This is an archive of past discussions about List of common misconceptions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Wikipedia is not a how to manual. Many of the entries in the food and cooking section border on how-to advice - preparing beans, searing or braising meat, storing bread, cooking mussels, cleaning cast-iron skillets - as well as several of the proposed entries. I think this bears discussion, but is not necessarily a disqualification for this entry. I'd like to hear some editors' opinions about whether we're adding too much cooking advice here.
Another concern is about methodology - it appears that many of the recent proposals have been "researched" by entering "common misconception" into a search engine and quickly reproducing the results here without doing further research to confirm the factual statements or whether the assertions are part of an ongoing dispute - e.g. the "snakes don't hibernate" entry. Moreover, if the proposed entry does not meet the inclusion criteria due to no mention in the topic article, the editor on many occasions has simply inserted it into the topic article as happened here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legume&diff=1230707655&oldid=1227535887
The idea behind that inclusion criteria is that if the editors at the topic article (who are presumably more familiar with the subject than we are) do not think it is important enough to mention it probably isn't important enough to include here.
I would like to see a more careful, studious approach to the editing process which is impossible if someone is adding entries at the pace of 100 a week.
I'm basically neutral about this particular entry; if other editors are in favor of adding it I won't object, but I'd like to see at least one comment in support before adding it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
MS; thankyou, sincerely for this detailed reply.
I hadn't considered the WP:NOTHOWTO angle. I'm not sure how to have common misconceptions about the topic of "cooking" that don't breach this, and I think many medical misconceptions would also fall afoul, but I'm going to do some research into how the policy has been applied in similar cases before I comment further.
As noted above in the section on proposed entries, I estimated I would be adding "likely 80% depending on what issues get flagged in adding to topic pages." I understood 20% with further verification would not be strong enough to outright add. You can see above the ones I have stricken out above since making the initial list of misconceptions to evaluate because I was not confident in the veracity/strength of sourcing; tl;dr the research goes a hell of a lot further than quote Google and reproduce.
Further, as I've noted above, you seem to be hung up on a technical language use dispute with the snakes don't hibernate misconception: the misconception is that people think snakes sleep all winter (and it puts them in dangerous situations). This isn't incorrect.
I've been reading into WP:NOTHOWTO, and there aren't many good discussions evaluating cases like this. This is the best discussion I could find on an application of the policy. From what I got out of the discussion; info with not too much detail that cites RS evaluating a practice is not WP:NOTHOWTO. The reading there would permit the medical misconceptions listed. With less certainty, I would say the reading of policy espoused also permits the cooking misconceptions. I think it is difficult, I wouldn't oppose posting this on the talk for WP:NOTHOWTO to solicit feedback as quite a few entries would be affected. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Adding this into the page and opening up a discussion as to whether cooking misconceptions violate WP:NOTHOWTO as such a large change should have consensus formed as a general principle before applying to individual entries. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Dom Pérignon did not invent champagne. Wine naturally starts to bubble after being pressed, and bubbles at the time were considered a flaw which Pérignon worked fruitlessly unsuccessfully to eliminate.
Seems to meet the inclusion criteria except for criteria 3, it's well sourced, and importantly, meets WP:MEDRS with the med review in Nature. If it's added to the topic article and stays I think it should be added. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
From the topic article:
Type 2 diabetes primarily occurs as a result of obesity and lack of exercise.[1] Some people are genetically more at risk than others.[2]
But also
Dietary factors also influence the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks in excess is associated with an increased risk.[3][4]
I don't have journal access atm to review what is being said in the sources, but "98.6F is not the normal or average temperature of the human body." and "Modern research shows... an individual's temperature fluctuates over time with a range of 36.5-37.5 (97.7-99.5 F) being considered normal." is contradictory. The Scientific American piece should also be replaced with the source it's discussing. Referencing the original piece is unnecessary, it seems like it is discussed in the journal articles and is only functioned as a see also, which is not what citations are for. It should also be noted that the reason that the study is old is notable is not because it's incorrect (it's not), but because human body temperature has decreased historically. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Entries with the most sources
Hi all, I've compiled a list of the entries citing the most sources to help with cutting down the number of sources in the article. For some entries this could make sense if more than one misconception is being included in one entry (i.e. the three magi misconceptions), but this is not the case most of the time. The entries with the top 10 most sources:
14 Sources (with a lot of blockquotes: some likely violating COPYVIO): "Blowing over a curved piece of paper does not demonstrate Bernoulli's principle."
User:Mr swordfish has flagged a few entries as having potential issues with Wikipedia not being a "how to" guide. Affected entries are:
"Searing does not seal in moisture in meat"
"Braising meat does not add moisture"
"Mussels and clams that do not open when cooked can still be fully cooked and safe to eat."
"Storing bread in the fridge makes it go stale faster than leaving it at room temperature."
"Salting legumes before cooking will not prevent them from softening."
"Using mild soap on well-seasoned cast-iron cookware will not damage the seasoning."
I don't think this is the case, as per WP:NOTHOWTO: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic." RS' assessment of efficacy doesn't strike me as making these fall into WP:NOTHOWTO.
I don't think any of these entries run afoul of the WP:NOTHOWTO policy on their own. My concern is if we fill up the food and cooking section with dozens of similar examples we may be violating the spirit of the rules if not the letter. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it would cross the line more if entries were going beyond analysing the veracity of a belief in society, into "searing meat does not seal in moisture. Sealing in moisture would require X technique be used" etc. I think we need to be wary of that, but not necessarily what is contained at the moment. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think these clauses that are currently in the article actually do fall under NOTHOWTO. What do you think about removing them?
"The best immediate treatment for jellyfish stings is to rinse them in salt water, which relieves some of the chemical imbalance that causes nematocysts to release venom."
"For dogs that get sprayed [by skunks], the Humane Society of the United States recommends using a mixture of dilute hydrogen peroxide (3%), baking soda, and dishwashing liquid."
Agree. I think those go beyond refuting the misconception. For jellyfish, even if the first part (salt water) somehow "counterbalances" the misconception, the biochemical explanation goes far beyond that. For skunks, neither the chemical details nor the source (the Humane Society) belong here, but we could say "There are effective treatments for skunk odor." I will edit those now. --Macrakis (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for removing. I noticed you also removed how the myth came about for the jellyfish entry. Do you think this page should generally stick to correcting misconceptions rather than discussing the history of them? For example, when I recently added the misconception "Mussels and clams that do not open when cooked can still be fully cooked and safe to eat," the source I linked said it originated from:
"advice in Jane Grigson’s Fish Book, her bestselling 1973 cookery book, to “throw away mussels that refuse to open”, written at a time when there were still concerns over some European mussels being dredged from polluted beds."
The Jane Grigson page was promoted to FA a few years back, including a paragraph on how she started the myth, so this appears to be a noteworthy origin. I didn't add it because I felt it went beyond the page just being a list of corrections. If we decide to only include particularly notable origins of misconceptions, we would be getting rid of sentences such as:
Marco Polo Pasta: "The misconception originated as promotional material in the Macaroni Journal, a newsletter published by an association of American pasta makers."
Potato Chips: "The misconception was popularized by a 1973 advertising campaign by the St. Regis Paper Company."
Invention of PB: "An opinion piece by William F. Buckley Jr. may have been the source of the misconception."
That full explanation seems too long; a more concise one seems OK, e.g., "The erroneous advice comes from a 1973 cookbook." The title of the cookbook, the fact that the it was a bestseller, and the possible connection with polluted waters seem unnecessary here. As for the author, even the source article doesn't mention Grigson's name in the main text. --Macrakis (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Misconception currently listed as: "There are not four primary tastes, but five: in addition to bitter, sour, salty, and sweet, humans have taste receptors for umami, which is a "savory" or "meaty" taste."
"Umami is now considered the fifth primary taste — next to sweet, sour, bitter and salty"
"But it would take nearly a century — and the discovery of glutamate receptors on our tongues two decades ago — before Western cultures accepted umami as a primary taste."
Does this indicate that the misconception is "obsolete"? That's not how I read it. It may be "now considered the fifth primary taste" but have enough people "accepted" that to make the misconception uncommon? I'll restore the entry for now and if there's consensus to remove due to obsolescence we can remove it again. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure how you get that reading. If a source says something is accepted in a culture as real, that precludes it being commonly believed to not be real.
Some more sources though:
Business Insider: "The term moved into more popular usage in the latter half of the 20th century. It's since gained a reputation as the "fifth taste" — the one that's not salty, sour, sweet, or bitter."
Springer: "Umami is now commonly identified as the fifth “basic” taste quality, joining sweet, salty, sour, and bitter."
