Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Elvis Costello quote

The entry, for reference:

• Elvis Costello did not originate the maxim "writing about music is like dancing about architecture". Variations of the quote have appeared in print since as early as 1918.

The Elvis Costello case is covered by the more general point about quotations: "Many quotations are incorrect or attributed to people who never uttered them". It should be moved to Wikiquote:Misquotations, like all other misquotations. This leaves the Marie Antoinette case, which probably does belong in this article because it is not just a misattributed quote, but a historical slander. Similarly, the Saint Augustine case is about the content of what he said, not about attribution. --Macrakis (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I think we should leave it in. It follows all the inclusion criteria, and it's not like the "many quotations are misattributed" entry actually covers it (by which I mean, I wouldn't glean the same information from reading the "many-misattributed" entry). I'm not in favor of including literally every common misquotation on this page (although, might we consider making a separate Wikipedia article for this? I realize there's a Wikiquote page, but common misquotations specifically might deserve their own Wikipedia page. IDK); in this case however, the misconception isn't just mentioned on another page, it has its own (surprisingly nice and well-sourced) page. Besides, if it weren't on this page, I personally would've had no idea that it wasn't a Costello quote. Joe (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The essence of curation is leaving things out. Probably half of the entries could be removed and the article would be improved. I think this entry is ripe for removal. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I am horrified by your assertion this this article would be improved by removing half the entries. The fact that this article is so extensive is what makes it so great! The more real common misconceptions we list, the greater this article will become.

The essence of curation is preservation. If you went to a job interview for a curatorial position at a museum and said, "the first thing I want to do when I get started is throw half the collections out," I'd hope to god they wouldn't hire you. Joe (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

We're not a museum. We don't have the ability to throw anything away. Whatever we decide is not important enough to present here is not gone forever.

I'm not a museum curator, but were I to apply for a position as one, I would not say that I intend to put every single thing in the museum's collection on prominent display. At most museums, there are exhibits for the public, which are carefully chosen and only a small percentage of the total holdings, and then there's the thousands of things in the back room for the scholars to ponder over. As https://www.apollo-magazine.com/conservation-vs-access-digital-displays-solution-museums/ points out, "Sometimes quantity is more important than quality in such research collections, but would hundreds of pottery shards be interesting on public display?"

As with so many things in life less is more. There are probably thousands of candidate entries for this page that technically meet the inclusion criteria. Were we to include them all, readers' eyes would glaze over before reading ten percent of them. Keeping the article succinct and to-the-point is a service to the reader.

Regarding the present discussion, I've heard that quote since at least the early 80s. Until recently, I'd never heard it attributed it to Elvis Costello. Apparently, it's been mis-attributed to dozens of people. My editorial judgement is to let it go and leave it to other pages to treat it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd have a similarly adverse reaction to anyone saying that half the content in a dictionary would be better removed, or indeed, half the information in an encyclopedia. Since Wikipedia is on the Internet, and does not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia, there's even less of a need to restrict content. When it comes to readers' eyes glazing over, I would encourage that you should not so disparage Wikipedia readers in your thoughts, Mr. Swordfish. As a Wikipedia reader myself, I can say that far from having my eyes glaze over upon discovering this page, I immediately read every entry in order, and I don't believe I had ever been disabused of more misconceptions more swiftly in my entire life. If you had deleted half of the entries before I got a chance to read the article all the way through, I might still be functioning under who knows how many misapprehensions. I maintain that preservation is the highest goal and the highest good of curation. Joe (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the parent article, which is barely three weeks old, it asserts without citation that the quote is commonly attributed to Elvis Costello, while expounding at length about how many others have been attributed as the source. I've added CN tags to those unsourced assertions. And I'm removing the entry here as insufficiently sourced and not a fair synopsis of the sourced material. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that our resident musical misconception fellow @ILIL: might have some expertise on this issue. My judgement, that it's a fine entry, and that we ought to keep it, remains unchanged. Indeed, I'd be in favor of expanding it to mention several of the other people the quote is commonly attributed to. Joe (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@JoePhin: I agree with everything you've written. I'm not quite sure why Mr Swordfish feels that he needs to remove entries that he's not personally interested by (WP:OWN?). If a section gets too long, then we can easily just create something like List of music misconceptions (WP:SPINOFF). That can't really happen, of course, if he continues restricting the inclusion of valid entries. (To be honest, my first impression seeing the "Music" section on here was "that's it?") I also don't know why he asserts that the parent article "asserts without citation that the quote is commonly attributed to Elvis Costello" when the citation has been there from the start. ili (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, we now have some sourcing for the Elvis Costello misattribution in the parent article. But we also have misattributions to many other people. Can someone explain why Elvis Costello is featured so much more prominently than the others?

There are also many other quotes that are often misattributed, as Macrakis points out. There are dozens of misattributed quotes on the wikiquotes page. Do we include them all here? If not, how do we decide which ones to include? And if we decide to include a particular quote, which person do we choose to single out as the one who is the subject of the misattribution.

So, I agree with Macrakis that "the Elvis Costello case is covered by the more general point about quotations: "Many quotations are incorrect or attributed to people who never uttered them". It should be moved to Wikiquote:Misquotations, like all other misquotations." I removed the entry because it is unclear whether we have consensus to include it. I'm not going to edit war, but per WP:NOCON if we don't reach consensus on this recently added entry the default is to revert. I'm interested in what other editors have to say. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not even clear that Elvis Costello is most frequently give (incorrectly) as the originator. Ralph Keyes' The Quote Verifier ISBN 9781429906173 lists many "alleged originators" and quotes a site focused on that quote (archived) as saying that it is "most often credited to Laurie Anderson".p. 256. The Quote Investigator says that it's been attributed to many people, including Martin Mull (who may actually have coined it in its current form), Laurie Anderson, and others.[1]

So we have two problems:

• What are the criteria for including misattributions on this page, when we already explicitly say that we won't cover the many misattributions to Einstein et al.?
• What evidence is there that Elvis Costello in particular is especially often given as the originator?

--Macrakis (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Solution to problem 1: Take away that arbitrary rule that doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to keep the list artificially shorter. Solution to problem 2: Incorporate the reference to Anderson being "most often credited" so that the entry mentions both her and Costello. If you find more sources to other people being "most often credited" then incorporate those as well. ili (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the question that needs to be answered is why should we include this quote and not all the others? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

There are a gazillion misattributed quotes. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and our goal should not be to include every case. The Wikiproject Wikiquote is the right place to document attributions of quotes (both correct and incorrect). --Macrakis (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

If we pursued your reasoning to its logical conclusion, WP:NOTDATABASE would be a really good reason to wipe the entire "list of common misconceptions" off Wikipedia. ili (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Obviously the question of whether this particular instance is notable enough for this page is up to the editors, like all questions of notability. I think it is notable, perhaps I'm biased because it was a personal misapprehension of mine. I assume ILIL thinks it's notable for some reason or other. Mr. Swordfish, Mack, would you find it more notable if we could include a list of people who the quote is commonly misattributed to? I personally think it's already notable enough as it is (it's just a very famous quote), but the fact that it is apparently so commonly misattributed to so many people makes it even more notable, in a different kind of way. Perhaps we should establish a loose rule of thumb that it's ok to include any quote which is so commonly misattributed that it's been wrongly credited to three or more people. At that point, it's not so much a common misconception about Costello as it is a common misconception about the quote itself.

Assuming we can come to a consensus, I'd definitely like to push for including as many people to whom the 'dancing about architecture' thing is misattributed, but I'm not sure I'd be the best one to write it (just not my bailiwick). ILIL, would you please consider boldy changing the entry to include as many names as possible, as long as they can be well-sourced? You could also just put a revised version of it here for us to discuss, if you preferred.

I agree with Mack that we mustn't include literally every misattributed quote, but I'm happy to include misattributed quotes which are particularly famous, or which have been misattributed to a large number of people, especially both. Needless to say, in order to include something on this page, the common half of common misconceptions should be met. Joe (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@JoePhin: I would restore the entry, but I've lost interest in this page to continue interacting with it, let alone edit war. It's too exhausting having to defend the inclusion of entries because some editors feel they must draw imaginary lines in the sand based on a personal preference. I think there's a bigger WP:OWN issue at play here. For all the fuss made over WP:CONSENSUS, the criteria proposed at the top of this talk page says nothing about limiting quotations. What a great idea it would have been – gathering every claim that multiple reliable sources have described as a "common misconception." Instead we just get a facsimile version, and a depressing bunch of inane arguing on the talk page. ili (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, if the criteria is to only include quotes that are "particularly famous", then the next obvious question is whether this one is particularly famous.

A quick internet search shows that it's absent from all of the following lists:

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/68007/50-famous-misquotations-and-what-was-really-said

http://www.artandpopularculture.com/List_of_misquotations

https://innovativewealth.com/puppet-show/famous-misquotes/

https://www.ripleys.com/weird-news/the-greatest-misquotes-in-history/

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Misquotations

https://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/freud_never_said_that_19_of_historys_most_famous_misquotes_partner/

Of course, this is not dispositive and some of the sites above would not pass muster as a reliable source, but it seems to me that if it were "particularly famous" it would show up in at least one of them.

As for being "misattributed to a large number of people", that would seem to argue against it being a common misconception and in favor of it being just an example of general ignorance and confusion. So, I'd be opposed to adopting that as a criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

What a methodology. With this logic, we can conclude that Bill Haley and Fats Domino should never be featured on List of rock and roll artists because they did not make it into these random, cherry-picked lists I found on Google: https://www.thefamouspeople.com/rock-singers.php https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/best-male-rock-singers-legendary-vocalists/ ili (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You will find Bill Haley and Fats Domino on many many lists of rock and roll artists, so there is plenty of reliable sources supporting their importance. Agree that the fact that they may be missing from a few lists does not mean that they are unimportant. Here we have a situation where the item under discussion is apparently missing from every list.

