Talk:List of common misconceptions

Proposed entry: primary colors

I was surprised there’s no entry here for the misconception that red, yellow, and blue are THE (as in only) primary colors. I’d say this is a fairly common one as it’s generally considered “common knowledge” that RYB are the primaries and they are regularly taught as such in early schooling. Most people tend to not know there are additional primary color models or controversy regarding these as the preferred subtractive model unless they take a color theory course or work with color in a career/hobby (printing, art, etc).

While I have relevant professional expertise (artist), I’m really not great at summarizing/wording things in an easy-to-understand way so I’m hoping someone else could add it if others agree it meets the inclusion criteria.

It is already discussed on the Primary color page. Multiple alternate models are discussed throughout the article (such as § Additive models) and the popular belief is mentioned under § Traditional red, yellow, and blue primary colors as a subtractive system and § Red, yellow, and blue as primary colors. The idea that this belief is an error is discussed under § Criticism.

It is also discussed within the specific articles for Subtractive color and RYB color model. Catfrost (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that this is overwhelmingly common (I'm more surprised to meet someone who does know this than doesn't) and that it meets at least the broad criteria of being a misconception. I think a simple wording like this could work:

"Red, Yellow, and Blue are not unique in their role as primary colors; many sets of colors exist which can be used to produce broad ranges of color, including RGB (Red-Green-Blue) and CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, 'Key' - black). Red, Yellow and Blue are noteworthy among the options for historical and social reasons, not inherent properties of the colors."

Obviously appropriate citations would need to be added before something like this could be placed on the list. Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Entry for Mama Cass demise myth?

Article published in the NYT May 9 2024 entitled: Cass Elliot’s Death Spawned a Horrible Myth. She Deserves Better. The Mamas & the Papas singer was known for her wit, her voice and her skill as a connector. For 50 years, a rumor has overshadowed her legacy.

For years, the origin of the story that Elliot died from choking on a ham sandwich — one of the cruelest and most persistent myths in rock ’n’ roll history — was largely unknown. Then in 2020, Elliot’s friend Sue Cameron, an entertainment journalist, admitted to publicizing it in her Hollywood Reporter obituary at the behest of Elliot’s manager Allan Carr, who did not want his client associated with drug use. (Elliot died of a heart attack, likely brought on by years of substance abuse and crash dieting.) But that cartoonish rumor — propagated in endless pop culture references, from “Austin Powers” to “Lost” — cast a tawdry light over Elliot’s legacy and still threatens to overshadow her mighty, underappreciated talent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/09/arts/music/cass-elliot-mamas-and-the-papas-death.html

It's not mentioned in the topic article though. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's now mentioned in the topic article. Editors there have been arguing for decades about whether to include it, but it appears the recent NYT article may have turned the tide. Of course, it might disappear at some point. I've added a brief entry here for this myth. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Trotsky was killed by an ice pick

"Leon Trotsky was not killed with an ice pick (a small, awl-like tool for chipping ice), but with an ice axe (a larger tool used for mountaineering)"

My dictionary gives two definitions for the term "ice pick":

1 a small pick used by climbers to traverse ice-covered slopes.

2 a sharp, straight, pointed implement with a handle, used to break ice into small pieces for chilling food and drinks.

It seems that the first definition of "ice pick" matches with the article's definition of an "ice axe", and therefore Trotsky was indeed killed by an ice pick. It's just that the term "ice pick" has two meanings. Perhaps in technical contexts the term "ice axe" is preferred, but this is not a technical context.

So this is not really a misconception, it's an ambiguity in the English language. If you say "ice pick" without qualification then some people will imagine the mountaineering tool, others will imagine the tool for breaking ice for food and drinks. It has nothing to do with Trotsky per se, this ambiguity will arise any time the English term "ice pick" is used out-of-context, it just so happens that Trotsky's demise is one example of that. Alextgordon (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

And to further complicate matters, there's the tool/weapon called the pickaxe.

Looking at the Trotsky article, I'm not seeing anything about this misconception i.e. that he was killed with an ice pick (in the sense of your definition 1), but if a substantial number of people think he was killed with that device then it would count as a misconception. Maybe I'm missing something, but this entry seems to fail the inclusion criteria by 1) not being mentioned in the topic article, and 2) not having a reference that establishes it as a common misconception. Unless another editor sticks up for it by producing evidence that it satisfies the inclusion criteria I'm in favor of removal. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It's based on the pedantic. I agree with removing it. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

If a significant number of people were confused by one word having two different meanings (which a huge number of English words do) it's not really pedantic to clarify. But I'm not seeing any reliable source stating that this is a common misconception, so I'm going to remove the entry. We can always put it back if sufficient sourcing is obtained. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Entry: There is no King or Queen of England

The monarch of Great Britain is frequently erroneously referred to as the King/Queen of England but this title hasn't existed since 1707. The actual title is King/Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [etc.]

Am checking sources to meet the inclusion criteria. Anecdotally it seems to be a frequent misconception among Americans.