None of my usual searches for finding resources identifying something as a common misconception have turned up anything from the last five years: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Each entry on this page is written as a correction, that is, a positive statement of fact. Every single one of them is generally accepted as correct; the umami entry is not unique in that sense. What makes something a common misconception is that a significant number of people believe the opposite. Which is the case here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I get what you're saying. What we know is that:
A) at some point it was a common belief,
B) the number of people who believe it has been going down, dramatically
C) there are no longer RS reporting it as common, and there haven't been for a few years.
If you read these points and you think it says we have RS saying the belief is obsolete (like I implied at the top) you are overreaching.
But by the same token, the criteria doesn't require entries be "not obsolete", its requires they be "current." Looking at points ABC I outline above that are reliably sourced, I would not say the burden is met.
If you think this is an outrageous case of SYNTH, I'd love to hear how you imagine we are meant to determine that something is current.
Anybody who went to school in the 20th century learned that there were four tastes: salt, sweet, sour, and bitter. There are still a lot of us around, and many have not gotten the memo with the update. If any other editors want to weigh in on this and thinks this entry should be removed, please go for it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
As an aside, your argument against multiple RS challenging that a belief is common is "well I think it's a common misconception." If you want content in an article, you cannot just restore, and then drop out of conversation saying unless other editors weigh in, which you know they almost certainly won't, the content can't be removed. This is called WP:STONEWALLING. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I do not know other editors "almost certainly won't" weigh in. However it may be likely because:
The reason why most other editors are not engaging with all these ~50 threads on the talk page is that you are overwhelming the process and "...exhausting the patience of other editors". I said what I had to say and butted out to let other editors weigh in. I think you should do the same, and if nobody other than you thinks this entry should be removed as obsolete then let it drop.
And you don't have RS saying the misconception is obsolete. You have RS that say the correction to the misconception is generally accepted, just like every other entry on the page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I've been watching the talk page but I'm certainly not inclined to participate in a new (yet similar) thread every day. The sources presented do not say this misconception is obsolete. Per WP:BURDEN which was cited above, it is up to the editor making the claim of obsoletion to present sources to support that claims, not for other editors to provide sources to dispute it for them. Regarding if a source says something is accepted in a culture as real, this source from 2021 took me about 30 seconds to find and demonstrates that this is not even a generally accepted fact in these cultures, let alone obsolete. - Aoidh (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry for overwhelming the talk page before. I'm only proposing one entry a week right now, and otherwise have only posted one other call for discussion in the 2 weeks, which was an extension of discussion of one of the proposals.
When adding or restoring material, editors must ensure the entry meets the criteria, including criterion 4: the common misconception is current. The fundamental claim on adding/restoring is of it being current. Hence my application of WP:BURDEN
I would invite you to re-read the source you linked. The "no consensus" point is not talking about it being a common misconception. It's talking about an academic dispute. It is actually the opposite of what the entry currently says; that umami is a primary taste, rather, it claims this is disputed in academia. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Elaborating BURDEN; if I am adding an entry to the page, the burden is on me to show the misconception is current. Not on other editors to show it is obsolete. So it goes with restoring an entry. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I had conflated WP:BURDEN with Burden of proof (philosophy), however WP:BURDEN is already met and the objection to the entry on the basis of obsoletion is unsubstantiated. The criteria is The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete and the sources in the article show that it is current, as they do not indicate that it is ancient or obsolete. - Aoidh (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I understand your reading of "current" as purely "not obsolete" and "not ancient", but it's not the criterion. It is required to currently be commonly believed. A misconception can exist in society; not obsolete, and not ancient, while not being common. This is the standard being evaluated.
If a scientific journal from 2007 says "scientists commonly believe X causes Y", and then a piece in 2023 says "attitudes have changed in the last few years, and scientists now accept that X does not cause Y", I would write in an article "In 2007, it was commonly believed among scientists that X causes Y, but as of 2023, it was generally accepted that X does not cause Y." If I were to say "scientists commonly believe X causes Y" I would not be accurately representing RS. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Given that this talk page section has been about the claim that this misconception is obsolete/not current, then that is indeed the relevant criteria to what has been discussed. You yourself stated that it was common, just not within the past five years, which is not how the criteria is determined. The 2009 Food Science and Technology source says that "European people" use four basic tastes. That makes it common. The NPR says it being a fifth taste did not even become a "new view" until 2002. It is common enough that many people had not even heard of umami, according this 2015 article. The article cited says Western cultures accepted it, which is not the same as it no longer being applicable to this list; this isn't the only entry that culturally or societally is accepted as true while still being a common misconception. - Aoidh (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The talk page section has been about criterion 4 which is what I have been challenging it on.
I don't know when or if it stopped being common. Common is not a real concept. Some might say it's common if 10% believes it, others might say it's uncommon if 30% believe it. I might say if people generally accept something, belief in the opposite is uncommon. Others may say even though the vast majority don't believe something, it's still commonly believed that... The idea we can know if something is common is not real. In LOCM, we "defer" to if RS say it's common. We don't know if for them, something being 5% or 40% is required to be common. But we know that there's a point for that RS where they don't believe it's common: a threshold. We don't know what that threshold is. When attitudes change, we don't know if the percentage has dropped below the threshold. We just don't know if they still consider it common. If editors want to keep an entry in a list of common beliefs in the face of this, and claim that it is above an unknown threshold, they are making a claim not supported by RS.
From 2017-2023, OED reported umami doubled in frequency of usage. NPR reports that substantially more people believe it, globally globally [1][2]. A lot has changed since 2015. And we don't know if it's above that RS' threshold. We just don't know if they would still call it a common belief. On Wikipedia, in cases affected by MOS:DATED, we ascribe. Following manual of style, would you be comfortable saying "In 2015, it was a common belief that..."? To be clear, this doesn't apply to every entry. It just applies to the ones where we have a consensus of RS saying that attitudes are drastically changing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Although it's interesting that "umami" is used twice as much now than in 2017 (Google nGrams as reported by OED), that doesn't tell us much in itself. nGrams comparison of four and five basic tastes What is more interesting, I'd suggest, is this graph from Google nGrams, showing that "five basic tastes" became more common than "four basic tastes" in around 2013. Of course, that's based on published books, and not surveys of the general public, so it's likely to be a leading indicator. --Macrakis (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging, replaced with two sources that more loosely support. Undermined my point by adding it. The Google nGrams is interesting. I wish we had access to 2023 dates like the OED instead of it cutting off at 2019. I don't think it's necessary for demonstrating it's not verifiable but it would certainly clarify in either direction. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
There are now three footnotes for the umami section:
A textbook from 2009 (but unfortunately I don't have full-text access to see what it says). Whether it says that umami is well-known or not well-known, it is 15 years out of date.
A handout from a bio course at Renton Technical College which does mention umami even in its 2006 version
A 2007 NPR story about umami which says nothing at all about what the general public believes. It is based on a discussion about Jonah Lehrer's book Proust Was a Neuroscientist, which also says nothing about what the general public believes.
So we have zero sources showing that the 4-taste theory was common after 2009, and one good source -- the ngrams data I cite above -- that shows the 5-taste theory overtaking the 4-taste theory in about 2013. The item should be removed from the article until someone finds strong sources that this is still a misconception. --Macrakis (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The 2009 book (page 100 specifically) as well as additional sources above do show that it is common. The NGram only shows that "five basic tastes" is more common than "four basic tastes" in more recent entries in Google books, nothing more. The "four" is only back to ~1980s level percentages, not gone, and without context that NGram is of limited use here, as a sentence like Some people believe there are five basic tastes, but there are actually only four would show as a hit for "five basic tastes" for example. The criteria does not give an arbitrary date cut-off, the criteria is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete. 2009 is not ancient, and if we accepted the NGram at face value, even that would show that it is also not obsolete. However NGram is only reflecting books, not necessarily common or popular understanding of things amongst non-authors and at best only suggests things that should be substantiated with sources. - Aoidh (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that interpreting nGrams data is hard to interpret, and that this is not definitive evidence that 5-tastes has overtaken 4-tastes. I said myself that nGram only reflects books.
Not sure what you're saying about 1980, when 5-tastes was about 2% of 4-taste (and most of those were not about umami as the fifth taste). Perhaps this graph makes things clearer. It shows that 5-tastes was < 10% of the total until about 1997, and rose to over 50% by 2013, and was 67% in 2019. That's pretty impressive.
It's especially impressive since I still don't see good evidence on the other side. An individual textbook mentioning the 4-taste theory tells us very little.
Finally, I'm not sure that a few years' lag between the scientific consensus and the popular understanding is a "misconception". Macrakis (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to the argument that "...a few years' lag between the scientific consensus and the popular understanding..." does not add up to a misconception. But that's not the argument being presented. It seems, from reading the various recently published sources, that this lag is has not run it's course so the "misconception" is still ongoing.
