Talk:List of common misconceptions

Split proposal

This page has Wikipedia:Article size problems, and it is at risk of having Wikipedia:Post-expand include size problems (i.e., that technical limit in which the refs break) if it continues increasing in size.

There are currently three main sections:

• List of common misconceptions#Arts and culture
• List of common misconceptions#History
• List of common misconceptions#Science, technology, and mathematics

The last is about half the page. I suggest creating three separate lists:

• List of common misconceptions about arts and culture
• List of common misconceptions about history
• List of common misconceptions about science, technology, and mathematics

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This works for me. I was going to propose an alternative of splitting off List of common misconceptions about human body and health and List of common misconceptions about biology, but this seems too messy and the history section cannot easily be split like this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We could put most of the "STEM" section in the third list, and a List of common misconceptions about health and biology in a fourth list. That would reduce the risk that we would need to split the science list again in a couple of years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a good idea and would help ensure WP:MEDRS is followed if it is a pure "med" article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this exactly two years ago. Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_27#Splitting_this_article. There was no consensus to split and considerable opposition.

Is this a technical issue with the MediaWiki software or a content issue that that article is longer than most readers will find approachable? If it's the former, lets find out if this is still really an issue before rushing to judgment - from WP:TLIMIT

The inclusion limits were put into effect on the English Wikipedia by Tim Starling on 14 August 2006. A new preprocessor was enabled in January 2008, removing the "pre-expand include limit" and replacing it with a "preprocessor node count" limit.

Are we still using the same software and hardware that were in use in 2006 and 2008? I hope not.

If it's the latter issue, then it's just an editorial judgment. I'd call attention to how Joe Phin's analysis in the discussion two years ago:

There are currently 380 entries on the page. One year ago, in July 2021, there were 336 entries. Two years ago, in July 2020, there were 407 entries. Three years ago, in July 2019, there were 377 entries. Over the course of 3 years, we've had a net growth of 3 entries, one entry per year on average...

So, the number of entries in the article is not growing substantially over time. I oppose splitting the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The page gained 180k bytes between 2020 and 2022, a 50% increase, so Joe's analysis doesn't seem great. Even with leaving a lot of entries to be reviewed on the talk page, and with me just yesterday deleting 20k bytes by cleaning up references using unnecessary quotations, the page has still increased by 30k bytes. It's currently the 24th biggest page on the project. Using visual editor crashes constantly; you don't need to get bogged down in minutia at WP:TLIMIT to recognise the article's size is causing issues. An alternative to shorten the page could be strengthening the inclusion criteria. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

My analysis was based on the number of entries on the page, nothing more. If people add extra citations, that increases the byte-size of the page, but doesn't increase the number of entries. Joe (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Swordfish, PEIS is a technical limit. It is strictly, automatically, and universally enforced without exception. This article is already using the #invoke workaround, and a quick test suggests that increasing the number of refs in the article by about 10–15% will make even that workaround stop working. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The PEIS of this article is about 1.5M while the limit is 2M. So we're at about 75% of max.

Might it be that the real issue is that many of the entries are over-cited? The factual statements should be adequately sourced at the topic article if the inclusion criteria is being followed, so we may not need to reproduce those here. WP:V only requires that assertions need to be verifiable not that every one have a ref tag next to it. Yeah, I know, many of these entries are controversial hence the over-citing. The text itself is about 144K which is about 10% of the PEIS. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that the citations take too much space. I propose the following guidelines:

• If there is good source that discusses both the substantive fact and its being a common misconception, that one citation suffices, unless it is Snopes (because we don't want to just be a mirror of Snopes).
• If not, exactly one (no more, no less) source should be cited for the substantive fact.
• If there is a good source whose primary topic is the misconception, one source suffices for that. This must not be an example of the misconception, but a discussion of the misconception. If multiple weaker sources are used, there should be a maximum of two. If there are only examples of the misconception, and no explicit discussion, we're getting into WP:OR territory.
• Footnotes should not contain quotations from the source.
• Any notes that are removed from the misconceptions article should be moved to an appropriate place in the source article.

For example, we currently have 5 sources for the "five stages of grief" item, four of which are included in the Five stages of grief source article. But in fact the 1st source covers both the substantive discussion and the misconception quite well. And the 5th source (a brief obituary for Kubler-Ross) is irrelevant here, saying only "To debate the details or the validity of Kubler-Ross's thesis...is to miss the point of her life's work." (I'll remove it now).

Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

In principle, I don't think that limiting the number of citations per fact is a good idea. For any given instance, of course, it could be the best choice (e.g., to reduce Wikipedia:Citation overkill).

In other articles with very large numbers of citations (e.g., Donald Trump, with 830), many of the sources are narrow and could be replaced by a single biography. I doubt that would be possible for this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The Donald Trump article is irrelevant here. Each point in that article needs to be supported by a source, and the article needs to reflect a variety of points of view (WP:NPOV). Replacing them with a single source makes no sense at all.

On the other hand, entries in this list of misconceptions are based on a source article. If the source article doesn't address both the substance and the misconception (inclusion criterion 2), then it's not eligible for this article. The reader can always consult the source article. There might be a case for clarifying in each entry in this list what the source article is (by using, say, a boldface link, ideally a section link to where the misconception is discussed); once that's clear, we don't need to repeat the sources found in the source article. --Macrakis (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I give Donald Trump as an example of an article that has 800 different sources and could probably have 400 different sources, with some sources being used many, many times.

