Talk:List of common misconceptions

Proposed entry: Wikipedia is not a reliable source

See title. Some sources:[1],[2], [3], [4], and [5] 68.188.156.135 (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You have not shown that there is a misconception that Wikipedia is a reliable source. Two of the sources are actually about bias rather than reliability, two explicitly say that Wikipedia is not a reliable source (one goes so far as to state ' “Wikipedia is not a reliable source” is a phrase we have all heard at least once in our lives.', the opposite of evidence of the misconception. The fifth source is about an attempt to identify who added hoax material in a biography in 2005 Meters (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

“Radiation is not always dangerous”

This item has been tweaked since January but still does not belong in this article.  It remains advocacy for one side of an undecided scientific question.  

The claim that “radiation is not always dangerous” directly contradicts the linear no-threshold (LNT) model affirmed by most major official bodies with relevant expertise (see Wikipedia’s Radiation Hormesis article).  According to LNT, some degree of danger -- however slight -- does exist down to zero dose. The LNT model is disputed, but that’s the point -- there’s a scientific dispute.  That alone should get this item cut from Common Misconceptions.

Given the above, it doesn’t matter what text follows the opening statement; the item can't be rescued by adjusting the text. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that the text is riddled with question-begging, irrelevance, and weaseling:

•  “Radiation is ubiquitous on Earth's surface, and humans are adapted to survive at normal Earth radiation levels.”  Irrelevant, because something that is ubiquitous, and which humans are adapted to survive, may still be dangerous; air pollution is ubiquitous, survivable, and dangerous. Gravity and viruses are ubiquitous, survivable, and dangerous. Whether low-level ionizing radiation is ubiquitous, survivable, and dangerous is an unsettled empirical question. The best-available official answer (e.g., BEIR VII) is, so far, “Yes” -- the LNT model.

•  “Everything is safely non-toxic at sufficiently low doses, even . . . high-energy forms of radiation.”  Begs the question. Whether high-energy forms of radiation  are “safely non-toxic at sufficiently low doses” is precisely what is at stake in the unsettled debate between LNT and hormesis.

• "everything becomes toxic at sufficiently high doses, even water and oxygen" -- True but irrelevant to whether radiation (or anything else) becomes nontoxic at sufficiently low doses.

•  “Indeed, the relationship between dose and toxicity is often non-linear, and many substances that are toxic at high doses have neutral or positive health effects, or are biologically essential, at moderate or low doses.”  True but misleading: that “many substances” have nonlinear effects does not tell us whether ionizing radiation has nonlinear effects, or effects nonlinear enough, and in such a way, as to make it harmless at sufficiently low doses. That is precisely what is at stake in the unresolved LNT/hormesis debate.

•  “There is some evidence to suggest that this is true for ionizing radiation; normal levels of ionizing radiation may serve to stimulate and regulate the activity of DNA repair mechanisms.”  Weasel wording. Yes, there is “some evidence to suggest” that hormesis "may" be real in humans, but there is also evidence to suggest that it may not be, and questions about interpretation of the evidence on both sides, which is why this remains an unresolved scientific question.

The fact that “there is some evidence to suggest” that a commonly held belief "may" be false does not suffice to make the belief a “common misconception.”

The item should be deleted in toto. Lgilman909 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you mean by "radiation". Light is radiation, and without it we wouldn't be able to see. Radio waves are radiation and despite the claims of the conspiracy minded there's no evidence that all those radio stations and cell phones are emitting dangerous levels of radiation.

That said, the entry doesn't seem to convey the fact that there are lots of ordinary, everyday encounters with radiation or to distinguish between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. So, I think the entry is problematic and I'm not even sure what the common misconception is. Does anybody really think light is dangerous?

