![]() | List of common misconceptions is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | List of common misconceptions has been linked from multiple high-traffic websites. All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.
|
poverty
Global poverty has declined dramatically, but the overwhelming majority of people think it hasn't.[1]
Where should this go? I'm kinda surprised there's no "economics" section. There are a lot of common misconceptions about economics. Benjamin (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- It would have to be a reliably sourced stable part of a link-able article. We got Poverty, but it ain't stable (its new) and its not reliably sourced. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Our World in Data is a very reliable source, right? But I'm trying to find the original source... Benjamin (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Found it! [2] Benjamin (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly how useful mediabiasfactcheck.com is in determining reliability for Wikipedia, but for what it's worth, left right bias doesn't seem to be a problem here, since one source is left and one right. (And still, neither are extreme.) Benjamin (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Linked source fails a bit in reliability because its more of a primary source paper, not the boiled down secondary source required (see WP:PST). It also does not seem to describe a misconception. For a list of "common misconceptions" there would have to be (several) main stream sources describing the misconception specifically. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it be okay in this case since it's not WP:SYNTH? Benjamin (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- We really haven't got past WP:V yet, let alone criteria #2. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- What do you mean, you don't think it's verifiable? I don't understand. Our World in Data is widely cited and has a reputation for producing high quality research. Do you really think they would just make something up? Benjamin (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- We have only one source claiming this is a misconception, HumanProgress... and yeah, they are known to make stuff up. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- What do you mean, you don't think it's verifiable? I don't understand. Our World in Data is widely cited and has a reputation for producing high quality research. Do you really think they would just make something up? Benjamin (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ballotpedia and CATO are two more secondary sources. But in this case, the data is clear, isn't it? There's no controversial or complicated analysis to make. Global absolute poverty is going down, and most people don't think so. These are facts. Do you really think that is in dispute? This is ridiculous. Benjamin (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is this is a list that lists Wikipedia articles that have a certain attribute, they enumerate a "common misconception". We don't make those assertions or those arguments here, no matter how well sourced. Its getting the cart before the horse. The place to discuss is Talk:Poverty. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with Benjamin on this one. There is clearly a perception out there that global povery is as bad or worse than it was 50 to 100 years ago. I think the sources provided are certainly sufficient to show that it isn't correct. Though I agree, there isn't quite enough yet to support that it is, in fact, a misconception. I would add to that list [3] and [4] and [5] all of which imply or openly state that global poverty is worse than it was (usually by using a misleading stat or a stat that isn't directly related to poverty like income disparity). Squatch347 (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that this perception seems to exist. But we need sources showing it. We have sourcing showing that it's wrong, but we need sources showing that it exists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- How about this?[6] It verifies both that poverty has declined and that most people don't think it has. TompaDompa (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- That source looks pretty good to me, and it supports both statements and the conclusion. Go for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- It should really be at Poverty, well sourced, and stable, before its listed here. We should not front run these things. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing with you, I'm just discussing where the discussion is taking place. Make the edit at Poverty, and then give it a day or two. If no-one reverts, add it here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't expect Poverty to have a section about misconceptions, that is more in this page's balliwick. If you review the section on absolute and relative poverty it does contain the same trends and statistics referenced above. That poverty is decreasing. Agree with Bryn that we don't want to get out ahead of other articles, but I'm not sure that where we would put a section about misperception in that article without making it unencylopedic. Squatch347 (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing with you, I'm just discussing where the discussion is taking place. Make the edit at Poverty, and then give it a day or two. If no-one reverts, add it here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- It should really be at Poverty, well sourced, and stable, before its listed here. We should not front run these things. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think the current wording is fine. Benjamin (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Benjamin, can you post the exact text you suggest for review? Squatch347 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- Cleaned up the wording in the "Global prevalence" section. I agree with Squatch347 that making the language more encyclopedic (and looking over the sources re:what the study was and opposing views) this sounds more like peoples POV on poverty and/or their lack of awareness of a United Nations or World Bank report, not a "misconception". Also if claim has opposing viewpoints I don't think we can call it a "misconception" per WP:YESPOV. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? The survey question wasn't "What is your opinion of poverty?", or "Have you heard about this particular report?", it was simply, "Do you think extreme poverty has increased or decreased?". And I think the results are clear. Benjamin (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Also, to clarify, it is a fact that extreme poverty has declined. That much is not controversial. The controversial part is where exactly to set the threshold. But nevertheless, No matter what extreme poverty line you choose, the share of people below that poverty line has declined globally. Benjamin (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
We can't get inside other peoples heads as to what they thought a question meant, hence the observation being made that making such a statement as "common misconception" in Poverty is beyond what an encyclopedia does, we just present facts and figures. That makes us fall short of listdef #3. The WP:SAL/WP:V "common misconception" would have to be a large number of sources stating directly that this is a "common misconception" to get us past listdef #2, not seeing that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think the sources are sufficient to establish the misconception. Benjamin (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Gents, I think firm up the consensus developing and perhaps give Bryn a bit more assurance, Benjamin, can you paste here your recommended addition? Squatch347 (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ HumanProgress, "What 19 in 20 Americans Don't Know About World Poverty," April 30, 2018
- ^ https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty
- ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/10/29/29-uncomfortable-myths-about-soaring-poverty-in-america/#d1d28913963a
- ^ https://www.finca.org/campaign/world-poverty/
- ^ http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
- ^ Rosling, Hans; Rönnlund, Anna Rosling; Rosling, Ola (2018-04-03). Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think. Flatiron Books. p. 7. ISBN 9781250123817.
Arbitrary break
Given that Benjamin hasn't posted a recommended entry. I'll offer one: "It is a common perception that global poverty is increasing (references) both in scope and scale. However, absolute and relative poverty (link to concepts) have both declined dramatically during the 20th and 21st Centuries. While estimates differ based on the methodology of defining poverty, most estimates range between 20 and 40 in the last two decades (references). Squatch347 (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- It strikes me as too strongly worded. I am totally on board with the notion that global poverty has gone down at a remarkable rate, almost certainly far more than most people would guess, but I'm not convinced that there are a large group of people that actually think it's gone up. I suspected something most people don't think about very often, so if we did a "man or woman in the street" survey, we did all lot of "I don't know", a few "about the same", a few" up maybe?", with the last group similar to the size of people who believe in ghosts. I think this is worthy of entry but we need to do more work on wordsmithing and I apologize for simply throwing rocks at your suggestion and not offering an improved alternative.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, I threw it up there for people to throw rocks at. I think you are right that most people don't actually think about it much. The man on the street poll was what was discussed with the book citation referenced earlier. It seems to indicate that less than 10% of people correctly answered the question about poverty rate change, which seems somewhat dramatic. Maybe change the opening sentence to say something more like "When polled, few respondents could correctly identify that poverty rates have decreased, with a strong majority indicating they thought they had increased."
- Thoughts? Squatch347 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Are you referring to this poll?
- Thoughts? Squatch347 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- That's a mildly frustrating article (unless I read it too quickly). I understand that when someone does a survey with lots of questions and lots of possible answers, it may be difficult to provide an exhaustive list of all the answers but in this case they asked one question with three possible answers. They provided the statistics for the people who got the correct answer (C), which is enough information to know the values for the sum of A and B, but they don't break out the responses for answer A. Your revised wording is correct only if you have evidence that the respondents who picked answer A are a strong majority. That doesn't appear to be in the link I provided — perhaps you have a link with more detail?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- That appears to be the same poll, though it came through in a different source (linked in this discussion). The conclusion that most respondents had overestimated was contained in the surrounding text. I did find this: https://globescan.com/increases-in-perceived-seriousness-of-poverty-and-homelessness-global-poll/ perhaps as another source. It also has its limitations as some of its earlier polls referenced conflate economic fairness with poverty rates. Still, it does seem to indicate that the perception of poverty as increasing is present in the country's surveyed. Squatch347 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I've made some edits based on the feedback:
- "When polled, a majority of people in most developed nations indicate they believe that global poverty is increasing [Human Progress][Forbes][Factfulness book] in both scope and scale. However, absolute and relative poverty (link to concepts) have both declined during the 20th and 21st Centuries. While estimates differ based on the methodology of defining poverty, most estimates range between 20 and 40 in the last two decades [Human Progress][Our world in data][finca][globalissues][factfullness].
Squatch347 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Assuming your linked article is poverty, it still fails #3, there is not a "common misconception" described at that article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Both Poverty and Extreme poverty reference this as a misconception based on public opinion polls and reference the reduction. Given that, I think it qualifies fine. Squatch347 (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- The benchmark here is "common misconception", not just that people think something else. That it is a common misconception needs to be hashed out at the linked article first (supposedly where the experts are), before its added here. In short you are proposing this change on the wrong talk page(s), i.e this should be discussed at Talk:Poverty and/or Talk:Extreme poverty. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Both Poverty and Extreme poverty reference this as a misconception based on public opinion polls and reference the reduction. Given that, I think it qualifies fine. Squatch347 (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that it is an incorrect belief that is widely held doesn't constitute a "common misconception?" The requirement is: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." The misconception is listed on that page and it has sources. There is nothing in there that says that we need to get a vote or consensus. It is on that page and listed with sources. Requirement met. Squatch347 (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Requirement #3 is "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.", not "The misconception"... Also the secondary sources have to state that it is common misconception, we can not do the WP:OR of comparing numbers and polls and drawing our own conclusion that it is a "common misconception". The claim is also contradicted by the very next citation in Poverty, so we can not make an assertion that is is an "incorrect belief" per WP:YESPOV #2. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is a strained reading of that requirement at best. The common misconception is listed there. The item we are discussed is listed with secondary sources. If we were to adopt your definition, we would need to delete something around 75% of this page's content (I looked at the first 30 items and only about 6 would meet your standard, if that). Clearly the editors and admins who've been on this page haven't adopted your interpretation.
- Your statement about the next citation is also incorrect. There is disagreement (which is mentioned in the suggested text) on how to calculate poverty rate, not disagreement that it has decreased. Squatch347 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- You are making a WP:OR statement that what is listed is a "common misconception", a secondary source has to make that assessment, not us. Per 75%: we have gone in a circle about that, other stuff existing is not a rational to add more, it is a rational for a cleanup. The last sentence in the proposed addition is WP:OR (we don't make statements based on tallying up different documents). The next source ends with "Moreover, defining poverty is not an exact science, experts say." - we can't hang a definitive statement on that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I disagree with your interpretation of the criteria. The source doesn't need to use the exact phrase "common misconception" in order to establish that it is indeed a common misconception. It could say "a bunch of people believe this thing that is incorrect", and that would be enough. "defining poverty is not an exact science" So what? It doesn't need to be. The social sciences in general are not exact sciences. And that is okay. And besides, it's not our job as editors to evaluate what is or isn't an exact science. All we do is listen to what the sources have to say. And in this case, it is clear that the sources support the proposed addition. Benjamin (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- If the sources don't make a specific statement we follow WP:V. If they differ, we follow WP:YESPOV. Please read the current AfD because there seems to be no support for a loose interpretation as to what a "common misconception" is. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- The difference between "X is a common misconception" and "most people think X, even though it is incorrect" is merely a difference of wording, not a different viewpoint. Could you highlight for me the comments that argue otherwise? The AfD entry has become cumbersome to read by this point. Thanks. Benjamin (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems clear that the sources adequately establish the misconception, and I find continued discussion a bit frustrating. Benjamin (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. We now have four editors in agreement here. That is clearly as close to consensus as we are going to get. The only editor in disagreement has been engaging in clear page ownership and reverted all edits not his own. Squatch347 (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry to come in late, but I think this is really a case of the bias towards pessimism. People always say that things are getting worse. In fact, according to most people, it's hard to criticise anything if you admit things have got better...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I support including this item, even though I generally would categorize economic issues as "political" and exclude them because they are too intertwined with political identity (e.g. the left and the right have different ideas about tax policy, and they both will insist the other is deluded). But I think this suggested text is not in keeping with the direction we want to go with this page, since it's too wordy and too detailed. A lot of the disagreement here is over the fine details of the wording. We can "cheat" on List of common misconceptions by being vague. This article is like a navbox -- you're supposed to click through to get the full nuanced details. Our text here just be very short: Poverty has declined, not increased, over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries. Boom. Done.
What kind of poverty? How do you define it? Absolute poverty or relative poverty? All good questions, but the answers are found by clicking the links, not here.
All of the entries here should be written like that. We all know this list is way too long. The phrasing "X is not Y, X is actually Z, and even though group G has often thought that X is Y, in fact, experts E and F have published data showing that X was Z all along!!!" Too many words!!! The very structure of this list always implies that "X is not Y, X is actually Z blah blah blah". Every entry repeats the same crap. The redundancy is what has bloated the page. Just say "X is not Y". Poverty has not increased, it has declined, during the 20th and 21s centuries."
Many editors think you don't have permission to go over to the article poverty (or whatever) and expand or clarify the text so that it presents the common misconception with the proper nuance and qualifications. That is false. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Full stop. Read WP:Editing policy. You cannot arbitrarily forbid anyone from editing any article. That would be a Topic ban and those are rare and applied in very specific cases after due process.
Go fix up the other articles, as long as you respect consensus, work out agreeable wording with other editors over on the talk pages, don't edit war, and make sure you cite your sources and meet the verifiability requirements. The text should not read like the result of a long battle and endless lawyering and quibbling. It should be short and snappy and it should make the reader want to click the links. You could even call it clickbait, though we don't want to go that far. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
So, do we have consensus for inclusion, or what? Benjamin (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
There's still the question of what section to put it in. I think we should start an economics section. I think there are probably other common misconceptions about economics. Benjamin (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Arbitrary break #2
- oppose inclusion. I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr that this fails because there is no such myth in the appropriate article, and I do not believe it should be added. The proper article to refer to is Measuring_poverty, which does not support the conclusions. One must also question the objectivity of the World Bank--hardly an unbiased reporter and collector of data, because one of its primary goals is development [1] and strong ties to the IMF also whose goal is development [2]. (See World_Bank#Criticisms_&_Controversy, which is far from complete.) Numerous WP:RS discuss the problems with reliability of the World Bank data and assessment methods.
- The first citation uses Human Progress. org for its survey which is part of the right-wing think tank Cato Institute see About.
- The entry's claim that "While estimates differ based on the methodology of defining poverty, most estimates range between a 20 and 40 percent decrease in world poverty rates during the last two decades" is not in our articles or in the WP:RS. This appears to just be [[WP:OR}]. Because of these numerous series problems, I have deleted the entry. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't notice it had already been put in. Anyway, I think the sources are sufficiently reliable, but the entry could be reworded. Benjamin (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- To further clarify my position, I am not completely opposed to having something about this subject, but I believe a number of requirements would need to be met to make it acceptable:
- (1) Human Progress . org cannot be considered WP:RS because of its connection with the advocacy group Cato Institute. I do not believe their survey can be used even if reported in other WP:RS, because of its obvious bias. Another source would be required to underpin any claim of misconception--one that treats the subject in an WP:NPOV way, the way our articles do. I'm not yet convinced there is one.
- (2) If absolute poverty is to be mentioned, then it must be attributed to the World Bank and it must make clear that there are problems with reliability and with measurement (e.g. the arbitrariness of defining the poverty line and the other problems identified in WP:RS and the article.)
- (3) That absolute poverty increases and decreases vary widely by region, and that the worldwide decrease reported by the World Bank is attributed primarily to specific regions in SE Asia. (explained in our article)
- (4) That there are multiple ways to measure poverty, and relative poverty is at least as important in measuring and that there has been difficulty in measuring it.
(5) It must be clear that the decreasing # is the percent of people in poverty, not the number of people.(6) That the number of people in poverty is increasing (this is in the articles and the WP:RS).- (7) Rather than saying that people misconceive something about the actual amount of poverty (which the WP:RS says is difficult to measure reliably), that they that misconceive the measurement of poverty, notably that of the World Bank.
- Ultimately, my overall objection to the entry I deleted (and the other proposals above) is that they grossly oversimplify and/or mistate facts using the kinds of words we find in the Human Progress . org that come from an advocacy organization.