If it were to meet those requirements which section is it best located in? Rayguyuk (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The "misconception" (if there is one) would be that England is the same thing as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it is not specific to the King or Queen. I'm not seeing anything in the topic articles that mention this misconception so the proposed entry would fail the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, many non-Britons incorrectly call the UK "England", which is course only one of its constituents. I am not sure whether this is a misconception, an error in terminology, or sloppiness. I suspect for most people it's an error in terminology. They call it England, but are actually referring to the UK, and many are probably not aware of the nature of the UK. Of course, this is annoying/upsetting to people from Wales, Scotland, and N. Ireland. Similar things happen with Holland/Netherlands (where the name Holland is widely used and even accepted as a name for the Netherlands), America/United States of America (where US people consider them synonyms, but many South Americans consider this incorrect and even offensive), Bosnia/Bosnia and Herzogovina, Macedonia/North Macedonia, formerly Russia/USSR/RSFSR, historically Turkey/Ottoman Empire, etc. Heck, the UK of GB and NI is often called Great Britain (which technically excludes Northern Ireland) in addition to being called the United Kingdom (and ISO 3166-1 uses GB rather than UK). Is that a misconception?

As for the monarchy, the sovereign of the UK also functions as the sovereign of the other UK countries (royal assent, appointment of prime/first minister, etc.), but without the title King of Scotland, etc.. And then there are the crown dependencies which are not part of the UK -- it's very messy.

Is this a misconception for our list? I don't think so. --Macrakis (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both for your thoughts. I agree with what you're both saying. Rayguyuk (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Line

People think line go down but actually line go up. Many such cases! [1] Benjamin (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Astrology

I think, if you really squint, 75.27.37.89's reason for removing the astrology section was somewhat compelling. While astrology is widely believed, and the scientific consensus is that it is utterly devoid of merit, I wouldn't call it a misconception in the sense that the other entries of the list are. The other items presented are overwhelmingly simple matters of history (was this name an acronym for this phrase, was this cookie based on this other cookie, or directly observable phenomena (is this food safe to eat after it's expiration date). People believe otherwise because they erroneously believe there is a 'scientific' reason to do so (they assume the expiration dates are determined by biologists, the cookie appeared subsequently to the popularity of the other, etc.) which could be verified by new investigation or review of the extant literature. Believers in astrology, generally, do not have a misconception about the evidence for astrology, they disagree with the scientific community about how different kinds of evidence should be weighted in evaluation of a claim (giving undue merit to individual personal experiences or the age of a belief over measurable data).

This section feels comparable in some ways to including an entry like 'Jesus did not rise from the dead. There is no scientific evidence that anyone has ever recovered after an extended period of death', or 'Muhammad did not receive revelatory visions from angels. There is no scientific evidence that angels exist, and purported revelations have been repeatedly shown to be human inventions.'

In other words, I think that this list is for things that people believe because they are unaware of the scientific evidence, not things people believe because they don't care about (or give primary importance to) the scientific evidence. Most astrologers will tell you scientists think astrology is fake; very few people who believe the Great Wall is visible from space would tell you astronauts think otherwise. Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A much better argument than the squint-needing edit summary [2]. Elliptically reasoned. I could be persuaded that the entry doesn't warrant inclusion. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Astrology is pseudoscience and is one of the many topics listed in the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience article. Most of the entries here are other forms of misconception, but we do have several other overlaps with the pseudoscience list article. They include

Climate change denial

Crystal healing

Lunar effect

Virginity tests

Vaccines and autism

GMO skepticism

Christ myth theory

Digit ratio

From the introduction of this page:

A common misconception is a viewpoint or factoid that is often accepted as true but which is actually false. They generally arise from conventional wisdom (such as old wives' tales), stereotypes, superstitions, fallacies, a misunderstanding of science, or the popularization of pseudoscience. Some common misconceptions are also considered to be urban legends, and they are often involved in moral panics. (emphasis mine)

So, pseudoscience is fair game for this page. I haven't formed an opinion on how many other entries from the pseudoscience list should be repeated here, but I support each of the entries identified above. If someone wants to nominate others, I'm all ears.

Elliptical Reasoning's critique is well argued, but following it would require a major change to the stated purpose of the article and removal of more than the astrology entry. The Jesus and Mohammad examples that were given are religious beliefs that are outside the scope of this article. Pseudoscience is not. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you're making two arguments, one that religious beliefs are not appropriate for this page (which I agree with) and one that controversies generally are appropriate for the page, provided there is strong scientific consensus. I would disagree with this second statement; though I acknowledge the article description as it currently stands supports this interpretation, the list itself does not. I think this article is not the appropriate place for the presentation of significant controversies, because its format is structured to give only one viewpoint, and that one very succinctly. A significant controversy (even one in which one position has exactly zero scientific merit) should not be presented in this format on wikipedia per the NPOV standard. This is the interpretation that has, in fact, been used in the past - the list is populated, besides the notable exception of astrology, by items that are noncontroversial. In addition to the general value of adhering to policy, I worry the unilateral and authoritative tone used throughout this list would encourage POV pushing and edit warring if we choose to include significant and controversial topics on the list (which is, of course, a major reason the policy is what it is). Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The argument is that pseudoscience is appropriate for inclusion here. Astrology is just one example of pseudoscience and is not unique in that regard among the other entries.

"Controversial" is a non-starter since everything on this page is "controversial" in the sense that many people believe the opposite of what our reliable sources establish. If something is truly non-controversial it would fail the inclusion criteria.

If you would like to argue that pseudoscience is outside the scope of this article, you are welcome to do that. But it would imply a major change to the scope and I doubt you'll get much buy-in from other editors. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hand washing entry

An entry was recently added regarding hand washing. It says:

Washing one's hands with hot water is not more effective at eliminating germs than with cold water. Any temperature is sufficient as long as soap is used. In order for water to kill germs, it would have to be hot enough to scold one's hands.