And if we change the inclusion criteria to require a recent (how recent?) source to establish that every entry on this page is "current" we may find that a lot of them would fail. So, I'd be careful with that argument. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what "run its course" means. We are trying to see if it's currently common, not that it's currently a misconception. This is not a "list of misconceptions."
No one has claimed we need a recent source to establish entries are current. We have sources from the 90s saying things are current that are absolutely fine. The issue is when they are challenged as not being current. If there haven't been RS reporting the misconception as common while a large change in belief is undergoing, it's unverified that it's still common and shouldn't be included. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
As has been explained a few times now, the criteria for what is considered current is met here even with 2009/2015 sources, and this talk page section's claim that it is now obsolete is unsubstantiated, meaning it meets the current criteria. Even if we accept that the Ngram data as accurate and that authors reflect society in a 1:1 comparison, even that data does not show obsoletion by any metric, only that it is now less commonly referred to than otherwise when looking at a very specific wording. Less != obsolete. - Aoidh (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
This talk page's claim isn't that it is now obsolete. I have called that "overreaching" and said "I don't know when or if it stopped being common." I really hope this helps, because we don't need to be discussing based on a misunderstanding of each other's position. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
When a talk page section is created titled "Umami misconception obsolete" which begins by arguing that for that point, I hope it's apparent why it's assumed that position is still held, especially considering that the "overreaching" comment reads very ambiguously if that was what was meant by it. - Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
If the 2015 article is the crucial evidence that the belief is still common, it should be cited. I'll add it for now. Macrakis (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Misconceptions, like most forms of ignorance, do not have the short shelf life of a UK Prime Minister or a head of lettuce. As explained by Plank's Principle, even among professional scientists, old, outmoded ideas tend to persist for the lifetime of the person holding them:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...
Moreover, news sources tend to write about things that are new (i.e. that's why it's called news), likewise academics don't tend to publish papers with results that have already been published. So the idea that we need a source within the past N years saying something is still common seems to be at odds with the way our sources tend to cover things.
Granted, if you are 15 years old then 2015 may seem like ancient history, but given the longevity of humans and their tendency to hold onto incorrect ideas in the face of evidence to the contrary, a cite establishing commonality from 2015 or even 1980 should be sufficient. That is, unless we have sources actually saying that something is ancient or obsolete. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
At this point, I'd guess that most foodies know about umami. On the other hand, I wonder how many people (foodies or not) can name the four or five basic tastes at all.
But I suppose you could say the same thing about most of our misconceptions. How many people have any belief at all about how the books of the Bible were established, or the meaning of triangular flags, or the existence of a large red button in the nuclear football, etc. etc. --Macrakis (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
MS; I honestly agree with you, I think we should assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary that people still believe stuff even if it's been a long time. But if we have got evidence to the contrary, we can't defer to our theory of human nature over those RS.
So again, if we had a cite saying it was common in 2015 (or 2000), in isolation, it would be sufficient. If we then have cites after that saying attitudes have changed: it's insufficient. Ancient/obsolete have always been examples of non-current beliefs, never the only types. As I said before, beliefs can not currently be ancient/obsolete, while still not being common; i.e. they're just misconceptions.
Macrakis; I've found heaps of RS saying foodies don't believe this, just haven't included them. I agree that a conversation needs to be had about "how many people have any belief" (although not in this thread); I take particular issue with fan death being held by elderly South Koreans. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that that the NPR article is not evidence to the contrary; it only mentions being accepted by a given culture which is a macro-level observation that does not speak to the commonality of it amongst the people in that culture. There are many entries in this list that are accepted on a cultural/societal level, yet still a common misconception about it persists. This NPR article linked above mentions that the food journalist in the interview didn't know what umami was until approximately a week prior, and this 2023 paper notes that they had to explain what umami was to the participants of the study, which contradicts the supposition that the NPR article shows a now-lack of commonality. - Aoidh (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The important point isn't that it's accepted in the West (where the 2009 source identifies the misconception as being held within), it's that it has recently become accepted, through a change in belief. We are talking about trends. Because if RS say there's a trend away from a belief, then we can't still rely on older sources saying it's common.
They only say they didn't realise umami and MSG are the same thing. Unclear why this is necessary for knowing that umami is the "fifth basic taste," in fact it seems like they did know umami was a taste.
The 2023 study was looking largely at villagers in Central Asia and Central Africa. The study says nothing about the "four basic tastes" gloss. Do you know if people there commonly believe there are only four tastes? I doubt it. Most of the sources imply the notion of four basic tastes is an American/European thing, they actually specifically say it's not a global thing. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The source says it recently became accepted on a cultural level, which again is not incompatible with it being a common misconception. The article says nothing about any trend other than the one that happened with scientists two decades ago, which lines up with the 2002 date other sources give and is well before the more recent 2009/2015 sources. Suggesting the source's author must have meant something more recent without the source itself saying so is WP:SYNTH. The sources discussed do not contradict the sources that support this as a common misconception. - Aoidh (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I feel like I'm writing the same thing again and again. The source does not have to claim it is "not a common misconception" / obsolete. It just has to challenge the veracity of sources that do.
It does say something about a trend. It says it is "now accepted" on a cultural level. I don't know what else to say. People believed something. Now they believe something else. Is that not a trend? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
While strictly true, the topic article states that binge eating is twice as common among women than men while bulimia and anorexia are ten times more common. So, this entry may be misleading, failing to give a full picture. Not sure what the best approach is for these kinds of things where there is some partial truth behind the misconception - remove the entry, follow it with caveats, something else? I'd like to hear other editors' opinions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that's just a result of our topic article being outdated. Anorexia's a lot more common among men than previously thought, I haven't looked into the reason but it could be because of changing prevalence or because of better research.
With stuff like this, the fact that people see eating disorders as "female diseases" creates a stigma, a real world effect, is a good argument for the notability of the misconception. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Presumably the best thing to do is to follow bang up-to-date authoritative sourcing saying what is (or is not) a 'common misconception'. That's the purpose of an encyclopedia right? Bon courage (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
The issue here is not WP:OR. It's WP:CHERRYPICKING. Some things are sufficiently complicated or disputed that we won't be able to adequately present the full story in the limited space we allocate to each entry here. This may be one. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Upon further consideration, I don't think this is one that is too complicated or disputed to warrant an entry here. The question is whether we need to elaborate. From the cited source:
A common misconception about EDs is that they only occur in females.
which is about a clear a statement establishing this as a "common misconception" as we are likely to find for any topic. But the source goes on to say:
This has stemmed from the discrepancies in prevalence between the two genders.
along with an elaboration on the gender discrepancies that show eating disorders are much more prevalent among women then men.
The question before the editors here is whether to ignore the second sentence (and the ensuing material) or to provide some context explaining what's actually in the cited source. Unless someone brings up some argument not previously presented, removing the entry is not up for discussion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that's just a result of our topic article being outdated.
You might want to add it (the topic articles goes into some detail). But, that reality is different from the misconception is precisely what makes the misconception ... a misconception! That is rather the point. Bon courage (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Present the whole story, and do it with brevity. Eating disorders do not exclusively affect women: women are merely more likely than men to suffer from eating disorders.Joe (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
References
^El Hayek R, Sfeir M, AlMutairi MS, Alqadheeb B, El Hayek S (2024). "Chapter 16: Myths about diet and mental health". In Mohamed W, Kobeissy F (eds.). Nutrition and Psychiatric Disorders. Springer. pp. 347–372. doi:10.1007/978-981-97-2681-3_16.
Disputed
Smokeless tobacco is not a "safe" alternative to conventional tobacco; smokeless tobacco products are often addictive and can function as a gateway drug to more harmful substances.Christen AG, McDonald JL, Olson BL, Christen JA (1989). "Smokeless tobacco addiction: a threat to the oral and systemic health of the child and adolescent". Pediatrician (Review). 16 (3–4): 170–7. PMID2692003.
First of all, this study is from 1989. It is highly questionable to say, cited to a study from 35 years ago, that "smokeless tobacco is safe" is a common misconception in 2024. Who actually thinks this? Is there any non-lobbyist source saying this?
More concerningly, the "gateway drug" theory is basically unproven WP:FRINGE. Actual scientific support for this theory seems extremely skimpy, and it was mostly popular in the 1980s during the "Just Say No" era. A big-ass 2018 meta-study, carried out by the Department of Justice of all things, found that (bolding mine):
Overall, the literature review concludes that existing statistical research and analysis relevant to the "gateway" hypothesis has produced mixed results, thus failing to provide clear scientific support for cannabis use as an inevitable "gateway" to harder illicit drug use. This necessitates the main conclusion that "no causal link between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs can be claimed at this time."
