Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Pre-ejaculate

Popular belief – dating to a 1966 Masters and Johnson study – stated that pre-ejaculate may contain sperm that can cause pregnancy, which is a common basis of argument against the use of coitus interruptus (withdrawal) as a contraceptive method. However, pre-ejaculate is ineffectual at causing pregnancy.

Benjamin (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• In theory an item like this could land on this list, but to me it looks like one of those cases where it's too hazy. Even if some newer studies make a strong statement, we will still have some reliable sources who continue to say the opposite. Many science and medical questions remain forever up for debate, even when most experts are in agreement. It's very much like political/economic questions.

  I can't figure out what Pre-ejaculate is trying to say here. Can you go to Talk:Pre-ejaculate and see if you can get consensus for some more definitive language? It kind of looks like that's not possible because you've got a handful of conflicting studies with lots of "may" and "might" conclusions. "Pre-ejaculate is ineffectual at causing pregnancy" is not the same as the statement "You can't get pregnant from pre-ejaculate". The article Coitus interruptus isn't very consistent with Pre-ejaculate. There would need to be consensus for a clearer statement in both articles, and the coitus interruptus article appears to say the sources are even more contradictory than the pre-ejaculate article.

  Aside from that, pre-ejaculate is only one of the reasons withdraw is an ineffective birth control method, and so even if one were to prove that pre-ejaculate contains zero sperm, ever, for anybody (unlikely) it's still kind of a meaningless point. There's a common misconception that pulling out works, and a common believe that it's bound to fail, and among those who believe it is poor birth control, there are varying opinions as to why it is ineffective. A "common misconception" requires a little more straightforward erroneous belief. People who are right about coitus interruptus, but for a mixture wrong reasons and right reasons, are still basically right. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources disagree so this would not be any kind of misconception. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• IF it is reworded to accurately reflect the diversity of opinions in sources with WP:NPOV weight -AND- one or more sources says it is a myth, misconception or point of confusion, THEN I would support its inclusion. Assuming Dennis Bratland's comment is correct, there is not general agreement that the probably of pregnancy from pre-ejaculate is basically 0%, but there may be a consensus that it is likely near 0%, with the common hedge words you see in scientific writing about cause and effect. I would agree then it's not entirely black/white.

There is also the more straightforward question, "Does pre-ejaculate have sperm?" That might be the real myth.

I'm not yet convinced there is no myth, but I believe the wording proposed above will need to be re-worked if it is to be included. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair way of putting it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr is right too, putting it succinctly. Some misconceptions could theoretically be on this list, but we exclude them because it's too difficult to sort out which sources to believe and to write the claim with enough qualifications to be correct. Since this list is long and difficult to maintain, we have to stick with entries that are clear and on solid ground. The low hanging fruit. Pre-ejaculate will constantly be challenged.

Under the human sexuality heading, we only have two items and we could easily add four or five very strongly supported common misconceptions related to virginity, virginity tests, the hymen and so on. Right in the lead of anal sex it says "While anal sex is commonly associated with male homosexuality, research shows that not all gay males engage in anal sex and that it is not uncommon in heterosexual relationships." There's plenty such of low hanging fruit for anyone who wants to expand the human sexuality topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Misconceptions are black or white/right or wrong. If there is a "diversity of opinions" then we can not claim there is a "misconception" in Wikipedia's voice per WP:YESPOV---> Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

That's an overstatement. The WP:V and WP:NPOV policies don't go that far. The essay Verifiability, not truth presents a detailed argument for why we don't adhere to such a rigid definition of "fact" as equivalent to "The Truth". But perhaps for purposes this list that's one way of identifying what I was calling the "low hanging fruit", those misconceptions which are very unlikely to be seriously challenged. But such a strict standard is not how Wikipedia generally determines what can be stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis Bratland's analysis. Few things are completely black/white, even in science. Just ask Heisenberg. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

In my experience it's generally white.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Lol. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Things that are "gray" can be treated in Wikipedia explaining the different views and following Verifiability, not truth, but that should be done at another article, not on this List. This List has a statement of fact in its title so we are already making a POV statement (taking sides) just adding an item here. Things added here should be a "fact" or very, very, very close to a "fact" (only counter amounts to WP:FRINGE) i.e. "very low hanging fruit". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Things that are "gray" can be treated in Wikipedia...but that should be done at another article, not on this List. I strongly disagree. I see no problem with gray items. People can think something is gray that is black/white. People can think something is black/white that is gray. People can believe something is far more or less likely than it is. (gray vs. gray). (e.g. probability of lighting striking twice in the same place, probability of a dice roll being less likely if it already come up, or probability of winning a hand is increased or decreased if you just won or lost a hand, etc.) There are many myths about gambling based on faulty knowledge of probability, and there are equally many complicated betting strategies based on those myths. I might add some gambling myths in they aren't already in the article!

This List has a statement of fact in its title It does not. It's about misconceptions, which can be about the things I described in the above a paragraph. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There are facts that are not seriously contested at all, excluding the old 'fringe' loons, which we don't cite at all. Then there are facts which are seriously contested, so that we treat them as opinions. But in between the two, there are facts that are contested by reliable sources (not fringe, not lunatics) but nonetheless are not seriously contested. We can acknowledge that not all reliable sources are 100% on board, without diminishing the level of consensus by misidentifying a fact as a mere opinion. That's one way of thinking about the gray area.

We do seem to agree about the pre-ejaculate question here, so there's no reason to bicker over it. And we know of many potential additions which are on very solid ground, without having to spend a lot of energy debating. Looking at the virginity related armistices I mentioned, there are a number of easy ones. If someone wants to make the effort to push through one of the harder ones in the gray areas, most of us here wouldn't reject it out of hand. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

We do seem to agree about the pre-ejaculate question here Do we? What do you consider the agreement? I lost track in the discussion about black/white.

Looking at the virginity related armistices I mentioned, there are a number of easy ones. If someone wants to make the effort to push through one of the harder ones in the gray areas, most of us here wouldn't reject it out of hand. Go for it!  ;) --David Tornheim (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Western Bias

I have a question on whether this article would have a western bias. An issue with identifying something as a common misconception is the people making this article, and the articles with the information from it, are likely western due to the English language the articles are written in. I'm not sure whether a lot of these are actually applicable to most of the world, which makes this article devolve into a list of misconceptions common to the United States. I'll do a breakdown of the article:

• Food and Culture section has 3 things out of 5 in it which seem to be exclusively American, or at least non-eastern at the least.
• Law, Crime and Government has 5 out of 7 applying only to the US, and only 1/7 seemingly applying to the whole world.
• Music section seems to be all western bias
• The religion section could be a universal list of misconceptions, or it could be western culture misunderstanding Eastern culture. I am not sure as a common misconception is often subjective without research.
• Sports includes 2/3 with western bias.
• The Words, Phrases and Languages section contains 12/13 misconceptions which appear to have a western bias. Almost all of these misconceptions are based in the English language, or at least English perceptions of other languages.
• Every misconception in the history section only applies to Western history.
• In the science section, while some misconceptions may appear universal, with a bit of digging, many are western, such as the Elephant's graveyard myth, with was popularised by the Tarzan films and another 1931 American film, or the lemmings suicide myth, which originated from a Disney film. There is a lot in here to analyse, but in the inventions section at least, it appears to all be exclusively western.

To improve this article to remove the western bias, it will have to be expanded to a much larger extent to include other cultures, or merely renamed to be 'List of common western misconceptions.' I may exclusively be viewing this as an issue, and I am interested in discussion.

JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, adding entries from other cultures would be most welcome. ‘Fan death’ is one of the best ones here. I would probably hesitate to include too many items entirely specific to non-English languages, since English is supposed to be the language of en.wikipedia.org. Like if Germans assume a German word has an incorrect origin. There are probably thousands of such items for all the world’s languages. But then again, I reserve judgment until I see the proposed addition.

Keep in mind that the list criteria preclude anything not in another article. Wikipedia as a whole has a western, English language and North American bias, as noted in WP:BIAS. This list merely reflects the state of all en.wikipedia, and we can’t fix that here. The list can only globalize about as much as the whole encyclopedia. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. It does have a western bias. Perhaps, rather than trying to remove the bias, we change the title? Something like "List of common American misconceptions"? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that would make the problem worse, not better. Making the bias explicit wouldn't remove any bias, but it would lead to the removal of the entries that ameliorate the bias. TompaDompa (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• We definitely don't want to narrow the scope geographically or linguistically. That is too arbitrary. Over on the AfD I suggested something we could add to the criteria to help guide globalisation. I'll paste it here with a few modifications.

"Entries should not be restricted to small geographic areas. Generally, only misconceptions referenced as being common across multiple countries are potentially eligible for inclusion. Misconceptions which are only common in a single country, with any believers elsewhere consisting mainly of its expatriates, are generally not eligible. Misconceptions common in only one country may be eligible for large countries with high populations but such exceptions must be well referenced as being very common throughout that country. Editors of the English Wikipedia should take care not to give undue weight to the misconceptions common in English speaking countries. Examples: Misconceptions common across the English, French, Arabic or Spanish speaking worlds are equally eligible (assuming that they meet the other criteria). Misconceptions common across regions such as West Africa, South Asia, North America or Eastern Europe are equally eligible (assuming that they meet the other criteria). Misconceptions specific to large individual countries such as China, Russia or the USA are eligible only if very common throughout the whole country but generally are not. Misconceptions specific to smaller countries or to specific regions of large countries are not eligible. (Note: This means that misconceptions common in only a few states of the USA are not eligible.) This may mean that many interesting and/or amusing candidate entries are excluded. This is intentional. This is necessary to avoid trivial and excessive entries to maintain focus on the most common misconceptions globally."

Now that's just my idea. Other people can build on it if they want to or they can propose something completely different. At least it gets the discussion started.

Globalising the article will probably need two approaches. Removing trivial western entries and adding non-western entries. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

If a current entry is trivial, that might be grounds for removal without considering systemic bias at all. But removing it because it's Western and kind of trivial is not helpful. We should apply the same bar of triviality to all entries, regardless of country. It only makes it worse if we have a double standard where Western entries need to be more significant than non-Western. Readers notice when you do that and it tends to decrease respect and acceptance for the cultures you're trying to spotlight. Rather than look around for Western entries to delete, it might be more helpful to go to the talk pages of WikiProjects for China or West Africa or wherever and ask editors there if they know of common misconceptions that are in existing articles that we could consider. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. But if most of the current trivial entries are western trivia then removing them helps address the imbalance as well as deal with the trivia issue. There is no need for a different standard for western entries which is why I didn't suggest one. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. "Just saying". Nice place you got here, be a shame if something happened to it. Several editors have a habit of bringing up the need to delete entries from this list in unrelated contexts. Which then precipitates an off-topic discussion about unrelated deletions. If you know of an entry that ought to be deleted, by all means, start a new discussion about that entry. It's unhelpful to harp on that everywhere else. It tends to create a common misconception of its own: that List of common misconceptions is filled with trivia. That argument has been made and rejected many times, such as the recent AfD, the fourth in a string of failed attempts to claim this list is filled with trivia and cruft. Consensus is against that opinion, and consider WP:IDHT as advice to heed consensus.

Please post which entries are trivial in an appropriate place, or stop the hand waving allusions to theses supposedly trivial entries. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Break for bulk of text

I decided to go through other Wiki's article on this, thinking they would have their own misconceptions. I didn't go through them all, and the Korean and Iranian still have some I haven't transferred, but here are the ones that were not included in the English article. Obviously we don't have to add them all, but just for consideration that these are misconceptions that exist in other countries. Sources can be found (for most) on the Wiki's page.

https://ar.wikipedia.org

The Declaration of Liberation issued by Abraham Lincoln in September 1862 did not free all American slaves directly, so that the areas under the southern secessionists ignored the resolution, and applied only in the areas under the control of the northerners at the time are South Louisiana, Tennessee and parts Of Virginia, [3] but the Thirteenth Amendment of 1865 abolished slavery altogether.

Cooked and unopened oysters do not harm health.

Louis Armstrong was not born on July 4, 1900. He was born August 4, 1901.

https://fr.wikipedia.org

The Roman Catholic Church did not stifle scientific research during the Middle Ages.

Most modern historians reject what we conceive as the Dark Ages as being that.

Droit du seigneur was a myth. No one has found mention of it in French law, the customs of France, or the public archives of civil or fiscal litigation.

Galileo was not sentenced to death for claiming the Earth was round. He was placed under house arrest for arguing the Earth was in motion.

The law against shooting parachutists in wartime before they touch the ground concerns only isolated paratroopers, ie; the crew of an aircraft in distress.

Adding oil to pasta while cooking does not prevent them from sticking. It is added to prevent water from overflowing or forming foam.

Microwaves do not let out harmful waves. [This one requires a reference]

The solstices and equinoxes do not necessarily fall on the 21st of the month.

The hidden side of the moon receives on average as much light as the visible side.

The phases of the moon have no impact on behaviour, the human metabolism or plant growth.

Chameleons change colour mainly to regulate temperature and to communicate, not to camouflage. Some species use this ability to camouflage however.

The Auk is a family of birds which can fly. They are often mistaken for penguins, due to two reasons. 1 - the similarity between penguins and the larger of the two auk species. In French, the word pingouin for it is also similar to the English word for penguin, the dutch word for penguin (Pinguin), the Spanish word for penguin (pinguino), and the german, italian, russian and portuguese words for penguin.

Lemongrass does not repel mosquitos

Sleeping in a room with Viridiplantae is not dangerous.

Hydrogen peroxide is not a good antiseptic for treating wounds.

Stress does not cause ulcers.

Removing white hair does not make it appear more.

Sugar cane fields are not burned before harvest to increase sugar levels but to expel poisonous snakes and facilitate cutting work.

The Trendelenburg position does not treat hypotension or states of shock, and can be dangerous.

Thales of Miletus did not come up with Thale's theorem

Arabic numerals are of Indian, not Arab origin.

The Big Bang does not provide an explanation of the origins of the universe, but explains the start of its evolution.

Having small metal objects on a person does not make them attract lightning.

Clouds consist not of gaseous water (water vapor), but small water droplets and ice crystals suspended in the air.

The Earth's mantle consist of solid rock, not molten magma.

The Mona Lisa, unlike its depiction in various media, notably cinema, is painted on a wooden panel, not canvas.

The English horn is neither a horn nor English. It is a wood instrument.

The harpsichord is not the piano's ancestor; they are not in the same family.

There has never been a council on whether women have souls. See the article - Synod of Mâcon

Original sin does not refer to sex, but the desire of men and women to be "like god", the equal of their creator.

https://ko.wikipedia.org

The revolutionary spirit of the French Revolution is known as freedom, equality, and fraternity, but it is freedom, equality, and rights. The former only became the official ideology of the republic with the adoption of the 1875 Consistution.

America did not enter WW1 due to unrestricted submarine warfare. They entered after a message was encoded in which the German foreign minister touted the benefits of invading the USA to the German ambassador in Mexico.

JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, how about each day, pick the best one and add it (or propose to add it with refs), so we don't get overwhelmed. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Food and Cooking Issues

Fortune Cookies:

Source [2] - Snopes - On Wikipedia, generally if Snopes is used and lists sources, use the sources instead of just listing Snopes.

Searing Meats:

Source [3] - Cookthink - :This source uses source [4], Harold McGee, as its source, so we are pretty much using source [4] twice. Cookthink is also a now defunct website which gave recipes based on user's cravings, hardly reliable.

I know that the policy on this article is to format entries as corrections, implying the misconception, rather than stating them, this misconception raises an issue for me. This article is a 'list of common misconceptions', and by not stating the misconception, it does not serve its title. It is also difficult for readers, who come for a list of common misconceptions, and receive a correction for a misconception they do not know about.

Cooking Alcohol:

Source [6] - Weil - This source comes from Dr Andrew Weil. He is a celebrity doctor who mainly deals with Alternative Medicine, thus medical information from him should not be considered mainstream. This source could, however, be used to identify it as a common misconception.

The article linked to, Cooking with alcohol, does not list this as a misconception.

Twinkies:

[9] - USA Today - This article says the shelf life of Twinkies has increased from 26 days to 45. Source [10], which is what is used in the article, says the shelf life (which no-where says original) was 'more like' 25 days. Our article lists the 'original formulation' shelf life, which sources no-where mention, instead they just mention a formulation which has been used in the past, with no reference to whether this was the original formulation. Our article also lists this 'original' shelf life as 25, even though the source is vague about it being 25, with a more specific 26 listed in a source we already have.

