- Hope this clarifies.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- A and C seems like a reasonable compromise. I think much of the opposition to the split is fueled by the risk that it doesn't actually end up as one page. Benjamin (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Masturbation
[edit]Popular belief asserts that individuals of either sex who are not in sexually active relationships tend to masturbate more frequently than those who are; however, much of the time this is not true as masturbation alone or with a partner is often a feature of a relationship. Contrary to this belief, several studies actually reveal a positive correlation between the frequency of masturbation and the frequency of intercourse. A study has reported a significantly higher rate of masturbation in gay men and women who were in a relationship.[52][64][65][66] Benjamin (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding why you posted this "common misconception" here on the talk page. Can you help me understand your purpose? Penguino35 (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am suggesting it be added to the article, of course. Benjamin (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- No need to ask for permission! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hey User:Closed Limelike Curves it's nice to see you here. I know I could, but it's often controversial and I end up here on the talk page anyway. Benjamin (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- No need to ask for permission! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am suggesting it be added to the article, of course. Benjamin (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Suggested inclusion: tax on charitable donations from customers
[edit]Suggested inclusion in the "Economics" section - this is a resurrection of something I proposed back in April 2023, which I think merits inclusion as the concept now specifically has its own Wikipedia article that mentions the misconception specifically:
Businesses do not get a tax benefit from collecting charitable donations from their customers, for example at supermarket checkouts. In most jurisdictions, corporation taxes are assessed based on a business' profits; a corporation gains zero tax benefit from collecting funds from customers to then pass on to charities, since the donation would not reflect as either an expense of or income for the business. A business could only use donations to reduce tax owed by donating their own money or resources - this would reduce tax, but only by reducing profit. It would not make economic sense for a company (or an individual) to donate money solely to save tax, since the amount of tax saved would be significantly smaller than the amount donated.[1][2]
Inclusion criteria:
- The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.: Yes, checkout charity
- The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception: Two sources provided, one referencing a widespread TikTok on the matter and the other from a major news source mentioning this being spread in Facebook. AP News has also fact checked this: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244
- The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources: Yes.
- The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete: Sources are from the past couple of years, and it is a perennial misconception on social media.
Foonblace (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing where a reliable source establishes that it is a common misconception. "Thousands" of facebook or tiktok posts wouldn't seem to be enough - there is so much misinformation floating through those and other similar social media sites that "thousands" is a drop in the bucket and I don't think we can list every single piece of misinformation that attracts 1000 or more posts. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Surely it being something that both the Associated Press and USA Today have published pieces rebutting, as well as being mentioned on the Wikipedia page for the overall concept, establishes that it is common? Foonblace (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Foonblace both of these outlets post thousands of fact-checks [1][2] and do not make claims that the facts they are checking constitute "common misconceptions" in general, nor in the linked articles. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I think it's pretty common and should go into the article. The popularity of the social media posts is a reflection of the general misunderstanding around this. Anecdotally, it certainly feels like quite a common misconception. Another source here debunks it, again, they wouldn't need to debunk it if it wasn't relatively common. "TikTok And Other Social Media Posts Are Wrong About Charity At The Checkout"[3] , there's another source here 'fact checking' the claim [4], here's a Canadian source, showing it's more of an international phenomenon "Why nobody gets a tax benefit when you donate at the checkout | CBC Radio"[5]JeffUK 13:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)- I've changed my mind! having seen the issues about the article size, I don't think it's clear enough from the sources that this is a common misconception for it to be included. JeffUK 10:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about article size. If the article gets too long, we'll split it. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed my mind! having seen the issues about the article size, I don't think it's clear enough from the sources that this is a common misconception for it to be included. JeffUK 10:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Foonblace both of these outlets post thousands of fact-checks [1][2] and do not make claims that the facts they are checking constitute "common misconceptions" in general, nor in the linked articles. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I get the feeling that maybe this list should be retitled "List of misconceptions" (dropping "common"). Three reasons for this:
- The sourcing is generally not strong enough to actually establish they're "common", just that someone claims it is. Often these sources are weak, or only claim the misconception is common in passing.