Thus far, you haven't answered why include this quote and not all the others? That would be a start. If your answer is "because it's one of the most famous" then the ball is in your court to produce evidence that the Costello mis-attribution is one of the "most famous", assuming for the sake of the argument that we adopt that criteria, which is not settled at this point. If it's some other reason, I'm all ears. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, there are lots of other commonly misattributed quotes which are surely much more famous than music/architecture: "standing on the shoulders of giants" (not Isaac Newton), "there's a sucker born every minute" (not Barnum), "an eye for an eye will make the world blind" (not Gandhi). And we already cross-reference Wikiquote's Misquotations page. Is there any reason for us to duplicate it?

Oh, and someone might want to add music/architecture and others to that page. --Macrakis (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@JoePhin: Are you calling me "Mack"?! I'll assume you weren't intentionally insulting me, but kindly don't do it again. --Macrakis (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Macrakis, wasn't meaning to insult you. I just like the name Mack, and it fits with you, that's all; but I won't call you that if you don't like it. Anyway, I'd be in favor of including some of the famous misquotations you cited on this page, (Gandhi didn't say "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind"!? My god, who did say it!?) but we'd have to go through them individually. There's nothing wrong with us duplicating certain portions of other Wikipedia pages on this one - most of the entries on this page are copied directly or mostly-directly from other pages, and one of the criteria for inclusion on this page is that it be mentioned on other pages. Of course, someone will have to find the will to find and source those entries, and other editors might dispute their notability, etc., etc., basically what we're doing right now for this quote. That's fine, that's the normal process. Joe (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This thread is now about 3 weeks old and I'm not seeing us moving towards a consensus to include this item. I'll give it a few more days, but unless there's a better argument in favor than that it's "particularly famous" or some evidence that it is "particularly famous", the relevant policy, WP:NOCON is to remove it. And if no one has added it yet to the Wikiquote's Misquotations page I'll look into adding it there. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that this is still being edit-warred. This entry was added to the article on May 12. A few days later on May 31 the entry was challenged. We discussed on talk whether to accept this new material, with no editor giving a reasonable argument why this particular misquote should be included and not the other hundreds listed on the wikiquotes page. One editor stated that it should be included because it was "particularly famous" but failed to provide any evidence that it is "particularly famous". The other editor in favor of keeping it simply refused to engage in discussion on that question.

So, I ask again: why this quote and not the hundreds of others?

For reference, the relevant material from the help page is:

"No consensus" occurs when good-faith discussion results in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context:

• In discussions of proposals to delete articles, media, or other pages, a lack of consensus normally results in the content being kept.
• In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

We are not discussing a "proposal to delete articles, media, or other pages", we are discussing a "proposal to add, modify, or remove material in an article". It's clear that the result should be "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." That's the version as of May 11th, unless we can reach consensus to accept the bold edit. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

In this case, Mr Swordfish, I would consider your removal of the entry to be the bold edit, since the entry was already established on the page when you initially removed it. In any case, we don't need to rules-lawyer it; I believe I'm now ambivalent as to whether the entry should or shouldn't be included. I still think it is a good example of a common misconception, and the fact that it is a quotation is not relevant (we include other notable misquotations which constitute common misconceptions, e.g., 'let them eat bread.') It is clear to me, however, that you don't like the entry, and since user ILIL stated his intention to give up on this page, I'm not so concerned about it anymore. I would've preferred we compromised with ILIL, and I wanted to encourage his continued activity on this page, which I valued. Since he lost interest, however, and since you dislike it so, I'll retract my objection to removing it. Go ahead, if you like, and remove it. I'm sad it turned into a big fight, and that ILIL gave up on the page. Having more interested editors makes the page better, even if they don't all agree. Joe (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I wouldn't call 19 days "a few days." On a page that is very actively edited like this one, 19 days is a long time time for editors to review the material that has been added. In this case, particularly, other editors made edits to the entry in question, indicating that they read the entry and didn't feel a need to remove it - myself being one of those editors. But it doesn't matter if your removal was a bold edit or not, I've retracted my objection to removing the entry since you don't like it and since ILIL sadly seems no longer to want to be involved on this page. Go ahead and remove it if you want. Joe (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the item here and added it at https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Misquotations. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Crystal healing entry

An editor recently added this entry:

• There is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that crystal healing has any real effect. Alleged successes of crystal healing can be attributed to the placebo effect.

This was reverted by another editor with the comment:

Fails criteria 2: The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. The article says it is pseudoscience which is a different list. List of topics characterized as pseudoscience)

For reference, here's the opening section of the topic article:

Crystal healing is a pseudoscientific alternative-medicine practice that uses semiprecious stones and crystals such as quartz, agate, amethyst or opal. Adherents of the practice claim that these have healing powers, but there is no scientific basis for this claim. Practitioners of crystal healing believe they can boost low energy, prevent bad energy, release blocked energy, and transform a body's aura.

In one method, the practitioner places crystals on different parts of the body, often corresponding to chakras; or else the practitioner places crystals around the body in an attempt to construct an energy grid, which is purported to surround the client with healing energy. Scientific investigations have found no evidence that such "energy grids" actually exist, and there is no evidence that crystal healing has any greater effect upon the body than any other placebo.

Where the practice is popular, it fosters commercial demand for crystals, which can result in environmental damage and exploitative child labor to mine the crystals.

My reading of this is that belief in crystal healing is both common and incorrect. Although the topic article does not use the magic words common misconception, it seems to clearly state that it is. We've been discussing entries like this (i.e. that appear on the list of topics considered pseudoscience - it's in the Homeopathy section) for several days now with a fairly clear consensus to include some small subset of that list here. I don't think we are faced with an either/or decision about which list the item can appear on. Sometimes a topic is appropriate for both. Happy to discuss further, but I'm restoring the entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, original person who added the entry here. First off, I'm happy to let the entry be removed until we come to a consensus on it - that's fine. Second, I basically agree with everything Mr Swordfish said above: a common and wrong belief is a common misconception by definition, and the Crystal healing page clearly describes this as both a common and a wrong belief.

Not all pseudoscience is common (indeed, some of it is very niche or once-but-no-longer common), so of course it doesn't make sense to import all examples of pseudoscience onto this page. However, in cases where pseudoscientific beliefs are common, I'd say they're good candidates for inclusion. As long as we agree that a particular pseudoscientific claim is a common misconception (and maybe we don't, hence this discussion) then I think we should include it.

Some editors may have a narrower definition of what constitutes a common misconception, something like, "a belief which is only common due to ignorance, not because someone has actively been misled" but I wouldn't go in for such a definition personally. There are lots of examples of misconceptions that are common only because 'authoritative' sources have misled people. Pink hippo milk is a great example of this: left to their own devices, people would either assume that hippo milk is white, or they just wouldn't know what color it is, but they wouldn't assume it was pink if media like National Geographic, who should know better, hadn't propagated the idea. Misconceptions can come about as the result of ignorance (say, someone assuming the world is flat because it looks flat on a local scale) or through purposeful or accidental misinformation (pink hippo milk, saying that earthworms can regenerate when cut in half, George Washington Carver inventing peanut butter, etc., etc.)

If someone has an argument as to why "crystals magically heal illness" isn't a misconception, and common one at that, I'll hear them out. Maybe I'm being too broad in my definitions. Joe (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You are being too broad in your definition. Basically you are broadening the definition to include beliefs you do not like. There are scientists who believe gravitons are real and others who are proponents of multiverse hypotheses. There is no scientific proof that these "beliefs" are true. So are these misconceptions? Should they be on this list? People who believe in materialism have no direct scientific evidence that their beliefs are correct. Should those who disagree with their beliefs insist that materialism be listed here as a misconception? Why limit this to just beliefs you do not like? In the meantime the entry on crystal healing should be removed until a better consensus is established. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Richard, it isn't "beliefs I don't like," it's beliefs which are verifiably not correct (and also, importantly, beliefs which are common). Of course we couldn't add all beliefs to this page, since not all beliefs are incorrect, and not all beliefs are common. Do you disagree with the statement "crystal healing is not real" or "the belief in crystal healing is common?" Mr Swordfish and I both think those statements are true, and there are RS to that effect, and therefore we consider crystal healing to be a misconception which is common.