Most sources describe this belief as an urban legend, not a misconception. For the purposes of this article I'm not sure whether that means anything, but we should probably take it out as we do not want to start listing urban legends with the misconceptions. Alternatively the sources I have read may have been a minority, so multiple sources stating it is a misconception should be found.

Microwave Ovens Water Resonance:

Only one source is listed for this, although it is a good source.

JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Twinkies--Okay to remove I just read the Twinkie "urban myth" too, and although it is mentioned in one of the articles, I would rather take this one out. Here's why: Although I am sure the sell-by date on milk and other refrigerated perishables is based on regulations for consumer safety, I believe products with as many preservatives as Twinkies base the expiration date on taste.

I stocked a Coke machine with drinks at cost, and many times a significant percentage of the drinks would not sell before the sell-by date. My boss wanted them thrown out, which seemed wasteful. I had a hunch they were fine to drink even long after the sell-by date. I looked into it both on the website and talking to the distributor, and for the most part the expiration date was indeed about taste rather than safety. (Interesting fact: the Diet Cokes and other drinks with aspartame go bad much more quickly than the drinks with HFCS or real sugar like Coke, especially if they get hot.) I was told they were still safe to drink even if they tasted bad. If you want WP:RS on any of this, let me know.

So, when people say Twinkies don't "go bad", I think they mean, they don't decompose and rot. That's why the guy was able to save a Twinkie for 30 years. So, it's probably not exactly a "myth", just because the manufacturer tells you to throw them away because they will taste bad. Not sure about those McDonald's hamburgers that look fresh 2 years later.  :) [2]

And by the way, bottled water often has expiration dates too, and no, it's not because the water rots. :) [3] --David Tornheim (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if sources use the exact words "urban myth" or "urban legend" or "folk tale" rather than the specific phrase we happen to have chosen for this list, "common misconception". If a number of people think it's true, or at least think it has a strong basis in truth, it's a common misconception. If a significant number of people think it's probably true, it's a common misconception. It's utterly besides the point to be discussing whether the shelf life of Twinkies is 25 days or 100 days or 100 years. The point is, a lot of people believe Twinkies, and several similar foods, have indefinite shelf life. That's all.

We just need to say it in simpler words: "Twinkies do not have an indefinite shelf life". Full stop. Done. Confused? Questions? Click the links. TV Tropes has an extensive list of examples of Twinkies being the near-universal go-to item, though irradiated food, canned food (peaches for some reason in The Road and The City of Ember), and fruitcake are often included. So it could say "Preserved foods like Twinkies, fruitcake, canned food, or irradiated food such as MREs do not have indefinite shelf life." Done.

I strongly disagree with this recent trend of deleting items by lawyering the words and hairsplitting between urban legend and common misconception, or getting hung up on details like how many days a Twinkie's official shelf life is. Don't nuke an entry because an irrelevant detail is wrong. Delete the irrelevant detail or just fix it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Fruitcake#Shelf_life is an interesting boundary case. "Almost" edible after 106 years, if it contains a lot of alcohol. But almost! Not actually edible, though several decades of shelf life is probably the limit here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I hear you. This is not a technicality about whether it meets the requirements for inclusion. It meets the requirements.

This is a an editorial choice to leave it out, because I feel it is misleading to omit this:

My main objection, which would need RS (e.g. [4],[5],[6],[7],[8]), is that the twinkies, bottled water, and sodas don't go "bad" and rot like milk, yogurt, fruit, meat, etc. into something that will make you sick. Consider Michael Pollun's Food Rules, that include "If it doesn't rot, don't eat it." [9] To me, those who are calling it a myth, including the companies, are conflating sell-by dates for taste with expiration dates for safety.

This article says, "Last year, we ate a 1987 Twinkie...delicious" which disagrees with the company rep. who speculated a 30-year old twinkie would taste bad.

I tend to be more of an inclusionist and want to inform, so if some of the above can be included, I would be okay keeping it.

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Acne

Acne is mostly caused by genetics, rather than lack of hygiene or other personal faults.

Sources at the article. Benjamin (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS that could be added to the acne article that people believe it is caused by hygiene or "personal faults"? I didn't see it in the article, but maybe it is there somewhere. Actually, I just looked with Google and this would probably work. It does list two other myths. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Friendship paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_paradox

The friendship paradox is the phenomenon first observed by the sociologist Scott L. Feld in 1991 that most people have fewer friends than their friends have, on average.[1] It can be explained as a form of sampling bias in which people with greater numbers of friends have an increased likelihood of being observed among one's own friends. In contradiction to this, most people believe that they have more friends than their friends have.[2]

Benjamin (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Would help if you supplied 4 or 5 reliable sources stating its a common misconception instead of keeping us guessing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Read the article yourself. Also, stop trying to imply that some arbitrary number of sources is a requirement. Benjamin (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Try reading WP:V some day. Anyway, fails #2 and #3 so far. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say that "4 or 5" sources are required? Benjamin (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

How about one for starters? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It does not fail #2 or #3. #3 is easily met with Friendship paradox. #2 is met from ref [2] in the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I am starting to understand the frustration you felt that led you to file the WP:AN/I complaint you did. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't ping me to this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Okay to include -- Interesting stuff. Do you know if the ref. [2] was cited in other secondary psychology journal articles? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support — Go ahead and add it to the list. If the wording or citations aren't quite perfect, we can always make some adjustments. This is a pretty good example of a fact that is "uncontested and uncontroversial". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support -Agree with consensus here, this should be included. Squatch347 (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

What section should it go in? Benjamin (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Psychology? Squatch347 (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it. Benjamin (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Cash Registers

"The Bell on Early Cash Registers, Not Marketing, is Why Prices Like $1.99 Rather Than $2.00 Exist" Benjamin (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Great story. Doesn't apply to modern business practices though. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It really presents no evidence that 1.99 is not marketing when it is used today.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

References

poverty

Global poverty has declined dramatically, but the overwhelming majority of people think it hasn't.

Where should this go? I'm kinda surprised there's no "economics" section. There are a lot of common misconceptions about economics. Benjamin (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It would have to be a reliably sourced stable part of a link-able article. We got Poverty, but it ain't stable (its new) and its not reliably sourced. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Our World in Data is a very reliable source, right? But I'm trying to find the original source... Benjamin (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Found it! Benjamin (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how useful mediabiasfactcheck.com is in determining reliability for Wikipedia, but for what it's worth, left right bias doesn't seem to be a problem here, since one source is left and one right. (And still, neither are extreme.) Benjamin (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Linked source fails a bit in reliability because its more of a primary source paper, not the boiled down secondary source required (see WP:PST). It also does not seem to describe a misconception. For a list of "common misconceptions" there would have to be (several) main stream sources describing the misconception specifically. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be okay in this case since it's not WP:SYNTH? Benjamin (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

We really haven't got past WP:V yet, let alone criteria #2. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean, you don't think it's verifiable? I don't understand. Our World in Data is widely cited and has a reputation for producing high quality research. Do you really think they would just make something up? Benjamin (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

We have only one source claiming this is a misconception, HumanProgress... and yeah, they are known to make stuff up. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ballotpedia and CATO are two more secondary sources. But in this case, the data is clear, isn't it? There's no controversial or complicated analysis to make. Global absolute poverty is going down, and most people don't think so. These are facts. Do you really think that is in dispute? This is ridiculous. Benjamin (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is this is a list that lists Wikipedia articles that have a certain attribute, they enumerate a "common misconception". We don't make those assertions or those arguments here, no matter how well sourced. Its getting the cart before the horse. The place to discuss is Talk:Poverty. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Benjamin on this one. There is clearly a perception out there that global povery is as bad or worse than it was 50 to 100 years ago. I think the sources provided are certainly sufficient to show that it isn't correct. Though I agree, there isn't quite enough yet to support that it is, in fact, a misconception. I would add to that list and and all of which imply or openly state that global poverty is worse than it was (usually by using a misleading stat or a stat that isn't directly related to poverty like income disparity). Squatch347 (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that this perception seems to exist. But we need sources showing it. We have sourcing showing that it's wrong, but we need sources showing that it exists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • How about this? It verifies both that poverty has declined and that most people don't think it has. TompaDompa (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

That source looks pretty good to me, and it supports both statements and the conclusion. Go for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It should really be at Poverty, well sourced, and stable, before its listed here. We should not front run these things. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just discussing where the discussion is taking place. Make the edit at Poverty, and then give it a day or two. If no-one reverts, add it here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't expect Poverty to have a section about misconceptions, that is more in this page's balliwick. If you review the section on absolute and relative poverty it does contain the same trends and statistics referenced above. That poverty is decreasing. Agree with Bryn that we don't want to get out ahead of other articles, but I'm not sure that where we would put a section about misperception in that article without making it unencylopedic. Squatch347 (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine. Benjamin (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Benjamin, can you post the exact text you suggest for review? Squatch347 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Cleaned up the wording in the "Global prevalence" section. I agree with Squatch347 that making the language more encyclopedic (and looking over the sources re:what the study was and opposing views) this sounds more like peoples POV on poverty and/or their lack of awareness of a United Nations or World Bank report, not a "misconception". Also if claim has opposing viewpoints I don't think we can call it a "misconception" per WP:YESPOV. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The survey question wasn't "What is your opinion of poverty?", or "Have you heard about this particular report?", it was simply, "Do you think extreme poverty has increased or decreased?". And I think the results are clear. Benjamin (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, it is a fact that extreme poverty has declined. That much is not controversial. The controversial part is where exactly to set the threshold. But nevertheless, No matter what extreme poverty line you choose, the share of people below that poverty line has declined globally. Benjamin (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

We can't get inside other peoples heads as to what they thought a question meant, hence the observation being made that making such a statement as "common misconception" in Poverty is beyond what an encyclopedia does, we just present facts and figures. That makes us fall short of listdef #3. The WP:SAL/WP:V "common misconception" would have to be a large number of sources stating directly that this is a "common misconception" to get us past listdef #2, not seeing that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the sources are sufficient to establish the misconception. Benjamin (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Gents, I think firm up the consensus developing and perhaps give Bryn a bit more assurance, Benjamin, can you paste here your recommended addition? Squatch347 (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

Given that Benjamin hasn't posted a recommended entry. I'll offer one: "It is a common perception that global poverty is increasing (references) both in scope and scale. However, absolute and relative poverty (link to concepts) have both declined dramatically during the 20th and 21st Centuries. While estimates differ based on the methodology of defining poverty, most estimates range between 20 and 40 in the last two decades (references). Squatch347 (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It strikes me as too strongly worded. I am totally on board with the notion that global poverty has gone down at a remarkable rate, almost certainly far more than most people would guess, but I'm not convinced that there are a large group of people that actually think it's gone up. I suspected something most people don't think about very often, so if we did a "man or woman in the street" survey, we did all lot of "I don't know", a few "about the same", a few" up maybe?", with the last group similar to the size of people who believe in ghosts. I think this is worthy of entry but we need to do more work on wordsmithing and I apologize for simply throwing rocks at your suggestion and not offering an improved alternative.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I threw it up there for people to throw rocks at. I think you are right that most people don't actually think about it much. The man on the street poll was what was discussed with the book citation referenced earlier. It seems to indicate that less than 10% of people correctly answered the question about poverty rate change, which seems somewhat dramatic. Maybe change the opening sentence to say something more like "When polled, few respondents could correctly identify that poverty rates have decreased, with a strong majority indicating they thought they had increased."

Thoughts? Squatch347 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to this poll?

That's a mildly frustrating article (unless I read it too quickly). I understand that when someone does a survey with lots of questions and lots of possible answers, it may be difficult to provide an exhaustive list of all the answers but in this case they asked one question with three possible answers. They provided the statistics for the people who got the correct answer (C), which is enough information to know the values for the sum of A and B, but they don't break out the responses for answer A. Your revised wording is correct only if you have evidence that the respondents who picked answer A are a strong majority. That doesn't appear to be in the link I provided — perhaps you have a link with more detail?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That appears to be the same poll, though it came through in a different source (linked in this discussion). The conclusion that most respondents had overestimated was contained in the surrounding text. I did find this: https://globescan.com/increases-in-perceived-seriousness-of-poverty-and-homelessness-global-poll/ perhaps as another source. It also has its limitations as some of its earlier polls referenced conflate economic fairness with poverty rates. Still, it does seem to indicate that the perception of poverty as increasing is present in the country's surveyed. Squatch347 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some edits based on the feedback:

"When polled, a majority of people in most developed nations indicate they believe that global poverty is increasing [Human Progress][Forbes][Factfulness book] in both scope and scale. However, absolute and relative poverty (link to concepts) have both declined during the 20th and 21st Centuries. While estimates differ based on the methodology of defining poverty, most estimates range between 20 and 40 in the last two decades [Human Progress][Our world in data][finca][globalissues][factfullness].

Squatch347 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Assuming your linked article is poverty, it still fails #3, there is not a "common misconception" described at that article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Both Poverty and Extreme poverty reference this as a misconception based on public opinion polls and reference the reduction. Given that, I think it qualifies fine. Squatch347 (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The benchmark here is "common misconception", not just that people think something else. That it is a common misconception needs to be hashed out at the linked article first (supposedly where the experts are), before its added here. In short you are proposing this change on the wrong talk page(s), i.e this should be discussed at Talk:Poverty and/or Talk:Extreme poverty. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that it is an incorrect belief that is widely held doesn't constitute a "common misconception?" The requirement is: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." The misconception is listed on that page and it has sources. There is nothing in there that says that we need to get a vote or consensus. It is on that page and listed with sources. Requirement met. Squatch347 (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Requirement #3 is "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.", not "The misconception"... Also the secondary sources have to state that it is common misconception, we can not do the WP:OR of comparing numbers and polls and drawing our own conclusion that it is a "common misconception". The claim is also contradicted by the very next citation in Poverty, so we can not make an assertion that is is an "incorrect belief" per WP:YESPOV #2. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That is a strained reading of that requirement at best. The common misconception is listed there. The item we are discussed is listed with secondary sources. If we were to adopt your definition, we would need to delete something around 75% of this page's content (I looked at the first 30 items and only about 6 would meet your standard, if that). Clearly the editors and admins who've been on this page haven't adopted your interpretation.

Your statement about the next citation is also incorrect. There is disagreement (which is mentioned in the suggested text) on how to calculate poverty rate, not disagreement that it has decreased. Squatch347 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

You are making a WP:OR statement that what is listed is a "common misconception", a secondary source has to make that assessment, not us. Per 75%: we have gone in a circle about that, other stuff existing is not a rational to add more, it is a rational for a cleanup. The last sentence in the proposed addition is WP:OR (we don't make statements based on tallying up different documents). The next source ends with "Moreover, defining poverty is not an exact science, experts say." - we can't hang a definitive statement on that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I disagree with your interpretation of the criteria. The source doesn't need to use the exact phrase "common misconception" in order to establish that it is indeed a common misconception. It could say "a bunch of people believe this thing that is incorrect", and that would be enough. "defining poverty is not an exact science" So what? It doesn't need to be. The social sciences in general are not exact sciences. And that is okay. And besides, it's not our job as editors to evaluate what is or isn't an exact science. All we do is listen to what the sources have to say. And in this case, it is clear that the sources support the proposed addition. Benjamin (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

If the sources don't make a specific statement we follow WP:V. If they differ, we follow WP:YESPOV. Please read the current AfD because there seems to be no support for a loose interpretation as to what a "common misconception" is. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The difference between "X is a common misconception" and "most people think X, even though it is incorrect" is merely a difference of wording, not a different viewpoint. Could you highlight for me the comments that argue otherwise? The AfD entry has become cumbersome to read by this point. Thanks. Benjamin (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear that the sources adequately establish the misconception, and I find continued discussion a bit frustrating. Benjamin (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. We now have four editors in agreement here. That is clearly as close to consensus as we are going to get. The only editor in disagreement has been engaging in clear page ownership and reverted all edits not his own. Squatch347 (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to come in late, but I think this is really a case of the bias towards pessimism. People always say that things are getting worse. In fact, according to most people, it's hard to criticise anything if you admit things have got better...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I support including this item, even though I generally would categorize economic issues as "political" and exclude them because they are too intertwined with political identity (e.g. the left and the right have different ideas about tax policy, and they both will insist the other is deluded). But I think this suggested text is not in keeping with the direction we want to go with this page, since it's too wordy and too detailed. A lot of the disagreement here is over the fine details of the wording. We can "cheat" on List of common misconceptions by being vague. This article is like a navbox -- you're supposed to click through to get the full nuanced details. Our text here just be very short: Poverty has declined, not increased, over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries. Boom. Done.