- --David Tornheim (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC) [struck out (5) and (6) on 09:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)]
- To further clarify my position, I am not completely opposed to having something about this subject, but I believe a number of requirements would need to be met to make it acceptable:
- Cato has bias, as almost all sources do, to some degree or another, but it is still very reliable. They employ well regarded scholars, and consistently produce high quality research. Regarding your other points, they should be be discussed in the poverty article, but I think this entry should say that the portion of people living in extreme poverty has declined, because that is what the source says, and that is unambiguously true. There is only disagreement about it if you start talking about absolute numbers or relative poverty. Benjamin (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry I am just getting to this. To address your points;
- (1) I'm afraid I don't fully subscribe to this objection. CATO is used on multiple wikipedia articles with no issue. It's clear worldview is no different, in practice, than citing Human Rights Watch or the Southern Poverty Law Center. Both have clear ideological world views that inform their position, but neither is accused of not being reliable. Further, their article and graphic was run through the Gapminder Foundation, an independent, data oriented foundation that focuses on proper statistical analysis and data quality. Finally, its conclusions (as related to this entry) are validated by four other sources, so I don't see any reason to question them in this instance.
- (2) Could you expound on this concern? Why would absolute poverty need to be attributed to the World Bank? I'll note the WP section on Absolute Poverty doesn't cite the World Bank at all, but rather the UN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold#Absolute_poverty Why wouldn't linking back to that page be enough?
- (3) No disagreement there. But the fundamental misunderstanding highlighted in the sources are not about global poverty at the regional level, but overall world levels of poverty. While those are, of course, a composite, so are all economic data. Simply being a composite is not enough of a reason to argue that there isn't a misconception on an issue.
- (4) No disagreement on this in concept either. But I'm not sure this is the place for a discussion of that. Maybe an additional sentence to this entry that says something akin to "It should be noted that poverty measurements can vary by methodology and there are various criticisms to many (with a link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold#Criticisms)?"
- (5) Ok, perhaps a rewording a la: "most estimates range between a 20 and 40 percent decrease in percentage of the world's population that lives in poverty over the last two decades..."
- (6) Could you perhaps elaborate here. I'm not sure I'm seeing what you are seeing, I don't see any discussion of absolute numbers increasing in the wiki articles, and the cited sources clearly say the opposite. To whit, "Since around 1970, however, we are living in a world in which the number of non-poor people is rising, while the number of poor people is falling. According to the estimates shown below, there were 2.2 billion people living in extreme poverty in 1970, and there were 705 million people living in extreme poverty in 2015. The number of extremely poor people in the world is 3 times lower than in 1970."
- (7) This would not fit the source though. The question asked, which we base the misconception upon, is about whether global poverty has increased, decreased, or stayed the same. We can definitely link to criticisms of measurement styles, but the source article definitely does not go so far as to argue that there really isn't a good understanding of measurement. The base wiki article even goes so far as to say that most scholars agree with the poverty line measure of the world bank. I would be wary of letting some disagreement in the scholarly community translating to an implication here that "no one really knows."
- Sorry, I didn't see your response here, until after I made the this revision described below. Hopefully, that revision will be okay. I will try to address some of your points soon.--David Tornheim (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Reply to Squatch347: Thanks for your input.
- (1)
It's clear worldview is no different, in practice, than citing Human Rights Watch or the Southern Poverty Law Center.
. Typically, if anyone proposed using a non-profit like Human Rights Watch or Southern Poverty Law Center as WP:RS, Wikipedia editors would object saying that these are advocacy groups. The World Bank is certainly an advocacy group too--advocating development. - (2)
Why would absolute poverty need to be attributed to the World Bank?
All WP:RS I saw used the World Bank's data and metric, including the article you cited to: Poverty_threshold. - (3) We appear to agree.
- (4) We appear to agree. Please look at my diff below and see if that works for you. We can discuss further.
- (5) and (6) I made a mistake on this in my original post: I mistakenly thought the total # of people in absolute poverty was increasing, but that is decreasing too. Therefore, I have eliminated both. Please see my revised language below.
- (7) We appear to be in disagreement there: Our article and other WP:RS I have examined clearly say that the World Bank's measurement is controversial.
- (1)
- --David Tornheim (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't see your response here, until after I made the this revision described below. Hopefully, that revision will be okay. I will try to address some of your points soon.--David Tornheim (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I put in this wording: Global extreme poverty as a portion of total population has almost halved in the last few decades, but the overwhelming majority of people surveyed in several countries think it hasn't.[1] Benjamin (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I changed it to:
- The World Bank's measurement of global absolute poverty using the controversial metric of $1.00/day (in 1990 U.S. dollars) shows a decrease in extreme poverty over the last few decades, but most people surveyed in several countries think that it has increased.[2] However, the measurement of Global economic inequality shows an increase, and many scholars argue that relative poverty is a better measure than absolute poverty. The percent of people in absolute poverty varies substantially by region. For example, East and South Asia have seen the greatest reductions, while in Sub-Saharan Africa extreme poverty has increased.
--David Tornheim (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- A bit too wordy, if you ask me. Aren't we trying to generally make entries more concise? These details should be discussed in the relevant articles, not here. Benjamin (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- I do not think it is a good idea to make the entries more concise if we lose critical information. The simple versions you have proposed are misleading, because they presume there is only one proper way to measure poverty and they rely on the the World Bank without attribution and do not mention that scholars have concerns with this method of measurement. I see our purpose as to inform, not to oversimplify complex issues. That's why I objected to your original post. If we provide accurate information, I am okay with including it. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- A bit too wordy, if you ask me. Aren't we trying to generally make entries more concise? These details should be discussed in the relevant articles, not here. Benjamin (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it's misleading. It's unnecessary to mention relative poverty or inequality, as that's not the subject of this misconception, and I'm not trying to make implications about it, either. The entry is true and uncontroversial as I worded it, I think. Are there really any reliable sources that would dispute that much? As I said before, I was under the impression that it's only controversial if you start talking about relative poverty or inequality. Also, "many scholars argue that relative poverty is a better measure than absolute poverty" Better for what, exactly? Benjamin (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Better for what, exactly?
Measuring poverty. From our article Poverty#Relative_poverty:
- Relative poverty is the "most useful measure for ascertaining poverty rates in wealthy developed nations".[3][4][5][6][7] Relative poverty measure is used by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Canadian poverty researchers.[3][4][5][6][7] In the European Union, the "relative poverty measure is the most prominent and most–quoted of the EU social inclusion indicators".[8]
- "Relative poverty reflects better the cost of social inclusion and equality of opportunity in a specific time and space."[9]
- In 1776 Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations argued that poverty is the inability to afford, "not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without".[10][11]
- In 1958 J. K. Galbraith argued that "People are poverty stricken when their income, even if adequate for survival, falls markedly behind that of their community."[11][12]
- In 1979, British sociologist, Peter Townsend published his famous definition, "individuals ... can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or are at least widely encouraged or approved, in the societies to which they belong (page 31)".[13] This definition and measurement of poverty was profoundly linked to the idea that poverty and societal participation are deeply associated.[14]
- Peter Townsend transformed the conception of poverty, viewing it not simply as lack of income but as the configuration of the economic conditions that prevent people from being full members of the society (Townsend, 1979;[13] Ferragina et al. 2016[14]). Poverty reduces the ability of people to participate in society, effectively denying them full citizenship (as suggested by T.H. Marshall). Given that there are no universal principles by which to determine the minimum threshold of participation equating to full membership of society, Townsend argued that the appropriate measure would necessarily be relative to any particular cultural context. He suggested that in each society there should be an empirically determinable 'breakpoint' within the income distribution below which participation of individuals collapses, providing a scientific basis for fixing a poverty line and determining the extent of poverty (Ferragina et al. 2016[14]).
- Brian Nolan and Christopher T. Whelan of the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) in Ireland explained that "Poverty has to be seen in terms of the standard of living of the society in question."[15]
- Relative poverty measures are used as official poverty rates by the European Union, UNICEF, and the OEDC. The main poverty line used in the OECD and the European Union is based on "economic distance", a level of income set at 60% of the median household income.[16]
- --David Tornheim (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- That is all good information and should be included in that article, but for this entry, I'm talking about extreme poverty specifically, so there's no confusion. Benjamin (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying we need to include all of that. I'm just showing you that measuring poverty is not so black/white. The confusion by respondents is probably due to this fact (not sure if survey address this possible confusion). I do understand that you are talking about absolute poverty, but if respondents (and readers) don't realize there are at least two different ways measuring poverty with different results, then we would be misleading them. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- That is all good information and should be included in that article, but for this entry, I'm talking about extreme poverty specifically, so there's no confusion. Benjamin (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's why I wouldn't just say "poverty", I would specify "extreme poverty", to remove the confusion. Benjamin (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
David Tornheim (talk), thanks for the heads up on the edit. I think it wanders a bit at points from the underlying conception and is far too focused on the World Bank given that the original sources (and the poll) aren't all referencing the World Bank absolute standard. That said, I don't think the part you replaced is descriptive enough. The section I added with consensus a month ago is probably closer to the middle ground, though I agree with you that it needs some update.
Here is my update to the original language with your concerns in mind.
- When polled, a majority of people in most developed nations indicate they believe that global poverty is increasing in both scope and scale (Sources from original). However, both absolute and relative poverty measures have shown a decline in both the percentage of people living in poverty and the absolute number living in poverty during the 20th and 21st Centuries (sources). There is controversy measuring poverty and criticism of most measurement methodologies, however most sources agree that poverty has decreased between 20 and 40 percent worldwide during the last four decades, though these numbers can vary wildly from region to region.
Squatch347 (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Not an improvement. This is regressing. The removal of sources by advocacy groups like Cato by Benjaminikuta and removal of claims by those advocacy groups such as "however most sources agree..." was an improvement. I do appreciate the inclusion of "numbers can vary wildly from region to region" which is an improvement. Also, it is required that this so-called "misconception" be added to the target article(s) and stick. As for the measurements of absolute poverty, if you can find WP:RS (other than from advocacy entities like Cato) that is not relying on the World Bank's numbers, I would like to see it. I suggest you use Google Scholar to find better sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you felt that way, I was trying to propose something that would address your concerns, but still reflect what appears to be the consensus of the field without making the entry unnecessarily long or complex.
- As for sources. 1) The Human Progress link relies on data validated by The Gapminder Foundation, a well respected apolitical, nonprofit. That data does have World Bank data as well as a host of other sources including UNESCO, USAID, and others. 2) The Our World in Data citation offered contains more than 20 data sources and published papers. 3) The FINCA source relies pretty heavily on USAID data. 3) The Global Issues citation relies on World Bank data which it augments with UNICEF, United Nations Human Development Report, United Nations Millennium Development Goals data, and at least three other non-profit data sources. That would seem to be a good variety of sources saying, generally, the same thing. Privileging the World Bank with a named reference, I think, inappropriately elevates them as the key data source when that doesn't appear to be the case for the entry.
- We could also use the United Nations Millennium Development Goals reports (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20%28July%201%29.pdf) which use a variety of sources (including the World Bank).
- There are a host of other papers we could include (linked below), but at what point does the entry become unwieldy or border on OR? If we have a host of reputable sources indicating that poverty has, in fact, decreased, we can certainly note that it is a contentious subject, but we need to note what is the consensus opinion.
- Papers we could include: https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/1813-9450-4623
- Squatch347: I appreciate your bringing in new sources. Before I address your post, I want to point out that sometimes you refer to sources without making it easy to identify them. You repeatedly advocate for use of the "The Human Progress link", but do not provide the link, which is [3]. I had to spend 5-10 minutes trying to find it, because it is not on the talk page anywhere, didn't come up in Google, or on the Human Progress website, so I had to find it by looking at an old version from the article page. I think that is a lot to expect of other editors reading this talk page. I added it to your post above so others don't have to go searching for it too. So, in the future, I (and probably others) would appreciate if when you refer to a source you want to use that has a link, please provide it when you first talk about it on a talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- On the sources:
- (1)
The Human Progress link relies on data validated by The Gapminder Foundation, a well respected apolitical, nonprofit. That data does have World Bank data as well as a host of other sources including UNESCO, USAID, and others.
Assuming I have the right link--please correct it if I got it wrong--there is no mention of those sources. It simply refers to OurWorldInData.org. Please note that the Gapminder Foundation is an advocacy organization that "promotes sustainable global development." Can you show me where they make such a claim of using other sources? A quote? - (2)
The Our World in Data citation offered contains more than 20 data sources and published papers.
Indeed, so do many of the sources I refer to, and so do our wikipedia articles that are more WP:NPOV than many of the sources mentioned on this talk page. But that doesn't answer my request:As for the measurements of absolute poverty, if you can find WP:RS (other than from advocacy entities like Cato) that is not relying on the World Bank's numbers, I would like to see it.
I have looked over the Our World in Data and it spells out very clearly that it is relying on the world bank here: "The World Bank is the most important institution measuring the extent of global poverty for the time since 1981." When it comes to measuring recent global absolute poverty, every source I looked at either stated directly that they relied on the World Bank data or it seemed extremely likely that was where the data came from. That includes every source I have looked at that you are suggesting. - (3) I'm not sure what source that is. Please provide a link.
- (4) I'm not sure what source that is. Please provide a link.
- (1)
- As for the other sources, most are books that I cannot look at. I'm not familiar with the authors' expertise in the subject. I'm not suggesting there is a dirth of WP:RS in the field. I'm just pointing out that every indication is that the data measuring recent global absolute (extreme) poverty comes from the world bank. You have not made the case that any other source is relying on other metrics to measure global extreme poverty. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Addition: I was just reading through your discussion with Ben again and something caught my eye that I missed before. I think before I noticed (and of course agreed) that the measurement of poverty is a complex subject, which I think is valid and probably should be referenced. What I missed was that you indicated you felt that the results depend on what type of measure you use. Certainly that is the case in the specific, both measures are telling us very different types of things. But as far as this entry goes I'm less sure that is the case. Does either methodological group mentioned in the source article actually indicate an increase in poverty? I think the amounts differ significantly, but that the consensus view for both methodological approaches is that poverty has decreased, right?
- Squatch347 (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- As I have said before, poverty as a portion of population is decreasing no matter what threshold is chosen. The fact that poverty is decreasing, furthermore, is extremely well sourced. I don't think inequality should be mentioned, as that's not what this misconception is about. Benjamin (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
...poverty as a portion of population is decreasing no matter what threshold is chosen....The fact that poverty is decreasing, furthermore, is extremely well sourced.
That's not correct and is not WP:NPOV. Poverty can be measured in two different ways: absolute or relative. Absolute poverty as measured by the World Bank is decreasing and relative poverty, often measured by inequality, is increasing. I strongly object to such a misleading oversimplification. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
What I missed was that you indicated you felt that the results depend on what type of measure you use.
Correct.
Does either methodological group mentioned in the source article actually indicate an increase in poverty? I think the amounts differ significantly, but that the consensus view for both methodological approaches is that poverty has decreased, right?
No. The consensus view which is addressed WP:NPOV in our articles is that there are multiple ways of Measuring poverty. This article [17] (full PDF) by Robert Wade (scholar)--which is cited 945 times according to Google Scholar--explains it:
- As I have said before, poverty as a portion of population is decreasing no matter what threshold is chosen. The fact that poverty is decreasing, furthermore, is extremely well sourced. I don't think inequality should be mentioned, as that's not what this misconception is about. Benjamin (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- The neoliberal argument says that the distribution of income between all the world’s people has become more equal over the past two decades and the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen, for the first time in more than a century and a half.... Hence the combination of the ‘‘dollar-Wall Street’’ economic regime in place since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods regime in the early 1970s, and the globalizing direction of change in the world economy since then, serves the great majority of the world’s people well. The core solution for lagging regions, Africa above all, is freer domestic and international trade and more open financial markets, leading to deeper integration into the world economy.
- Evidence from the current long wave of globalization thus confirms neoliberal economic theory––more open economies are more prosperous, economies that liberalize more experience a faster rate of progress, and people who resist further economic liberalization must be acting out of vested or ‘‘rent-seeking’’ interests.... The hierarchy is in the process of being flattened, the North–South, core-periphery, rich country-poor country divide is being eroded away as globalization proceeds. The same evidence validates the rationale of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other multilateral economic organizations as agents for creating a global ‘‘level playing’’ field undistorted by state-imposed restrictions on markets. This line of argument is championed by the more powerful of the centers of ‘‘thinking for the world’’ that influence international policy making, including the intergovernmental organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO, also the US and UK Treasuries, and opinion-shaping media such as The Financial Times and The Economist.
