Talk:List of common misconceptions

Please read before proposing new entries 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.

Obama

I concur with this edit.[1] 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). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• 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. 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?

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.Dr bab (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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. VegaDark (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this highlights the difficulty of properly classifying content of a political or religious nature. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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? 28bytes (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding it List of conspiracy theories. I don't think a link in our See Also section is necessary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's been added back.[2] I don't think there was an consensus to add this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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. VegaDark (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly still a discussion underway, here and at the bottom of the page. Not a friendly move just sticking it back in. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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. VegaDark (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

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. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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... 24.177.203.132 (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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 ~~~~ at the end of your post.) 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! 24.177.203.132 (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Cresix and others above, a politically-appointed White House press secretary is not an independent or WP:reliable source. It is, in fact, the very quintessence of an interested and unreliable source. Find a source for his twenty-plus years of Christian church attendance and use that instead if people really insist on the information's inclusion here rather than, eg, at conspiracy theories. [A further point is that the item — if included — deserves a treatment of the related point that the Americans who believe this consider a person considered Muslim if his father is, similar to maternal Jewishness.] The independence and reliability of the source though is the first thing to fix. — LlywelynII 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

First, you have no idea whether the information on the White House website about Obama's religious beliefs was written by the press secretary. And even if it was, the President is ultimately responsible for what is said about him on the website. Secondly, religious beliefs are self-stated. If Obama says that he is a Christian, he is a Christian. No one beside Obama can verify what his personal religious beliefs are. His religious beliefs are not verified by his church attendance. And finally, there has been a consensus to leave the information as it has been. You are seeking a change in consensus. It is you who needs to stop reverting and wait until the consensus process completes itself. Cresix (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Obama says that he is a Christian. But is there a common public belief that Obama says that he is something other than a Christian? It seems possible that many people know that Obama says that he is a Christian, but they do not regard him as a Christian anyway. Roger (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

According to a sourced statement in the article, 20 to 24% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Now, we might debate whether that percentage is high enough to consider this a common misconception; I personally think it is a substantial number, considering that a President's self-stated religous beliefs have never been disputed in recent history. But that issue is an altogether different issue than whether Obama self-identifies as Christian; that is indisputable because it is officially stated on the President's official website, and the only way to determine someone's religious beliefs is by their own personal statements; not church attendance; not whether they have been baptized; not whether a particular religious group has that person on their list of member. Only by self-statement can a person's religious beliefs be determined. Cresix (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So no one has shown that there is any misconception. You don't know that those 20% agree with you about how religious beliefs are determined. Roger (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point. I made two different points. The percentage of 20-24% is not about how religious beliefs are determined. It is the percentage of Americans who think that Obama is a Muslim. My other point is that the only way to determine a person's religious beliefs is by that person's self-statements about religious beliefs. If anyone can tell me a better way to know what is in a person's head regarding their religious beliefs, please let me know; I don't know anyone who is able to read a person's mind to know what their beliefs are. Cresix (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I keep trying to understand how people can continue to believe something when a strong authority tells them they're wrong. That's not a misconception. It's a denial of reality. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if you define "reality" as "what a strong authority tells you". Even strong authorities can be mistaken, and they have even been known to lie on occasion. DES (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

But for Wikipedia to describe the belief that Obama is a Muslim as a misconception, WE must be believing that authority. Do we know for sure? If we do, then that 20-24% are choosing to believe something else. That's not a misconception. That's a conscious choice to believe something that's wrong. If we don't know for sure, then we cannot call it a misconception. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure this 'misconception' really belongs here, but if it stays in, this edit may need discussion. Hans Adler 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Simple question. IS Obama a Muslim? HiLo48 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the point, but how about this: If you are a Muslim and you deny your faith in public, then as far as I know you get into serious trouble with other Muslims. Maybe if you are US president and convert to Islam someone would write you a fatwa allowing you to keep this secret and continue to attend Christian services. But probably not before you run for the post. So if he is a Muslim, then we have the following options: He is a closet Muslim, nobody but his family knows it. Or he converted while running for presidency, or as a president (maybe out of spite because of the silly rumours). In which case there is a smoking gun fatwa somewhere.

Come to think of it, can we be sure that Obama, or the US, exists? I have never seen either of them personally.