What kind of poverty? How do you define it? Absolute poverty or relative poverty? All good questions, but the answers are found by clicking the links, not here.

All of the entries here should be written like that. We all know this list is way too long. The phrasing "X is not Y, X is actually Z, and even though group G has often thought that X is Y, in fact, experts E and F have published data showing that X was Z all along!!!" Too many words!!! The very structure of this list always implies that "X is not Y, X is actually Z blah blah blah". Every entry repeats the same crap. The redundancy is what has bloated the page. Just say "X is not Y". Poverty has not increased, it has declined, during the 20th and 21s centuries."

Many editors think you don't have permission to go over to the article poverty (or whatever) and expand or clarify the text so that it presents the common misconception with the proper nuance and qualifications. That is false. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Full stop. Read WP:Editing policy. You cannot arbitrarily forbid anyone from editing any article. That would be a Topic ban and those are rare and applied in very specific cases after due process.

Go fix up the other articles, as long as you respect consensus, work out agreeable wording with other editors over on the talk pages, don't edit war, and make sure you cite your sources and meet the verifiability requirements. The text should not read like the result of a long battle and endless lawyering and quibbling. It should be short and snappy and it should make the reader want to click the links. You could even call it clickbait, though we don't want to go that far. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

So, do we have consensus for inclusion, or what? Benjamin (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC) There's still the question of what section to put it in. I think we should start an economics section. I think there are probably other common misconceptions about economics. Benjamin (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2

• oppose inclusion. I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr that this fails because there is no such myth in the appropriate article, and I do not believe it should be added. The proper article to refer to is Measuring_poverty, which does not support the conclusions. One must also question the objectivity of the World Bank--hardly an unbiased reporter and collector of data, because one of its primary goals is development [10] and strong ties to the IMF also whose goal is development [11]. (See World_Bank#Criticisms_&_Controversy, which is far from complete.) Numerous WP:RS discuss the problems with reliability of the World Bank data and assessment methods.

The first citation uses Human Progress. org for its survey which is part of the right-wing think tank Cato Institute see About.

The entry's claim that "While estimates differ based on the methodology of defining poverty, most estimates range between a 20 and 40 percent decrease in world poverty rates during the last two decades" is not in our articles or in the WP:RS. This appears to just be [[WP:OR}]. Because of these numerous series problems, I have deleted the entry. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice it had already been put in. Anyway, I think the sources are sufficiently reliable, but the entry could be reworded. Benjamin (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

To further clarify my position, I am not completely opposed to having something about this subject, but I believe a number of requirements would need to be met to make it acceptable:

(1) Human Progress . org cannot be considered WP:RS because of its connection with the advocacy group Cato Institute. I do not believe their survey can be used even if reported in other WP:RS, because of its obvious bias. Another source would be required to underpin any claim of misconception--one that treats the subject in an WP:NPOV way, the way our articles do. I'm not yet convinced there is one.

(2) If absolute poverty is to be mentioned, then it must be attributed to the World Bank and it must make clear that there are problems with reliability and with measurement (e.g. the arbitrariness of defining the poverty line and the other problems identified in WP:RS and the article.)

(3) That absolute poverty increases and decreases vary widely by region, and that the worldwide decrease reported by the World Bank is attributed primarily to specific regions in SE Asia. (explained in our article)

(4) That there are multiple ways to measure poverty, and relative poverty is at least as important in measuring and that there has been difficulty in measuring it.

(5) It must be clear that the decreasing # is the percent of people in poverty, not the number of people.

(6) That the number of people in poverty is increasing (this is in the articles and the WP:RS).

(7) Rather than saying that people misconceive something about the actual amount of poverty (which the WP:RS says is difficult to measure reliably), that they that misconceive the measurement of poverty, notably that of the World Bank.

Ultimately, my overall objection to the entry I deleted (and the other proposals above) is that they grossly oversimplify and/or mistate facts using the kinds of words we find in the Human Progress . org that come from an advocacy organization.

--David Tornheim (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC) [struck out (5) and (6) on 09:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)]

Cato has bias, as almost all sources do, to some degree or another, but it is still very reliable. They employ well regarded scholars, and consistently produce high quality research. Regarding your other points, they should be be discussed in the poverty article, but I think this entry should say that the portion of people living in extreme poverty has declined, because that is what the source says, and that is unambiguously true. There is only disagreement about it if you start talking about absolute numbers or relative poverty. Benjamin (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I am just getting to this. To address your points;

(1) I'm afraid I don't fully subscribe to this objection. CATO is used on multiple wikipedia articles with no issue. It's clear worldview is no different, in practice, than citing Human Rights Watch or the Southern Poverty Law Center. Both have clear ideological world views that inform their position, but neither is accused of not being reliable. Further, their article and graphic was run through the Gapminder Foundation, an independent, data oriented foundation that focuses on proper statistical analysis and data quality. Finally, its conclusions (as related to this entry) are validated by four other sources, so I don't see any reason to question them in this instance.

(2) Could you expound on this concern? Why would absolute poverty need to be attributed to the World Bank? I'll note the WP section on Absolute Poverty doesn't cite the World Bank at all, but rather the UN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold#Absolute_poverty Why wouldn't linking back to that page be enough?

(3) No disagreement there. But the fundamental misunderstanding highlighted in the sources are not about global poverty at the regional level, but overall world levels of poverty. While those are, of course, a composite, so are all economic data. Simply being a composite is not enough of a reason to argue that there isn't a misconception on an issue.

(4) No disagreement on this in concept either. But I'm not sure this is the place for a discussion of that. Maybe an additional sentence to this entry that says something akin to "It should be noted that poverty measurements can vary by methodology and there are various criticisms to many (with a link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold#Criticisms)?"

(5) Ok, perhaps a rewording a la: "most estimates range between a 20 and 40 percent decrease in percentage of the world's population that lives in poverty over the last two decades..."

(6) Could you perhaps elaborate here. I'm not sure I'm seeing what you are seeing, I don't see any discussion of absolute numbers increasing in the wiki articles, and the cited sources clearly say the opposite. To whit, "Since around 1970, however, we are living in a world in which the number of non-poor people is rising, while the number of poor people is falling. According to the estimates shown below, there were 2.2 billion people living in extreme poverty in 1970, and there were 705 million people living in extreme poverty in 2015. The number of extremely poor people in the world is 3 times lower than in 1970."

(7) This would not fit the source though. The question asked, which we base the misconception upon, is about whether global poverty has increased, decreased, or stayed the same. We can definitely link to criticisms of measurement styles, but the source article definitely does not go so far as to argue that there really isn't a good understanding of measurement. The base wiki article even goes so far as to say that most scholars agree with the poverty line measure of the world bank. I would be wary of letting some disagreement in the scholarly community translating to an implication here that "no one really knows."

Squatch347 (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your response here, until after I made the this revision described below. Hopefully, that revision will be okay. I will try to address some of your points soon.--David Tornheim (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Squatch347: Thanks for your input.

(1) It's clear worldview is no different, in practice, than citing Human Rights Watch or the Southern Poverty Law Center.. Typically, if anyone proposed using a non-profit like Human Rights Watch or Southern Poverty Law Center as WP:RS, Wikipedia editors would object saying that these are advocacy groups. The World Bank is certainly an advocacy group too--advocating development.

(2) Why would absolute poverty need to be attributed to the World Bank? All WP:RS I saw used the World Bank's data and metric, including the article you cited to: Poverty_threshold.

(3) We appear to agree.

(4) We appear to agree. Please look at my diff below and see if that works for you. We can discuss further.

(5) and (6) I made a mistake on this in my original post: I mistakenly thought the total # of people in absolute poverty was increasing, but that is decreasing too. Therefore, I have eliminated both. Please see my revised language below.

(7) We appear to be in disagreement there: Our article and other WP:RS I have examined clearly say that the World Bank's measurement is controversial.

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your response here, until after I made the this revision described below. Hopefully, that revision will be okay. I will try to address some of your points soon.--David Tornheim (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I put in this wording: Global extreme poverty as a portion of total population has almost halved in the last few decades, but the overwhelming majority of people surveyed in several countries think it hasn't. Benjamin (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I changed it to:

The World Bank's measurement of global absolute poverty using the controversial metric of $1.00/day (in 1990 U.S. dollars) shows a decrease in extreme poverty over the last few decades, but most people surveyed in several countries think that it has increased. However, the measurement of Global economic inequality shows an increase, and many scholars argue that relative poverty is a better measure than absolute poverty. The percent of people in absolute poverty varies substantially by region. For example, East and South Asia have seen the greatest reductions, while in Sub-Saharan Africa extreme poverty has increased.

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

A bit too wordy, if you ask me. Aren't we trying to generally make entries more concise? These details should be discussed in the relevant articles, not here. Benjamin (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not think it is a good idea to make the entries more concise if we lose critical information. The simple versions you have proposed are misleading, because they presume there is only one proper way to measure poverty and they rely on the the World Bank without attribution and do not mention that scholars have concerns with this method of measurement. I see our purpose as to inform, not to oversimplify complex issues. That's why I objected to your original post. If we provide accurate information, I am okay with including it. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's misleading. It's unnecessary to mention relative poverty or inequality, as that's not the subject of this misconception, and I'm not trying to make implications about it, either. The entry is true and uncontroversial as I worded it, I think. Are there really any reliable sources that would dispute that much? As I said before, I was under the impression that it's only controversial if you start talking about relative poverty or inequality. Also, "many scholars argue that relative poverty is a better measure than absolute poverty" Better for what, exactly? Benjamin (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Better for what, exactly? Measuring poverty. From our article Poverty#Relative_poverty:

Relative poverty is the "most useful measure for ascertaining poverty rates in wealthy developed nations". Relative poverty measure is used by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Canadian poverty researchers. In the European Union, the "relative poverty measure is the most prominent and most–quoted of the EU social inclusion indicators".

"Relative poverty reflects better the cost of social inclusion and equality of opportunity in a specific time and space."

In 1776 Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations argued that poverty is the inability to afford, "not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without".

In 1958 J. K. Galbraith argued that "People are poverty stricken when their income, even if adequate for survival, falls markedly behind that of their community."

In 1979, British sociologist, Peter Townsend published his famous definition, "individuals ... can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or are at least widely encouraged or approved, in the societies to which they belong (page 31)". This definition and measurement of poverty was profoundly linked to the idea that poverty and societal participation are deeply associated.

Peter Townsend transformed the conception of poverty, viewing it not simply as lack of income but as the configuration of the economic conditions that prevent people from being full members of the society (Townsend, 1979; Ferragina et al. 2016). Poverty reduces the ability of people to participate in society, effectively denying them full citizenship (as suggested by T.H. Marshall). Given that there are no universal principles by which to determine the minimum threshold of participation equating to full membership of society, Townsend argued that the appropriate measure would necessarily be relative to any particular cultural context. He suggested that in each society there should be an empirically determinable 'breakpoint' within the income distribution below which participation of individuals collapses, providing a scientific basis for fixing a poverty line and determining the extent of poverty (Ferragina et al. 2016).

Brian Nolan and Christopher T. Whelan of the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) in Ireland explained that "Poverty has to be seen in terms of the standard of living of the society in question."

Relative poverty measures are used as official poverty rates by the European Union, UNICEF, and the OEDC. The main poverty line used in the OECD and the European Union is based on "economic distance", a level of income set at 60% of the median household income.

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That is all good information and should be included in that article, but for this entry, I'm talking about extreme poverty specifically, so there's no confusion. Benjamin (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying we need to include all of that. I'm just showing you that measuring poverty is not so black/white. The confusion by respondents is probably due to this fact (not sure if survey address this possible confusion). I do understand that you are talking about absolute poverty, but if respondents (and readers) don't realize there are at least two different ways measuring poverty with different results, then we would be misleading them. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That's why I wouldn't just say "poverty", I would specify "extreme poverty", to remove the confusion. Benjamin (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

David Tornheim (talk), thanks for the heads up on the edit. I think it wanders a bit at points from the underlying conception and is far too focused on the World Bank given that the original sources (and the poll) aren't all referencing the World Bank absolute standard. That said, I don't think the part you replaced is descriptive enough. The section I added with consensus a month ago is probably closer to the middle ground, though I agree with you that it needs some update.

Here is my update to the original language with your concerns in mind.

When polled, a majority of people in most developed nations indicate they believe that global poverty is increasing  in both scope and scale (Sources from original). However, both absolute and relative poverty measures have shown a decline in both the percentage of people living in poverty and the absolute number living in poverty during the 20th and 21st Centuries (sources). There is controversy measuring poverty and criticism of most measurement methodologies, however most sources agree that poverty has decreased between 20 and 40 percent worldwide during the last four decades, though these numbers can vary wildly from region to region.

Squatch347 (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Not an improvement. This is regressing. The removal of sources by advocacy groups like Cato by Benjaminikuta and removal of claims by those advocacy groups such as "however most sources agree..." was an improvement. I do appreciate the inclusion of "numbers can vary wildly from region to region" which is an improvement. Also, it is required that this so-called "misconception" be added to the target article(s) and stick. As for the measurements of absolute poverty, if you can find WP:RS (other than from advocacy entities like Cato) that is not relying on the World Bank's numbers, I would like to see it. I suggest you use Google Scholar to find better sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt that way, I was trying to propose something that would address your concerns, but still reflect what appears to be the consensus of the field without making the entry unnecessarily long or complex.

As for sources. 1) The Human Progress link relies on data validated by The Gapminder Foundation, a well respected apolitical, nonprofit. That data does have World Bank data as well as a host of other sources including UNESCO, USAID, and others. 2) The Our World in Data citation offered contains more than 20 data sources and published papers. 3) The FINCA source relies pretty heavily on USAID data. 3) The Global Issues citation relies on World Bank data which it augments with UNICEF, United Nations Human Development Report, United Nations Millennium Development Goals data, and at least three other non-profit data sources. That would seem to be a good variety of sources saying, generally, the same thing. Privileging the World Bank with a named reference, I think, inappropriately elevates them as the key data source when that doesn't appear to be the case for the entry.

We could also use the United Nations Millennium Development Goals reports (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20%28July%201%29.pdf) which use a variety of sources (including the World Bank).

There are a host of other papers we could include (linked below), but at what point does the entry become unwieldy or border on OR? If we have a host of reputable sources indicating that poverty has, in fact, decreased, we can certainly note that it is a contentious subject, but we need to note what is the consensus opinion.

Papers we could include: https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/1813-9450-4623

https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19931859579

https://books.google.com/books?id=_Vs-g5rMzUAC&dq=global+poverty+trends&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1994.tb00081.x

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/089533003769204335

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jid.845

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1991.tb00378.x

Squatch347 (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Squatch347: I appreciate your bringing in new sources. Before I address your post, I want to point out that sometimes you refer to sources without making it easy to identify them. You repeatedly advocate for use of the "The Human Progress link", but do not provide the link, which is [12]. I had to spend 5-10 minutes trying to find it, because it is not on the talk page anywhere, didn't come up in Google, or on the Human Progress website, so I had to find it by looking at an old version from the article page. I think that is a lot to expect of other editors reading this talk page. I added it to your post above so others don't have to go searching for it too. So, in the future, I (and probably others) would appreciate if when you refer to a source you want to use that has a link, please provide it when you first talk about it on a talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• On the sources:

(1) The Human Progress link relies on data validated by The Gapminder Foundation, a well respected apolitical, nonprofit. That data does have World Bank data as well as a host of other sources including UNESCO, USAID, and others. Assuming I have the right link--please correct it if I got it wrong--there is no mention of those sources. It simply refers to OurWorldInData.org. Please note that the Gapminder Foundation is an advocacy organization that "promotes sustainable global development." Can you show me where they make such a claim of using other sources? A quote?