- The standard Left assumption, in contrast, is that the rich and powerful countries and classes have little interest in greater equity. Consistent with this view, the ‘‘anti-globalization’’ (more accurately, ‘‘anti-neoliberal’’) argument asserts that world poverty and inequality have been rising, not falling, due to forces unleashed by the same globalization.[2] The line of solution is some degree of tightening of public policy limits on the operation of market forces; though the ‘‘anti-neoliberal’’ camp embraces a much wider range of solutions than the liberal camp.
- The debate tends to be conducted by each side as if its case was overwhelming, and only an intellectually deficient or dishonest person could see merit in other’s case.
- * * *
- It is plausible, and important, that the proportion of the world’s population living in extreme poverty has probably fallen over the past two decades or so, having been rising for decades before then. Beyond this we cannot be confident, because the World Bank’s poverty numbers are subject to a large margin of error, are probably biased downward, and probably make the trend look rosier than it really is.
- Basically, by only including only side of the argument (i.e. using only the pro-globalization argument that poverty is decreasing), the entry fails to be WP:NPOV. If we are honest and show both arguments, that would be WP:NPOV. I believe what I added to the article is WP:NPOV and your proposals are not, because they do not include the other significant position found in WP:RS.
- --David Tornheim (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- FYI. I think we need more eyes on this. I have put notice of this discussion at a bunch of articles on poverty, measuring poverty and inequality. Those notices can be found by looking at my recent contribs. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Why do you keep mentioning inequality? This is specifically about extreme poverty. Benjamin (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- As I have said repeatedly, there are multiple ways of measuring poverty, one of which is inequality. The article measuring poverty makes that abundantly clear. Focusing on only one measurement--one that is designed to advance and justify globalization, free markets and free trade--is not WP:NPOV for the reasons stated above in the long quote by Robert Wade (scholar), Professor of Global Political Economy. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Why do you keep mentioning inequality? This is specifically about extreme poverty. Benjamin (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think it would be appropriate to use extreme poverty because that's what the misconception is about. Benjamin (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Understood. But that would violate WP:NPOV, because the idea that it is a 'misconception' is articulated primarily by advocacy sources like Cato, von Mises [4], etc. that are advancing a particular neoliberal and globalization agenda as explained by Professor Wade above. It would be WP:NPOV if we are clear that this is only one side of the measuring poverty coin and balance it by presenting the other clearly significant opinions about the other important way to measure poverty: inequality. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think it would be appropriate to use extreme poverty because that's what the misconception is about. Benjamin (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
David Tornheim (talk), I appreciate your feedback on the link. I'm not an expert on wiki text quite yet and so often struggle to add all the additional elements that more experienced editors do with ease. Thanks for the heads up, I'll try to follow that guideline going forward.
1) The Human Progress link [5]: I think you are correct that it doesn't specifically cite the underlying data sources, but instead cites the validation by Gapminder. I'm a bit confused by your discussion of Gapminder. Is your concern that they too are not a NPOV? If so, I think we are stretching what POV pusher is a bit. If Gapminder is suspect, I'm not sure what source would meet your criteria.
2) No doubt they did use World Bank data, which seems to be a well regarded source by most researchers (criticism not withstanding). However, if we review a bit further in that section, we see here that they cite several different papers validating poverty estimates and the poverty line (Ferreira et al. (2016), World Development Report in 1990, Jolliffe and Prydz (2016)). They then in this section discuss validation using macroeconomic data (ie not World Bank data which is micro data). I think the implication (possibly inference on my part, if so, I apologize) that the source is unreliable because it, in part, uses World Bank data sets is overly simplistic. The source clearly references academic thought to analyze the data, validates it against other data, and applies common data analytic methodologies. It doesn't just parrot World Bank raw data. Likewise for the United Nations Millennium Development Goals which use a variety of sources to synthesize a result.
The consensus view which is addressed WP:NPOV in our articles is that there are multiple ways of Measuring poverty.
Agreed. And those variety of methods generally fall into two categories, absolute measures, and relative measures. To stay focused on our specific misconception, the poll asked if world poverty was increasing or decreasing. Given how broad that question is, I agree that we should probably deal with both categorical measures. Absolute is relatively easy. Your contention seems to be though that the answer to the question in the poll (is poverty increasing or decreasing) from a relative measure point of view could be either answer. I'm asking where you get that from. What secondary source are you referencing that says there is a consensus that global relative poverty is increasing?
Squatch347 (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- The sources are still relying almost entirely on the World Bank data. The "confirmation" with the macro-economic data showed problems--just read the papers. The assumption that if the nation's total consumption increases, therefore the poor are escaping poverty doesn't make much sense. The second paper makes that plenty clear: "But if we need to measure poverty in a way that will convince those who are skeptical of the idea that average growth reaches the poor, there is little choice but to use the [World Bank] surveys." [6].
- As for relative poverty (economic inequality) increasing, it's already in our articles (see: Economic_inequality#Measurements) and mentioned in my post above from Prof. Wade. [7]. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- The poll specifically asked about extreme poverty. Benjamin (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- We are going in circles. We need more editors to consider this. Both of you keep repeating yourselves, and I am tired of having to repeat myself. I see no reason to keep saying the same things over and over. I will probably wait for other editors to weigh in before I respond again in this section. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- ^ https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty
- ^ https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty
- ^ a b Raphael, Dennis (June 2009). "Poverty, Human Development, and Health in Canada: Research, Practice, and Advocacy Dilemmas". Canadian Journal of Nursing Research (CJNR). 41 (2): 7–18.
- ^ a b Child poverty in rich nations: Report card no. 6 (Report). Innocenti Research Centre. 2005.
- ^ a b "Growing unequal? Income distribution and poverty in OECD countries" (PDF). Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2008.
- ^ a b Human development report: Capacity development: Empowering people and institutions (Report). Geneva: United Nations Development Program. 2008.
- ^ a b "Child Poverty". Ottawa, ON: Conference Board of Canada. 2013.
- ^ Ive Marx; Karel van den Bosch. "How poverty differs from inequality on poverty management in an enlarged EU context: Conventional and alternate approaches" (PDF). Antwerp, Belgium: Centre for Social Policy.[permanent dead link]
- ^ Jonathan Bradshaw; Yekaterina Chzhen; Gill Main; Bruno Martorano; Leonardo Menchini; Chris de Neubourg (January 2012). Relative Income Poverty among Children in Rich Countries (PDF) (Report). Innocenti Working Paper. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. ISSN 1014-7837.
- ^ Adam Smith (1776). An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Vol. 5.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Innocenti2012
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Galbraith, J. K. (1958). "Chapter 22: The Position of Poverty". The Affluent Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
- ^ a b Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom. London: Penguin.
- ^ a b c Ferragina, E.; Tomlinson, Mark; Walker, Robert (2016). "Poverty and Participation in Twenty-First Century Multicultural Britain". Social Policy and Society. doi:10.1017/S1474746416000440.
- ^ Callan, T.; Nolan, Brian; Whelan, Christopher T. (1993). "Resources, Deprivation and the Measurement of Poverty". Journal of Social Policy. 22 (2): 141–72. doi:10.1017/S0047279400019280.
- ^ Blastland, Michael (31 July 2009). "Just what is poor?". BBC News. Retrieved 25 September 2008.
- ^ Wade, Robert Hunter (2004-07-01). "Is Globalization Reducing Poverty and Inequality?". International Journal of Health Services. 34 (3): 381–414. doi:10.2190/G8F1-01FL-MEDW-JVG1. ISSN 0020-7314.
Request for More Input
- FYI. I think we need more eyes on this. I have put notice of this discussion at a bunch of articles on poverty, measuring poverty and inequality. Those notices can be found by looking at my recent contribs. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC) [This comment copied from previous section. Benjaminikuta responded asking why I mentioned inequality, and I replied. The remainder of that conversation can be copied or moved here if Benjaminikuta prefers. I am hoping to keep this section simple for any new editors. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)]
- Request for Input: @SoWhy: I just noticed that you thanked me for this edit--at least I think that was the edit. As a very experienced editor, I am hoping for a new voice in this discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
In the above section, I feel like three of us are going in circles and could use some new voices if we are going to find a consensus. If it's too overwhelming, I (and perhaps the others) could give a short summary of our disagreement. I prefer not to summarize unless asked, as any summary might be perceived as biased by the other editors. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- I guess I'll give it a try! Feel free to add on. I want to say that extreme poverty as a portion of population has decreased, and David wants to say that by some measures relative poverty and inequality have increased. He also thinks that due weight needs to be given to the controversy in this entry, while I think it's outside the scope of the misconception. Benjamin (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's a pretty accurate summary of the disagreement. My contention is: If we are going to include an entry on the claim that absolute poverty is decreasing (and people are supposedly confused about it), we have to be WP:NPOV. We must include the fact that there are two way of measuring poverty (absolute and relative)--clearly stated in our article, and well explained by by Prof. Wade here. We also need to say that the data claiming a decrease in absolute poverty is based on World Bank data whose metrics are disputed, controversial, etc. To be WP:NPOV we need to say that relative poverty (inequality) is increasing. Those who most strongly advocate a "misconception" are pushing a neoliberal, globalization agenda (see Wade). Ignoring those who argue that poverty must be measured by inequality would fail to WP:NPOV. [I will probably revise this summary.] --David Tornheim (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Recently added then removed section Discussion
Fountains of Bryn Mawr removed the addition by an editor I've pasted below with the note that it fails criteria two and three. If I understand it correctly those are:
The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
I'm not sure how it fails those two criteria. The Atlantic is a reliable source for this kind of misconception and it has sufficient evidence within the body of the article that it is a common misconception. Likewise it references it as a common misconception and references multiple examples within the body of the article. Given that, I recommend it for reinclusion.
- Women in the Victorian era suffering from hysteria were not treated by doctors with vibrators.[1]
Squatch347 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- The entry (confusingly) linked three topic articles. hysteria contains the wording "some historians dispute" and vibrators has the wording "historians disagree", so that fails #3, no misconception mentioned. The source being used is brand new, again equivocates "probably a myth", has no supporting sources for claims of "common misconception" other than anecdote, is a single source, and we will obviously have no further sourcing as to this being a "common misconception", a requirement re:reliable sourcing - so fails #2.
- We seem to still be at a disagreement amongst historians, which is not actually a misconception. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the multiple article links does make it confusing. My take is that this is a matter of taste for wiki editors, some like to link any and all relevant subjects (which seems to be what is happening here) while some (like you, and I think correctly) choose to link only those directly relevant to the sentence or topic. I'd be happy to limit the linkages to other articles, but I imagine someone will put them back in.
- The misconception is definitely mentioned in the article, so I think we can dispense with objections based on criteria three. Rather it seems your concern centers around criteria two. I think there are some sections of the article that address those concerns.
- The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
- I'll assume we don't have any issues with the reliability of the Atlantic per se so I'll move on to whether or not the article discusses this as a common misperception. "And in the past few years, it has careened around popular culture. It’s given rise to a Tony-nominated play, a rom-com starring Maggie Gyllenhaal, and even a line of branded vibrators. Samantha Bee did a skit about it in March. A seemingly endless march of quirky news stories has instructed readers in its surprising but true quality, including in Vice, Mother Jones, and Psychology Today.
- In short, the tale has become a commonplace one in how people think about Victorian sex. " This paragraph would seem to put forward that the misconception is, in fact, common. It references multiple sources referencing it, including from other journalists.
- Your elaborated objection was based on whether it was, in fact, a misconception. I think the key phrase in the section you quote from the Hysteria article is, "some historians dispute Maine's claims about the prevelance..." The next sentence also details that Maine thinks the claim is a hypothesis, not a fact. We should also point out that there are more citations for the contrary position in that article than in the support.
- If we are aiming at the historical consensus on this subject (which I think we are), we need to recognize that the only source of the vibrator hypothesis is Maines. Both the Atlantic and Wiki article only cite Maines as a reference. We have three dissenting sources in the wiki article, with an additional semi-dissent from Maines herself. There are five additional sources in the Atlantic article rejecting Maines' assertions.
- Thus I think this entry does meet the criteria of being a misconception. Historians generally agree (with one exception) that victorians did not invent the vibrator due to female hysteria and we see that the belief that they did is common in culture.
- Not sure why we would consider sources pro/con on the claim itself, its not the topic of this article and disagreement amongst historians are covered by WP:YESPOV, we don't take sides. Items on this list have to be "common misconceptions", so multiple sources are needed saying specifically "X is a common misconception". Up to (a few weeks ago?) this was not a misconception, just several opinions. I doubt any other sources have cropped up in that time couching this as a "common misconception". As for The Atlantic, works of journalism are not that high on the reliability scale, no way to check fact-checking or accuracy, unless they cite further sources, which they generally don't. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- So, what you're saying is that the societal misconception itself needs to be more specifically sociologically studied in order to qualify? Or alternatively we need to see a few more articles like The Atlantic popping up on the topic? Deku-shrub (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure why we would consider sources pro/con on the claim itself, its not the topic of this article and disagreement amongst historians are covered by WP:YESPOV, we don't take sides. Items on this list have to be "common misconceptions", so multiple sources are needed saying specifically "X is a common misconception". Up to (a few weeks ago?) this was not a misconception, just several opinions. I doubt any other sources have cropped up in that time couching this as a "common misconception". As for The Atlantic, works of journalism are not that high on the reliability scale, no way to check fact-checking or accuracy, unless they cite further sources, which they generally don't. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It needs to be covered, period - we can't make a claim of "common misconception" based on one source. You kinda have it in a nutshell - its covered in the first sentence of WP:V - "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." We actually need to see many articles better than The Atlantic on the topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think that is an artificially high standard. If we were to follow that inclusion criteria we would need to remove about 75% of what is on the page now. The criteria listed at the top of the talk page make no mention of needing a wide variety of sources. In this case, we have a secondary source that says the misconception is widespread and that it is false. We have additional research showing that it is false. That is plenty given the criteria on this page. Squatch347 (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:SALLEAD the List inclusion criteria is pretty clear, title "common misconceptions" and "erroneous beliefs that are currently widely held about notable topics". That would equal a very wide base of citations we can pull from about this being a misconception, so yeah... its a high standard. WP:OTHERSTUFF exist arguments are not considered very good criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If other items on this list are weak, they should be removed Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- And none of the criteria mentioned in the lead require multiple sources for the misconception do they? As long as the source referenced expresses that it is a misconception widely used, that meets the criteria as I read them. Perhaps you could elaborate on which criteria you feel requires more than one source? Squatch347 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Unless we are reading from different dictionaries, "common misconception" and "widely held" are very clear. The source referenced has to be reliable for that claim (a single piece of journalism is not) and once removed there is an extra criteria to prove that this is a "common misconception" i.e. more reliable sources making the statement. This list has many criteria (which I did not write) which seem to boil down to "do not unintentionally or intentionally WP:POVFORK claims here". Hence the requirement (which this item still fails) of it being covered in the linked article first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused by your response. Are you under the impression that the Atlantic article's internal discussion about it is the only source referenced? IE when they reference the confusion that is all this comment relies on? If so, I think this is an easy fix. The Atlantic article references it being widely used. It references more than a half dozen uses in culture generally including several other journalistic entries. Does that help clarify the issue? Squatch347 (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- "If a reliable source says A (a claim is demonstratively false), and another reliable source says B (examples of that false claim's uses in culture), do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C (it is a common misconception)" (see WP:SYNTHESIS). So, no, we can not follow up those sources to support a conclusion. The Atlantic article is the only source referenced that draws a conclusion along the lines of a common misconception. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I've gone hunting for more misconception sources
- No, no, no! Victorians didn’t invent the vibrator,
- Galen and the widow. Towards a history of therapeutic masturbation in ancient gynaecology "Her “hypothesis” has become fact for many people",
- Buzzkill: Vibrators and the Victorians (NSFW) "So, what can we salvage from this much loved and widespread myth?".
- Why the Movie “Hysteria” Gets Its Vibrator History Wrong
- https://wellcomecollection.org/articles/hysteria "The source of this myth is Rachel Maines and her 1999 work The Technology of Orgasm"
I think these plus the Atlantic qualify things well, those are strong sources Deku-shrub (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Those would not be sources on a misconception because they predate the debunking of Maines re: they date 2014, 2011, 2017, 2012, 2015 respectively. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your response does not match the scenario. Rather, a reliable source (A) uses six other sources (some reliable, some not) as evidence of a misconception in widespread use. The same relaible source (A) also points out that that misconception is incorrect using relialbe sources (B,C,D). That isn't synthesis, it is directly pulling from the secondary source.