- Whether a misconception is "common" or not is an opinion that has to be attributed, not stated in Wikivoice. (What does "common" mean—5%? 20%? 50%?)
- It lets a lot of misconceptions off the hook just because we haven't found a source using the exact word "common". (Even if the fact that someone's writing a piece to debunk it implies they think it's at least somewhat common.)
- – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- One could apply that logic to every article on Wikipedia, which merely re-reports what the reliable sources say i.e. if a reliable source (someone) claims X to be true then we put X into the article. Here, the inclusion criteria requires that some reliable source states that it is a common misconception or words to that effect. We repeat what the reliable sources say.
- If we relaxed that criteria and allowed entries for every misconception the article would be way way too long to be of interest to anyone.
- That said, if there are specific entries where you don't think the sourcing is sufficient, please start a new thread here on the talk page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
One could apply that logic to every article on Wikipedia, which merely re-reports what the reliable sources say i.e. if a reliable source (someone) claims X to be true then we put X into the article.
- That's not always true: if a reliable source states an opinion (rather than a fact), it needs to attributed per WP:INTEXT and WP:RSOPINION. This is true even if the source is usually reliable—if a writer in the New York Times calls a film "the greatest of all time", we have to describe this as "Writer A described this film as 'the greatest of all time'".
That said, if there are specific entries where you don't think the sourcing is sufficient, please start a new thread here on the talk page.
- I think almost all the entries don't have enough sourcing to establish the misconception is actually "common", because most of them don't provide evidence to back up their claims. Most of these are pop science or journalists making an offhand claim about the topic without backing it up. If we want to claim these misconceptions are common, we have to show the sources are genuinely reliable on the topic of public opinion. Examples of reliable sources would be statistical analyses of standardized tests, social media posts, or polling by reputable firms. However, a WP:PASSING description of it as common by a journalist isn't enough—I'm sure journalists claim lots of things are "common misconceptions" even if they aren't.
If we relaxed that criteria and allowed entries for every misconception the article would be way way too long to be of interest to anyone.
- Obviously we don't want to allow entries for every misconception, just the popular ones. However, every claim on Wikipedia includes two implicit assertions:
- The claim meets WP:VERIFIABILITY—there are enough highly-reliable sources to guarantee the fact is true.
- The claim meets WP:NOTABILITY—the claim is important.
- A misconception needs to be discussed and covered in enough reliable sources to warrant being included in this list, which means it has to be common. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. In other words, a "List of misconceptions" would still be a list of common misconceptions, because uncommon misconceptions would not be notable—obviously we won't include every time someone was wrong about something in this article. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closed Limelike Curves
- I disagree that this falls into opinion rather than assertion of fact. Could you elaborate on why you think this falls into the former?
- Could you list three misconceptions that would meet these standards of proof?
- Every claim on Wikipedia is obviously not required to meet WP:NOTABILITY, only articles are. This list does not use GNG as a criterion for inclusion.
- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- At what point does a misconception become "common"—5% of the population? 20%? 50%? (There's some extreme cases where e.g. >90% of people believe something, in which case any reasonable editor would agree it's "common", but lots of items on this list don't meet that bar—I doubt even 5% of people believe some of these, and most of this list would probably fall in the gray area.)
- Here's 3:
Contemporary global warming is driven by human activities...
;The signing of the United States Declaration of Independence did not occur on...
; andCrime rates are declining...
. These cite high-quality polls finding the misconceptions are common (or might be, if we had an objective bar for that). - There's no need to meet WP:GNG, but there's still a need for facts to be somewhat notable—I probably should've cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:LSC. The point is just that retitling this article wouldn't force us to add uncommon misconceptions.
- – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closed Limelike Curves What is "the population"? American? Global? South Koreans? The elderly of South Korea? The other point to make is that unless >90% of the group is the global population, you will never get universal agreement on something being popular. 90% of the US is 3.5% of the world. Without qualification as common in the US, can this be said to be "common"? The reason why I am leaning against attributing opinion here is because it is at odds with standard Wikipedia practice. How the community applies attribution will generally require the assessment (this is common being contested) being contested, i.e. being contradicted in another source. Perhaps this should not be the way it should applied, but it would require so much more attention; read a featured article on a biography and all the "he was a difficult child" stuff (almost all of it) would require breaking out of Wikivoice.
