Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Egyptian Gods With Animal Heads

It is well-known that the deities of Egypt are portrayed as humans with animal heads, and/or with animal features (cow horns, etc). However, a common belief is that the Egyptians believed that this was a literal portrayal, but the truth is more complex - modern Egyptologists have said there are many theories and interpretations.

I would like an addition to the "history" section stating definitively that the Egyptians did not see their Gods as people with animal heads (e.g. Anubis as a man with a Jackal head), that animals were not commonly worshipped (e.g. worshiping cats as gods in the city of Bubastis), and that modern-day Egyptology concludes that Egyptian theology was made of complex symbology, which has been dumbed down by a post-colonial mindset. Edwardnb (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Edwardnb, the source you cite is a WP:BLOG, and it never clearly suggests that any popular misconception exists about Egyptian gods one way or the other. Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Rust as a cause of a tetanus infection

I added additional information to this paragraph to clarify that tetanus infections are enabled by puncture wounds. You can read the "Cause" section of the tetanus article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetanus#Cause) for further explanation. That edit was deleted as being duplicate. Yet the original and surviving section of the paragraph does not mention puncture wounds at all, hence the additional explanation of puncture as a contributing factor is not duplicate.

Tetanus infections can be caused by any puncture wound caused by a contaminated object. Iron or rust are not required at all, just that common puncture hazards tend to be made of rusty iron, hence the misconception that rusty nails alone cause tetanus. However deep penetration is a factor that greatly increases the chance of a tetanus infection. In the spirit of informing readers, it seems appropriate to at least mention the importance of a puncture as a cause. For example a deep thorn puncture is also reason to seek medical help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.120.188 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a long article with lots of entries. In the interest of keeping the reader engaged, each entry should be kept short and to the point and not go into tangential details. The topic articles are where to find more details.

Here, the misconception is that "rust causes tetanus" while the fact is that the same conditions that promote rust also harbor tetanus. In the interest of keeping the entries short, we don't need to go into further detail about puncture wounds.

That said, it's only one sentence and if there's support from other editors to add it, I'm not going to complain. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I can reduce the word count. Part of the verbosity was to illustrate how "rust causes tetanus" came to be commonly accepted, but the main thrust is that puncture wounds are the hazard. Though a 4cm long tree thorn isn't rusty, it is still a tetanus hazard. 23.119.120.188 (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead and share a draft here. The entry as it stands could use some trimming, so feel free to reduce the word count of that material too. Upon review, I'm inclined to support adding this. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, here is a shot at a rewrite of the whole paragraph:

----

Rust itself does not cause tetanus infection. Protection from oxygen is a greater factor in infection. The Clostridium tetani bacterium is generally found in dirty environments that lack oxygen. Since the same conditions that harbor tetanus bacteria also promote rusting of metal, many people associate rust with tetanus. C. tetani requires anoxic conditions to reproduce and these are found in the permeable layers of rust that form on oxygen-absorbing, unprotected ironwork. In addition a puncture wound inserts C. tetani deep in body tissue, protecting it from oxygen.

----

I'm also a little concerned about the assertion of tetanus reproducing within rust on its own, but that is a separate issue. The referenced article (https://www.ehso.com/disease/tetanus.php) makes no such claim. The closest it gets is "... any deep wound can become a breeding ground." which was my original point about emphasizing puncture wounds. It makes sense that bacteria would require a host to reproduce. If there's no evidence of tetanus reproducing on a rusty nail, then I'd recommend removing "to reproduce" and shortening the sentence to "C. tetani requires anoxic conditions and these are found in the permeable layers of rust that form on oxygen-absorbing, unprotected ironwork" 23.119.120.188 (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The wording above (and the current entry too) can be interpreted to say that rust develops in oxygen-free environments, which is clearly not the case - rust is iron oxide and requires oxygen to form. However, once rust forms it depletes the oxygen, so rust is an oxygen-free environment where C. tetani can thrive. C. tetani spores can survive in the presence of oxygen, and they are found everywhere, but harmless unless introduced into the body by a puncture wound.

C. tetani can exist as a either vegetative cells or as spores. The former can't survive in the presence of oxygen, but the latter can. And only the vegetative cells can reproduce, so it's not off-base to say it can't reproduce in the presence of oxygen. But, I don't know that we need to go into detail about spores vs vegetative cells and their ability to survive in the presence of oxygen and what conditions are necessary for reproduction, so I'd suggest the following concise language that adds the material stating that puncture wounds from other objects can cause tetanus.

• Rust itself does not cause tetanus infection. The bacteria that causes tetanus thrives in low oxygen environments, including rust where the oxygen has combined with iron, so many people associate rust with tetanus. However, any puncture wound can introduce spores that cause a tetanus infection, not just rusty nails.

Comments?