When it comes to things like gravitons or multiverse theory, the editors on this page make of point of excluding material which might be a misconception, but which also might not be, according to a reasonable standard and what the RS say. We've actually discussed this at some length before. We don't include unproven theories, like multiverse theory, but we do include disproven theories, like Andrew Wakefield's theory that vaccines cause autism. Joe (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

No I do not believe that proximity to rocks directly induces healing. I do believe that mental disposition can improve healing. See Placebo#Factors influencing the power of the placebo effect regarding open-label placebos. However what I do or do not believe is not the point. There is a difference between misinformed people and people who believe things despite know information. There is also a difference to using this article to bring attention to misinformation that leads to misconceptions and using it to shame people for what they chose to believe. I do not agree with belief in something that others say is not real adds up to a misconception. I have met informed, educated and smart people who believe very wacky things. This is not a misconception, this is a choice to believe. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Richard, we already included that it's the placebo effect in the entry. Joe (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not say placebo effect should or should not be in the entry. I was stating my beliefs on the subject because I was asked. But my beliefs nor the inclusion of placebo effect is not the issue. This entry says "There is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that crystal healing has any real effect." This implies that belief in crystal healing is based on some misconception that there is such evidence. There is no reason to think that is true, the citation does not say that and the article does not say that. It is more likely that people believe in crystal healing because they simply chose to and do not care about other people evidence. In my experience people who believe in spiritual healing of any kind go to a doctor when they get ill and use the spiritual healing techniques in conjunction to standard medicine. The conversations above make it clear that the people who support this entry hate people who believe in such things and the the only goal of this entry is to present adherents of crystal healing as poor misinformed idiots and that is a misconception that you all have. It has been a day since I removed this and I am removing it again because I think it is there simply to offend people and it offends me to see Wikipedia used that way. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You do Mr Swordfish and me a grave wrong, Richard. I do not hate anyone for believing in crystal healing, and I'm sure Mr Swordfish does not either, nor would I ever assume that he does. I can't help but feel this conversation has become somewhat silly, as far as I can tell, we three are in complete agreement that

1) Crystals do not have magical healing effects, and to the extent that crystal healing works it's no better than a placebo

2) People actually believe that crystals do have magical healing powers

3) This conception about magical crystals is common, according to multiple RS

Unless, and I don't want to put words in your mouth Richard, but do you think that most people who 'believe' in crystal healing do not actually believe in it? If that is your argument, I would like some sources that most proponents and practitioners of crystal healing are insincere in their beliefs. I am extremely confident that is not the gist of the RS currently used on the crystal healing page, or indeed, any other sources on the subject that I'm aware of. It is not something you can simply assert without RS.

It is not out of hatred, or a desire to ridicule anyone, or anything like that, that Mr Swordfish and I are advocating for this addition. We simply agree that the sincere belief in supernatural healing crystals is a common false belief, and we consider "false belief" and "misconception" to be synonymous. Joe (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

How can belief be false unless the person is lying about what they believe. Clarify what you really mean. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"False belief" is shorthand for "belief in something that is false". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Hob. Sorry if that was confusing. Joe (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That you would use the phrase "false belief" instead of "mistaken belief" and you putting words in my mouth after saying you do not want to put words in my mouth shows to me your objective here is to misrepresent the views of others in a negative light. I do assume good faith, however you keep giving me reasons to think otherwise. I have already made my position clear, you just do not want to hear it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

So, do we agree on those 1), 2), and 3) points? If yes, I don't see why we shouldn't include the entry. If no, please tell us what you specifically disagree with. If I'm having difficulty understanding you, Richard, you shouldn't mistake any incompetence on my part for malice. Please forgive me if I'm just being stupid, and please try to explain it clearly so that I'll understand. I'll also try to avoid using any phrases which could be misinterpreted like 'false belief;' when I say that, I really do just mean 'a sincere belief in a false thing.' I'm sure we can reach some kind of consensus as long as we clearly understand each other. Joe (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it since you use words like "magical" and "supernatural" in regards to the subject. If you look at the article crystal healing they almost never use those words. That because they know it would offend someone to call their beliefs magic as in magical thinking. (Just wanted to get that one off my chest as well.) In the same wise it would offend a person to be told the reason they believe X is because they have a misconception. It equates to calling them stupid and/or uneducated. However Wikipedia is not censored and while we avoid offending people we do not hide the truth. In any case. I feel I already made it clear. A persistent belief in something proven wrong by the scientific community does not equate to a misconception (common or otherwise) for the purposes of this article. You would have to produce citations that made it clear people were not aware that said belief is disproven. (Multiple citations to ensure it is not a fringe theory, but you would only put one in the article.) You seem to be operating on the assumption that the scientific community is never wrong and that people are obligated to believe what ever comes out in a peer-reviewed study. I invite you to see the replication crisis article. I am not saying these peer-reviewed studies are wrong, I am saying people are likely to just ignore them. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding you. Why would we need "Multiple citations to ensure it is not a fringe theory"? The RS already state that "2) People actually believe that crystals do have magical healing powers." I'm not sure why you take offense to my use of the word 'magical,' what other property could I possibly ascribe to crystals that heal people through 'energy?' I guess I could call them 'mystical' instead.

If you have some source that states that belief in crystal healing is commonly insincere, I'd need you to cite it so that we could consider the source's reliability. Sources which state that belief in crystal healing is not common would have to be compared against the sources we were already using in the entry. Your argument that "it would offend a person to be told the reason they believe X is because they have a misconception" is totally irrelevant. The same argument could be used to remove literally every entry on this page; of course someone might be offended to learn that they held a misconception, but "it offends me" is never a reason to remove material from Wikipedia. If you don't have some more convincing reason than "it might offend somebody" as to why we shouldn't include this entry, I'm going to have to retract my conditional approval for the entry to be temporarily removed while we discuss it. If there's no concern besides "I don't like it," then there's no reason not to include it. Joe (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to comment on this discussion because I saw the removal on my Watchlist the other day and now saw that there was a discussion on it. There seems to be a consensus in the discussion below this one that being a pseudoscientific concept, thus eligible for inclusion in another list article, does not bar it from being mentioned here. The edit removing it even admits that the common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources. The common misconception, as worded in the edit, is that crystal healing has a real effect. This is a common misconception, as there is no evidence that it does have any real effect. Talking about the words magical and supernatural and everything else is irrelevant to the edit; it has absolutely zero to do with what's in the article. So what exactly is the issue with the edit itself? Because reading through this discussion I see a lot of arguments, but all of them seem to be about perceived slights based on comments, not about the substance of the material in the article, which is what we should, respectfully, be focusing on. I'm absolutely sure no offense was intended by anything anyone said at any point, so I think it would be helpful to focus on the content of the edit and why it should or should not be included. - Aoidh (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

While I think there is some merit to the argument that use of words like "magical" or "supernatural" would run afoul of WP:NPOV, the last published version of the entry does not include words to that effect:

• There is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that crystal healing has any real effect. Alleged successes of crystal healing can be attributed to the placebo effect.

So I don't understand what all the fuss is about. The entry is a simple statement of fact supported by reliable sources and relevant to the topic of this page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

while there may be debate to be had on whether certain pseudo science does or doesn't belong in a "list of common misconceptions" the talk page discussion thus far sadly seems to have dealt with all manner of other issues and not this, which imho is the central one. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Sorry if my use of the word 'magical' in this talk section to describe a supposed supernatural effect is somehow inaccurate; I don't know what the difference is. I guess I use 'magical' and 'supernatural' pretty interchangeably, but maybe one is more loaded than the other somehow? I wouldn't have thought so, but what do I know. If there are no specific objections to the entry, shall we add it back in and be done with it? Joe (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be re-added, as unless I'm misreading the discussion, consensus seems to be for inclusion, especially when the superfluous discussion is disregarded. - Aoidh (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Do not re-add it. It fails criteria 2: "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 understand you all want to lower the bar and say a belief in something proven false in peer-reviewed studies is a misconception, but the criteria does not say that. There is no evidence people have a misconception about it. It is more evident people choses to believe in it regardless of any evidence, because it is part of their belief system. In fact for things part of a belief system, the bar to include should be higher not lower. Nobody is going to read this article and go "Huh, I thought there were studies that showed crystal healing works. I guess I should stop believing in it." The "superfluous discussion" here is me pointing out that the people supporting this are here not to improve the article, but to POV push that people who participate in spiritual healing and such things are deluded, stupid, etc. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that someone has a misconception about something in no way indicates that they are stupid. We all have misconceptions about various things, nobody is omniscient or perfect or right all the time. Adding an entry about crystal healing on this page is in no way POV, nor is it an attempt to "push" that anyone is deluded or stupid. The RS indicate that people have a sincere belief in crystal healing, which is not a real phenomenon. This is literally no different than saying that "heat lightning" is a common misconception; people sincerely believe that heat lightning is real, but it is not, therefore belief in it is a common misconception. Regardless of why someone came to a sincere belief in a phenomenon which does not actually exist, if enough people believe in that non-existent phenomenon, it is a common misconception. The RS are quite clear on both the belief in crystal healing, and the non-existence of crystal healing. I continue to support the inclusion of this entry, and unless I'm mistaken, so does everyone who has commented on it one way or the other besides User Richard-of-Earth.

Richard, are there any changes you could make to the entry so that you would feel more comfortable with it? I don't want to just ignore your concerns, but the consensus seems to be that this does constitute a common misconception. Joe (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Well my first thought was "no", but then I thought it might bear a closer look. The weekend is coming and I will have more time to look at this. I did try simply Googling "crystal healing misconception" and this Times of India article came up. I am sure it will be amusing to you all. I laughed given the context of my search. It get me to think the entry is also extremely broad. I am sure there are many crystal healing techniques. Can we honestly say these studies disprove all of them? I believe the source given mentions they studied had people just holding a crystal for an amount of time. So we can really only say holding a crystal for that given amount of time does not any effect beyond placebo. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

References

No peer-reviewed proof it does not work

The basis for calling this a misconception is the claim that it has been proven to not work. I do not see that. I have the opinion that at least most of the beneficial mental and health effects of crystal healing are from the mind's ability to heal itself and the body, precipitated by what has been called "placebo effect". That is just on opinion and it has not been proven to be true.

I first spent a bunch of time trying to find these supposed studies, only to find out they had not been published nor peer reviewed. They were presented at conferences, but never published. Here is a critique (very non-RS, but a critique never the less) of the studies that points out that Allowing subjects to meditate during the study introduces noise into the results and conflates the apparent effect of the crystals with the known effect of meditation – the two essentially become inseparable as the sensations investigated during the study can all be attributed to meditation alone.

I also found that the lead scientist on these studies, Chris French, wrote a piece about how the placebo effect has always been a part of medicine and questions if that should be encouraged. This shows he was not out to prove crystal healing does not work, but to study how it works. It is a good read, I am enjoying it.

