Jump to content

Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34

Source

I'm new to this, apologies. In the law, crime and military, a misconception is listed "It is not systemic bias that causes sole custody of children to be granted more often to women than men". This points to no other article, the single source for this is [122] which appears to be a paywalled article and some author's book. Shouldn't sources be at least accessible? This seems like a book plug rather than a citation. Furthermore, the abstract linked doesn't mention anything about custody, or put forth any numbers, rather it promises a delve into the idea that women hold power over men. If this is a list of misconceptions, perhaps some solid citation about why this is false? Other misconceptions have attached files or articles proving movies have been made before or links to laws in effect. This looks like an opinion. This exact set has been added to a stub called "sole custody" where citation 8 and a throwaway phrase has been added to add legitimacy to these papers. It's also a line and citation that deals with modern politics (abstract) despite the article being about custody, a practice that is not new in law. Google seems to only list this book, this paper and these 2 wikipedia entries when looking for more info on the citations, making it circular. IMTheNdi (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL. The source is high quality. It may be accessed from any good library, including WP:TWL. Bon courage (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I used Google Books to get an excerpt of the book and the excerpt unfortunately doesn't include the claims around sole custody. Also, custody is not my area of expertise. However, the excerpt included claims in my area of expertise: False rape accusations.
The source is clearly **not** high quality.
It misrepresents the research on false rape allegations like this:
> Many MRA propagate the notion that a large number (or even the majority) of rape reports are false. This is despite studies indicating that the prevalence of false rape claims falls between 2-10% (Lisak et al 2010).
Lisak says that the number of **provably false** accusations falls between 2 and 10% (though he use "false allegation" as a shortcut for "provably false accusation"). Using the same logic as Lisak, the number of true rape allegations falls between 2-4%. And in his own research in that paper, Lisak choose to include cases where only a case number and a classification exists in the denominator. No information *at all* if it's true or false, and Lisak lets it decrease the the "false accusation rate".
Since this misrepresents the research in some areas following political lines, it clearly is not a reliable source. 89.11.150.168 (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree this assertion is problematic. The current version makes a broad and controversial assertion about the cause of a legal phenomenon (custody judgements). However, it cites just one source -- a book about pop-culture internet studies. I scoured many WP:RS and found plenty of evidence that more authoritatively contextualizes/analyzes the phenomenon.
"Determinants of Child Custody Arrangements at Divorce", Journal of Marriage and Family, https://www.jstor.org/stable/353924). Identifying many policy, legal, and personal considerations, including bias, that render higher sole custody granted to women than men.
Gardner, Richard A. "Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation." Academy forum. Vol. 29. No. 2. 1985. http://fact.on.ca/Info/pas/gardnr85.pdf. Establishing that in the development of child custody common law, the "tender years presumption" was an instance of systemic statutory bias in favor of granting child custody to women over men. Mihir.pethe1 (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Mihir.pethe1 the research you are linking to is very old, nothing is within the last 30 years. Have you seen anything more recent? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, it also looks like WP:OR interpretation of those old sources. If there are more sources on this topic which are pertinent, then the place to air them is the target article: Sole custody. Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Good call on finding recent research. I found this journal article focussed directly on the topic in contention. It was published in 2020. This academic journal article disputes the assertion in the current version of this wp article, which rests on a single reference to gender bias in a book about gamergate, a far cry from the topic of legal custody disputes.
From the abstract:
"the institutions follow an essentialist discourse when granting fathers child custody" ... "In institutions, policies and everyday practices, men are perceived and treated as the secondary parent."
Humer, Živa. "MEN'S EXPERIENCES OF GENDER (IN) EQUALITY AS A PRIMARY OR SINGLE PARENT." Teorija in praksa 56.4 (2020).
https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A7%3A3169783/detailv2?sid=ebsco%3Aplink%3Ascholar&id=ebsco%3Agcd%3A141907251&crl=c Mihir.pethe1 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems like a 2019 publication from a men's rights periodical in Slovenia(n). Not sure how that's relevant unless it dwells particularly on popular misconceptions. Is there an extract that does?. It's possible it's just aping the misconception itself. Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
@Bon courage The source is high quality. It may be accessed from any good library, including WP:TWL. Mihir.pethe1 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
im being cheeky, of course, but the onus is on the addition to the page (asserting gender bias doesn't exist in custody disputes) to substantiate itself with reliable sources. so far it has one tenuous source, as others pointed out here. i point to three academic journal articles suggesting the opposite is true, and the response sound a bit like a nitpicking suggsstive of a WP:NPOV problem.... Mihir.pethe1 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
suggesting the opposite is true ← so it's WP:OR. The misconception observation is WP:Verified by RS. We would expect to see the misconception in some publications I'm sure. I suggest making a case at Sole custody and if that changes, it can change here. Bon courage (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@Bon courage not OR. I am literally quoting from academic journals. by the way, I havent seen a direct quotation from the only source that supposedly supports the assertion that no gender bias exists. Mihir.pethe1 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I see three issues with this entry:
1) The cited source is about US behavior, but the entry tacitly extrapolates that to a broader geographic distribution.
2) The topic article, Sole_custody, states that "...it is a popular misconception common in the men's rights movement...". Is this a sufficiently broad category of people to qualify as "common misconception"?
3) It appears that the sole source is written from a distinctive point of view. That's not to say it is wrong, but it would be better to find a more disinterested source for the assertion.
Also, looking at the articles cited above, it appears that in the not too distant past custody of younger children was preferentially given to the mother. If that's the case - that is, things have changed - we should probably include some language to that effect. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Some replies:
  1. I agree that it should be clarified.
  2. Determining what constitutes a "common" belief is beyond our purview, but it should be clarified as common among MRA.
  3. I agree, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It should probably be removed until this is met.
Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree that it should be removed pending finding better sourcing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
@Mr swordfish Agreed. Will update unless any other editors raise concerns in coming week. Mihir.pethe1 (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Captions