References

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.120.188 (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Missionary Position

I reverted this recently added entry due to lack of souring. On further investigation, this looks like a good candidate for inclusion. Here's a draft, with sourcing. Comments appreciated.

There is no evidence that English-speaking Christian missionaries encouraged converts to use the Missionary Position in the colonial era. This notion probably originated from Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) through misunderstandings and misinterpretations of historical documents. According to The Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest usage of the actual term missionary position was in 1969.

References

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Some comments:

• The IFL Science source should probably be removed: Elise Andrew's article says "With regard to [IFL Science], Andrew has come under criticism for plagiarism, unlicensed use of intellectual property, reporting false and misleading information, and rarely issuing corrections."
• The OED entry currently gives the earliest use as 1948, so that information appears outdated.
• The closest I see in the Straight Dope article to verifying the misconception as "common" is describing it as a "legend". I have a longstanding opposition to this verifying a misconception as common. At the very least, if we understand it to verify this, it should be applied consistently and everything in list of urban legends should be considered verified as common misconceptions.
• I don't currently have access to the Priest document. At the least, the abstract verifies that it was a common misconception among modernist and postmodernist scholars as of the 1990s. Per WP:DATED, the modified entry could read: "as of the 1990s, it was a common misconception among modernist and postmodernist scholars that..."

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The Priest article is here or here. Take a look. It says:

No authority documents a single situation in which missionaries taught such an ethic and natives used such an expression. Yet our society has accepted the “truth” of the missionary position. In contrast to most urban legends, this legend has managed to certify itself through the accredited reality-defining institutions of society and to instantiate its truth as part of the English language.

The Priest article also says "The Oxford English Dictionary included it in 1976 but gave a date of 1969 as the first usage it was able to document." I don't have access to the OED, so if they've updated this we can use that figure - it doesn't affect the narrative.

WebMD says:

According to popular lore, the missionary sex position got its name because long ago Christian missionaries taught that the male-dominant position was the proper way to have sex. But some scholars believe this to be an urban legend.

Cosmopolitan says:

It's a common myth that the position gets its name from missionaries giving sex tips to the people they were ministering to. In reality, the term cropped up in the 1950s and was probably just the cause of a mistranslation of historical documents.

Agree with the criticism of IFLS. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Given the quote provided, the Priest article appears sufficient for verifying it is a common misconception beyond academics. Used in conjunction with the more contemporary Cosmopolitan article, WP:DATED shouldn't need to be applied. I think we can omit the OED's dating if it's simply repeating what we write before. Else the entry is good to go. You shouldn't need access to OED, the 1948 date appears on the free to access fact sheet. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Revision History

Hey, how come none of the edits we make to this article ever appear in the revision history section anymore? Also I really think that Bugs Bunny picture I keep adding should be kept there. Why not? Jamgorham (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

This page is a combination of three sub-pages which are transcluded to make this page. The revision history is at each sub-page, e.g.

The picture of bugs probably violates Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria, which is why it was removed. Copyrights, etc. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Well if you won't let me keep the picture of Bugs on that article could I at least put back the part where his carrot crunching habit was modeled after Clark Gable? Cause I think that was actually a pretty crucial fact. Jamgorham (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

This was mentioned in the discussion of adding the rabbits/carrots entry a little over a year ago. But it was omitted due to nobody finding any reliable source establishing it. If someone comes up with a cite we can include the Clark Gable assertion.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_30 Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Title is Misleading

While the title is clarified in the initial paragraph stating that "Each entry on this list of common misconceptions is worded as a correction", the title itself is misleading because of this wording. Instead of a list of misconceptions, as it stands it is a list of factual statements.

The misconceptions being implied leads less detailed readers to believe that this is a list of false facts, rather than a correction to said false facts, and they might leave this list believing that all of these corrections are false.

Leading each correction with a brief sentence saying what the initial misconception was, so as not to spread further misconceptions (while staying true to the title name by making it indeed a list of misconceptions [and their corrections]), would be more accurate. BoxedBunny.bb (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention that searching for a misconception to verify if it is true will pretty much never lead you to this list, which is meant to counteract said misconceptions. The target audience will never be reached. Thus adding a sentence or two to connect the misconception to the correction would be a better use of this list. BoxedBunny.bb (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the title is confusing. To me this looks to be the usual trade-off between precision and concision in Wikipedia:Article titles, but I have no better title.

Also I don't think it is a good idea to repeat the misconception. For more details, I recommend to have a look at the Debunking Handbook 2020. Nuretok (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This is something I've always thought as well. It would make more logical sense to me if each entry began with something like a that-clause, this being the misconception (but clearly not a statement that we are making). For example (this isn't a real one):

• That the Earth is flat. Earth is in fact almost round,...

W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Headings

The discussion below was started on the Science and Technology sub-article, I'm moving it here since it affects this "main" article and the three sub-articles.