In conclusion, I have to repeat what I have said before. This is a belief, not a misconception. I thought with some research I could find something we could say about it that would be a misconception, but nothing has presented itself. It would seem to me rather then additional criteria to eliminate "misconceptions" that are not, we could use a thought experiment. You have a person who says they believe "X". You say to them it is not true because compelling reason "Y". If the person were to fact check your "Y" and then come back and say you were right and I was wrong, then you got a misconception. If instead they come back and say your "Y" sucks, you do not. Now, you do not to have a sucky "Y", do you? I feel the objective of academia, science and this encyclopedia, is to not just find the truth of things, put to present a path for others see the truth of things for themselves. This entry does not do that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

References

"This shows he was not out to prove..." is WP:OR and is not an actionable conclusion in any way. As for your conclusion paragraph, I'm truly unsure what you're trying to say there, but what part of "There is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that crystal healing has any real effect. Alleged successes of crystal healing can be attributed to the placebo effect" do you think you have disproved? You say "This is a belief, not a misconception" but it is both, being a belief does not preclude it from being a misconceived belief. It still seems like you're arguing around what the entry says, without actually addressing what the entry actually says. I don't think you're likely to find a consensus in your favor if you continue to argue about things that have nothing to do with the content of the edit itself. Address the content please. Everything else is irrelevant. - Aoidh (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Richard, anyone could say "this source is sucky" about any sources used on this page as a way of dismissing the sources. Nevertheless, we're in agreement that the RS used in the entry (copied from the Crystal healing page) are reliable. Whether some hypothetical reader might think the sources are "sucky" has no bearing on whether we should include the entry, nor does it relate to whether this is a misconception. Arguing that "X is a belief, therefore X can't be a misconception, because beliefs are not misconceptions" is nonsensical. Literally all misconceptions are beliefs, by definition. I am unconvinced. Joe (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I have not proven the entry is false. I do not intend to. The premise of why it should be included is false. You contend that crystal healing is a belief which are verifiably not correct and is it is not "verifiably not correct" because there are no good studies that show it is not correct. It is not a belief based on a misconception, it is a chosen belief. You all think all you have to do is agree it is wrong and you get to list it as wrong on this list. The burden is on you to show it is not only verifiably wrong, but has been verified as wrong and therefore any belief in it is a misconception. It has not been verified to be wrong. I understand the entry does not say directly that it is wrong, but it must be verified as wrong before listing it here. Otherwise it just us saying it is wrong and you should take our word for it because we're Wikipedia editors. How is that better then any religion? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"It is not a belief based on a misconception, it is a chosen belief." I think therein lies the issue we're running into. You are continually asserting that because someone believes something, that it cannot be misconceived. A belief can be sincerely held, and still be a misconception. It can be "a chosen belief" and still be a misconception. These are not mutually exclusive things. You are unlikely to get a consensus to support you when your argument is that "people believe it, therefore it is not a misconception." That's part of what a misconception is. Again, what is your concern with the edit itself? When you say "The burden is on you to show it is not only verifiably wrong, but has been verified as wrong" I have to ask you to look at the edit, what it says, and the sources that are there. Because what you're asking for is all there. - Aoidh (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not see anything saying this is a misconception. If we are going to use OR to say it is, then there should evidence it is a belief in something verify to be wrong. That has not happened. This is a bad entry. I am sorry other people cannot see it. It might as well stay for now. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not WP:OR to say that X is a common misconception if the RS only use synonyms for the phrase 'common misconception' when describing X. This is standard Wikiprudence, see the section about paraphrasing under WP:NOTOR for more details. Further, using the standard of common sense interpretation is well established on this page in particular: the RS do not need to literally use the words "common misconception" for us to glean that the RS are describing something as a common misconception. If a RS says "There is no scientific evidence that crystal healing has any effect. It has been called a pseudoscience. Pleasant feelings or the apparent successes of crystal healing can be attributed to the placebo effect or cognitive bias—a believer wanting it to be true." That's the same thing, for our purposes, as the RS saying that the belief in crystal healing is a misconception. Joe (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

So far, so good. But the example doesn't say anything synonymous with it being a common misconception. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Willondon, I was addressing Richard's statement that "I do not see anything saying this is a misconception. If we are going to use OR to say it is, then there should evidence it is a belief in something verify to be wrong", so I supplied a quote which demonstrates that the RS indicate crystal healing is a misconception. We all agree that crystal healing is a common conception (though we don't all agree whether it is a misconception), and the RS also confirm this; for example, "...crystal healing has seen an upsurge in popularity in recent years..." We already had an extensive discussion about including this entry in the Homeopathy as "natural medicine" section - if you'd like to read through it there. Joe (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

IQ

[2] "Research over several decades has indicated that the average IQ test score among Black Americans is lower than the average IQ test score among White Americans, but in weighted results from a national nonprobability survey, only about 41% of US adults indicated awareness of this IQ gap." Benjamin (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that we give the entire concept of IQ and human intelligence a very wide berth. Too much conflicting research and opinion.

Also, simply being unaware of something is not a "misconception". How many people know that the Normal Moore Space conjecture is independent of ZFC? .01% at the most I would surmize, but not a misconception. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with Mr. Swordfish. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Social mobility

[3] "Contrary to lay expectations, people who have successfully achieved upward social mobility may, in fact, be less sensitive to the plight of the poor than those born into privilege." Benjamin (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Video Game section removed

I noticed that the entire "video game" section got removed. Why was that the case? I can maybe understand why Dragon Quest got remove, but the Gandhi and Space Invaders ones are well-known misconceptions. For the former it was well-known enough that it was used in Harvard computer science courses (as welll as Stanford) as an (incorrect) example of an integer underflow and was briefly discussed in a Cambridge University-ran archeological journal (per the "Nuclear Gandhi" article), and the latter was recently mentioned in a major engineering publication, as well as The Guardian, the BBC, and Guinness Book of World Records. The section's removal is very premature and unnecessary. Mount Patagonia (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for including those entries. Looking through the RS, they seem quite good. I'm not sure that the two more recently added entries meet the inclusion criteria that the misconception already be mentioned on their subject page - unless I just missed it on my glance through the articles - if you'd be willing to add them there Mount Patagonia, and then come back after the edits have been accepted on the other pages to re-add them here, that would be good. The Nuclear Gandhi entry not only meets all the inclusion criteria, but I'll happily agree that it is obviously a common misconception, and the RS obviously support that conclusion.

One should always keep in mind that just because one is not personally familiar with a common misconception, that does not mean that the misconception is not common. I had never personally heard the misconception about monopolists on this page, nor had I labored under the misconception myself, but just because I was unfamiliar with it prior to reading this page, that does not mean it isn't a common misconception. If any other editors think that video games can't be the subject of common misconceptions because video games are somehow 'niche,' I suggest they give the Video game article a readthrough, and pay particular attention to the Industry and Culture sections. For example, from the video game page,

"As of 2020, the global video game market has estimated annual revenues of US$159 billion across hardware, software, and services. This is three times the size of the 2019 global music industry and four times that of the 2019 film industry."

If we can have common misconceptions about music or movies, then we can have common misconceptions about video games. Joe (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing Joe. This is the Space Invader one that I added before getting removee

• Space Invaders' release in 1978 did not cause a shortage of ¥100 coins in Japan. The shortage was actually due to the production of ¥100 coins being unusually low that year, and the game's designer Tomohiro Nishikado has repeated expressed skepticism over the claim. This claim originated from both an advertising campaign by Taito Corporation and an erroneous 1980 article in New Scientist, and has since been repeated in the Guinness Book of World Records and The Ultimate History of Video Games.

This claim can be found under the "Legacy" section of Space Invaders. I do concede that the Dragon Quest misconception may be a bit too obscure given that the only non-video game publication that mentioned it was ScreenRant, but I'll add it here for posterity (for what it's worth, I not a gamer by any stretch of the imagination, but I've heard of the Dragon Quest one a lot growing up).

• The Japanese government did not pass a law banning Square Enix from releasing the Dragon Quest games on weekdays due to it causing too many schoolchildren to cut class. The only extent of the government's involvement was that tne National Diet held hearing over rises in muggings caused by the release of Dragon Quest III. Series executive producer Yuu Miyake said that while the police did complain to the company about the games' releases causing increases in truancies, the decision to change the release dates from Thursdays to Saturdays was on Square Enix's own volition. Dragon Quest X was released on a Thursday, long after the decision had been put in place, further discrediting the claim.

This can be found in the "Legacy" section for Dragon Quest. On top of what Joe said about including video games, literally the first line of the Cambridge article I linked to is "Video games are one of today's quintessential media and cultural forms." If the people least likely to play video games are willing to acknowledge that they are important enough to be discussed, then they are hardly "too esoteric" for this page. Mount Patagonia (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: For Dragon Quest, I also found mentions of it on Bleeding Cool , The Verge, PC Magazine, and Newsweek (granted the latter source is considered a bit sketchy when it comes to post-2013 news, but still), so I might not be so obscure after all. With both the Space Invaders and Dragon Quest entries having mentioned these on their main articles for a while now (this info was already posted on the main pages when I made the submissions), I might restore the entries at the end of the day barring any substantive objections. Mount Patagonia (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Very good Mount Patagonia. Herp derp, indeed, the misconceptions are mentioned on their respective pages, I missed them (I only glanced through). Thanks for being diligent. Joe (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

My editorial sense is that while these entries may be a misconception common among video game players, they are insufficiently common among the general population to warrant inclusion here. If other editors disagree and there is consensus to include these items I'll stand by. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Speaking entirely in terms of personal experience, I've never played a game of Civilization in my life, and I "knew" (or at least I thought I knew) about the glitch that makes Gandhi go nuclear. Apparently it's not real. Thanks for being flexible Mr Swordfish - we can always discuss the merits of specific entries if you want. With this one in particular, I think this really is a common misconception, and the many RS Mount Patagonia compiled do indicate that. It was certainly common enough to reach me. Joe (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Lies and perjury at the Supreme Court

I present this revision: [4]

This would not be my first addition to this article; I know the requirements pretty well. There is a common misconception (that the five justices committed perjury or otherwise lied during their confirmation hearings), there are sources to back that up, and there are sources to prove that it is indeed a misconception. There is an article on Dobbs v Jackson, the misconception is mentioned there, and the misconception is certainly current. I don't see how this fails to meet the criteria for this page.