This is basically correct, but what is the misconception? Is it that warm water kills more germs than cold water? If so, then the entry has correctly identified the misconception. OTOH, if the "misconception" is that warm soapy water is more effective than cold soapy water at preventing bacterial spread, the topic article has this to say:

WHO considers warm soapy water to be more effective than cold, soapy water at removing natural oils which hold soils and bacteria.

So, it's a bit complicated. Warm soapy water doesn't kill more germs than cold soapy water, but it is more effective at removing oils that provide an environment that allow germs to grow. At the very least, we should add the caveat above; my sense is to remove the entry, but I'll wait for other editors to weigh in before removing it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on the source I think this entry is in error, and I have (boldly) removed it. If anyone has an argument that it should stay or a better source, of course, we can put it back. Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If there is a misconception it's that the point of washing your hands is to kill germs rather than remove dirt. Benjamin (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Profit margins

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-public-thinks-the-average-company-makes-a-36-profit-margin-which-is-about-5x-too-high/ Benjamin (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Alcohol is a drug

For #Alcoholic_beverages

With a long history as one of the oldest beverages, alcohol consumption is normalized in many cultures, leading to unique drinking cultures. This leads to the misconception that alcohol is separate from other drugs. Phrases like "drugs and alcohol" unintentionally reinforce this idea, implying alcohol isn't a drug itself. Some people might not consider alcohol a drug because it has different effects and legal status compared to illegal drugs. However, according to scientific definition, alcohol is a drug. 94.255.152.53 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that supports that this is a misconception, and is this "misconception" mentioned in any of the topic articles? We'd need both of those to meet the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish: No, but many adult people that I've talked to say "alcohol and drugs" (see above). I bolded the text above + cn that we need to find a source for. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Alcohol, sometimes referred to by the chemical name ethanol, is one of the most widely consumed psychoactive drugs in the world and falls under the depressant category. It is found in fermented beverages such as beer, wine, and distilled spirit – in particular, rectified spirit. With a long history as one of the oldest beverages, alcohol consumption is normalized in many cultures, leading to unique drinking cultures. This leads to the misconception that alcohol is separate from other drugs. Phrases like "drugs and alcohol" unintentionally reinforce this idea, implying alcohol is not itself a drug. Some people might not consider alcohol a drug because it has different effects and legal status compared to illegal drugs. However despite being legal, alcohol, scientifically classified as a drug, has paradoxically been demonstrably linked to greater social harm than most illegal drugs. 94.255.152.53 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I bolded the text above + cn that we need to find a source for. Who is "we"? This doesn't seem to be any particular misconception, rather a use of the word drug in different contexts with alcohol. _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Willondon: Please be kind. I found this "The alcohol industry has been keen to emphasise that alcohol is not a drug" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1995479/ --94.255.152.53 (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

(no need to ping here) People have varying understandings of how the concept of drug and alcohol intersect, and in varying contexts. That doesn't indicate any conceptual confusion as to whether alcohol is or isn't a drug. And your argument that it's a common misconception is the efforts of The alcohol industry has been keen to emphasise that alcohol is not a drug, even though it's a common misconception. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"(no need to ping here)" -- You're boring. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

As the ethanol article itself says, it is the "second most consumed drug globally behind caffeine". Should we also mention that people don't think of coffee, tea, and Coca-Cola as drugs? By the way, the phrases "marijuana and other drugs", "heroin and other drugs", etc. are not uncommon either. Not to mention that "drug" is a very broad and vague word. The "drugs" referred to in "penicillin and other drugs" are presumably not the same as the ones being referred to in "heroin and other drugs". --Macrakis (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• I decided to use "Alcohol is a drug" for this Talk section to make it consistent with w:Alcohol (drug) (which describes that it's a psychoactive drug). So, I agree, "Alcohol is a psychoactive drug" is a clear and informative title for the section. It aligns with scientific definitions and how other psychoactive drugs are presented on Wikipedia. To delve deeper, we could add a sentence about the concept of normalization. The term "drug" encompasses a wide range of substances, including commonly consumed psychoactive drugs like caffeine and nicotine. Unlike some illegal drugs, alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine are normalized in many cultures. This normalization can contribute to the misconception that because something is common, it's not a drug. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• "By the way, the phrases "marijuana and other drugs", "heroin and other drugs", etc. are not uncommon either." -- Exactly, they are commonly referred to as drugs, while alcohol is often treated differently; As I said earlier, Phrases like "drugs and alcohol" unintentionally reinforce this idea, implying alcohol is not itself a drug. (which is equal to "alcohol and drugs" but not "alcohol and other drugs). --94.255.152.53 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. But very few people would deny that alcohol, caffeine, etc. are psychoactive (although they might not use that word). It's just that the word "drug" that has come to mean "illegal drug" or "illicit drug", to the point that medical professionals seem to avoid talking about "drugs" and instead talk about "medications". By the way, the definition in drug is clearly inadequate. It reads: "A drug is any chemical substance that when consumed causes a change in an organism's physiology, including its psychology, if applicable." This would cover water, salt, and sugar as well as poisons such as cyanide. --Macrakis (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