I have changed the headings (despite the warning). I believe this solves it both here and on the "main page". Feel free to revert if I'm missing something. Dajasj (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish, what was looking weird specifically? The reason for adding a header with title "List" is because right now there is no h2-heading which is required for accessibility (see MOS:Goodhead. Dajasj (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The List of Common Misconceptions article was recently split into three separate articles due to size constraints with each sub-article transcluded into the main article. The lack of level-2 headings in the sub-articles is because the sub-articles are transcluded with the level-2 headings provided by the main article.

Thanks for the pointer to MOS:GOODHEAD; more info is available at MOS:OVERSECTION. I was unfamiliar with this material, and you are correct that it is an issue. Since it is an issue for all three sub-articles and affects the main article, we should move this discussion to that talk page - whatever we do with this sub-article we should also do with the other two for consistency. I'm not sure what the best approach is, so I'd like to hear from some of the other editors and I'm not sure everyone follows this talk page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The lack of level-2 headings on the sub-articles does appear to be an issue. See MOS:GOODHEAD and MOS:OVERSECTION. Dajasj (talk) suggested this work-around which seems to address the issue, but looks "weird" to my eyes. Maybe there's a better way to do it? Ideas? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The ideal way to do it would be to use "standard" level-2 headings in the sub-articles and push everything down a level when transcluding. But I don't know how to accomplish that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the discussion here. Could you elaborate what is looking weird, so I can help find a solution?

More rigorous options could be to move the transcluded pages to the Template namespace, where headings are no requirement. Another, perhaps already discussed and rejected when it was split off, is to make this a disambig page and only keep the transcluded pages. The latter not only fixes the heading issue, but also fits better with the requirement that there should be references where the information is shown. Dajasj (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It just seems odd to have a heading labeled "List" for what is clearly a list. None of the other List of... articles that I'm familiar with have the list under a heading called "List".

Moving the transcluded pages to the Template namespace would seem to resolve the issue, but I'm not very familiar with that structure so I'd need to defer to someone who does. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that it is a bit odd. We could also name it "Common misconceptions", but that is also obviously in the titel. However it fixes the problem and differentiates from References and Sources anyway. It is pragrmatic, but not perfect.

I could move it to template namespace, but I want to have more input before doing that. Dajasj (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, now that I understand the problem that is being addressed I'm not so opposed to your solution. I don't know how urgent the headings issue is, but if you think it needs to be addressed quickly I won't object to adding the "List" level 2 heading to the sub articles pending discussion and consensus here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there any objection to moving the sub-articles to template namespace? Seems like a good solution to the heading issue, and comports with the consensus on the recent split discussion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I will move it (hopefully) this week. If anyone objects later, we can just undo it :) Dajasj (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Territory of embassies

Diplomatic mission#Extraterritoriality since this one is mentioned as a common misconception in its own article, it should be added here. People generally do incorrectly believe embassies are territory of the embassy country and not the host country. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

How about this:

Diplomatic missions do not necessarily enjoy full extraterritorial status and are generally not sovereign territory of the represented state. The sending state can give embassies sovereign status but this only happens with a minority of countries. Although they receive special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations the premises of an embassy remain under the jurisdiction of the host state.

References

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me! PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Canada mass graves reporting

While I appreciate the caution, the entry was well sourced and accurate; I would say a dispute at another page shouldn't play into it as long as it's policy compliant and accurate.

let me know if there is need for changes to it though. happy to chat it out. AnExtraEditor (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Please review the inclusion criteria listed at the top of this talk page. Reproduced below:

Also, there appears to be an edit war going on currently at the topic article's page. Please do not extend that to this page. Take a look at WP:POVFORK and try to reach consensus at the topic article. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

cheers, sounds good. I think it meets all these but yes I'll wait. AnExtraEditor (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no one light radiation frequency which corresponds to purple (magenta (red+blue)) light

It also does not appear in a prism, only in a rainbow at the end where it combines with a second spectrum.

Many sources say that it is in the ROYGBIV rainbow thanks to a linguistics error because "violet" used to mean blue.

Purple is composed of (and seen as) red and blue light, which are on opposite sides of the visible light spectrum. 82.77.165.186 (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The "misconception" appears to be that in ordinary usage violet and purple are often not distinguished as they are in technical jargon. This is explained fairly clearly at Violet_(color)#Relationship_to_purple.