The only citation in the "gateway drug" article talking about nicotine says "Because the term 'gateway' has historically been used in colloquial, non-scientific settings and lacks a clear definition, it is not used in this report". If scientific consensus is to avoid using this term in books and papers because it is meaninglessly vague, I don't think we should be using it in Wikipedia articles.
How would you like it reworded? If we can't be bothered to discuss we can just remove the disputed harm, and just describe it as addictive. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
The gateway drug concept doesn't appear to be fringe and is invoked in contemporary research in reputable journals when drug abuse is being studied (e.g. PMID:37269777). Our Wikipedia article on the concept seems poor and its using 2018 material to undercut newer research is naughty, and needs attention there. We could always use different wording if this phrase is triggering. Other ST harms mentioned in our source here, such as the association between ST and oral cancers, appear to be settled science (see e.g. PMID:38683151) rendering any idea that ST is "safe" a misconception in that respect too. That could be brought out. Not sure what the "lobbyist sources" are; we wouldn't want to use those. Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
@Bon courage: Please read my posts before responding to them. I did not say that smokeless tobacco was safe. I did not ask for proof that chewing tobacco was bad for you. I said that thinking it was safe is not a common misconception. "Somebody said people thought this in 1989" is not proof that they think it in 2024.
The paper you linked says nothing about a causal gateway effect for any drug use -- did you just link it because it contained the phrase "gateway drug"? jp×g🗯️06:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
You invoked WP:FRINGE; I was merely showing how the gateway drug hypothesis is not a WP:FRINGE concept (check at WP:FT/N maybe for more input?). I'm not sure why cannabis is suddenly on the table but for information on whether/how that acts as a gateway for even more concerning types of abuse see NIDA's page here (also not a WP:FRINGE source). As to currency, the whole smoke/smokeless tobacco safety question seems current yes. See for example[1] for a piece that suggests the very misconception is a question du jour ("this FDA action ... might suggest snuff is a safe product. It's not. Let's talk about the rest of the story. ...".) Bon courage (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
This page fails to claim any causal connection whatsoever. Like the paper you linked before, it explicitly disclaims that there is evidence of a causal connection.
I am really not thrilled to launch into another one of these routines where someone takes ten seconds copying the URL from the first Google result for a keyword search, I spend several minutes confirming it doesn't support the claim, and they instantly respond with the second Google result. If this is how you intend to proceed, please let me know. jp×g🗯️07:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't use Google. I'm not sure what your objection is now. First you claimed the gateway drug hypothesis was FRINGE, then that nobody labours under the misconception that ST is safe today, anyway, and then somehow cannabis got into it. I've proposed changing the wording and bringing out the cancer risks more. What do people think? Bon courage (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
My objection is extremely obvious: you are posting links to papers which say the opposite of what you claim they do.
You are wrong. Your claims are wrong. The sources you give do not support your claims. Let me know if you would like me to explain this more clearly. jp×g🗯️08:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
That convo is very tedious. jpxg is obviously correct about it not being proven to be a common misconception. As a rule, if no RS have called it a common misconception in 25 years, it can't be that common. Secondarily, since the RS calling it a common misconception was published, there has been a large shift in beliefs re; health effects of tobacco. Maybe it's still a common misconception, but it's not verifiable. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the science around smokeless tobacco has changed over the last few decades, and it is still a common misconception that it's "safe". I think it's good to cite peer-reviewed journal articles but it's true ours is a little old. If we need something current, with the imprimatur of the NIH, how about[2] ? Bon courage (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems to me that this is a fairly solid entry if we remove the part about it being a gateway drug; the concept of "gateway drug" seems to be under dispute as per the final sentence in lead of the gateway drug article. I'll suggest:
Material and cites shamelessly cribbed from the topic article. The first cite is kinda old, so we might want to find a better one. The second one is from 2018, so should be sufficiently recent. We could add the ref proposed by Bon courage to establish it's commonality [3]Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this is basically fine, or at least far superior than the previous thing. I am glad that someone was able to actually go find sources to support the claim.
My only concern is that I don't know, really, how common of a conception this is. In most countries if you go to a gas station you will see almost identical text festooning every cigarette display (by writ of law), and if they have an ad for smokes/chew it will be printed in giant letters on the window of the building facing the street. This would seem to indicate that everyone already knows this, or alternately, that people believe it for reasons that are completely resistant to any attempt at logical suasion, so either way it would not really achieve anything to repeat it further. jp×g🗯️21:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I hear your concern here. One would think that everybody would know this by now, but as discussed above in the umami thread misconceptions die hard.
Domestic cats' behavioral and personality traits do not correspond to their coat color. Rather, these traits depend on a complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors.
As written, it seems misleading. Many cat breeds are distinguished by their coat color and it's pretty well established that cat breeds have notable behavioral and personality traits. What seems to be true is that a cat can have a similar coat color to a breed without being of that breed, and when this happens the behavioral and personality traits do not necessarily correspond to what might be expected from the coat color.
I suppose the thing to do is to make any change at the main Cat article. Then that can be mirrored here. The source seems plain: under the heading "Myth 4: Cat coat color is associated with personality and behavioral traits" it says
Cat coat color and patterns in relation to personality, behavioral traits, tameness, aggression, likelihood of being seen at a specialty behavior clinic, and even shelter outcomes have been investigated ... but results have been inconsistent, equivocal, and entirely lacking in uniformity.
Like most other editors, I don't have an unlimited amount of time to devote to addressing every single edit every day. Sometimes it takes me a couple of days to respond. There is no deadline, and at this point the talk page here is overwhelming and may exhaust the patience of some editors. And, yes, I responded before seeing your accusation above. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I introduced the concept of breeds since it is relevant. Our job as editors it to familiarize ourselves with the topic at large, not just find one source that says what we want it to say and fling that into the article.
Cat breeds are correlated with both behavior and coat color, so it's misleading to state something that implies there is no correlation. For example:
That's just a half-dozen examples; there are many others. If all this is wrong, then the place to address that is in these articles, not putting contradictory information on this page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
This is not about breed, it is about coat colour (read the quotation from the source). Just because you personally have some kind of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH opinion that contradicts the source, does not mean to get to play article policeman. Please work on reflecting reliable sources as we are meant to, as removing verified very-well-sourced content is disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Domestic cats' behavioral and personality traits cannot be predicted by their coat color. Rather, these traits depend on a complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors.
I feel like the second sentence is redundant: doesn't this apply to all animals (including us)? Just restating the conclusion of nature vs nurture. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The relevant graph from the source is (edited for clarity):
Many people believe that a cat’s behavior can be predicted by their coat color... Given the genetic complexities that determine both coat color and behavior, predicting the latter based on the former is fraught with challenges, because each is influenced by many genes. Cat coat colors and patterns are controlled by at least ten genes... demonstrating significant genetic complexity. While the coat is controlled almost entirely genetically, this is not the case for behavior or personality, which result from not only complex genetics, but the cat’s environment, and interactions between the two.
So, perhaps the whole entry is redundant since, as you say, it applies to all animals. My take is that pure breeds display characteristic coat colors and behavior, but this is not applicable to the cat population at large. Or any other animal that's not the result of selective breeding.
As for the proposed change above, I prefer the more precise "cannot be predicted" vs the less precise "do not correspond" since the latter may cause our readers to infer something that's not quite correct and the term "predict" is what's used in the cited source. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if people hold the same beliefs about brown dogs and behaviour as they do about ginger cats which is why the whole thing isn't redundant. I like your more precise proposed change. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
"Domestic cats' behavioral and personality traits cannot be predicted by their coat color" ← coats cannot predict. Change "by" to "from" and it works better, just like what we have. Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't touch that subject unless you are ready for an endless fight over it. No matter what the research says, there are people, including some Wikipedia editors, who are invincibly convinced that the male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I just peeked back at the circumcision article to remind myself. However, after some sanctions were applied it seems some of the more problematic editors have been taken out of the equation on this topic. But certainly if this appears here you're going to need all the sources and to be prepared from attention from the penis-obsessives. Bon courage (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
That page has been on my watchlist for a while, so I'm quite familiar with the "discussion". WhatamIdoing (talk) is absolutely correct that adding an entry will bring that shit storm over here. I'd strongly recommend staying out of that fight. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Invisible comments to denote topic article?
