Jump to content

Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Testosterone

High levels of testosterone do not necessarily make humans more aggressive and less cooperative

I'm not sure that this is a common misconception, given the word "necessarily". Of course nothing is necessary in biology. The real question is whether testosterone level and level of aggression are positively correlated in humans. AxelBoldt (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. For me, there are several problems with this one - recentism, reliance on a single, very limited study, the self-promotion and claims made by its author, and the exaggeration of the study's significance by the media. Not surprisingly, journalists don't use moderate language in covering this sort of stuff - writing something like "one recent study suggests that the relationship between testosterone and aggressive behaviour may not be as clear as some people have assumed" is not as sexy as depicting a more polarised situation with words like 'debunk' and 'myth'.
The study's author's statements about how this "proves" such and such are not worth much - we need the views of acknowledged experts in the field about the significance of this work. Has there been a shift in consensus among the scientific community about the relationship between testosterone and human behaviour? I don't know that there has, and haven't found any reliable sources yet which really cover this - the exact role of testosterone in risk-taking, physical aggression, anti-social behaviour and recklessness may be more nuanced than was previously portrayed, but they are evidently still considered to be correlated.
This may be worth a re-write to make it more measured, but I'm not convinced there is a single common belief here, or that it has been conclusively disproved, rather than just qualified. --hippo43 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed this. It's not really a common misconception as it is political; people dislike it when biologists correlate anything physically measurable with behavioral changes. The link between testosterone and aggression is strong; however, it's obvious to almost everyone that an effect of a hormone on human behavior is not deterministic. In addition, testosterone has just as complicated effects on behavior in non-human animals. Basically there's nothing in this "misconception" that is true; no one believes that testosterone has a simple and deterministic effect on behavior, the link between aggression and testosterone (both organizational and activational) is strong, and testosterone also has complicated effects in animals. Lepidoptera (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. --hippo43 (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


Want to add something to this article?

Don't add a new section to the talk page and suggest something be added. No one's going to add it for you. Just add it (and make sure it meets the generally agreed-upon standards for inclusion in previous posts).

If you want to discuss whether something should be added, that's another thing. But try to avoid "drive-by" suggestions. Airborne84 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If it pertains to improving the article, then why not let them suggest subjects? Asher196 (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand. I don't WP:OWN this article. I'm just saying that it would be much better for people to actually add new subjects instead of just recommending them and moving on. After reading through the above, people have a lot of good ideas, but they are not adding them. They're just hoping someone else will do it. Since no one else seems to be taking the time to add other peoples ideas, it seems kind of fruitless to just do a "drive-by," doesn't it? Airborne84 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice! I will now add both my points to the Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, they warned me not to in another Section of this Page, the one that I started. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-oxygenated blood as blue

The article had this item: "Mammal blood is bright red or scarlet when oxygenated and a darker red when not oxygenated. It is never blue.[citation needed] Veins appear blue through the skin because of differential absorption of wavelengths of the blood's color by the overlying skin and flesh."
There is absolutely no evidence provided in the article that anyone thinks non-oxygenated blood is blue. I have now challenged this assumption, and therefore it needs to be sourced. I am 60 years old, and I have worked in the medical profession for over 30 years. I have never once encountered anyone who thought that any form of human blood is blue, or who was surprised to see the color of blood as red. Note that I am not challenging the idea that blood is not blue, because it isn't. I am challenging the assumption that any substantial number of people think that any form of human blood is blue. It needs a source, per WP:V. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I used to think that, and so did a large number of my class up till we actually were taught science in class- that is, up to age 8, I think. Because the encyclopedias seemed to say so. But it's not a common misconception once you get past that age, I don't think, so nobody's going to get a revelation from that. I think I thought that when you cut yourself, you always cut your arteries, so it was always red. Weird. That's actually quite embarrassing now. I have no issues with it not being in the article, and I agree with what you're saying. SS✞(Kay) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it may have been a misconception in the past (see blue blood) but I also doubt it's currently widely held. If no one has a source saying it's still a widely held belief I would support removing the entry. Rpvdk (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This is totally Original Research, but it was a widely-circulated "factoid" when I was younger that non-oxygenated blood is blue, and that it only takes the red color when either exposed to air or oxygenated via the lungs. So the thought was that red veins were coming from the lungs and blue going towards them. You could see both colors through the skin. Totally bogus I guess, but it was, at least in my hometown, one of those "hey, did you know that..." kinda things. --Replysixty (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The 10 biggest misconceptions we learn in school - School Gate - Times Online - WBLG

Here is an external link for your consideration.


Inclusion of "Double spacing at the end of sentences" into List of common misconceptions

This RfC enlists comments regarding the inclusion of the "Double spacing at the end of sentences" section in this article. The editor who added the section states that the topic meets the guidelines set forth in the lede of the article in that it is a "fallacious, misleading, or otherwise flawed idea that [is] described by multiple reliable sources as widely held." The contributing editor also asserts that it is well and reliably sourced. Opponents of the thread state that the topic does not belong in this article because the misconception is not factually incorrect and that, regardless of the view of the sources used, the alleged misconception could change in the future. It is further asserted that it is not, in fact, a "misconception" and does not belong here. Since these disagreements are seemingly unresolvable within the talk page, comments are requested. Relevant details are provided in the "Written Language" thread above (with a lengthy prior thread proving related information). Since this is a topic of some debate with many people, please comment specifically on whether the topic meets or does not meet Wikipedia policies and also fits within the defined scope of this section as a "misconception," according to the listed sources. Additional comments would be welcome on whether the topic, with modified language, could merit inclusion into the article. Airborne84 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Retain: Fits within the defined scope of the article, is extremely well sourced, and overall makes Wikipedia better. Opponents hold it to a higher and double standard not applied to numerous topics currently in the article. Airborne84 (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove all I can't see how any of the Written Language items belong: they are not misconceptions about facts. If some people choose to teach e.g. it's wrong to end a sentence with a preposition then that's what they know and what their students learn. But they are not wrong as there is no "correct" version of English they are violating: unlike other languages it is not standardised, there's are hundreds of varieties of it, and every comprehensive guide to it will be different. That they are different does not make some of them "right" and some of them "wrong".--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly why it's a misconception that you cannot split an infinitive and that you cannot end a sentence with a preposition. Please limit comments to the double spacing topic though. Other comments can be addressed in threads outside this RfC. Airborne84 (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
No, all three are related as described above by me and by other editors below, and there's no point debating this to it's obvious conclusion then restarting the same debate on the other two points. If we can reach consensus on all three in one go that's better for all of us.
On your point they are not common misconceptions as they are not facts: there is no "right" or "wrong" way. Some people prefer to not split their infinitives, some are happy to do so, some grammar books say one thing, some another. English is full of "rules" like that which are no more guidelines, based on best practice, which therefore vary greatly over time and between writers and target audiences. Do we need an entry for every one?--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see new thread below. Airborne84 (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove This article should be restricted to beliefs that are falsifiable and factually wrong. If people believe all bats are blind, that belief is falsifiable (can be shown to be untrue). This doesn't hold for matters of style or opinion. I fear that if this article is not restricted to factually incorrect beliefs, we will end up with a list of all sorts of ideas that are more a matter of opinion than verifiable fact. I don't believe WP:PRESERVE applies because the matter is exhaustively covered at double spacing at the end of sentences Rpvdk (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. I have pointed out several times above that the double-spacing thing is no misconception, just a fairly recent (and trivial) change in a convention. The other two language items are more plausible as misconceptions, but they don't really hold water either, as they are merely matters of opinion, not factual errors. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove all. I previously engaged in a lengthy discussion with Airborne detailing my opinions of this matter. While I think the current formulation is the best it's been, I remain unconvinced that the "commonly-held" beliefs Airborne documents are actually about typographers' professional consensus, but rather about general writing practice whether intended for publication or not. That is, they may be commonly held thoughts in general, but not about what typographers have determined is correct usage in their industry. Furthermore, I do not feel that, generally speaking, the public's conceptions about the typographers' stylistic preferences, whether they are accurate or not, belong in this article unless they are notable. They are not. As for the other items, the claims about whether it is "proper" to (boldly or otherwise) split an infinitive are not appropriate for this article. Just as the spacing issue had to be narrowed to the realm of typography, which then makes it non-notable and certainly irrelevant to most people's beliefs, when it comes to grammar, what's "proper" must be understood in context. That is, what is the scope of this judgment of "properness"? Who's making the judgement, and to whom do they apply this judgement? If this is ignored, one might envision another section that argues something like "the use of upper case characters at the beginning of sentences is commonly taught in schools. however writer and master poet e.e. cummings has demonstrated that it       is not      always             necessary." There's a disconnect there between the commonality of the perception, the scope of that perception, and the authority that is not unlike what I see across this entire "Language" section. Remove. --Replysixty (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see below for further discussion Airborne84 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The consensus against was for the reason that the "infinitive" and "preposition" entries were not factually incorrect. When I quoted the source to more clearly state the misconception, ElijahBenedict and SNALWIBMA rewrote the entries to clarify—addressing the concerns of the editors in the RFC. The consensus against was regarding a previous version of the entries. The current version has been edited to an acceptable version that fits the defined scope of the article. Airborne84 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, at most the re-write managed to shoehorn them into the article, rather than actually fit them in. Hairhorn (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - the objections above were not removed by this shoehorning. As Hans Adler has pointed out, the problem here is also about whether there can be such rules in English or not. There are sources which say "you mustn't split infintives" and there are sources which say "go ahead, split all you want," but there are also sources which say "English has no rules," while others say it does. I can't see this being resolved - trying desperately to make this fit isn't helping readers at all. --hippo43 (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if you had taken the time to read the below, you would see that we are all saying the same thing. There is a myth (sourced from the Oxford Manual of Style) that there is an authoritative rule in English that says "Never split an infinitive" and another inflexible and binding rule that says "Never end a sentence in a preposition." Most of us seems to agree that there is no such rule. The myth is then factually incorrect.
If you would like to claim that there is such a rule, you are welcome to your opinion. However, please provide a source IAW Wikpedia's WP:V and WP:RS before deleting properly sourced material again. If a more reliable and current source than the Oxford University Press (2009) states that such an inflexible English rule exists, I'll delete the entries myself.
Until a source is provided, I'll gladly revert deletions which violate Wikipedia policies. Airborne84 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see the rest of this discussion: the RFC has had the desired effect of establishing a clear consensus, that they do not belong and should be removed. Please drop it. No-one is going to re-engage with you in an argument you have already lost.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. Even though another editor rewrote the entries two weeks ago to specifically address the objections in the RFC, the entries are impeccably resourced (it doesn't get much better than that here at Wikipedia), and the entries fit precisely into the parameters described by the editors here—better than many in the article (including after SNALWIBMA reworded it as "factually incorrect"), it does seem to be rather pointless at this point, doesn't it?