I think this article has 800 different sources and probably needs 800 different sources. (We cannot rely on sources in the linked article, because (a) WP:V doesn't let us and (b) they could be removed from the other article without anyone here noticing.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We could save quite a few bytes by removing |access-date= from every web citation with an archive, and from every print source. No opinion on split just yet: still at work. Folly Mox (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of trimming the redundant content within citations (as User Folly Mox suggests), especially if it can easily be done en masse - but I'd be opposed to limiting citation numbers. Lots of the best entries on this page require more than one citation, and removing them would significantly negatively impact the article's quality. At that point, I'd rather just split the page. Reluctantly, mind. Joe (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of splitting for reasons relating to readership/comprehensibility, however, if there is some technical issue that can only be addressed by splitting, then 'what can you do?' Might I ask, if we were to bundle more citations together with a format like a., b., c., would that help, or is the problem the total number of bytes in citations? I'm guessing it's the latter, but I don't actually know. Joe (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Re; readership: editors in past years have noted the article has bad readability, as it's too long to be comfortably read from beginning to end in a sitting. And I think a lot of misconceptions deserve to be on the page which aren't here, which would exacerbate issues. Splitting would definitely help readership. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If we did have to split the page, I'd prefer as little splitting as possible. So, for example, spltting things in half like:

• List of common misconceptions about arts, culture, and history
• List of common misconceptions about science, technology, and mathematics

Not my first choice, but if we have to, that'd be my preference. Joe (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Joe here. Oppose splitting for editorial reasons, will support splitting if it's technically necessary, favor the two-article split if we have to split. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Support splitting Other editors have made a brief mention of splitting affecting readability, comprehensibility, or "editorial reasons" like above. I think those who oppose should provide more detailed explanation since I do not really understand the reasoning why splitting would impact the above issues. Since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it is read on electronic devices, some of which are lower-range. Even my mid-end laptop struggles to load this page, taking around 7 seconds. I imagine it to be double in older mobile phones, with significant lagging while scrolling. I also don't think list will become less comprehensive when split. 100% of the information currently in the list will be divided into neatly organized sub-articles. No loss of content here. Some people above are discussed measures to decrease page size like removing details from the citations and in the last discussion, shortening summaries. That would actually decrease how comprehensive this list is. One editor also made mention of notability issues in the last discussion. This is not an issue since WP:SPINOUT recommends Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically. No one's argues that List of PC games (A) is not notable since no RSes discuss games that specifically start with A. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I have an incredibly old device, and I never have any problems loading this page, editing it, or anything else. People have made the argument that this page is too long to be comprehensible in the past, which is silly (most books are longer and they're not 'incomprehensible'). That said, the possibility that the page may have too many citations for Wikipedia to be able to handle (I'm not familiar with the technical details) has been brought up, and if that can't be resolved by removing redundant formatting or unnecessary publication dates or other information in the many, many cites we've got, it may be that splitting is the only option. I certainly agree that we shouldn't limit the number of citations or anything like that. If this technical issue can be solved by de-fattening the citations then I oppose splitting, but if not, eh, what can you do? Joe (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Joe do you ever have issues switching from visual to source or vice versa? My device isn't old but I keep losing my edits when trying to switch due to time-outs, and only on this page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't surprise me at all. Editing a huge page with relatively complex formatting (e.g., all of those refs) is always going to be at risk of time-outs. Time-outs probably might have more to do with your internet connection than with your device (how good your internet connection is, but also factors outside your control, like how much traffic there is in general and how close you are to one of the data centers [so, e.g., editors in Dallas, Texas are better off than Portland, Oregon, and Amsterdam is better off than Paris]). Opening the editing environment is more dependent on your device.

When you are switching, I suggest doing a quick ⌘A and ⌘C to "Select all" and then "Copy" it. If you get hit by a timeout, you can re-open the same editing environment and paste it in. (This will work best if you're switching from, and therefore copying, plain old wikitext.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I can see this working when going from source to visual, and I'll start using it in those cases, but I'm not sure about the other way with preserving page layouts. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Copying the 'visual' content usually preserves the layout but not the wikitext's whitespace. If you know that your changes were all in the same section, I'd suggest copying just that section if you're in the visual mode. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou, I'll give it a go. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Very weak support the split for article size reasons.Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• With the recent application of WP:JWB the Post-expand include size is now 1,155,959 which is only slightly more than half of the limit of 2,097,152 bytes. So, the argument in favor of splitting due to technical reasons no longer seems to apply. We might need to re-apply JWB periodically to catch cites that don't use the #invoke syntax, but it seems like the post-expand include size limit is no longer an issue.
  Like the discussion from two years ago, there does not seem to be a consensus to split for editorial reasons, and a weak consensus to keep the article intact. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Before this is closed, could someone please clarify for me whether the article having an Unstrip post-expand size of 4254075/5000000 means the article is still near a hard technical limit? Or is that just Post-expand include size posing a danger? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I've asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#PEIS question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have also asked. I can't say I got an answer that's definitive. But the folks there didn't seem to think it was a serious problem. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I wish there was more definitive answers there. They do seem on net to say it should be avoided even if the page doesn't completely break, but also it just seems like their opinion. I don't care if an infobox at the bottom looks bad. I guess it matters more if other templates start breaking they haven't mentioned/don't know about, and maybe it's not worth taking that risk. Rollinginhisgrave (talk)

• Support split. Preferably to 3, more wieldy, articles. Current one is too big and splitting loses nothing. Bon courage (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support split If you've got to the point of removing parts of citations to try and hodgepodge the article into working, you've likely already got other problems (as other have already mentioned above). As per Bon courage I support splitting into three. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  There were a number of ideas spittballed to address the technical issues above. Assuming we can get the technical issues resolved without implementing these "hodgepodge" fixes - which seems to be the case - then this technical argument is moot. If you'd like to make an editorial as opposed to technical reason for the split, please do so. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Then you'll still be left with all the other issues, as per the point of my comment. Also the 'fixes' will only last until the next issue, where you have to come up with a new bodge. There will never be an end as the article is to large, and any additions or changes will cause the same or some other issue. Just split now for the benefit not will bring to editors and readers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  The point of my comment was that if your hitting technical issues then you've already got editorial ones sometime ago. There is no technical fix that will last and the editorial ones will just keep getting worse. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose split. This page is still far lighter than most bloated modern websites, and Wikipedia itself isn't compatible with my old device as of a few years ago anyway. This is such an old and well established article, I'd also hesitate so make any drastic change unless truly necessary. Benjamin (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

No activity for a week, I think the convo leans split but I also think I'm too close to make that call. Any opposition to a WP:CR? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Pretty big article, problem probably won't go away, split seems sensible thing to do. Selfstudier (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, the "problem" as articulated in the first post in this thread is that the PEIS limit was close to being exceeded. This has been solved, with the current value of PEIS being about half of the limit. It has gone away.