- It is OR to draw that line. It was considered a few years back and that determination was made, and what is OR has become stricter since. We would need polling, and then the source to analyse it and call it common, and then probably date it. Do you have three of these sources?
- Indiscriminate doesn't really apply, that pertains more to un-analyzed data, of which this is all analysed as reflecting a common belief. I don't think this list meets WP:LSC. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closed Limelike Curves
- Probably not best to relitigate this at this time unless there is a more substantial groundswell, but the general critique is that a belief cannot be "common" in a vacuum, but must be qualified as common among a group (common among America but uncommon among the world etc).
- If we try to exclude some groups from the page (i.e. if it's common in Texas that doesn't mean it's common, if it's common among chemists it doesn't mean it's common) we are trying again to define common in a vacuum, which is impossible. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Surely it being something that both the Associated Press and USA Today have published pieces rebutting, as well as being mentioned on the Wikipedia page for the overall concept, establishes that it is common? Foonblace (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I recommend not including this because:
- It's only about the US tax structure.
- The sources you're relying on for how the accounting works are – um, let's say "oversimplifying", because that sounds more pleasant than "wrong".
- This is 100% OR and therefore should not go in the article, but just so Wikipedia editors know, there are a couple of "correct" ways to handle such donations, and one of them results in "income" and a matching "expense". Additionally, most of these are going to raise the credit card processing fees, which is a deductible expense, and which therefore decreases income tax liability.
- A true statement would sound something closer to "Businesses do not pay income taxes on donations that they pass through to charities."
- A truer statement about common misconceptions might be "Americans often believe that there is a tax difference for businesses reducing their profits through donations vs reducing their profits through buying advertisements or through paying their employees more." Spending $500 to buy an advertisement at the local youth sports event produces the same tax benefit, down to the penny, as donating $500 to "sponsor" a youth sports program. I don't know if you could find a source for that, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- ^ Link, Devon (2021-06-10). "Fact check: Stores cannot use checkout charity funds to offset their own taxes". USA Today. Retrieved 2023-04-01.
- ^ Zaretsky, Renu (2020-11-04). "Who Gets the Tax Benefit For Those Checkout Donations?". Tax Policy Center. Retrieved 2023-04-01.
- ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2024/06/12/tiktok-and-other-social-media-posts-are-wrong-about-charity-at-the-checkout/
- ^ https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-000329849244
- ^ https://www.cbc.ca/radio/costofliving/checkout-donations-nobody-gets-tax-benefit-1.6524462
Chocolate misconceptions
[edit]@Rollinginhisgrave: I don't believe that the two recent additions about chocolate meet our inclusion criteria:
- The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.:
- We have an article on mole (sauce) in general which mentions mole poblano. And an article on History of chocolate which mentions Aztec chocolate drinks.
- The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception:
- I don't think there's any dispute about the factual contents.
- On the other hand, I see no good evidence that they are common misconceptions. Do people expect Mexican chocolate to contain cinnamon? No doubt. But does that rise to a "misconception"? There are salad dressings in the US called "French", "Russian", and "Italian" which are not found in those countries. Do people actually believe that they come from those countries?
- Does anyone believe in a pre-Spanish origin for mole poblano? The usual origin story (for what it's worth) is about some nuns in a convent in the 18th century. A more nuanced story talks about various sources and influences on the dish. "Nuns and Napoleon: The history of Mexico’s ‘mole’ dish"
- The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources:
- I see nothing in the topic articles about these misconceptions.
So I think we need to delete these two entries. --Macrakis (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Macrakis thanks for flagging, I'm not opposed to deleting them although I'd like to dig out the sourcing to see if you think it verifies that they are common misconceptions beforehand. Narrowly on "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources"; I couldn't find a way to work in a link to History of chocolate to the mole without going too far into MOS:EASTEREGG although this was intended to be the topic article and was linked next to the entry. The mentions in the topic article are as follows:
- "While mole poblano, a sauce that contains chocolate, is commonly associated with the Aztecs, it originated in territory that was never occupied by them, and the sauce was only invented after the Spanish invasion."