I'm ok with removing it pending a better presentation, or just removing it without trying to salvage it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the affirmative reply, Mr. Swordfish. We're in agreement, so the following remarks are just for amplification: The item's use of "radiation" is indeed pop or soft. This could be fixed by saying "ionizing radiation" from the get-go, but the item as a whole would still be inappropriate for Common Misconceptions. It addresses what its author considers the popular misconception "All [ionizing] radiation is dangerous," but this is not a popular misconception; in the technical form of the linear no-threshold model, it's the official (albeit disputed) position of most major scientific bodies with relevant ambits (e.g., the US National Academies, which issues the BEIR reports, or the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). Lgilman909 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

So, we seem to have two "votes" for removing the entry. Anybody want to stick up for it? Otherwise lets put it on ice until a better version emerges. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, remove it. Meters (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. Less a misconception than people imparting negative attributes to a vague use of the word, like "processed foods are unhealthy because they have chemicals in them." _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We could just as well have an entry for "Chemicals are not always dangerous" if we apply the same criteria as in the radiation entry. Or "Falling is not always dangerous" or a wide range of others. I'll remove the entry and if someone wants to craft a better version I'll be happy to consider it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish: I feel like people generally tend to overestimate the risk posed by ionizing radiation exposure even in the context of LNT, but I recognize that might not be enough for it to meet the inclusion requirements of this article. Exposing to falling seems an imperfect analogy though; radiation stands out as a physical phenomenon with an exceptionally high number of orders of magnitude between "detectable" and "dangerous". VQuakr (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If you start from detecting gravity waves up to the danger zone, you might span equally unexceptional orders of magnitude. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what we consider the "danger zone". People killed in earthquakes from the tidal forces on the earth, or directly killed by tidal forces themselves? Either way, agreed it's several zeroes between the two! VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

ETA: I don't oppose the recent removal given how loosely-worded and poorly-sourced that version is. VQuakr (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Eskimo words for snow

Is this a "misconception" or a "controversial" assertion? The topic article states:

That there are an unusually large number of Eskimo words for snow is a popular claim that Eskaleut languages, specifically the Yupik and Inuit varieties, have far more words for snow than other languages, particularly English.

This claim is often used to support the controversial linguistic relativity hypothesis, also known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis or "Whorfianism". The strongest interpretation of this hypothesis, which posits that a language's vocabulary (among other features) shapes or limits its speakers' view of the world, has been challenged, though a 2010 study supports the core notion that these languages have many more words for snow than the English language. The original claim is loosely based in the work of anthropologist Franz Boas and was particularly promoted by his contemporary, Benjamin Lee Whorf, whose name is connected with the hypothesis. The idea is commonly tied to larger discussions on the connections between language and thought.

So, while the "misconception" is mentioned in the topic article, it is presented as a matter of dispute rather than a misconception. Linguistics is not my area of expertise, so I'm inclined to defer to the editors at the topic article who do not treat this as a misconception. i.e. we should remove this entry. Other opinions?

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days and nobody has stood up for retaining this entry. Absent someone arguing for it I will remove it in a few days. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeing no support for retaining this entry I'll remove it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of keeping it removed, if this ever comes up again: it seems that it may actually be true that Eskimos have a disproportionate number of words for 'snow,' and the contention is more whether this is the result of some kind of geographic determinism or not. The former might be a common misconception (if it is indeed false, which it seems it may not be), but the latter is an obscure linguistic debate which seems unlikely to be 'common' (I'd be curious if someone thinks otherwise, maybe it's more common than I realize). I'm an inclusionist about most things, but if it isn't 1) a common misconception, or 2) a misconception at all, then it doesn't belong on the page. Joe (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Housing

[6] most wa voters think building more housing wont cool prices Benjamin (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Inflation

[7] "On the contrary, 44% of respondents give relatively incorrect answers, with examples such as “The hiking of prices of consumer goods to offset the countrys debt due to elites over spending and throwing money away.”, “Price gouging, especially for the greedy, by raising prices so high, that almost everything is too expensive”,..." Benjamin (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Is the sun green?

We have an editor who is edit warring to say that the sun is green. Does anybody think that this is correct or have a cite to support it?

I'm going to remove the assertion, but that will be two reverts and I don't want to violate the three revert rule. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that the source does not say that "technically the sun is green". In fact, it says "there are many absolutely correct and absolutely different answers to this seemingly simple question." I think we can consider the "green" edits to be vandalism and revert freely. --Macrakis (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Car color affects car insurance rates, accidents, and/or tickets

From my limited reading, it appears that (in the USA) car color conclusively does not affect insurance costs and risk of being pulled over/ticketed. It may impact the buy/sell price of a car and the accident rate.