Colors and their names are highly subjective and disagreement over semantics does not constitute a misconception. See XKCD Color Survey for details. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The thing that I think is problematic is that Violet is almost always displayed as a combination of red and blue light in RGB despite the fact that we say it's a wavelength (even Violet (color) shows hex #FF0080 as it) and I think that if it's actually present it should only trigger blue receptors in our eyes, therefore only appearing as blue light

The misconception here would be that it can be properly represented with a mix of red and blue light in the RGB system Ridiche (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

If you have some reliable sources that state what the misconception is and also state that it is common, please provide them. Otherwise, the entry would fail the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

That inhaling black mold is especially harmful

See Stachybotrys chartarum

It's widely believed that the spores are toxic and have acute band chronic health effects. In reality, it might upset some people with asthma, but that's about it. More info in the article. Kcrisck (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The topic article is not clear about this. See Stachybotrys_chartarum#Potential_toxicity. Seems like a matter of ongoing dispute, not a settled question. And then there's the notice at the top of the page:

This may be a good candidate if it's phrased something like "What people refer to as toxic mold is not as harmful as many think." but we'd need to get the sourcing solid. I'd suggest addressing the issue at the topic article and once the dust settles re-nominating the entry here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Pseudoscience vs "Common Misconception"

Entries include: "Herbal medicines are not necessarily safe and side-effect free; such medicines can have adverse effects." "There is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that crystal healing has any effect beyond acting as a placebo."

Are these really common misconceptions? How widespread are they? The former is vague enough to be a catch-all that even practitioners of herbal medicine might agree with; the latter is fringe. Pseudoscience ≠ common misconception

Likewise, there are no entries on chiropractic or acupuncture, whose value and efficacy are supremely and commonly overestimated. Even if hedged for controversy, there are definitive statements that could be made - and worthy of inclusion, regardless.

And obviously the above is nonexhaustive. This is just what I noticed when browsing the page. 45.50.184.185 (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Acceptable content on Wikipedia is determined by citation to reliable sources. Take one minute to look at the cited sources. If you have reliable sources regarding chiropractic or acupuncture, feel free to provide them here. Sundayclose (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Pyramids of Egypt and Slave Labor

Given that the topic is still under debate by Egyptologists, I think that listing this as a "common misconception" is misleading.

Corvee labor can, in my opinion, be plausibly described as slavery, though it isn't the same as chattel slavery that modern Americans might be most familiar with.

Sources that support the idea that slavery was used for the construction of the pyramids:

Edward Frank Wente and Edmund S. Meltzer, Letters from Ancient Egypt, vol. 1 of Writings from the Ancient World (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), 74. (Primary source)

Mazzone, David. “The Dark Side of a Model Community: The ‘Ghetto’ of El-Lahun.” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architecture 2 (2017).

Miers, Suzanne. “Slavery: A Question of Definition.” The Structure of Slavery in Indian Ocean Africa and Asia. Edited by Gwyn Campbell. Studies in Slave and Post-Slave Societies and Cultures. Portland, OR: Frank Cass Publishers, 2005.

Langer, Christian. “Forced Labour and Deportations in Ancient Egypt: Recent Trends and Future Possibilities” 2.19 (2020).

I am drawing from the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpyWYcNP0Rw AbeAllowed (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't have access to the sources cited above, but if as you say "the topic is still under debate by Egyptologists" the entry should be removed from the article as it is a matter of ongoing dispute.

Do you have a link to support that claim?

The topic article, Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt#Great_Pyramids_not_built_by_slaves, seems to contradict your assertion. I'd suggest sorting it out there rather than here.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

eBay

Could there be an addition, eBay was not created to sell Pez dispensers? Best source found https://www.woot.com/blog/post/the-debunker-was-ebay-founded-as-a-way-to-trade-pez-dispensers-1

“PR manager Mary Lou Song, admitted that she had invented the Pez story after the fact, in hopes of attracting media attention.”

https://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/smallbusiness/1103/gallery.business_creation_myths/index.html

Media outlets believed the story, there are still these stories online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C601:6010:AC06:AD02:50D2:8655 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Help with

I added a bit about the etymology of the word kangaroo, but when I tried to put the <noinclude> on either side of the citations, it doesn't work and just shows up in the final version. What did I do wrong? Ash assists (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I guess it just takes a little bit to show up properly. Ash assists (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Right. Changes to the transcluded pages do not appear immediately in the main article. But it's pretty fast - I haven't timed it but it's usually less than a minute. And thanks for adding the kangaroo entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Transportation - Toilet Waste - Exception

The second bullet states "Toilet waste is never intentionally jettisoned from an aircraft." This is not true. Many gliders provide a way of collecting urine and letting it flow to the outside through a tube. Many glider pilots make use of this during long flights. Robertrackl (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that establishes this? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Following up on my previous comment, I have found reliable sources confirming that urine is intentionally jettisoned from gliders as a standard practice on long flights. The equipment used is commonly called a 'relief tube.'

Gliding New Zealand, a national governing body, describes these systems in its official instructor manual as a way to deal with human factors on long flights.

The Soaring Society of America's official publication, Soaring Magazine, has published detailed articles on these systems, such as "The Workings of a Relief System" in its December 2021 issue.

