Talk:List of common misconceptions#Spaghetti bolognese
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes|disclaimer=no|bottom=yes}}
{{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.
}}
{{American English}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{Article history|action1=AFD
|action1date=18:42, 29 October 2006
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misconceptions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=84390149
|action2=AFD
|action2date=9:29, 24 March 2009
|action2link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination)
|action2result=keep
|action2oldid=279300637
|action3=AFD
|action3date=11:11, 8 February 2011
|action3link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination)
|action3result=no consensus
|action3oldid=412627218
|action4=FLC
|action4date=17:11, 25 April 2011
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of common misconceptions/archive1
|action4result=not promoted
|action4oldid=425807313
|action5=AFD
|action5date=22:10, 26 September 2018
|action5link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination)
|action5result=keep
|action5oldid=861373608
|action6=AFD
|action6date=22 December 2023
|action6link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (5th nomination)
|action6result=keep
|action6oldid=1191265677
|topic = history
|currentstatus=FFLC
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=List|1=
{{WikiProject Lists|class=List |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Food and drink|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Literature|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Sports}}
{{WikiProject Technology}}
{{WikiProject Popular Culture|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=High}}
}}
{{Press
|author=
|title=The end of Wikipedia as we know it?
|org=Irish Times (subscription required)
|url=http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2011/0810/1224302179868.html
|date=8 August 2011
|quote=Here's our Wikipedia Articles Worth Reading (first listed)
|archiveurl=
|archivedate=
|accessdate = February 21, 2013
|author2=Toby Manhire
|title2=Common misconceptions: 10 of the best
|org2=New Zealand Listener
|url2= http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/common-misconceptions-10-of-the-best/
|date2= February 14, 2013
|quote2=... one of its best pages ...
|archiveurl2=http://www.webcitation.org/6EbkZJJwp
|archivedate2=February 21, 2013
|accessdate2= February 21, 2013
|author3 = Alexis Kleinman, Maxwell Strachan
|title3 = The 49 Most Entertaining Wikipedia Entries Ever Created
|org3 = The Huffington Post
|url3 = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/strangest-wikipedia-entries_n_6463488.html
|date3 = January 14, 2015
|accessdate3 = March 8, 2015
|author4 = Nick Douglas
|title4 = Get Smart With Wikipedia's List of Common Misconceptions
|org4 = LifeHacker
|url4 = http://lifehacker.com/get-smart-with-wikipedia-s-list-of-common-misconception-1797840410
|date4 = August 15, 2017
|accessdate4 = September 10, 2017
|url5=https://www.buzzfeed.com/eleanorbate/wiki-pages-to-keep-you-awake-add-yours
|title5=What Totally Fascinating Wikipedia Pages Have Kept You Reading All Night?
|org5=BuzzFeed
|author5=Ellie Bate
|date5=November 22, 2017
|url6=https://mashable.com/article/best-wikipedia-rabbit-holes
|title6=10 Wikipedia rabbit holes to fall down instead of doomscrolling
|org6=Mashable
|author6=Cecily Mauran
|date6=February 5, 2022
}}
{{To do}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive index
|mask=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 35
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive %(counter)d
|small=
}}
{{high traffic
|date=4 January 2011 |site=xkcd |url=http://www.xkcd.com/843/
|date2=12 January 2011 |site2=Boing Boing |url2=http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/11/wikipedias-list-of-c.html
|date3=3 February 2011 |site3=i am bored |url3=https://web.archive.org/web/20150909223542/http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=56483
|small=
}}
{{annual readership|scale=log}}
{{Xreadership}}
__TOC__
Pseudoscience vs "Common Misconception"
Entries include:
"Herbal medicines are not necessarily safe and side-effect free; such medicines can have adverse effects."
"There is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that crystal healing has any effect beyond acting as a placebo."
Are these really common misconceptions? How widespread are they? The former is vague enough to be a catch-all that even practitioners of herbal medicine might agree with; the latter is fringe. Pseudoscience ≠ common misconception
Likewise, there are no entries on chiropractic or acupuncture, whose value and efficacy are supremely and commonly overestimated. Even if hedged for controversy, there are definitive statements that could be made - and worthy of inclusion, regardless.
And obviously the above is nonexhaustive. This is just what I noticed when browsing the page. 45.50.184.185 (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
:Acceptable content on Wikipedia is determined by citation to reliable sources. Take one minute to look at the cited sources. If you have reliable sources regarding chiropractic or acupuncture, feel free to provide them here. Sundayclose (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Pyramids of Egypt and Slave Labor
Given that the topic is still under debate by Egyptologists, I think that listing this as a "common misconception" is misleading.
Corvee labor can, in my opinion, be plausibly described as slavery, though it isn't the same as chattel slavery that modern Americans might be most familiar with.
Sources that support the idea that slavery was used for the construction of the pyramids:
Edward Frank Wente and Edmund S. Meltzer, Letters from Ancient Egypt, vol. 1 of Writings from the Ancient World (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), 74. (Primary source)
Mazzone, David. “The Dark Side of a Model Community: The ‘Ghetto’ of El-Lahun.” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architecture 2 (2017).