But what do you think about that edit? I think it's pretty Muslim. Hans Adler 18:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's all part of a picture that says this item should not exist. FACT: Obama is Christian. (We do seem to accept that here.) FACT: There has been massive publicity to that effect. FACT: Millions of people in America say that they think he is a Muslim. CONCLUSION: They're either stupid, or in denial, or playing politics in a very odd way. They DO NOT have a misconception. HiLo48 (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

An alternative is that they have a mindset as described in Bob Altemeyer's book The Authoritarians: They couldn't care less about facts. What counts for them is following the party line as expressed by Fox News and right-wing blogs. They are simply refusing to play our game of reality-orientation. Only authorities, such as the Bible or your father, count. Hans Adler 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, and I bet that if you said to them, "No he's not and here is the evidence", they would respond that it's all a conspiracy, rather than accept it. Same goes for the birthers. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a choice. One they have a right to make. But it's NOT a misconception. HiLo48 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be a misconception for some of that 20%. As you say, it is not for many others. There are different explanations for those poll results, and the Wash. Post source even said so. Roger (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I reverted the edit that made the item only reflect the Wash. Post. source before I saw Hans' invitation to discuss it. I still beleive we should give a range of poll results rather than choosing one, but the phrase about reasons for giving the wrong answer should maybe be put back in. I agree with HiLo48 that this is not a misconception, but how can we prove it? We cannot say anything about Obamas religion other than accept his own personal statement on the matter. Likewise, we cannot say anything about what people actually know/believe about Obama or what (mis)information this "knowledge" is based; all we have is their answer in the poll. Dr bab (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If the threshold for a misconception is that only 20% of Americans believe it to be true, this page would have a nearly infinite amount of scientific content that could be included. Average understanding of most nuclear technology, for example. 206.10.158.35 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think most people would accept Obama's personal statement about his religion. But that may not be true for the 20%. Either the item should be deleted, or it should be noted that there are multiple explanations for the poll results, and misconception is just one of them. Roger (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just thought of another perspective on this. Those who don't believe what Obama says are choosing to not believe a politician. Rather than labouring under a misconception, maybe they're just being sensible ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you were trying to be funny HiLo, but I think you actually touched on the truth of the situation; they are choosing not to believe a politician. After all, Bill Clinton "Never had sex with that woman...". Regardless, it is a sourced misconception, and should probably stay. I also think the should stay.--Asher196 (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it technically fits the criteria for having an item in the article, but, to me, that just highlights the fundamental problem with finding sensible criteria for this article. It was a much discussed matter during the last RfD. To use the almost random happenstance of some "reliable" source having used that particular term to describe something before we allow it to appear in an article here does not appeal to me at all. HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was one of the most beneficial modern examples on the list. I hear people say 'that Muslim Obama' and 'we got a Muslim running this country' every once in awhile. I don't personally care, but its just incorrect. The assumption stems from the reasoning "his name rhymes with Osama" and perhaps a dislike for his skin color. Also, the neutrality of the source is dubious, but I don't think its inclusion is was seen as a POV edit - am I right? So why the POV statement tag? Isn't there a more accurate tag? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:01, 24 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. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.164.19 (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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.--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 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. 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. --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.

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. 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? --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". --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. DES (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't explain the question I posed. Your answer assumes giraffes are the only type of Pecora in regions giraffes inhabit. That's not the case. The idea here is that there is no 'selection' in natural selection; in this explanation there is no 'cheaper alternative winning out' and advantage just increases the likelihood of reproduction. You could think of it as a numbers game involving the likelihood of values being repeated with factors narrowing down the available numbers. That is, at least, my understanding of Darwin's theory. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The giraffe example is poor anyways and I feel it should be changed. While longer necks do allow a giraffe to reach higher food, they do most of their feeding at shoulder height anyways, and this advantage is balanced out by the added difficulty of reaching water from such a height. The main advantage in the longer neck is believed to be as a sexual advantage in necking battles with other males. While this is not particularly relevant to the topic of evolution, it is ironic that the list of common misconceptions uses a common misconception as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.169.74 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Drugs

There should be a drugs section, there are numerous misconceptions about drugs, like LSD being horribly dangerous and so forth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.13.27 (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not without a specific misconception that is identified by a reliable source as a common misconception. 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. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several cited examples in List of urban legends about illegal drugs. The blue star tattoo legend, strawberry quick meth, and bananadine have their own articles. Some of these are based largely on Snopes articles, though. The number of misconceptions in the wild about LSD alone would be enough to fill a sizable article if there were citations for them! --FOo (talk) 02:22, 21 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appple (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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. 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?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. 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.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. 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. Dr bab (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Kk. 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/

appple 2011 March 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appple (talk • contribs) 08:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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? HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not a reliable source. Take a look at the 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Qwyrxian on both points. 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. HiLo48 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2011 (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".. --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. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the source explains that it is a common misconception:

"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!"