" It's just that the word "drug" that has come to mean "illegal drug" or "illicit drug", to the point that medical professionals seem to avoid talking about "drugs" and instead talk about "medications"." -- Thank you, I don't think we can get broader than this. "The terms drug and medicine are used interchangeably, although the word “drug” has the connotation of an illegal substance, such as cocaine or heroin (controlled drugs in the UK)." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7120710/ -- I don't mind if we change the subject to: The term "drug" shouldn't be confused with "illegal drugs". What do you think about it? --94.255.152.53 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This is an article about misconceptions, not about ambiguous words, and it doesn't give advice like 'The term "drug" shouldn't be confused with "illegal drugs".' --Macrakis (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I meant: The term "drug" is misconceived as "illegal drugs". --94.255.152.53 (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not a misconception, just semantic drift, to the point that it's becoming a skunked term that you can't use in the general sense for fear of misunderstanding. In that sense, it is perfectly true that alcohol is not a drug (sc. illicit drug). --Macrakis (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate your use of precise vocabulary. I added "Drugs can have a negative connotation, often associated with illegal substances like cocaine or heroin. This is despite the fact that the terms "drug" and "medicine" are sometimes used interchangeably." to Skunked_term#Other_terms. Do you think the text/article/section is correct? --94.255.152.53 (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Guns

https://www.psypost.org/is-penis-size-related-to-gun-ownership-heres-what-the-science-says/

"A new study published in the American Journal of Men’s Health has debunked the long-held assumption that men dissatisfied with their penis size are more likely to own guns. Contrary to popular belief, the research found that men who are more satisfied with their penis size are actually more likely to own guns." Benjamin (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Decline

[3] "older people tend to underestimate their cognitive decline" Benjamin (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Curiosity's "Happy Birthday"

I would like to propose the addition of the following text under the "Astronomy and spaceflight" section:

• Mars rover Curiosity does not sing "Happy Birthday to You" to itself each year on the anniversary of its landing. While its sample-analysis unit did vibrate to the tune of the song on the first anniversary, it has not done so in subsequent years.

These sources make it clear that that the song was a one-time occurrence and that there is a misconception that the song is played annually. One or both of them could be used as references:

• Koren, Marina (2017-08-10). "Why the Curiosity Rover Stopped Singing 'Happy Birthday' to Itself". Retrieved 2024-06-10. "'The reports of my singing are greatly exaggerated,' the rover’s Twitter account reported, presumably referring to news coverage about its fifth birthday. 'I only hummed "Happy Birthday" to myself once, back in 2013.'"

• Bindrim, Kira (2018-08-05). "It's the Mars Curiosity rover's birthday. Happy birthday, buddy". Retrieved 2024-06-10. While some headlines suggest that Curiosity has been humming an annual HBD ever since, in reality the song was a onetime occurrence.

While the misconception is not mentioned in the current text of the Curiosity article, the fact that the song was sung is, and I believe it would be perfectly justifiable to add the misconception to the rover's article as well as to this one.

For full transparency, I will mention that I attempted to add this misconception to this article back in 2019, but it was reverted by another editor, and I gave up on it. However, this is a real misconception and I stand by my view that it warrants inclusion in this article.

- Sensorfire (✎|‽) 01:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources showing that this is a common misconception? Meters (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the sources I linked are already sufficient to establish that, but if you want it laid out a little more explicitly, here you go, from CNet: "Some fans asked Curiosity about the widespread belief that the rover sings "happy birthday" to itself every year, but it turns out that's not quite right." (emphasis mine)

By the way, if you'd like some examples of the misconception appearing in published news, here are two:

• From ABC13 Houston: Headline: "Mars rover sings 'Happy Birthday' to itself" (published 2017, a year in which that did not happen). "On the anniversary of its landing, Curiosity is programmed to sing the "Happy Birthday" tune."
• From The Telegraph: "So, every year on August 6, Curiosity is programmed to sing a lonely birthday tune." (again, emphasis mine).

Also, both of these latter two articles end with the sentence "Perhaps someday, someone on Mars will finally hear it." So maybe ABC13 Houston plagiarized The Telegraph.

I hope this helps. Sensorfire (✎|‽) 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Fan Death entry removal

Hi Mr. Swordfish, you've reverted my edit removing the fan death entry for being obsolete, saying you "can't find anything there that implies it is obsolete." These are the quotes I based my assessment on:

• The lede says: "While the supposed mechanics of fan death are impossible given how electric fans operate, belief in fan death persisted to the mid-2000s in South Korea"
• The article later quotes a Slate (magazine) article saying ""A decade of Internet skepticism seems to have accomplished what the preceding 75 years could not: convinced a nation that Korean fan death is probably hot air.""

This seems pretty conclusive that it is obsolete. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The full quote from the slate article is:

Ken Jennings, writing for Slate, says that based on "a recent email survey of contacts in Korea", opinion seems to be shifting among younger Koreans: "A decade of Internet skepticism seems to have accomplished what the preceding 75 years could not: convinced a nation that Korean fan death is probably hot air."

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/01/fan-death-korean-moms-think-that-your-electric-fan-will-kill-you.html

This says to me that many younger Koreans do not believe the misconception. It does not say that the misconception has disappeared or is obsolete, just that "opinion seems to be shifting among younger Koreans". It will probably become obsolete over time, but I'm not seeing clear evidence that it is now.