- The King reference is specifically rebutting Maines. Pgs 206-208 discuss, in part, how widespread the misconception is, though admittedly not with external sources.
- The Guardian article references two popular culture references for this misconception as well.
- That brings us up to three secondary sources with 10 references to this misconception in general use in the culture. That clearly satisfies the requirements for this page.
- "rebutting Maines" is a "disagreement amongst scholars" and a disagreement is not a misconception. A misconception is a mistaken belief, a wrong idea, and people who read and believed there was a vibrator/hysteria connection, stories based on Maines' supporting scholarly paper, did not "mistake" what they read. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Fountains of Bryn Mawr: "people who read and believed there was a vibrator/hysteria connection, stories based on Maines' supporting scholarly paper, did not "mistake" what they read" An interesting epistemological position. According to Maines herself as well as subsequent academics and many popular commentators they did mistake what they read. However are we saying because the Maines paper was a RS at the time, citations built upon cannot even retrospectively be considered mistakes? This creates a very high barrier to overturn misconceptions based on reliable sources, which was in fact the whole point of the Atlantic article, the damage that academic mispublication can cause. Are there not precedents in Wikipedia for overturning RS's and derivatives previously agreed to be as such? Deku-shrub (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- You didn't address the fact that there are 10 separate references in the links offered citing this as widespread and a misconception. We have at least two editors here who feel comfortable with this addition. Perhaps you could help us understand, what kind of source, exactly, would serve as evidence in your mind? Can you cite a source for any misconception that you think meets your idea of what the criteria are? Squatch347 (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- "rebutting Maines" is a "disagreement amongst scholars" and a disagreement is not a misconception. A misconception is a mistaken belief, a wrong idea, and people who read and believed there was a vibrator/hysteria connection, stories based on Maines' supporting scholarly paper, did not "mistake" what they read. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
All of the sources, except one, predate this being a real misconception, so it doesn't matter how many of those you pile up, they do not make a statement this is a misconception, they describe a disagreement. Also 3 of those last sources describe it as a myth (a false story), not a misconception (a false belief). Those are two very different concepts and one is not covered in this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- That didn't really answer my question though. I'm trying to understand, conceptually, what kind of sources meet your standards. Can you give me an example?
- It also isn't accurate. You are conflating citation with reference. There is one citation (the Atlantic), but that citation offers six references related to the misconception being widespread. Additionally, the articles linked by Deku are post Maines' work, and deal with it being widely accepted, even if it was prior to it being rejected by the academic community, it is still a misconception. Geocentrism was still a misconception before Galileo.
- I am not discussing "meet(ing my) standards", they are Wikipedia standards - which I have covered several times, please scroll up. The standard here is a source that has the ability to say "this is a common misconception". Please see WP:V and WP:RS if that is not clear. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well no, the requirements for the page don't require multiple citations, which is what you are asking. That is solely your requirement. And the source offered contains six references as to this being a common misconception. It even ends one paragraph with: "In short, the tale has become a commonplace one in how people think about Victorian sex..." The need to have multiple sources, or to ignore some for this reason or that is coming from you, not from wikipedia. Unless you can show exactly where it requires multiple sources, I think we should move ahead with replacing the text given the status of the discussion. Squatch347 (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to bump this with a suggestion of what text should be included. Feel free to make an edit or let me know if it is missing something.
- Despite being referenced commonly in culture [Atlantic Article][Why the movie...] and society at large [Galen and the widow link][Buzzkill Article][guardian], the idea that Victorian Era doctors invented the vibrator to cure female 'hysteria' via triggering orgasm is a product of a single work[welcome collection] rejected by most historians[Atlantic][Guardian][Galen and the widow].
Squatch347 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why there's opposition to this; it seems a perfectly cromulent addition to me. I've found sources not listed here, and those sources listed here explicitly support the proposed addition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is it has to be a "common misconception", a misconception so widespread and notable that it is already covered at the target Wikipedia article as a common misconception. We do not have that here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- If so, that's a failing of that article, not of this proposal. The sourcing presented here (as well as others I was very easily able to find) establish that this misconception is certainly WP:DUE for the main article. If it's not there, that's because editors haven't added it. Taking that as an excuse not to add it here is a blatant violation of WP:IAR, which you might note is one of the five pillars. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Its a requirement of this list. If you disagree with the list criteria then start a discussion to change them. Not sure how I can commit a "blatant violation" of guideline that states ignore everything. If you think something belongs in a main article, add it, see if it sticks - those editors should know the topic. That would keep us in line with WP:CFORK (Wikipedia policy). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how I can commit a "blatant violation" of guideline that states ignore everything.
Then you may lack the competence to edit here: WP:IAR clearly states that any rule that prevents us from improving this project is to be ignored. Refusing to ignore a rule even though doing so is a blatant violation of that principle. Arguing that IAR itself should be ignored in order to follow a rule over improving the project is the very height of wikilawyering and tantamount to announcing your own refusal to do anything except push your own interests. If your only objection is that this doesn't exist in other articles (and let's be clear: the rest of your objections above -such as claiming there's so RS support for the claim that this is a misconception, only that there's support for claiming this a s dispute among academics- are pure BS and barely worth responding to, so far removed from reality and rationality they are), then you should go add it to whatever article you feel most appropriate, instead of expecting good faith editors at this article to bend over backwards to accomplish goals which we both know won't change your mind, anyways. You are exhibiting clear ownership of this article and have been for some time, and I will happily ask ANI to to tell you to knock it off if you don't do so of your own volition. There are now three editors telling you that you are wrong. Listen to them before you are forced to listen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Its a requirement of this list. If you disagree with the list criteria then start a discussion to change them. Not sure how I can commit a "blatant violation" of guideline that states ignore everything. If you think something belongs in a main article, add it, see if it sticks - those editors should know the topic. That would keep us in line with WP:CFORK (Wikipedia policy). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- If so, that's a failing of that article, not of this proposal. The sourcing presented here (as well as others I was very easily able to find) establish that this misconception is certainly WP:DUE for the main article. If it's not there, that's because editors haven't added it. Taking that as an excuse not to add it here is a blatant violation of WP:IAR, which you might note is one of the five pillars. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is it has to be a "common misconception", a misconception so widespread and notable that it is already covered at the target Wikipedia article as a common misconception. We do not have that here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
You seem to skip the second part of WP:IAR "improving this project", hence why we have consensus discussions and even consensus criteria (like at the top of this page). As for all the name calling, maybe read WP:ETIQ. Despite what looks like WP:CANVAS[8] (definitely not " neutrally worded") you should join in consensus discussion (and not just name call or name call and revert). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Are you even reading my comments? Adding a common misconceptions to the list of common misconceptions is, inarguably, an improvement to this project. Stop grasping at straws, stop trying to own the article. Also, do you even know what the phrase "name-calling" means? Are you capable of understanding the distinction between "your argument is shit" and "you are a shitty person"? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Meyer, Robinson (7 September 2018). "Victorian-Era Orgasms and the Crisis of Peer Review". Retrieved 6 September 2018.
Lead was not encyclopedic
Re-wrote the List lead paragraph because it did not reflect the hidden list definition at the top of the page and read like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Selection criteria should be stated unambiguously in the lead for the reader as well as the editor (WP:SALLEAD). "notable topics" and "Each misconception and the corresponding facts have been discussed in published literature" is unnecessary, all Wikipedia content is notable and comes from published literature. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- I appreciate the change away from "This list ... corrects erroneous beliefs". I'm not sure about "that are described in Wikipedia articles" ([9]). As I understand it, this list existed for a long time before that inclusion criterion was added, so there may be many items that fail it. Plus, other Wikipedia articles can be edited at any time without this list being updated. I see that inclusion criterion as being one that helps Wikipedians decide what belongs in this list, rather than something readers need to know about. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Two of the four selection criteria state that there has to be a related article. I really have not looked into where the list criteria came from but it seems to be in line with WP:LSC re: common sense. List such as this are generally alternatives to Categories, being a list of articles that aids in navigation for someone who wants to find articles that cover a certain attribute - so - a list of articles. Its a "List of common misconceptions", so each entry should be notable enough to be covered at that article - its "common". To avoid POVFORKing, if the claim is not at the article it should not be here. "that are described in Wikipedia articles" could probably be removed, the reader does not need that stated and an editor will see the hidden selection criteria telling them it is a requirement. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm just now reading this section and I also completely disagree with the addition of "that are described in Wikipedia articles", especially given that the same editor who added it immediately began using said addition to justify reverting any addition to this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Deletion discussion
I've started an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination). I've also requested that the protecting admin add the AfD template to the page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Forbidden fruit
The fruit of the tree that Eve touched in the Book of Genesis was not simply a fruit but the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. This article does not clarify this. Vorbee (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Edit request
In the dinosaur section there is the sentence "Consequently, dinosaur descendants are part of the modern fauna". Since birds are dinosaurs, would suggest the word 'descendants' be removed and an 's' be added to the word 'dinosaur' so the sentence reads "Consequently, dinosaurs are part of the modern fauna". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Criteria
First off, yes, I know about the AfD. I filed it. Let that run its course (which is looking like "no consensus" unless the closer really decides to completely disregard all WP:AADD arguments). This talk page is for discussing improvements to this article, so let's discuss improvements.
If this page is to be improved, we first have to examine the criteria given in the edit notice. Here are the current criteria outlined in the edit notice:
- The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own.
- The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
- The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
- The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.
- This list was created when the article talk page was in this state. I've linked directly to the only "criteria" discussion, which you can see does not result in an agreement on this. So these criteria were imposed without consensus.
To wit, I'm suggesting a new list of criteria. Below, you can see it.
- The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
- It is current, and not obsolete (so that we're not commenting on widespread false beliefs of the middle ages, for example).
- An expert in the topic has identified it as a misconception.
I left out the "needs to be reliably sourced" one because duh; of course it needs to be reliably sourced. The new last one is intended to address the bickering over "common". There are plenty of sources that identify "common" misconceptions, but a lot of arguing over whether that's accurate. So instead of looking to a tertiary RS by some staff writer to claim "common misconception", let's look to secondary sources by experts that claim "misconception". It is a perfectly reasonable presumption that experts regularly discuss or are asked questions about the subject of their expertise by people lacking their expertise. In many cases, the very job of the expert is to have these discussions and answer these questions. So if such an expert feels the need to publish something that addresses this misconception, it should then go without saying that it's "common".
Thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Asking that each factoid listed here needs an article of its own to qualify sounds like it would cause the deletion of a high percentage of the page. So am I misunderstanding, and you mean section topic, or overall topics, and not each bit? The criteria seems fine regarding information being included within another article, and not specifically requiring each bit of information to have a full article. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think that's a phrasing problem of mine. No, what I'm saying is that, if you find some sources claiming that there's a common misconception about, for example, the suicide of Katelyn Davis (which was recently deleted as not notable here), you cannot add that. But you could certainly add a fourth or fifth entry about suicide in general with the right sources, because they all share the same "main" article.
- Another way to look at it is to say that each entry ought to be able to (but doesn't necessarily need to) have a wikilink to an article about the topic in the body of the entry. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Except that Wikipedia does not, and never has, required that all sources be from experts, only that they be reliable. And the fact that some expert chooses to address some topic doesn't necessarily mean it's to address a common misconception, so that would just result in the list getting even more subjective. We'd be forced to analyze why the expert was addressing this topic, which could be significantly more complicated than just showing that the source is reliable. Often, if a belief is especially stupid and/or troublesome, like Flat earth theory, experts will respond to it despite it not being particularly common. Other times, if it's common but relatively trivial (like Napoleon's height, which from an expert's perspective is not a major aspect of him), they may not respond to it at all. I guarantee you there are more experts responding to Birtherism than to many of the entries in this article, but there aren't very many people who actually believe Obama was born in Kenya, just a lot of really vocal ones who have greatly influenced American politics with their beliefs. Not to mention that being an expert in, say, chemistry, doesn't necessarily make you an expert in how common a certain belief is. Other than perhaps some metapsychology expert who studies how people perceive psychology, it's unlikely they'd be an expert in both their own field and in public perception of it. So I'm not sure this would solve the issues anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Except that Wikipedia does not, and never has, required that all sources be from experts, only that they be reliable.
That's why I'm proposing it (partially) as a criteria for this list. If it were WP policy, I'd not need to propose it at all. Notice how I removed the bit about entries needing to be reliably sourced. Also, I'm not proposing that all sourcing be from experts; only that the entry have at least one expert source calling it a misconception.We'd be forced to analyze why the expert was addressing this topic
No, that is the exact opposite of what this would mean. By simply having the requirement that an expert called it a misconception, we're explicitly avoiding any discussion about why they did so. They did so, and that's enough to satisfy the criteria. If you think there's a wording that would better convey this, please suggest it.Not to mention that being an expert in, say, chemistry, doesn't necessarily make you an expert in how common a certain belief is.
I never suggested that an expert historian would be able to comment on a subject in physics, for example. When it comes to a physics misconception, the historian is decidedly not an expert. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)- This is in a separate comment because it's not that important.
I guarantee you there are more experts responding to Birtherism than to many of the entries in this article, but there aren't very many people who actually believe Obama was born in Kenya, just a lot of really vocal ones who have greatly influenced American politics with their beliefs.
You should spend some time in The South. It will quickly disabuse you of that notion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Except that Wikipedia does not, and never has, required that all sources be from experts, only that they be reliable. And the fact that some expert chooses to address some topic doesn't necessarily mean it's to address a common misconception, so that would just result in the list getting even more subjective. We'd be forced to analyze why the expert was addressing this topic, which could be significantly more complicated than just showing that the source is reliable. Often, if a belief is especially stupid and/or troublesome, like Flat earth theory, experts will respond to it despite it not being particularly common. Other times, if it's common but relatively trivial (like Napoleon's height, which from an expert's perspective is not a major aspect of him), they may not respond to it at all. I guarantee you there are more experts responding to Birtherism than to many of the entries in this article, but there aren't very many people who actually believe Obama was born in Kenya, just a lot of really vocal ones who have greatly influenced American politics with their beliefs. Not to mention that being an expert in, say, chemistry, doesn't necessarily make you an expert in how common a certain belief is. Other than perhaps some metapsychology expert who studies how people perceive psychology, it's unlikely they'd be an expert in both their own field and in public perception of it. So I'm not sure this would solve the issues anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think I prefer the current criteria. Expert opinions are good, but we shouldn't prefer them over something like a study that shows a misconception is common. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- That would turn this article into a stub. Seriously, go count how many of the sources used actually have that quality. And the current criteria doesn't actually require that, anyways, so the current criteria comes no closer to meeting that standard.
- Finally: I think we can all agree that 90% is "common". But what about 30%? What about 1%? 1% of the population is hundreds of millions of people, and most of us will encounter at least one of them every day (though we may not be aware of it). So what about 0.1%? I know I run across a thousand people in a week. Most folk who don't live in rural areas do, too. Is that "common"?
- I don't think that even the studies you mention actually establish that something is "common", because the definition of "common" is subjective. So I think leaving it to an expert to at least imply that it's common by publishing a refutation is the only sensible way to reach a standard that we can all agree on whether or not it applies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think the original criteria are more liberal, because they allow either an expert opinion or a study that shows a misconception is common. We don't have to decide the threshhold. As long as the source mentions it's common, it's fine. I'm just saying we shouldn't focus only on expert opinion. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Nine "Keep" votes at the current AfD specifically noted the current inclusion criteria as a reason to keep the article. None recommended loosening the criteria. Pengo specifically noted:
"It's a summary article. References are not an issue as each fact is taken from another Wikipedia article. See the "official" criteria for inclusion on the talk page (and which also appears when you edit the article): "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." If the associated article doesn't also include the misconception with references, then its associated entry in this list should be removed."
Lists that index Wikipedia articles based on them having a certain attribute (such as requiring the attribute "U.S. citizens or nationals of French descent and heritage" to be in List of French Americans) is perfectly reasonable per WP:SAL. So, as Pengo points out, it makes it a dirt simple list - article has referenced text stating there is some kind of "common misconception"? - it goes in this list, you actually don't even need a citation at the List.