- "While Aztec chocolate drinks are commonly understood to contain cinnamon, the spice was only introduced to Mesoamerica by the Spanish conquest."
- Both in the Aztec section. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Quote verifying common misconception for cinnamon: "But historical fact does not determine present-day accuracy. For example, a chocolate drink globally coded as a “real Aztec recipe” is expected to contain cinnamon, a flavor and spice only introduced to Mesoamerica through the Spanish conquest."[3] I have argued in the past that sourcing of this kind, where it verifies it is a common misconception among people who have knowledge of a "real Aztec recipe for chocolate" does not verify it is a common misconception. My argument was rejected, so I put this forth. I'm happy to revisit it, from memory an example at issue was the Creme Chantilly item.
- Quote verifying common misconception for mole "In all of the pages of Sahagun that deal with Aztec cuisine and with chocolate, there is not a hint that it ever entered into an Aztec dish. Yet today many food writers and gourmets consider one particular dish, the famous pavo in mole poblano, which contains chocolate, to represent the pinnacle of the Mexican cooking tradition." This verifies it is held as misconception among many gourmets and food writers. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with removal. They seems to be factually correct, but we don't have adequate sourcing that they are common misconceptions.
- As for the Whipped Cream entry, I think WP:WHATABOUTX would apply here, i.e. another entry being problematic is not a good argument for adding more problematic entries. I haven't looked carefully at the cites for that entry but would not object to its removal too. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, we can go ahead and remove them. I didn't intend it as a WHATABOUTX, but as something we had established consensus on as adequate sourcing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing to the quotes in the History of Chocolate article. My impression is that the post-conquest origin of mole poblano is widely acknowledged since it's so obvious that it contains both indigenous and European ingredients. As for drinking chocolate, it is true that it was used as a beverage pre-conquest, although of course without cinnamon and sugar, so it's hard to know whether someone claiming that it is of Aztec origin is misinformed or simply glossing over the evolution of the dish. After all, pretty much all recipes evolve. --Macrakis (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- For post-conquest mole poblano origin; I think simultaneously many people can acknowledge the post-conquest origins while also apparently being a misconception among food writers and gourmets (and perhaps beyond, this is whom we can verify at least). We see misconceptions being possible among multiple understandings for fuck for instance, where it people apparently both believe it originated from an acronym or from "pluck you"; just because there are multiple understandings doesn't preclude any one being a common misconception.
- For drinking chocolate, I assume misinformed as the source implies; just as I do with basically every entry here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing to the quotes in the History of Chocolate article. My impression is that the post-conquest origin of mole poblano is widely acknowledged since it's so obvious that it contains both indigenous and European ingredients. As for drinking chocolate, it is true that it was used as a beverage pre-conquest, although of course without cinnamon and sugar, so it's hard to know whether someone claiming that it is of Aztec origin is misinformed or simply glossing over the evolution of the dish. After all, pretty much all recipes evolve. --Macrakis (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, we can go ahead and remove them. I didn't intend it as a WHATABOUTX, but as something we had established consensus on as adequate sourcing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Snake misconceptions
[edit]Snakes are not deaf. Although you can't see them, all snake species have ears and are capable of hearing. You can look for reliable sources on Google. Jamgorham (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't know that anyone thought snakes were deaf. Is this a common misconception? signed, Willondon (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently, yes:
- https://stories.uq.edu.au/news/2023/snakes-can-hear-more-than-you-think/index.html
- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/snakes-can-hear-you-scream-new-research-reveals/
- https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/yes-snakes-can-hear-sound
- And this paywalled article from the WAPO that says:
- “There’s been this enduring myth that snakes are deaf,” says neurobiologist Bruce Young of the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, who was not involved in the new research. “Behavioral studies have suggested that snakes can in fact hear, and now this work has gone one step further and explained how.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/how-snakes-hear-without-ears/2011/12/29/gIQAuseoWP_story.html
- It's mentioned in the topic article Snake#Perception paragraph 4.