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. --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. 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. --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. 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! --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. Dr bab (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2011 (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.[4] decltype (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2011 (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.

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?

Dr bab (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2011 (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. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The third inclusion criterion states that the misconception must be mentioned in the topic article. That is not the case at present.Dr bab (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2011 (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. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the quote you mention is about inclusion criteria. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2011 (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. Dr bab (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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 "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.

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. Qwyrxian(talk)22:12, 3 March 2011 (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.

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.

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? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Source contacted: page now clearly reads that the color issue is a common misconception. Link. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source. It calls it a "popular misconception".[5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems to solve the problem. Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sun IS yellow

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. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source? We're talking about the color as it appears to the eye in space. The Wikipedia article on our sun does not describe its color at all. Also, you're saying that Stanford.edu is not an authentic source; while I agree that these college websites hand out false information like its candy, but we need an actual scientific source to contradict it.

Edit: Sun says "The Sun's stellar classification, based on spectral class, is G2V, and is informally designated as a yellow dwarf, because its visible radiation is most intense in the yellow-green portion of the spectrum and although its color is white, from the surface of the Earth it may appear yellow because of atmospheric scattering of blue light". If that's correct, it seems that you were not a very good astronomy teacher :)--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That was a little personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.89.96.247 (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a joke. But he is using his credentials to make an edit (something not allowed on Wikipedia; we work with sourced material, not the assumed background of editors), and despite those credentials he might be wrong about the subject. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because a star is classified as a yellow star doesn't mean that it is yellow. According to Stellar classification#Conventional and apparent_colors, "Our Sun itself is white. It is sometimes called a yellow star (spectroscopically, relative to Vega), and may appear yellow or red (viewed through the atmosphere), or appear white (viewed when too bright for the eye to see any color). Astronomy images often use a variety of exaggerated colors (partially founded in faint light conditions observations, partially in conventions). But the Sun's own intrinsic color is white (aside from sunspots), with no trace of color, and closely approximates a black body of 5780 K (see color temperature)." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

New entry in section Astronomy: Center of the universe

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... (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 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?

Cresix (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but this was not on the quite exhaustive list "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. Dr bab (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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'. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I found another source that should meet the requirements listed above, here http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#e1 and further down http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#m9 (Eroock (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

Gestation gender

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.173.96 (talk • contribs)

You need to find a 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. Hairhorn (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's only anecdotal evidence, but I have been told by multiple people that all fetuses start as female. You seem to miss that most people aren't making such distinctions in their claim. If you want evidence of it being a common misconception (or at least question) just search online for "are all fetus female at conception" (without the quotes), with a prime example of the issue on Yahoo answers here, but I think doing a web search to see how common something is would count as original research. If you're just looking at phenotype and morphology without genetics, I would have to say they're genderless at this point, since any progress there may be on sexual organs in such an early stage of a fetus can proceed in either direction and one cannot sensibly pick developmental pathway as default when the path requires a malfunction in someone with a Y chromosome. Jbo5112 (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hits with a web search are original research as well as quite unreliable as evidence of anything. The number of hits you get varies widely with how the search is worded, and a simple count of number of hits makes no distinction betwen whether the discussion is about confirming or disconfirming the misconception, or the numerous other possible uses of the phrase that may have nothing to do with a misconception. I never cease to be amazed at the wild conclusions people leap to on the basis of number of search hits. For example, if you google the phrase "Earth is flat", you get over 14 million hits. Is that evidence that there currently is a common misconception that the Earth is flat? If you believe it is, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you really cheap. Cresix (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of androgen, or in cases of androgen insensitivity syndrome in which the masculinizing hormone does not work, the fetus develops with a female external appearance, and after birth is likely to be raised as a girl rather than a boy, etc. The notion of a "definition of female" is well beyond the scope of this article. --FOo (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Female" is not an appearance or designation. Being female means to possess female reproductive organs. There is nothing complex about that. Some things can be referred to as being of one sex (Like a car or a ship) but they are not literally any sex. The question is whether or not all fetuses generically have female organs. There is no need to go farther than that. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the "definition of female" could possibly be very complex at this point. Not yet having any sexual organs or ones that aren't developed enough to differentiate between male and female should obviously make them gender neutral, not female, when using a physical definition, but given a second widely recognized method (if rarely used) of using chromosomes for sexual identification, calling them all female at this point seems quite incorrect. How a person is raised and behaves does not yet apply, along with most other criteria. Jbo5112 (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that I d not have the time to do the research and linking, but I would suggest that you check out the page on "Jurassic Park Errors" since that is a likely source for any misconception there might be. There is also extensive discussion on this point about whether sex determination in dinosaurs is XX/XY or whether it is the ZW sex determination method as is sen in bird. There are article on errors in Jurassic Park, XY sex determination andZw sex determinationTeigeRyan (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling Error