  • It's strange that at this page, editors seem to gladly accept violations of Wikipedia's core policies in regard to these topics. The double spacing issue was clearly debatable. I didn't source the misconception as "factually incorrect," and the consensus here was that is a requirement for addition. These entries are not debatable—and in the langauge used and accepted by the editors here. I'm just not interested in pursuing this anymore, even though I'm following Wikipedia's core policies (and two other editors did by changing the words instead of deleting IAW WP:PRESERVE), and those that delete the entries in their entirety are violating these policies. For editors that are violating these policies, I recommend you familiarize yourselves with WP:PRESERVE, WP:V, and especially, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.
  • The objection to these entries at this point must then be (1) dislike of editor Airborne84, or (2) dislike of the subject matter. If it's me, fine. If it's the subject matter, that's too bad. That may be the case though, considering the "shoehorn" comment. Consider then, changing the hatnote invitation from "You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced additions," to "You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced additions...except for English language misconceptions and"...(insert any other subjects that editors here don't like).
  • Finally, no one decided that my recommendation of clearly stating the misconceptions up front in the article entries was worthwhile. That's too bad. What that means is that when someone sources a misconception with a website that allows editors to check the wording of the misconception to see if it's worded as factually incorrect, it should be fine. When an editor cites an Oxford University Press volume, with reliability only below peer-reviewed journal articles, that seems to be a problem. I imagine that's because the other editors here don't have the reference at within arms reach (although that is irrelevant under WP:V). Thus, editors that WP:IDON'TLIKEIT that specific entry "invent" nonfallacious wording that fits with their dislike, and just delete the entry. Who cares if the reliable source states it as a factually incorrect widespread misconception? Who cares if it violates a WP policy to just outright delete it? Who cares if it might make the article better for some readers? It's even better if you don't read the misconception as its worded when the contributor types it in for all to see (as one editor here clearly didn't care to do so).
  • Thus, I cannot contribute to this article anymore. I would probably use only reliable references that are not easily downloadable. For the Internet generation, that won't be acceptable, I can see. Since my good faith suggestion to modify the format of this article to mitigate that problem was ignored, I'll just leave this WP page alone, as a "bubble" in WP where the rules don't seem to apply.
  • I liked this article quite a bit when I first found it. Unfortunately, since my experience here has...soured...in the last 48 hours—I suspect I won't be returning. And I think that won't be a big loss for the editors here anyway. It's a win all around. Cheers. Airborne84 (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete article Lists in general really add nothing to Wikipedia that isn't provided by categories, and this pointless time-wasting dispute about nothing on a list that is by its very nature unmaintainable and infinite in scope is a good example of why they are actually harmful to the project. Dlabtot (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
See the discussion titled "DELETE?". I actually agree with you on this. Andrew Colvin (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

New RfC?

If the editors here would like to expand the scope of the above RfC, that would be acceptable to me. Of course, you may want to consider that you should be careful what you wish for, you might get it. We would then be discussing fans causing deaths in Korea in summer. It is not factually incorrect that fans cause deaths in Korea. It cannot be 100% ruled out. It is not factually incorrect that putting metal in microwaves causes damage. It depends on how it's done. It's not factually incorrect that the Great Wall of China is the only manmade object that can be seen from space. It's the opinion of experts. I'll refrain from continuing down the list. So, if we're going to continue propose striking multiple topics within the above RfC, I'll add an additional RfC with an expanded scope and include additional items listed in the article along the "theme" discussed as well since there is a double standard here. I understand the resistance to the double-space topic (although I don't agree), but the belief that sentences cannot end in a preposition, and infinitives cannot be split, is factually incorrect and represented as widespread misconceptions in multiple, reliable sources (I might mention that there are topics in this article with only a single listed source). I would personally not prefer to go down this road, as I'm not interested in destroying this article. Yet, if it transpires that the editors here are interested in redefining this article in such a way that only factual errors according to the laws of math and logic can be included, that may be the desired course of action (although the two langauge topics would still not fall into that category). Please let me know how the editors here would like to proceed on this matter.
Also, I keep seeing editors comparing these two language issues with other unnotable topics throughout the English language. Do we need to list every one? No. And we should not. But multiple reliable sources do not list the others as common or widespread misconceptions. That is the critical difference. And that is how the article is defined.
Finally, I keep seeing the word trivial thrown around with these three items. That seems to be another "criteria" that is rather strange. You have only to look at the topics within the article to see another double standard that is being applied here. Most of the items in this list are clearly trivia. How important and pressing an issue is the (unsourced) Humpty Dumpty topic? If we went through life not knowing about the teaspoon in the champagne bottle or the egg on the first day of spring misconception, would we be severely disadvantaged? Some editors here are under the misconception that it's OK for the line on what is "important" trivia to be driven by their own opinion, as opposed to the opinion of multiple reliable sources. That is in direct violation of a Wikipedia core policy, WP:V. If it were more than one or two editors, I would state that it would merit an RfC to have outside editors come in to look at the matter. Editorial consensus is one thing. Repeatedly stating a personal opinion that a topic is "too trivial" in face of the massive amount of reliably sourced evidence I posted above, and the standard set in the article to date, is quite another. You should stick to the argument that the "double spacing" issue is not "factually incorrect" and a matter of style. That, at least, has a basis in reason. Airborne84 (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand the rationale regarding the double-spacing topic. If no further outside editors weigh in in the next few days, I will let the matter drop. There is a misunderstanding about the other two topics with some editors here. Those misconceptions are different in nature from the double-spacing topic. The sources cited in the topics as they are written do not claim that it is "proper" or "preferred" to split infinitives or use a preposition at the end of a sentence. There is a widespread belief (taught by teachers, and described clearly by multiple reliable sources) that for "correct" English usage you cannot split and infinitive and you cannot end a sentence in a preposition. That is a misconception. There are sources that say it is fine to do so. The sources don't say it's "proper" to do so, they just say that it's incorrect to say that you cannot do so.
  • The Oxford Manual of Style (111-112): "Myth:4 Never split your infinitives." This Oxford University Press manual devotes two pages to describing how widespread this belief is, with a focus on England, using quotes from newspaper editors such as "Why on earth do people think that splitting an infinitive is wrong?" [my bold]. The section describes the history of the myth and illustrates that not only is it not wrong, to split an infinitive, in some cases it could be better to do so.
  • The same manual in pages 109-111: "Myth:4 Never end a sentence with a preposition." Three pages are devoted to the same.
These are also discussed in the other sources noted - also defining this as a widespread misconception. The title of the other book is clear enough.
This should be an adequate summary since I don't feel like typing out the multiple pages in the books. If there is a question regarding a certain point, I can provide the relevant text. However, we all seem to be saying the same thing. We all agree there are no "standard" rules for English grammar. There are many people that think there are - and that those rules state "Never split an infinitive" and "Never end a sentence in a preposition." The misconception that there are standard rules that describe these unbreakable rules - is factually incorrect. ElijahBenedict made a wording change to more clearly illustrate that misconception. I thought it was OK, although if another wording change is needed to more clearly illustrate exactly what the misconception is, that would be fine. Airborne84 (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that as soon as a critical mass of people decide that splitting an infinitve is wrong, they form a language community in which it is wrong. Language use is an important factor for determining to which social class you belong. If you want to be taken seriously as a linguist or as a writer, then you had better split your infinitives precisely when it makes sense. If you want to be a pretentious pseudo-intellectual of the newspaper pundit type, then you will have to boldly and unnecessarily split infinitives even where it hurts, or painfully to make sure that you leave them unsplit even when that is insane – depending on the current fashion in your peer group. If you go to school and want to optimise your grades, you had better do exactly what your teacher says, and often that means not splitting.
Split avoidance is a marker for higher social class and lower intelligence, but probably not a very good one for either.
Depending on the group you want to belong to it can be wrong to split an infinitive. This is not the misconception. The real misconception is that the rule for not splitting infinitives is originally based on anything other than a historical ideology about the applicability of Latin grammar rules to English, personal preferences by some people who have long been dead now, and a chain of authors who copied from each other and made certain rules stronger and stronger in each step.
This real misconception is hard to explain and probably even harder to source, so I think we shouldn't even try. This can and should be discussed somewhere, but the silly "misconceptions" format is not a good way of doing so. Hans Adler 18:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
This would have been an appropriate line of reasoning in support of "Retain" for the double-spacing RfC. Interesting that now it comes up here - against another language topic. Anyaway, that's behind us. What you state as the "real misconception" is quite easy to source, since I have a number of reliable sources that describe it in great detail. However, it would be folly approaching absurdity for me to attempt another go at a language topic on this page. They are clearly not welcome. Were I not to accept that and move on, I would be as guilty as the same editors I have seen who sufffer from cognitive closure on other pages. Airborne84 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not interested in further debate on the preposition/infinitive topic, and I am definitely not interested in opening an RfC or pursuing another action that might damage this article. I am here (at Wikipedia) to make Wikipedia better, not worse. If the editors here see a distinction between what has been described as "non-factual" misconceptions I have contributed (despite some disagreement on that matter by myself and at least one other editor), and the "non-factual" topics that seem to be already spread throughout the article, fine. If the editors here agree that these topics truly detract from the article, as opposed to adding value, fine. Feel free to delete them. Airborne84 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Reverted the section regarding prepositions and split infinitives. The statement "there is no rule against ending sentences with a preposition" is verifiably false. Just ask anyone whose ever had a paper or essay downgraded for this gramatical "error." We can debate the validity of rules imposed by thousands of teachers and professors in their classrooms; but the existance of such "rules" (in the sense of enforced standards) is provable.ElijahBenedict (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, what you are describing violates WP:OR. There's no room here for the debate of opinions that teachers hold in their classrooms. You can only use primary, secondary, and tertiary sources here on Wikipedia. Secondary sources are preferred, tertiary sources are OK. Primary sources can be used, with care. There's a good reason for that. A reliable source (e.g. peer-reviewed journal, University press) would not let pass a work stating that there is an English rule that prohibits ending a sentence in a preposition. Yes, you could go out and have a teacher tell you that there is a "rule stating you can't end a sentence in a preposition." I had an English teacher recently tell me that books and magazines in the U.S. were published with two spaces between sentences, and that I should go look for myself in a bookstore. I just smiled. Opinions and preferences are all part of misconceptions, and they do not fall within the three categories of acceptable sources. You can only use sources according to WP:V. I thought SNALWIBMA's change was accurate and for the better. However, I'm staying hands off of the editing. Airborne84 (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommended change to lede and scope of article