- So, it seems to meet the inclusion criteria, although it's more of a "scientific consensus has changed" sort of misconception. It's also based on just one study, so we might want to be careful here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Snakes being able to hear seems like a good addition to me. I believe many people think that snakes can't hear, and according to one of the sources there are now multiple studies showing that they can. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Expiration dates
[edit]In this edit, @JeffUK removed the "expiration date" misconception, saying
- Remove package food entry, it's untrue as stated and therefore unsafe. The ‘use by’ is a safety date on all foods where it's used in much of the world. (EU: After the ‘use by’ date, a food is deemed unsafe in accordance with article 14 (2) of Regulation EC No. 178/2002 )
That regulation (Article 14 (2) of Regulation EC No. 178/2002) reads (3b):
- In determining whether any food is unsafe, regard shall be had:... (b) to the information provided to the consumer, including information on the label, or other information generally available to the consumer concerning the avoidance of specific adverse health effects from a particular food or category of foods.
This is at best ambiguous. But in any case, it doesn't apply outside the EU. I have restored the section, qualifying it as applying only to the US, where we have good sources. It would be nice to find good sources for other jurisdictions. --Macrakis (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Use by" is a food safety issue; fluid milk has a "use by" date and is expected to spoil (i.e., make you sick) soon afterwards. "Best by" is a food quality issue; potato chips have a "best by" date and are expected to be safe but perhaps a bit stale afterwards. I believe that "don't drink milk after its 'use-by' date" is a common correct-conception, but "don't eat potato chips after their 'best-by' date" is a common mis-conception. This list should differentiate the two, or only mention the best-by. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. There is a difference between "use by" and "best by" in some jurisdictions. Our current expiration date needs some improvement to clarify which wording is used with what meaning in which jurisdictions (with better sources) and then we can update the misconception. For example, as far as I can tell (but I need to do more research), "use by" is not a legally defined term in the US. --Macrakis (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
"Mama Cass"
[edit]This diff seems to be advocating a decidedly left-wing ideological and polemicist position. The "average" ordinary person regularly uses the nickname "Mama Cass" as do countless 1960s music playing radio stations, both internet and in the real world. Plus, "average" ordinary people don't use the terms "fat shaming" or "connotations" and wouldn't readily understand them or care if someone tried to explain, especially the latter. IMO, the IP is applying something that should not be done so in Wikipedia's "voice". 180.150.37.138 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No need to characterize the edit as "left-wing" or comment on the phrasing used in the edit comment. The only question is whether we should include the name "Mama Cass" in the entry about Cass Elliot. That she didn't like the nickname isn't dispositive. The main question is whether including the nickname helps users identify her: is "Cass Elliot (of The Mamas & the Papas)" clear enough, or would it be helpful to write "Cass Elliot (Mama Cass of The Mamas & the Papas)"? According to Google nGrams, the name Mama Cass is about twice as common as Cass Elliot, so I think it's reasonable to assume that it's more familiar. It is also a name used for her in a Mamas & the Papas song, and the cited NYTimes article says "she found it hard to shake her nickname". So the name is widely familiar and I agree that it should be restored. --Macrakis (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- While it's pretty clear that she did not like the name (at least in later life), unless someone can point to some relevant Wikipedia policy regarding nicknames that are disliked by the person we should include the more common identifier to make it understandable to the average reader. The fact that the edit comment and the initial comment above included some irrelevant editorializing shouldn't affect our decision on whether to include the alternate, more common identifier.
- I'm in favor of restoring "Cass Elliot (Mama Cass of The Mamas & the Papas)". Unless someone can point to some policy prohibiting or disfavoring it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia policy, when writing about an individual, the preferred name to use is the one most commonly used in reliable sources, which includes respecting a person's self-identified gender and preferred name, even if it differs from their legal name or how they were previously known in the public eye. Cass Elliot (which is not her birth name) is the name she chose for herself. Her father nicknamed her Cass after the Greek mythological prophetess Cassandra, and she chose the surname to honor a friend who died in a car accident.