A small thing, but I think this sentence means to use "smoothing" instead of "smooth":

"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."

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). 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. –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. 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. –CWenger (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. A comma is optional before "and" in seriation. 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. –CWenger (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

monty hall

monty hall problem is the subject of a common misconception. Should it be added here? 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. 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. 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. Cresix (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Two points... 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. 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). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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.Dr bab (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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? 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. 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. 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. Dr bab (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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". Cresix (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mussels

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. --Waterspyder (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2011 (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. Cresix (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

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. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The plural of anecdote is not data. However, the removal stands due to the above-mentioned reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.146.162.10 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Editorializing

Can we remove the word "Although" from the phrase that begins "Although fraudulent research by Andrew Wakefield..."? DrSaturn (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Grammatically and contextually, it makes sense. Cresix (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Life Expectancy.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.32.170 (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And frankly, I've never heard anyone interpret it this way. Cresix (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about aging faster, but I do know people who believe that no elderly people existed in periods where there was a low life expectancy. I think its worth investigating. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2011 (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent solution. Thanks for the explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Bravo! Dr bab (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good. Wish I'd thought of it. --Lexein (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hibernation of Bears

Hello Could we include the common misperception that bears hibernate in a true sense under the biology heading? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernation see note at bottom of http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/satoyama/hibernation.html http://www.bearaware.bc.ca/bears/bears_content_grizzly4.html

Recommend inclusion as "Bears are commonly referred to as 'hibernators', but bears do not hibernate in the true sense, as they can be roused from the state, and their body temperature does not drop significantly. While some people still use the term 'hibernate' when referring to bears, it is a misnomer, as behaviourally, bears undergo 'winter sleep' or 'winter lethargy'."

Cheers A2freema (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Ange

Do you have a reference evidencing that this is a common misperception, as opposed to just a loose use of "hibernation"? From what I can see neither of those external links speak to that point. – ukexpat (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolution's Status as a Theory

Current article includes this:

The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms. Evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory, gravitation, or plate tectonics.

I don't see how this point's inclusion is helpful in any way.

The current scientists do not doubt evolution any more than their predecessors doubted phlogiston, eugenics, or the miasmic theory of disease. The very nature of science and scientific advancement, however, speak against the definitive nature of scientific consensus, which is what the religious are pointing out. There is indeed a difference in kind between observable and verifiable theories such as germ theory and those seeking to explain previous behavior such as the formation of the solar system or the evolution of mankind. The point is simultaneously misleading to people who agree with it, and unconvincing and aside the point to those who disagree. — LlywelynII 22:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The point here is that it's common for religious people not versed in science to dismiss evolution as "just a theory", using the word "theory" as a synonym for conjecture or hypothesis. The very nature of scientific advancement strengthens the theory of evolution every day, which is what the religious seem to miss. And evolution is observable and verifiable, with corroborating evidence and findings spanning multiple scientific disciplines, it has explanatory power, and predictive power. In that sense it is no different from germ theory.

The religious believers won't be convinced regardless of arguments and evidence, so nothing written in this article will change their minds, nor is it the job of this article to attempt it. All we can do is explain that the word "theory" to a layman means something quite different than what it means to science. Can you suggest a clearer way to phrase this entry? ~Amatulić (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Who says the word 'theory' implies mainstream scientific doubt regarding evolution's validity? I think when 'religious people' say "its just a theory" they mean "that's just one group's unproven opinion". And, no, its not "proven". Its the best/only theory which explains the origin of species and adheres to scientific method. I do think its silly to say that there is only one theory of evolution (especially one particular version which is infallibly correct), its like saying 'there is only one true understanding of quantum mechanics'. The article plainly shows a distinction between Darwinism and Lamarkism, and yet they are both theories of evolution.