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/auto-motor/does-car-color-impact-auto-insurance-rates-412670.aspx

https://adm.monash.edu/records-archives/archives/memo-archive/2004-2007/stories/20070613/black-cars.html

https://www.rd.com/article/car-color-accidents-risk/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300804/ Anonymous-232 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The first ref is useful for evidence of a misconception about red cars getting more speeding tickets and thus being more more expensive to insure, and I would support adding it, but the last three refs are not useful. They do not mention any connection between car colour and insurance costs or likelihood of getting a ticket. As for the reported minor differences in accident rates for various colours, so what? This list is a list of misconceptions, and there is nothing mentioned about any misconception related to colour and accident rates. Meters (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hymen entry

@JoePhin added a cn tag to the assertion that "some women are born without one" and changed the wording of the first sentence from

Lack of a visible hymen is not a reliable indicator that a female has had penetrative sex

to

Lack of a visible hymen is not always an indication that a woman has had penetrative sex.

The cite says "Some people are even born without a hymen altogether, which doesn't seem to be a problem because as far as anyone can tell, the hymen has no biological purpose." so I think we have our cite. I'll remove the tag.

As for the wording, the cite states:

"Not only do hymens generally have holes in them from infancy, but there's also nothing else about them that can be used to reliably indicate sexual activity. For one thing, the tissue is fairly elastic in adults, so penetration doesn't necessarily cause any lasting changes."

So, the previous wording seems to better reflect the source. "Not always" would be true even if the indication was correct 99.9% of the time. Instead, it's just generally not a reliable indicator at all so we should say that. I'll restore the previous wording. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the relevant citations to after the text. I didn't check any of the citations that appeared before the 'born without a hymen' statement, so I missed it. As for the reliable/not always wording, I think I prefer 'not always,' since in this case, what is and isn't 'reliable' is a little vague, whereas 'not always' is 100% accurate, no matter what the actual numbers (which I don't believe we have RS for) may be. What the entry is really trying to say is that the lack of a hymen is not a perfectly reliable indicator of conventional sexual activity, which it is of course not. We could just add the word 'perfectly' in before 'reliable', or we could say 'not always', either way. I'd be curious to know your thoughts, Mr. Swordfish. Joe (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not our business as editors to make technically correct but misleading statements. Not always implies that whatever is under discussion usually occurs but there are exceptions. For instance:

If you flip a coin 32 times you don't always get 32 heads in a row.

is a technically correct statement, but would be misleading. Likewise, your language is misleading. Traditional virginity tests are unreliable, as clearly stated in the source (please read the excerpt above). Our job is to accurately reflect what the source says, not to obfuscate via a parsed "technically correct" dissembling wording.

Traditional virginity testing is pseudoscience and we should avoid language that gives it more credibility than is warranted (i.e. none). I would strongly object to inserting misleading qualifiers like perfectly that imply such tests have any reliability to determine virginity status one way or the other. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me, I'm talking about the first sentence that mentions the lack of a hymen, not the second sentence about traditional virginity tests. Modern scientific forensic rape tests assess many things, including the condition of the hymen, and while it is often not conclusive in and of itself, the hymen's condition is an indicator of whether or not conventional sexual activity has occurred. In many cases the absence of, or damage to, the hymen is indicative of conventional sexual activity, and the same Perlman source we're currently citing goes into that. Given that, I think the wording choice of 'not always' is superior to the current vague and potentially misleading phrasing - what is and isn't "reliable"? I think everyone would tell you a different cutoff point. We should strive to be precise. Joe (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look at this source [8] which clearly lays out some of the myths and misconceptions about this topic:

Myth #3: vaginal examination of the hymen can determine whether sexual assault (specifically, nonconsensual penetration) has occurred

FACT: alterations of the hymenal appearance are non-specific and, without corroboration with history and/or other forms of evidence, no medical or legal conclusion may be inferred by hymen examination alone

also

In some settings, clinicians who evaluate women and girls suspected of being victims of sexual assault, or suspected of having engaged in intercourse (with or without consent), rely on an examination of the hymen for their assessments. The hymen is a small membranous tissue outside of the vaginal canal that has no known biological function. We reviewed published studies about the hymen to help guide clinicians in evaluating whether or not a hymen examination would be a valuable practice.

We concluded that an examination of the hymen is not an accurate or reliable test of sexual activity, including sexual assault, except in very specific situations.

and the first sentence of the Summary:

There is no evidence that examination of the hymen is an accurate or reliable test of a previous history of sexual activity, including sexual assault.

and

Ultimately, evaluation of the hymen tissue, if visible, in and of itself, without supportive history, physical examination, or other forensic findings, could never answer the question of whether an individual – child or adult – had consensual or nonconsensual sex.