Aviation suppliers also sell these as standard off-the-shelf products for glider pilots.

Based on these sources, the statement 'Toilet waste is never intentionally jettisoned from an aircraft' is factually incorrect. It should be amended to clarify that while this is true for commercial airliners, it is not true for all aircraft, with gliders being a notable exception. Robertrackl (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you share those reliable sources that you have found?

Meanwhile, I can't view the WSJ article that is cited by the entry, but the source I found says:

All commercial airliners currently use one of two basic toilet systems, and neither of them is designed to release waste during a flight.

So, I think we can modify the entry to clarify that it's about commercial airliners Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Just say "Toilet waste is never intentionally jettisoned from commercial aircraft". Also, I have heard old World War II pilots talk about using funnels for urine collection with the relief tube venting to the outside. I have been encouraged to use the system sparingly because urine is corrosive. Robertrackl (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hand Washing entry

The following entry was recently added:

• The use of warm or hot water during hand washing does not appear to aid in pathogen reduction or removal, and may contribute to skin irritation.

We removed a similar entry a little over a year ago; the relevant Talk page discussion is at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_30#Hand_washing_entry

While consensus may change, I don't see anything that has changed to make this a desirable entry; in particular it contradicts material at the topic article. If there is a dispute, it should be resolved there instead of here. I'm removing the entry as per consensus reached a year ago.

The gist is that warm water is not hot enough to kill bacteria, and any water hot enough would burn the skin. Cold water & soap is effective at killing bacteria, but warm water does a better job at removing oils and dirt that can harbor bacteria growth. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Technically less horrible

I have altered the three "child" lists so that they now have technically valid heading levels. I have also fixed an assortment of references so that the current design works as intended — to hide all of the references from the "parent" list. However, there are still problems with the references, but I am leaving that particular maintenance problem for somebody else. (FYI The 3 children together have 743 noinclude tags but only 730 /noinclude tags.)

I still think that this article (made out of three other heavily mangled lists) is a terrible mistake and should be changed to a normal, ordinary, plain, simple list of lists. This will allow the many hundreds of tags to be removed and the reference tagging maintenance problem will evaporate. I fixed it all once before but was reverted. I am volunteering to fix it all again — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

There have been three proposed solutions:

A) Add a "==" header to each of the three child articles so that they comply with the rules for headers. This has just been implemented.

B) Move the child articles to the template space, where the top "==" header would be unnecessary.

C) Make this article a simple list of lists.

Perhaps there are others?

My strong preference is for A). I think B) might run afoul of the verifiability rules since the cites would be in the template space. Not sure about this. I'd prefer not to do C), but if that's the consensus, that's how Wikipedia works. Should we do an RfC? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Option A is the "Technically less horrible" version we have now. It is only less horrible from a technical viewpoint. It is still horrible and breaks one of the most basic policies: WP:V All content must be verifiable. ... it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source. This article does not provide inline citations.

Option B would be beyond evil and would be speedily burnt to a crisp.

Option C – a simple list of lists – is the correct one — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Bralessness

[Bralessness]] "While it is a common belief that not wearing a bra causes breasts to sag, researchers have found that a woman's breasts sag due to four key factors: cigarette smoking, number of pregnancies, gravity, and weight loss or gain. Women sometimes wear bras because they mistakenly believe they prevent breasts from sagging as they get older." Benjamin (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

How about this:

Wearing a bra does not arrest, slow, or in any way affect breast sagging. The key factors influencing breast sagging over a woman's lifetime are cigarette smoking, the number of pregnancies, higher body mass index, larger breast size, and significant weight change.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I removed that paragraph from bralessness. Only one of the sources met WP:MEDRS, and it didn't address the subject at all. Seemed like it was just there to support an OR claim that ~"because gravity can be to blame, bralessness is not" (and it doesn't appear to say anything directly about that, either). Not to say the underlying claim is incorrect, but we have high standards for sourcing there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. This is why I advocate for proposing any new entry on the talk page first, instead of just adding it to the article. Please take a look at the sources for Ptosis_(breasts)#Causes. They seem to satisfy WP:MEDRS. Perhaps they could be the basis for an entry here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The topic article uses these refs

Seems like these would satisfy WP:MEDRS. Comments? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Do we have another potential entry here? "Many women mistakenly attribute the changes and their sagging breasts to breastfeeding" Benjamin (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Possibly. It seems that both breast feeding and going braless are incorrectly blamed for breast ptosis. So, probably both should be mentioned. But I'm not sure we have sufficient WP:MEDRS compliant sources.