A list without a linked Article containing a common misconception would be an OR nightmare. Editors will simple google to find what ever they can and WP:SYNTH all those "hits" into "Yep, lots of hits so its not just a myth or little known fact, my tally shows its a common misconception". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I find it incredibly hilarious that you would perceive "content does not need to be duplicated from an existing article" to be mean "We can safely ignore our sitewide policies on this particular article". I mean, the sheer level of illogic that goes into that just alone is enough to make me laugh, not to mention the fact that it clearly stems from the same butthurt that's led you to make hypocritical personal attacks against me on at least two different pages. The rest of your comment isn't even about this proposal, so I'm ignoring it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
For my part, I like the current criteria, mostly. I disagree with the proposer that point 2 is unnecessary; omitting #2 introduces too many ambiguities. Of course the topic needs to reliably sourced, but so does the fact that it's a common misconception. Omitting #3 would do no harm though... if a common misconception is added to this list with proper sourcing, it's trivial to add a mention to it in the topic article with similar sourcing. That's just good practice, not a criterion for inclusion. I disagree with adding the requirement that an "expert" must identify something as a misconception. Reliable sources are sufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposer that point 2 is unnecessary; omitting #2 introduces too many ambiguities.
I don't see how. Point 2 is merely the repetition of a site-wide policy.I disagree with adding the requirement that an "expert" must identify something as a misconception. Reliable sources are sufficient.
I actually tend to agree, but I think that proposal cuts off all the arguing about whether it's a common misconception, which has been at the root of many of the problems on this talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Summary so far
So far, I have seen two editors opine that finding an expert in the topic of the entry to call it a misconception is not a good idea. So here's a revision, since no-one else seems interested in proposing any.
- The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
- It is current, and not obsolete (so that we're not commenting on widespread false beliefs of the middle ages, for example).
- An RS has identified it as a misconception.
I still haven't seen any reasonable argument for including the original #2: It's a site-wide policy already. I've seen the suggestion that sources need to include a survey showing it to be common, but I've not seen any suggestion as to what sort of result of said survey would be considered common, so I don't see how that solves anything. Furthermore, such surveys are bound to be exceedingly rare (there are none in the RSes cited in the article at present as far as I've seen), so I fail to see how that would even be workable. Further comments are welcome. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose #1 "The topic of the misconception has an article of its own." As long as it is covered in WP:RS as myth, I think that is sufficient. I agree with the others that it should not necessarily require an expert to articulate it, but I would be okay with additional language that it is preferred that the myth is articulated by an expert or by a journalist referring to the work of experts.
- I would be open to trying to divide the material into multiple articles such as List of misquotations, List of common misconceptions about language learning, Tornado myths, and then taking the top 3-5 of each subject area as ticklers to generate interest in the longer list of myths in that subject area. The history sections are a bit unwieldy. Unfortunately, articles like Tornado myths, have a completely different format and do not have the nice bite-sized bits of information that makes this article interesting to peruse. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- So you would support an entry based on a single RS about the suicide of Katelyn Davis, even though we have no article about that topic? That would require us to summarize the topic in this list, which would require additions RSes. RSes that don't exist, hence why that article does not exist. As for breaking this up into multiple articles, that might be a discussion worth having. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think people are misunderstanding what criteria #1 means. To use the microwave oven example, we wouldn't necessarily need an article about Microwave ovens heating myth, we would just need a Microwave oven article, which we have. Assuming that's what's meant by that, I have no issue with #1. Smartyllama (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Microwave oven wouldn't even need to exist. It would be enough to have an article on some other topic, that also included a well-sourced description of the existence of the microwave oven myth. In practice I don't think we have many cases like that; often there are two or more articles that each mention the myth. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- In theory, I agree with this, but I don't think there will be many cases where it applies. Smartyllama is spot on with their comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep in mind there are a lot of misconceptions that are covered in some random reliable source somewhere. Pretty much every college and university in the world has myths that, at least among those who have enough of a connection to the university to care, are fairly common misconceptions. There is a legend often repeated about my own alma mater, the University of Connecticut, that the campus was modeled after some school in Texas that was designed as a wind tunnel to cool things off, but that of course this was quite unpleasant in the harsh New England winters. It's completely untrue, but has been covered in a number of reliable sources related to the university, and is fairly common among people who actually care. On the other hand, the vast majority of people don't care one way or the other, so is it really all that common? If it's a misconception about some obscure subject that the vast majority of people don't care about, can it really be all that common? I guess it depends on what is meant by "common", then. Smartyllama (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- To be fair, many people don't really care about much at all. Benjamin (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Smarty, I see what you're saying here. I could certainly get behind a "multiple sources" criteria, though I'm reluctant to set a number higher than 2 as the minimum, for obvious reasons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep in mind there are a lot of misconceptions that are covered in some random reliable source somewhere. Pretty much every college and university in the world has myths that, at least among those who have enough of a connection to the university to care, are fairly common misconceptions. There is a legend often repeated about my own alma mater, the University of Connecticut, that the campus was modeled after some school in Texas that was designed as a wind tunnel to cool things off, but that of course this was quite unpleasant in the harsh New England winters. It's completely untrue, but has been covered in a number of reliable sources related to the university, and is fairly common among people who actually care. On the other hand, the vast majority of people don't care one way or the other, so is it really all that common? If it's a misconception about some obscure subject that the vast majority of people don't care about, can it really be all that common? I guess it depends on what is meant by "common", then. Smartyllama (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- In theory, I agree with this, but I don't think there will be many cases where it applies. Smartyllama is spot on with their comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Microwave oven wouldn't even need to exist. It would be enough to have an article on some other topic, that also included a well-sourced description of the existence of the microwave oven myth. In practice I don't think we have many cases like that; often there are two or more articles that each mention the myth. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think people are misunderstanding what criteria #1 means. To use the microwave oven example, we wouldn't necessarily need an article about Microwave ovens heating myth, we would just need a Microwave oven article, which we have. Assuming that's what's meant by that, I have no issue with #1. Smartyllama (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- So you would support an entry based on a single RS about the suicide of Katelyn Davis, even though we have no article about that topic? That would require us to summarize the topic in this list, which would require additions RSes. RSes that don't exist, hence why that article does not exist. As for breaking this up into multiple articles, that might be a discussion worth having. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree about the need for "bite sized" entries. Some entries here are a bit too long and they all tend to launch into the debunk without stating what the misconception actually is. The best format is to state the misconception and the then give the debunk very, very briefly with a link to more details. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think #1 could be weakened to say that it must be covered in another article but that it does not need to be a stand-alone article. So, for example, the ones about microwave ovens would be OK provided they are covered in the Microwave oven article in a way that meets the other two criteria. I am also wondering if #3 needs strengthening. I'm pretty sure that you can find something on the weaker end of RS to say that pretty much anything is a misconception almost as easily as you can find an RS uncritically repeating a misconception. I fear that we may have to form an opinion on what separates a genuine misconception from a matter of genuine controversy in a world where some people seem to believe that there are no settled facts at all, others believe that no fact is settled until their tribe has the final say and many would grasp at any opportunity to label the beliefs of their opponents as misconceptions. We do not wish to invite arguments with creationists and flat earthers. If we had a couple of different RS, each referring to expert opinion, then we would be better placed to tell any such people to go and pound sand. Also, let us not forget that the misconception needs to be common. No necessarily common the whole world over but we will need an RS describing it as common. We may need to set a criteria for that too. We don't want to include things that are commonly held misconceptions in one village but we also should not exclude misconceptions which are common outside the English speaking west. For example, belief in Blood type personality theory is common enough in Japan that it could merit inclusion here. (Although then I guess we would have to include things like Astrology too.) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying. I could get behind that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
"3-An RS has identified it as a misconception" is incomparable with the list title "common misconceptions". That would would make this a trivia list of "Things somebody got wrong". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- At this point, I'm pretty much writing off everything you say because none of it helps even a little bit, and very little of it even makes any sense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think that the addition "and is mentioned in the article with sources" is an important part of the quality control of the items anyone wants to add (the article about the topic of the misconception, that is). If every item on this list is required to be mentioned in another article, that means the great number of editors that watch those articles will help prune this article. Those who watch an article are generally interested and know more about the topic than the average editor on Wikipedia. Thus it's more likely that they will catch an addition to "their" article that e.g. misinterprets the source, is undue or uses a source that is outdated. Sjö (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I see that as part of our sitewide policy already, but I'm not immune to the number of people (at least 2 so far) who've opined that some repetition of sitewide policy might be in order. The next proposal I post will contain a reminder that all content must be reliably sourced, regardless of where it appears. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm mostly indifferent to the exact wording, but I'd like to see a few points clarified.
Are multiple sources necessarily required in all cases?
Does the source need to use the exact phrase "common misconception"?
Benjamin (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would say Yes and No, respectively. The latter is a frankly ridiculous criteria with no precedent anywhere else on this site. Conversely, the former would address Smartyllama's point above which you also replied to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- It would depend on the quality of the sources, wouldn't it? I would think a reputable study with a large sample size would be sufficient on its own, for example. Benjamin (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, if a source does the research to establish exactly how widespread a belief something is, other RSes for it should abound, and thus it'd be trivial to find multiples for that entry. That being said, in the odd case that there's a widespread false belief that only one source covers (and that source is a very high quality one), I'd be inclined to support inclusion based on the quality of the source. And no criteria needs to be writ in stone: We're not establishing policy here, just a guideline as to what to include. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- It would depend on the quality of the sources, wouldn't it? I would think a reputable study with a large sample size would be sufficient on its own, for example. Benjamin (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The best format is to state the misconception and the then give the debunk
- DanielRigal hit on something that I noticed to. It seems to me this List is formatted for a Daily Mail columnist on a deadline looking for something to copy and paste and not made for anyone else. Namely bad SEO, nobody searching the web would ever hit on this article because they would be searching for something about a misconception, not searching for an unknown answer. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Now this is worth responding to. You both raise a very good point, and it was one I intended to open another section on. I agree that we should be describing the misconceptions as well as debunking them. I suppose anyone who disagrees can do so here. I'm soon to write up another version of the criteria taking the helpful commentary from this section into account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Fountains of Bryn Mawr Can you give me examples that you consider a problem? I can see some advantage of stating the misconception first in most cases, but I would probably oppose a hard-and-fast one-size-fits all rule for that. Some stories of misconceptions might flow better if there is lead in to the origin of the confusion. What makes good writing is a good true story. A boring set of facts all of exactly the same rigid format will be more likely to put the reader to sleep. I prefer we engage the reader with top notch writing that includes variety.
- Perhaps for some of the items you consider to be a problem, we could do some copy-editing and make them more interesting. Changing the rule may not solve the problem(s): The changes would still need to be made in the text of these items. That can be done without changing the rule. If editors are constantly adding items in a format that a consensus of us believes is objectionable and can be solved by a rule change, then I would be more likely to support a change in the rules. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have never looked on Wikipedia as engaging or a "read" (probably why I write crap articles). [10] points to the problem - you won't see this List any time soon in that search. That this List is a bit of an internet WP:WG may make people who don't like it happy, not a problem because no ones going to find it. Stating the misconception may lead to a few deletions, some of these may sound a little silly once you read the actual misconception. Anyway, nothing I think is vital, just noticed an oddity about this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oh. You mean this is about Search Engine Optimization (SEO). I have no knowledge about that. When I read the comment, SEO sounds a bit like CEO. I thought it might the abbreviations of some person. I am open to learning about how changing the formatting of the myths could change the rank in a Google search. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have never looked on Wikipedia as engaging or a "read" (probably why I write crap articles). [10] points to the problem - you won't see this List any time soon in that search. That this List is a bit of an internet WP:WG may make people who don't like it happy, not a problem because no ones going to find it. Stating the misconception may lead to a few deletions, some of these may sound a little silly once you read the actual misconception. Anyway, nothing I think is vital, just noticed an oddity about this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Round three
Taking the commentary from above into account, here's my third draft of the inclusion criteria:
- The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
- There are at least two references stating both the correction and that it is a misconception.
- It is current and not obsolete (i.e., no common beliefs from the middle ages.)
- It abides by all of our existing policies and guidelines.
If no-one objects to anything here (with a reasonable and articulate objection, please), then I'll post an edit request for a change to the edit notice. Otherwise, we can do another round of commentary and revisal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see this as an overall improvement over the current version. I see some things as better (more info. in #3: "no common beliefs from the middle ages" and possibly #4). But I do not prefer the new wording for #1, that gives the impression that the misconception must have its own article. I don't exactly like the language of #1 in the original either. It seems to me that all misconceptions can fit within one or more topics.
- I recommend working on one sentence at a time, as I stated at the AfD, possibly even having one or more RfC's on it. [11]
- Also, I'm not sure what problem we are trying to address with the new rules. [added 22:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)]
- --David Tornheim (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
that gives the impression that the misconception must have its own article
I don't see how. It explicitly says "the topic of the misconception" not "the misconception". But if you would like to suggest a wording, I'm all ears.I recommend working on one sentence at a time, as I stated at the AfD, possibly even having one or more RfC's on it.
I don't see any benefit to that. It would only drag things out longer. There's no reason not to let an editor who only cares about #3, for example, discuss that right now, as opposed to making them wait until two RfCs have run their course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)- What do you think of "The entry must be able to link to a WP page that gives more information about the subject" or something to that effect? That's what I'm looking for; information pointing out that non-notable subjects shouldn't have common misconceptions about them listed here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding #1: Proposed new wording: "The misconception is to be placed under a topic or subtopic heading it is related to." Possibly adding: "That topic or subtopic must have a dedicated Wikipedia article (e.g. Astronomy, Biology, History, History of Science)"
- If you don't want to wait for an RfC to run, I understand. The advantage is that if the RfC closes with a clear consensus, the arguing can stop. Right now, I don't see any progress towards ending the disagreement.
- It's not clear to me what problem(s) you are trying to solve by changing the criteria. Is it because they are unclear? Because you want to make them stricter or looser? Without a clear agreed upon goal, I think it is all the more difficult to determine if the new language is an improvement. I do think the original language is confusing and vague. I would support making it clearer, but I would not support making the requirement for inclusion stricter.
- --David Tornheim (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Right now, I don't see any progress towards ending the disagreement.
You only cited one problem with the currently proposed criteria, then gave you approval to my suggested fix for that problem. That's progress, right there. Then, look at the objections above and how they've influenced both subsequent proposals. That's the definition of progress. The only problem is that Bryn keeps jumping in to disagree with anything I say, including going to such ridiculous extremes as claiming that a misconception is only common if "everyone everywhere" believes it, as you yourself have seen. So mentally subtract Bryn's re-occurring temper tantrum from this discussion and re-evaluate. It sure looks like it's getting somewhere then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)- I'd like to see more support than just you and me. What if someone else jumps in and sides with Bryn on something the two of us agree on? That's not progress. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- If other editor's can't be bothered to join in, that doesn't mean we should give up. And if you'll actually read through the section: you'll see most of them have explicitly supported most of the proposed changes. Only two editors have disagreed with more than one thing, and one of those is Bryn, who's disagreed with everything and said that any change to the criteria would be a license to ignore our policies on WP:OR. Oh, and those two aren't the entire "list of logically unhinged things Bryn has said on this talk page". I think they're about 1/3 of that list, at most. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've explained why others don't join in: They are not interested in getting in the middle of your back-and-forths with Bryn. The above paragraph is an example of what hinders progress, where you criticize Bryn in very harsh hyperbole and invite him to respond in kind. There's no need for that. No, I have not read everything on this page, but I have seen enough of the interaction between the two of you to know that both are about equally guilty of this kind of paragraph, and that if you would stop focusing on each other's behavior and try to find wider support for specific positions/proposals, we would get progress. The advantage of an RfC is that talking about editor behavior is almost verbotten, and that, I believe would help a lot. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I've explained why others don't join in: They are not interested in getting in the middle of your back-and-forths with Bryn.
