Talk:List of common misconceptions

Proposed Entry: Constantine I did not establish Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire

Previously added 22 March, removed by Mr Swordfish without explaination. Presumably because not introduced in this talk page first.

The misconception is noted on the Edict of Milan's own page. As far as I can see crtieria 1, 2, 3, and 4 are met. If not please illuminate. Rayguyuk (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I see in the Edict of Milan article where it is mentioned, though without sourcing to back up the claim. I don't see that criteria 2, 3, or really even 4 are met here. - Aoidh (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

thanks. is https://study.com/academy/lesson/edict-milan-history-facts.html a suitable source? the author is an MA in World History and a BA in History and Political Science from Northeastern University. They specifially state:

"A popular misconception holds that the Edict of Milan established Christianity as the official state religion of the Roman Empire. This is incorrect. While Constantine converted to Christianity during his reign, it would take another few decades, until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE, for Christianity to be made the state religion."

If it's suitable I can fill in the missing citation on the Edict of Milan page. I would believe this then meets criteria 2, 3, 4 as the source is dated 2023. yes? Rayguyuk (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a list of common misconceptions. You'd need to establish that some sizable number of people have some conception of the Edict of Milan and that those conceptions are incorrect. My sense is that few people have even heard of the Edict of Milan, let alone have some opinion about it. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but study.com appears to be a crowd sourced site and is not a reliable source. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It was the credentials of the author I was appealing to, not study.com as a whole.

Even so, here's Bart Ehrman, distinguished professor at the university of North Carolina (MDiv, PhD), author of 6 NY times best sellers on early Christianity...

"..a third thing that is commonly said about the emperor Constantine and the council of Nicea that is also wrong ... (for some inscrutable reason) that Constantine made Christianity the “state religion” of the Roman empire. This too is wrong. ... He and his co-emperor Licinius agreed to a kind of treaty of peace for the Christians, the famous “Edict of Milan” in 313 CE. This brought an end to the persecution. Constantine did NOT, however, make Christianity the state religion."

source: https://ehrmanblog.org/constantine-christianity/

So this illustrates that this is 1) popularly held ("common") 2) refuted by credible source and 3) contemporary

I agree with what you say that most people with the misconception are unlikely to have heard of the Edict of Milan itself, it's just that this is what they're usually unknowingly referring to since it made Christianity legal but not the state religion.

So I suggest I reframe the popular misconception as "Constantine made Christianity the state religion" as that's more specifically what Ehrman refers to, and I will add reference to the Edict of Milan as clarification rather than the misconception itself.

As to whether or not you've personally heard of it, surely you should let credentialled experts speak for themselves as to what's common or popularly wrong. I can cite elsewhere in Ehrman's publications where he explains that the misconception is popular due to it being referenced in The Da Vinci Code book and films. 2A00:23EE:2680:931:7CC3:5CDE:2761:5049 (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

My undergraduate topology textbook says that it is a common misconception that in a metric space, compactness is the same thing as closed and bounded. Now, I wouldn't advocate adding that as an entry here since few people even know what a metric space and compactness are. As editors, we need to use our editorial judgment to decide how common something must be to include it here. My judgement on the entry at hand is that it's in the same category as the misconception I mentioned above. Just because there is a reliable source supporting it is not enough to include entry. Of course, different editors may have a different judgement and if there's consensus to include this entry I'm not going to fight it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is quite a false equivalance. The Constantine misconception is stated in the Da Vinci Code film and book collectively viewed by hundreds of millions of people. The film has been on worldwide release for almost 20 years. It's in the top ten rated films for 2006. The book alone was bought by 80 million people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da_Vinci_Code). Read by countless more.

"SIR LEIGH TEABING: 'So Constantine may have been a lifelong pagan, but he was also a pragmatist. And in 325 anno Domini, he decided to unify Rome under a single religion, Christianity.'"

https://transcripts.thedealr.net/script.php/the-da-vinci-code-2006-1bXN

Bart Erhman writes for a popular audience, he has written 6 New York Times bestsellers on Christianity. When he says this is a "common" misconception about Constantine he's referring to his audience, the hundreds of millions who have seen or read The Da Vinci Code and absorbed the false idea that Constantine was the one who made Christianity the religion of Rome. To the extent that he wrote a specific book rebutting these popular misconceptions from the film: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Truth-Fiction-Vinci-Code-Constantine/dp/0195307135.

I'm not sure how much more evidence can be put. It's a plainly false fact put forward in a film and book enjoyed by an audience of hundreds of millions. A highly credentialed scholar and popular author in this area says it is a "common" misunderstanding. A misconception so extant that he wrote a book aimed at the general public setting the facts straight. I severely doubt even half of the rest of this page is attested in this way. Rayguyuk (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of Constantine the Great and Christianity says:

During the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (306–337 AD), Christianity began to transition to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire.

The lede goes on to say:

Some scholars allege that his main objective was to gain unanimous approval and submission to his authority from all classes, and therefore he chose Christianity to conduct his political propaganda, believing that it was the most appropriate religion that could fit with the imperial cult. Regardless, under the Constantinian dynasty Christianity expanded throughout the empire, launching the era of the state church of the Roman Empire.[1]

Is that all that different than your quote from the da Vinci code:

So Constantine may have been a lifelong pagan, but he was also a pragmatist. And in 325 anno Domini, he decided to unify Rome under a single religion, Christianity.