This article from 2015 treats it as a current phenomena. [4]. Here's another from 2020 [5] which included the assertion that almost all fans in South Korea come with timers to turn them off after a specified amount of time. I don't think this one is obsolete. Yet. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these sources. The NPR article is from a decade ago and says the belief is held by older Koreans (older when the article was written), which seems compelling that it is becoming obsolete. I would support adding some details to the entry clarifying that it is held by older Koreans and there is a consensus among younger generations that it is untrue. I'm also curious as to how these sources would be used to say the belief is obsolete: in 10 years do we notice that the older Koreans the belief was held by are now dead and remove it? Maybe a silly question. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a good question: how old is too old to include? Since the rise of the internet it is easier to come by material that debunks old myths, so I would hope that many of the entries on this page would "age out" and become obsolete. I think we have a better handle on the ancient part of "ancient or obsolete", but obsolete is harder to pin down. Note that the only source we have supporting the obsolence of this entry is a "a recent email survey of contacts in Korea" as reported in Slate - it sounds like the author just asked some of his friends in an informal survey. I don't think this is enough. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think if it's going to be removed on the claim that it is obsolete then there some be evidence of that, preferably by way of sources. That the 2015 NPR article is ~9 years old is relevant if there are newer sources that contradict it, but I don't see that here. The Slate article doesn't appear to support the idea that it's an obsolete misconception either, at best A recent email survey of contacts in Korea suggests... which looks to be a very small sample size or anecdotal accounts of a few individuals. - Aoidh (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The NPR article being published 9 years ago isn't relevant because it's old, but because then it was believed by "many older people" and that in 10 years that population shrinks. I'll also note that the survey isn't asking whether they believe it, but surveying beliefs in how many people believe it nowawadays. People have stopped publishing so much on it nowadays (likely because it's not as prevalent if at all). Of informal sources from the last few years commenting on it, all are saying it's becoming obsolete, if it isn't already. [1][2][3] ("I’m really not sure if anyone believes this these days or not.") A more [reliable source] says "the belief is in decline there." It's always going to be hard to get sources saying a belief is obsolete, because if it is, it doesn't need to be debunked and written about, but of articles writing about societal trends in belief, there seems to be a consensus that it's dying out, if not already dead. If there's a belief common among over 70s, and no-one else, I would also kind of argue that it's not really that common. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

While other sources do, the NPR article doesn't say "many older people" it simply says "many people", and certainly doesn't say anything like "over 70s, and no-one else". Age brackets like that aren't given from what I've seen. These are conclusions not stated by the source. For Slate, while emailing a few colleagues to ask them for an anecdotal account isn't a reliable metric for such a claim, that source doesn't suggest the misconception is obsolete or even about to be in any reasonable amount of time regardless. According to this June 5, 2024 article it is indeed not obsolete. - Aoidh (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you don't think the NPR article doesn't say "many older people." You can do a control F search. The Slate piece also does explicitly say the misconception is obsolete even if you disagree with the methodology being conclusive: "A decade of Internet skepticism seems to have accomplished what the preceding 75 years could not: convinced a nation that Korean fan death is probably hot air." Your final source actually says that while many older Koreans still hold the belief, "for the most part, people have begun to realize that there is no validity in so-called fan deaths." If "for the most part" something isn't believed in a country, belief is uncommon in that country. This poses a more existential question: List of common misconceptions among who? Is a misconception "common" if it is held almost entirely by older people in South Korea? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Ctrl+F on the NPR article shows 2 results for many people and none for many older people or even the word older. The Slate article comes nowhere close to even suggesting that it's obsolete, let alone being explicit about it. That sentence is lacking the preceding context and even selectively quoted does not say this is obsolete. Reading the entire paragraph shows that the only thing that article is claiming is that A recent email survey of contacts in Korea suggests to me, not that it is in any way a fact, and is only the younger generation. Which younger generation? It doesn't say and we can't draw our own conclusions as to what they might be. To suggest that every older generation has died off in the nine years since that article was written is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, especially without knowing which generations are being referred to. This is not an obsolete misconception, none of the sources come anywhere close to stating such and in fact show otherwise. - Aoidh (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Aoidh, you might be looking at the transcript page for the NPR article? Have a look at the original article posted by Mr Swordfish. If you still can't see it I can archive it for you in case it's regional. Re; Slate, my position is that the author does overstep in claiming that it's obsolete (to my reading) and it shouldn't be used as a source, I was just disagreeing with the notion that it doesn't say it is obsolete. Re; Dying off in the past 9 years: I agree with you. I however don't think everyone who believed a misconception has to be dead to make it uncommon. We use the age of sources all the time to establish whether something is obsolete (i.e. if a source published in the 70s says a belief is common, even if we don't have sources saying people have changed their minds and there are still old people who believe it today, it doesn't make it common). I am definitely not saying this should be used to solely say it's obsolete however! What do you think about the discussion on the quote pulled from the Stars & Stripes source? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, yes I was looking at this 2015 NPR source that I linked above that was found in the article, not this version. The Stripes article does say people have begin to realize which suggests that perception is changing, but that's not the same as it being obsolete. The source you added here has a footnote at the bottom of page 9 that says that the fan death belief is "general knowledge" in South Korea, though it's in decline. That contradicts the idea that it is obsolete, and I'd give more weight to Paolucci's work than opinion pieces online which appear to be largely anecdotal, though not even those suggest obsoletion. - Aoidh (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If you have a look again at Paolucci's work, you'll see the "general knowledge" is about people in other countries "knowing" South Koreans believe this, not general knowledge in South Korea. If you're reading the Stars and Stripes comment as purely commenting on a recent change in belief, what do you think the phrase "for the most part" is modifying re; "people have begun to realise"? I don't think the sentence makes sense if you read the comment as narrowly referring to a recent change in attitude. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if this reading of what "general knowledge" means is accurate, that still doesn't support the claim that this misconception is obsolete, nor do any of the other sources, recent or otherwise. "On the decline" is the most that these sources say in that regard, and a declining belief is not the same as it being obsolete; I'd imagine that believe in quite a few misconceptions listed here are "on the decline", but that's not the criteria for removal nor should it be. - Aoidh (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It's accurate. It is contained in a discussion of where the author heard about misconceptions, it's followed by how they heard about a German misconception from Der Spiegel and a friend. It's also a footnote to "one hears that some people in South Korea believe an electric fan can kill someone in his or her sleep." It's not being used to reference it being obsolete, just that it's on the decline. The Stripes article is being used to reference the claim that it is obsolete, as it says most people don't believe it, or words to that effect, which makes the belief uncommon. Maybe there's a disagreement here over what obsolete means: I think a belief is obsolete as a common misconception if it used to be common but isn't anymore, even if some people believe it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Toad Wart Removal