I went through the photo captions to make them more concise and include only relevant information. Here are the guidelines I followed:

  • It's never necessary to say "a photo of", "a painting of", "an illustration of" -- that is obvious from the image itself. That is, however, appropriate in the alt text for the blind.
  • Do include facts relevant to the misconception. For example, for the misconception that sushi always contains raw seafood, it is useful to mention the fillings in Kappa-maki.
  • Don't include background information -- that belongs in the text of this article or of the main article.
  • Especially don't include additional information that has nothing to do with the misconception (e.g. that the far side of the moon has more craters).
  • Don't give background info about the image (the subject, the source) which is irrelevant to the misconception and easy to find by clicking through on the image.
  • Don't use unnecessary adjectives, adverbs, etc. ("clearly", "significantly").
  • Don't mention the common misconception itself ("despite the common belief that..."). Just state the fact or the falsity of a claim.

Happy to discuss these if anyone disagrees. --Macrakis (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This all sounds very reasonable to me. Sometimes, less is more.
I'm guilty of lazily copying some pictures from the topic articles and pasting them here without editing the captions, so thanks for editing those additions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Pictures

Looking at MOS:IMAGES, I think the usage of images could be improved:

  • There are a few places where we present a wall of text that would look better with some graphical elements
  • Some of the images we currently include don't advance the narrative, e.g. the photo of Adolf Dassler does nothing to help the reader understand the entry
  • There are some places where adding a graphic would help with understanding, e.g. the entry about the classic coca-cola bottle, which was once ubiquitous but there may be readers who have never seen coke in the classic bottle.

I'll look at addressing this in coming days, but graphical design is not my expertise, so would welcome help. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

National variety of English

Recently, there has been an edit and reversion related to the national variety of English used for this article.

According to the manual of style, MOS:ENGVAR, "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others." and "The conventions of a particular variety of English should be followed consistently within a given article."

According to MOS:RETAIN, "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary."

So, the question then becomes, what national variety of English has been established for this article?

Currently, there is a mix of American and British English. Searching for "color" vs "colour" shows that only a few entries use the British spelling, while the majority spell it color. I find similar results for "flavor" vs "flavour". I haven't researched every possible variant. but so far the results argue in favor (or favour if you prefer) of US English. A quick search of the talk page archives doesn't turn up any discussion of this issue, so perhaps no national variety has been clearly "established".

According to the manual of style: "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety."

The first instance I can find of a "fork" is from Sept 2005 where this entry was added:

  • All the color of lakes/oceans does not come from sky reflection. Water is actually a blue substance.

[1]

It would seem that the ball would be in the court of those advocating for a national variety other than US English to make their case.

Frankly, I don't really care one way or another, but these edits/revisions based on color vs colour (and other similar disputes) are tiresome and it's most expedient to just point to policy to resolve them. Plus I'd prefer to see this settled prior to splitting the article so that we don't have to deal with it in multiple places.