I know we haven't had luck showing which link goes to the topic article in the text visible to readers, but just to avoid the hassle of chasing down every link, could we start noting which wikilink goes to the topic article using invisible comments? Would be helpful for future editors as well, so they can see an article once had the misconception and now it doesn't. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the "rules" for this page are a rather silly WP:LOCALCON which are best ignored, and which seem to have encouraged some poor bureaucratic behaviour and overweening process (of which these comments would be yet more). When this article is split, they should be junked. If something is truly (according to cited WP:BESTSOURCES) a popular misconception it belongs on this list. There's an argument, in fact, that an editor removing such content is working against NPOV – which is not negotiable – and damaging the Project. Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that criteria 3 is bad. I've never put an entry in a page then had an editor from that page take it out because it's not common / a misconception. And I've added a lot more than most people. I think people pretend that readers are clicking on links to read about the deep context of the etymology of Adidas or whatever because they can't say they want an easy excuse to keep entries out of the article, so it doesn't get too big and attract people trying to delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE or split. Removed: speculation of motives. Enforcing rules found nowhere else on wiki exhausts the patience of editors, especially when the person removing can just as easily put it in the topic article themself.
NPOV means accurately representing high-quality sources on topics (including on what's a misconception). If there's a high quality source supporting something here describing a misconception and for some reasons it's not in the "topic article", the way to improve the encyclopedia is to add it there, NOT to remove it here invoking some made-up "rules". Worse, we now seem to have an editor going back to the topic articles trying to remove stuff there in an apparent attempt to invoke the "rules!" to keep them out of this article. It's bizarre. Bon courage (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it's more complex than that. I do think Mr Swordfish is overstepping with the cat behaviour removal, but I think many times he has correctly identified where sources don't represent the literature they are in, and repeating them here would give undue weight.
In fact looking back I don't think there is even a WP:LOCALCON for these "rules". They seem to have been a panic measure cooked up by a couple of editors to stop this article being proposed for deletion in 2011 (!) and have somehow become Holy Writ. They should be ignored when additions to this list are good ones. Bon courage (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I mean: my assumption was that there must have been some famous RfC for this edit notice to be here, but it seems there never was anything. The point about a WP:LOCALCON is that it cannot override the WP:PAGs, and if a rule is saying in effect that editors 'must' remove certain well-verified & well-sourced content, then good editors need to ignore that rule. I'd like to hear what WhatamIdoing – a connoisseur of LOCALCON issues – thinks about this. Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Isn't this just the nature of an inclusion criteria? That verifiable material must meet higher standards to be included? There are restrictions on what inclusion criteria can be, per WP:LSC. But having an inclusion criteria isn't against WP:PAG. Am I missing something? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Having an inclusion criterion against the WP:PAGs is not permitted, and I don't think anything can ever support removing text which is verifiably appropriate. Indeed, when discussing using notability as a criterion LSC even says "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group". Content should rest on policy, not on the vagaries of what is/isn't in the text of another article at any particular time. That is what has led to the ridiculous situation where editors think they can nobble other articles as a mechanism to get this one how they want it. Bon courage (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I think on your central point you're right. The red-linking quote does demonstrate this, although I am easier than most to convince on this issue.
I wouldn't describe Mr Swordfish's behaviour in this case as trying to get this article to look how he wants. I think he genuinely believed his points about cat breeds challenged the verifiability, and he would oppose the inclusion of that material on any page, regardless of its link to LOCM.
Editors need to come up with Wikipedia:List selection criteria. The most common selection criteria include things like complete lists, but bluelink-only is a permitted choice, primarily to control list size (which this page obviously needs).
Generally speaking, LOCALCON is about decisions that plainly contradict normal rules (e.g., "The sitewide rules say X, but for 'our' pages, you have to do the opposite").
The WP:Edit notice statement at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of common misconceptions says that "It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first", and this could be understood as contradicting Wikipedia:Be bold, especially if an editor is mindlessly enforcing it. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I?; if you improve an article, it should not be reverted until you come to the talk page and as "Mother, may I please improve the article?" Of course, one editor's bold improvement might be another's loathsome trivia, but the edit summary ought to say something like "I dunno if that's really common enough", rather than "You didn't jump through some bureaucratic hoops." BTW, this was added in 2022 as a result of an edit request.
Item 3, "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article", is another possible problem. The rule here is not a valid reason for either adding or removing information from a linked article. The decision about whether to include or exclude a given fact should be made independently at each article. I would not expect editors to tolerate this. Imagine this for a different subject: "You can't update Paul Politician to say he is running for office. We have not yet approved that article for inclusion in the List of incumbents running for re-election in 2024". Editors would either laugh at you or drag you to ANI with a complaint about Wikipedia:Ownership of content. I imagine that the items listed in that policy "Please do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval" and "You hadn't edited the article or talk page previously" would be quoted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Could you clarify why blue-link only would be permitted? It seems reasonable to say that red-links with sourcing meeting GNG are equivalent. As an editor could simply create stubs with the references, it appears like an artificial barrier, a delaying tactic rather than an actual way to control list size. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
In practice, it works, though. It's typical to use it for lists that could have thousands of entries. It shouldn't stop someone from adding one or two entries to the list, but it will usually stop someone from turning a list of 500 names into a list of 2,000 names, three-quarters of which are red links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Our criteria #1 (The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.) is basically the blue-link rule, unless I'm misunderstanding things.
As for criteria #3 (The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.), the motivation behind that requirement is that this article encompasses a wide range of topics and it's unrealistic to expect the editors here to be up to speed on all of them. So, when someone proposes an entry about some misconception involving, say, the sport of underwater basket-weaving, the editors here can visit that page and see if the editors familiar with the topic think it's important or common enough to merit mention on that page. If not, it's probably not a good candidate here. Of course, this is orthogonal to whether any conceptions about underwater basket-weaving are sufficiently common, correct or incorrect, which is a more difficult criterion to define precisely.
My view is that this page is a list of brief references to material found elsewhere on Wikipedia, where usually there is more detail at the linked topic article for the reader to peruse. Hence, criteria #3.
Of course, the inclusion criteria was arrived at through consensus and consensus may change. If we're going to review or amend the inclusion criteria, probably best to start a new thread about that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I was not attempting to address that issue. It was a mistake on my part and I should not have done that.
That said, I think it is a poor practice to simply insert language in the topic article to get around criteria #3 and immediately insert a new entry here, but that doesn't justify removing material without specifying a good reason. Of course there's no rule against adding material to both articles, but a better practice would be to give the editors at the topic article a few days to evaluate the material before adding the entry here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:Be bold suggests that waiting isn't usually the better practice.
I hope there isn't an expectation of specific language (e.g., using the exact word misconception) in the linked articles. Articles get copyedited without checking what links to them, and "There is a common misconception that tuberculosis affects only the lungs" could easily be turned into something like "Although popularly stereotyped as a lung disease, tuberculosis has earned the moniker The Great Imitator because it can affect almost any body part and cause a wide variety of symptoms". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Based on a quick read of List_of_common_misconceptions#United_States_2, I think some or most of them should because they are either not misconceptions or no longer common. For some examples, I don't believe anyone thinks Betsy Ross made the first US flag anymore or that Mrs. O'Leary's cow started the Great Chicago Fire; the Emancipation Proclamation, Seward's Folly entries, and Prohibition ones are nitpicky; and I've never heard the ones about Kenneth Arnold or George Smathers. (I am also unfamiliar with the entry about German being the official language in the US, which is for some reason in a separate section.) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback - these kinds of criticism are useful. Apologies for not responding sooner.
Every entry in this article is phrased as a correction, and these positive statements are well sourced and correct as far as everyone here can determine. It's not always clear whether a particular misconception is sufficiently common to include here, and probably at some point all of them will be ancient or obsolete; some may be now, but absent some source saying they are no longer current it's not clear whether it's time to remove them. To address the specific entries you flag:
Betsy Ross - just about every schoolchild in the 50s through 70s heard this story, and it's completely made up. Is it still being taught, and do sufficiently many people still believe it for it to qualify as "common"? I don't know, but my sense is to keep it absent more info.
Mrs. O'Leary's cow - this was one of the great hoaxes of the early 20th century and was widely spread and believed. Is it still a thing? I don't know, but wouldn't object to removing the entry if there's a movement to do so.
Emancipation Proclamation - I don't find this nit-picky. The proclamation did not free all the slaves in the US, as is commonly thought, which is not a nit-picky difference. I do think this entry goes into too much detail and should be cut roughly in half.
Seward's Folly - an argument could be made that this piece of history is not sufficiently notable to include here, and I wouldn't argue against that.
Kenneth Arnold - he didn't call what he saw "flying saucers but used similar terminology and was perhaps misquoted. I fail to see what makes this entry notable enough for us to include. Seems like a nothingburger.
George Smathers - I didn't recognize this name either, but growing up I heard this story many times about someone accusing a political opponent of being an "extrovert" whose sister was a "thespian". I don't recall if Smather's name was used or not. It's a well circulated urban legend, or at least it used to be. Is it still current? No idea. But I am mildly in favor of keeping it.