This one supports the bralessness part; cites 3 and 4 above support the breast feeding part. I propose the following, which I think satisfies WP:MEDRS:

Neither breastfeeding nor going braless have been shown to cause breast sagging. The key factors influencing breast sagging over a woman's lifetime are cigarette smoking, the number of pregnancies, higher body mass index, larger breast size, and significant weight change.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The orlandohealth's claim seems to be unsubstantiated. Was it ever actually studied, or are they just assuming there's no effect because it's not one of the known reasons? Seems to be the same with breastfeeding, too, just assuming in lack of evidence one way or another: "there is very little objective data to either support or refute this view" from cite 3 you mentioned. So maybe there's some evidence, but I don't know that it's enough to say for sure. Benjamin (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Convert to a simple list of lists

I have to express admiration for the effort involved in constructing this page. The technical wrangling used to bypass the standard referencing system is impressive. Sadly however, this is like admiring the craft involved in removing the speed limiter on a juggernaut – nifty but unwise. This article needs to be changed to a short, simple introduction and then a set of links to the "children" pages. The three other "children" articles can then be simplified to be plain standard lists without any of the heading trouble and the many hundreds of noinclude tags — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The RFC that resulted in the current situation is at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_34#RFC_on_number_of_pages_to_split_to. It's less than six months old. Perhaps consensus has changed in that time, but I' skeptical.

My take is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Others may have other opinions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The RFC closed with There is a rough consensus for three lists. That is fine, having three lists is not the issue. The issue is trying to have those three lists AND also keep the original page with the complete list. The current system of transculsions is broken and being reported as an error, which is why I arrived at the pages. For example, a child page starts with a H3 heading and not a H2 – see https://checkwiki.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/checkwiki.cgi?project=enwiki&view=only&id=83. The huge use of noinclude tags is hostile to systems that process references as well as adding unnecessary overhead to editing. The parent page should be a simple index to the other pages, which can themselves be simplified and fixed — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 06:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Recently there was a discussion about moving the three sub-articles to the template space with no one objecting to that solution to the header problem. @Dajasj (talk) was going to implement that solution, however, it didn't get done for whatever reason. See the discussion at

Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_35#Headings.

Reading through the various comments on splitting, there is a consensus to address the technical issues, but only minority support for splitting the article for editorial reasons. Moving the three articles to the template space would seem to address the technical issues. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Moving article text to template space is absolutely the wrong move. The child articles are still articles — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but currently, the child articles do not meet the guidelines for headings. That's something that has to be solved to keep it as articles in the main space imo. Dajasj (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't thought about it. If there is (still) consensus I can do it soon. Dajasj (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, this solution to the header problem was tried. We didn't follow through with it, but it's an alternative. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It is broke. Just fix it. Fixing it is simple. Make this article a plain, real, list of lists article and the others into plain, real, list articles (in article space) with correct headings. Normal. Compliant. Quick. Easy. Simple. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Left it for a week. There has been no further feedback, so fixing the pages — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Y — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 15:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Should the list of common misconceptions about the Middle Ages be given its own line item? It's a subsection in the list of common misconceptions about history. Carguychris (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe. Probably not – the Middle Ages article is large enough to exist on its own. I have added it to the main index. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The sciences article is also rather large (over 500 refs!) – it should probably be split into "sciences" vs "technologies". Several smaller chunks would be better, because nobody will ever agree which stuff goes in which part if there are just two halves — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

No one other than you has weighed in to support this. Reverting.

Obtain consensus here before edit warring. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

To elaborate, the current status was the result of a long process of consensus building including an RFC. I understand your criticisms, but no one other than you has offered support for this major change. I was being quiet to let others state their opinion, and figured that if nobody "seconded" your proposal it would die from lack of support. I was surprised that it was implemented without any support from the talk page.

Let's obtain consensus here before making this major change. If the consensus is to implement the non-transclusion solution I will respect that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

In the absence of any interest in changing this article to be a simple list of lists as nature intended, I have instead tested a simple fix of the heading issue that was the start of all this. Chances are that nobody reading the articles will notice any difference, but it should stop the article being reported as malformed — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

That is one of the solutions proposed by @Dajasj (talk). See Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_35#Headings for details. Seems like a reasonable approach.

I see that it's been implemented in one of the three sub-articles, List_of_common_misconceptions_about_arts_and_culture, so I'd encourage editors who may have an opinion about this to take a look. If there are no objections, I'd support making similar edits to the other two sub articles. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, the mix of onlyinclude and noinclude tags is really really really the technically better way of doing what you want — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why using a mix is technically better, but I'm ok with it since it makes no difference from an editorial perspective. Do you have a article that explains why that approach is better from a technical standpoint?