(2) The Our World in Data citation offered contains more than 20 data sources and published papers. Indeed, so do many of the sources I refer to, and so do our wikipedia articles that are more WP:NPOV than many of the sources mentioned on this talk page. But that doesn't answer my request: As for the measurements of absolute poverty, if you can find WP:RS (other than from advocacy entities like Cato) that is not relying on the World Bank's numbers, I would like to see it. I have looked over the Our World in Data and it spells out very clearly that it is relying on the world bank here: "The World Bank is the most important institution measuring the extent of global poverty for the time since 1981." When it comes to measuring recent global absolute poverty, every source I looked at either stated directly that they relied on the World Bank data or it seemed extremely likely that was where the data came from. That includes every source I have looked at that you are suggesting.

(3) I'm not sure what source that is. Please provide a link.

(4) I'm not sure what source that is. Please provide a link.

As for the other sources, most are books that I cannot look at. I'm not familiar with the authors' expertise in the subject. I'm not suggesting there is a dirth of WP:RS in the field. I'm just pointing out that every indication is that the data measuring recent global absolute (extreme) poverty comes from the world bank. You have not made the case that any other source is relying on other metrics to measure global extreme poverty. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Addition: I was just reading through your discussion with Ben again and something caught my eye that I missed before. I think before I noticed (and of course agreed) that the measurement of poverty is a complex subject, which I think is valid and probably should be referenced. What I missed was that you indicated you felt that the results depend on what type of measure you use. Certainly that is the case in the specific, both measures are telling us very different types of things. But as far as this entry goes I'm less sure that is the case. Does either methodological group mentioned in the source article actually indicate an increase in poverty? I think the amounts differ significantly, but that the consensus view for both methodological approaches is that poverty has decreased, right?

Squatch347 (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

As I have said before, poverty as a portion of population is decreasing no matter what threshold is chosen. The fact that poverty is decreasing, furthermore, is extremely well sourced. I don't think inequality should be mentioned, as that's not what this misconception is about. Benjamin (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

...poverty as a portion of population is decreasing no matter what threshold is chosen....The fact that poverty is decreasing, furthermore, is extremely well sourced. That's not correct and is not WP:NPOV. Poverty can be measured in two different ways: absolute or relative. Absolute poverty as measured by the World Bank is decreasing and relative poverty, often measured by inequality, is increasing. I strongly object to such a misleading oversimplification. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• What I missed was that you indicated you felt that the results depend on what type of measure you use. Correct.

Does either methodological group mentioned in the source article actually indicate an increase in poverty? I think the amounts differ significantly, but that the consensus view for both methodological approaches is that poverty has decreased, right? No. The consensus view which is addressed WP:NPOV in our articles is that there are multiple ways of Measuring poverty. This article (full PDF) by Robert Wade (scholar)--which is cited 945 times according to Google Scholar--explains it:

The neoliberal argument says that the distribution of income between all the world’s people has become more equal over the past two decades and the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen, for the first time in more than a century and a half.... Hence the combination of the ‘‘dollar-Wall Street’’ economic regime in place since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods regime in the early 1970s, and the globalizing direction of change in the world economy since then, serves the great majority of the world’s people well. The core solution for lagging regions, Africa above all, is freer domestic and international trade and more open financial markets, leading to deeper integration into the world economy.

Evidence from the current long wave of globalization thus confirms neoliberal economic theory––more open economies are more prosperous, economies that liberalize more experience a faster rate of progress, and people who resist further economic liberalization must be acting out of vested or ‘‘rent-seeking’’ interests.... The hierarchy is in the process of being flattened, the North–South, core-periphery, rich country-poor country divide is being eroded away as globalization proceeds. The same evidence validates the rationale of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other multilateral economic organizations as agents for creating a global ‘‘level playing’’ field undistorted by state-imposed restrictions on markets. This line of argument is championed by the more powerful of the centers of ‘‘thinking for the world’’ that influence international policy making, including the intergovernmental organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO, also the US and UK Treasuries, and opinion-shaping media such as The Financial Times and The Economist.

The standard Left assumption, in contrast, is that the rich and powerful countries and classes have little interest in greater equity. Consistent with this view, the ‘‘anti-globalization’’ (more accurately, ‘‘anti-neoliberal’’) argument asserts that world poverty and inequality have been rising, not falling, due to forces unleashed by the same globalization.[2] The line of solution is some degree of tightening of public policy limits on the operation of market forces; though the ‘‘anti-neoliberal’’ camp embraces a much wider range of solutions than the liberal camp.

The debate tends to be conducted by each side as if its case was overwhelming, and only an intellectually deficient or dishonest person could see merit in other’s case.

* * *

It is plausible, and important, that the proportion of the world’s population living in extreme poverty has probably fallen over the past two decades or so, having been rising for decades before then. Beyond this we cannot be confident, because the World Bank’s poverty numbers are subject to a large margin of error, are probably biased downward, and probably make the trend look rosier than it really is.

Basically, by only including only side of the argument (i.e. using only the pro-globalization argument that poverty is decreasing), the entry fails to be WP:NPOV. If we are honest and show both arguments, that would be WP:NPOV. I believe what I added to the article is WP:NPOV and your proposals are not, because they do not include the other significant position found in WP:RS.

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI. I think we need more eyes on this. I have put notice of this discussion at a bunch of articles on poverty, measuring poverty and inequality. Those notices can be found by looking at my recent contribs. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep mentioning inequality? This is specifically about extreme poverty. Benjamin (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly, there are multiple ways of measuring poverty, one of which is inequality. The article measuring poverty makes that abundantly clear. Focusing on only one measurement--one that is designed to advance and justify globalization, free markets and free trade--is not WP:NPOV for the reasons stated above in the long quote by Robert Wade (scholar), Professor of Global Political Economy. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to use extreme poverty because that's what the misconception is about. Benjamin (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Understood. But that would violate WP:NPOV, because the idea that it is a 'misconception' is articulated primarily by advocacy sources like Cato, von Mises [13], etc. that are advancing a particular neoliberal and globalization agenda as explained by Professor Wade above. It would be WP:NPOV if we are clear that this is only one side of the measuring poverty coin and balance it by presenting the other clearly significant opinions about the other important way to measure poverty: inequality. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

David Tornheim (talk), I appreciate your feedback on the link. I'm not an expert on wiki text quite yet and so often struggle to add all the additional elements that more experienced editors do with ease. Thanks for the heads up, I'll try to follow that guideline going forward.

1) The Human Progress link [14]: I think you are correct that it doesn't specifically cite the underlying data sources, but instead cites the validation by Gapminder. I'm a bit confused by your discussion of Gapminder. Is your concern that they too are not a NPOV? If so, I think we are stretching what POV pusher is a bit. If Gapminder is suspect, I'm not sure what source would meet your criteria.

2) No doubt they did use World Bank data, which seems to be a well regarded source by most researchers (criticism not withstanding). However, if we review a bit further in that section, we see here that they cite several different papers validating poverty estimates and the poverty line (Ferreira et al. (2016), World Development Report in 1990, Jolliffe and Prydz (2016)). They then in this section discuss validation using macroeconomic data (ie not World Bank data which is micro data). I think the implication (possibly inference on my part, if so, I apologize) that the source is unreliable because it, in part, uses World Bank data sets is overly simplistic. The source clearly references academic thought to analyze the data, validates it against other data, and applies common data analytic methodologies. It doesn't just parrot World Bank raw data. Likewise for the United Nations Millennium Development Goals which use a variety of sources to synthesize a result.

The consensus view which is addressed WP:NPOV in our articles is that there are multiple ways of Measuring poverty. Agreed. And those variety of methods generally fall into two categories, absolute measures, and relative measures. To stay focused on our specific misconception, the poll asked if world poverty was increasing or decreasing. Given how broad that question is, I agree that we should probably deal with both categorical measures. Absolute is relatively easy. Your contention seems to be though that the answer to the question in the poll (is poverty increasing or decreasing) from a relative measure point of view could be either answer. I'm asking where you get that from. What secondary source are you referencing that says there is a consensus that global relative poverty is increasing?

Squatch347 (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources are still relying almost entirely on the World Bank data. The "confirmation" with the macro-economic data showed problems--just read the papers. The assumption that if the nation's total consumption increases, therefore the poor are escaping poverty doesn't make much sense. The second paper makes that plenty clear: "But if we need to measure poverty in a way that will convince those who are skeptical of the idea that average growth reaches the poor, there is little choice but to use the [World Bank] surveys." [15].

As for relative poverty (economic inequality) increasing, it's already in our articles (see: Economic_inequality#Measurements) and mentioned in my post above from Prof. Wade. [16]. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The poll specifically asked about extreme poverty. Benjamin (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

We are going in circles. We need more editors to consider this. Both of you keep repeating yourselves, and I am tired of having to repeat myself. I see no reason to keep saying the same things over and over. I will probably wait for other editors to weigh in before I respond again in this section. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for More Input

• FYI. I think we need more eyes on this. I have put notice of this discussion at a bunch of articles on poverty, measuring poverty and inequality. Those notices can be found by looking at my recent contribs. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC) [This comment copied from previous section. Benjaminikuta responded asking why I mentioned inequality, and I replied. The remainder of that conversation can be copied or moved here if Benjaminikuta prefers. I am hoping to keep this section simple for any new editors. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)]

• Request for Input: @SoWhy: I just noticed that you thanked me for this edit--at least I think that was the edit. As a very experienced editor, I am hoping for a new voice in this discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  @David Tornheim: Thanks for the ping and sorry for the delay. Usually, I'm happy to help out but currently I have a lot on my plate and I don't know if and when I can find the time to really provide a useful opinion. Asking at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard might help though. Regards SoWhy 08:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

In the above section, I feel like three of us are going in circles and could use some new voices if we are going to find a consensus. If it's too overwhelming, I (and perhaps the others) could give a short summary of our disagreement. I prefer not to summarize unless asked, as any summary might be perceived as biased by the other editors. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'll give it a try! Feel free to add on. I want to say that extreme poverty as a portion of population has decreased, and David wants to say that by some measures relative poverty and inequality have increased. He also thinks that due weight needs to be given to the controversy in this entry, while I think it's outside the scope of the misconception. Benjamin (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a pretty accurate summary of the disagreement. My key issue is that proponents of the "poverty misconception" want to argue that "global poverty is decreasing." It's not that simple, because there are two main ways to measure poverty:

(1) Absolute poverty (aka extreme poverty)

(2) Relative poverty (Economic inequality)

See our article: measuring poverty.

Robert Wade (scholar), Professor of Global Political Economy, explains the importance of both measurements in the quote I provided here. He explains that emphasizing only one measurement of poverty is typical of those choosing a side:

(1) Emphasis on a decrease in absolute poverty are promoted by pro-development entities like World Bank, IMF and WTO to push a neoliberal, globalization agenda.

(2) Emphasis on an increase in relative poverty (inequality) are typical of those opposing a neoliberal, globalization agenda.

To mention one side of this argument and ignore the other fails to beWP:NPOV. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Poverty and economic development can also be measured in more concrete terms, such as access to clean water, literacy, child mortality, etc. Benjamin (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• The answer is simple. This is not a misconception, common or otherwise; "poverty" is, instead, a very general term that can be defined in multiple ways. I recommend removing the section entirely. Risker (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that the above is probably too long for us to have any meaningful headway. I would word our disagreement slightly differently than what was said above:

There is evidence that it is commonly believed that worldwide poverty rates are increasing (I think we are all in agreement that people don't generally understand the complexities of measuring poverty). We agree that absolute measures of poverty are decreasing, though there are some concerns in academic circles with that methodology of measuring poverty. The most substantive disagreement I think is on the other major methodology, relative poverty. There was data included in the original consensus edit that contained some evidence that relative poverty was decreasing. David Tornheim argues however that that is not the academic consensus. I've yet to see any data that shows that relative poverty has increased, nor does the linked article make that assertion so it would seem the major discussion would be around the status of that methodology. [Side note: economic inequality is not the same thing as relative poverty, the former does not account for changes to the cost of living.] Squatch347 (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The entry currently says "measurement of global absolute poverty using the controversial metric of $1.00/day (in 1990 U.S. dollars)", however, the article for extreme poverty says it's "widely used by most international organizations". I think the entry gives undue weight to the controversy. Benjamin (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I just edited it to this:

The World Bank's measurement of global absolute poverty (as opposed to relative poverty, which is more controversial) using the widely used metric of $1.00/day (in 1990 U.S. dollars) shows a decrease in extreme poverty over the last few decades, but most people surveyed in several countries incorrectly think it's increased or stayed the same.

Benjamin (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It is certainly cleaner that way. I'm still not sure why we insist on the World Bank language given that the linked article to absolute poverty also references a good half dozen organizations calculating local variants, feels like we are trying to commit a poisoning the well fallacy. Squatch347 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The World Bank is reliable for statements of fact. Attributing the statistic to it in this situation is unnecessary and gives undue weight to the controversy. Criticism of the World Bank belongs in the World Bank article, not here. Benjamin (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Edited to this:

• Measurements of global absolute poverty (as opposed to relative poverty, which is more controversial) using the widely used metric of $1.00/day (in 1990 U.S. dollars) shows a decrease in extreme poverty over the last few decades, but most people surveyed in several countries incorrectly think it's increased or stayed the same. The portion of people living in extreme poverty has declined no matter what income threshold is used.

Benjamin (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, I made one small change (added that the total number of people in absolute poverty is also decreasing as discussed earlier) and inserted the source, I think you, gave earlier with the poll of people across developed nations saying poverty had increased. Thought it was a good find and should add weight to this as a misconception. Squatch347 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This talk never reached consensus so this item should return to status quo ante - before this edit where it was added during discussion before any kind of consensus. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Self-harm

A common belief regarding self-harm is that it is an attention-seeking behaviour; however, in many cases, this is inaccurate. Many self-harmers are very self-conscious of their wounds and scars and feel guilty about their behaviour, leading them to go to great lengths to conceal their behaviour from others. They may offer alternative explanations for their injuries, or conceal their scars with clothing.

Benjamin (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Added it. Benjamin (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Poisoned candy myths

Poisoned candy myths have been "thoroughly debunked". No cases of strangers killing or permanently injuring children this way have been proven. Benjamin (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Added. Benjamin (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Communes

"Andrew Jacobs of The New York Times wrote that, contrary to popular misconceptions, 'most communes of the '90s are not free-love refuges for flower children, but well-ordered, financially solvent cooperatives where pragmatics, not psychedelics, rule the day.'"

Benjamin (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Any suggestions on wording? Benjamin (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Rape

Many misconceptions can be found at the article rape myth. Benjamin (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Friendship paradox 2

Benjaminikuta reverted my removal of the "Friendship paradox" and asked that I discuss it here.

I don't feel that this belongs to this list. The paradox is an interesting phenomenon, but it is not a common misconception. One might argue that the last sentence presents a common misconception, but it is in fact saying that many people share similar but distinct misconceptions. If there was evidence that is was commonly believed that, for example, Bob Smith of Tulsa, Okalahoma had more friends that his friends, that might be a common misconception. However, me believing that I have more friends than my particular group of friends is a different misconception than you believing that about your group of friends. Once we go down that path, we might as well start including each and every example listed in Illusory superiority.

If we really want to include this here, it should be mentioned as part of a single item on Illusory Superiority. Otherwise, we're just duplicating that article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Actually, this has already been discussed, and there is consensus for inclusion. See the earlier heading by the same title. Benjamin (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal per above and WP:V (oh, and there was not "consensus" on this). The entry is poorly written, actually a copy/paste of another articles lead. First two sentences describe a sampling bias, not a misconception. Third sentence describes a misconception that could be reworded "You are not more popular than your friends are". The problem is there are no secondary sources cited describing it as a common misconception, the citation is actually a primary source, a study. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Literally everyone but you supported inclusion when it was added. You think there's no consensus just because you disagree with everyone else? No. That's not how consensus works. Benjamin (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:CON, specifically WP:NOCONSENSUS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity" Benjamin (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Shall it be reworded? Benjamin (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The "Friendship paradox" is a mathematical paradox, not a misconception. The Zuckerman/Jost "You are not more popular than your friends are" is a primary source, so fails #2/WP:V and fails #1 and #3 - its not covered at Friendship paradox, just mentioned as a non-sequitur in the lead. I think Ahecht has it right in that this is the broader topic Illusory superiority. The replacement/rewrite would be "You are not better than other people - in illusory superiority people tend to think they are above average or better than their peers in some way when, in general, they are average". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging users who supported inclusion in the previous discussion: @David Tornheim: @Dennis Bratland: @Squatch347: Benjamin (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Why do we call it a paradox? It doesn't shake the foundations of logic and mathematics. Mathematical paradoxes exist, but this isn't one of them. It only seems paradoxical. Why? Because of a common misconception that people should have about as many friends as their friends. The sources tell us so -- right in the title "What makes you think you're so popular?" It directly references a common misconception. The first sentences says it is a way "in which people are biased and inaccurate in their perceptions". It references "people's estimates of their own popularity". "Against all expectations it turned out..."[17] How much more loudly must the sources shout "COMMON MISCONCEPTION"?