* The Supreme Court justices who overturned longstanding United States precedents on a constitutional right to abortion did not commit perjury by promising not to overturn those precedents during their nomination hearings years before, contrary to widespread assertions by multiple high-ranking politicians.

--Red Slash 17:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I would say it fails the criteria as much as there doesn't seem to be a Wiki article that would also support that it is a misconception and/or that it is common; perjury? Supreme Court of the United States? I also restate my feeling that many of these items seem to be even conceptions only among a small, select group of people. In this case, a number of informed people across the globe will be aware of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but fewer, even among just those in the U.S., will be aware of the role of judges' political affiliations, and still fewer aware of representations made at the confirmation hearings, and still fewer believing that the whole of each judge's testimony in context constitutes a lie, and fewer still misconceiving that this meets the legal definition of perjury. Again, we arrive at something that seems very U.S.-centric, on the radar of a very small group of the general population. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you've specifically mentioned the Dobbs v. Jackson article. Looking at it, I don't see where the conception is debunked; and the conception is mentioned as coming from a handful of U.S. officials and politicians, not the general public, and in only one case is it referred to as perjury. Again, to my mind, not a common misconception at all. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Willondon on this.

Also, if we're going to start including hyperbolic political claims as "misconceptions" there's probably 100,000 of them from the US alone. Unless there's something particularly special about this entry (other than being in the news this week) we should pass. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

References

No Nobel Prize for mathematics

A myth states that the reason there is no Nobel Prize for achievements in mathematics is because Alfred Nobel's wife cheated on him with a mathematician. This has been debunked by a professor of the University of Waterloo, Snopes and The Indian Express. Given that the Nobel Prize article is a "Good Article", there would be some pretty tough scrutiny if adding this there before turning it into an entry here, much like the "pink hippo milk" situation. --DannyC55 (Talk) 23:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I say, go ahead and add it and see what happens. Just because the article is good-class doesn't mean everyone will instantly attack you the moment you try to add something. In fact, the events of the Pink Hippo Milk Affair are happily the exception, rather than the rule; and remember, even in that acrimonious case, all the editors came to an amicable consensus in the end. If the RS are good - and it sounds like they probably are - then everything should work out fine. Joe (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly a common misconception among math majors (I was one once and I think everybody who studied math has heard this one). Whether it's a common belief among the general population is debatable. I'd give this one a weak "no", but won't raise any further objections. It might be an appropriate addition to List_of_mathematics_awards or Fields_Medal in addition to or instead of the Nobel prize article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Right. I will see how I can add this to the Nobel Prize article in a way that doesn't look jarringly tacked on (which is something I admittedly did when adding a few entries here). One of the sources is from an university professor and the other is from a news source that cites actual historical and scientific works, so the sources shouldn't be an issue. (Edit: I have added it to Nobel Prize controversies instead, seems more appropriate) --DannyC55 (Talk) 15:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Wisdom

[5] "There is a common belief that facing adversity helps to pave the path to character growth, and specifically to growth in wisdom" Benjamin (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this piece of common wisdom about wisdom is wrong. I mean, I once burnt my hand on a hot stove, and now my basal ganglia are filled with wisdom that tells me not to touch hot stoves. Joe (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Personality

[6] "A central assumption in lay and psychological theories is that people are attracted to potential mates who are similar to themselves in personality traits. However, the empirical findings on this idea have been inconclusive." Benjamin (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Many people believe in something where the evidence is inconclusive." That does not add up to a "misconception". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Mr Swordfish. Additionally, I'm generally reluctant to add entries originating from the field of psychology, which has an abysmal record when it comes to making long-lasting empirical predictions about things. If there was some portion of psychology that was so thoroughly debunked as to be reasonably unquestionable, or some subject about psychology like "people believe psychology is the study of feet, but it's actually the study of the mind," etc., then maybe, but nothing short of that. Joe (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Quantum computer entry

It says:

• Quantum computers cannot solve difficult search problems by simply trying all the possibilities at once. Quantum computers do use quantum superposition to simultaneously examine huge numbers of possible solutions at once, effectively a form of parallel computation, but the computer cannot "pick" the right one.

This makes no sense to me. Quantum computers can solve any problem that a classical computer can. (and vice versa, although the quantum computer may be able so solve certain problems so much faster that the solution would be impractical for a classical computer.) "Picking the right one" is part of any optimization algorithm so obviously quantum computers can do this since classical computers can (given enough time, that is).

I'm not finding a clear statement of this alleged misconception in either the topic articles or the cites. Is it that some people think they try "all the possibilities at once" (which isn't the case)? Not sure what we're trying to say here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Scott Aaronson says that it is an oversimplification, and wrong because it leads you to think quantum computers can do more than they can. That is, there are problems that could be solved quickly if you could really try all possibilities at once, but quantum computers cannot solve them.

I favor removing this entry because (1) quantum computers are theoretical constructs that have not been demonstrated to solve anything better; and (2) the whole field of quantum mechanics is filled with interpretational differences where some experts say that others are perpetuating a misconception. We could add about a dozen others, such as saying an electron can be in two places at once. Roger (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's some text from second source:

"That does sound pretty powerful, right? That does sound like that would crack the NP-complete problems or whatever else. The trouble is it is not that simple. And here's what the issue is: In quantum mechanics, you can actually quite easily create what we call a quantum superposition over all the possible answers to your problem even if there are astronomically many of them. The trouble is if you want it to be useful, at some point you've got to observe your computer to read an answer out. And if you just measure the superposition of answers not having done anything else, the laws of quantum mechanics say that what you're going to see will be a random answer. If you just wanted a random answer, then you could have picked one yourself, with a lot less trouble."

So I think the misconception some people have can be summed up like, "If a quantum computer can compute everything all at once, then surely it can come up with any computable answer more or less instantly." But, like you say Mr Swordfish, you search algorithm is actually what matters the most, and just because you have a powerful computer doesn't mean you can solve arbitrarily complex problems instantly. I think we should probably reword this entry to more resemble the last paragraph in the lede of the Quantum Computing page, maybe a little less verbose.

Any computational problem that can be solved by a classical computer can also be solved by a quantum computer. Conversely, any problem that can be solved by a quantum computer can also be solved by a classical computer, at least in principle given enough time. In other words, quantum computers obey the Church–Turing thesis. This means that while quantum computers provide no additional advantages over classical computers in terms of computability, quantum algorithms for certain problems have significantly lower time complexities than corresponding known classical algorithms. Notably, quantum computers are believed to be able to quickly solve certain problems that no classical computer could solve in any feasible amount of time—a feat known as "quantum supremacy." The study of the computational complexity of problems with respect to quantum computers is known as quantum complexity theory.

This paragraph from the Quantum Computing page might also serve.

Any computational problem solvable by a classical computer is also solvable by a quantum computer. Intuitively, this is because it is believed that all physical phenomena, including the operation of classical computers, can be described using quantum mechanics, which underlies the operation of quantum computers.

The current wording is a bit imprecise. Joe (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not really sure what the misconception is. If it's that people seem to think quantum computing can "crack" NP-complete problems, I can't imagine that it's very common.

The negation of (and hence the purported misconception) of the proposed sentence "Any computational problem solvable by a classical computer is also solvable by a quantum computer." is "There are problems that classical computers can solve that are not solvable by quantum computers." and I don't think anybody actually believes that.

I'm going to remove the entry. If someone proposes language that makes sense (and is reliably sourced) I'll be happy to consider a reinstatement. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to revisit this and maybe add something more sensibly worded in after I read through the related pages and the sources, but removing it for now is fine - as it is, it's not the best-worded entry. Joe (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It is going to be tough. Quantum computers are believed to be able to solve factoring problems but not NP complete problems. The misconception is that they can solve NP complete problems, but you may have a hard time finding someone who believes that. No quantum computers have been made to do either, so it is all conjectural. Roger (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

My sense is that the common misconception is something along the lines of "quantum computers will be really cool and revolutionize the computer industry with all the awesome things they'll be able to do." Which is too vague to really be a misconception, and might actually turn out to be true.

BTW, the sources cited for this entry are pretty weak. Self-published blogs and a TED talk from one of those bloggers. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Tea entry

From the article on herbal tea:

Oftentimes herb tea, or the plain term tea is used as a reference to all sorts of herbal teas. Some herbal blends contain actual tea.

Seems to me that referring to infusions of leaves other than camellia sinensis as "tea" is not a misconception, and claiming that it is is arguing semantics. I'm not seeing where either topic article treats this as a misconception, so it appears to fail the inclusion criteria

Note that the dictionary definition of "tea" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tea) includes:

any of various plants used like tea

also a drink prepared by soaking their parts (such as leaves or roots) and used medicinally or as a beverage

Yeah, one can argue that mint tea is not really tea, just like one can argue that ginger ale is not really ale or that Chicago-style pizza is not really pizza. Do we really want to include nit-picky stuff like this? Seems to me it degrades the entire article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the misconception isn't that, "herbal tea isn't real tea," rather it's that, "most herbal tea doesn't contain tea." The latter is a misconception I had, I thought all teas contained tea, but apparently most herbal teas don't. I don't think the Tea and Herbal tea pages would say "so-called true teas" or "While herbal teas are also referred to as tea" if they were trying to say that herbal teas aren't teas in any sense of the word.