I need to break away from this page (although the hearty discussion has been invigorating, to be sure) and concentrate on the multiple works I'm actually trying to finish for publication. I'd like to leave with a few (hopefully useful) parting comments:

1. The wording in the lede should be changed. I've been confronted with a bewildering array of arguments against the Double spacing at the end of sentences topic.

It could change in the future (ignoring the entrapment law topic, among others)
It's not factually incorrect (ignoring the three topics stated above, among others)
It's not notable enough (regardless of its notability in sources)
Etc.

I don't really agree that either of the first two is grounds for excluding a misconception, especially if well supported. I think the key litmus test is notability, or in other words, the magnitude of the misconception. For example, there is a misconception that U.S. President Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen. There is a large article devoted to that at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I'll admit that it might be hard to sum up in a few sentences. It could theoretically change in the future (maybe a 0.001% chance), and we cannot know it is not factually incorrect. Yet, it would make a worthy addition to this article (my litmus test would be if it raises people's eyebrows in surprise and gets them investigating further) because it is still a very important topic (in American society), even though it has been thorougly debunked.

OK, so the editors here want to define the article to exclude a notable topic such as that. I can see why. You don't want a flood of similar, but less notable, topics diluting this article. Fine. My recommendation would be to change the lede to reflect that consensus within the article. Instead of "This list of common or popular misconceptions corrects various fallacious, misleading, or otherwise flawed ideas," instead perhaps consider the wording "This list of common or popular misconceptions corrects various factually incorrect ideas." Since that is the wording used by the majority of editors here to describe the criteria for inclusion, it cannot help but to place that precise language in the lede. My opinion was that the double-spacing issue fell into the "misleading or otherwise flawed ideas" category. Had "factually incorrect" been specified, I would have worded the topic in another way. For example, I could have supported the factually incorrect widespread (American) misconception that books, magazines, and newspapers are published with two spaces between sentences. It is easy to see that is factually incorrect. I chose to define it in the latter two terms, which allowed for a greater coverage of the misconception, in my opinion. I find the entire matter disappointing because I put quite a bit of effort (in good faith) into researching what I thought was a useful addition to this article, but was confronted with a bewildering array of counters that are not explained will in the lede. Changing the lede to sharpen the parameters of this article can only help. If it helps prevent future confusion, I might feel that my time was not spent in vain.

2. The misconceptions should be clearly stated up front. I'm not sure what the rationale is behind the the wording in the lede: "The statements below are not the misconceptions, but are the actual facts regarding those misconceptions." Why not just format the topics in the article as follows?

  • Misconception: The Forbidden Fruit was an apple. The forbidden fruit mentioned in the Book of Genesis is commonly believed to be an apple, and is widely depicted...
  • Misconception: Never end a sentence with a preposition. Multiple scholarly sources state that a sentence could end in a preposition...
  • Misconception: a Fatwā is a death sentence. A fatwā is a religious opinion on Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar, not a death sentence.
In this formulation you would have to say Misconception: Modern typographers recommend a double space after a period in works to be published using a proportionally-spaced font. I don't think people generally have that conception about typography. You would also need to qualify the other misconceptions regarding grammar: Misconception: The wide majority of experts on English grammar expressly prohibit (or recommend against) ending a sentence with a preposition. I do think this is probably a common misperception (and one which is easy to cite) when phrased like that. I don't think a the former example would be very easy to substantiate (the commonly-held belief, not the consensus of typographers). I haven't seen any polls that ask the public about what typographers do. --Replysixty (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • ReplySixty, you phrased those badly. I at least tried to put a good faith effort in describing opposing opinions in the RfC. I'm not sure why I don't get the same courtesy. Given the recent conversations, I would have stated the misconceptions as: (1) Misconception: There is an authoritative English grammar rule that prohibits ending a sentence with a preposition. (2) Misconception: Two spaces must be inserted after the terminal punctuation of a sentence in written English. (that is factually incorrect, typographers simply offer the most unanimous opinion on refuting the misconception, style guides also are clear on the matter, but there are a very few caveats. I could have sourced and worded it in about twenty ways, but the misconception as stated is factually incorrect. There are sources that indicate the single space is allowed, preferred, and/or correct.) If editors had tried to figure out how best to phrase it to fit the context they wanted the article defined in, instead of outright deletions of the topic, this process might have been easier. Spilt milk. And I sense it's not a great loss to the editors here anyway.
  • Regardless, there is no need to respond to this particular thought. My intent here was not to reignite discussion on these topics. It was to provide examples to illustrate how the misconceptions could be added to the beginning of each of the listed topics already in the article, and also required in the future. That way, it is clear that it is worded (and properly sourced) in a manner that describes it as factually incorrect. The contributing editor may be thinking of a wording that renders the misconception as "factually incorrect," and another editor may read it - render his/her own wording (in the absence of any wording in the article), and decide "that [insert wording I just came up with] is not factually incorrect." Define the misconception in bold (or at least clearly) at the beginning, and these issues will be mitigated, if not simply avoided completely. Airborne84 (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I bring this up because there was an obvious misunderstanding that the preposition/infinitive topics were implying that it was proper to split infinitives, or that the misconception was something else. Those topics aside (since all language misconceptions seem to be out of the scope of this article, regardless of sourcing), I suggest that there will be less confusion among the editors in the future if the misconception is clearly stated up front.

Again, just suggestions. Take them or leave them. Cheers! Airborne84 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Coriolis Effect: Removed reference to Coriolis effect being fictitious force. The Coriolis effect's nature as a fictitious force is not the reason it has no effect on the direction of flow in a toilet bowl. The circumstances in play are the scale of the system (to small for the Coriolis effect to affect), and the water being forced into the bowl at an angle (creating it's own direction of flow.) Hence the Coriolis effect being a fictitious force is irrelevant to the misconception. Moreover, the inclusion of the term "fictitious force" here, under a list of "common misconceptions", and without explanation of its technical meaning, actually engenders a new misconception for the lay reader. Namely, that the Coriolis Effect is somehow imaginary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElijahBenedict (talk • contribs) 01:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Split personality =/= Schizophrenia

Is it not a very widespread misconception that split personality, or Dissociative identity disorder, is a necessary feature of schizophrenia? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It is. It might be considered more of a misnomer, though, since the Greek roots of "schizophrenia" literally mean "split mind". --FOo (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Added the misconception of venomous versus poisonous snakes.

Sorry, I keep trying to add:

  1. ^ "Poison vs Venom". Retrieved 2010-04-29.
  2. ^ "Venomous Versus Poisonous". Robert C. Jadin. Retrieved 2010-04-29.

And wikipedia won't let me, even though I've cited two reliable resources. (Ora Stendar (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

That's not a misconception. People don't say "snakes are poisonous" because they think they are bad to eat or touch. They say "snakes are poisonous" meaning their bite is deadly. "Poison" is one of those words that often gains more meaning from context. If I say "my coffee's been poisoned" I mean to it's poisonous to drink. If I say a jellyfish is poisonous everyone knows I mean it's poisonous to touch (and often good to eat - like a snake). "Poisonous gas" is poisonous to inhale. "Poison darts" are poisonous if fired at you. And so on. I'm sure there's a proper linguistic term for this, but "poison" is one of those words that means different things in different contexts, and is understood perfectly without misconception.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Ora, you fail to get the point here. There is no objection to your information about the difference between poison and venom. The issue is whether this is a common misconception. You have not provided an adequate, reliable source that this is a widespread misconception. As an analogy, I could claim that there is a common misconception that the moon is made of cheese. It doesn't matter how many sources I cite that the moon is not made of cheese; the fallacy is in the assumption that it is a widespread misconception. You have not demonstrated reliably that the venom-poison issue is a widespread misconception. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a misconception because on tv and elsewhere, the two words are used intravenously.
Ora, your observation of what's on TV is not a reliable source. Read WP:RS. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
And I've never heard of a word used "intravenously". ~Amatulić (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Is cobra venom, for example, not poisonous? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the quantity. Water can be poisonous in certain quantities, as can oxygen. The point is pretty well summed up at the top of the article, which states the list "corrects various fallacious, misleading, or otherwise flawed ideas that are described by multiple reliable sources as widely held" (Emphasis added)
It seems to me, Ora, that you're nitpicking over semantics. There are plenty of widely held misconceptions out there. Get a better one and improve the article! UncleBubba (Talk) 13:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sugar

I challenge the sugar vs. hyperactive misconception. While true that it doesn't cause hyperactivity in normal children, it can be a factor with a preexisting medical condition. Also the studies available to be seem flawed. http://www.emaxhealth.com/37/894.html looks at one of the studies. For one, it says the samples size is too small; which I have to agree.