Then maybe you and Bryn should shut the fuck up about it, eh? ;) I haven't been bringing it up all over the place. I've been actively trying to steer discussion to the article, and away from that, even though I've made it clear that I think Bryn would come out far worse than me. But you keep bringing it back up, over and over. And there has been plenty of participation, despite your dire warning. At least 6 new editors have shown up to weigh in, mostly with helpful commentary. You can't expect a coflict to die down when you won't let it, can you? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've explained why others don't join in: They are not interested in getting in the middle of your back-and-forths with Bryn. The above paragraph is an example of what hinders progress, where you criticize Bryn in very harsh hyperbole and invite him to respond in kind. There's no need for that. No, I have not read everything on this page, but I have seen enough of the interaction between the two of you to know that both are about equally guilty of this kind of paragraph, and that if you would stop focusing on each other's behavior and try to find wider support for specific positions/proposals, we would get progress. The advantage of an RfC is that talking about editor behavior is almost verbotten, and that, I believe would help a lot. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- If other editor's can't be bothered to join in, that doesn't mean we should give up. And if you'll actually read through the section: you'll see most of them have explicitly supported most of the proposed changes. Only two editors have disagreed with more than one thing, and one of those is Bryn, who's disagreed with everything and said that any change to the criteria would be a license to ignore our policies on WP:OR. Oh, and those two aren't the entire "list of logically unhinged things Bryn has said on this talk page". I think they're about 1/3 of that list, at most. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like to see more support than just you and me. What if someone else jumps in and sides with Bryn on something the two of us agree on? That's not progress. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
What do you think of "The entry must be able to link to a WP page that gives more information about the subject" or something to that effect?
That's fine. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)There's no reason not to let an editor who only cares about #3, for example, discuss that right now.
Nothing is stopping that. The problem is that the discussion on whether to include #3 can be separated from the discussion on the wording of #1. I know they are somewhat related, but I would prefer this not all get jumbled together in a big mess where it is hard to tell what editors want changed. I have no objection to running multiple RfC questions, as long as they are as discrete as possible. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose There is no consensus for radically changing the inclusion criteria. Most editors mentioning the inclusion criteria at the AfD think its good as is (some recommend it be tougher). Current #3 is specifically recommended here and at AfD by multiple editors as a good "check" to make sure something is actually reliably sourced and "common". "#1 The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own" seems much less ambiguous re: "is related to" means it does not have to be an article about the misconception. Don't know why that one is a stumbler but it could always be reworded to remove any ambiguity. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus for radically changing the inclusion criteria.
That is not true. Almost every editor who's commented on this page has disparaged the "repeated in another article" criteria, and the majority of the proposal I've made has been met with approval. You claim to the contrary is pure imagination. I guess you didn't read the "reasonable and articulate" part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Almost every editor who's commented on this page has disparaged the "repeated in another article" criteria.
Can you give me some evidence of that, such as diffs and/or subject headings? If that's true, we could give a summary of these editors' comments, and make a proposal that addresses all of those concerns. If the concerns have enough in common I would think it should be easy to generate a wide consensus on new language that addresses the repeated concerns. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)- David, there are only two possible pages to find those on, and this is not the only article on my watchlist. Just use your mousewheel and read the pages. It's really not that long. I will say that Randy Kryn, Smartyllama and Anachronist have all agreed with removing the original number 3 up above, It's been disparaged before in discussions higher up (and I believe, one below) and there were additional comments at the AfD disparaging it from multiple editors. I don't see the point in me spending a half hour collecting diffs just to save you 10 minutes of reading. Maybe if there were 4-5 pages to check, but with only two pages, you can read for yourself. I've yet to see anyone but Bryn defend it, for that matter. How can an inclusion criteria that is subject to the changing nature of other pages even be helpful, here? The only thing it boils down to is an excuse to edit war new content out of this article (which is exactly what set all of this off). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- If what you say is true, that indicates a strong consensus opposing #3, then we should easily be able to get rid of it. Some ways to do that: (1) simply delete it from the criteria on the ground that consensus already exists on this talk page (2) make a straw poll here on deleting #3 to make the consensus more overt (3) running an RfC to delete #3. I am happy to do (2) or (3). If you want to try (1), I would probably back you up, unless another editor in addition to Bryn declared there is no such consensus for its removal. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- No. Criterion #3 is fine and we should keep it. A large number of words have been posted here, but nothing convincing. You are allowed to go to the subject article(s) and edit them to meet the criteria here. I know many editors say you can't, that it's somehow "backwards", but no such rule exists. If your change on the subject article gets reverted, well, then obviously you don't have consensus. But if you go to microwave oven and change it so that it clearly says a misconception exists and is commonly held, and that reaches something approximating stability, then you're all set to include it here. We need to assume that if the editors who regularly edit the subject article are happy with the addition, then it stands on solid ground to be added here.
Anyway, no, there isn't consensus for criteria changes. As I said, the criteria aren't the source of the problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Dennis Bratland: Thanks for letting me know. I have no intention on doing (1) unless I were to see evidence of the consensus Mjpants claims exists. I do think the rules are a bit confusing, and I am open to improving them, but believe the only way forward would be more discrete proposals, ideally no more than one sentence at a time. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- No. Criterion #3 is fine and we should keep it. A large number of words have been posted here, but nothing convincing. You are allowed to go to the subject article(s) and edit them to meet the criteria here. I know many editors say you can't, that it's somehow "backwards", but no such rule exists. If your change on the subject article gets reverted, well, then obviously you don't have consensus. But if you go to microwave oven and change it so that it clearly says a misconception exists and is commonly held, and that reaches something approximating stability, then you're all set to include it here. We need to assume that if the editors who regularly edit the subject article are happy with the addition, then it stands on solid ground to be added here.
- If what you say is true, that indicates a strong consensus opposing #3, then we should easily be able to get rid of it. Some ways to do that: (1) simply delete it from the criteria on the ground that consensus already exists on this talk page (2) make a straw poll here on deleting #3 to make the consensus more overt (3) running an RfC to delete #3. I am happy to do (2) or (3). If you want to try (1), I would probably back you up, unless another editor in addition to Bryn declared there is no such consensus for its removal. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- David, there are only two possible pages to find those on, and this is not the only article on my watchlist. Just use your mousewheel and read the pages. It's really not that long. I will say that Randy Kryn, Smartyllama and Anachronist have all agreed with removing the original number 3 up above, It's been disparaged before in discussions higher up (and I believe, one below) and there were additional comments at the AfD disparaging it from multiple editors. I don't see the point in me spending a half hour collecting diffs just to save you 10 minutes of reading. Maybe if there were 4-5 pages to check, but with only two pages, you can read for yourself. I've yet to see anyone but Bryn defend it, for that matter. How can an inclusion criteria that is subject to the changing nature of other pages even be helpful, here? The only thing it boils down to is an excuse to edit war new content out of this article (which is exactly what set all of this off). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not convinced there is even a problem in need of solving. Identifying reliable sources is an inherent part of editing any article. We already know how to establish consensus on a fact and don't need arbitrary criteria like "at least two sources". Some facts require ten sources, some need only one. It depends, and we already have structures in place to determine that.
It's redundant to require following policies and guidelines. The need to even say "follow policy" arises from personal disputes; i.e. making a point, axe grinding.
The individuals who have a problem with the rules of this list are locked in a WP:BATTLEGROUND and are locked in mutual WP:STONEWALLing. The problem lies with the individuals who are failing to assume good faith, to compromise, and recognize that their personal back-and-forth is disrupting the editing of everyone else. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination), these inclusion criteria change proposals, and other attempts to move the goalposts are all have a snowball's chance of going anywhere.
It's time to either figure out how to collaborate and respect consensus, or drop it and work on something else. I predict an immanent interaction ban and topic ban for those who keep beating this dead horse. Let it go, guys. Let it go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, fuck this noise. If I'm the only one willing to stop wallowing in drama, focus on the content and not simply ignore everything I don't want to hear, then I guess I'm on the wrong page. Apologies to Squatch347, TompaDompa, Benjaminikuta and anyone else who saw this hot mess for what it is, but I don't have the patience to deal with this level of bullshit anymore. You guys are on your own trying to fix this mess. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly the response I predicted. QED. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Question: Do we need to change the criteria?
Question: Do we need to change the criteria? If so, what would you change? Are there any items in the current article you think are flawed partly as a direct result of problems with the current rules? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral I'm not convinced there is a consensus to make any specific or general changes to the current rules. I am open to improving them if there is. I am also open to clarifying the rules to better reflect the historic defacto choices made in practice, especially if there is a discrepancy between the defacto rules and the stated rules. I do not feel the current rules are entirely clear, especially about what is meant by a "common" misconception. I would not support a change that created more rigid criteria for inclusion. I might support a less rigid set of rules. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- No. Take six months off from rocking the boat. Go back to the regular business of editing one entry at at time, making it better, and seeking consensus on the talk page. After half a year or so (maybe a whole year, we have time), if you feel like things are going in the wrong direction, then present items that you think should have been added but weren't, or should have been deleted but weren't, due to some clear flaw in the criteria as written. If you can't point to several specific, real world examples of the system not working, then it's all WP:BEANS. If you can't cite any very compelling cases where the rules are failing, then the system is not broke, the problem is between the keyboard and the chair. IMHO, the problem is Wikipedia's collaborative editing process itself. Some can function in an environment that might sometimes might require treating Randy in Boise with a modicum of respect, and some can't hack it. If you can't, then no rule change on a single list. will help you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Pruitt-Igoe
I reverted this edit by Fountains of Bryn Mawr, which has been in the article for almost four year [12]. The argument to delete was:
Fails #3 - not at topic article. Fails #2 - PDF source "memory lapse on the part of architects in their discussions of Pruitt-Igo" in a single US housing project would not be a common misconception
However, Pruitt-Igoe, Architecture and History are topic articles. Although, I am not an architect, I have studied enough architecture and seen documentaries that covered the demolition, that I held the "common misconception" that it had won awards before being demolished. That demolition is extremely significant because it "signaled the death of Modern architecture" [13][14][15][16][17] and the birth of Postmodern architecture. It looks like there is enough WP:RS to create an article on "the death of Modern Architecture". --David Tornheim (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to be misunderstanding the list criteria.
#1 is "The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own"
- The linked articles are Pruitt-Igoe, housing project, St. Louis, Missouri and urban renewal... confusing but Pruitt-Igoe seems to be the relevant one. #2 isThe item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception
- two sources state it was confused with another project that won an award but the Katharine Bristol source describes it as a "memory lapse on the part of architects in their discussions of Pruitt-Igo", so sourced, but the sources individually do not describe it as a common misconception, and we can't just add them up (see WP:SYNTH). #3 isThe common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources
- we seem to have a fail there, no coverage at Pruitt-Igoe of a common misconception with sources. None of the extra links you provided describe a common misconception (the topic of this list). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)- I do not support the removal of that section. The criteria you are bludgeoning every other editor here with was implemented without consensus, ignored by the majority of editors and new criteria is being discussed above. Your continued inability to understand the sources properly is also not an sound argument for the removal. It is described as a "myth" which is functionally identical to a "misconception" in this context in the second source. The first source explicitly says "...and the ways the design community exaggerated the supposed design virtues of Pruitt-Igoe only to create a more poignant portrait of its failure. For example, Pruitt-Igoe is often cited as an AIA-award recipient, but the project never won any architectural awards." which is easily understood as "there is a common misconception that Pruit-Igoe is an AIA-award recipient." That is not interpretation, but simple summary.
- You may be completely unaware of this, but we are supposed to summarize RSes, not quote them verbatim with all the cognitive facility of a photocopier. There is not, and never has been any requirement that a source use certain "magic phrases" before we can cite it for a given topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with MjolnirPants analysis (noting that I have not seen other similar removals). As for #3, we can easily add it to the article. I will do that. I hope you won't revert it simply to keep it out of this article. I do think requirement #3 is a bit odd FYI, and I might support removing it. For editorial purposes, I could see the misconception being significant without the need for it to be in the article on the subject. I see this page more like trivia, answering questions to a crossword, jeopardy questions, etc., but still what I would call "encyclopedic" knowledge. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I added it to the article here. Fortunately, the additional material is pretty seamless and flows well with the existing content. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- The article entry still fails #3 because the linked article text does not claim there is some sort of "common misconception". List entries should follow criteria, including the list title. A misconception has to be significant to the point of being "common", something everyone everywhere general gets wrong. If its common it should already be described as such in the linked article, or be easy to cite and add without convoluted reasoning. Right now the entry reads "Some people at some time think a housing project in St. Louis, Missouri won an architecture prize when it was actually another housing project in St. Louis, Missouri that won it." That's not in any way a "common misconception". Please also note trivia is not considered "encyclopedic" (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE and related links). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The article entry still fails #3 because the linked article text does not claim there is some sort of "common misconception".
Bullshit. I've already explained this to you. Your inability to understand or accept that explanation does not change what the source says. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
A misconception has to be significant to the point of being "common", something everyone everywhere general gets wrong.
[emphasis added.] If that were the case, then there would be exactly zero items in the List of Common Misconceptions, because even the experts would get it wrong too and there would be no one who knew the truth.
- Our core differences of opinion appear to be: (1) what is meant by a "common misconception" and (2) whether the item in question meets the threshold of being a "common misconception". We will have to agree to disagree. I agree with Mjpants on (2), that it meets the threshold. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Items meet the threshold of being a "common misconception" when reliable sources say "its common misconception" (in so many words). Claiming "this source means this and that source means that and its all significant re: some context" is original research, we don't make those declarations. A "common misconception" is always going to be a sliding scale. Is already covered at an article as a common misconception with RS - top of the scale, we just index it. Is covered by significant RS as a common misconception but week or missing at an article - middle of the scale/borderline - add it to the article, if it sticks it stays here. Is not covered by significant RS as a common misconception, not in an article, and all we can say is some undefinable group of people get this wrong - bottom of the scale, doesn't meet the threshold. I think we are bottom of the scale here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Once again, this has already explained to you, both in general terms as well as how it pertains to this particular instance. You've been told by two editors now that your insistence on requiring sources to use the exact wording of this article title does not fly. You've previously been told the same thing this by at least three other editors. You will not win any arguments by continuing to repeat yourself like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Apparently (in so many words) was not on someones vocabulary test. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously so, considering that I quoted one source saying so in so many words and you're still not listening. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Of course it doesn't have to use the exact wording in the title, that's ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to start an AfD to prove a point about how ridiculous this is. This whole process is ridiculous and both of you need to remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not get into ridiculous squabbles with each other. I'd rather this not have to go to ANI a second time. Smartyllama (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- The AfD was because three editors claimed the article should be deleted when I filed an ANI case over Bryn's irrational behavior. And I will further note that there are a large number of "delete" !votes, including from very experienced editors, even one former Arb that I noticed. Clearly, there are quite a few people of the opinion that the article should be deleted. So keep your comments about ridiculousness to subjects you know enough about to speak on, please. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Apparently (in so many words) was not on someones vocabulary test. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Once again, this has already explained to you, both in general terms as well as how it pertains to this particular instance. You've been told by two editors now that your insistence on requiring sources to use the exact wording of this article title does not fly. You've previously been told the same thing this by at least three other editors. You will not win any arguments by continuing to repeat yourself like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Items meet the threshold of being a "common misconception" when reliable sources say "its common misconception" (in so many words). Claiming "this source means this and that source means that and its all significant re: some context" is original research, we don't make those declarations. A "common misconception" is always going to be a sliding scale. Is already covered at an article as a common misconception with RS - top of the scale, we just index it. Is covered by significant RS as a common misconception but week or missing at an article - middle of the scale/borderline - add it to the article, if it sticks it stays here. Is not covered by significant RS as a common misconception, not in an article, and all we can say is some undefinable group of people get this wrong - bottom of the scale, doesn't meet the threshold. I think we are bottom of the scale here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- The article entry still fails #3 because the linked article text does not claim there is some sort of "common misconception". List entries should follow criteria, including the list title. A misconception has to be significant to the point of being "common", something everyone everywhere general gets wrong. If its common it should already be described as such in the linked article, or be easy to cite and add without convoluted reasoning. Right now the entry reads "Some people at some time think a housing project in St. Louis, Missouri won an architecture prize when it was actually another housing project in St. Louis, Missouri that won it." That's not in any way a "common misconception". Please also note trivia is not considered "encyclopedic" (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE and related links). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I added it to the article here. Fortunately, the additional material is pretty seamless and flows well with the existing content. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Western Bias
I have a question on whether this article would have a western bias. An issue with identifying something as a common misconception is the people making this article, and the articles with the information from it, are likely western due to the English language the articles are written in. I'm not sure whether a lot of these are actually applicable to most of the world, which makes this article devolve into a list of misconceptions common to the United States. I'll do a breakdown of the article:
- Food and Culture section has 3 things out of 5 in it which seem to be exclusively American, or at least non-eastern at the least.