Still, even if it were that first "herbal tea isn't tea" option (and I don't think it has to be) there's no reason why you couldn't have a semantic misconception. If one wants to be technical, literally all misconceptions are semantic - if Bob says "X thing equals Y thing" and Jane says, "No, X thing does not equal Y thing," Bob and Jane are arguing semantics. Does the dark side of the moon actually receive sunlight? Not if we redefine sunlight to mean something other than what scientists define 'sunlight' as. Do human males actually have an even number of ribs? Not if you redefine the word "even" to mean "odd."

Anyway, I don't mind if people come away with the impression that both "not all teas are technically tea" and "not all tea contains tea," but if they just come away with "not all tea contains tea," I'd think that's fine too. Is there some way we could re-word it to make it clear that the misconception is about "not all teas contain tea" and not "not all teas are teas" that would make you happy Mr Swordfish? Joe (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Where, exactly, does either topic article treat this as a misconception? Just because you recently learned something new doesn't mean it is a common misconception.

Regarding semantics: if you provide me with a dictionary or other reference that lists an alternate definition of "sunlight" or that redefines "even" as "odd", I'll agree that we're arguing semantics for those items. Words have meaning. Often a word has multiple definitions, and it's not a misconception to employ definition 3 instead of definition 1. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Directly from the tea page:

"The term herbal tea refers to drinks not made from Camellia sinensis. They are the infusions of fruit, leaves, or other plant parts, such as steeps of rosehip, chamomile, or rooibos. These may be called tisanes or herbal infusions to prevent confusion with "tea" made from the tea plant."

That's one of the places where one of the topic articles treats this as a common misconception, specifically the misconception that most herbal teas contain tea, not this other concern about whether herbal tea is tea. It is not surprising that there might be confusion about what does and doesn't contain tea when things that don't contain tea are commonly called tea. Joe (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree that the topic article states that herbal teas are not made from Camellia sinensis. Where does it say that it is a common misconception that they are? I'm not seeing it and no one has provided an example.

Are there any editors other than Joe (talk) who think this entry belongs here? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd consider that statements in the articles like "While herbal teas are also referred to as tea, most of them do not contain leaves from the tea plant" and "Unlike true teas... most tisanes do not naturally contain caffeine" and "Herbal teas are not made from Camellia sinensis and thus are not technically considered tea" amount to the common misconception being mentioned in its topic article. I don't think it's a giant leap, but maybe I'm crazy? One of the sources is more explicit about it, calling the idea that herbal teas are true tea a "myth" and expounding, "True teas including black, green, white and oolong come from the Camellia sinesis plant. Herbal teas are made by steeping fresh or dried flowers, herb, seeds, roots or plant barks in hot water."

Let's see if anyone has any comments, but if it is just me saying "yee" and you saying "noo," Mr Swordfish, you can remove the entry and I won't fuss about it. I really do think it is a common misconception though, and I do think that's pretty trivially backed up by the tea pages. Joe (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

A parable:

A man dies and instead of going to heaven winds up in the other place.

Satan welcomes him and says "Here's the pit of molten lava where you are going to spend the rest of all eternity."

The man replies, "Well, since we're underground, that's technically not lava, it's magma."

And the devil says, "Yes, and that's exactly why you're here."

Don't be that guy. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I love this parable. I want to watch this fellow as he continues to offer helpful corrections to Lucifer for the rest of eternity as he's not-so-slowly charbroiled. It could make entertaining television!

Anyway, does anyone have any feelings about the "While herbal teas are also referred to as tea, most of them do not contain leaves from the tea plant" misconception? Joe (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"You know, Lucifer, eternity is by definition a length of time without bound, so there is no "rest of eternity" to speak of." (Thinks Lucifer: Oh, you'll speak of it, my friend.)

My personal sense is that I wouldn't call the herbal tea thing a common misconception; I think the example of ginger beer is an apt comparison. I sense there isn't much of a conception unless you ask someone, does ginger beer have alcohol in it, or is herbal tea made from tea leaves. I'm aware the answers are "no" and "no", but I think it'd be hard to judge how common are those misconceptions until people were challenged to think about it. Maybe less of a misconception as something that could easily be misconstrued if you thought about it. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

How far do you go with this? Want to add these misconceptions? Almond milk is not really milk. Impossible burgers are not really burgers. Oreo creme fillings are not really cream. Cool Whip is not really whipped cream. Pancake syrup is usually not real maple syrup. It could be a long list. Roger (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Do people sincerely believe that almond milk comes from cows? If you have RS to that effect (as we have in this tea case) and if you have multiple instances where the Milk and Almond Milk pages say "almond milk does not actually contain cows milk" and "in order avoid confusion, almond milk is sometimes called amygdalus to distinguish it from true milk" (as we have in this tea case), then that would be a pretty strong case for it being a common misconception. Unless you have such RS and page references, however, I would not support including such an entry. Joe (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, it seems like people generally don't like the entry :( so I've gone and removed it. I maintain that it meets the inclusion criteria and that it has all the hallmarks of a common misconception. But, in the end, I'm not going to fight a war over tea (I guess I don't have enough of that good old British spirit in me). Joe (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Goodbye, sweet tea entry. I'll miss you.

Adding a "Business" section

I'm thinking about adding a "Business" section to talk about misconceptions involving businesses. I'm mostly thinking about doing this because two misconceptions I was thinking about adding--where the name Adidas came from and the origins of Netflix--do not fit into any of the already existing categories. The closest is "language" for the former but I see that for everyday words and sayings, and the latter for "economics" but I see that as more for economic concepts rather than for individual businesses. We can use the entries for the Chevrolet Nova, Coca-Cola's supposed creation of the modern-day image of Santa Claus, and Pepsi's navy as a starting point. This would be the two other entries I was thinking of:

• Adidas is not an acronym for either "All day I dream about sports", "All day I dream about soccer", or "All day I dream about sex". The company is named after its founder Adolf "Adi" Dassler. The "sex" misconception comes from a 1978 San Francisco Chronicle column by Herb Caen, who probably meant it as a joke, and then popularized by the Korn song of the same name, while the "sports" and "soccer" ones came from a 1981 article in The Philadelphia Inquirer and a joke by an American Adidas executive respectively.
• Netflix was not founded in response to co-founder Reed Hastings receiving a $40 late fee from Blockbuster over his rental of Apollo 13. Co-founder and former CEO Marc Randolph said Hastings made up the story to give Netflix a "convenient story" as to why it was created and how its business model operated. The company was actually founded after both Randolph and Hastings were inspired by Amazon and wanted to offer a similar service.

What do you all think about the section proposal and the two entries? Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Creating a new Business section and moving the Pepsi, Coca-cola, and Chevy Nova entries into it seems like an improvement.

I'm not so sure about the other new entries. Are they really common enough to warrant inclusion? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Adidas" is common enough to have an early Snopes article, used as a title for a biographical book about the company, has been referenced in GQ, Los Angeles Times, and Business Insider, and has been referenced in one of their advertising campaigns according to that same GQ link. "Netflix" has been referenced in CNBC, the New York Times, Forbes, and is apparently being used as a case study for business courses at NYU and is mentioned in at least two business textbooks. So I believe both of these are fairly well-known. Mount Patagonia (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think a Business section would be quite appropriate. I really only added the Pepsi entry in the History section because I had nowhere else to add it. Plus I can think of plenty of myths and urban legends about companys's names, origins and products. DannyC55 (Talk) 03:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, I will add a Business section tomorrow. I would still like to know if I have a greenlight on the Adidas and Netflix entries, though.Mount Patagonia (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually went ahead and changed the "Economics" section to "Economics and Business" - how do people feel about that? We can always have them be two different sections if people prefer, but they seem related enough to me to roll into one. Joe (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually-actually, I was looking through the business-type entries in preparation to move them to my newly created 'Economics and Business' section, and they don't fit together well with the stuff in the economics section at all. Two different flavors of misconceptions, surprisingly enough. Never-mind. But we could still have a separate business section, if people would like. Joe (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I've gone and made a 'Business' section and moved some business-related entries from other sections to it. Joe (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Joe. Since I'm not seeing any concrete objections against the two entries, I may post them later. Adidas for sure, but I'm willing to hold off on Netflix. Mount Patagonia (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Very good. Be bold, I say! Joe (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Pythagoras not a misconception