Note that the inclusion criteria does not require that you (or I or any other editor here) has heard of the misconception before.
Removing items should only be done with reference to whether RS refer to it as common. If you are just flagging items to be investigated that's okay, but nothing should be removed until investigated. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Cannabis-pregnancy entry
For now I have removed the following entry:
Cannabis use in pregnancy is not low risk. The THC exposure resulting from cannabis use affects fetal brain development and the male offspring of cannabis users are, as a result, more susceptible to psychotic illness.[1]
This is inconsistent with the article Cannabis in pregnancy, which makes it clear (except for one recently-added blurb citing the single source above) that any link between cannabis and bad pregnancy outcomes is unclear in current scholarship. I'm also skeptical that "weed is fine in pregnancy" really is a common misconception. If anything, the opposite may be a more common view.
Let me be clear that I am removing this because of sourcing issues and my skepticism that "weed is safe for pregnant people" is actually a common misconception. This is not because I think it's OK for pregnant people to use cannabis or any other substance, or because I think Wikipedia should reflect that view. szyslak (t) 22:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The lede to the topic article says:
Cannabis consumption in pregnancy may or may not be associated with restrictions in growth of the fetus, miscarriage, and cognitive deficits.[2] ... There has not been any official link between birth defects and marijuana use.[3]
This seems to directly contradict the entry on this page which says:
Cannabis use in pregnancy is not low risk. The THC exposure resulting from cannabis use affects fetal brain development and the male offspring of cannabis users are, as a result, more susceptible to psychotic illness.[1]
If the topic article is out of date or incorrect, the way to fix that is to edit that article, not insert contradictory info here. Let's hold off on adding this entry until the matter is settled at Cannabis in pregnancy. This is not my field of expertise; presumably the editors at that page are more versed in the subject so the discussion should take place in front of them rather than here. I would invite the three editors above to work things out on the talk page there. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no contradiction. There is no WP:MEDRS contradicting the statement we give here, and nowhere in the topic article (which needs updating) is there anything which contradicts this psychosis association. This seems like another example of degrading the knowledge on Wikipedia for some kind of bogus need to follow "rules". Bon courage (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
References
^ abFrau R, Melis M (February 2023). "Sex-specific susceptibility to psychotic-like states provoked by prenatal THC exposure: Reversal by pregnenolone". J Neuroendocrinol (Review). 35 (2): e13240. doi:10.1111/jne.13240. hdl:11584/360819. PMID36810840.
^Cite error: The named reference Fonseca2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Committee on Obstetric Practice (July 2015). "Committee Opinion No. 637: Marijuana Use During Pregnancy and Lactation". Obstetrics & Gynecology. 126 (1): 234–238. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000467192.89321.a6. PMID26241291.
The source is impeccable (high-quality, up-to-date, directly supporting the 'common misconception' claim) and in sync with the main article. So removal seems completely unjustified. I don't know why you invoked your personal "skepticism"; it's completely irrelevant to us. The Cannabis in pregnancy article has several sources on potential adverse effects on the foetus from parental cannabis use. Bon courage (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean "irrelevant to us"? Do you, or the "us" you refer to, have more of a right to edit this article than I do? szyslak (t) 22:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
More to the point, even if the source cited is really and truly "impeccable", it's still only one source. I'm more than willing to find other sources and investigate a broader view of what the general public perceptions really are about the cannabis/pregnancy matter. szyslak (t) 22:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
It is not generally necessary to have more than one high-quality WP:MEDRS source for an item of medical knowledge. But by all means investigate whether there's better source. It would be great for example to expand the topic article using PMID:35662548. While you're doing that I'll restore this good content. Bon courage (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
...and I've already found some good secondary sources to back up the primary source making the "misconception" qualifier claim:
I would like to propose an edit about Caesar salad. It would be something like this:
Contrary to popular belief, Caesar salad was not invented in Rome by Julius Caesar, but by Caesar Cardini, an Italian-American restauranteur, in Tijuana, Mexico, in 1924.
The first step would be presenting some reliable sources that identify this as a common misconception. I wasn't aware that anybody thought the salad was related to Julius Caesar. signed, Willondon (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
This misconception is addressed in a source already on the page: Origins of the Specious: "Julius bears no responsibility for Caesar salad, either. The king of the salads was invented in 1924 by Caesar Cardini, a chef and restauranteur in Tijuana, Mexico." (page 71) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Book currently in article as ref 45: "What Caesar Did for My Salad: The Curious Stories Behind Our Favorite Foods"
Seems sufficiently covered in RS. Do any editors have issues with the entry? I think if it's added to the topic article and stays in (which it almost certainly will) it will meet the inclusion criteria, and I see no issue with adding this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Is this a 'common misconception' or just a mistaken claim? If the scope of this article is really just 'mistaken claims' that get corrected somewhere, it's going to need to be a bazillion times bigger (everything in Snopes, for a start). Bon courage (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bon courage, we include "mistaken claims" that "get corrected somewhere" if the belief is referred to in RS as common. I understand you haven't heard of this, but it's pretty well addressed in RS, including being the title of a book about mistaken beliefs, held as emblematic. The Caesar salad page is also currently WP:ECP partly because editors kept trying to say it was invented by Julius. If you think the current inclusion criteria are insufficient to keep the page from WP:INDISCRIMINATE, you could propose:
A) multiple RS describe a belief as common
This would potentially disqualify the Caesar salad entry.
B) Stricter requirements of what words are equivalent to "common misconception" to avoid editors being overly inclusive on interpreting sources as calling a belief common
I think @Bon courage may have been asking about the difference between a common mistake (guess, assumption, etc.) and a common misconception. If you say 4 is 80% of 5, therefore adding 20% of 4 will equal 5, you've made a mathematical mistake (because 20% of 4 is 0.8), but that mistake is not necessarily a misconception, strictly speaking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
If we want to draw a distinction there I can see a few items it would be affecting, i.e.:
"Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures were originally painted with colors"
"The letters "AR" in AR-15... do not stand for "assault rifle"."
"The "Minute Waltz" takes, on average, two minutes to play as originally written."
I'm trying to understand what the misconception is here. Although the entries on this page are written as corrections to the underlying misconception, for almost all of them it is easy to see what the incorrect notion or misconcept is. I"m at a loss for this one. I don't see anything illuminating in the topic articles, or anything that would seem to satisfy our criterion #3.
The best I can guess is that some people think Kenneth Arnold used the term flying saucer when instead he said that whatever he saw flew like a saucer, which hardly seems like much of a misconception.
Starting June 26 and June 27, newspapers first began using the terms "flying saucer" and "flying disk" (or "disc") to describe the sighted objects. Thus the Arnold sighting is credited with giving rise to these popular terms. The actual origin of the terms is somewhat controversial and complicated.
Which implies to me that if the origin of the term is the alleged misconception, the fact that it is "controversial and complicated" would argue against it being a misconception.
Added it. People think Arnold coined the phrased, when in reality headline writers did. 'Controversial' isn't really the right word, I'll go fix that too. Feoffer (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
People do not lose interest in sex or become sexually inactive in older age.[1] One survey in England of people aged 60-69 recorded 86% of men and 60% of women as sexually active.[1]
The cite says:
'86% of men and 60% of women aged 60–69 years reported being sexually active, as did 59% of men and 34% of women aged 70–79 years, and 31% of men and 14% of women aged 80 years or older. Even 10% of people older than 90 years reported being sexually active in a Swedish study
So, 86% to 55% to 31% to 10% as males age from 60 to over 90 is not a decline? (It's 60% to 34% to 14% to 10% for females)
I think we need to be more careful about the language. Perhaps language more in line with what's in the topic article, which says:
'Both male and female libidos tend to decline with increasing age, and women tend to lose their libido faster than men. However, desire for sexual activity is not lost completely. Neither does it decrease for everyone.
It's certainly a common argument, e.g. "If we restrict guns people will just find another way to do it.", which is trotted out for both suicide and homocide. Meanwhile, 85% of suicide attempts with a gun result in death, while other methods result in death less than 5% of the time, so it's not a very strong argument. Is it a sufficiently widespread misconception to qualify for inclusion? Well, we'd need some sourcing at the minimum.
Do you have a link to the SF Standard article with the quote above? I think we'd need to have that so we have a cite.
Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked.
There's a lot of overlinking on this page. I'll begin to address it; if I remove a link we can always put it back. Help is appreciated. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I see you removed links to mussel and clam wikilinks in the Mussels and clams that do not open when cooked can still be fully cooked and safe to eat entry. How do you envisage topic articles being ascertained with this? Are those where it's obvious what the topic article is fine to not have links? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
We write these articles for the readers, not for the convenience of editors; we editors should be able to figure out how to find the topic article. That said, we say in the introduction:
These entries are concise summaries; the main subject articles can be consulted for more detail.