Going to run stuff through here first haha before I remove entries in the future. I removed the toad's wart entry citing criteria #1 and #4. I meant to cite #2 and #4, I apologise. The reason I removed this is as of the two sources used for the entry, neither describes the belief as common, failing #2 (the second might imply it, it's debatable). However, the first, a WebMD article, opens with the sentence "By now, you probably know that the idea of catching warts from toads is nothing more than an old wives’ tale." Hence, failing #4 (obsolete), and #2. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The sheer volume of search results at [6] should establish that it is both common and current. I'll leave it up to other editors to sort through all the results to find the reliable sources for it. Seems pretty solid to me. Granted, some sources say it's an old myth, but old is not the same thing as non-current. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I would be wary just looking at volume of search results, i.e. is friday 13 unlucky has a lot of articles "debunking" the notion, but if we have RS saying it's not common then I would err on removing the entry. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Struck through previous response as I don't think it's very coherent or really responds to your comment. I did find a RS which implies the belief isn't common: "The classic myth that warts are caused by touching toads is, of course, untrue.". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Babies Feel Pain Entry Obsolete

Another entry likely failing criterion 4: Babies don't feel pain. People don't seem to believe this anymore: this Boston Globe article says the misconception was only really held by physicians and hasn't been believed for 20 years: "It probably goes without saying that infants can feel pain, as any parent or pediatrician could tell you." This implies that not only is this not a common misconception ("it goes without saying" that it's not true), but also that "any parent" would today actively know the opposite. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Overpopulation Entry Obsolete

Possible entry failing criterion 4: People fearing overpopulation. There's a lot of fear nowadays about fertility being below replacement rate; people now know what TFR stands for. From the Atlantic, 2019: "Already there are signs that local low fertility is becoming a folk issue in much the same way that global high fertility became one during the “population bomb” decades of the late 20th century." This implies overpopulation fears were a thing of the late 20th century. Some more quotes:

• "Populists push “pronatalist” policies, including tax breaks to have kids, as a solution"
• "fears of an ‘underpopulation crisis’ are rising"
• "But if you listen to economists (and Elon Musk), you might believe falling birthrates mean the sky is falling"
• "The first thing you need to know about the so-called demographic timebomb facing countries such as the UK and US is to never call it that."
• "Fears about falling birthrate in England and Wales are misplaced"

I'm not sure any of these are compelling enough sources to refute the claim that it is a "common misconception" that the world is headed towards global overpopulation. Better sources may be found that refute this. I do not believe it is a common misconception anymore however. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed change to Criteria 3

Current Criteria 3: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources."

Proposed New Criteria: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article as a common misconception with sources."

Mentioning in a topic article has (at least) three justifications:

• Verifiability: Get topic experts to evaluate claim
• Notability: Should be notable enough to be included in a topic article, not trivial
• Navigation: The list should function as a navigation tool to discussions of common misconceptions to be permitted through WP:SAL. (i.e. see here)

Not requiring the topic article to describe the entry as a common misconception fails all three or would be improved on with the proposed change.

An example of a page passing the current criteria 3 but failing a proposed new criteria is carnivorous plants Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Speaking entirely personally, I would be for loosening or even discarding this criterion [NB criteria is the plural form :) ] rather than strengthening it. It seems potentially disruptive to make inclusion on this list dependent on possibly quite minor editorial changes that might happen to be made from time to time in some other article. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. How would you ensure there's a notability standard for items having entry? Would that just be consensus of RS saying a belief is "common"? And what do you think about the navigation justification? Is there another notability standard that the page meets, so it's not just WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I think the current criterion is the weakest option out of the 3 possibilities (eliminate, keep, strengthen). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The idea behind criteria 3 is that the editors here can't be experts in everything, and one rough proxy for notability is that if the presumed "experts" at the topic article think the misconception is notable enough to mention then that's a minimum for inclusion here. And if not, then it's probably too obscure to include here. However, criterion 3 does not require the topic article to establish that the misconception is common, although we require that as an additional criterion for inclusion on this page.

I have found criterion 3 useful to quickly dismiss left field proposals by referring the proposer to the topic article and to make the case there. However, I don't think we can necessarily depend on editors at the topic articles to research and present evidence of commonality. That is, we rely on the topic articles to establish existence and notability of a misconception; establishing commonality is left up to the editors here. I think that is a good approach and favor sticking with the current criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I see you most strongly support the second justification for criterion 3; what do you think of the third? I think it's interesting that it's referenced in the second sentence of the article as that seems to give it a more central importance.

Why do you think when establishing notability, it should only be in terms of the entry as a misconception, rather than as a common misconception (the page is not list of misconceptions after all)?