  Editors are entitled to their opinion that the sources are wrong, but you don't get to argue with them here. You need to cite sources that are stronger, more numerous, and more widely accepted, that contradict the multiple sources we have saying it's a common misconception. If you can't do that, you have no argument. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

But people's estimates of their own popularity cannot be a common misconception, because by definition, at most only one person has that misconception. What is the "truth" statement? "Most people are not more popular than their friends"? Are there sources that a significant number of people think that "most people are more popular than their friends"? You cannot generalize it to "You are not more popular than your friends" because there are plenty of people for whom that is a true statement. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources clearly say this is a widespread bias or misapprehension. Blue jeans are “common”, even though not all, and not even most people are actually wearing them. Common means something you encounter frequently. It’s totally unremarkable to encounter someone who thinks having about as many friends as their friends do is the norm. The sources indicate it’s probably the majority, but we don’t need it to be.

You could take this point up with the authors and see if they’d like to retract anything. The meaning of the sources is plain, whether you agree or not. This is a classic case of WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia’s voice speaks of things that sources agre on as fact. I don’t even see evidence of WP:FRINGE opinions that duspute this.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This source is primary, and I can find no secondary sources that use it or expand on the topic of it being a common misconception. So it fails Wikipedia policy, let alone this lists criteria - venerability, not truth - we can argue about how true this is but if we can't cite reliable secondary RS, out it goes per policy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Your interpretation that it should be removed because of a primary source doesn't seem to fit WP:PRIMARY. Can you quote the language that says that an edit cannot rely on a primary source?

Additionally, it seems an odd removal from here given that it is cited as a common misconception in the main article, Friendship Paradox. If you think the sources are incorrect or improperly used, it should be removed there first where, presumably, the authors are more familiar with the topic (sounds like a familiar argument).

Finally, there are plenty of other sources that state this is a common misconception. See primary source and secondary source.

Squatch347 (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. WP:PSTS is a policy outlining when and where each of the various types of sources is most appropriate. Nothing says "never cite primary sources." If you cite a legal code or an inscrutable quantum physics journal article directly, rather than a secondary source, then the Wikipedia editor is likely providing the interpretation for what all ghat gibberish means. But not all primary sources require that much interpretation, and if all you're doing is getting some easily understood fact, even a legal code or whatever primary source is fine to cite. The plain English meaning of these psychology papers requires no expert interpretation to glean the simple fact that this is a common misconception. It's clear enough for anyone to read, and so WP:PRIMARY isn't a problem.

Can we please stop with all this Wikilawyering? List of common misconceptions isn't life or death, and it's not rocket science. It's just a regular Wikipedia list and there's no reason for every entry to be so fraught. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

RE: "I can find no secondary sources that use it or expand on the topic of it being a common misconception." I already cited the MIT Technology Review. Google turns up many: The Economist, Business Insider. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional sources. Now that we have 4 secondary sources (with the one I added) and two primary sources, AND the main article listing it, I think we are ok to update with the new sources and re-add. Squatch347 (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

MOS discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Overly_long_list_items

Benjamin (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Lunar effect in plants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_effect#In_plants

"The popular belief that the moon has an effect on plants is unsubstantiated. When witnessed, the effects have been indirectly attributed to "moon gardeners"' attentive care."

Benjamin (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Hydrogen peroxide

I noticed the following was commented out:

• It is a common misconception that hydrogen peroxide is a disinfectant or antiseptic for treating wounds. While it is an effective cleaning agent, hydrogen peroxide is not an effective agent for reducing bacterial infection of wounds. Furthermore, hydrogen peroxide applied to wounds can impede healing and lead to scarring because it destroys newly formed skin cells.

What's the issue?

Benjamin (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

No idea why. It looks good from a quick review. Who commented it out? Squatch347 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Obvious why it was removed - it links a section on use as an alternative disease cure, not about disinfectant or antiseptic and the linked article and one of the sources does not describe a misconception - "low concentration of H2O2 can induce healing" and source says "hydrogen peroxide is not a very effective", so a missus/disputed claim, not a "misconception".

• It is contradicted at Disinfectant - "Hydrogen peroxide is used in hospitals to disinfect surfaces and it is used in solution alone or in combination with other chemicals as a high level disinfectant."
• It is contradicted at Antiseptic - "Some common antiseptics", "Hydrogen peroxide"

Last two may point to needed cleanup but we are falling below the inclusion criteria at this point. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a material difference between something being an disinfectant and something being used as an antiseptic for treating wounds. The later is the reference in the articles, not the former.

We also have two secondary sources citing them as common myths or "common knowledge." Squatch347 (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

We do not go by just two sources, there are many more along the lines of "effectiveness in usage continues to be debated today" [18][19][20][21]. Per WP:YESPOV we can't present a contested assertion as a fact (X is a fact and people who believe in it are under a common misconception). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Look, there is no requirement to have a some random number of sources determined by you for each claim. That is nowhere in the inclusion criteria, it is something you've made up out of whole cloth. So you're argument that it is unsourced is invalid.

However, your new argument that it isn't actually a misconception does have some warrant. I think you've provided a convincing set of sources that show this isn't consensus medical opinion yet. That makes sense and I agree with you that based on that it shouldn't be included.

Squatch347 (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Noting in passing that if you want to include this or any other "misconception" related to health, that section is expected to meet WP:MEDRS. That is, the New York Times is not a suitable reference source for the medical effects of hydrogen peroxide. In fact, the entire section on health needs to meet those sourcing standards for the "fact" or correct information, although non-medical sources could be used for the "misconception" part. Risker (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Blood type personality theory

Blood type personality theory Benjamin (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Any suggestions on wording? Benjamin (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

South African farm attacks

Quoting South African farm attacks:

"Fact-checkers have widely identified the notion of a "white genocide" in South Africa as a falsehood or myth. The Government of South Africa, and other analysts, as well as the Afrikaner rights group AfriForum maintain that farm attacks are part of a broader crime problem in South Africa, and do not have a racial motivation."

Benjamin (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting topic. I"m not sure how widespread the idea that there is a white genocide is outside of some areas on the internet. Squatch347 (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Genocide may be too strong a wording, but the more general misconception of land seizures was promoted by Trump and Fox, so I'd assume it's pretty widespread, at least among the right. Benjamin (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, you could well be right, but we should probably include some info on how widespread it is since it is such a controversial and heated topic. Squatch347 (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's one. Many more similar with a quick search. Benjamin (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies as a common misconception. We can't include every false or questionable political claim.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I agree with Jack Upland on this one. I don't see enough evidence that this is a commonly held view. Squatch347 (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that any view held by the president is automatically going to be shared by a significant portion of people. Benjamin (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

That would cover a lot of Trump statements.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think Trump supporters do generally hold a lot of misconceptions, and we shouldn't shy away from recognizing that just because it's politically controversial. Political support doesn't render a claim immune to fact checking. Of course not every false claim is a common misconception, but we can focus on examples like this one were it's specifically identified as such. Benjamin (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Swallowing gasoline

This addition fails #2 "The item is reliably sourced.. that it is a common misconception" and part of #3, the common misconception is mentioned in its topic article but the sources do not support it being a "common misconception". People have a misconception that they should inducing vomiting swallowing gasoline? Many sources have to say that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I find your continued insistence on criteria that failed to achieve consensus rather frustrating. I think the source adequately establishes the misconception. Benjamin (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Taking a quick look, source (poison control center) says that people commonly think the best thing to do is "get it out," but that that is actually harmful. That would seem to indicate that the expert from the Poison Control Center is claiming it is a common misconception. I'm not sure who would be more reliable of a source on that subject. Squatch347 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

insistence on criteria that failed to achieve consensus - unless I missed something the last AfD established consensus for the criteria. Source actually says "most peoples initial instinct is I have to get it out", that's a statement of human nature, not a statement that it is a common misconception and I don't think the guy did some study. Many toxic things that can be swallowed say "do not induce vomiting" on the label. Its good advice/something people should know but this is not an advice column. Again, a common misconception is common, should be very easy to cite multiple sources demonstrating that and cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the (list). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

That there be multiple sources is not a requirement. That there be a study is not a requirement. You continue to grossly misrepresent this. Benjamin (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, its their instinct, which (in this case) forms their perception of what they should do. That conception is inaccurate, ie a misconception. And it applies to most people according to the expert from the poison control center, a well respected resource on poisonings. Seems to meet the criteria just fine. Squatch347 (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sigh.... and around the tree we go.. We do need multiple sources per WP:REDFLAG. Since we are making a claim that something is "common", an entree should be able to satisfy that. Also, we do not have an expert in a peer reviewed publication citing studies of popular culture/opinion that directly supports a common misconception, we have an off hand remark not directly supporting the claim in a transcript of an interview in a podcast with a "Utah poison specialist". Also we do not divine conclusion from what people say, they actually have to say it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying the professional opinion of a director of poison control for the University of Utah qualifies as a fringe theory so that it would need WP:REDFLAG? I think you'll need to offer a bit more defense as to why a professional in a good place to understand the perception is making an "extraordinary" claim.

What kind of source would you be looking for to show that it is common? Squatch347 (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The guy knows poisons, not public perception - expertise does not carry over to all fields. So the source is iffy, doesn't directly support the claim, and since this is a list of "common misconceptions", you actually have to prove that with multiple high-quality sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. That is not a requirement. Stop saying that it is. Benjamin (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I support inclusion. Benjamin (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Added it. Benjamin (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Removed. We don't go by Monty Python "yes it is, no it isn't". When something is removed you should fulfill WP:BURDEN. Claim "does not generally require special emergency treatment" is also contradicted by linked article "call to a local poison control center or emergency room visit is indicated". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This is easily fixed. I'll get the necessary sources and put it back. I don't think you're doing due dilligence with these aggressive deletions. Per WP:SOFIXIT, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, etc, things like this should be corrected rather than deleted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The contradicting source doesn't seem very reliable. I look a look at it, and it appears to be commercial clickbait type articles. Benjamin (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis, agreed with you on the lack of constructive progress, would be nice if editors acted more as team members rather than self-ascribed gate keepers. Let me know if I can help with research. Squatch347 (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I want to add it back. Benjamin (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the source adequately supports the material. There is only one editor opposed, and consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. Benjamin (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I added it back. Benjamin (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Removed it per WP:BURDEN, necessary sources that directly supports the inclusion have not been added. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the entry is adequatly sourced. Also, you are the only editor opposed. Consensus is against you. Do you not understand that? Benjamin (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As noted above by another editor that disagrees with you, if you have an issue, please follow WP:SOFIXIT, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, etc, rather than deleting. Happy to have a discussion with you, but we need a discussion, not an attempt to WP:OWN this page. Squatch347 (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." "be bold and fix it yourself" Its obvious the weak source being used is not adequate and the promise to find necessary sources was not followed through. Since I don't see any sources that can support the claim the recommendation per those guidelines is to remove it. Re: "Consensus is against you", this is not a vote these edits have to follow Wikipedia policies. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Three editors disagree with you. I get that you, personally, don't think it meets the criteria, but others do. While you are correct this is not a vote, you also don't get to have a veto power over a group of other editors. You missed the point of WP:SOFIXIT, if you think the source is weak, then go ahead and find a better one. If you think we are wrong, present evidence to convince your fellow editors. The point of that WP policy is that you shouldn't do exactly what you did, remove it unilaterally against the findings of others. Squatch347 (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You can't be still complaining about sourcing even after I added a citation to the CDC. It is more than adequately sourced. You haven't cited any sources that dispute the assertions made by the two citations given, so it can't be called controversial in any way. You ask for more sources, even though nobody else thinks more sources are needed. Then we cite more sources, which nobody else thinks are inadequate, yet you still ask for more sources. It's stonewalling. I'd suggest letting it go now. If you don't want to let it go, maybe seek Dispute resolution. See if the WP:RSN has anything to say about the sourcing here. Maybe start an RFC over at Talk:Gasoline. Nobody over there editing that article seems to have a problem with this. At some point one has to admit that the fish aren't biting. If nobody is being won over by your arguments, the longer you press the issue, the more editors will line up against you. It's called losing. It happens to me constantly, and I try to bear it gracefully. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

[22] is not a secondary source citing a common misconception so irrelevant to the discussion. And, again, no attempt has been made to supply secondary sources to even come close to fulfilling WP:BURDEN. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You're grasping at straws and moving the goalposts. As I posted on Talk:Gasoline, we can put this to rest by asking a third opinion on whether or not consensus has been reached. This doesn't require more discussion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY is not a moving goalpost. It is a basic requirement that has been around for an awfully long time. And lack of reliable secondary sources has been the problem with these edits. Instead of trying to take OWNership of the talk page why don't you shut me up by coming up with a reliable secondary source - if its a common misconception it should be duck soup. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Income

"Claims of long-term middle America stagnation—such as those quoted at the beginning of this article—are often part of a broader argument about the adverse impact of globalization, outsourcing and free trade. And middle class stagnation is used as motivation for a specific set of policies. But if middle America has not stagnated—as this analysis has shown—then this motivation for those policies is without merit." Benjamin (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Fails #1, #2 (author admits its a WP:REDFLAG so needs many reliable sources making this claim), #3, and #4? (ancient/obsolete - all those pretty little 2006 graphs hit the floor in 2008). This would be a very disputed claim so would not meet the WP:YESPOV minimum for this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53597#section2 Benjamin (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Friendship Paradox/Illusory Superiority

Hi Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I'm unclear why you split the two sections referenced. The cited article doesn't seem to be primarily associated with a person's assessment of their traits versus those around them, but a person's popularity versus those around them. From the abstract:

We report on a survey of undergraduates at the University of Chicago in which respondents were asked to assess their popularity relative to others. Popularity estimates were related to actual popularity, but we also found strong evidence of self-enhancement in self-other comparisons of popularity. In particular, self-enhancement was stronger for self versus friend comparisons than for self versus "typical other" comparisons; this is contrary to the reality demonstrated in Feld's "friendship paradox" and suggests that people are more threatened by the success of friends than of strangers. At the same time, people with relatively popular friends tended to make more self-serving estimates of their own popularity than did people with less popular friends. These results clarify how objective patterns of interpersonal contact work together with cognitive and motivational tendencies to shape perceptions of one's location in the social world.

https://nyuscholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/what-makes-you-think-youre-so-popular-self-evaluation-maintenance

Curious what your thoughts were or what part of the paper led you to that conclusion.

Squatch347 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Zuckerman/Jost is not Feld's "friendship paradox"

They are two different concepts and two different subject articles. Please read the material you are quoting:

• Feld's 1991 "Friendship paradox" is a mathematical study of data from James Coleman's 1961 study that found a paradox in the data, on average a subject's friends have more friends than the subject does. The subjects of the study do not have a misconception (they are not part of the study and don't know how many friends their friends have). Feld does not have a misconception - on average a subject's friends do have more friends than the subject does. Actually there is no misconception in the "friendship paradox", its a real mathematical phenomenon.

• Zuckerman/Jost 2001 "Self-evaluation maintenance and the subjective side of the "friendship paradox"" is a self-assessment made by subjects of the study as collected through a survey. Zuckerman/Jost is not the "friendship paradox" itself, they simply compared to their own findings to the "reality demonstrated in Feld's "friendship paradox"". Zuckerman/Jost's "people think they are more popular than they are" finding is an elaboration/subset of Illusory superiority per[23][24][25][26][27][28].