So, which is it? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted that colour to color because it was an unexplained spelling change in what seemed to be a stable article. Based on your findings about post stub spelling being US, I'd be satisfied with using US sp for this article. I shall revert my edit. Masterhatch (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Is steak tartare named after tartar sauce or vice versa?

This article states that steak tartare is probably named after tartar sauce (the article Steak tartare appears to be in agreement), while the article Tartar sauce claims the opposite, that it's named after steak tartare. One of these must be wrong, can we clear this up? Thank you. Neropenna (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The place to do that would be at the topic articles. If that gets straightened out then there might be an entry for this page. A quick look at those articles shows that they cite different references, which apparently say different things. That happens sometimes, and it's up to the editors at those pages to either document the conflict or determine which one is better supported by the reliable sources. I think it's worth raising the issue at the topic articles' topic pages, but this is not the venue for that discussion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Mr swordfish how does what you're saying here apply WP:NPOV? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
My cursory reading is that an WP:NPOV approach would be to adjust the two topic articles so that they are consistent, most likely just reporting that reliable sources differ. If that's the case, then it's not a candidate entry for this article. If it turns out that enough reliable sources support one vs the other then that should be reported in the topic articles, and perhaps it becomes a candidate for inclusion here.
I don't know enough about the subject to venture an opinion, and I'm not interested in researching it. This is not the venue for determining which was named after the other. Feel free to take it up on the talk pages of those articles. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you're confusing some things about this entry. I'll rectify it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
You're right. I was confused. I didn't realize this material was already in the article, I thought someone was proposing an entry that it was a misconception that the sauce was named after the steak dish, not the other way around.
It's not clear to me which came first, the steak dish or the sauce, and I haven't chased down the references to evaluate which ones are better. Since this entry is not about which came first, we don't need to come down on one side or the other here.
The topic articles are in conflict with one another, with cites to support both:
Tartar sauce is named for steak tartare, with which it was commonly served in 19th century France.
and
"Steak à la tartare" (literally meaning "served with tartar sauce") was later shortened to "steak tartare" Over time, the distinction between steak à l'Americaine and its tartar-sauce variant disappeared.
Please take a stab at rectifying it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Coal formation in the Carboniferous period was not caused by an evolutionary lag in fungi and bacteria

This misconception seems to be spread by false assumptions and ungrounded speculation, but plenty of evidence supports the fact that lignin-degrading fungi were present during this period (I mean come ON, 60 million years? For FUNGI to catch up? I don’t think people realize how much faster microorganisms evolve compared to larger organisms) 173.184.103.119 (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there some specific statement in the article that you are objecting to? I'm not sure what the issue is here... Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
This is a good candidate for common misconception if you get good sources that say it's a common misconception and that it is in fact a misconception. Mateussf (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Blood vessel length

Though the total length of a human's blood vessels is commonly stated as about 100,000 km, a 2022 estimate[2] placed the length far lower, between 9,000 and 19,000 km. This estimate is mentioned in the Blood vessel article. Is this misconception worth including in this article? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If the original/incorrect estimate was only made two years ago, then I doubt that the information has spread far enough for it to be a common misconception. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The 2022 estimate was for the 9k to 19k figure; according to the cite above the old 100k figure was provided by Shack August Steenberg Krogh who died in 1949.
That said, I don't see how this proposed entry meets the inclusion criteria: although the 9k-19k figure from 2 years ago is stated in the topic article, I don't see where it says anything about earlier, longer estimates. And the cite above doesn't establish that it is a common misconception, or even a misconception at all. Maybe there's adequate sourcing somewhere that would meet the inclusion criteria, but I'm not seeing it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I believe this common misconception does meet the criteria for inclusion. The academic journal article cited ("August Krogh: Muscle capillary function and oxygen delivery") mentions that the incorrect length "captured the attention of scientists and school children the world over by being sufficient to circumscribe the Earth nearly three times at the equator". The incorrect length is sometimes cited in modern scientific articles (e.g. by the British Heart Foundation, the International Journal of Biological Sciences, and by LiveScience). Pastelitodepapa (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Pastelitodepapa, the source establishes that it was a common misconception 100 years ago. Being occasionally cited in modern scientific articles is insufficient to establish it as a common misconception; we need an RS (preferably more than one) identifying it as a "common misconception" (or "contrary to popular belief" etc.) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
This meets the inclusion criteria in my opinion. If Kurzgesagt's sources document counts a reliable source, it could be used to establish that this is a common misconception in the current day. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
CopperyMarrow15 (last ping); Unfortunately the inclusion criteria requires misconceptions be sourced as current (Criteria #4). I am not sure about the Kurzgesagt source document. How would you say it relates to WP:SPS? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Kurzgesagt's document is self-published, but the way I see it, we wouldn't be using it as a source for the length of the blood vessels, but rather as a source for the fact that the misconception is current and common. The beginning part of the document lists so many recent, highly reputable sources making this false claim, and that list alone seems to fulfill criterion 4, so I don't see any big reason why we shouldn't use it. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 02:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure you can see an issue with us saying "if ten sources in the last 30 years repeat it, it is 'commonly' believed". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. I have no issue with you removing it, and I can only hope that more reliable sources cover it (which I imagine they will because of Kurzgesagt's recent video) so it can be readded. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 02:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I also imagine they will, I did have a quick look to see if anyone had already and didn't have any luck. We will see over the next few days. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
CopperyMarrow15 Sorry, I should ping you as well for the above comment as you were the one who added the entry. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