Miers, Suzanne. “Slavery: A Question of Definition.” The Structure of Slavery in Indian Ocean Africa and Asia. Edited by Gwyn Campbell. Studies in Slave and Post-Slave Societies and Cultures. Portland, OR: Frank Cass Publishers, 2005.
Langer, Christian. “Forced Labour and Deportations in Ancient Egypt: Recent Trends and Future Possibilities” 2.19 (2020).
I am drawing from the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpyWYcNP0Rw AbeAllowed (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:I don't have access to the sources cited above, but if as you say "the topic is still under debate by Egyptologists" the entry should be removed from the article as it is a matter of ongoing dispute.
:Do you have a link to support that claim?
:The topic article, Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt#Great_Pyramids_not_built_by_slaves, seems to contradict your assertion. I'd suggest sorting it out there rather than here.
:Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
eBay
Could there be an addition, eBay was not created to sell Pez dispensers? Best source found
https://www.woot.com/blog/post/the-debunker-was-ebay-founded-as-a-way-to-trade-pez-dispensers-1
“PR manager Mary Lou Song, admitted that she had invented the Pez story after the fact, in hopes of attracting media attention.”
https://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/smallbusiness/1103/gallery.business_creation_myths/index.html
Media outlets believed the story, there are still these stories online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C601:6010:AC06:AD02:50D2:8655 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Convert to a simple list of lists
I have to express admiration for the effort involved in constructing this page. The technical wrangling used to bypass the standard referencing system is impressive. Sadly however, this is like admiring the craft involved in removing the speed limiter on a juggernaut – nifty but unwise. This article needs to be changed to a short, simple introduction and then a set of links to the "children" pages. The three other "children" articles can then be simplified to be plain standard lists without any of the heading trouble and the many hundreds of {{code|noinclude}} tags — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
:The RFC that resulted in the current situation is at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_34#RFC_on_number_of_pages_to_split_to. It's less than six months old. Perhaps consensus has changed in that time, but I' skeptical.
:My take is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Others may have other opinions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
::The RFC closed with {{TQ|There is a rough consensus for three lists}}. That is fine, having three lists is not the issue. The issue is trying to have those three lists AND also keep the original page with the complete list. The current system of transculsions is broken and being reported as an error, which is why I arrived at the pages. For example, a child page starts with a H3 heading and not a H2 – see https://checkwiki.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/checkwiki.cgi?project=enwiki&view=only&id=83. The huge use of {{code|noinclude}} tags is hostile to systems that process references as well as adding unnecessary overhead to editing. The parent page should be a simple index to the other pages, which can themselves be simplified and fixed — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 06:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Recently there was a discussion about moving the three sub-articles to the template space with no one objecting to that solution to the header problem. @Dajasj (talk) was going to implement that solution, however, it didn't get done for whatever reason. See the discussion at
:::Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_35#Headings.
:::Reading through the various comments on splitting, there is a consensus to address the technical issues, but only minority support for splitting the article for editorial reasons. Moving the three articles to the template space would seem to address the technical issues. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:::: Moving article text to template space is absolutely the wrong move. The child articles are still articles — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, but currently, the child articles do not meet the guidelines for headings. That's something that has to be solved to keep it as articles in the main space imo. Dajasj (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I hadn't thought about it. If there is (still) consensus I can do it soon. Dajasj (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Also, this solution to the header problem was tried. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions_about_science,_technology,_and_mathematics&oldid=1280763448] We didn't follow through with it, but it's an alternative. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:It is broke. Just fix it. Fixing it is simple. Make this article a plain, real, list of lists article and the others into plain, real, list articles (in article space) with correct headings. Normal. Compliant. Quick. Easy. Simple. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
::Left it for a week. There has been no further feedback, so fixing the pages — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 14:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Y}} — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Should the :list of common misconceptions about the Middle Ages be given its own line item? It's a subsection in the :list of common misconceptions about history. Carguychris (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Maybe. Probably not – the Middle Ages article is large enough to exist on its own. I have added it to the main index. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 16:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
::::The sciences article is also rather large (over 500 refs!) – it should probably be split into "sciences" vs "technologies". Several smaller chunks would be better, because nobody will ever agree which stuff goes in which part if there are just two halves {{kitty}} — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 16:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
:::No one other than you has weighed in to support this. Reverting.
:::Obtain consensus here before edit warring. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
::::To elaborate, the current status was the result of a long process of consensus building including an RFC. I understand your criticisms, but no one other than you has offered support for this major change. I was being quiet to let others state their opinion, and figured that if nobody "seconded" your proposal it would die from lack of support. I was surprised that it was implemented without any support from the talk page.
::::Let's obtain consensus here before making this major change. If the consensus is to implement the non-transclusion solution I will respect that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Help with <noinclude>
I added a bit about the etymology of the word kangaroo, but when I tried to put the
:Don't mind me, I guess it just takes a little bit to show up properly. Ash assists (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
::Right. Changes to the transcluded pages do not appear immediately in the main article. But it's pretty fast - I haven't timed it but it's usually less than a minute. And thanks for adding the kangaroo entry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)