Talk:List of common misconceptions#%22Mama Cass%22

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

:How about this:

::Diplomatic missions do not necessarily enjoy full extraterritorial status and are generally not sovereign territory of the represented state. The sending state can give embassies sovereign status but this only happens with a minority of countries. Although they receive special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations the premises of an embassy remain under the jurisdiction of the host state.{{cite web |url=http://integrity-legal.com/legal-blog/miscellaneous/laws-and-rules-regarding-extraterritoriality/ |title=Laws and Rules Regarding Extraterritoriality |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414125434/http://integrity-legal.com/legal-blog/miscellaneous/laws-and-rules-regarding-extraterritoriality/ |archive-date=2021-04-14 |url-status=dead |website=integrity-legal.com |quote=There is a common misconception that Embassies and Consulates have extraterritoriality. As anecdotal evidence of this misconception, people will often say things like, 'the US Embassy sits upon United States soil.' For the most part, this is not the case as extraterritoriality is not conferred upon an Embassy or Consulate, but in some situations extraterritoriality may be created by Treaty.}}

{{reflist-talk}}

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

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

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

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

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

{{Notice|image=Text-x-generic with pencil.svg |header=Inclusion Criteria|A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list has not been reached. It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first.

:Any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following:

:#The common misconception's main topic 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.

:If you have an item to add that does not fulfill these criteria but you still think should be included, please suggest it on the talk page with your rationale for inclusion.

}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Colors and their names are highly subjective and disagreement over semantics does not constitute a misconception. See [https://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ XKCD Color Survey] for details. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

See Stachybotrys chartarum

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

:The topic article is not clear about this. See Stachybotrys_chartarum#Potential_toxicity. Seems like a matter of ongoing dispute, not a settled question. And then there's the notice at the top of the page: {{More medical citations needed|date=November 2022}}

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

Entries include:

"Herbal medicines are not necessarily safe and side-effect free; such medicines can have adverse effects."

"There is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that crystal healing has any effect beyond acting as a placebo."

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

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

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

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