How to split

Thanks Andrevan for closing the discussion. Some options for splitting from my reading of the prior discussion:

  1. Simple split into two articles (minimal simple split)
  2. Simple split into three articles (likely into Arts and Culture, History and Science, and Technology)
  3. Simple split into subarticles. A subarticle for medical claims to help with [WP:MEDRS]] (currently 80+ misconceptions listed)
  4. Other simple split
  5. Split and transclude selections into larger article
  6. Transclude references from child articles, per this proposal from S Marshall

Options are not mutually exclusive. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Split it into three, grouped by topic. When we've got a logical split I'll try to work out a way to make it display on one page.—S Marshall T/C 08:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    It would be nice to see an example of this prior to us making a decision. Can you work up something in your sandbox? It doesn't have to be perfect, just enough to give us an example of what this might look like. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, no problem.—S Marshall T/C 18:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    This looks really good. There may be some issues with managing editing (only the transcluded articles are editable, if I'm understanding correctly) and with the talk page(s). Will we wind up with four talk pages if we split it three ways? Not sure that would really be a problem, but worth considering before making the leap. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    I would suggest only using the main page's talk page. To do this I would redirect all the transcluded subpages' talk pages, and use an explanatory hatnote.—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    That would be my preference as well. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    @S Marshall Now I'm confused. Below you suggest that the "main page" would be a WP:DAB, but here you seem to suggest that the talk page for the transcluded pages would be the talk page for the "main page". My understanding is that a DAB page is not usually used to discuss material for the linked pages. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    Let's see what the consensus is before we get bogged down in hypothetical detail.—S Marshall T/C 15:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    I seriously doubt that this will be accepted.
    • Some editors will object to displaying the content without the refs purely on principle. They want readers to see those little blue clicky numbers.
    • More editors will object to the extra markup in the subarticles.
    We really need to look at this as a true split: These are going to be separate lists, including the possibility of editors making different, incompatible decisions (e.g., different formatting). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    My take is that we write the articles for the readers, not the editors. If "some editors" are so narrow minded that they need to see little blue clicky numbers, that's irrelevant to the general readers. As note (b) in WP:verifiability states:
    "The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material."
    Anyone can click the link to the transcluded material and see the little blue clicky numbers.
    I don't understand what is meant by " extra markup in the subarticles".
    Seems to me that this is a good compromise that addresses the concern raised in the discussions above. Building consensus is about making compromises. I'm on-board with this one. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    By "extra markup" she means that I've replaced the #invoke syntax with <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> to omit the references. There are alternative ways to do it which involve similar amounts of extra markup.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. I was wondering how the "magic" was done.
    So, presumably, that markup would need to be added around any text that is not a cite. That doesn't sound too onerous, and someone could probably write a bot to automagically do that so editors wouldn't have to deal with it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Mr swordfish, if you'd like, we could leave a note at WT:V to ask the regulars there whether they think it's okay to have an article in the mainspace that hides the little blue clicky numbers, so long as the refs were just one click away. Would you like to post such a note yourself? (I can, if you'd rather not.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know that WT:V is the right venue for that question. There's big warning that "This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles." I'm not sure what the right venue is, but I'd be happy to bring this idea up for discussion if I can figure out where it is.
    I'm wondering if something like this has been done before or if this would be the first implementation of such a strategy. Perhaps @S Marshall knows something about the context.. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    Putting the citations on a subpage is, to the best of my knowledge, entirely novel. WT:V is one of several appropriate venues to discuss the question of whether, in principle, policy allows us to place references on a subpage, and if that's the venue WAID chooses, then I don't object.—S Marshall T/C 21:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    (Later) For clarity, I'm not proposing that List of common misconceptions should look like this. We've decided to split the page, so List of common misconceptions will become a DAB pointing to List of common misconceptions (topic_01), List of common misconceptions (topic_02) etc. I'm proposing that one of the options on the DAB points to List of common misconceptions (one page version), and I'm doing so in pursuit of compromise. I'm mindful of the downsides of the extra labour involved.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    My reading of the closer's note is that that we have not reached consensus on how to split the article:
    There is not, however, a consensus whether to split the article in 2, split it into 3, or to do some wizardry using templates and transclusion to somehow be even more creative.
    So, your example is entirely consistent with the consensus (or lack therof) as described by the closer. Of course that doesn't mean that there's consensus to implement it, only that it's not foreclosed by the closer's verdict. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    I have posted a note at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Source display. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Prefer split into two (option 1), would support split into three (option 2). Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Any simple split. Maybe three is best, but two is good. A separate page for medical content is okay, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Any simple split. Preference for a split into four (a subarticle for MEDRS), and if having that as a subarticle is not conferring any noticeable benefit, merging it back into three at a later date. Reading the convo at WT:V, I think Actively Disinterested's point on the importance of local verification of quotes/BLP etc is a compelling reason not to pursue a transclusion. Interested to hear if Mr swordfish can think of a way around this issue. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
    I didn't make this point before since the split discussion was about technical as opposed to editorial concerns, and it's probably too late to matter now, but the reason I opposed the split is that currently the article is THE wikipedia list of commmon misconceptions. Once split, what remains is just several articles in a collection of List of misconceptions about yada yada yada. that is, it loses its gravitas once it loses its singularity.
    The transclusion approach, as I initially understood it, would keep that status, but as proposed by @S Marshall it would not. And without that feature the work putting in all those onlyinclude tags seems to be more trouble than it's worth.
    The "right" technical solution would be to implement some AJAX/JSON partial-postback implementation to only load material that the user has clicked to expand, but I don't think that is available as an option. I'm open to other ideas, and if something emerges that solves the technical issues we should consider merging the split sections.
    Regarding BLP or direct quotes needing local ref tags, the bigger issue that I see is that material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged is also supposed to have a local ref tag - and seems to me that every single entry is likely to be challenged at some point, since otherwise it wouldn't be a common misconception.
    My preference at this point would be for a simple two-way split; a separate article for MEDRS seems like organizing things for the convenience of the editors not the readers. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
    No, Rollinginhisgrave, it's not a compelling reason to avoid a transclusion. If the community does decide that BLP content and quotes need inline citations on every page where they're displayed, then we can accommodate that in the one-page version. On a technical level, it's rather easy -- we just decide to transclude those refs.—S Marshall T/C 16:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
    Since these articles exist:
    it's already the case that this page isn't "THE" sole list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
    I think you just reinforced the point I was trying to make.
    Right now, it's the "List of common misconceptions" FULL STOP, not one of several ""List of common misconceptions about yada yada yada". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
    The way I see it, it's currently one of four, and it's about to become one of six or seven or eight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps I am not explaining this adequately. Let's try an analogy:
    The US Academy Awards gives out an award for Best Picture. It also gives out "lesser" awards for categories like Best International Feature Film, Best Animated Short Film, Best Documentary Feature Film, etc. Imagine if the academy decided to eliminate the Best Picture prize and instead split it up into two or three, with no one film getting "best picture". That would be a major change, and my guess is that it would receive roughly zero support. Splitting this article is roughly analagous to eliminating the best picture category for movies.
    Of course, this analogy is not perfect; there is no technical reason why the academy would do this, while for this article we have consensus to split it to address technical issues. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
    Agree, there's only a half dozen or so entries about living people, so that's a minor issue that's easily worked around. I'm not sure about the "likely to be contested" part though. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
    Re; SMarshall, setting this up would be quite easy, but maintaining it will be a lot more difficult. The #invoke syntax decayed within a few months. In five years its difficult to believe it will be enforced as enthusiastically.
    Re; MS, "likely to be contested" is an issue for all of these, as seen by the length of the talk page. "Political" misconceptions seem to be a particular issue right now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I think we need more editors' input here.—S Marshall T/C 09:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
    We could have another RFC, if we really needed to. I think the main options are:
Options for simple splits
Two Three Four