"referring the proposer to the topic article and to make the case there." I haven't been around so much lately, but I don't think I've seen an example where someone has gone to the topic page and failed to make the case there. Could you give me an example where this has occurred? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent spate of cn tags

This article recently collected a bunch of cn tags, most of which seem to be spurious. I've fixed up few, but don't particularly want to waste my time on all the others. Often, the cited source supports the entry if one bothers to actually read it. If there are problems with a specific entry this talk page is the right venue. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Here are some of the tags you've removed as spurious:

• Thomas Crapper's name originating from the word Cropper: I apologise for missing this. The claim that his name originates the word 'crap' however, is not in any sources listed, which I have tagged.
• 420 needs sources to say which misconceptions are common: The source article says "Indeed, most instead believe one or more of the many spurious explanations that have since grown up about this much abused short form" and then lists eight explanations. We only list the first two as the common misconception, despite the source equally saying the others are common misconceptions. Hence why I wrote that additional sources were needed to clarify which were actually common, or else all should be included as common. I don't think this is spurious.
• "faggot" is not cited as a common belief: You've changed the misconception now to it being a misconception that gay people were never burned (I'm not sure what you're trying to write, I think there's been a typographical error), but there is still no source saying the belief is common. The closest that comes to that is "The explanation that male homosexuals were called faggots because they were burned at the stake as punishment is an etymological urban legend." This does not say the belief is common which is what the tag was requesting a cite for. This is not spurious.
• "funnest" being called not a real word is uncited: Yes, there's no citation for this. I've just double checked. This is not spurious.
• "All words in English became accepted by being commonly used for a certain period of time; thus, there are many vernacular words currently not accepted as part of the standard language, or regarded as inappropriate in formal speech or writing": No sources discuss this explanation for why it's a misconception. I don't think it's spurious.
• The Monkees does not have a citation saying the misconception is common: The only source attached says that the misconception has been repeated in some high profile places. We do not generally accept that as proof of a belief being common.
• Rolling Stones stabbing myth originated in Rolling Stone magazine's reporting: We just attached a contemporary Rolling Stones article that states the misconception, there is no indication they are the first to report this or originate it. Not spurious.
• Rolling Stones were playing Sympathy for the Devil, got interrupted, and then started playing different song is uncited: yes, the only citation that could be discussing this (since the other is the Rolling Stones article which is perpetuating it) only says "Contrary to popular legend, “Sympathy for the Devil” was not the song being played when a young man was killed at the free concert. The band was knocking out “Under My Thumb” when 18-year-old Meredith Hunter was stabbed to death by a member of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle club." Definitely not spurious.

I haven't gone through all the things you've marked as spurious. To my eye, you've identified one error that I've made. I have identified several errors you have made. I am reinstating the tags you have deleted, please do not continue to wholesale delete tags based on a false assumption that they are spurious. The talk page is not the correct venue to take issue with specific items, it would quickly be overwhelmed and the comments would get lost. I have counted 46 items I don't believe actually have a source saying a misconception is common and I am not halfway through the article; too much to dump on the talk page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I looked at several entries that were flagged. A couple had a tangential factoid that was not adequately sourced, so I just removed that extraneous since it was not essential to the entry. After looking at the three flagged microwave entries, which were either clearly sourced in the entry or clearly sourced in the topic article I began to wonder whether it was worth my time to address all the recently added tags. I'll look into addressing some of these, but I could use some help. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Replying to specific entries:

• Thomas Crapper's name originating from the word Cropper: I apologise for missing this. The claim that his name originates the word 'crap' however, is not in any sources listed, which I have tagged.

Can't find anything either. Claim is tangential to the entry so I removed it.

• "faggot" is not cited as a common belief: You've changed the misconception now to it being a misconception that gay people were never burned (I'm not sure what you're trying to write, I think there's been a typographical error), but there is still no source saying the belief is common. The closest that comes to that is "The explanation that male homosexuals were called faggots because they were burned at the stake as punishment is an etymological urban legend." This does not say the belief is common which is what the tag was requesting a cite for. This is not spurious.

The phrase " etymological urban legend" might be enough to satisfy the criteria. I'd be interested to hear other editors' opinions.

• "funnest" being called not a real word is uncited: Yes, there's no citation for this. I've just double checked.

There was a source for this at one time. Can't find it now, and not worth pursuing. Tangential to main misconception so I removed it.

• "All words in English became accepted by being commonly used for a certain period of time; thus, there are many vernacular words currently not accepted as part of the standard language, or regarded as inappropriate in formal speech or writing": No sources discuss this explanation for why it's a misconception.

This language was the result of a long discussion on this talk page with this as a compromise. I never liked it so I'm happy to see it go, but there may be some pushback if those editors are still around. I think the entry reads better now that it focuses on the word rather than a nebulous general concept.

• The Monkees does not have a citation saying the misconception is common: The only source attached says that the misconception has been repeated in some high profile places. We do not generally accept that as proof of a belief being common.

The title of the cited article is "In 1967 Mike Nesmith Fooled The World..." That's good enough for me. Who is we?

