Talk:List of common misconceptions

American Gothic entry

Reviewing the sourcing, it's not clear whether the woman depicted is supposed to be the wife or the daughter. Some sources clearly state "daughter" while others say that it is unclear. I'm raising the issue at the topic article since presumably the editors there are more familiar with the material.

I've commented out the entry pending resolution. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The article American Gothic contends the painter Grant Wood said in a letter that she is the man's grown-up daughter and cites an archived website with a scan of the letter. However, the Slate article claims the relationship between the two was unclear and controversial and Wood was vague about it. "Artist In Iowa A Life Of Grant Wood" by Darrell Garwood contends it started out as a man and his wife, but later changed. I feel they are fictional characters created for a painting and can be what ever anyone wants, so anyone's misconception about it is just their interpretation. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I found two more citations, an American Heritage article,] and a web page from the Garrett Museum of Art]. Both make it clear Wood intended them to be husband and wife and then later change the story when people thought the woman look too young for the man. He even claimed the man was not a farmer, but a businessman, because farmers were offended. We should delete the entry from the page unless we want to somehow construe this as a misconception. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Burndt food and acrylamide

Acrylamide is actually listed as a cathegory 2 carcinogen by WHO. So it is hard to say that the carcinogenecy of acrylamide is a common misconception. All you could say is that research is ongoing. 2A00:FBC:EE4B:9B84:1044:9EFF:FEAA:961E (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The cited sources at Acrylamide say:

• ...(research has not) established that it is definitely a carcinogen in humans when consumed at the levels typically found in cooked food.
• ... dietary acrylamide isn’t likely to be related to risk for most common types of cancer.
• There are many cancer myths, including eating burnt foods, that haven’t been proven to cause cancer.

OTOH, they also say:

• ... a modest association for kidney cancer, and for endometrial and ovarian cancers ... couldn’t be ruled out.
• ...probable human carcinogen
• ...reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen
• ...likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
• ... ongoing studies will continue to provide new information on whether acrylamide levels in foods are linked to increased cancer risk.

My reading is that eating burnt food has not been shown to cause cancer and that it is unlikely that it does, but as you say "research is ongoing". That makes this entry enough of a gray area that I'd support removing it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Pepperoni pizza

I think it would be easy to find a source that indicates the "Pepperoni pizza" as common worldwide misconception that does not exist in Italy lol

Very similar to "Pizza con salamino piccante" but really nobody in Italy knows what a "Pepperoni pizza" is Bozz (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Pepperoni was invented in the US in the early 20th century by Italian immigrants, so pepperoni pizza is an American thing. But many American things have spread worldwide, pepperoni pizza included, so "does not exist in Italy" would be an overstatement.

A quick web search turns up [1]:

While pepperoni may not be found on Neapolitan pizza, it has gained some popularity in other regions of Italy, such as Rome and Lazio. However, even in these regions, pepperoni pizza remains a deviation from the classic Italian pizza experience.

and

1. Can I find pepperoni pizza anywhere in Italy?

Yes, you may find pepperoni pizza in some tourist-oriented restaurants or pizzerias that cater to international visitors. However, it is not considered an authentic Italian dish.

Yeah, like many Italian-American dishes, pepperoni pizza is not an authentically Italian thing. I'm unconvinced that this is a misconception worth including here, and I don't see it mentioned in the topic article so it would fail the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Rust as a cause of a tetanus infection

I added additional information to this paragraph to clarify that tetanus infections are enabled by puncture wounds. You can read the "Cause" section of the tetanus article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetanus#Cause) for further explanation. That edit was deleted as being duplicate. Yet the original and surviving section of the paragraph does not mention puncture wounds at all, hence the additional explanation of puncture as a contributing factor is not duplicate.

Tetanus infections can be caused by any puncture wound caused by a contaminated object. Iron or rust are not required at all, just that common puncture hazards tend to be made of rusty iron, hence the misconception that rusty nails alone cause tetanus. However deep penetration is a factor that greatly increases the chance of a tetanus infection. In the spirit of informing readers, it seems appropriate to at least mention the importance of a puncture as a cause. For example a deep thorn puncture is also reason to seek medical help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.120.188 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a long article with lots of entries. In the interest of keeping the reader engaged, each entry should be kept short and to the point and not go into tangential details. The topic articles are where to find more details.

Here, the misconception is that "rust causes tetanus" while the fact is that the same conditions that promote rust also harbor tetanus. In the interest of keeping the entries short, we don't need to go into further detail about puncture wounds.

That said, it's only one sentence and if there's support from other editors to add it, I'm not going to complain. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I can reduce the word count. Part of the verbosity was to illustrate how "rust causes tetanus" came to be commonly accepted, but the main thrust is that puncture wounds are the hazard. Though a 4cm long tree thorn isn't rusty, it is still a tetanus hazard. 23.119.120.188 (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead and share a draft here. The entry as it stands could use some trimming, so feel free to reduce the word count of that material too. Upon review, I'm inclined to support adding this. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, here is a shot at a rewrite of the whole paragraph:

----

Rust itself does not cause tetanus infection. Protection from oxygen is a greater factor in infection. The Clostridium tetani bacterium is generally found in dirty environments that lack oxygen. Since the same conditions that harbor tetanus bacteria also promote rusting of metal, many people associate rust with tetanus. C. tetani requires anoxic conditions to reproduce and these are found in the permeable layers of rust that form on oxygen-absorbing, unprotected ironwork. In addition a puncture wound inserts C. tetani deep in body tissue, protecting it from oxygen.