There seems to be a lot of confusion between the technical and editorial concerns here. This thread was started to discuss splitting because of technical limits. That argument is now moot. Somehow, it morphed into a different discussion about editorial reasons for the split. Seems to me that that is a different line of argument and would warrant a new thread if we're basing the decision on that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems like all the same (and/or related) discussion per ActivelyDisinterested above. Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I will note the Village Pump convo explicitly concluded that templates will break, soon, so it's unclear why you think technical concerns are moot. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that the fact that we already have to use workarounds is proof that we currently have technical problems. "We used a workaround that 99.9% of editors have never seen before and don't know how to use themselves, so it's not visibly broken at the moment" is not the same as "the technical problems have been solved". I think that we need to split this so that we don't have to use weird workarounds on every single ref.

Additionally, I think it would be more readable, and specifically more readable on a phone/small device. WP:SIZE suggests thinking about summaries and splits when an article reaches 10K words, and WP:SIZERULE says that at 15K words, it "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed". This is already 24K words. It would take someone about an hour and a half to read the whole thing. I don't see much opportunity for trimming, so we need to talk about dividing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Where does anyone say " that templates will break, soon" at the link you provided? I don't see anyone saying anything close to that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Soon may be overstating. They responded to an encroaching limit by advising to split. Reduce their size per WP:SIZE/WP:SPLIT as expected of such pages. Templates breaking: You may lose styling from TemplateStyles at the end of the page if the limit is broken and I don't know which extentions can be affected., one template known to break, unclear what others will or will not break. Btw, in the 11 days since you posted the enquiry, ~7% of the remaining distance to the hard limit has been closed. At this rate we've got 6 months. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• So is anything happening with this? Shall the split be done - we seem to have a consensus. Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  The first thing to do is find out whether anyone disagrees that we have achieved an agreement. Also, would anyone feel more comfortable if the result were officially spelled out by an uninvolved editor? If so, one of us can list it at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Other types of closing requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that there's consensus to split the article at this time. The original reason supplied seems to have been supplanted by the invoke syntax for cites, and I haven't seen a clear consensus to split for editorial reasons. But agree that it's time to close this discussion, so I'm in favor of submitting a closure request. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I have listed it at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed entry: Caesar salad

Hello,

I would like to propose an edit about Caesar salad. It would be something like this:

Contrary to popular belief, Caesar salad was not invented in Rome by Julius Caesar, but by Caesar Cardini, an Italian-American restauranteur, in Tijuana, Mexico, in 1924.

Thank you.

Sussybaka6000 (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The first step would be presenting some reliable sources that identify this as a common misconception. I wasn't aware that anybody thought the salad was related to Julius Caesar. _signed, Willondon (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This misconception is addressed in a source already on the page: Origins of the Specious: "Julius bears no responsibility for Caesar salad, either. The king of the salads was invented in 1924 by Caesar Cardini, a chef and restauranteur in Tijuana, Mexico." (page 71) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Some more sources:

• Snopes
• Hindustan Times
• NZ Herald: "contrary to popular belief" language
• Book currently in article as ref 45: "What Caesar Did for My Salad: The Curious Stories Behind Our Favorite Foods"

Seems sufficiently covered in RS. Do any editors have issues with the entry? I think if it's added to the topic article and stays in (which it almost certainly will) it will meet the inclusion criteria, and I see no issue with adding this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Is this a 'common misconception' or just a mistaken claim? If the scope of this article is really just 'mistaken claims' that get corrected somewhere, it's going to need to be a bazillion times bigger (everything in Snopes, for a start). Bon courage (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bon courage, we include "mistaken claims" that "get corrected somewhere" if the belief is referred to in RS as common. I understand you haven't heard of this, but it's pretty well addressed in RS, including being the title of a book about mistaken beliefs, held as emblematic. The Caesar salad page is also currently WP:ECP partly because editors kept trying to say it was invented by Julius. If you think the current inclusion criteria are insufficient to keep the page from WP:INDISCRIMINATE, you could propose:

A) multiple RS describe a belief as common

This would potentially disqualify the Caesar salad entry.

B) Stricter requirements of what words are equivalent to "common misconception" to avoid editors being overly inclusive on interpreting sources as calling a belief common

Would probably not affect this entry, but will trim other entries that are more tenuously referred to as commonly believed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think @Bon courage may have been asking about the difference between a common mistake (guess, assumption, etc.) and a common misconception. If you say 4 is 80% of 5, therefore adding 20% of 4 will equal 5, you've made a mathematical mistake (because 20% of 4 is 0.8), but that mistake is not necessarily a misconception, strictly speaking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If we want to draw a distinction there I can see a few items it would be affecting, i.e.:

"Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures were originally painted with colors"

"The letters "AR" in AR-15... do not stand for "assault rifle"."

"The "Minute Waltz" takes, on average, two minutes to play as originally written."

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Eating disorders entry

This entry was recently added:

• Eating disorders are not restricted only to women.

While strictly true, the topic article states that binge eating is twice as common among women than men while bulimia and anorexia are ten times more common. So, this entry may be misleading, failing to give a full picture. Not sure what the best approach is for these kinds of things where there is some partial truth behind the misconception - remove the entry, follow it with caveats, something else? I'd like to hear other editors' opinions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that's just a result of our topic article being outdated. Anorexia's a lot more common among men than previously thought, I haven't looked into the reason but it could be because of changing prevalence or because of better research.