From the New England Journal of Medicine: Volume 330:355-356, February 3, 1994, Number 5S Sugar clearly does not induce psychopathology where there was none before, but it may on occasion aggravate an existing behavior disorder. Sugar-free diets can be burdensome and socially inhibiting, and they should not be endorsed purely on the basis of anecdotal evidence. The potential usefulness of such a diet for a particular child should first be determined by putting the child on a temporary elimination diet and acquiring behavior ratings from several observers.

I have seen great changes in a few children when sugar is cut down. I can also tell when someone has feed the child with sugar without my knowledge. My sister, now in her 40s, is such an example. She went through a great behavior change when she cut down sugars in her mid-20s. Interestingly, the children I have seen great changes in behavior also have problems from low sugar. Often, they become quite irritable before meals. TeacherJeff (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple of problems with what you're saying. First of all, the article states that sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children. There's a difference between causing and exacerbating a problem. There is no evidence that sugar causes hyperactivity. Secondly, one of the sources you link above is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal article and thus unacceptable for an issue such as this one. Neither are your anecdotal personal observations which are very much subject to observer bias and lack of scientific rigor. And there's a substantial difference between "behavior change" or "irritable before meals" and a diagnosis of ADHD. The New England Journal of Medicine article in no way contradicts the statements in the article. In fact, it confirms that "Sugar clearly does not induce psychopathology". 71.77.20.119 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

DELETE?

I used to be a fan of reading this article but over time I think the quality is much lower and the information is starting to become convoluted. It is great to have information on “common misconceptions” but this topic surfaces some major issues when it comes to context and audience. These are common misconceptions to whom? Who decides what a “widespread” common misconception is?

To some, topics in the article are not misconceptions and “misconceptions” are different in different places. It seems that there is a constant battle for inclusion and exclusion of subject matter in the article, when in actuality, the article shouldn’t even exist. Why can’t these “misconceptions” just be explained on pages about each topic? I KNOW that ALL of the topics listed have main articles that could easily explain this. Why have a page compiling a bunch of misconceptions? I propose if we keep this article that we make another article called list of common facts. This way we can compile the whole of Wikipedia into one article!

Yes that is absurd, but it goes to show that having a common misconnection article is just as absurd.

I do know that many parts of this article are good (e.g. some of the science and history sections, especially the evolution section). However, the articles objections to evolution explains all this in great detail. The articles on science and the methods of science explain “theory” and “theory” clearly. The article on blood makes it clear that blood is not blue. The article on sushi will clearly show that sushi is not the fish. Reading the bible will show you that it says “fruit” as opposed to apple.

All of the topics can be added to (or are already in) the main article on the subject.

There are so many misconceptions out there. The younger you are, the more misconceptions there are. When I was little I used to think that gas prices were cheap, but little did I know that the gas was ‘per gallon’! Should this be considered a misconception? No because it’s not a wide consensus. But, what if I found 1000’s of people who had thought the same thing? Who is the audience here? A misconception to an African child in Zambia may be completely different than a Tibetan adult in the Himalayas. Misconceptions are so relative!

Thoughts? Andrew Colvin (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you have some valid points, although I don't think the article needs to be thrown out entirely. I think it needs to be limited to a few clear examples. I was involved in a similar discussion on Misnomers. That article attracts crap like a magnet, primarily because most people who add to the article really don't know what a misnomer is. A few of us finally achieved a consensus (albeit from a small number of editors) to limit that article to a few examples. To help achieve this, I resectioned the article with a heading "Examples" and with hidden comments throughout the article stating that by consensus the number of examples will be limited. So far that seems to be working. Perhaps something similar should be done to this article. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
My own preference would be to rewrite this article so that it summarizes only those misconceptions described more fully in other articles. That way, the arguments about sources would disappear, because the sources should already be in the main articles of each subject. In other words, it's a notability thing: If a "common misconception" isn't notable enough to be described in the main article on the subject, then it isn't notable enough to be listed here. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see this sent off to the big online encyclopedia in the sky, because it is a magnet for so much crap and so many crap-peddlers, and because reliable sources often do not differentiate between what is a common misconception among biology professors and what is a common misconception among Indian schoolchildren. And because so many journalists use the "common misconception" meme to hang their non-stories on. There seems to be no real way to gain consensus about real common misconceptions.
That said, if it is to survive, I don't think that it should be restricted to a few examples. It is a list, not an article about misconceptions, so should include whatever genuine reliable sources say are common misconceptions. Wikipedia can't be used as a source for itself, so sources need to be supplied here. Allowing sources used in other articles to suffice here would create an article impossible to monitor. --hippo43 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You also have a point, although I think without restricting the article to a few examples, there will never be a middle ground; it will always be a crap magnet. So my opinion at this point, unless someone can come up with a better idea, is to either restrict the number of examples or get rid of the article altogether. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you propose as a title for the article? "List of some misconceptions"? Or make it an article about misconceptions? --hippo43 (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that there is an appropriate title, or that there is a solution other than to get rid of the article. But my point is that without restrictions, the crap will continue to pile up. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, and as long as the contributions are referenced, I say leave it alone. Asher196 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

These are some good thoughts. I think it either needs to be allowed to have LOTS of different misconceptions without all these restrictions by the “seniority” on Wikipedia or limited to be very restricted. It seems like people’s misconceptions are removed all the time even when they are cited. There are some misconceptions that I used to think were true myself long ago and this article showed me otherwise, however, some of those misconceptions are no longer listed because it is a battle for acceptable “widespread” misconceptions.
Asher, you are right it’s a good article, but can’t you see some of the issues with allowing as many misconceptions as possible just because they are cited?
Hippo, your comment brings me back to what I said before though. Maybe we should have an article that is a list of common facts. It’s a tough issue with this type of thing. It’s a crap magnet, but also a good crap magnet. :/
71.77.20.119, we always HATE to get rid of reasonable information, but deletion is acceptable if this information can be spread into the main articles of the topics discussed.
Over all it seems that the article should be kept for now, but I think we need to take a look at ALL the main articles on the individual topics and see if the misconception is mentioned. If it’s mentioned, is it grounds for removal off of this article? Agree? Disagree? Andrew Colvin (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I support Amatulić's idea that only misconceptions that are described more fully in other articles should be allowed. That automatically reduces the crap, but doesn't limit the number of items in the article or forbid any specific misconception per se. Right now it's just too easy for someone to add the first misconception that pops in his/her head with little regard to its validity. If the misconception must be mentioned and sourced in another article, that provides a double measure to guarantee reliable sourcing and notability.
I realize we're not voting, but with my support of Amatulić's idea, that makes that point of view the one with the most weight of support, for now anyway. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea of restricting this to examples which appear in other articles doesn't seem to have any basis in policy, so I think there is already community consensus on the issue. --hippo43 (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I actually think it should be the opposite! I think that the subjects mentioned in this article should ONLY be one’s that do NOT fit in other articles. For example: If the article on objections to evolution mentions the information listed on here then it should be removed from here. If the article on the tongue, taste buds or taste mentions the same thing that is listed in this article, it should be removed from this article. There is no need to reproduce the same information all over Wikipedia. If one wants to learn about warts then they should be able to read the warts article and learn that they are caused by HPV, not toads. People should not be directed to read a sloppy list of misconceptions to learn that this information. Why can’t you just learn it from the main article? Andrew Colvin (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm defending this article (sort of), but the whole point is that these things are connected by being misconceptions. Readers can go to objections to evolution if they want to read about objections to evolution, but if they are interested in misconceptions, this is the article for them. There is no reason to avoid having the related info in two different places - this happens with all kinds of stuff here, and the world keeps turning. --hippo43 (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I still disagree, however, if anything is to be in this article, then it better be accurate with what main pages say. I just found for example that the cooking section on mussels is differing from what the article on mussels says. This kind of junk is expected because it’s a crap magnet. A main article should always have precedence over the topic in this article. Andrew Colvin (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I think this article does have a place on wikipedia. It is a high maintenance article though. In my view, as long as the article restricts itself to beliefs which can be shown to be factually wrong and are plausible as commonly held misconceptions, there should be no problem. I do think that individual items need to be limited to just explaining what is wrong about the belief with at most a small bit of context, if the item goes into a lengthy in depth explanation the article loses its "list" character and becomes an incoherent mass of information. Rpvdk (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding hippo's comment "The idea of restricting this to examples which appear in other articles doesn't seem to have any basis in policy": If there is no policy against doing this, it is fine as long as there is consensus here. I know of no such policy. If you do, please link it here. Thanks. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, there is no "precedence" of other articles. There is repeated info about people and subjects all over wikipedia - what matters is that it is reliably sourced. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, per WP:V, so the appropriate sources need to be cited here.
Rpvdk, being "plausible as commonly held misconceptions" is not enough - they need to be reliably sourced as actual common misconceptions. I agree entirely they should be brief explanations only, without any of the additional guff from editors who want to show how clever and pedantic they are.
65, WP:NPOV covers selective inclusion of sourced material. There may be a case for debating which entries enjoy significant coverage in reliable sources, but it will be an ugly debate and will make this article even higher maintenance in future. If this is a list of common misconceptions, I don't see how we can exclude material which meets the criteria - being described by multiple reliable sources as a widespread misconception. That an idea is "widespread" or "common" is a judgment made by reliable sources, not by us. There was a suggestion in the past to spin sections out into their own articles if they reached critical mass, so there could be, for example, a separate List of common misconceptions in science article containing all the science examples, and linked from here. That might be preferable to some people, and would be worth discussing, but would seem to defeat the purpose of having misconceptions of all types listed in one place. --hippo43 (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing in WP:NPOV that forbids a consensus on a particular list to include only items that are referred to in other articles. In fact, there are other lists that are restricted to items that are covered in other articles for the very reason of keeping out non-notable junk. As just one example (of many), List of record labels has hundreds of items, only two of which do not have Wikipedia articles. List of flautists has only one red link (and these red links may very well be deleted soon). I could provide other examples, but the point is that there is nothing prohibiting us from restricting this list to items that are in other articles if we have consensus. As I said earlier, in the absence of any specific policy that clearly prevents us from doing so, what we decide by consensus here prevails. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
There absolutely is and must be precedence over articles! If for example the vestigial structures page has a section on human vestigial structures. This section should NOT have any extra or contradictory information than the main article on human vestigial structures. I know there is repeating information all over Wikipedia, but things do have precedence only when the same topic is being discussed on different pages. This article for example would have a lesser precedence under all the main topics. If there is information on this page that clearly contradicts or is not mentioned on the main article, then it better get fixed, or it’s gone. An encyclopedia deserves no contradictions when it comes to duplication of material.
That being said, it’s obvious that we have a consensus here. The article stays the way it is no matter what crap gets put in. Tha::nkfully we have a number of contributors that keep an eye on garbage that gets thrown about in the article. Lol!
I agree 65.41.234.70! Andrew Colvin (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Andrew, your view on precedence is interesting and idealistic, but as far as I can tell it has no basis in reality or in policy. --hippo43 (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Andrew, I'm unsure which position you're taking, but I think you're against restricting to items that are mentioned in other articles. Your example is a weak one. Some lists by their nature are limited (such as vestigial structures). "Misconceptions" theoretically could be infinite. Either way, your example does not forbid limiting any particular list, and there is no policy against limiting a particular list by consensus; if you think there is, then please link that policy here.
And I must state that you are flat wrong that we have consensus. How did you arrive at that conclusion? 65.41.234.70 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course it would be best if we had a doctoral thesis on exactly how common each misconception is, but misconception-ology is not a common field of study. WP:COMMON warns against being overly engrossed in rules. I believe that if an item is plausible as being a widely held misconception (even if limited to a certain field like music) it can be retained in the article. I certainly don't advocate letting this article grow uncontrolled (I've argued for removing items before) but on the other hand we need to try and retain information where we can. Rpvdk (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Except it can't be retained if it's only plausible as a misconception. If that entry is challenged, as it probably would be, then it requires a reliable source to explicitly state that it is a common misconception. I agree that we need to try and retain notable, reliably-sourced information when we can. --hippo43 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I must agree with hippo on this. If every misconception that you, I, or everyone's uncle considered plausible was to be accepted, this undoubtedly would be the longest article in Wikipedia history. Just look at the edit history of how many items have been added by someone who would swear an oath that it's a widespread misconception (e.g., blood is blue, most people consider all snake bites poinsonous, etc. etc. etc.) and were rather quickly deleted. Every item should be verifiable with a reliable source as a widespread misconception. That said, I still think we should restrict the article to items that are mentioned in other articles. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't agree with you more on this 65.41.234.70! The only problem is WHO decides what is a "widespread" misconception? What kind of sources prove that it is "widespread"? Thats what I want to know. Andrew Colvin (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That's precisely why we need the requirement that every item is mentioned (and properly sourced as a widespread misconception) in another Wikipedia article. That puts A LOT more eyes on the purported misconception (being in two articles), thus much more likely to be challenged and removed if it isn't a common misconception. That's not a perfect solution to keep the crap out, but it's better than anything else mentioned here. If it isn't worthy enough to be mentioned in a broader article (and stay in the article), then it shouldn't be here. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC) (same editor as 65.41.234.70, now back at my evening IP)
If you want to add these entries to the relevant individual articles, go ahead. There is no requirement for these to appear in individual articles, and nor should there be. Think through the practical problems posed by your idea - for example, what if someone removes the misconception from the other article - does it stay here or what? This is an article about misconceptions - why would the nonsense about balancing eggs appear in another article? Where would it go? (Eggs? Spring?) Why would untrue but widely believed crap actually appear in another article at all? Dumb idea. --hippo43 (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
"There is no requirement for these to appear in individual articles": There isn't right now. There could be by consensus. It's that simple, and that's my major point about this issue.
"what if someone removes the misconception from the other article - does it stay here or what": If the consensus was such, it would be removed here.
"why would the nonsense about balancing eggs appear in another article": If it's nonsense that does not belong in another article, then it does not belong here. If it is not nonsense, it could go in a number of articles, including Equinox, which, in fact, is where it has been for at least two years.
Watch your tone, hippo ("dumb idea"). Your opinions about a requirement for an item to be in another article are perfectly acceptable here, but let's make it clear that we are talking about opinions (mine, yours, and anyone else who comments here). And when opinions differ with no policy deciding the matter one way or another, these differences of opinion are resolved by consensus. Your opinion (or mine) doesn't carry any more weight than any other opinion. So let's see whether a consensus develops. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