The complicated transclusion proposal will require the splits to happen first, so I think we should start with simple splits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish, @Rollinginhisgrave, @S Marshall: For the basic split (which is a necessary prerequisite for any future use of the includeonly syntax), do you see an option here that you would personally prefer? It doesn't matter right now which one you prefer, so long as there actually is one that you prefer. I don't want to start an RFC about how to split if each of you can't see your own personal preference among the options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. Thanks for clarifying. Options look good. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Two is better than three. Four is unnecessary and I would not support that.
If we're going to use the transclusion route I would prefer if everything was in place prior to release. Agree that the split has to happen first, but we don't have to release the final version until everything is in place. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
@Mr swordfish, once again, I'm not interested in how many you prefer. The question here is, if you prefer two, are these the correct two sets? Or is there a different way that you would prefer to see them split into two? For example, if you think that the history information should be put with the science information, then now's the time to say that. If you think that the two sets ought to be "health" and "everything else", then now's the time to say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I can't think of a logical way to split it other than along the three main sections of the present article. Maybe Part 1 and Part 2 to de-emphasize the categorical nature of the split and emphasize the technical reason for the split. But I don't think that will get much support, if any. So, yeah, I'm not seeing a viable option that's not listed. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Swordfish. As I said before, I do not support any solution that does not preserve the main page. Benjamin (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta, we have a consensus to split, and we're not re-litigating that. Using S Marshall's technical approach to reassembling the main page requires us to do a split first. The question at the moment is whether you want:
  • To split the page into one of the above listed sets (and hopefully use technical magic to reassemble a single copy of it later), or
  • To split the page into a different combination of content (and hopefully use technical magic to reassemble a single copy of it later).
WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to help a compromise be found. I hope my words were not misunderstood. Benjamin (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Crime: gun homicides in the united states

The crime section states or implies that the number of gun homicides in the US decreased, either "since the 90s" or "between 1993 and 2022", depending on how you read the sentence. The source is a Pew research article from 2014. The same source now shows a very different picture: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

In general, I'm not sure statements such as "crime is up" or "crime is down" really belong on this page. We would need to cover all possible geographical areas and time ranges about which misconceptions supposedly happen, and then update them permanently. It's hard to see how we could provide any sort of valuable information unless in the scope of a much more detailed, dedicated article such as "History of Crime in the US" or other. 2A02:6B6F:FC00:9001:C600:A518:A2E3:B732 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Those data from Pew go to 2021, which was a spike year. Since then, we've seen it decrease. See https://www.americanprogress.org/article/early-2024-data-show-promising-signs-of-another-historic-decline-in-gun-violence and https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/2024/continuing-trends-five-key-takeaways-from-2023-cdc-provisional-gun-violence-data
Also note that Pew is using CDC data, not NIBRS/UCR data EvergreenFir (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
The sources you point to here seem to establish that there were more gun homicides in 2022 than in 1993 (not enough time to go down from the 2021 spike), and the last sentence in this wikipedia article's related paragraph seems to imply the opposite.
Note that this is all in absolute numbers ; in terms of rate I think the overall trend remains downward in spite of the spike. So if we rephrased that to be "gun homicide rate" instead of "number of gun homicides" I guess it wouldn't be blatantly wrong anymore.
But your good point about 2021-2022 being an unusually high period also applies to the 1990s. Why use the 1990s specifically as a point of reference? Is the common misconception specifically that crime has been going up since the 1990s?
Otherwise, if I arbitrarily pick two points on a historical series with a bit of variation, I will always be able to find specific periods where the series is going up and others where it is going down. For instance the chart right next to that paragraph shows that overall violent crime rates roughly doubled between 1960 and 2020.
If the common misconception we're trying to address is "<some type of crime> rate has been multiplied by 10 in the past couple of years", then I think the paragraph could be rephrased a bit to insist on long term trends versus spikes, give some orders of magnitude, and explain why this sort of claim just don't really make sense. But I'm not sure the general statement "crime is up" or "crime is down" even makes enough sense to be proved or disproved in the first place, so we probably shouldn't start the paragraph like that. 2A02:6B6F:FC00:9001:C600:A518:A2E3:B732 (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions/Archive_34&oldid=1263228778"