So, we should include a link to the subject article, preferably to the section or subsection that addresses the misconception. I removed links for "words and terms understood by most readers in context", but should have left the links to the topic/subject articles. I'll take look at restoring them. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
There is a consensus to split the article. Some editors opposing a split concluded they would support a split if technical reasons presented themselves, which they have. Workarounds nonwithstanding, there is a consensus that technical considerations to split the article do exist in some capacity, and while they might be mitigated, editors have expressed a willingness to split the article for these reasons, when they didn't support the split outright, they did so with that reservation, which has been met in some form. There is not, however, a consensus whether to split the article in 2, split it into 3, or to do some wizardry using templates and transclusion to somehow be even more creative. Given a consensus though, that splitting may be necessary if merited, there is therefore a consensus to split, but not how to split or what the eventual split structure will look like. Participants therefore, having consensus to split, should pursue a subsequent discussion on the merits of different options on how to split the article. Andre🚐06:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this a technical issue with the MediaWiki software or a content issue that that article is longer than most readers will find approachable? If it's the former, lets find out if this is still really an issue before rushing to judgment - from WP:TLIMIT
The inclusion limits were put into effect on the English Wikipedia by Tim Starling on 14 August 2006. A new preprocessor was enabled in January 2008, removing the "pre-expand include limit" and replacing it with a "preprocessor node count" limit.
Are we still using the same software and hardware that were in use in 2006 and 2008? I hope not.
If it's the latter issue, then it's just an editorial judgment. I'd call attention to how Joe Phin's analysis in the discussion two years ago:
There are currently 380 entries on the page. One year ago, in July 2021, there were 336 entries. Two years ago, in July 2020, there were 407 entries. Three years ago, in July 2019, there were 377 entries. Over the course of 3 years, we've had a net growth of 3 entries, one entry per year on average...
The page gained 180k bytes between 2020 and 2022, a 50% increase, so Joe's analysis doesn't seem great. Even with leaving a lot of entries to be reviewed on the talk page, and with me just yesterday deleting 20k bytes by cleaning up references using unnecessary quotations, the page has still increased by 30k bytes. It's currently the 24th biggest page on the project. Using visual editor crashes constantly; you don't need to get bogged down in minutia at WP:TLIMIT to recognise the article's size is causing issues. An alternative to shorten the page could be strengthening the inclusion criteria. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
My analysis was based on the number of entries on the page, nothing more. If people add extra citations, that increases the byte-size of the page, but doesn't increase the number of entries. Joe (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Mr. Swordfish, PEIS is a technical limit. It is strictly, automatically, and universally enforced without exception. This article is already using the #invoke workaround, and a quick test suggests that increasing the number of refs in the article by about 10–15% will make even that workaround stop working. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The PEIS of this article is about 1.5M while the limit is 2M. So we're at about 75% of max.
Might it be that the real issue is that many of the entries are over-cited? The factual statements should be adequately sourced at the topic article if the inclusion criteria is being followed, so we may not need to reproduce those here. WP:V only requires that assertions need to be verifiable not that every one have a ref[1] tag next to it. Yeah, I know, many of these entries are controversial hence the over-citing. The text itself is about 144K which is about 10% of the PEIS. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed that the citations take too much space. I propose the following guidelines:
If there is good source that discusses both the substantive fact and its being a common misconception, that one citation suffices, unless it is Snopes (because we don't want to just be a mirror of Snopes).
If not, exactly one (no more, no less) source should be cited for the substantive fact.
If there is a good source whose primary topic is the misconception, one source suffices for that. This must not be an example of the misconception, but a discussion of the misconception. If multiple weaker sources are used, there should be a maximum of two. If there are only examples of the misconception, and no explicit discussion, we're getting into WP:OR territory.
Footnotes should not contain quotations from the source.
Any notes that are removed from the misconceptions article should be moved to an appropriate place in the source article.
For example, we currently have 5 sources for the "five stages of grief" item, four of which are included in the Five stages of grief source article. But in fact the 1st source covers both the substantive discussion and the misconception quite well. And the 5th source (a brief obituary for Kubler-Ross) is irrelevant here, saying only "To debate the details or the validity of Kubler-Ross's thesis...is to miss the point of her life's work." (I'll remove it now).
In principle, I don't think that limiting the number of citations per fact is a good idea. For any given instance, of course, it could be the best choice (e.g., to reduce Wikipedia:Citation overkill).
In other articles with very large numbers of citations (e.g., Donald Trump, with 830), many of the sources are narrow and could be replaced by a single biography. I doubt that would be possible for this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The Donald Trump article is irrelevant here. Each point in that article needs to be supported by a source, and the article needs to reflect a variety of points of view (WP:NPOV). Replacing them with a single source makes no sense at all.
On the other hand, entries in this list of misconceptions are based on a source article. If the source article doesn't address both the substance and the misconception (inclusion criterion 2), then it's not eligible for this article. The reader can always consult the source article. There might be a case for clarifying in each entry in this list what the source article is (by using, say, a boldface link, ideally a section link to where the misconception is discussed); once that's clear, we don't need to repeat the sources found in the source article. --Macrakis (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I give Donald Trump as an example of an article that has 800 different sources and could probably have 400 different sources, with some sources being used many, many times.
I think this article has 800 different sources and probably needs 800 different sources. (We cannot rely on sources in the linked article, because (a) WP:V doesn't let us and (b) they could be removed from the other article without anyone here noticing.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
We could save quite a few bytes by removing |access-date= from every web citation with an archive, and from every print source. No opinion on split just yet: still at work. Folly Mox (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd be in favor of trimming the redundant content within citations (as User Folly Mox suggests), especially if it can easily be done en masse - but I'd be opposed to limiting citation numbers. Lots of the best entries on this page require more than one citation, and removing them would significantly negatively impact the article's quality. At that point, I'd rather just split the page. Reluctantly, mind. Joe (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of splitting for reasons relating to readership/comprehensibility, however, if there is some technical issue that can only be addressed by splitting, then 'what can you do?' Might I ask, if we were to bundle more citations together with a format like a., b., c., would that help, or is the problem the total number of bytes in citations? I'm guessing it's the latter, but I don't actually know. Joe (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Re; readership: editors in past years have noted the article has bad readability, as it's too long to be comfortably read from beginning to end in a sitting. And I think a lot of misconceptions deserve to be on the page which aren't here, which would exacerbate issues. Splitting would definitely help readership. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
If we did have to split the page, I'd prefer as little splitting as possible. So, for example, spltting things in half like:
I agree with Joe here. Oppose splitting for editorial reasons, will support splitting if it's technically necessary, favor the two-article split if we have to split. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Support splitting Other editors have made a brief mention of splitting affecting readability, comprehensibility, or "editorial reasons" like above. I think those who oppose should provide more detailed explanation since I do not really understand the reasoning why splitting would impact the above issues. Since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it is read on electronic devices, some of which are lower-range. Even my mid-end laptop struggles to load this page, taking around 7 seconds. I imagine it to be double in older mobile phones, with significant lagging while scrolling. I also don't think list will become less comprehensive when split. 100% of the information currently in the list will be divided into neatly organized sub-articles. No loss of content here. Some people above are discussed measures to decrease page size like removing details from the citations and in the last discussion, shortening summaries. That would actually decrease how comprehensive this list is. One editor also made mention of notability issues in the last discussion. This is not an issue since WP:SPINOUT recommends Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically. No one's argues that List of PC games (A) is not notable since no RSes discuss games that specifically start with A. Catalk to me!12:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I have an incredibly old device, and I never have any problems loading this page, editing it, or anything else. People have made the argument that this page is too long to be comprehensible in the past, which is silly (most books are longer and they're not 'incomprehensible'). That said, the possibility that the page may have too many citations for Wikipedia to be able to handle (I'm not familiar with the technical details) has been brought up, and if that can't be resolved by removing redundant formatting or unnecessary publication dates or other information in the many, many cites we've got, it may be that splitting is the only option. I certainly agree that we shouldn't limit the number of citations or anything like that. If this technical issue can be solved by de-fattening the citations then I oppose splitting, but if not, eh, what can you do? Joe (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Joe do you ever have issues switching from visual to source or vice versa? My device isn't old but I keep losing my edits when trying to switch due to time-outs, and only on this page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
This doesn't surprise me at all. Editing a huge page with relatively complex formatting (e.g., all of those refs) is always going to be at risk of time-outs. Time-outs probably might have more to do with your internet connection than with your device (how good your internet connection is, but also factors outside your control, like how much traffic there is in general and how close you are to one of the data centers [so, e.g., editors in Dallas, Texas are better off than Portland, Oregon, and Amsterdam is better off than Paris]). Opening the editing environment is more dependent on your device.