Maybe it would be better to describe those who believe that a theory is a hypothesis which might later become a fact. Follow by describing that, in scientific method, a theory is always a theory regardless of its observability; etc, etc.

Edit: I think rewording is important because the present wording of the sentence is a response to a theological debate, and thus does not only describe a common misconception. The common misconception is not that 'evolution is just a theory'. It is a theory, although the use of that fact in the example argument is faulty reasoning. The misconception might be that anything called a 'theory' is random conjecture. However, I'm not sure this is even a common misconception. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon

The caption below the picture of Napoleon contains awkward grammatical structure. Consider this rewording:

Napoleon on the Bellerophon, a painting of Napoleon I by Charles Lock Eastlake. Napoleon was taller than his nickname, The Little Corporal, suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howrad (talk • contribs) 06:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I made the fix. I also thought it was awkwardly worded when I first read the article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got a source I'm afraid but I've heard on TV that his shortness was simply made up by british cartoonists during the nepoleonic war. Coolug (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So, "the Little Corporal" as a nickname probably was "[not referring] to his physical stature." Hmm -- then, to what was it referring to? Twipley (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It was referring to the british obsession with creating some form of comedy disability for anyone we ever find ourselves fighting a war with (such as hitlers alleged singular testicle) :) Coolug (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

biology addition

Even Velociraptors were portrayed in Jurassic Park as bigger than humans, they were in fact 2,5 feet tall. The "raptors" portrayed in Jurassic Park were modeled after Deinonychus (11 ft). Also, it is now known that both these dinosaurs had feathers.

Another misconception spread by Jurassic Park says that T. rex could only see moving objects. There is no evidence that suggests that dinosaurs had a vision mechanism distinct from those of reptiles or birds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesitoide (talk • contribs) 01:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are suggesting additions, please provide reliable sources that the misconceptions are common. Cresix (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

All of this is already on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_issues_in_Jurassic_Park. This also goes back t my above topic about sex determination. If you want to add soemthing you shoud just link it. TeigeRyan (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion: Ancient sculptures

Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures were brightly coloured, not white. See http://museum.stanford.edu/news_room/true-colors.html. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that show that this is a common misconception? – ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion: half zero naming for train model scaling

Many Americans, Canadians and Australians believe the right way to refer to the half zero scaling is by using both letters HO while in fact this scaling is invented in Germany were it was named 'half zero' and therefore they used the abbreviation h0 which is still used in most of Europe. As a source you can check the discussion page on H0 scale. 195.169.227.2 (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

Please address all of the following:

• Does the misconception's including topic have an article of its own?
• Provide a 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?

Cresix (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

caffeine

I noticed the following was removed from the page with the comment that it is not a common misconception:

Caffeine does not cause dehydration.

I've heard countless times that caffeine does cause dehydration, so I think this is quite a common misconception. Of course what I've heard said is original research, but surely this could find it's way into the article in some form? (albeit with an ameliorated write up) Coolug (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You may have heard it countless times, but Wikipedia needs someone to have documented in a reliable source the "fact" that it's a common misconception (or words to that effect). We have to have strict inclusion criteria. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It needs a reliable source that it is a common misconception in the general population, not just a common misconception among physicians. The sources that were provided did not state it as such. Cresix (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand why it couldn't remain in the article as it was, when I have the time I might try and seek out some sources that are suitable for inclusion in this article. cya Coolug (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

New section: "Lisping King of Spain" under History

I have heard in several Spanish classes and found several articles (which you have to look up, because they're blackisted) that claim that the reason Spaniards pronounce the C in "ci" or "ce" as θ, known to English speakers as th. However, the reason certain regions of Spain have that specific lisp is an example of regional dimorphism of language. (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceceo.)This is further explored in the wiki article on Ceceo. In fact, this myth is mentioned in the article, as well as how it was disproved. Other articles: (spanish.about.com/cs/qa/a/q_lisp.htm)

Fundamentally, this myth holds no water, as Castillian Spanish pronounces "S" the exact same as other regions, so it can't be the result of a lisp, as a person with a lisp would be unable to pronounce the "s" sound. I think that even though it's mentioned on the Ceceo page, it deserves a spot on this article, because of how widely accepted it is.) El erico (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)