With stuff like this, the fact that people see eating disorders as "female diseases" creates a stigma, a real world effect, is a good argument for the notability of the misconception. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Presumably the best thing to do is to follow bang up-to-date authoritative sourcing saying what is (or is not) a 'common misconception'. That's the purpose of an encyclopedia right? Bon courage (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You mean rather than seeing whether it meets our own personal definitions of common misconception first? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup. The less OR the better. Bon courage (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is not WP:OR. It's WP:CHERRYPICKING. Some things are sufficiently complicated or disputed that we won't be able to adequately present the full story in the limited space we allocate to each entry here. This may be one. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think not. Is there any counter source discussing what the common misconceptions are in nutritional psychiatry? Bon courage (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I don't think this is one that is too complicated or disputed to warrant an entry here. The question is whether we need to elaborate. From the cited source:

A common misconception about EDs is that they only occur in females.

which is about a clear a statement establishing this as a "common misconception" as we are likely to find for any topic. But the source goes on to say:

This has stemmed from the discrepancies in prevalence between the two genders.

along with an elaboration on the gender discrepancies that show eating disorders are much more prevalent among women then men.

The question before the editors here is whether to ignore the second sentence (and the ensuing material) or to provide some context explaining what's actually in the cited source. Unless someone brings up some argument not previously presented, removing the entry is not up for discussion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that's just a result of our topic article being outdated.

The 10-1 figure comes from DSM-5; do you have more recent sources to supply? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The source for what the 'common misconception' is from June 2024. Bon courage (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

From the June 2024 cite:

The life-time prevalence of anorexia nervosa reaches up to 4% in females, compared to 0.3% in males.

Which effectively confirms the 10-1 ratio. The question is, do we present the full story here or not? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You might want to add it (the topic articles goes into some detail). But, that reality is different from the misconception is precisely what makes the misconception ... a misconception! That is rather the point. Bon courage (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Present the whole story, and do it with brevity. Eating disorders do not exclusively affect women: women are merely more likely than men to suffer from eating disorders. Joe (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Disputed

Smokeless tobacco is not a "safe" alternative to conventional tobacco; smokeless tobacco products are often addictive and can function as a gateway drug to more harmful substances.^{Christen AG, McDonald JL, Olson BL, Christen JA (1989). "Smokeless tobacco addiction: a threat to the oral and systemic health of the child and adolescent". Pediatrician (Review). 16 (3–4): 170–7. PMID 2692003.}

First of all, this study is from 1989. It is highly questionable to say, cited to a study from 35 years ago, that "smokeless tobacco is safe" is a common misconception in 2024. Who actually thinks this? Is there any non-lobbyist source saying this?

More concerningly, the "gateway drug" theory is basically unproven WP:FRINGE. Actual scientific support for this theory seems extremely skimpy, and it was mostly popular in the 1980s during the "Just Say No" era. A big-ass 2018 meta-study, carried out by the Department of Justice of all things, found that (bolding mine):

Overall, the literature review concludes that existing statistical research and analysis relevant to the "gateway" hypothesis has produced mixed results, thus failing to provide clear scientific support for cannabis use as an inevitable "gateway" to harder illicit drug use. This necessitates the main conclusion that "no causal link between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs can be claimed at this time."

The only citation in the "gateway drug" article talking about nicotine says "Because the term 'gateway' has historically been used in colloquial, non-scientific settings and lacks a clear definition, it is not used in this report". If scientific consensus is to avoid using this term in books and papers because it is meaninglessly vague, I don't think we should be using it in Wikipedia articles.

@Bon courage: jp×g🗯️ 01:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

How would you like it reworded? If we can't be bothered to discuss we can just remove the disputed harm, and just describe it as addictive. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The gateway drug concept doesn't appear to be fringe and is invoked in contemporary research in reputable journals when drug abuse is being studied (e.g. PMID:37269777). Our Wikipedia article on the concept seems poor and its using 2018 material to undercut newer research is naughty, and needs attention there. We could always use different wording if this phrase is triggering. Other ST harms mentioned in our source here, such as the association between ST and oral cancers, appear to be settled science (see e.g. PMID:38683151) rendering any idea that ST is "safe" a misconception in that respect too. That could be brought out. Not sure what the "lobbyist sources" are; we wouldn't want to use those. Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: Please read my posts before responding to them. I did not say that smokeless tobacco was safe. I did not ask for proof that chewing tobacco was bad for you. I said that thinking it was safe is not a common misconception. "Somebody said people thought this in 1989" is not proof that they think it in 2024.

The paper you linked says nothing about a causal gateway effect for any drug use -- did you just link it because it contained the phrase "gateway drug"? jp×g🗯️ 06:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You invoked WP:FRINGE; I was merely showing how the gateway drug hypothesis is not a WP:FRINGE concept (check at WP:FT/N maybe for more input?). I'm not sure why cannabis is suddenly on the table but for information on whether/how that acts as a gateway for even more concerning types of abuse see NIDA's page here (also not a WP:FRINGE source). As to currency, the whole smoke/smokeless tobacco safety question seems current yes. See for example[1] for a piece that suggests the very misconception is a question du jour ("this FDA action ... might suggest snuff is a safe product. It's not. Let's talk about the rest of the story. ...".) Bon courage (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This page fails to claim any causal connection whatsoever. Like the paper you linked before, it explicitly disclaims that there is evidence of a causal connection.

I am really not thrilled to launch into another one of these routines where someone takes ten seconds copying the URL from the first Google result for a keyword search, I spend several minutes confirming it doesn't support the claim, and they instantly respond with the second Google result. If this is how you intend to proceed, please let me know. jp×g🗯️ 07:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't use Google. I'm not sure what your objection is now. First you claimed the gateway drug hypothesis was FRINGE, then that nobody labours under the misconception that ST is safe today, anyway, and then somehow cannabis got into it. I've proposed changing the wording and bringing out the cancer risks more. What do people think? Bon courage (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

My objection is extremely obvious: you are posting links to papers which say the opposite of what you claim they do.