65, please don't patronise me, and please think carefully about what you write. In no way is "dumb idea" a personal attack, i.e. an attack on a person. As you say, this is all about opinions. In my opinion, this is a dumb idea.
As for consensus about what to include, there is already consensus across the community on what to include in articles - WP:NPOV requires that all articles proportionately reflect coverage in reliable sources.
There are misconceptions about all kinds of things - most articles about X don't include "some stupid people stupidly believe blah blah blah about X, when in fact Y is true" - they just state that Y is true. What editors decide to include elsewhere is irrelevant to discussions that take place here. Linking this article's content to what other groups of editors decide is appropriate is just ridiculous. As well as being undesirable, if you don't see how unworkable this would be, I don't know what to tell you.
If you want to seriously reshape what this aricle is about, I have no objection to discussing it. However, it is important that a very short-term consensus does not overshadow the long-established consensus here. Without involving interested editors who have made significant contributions here, this is a very limited discussion.
Re eggs and equinoxes, my point is simple - at most it is marginally notable enough to be included in eggs, spring, equinox, China, or whatever. The article talk pages are the right place for those discussions. What is not in question is that it is a common misconception, at least according to the sources given, so it obviously belongs in this article. It is nonsense in the same way most of this article is about nonsense - i.e. stupid ideas that many stupid people stupidly believe. It is exactly because it is nonsense that it belongs here and not in other articles. It doesn't really matter whether you or I think it's a widespread misconception, if reliable sources say it is. --hippo43 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


No patronizing. And it is, in fact, a personal attack, so consider this your first warning since you refuse to acknowledge it. It's fine to say that an opinion or proposed solution is not workable, limited in scope, or a host of other non-personal descriptors. "Dumb idea" is a personal reflection of the writer of the idea. And your false accusation of patronizing borders on another personal attack. I will remind other editors that hippo has received several blocks for edit warring and vandalism. At one time he was an indef'd user. His tone in this very discussion (and not just with me, with others here also) illustrates his hostile approach to those who disagree with him. Look at his talk page history.
Disagree that WP:NPOV in any way forbids us from creating a consensus about what is the scope of this article.
"What editors decide to include elsewhere is irrelevant to discussions that take place here'": Disagree. Articles that share subject matter can be relevant to each other. That happens quite frequently on Wikipedia.
I didn't mention any "short-term" consensus. I mentioned consensus. Don't put words in my mouth.
I've never argued that the egg example is a common misconception. Again, don't put words in my mouth. You claimed that there is no reasonable place such a misconception (if it is worthy to be included here) could be mentioned in another article. You were wrong. The fact is, there usually is another article which can contain a miconception mentioned here. To create a claim (in this case an inaccurate one) that no other article could contain a specific misconception (any misconception, not just eggs) as a means of arguing against the idea that that is a requirement for inclusion here is a logical fallacy and avoids the real issue. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


Please don't split my comments up - I've reordered your replies above. Also, your replies suggest you haven't actually read what I wrote or the policy I referred to - please take the time to read them carefully before commenting.
Specifically, I didn't say you mentioned short-term consensus - don't put words in my mouth.
Likewise I didn't say you said "the egg example is a common misconception". Again, don't put words in my mouth.
Further, I did not claim "that there is no reasonable place such a misconception (if it is worthy to be included here) could be mentioned in another article" - again, don't put words in my mouth.
I've no idea which logical fallacy you think I would have perpetrated if I had said the things you mistakenly believe I said.
"Dumb" in my comment above clearly refers to the idea, not the individual - if someone said to a user "You are dumb for suggesting X", that might be a (very mild) personal attack. I don't intend to discuss your misunderstanding of personal attacks any further. I'm sure you can guess what I make of your "warning". I suggest you stop seeking offence and stick to the discussion at hand.
WP:NPOV requires editors to proportionately reflect what appears in reliable sources, and does not make any provision for editors to use other articles as a guage of how much (or if at all) to cover something - that seems clear to me. Also relevant is WP:RS, which states that wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. It is obvious to me that while there is natural overlap between articles about, say, George Washington, with editors working on several related articles and ensuring consistency, there is no basis for using an article about history to make decisions on an article about misconceptions. --hippo43 (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately for all of us (except your ego), I don't have to engage in inane and pointless bickering with you. You will not drive me away from this page, however, despite your great efforts to do so. I will engage in reasonable discussion with other editors, and I will closely watch your tone with other editors. But this is the end of discussion (and I use that term very loosely) between you and me. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no desire to drive you away. I am happy to discuss improving the article, though you've seemed keen to focus on procedural details rather than the actual discussion. You seem to know quite a lot about policies and blocks etc, maybe more than your contributions history would suggest - do you have a user account that you've used in the past? It would be easier to discuss things, and less confusing, if you were able to log in. --hippo43 (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
That is what I was trying to say earlier hippo. Topics that have relevance in other articles should go to other articles. If it can’t be placed in another article (i.e. egg balancing) then it should stay here. That would weed out a ton of junk and continue to keep “common” “random” misconceptions. Andrew Colvin (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not what you were trying to say earlier - I didn't say remove them from here, just add them elsewhere as well, if you want them to appear in more specific articles. There is no good reason to avoid including these in more than one place. Making this list inevitably less complete is a dumb idea. Consider how much time would be spent removing "George Washington didn't have wooden teeth", and explaining that this is because it also appears in George Washington, every time someone added it again. Consider how many times this discussion would re-appear here. Of all the suggestions so far, "List of common misconceptions, not including the well-known ones that appear in other articles" is probably the most pointless. --hippo43 (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Well you have made NO attempt to even budge at making a change. Since you’re the “boss”, you make the calls bud. I say just leave the shit as it is. There is no point in trying to make this article better because it shouldn’t even exist. This is quite apparent because it has been suggested for major change and deletion numerous times. Andrew Colvin (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about. Look through the archives here and it's very obvious I have been trying to address this article's problems for a very long time. I'm under no illusions that I'm the boss.
Here are my thoughts on how we should proceed, ranked in order of preference - 1: Delete the article. (But that's not going to happen - there are simply too many editors who support it) 2: Make it as exhaustive as possible, covering genuine widespread misconceptions, backed up by very good quality referencing, and sticking to the long-established criteria about what to include, which have been shaped by a number of committed editors, many of whom ahven't commented here yet. 74: Make a total balls of it by removing the most widely-covered misconceptions to other articles, leaving a rump of an article - a pointless incomplete list of crap no one is interested in.
It's nothing personal, but I don't understand why you expect me to compromise, to move my position toward what is so transparently a stupid idea and which would make for an even worse and impossible to maintain article. --hippo43 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I am done discussing this. You are filled with insults and attacks on others ideas and there is no working with you. I don’t know if others still feel as if they can discuss, but I sure can’t so I am out. Andrew Colvin (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