BTW, the fist attempt at transclusion was implemented via onlyinclude tags, subsequently reimplemented using noinclude tags after a few complaints. . Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I actually agree with making this a list of lists (or at least more fully splitting off, say, the etymology section which is already largely covered by List of common false etymologies of English words). For a list that is meant to combat misinformation, it would really help to be able to see the citations whenever necessary; just looking at the page gives the sense that things are made up, and then I have to click on another page just to see where the information came from. Given that a fair few of these are related to actual political controversies (such as the vaccines and autism one, or the tariffs one that was recently added), I think that saying "these are false" would fall within the "likely to be challenged" part of WP:V and thus need citation here. Compare Lists of unusual deaths, which was also recently split into a list of lists. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia articles would be easier to navigate if we could just get rid of those pesky citations. :) But we nonetheless prefer to have them with the actual text for WP:V purposes. I tend to agree with the OP that consensus to split doesn't mean consensus to split-but-hide-the-split-articles-behind-an-unsourced-compilation-of-the-three. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_using_selective_transclusion_to_remove_citations_ever_an_acceptable_way_to_reduce_page_size?. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I just saw this at VPP, excluding the citations isn't acceptable per WP:V. If you are having problems with page size removing all the citations is not only a against policy, but is just putting a bandaid on the problem. Whatever prior consensus you can't have a local consensus to ignore policy, any such consensus carries no weight whatsoever. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Reading through the discussions making this a list of lists seems the policy compliant solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I was one of the editors in the RfC who reluctantly agreed to the technical compromise only on the condition that the main list be kept intact. Do I have to chime in every time someone brings it up again for my opinion to count? I would hope such a consensus wouldn't be so easily overturned. Benjamin (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Notification of a discussion affecting this page

User:Rhododendrites has started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is using selective transclusion to remove citations ever an acceptable way to reduce page size? regarding this page. Interested editors should comment there. Anomie⚔ 16:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I linked it above, but better to put it at the bottom. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The consensus at the village pump discussion was that selectively transcluding to suppress the cites was inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. This article has now been split in the "normal" way to be a list of lists.

We have some cleanup to do - the header fix is no longer necessary, as are the noinclude tags. Not sure about the #invoke tags. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

food should be moved out of arts and culture

I wanted to read the section on microwaves to ensure that I wasn't beholden to any misconceptions in a discussion, and (remembering that it was in this page before the split, but not where) I went to science, technology, and mathematics; however, food falls under arts and culture despite the microwave ovens subsection being about the chemical mechanisms of an electronic device's operation. Given that individual facts about food could go into either (and one seeking out a specific fact could seek it out in either, and just ctrl+F'ing "microwave" no longer suffices), I think food deserves to go alongside them 82.69.12.232 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a good example of a downside of splitting the article! Benjamin (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Chicks

Most people think male chicks are raised for meat or or eggs, etc, only a tenth correctly think they're killed after hatching. Benjamin (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing in the source indicating that "most people think male chicks are raised for meat or eggs". In fact, I don't think most consumers are too stupid to realize that male chicks cannot produce eggs. Furthermore, it's a survey of 1,012 people, hardly enough to be a representative sample. You haven't identified a common misconception. This is another example of this article being a crap magnet. Sundayclose (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same page? See this image: Benjamin (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that if you ask people about a topic that they know nothing about, they will provide the wrong answer instead of simply saying that they don't know. That's different than having a large number of people thinking that they know something that is false.

"What do egg farmers do with the male chicks that hatch, since they can't be used for egg production?"

"Hmmm... I guess they raise them for meat?"

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I think misconceptions like this one are better to not bring up (on a whim, at least). A bit little too sensitive for a family friendly article. "Poor chickens" I would cry, say, 1/4 century ago. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Tariffs

"more than half of all polled U.S. adults don't know what a tariff is" Benjamin (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

What is the misconception? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The misconception is that tariffs are paid by the exporting country when in fact tariffs are paid by the people who import the goods; the fees are then passed on to the consumer, so ultimately it's the consumer who pays the tariffs, not the exporting country.

I don't have cites at the moment to back this up, but they should be readily obtainable. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

"more than half of all polled U.S. adults don't know what a tariff is" The deficiencies of education in the United States are out of topic for this article. Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there are an awful lot of sources that talk about this as a misconception. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

There is already an entry about tariffs at List_of_common_misconceptions_about_science,_technology,_and_mathematics#Economics. I think it is fine as it is, but welcome suggestions for improvement. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I would like to point out the "tariff" word is borrowed by Russian language (tarifikatsiya, tarif, etc.) as a Runglish-class word used for pricing in things like utility bills, phone bills etc. So, maybe "tariff" word misconception is about the origin of the word + the way how it ended up in different parts of the world? Thus... "historical". 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

referring to USSR vs referring to Russians in movies

>ctrl+f

>"USSR"

>0 matches found

Every time a movie about USSR and Space Race/Moon Race mentions "[those] Russians" instead of "Soviets", it feels tad uncomfortable to me, since Baikonur was located outside of RSFSR (where Soviet Russia redirects to). Guess that goes into the historical misconceptions list. The "common" part? Movies. Hard to explain further, so I just leave it here like that, I guess. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Son ar chistr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_ar_chistr#Misconceptions Benjamin (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

lead in pencils

The same article page might say 2 contradicting things concerning leads in pencils.