You are wrong. Your claims are wrong. The sources you give do not support your claims. Let me know if you would like me to explain this more clearly. jp×g🗯️ 08:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I must be very dense as I have no idea what you mean, sorry. Bon courage (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: The sources you give do not support your claims. jp×g🗯️ 08:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Specifically ... ? Bon courage (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

That convo is very tedious. jpxg is obviously correct about it not being proven to be a common misconception. As a rule, if no RS have called it a common misconception in 25 years, it can't be that common. Secondarily, since the RS calling it a common misconception was published, there has been a large shift in beliefs re; health effects of tobacco. Maybe it's still a common misconception, but it's not verifiable. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the science around smokeless tobacco has changed over the last few decades, and it is still a common misconception that it's "safe". I think it's good to cite peer-reviewed journal articles but it's true ours is a little old. If we need something current, with the imprimatur of the NIH, how about[2] ? Bon courage (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot better. Thanks for linking. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that this is a fairly solid entry if we remove the part about it being a gateway drug; the concept of "gateway drug" seems to be under dispute as per the final sentence in lead of the gateway drug article. I'll suggest:

• Smokeless tobacco is not a "safe" alternative to conventional tobacco; smokeless tobacco products contain nicotine and are therefore highly addictive. They also can cause various harmful effects such as dental disease, oral cancer, oesophagus cancer, and pancreas cancer, coronary heart disease, as well as negative reproductive effects including stillbirth, premature birth and low birth weight.

References

Material and cites shamelessly cribbed from the topic article. The first cite is kinda old, so we might want to find a better one. The second one is from 2018, so should be sufficiently recent. We could add the ref proposed by Bon courage to establish it's commonality [3] Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is basically fine, or at least far superior than the previous thing. I am glad that someone was able to actually go find sources to support the claim.

My only concern is that I don't know, really, how common of a conception this is. In most countries if you go to a gas station you will see almost identical text festooning every cigarette display (by writ of law), and if they have an ad for smokes/chew it will be printed in giant letters on the window of the building facing the street. This would seem to indicate that everyone already knows this, or alternately, that people believe it for reasons that are completely resistant to any attempt at logical suasion, so either way it would not really achieve anything to repeat it further. jp×g🗯️ 21:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I hear your concern here. One would think that everybody would know this by now, but as discussed above in the umami thread misconceptions die hard.

Seeing no objections to the proposed language I'll make the edit. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Cat's coat entry

This was recently added as an entry:

• Domestic cats' behavioral and personality traits do not correspond to their coat color. Rather, these traits depend on a complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors.

As written, it seems misleading. Many cat breeds are distinguished by their coat color and it's pretty well established that cat breeds have notable behavioral and personality traits. What seems to be true is that a cat can have a similar coat color to a breed without being of that breed, and when this happens the behavioral and personality traits do not necessarily correspond to what might be expected from the coat color.

If we're going to put this entry in the article, let's settle on language that better reflects what the sources say. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the thing to do is to make any change at the main Cat article. Then that can be mirrored here. The source seems plain: under the heading "Myth 4: Cat coat color is associated with personality and behavioral traits" it says

Cat coat color and patterns in relation to personality, behavioral traits, tameness, aggression, likelihood of being seen at a specialty behavior clinic, and even shelter outcomes have been investigated ... but results have been inconsistent, equivocal, and entirely lacking in uniformity.

I am not sure why Mr swordfish is introducing a concept of "breeds" which the source does not, or removing this entry. Bon courage (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And ... crickets. With this and other reversions it could look like Mr swordfish is exhibiting a problematic degree of WP:OWNERSHIP of this article. Bon courage (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Like most other editors, I don't have an unlimited amount of time to devote to addressing every single edit every day. Sometimes it takes me a couple of days to respond. There is no deadline, and at this point the talk page here is overwhelming and may exhaust the patience of some editors. And, yes, I responded before seeing your accusation above. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I introduced the concept of breeds since it is relevant. Our job as editors it to familiarize ourselves with the topic at large, not just find one source that says what we want it to say and fling that into the article.

Cat breeds are correlated with both behavior and coat color, so it's misleading to state something that implies there is no correlation. For example:

Aegean_cat#Aegean_cat_characteristics

Abyssinian_cat#Behaviour

American_Bobtail#Behavior

Balinese_cat#Temperament

Bombay_cat#Temperament

California_Spangled#Personality

That's just a half-dozen examples; there are many others. If all this is wrong, then the place to address that is in these articles, not putting contradictory information on this page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not about breed, it is about coat colour (read the quotation from the source). Just because you personally have some kind of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH opinion that contradicts the source, does not mean to get to play article policeman. Please work on reflecting reliable sources as we are meant to, as removing verified very-well-sourced content is disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The place for this argument is the topic article's talk page, not here. Let's see what they have to say there. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, that is the correct place. Bon courage (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest the following language:

Domestic cats' behavioral and personality traits cannot be predicted by their coat color. Rather, these traits depend on a complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors.

If that is acceptable, we can move on. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the second sentence is redundant: doesn't this apply to all animals (including us)? Just restating the conclusion of nature vs nurture. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The relevant graph from the source is (edited for clarity):

Many people believe that a cat’s behavior can be predicted by their coat color... Given the genetic complexities that determine both coat color and behavior, predicting the latter based on the former is fraught with challenges, because each is influenced by many genes. Cat coat colors and patterns are controlled by at least ten genes... demonstrating significant genetic complexity. While the coat is controlled almost entirely genetically, this is not the case for behavior or personality, which result from not only complex genetics, but the cat’s environment, and interactions between the two.

So, perhaps the whole entry is redundant since, as you say, it applies to all animals. My take is that pure breeds display characteristic coat colors and behavior, but this is not applicable to the cat population at large. Or any other animal that's not the result of selective breeding.