- Law, Crime and Government has 5 out of 7 applying only to the US, and only 1/7 seemingly applying to the whole world.
- Music section seems to be all western bias
- The religion section could be a universal list of misconceptions, or it could be western culture misunderstanding Eastern culture. I am not sure as a common misconception is often subjective without research.
- Sports includes 2/3 with western bias.
- The Words, Phrases and Languages section contains 12/13 misconceptions which appear to have a western bias. Almost all of these misconceptions are based in the English language, or at least English perceptions of other languages.
- Every misconception in the history section only applies to Western history.
- In the science section, while some misconceptions may appear universal, with a bit of digging, many are western, such as the Elephant's graveyard myth, with was popularised by the Tarzan films and another 1931 American film, or the lemmings suicide myth, which originated from a Disney film. There is a lot in here to analyse, but in the inventions section at least, it appears to all be exclusively western.
To improve this article to remove the western bias, it will have to be expanded to a much larger extent to include other cultures, or merely renamed to be 'List of common western misconceptions.' I may exclusively be viewing this as an issue, and I am interested in discussion.
JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, adding entries from other cultures would be most welcome. ‘Fan death’ is one of the best ones here. I would probably hesitate to include too many items entirely specific to non-English languages, since English is supposed to be the language of en.wikipedia.org. Like if Germans assume a German word has an incorrect origin. There are probably thousands of such items for all the world’s languages. But then again, I reserve judgment until I see the proposed addition.
Keep in mind that the list criteria preclude anything not in another article. Wikipedia as a whole has a western, English language and North American bias, as noted in WP:BIAS. This list merely reflects the state of all en.wikipedia, and we can’t fix that here. The list can only globalize about as much as the whole encyclopedia. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. It does have a western bias. Perhaps, rather than trying to remove the bias, we change the title? Something like "List of common American misconceptions"? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think that would make the problem worse, not better. Making the bias explicit wouldn't remove any bias, but it would lead to the removal of the entries that ameliorate the bias. TompaDompa (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- We definitely don't want to narrow the scope geographically or linguistically. That is too arbitrary. Over on the AfD I suggested something we could add to the criteria to help guide globalisation. I'll paste it here with a few modifications.
"Entries should not be restricted to small geographic areas. Generally, only misconceptions referenced as being common across multiple countries are potentially eligible for inclusion. Misconceptions which are only common in a single country, with any believers elsewhere consisting mainly of its expatriates, are generally not eligible. Misconceptions common in only one country may be eligible for large countries with high populations but such exceptions must be well referenced as being very common throughout that country. Editors of the English Wikipedia should take care not to give undue weight to the misconceptions common in English speaking countries. Examples: Misconceptions common across the English, French, Arabic or Spanish speaking worlds are equally eligible (assuming that they meet the other criteria). Misconceptions common across regions such as West Africa, South Asia, North America or Eastern Europe are equally eligible (assuming that they meet the other criteria). Misconceptions specific to large individual countries such as China, Russia or the USA are eligible only if very common throughout the whole country but generally are not. Misconceptions specific to smaller countries or to specific regions of large countries are not eligible. (Note: This means that misconceptions common in only a few states of the USA are not eligible.) This may mean that many interesting and/or amusing candidate entries are excluded. This is intentional. This is necessary to avoid trivial and excessive entries to maintain focus on the most common misconceptions globally."
- Now that's just my idea. Other people can build on it if they want to or they can propose something completely different. At least it gets the discussion started.
- Globalising the article will probably need two approaches. Removing trivial western entries and adding non-western entries. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- If a current entry is trivial, that might be grounds for removal without considering systemic bias at all. But removing it because it's Western and kind of trivial is not helpful. We should apply the same bar of triviality to all entries, regardless of country. It only makes it worse if we have a double standard where Western entries need to be more significant than non-Western. Readers notice when you do that and it tends to decrease respect and acceptance for the cultures you're trying to spotlight. Rather than look around for Western entries to delete, it might be more helpful to go to the talk pages of WikiProjects for China or West Africa or wherever and ask editors there if they know of common misconceptions that are in existing articles that we could consider. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. But if most of the current trivial entries are western trivia then removing them helps address the imbalance as well as deal with the trivia issue. There is no need for a different standard for western entries which is why I didn't suggest one. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah. "Just saying". Nice place you got here, be a shame if something happened to it. Several editors have a habit of bringing up the need to delete entries from this list in unrelated contexts. Which then precipitates an off-topic discussion about unrelated deletions. If you know of an entry that ought to be deleted, by all means, start a new discussion about that entry. It's unhelpful to harp on that everywhere else. It tends to create a common misconception of its own: that List of common misconceptions is filled with trivia. That argument has been made and rejected many times, such as the recent AfD, the fourth in a string of failed attempts to claim this list is filled with trivia and cruft. Consensus is against that opinion, and consider WP:IDHT as advice to heed consensus.
Please post which entries are trivial in an appropriate place, or stop the hand waving allusions to theses supposedly trivial entries. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah. "Just saying". Nice place you got here, be a shame if something happened to it. Several editors have a habit of bringing up the need to delete entries from this list in unrelated contexts. Which then precipitates an off-topic discussion about unrelated deletions. If you know of an entry that ought to be deleted, by all means, start a new discussion about that entry. It's unhelpful to harp on that everywhere else. It tends to create a common misconception of its own: that List of common misconceptions is filled with trivia. That argument has been made and rejected many times, such as the recent AfD, the fourth in a string of failed attempts to claim this list is filled with trivia and cruft. Consensus is against that opinion, and consider WP:IDHT as advice to heed consensus.
- Indeed. But if most of the current trivial entries are western trivia then removing them helps address the imbalance as well as deal with the trivia issue. There is no need for a different standard for western entries which is why I didn't suggest one. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- If a current entry is trivial, that might be grounds for removal without considering systemic bias at all. But removing it because it's Western and kind of trivial is not helpful. We should apply the same bar of triviality to all entries, regardless of country. It only makes it worse if we have a double standard where Western entries need to be more significant than non-Western. Readers notice when you do that and it tends to decrease respect and acceptance for the cultures you're trying to spotlight. Rather than look around for Western entries to delete, it might be more helpful to go to the talk pages of WikiProjects for China or West Africa or wherever and ask editors there if they know of common misconceptions that are in existing articles that we could consider. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Break for bulk of text
I decided to go through other Wiki's article on this, thinking they would have their own misconceptions. I didn't go through them all, and the Korean and Iranian still have some I haven't transferred, but here are the ones that were not included in the English article. Obviously we don't have to add them all, but just for consideration that these are misconceptions that exist in other countries. Sources can be found (for most) on the Wiki's page.
- The Declaration of Liberation issued by Abraham Lincoln in September 1862 did not free all American slaves directly, so that the areas under the southern secessionists ignored the resolution, and applied only in the areas under the control of the northerners at the time are South Louisiana, Tennessee and parts Of Virginia, [3] but the Thirteenth Amendment of 1865 abolished slavery altogether.
- Cooked and unopened oysters do not harm health.
- Louis Armstrong was not born on July 4, 1900. He was born August 4, 1901.
- The Roman Catholic Church did not stifle scientific research during the Middle Ages.
- Most modern historians reject what we conceive as the Dark Ages as being that.
- Droit du seigneur was a myth. No one has found mention of it in French law, the customs of France, or the public archives of civil or fiscal litigation.
- Galileo was not sentenced to death for claiming the Earth was round. He was placed under house arrest for arguing the Earth was in motion.
- The law against shooting parachutists in wartime before they touch the ground concerns only isolated paratroopers, ie; the crew of an aircraft in distress.
- Adding oil to pasta while cooking does not prevent them from sticking. It is added to prevent water from overflowing or forming foam.
- Microwaves do not let out harmful waves. [This one requires a reference]
- The solstices and equinoxes do not necessarily fall on the 21st of the month.
- The hidden side of the moon receives on average as much light as the visible side.
- The phases of the moon have no impact on behaviour, the human metabolism or plant growth.
- Chameleons change colour mainly to regulate temperature and to communicate, not to camouflage. Some species use this ability to camouflage however.
- The Auk is a family of birds which can fly. They are often mistaken for penguins, due to two reasons. 1 - the similarity between penguins and the larger of the two auk species. In French, the word pingouin for it is also similar to the English word for penguin, the dutch word for penguin (Pinguin), the Spanish word for penguin (pinguino), and the german, italian, russian and portuguese words for penguin.
- Lemongrass does not repel mosquitos
- Sleeping in a room with Viridiplantae is not dangerous.
- Hydrogen peroxide is not a good antiseptic for treating wounds.
- Stress does not cause ulcers.
- Removing white hair does not make it appear more.
- Sugar cane fields are not burned before harvest to increase sugar levels but to expel poisonous snakes and facilitate cutting work.
- The Trendelenburg position does not treat hypotension or states of shock, and can be dangerous.
- Thales of Miletus did not come up with Thale's theorem
- Arabic numerals are of Indian, not Arab origin.
- The Big Bang does not provide an explanation of the origins of the universe, but explains the start of its evolution.
- Having small metal objects on a person does not make them attract lightning.
- Clouds consist not of gaseous water (water vapor), but small water droplets and ice crystals suspended in the air.
- The Earth's mantle consist of solid rock, not molten magma.
- The Mona Lisa, unlike its depiction in various media, notably cinema, is painted on a wooden panel, not canvas.
- The English horn is neither a horn nor English. It is a wood instrument.
- The harpsichord is not the piano's ancestor; they are not in the same family.
- There has never been a council on whether women have souls. See the article - Synod of Mâcon
- Original sin does not refer to sex, but the desire of men and women to be "like god", the equal of their creator.
- The revolutionary spirit of the French Revolution is known as freedom, equality, and fraternity, but it is freedom, equality, and rights. The former only became the official ideology of the republic with the adoption of the 1875 Consistution.
- America did not enter WW1 due to unrestricted submarine warfare. They entered after a message was encoded in which the German foreign minister touted the benefits of invading the USA to the German ambassador in Mexico.
JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, how about each day, pick the best one and add it (or propose to add it with refs), so we don't get overwhelmed. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Christopher Columbus and Flat Earth
I restored the material edited and deleted by TompaDompa. I agree that it needs to be merged with an existing entry on Columbus. I moved the entry to be closer to the existing entry to make that easier. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
These are the two entries that need to be merged:
- Medieval Europeans did not believe Earth was flat; in fact, from the time of the ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, belief in a spherical Earth remained almost universal among European intellectuals. As a result, Christopher Columbus's efforts to obtain support for his voyages were hampered not by belief in a flat Earth but by valid worries that the East Indies were farther than he realized.[1] If the Americas had not existed, he would surely have run out of supplies before reaching Asia.
- Christopher Columbus did not "prove" the earth was round. That had been known since at least 500 B.C.[2] This myth was propagated by authors like Washington Irving in A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus.[3] In fact, Columbus grossly underestimated the earth's circumference in order to justify his famous voyage of 1492. He and all of his crew would have died of starvation, thirst or scurvy had they not been lucky enough to bump into the uncharted continent of North America.[4][5][6] (See also Voyages of Christopher Columbus.)
- Likewise it is also a myth that people of the Middle Ages believed the earth was flat (See: Myth of the flat Earth). This myth was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic teachings.[7]
--David Tornheim (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think the second one can simply be deleted; all the necessary information is in the first one. We should avoid making the entries overly detailed as that hampers readability. TompaDompa (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I prefer having more details, such as:
- "myth was propagated by authors like Washington Irving in A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus"
- flat earth "myth was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic teachings."
- additional WP:RS refs.
- Some of the language in the second is preferable to the first--more interesting IMHO (of course, I did write it.) For example:
- "uncharted" is more active than "If the Americas had not existed".
- "crew [dying] of starvation, thirst or scurvy" is more interesting to visualize than "running out of supplies".
- "since at least 500 B.C." (reflecting Spherical Earth) is probably more accurate than "from the time of the ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, belief in a spherical Earth remained almost universal among European intellectuals", which lacks WP:RS, may overstate universality of agreement, and gives more credit to Plato and Aristotle than they likely deserve, rather than intellectuals like Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Eratosthenes who appear to have had much greater influence in moving beliefs towards the spherical earth. It's not clear to me if there was a step-change to acceptance of a spherical earth or if it was a gradual change over some centuries.
- --David Tornheim (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC) (revised)
- I think the extra details on the origins are unnecessary here. They can go on the respective articles. I don't feel strongly about the different phrasings. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. That leaves far less in dispute. How do you feel about including more WP:RS refs? I can make the changes in the older version to reflect my preferences on phrasings. I assume you would have no objection to that? As for the origins of the myths, we need input from at least one other editor to break the impasse on that. I am not certain if it is better to start the change in the article now, or wait for additional feedback. What do you think? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- As long as it doesn't reach WP:OVERCITE levels, more sources is fine. I say start editing now. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm done with the merge/changes. Feel free to comment on my changes below. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- As long as it doesn't reach WP:OVERCITE levels, more sources is fine. I say start editing now. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. That leaves far less in dispute. How do you feel about including more WP:RS refs? I can make the changes in the older version to reflect my preferences on phrasings. I assume you would have no objection to that? As for the origins of the myths, we need input from at least one other editor to break the impasse on that. I am not certain if it is better to start the change in the article now, or wait for additional feedback. What do you think? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think the extra details on the origins are unnecessary here. They can go on the respective articles. I don't feel strongly about the different phrasings. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I prefer having more details, such as:
References
- ^ Louise M. Bishop (2010). "The Myth of the Flat Earth". In Stephen Harris; Bryon L. Grigsby (eds.). Misconceptions about the Middle Ages. Routledge. ISBN 9781135986667. Retrieved 26 January 2014.
- ^ "Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
- ^ "Washington Irving's Columbus and the Flat Earth – Darin Hayton". dhayton.haverford.edu. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
- ^ Ferris, Timothy (2003). Coming of Age in the Milky Way. Harper Perennial. ISBN 978-0060535957.
- ^ "Everything You Need To Know About Columbus | AMERICAN HERITAGE". www.americanheritage.com. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
- ^ "Top 5 Misconceptions About Columbus". Live Science. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
- ^ "Science Versus Christianity?". www.patheos.com. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
Revised / Merged Version #1
I'm done making the changes/merge (12 edits, 2 more edits). Here is what I have (permalink):
- Medieval Europeans did not believe Earth was flat. Scholars have known the earth is spherical since at least 500 B.C. [1] This myth was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic teachings.[2]
- Christopher Columbus's efforts to obtain support for his voyages were hampered not by belief in a flat Earth but by valid worries that the East Indies were farther than he realized.[3] In fact, Columbus grossly underestimated the earth's circumference because of two calculation errors.[4] He and all of his crew would have died of starvation, thirst or scurvy had they not been lucky enough to bump into the uncharted continent of North America.[5][6][7]
- The myth that Columbus proved the earth was round was propagated by authors like Washington Irving in A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus.[8][9]
I welcome feedback.
--David Tornheim (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- ^ "Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
- ^ "Science Versus Christianity?". www.patheos.com. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
- ^ Louise M. Bishop (2010). "The Myth of the Flat Earth". In Stephen Harris; Bryon L. Grigsby (eds.). Misconceptions about the Middle Ages. Routledge. ISBN 9781135986667. Retrieved 26 January 2014.
- ^ "Columbus's Geographical Miscalculations". IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. Retrieved 2018-10-03.
- ^ Ferris, Timothy (2003). Coming of Age in the Milky Way. Harper Perennial. ISBN 978-0060535957.
- ^ "Everything You Need To Know About Columbus | AMERICAN HERITAGE". www.americanheritage.com. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
- ^ "Top 5 Misconceptions About Columbus". Live Science. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
- ^ "Washington Irving's Columbus and the Flat Earth – Darin Hayton". dhayton.haverford.edu. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
- ^ "Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
Pre-ejaculate
Popular belief – dating to a 1966 Masters and Johnson study[1] – stated that pre-ejaculate may contain sperm that can cause pregnancy, which is a common basis of argument against the use of coitus interruptus (withdrawal) as a contraceptive method. However, pre-ejaculate is ineffectual at causing pregnancy.[2][3]
Benjamin (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- In theory an item like this could land on this list, but to me it looks like one of those cases where it's too hazy. Even if some newer studies make a strong statement, we will still have some reliable sources who continue to say the opposite. Many science and medical questions remain forever up for debate, even when most experts are in agreement. It's very much like political/economic questions.