• Illusory superiority (which Zuckerman/Jost is a subset of), is a whole other misconception so got its own entry.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There is an active debate on this issue on the Friendship Paradox talk page. Until that is resolved, your edit here is inappropriate. That was the standard you pushed for several months ago after all. Squatch347 (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope. The standard is you have to have an article with RS that clearly describes a misconception before it goes on the list. Friendship paradox does not describe a misconception, it describes a mathematical sampling bias. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Wagyu

"The idea that practices such as massaging cattle or feeding them beer could improve meat quality is a myth,[8] the result of misunderstanding.[9]:13" Benjamin (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you can't touch that one. It's a sacred cow.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Sarcasm? Benjamin (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Dogs sweating via tongues ?

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#Vertebrates - "Dogs do not sweat by salivating. Dogs actually do have sweat glands and not only on their tongues; they sweat mainly through their footpads. However, dogs do primarily regulate their body temperature through panting. See also Dog anatomy."

I've never heard of this misconception, and I do know many/most in the animals/vertebrate section. Plus reality in this case is rather close to the apparent misconception, as stated in the item itself (regulate body temperature primarily through panting). So I'd suggest to remove this item. 37.49.77.127 (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Crime

Pew: "Donald Trump made fighting crime a central focus of his presidential campaign, and he cited it again during his January 2017 inaugural address. Violent and property crime in the U.S. have both fallen in recent years – yet public perceptions about crime in the U.S. often don’t align with the data." Benjamin (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"Opinion surveys regularly find that Americans believe crime is up nationally, even when the data show it is down." Benjamin (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a phenomenon internationally where people believe crime is going up even when it is falling.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Added. Benjamin (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Computing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#Computing

This entry explains the much larger amount of Windows malware, compared to Mac OS and Linux, as follows: "this is a consequence of its extremely large market share." By attributing the imbalance to market share, the author implies that software quality and software development practices (including not being open) are not factors.

The article cited in support of this claim is not a valid Wikipedia source. It is from Slate.com:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180609210756/http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/02/why_you_can_t_depend_on_antivirus_software_anymore.html

That article makes no mention of Linux whatsoever. The only statement it makes about Mac OS does not derive from any research -- it is simply advice from the author:

"Mac users will need to find a third-party product (although Macs are generally at lower risk of infection due to Apple’s smaller market share)."

The Slate article clearly cannot be drafted into service as a citation for a claim that the far greater amount of Windows malware can be explained by its greater market share.

Furthermore, the argument about market share can only be made by cherry-picking the domain: on servers, Linux has much greater market share than Windows. And Android, which is based on Linux (including using the Linux kernel), is on more devices than all Windows platforms put together.

This entry reads a bit like marketing FUD, in effect saying "Windows doesn't *really* have a security problem -- we are just attacked more because we are so much more popular!" While the point that Mac OS and Linux users should also care about security is valid, this entry is dismissive of the differences between OSes, when in fact they can have a real impact on user security.

I suggest that the bogus reference to the Slate article be eliminated and the second sentence be simplified to this:

"While Microsoft Windows has historically had a much larger number of viruses developed for it, specialized malware designed to attack Mac OS and Linux systems has existed for many years."

Even that should probably cite a decent reference, though. AmigoNico (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've gone ahead and reinstated the edit I had made on January 6th. Feel free to change it to what you had suggested, I think that'd be fine as well. I'll also point out the older talk page discussions I'd referred to in my original edit summary, since I hadn't linkified them there:

• Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_18#Computer_viruses and
• Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_21#Linux_viruses .

Regards, 37.49.77.127 (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

immigrants

"The vast majority of immigrants in the U.S. are in the country legally – but fewer than half of Americans know that’s the case." Benjamin (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

References

produce

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/05/17/611693137/frozen-food-fan-as-sales-rise-studies-show-frozen-produce-is-as-healthy-as-fresh

Frozen produce isn't significantly less nutritious than fresh. Benjamin (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Christianity and Judaism - Mary Magdalene

The idea that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute most likely stems from the fact that "megaddelá" is an Aramaic word for hairdresser that came to connote a prostitute or Temple Priestesses (aka Priestitute).

Vilhelmo De Okcidento (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a widely held notion. Squatch347 (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Issues with "Economics" section

A number of the misconceptions listed in the Economics section could use work:

• "Price elasticity is not constant, but rather varies along the curve."

At the very least, this should be rephrased in language that better represents the common misconception that people have. Only people with training in economics will think about this issue in terms of "price elasticity" and "the curve" -- and these are the very people who are least likely to hold this misconception! And anyway, this "misconception" isn't really correct, as there are plenty of familiar goods with relatively inelastic prices.

• "Income inequality in the US is significantly higher than people think."

As stated, this "misconception" is quite vague, and I think it could be improved by making the language more precise. This could be done by making a specific claim about CEO pay relative to workers, which is the statistic that the citations most focus on. Alternately, the misconception could be a statement about the percentage of overall wealth controlled by the top 20% (or 10%, 5%, 1%, etc.) in the US (or worldwide, for that matter). "Income inequality" is just too slippery a term to use without pinning it down a bit more.

• "There are significant barriers to entry in e-commerce."

This claim could be made much more compelling and useful by providing a few examples of these barriers to entry.

• "Hunter-gatherers are mostly well fed, rather than starving."

"Well-fed" and "starving" are imprecise terms -- could this claim be rephrased in terms of caloric intake or nutrition?

--Mister Skeleton (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Two additional thoughts:

• "Price is not the most important factor for consumers, when deciding to buy a product."

As phrased, this is either incorrect or must be construed so broadly that it's not actually a legitimate misconception. (E.g., "This product is half the price of its competitors! However, there is a 50% chance that it will cause you to break out in horrible rashes all over your body." ==> No one will be surprised when this product fails.) The claim needs to be narrowed.

• "Monopolists do not try to sell items for the highest possible price, nor do they try to maximize profit per unit, but rather they try to maximize total profit."

As posed, this isn't really surprising. (Imagine asking someone: "Do monopolists try to maximize profit per unit or TOTAL profit?" How many people will actually answer "per unit"?) The interesting part of this claim lies in the cases where maximizing total profit doesn't align with maximizing profit per unit. What's a non-intuitive example of this sort of situation?

--Mister Skeleton (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that one of our long term goals is to make this list much shorter without having to delete items. This means cutting out as much excess and repetitive wording. For example, the word "misconception" appears 65 times, even though we can take for granted that if it's on this list, it is a misconception. We don't need to keep repeating "it is a misconception that..." or words to that effect. What we want is to state in simple terms what is wrong and what is correct -- or even to merely say the thing that is not true, and leave unsaid what the opposite thing is if we don't have to. We want to encourage readers to click through to the target article, and over there we can give an expansive and detailed explanation. We have room for illustrative examples over there.

So do go ahead and improve the wording. But in cases like "Hunter-gatherers are mostly well fed, rather than starving", I don't see a problem with the entry here, on this list. Well-fed and starving are common terms used in everyday plain English, and most everyone has a concept of what that is. Sure, one could ask, "What exactly does it mean to be well-fed?" The answer should be found by clicking on the links. Hobbes's belief that preagricultural life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" is quite widespread. The real problem is at Hunter-gatherer#Modern hunter-gatherer groups, where we need more sources and a lot more detail.

Similarly, I'd see if Price elasticity of demand can be improved to clarify who exactly holds the misconception about what. Right now we only have "Economics, Tenth edition, John Sloman" lacking a page number. WP:Offline sources should be accepted on good faith, but since it's so vague, I'd try to verify the assertion in other sources. If you can't find any, post a note at Talk:Price elasticity of demand that it will probably need to be deleted if we can't get better verification.

So, yes, many of these entries raise questions, but that's often only a problem if the answers to those questions aren't on the target articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I think there is some merit in the points you are making Mister Skeleton. The rub lies, imo, in what we would propose to substitute in their place. Price elasticity, for example, is probably a bit too abbreviated and could use a small amount of additional explanation. More broadly, a few of these need a bit of review to see what the source claims the misconception is. Prices being the "most important factor" for example. I'd be curious to see what the source actually says the misconception is and mirror our phrasing.

On an aside, I think the monopolist one is pretty good given what it is saying and common thought on how monopolies work. Perhaps if you took a stab at what they should say it might give us some additional thought on how to change these entries. Squatch347 (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Napoleon Height

For Napoleon to be measured as 5'2" (157.5 CM) at the time of his death in french feet. Requires that, on the british controlled island of St. Helena 1821, 28 years after the french adopted the metric system an obsolete yardstick was carried by his Valet to be used after his death. Alternatively it is far more likely that a british yardstick would be present on a british island..

Secondly the assertion that 5'2" was Average for a contemporary non aristocratic french man is uncited, studies of other northern europeans indicate the average height was probably at least 5'4"(162.5 CM). The above source includes a figure indicating the shortest average height in Britain in 1883 was 5'6.5"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cravatitude (talk • contribs) 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Good Morning. First a small formatting note. If you end your posts with four "~" it will insert your signature, which is helpful for others to follow along.

For your comments, I think the best we could edit is the phrase from the first source that, "some historians argue..." The source doesn't portray this as consensus. We also need to be very careful about original research here. Even if the second source wasn't paygated (which makes consensus opinion here difficult) we are not looking to synthesize new information on Wiki. And the only source you've brought in notes Napoleon as of average height for the French. Squatch347 (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

References

copulation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_morality#Sexuality

"Contrary to popular conception, however, Victorian society recognised that both men and women enjoyed copulation.[14]"

Benjamin (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_sex#Social_norms_and_moral_concerns

"Men and women are found to engage in very similar casual sex conducts, despite popular social beliefs."

Benjamin (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Any objections, or suggestions on wording? Benjamin (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a common misconception. In fact, just looking at the erotic literature from that period, there's no question that Victorian society recognized that both women and men enjoyed sex, perhaps just not openly. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Is that just speculation, or do you think the source doesn't support the claim? Benjamin (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I am skeptical that the source claims it's a popular conception. I believe that anyone who has studied the Victorian period even casually would know that. The source isn't online, though, so it's hard to verify. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Female promiscuity

Female promiscuity#Psychology

"Contrary to popular belief, body esteem in women showed a significant positive correlation with sociosexual unrestrictedness.[8]"

Benjamin (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: The source cited in that article is available in full, and it says absolutely nothing about "popular belief" or anything similar. I have removed that phrase from the article. That phrase is pure editorializing and original research. There is no common misconception here. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Canned foods

• Commercially canned foods are not dangerous to eat, even years after their sell-by date, which is not tied to the food's safety. If canned in accordance with Food and Drug Administration guidelines, they are theoretically sterile and edible forever; such food may experience change in taste, texture or vitamin content, but such food is still safe to eat. Canned goods over a century old and recovered from a shipwreck in 1974 were shown to have no substantial bacterial growth and, though they were no longer palatable, posed no risk of food poisoning.

This was removed.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/50-food-myths-busted-setting-the-record-straight-on-popular-beliefs-about-food

https://www.mealtime.org/~/media/files/fact-sheets/10_canned_food_myths_vs_facts_cfa.pdf?la=en

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/12/26/167819082/dont-fear-that-expired-food

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull43-2/43205783742.pdf

https://journals.ashs.org/horttech/view/journals/horttech/7/3/article-p234.xml

https://www.today.com/food/when-do-canned-foods-really-expire-t119977

Here are some sources from a quick search.

Some of them are not relevant to this misconception, but to another.

I might look through them more thoroughly later, but it seems at least one of them is relevant to this misconception.

Benjamin (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

References

The only source applicable seems to be today.com and its an article about people probably not knowing something (what an expiration date means). That's not a misconception. None make a claim that people think expired canned food is "dangerous to eat", let alone provide sources for the claim. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Medical error

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_error#Misconceptions

Benjamin (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Common Myths About Alcohol

[29] Benjamin (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Copper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police-related_slang_terms#C

>The term copper was the original, unshortened word, originally used in Britain to mean "someone who captures". In British English, the term cop is recorded (Shorter Oxford Dictionary) in the sense of 'to capture' from 1704, derived from the Latin capere via the Old French caper.[10] There is a common but mistaken belief that it refers to the police uniform's buttons or badge being made of copper.[11]

Benjamin (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Not supported by source. Does not say anything about this being "common" and source list 5 "spoof etymologies": copper buttons, copper stars, constable on patrol, constabulary of police, chief of police. Went ahead and fixed the article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I like the changes you made on the other article, they are a better illustration of the source I think. I'm not quite sure that the source doesn't call this a widespread belief though. In the second paragraph of the text it clearly notes that this was widespread in the popular mind, which is why it was being referenced in journalism at the end of the 19th Century. Thoughts? Squatch347 (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, expansion/cleanup of Wikipedia goes both ways, as in "that's interesting - it needs to be in Wikipedia", or "well that's total bullshit, time to fix that". As for citation of an incident in 1864 making something "common"? Doesn't say that, just someone somewhere saw people flashing a copper coin at cops. The one I always heard was cop = "constable on patrol". Pre Wikipedia mirror search doesn't light on any specific term, best we can say is there are several spoof origins for cop. Mistaken belief would be all of them, as in "COP does not stand for x, y, and z" Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

eczema

• In people with eczema, bathing does not dry the skin and may in fact be beneficial.

This was apparently removed without explanation. Benjamin (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was restored. Benjamin (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

References

First Amendment

• The First Amendment to the United States Constitution generally only prevents government restrictions on the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, or petition, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. Other laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others.

Benjamin (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was added back. Benjamin (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Suggestions for items

What about Van der Waals forces and gecko adhesion?50.39.175.199 (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting topic, but IMO, unless the science textbooks are really falling behind on incorporating new scientific consensus, most slightly outdated scientific theories probably don't belong here.Awhodothey (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Life Expectancy Misconceptions

I deleted this misconception because it was confused and did not appear to belong in this article. My edit was immediately reversed, so I guess I need to explain my suggestion that this topic be removed from this article. Currently this article acknowledges that life expectancy has steadily increased throughout history (see:life expectancy#Variation over time ), but claims that "one should not infer that people usually died around the age of 30" when in fact a life expectancy of 30 literally means that the average age a person lived to was 30 years old. The fact that many, and in some cultures, most people died before adulthood, does not change this fact, unless someone is insinuating that children are not people. Further, none of this has anything to do with the Wanjek source which says, "Yet, as far as we have come, has the human race increased its life span? Not at all. This is one of the biggest misconceptions about old age; we are not living any longer," because the maximum human life span is still approximately 120 years- a fact which has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. A google search brought up many sources sloppily debunking the claim that life expectancy from birth and life expectancy from adulthood are the same thing, but no sources actually making that claim. No doubt, there is some confusion, in that anyone who makes it to adulthood will always be expected to live beyond the average life expectancy age, but frankly this article and many other sources incorrectly claim that the average life expectancy from adulthood has not significantly decreased- which is probably a more common myth than the misconception that life expectancy is the same thing as life expectancy from adulthood... I strongly recommend removing this myth, and better clarifying life expectancy#Life expectancy vs. life span where my other edits were also reversed on accusations of attempting to "obscure" by editing incorrect information in both articles simultaneously. Also, I have twice removed and will continue to remove the objectively false claim that the life expectancy of an aristocrat in Medieval England was the average life expectancy of that time. Awhodothey (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that tells us in no uncertain terms it is a widespread misconception. Your argument that the reliable source is in error consists entirely of your own inability to find additional sources with Google. Maybe not everything under the sun can be found in 0.3 seconds with Google. The limitations of your own ability to search do not constitute actual evidence of anything. A credible argument that Christopher Wanjek is grievously in error would be to cite other reliable sources that say Wanjek is in error. Find sources that say that in fact the general public has a good grasp of the difference between average life expectancy of a population, and the expected age when adults die of natural causes. Don't pick apart data and draw your own conclusions. We don't care about whatever conclusions you reach. That's original research. We care about sources.

Please don't go on boring us with your arguments. Enlighten us with your sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

As an interesting aside, I don't think I've ever seen a source saying that something is not a misconception. It seems like an odd thing to say, doesn't it? Benjamin (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect Dennis, which frankly i don't think you have extended to me, I don't believe you understand the Wanjek quote you are using. Wanjek claimed that a belief in increasing maximum life spans is a widespread misconception. I have no idea what his source for that claim is, but it is not at all relevant to this question. Ironically, his proceeding explanation of adult life expectancy does seem to intentionally conflate life span with with life expectancy from adulthood, but per the rules of this page, any claim of a misconception should start with direct sources of that misconception, not a Tonight Show writer's claim that such a misconception is rampant. Awhodothey (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

What you disparage as a "tonight show writer" is what Wikipedia calls a tertiary source. While primary sources are sometimes OK, and secondary sources do well, tertiary sources are our actual role models. We are writing an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and a good tertiary source is exactly what we seek to emulate. Plenty of other sources support the widely recognized misconception that a 35 year old in the Middle Ages was not "old"; even if they were beyond the average life expectancy. Life expectancy and longevity are two different things. [30][31][32][33].