1. The Fisher Space Pen was not commissioned by NASA at a cost of millions of dollars, while the Soviets used pencils. Pencils posed a major risk to astronauts due to the release of substances such as shavings and pencil lead being a flight hazard.

2. Although the core of a wooden pencil is commonly referred to as "lead", wooden pencils do not contain the chemical element lead, nor have they ever contained it; "black lead" was formerly a name of graphite, which is commonly used for pencil leads. ~2025-39278-23 (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

"pencil lead" in the first quote refers to the "lead" inside a pencil, which is not the chemical element lead, which is explained in the quote from the second entry. I don't see a contradiction. Catfish and sea horses are neither cats nor horses, similarly pencil lead is not the chemical element lead. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Flying saucers

The gentleman can be credited with the invention of the phrase "flying saucers". To differentiate between him describing something as "flying like a saucer" and subsequent descriptions in the media of "flying saucers" is overly pedantic. ~2026-80606 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Here's the thing. We can't read your mind. A wee bit of context would help. What in the hell are you talking about? Sundayclose (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

... calm down. The entry is "American pilot Kenneth Arnold did not coin the term flying saucer; he did not use that phrase when describing his 1947 UFO sighting at Mount Rainier, Washington. The East Oregonian, the first newspaper to report on the incident, merely quoted him as saying the objects "flew like a saucer" and were "flat like a pie pan"." In List of common misconceptions about history. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The editor who started this thread is correct: the entry is overly pedantic, and the article would be improved by removing that entry.

Entries like "It is a common misconception that the Earth is round. In fact, it is an oblate spheroid" only serve to diminish the articles we have in this space.

For context, the entry is

American pilot Kenneth Arnold did not coin the term flying saucer; he did not use that phrase when describing his 1947 UFO sighting at Mount Rainier, Washington. The East Oregonian, the first newspaper to report on the incident, merely quoted him as saying the objects "flew like a saucer" and were "flat like a pie pan".

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

It does depend on how the sources are describing it. I'm a bit wary of excluding something as subjective as "pedantry" misconceptions, I would like to see a more robust explanation than "it's an improvement" and some formalization into the list criteria rather than having the formal list criteria and a secret, second list criteria only known to insiders. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Agree that we should reflect "how the sources are describing it" In this case, the first cite is an article with the title

"The Man Who Introduced the World to Flying Saucers".

The second source has the secondary title as

"Seventy years ago, Idaho pilot Kenneth Arnold saw something near Mount Rainier that brought the term “flying saucers” into the lexicon..."

I don't have access to cite 3, but cite 4 is titled:

"64th anniversary of flying saucers at Mt. Rainier"

I can't find anything in any of them that says "Kenneth Arnold did not coin the term flying saucer" Seems to be WP:SYNTH as far as I can tell. Overly pedantic WP:SYNTH.

Perhaps someone can produce a reliable source that unambiguously directly supports the assertion that he "did not coin the term", and at that point we can debate whether it outweighs the currently cited sources, but until then that entry needs to go according to WP:PROVEIT. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the entry for failing verification. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 03:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I reverted Rollinginhisgrave, and was re-reverted by them with a link to this discussion. Having read it, I now agree that the entry consists of synthesis and that it shouldn't be included. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Wrong link in talk page header?

Why is boredom linked from the entry dated 3 February 2011 in the Template:High traffic header? Renerpho (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you mean. Do you mean that the link goes to the wrong article? Sundayclose (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

If you click on the link, you'll see that the third high-traffic site is www.i-am-bored.com. But to the left of that, the name of the site links to the Wikipedia article about boredom. And in contrast to the other two websites, there's no Wikipedia article about that site. So, yes, the link goes to the wrong article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being dense, but each of the links goes to a Wikipedia article. One links to an article about a webcomic, one links to an article about the website boingboing.net, and one links to a redirect that takes you to Boredom. The website www.i-am-bored.com is a malicious website, and Wikipedia has a rule against linking to such websites. I suspect in the past the link went to the website but was changed because of that rule. I think it would be best just to get rid of that entry. Sundayclose (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

If it's a malicious website, I'd be in favor of getting rid of the entry. The way it is right now, if you go to that entry and click, not on where it says "i am bored", but to the right of that, where it says "link", that will take you to an archived copy of the i-am-bored.com website that's on archive.org. (The links that say "link" generally take you to the website itself.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Mudwater. Yes, that's what I meant. I've removed the entry for now. If there's good reason to add it back, we can easily do so, but I think the template doesn't expect that a "high traffic site" isn't notable enough to have their own article (resulting in what's essentially an WP:EASTEREGG link). Renerpho (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)