What is the misconception about the Pythagorean theorem? The theorem is commonly attributed to him, but he lived 2500 years ago, and historians are unsure of whether he deserved the credit. Is that all there is? You could say the same about almost anything that old. That is, historians being unsure how the credit should be given. I say this entry should be removed, unless there is some more serious misconception. Roger (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think there's more than one Pythagoras-related misconception in that entry. One is that he was not the first to come up with the Pythagorean theorem, but people commonly think he was. The other, vaguer misconception is that he may not have made any mathematical contributions at all. I'd say the latter is a weaker example of a misconception, since historians aren't sure one way or the other, but the former is definitely a common misconception, just as good as "Edison didn't invent the first light-bulb," except even stronger because the light-bulb is not named "the Edison-bulb." Joe (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The key phrase is "...classical historians dispute...". It's an assertion subject to dispute by experts in the field. That disqualifies it in my book. I say remove it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I say, we should get rid of the stuff about whether or not Pythagoras contributed anything. That's up for debate, and I prefer that we only have more concrete material on this page. The stuff about Pythagoras not being the first to discover the theorem should stay, however (see below). Joe (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Pythagoras may have been the first, for all we know. The sentence about the theorem being known to the Babylonians and Indians beforehand is contradicted by the sources. They had some examples of Pythagorean triples, but not the theorem. See Pythagorean theorem. Roger (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The Pythagorean theorem page says "In India, the Baudhayana Shulba Sutra, the dates of which are given variously as between the 8th and 5th century BC, contains a list of Pythagorean triples and a statement of the Pythagorean theorem, both in the special case of the isosceles right triangle and in the general case, as does the Apastamba Shulba Sutra (c. 600 BC)." Joe (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, India had 2 or 3 of the 4 parts, in the terminology of the article. They did not have a proof, and so they did not have a theorem. Roger (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The earliest documented "proof" of the theorem is Euclid some 200 years after Pythagoras, so like the Babylonians Pythagoras may not have proven the theorem either. Note that discovering a theorem is not the same as proving a theorem (e.g. Fermat's last theorem) and this entry merely claims that the Pythagorean theorem was discovered (not proven) prior to Pythagoras. Prior to Euclid, nothing was proven, at least in the modern sense of the term. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The ONLY misconception about anything involving Pythagoras is any certainty about what actually happened back then. Being certain about what actually happened back then is just stupidity. This should surely not be a list of examples of stupidity. Nothing about Pythagoras belongs in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I don't think I've ever known someone who thinks it is impossible to have "any certainty about what actually happened" 2.5 thousand years ago. History-agnostic, if you will. And here I was, thinking that I was fairly certain about events that took place tens or hundreds of millions of years ago! Silly me, thinking it's possible to be reasonably certain about prehistoric events, when apparently it's a misconception that we can be certain about historical events that are only a couple millennia old.

Well, setting aside history denialism regarding the Baudhayana Shulba Sutra and the Apastamba Shulba Sutra for a the time being, I think we all agree that the current entry should be trimmed of the "classical historians dispute" stuff. I'll go ahead and cut it. Joe (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Why the smartarse response? Did you really not understand my point? A question or two might have been nicer than a putrid pile of pointless sarcasm. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I'm just a miserable little pile of secrets, spewing little piles of pointless sarcasm everywhere. I take strong objection to that kind of negationism, but you probably didn't mean it very literally. Forgive my smarm, if you can. Joe (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem isn't the smarm, it's the snark. (Sorry, couldn't resist a bit of humour on the talk page) _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems like everyone here agrees that the first part of this entry about the disputed material should go, and it has already been removed. The statement that the theorem predated Pythagoras seems well supported, so I'm in favor of keeping that material.

The topic article on Babylonian mathematics says succinctly (with supporting citations):

The Pythagorean theorem was also known to the Babylonians.

so I think the entry as it currently stands is solid. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur. If there are any other instances in the article where "somebody disputes such-and-such," rather than a hard and fast denial, I'd probably be in favor of getting rid of that too. We've talked about this before, but it's good to maintain a high standard for entries on this page so we won't have to retract any "misconceptions" that turn out not to be misconceptions. Joe (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the statement is incorrect. The sources distinguish between the Pythagorean rule and theorem, and say that Babylonians did not have the theorem. Roger (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

What you're saying doesn't comport with what the Wikipedia pages on these subjects say. According to the Pythagorean theorum page, both the Baudhayana Shulba Sutra and the Apastamba Shulba Sutra "contain a list of Pythagorean triples and a statement of the Pythagorean theorem." Is there a specific statement from one of the sources you're thinking of that challenges that? Joe (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Read the previous couple of paragraphs. Or the cited ref. 72, which explains it pretty well. Ancient India had the rule, but not the theorem. Roger (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue raised by Roger (talk) seems to be that a mathematical statement or formula does not become a theorem until it is proven. It is unlikely that the Babylonians or the Sutra authors had something that modern mathematicians would recognize as a "proof", so one could argue that they did not have a "theorem" only a "...statement of the Pythagorean theorem..."

While this is standard mathematical terminology, I"m not sure that we need to be this precise with our language in a general interest article, but I've adjusted the language in the entry to avoid this pitfall.

Not sure that will be enough, but worth a try. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be precise, as it goes to the heart of what the misconception is. Now there is no source saying that it is a misconception. If anything, it is a misconception that anyone had the Pythagorean theorem before the Greeks. Roger (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

From the very first paragraph of the Encyclopedia Britanica article:

Pythagorean theorem, the well-known geometric theorem that the sum of the squares on the legs of a right triangle is equal to the square on the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle)—or, in familiar algebraic notation, $a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2}$. Although the theorem has long been associated with Greek mathematician-philosopher Pythagoras (c. 570–500/490 bce), it is actually far older. Four Babylonian tablets from circa 1900–1600 bce indicate some knowledge of the theorem, with a very accurate calculation of the square root of 2 (the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle with the length of both legs equal to 1) and lists of special integers known as Pythagorean triples that satisfy it (e.g., 3, 4, and 5; 32 + 42 = 52, 9 + 16 = 25). The theorem is mentioned in the Baudhayana Sulba-sutra of India, which was written between 800 and 400 bce. Nevertheless, the theorem came to be credited to Pythagoras.

https://www.britannica.com/science/Pythagorean-theorem Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Your point? What is the misconception? Britannica does not say that there is any misconception. Roger (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A misconception is something that is widely believed but incorrect. "Pythagoras discovered the formula" is commonly believed, but he was not the first so that belief is incorrect. That's what the above paragraph says. Granted, it doesn't use the magic words you might be looking for, but that's what it says. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Mr Swordfish is quite right, that source (and others) describe this as a common misconception. The fact that the words "common misconception" are not directly used doesn't matter - we use oodles of sources that don't use those specific words, all we need is for the source to say that the subject is a common sincere belief in a false thing.

The fact that Pythagoras didn't "prove" the Pythagorean equation (since apparently that sort of thing didn't happen until later in history) is just another interesting way in which the words "Pythagorean theorem" are curiously misleading. The entry is now a lot more informative and accurate, thank you both! Joe (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Look at this! You guys greatly improved the quality of the entry, and thus the article! Good show, I say! Joe (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So the misconception is that Pythagoras was the first to discover the formula? I do not see any sources that say that anyone had any false beliefs. While it is plausible that Pythagoras did not prove the formula, the sources say that this is not known. Roger (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I added another phrase to clarify, as a reader might otherwise think that the misconception is that Pythagoras was the first to discover the Pythagorean theorem. Maybe he was. Roger (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Pepsi navy: misconception or urban legend?

There's a common factoid around the internet that Pepsi at some point in time owned the 6th largest navy in the world, which has been parroted by multiple pages and websites including Business Insider and The Infographics Show. That has been debunked by more reputable outlets such as Foreign Policy (in an article written by a UMass professor) and Lead Stories (a dedicated fact-checking website). However I'm not sure if this would fit in this article (in which case it would have to somehow be added to Pepsi Co. first), or in List of urban legends, or anywhere in Wikipedia for that matter. Thoughts? --DannyC55 (Talk) 21:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I say, make sure it is mentioned on the Pepsi page (I'm not sure if it is, haven't checked). If you add it there and it gets accepted by the other editors, or if it is already there, then you might try adding it here too. I think I've heard the statement before, but it's only passingly familiar. Joe (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added the myth to the PepsiCo article, now let's see if it sticks. (Though I think it qualifies more as an urban legend than a misconception) DannyC55 (Talk) 04:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, if it isn't a misconception in some sense, we can hash that out here. Whether we add it here, or to the urban legend page, or whatever, either way, it sounds like it's probably a good thing to mention on the Pepsi page. Good biz. Joe (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that this misconception is no longer current. It's unclear to me how common it might have been 40 years or so ago, but I think it's unlikely that it's currently commonly held. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be quite current. The articles I cited that debunk this myth are from 2021 and 2022, respectively, and most articles and posts that I could find in regards to it are recent. There's this 2018 article from Business Insider which spreads this myth, and this 2020 article from MEL Magazine which debunks it as well. DannyC55 (Talk) 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I'm not sure it's common enough to be a "common misconception" - we don't have a criteria for "how common is common enough to make the cut", so this is a judgment call. I'd say it definitely belongs in the list of urban legends. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it "behaves" more like a factoid/misconception than a full-fledged urban legend, since it's just a little piece of trivia that makes the rounds in churnalism websites and "fun facts" pages every now and then. I managed to find a few more spreading it (including legitimate local news outlets!): War is Boring in 2020, New Bern Sun Journal in 2020, WCBE in 2021, and India Times in 2022 (apparently unrelated to the newspaper of record The Times of India). There's also this IFL Science article from 2022 which also disproves this myth. This misconception certainly exists and is relatively prevalent in recent times. I'm just not sure which section would be appropriate to add it in. History? DannyC55 (Talk) 20:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The misconception is definitely still current. On top of the links provided, I remember there was a popular YouTube video discussing the relationship between the USSR and various soda companies (I think this one?) that also made this claim. As the video was posted in 2019, it's still a fairly recent claim. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. This has all the hallmarks of an appropriate entry. I will add it to the "United States" history section. DannyC55 (Talk) 01:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Good addition. Joe (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party with this discussion, but I do agree it belongs here. I can't speak to how common or current the misconception is, but I know for a fact that I myself had thought the Pepsi Navy thing to be true, probably based on one of those online "hey here's a neat little trivia fact" articles. List of urban legends seems to be more a list of "creepy" type entries so I do think this is the more appropriate article for this entry. - Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct, the urban legends article is more for pieces of modern mythology and tales rather than misinformation or inaccurate reporting. (though sometimes there is overlap) DannyC55 (Talk) 01:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Citation offset

Many citations are incorrectly referenced by some offset in the numbers starting between Classical music and Popular music. There may be other offsets further down, but this causes "Swallowing gasoline does not generally require special emergency treatment, as long as it goes into the stomach and not the lungs, and inducing vomiting can make it worse.[566]" to actually use information from citation 570. 208.123.186.121 (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Roe

[7] "65.7% of the sample incorrectly answered that abortion would be illegal everywhere if Roe v. Wade were overturned." Benjamin (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

We already have an entry for Dobbs and Roe, so good suggestion. I went and added the source for good measure, it's quite good. TY Benjamin! Thank you for always making suggestions, even if we don't all respond positively all the time. Joe (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. Sorry I've just been dumping sources, I haven't been as active on Wikipedia lately. I still do intend to go back and read all the past talk page discussions at some point... Benjamin (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Party stereotypes

[8] "people tend to considerably overestimate the extent to which party supporters belong to party-stereotypical groups." Benjamin (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

From the cite: "For instance, people think that 32% of Democrats are LGBT (vs. 6% in reality) and 38% of Republicans earn over $250,000 per year (vs. 2% in reality)."