If you think the wording is imprecise or doesn't reflect the sources, fine. Please, fix it. But nuking entries entirely without giving any evidence that there's really a problem is not helping. Many sources agree there is a common misconception about medieval longevity. No sources contradict this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is a misconception. An average lifespan is not the lifespan that most people have.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, as it stands, this entry does not fulfill the minimum inclusion criteria of this list. I think the misconception is best summarized as a confusion between 'life expectancy from birth' and 'life expectancy from adulthood.' But, an average lifespan is literally the lifespan that most people can expect to live, and the fact that falsely stating otherwise, because we don't think it sounds right, is not understood within this talk page is evidence that current attempts to correct the misconception are themselves creating misconceptions.[34] I will do my best to make the entry factual, but the main problem with this entry is that most of sources debunking the myth are themselves riddled with errors, counterfactually suggesting that life expectancy from adulthood has not significantly decreased, hence this entry's contradiction with life expectancy. If anyone thinks this misconception is better described as the misconception that "a 35 year old in the Middle Ages was not 'old,'" then by all means add that, but please do not revert my edits to false claims which are not even supported by their sources. Awhodothey (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"An average lifespan is literally the lifespan that most people can expect to live". That is simply not true. If you had three people, one dying age 2, one dying age 21, one dying age 91, the average lifespan would be 38. None of those people died age 38. If that sample was representative of your society, you shouldn't expect to live to 38. And that sample is very roughly similar to a medieval society: there were a lot of deaths in childhood. The figure 38 is purely a mathematical result, with no practical basis.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, you're just saying that an average is not a median, and the expectation to live to 38 is purely a statistical probability that balances the tails of a distribution, but the average is also a completely true fact that more precisely describes lifespans than a median. And that highlights a major problem with this entry: at that rate, this misconception is entirely about understanding the definition of an average and has nothing to do with mortality, per se. Perhaps it better fits under a mathematics or statistics category? The current medieval history category placement is quite arbitrary, as it has nothing to do with the middle ages particularly. Awhodothey (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The current phrasing seems a bit wordy and not particularly easy to understand. Benjamin (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on the current language. We are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Our role in building an encyclopedia is not to be a text book and develop in depth information of subtle topics. The previous language is far more clear and retains sufficient accuracy for what we are aiming for. Squatch347 (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Got to agree with Awhodothey that this is a shit entry. It starts out weaselly and it in no way follows the text at the linked article Life expectancy. Nothing there about this being a Middle Ages and Renaissance thing and the misconception stated there is Its a misconception that the human race has increased its life span. If that is a true statement (this is a case of delete if it isn't) then it should be reworded to cover the misconception and moved off to "Human body and health". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Boxes

Could we perhaps move all the nifty little boxes at the top to a subpage?

They make the page load noticeably slower on older browsers.

Is it really necessary to have the to do lists of all those wikiprojects?

Benjamin (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what age of browser breaks with this page? Have you checked this on multiple platforms? Also, if you replace some of these banners one by one, does the problem go away? It could be one of them has a bug.

Wikipedia:Talk page layout suggests "less is more" and to avoid any headers that aren't actually necessary, but no suggestion that they be limited due to browser problems. I'd probably go over to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines or Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout and see if others think we should have some kind of guideline for how many banners is too many. I odn't know if a featured article's talk page is also a featured talk page, but a lot of them have a comparably large number of banners. Like Talk:L. Ron Hubbard or Talk:Neil Armstrong or Talk:John Calvin. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not broken, just a little slow. Benjamin (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Crime

The entry on crime should mention and differentiate between crime, violent crime, and gun crime. Benjamin (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible confusion with History of masturbation page

I don't want to edit anything but I did want to mention that I found it confusing when I read to different passages from the "History of masturbation" page & the "List of common misconceptions" page.

On the "History of masturbation" page there is the following passage: "In 1905, Sigmund Freud addressed masturbation in his Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality and associated it with addictive substances. He described the masturbation of infants at the period when the infant is nursing, at four years of age, and at puberty.

At the same time, the supposed medical condition of hysteria—from the Greek hystera or uterus—was being treated by what would now be described as medically administered or medically prescribed masturbation for women. Techniques included use of the earliest vibrators and rubbing the genitals with placebo creams.[35]"

And on the "List of common misconceptions" page there is the following passage: "Despite being referenced commonly in culture[183][184] and society at large,[185][186][187] the idea that Victorian Era doctors invented the vibrator to cure female 'hysteria' via triggering orgasm is a product of a single work[188] rejected by most historians.[183][187][189]"

It seems like these pretty much contradict each other. The "History of masturbation" page says the earliest vibrators were being used for the treatment of hysteria around 1905 & the "List of common misconceptions" page says the vibrator was not invented by Victorian Era doctors to cure female 'hysteria'. If both of these statements are considered true, then some additional clarification (at least on the "List of common misconceptions" page) is necessary to explain how. Perhaps, 1905 is considered AFTER the Victorian Era but it is so close as to make the common misconception ONLY about the date which should be explained. I don't really know how both could be true without a lot more research for which others are probably better suited. Of course, if one of them is false, then that should be fixed asap since these are both currently presented as true on wikipedia.

I hope someone more knowledgeable and diligent can make the appropriate adjustments but I just wanted to point out that this is confusing if not outright incorrect.

Thanks, 206.169.203.201 (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)rgs

Hopefully we can find a Wikipedia editor who is an expert on masturbation.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Smartphone

[35]

Benjamin (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit skeptical of the source being reliable. Squatch347 (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Squatch. Their test used an exceptionally small amount of rice, a sponge is not a remotely comparable source of moisture, they compared it to things like opening your phone to air dry (when the whole point of using rice is to avoid opening your phone), they merely recommend using instant rice, and they concluded that even a really small amount of regular rice did indeed work. Even if that article is something more than click bait, the fact that rice does work makes it not a myth. Awhodothey (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify my point a little bit Awhodothey, we are not evaluating their methods. We don't conduct evaluation or original research here on Wikipedia. I am simply noting that the source itself is not a well regarded one. Analysis of their methods is outside our purview. Squatch347 (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, my last sentence was all that really needed to be said. The source does not even claim that rice absorbing moisture, when you don't want to open up a phone, is a myth. Awhodothey (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Influenza vaccines

"It’s a common misconception that influenza vaccines could be produced more quickly if grown in cell cultures compared to using embryonated chicken eggs. In fact, growing the vaccine viruses in cell cultures would take about the same amount of time. However, cell cultures do not have the same potential availability issues as chicken eggs." [36]

Benjamin (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Research

It was said earlier that original research is bad because it's impractical to evaluate, but I think it might be practical in situations like this. Say there's a bunch of media reports and social media posts that say "X is true.", but the actual experts in the field say "X is false.", then I think it would be okay to say that X is a misconception, even if no sources explicitly state that. Benjamin (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Gas prices

[37]

"Here is a one-item test to see whether you are guilty of cloudy thinking about gas prices: Do you believe that they are something a president can control? Many Americans believe that the answer is yes, but any respectable economist will tell you that the answer is no." Benjamin (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Automation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

Automation does not cause long term structural unemployment.

This is another one of those issues that is controversial to politicians, but not to economists.

Benjamin (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Added. Benjamin (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Microwaves and Cancer

A lot of times in popular media microwaves are often implied to be capable of causing cancer if they leak radiation. It seems likely that there is a significant proportion of people who believe this, so would it be worth having it listed on the article? Especially considering there is a section dedicated to microwave ovens (which incidentally only has 2 points on it at the moment). Trainer Alex (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Source? Benjamin (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, finding sources for the spread of myths is quite difficult (for the obvious reason that the spread of myths aren't particularly easy to determine, nor are they of particular importance), but here's some stuff I found from a google search: Scientific American, American Cancer Society, Cancer Council (never heard of Cancer Council myself, but they appear to be somewhat legit).

As for sources for microwaves not causing cancer, those are already on the Microwave oven article, and can be re-used here. Trainer Alex (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I certainly share your frustration. Benjamin (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Summer

[38]

"Many people believe that Earth is closer to the sun in the summer and that is why it is hotter. And, likewise, they think Earth is farthest from the sun in the winter.

Although this idea makes sense, it is incorrect."

Benjamin (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Mars rover Curiosity

Does not fulfill #3 "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." The "misconception" is not covered there. Marked with "dubious" so this can be corrected (think a week or two added and no challenge or removal should do it). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, why don't you go ahead and add it there? Benjamin (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Part of that is "tagging it as necessary". Done. WP:ONUS is part of that policy meaning it may or may not be worthy of inclusion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Still no evidence that this is a common misconception, nor any evidence that it is even common knowledge that it played "happy birthday" once. A few mistaken news articles and the four tweets cited by CNET does not a common misconception make. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

removed. archived below. Cliff (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• 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.

I'm not sure I agree with this removal. The misconception is common enough to appear in sources. Benjamin (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

References

ETFs

[39]

"On the surface, leveraged ETFs seem like a straightforward proposition: "A common misconception is that if an investor thinks the market will increase 10 percent for the year, then they can buy a triple leveraged ETF and make 30 percent for the year," says Eric Ervin, CEO of Reality Shares, an ETF sponsor with four ETF offerings of its own.

That, however, is not how they work."

Benjamin (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

[40]

"There is a big myth about leveraged ETFs that has been recently propagated in the media. ... The myth is: Leveraged ETFs are not suitable for long term buy and hold"

Benjamin (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Driving

[41]

"Dr Graham Hole, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Sussex, said: "A popular misconception is that using a mobile phone while driving is safe as long as the driver uses a hands-free phone."

Benjamin (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think it's appropriate because safety isn't a binary on/off switch. There are degrees of safety, and this is just one person's opinion. It's not safe? Compared to what? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Misconceptions about evolution

[42]

Benjamin (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Swordfish

[43]

"We think of swordfish as incredibly fast swimmers that can spear their prey on their "swords". No part of this is true" Benjamin (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Violent crime rate in America

""the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2017.",[28] "Although most Americans think the number of gun crimes has risen"" It's entirely possible for the violent crime rate to fall and the number of gun crimes to rise. In most countries, most violent crime is nothing to do with guns. If the amount of knife crime and assaults with fists fall, it'd take an enormouse rise in gun crime to overshadow it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It could use some clarification. Benjamin (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

War

• War is not biologically determined.

Benjamin (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

"In fact, about half of all young people believe that war is biologically determined according to international surveys in 1972[14], replicated by studies in Finland[15] and the United States[16]. If anything, the proportion may have increased in recent years.[17]"

@Trainer Alex: That sure sounds like a common belief to me! Benjamin (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being particularly convinced by a study from the previous century. Also I really don't see any reason to conclude that the proportion has increased. The page you linked to clearly needs some work done on it. I mean, citation 17 is practically an opinion piece for god sake... Trainer Alex (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to believe the proportion has decreased? Benjamin (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

[44] Benjamin (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

"contradicting the myth that the human capacity for aggression makes war and violence inevitable, as many people all over the world still believe." [45] Benjamin (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Added back with the additional sources. Benjamin (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Trainer Alex:, please discuss here before reverting. Why exactly do you think the sources are unreliable? Benjamin (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added it back again. Benjamin (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Cold

"Don't go out in the rain without a jacket, or you'll get wet and catch a cold!", my grandmother used to say.

Daily reminder that if your grandparents are still around, you should ask them what different things in history were like. It can be a really interesting conversation, and they'll usually be happy to discuss it.

Anyway, I could have swore I remembered seeing this entry in the list already, but I guess not...

Benjamin (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources: [46][47][48][49][50][51] Benjamin (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Bra

[52] Benjamin (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"The trope of feminists burning their bras en masse is actually a myth stemming from a women’s liberation demonstration when women tossed seemingly anti-feminist items into a trash can that was briefly set on fire." Benjamin (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Contrary to popular belief, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that wearing a bra keeps breasts from sagging" Benjamin (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheese before bed causing nightmares?

Apparently, it's a myth that consuming cheese before bed causes nightmares.[53] Maybe consider adding to the section "Food and cooking"? MetalFusion81 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

But that's where Sting got his songs from.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Price change

[54]

"Many of my students think that we can expect consumers to buy less gasoline when the price is high, and vice versa. In fact, the opposite has more often been true in recent decades, as oil demand shocks have become more important that oil supply shocks."

Benjamin (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia be using a blog as a source? And why would a professor's anecdote be sufficient to consider this a "common" misconception? Risker (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the professor is particularly likely to be lying, or describing an uncommon occurrence. Benjamin (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

He doesn't specify the nature of the group in any way; however, since he specifies it's "my students", we're looking at a small group of people of a specific age group at a specific location. It's unlikely he's actually surveyed them to find out if this is even a common misconception within this own small group of people. Blogs aren't generally accepted as sources for "factual" information except in very, very narrow circumstances, and this is not one of those exceptions. Risker (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what misconception is being addressed here? Certainly the professor isn't claiming that a downward sloping demand curve is a misconception. I think what is going on is that he is kinda conflating two ideas (or more likely is writing it in a way that is confusing to non-technical economists). The downward sloping demand curve and exogenous shocks that shift the demand curve. Squatch347 (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggested Additions

Someone with more time and patience than me might like to add the following common misconceptions to the article: The first message ever sent by electric telegraph was "What hath God wrought". Robert Fulton invented the steamboat. Charles Lindbergh was the first person to fly across the Atlantic Ocean.99.14.151.89 (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I will look into it eventually, maybe, if I get around to it. Benjamin (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Heart failure

[55] Patients should still exercise, even if they have heart failure. Benjamin (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Temperatures

[56] "Dr. Andie Rowland-Fisher, a Hennepin Healthcare emergency physician, says it's a common misconception. “People don't realize temperatures can ..." Benjamin (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Labor and Automation

Recently @JMyrleFuller made some changes to an existing section to add a dissenting view. I initial reverted for two reasons. 1) That view does not represent the mainstream view of labor economists and 2) It had no sources. The second issue had been remedied with two journal articles (listed below along with the text I believe he would like to add). I have several objections to the change based on those two additions.

1) Two journal articles are not sufficient for us to reject the mainstream view. I can find journal articles all day with dissenting views on basic topics. It doesn't mean a single source overturns the entire field. Now, with that said, there is a place for discussion of those dissenting views. And that place is on the host topic's own page.

2) The journal articles published don't actually support the change being requested. For example, the first article is about the changing wages within an industry and how those affect allocation of labor. It is not about structural unemployment. No one argues that automation does not cause changes in labor allocation or use, the question is whether it causes permanent changes to the total amount of labor used in an economy. This paper doesn't address that at all. Rather, its main premise is that automation (along with other things) is pushing labor from previously low paid employment to higher paid service employment. "Our results suggest a critical role for changes in labor specialization, spurred by automation of routine task activities, as a driver of rising employment and wage polarization in the United States and potentially in other countries."

The second paper is closer, in that it actually discusses a perceived (though admittedly controversial) structural unemployment for high skilled "cognitive" labor. First, we should note that that isn't the type of labor being automated away, so this paper already can be seen as handling a different topic. Second, the paper is proposing that cognitive labor acts in a business cycle theory rather than a capital development theory of gains. This means that there are natural contractionary cycles such as the one they argue has existed since 2000. The entire point of this change in model is that it isn't caused by structural changes like automation, it is inherent in the market itself. Thus, it cannot at all be related to the automation claim being made here.

I propose that both reversion criteria listed in my opening still apply.

Squatch347 (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Added Section:

• White collar and artisan work is more prone to obsolescence due to technology than unskilled manual labor. This was true during the Industrial Revolution and is expected to still be true with automation in the 21st century.

References

Well said. There is indeed controversy about just how labour markets will be affected, but the fact that "humans are not horses", so to speak, is not in question. Benjamin (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Karl Marx

• Marx did not create the "labour theory of value," rather he based his arguments related to the claims of exploitation on existing labor theories of value which had largely been replaced by economists with the subjective theory of value by the time of his writings.