As for the proposed change above, I prefer the more precise "cannot be predicted" vs the less precise "do not correspond" since the latter may cause our readers to infer something that's not quite correct and the term "predict" is what's used in the cited source. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if people hold the same beliefs about brown dogs and behaviour as they do about ginger cats which is why the whole thing isn't redundant. I like your more precise proposed change. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"Domestic cats' behavioral and personality traits cannot be predicted by their coat color" ← coats cannot predict. Change "by" to "from" and it works better, just like what we have. Bon courage (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

United States myths

Based on a quick read of List_of_common_misconceptions#United_States_2, I think some or most of them should because they are either not misconceptions or no longer common. For some examples, I don't believe anyone thinks Betsy Ross made the first US flag anymore or that Mrs. O'Leary's cow started the Great Chicago Fire; the Emancipation Proclamation, Seward's Folly entries, and Prohibition ones are nitpicky; and I've never heard the ones about Kenneth Arnold or George Smathers. (I am also unfamiliar with the entry about German being the official language in the US, which is for some reason in a separate section.) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - these kinds of criticism are useful. Apologies for not responding sooner.

Every entry in this article is phrased as a correction, and these positive statements are well sourced and correct as far as everyone here can determine. It's not always clear whether a particular misconception is sufficiently common to include here, and probably at some point all of them will be ancient or obsolete; some may be now, but absent some source saying they are no longer current it's not clear whether it's time to remove them. To address the specific entries you flag:

• Betsy Ross - just about every schoolchild in the 50s through 70s heard this story, and it's completely made up. Is it still being taught, and do sufficiently many people still believe it for it to qualify as "common"? I don't know, but my sense is to keep it absent more info.
• Mrs. O'Leary's cow - this was one of the great hoaxes of the early 20th century and was widely spread and believed. Is it still a thing? I don't know, but wouldn't object to removing the entry if there's a movement to do so.
• Emancipation Proclamation - I don't find this nit-picky. The proclamation did not free all the slaves in the US, as is commonly thought, which is not a nit-picky difference. I do think this entry goes into too much detail and should be cut roughly in half.
• Seward's Folly - an argument could be made that this piece of history is not sufficiently notable to include here, and I wouldn't argue against that.
• Kenneth Arnold - he didn't call what he saw "flying saucers but used similar terminology and was perhaps misquoted. I fail to see what makes this entry notable enough for us to include. Seems like a nothingburger.
• George Smathers - I didn't recognize this name either, but growing up I heard this story many times about someone accusing a political opponent of being an "extrovert" whose sister was a "thespian". I don't recall if Smather's name was used or not. It's a well circulated urban legend, or at least it used to be. Is it still current? No idea. But I am mildly in favor of keeping it.

Note that the inclusion criteria does not require that you (or I or any other editor here) has heard of the misconception before.

Other opinions about these entries? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing items should only be done with reference to whether RS refer to it as common. If you are just flagging items to be investigated that's okay, but nothing should be removed until investigated. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Invisible comments to denote topic article?

I know we haven't had luck showing which link goes to the topic article in the text visible to readers, but just to avoid the hassle of chasing down every link, could we start noting which wikilink goes to the topic article using invisible comments? Would be helpful for future editors as well, so they can see an article once had the misconception and now it doesn't. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the "rules" for this page are a rather silly WP:LOCALCON which are best ignored, and which seem to have encouraged some poor bureaucratic behaviour and overweening process (of which these comments would be yet more). When this article is split, they should be junked. If something is truly (according to cited WP:BESTSOURCES) a popular misconception it belongs on this list. There's an argument, in fact, that an editor removing such content is working against NPOV – which is not negotiable – and damaging the Project. Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that criteria 3 is bad. I've never put an entry in a page then had an editor from that page take it out because it's not common / a misconception. And I've added a lot more than most people. I think people pretend that readers are clicking on links to read about the deep context of the etymology of Adidas or whatever because they can't say they want an easy excuse to keep entries out of the article, so it doesn't get too big and attract people trying to delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE or split. Removed: speculation of motives. Enforcing rules found nowhere else on wiki exhausts the patience of editors, especially when the person removing can just as easily put it in the topic article themself.

I am unsure what you are referring to with NPOV. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

NPOV means accurately representing high-quality sources on topics (including on what's a misconception). If there's a high quality source supporting something here describing a misconception and for some reasons it's not in the "topic article", the way to improve the encyclopedia is to add it there, NOT to remove it here invoking some made-up "rules". Worse, we now seem to have an editor going back to the topic articles trying to remove stuff there in an apparent attempt to invoke the "rules!" to keep them out of this article. It's bizarre. Bon courage (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's more complex than that. I do think Mr Swordfish is overstepping with the cat behaviour removal, but I think many times he has correctly identified where sources don't represent the literature they are in, and repeating them here would give undue weight.

I do take issue with removing from topic articles. Propose it on talk or let others do it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

In fact looking back I don't think there is even a WP:LOCALCON for these "rules". They seem to have been a panic measure cooked up by a couple of editors to stop this article being proposed for deletion in 2011 (!) and have somehow become Holy Writ. They should be ignored when additions to this list are good ones. Bon courage (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think they are all quite bad (yes, all of them), but they have gained the consensus they lacked at their origin. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Have they? I'm hearing two editors diss them here, and nobody defend them. Things have changed a lot since 2011. Bon courage (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean: my assumption was that there must have been some famous RfC for this edit notice to be here, but it seems there never was anything. The point about a WP:LOCALCON is that it cannot override the WP:PAGs, and if a rule is saying in effect that editors 'must' remove certain well-verified & well-sourced content, then good editors need to ignore that rule. I'd like to hear what WhatamIdoing – a connoisseur of LOCALCON issues – thinks about this. Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's a more recent discussion than 2011.

Isn't this just the nature of an inclusion criteria? That verifiable material must meet higher standards to be included? There are restrictions on what inclusion criteria can be, per WP:LSC. But having an inclusion criteria isn't against WP:PAG. Am I missing something? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Having an inclusion criterion against the WP:PAGs is not permitted, and I don't think anything can ever support removing text which is verifiably appropriate. Indeed, when discussing using notability as a criterion LSC even says "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group". Content should rest on policy, not on the vagaries of what is/isn't in the text of another article at any particular time. That is what has led to the ridiculous situation where editors think they can nobble other articles as a mechanism to get this one how they want it. Bon courage (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think on your central point you're right. The red-linking quote does demonstrate this, although I am easier than most to convince on this issue.