I can't figure out what Pre-ejaculate is trying to say here. Can you go to Talk:Pre-ejaculate and see if you can get consensus for some more definitive language? It kind of looks like that's not possible because you've got a handful of conflicting studies with lots of "may" and "might" conclusions. "Pre-ejaculate is ineffectual at causing pregnancy" is not the same as the statement "You can't get pregnant from pre-ejaculate". The article Coitus interruptus isn't very consistent with Pre-ejaculate. There would need to be consensus for a clearer statement in both articles, and the coitus interruptus article appears to say the sources are even more contradictory than the pre-ejaculate article.
Aside from that, pre-ejaculate is only one of the reasons withdraw is an ineffective birth control method, and so even if one were to prove that pre-ejaculate contains zero sperm, ever, for anybody (unlikely) it's still kind of a meaningless point. There's a common misconception that pulling out works, and a common believe that it's bound to fail, and among those who believe it is poor birth control, there are varying opinions as to why it is ineffective. A "common misconception" requires a little more straightforward erroneous belief. People who are right about coitus interruptus, but for a mixture wrong reasons and right reasons, are still basically right. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sources disagree so this would not be any kind of misconception. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- IF it is reworded to accurately reflect the diversity of opinions in sources with WP:NPOV weight -AND- one or more sources says it is a myth, misconception or point of confusion, THEN I would support its inclusion. Assuming Dennis Bratland's comment is correct, there is not general agreement that the probably of pregnancy from pre-ejaculate is basically 0%, but there may be a consensus that it is likely near 0%, with the common hedge words you see in scientific writing about cause and effect. I would agree then it's not entirely black/white.
- There is also the more straightforward question, "Does pre-ejaculate have sperm?" That might be the real myth.
- I'm not yet convinced there is no myth, but I believe the wording proposed above will need to be re-worked if it is to be included. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's a fair way of putting it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr is right too, putting it succinctly. Some misconceptions could theoretically be on this list, but we exclude them because it's too difficult to sort out which sources to believe and to write the claim with enough qualifications to be correct. Since this list is long and difficult to maintain, we have to stick with entries that are clear and on solid ground. The low hanging fruit. Pre-ejaculate will constantly be challenged.
Under the human sexuality heading, we only have two items and we could easily add four or five very strongly supported common misconceptions related to virginity, virginity tests, the hymen and so on. Right in the lead of anal sex it says "While anal sex is commonly associated with male homosexuality, research shows that not all gay males engage in anal sex and that it is not uncommon in heterosexual relationships." There's plenty such of low hanging fruit for anyone who wants to expand the human sexuality topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's a fair way of putting it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr is right too, putting it succinctly. Some misconceptions could theoretically be on this list, but we exclude them because it's too difficult to sort out which sources to believe and to write the claim with enough qualifications to be correct. Since this list is long and difficult to maintain, we have to stick with entries that are clear and on solid ground. The low hanging fruit. Pre-ejaculate will constantly be challenged.
- Misconceptions are black or white/right or wrong. If there is a "diversity of opinions" then we can not claim there is a "misconception" in Wikipedia's voice per WP:YESPOV---> Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's an overstatement. The WP:V and WP:NPOV policies don't go that far. The essay Verifiability, not truth presents a detailed argument for why we don't adhere to such a rigid definition of "fact" as equivalent to "The Truth". But perhaps for purposes this list that's one way of identifying what I was calling the "low hanging fruit", those misconceptions which are very unlikely to be seriously challenged. But such a strict standard is not how Wikipedia generally determines what can be stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Dennis Bratland's analysis. Few things are completely black/white, even in science. Just ask Heisenberg. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- In my experience it's generally white.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Things that are "gray" can be treated in Wikipedia explaining the different views and following Verifiability, not truth, but that should be done at another article, not on this List. This List has a statement of fact in its title so we are already making a POV statement (taking sides) just adding an item here. Things added here should be a "fact" or very, very, very close to a "fact" (only counter amounts to WP:FRINGE) i.e. "very low hanging fruit". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Things that are "gray" can be treated in Wikipedia...but that should be done at another article, not on this List.
I strongly disagree. I see no problem with gray items. People can think something is gray that is black/white. People can think something is black/white that is gray. People can believe something is far more or less likely than it is. (gray vs. gray). (e.g. probability of lighting striking twice in the same place, probability of a dice roll being less likely if it already come up, or probability of winning a hand is increased or decreased if you just won or lost a hand, etc.) There are many myths about gambling based on faulty knowledge of probability, and there are equally many complicated betting strategies based on those myths. I might add some gambling myths in they aren't already in the article!This List has a statement of fact in its title
It does not. It's about misconceptions, which can be about the things I described in the above a paragraph. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)- There are facts that are not seriously contested at all, excluding the old 'fringe' loons, which we don't cite at all. Then there are facts which are seriously contested, so that we treat them as opinions. But in between the two, there are facts that are contested by reliable sources (not fringe, not lunatics) but nonetheless are not seriously contested. We can acknowledge that not all reliable sources are 100% on board, without diminishing the level of consensus by misidentifying a fact as a mere opinion. That's one way of thinking about the gray area.
We do seem to agree about the pre-ejaculate question here, so there's no reason to bicker over it. And we know of many potential additions which are on very solid ground, without having to spend a lot of energy debating. Looking at the virginity related armistices I mentioned, there are a number of easy ones. If someone wants to make the effort to push through one of the harder ones in the gray areas, most of us here wouldn't reject it out of hand. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are facts that are not seriously contested at all, excluding the old 'fringe' loons, which we don't cite at all. Then there are facts which are seriously contested, so that we treat them as opinions. But in between the two, there are facts that are contested by reliable sources (not fringe, not lunatics) but nonetheless are not seriously contested. We can acknowledge that not all reliable sources are 100% on board, without diminishing the level of consensus by misidentifying a fact as a mere opinion. That's one way of thinking about the gray area.
- In my experience it's generally white.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Dennis Bratland's analysis. Few things are completely black/white, even in science. Just ask Heisenberg. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's an overstatement. The WP:V and WP:NPOV policies don't go that far. The essay Verifiability, not truth presents a detailed argument for why we don't adhere to such a rigid definition of "fact" as equivalent to "The Truth". But perhaps for purposes this list that's one way of identifying what I was calling the "low hanging fruit", those misconceptions which are very unlikely to be seriously challenged. But such a strict standard is not how Wikipedia generally determines what can be stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Misconceptions are black or white/right or wrong. If there is a "diversity of opinions" then we can not claim there is a "misconception" in Wikipedia's voice per WP:YESPOV---> Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
We do seem to agree about the pre-ejaculate question here
Do we? What do you consider the agreement? I lost track in the discussion about black/white.
Looking at the virginity related armistices I mentioned, there are a number of easy ones. If someone wants to make the effort to push through one of the harder ones in the gray areas, most of us here wouldn't reject it out of hand.
Go for it! ;) --David Tornheim (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Masters, W.H. (1966). Johnson, V.E. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. p. 211.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
zukerman
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Researchers find no sperm in pre-ejaculate fluid". Contraceptive Technology Update. 14 (10): 154–156. October 1993. PMID 12286905.
Friendship paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_paradox
The friendship paradox is the phenomenon first observed by the sociologist Scott L. Feld in 1991 that most people have fewer friends than their friends have, on average.[1] It can be explained as a form of sampling bias in which people with greater numbers of friends have an increased likelihood of being observed among one's own friends. In contradiction to this, most people believe that they have more friends than their friends have.[2]
Benjamin (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Would help if you supplied 4 or 5 reliable sources stating its a common misconception instead of keeping us guessing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Read the article yourself. Also, stop trying to imply that some arbitrary number of sources is a requirement. Benjamin (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Try reading WP:V some day. Anyway, fails #2 and #3 so far. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Where exactly does it say that "4 or 5" sources are required? Benjamin (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- How about one for starters? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- It does not fail #2 or #3. #3 is easily met with Friendship paradox. #2 is met from ref [2] in the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: I am starting to understand the frustration you felt that led you to file the WP:AN/I complaint you did. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Don't ping me to this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Don't ping me to this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Okay to include -- Interesting stuff. Do you know if the ref. [2] was cited in other secondary psychology journal articles? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Go ahead and add it to the list. If the wording or citations aren't quite perfect, we can always make some adjustments. This is a pretty good example of a fact that is "uncontested and uncontroversial". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support -Agree with consensus here, this should be included. Squatch347 (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Lightning Striking Twice
Support for adding misconception about lighting striking twice, using [18], [19], [20] and linking to Lightning#In_culture_and_religion? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- This misconception is already on the page. (JoshMuirWikipedia on mobile) 1.127.105.227 (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ooops. I did a search on it, and it didn't come. My search must have been a typo. That was a lot of time wasted looking for the best sources! LOL. Maybe one of them is better than what's in the article... --David Tornheim (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Food and Cooking Issues
Fortune Cookies:
- Source [2] - Snopes - On Wikipedia, generally if Snopes is used and lists sources, use the sources instead of just listing Snopes.
Searing Meats:
- Source [3] - Cookthink - :This source uses source [4], Harold McGee, as its source, so we are pretty much using source [4] twice. Cookthink is also a now defunct website which gave recipes based on user's cravings, hardly reliable.
- I know that the policy on this article is to format entries as corrections, implying the misconception, rather than stating them, this misconception raises an issue for me. This article is a 'list of common misconceptions', and by not stating the misconception, it does not serve its title. It is also difficult for readers, who come for a list of common misconceptions, and receive a correction for a misconception they do not know about.
Cooking Alcohol:
- Source [6] - Weil - This source comes from Dr Andrew Weil. He is a celebrity doctor who mainly deals with Alternative Medicine, thus medical information from him should not be considered mainstream. This source could, however, be used to identify it as a common misconception.
- The article linked to, Cooking with alcohol, does not list this as a misconception.
Twinkies:
- [9] - USA Today - This article says the shelf life of Twinkies has increased from 26 days to 45. Source [10], which is what is used in the article, says the shelf life (which no-where says original) was 'more like' 25 days. Our article lists the 'original formulation' shelf life, which sources no-where mention, instead they just mention a formulation which has been used in the past, with no reference to whether this was the original formulation. Our article also lists this 'original' shelf life as 25, even though the source is vague about it being 25, with a more specific 26 listed in a source we already have.
- Most sources describe this belief as an urban legend, not a misconception. For the purposes of this article I'm not sure whether that means anything, but we should probably take it out as we do not want to start listing urban legends with the misconceptions. Alternatively the sources I have read may have been a minority, so multiple sources stating it is a misconception should be found.
Microwave Ovens Water Resonance:
- Only one source is listed for this, although it is a good source.
JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Twinkies--Okay to remove I just read the Twinkie "urban myth" too, and although it is mentioned in one of the articles, I would rather take this one out. Here's why: Although I am sure the sell-by date on milk and other refrigerated perishables is based on regulations for consumer safety, I believe products with as many preservatives as Twinkies base the expiration date on taste.
- I stocked a Coke machine with drinks at cost, and many times a significant percentage of the drinks would not sell before the sell-by date. My boss wanted them thrown out, which seemed wasteful. I had a hunch they were fine to drink even long after the sell-by date. I looked into it both on the website and talking to the distributor, and for the most part the expiration date was indeed about taste rather than safety. (Interesting fact: the Diet Cokes and other drinks with aspartame go bad much more quickly than the drinks with HFCS or real sugar like Coke, especially if they get hot.) I was told they were still safe to drink even if they tasted bad. If you want WP:RS on any of this, let me know.
- So, when people say Twinkies don't "go bad", I think they mean, they don't decompose and rot. That's why the guy was able to save a Twinkie for 30 years. So, it's probably not exactly a "myth", just because the manufacturer tells you to throw them away because they will taste bad. Not sure about those McDonald's hamburgers that look fresh 2 years later. :) [21]
- And by the way, bottled water often has expiration dates too, and no, it's not because the water rots. :) [22] --David Tornheim (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if sources use the exact words "urban myth" or "urban legend" or "folk tale" rather than the specific phrase we happen to have chosen for this list, "common misconception". If a number of people think it's true, or at least think it has a strong basis in truth, it's a common misconception. If a significant number of people think it's probably true, it's a common misconception. It's utterly besides the point to be discussing whether the shelf life of Twinkies is 25 days or 100 days or 100 years. The point is, a lot of people believe Twinkies, and several similar foods, have indefinite shelf life. That's all.
We just need to say it in simpler words: "Twinkies do not have an indefinite shelf life". Full stop. Done. Confused? Questions? Click the links. TV Tropes has an extensive list of examples of Twinkies being the near-universal go-to item, though irradiated food, canned food (peaches for some reason in The Road and The City of Ember), and fruitcake are often included. So it could say "Preserved foods like Twinkies, fruitcake, canned food, or irradiated food such as MREs do not have indefinite shelf life." Done.
I strongly disagree with this recent trend of deleting items by lawyering the words and hairsplitting between urban legend and common misconception, or getting hung up on details like how many days a Twinkie's official shelf life is. Don't nuke an entry because an irrelevant detail is wrong. Delete the irrelevant detail or just fix it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Fruitcake#Shelf_life is an interesting boundary case. "Almost" edible after 106 years, if it contains a lot of alcohol. But almost! Not actually edible, though several decades of shelf life is probably the limit here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I hear you. This is not a technicality about whether it meets the requirements for inclusion. It meets the requirements.
- This is a an editorial choice to leave it out, because I feel it is misleading to omit this:
- My main objection, which would need RS (e.g. [23],[24],[25],[26],[27]), is that the twinkies, bottled water, and sodas don't go "bad" and rot like milk, yogurt, fruit, meat, etc. into something that will make you sick. Consider Michael Pollun's Food Rules, that include "If it doesn't rot, don't eat it." [28] To me, those who are calling it a myth, including the companies, are conflating sell-by dates for taste with expiration dates for safety.
- This article says, "Last year, we ate a 1987 Twinkie...delicious" which disagrees with the company rep. who speculated a 30-year old twinkie would taste bad.
- I tend to be more of an inclusionist and want to inform, so if some of the above can be included, I would be okay keeping it.
- --David Tornheim (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if sources use the exact words "urban myth" or "urban legend" or "folk tale" rather than the specific phrase we happen to have chosen for this list, "common misconception". If a number of people think it's true, or at least think it has a strong basis in truth, it's a common misconception. If a significant number of people think it's probably true, it's a common misconception. It's utterly besides the point to be discussing whether the shelf life of Twinkies is 25 days or 100 days or 100 years. The point is, a lot of people believe Twinkies, and several similar foods, have indefinite shelf life. That's all.
Acne
Acne is mostly caused by genetics, rather than lack of hygiene or other personal faults.
Sources at the article. Benjamin (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have WP:RS that could be added to the acne article that people believe it is caused by hygiene or "personal faults"? I didn't see it in the article, but maybe it is there somewhere. Actually, I just looked with Google and this would probably work. It does list two other myths. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia
Should there be a list of common misconceptions about Wikipedia? (Perhaps not in the article space, but in Wikipedia space?) Here's one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANONYMOUS "Many people refer to IP editing as "anonymous editing." But in reality, IP editing is less anonymous than registering a username." Benjamin (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- In a List? No (so far), we as editors do not find examples and analyze them. In an essay? Yeah sure. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the no original research policy only applies to the article namespace. WP:What Wikipedia is not is in many ways such a list. The Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid series exists primarily to answer frequent misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch is one of many pages that addresses common mistakes or misconceptions about writing. Essays like Wikipedia:Wikipedia is anonymous or WP:Anonymity deal with the IP misconceptions. There's no reason not to make a page or navbox that groups these under the related topic of misconceptions about Wikipedia.
To exist in the article namespace, it would all need to be sourced to non-Wikipedia sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the no original research policy only applies to the article namespace. WP:What Wikipedia is not is in many ways such a list. The Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid series exists primarily to answer frequent misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch is one of many pages that addresses common mistakes or misconceptions about writing. Essays like Wikipedia:Wikipedia is anonymous or WP:Anonymity deal with the IP misconceptions. There's no reason not to make a page or navbox that groups these under the related topic of misconceptions about Wikipedia.