----

I'm also a little concerned about the assertion of tetanus reproducing within rust on its own, but that is a separate issue. The referenced article (https://www.ehso.com/disease/tetanus.php) makes no such claim. The closest it gets is "... any deep wound can become a breeding ground." which was my original point about emphasizing puncture wounds. It makes sense that bacteria would require a host to reproduce. If there's no evidence of tetanus reproducing on a rusty nail, then I'd recommend removing "to reproduce" and shortening the sentence to "C. tetani requires anoxic conditions and these are found in the permeable layers of rust that form on oxygen-absorbing, unprotected ironwork" 23.119.120.188 (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The wording above (and the current entry too) can be interpreted to say that rust develops in oxygen-free environments, which is clearly not the case - rust is iron oxide and requires oxygen to form. However, once rust forms it depletes the oxygen, so rust is an oxygen-free environment where C. tetani can thrive. C. tetani spores can survive in the presence of oxygen, and they are found everywhere, but harmless unless introduced into the body by a puncture wound.

C. tetani can exist as a either vegetative cells or as spores. The former can't survive in the presence of oxygen, but the latter can. And only the vegetative cells can reproduce, so it's not off-base to say it can't reproduce in the presence of oxygen. But, I don't know that we need to go into detail about spores vs vegetative cells and their ability to survive in the presence of oxygen and what conditions are necessary for reproduction, so I'd suggest the following concise language that adds the material stating that puncture wounds from other objects can cause tetanus.

• Rust itself does not cause tetanus infection. The bacteria that causes tetanus thrives in low oxygen environments, including rust where the oxygen has combined with iron, so many people associate rust with tetanus. However, any puncture wound can introduce spores that cause a tetanus infection, not just rusty nails.

Comments?

References

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.120.188 (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Americans are paying less for college

[2] "In survey after survey, Americans say that the cost of getting a degree just keeps rising. But this basic fact of life is not a fact at all. In reality, Americans are paying less for college, on average, than they were a decade ago." "Nearly half of all adults in the U.S. think that universities charge everyone the same amount, according to a 2023 survey by the Association of American Universities." Benjamin (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Shazaam

The mythical American 1990s film Shazaam seems to qualify for inclusion. It's discussed at length at the page for the film Kazaam and the article for the Mandela effect, both of which link good WP:SECONDARY sources. Carguychris (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Egyptian Gods With Animal Heads

It is well-known that the deities of Egypt are portrayed as humans with animal heads, and/or with animal features (cow horns, etc). However, a common belief is that the Egyptians believed that this was a literal portrayal, but the truth is more complex - modern Egyptologists have said there are many theories and interpretations.

I would like an addition to the "history" section stating definitively that the Egyptians did not see their Gods as people with animal heads (e.g. Anubis as a man with a Jackal head), that animals were not commonly worshipped (e.g. worshiping cats as gods in the city of Bubastis), and that modern-day Egyptology concludes that Egyptian theology was made of complex symbology, which has been dumbed down by a post-colonial mindset. Edwardnb (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Edwardnb, the source you cite is a WP:BLOG, and it never clearly suggests that any popular misconception exists about Egyptian gods one way or the other. Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Nazi name origin entry is totally untrue?

On the topic of this section: "The Nazis did not use the term "Nazi" to refer to themselves. The full name of the Nazi Party was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party), and members referred to themselves as Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists) or Parteigenossen (party comrades). The term "Nazi" was in use prior to the rise of the Nazis as a colloquial and derogatory word for a backwards farmer or peasant. Opponents of the National Socialists abbreviated their name as "Nazi" for derogatory effect and the term was popularized by German exiles outside of Germany."

I have done some searching and found absolutely nothing to conclude for certain that the term "nazi" was used primarily derogatorily due to its connotations with backwardness. This article https://chroniclesmagazine.org/society-culture/the-strange-origin-of-the-word-nazi/ appears to be the source of whoever authored this section, yet even if it is to be believed that the article is correct about the term "Nazi" existing as a term for peasants, it does not indicate anything about a deliberate effort by opponents of the Nazi party to play up this connotation. The author of this article seems to take it for granted that the Nazi party's disuse of the term "nazi" is sufficient proof for it being a purely derogatory label created by the party's opponents.

For this reason I think this section should be amended (cut down to just the first sentence), or perhaps totally deleted (it definitely makes sense to assume that the Nazis called themselves Nazis, but I don't think this specific notion is important enough to society's broader impression of the Nazi party to make it a common misconception worth correcting). If this is worth putting in the section, then why don't we put a section for every instance in which the name of a thing in English is actually not what said thing was or is referred to in it's own language? Oats11 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this entry rises to the status of "totally untrue", but I also don't see how it meets the inclusion criteria i.e. a source that describes it as a common misconception or similar language. The topic article has material that is somewhat similar to but more circumspect and nuanced than what appears in the entry here. Cites are not in English, so I can't tell whether they support what's included here.

I'm going to comment out the entry for now. We can restore it if someone can produce cites that support both the material itself and that it satisfies the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)