Don't really know about the 420 entry. Need to look further into the Stones entries. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• "faggot": Etymological urban legend isn't describing how common it is. We have a page for urban legends, whether they relate to etymology or not, and they shouldn't all be brought across just because they are described as urban legends.
• "irregardless": I agree that it looks better, it was too messy.
• "In 1967 Mike Neswith fooled the world": When I read this I thought that it was obvious this didn't show it was current, as the world got fooled in the 60s, but I'm now thinking it might just be saying "made people believe this" and wasn't referring to a time. I still think it's too ambiguous and should have a better source. The "we" is the talk page editors of this page, who generally don't add entries to the page just because someone can find some examples of the misconception being repeated, rather, it needs to be described as a misconception in a RS. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

First amendment entry cn tag

I removed the cn tag since the cited source says "Let’s look at some common First Amendment arguments; illuminated and debunked by a constitutional expert. "

Note the usage of "common" and "debunked" in the source.

It also says "Bottom line: It protects you from the government punishing or censoring or oppressing your speech. It doesn’t apply to private organizations." and "If it’s a private institution, it’s probably not a First Amendment issue."

This cn tag was restored with the reason "Please read the reason listed for tags before you remove them. The article quoted does not say it's a common misconception that it includes restrictions by individuals."

I'm not sure how someone can misread this, but maybe I'm the one misreading it. Source is here [7]. Does the cn tag stay? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

So as with a lot of misconceptions on the page, we include more than one in one entry, separated by the word 'or'. It's easier to see in a case like the Adidas entry, where just because a source establishes it's a common misconception that Adidas stands for "all day i dream of sex", it doesn't mean that "all day I dream of soccer" is necessarily established as being referenced as a common misconception.

There are two misconceptions here in the first amendment misconception: that restrictions imposed by private individuals are a violation of the first amendment, and that restrictions imposed by businesses are a violation of the first amendment. The source you're referencing establishes the businesses misconception to be common. It doesn't establish the individual misconception to be common, which is what the citation needed tag is referring to. You'll notice that none of the text you quote refers to individuals, it all refers to organizations. The individual misconception is not mentioned in any of the sources. Even if you disagree with this framing of splitting the entry into two misconceptions, I think it's undeniable that the claim about individuals is unsourced. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The misconception is pretty clear: only government action runs afoul of 1A rights. Non-governmental entities, whether "organizations" or "individuals" can't violate 1A.

Some of your criticisms of the various entries here have merit. This one doesn't. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If the misconception is that non-governmental entities can't violate 1A, then let's change the article to say that.

It seems weird for the entry to imply it's a misconception that specifically individuals can violate 1A, when no sources listed are discussing this.

Just a note: I really appreciate how lucid your writing style is. I'm sorry mine isn't as straightforward. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Dark Ages Misconception Source Tension

The Lindberg source substantiates the first two clauses of the misconception: "The Middle Ages were not "a time of ignorance, barbarism and superstition"; the Church did not place religious authority over personal experience and rational activity"

The relevant text in the Grant text is "Reason, Christians argued, could neither prove nor disprove such revealed truths. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Christian scholars, usually theologians or theologian-natural philosophers, often tried to present reasoned analyses of revealed truths. They did so ostensibly better to understand, or to demonstrate, what they already believed on faith. We shall see that the use of reason in medieval theology and natural philosophy was pervasive and wide-ranging. Indeed, medieval scholars often seem besotted with reason. But there was one boundary line that reason could not cross. Medieval intellectuals, whether logicians, theologians, or natural philosophers, could not arrive at conclusions that were contrary to revealed truth – that was heresy."

This seems to imply the Church did place religious authority over rational activity. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Relevant quote from Jones source "The historian David C. Lindberg reports that “the latemedieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church” (Ferngren, 2000, p. 266)." Quoting Lindberg again Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

"the latemedieval scholar" The Late Middle Ages cover the period from c. 1300 to 1500, roughly between the Great Famine of 1315–1317 and Vasco da Gama's voyages to the Indian subcontinent. The term Dark Ages is used as a synomym for the Early Middle Ages. It defines the period in terms of "economic, intellectual, and cultural decline", in comparison to the perceived "greatness" of the Roman era. The Early Middle Ages article does cover events like the breakdown of trade networks in the Migration Period and the depopulation caused by the Plague of Justinian. Dimadick (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This is very helpful. It seems like the Lindberg is saying if we take the first and third sources together: it's a misconception that the Middle Ages had religious authority placed over rationality, and an extreme case of how wrong this is, is the late Middle Ages where this is definitely not true. This description of the state of scholarship seems very at odds with the Grant text. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed entry: Founding of Nazi party

A section should be added regarding the foundation of the Nazi Party. Something like:

The Nazi Party was not founded by Adolf Hitler. It was founded in January 1919 as the German Workers' Party by far-right agitator Anton Drexler, with Hitler only joining in September of that year.

Seeing as Drexler is almost never mentioned in any pop history books or articles (some AI's have even told me it was Hitler) and that this misconception has almost no attention from the media, I think it's a good addition. ManfromMiletus (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@ManfromMiletus: Can you show that it meets the inclusion criteria at the top of this talk page? Particularly in regards to criteria 2 and 3. I may be overlooking it but I don't see anything in Nazi Party about this misconception, for example. - Aoidh (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You make a good point. I'll circle back around to this if I find any major articles addressing it, but for now I'll avoid adding anything. ManfromMiletus (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sushi entry

The sushi entry is back. It was removed in 2016 for failing the inclusion criteria, although I can't say we reached consensus to remove it at that time.

Please review the previous discussion at [8]. I was in favor of keeping the entry at that time and favor including it now. Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I did check the archives before submitting it because I wanted to remember why it got taken out. But yeah, the source used meets the criterion with "Contrary to popular belief". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)