I wouldn't describe Mr Swordfish's behaviour in this case as trying to get this article to look how he wants. I think he genuinely believed his points about cat breeds challenged the verifiability, and he would oppose the inclusion of that material on any page, regardless of its link to LOCM.

You should let this sit for a bit to see if other editors want to weigh in, and then propose the deletion of criteria 1 & 3. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking more of no-reason reverts like this[4] followed by a removal here[5] "pending acceptance of recent edit" (that they alone had not accepted, without any reason given). Bon courage (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I've been faced with that before. Maybe drop a notice on his talk page to notify of the policies? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Editors need to come up with Wikipedia:List selection criteria. The most common selection criteria include things like complete lists, but bluelink-only is a permitted choice, primarily to control list size (which this page obviously needs).

Generally speaking, LOCALCON is about decisions that plainly contradict normal rules (e.g., "The sitewide rules say X, but for 'our' pages, you have to do the opposite").

The WP:Edit notice statement at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of common misconceptions says that "It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first", and this could be understood as contradicting Wikipedia:Be bold, especially if an editor is mindlessly enforcing it. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I?; if you improve an article, it should not be reverted until you come to the talk page and as "Mother, may I please improve the article?" Of course, one editor's bold improvement might be another's loathsome trivia, but the edit summary ought to say something like "I dunno if that's really common enough", rather than "You didn't jump through some bureaucratic hoops." BTW, this was added in 2022 as a result of an edit request.

Item 3, "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article", is another possible problem. The rule here is not a valid reason for either adding or removing information from a linked article. The decision about whether to include or exclude a given fact should be made independently at each article. I would not expect editors to tolerate this. Imagine this for a different subject: "You can't update Paul Politician to say he is running for office. We have not yet approved that article for inclusion in the List of incumbents running for re-election in 2024". Editors would either laugh at you or drag you to ANI with a complaint about Wikipedia:Ownership of content. I imagine that the items listed in that policy "Please do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval" and "You hadn't edited the article or talk page previously" would be quoted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify why blue-link only would be permitted? It seems reasonable to say that red-links with sourcing meeting GNG are equivalent. As an editor could simply create stubs with the references, it appears like an artificial barrier, a delaying tactic rather than an actual way to control list size. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

In practice, it works, though. It's typical to use it for lists that could have thousands of entries. It shouldn't stop someone from adding one or two entries to the list, but it will usually stop someone from turning a list of 500 names into a list of 2,000 names, three-quarters of which are red links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Our criteria #1 (The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.) is basically the blue-link rule, unless I'm misunderstanding things.

As for criteria #3 (The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.), the motivation behind that requirement is that this article encompasses a wide range of topics and it's unrealistic to expect the editors here to be up to speed on all of them. So, when someone proposes an entry about some misconception involving, say, the sport of underwater basket-weaving, the editors here can visit that page and see if the editors familiar with the topic think it's important or common enough to merit mention on that page. If not, it's probably not a good candidate here. Of course, this is orthogonal to whether any conceptions about underwater basket-weaving are sufficiently common, correct or incorrect, which is a more difficult criterion to define precisely.

My view is that this page is a list of brief references to material found elsewhere on Wikipedia, where usually there is more detail at the linked topic article for the reader to peruse. Hence, criteria #3.

Of course, the inclusion criteria was arrived at through consensus and consensus may change. If we're going to review or amend the inclusion criteria, probably best to start a new thread about that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Wanting this page to provide navigation services to the rest of Wikipedia is a reasonable approach, but it does not explain why you removed information from Tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is not subject to any consensus formed about what to include in List of common misconceptions. I hope that you don't make a habit of trying to control other articles' contents so that you can shape this list according to your preferences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I was not attempting to address that issue. It was a mistake on my part and I should not have done that.

That said, I think it is a poor practice to simply insert language in the topic article to get around criteria #3 and immediately insert a new entry here, but that doesn't justify removing material without specifying a good reason. Of course there's no rule against adding material to both articles, but a better practice would be to give the editors at the topic article a few days to evaluate the material before adding the entry here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:Be bold suggests that waiting isn't usually the better practice.

I hope there isn't an expectation of specific language (e.g., using the exact word misconception) in the linked articles. Articles get copyedited without checking what links to them, and "There is a common misconception that tuberculosis affects only the lungs" could easily be turned into something like "Although popularly stereotyped as a lung disease, tuberculosis has earned the moniker The Great Imitator because it can affect almost any body part and cause a wide variety of symptoms". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There is not an expectation of exact language, and it is not required that the topic article comment on whether a misconception is common or not. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Addendum; agree that the Edit notice and Item 3 issues are very problematic. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Circumcision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Sexual_effects "There are popular misconceptions that circumcision benefits or adversely impacts the sexual pleasure of the circumcised person." Benjamin (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You can be bold and add this in. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't touch that subject unless you are ready for an endless fight over it. No matter what the research says, there are people, including some Wikipedia editors, who are invincibly convinced that the male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I just peeked back at the circumcision article to remind myself. However, after some sanctions were applied it seems some of the more problematic editors have been taken out of the equation on this topic. But certainly if this appears here you're going to need all the sources and to be prepared from attention from the penis-obsessives. Bon courage (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

85 pages of archives. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That page has been on my watchlist for a while, so I'm quite familiar with the "discussion". WhatamIdoing (talk) is absolutely correct that adding an entry will bring that shit storm over here. I'd strongly recommend staying out of that fight. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Flying saucer entry

I'm trying to understand what the misconception is here. Although the entries on this page are written as corrections to the underlying misconception, for almost all of them it is easy to see what the incorrect notion or misconcept is. I"m at a loss for this one. I don't see anything illuminating in the topic articles, or anything that would seem to satisfy our criterion #3.

The best I can guess is that some people think Kenneth Arnold used the term flying saucer when instead he said that whatever he saw flew like a saucer, which hardly seems like much of a misconception.