- "Cass Elliot of The Mamas & the Papas" would work just fine. Her Wikipedia article is called Cass Elliot, not Mama Cass. Kingturtle = (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which Wikipedia policy is that? The closest policy I can find is at WP:PUBLICFIGURE which says biographies
- ... should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
- Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME says Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)." Kingturtle = (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which Wikipedia policy is that? The closest policy I can find is at WP:PUBLICFIGURE which says biographies
- The Wikipedia article is called Cass Elliot. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame calls her Cass Elliot. She is known as Cass Elliot. eom. Kingturtle = (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The second sentence in Cass Elliot begins She was also known as "Mama Cass"... Mama Cass redirects to that page.
- See WP:UNCENSORED. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Re "the preferred name to use is the one most commonly used in reliable sources" -- yes, that is the policy for article titles. It doesn't say that other names shouldn't be used. We document names like William the Bad. And in the case of Cass Elliot, it seems that Mama Cass is a better known name than the name she preferred, a bit like Ivan the Terrible and Bloody Mary, which I think you'll agree are better-known names than Ivan IV of Russia and Mary I of England. --Macrakis (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:COMMONNAME. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That policy is about article titles, and if adhered to strictly would require renaming the topic article, Cass Elliot, to Mama Cass. I don't think anyone is arguing for that, and this is the wrong place to have that discussion.
- As Macrakis points out, Mama Cass is a better known name than the name she preferred. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, if adhered to strictly, her article would be and IS Cass Elliot. We don't look to popular usage among people on the street. What matters is the name that she is referred to in sources. In biographies involving her she is referred to as Cass Elliot. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame calls her Cass Elliot. Kingturtle = (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- "People on the street" are ordinary people and it is an average person that defines the objective norm, not outlier populations such as tertiary-educated people. Professional orgs like the R&RHOF and poli-social activists like the diff maker i objected to, are also not ordinary. JMO and YMMV. 180.150.37.138 (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, actually, we don't base it on ordinary people or the average person. We base it on the usage in credible, notable sources. Kingturtle = (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- "People on the street" are ordinary people and it is an average person that defines the objective norm, not outlier populations such as tertiary-educated people. Professional orgs like the R&RHOF and poli-social activists like the diff maker i objected to, are also not ordinary. JMO and YMMV. 180.150.37.138 (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, if adhered to strictly, her article would be and IS Cass Elliot. We don't look to popular usage among people on the street. What matters is the name that she is referred to in sources. In biographies involving her she is referred to as Cass Elliot. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame calls her Cass Elliot. Kingturtle = (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:COMMONNAME. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Re "the preferred name to use is the one most commonly used in reliable sources" -- yes, that is the policy for article titles. It doesn't say that other names shouldn't be used. We document names like William the Bad. And in the case of Cass Elliot, it seems that Mama Cass is a better known name than the name she preferred, a bit like Ivan the Terrible and Bloody Mary, which I think you'll agree are better-known names than Ivan IV of Russia and Mary I of England. --Macrakis (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be any Wikipedia policy that prohibits also mentioning the name under which she became famous, and which appears in most of the cites in the topic article. Or at least no one has been able to produce one. Given that, there appears to be consensus to restore the recent removal. I'll give it another day or so before making the change to see if anyone else wants to chime in. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
catholicism
[edit]i think u still cant disagree on what the church and pope teach:
III THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH'S PASTORS
17. Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching. One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html 2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4 (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE for the applicable Wikipedia policies. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, you need to be more specific about what changes you would like to see. Better to discuss things in the source article first, because this article is only supposed to summarize them. --Macrakis (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
islam
[edit]corrections
a sahih hadith mentions that u get 2 wives in paradise https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2735
additionally, this article shouldnt make it look like hijab isnt prescribed in islam https://quran.com/en/an-nur/31
finally, this article shouldnt make it look like ahadith arent required for muslims:
https://quran.com/en/al-hashr/7
https://quran.com/en/al-anfal/20
https://quran.com/en/ali-imran/31 2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4 (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- https://islamqa.info/en/answers/257509/number-of-huris-a-muslim-will-get-in-jannah#:~:text=%E2%80%9CEach%20man%20will%20be%20given,given%20in%20addition%20to%20that.