List of misconceptions about the brain

List of misconceptions about the brain is a short article that really could belong listed in this article with shorter summaries. I decided to state this here because it’s clear that the brain misconception article gets very little attention. Do we really need a whole page about these misconceptions when there only seems to be a few overstated facts? Thoughts? Andrew Colvin (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. That article needs serious decrapification, then anything that's left should be merged into this one. --hippo43 (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I will work on it in a little bit. It can't be too hard and it is referenced alot so merging wont be hard. Andrew Colvin (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Music examples

These were removed to this talk page months ago, and have been put back in without discussion. As far as I can tell, they are not widely-held misconceptions, and I can't find anything in the sources supplied to confirm that they are.

--hippo43 (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you honestly read each and everyone of those sources to verify the information isn't there? Can you please scan and upload a copy of page 61 of the book Milestones: The Music And Times Of Miles Davis so I can verify it as well? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I stated above that I couldn't find anything in the sources to confirm that they were common misconceptions, so yes, I did check. No, I can't scan a copy of the page. Rather than showing reluctance to assume good faith, can you let us know if you can find any claim that these are common misconceptions in the sources? (2 of the 3 are available online) They were removed months ago, and have been restored without discussion. As the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wants to restore them, it is on them to produce a supporting quote from the source when it has been challenged. If you want to restore these, can you let us know which passages in the sources support you?
More to the point, what are the misconceptions being claimed here? It isn't clear to me at all. --hippo43 (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:AGF works both ways. Another editor has claimed that it does support this content. I don't have access to this book so there's no way I can determine who's right. Luckily, this should be simple. Just upload a scan of the book and we can settle this matter very quickly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The other editor involved has not even articulated what he thinks the misconception is, and hasn't engaged in the discussion started above several months ago - he simply restored material without attempting to clarify the challenged source. As I said above, I'm not able to supply a scan - I suggest you start to assume good faith. I don't own the copy of the book I checked, or have access to a scanner. The burden of evidence is on those who want to restore material, not on me. Therefore the burden of producing a scan, or quoting the relevant passage, lies with the editor/s who wish to restore material - I suggest you check yourself or ask Hearfourmewesique for a scan. I have no idea which part he thinks supports his assertion that there is a common misconception here. --hippo43 (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
All this arguing about uploading a scan, when Google Books has already done it. Page 61 is here. While it doesn't say that it's a "common" misconception that Charlie Parker wrote a composition that Miles Davis actually wrote, it does say that the error was perpetuated on numerious re-issues. In spite of this error, the source quotes someone who suspected the error. So in a sense this may be a common misconception due to a widely-published error, but on the other hand it isn't a common misconception because anyone intimately familiar with the works of both Parker and Davis suspected Davis wrote that particular piece.
I'd say it's a wash, probably not a misconception at all among Davis afficionados in spite of being perpetuated by a publisher. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, but it doesn't give me a scan of the page - the page I get gives info about the book but says "No preview available". If it lets you access the whole page, is there anything in there that supports the assertion that there is a misconception, and that it is widely held? --hippo43 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The link does give you a scan of that page. I suggest you view it, and stop making your inability to look up a source into a problem for everyone else. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, please assume good faith. That link may give you a scan of the page, but not me, perhaps because we're in different parts of the world. --hippo43 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
As I already stated, I've done my share of supplying the burden of evidence. "As far as I can tell, they are not widely-held misconceptions" – what is exactly "as far as you can tell" and how does that count for a reliable source? Or, for that matter, if I look at your edit history for this page, you keep removing the most obvious entries such as "veins are blue". Please explain, in detail, why you do that. As far as I can tell, there are many kinds of editors on Wikipedia, and here are two kinds: those who seek to make positive contributions to benefit the community, and those who do nothing but scrupulously seek to remove any contribution that might slightly bypass a rule (that would usually have 345876473 exceptions to it, if you really dig deep), just to be some kind of "Wikipedia police". I am going to assume good faith here and pose the question: which kind are you?
To get back to our issue: all these are widely held misconceptions, at least among the worldwide musicians' community, and it is fairly large to ignore. Louis Armstrong was "symbolically born" on the Fourth of July, 1900; "Donna Lee" is an integral part of the Charlie Parker be-bop school for any jazz musician; and Jaco Pastorius is unanimous with pioneering the fretless bass. As I told you, please check your knowledge and know where to humble yourself. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
What an arrogant pile of crap. "As far as I can tell" means that I can't see any words in the sources you supplied which document that these are widely-held misconceptions - using these words means I am open to someone showing me I have missed something, but so far, noone has. Rather than attacking me, can you actually quote any text from these sources which confirms that these are widely-held misconceptions? I'm the kind of editor who looks to improve articles by adding good material and removing untrue and unsourced material - both are positive contributions which benefit the community, despite your arrogant assumptions. In the case of this article, it's often the latter. In this instance, the three examples you inserted are garbage, and the sources aupplied for all three do not support your claim that they are common misconceptions. Don't patronise me with your assumptions about "the worldwide musicians' community." There are editors who can read sources and editors who can't. Which kind are you? --hippo43 (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
So far, the only arrogant remarks I see are coming from you. You are breaking consensus, conducting personal attacks and tenaciously removing material without proper justification and/or discussion. As you were told, WP policies go both ways and no editor is the "ultimate authority" as for removal of material. It is not unsourced, nor is it untrue. Please rephrase your response so it meets the basic criteria of human respect and we will continue this discussion, otherwise – the consensus is to restore these entries.
As for your question – I am the type of editor, who seeks the balance between adhering to policies and exercising common sense. You, on the other hand, only boomeranged the question without having the decency to respond properly. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I answered your question, and didn't attack you at all - I only criticised your last comment. If you were offended by that, it wasn't my intention. I have already discussed these sources. In your latest reply, while pompously refusing to discuss the issue, you failed to address the crucial point - what text from the sources you supplied states that these are common misconceptions? I can't find anything in any of the 3 sources you supplied, but I may have missed it. There is no consensus in this discussion to keep these examples - Amatulic and myself do not support your view, and no editors have spoken up in support of these sources. Rather than remove them right away, I will leave them for 24 hours. If there is something in these sources which justifies keeoing them, please point it out or I will have to remove them again. --hippo43 (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm only going to say this once: this is the last time I am cooperating under threats. I am asking you politely to never give out these kinds of ultimatums again.
  • Louis Armstrong – found another source that blatantly states the words "common misconception" (Google the subject and I am positive you will come up with more);
  • Donna Lee – I do not own the book, and even if I did... it takes great nerve to request me (or anyone) to upload copyrighted material. You are more than welcome to find it in a library;
  • Jaco Pastorius – please read the article (I thought you knew how to read sources, if I can properly read your comments ). I am not here to chew your food for you.
I have done my share of research for proper sources and I know what I am doing, otherwise I would not be adding this information in the first place. This is not arrogant, neither is it pompous. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and it is only natural to admit either. I am fairly knowledgeable when it comes to music, especially jazz, and I am here to share some of that knowledge with the public. This is my idea of being a Wikipedia editor.
Oh, and by the way, it amuses me (to the least) when you write "no editors have spoken up in support of these sources" right after A Quest For Knowledge speaks in my favor, and Amatulic only doubts (which has a different meaning than denies) the Donna Lee myth as a common misconception – but if you read his answer thoroughly (again, which you claim to be your strength), he only claims that musicians/musicologists/aficionados (and he only refers to those who are "intimately familiar with the works of both Parker and Davis") suspect that Parker did not write it. C'est tout. I need to sleep sometimes too. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
There was no threat above - just an offer to wait for you to explain what I may have missed. You still haven't taken me up on it. If there is some text in these sources which states that these are widely-held misconceptions, please be straight-forward enough to point it out, as I can't find it. I didn't ask you to upload copyrighted material, I asked you to quote the text from it which supports your view - a perfectly reasonable request. I have read the source and it believe it doesn't support your claim. I realise you may be very knowledgeable about some aspects of music, but your word on the matter is not enough - we depend on reliable sources, not your willingness to share your knowledge with the public. Quest has not spoken up here in favour of these sources. If he is able to point out what you haven;t, that would help resolve this. I will wait a little longer, as I said above, but if no editor can explain what parts of these sources are relevant, I'll remove them later today. --hippo43 (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just read the new source supplied by Hearfourmewesique - swingmusic.net. I don't believe it is a reliable source - I can't find anything on the site about its fact-checking policy. Moreover, it states that this was in the past - "For many years the public believed..." - so apparently it is not currently a misconception. If there are reliable sources which clear this up, it would be helpful. --hippo43 (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
No you won't. You will file an RfC and wait patiently. I would be wiser than resuming an edit war shortly after being unblocked. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, I will wait for 24 hours to see if yourself or any other interested editors can explain if I am missing something in the sources. These were moved to this talk page, with an explanation, several months ago, and consensus was established when no editors objected to their removal or supplied proper sources to support restoring them. A few days ago I noticed that you had restored them, without discussing them here, and without updating the sources at all, so I moved them here again, and started a discussion. (Not exactly edit-warring on my part.) Since then, you have commented here 4 times, and each time have not explained which part of any of these sources supports your opinion. I have done more than enough to try to discuss this with you and others, and to establish if I have misunderstood something in the sources. If nobody is able to point out the text from the sources which document that these are widely-held misconceptions, I will remove them. --hippo43 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above, I've removed these again, in line with the consensus established when they were moved here for discussion in August. They can still be discussed here if other editors can shed more light on them:

  • Contrary to the self-perpetuated popular myth, Louis Armstrong was not born on July 4, 1900. It was not until mid-1980s that his real birth date was revealed – August 4, 1901.[4][5]
The Kennedy Center source does not say this is (or was) widely believed. The swingmusic.net source (which is not a reliable source) says that it was a misconception ("for many years the public believed...") - i.e. it is not currently commonly believed. The article should not cover former common misconceptions, such as "many people used to believe that the earth was flat".
I presume the misconception is supposed to be that many people believe Parker wrote 'Donna Lee', though it was actually written by Davis. However, the source does not say any such thing - it says it was mistakenly attributed to Parker, but it does not say that it is widely believed that Parker wrote the piece.
That is splitting hairs. The error was widely perpetuated by the publisher. Since the general population would assume the publisher isn't publishing falsehoods, it's reasonable to claim that the widely-perpetuated published error that doesn't get corrected is the same thing as a common misconception. There is no consensus for removing this item. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That line of argument is pure original research. "The general public would assume...it's reasonable to claim..." Says who? There is no reliable source cited stating that this is a common misconception. If noone can provide one over the next weke or so, I will remove it. --hippo43 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The claim is that Pastorius "is often misquoted to have invented the fretless bass by removing the frets from a fretted bass guitar". This supposed misconception does not appear in the source - the source explains that Pastorius bought a bass with the frets already removed, but does not state that it is widely believed that he came up with the concept himself, or anything similar. I can't find any other source which covers this claim. --hippo43 (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Hippo43 has been blocked yet again for edit warring less than 24 hours since his unblock.[1]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Quest and Amatulić. I have really grown tired of such editors and it's about time they started regressing from sucking our energies by forcefully engaging us in lengthy, needless "discussions" that can usually be summed up on their end as "not good enough" (a-la the Queen of England ). Now that hippo43 has alienated the same admin that unblocked him, it will be increasingly harder for him to find support for his actions. Live and learn... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Despite my requests, noone has explained why they believe the sources currently included support the Armstrong & Pastorius entries, so I've removed them. I'm more than happy to discuss these, as I've repeated several times. --hippo43 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Again these were restored without discussion or explanation, so I've removed them again. Again, happy to discuss if I've missed something in these sources. --hippo43 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a music writer (and bass player), I've not once heard this alleged misconception about fretless basses, so I find it hard to believe it's a "common" misconception. Given that upright basses have no frets, fretless bass guitars hardly require much imagination. And the Louis Armstrong entry for me falls more into the realm of trivia, and trivia of interest only to Americans. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1) A "common" misconception refers to a vast number of people, but never 100%. Therefore, with all due respect, the fact that you never heard of this doesn't refute the misconception.
2) As for your second sentence... ahum, what?
3) This whole article could fall under trivia, and even if this were of interest only to Americans (which is a statement I'd personally avoid, since I heard this misconception in a different country and not only Americans know who Satchmo was or what July 4 means), it's – again – a fairly large group to ignore. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
You're largely criticizing views I don't hold. I never said that the Jaco story was absolutely not a common misconception, I said I found it hard to believe that it was; the burden of proof is on those claiming it's a common misconception, not on me, and the entry as posted doesn't convince me. As for Louis Armstrong, this strikes me as Americana trivia in way that other parts of this page aren't, such as the entry on the Emancipation Proclamation. And compared to well-sourced misconceptions about history and science, this is trivia. Hairhorn (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The Jaco story is a rumor I heard from several bassists and other musicians throughout my life, in various countries. As for Armstrong, you haven't convinced me the tiniest bit as for why it's trivia compared to other parts of the article. "Well sourced" is something we can argue about till doomsday; I have supplied two sources that claim that Louis himself claimed July 4, 1900 to be his birth date and given the fact that he is the ultimate jazz icon of all times and as such, represents the whole jazz culture even to those who are not familiar with it at all (worldwide), his word would be largely taken for granted unless officially proven to be untrue.
Has anyone noticed how ridiculously long this section of the discussion has become? I have provided all the answers hippo43 needed; his claims that I'm reverting without explanation are infuriating and intended to suck out my energy on every occasion he can. I suggest we wrap it up, even if admin intervention is needed. If anyone wants to take action, be my guest. I've learned not to feed the trolls on such occasions; I'll keep reverting until such intervention occurs. If I'm told by the higher-ups to stop, I will stop; as I wrote on hippo43's talk page, it's not a job, I have a life and I'm not here for the drama. I just want to edit in peace. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Until now, you hadn't provided the answers I asked for - now it's clear you don't have proper sources for these. Your explanation of the Pastorius example ("a rumor I heard from several bassists and other musicians throughout my life") confirms that this is original research, and not verifiable as it stands. It doesn't matter that you 'know' that lots of people believe it - you need to provide a source which states that this view is widely held.
As for Louis Armstrong, you also haven't supplied a reliable source which states that this is a common misconception. I'll remove them again now - please do not restore them without supplying new sources which support your view. --hippo43 (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I have left these on Hairhorn's talk page as well. These are good examples of the Jaco rumor being spread around on various sites and forums. I could "fish out" more examples, but anyone who knows how to Google can do it. Again, too many energies I am spending on what could have been a joint effort.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] (this is supposed to be a biography – quote: "He invented the fretless bass guitar one night by taking out a pair of pliers and some wood compound and removing the frets.")
[6]
[7]
[8] (this is supposed to be a bass related lecture – quote: "It was invented by Jaco Pastorius who, takin' away the frets of his Fender Jazz, could in this way obtain a sound that even more so permitted him to stand out for his enormous technical and expressive skills.") Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, this is obviously original research. Finding examples of a belief (in this case, in non-reliable sources) and contrasting that with a statement made by Pastorius is not acceptable as a reference for this being a common misconception - you have researched that yourself and are not citing secondary sources which cover the misconception. If there are reliable sources which states that it is widely believed that Pastorius invented the fretless bass, but that he actually bought an already-fretless instrument, then that would be acceptable. If you don't understand, please read the policy - WP:NOR. --hippo43 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