Firstly, Marx developed his own LTV and spent a lot of time elaborating it. Yes, it was based on Smith, Ricardo etc, but it was his own. Secondly, "arguments related to the claims of exploitation" is a very clumsy phrase, and it is misleading. Marx's theories were not just about exploitation. In fact, he created a whole school of economics called Marxist economics. Thirdly, the chronology is wrong. Marx expounded his take on the LTV as early as 1847 in Wage Labour and Capital (and probably earlier). As I understand it, the subjective theory emerged 1862-1874 and was adopted by economists after that. Capital Vol 1 was published in 1867, and Marx died in 1883 without publishing the rest. At the time of Marx's death the subjective theory was still new, and it was heard of when he began writing. While he addressed many schools of thought, I don't believe he dealt with the subjective theory because it had not yet gained currency. In fact, Beggs' article cited says, "Marx could not be expected to have engaged with this literature in the 1860s, for the simple reason that it did not appear widely until the 1870s (the inevitable isolated forerunners aside)." (p 17). I haven't accessed the other article, but I don't think Begg supports this text at all. Moreover, I think these articles are rather obscure sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to reword as you see fit. Benjamin (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that there's a major misconception here. The LTV is commonly associated with Marx, so I guess some people might think he invented it. But how common is that misconception, and what makes it notable enough to include here?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Bottom Line up front: I am ok with removing that section entirely. While there is a misconception (though I don't see the supporting evidence, though I might not have looked hard enough) about Marx creating labor theory, the addition comes with far too many problems to easily be resolved. We can't get too deep into Marxist economics in this kind of article, especially as it is generally treated on Wiki as fringe. Subjective Value and the Marginal Revolution date back (though not as named movements) to Ricardo's later work and Menger discusses the issues quite in depth. Sufficed to say, by the time that WLC was published, there were widely known issues with any objective value theory. Issues that Marx pretty much ignored. I was trying to rewrite the previous version of the misconception to better reflect economic thought, but Jack is correct that my writing was clumsy. My vote is for a hard removal. Squatch347 (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

References

My revert

Newagelink, I reverted this addition because it's sourced to a blog. Also calling another editor an apparently prejudiced bigot isn't acceptable. Assume good faith is Wikipedia policy, as is no personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Guettarda, where does Wikipedia exhaustively list acceptable citations or prohibit citing blogs? Thank you for bringing to my attention the "no personal attacks" page. -- Newagelink (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no exhaustive list, but there are some guidelines - WP:RS is a good starting point, and WP:SPS for dealing with blog sources. You can raise questions about specific sources at the reliable sources noticeboard. Guettarda (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

bedbugs

[57] Benjamin [58] Benjamin (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This looks good. If we can synthesize it down to a line or two it should be a solid add. Squatch347 (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

My revert

Newagelink, I reverted this addition because it's sourced to a blog. Also calling another editor an apparently prejudiced bigot isn't acceptable. Assume good faith is Wikipedia policy, as is no personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Guettarda, where does Wikipedia exhaustively list acceptable citations or prohibit citing blogs? Thank you for bringing to my attention the "no personal attacks" page. -- Newagelink (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no exhaustive list, but there are some guidelines - WP:RS is a good starting point, and WP:SPS for dealing with blog sources. You can raise questions about specific sources at the reliable sources noticeboard. Guettarda (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

bedbugs

[59] Benjamin [60] Benjamin (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This looks good. If we can synthesize it down to a line or two it should be a solid add. Squatch347 (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Krugman

[61] Krugman "six currently popular misconceptions" Benjamin (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little wary of adding anything by Paul Krugman lately as he has strayed pretty far from the reservation. We could take each of his six in turn and see where that gets us. Squatch347 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

"international trade is not about competition, it is about mutually beneficial exchange." This is a pretty mainstream idea among economists. Benjamin (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

True, and not a bad add given current discussions. We just need to be very clear what Prof. Krugman is saying here. It isn't competition between nations. There is obviously competition in international trade. Squatch347 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

More economics

[62] Benjamin (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

[63] "While macroeconomics is often thought of as a deeply divided field, with less of a shared core and correspondingly less cumulative progress than other areas of economics, in fact, there are fewer fundamental disagreements among macroeconomists now than in past decades." Benjamin (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Security clearance

List of U.S. security clearance terms: "Despite the common misconception, a public trust position is not a security clearance, and is not the same as the confidential designation. Certain positions which require access to sensitive information, but not information which is classified, must obtain this designation through a background check. Public Trust Positions can either be moderate-risk or high-risk.[2][3]" Benjamin (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead

@Bamse: You mentioned the lead should be expanded. I'm not sure how to go about that. The format of this article doesn't lend itself very well to summarization, as the entries are all already quite concise, and don't relate to each other. Benjamin (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Cannabis

[64] “The way that the sativa and indica labels are utilized in commerce is nonsense,” Russo told Leafly. “The clinical effects of the cannabis chemovar have nothing to do with whether the plant is tall and sparse vs. short and bushy, or whether the leaflets are narrow or broad.” Benjamin (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism

The disputed entry is this:

The formation of the Earth happened around 4.5 billion years ago, not 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

PaleoNeonate is apparently a drive-by editor with only one previous edit to the article, and may not be entirely familiar with how the term "common misconception" is being employed here. I don't think it is meant to apply to any and all common false beliefs, and certainly not to religious beliefs that are a form of denialism. I may be wrong, but "misconception" connotes "ignorance due to honest mistake". Creationists are aware of the scientific consensus, they are aware of the evidence, but they allege conspiracy and deny it because it doesn't gel with their ideology. It is odd to see it listed as a "common misconception". No other form of denialism is included.

The subsection is "Biology" and the sub-subsection "Evolution and palaeontology". A false belief about the age of the Earth is incongruous here and will likely confuse readers. If it must be kept it would be better placed in a more relevant section. At the very least, any relevance to biological evolution should be explicitly established. It's interesting that PaleoNeonate thinks it important to specify that Young Earth creationism is "a form of creationism", as if readers are morons, yet is happy to leave implicit any tangential relation between the age of the Earth and biological evolution. Of course a false belief about the age of the Earth has implications for biological evolution. It is still not a false belief about evolution.

86.28.158.33 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I support inclusion, but I'm indifferent about placement. Benjamin (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Then could you please identify a reliable source that refers to this as a common misconception? The first source is a neutral discussion of creationism and says nothing about its validity. The other two are scientific discussions of the age of the Earth and never mention creationism. Without better sourcing, listing YEC like this is surely synthesis and original research. 86.28.158.33 (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Although I've indeed not contributed much (at all?) to this article, I've been patrolling for a while. The main reason for my revert was the unconvincing edit summary, but I agree that this merits discussion. A few common misconceptions about evolution are:

• confusing abiogenesis and descent with modification (life diversification)
• adaptation as pure chance versus natural selection and other understood processes
• confusing "microevolution" and "macroevolution" even if they are the same at different scales
• the age of the earth
• how the fossil record is gradual with slowly accumulating sediment layers (not created by the worldwide flood of Abrahamic mythology)
• philosophical-metaphysical: claim that methodological naturalism is necessarily flawed atheism resulting in false conclusions, vs a hypothetical "theistic science" (when the latter is more about evidence denial and pseudoscientific apologetics to twist observations into a predetermined traditional conclusion)

Various sources treat about those so we could find better ones. But another valid question is if all that is due in this list-style article: are those rightfully considered common misconceptions at large? YEC is mostly a subculture in the US and some of the above points address their views. It may also be possible to have a single more general entry about the misconception that there is a legitimate scientific debate about evolution. —PaleoNeonate – 13:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

With regards to your last point, I think that that is already adequately covered by the entry beginning "The word theory in "the theory of evolution" does not imply scientific doubt regarding its validity". 86.28.158.33 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, pinging Benjaminikuta who I think originally added the material, for their impression. —PaleoNeonate – 06:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There is adequate sourcing to establish this as a common misconception. Better than most, in fact, since we actually have solid data on how widespread it is, unlike for most entries. The fact that it's a religious belief doesn't mean it's not a misconception. Benjamin (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to make your case, but there are several things wrong with your manner of inclusion and your original hand-wavy dismissal of my concerns:

• You added an entry about how long ago the Earth formed to a section about biological evolution
• You synthesised the info that it's a common belief and the info that it's false from two different sources
• You piped the words "6,000 to 10,000 years ago" to "Young Earth creationism" in an easter egg-y way.

Without explaining in the text the nature and origin of a belief in the age of the Earth that is several orders of magnitude lower than the actual figure, this just seems like a blunt and bitter polemic in the style of RationalWiki. The purpose of the page is to challenge and correct common misconceptions. No Young Earth creationist is going to be convinced to change their mind by this entry. While YEC may be a common belief, it's also a highly concentrated one. Very few people outside the US adhere to it. The misconception that there's a genuine scientific debate about the age of the Earth, meanwhile, is uncommon. We should focus on giving the article a less US-centric outlook. 86.28.158.33 (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Library of Congress

• The Library of Congress does not retain all books in its permanent collection.

Benjamin (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Library of Alexandria

• The Library of Alexandria was not destroyed by the Muslim Army during the capture of the city in 641, nor in any one particular incident. Modern consensus suggests the library had likely already been gradually deteriorating centuries before this incident. It is instead believed that the Library of Caesarea, a key repository of Christian literature, was the library destroyed near this time.

Benjamin (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Yaks

• Yaks do not stink.

I found another source: [65] "Contrary to popular belief, yaks and their manure have little to no detectable odor when maintained appropriately in pastures or paddocks with adequate access to forage and water." Benjamin (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

References

O. J. Simpson murder case - gloves vs socks

An IP editor added an entry regarding the O. J. Simpson murder case that I removed based on the misconception not being mentioned in the topic article. The IP put it back saying "That doesn't mean it doesn't need to be cited here. Maybe some people never bothered to check that article because they considered it an open-and-shut case." Does anyone else here think I was wrong to remove this? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Also agreed. I have reverted his re-addition of the text. To add to your point I think the link might fail WP:RS. While it is hosted at a university, this appears to be a personal projects page, not an authoritative source. Squatch347 (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Bee

• European honey bees are often described as essential to human food production, leading to claims that without their pollination, humanity would starve or die out. The quote "If bees disappeared off the face of the earth, man would only have four years left to live" has been misattributed to Albert Einstein. In fact, many important crops need no insect pollination at all. The ten most important crops, comprising 60% of all human food energy, all fall into this category.

Benjamin (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It requires a tortured definition of "common misconception" to claim this doesn't belong on the list, or that it's not common. It doesn't mean every single person you meet thinks we'll all die tomorrow without these bees. It means most of us have heard the claim repeated many times. We need to stand up to various editors who are trying to Wikilaywer this list down to nothing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I agree completely, and I've long been thinking about how to put it into words. Benjamin (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, I also support the addition of this one. Squatch347 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland, Benjaminikuta, and Squatch347: I disagree but I won't fight this one. I never interpreted "common" to mean "every single person I meet", but I don't think the phrase "often described" is clear enough to come anywhere close to being a common misconception. But thanks for discussing. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

References

electroconvulsive therapy

Suggested addition:

Most controlled research suggests that electroconvulsive therapy is helpful as a treatment for severe depression.The reputation as a barbaric treatment can be traced to its erroneous portrayal in popular cinema. In actuality patients are put under general anesthesia before treatment. Over 80% of patients are satisfied with electroconvulsive therapy.

-1Veertje (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This may have some potential as an item, specifically the misconception that it is barbaric as currently done (in the past it was in fact barbaric, and the film portrayals often are accurate). However, your description is a little too rosy, as it remains one of the most controversial treatments in mental healthcare. The article you link on ECT provides details. It is a misconception that it is barbaric, but it is not a misconception that there are serious questions about the balance between effectiveness and very serious side effects. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Witches

• Witches were not systematically persecuted during the Middle ages. On the contrary, the Middle Ages were a period of mildness compared to the time before and the time after.

Benjamin (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Fails inclusion criterion 2: "The item is reliably sourced, ... with respect to ... the fact that it is a common misconception." And Wikipedia cannot source itself. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Price elasticity of demand

• Price elasticity is not constant, but rather varies along the curve.

Benjamin (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

References

E-commerce

• There are significant barriers to entry in e-commerce.

Benjamin (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Hunter-gatherers

• Hunter-gatherers are mostly well fed, rather than starving.

Benjamin (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Edit war

It's really unfortunate that this article has been full protected. Do you think we could simply agree to refrain from re-reverting each other (even if the other editor isn't justified)? Benjamin (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Invading Russia in the Winter

Adolf Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte did not invade Russia in the winter. In fact, both of these historical invasions took place in the summer, in late June. Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, began on June 22, 1941. Napoleon's Grande Armée invaded on June 24th, 1812. These invasions were carefully planned and their overseers were well aware of the harsh climactic conditions, long travels and sprawling supply lines associated with such an invasion. Late June was a logical choice in both cases as it provided the longest daylight of the year, allowing prolonged travel and offensive action in the earliest stages of the invasions. This time of year also provided many months of deployment preceding winter conditions, as well as favorable road conditions. It is true that harsh winter conditions contributed to the failure of these invasions. However, both invading forces still made preparations to operate in the winter, although the conditions were harsher and more prolonged than expected. --ChippahDippah (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to verify the factual contents of the item as well as the fact that it is a common misconception. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

French invasion of Russia#German invasion mentions the myth that the Russian winter was the cause of both the German and French defeats, citing one source. I imagine additional sources around this topic are cited in French invasion of Russia and in Operation Barbarossa. I would say the next step is to go to the talk pages of those two articles and get help bringing this myth or common misconception into focus, so that at least one of the articles says explicitly what we are saying here on this list. Or bring what this list says into line with what's into the article. Whichever the editors on those articles are most supportive of. With all those ducks in a row, it should be easy to add an entry here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ye

• The word "the" was never pronounced or spelled "ye" in Old or Middle English. The confusion derives from the use of the character thorn (þ) in abbreviations of the word "the", which in Middle English text () looked similar to a y with a superscript e.

Benjamin (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Perfect, I've been toying with this one for a while too, but never get around to it. Fully support inclusion as written. Squatch347 (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be some consensus to retain the inclusion criteria. I'd like to bump this section for inclusion. I'll take the IP editor's comments at face value about assuming good faith. In an attempt to foster good faith consensus, I'm going to propose this with what I hope will be a handy template for inclusion.

Proposed Text: The word "the" was never pronounced or spelled "ye" in Old or Middle English. The confusion derives from the use of the character thorn (þ) in abbreviations of the word "the", which in Middle English text () looked similar to a y with a superscript e.

Criteria 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_(pronoun)#Confusion_with_definite_article

Criteria 2: Uggh, while I'm loathe to admit it as a Husky fan, the WSU link is absolutely a reliable source developed as it is by Professor Paul Brians. His reference includes both the correction referencing thorn and the fact that this misconception is common (if you use this incorrectly, very few people will know better. The Online Etymological Dictionary is also generally considered reliable. This source doesn't reference the mistake as common, though does reference why it is a mistake and how it is commonly used in 'tourist traps.'

Criteria 3: The misconception is referenced (it has its own section) in the topic article.

Criteria 4: No indication that this is an obsolete misunderstanding. A quick google search shows a large number of shops styling themselves as "Ye olde..."

Squatch347 (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Since there appear to be no objections, added. Squatch347 (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Cooking with alcohol

• Food containing wine or liquor retains alcohol even after cooking, contrary to the misconception that cooking burns all alcohol off. According to the USDA, 75% of the alcohol remains after flambéing, 25% after one hour of baking or simmering, and 10% after two hours of baking or simmering. However, the amount of alcohol consumed while eating a dish prepared with alcohol will rarely if ever be sufficient to cause even low levels of intoxication.

Benjamin (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Fails inclusion criteria 2 ("The item is reliably sourced, ... with respect to ... the fact that it is a common misconception.") and 3 ("The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.") 75.191.40.148 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC) (Same editor as 75.191.40.148 using different IP)

From source 2: "Contrary to what most people believe..

" So it seems to have met with criteria 2. For criteria 3, can you point to the Wiki article you are referencing? Squatch347 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As it is written now, the topic article does not mention the misconception. It needs to be written into the article, with a source.. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You really should be more specific in your removal rational. Multiple times now you have removed entries for being unsourced, when they actually were sourced. If what you really mean is that you disagree with the interpretation of the source, or there's some other reason why it shouldn't be taken to mean what it says, then you should say so. Benjamin (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

References