- https://www.anic.org.au/news/islamic-position-on-the-hijab/
- https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/are-hadith-necessary 2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You need to be more specific about what changes you would like to see. Better to discuss things in the source article first, because this article is only supposed to summarize them. --Macrakis (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
christianity
[edit]im not sure if im missing something but the catholic article source does not mention tertullian writing about 9 sins but rather 7
and the 7 deadly sins are mentioned in the bible
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%206%3A10%E2%80%9312&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205%3A19-21&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202%3A15-17&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2018%3A9%E2%80%9312&version=KJV 2A02:3100:3AF7:1200:ECE6:229F:FADE:A6E4 (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You need to be more specific about what changes you would like to see. Better to discuss things in the source article first, because this article is only supposed to summarize them. --Macrakis (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Article split & transclusion
[edit]I've implemented the article split and transclusion of the sub-articles. Some implementation notes:
- Having the sub-articles in a subdirectory did not work as well in the main space as it does in a user space so the three sub-articles are at the root of the main space. If anyone has a better way to do this, I'm all ears.
- I've spot checked "What links here" and the dozen or so links to this page that I checked seem to work. I did not check them all.
- There are still three cites that I can't figure out how to prevent from being transcluded so they show up at the end of the article. Would appreciate any help with this.
- The new sub-articles have attracted attention from a few editors who don't seem to understand the context and have made some "helpful" edits - I expect more of this.
- Each sub-article has its own talk page and its own history. I'd recommend adding them to your watchlist since changes to them don't appear in the history here. Not sure what to do about potentially four different venues for discussion, but maybe it won't really matter in practice.
- Currently, there is no edit notice on the sub-articles. I'll take a look at adding these. UPDATE: the edit notice has been applied to the sub-pages.
Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could we perhaps package the include control and the ref tag into a template to make it easier to edit entries?
- Something like {refnc|name=xxx|yyy} => <noinclude> <ref name=xxx> yyy </ref> </noinclude> and {refnc|xref=xxx} => <noinclude> <ref name=xxx /> .
- By the way, why did you use onlyinclude and not noinclude, which seems easier to understand? --Macrakis (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not conversant with packaging controls into templates, but have no objection if it accomplishes what I think it accomplishes.
- I used onlyinclude because that was how User:S Marshall did it in the mockup. noinclude is probably the better way to do it, but I was not aware of that tag until now. I'll take a look at changing it, shouldn't be too hard since it's mostly just a find and replace exercise. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Romantic relationships
[edit]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/romantic-relationships-matter-more-to-men-than-to-women/52E626D3CD7DB14CD946F9A2FBDA739C#
"Women are often viewed as more romantic than men, and romantic relationships are assumed to be more central to the lives of women than to those of men. Despite the prevalence of these beliefs, some recent research paints a different picture." Benjamin (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Article is broken due to syntax errors in included pages
[edit]I have not read the second half of the page yet, but in the first half, I have noticed multiple occasions in which segments were clearly swallowed by other segments.
For example, the item about Du Bois reads
The African-American intellectual and activist W. E. B. Du Bois did not renounce his U.S. citizenship while living in Ghana shortly before his death. In early 1963, his membership in the Communist Party and support for the Soviet Union led the U.S. State Department to refuse to renew his passport while he was already in Ghana. After leaving the embassy, he stated his intention to renounce his citizenship in protest, but while he took Ghanaian citizenship, he never actually renounced his American citizenship. It is not true that by using the indefinite article ein, he changed the meaning of the sentence from the intended "I am a citizen of Berlin" to "I am a Berliner", a Berliner being a type of German pastry, similar to a jelly doughnut, amusing Germans. Furthermore, the pastry, which is known by many names in Germany, was not then — nor is it now — commonly called "Berliner" in the Berlin area.
clearly containing the correction for the myth surrounding Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech.