I've moved this down here to see if some other editors can take a fresh look and give some input. To me, it looks like blatant OR - the "source" used for the Pastorius "misconception" is a Google search. I can't find any reliable sources which describe this as a common misconception. I've got into some difficulties with the user who supports keeping it in the past so I want to get some others' views. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read the Armstrong one (as being a self-perpatuated myth) in a different book. The Pastorius one could do with an actual cite instead of a google search (maybe pick the best of the google results and use that as a source). It would be better if there was a rock solid RS for it but as the items are now I think they are plausible enough to let stand. Rpvdk (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It's the Pastorius one that has been the real contentious point. None of the results in the google search given say that this is a common misconception. Most of them are not reliable sources, and are simply examples of what may or may not be a widespread misunderstanding. Finding examples of usage and claiming a common misconception is exactly why we require reliable sources to say these are common misconceptions. --hippo43 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The three examples cited are really obscure. There are countless public figures whose birthdates are in some dispute, but the average citizen likely doesn't know about them. If you were to take a street survey about Louis Armstrong's birthdate, probably a sadly sizaable portion of the public would say, "Who's Louis Armstrong?" and of the ones who know who he is, probably a low percentage have any clue about what his birthdate is or isn't. And the other two questions are even more obscure. This makes the one-vs.-two spaces deal almost start to look viable by comparison. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget the introduction to the article tells us we have a higher standard, namely that this list "corrects various fallacious, misleading, or otherwise flawed ideas that are described by multiple reliable sources as widely held" (emphasis added). Personally, I agree with Bugs that, while I am familiar with Louis Armstrong, I don't have any idea when he was born. Let's keep the article interesting to the widest possible audience. UncleBubba (Talk) 13:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that more editors are concerned with splitting hairs about what's written in stone (in this case, Wikipedia rule set) than with benefiting the public. Asking who Louis Armstrong was is like asking who Michael Jackson was... or Elvis... you get the picture. While it might be true that some public figures' birth dates are in dispute, Armstrong intentionally created a myth of being born on the first independence day of the century, strengthening his being the all-American icon he will always remain. As for the Jaco example – nothing says (more like screams in your face) "common misconception" like a bunch of links to obscure blogs and sites that all repeat that misconception as if it were the ultimate truth; some of those blogs even attempt to "teach" bass or music in general. This is not, in any way, WP:OR. It is what it is. Can we please restore this and put this nonsense behind? There is more interesting (and useful) stuff to do here, example being this article (and a horrid one it is indeed). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
On the Jaco Whatsisname example - I have no doubt that it's a misconception that he invented the fretless whatsit, but I do dispute that it's a common misconception. Hearfourmewesique has told me on my talk page to "familiarize yourself with the subject". On the contrary, this article should list only examples of misconceptions that are so widespread that they are familiar to people who know almost nothing about the subject in question. That is why the Louis Armstrong item just about qualifies, but an arcane detail about the fretless bass and Jaco Pastorius does not. And yes, of course it's a matter of judgement. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Following the guidelines is not "splitting hairs". The problem is that you appear to have an axe to grind (although I do not see why) about Louis Armstrong. While it's certainly not scientific, it was interesting when I asked twelve people at my workplace (starting with the security guard and ending with my boss) the question, "What is Louis Armstrong's birthday?". Nine asked me, "Who?", and I had to explain it to them, because nobody should be ignorant of one of the greatest jazz musicians of all time. The remaining three, while familiar with Armstrong, had no knowledge of his birthday, real or otherwise.
Likewise, I'm very familiar with Elvis, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Michael Jordan, Albert Einstein, George Bush (both of 'em), Bill Clinton, John Glenn and Chuck Yeager but I don't know the date of any of their birthdays without looking them up and I suspect I'm far from alone in this respect. If this is the case with the population as a whole, how is smearing the name and/or reputation of a dead person that can't defend himself "benefiting the public"? I'm sorry; I just don't see it.
So, how about this: Can we please not restore this and put this nonsense behind? UncleBubba (Talk) 12:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
UncleBubba – you are being delusional to the least. "An axe to grind"??? Surely you cannot be serious... I am a jazz musician and admire Armstrong as such. The only thing I did here was add a music category that never even existed beforehand. The fact that your colleagues did not know the answer does not make this any less common than, for example, "entrapment law", "it's easier to balance an egg on its end on the first day of spring", or "hair and fingernails do not continue to grow after a person dies" (all entries from the article, never heard of either and most likely a brief survey would have proven the same). If we're on it already: "In Korea, it is commonly believed that sleeping in a closed room with an electric fan running can be fatal in the summer" – how's that a common misconception outside of Korea? And for that matter, which Korea? North? South?
Seriously, lack of knowledge displayed by you and those around you do not reflect the general public as a whole. Same goes to Snalwimba and his snide "Jaco whatsisname/fretless whatsit" remarks that pretty much border on sheer ignorance. I am genuinely wondering how come there is no entry on "Contrary to the worldwide belief, the average American does not have the IQ level of a porcupine." Is it because of lack of WP:RS? Or is it because there is nothing beyond what you know? The human knowledge is a circle within the infinity of everything the universe(s) has(have) to offer; the smaller one's knowledge is, the smaller the periphery that binds them to the unknown. Therefore, the less you actually know, the more you'd think you do. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hear, can you supply a reliable source, as defined by WP:RS, and as required by the article intro, wikipedia policy (WP:V), and consensus here, which states that the Pastorius story is a common misconception? --hippo43 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Plenty of people have not heard of Jaco Pastorius for reasons other than "sheer ignorance". He's not exactly a pop star. Hairhorn (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard of this man either but that doesn't mean it can't be in the article. He certainly seems to meet WP:NM so I'm willing to Assume Good Faith and assume this is a common misconception in the world of music. The fact that we have 20+ edits on the talk page about 2 two line entry in the article indicates that some people are far more interested in WP:Gaming the system than in actually improving this article. Rpvdk (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Good faith is about editors' intentions, not the accuracy of information. I'm not willing to assume anything about a statement's verifiability. This has been challenged, and no reliable source has been supplied to verify that it is a widely-held misconception, so it can't go in. --hippo43 (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the large number of edits indicate several people watching this page have something to say; nothing more can be inferred without additional information. As Hippo said, "Assume Good Faith" refers to the intent of the editors, not the suitability of the material. As I believe I said before, the lede to this article plainly says it "corrects various fallacious, misleading, or otherwise flawed ideas that are described by multiple reliable sources as widely held" (emphasis added). The founder of Wikipedia said it best: We are here to maintain and improve an encyclopedia. To that end, contributions to the article should follow its guidelines, lest the inserted material invalidate the article itself.
So, I'll ask again: Can someone supply multiple reliable sources to corroborate the assertions about Armstrong or Pastorius or Donna Lee are widely held? — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 16:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll support hippo and UncleBubba on this. Two of the very cornerstones of Wikipedia are reliable sourcing and verifiability, in this case sourcing and verifying that the misconceptions are widespread. When something is challenged on Wikipedia, verifying with a reliable source is always the first step. So now that it has been challenged that the misconceptions are widespread, it doesn't matter how much knowledge an editor has about the subject matter or what the preferences of the editors who wish to keep the item in the article. It is now required that there should be a reliable source that the misconception is widespread. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And, after that's done, we're supposed to discuss it and reach consensus. During this process the material in question is usually pulled from the article but, well, you can imagine the ruckus that would probably ensue. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion over these goes back months, and reliable sources have not been supplied. These should be removed now, not after more arguing. --hippo43 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me we have consensus to remove the questionable items, at least until the provision of any source(s) that indicate they are widespread misconceptions. Consensus can change, of course, but until then the items need to be removed from the article. Anyone is welcome to post an RfC to get more opinions. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Zap them. Obscure trivia that belongs, at best, only in the articles about their subjects. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but before hippo43 was blocked twice for his disruptive edits here and elsewhere, the consensus was to keep the entries, at least the ones about Armstrong and Donna Lee. Feel free to read the beginning of this neverending thread, but don't join hippo in his denial of the indisputable fract that I have reasoned my edits multiple times, and several editors backed me up. Speaking of denial, I have not receive a coherent reply for my latest statement (as a whole) – I sincerely expect that so that all voices will be heard and properly reacted to. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Meh, calling the above discussion "consensus to keep" is a little generous. I don't see it. Hairhorn (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hearfourmewesique, this consensus has nothing to do with hippo's block. There clearly is consensus, and I will kindly ask you to respect that and not edit war. And since I don't want to edit war, I'll ask someone else who supports the consensus to revert Hearfourmewesique's edit that added the items without consensus. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. Hear, my previous blocks were for edit warring, and have nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of this discussion - trying to discredit the obvious consensus by dragging that up only shows how weak your position is. The fact that you have explained your reasons numerous times doesn't mean they are any less weak. It's obvious you just don't understand core policies. --hippo43 (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hear needs to stop edit-warring. There is no evidence whatsoever that these items are "common misconceptions". They might be common in a certain narrow circle, but that doesn't count. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hear is edit-warring? Hmmm...it takes two editors to edit war. So whomever is edit-warring with Hear should stop edit-warring, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Quest, he's edit-warring with the clear consensus that emerged above, from myself, Baseball Bugs, IP guy 71, Uncle Bubba, SNALWIBMA etc. He's also been canvassing for some support, which I assume is how you heard of the discussion, and has been making some personal attacks, claiming sockpuppetry etc. I suggest you think carefully about whether he deserves your support on this issue. --hippo43 (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I am in broad agreement with removing the music examples; of course it is a difficult judgement whether something is "common" enough to belong here, but in cases of doubt we should probably delete. It's for those wishing to retain or include items to justify them and I don't see a strong consensus for that above. --John (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have gone all over the place, with the items being removed and replaced several times. A little earlier today, I asked watchers of this page (in another section) whether we should stick to the "multiple reliable sources" criterion mentioned in the lede or change it.

Until that question draws a consensus, it seems we should follow the existing guidelines. To that end, I asked a question a while back that was never answered: Will someone please cite multiple reliable sources to corroborate the assertions about Armstrong or Pastorius or Donna Lee are widely held?

Until this is done, I don't feel it's proper to keep the material in the article but I know removing it would be futile. Nevertheless, the question of whether or not it should be included remains open. At what point would an RfC be in order, I wonder? — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 00:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for an RfC on this point - there's clear consensus to keep them out. I dont think Hearfourmewesique will carry on edit warring over it. Never mind multiple sources - one reliable source for the Pastorius example would be a start. --hippo43 (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Louis Armstrong Bio". ArtsEdge, Kennedy Center. Retrieved Jun. 25, 2009. Although it would be fitting for American icon Louis Armstrong to be born on July 4, 1900, which Armstrong himself stated was his date of birth, evidence from a baptismal certificate indicates that his true birthday was August 4, 1901. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ Chambers, Jack (1998). Milestones: The Music and Times of Miles Davis. De Capo Press. p. 61. ISBN 0306808498. Retrieved Jun. 25, 2009. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ Bill Milkowski. "Lament for Linus". Guitar Player Magazine. Retrieved Jun. 25, 2009. When I got the bass, the cat who had it had taken the frets out himself, and he did a really bad job of it – left all kinds of nicks and chunks taken out of the fretboard. So I really had to fix it up, I filled in all the chunks with Plastic Wood. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^ "Louis Armstrong Bio". ArtsEdge, Kennedy Center. Retrieved Jun. 25, 2009. Although it would be fitting for American icon Louis Armstrong to be born on July 4, 1900, which Armstrong himself stated was his date of birth, evidence from a baptismal certificate indicates that his true birthday was August 4, 1901. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
  5. ^ "Louis Armstrong Biography". swingmusic.net. Retrieved Dec. 28, 2009. A common misconception about this legend is his date of birth; Louis Armstrong was born August 4th, 1901. For many years the public believed Armstrong to have been born on the Fourth Of July in 1900. The story, a fabrication created by crafty public relations men, made good print. Although he went along with the stunt, his influence in jazz, still being felt today, would be just as far reaching if he had laid claim to being born on "Groundhog Day." {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  6. ^ Chambers, Jack (1998). Milestones: the music and times of Miles Davis. De Capo Press. p. 61. ISBN 0306808498. Retrieved Jun. 25, 2009. For the first time, Davis contributed a composition. All these titles were credited to Parker on the original 78 rpm issues, and the mistake was perpetuated on numerous reissues, but Donna Lee is the work of Davis (although even its most recent issue, on Savoy 2201, lists Parker as its composer on the label, even while correcting the mistake in the album notes). {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  7. ^ Bill Milkowski. "Lament for Linus". Guitar Player Magazine. Retrieved Jun. 25, 2009. When I got the bass, the cat who had it had taken the frets out himself, and he did a really bad job of it – left all kinds of nicks and chunks taken out of the fretboard. So I really had to fix it up, I filled in all the chunks with Plastic Wood. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_8&oldid=1136935346"