This seems to be a typical example of asking ordinary people to put a number or a percentage on something and the median or average response is widely off the mark. There are probably thousands of examples like this in the US alone. And probably as many for each of the hundred other countries, assuming that surveys like this are conducted in those countries. Unless there's something particularly extraordinary about this this particular misperception I don't see why we'd include it and not all the others. Perhaps a "List of numerical estimates that the general population gets way wrong" article would be an appropriate place. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This is closely related to the "overestimated groups" error we've discussed before.

I suspect that it's a little different because it seems to confuse "how many Xs are Y" with "how many Y's are X", a sort of fallacious folk-Bayes theorem (because lots of X's are Y's, therefore lots of Y's are X's).

But in either case, I don't think it's a misconception that belongs in this article. --Macrakis (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Speak

[9] "the incorrect belief that they will be more likable if they speak less than half the time in a conversation with a stranger." Benjamin (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Barbarians were not barbaric

The "barbarians" of the ancient period were not uncivilized and primitive peoples. The term was first used by Ancient Greeks simply to describe foreigners or Greeks whose languages or dialects they did not understand, and later by Ancient Romans to describe non-Roman tribes such as the Huns, the Goths and the Picts.

DannyC55 (Talk) 20:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that the misconception here is that any group of people were "barbarians". Epithets like "barbarian", "savage", "uncivilized", "primitive" etc have been directed at many different social or ethnic groups (and still are); my understanding of modern anthropology is that while these "out" groups may have differing social norms and practices than western Europeans, they are no more or less "civilized". Not sure how to codify that into a concise entry here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The Greeks and Romans did consider themselves more civilized than their neighbors. And that was correct. There is no misconception. Roger (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

To me the misconception is that, thanks to fiction, when people hear "barbarians took over Rome" they think of long-haired, loincloth-wearing, hog-riding brutes and not a diverse array of civilizations. This is kind of like the Frankenstein misconception, where the "incorrect" notion becomes so common it's accepted as standard. DannyC55 (Talk) 19:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The Persians and the Phoenicians were considered barbarians by the ancient Greeks. But they were hardly "barbaric". The Greeks borrowed their writing system from the Phoenicians at about the same time that the Persians started writing Old Persian. The Persians had a huge, well-administered empire. --Macrakis (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The above source says: "In their ideological warfare against the Persians, the Greeks constructed an image of themselves as the only free people living in a democratic state. In their eyes, they were fighting ‘slaves’, which to them also meant a group of people subject to the rule of a monarch. " Roger (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The Persians were portrayed as 'slaves' by the Greeks. That doesn't mean that they were actually savage and uncivilized. --Macrakis (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Really? I would say that living in a democratic state is more civilized than slavery. Maybe opinions differ. Also Romans had sewage systems, and barbarians did not. Seems more civilized to me.Roger (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Charity

[10] People vastly underestimate the variation in charity effectiveness. Benjamin (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Adidas entry

The "misconception" is barely mentioned in the topic article, and only as an urban legend. Following the cite in the topic article for this, the cite does not support the claim in the article. There are three cites in this article, but I'm not seeing where they establish the commonality of this belief. I was going to just trim this entry and let the readers follow the link to the topic article for more details, but apparently the editors of the topic article don't think it's important enough to include more than a brief mention. That implies to me that it's not important (i.e. common) enough to include here. I say we remove the entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The misconception seems to exist, and its mention in the main article can be expanded. I personally think that "company name actually stands for something quirky" is a bit too superficial and ephemeral to qualify as a common misconception, since the sources mention a bunch of other examples (I remember the hoax of GAP standing for "Gay And Proud"). But since this one in particular warranted a bunch of articles explaining it and several mentions in pop culture, such as in a Korn song, it might be more notable. If this were to be expanded in the Adidas article, I think the appropriate section would be "Corporate image". DannyC55 (Talk) 19:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this is mentioned fairly clearly as a common misconception on the Backronym page (and also less explicitly on the A.D.I.D.A.S. (Korn song) page). Joe (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

At least can we agree that it should be trimmed? The entry seems to go into unnecessary detail. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I trimmed it and I believe Macrakis trimmed it even further after I did. That was a few days ago. Joe (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Dynamic list template

In a previous thread, Willondon suggested removing the {{Dynamic list}} template. Moving that discussion here.

My take: I think that template is fine for most of the [dynamic lists] on Wikipedia. For instance, for lists of cover versions of Vince Guaraldi songs , Cuban women writers, or fatal dog attacks in Canada it makes sense to basically invite anyone to add to it. "If you know of something that isn't here yet, please add it."

This list is a bit different where the inclusion criteria is more nuanced and subject to editorial discretion, mostly based on the squishy concept of the word "common", but also on the interpretation of the word "misconception". So, I don't think that template is appropriate here. That said, I'm not sure we'd be violating some policy by removing it - perhaps there's some other template that would be more appropriate. I did notice that this article does not show up in the list of dynamic lists, so I would assume that having the template is not the determinate factor in making that list.

Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should keep the template, and I don't really see why the particular requirements of the page should have anything to do with it. Yes, we have specifications, but so do all dynamic lists. If someone added something about a fatal polar bear attack to the list of fatal dog attacks in Canada, that would be just the same as someone adding an uncommon misconception to the list of common misconceptions. Moreover, this page is a dynamic list per the incomplete lists section of the Wikiproject Lists page, particularly,

Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the {{Incomplete list}} template, or one of its topic-specific variations. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the {{Dynamic list}} template.

Not only does this page fit the bill, (it is dynamic, i.e. it is constantly being updated and reworked, unlike, say, a List of states in the Holy Roman Empire which will never change excepting some extremely rare archaeological discovery) I'm also all in favor of encouraging visiting editors to add to the list if they think they have a common misconception on their hands. If their addition doesn't meet the inclusion criteria and the giant yellow-highlighted "READ THIS FIRST: Criteria for entries to this list" drop-down doesn't dissuade them, then that's what we're here for. Nevertheless, it's a good thing if more people edit the page.

And let's not forget, one of the important aspects of this page is that it is a list of common current misconceptions. If an old misconception was current when it was added to the list but is no longer, we need people to be looking out for that sort of thing, and that's just another way in which this is a dynamic list.

You say this article isn't listed on the list of dynamic lists? (Damn we love lists on Wikipedia, I'm not complaining, just observing). That's odd, it really ought to be. Joe (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it needs to be added to the categories box at the end of the article. Apparently, the template at the top isn't enough. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's on the list of dynamic lists now. Joe (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

(A helpful editor pointed out to me that this page is listed under 'lists' not under 'common' in the list of dynamic lists.) Joe (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

inflation

[11] People overestimate inflation. Perhaps this is one of those entries that could be relegated to a sub list or something. I feel like with ones like this that are a matter of degree, it only really clearly seems like a misconception if it's a somewhat high degree, idk. It's kinda hard to describe, but do you see what I'm getting at? Benjamin (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Adam's poor ribs

There are some new additions claiming that Eve was not made from Adam's rib, but rather his 'side,' in the story of Genesis, and further that Adam was created 'both male and female' and only later split into male and female halves. While I can't speak to the former issue directly, I don't believe it appears as a common misconception anywhere on Wikipedia, and so a page may need to be updated before it can be included here. As for the latter claim, "Adam was created both male and female," I can speak to that, and that's incorrect. In the Bible, when it talks about God creating 'Adam,' Adam is used both as a word referring to Adam the first human being, as well as 'Adam,' all mankind. For example, in this passage,

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them

In the Hebrew text, it uses the word 'Adam' when describing not only Adam, the guy, but also mankind, and it is referring to all of mankind there. Later, when it is referring to Adam, the dude, it specifies his name with a determiner to indicate that he is "the Adam" or "the man." That usually comes through in English translations with no-determiner-Adam becoming 'mankind' and determiner-Adam becoming a guy named 'Adam.' Notably, this determiner appears before Eve appears in the story, not after. Most importantly, God does not create Eve from 'mankind's side' but from 'Adam, the guy's, rib' - and I believe the word rib is specifically used, not just side.

In any case, this idea that 'Adam' (the guy) was created both male and female is (funnily enough) a misconception. Adam (all of mankind) was what was created both male and female, hence why the Bible uses plural pronouns in that part of the story (e.g. "male and female created He them"). Adam, the guy, was specifically created male, and it was from his rib that his 'helper' is created.

There may be something about the 'ribs and sides' thing, but I'm not familiar enough with the specifics to comment. The idea that 'Adam the individual human being was created both male and female' is wrong. Joe (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Source: [12] I can see you don't know about this, but that doesn't mean it's not part of Jewish tradition, in fact it's widely accepted. I don't know if you can read the primary source: Bereshit Rabbah 17:4. Ariel. (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)