The reason for this is that the included pages make extensive use of onlyinclude
, and in some segments (such as the quoted one), this is done poorly: There seems to be some intention not to include the references, but by choosing to onlyinclude
the text, rather than noinclude
ing the references, every time someone forgets to re-open the onlyinclude
after the last reference of an item, the start of the next item is swallowed, all the way up to after the first reference of that segment, if the editor "properly" re-opened onlyinclude
ing after that reference.
This may be due to brute find/replace, since the page also includes numerous pointless empty onlyinclude
segments, and in the given case, the error is caused by wrong usage of a self-closing ref-tag.
In other words: It looks like somebody brutishly replaced <ref
with </onlyinclude><ref
and </ref>
with </ref><onlyinclude>
, and in those cases where people falsely inserted XHTML-style <ref />
-tags there was no closing </ref>
-tag and thus no opening <onlyinclude>
being included.
I have left it as is, both for documentary purposes as well as because this approach is something fundamental to be debated by the self-elected maintainers of this page and correction will probably require checking and editing all pages that make up List of common misconceptions.
77.22.117.146 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I have fixed this issue. Are there any others that you noticed? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Islam section ends with unintroduced comments about Judaism. 89.1.140.176 (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fixed. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have tested the RegEx
/(?<=<\/onlyinclude>)(?:.(?!<onlyinclude>))*\n\*(?:.(?!<onlyinclude>))*/gs
against both the old revision and the current one of the history subpage. - It found five matches on the old revision, none on the current.
- So it does seem like you caught all the ones that were obvious. If you haven't done the other pages yet, feel free to try the Regex against their page sources.
- No guarantees it'll catch everything, but it'll at least narrow down spots you should check.
77.22.117.146 (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Islam section ends with unintroduced comments about Judaism. 89.1.140.176 (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Dodo misconceptions
[edit]The dodo is one of the most famous extinct species, and one of the most commonly cited examples of recent manmade extinctions. However, there are many erroneous beliefs about the dodo popularised by pop culture and misconceptions that should be on this list
- "Dodo's were hunted to extinction due to their immaculate taste" This is untrue, as historical accounts wrote of its unsavoury flavour. Its extinction was mostly caused by invasive species as opposed to direct human predation like the passenger pigeon or quagga.
- "The dodo was too stupid to survive" This is also untrue, as genetic research has shown that the dodo had average to above average intelligence like other species of pigeons. Its perceived "stupidity" is more akin to naivety and passivity caused by living in isolation without significant predators similar to the moas, Galápagos tortoises, and Steller's sea cow prior to being discovered by Europeans or the Māori. Sources: Dodos might have been quite intelligent, new research finds | ScienceDaily The Dodo and the Solitaire: A Natural History - Jolyon C. Parish - Google Books
Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Tripitaka Koreana
[edit]It is a popular misconception that the Tripitaka Koreana does not contain a single error;[23] a survey found that the text does indeed have missing characters and errors.[24][25] Benjamin (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia featured list candidates (contested)
- List-Class List articles
- Mid-importance List articles
- WikiProject Lists articles
- List-Class Astronomy articles
- Mid-importance Astronomy articles
- List-Class Astronomy articles of Mid-importance
- List-Class Biology articles
- Mid-importance Biology articles
- WikiProject Biology articles
- List-Class Christianity articles
- Mid-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- List-Class Economics articles
- Low-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- List-Class Evolutionary biology articles
- Low-importance Evolutionary biology articles
- WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
- List-Class Food and drink articles
- Low-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- List-Class history articles
- Mid-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- List-Class history of science articles
- Mid-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- List-Class Islam-related articles
- Mid-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- List-Class Judaism articles
- Low-importance Judaism articles
- List-Class Literature articles
- Low-importance Literature articles
- List-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- List-Class psychology articles
- Low-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- List-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- List-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- List-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- List-Class sports articles
- WikiProject Sports articles
- List-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- List-Class culture articles
- High-importance culture articles
- WikiProject Culture articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists
- Articles linked from high traffic sites