Given this, "not always" does not reflect what the sources say. "Not reliable or accurate" is a far better reflection of what the sourcing says.

That said, upon reading the sourcing I think that the entry should be reworded to use "examination of the hymen" instead of "Lack of a visible hymen" since that more accurately reflects the sourcing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that "examination of the hymen" wording, and I think a portion of the ncbi source you've added should be incorporated as well, namely, that it is not considered best practice to rely solely on the condition of the hymen when determining whether a woman has had sexual intercourse, e.g. "avoid relying solely on the status of the hymen in sexual assault examinations and reporting". Something along the lines of,

"On its own, an examination of the hymen is not a reliable test of a woman's or girl's sexual history."

I believe this came up a year or two ago in a related discussion, and I'd like to re-emphasize, that I do not wish to give any women reading this page the misimpression that, if they have been raped, there is no possible test that can be performed to determine if they've had a sexual encounter one way or the other: such tests do exist and they are entirely scientific. In their fervor to discredit the entirely discreditable two-finger test, I fear some editors have far too radically tried to over-correct this entry to the point that it veers into vaguery and, at several points in the past, outright falsehood, though such edits have been reverted. For example, I recently reverted an edit that had gone unchallenged for far too long, someone replaced the original "traditional virginity tests" wording with something like "1800s virginity tests" - I'm sure whichever editor made this edit thought that it sounded more punchy or that it better discredited the two-finger test (the traditional virginity test being referred to), but of course, the fact is that the two-finger test is still being administered to this day in various parts of the world, and tests to determine whether someone has had sex were not invented in the 1800s. NPOV is important, especially when dealing with subjects that many readers (and editors) find sensitive or upsetting. I'm curious to know how you feel about this wording proposal. Joe (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This entry is about virginity testing, not rape kits. If you read the article about that process it does not involve examining the hymen, since as per the source cited above doing so is not "accurate or reliable". Note that the word "hymen" does not even appear in the article on rape kits. Unless some other editors want to weigh in, it's time to move on. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I was commenting mainly about previous iterations of the entry - the current entry is mostly fine. If you don't have any objections to the proposed edits, I'm happy to call it there. Joe (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought we were done, but apparently not. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Stating

By itself, an examination of the hymen is not a reliable indicator that a woman or girl has had penetrative sex... (emphasis mine)

strongly implies that there is some other thing or things that in addition to an examination of the hymen would allow someone to draw reliable conclusions about a women's sexual history. So, what is this additional "thing" or "things"? Please show your work, including links to reliable sources.

We seem to have agreed that this entry is not about forensic tests (ie rape kits) which need to be done within a narrow 2 or 3 day window to be valid. If that's your argument, please say so.

Including "By itself," implies that there are valid virginity tests, which is very strongly at odds with the topic article which dismisses them as "pseudoscience". I'm removing the unsourced misleading language. Please try to reach consensus here before continuing to edit war. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Section ordering

Do we have a convention for the ordering of sections and subsections? Recently, an editor reordered the subsections of the religion section asking "doesn't it make sense to put Judaism before Christianity?" I can't say I disagree, but looking at the article sometimes we order things chronologically (e.g. the history section), sometimes we order things alphabetically (eg the Science, technology, and mathematics section) and sometimes I can't tell what order we use (e.g the Biology subsection).

I think it makes a lot of sense to present the history subsections in chronological order. I'm not convinced that doing that for the Religion subsection is best, partially because it's not clear whether Buddhism predates Judaism or the other way around. I can't say I have strong feelings about this one way or the other, but thought it worth bringing up for discussion. Other opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The rule on Wikipedia is "order it somehow." We need all the sections to be ordered, but we don't need the ordering to be the same for all the different sections. It makes sense for the history ones to be chronological, and it doesn't make sense for the math, technology, or religion ones, since many of those misconceptions don't relate to a single event, or span a large range of time. I'd personally say we should keep the original religion order the same as before, but it really does not matter in the grand scheme of things, as long as it is ordered according to some principle. Joe (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a strictly chronological order makes sense; agree with your concerns about Buddhism. However, it makes sense to group the Abrahamic religions together as they're related belief systems, and when they are grouped together, it makes sense to consider Judaism first as it's the base for the other religions. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)