When you are switching, I suggest doing a quick ⌘A and ⌘C to "Select all" and then "Copy" it. If you get hit by a timeout, you can re-open the same editing environment and paste it in. (This will work best if you're switching from, and therefore copying, plain old wikitext.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I can see this working when going from source to visual, and I'll start using it in those cases, but I'm not sure about the other way with preserving page layouts. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Copying the 'visual' content usually preserves the layout but not the wikitext's whitespace. If you know that your changes were all in the same section, I'd suggest copying just that section if you're in the visual mode. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
With the recent application of WP:JWB the Post-expand include size is now 1,155,959 which is only slightly more than half of the limit of 2,097,152 bytes. So, the argument in favor of splitting due to technical reasons no longer seems to apply. We might need to re-apply JWB periodically to catch cites that don't use the #invoke syntax, but it seems like the post-expand include size limit is no longer an issue. Like the discussion from two years ago, there does not seem to be a consensus to split for editorial reasons, and a weak consensus to keep the article intact. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Before this is closed, could someone please clarify for me whether the article having an Unstrip post-expand size of 4254075/5000000 means the article is still near a hard technical limit? Or is that just Post-expand include size posing a danger? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I wish there was more definitive answers there. They do seem on net to say it should be avoided even if the page doesn't completely break, but also it just seems like their opinion. I don't care if an infobox at the bottom looks bad. I guess it matters more if other templates start breaking they haven't mentioned/don't know about, and maybe it's not worth taking that risk. Rollinginhisgrave (talk)
Support split If you've got to the point of removing parts of citations to try and hodgepodge the article into working, you've likely already got other problems (as other have already mentioned above). As per Bon courage I support splitting into three. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°23:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
There were a number of ideas spittballed to address the technical issues above. Assuming we can get the technical issues resolved without implementing these "hodgepodge" fixes - which seems to be the case - then this technical argument is moot. If you'd like to make an editorial as opposed to technical reason for the split, please do so. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Then you'll still be left with all the other issues, as per the point of my comment. Also the 'fixes' will only last until the next issue, where you have to come up with a new bodge. There will never be an end as the article is to large, and any additions or changes will cause the same or some other issue. Just split now for the benefit not will bring to editors and readers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°17:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The point of my comment was that if your hitting technical issues then you've already got editorial ones sometime ago. There is no technical fix that will last and the editorial ones will just keep getting worse. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°17:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose split. This page is still far lighter than most bloated modern websites, and Wikipedia itself isn't compatible with my old device as of a few years ago anyway. This is such an old and well established article, I'd also hesitate so make any drastic change unless truly necessary. Benjamin (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, the "problem" as articulated in the first post in this thread is that the PEIS limit was close to being exceeded. This has been solved, with the current value of PEIS being about half of the limit. It has gone away.
There seems to be a lot of confusion between the technical and editorial concerns here. This thread was started to discuss splitting because of technical limits. That argument is now moot. Somehow, it morphed into a different discussion about editorial reasons for the split. Seems to me that that is a different line of argument and would warrant a new thread if we're basing the decision on that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that the fact that we already have to use workarounds is proof that we currently have technical problems. "We used a workaround that 99.9% of editors have never seen before and don't know how to use themselves, so it's not visibly broken at the moment" is not the same as "the technical problems have been solved". I think that we need to split this so that we don't have to use weird workarounds on every single ref.
Additionally, I think it would be more readable, and specifically more readable on a phone/small device. WP:SIZE suggests thinking about summaries and splits when an article reaches 10K words, and WP:SIZERULE says that at 15K words, it "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed". This is already 24K words. It would take someone about an hour and a half to read the whole thing. I don't see much opportunity for trimming, so we need to talk about dividing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Where does anyone say " that templates will break, soon" at the link you provided? I don't see anyone saying anything close to that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Soon may be overstating. They responded to an encroaching limit by advising to split. Reduce their size per WP:SIZE/WP:SPLIT as expected of such pages. Templates breaking: You may lose styling from TemplateStyles at the end of the page if the limit is broken and I don't know which extentions can be affected., one template known to break, unclear what others will or will not break. Btw, in the 11 days since you posted the enquiry, ~7% of the remaining distance to the hard limit has been closed. At this rate we've got 6 months. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that there's consensus to split the article at this time. The original reason supplied seems to have been supplanted by the invoke syntax for cites, and I haven't seen a clear consensus to split for editorial reasons. But agree that it's time to close this discussion, so I'm in favor of submitting a closure request. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Support merge into and move subpages. This page has already been split but the result is forks. Subpages like Scientific misconceptions mentioned previously should be named systematically. Perhaps parentheses like "Scientific misconceptions" → "List of misconceptions (science)", "about" per nom, or "List of common misconceptions" → "Common misconceptions". I prefer focused articles. This list has grown by more than 6x since 2010. MEDRS per Rollinginhisgrave, and spreading edits across pages helps watchlisting. Most previous opposition was not towards splitting but {{Editnotices/Page/List_of_common_misconceptions}} preventing WP:BOLD. One editor was concerned about split notability but accepted that of existing sub articles, a proposal I'm re-tabling. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Help! I've come to this with a view to closing it, and I immediately got stuck.Whenever I come across an RfC that asks an either/or question, as this one does, my first question is "Are the options mutually exclusive?" In this case, I don't think they are. I don't see why we can't do both. By using transclusion, we can have one unsplit page with the entire list, and other split pages with partial lists, and offer readers the choice of which view they prefer, without having to maintain two separate pages. We can even use the magic of LST to include only part of the partial list on the main page, which might solve a lot of things.My assessment of consensus is that both sides are supported by persuasive and reasonable arguments, so that's how I'd love to close it, but I'm loath to do so when nobody else has considered this option, so I've !voted instead. What do we all think?—S MarshallT/C14:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I think you've recommended splitting. Specifically, you've suggested either:
Splitting, but keeping everything on one page so that we solve neither the WP:PEIS technical problems (which would get worse through transclusion and require that all of the split pages keep using the current technical workaround for refs) nor the human-attention-span/reading-time problem on the main page (which would be unchanged at best), or
I'm not sure that I understand LST in sufficient detail, but it sounds like you are proposing something similar to partial postbacks via AJAX. That is, when the user clicks on the page, only a part of the list is streamed from the servers, with more material streamed when the reader clicks the section headers.
This would seem to resolve the main arguments in favor of splitting 1) less processing at the server since only small parts of the article are streamed with the initial request (and subsequent requests) and 2) it does not present the user with a large amount of text, instead only rendering the parts of the article that the user has requested.
I've used AJAX to do exactly this, but it's been a few years and I have no idea how to implement it in the Wikpedia environment. It sounds to me like it could be a viable approach, but I'd like to see it first before committing to it. Would you be willing to demo this in your sandbox so we can take a look and comment? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
No, that's not how it works. LST is like this:
Open article A, and tag some bit of the text as approved for transclusion.
Open article B, and put in a code that says "Go swipe the marked bits in article A, and stick it in right here".
Reader at article A has no idea that any of this happens.
Reader at article B sees everything written on article B plus the copied bits from article A.
This was used extensively in COVID-19 articles, with the justification that it helped keep certain information (e.g., recent case counts) synchronized across multiple pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
My thought was that we could use LST to selectively transclude the references, so the child articles include full references, but the parent article only displays one citation per entry.—S MarshallT/C21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that if you were to put a hundred or so copies of <section begin=chapter1 />text and first ref for a single bullet item<section end=chapter1 /> in each of the child articles, editors would revolt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Maybe. We are dealing with editors who seem happy to put an #invoke in all their citations... they seem pretty tolerant. Anyway, that was my attempt to find a way that satisfies both sides.—S MarshallT/C22:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not that hard to fix up citations as they are added and add the #invoke syntax. I'm not sure what the ongoing maintenance headaches would be for an LST solution. Too bad we can't just use AJAX/JSON to dynamically load material as the reader navigates the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
"we can have one unsplit page with the entire list, and other split pages with partial lists, and offer readers the choice of which view they prefer" if I understand this correctly, it seems like a compromise I'd accept. Benjamin (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Does this discussion still need a closer? I don't want to close it formally if S Marshall wants to. I would say if I were to close it, there is a consensus to split here, but I haven't determined if there is a consensus how many or how to split. Andre🚐02:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
S Marshall joined the discussion instead, so he really shouldn't. If you'd like to write a closing summary (whatever you think is best), the please feel free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
You've already offered your opinion on splitting. Does that mean you're not supposed to close a discussion that you have participated in? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