One of the topic articles has this to say:

Starting June 26 and June 27, newspapers first began using the terms "flying saucer" and "flying disk" (or "disc") to describe the sighted objects. Thus the Arnold sighting is credited with giving rise to these popular terms. The actual origin of the terms is somewhat controversial and complicated.

Which implies to me that if the origin of the term is the alleged misconception, the fact that it is "controversial and complicated" would argue against it being a misconception.

So, can anyone explain what incorrect notion is sufficiently common to include this entry in the article? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Paging @Feoffer:. I believe this is their kind of thing! Bon courage (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Added it. People think Arnold coined the phrased, when in reality headline writers did. 'Controversial' isn't really the right word, I'll go fix that too. Feoffer (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I guess I get it now, but the entry is longer than it needs to be. I'll take a stab at trimming it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Cannabis-pregnancy entry

For now I have removed the following entry:

• Cannabis use in pregnancy is not low risk. The THC exposure resulting from cannabis use affects fetal brain development and the male offspring of cannabis users are, as a result, more susceptible to psychotic illness.

This is inconsistent with the article Cannabis in pregnancy, which makes it clear (except for one recently-added blurb citing the single source above) that any link between cannabis and bad pregnancy outcomes is unclear in current scholarship. I'm also skeptical that "weed is fine in pregnancy" really is a common misconception. If anything, the opposite may be a more common view.

Let me be clear that I am removing this because of sourcing issues and my skepticism that "weed is safe for pregnant people" is actually a common misconception. This is not because I think it's OK for pregnant people to use cannabis or any other substance, or because I think Wikipedia should reflect that view. szyslak (t) 22:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The lede to the topic article says:

Cannabis consumption in pregnancy may or may not be associated with restrictions in growth of the fetus, miscarriage, and cognitive deficits. ... There has not been any official link between birth defects and marijuana use.

This seems to directly contradict the entry on this page which says:

Cannabis use in pregnancy is not low risk. The THC exposure resulting from cannabis use affects fetal brain development and the male offspring of cannabis users are, as a result, more susceptible to psychotic illness.

If the topic article is out of date or incorrect, the way to fix that is to edit that article, not insert contradictory info here. Let's hold off on adding this entry until the matter is settled at Cannabis in pregnancy. This is not my field of expertise; presumably the editors at that page are more versed in the subject so the discussion should take place in front of them rather than here. I would invite the three editors above to work things out on the talk page there. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. There is no WP:MEDRS contradicting the statement we give here, and nowhere in the topic article (which needs updating) is there anything which contradicts this psychosis association. This seems like another example of degrading the knowledge on Wikipedia for some kind of bogus need to follow "rules". Bon courage (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

References

The source is impeccable (high-quality, up-to-date, directly supporting the 'common misconception' claim) and in sync with the main article. So removal seems completely unjustified. I don't know why you invoked your personal "skepticism"; it's completely irrelevant to us. The Cannabis in pregnancy article has several sources on potential adverse effects on the foetus from parental cannabis use. Bon courage (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "irrelevant to us"? Do you, or the "us" you refer to, have more of a right to edit this article than I do? szyslak (t) 22:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

us = all of us attempting to form consensus. Bon courage (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

More to the point, even if the source cited is really and truly "impeccable", it's still only one source. I'm more than willing to find other sources and investigate a broader view of what the general public perceptions really are about the cannabis/pregnancy matter. szyslak (t) 22:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The topic article is really out of date, Bon courage has added a solid source to try to get it MEDRS compliant. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not generally necessary to have more than one high-quality WP:MEDRS source for an item of medical knowledge. But by all means investigate whether there's better source. It would be great for example to expand the topic article using PMID:35662548. While you're doing that I'll restore this good content. Bon courage (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

...and I've already found some good secondary sources to back up the primary source making the "misconception" qualifier claim:

• https://www.ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2022-05/CCSA-Cannabis-Use-Pregnancy-Breastfeeding-Report-2022-en.pdf
• https://www.marchofdimes.org/find-support/topics/pregnancy/marijuana-and-pregnancy

szyslak (t) 22:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Well the second source is weak; does the first one discuss what is (or is not) a misconception? Bon courage (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sex and old age entry

The recently added entry says:

• People do not lose interest in sex or become sexually inactive in older age. One survey in England of people aged 60-69 recorded 86% of men and 60% of women as sexually active.

The cite says:

'86% of men and 60% of women aged 60–69 years reported being sexually active, as did 59% of men and 34% of women aged 70–79 years, and 31% of men and 14% of women aged 80 years or older. Even 10% of people older than 90 years reported being sexually active in a Swedish study

So, 86% to 55% to 31% to 10% as males age from 60 to over 90 is not a decline? (It's 60% to 34% to 14% to 10% for females)

I think we need to be more careful about the language. Perhaps language more in line with what's in the topic article, which says:

'Both male and female libidos tend to decline with increasing age, and women tend to lose their libido faster than men. However, desire for sexual activity is not lost completely. Neither does it decrease for everyone.

I'll take a stab at editing the entry to better conform to the cite and the topic article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Saving lives

The San Francisco Standard says, wrt to suicide prevention and Lethal means restriction that "The popular belief that [suicidal] people will just find another means is untrue." Method substitution is not a typical response to restrictions (MEDRS-quality sources in Suicide methods and probably other related articles). Presumably this would fit under List of common misconceptions#Mental disorders, but I wonder if that's close enough to meet the minimum? I haven't really looked for additional sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly a common argument, e.g. "If we restrict guns people will just find another way to do it.", which is trotted out for both suicide and homocide. Meanwhile, 85% of suicide attempts with a gun result in death, while other methods result in death less than 5% of the time, so it's not a very strong argument. Is it a sufficiently widespread misconception to qualify for inclusion? Well, we'd need some sourcing at the minimum.

Do you have a link to the SF Standard article with the quote above? I think we'd need to have that so we have a cite.

I think this is a good candidate for an entry. Let's find some additional sources and draft a proposed entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

https://sfstandard.com/2024/08/17/golden-gate-bridge-anti-suicide-nets-work/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)