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction that presents "an alternative religious history" and has been roundly criticized for its many historical inaccuracies. This particular claim doesn't stand out as more egregious than all the others, and actually seems to have support from some scholars. Is the alleged misconception that Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire? I think we can agree that this didn't happen until several decades after his death. OTOH, if people think that Constantine was responsible for bringing Christianity to the Romans, that's not really a misconception. Perhaps there's an entry to be had here, but it would seem to be "The Da Vinci Code has a lot of historical inaccuracies that some people believe." We'd need to turn that around to present it a a positive statement of fact and I'm not sure how to do that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"Is the alleged misconception that Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire? I think we can agree that this didn't happen until several decades after his death. OTOH, if people think that Constantine was responsible for bringing Christianity to the Romans, that's not really a misconception."

yes, you have it exactly. I am perhaps not making the point clearly or succintly enough. The misconception indeed asserts that he "made Christianity the official religion (or state religion) of the Roman Empire" when he did not.

Other sourced pages are clear about the use of the terms "official religion" or "state church" to not mean Constantine growing Christianity in the general sense, but specifically the act of state that made Christianity the single state backed religion of the Roman Empore.

Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity "the state church of the Roman Empire declared by edict in 380" which of course Constantine didn't do because in 380 he'd been dead for 43 years.

History_of_Christianity: "Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, expressing tolerance for all religions, and legalizing Christian worship. As the first Christian emperor, Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the empire, but the steps he took to support and protect it were vitally important in the history of Christianity."

Christianity_as_the_Roman_state_religion: "On 27 February of the previous year, Theodosius I established, with the Edict of Thessalonica, the Christianity [...] as the official state religion, reserving for its followers the title of Catholic Christians"

Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion or create the state church.

As for the popularity of the misconception in this form we have:

Bart Ehrman: "It is widely believed (for some inscrutable reason) that Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Roman empire. This too is wrong."

We have Sir Teabing in The Da Vinci Code saying Constantine "in 325 anno Domini,... decided to unify Rome under a single religion, Christianity" which while perhaps technically true in one sense (he "decided"), it is easily gives the wrong impression that some singular act took place in 325 AD which achieved this "unification of the Roman Empire under Christianity". | In 325 AD modern estimates put the percentage population Christians in the Roman Empire at 10-20%. Constantine wanted the minority religion _Christianity_ to be unified, he did not "unify the Roman Empire under Christianity". He gave Christianity room to grow, he did not make it the state religion.

Richard Dawkins promulgating the misconception in exactly this form:

"It's ... the adoption of Christianity as the Roman Empire’s official religion by the Emperor Constantine in AD 312 — that led to Yahweh’s being worshipped around the world today"

- Richard Dawkins, Outgrowing God, 2019 (https://archive.org/details/outgrowing-god/page/12/mode/2up?q=historical)

and again on page 21..

"[Constatine] made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire" (ibid)

I suggest The Da Vinci Code implicitly saying it, and Richard Dawkins explicitly saying it, with Bart Ehrman calling it "widespread" establishes it as a popular misconception. I'm sure I can continue to find other examples. Rayguyuk (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I fear that the tale of Lactantius and Eusebius about the Vision of Constantine, and the medieval forgery of the Donation of Constantine have a lot to do with spreading this particular misconception. By the way, Constantine I was not even the sole Emperor in 312, and the edict of Milar was also authorized by Licinius. Dimadick (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

All true. So would you support the entry in the following form? (draft):

Heading: "Constantine I did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire" (possibly "or found the state church")

Text: "While known as the first Christian emperor and instrumental in making Christianity legal (Edict of Milan), and making great efforts to unify Chrisitian doctrine (Council of Nicea), during his lifetime Christians were a minority in the Roman population (10-20% as per above reference) and paganism was still popular, widespread and practiced as a part of state rituals (link). Christianity was proclaimed the official religion of the Roman Empire 43 years after Constantine's death in 380 AD by [Theodosius I]. The inaccuracy is one of many heavily implied in The Davinci Code (link to script) and repeated by popular authors such as Richard Dawkins (link to book). The Vision of Constantine, and the medieval forgery of the Donation of Constantine have likely also played a role in promulgating the misconception." Rayguyuk (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I will withdraw my objections if other editors chime in with support for inclusion. A shorter entry with links to details would be preferred, something like:

Constantine the Great did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. While he was the first Christian emperor and made Christianity legal with the Edict of Milan, Christianity was not declared the official religion of the Roman Empire until 380AD, some 43 years after Constantine's death.

I'm still unconvinced it's sufficiently common to warrant inclusion, but will defer to the other editors if that's the consensus. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with its inclusion with your briefer formulation as above. Initially, I felt it was too obscure to even be a conception; if you'd asked me, I couldn't even tell you what the "Edict of Milan" was. But if you asked me "who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire"? I'd have said "Constantine I". So I think there's an argument to be made that the misconception is somewhat common. The phrasing is important, though. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Pending further comments here, I think we have a candidate wording for a new entry. As written, it appears to be factually correct and adequately sourced. But we don't yet have a good source stating that it's a misconception; if someone can provide one we can integrate the proposed entry into the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a "good source" stating something's a misconception? I'd have thought Bart Ehrman saying exactly that was good enough as he's both a professor and author popular with the general public in this area. Rayguyuk (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The two cites in the draft above are examples. More info about what constitutes a reliable source is at the link to the left. There's an explicit list at [1]. Generally, self published sources such as a personal blog are not considered adequate. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - noted.

It's a shame on inspection the rhodes.edu source is actually riddled with typos and errors...

"Chrisitianity"

"...and Justinian who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire."

"The Legalization of Christianity... in 380 CE, the emperor Theodosius signed the Edict of Thessalonica, making Nicene Christianity the official religion of the state... his legalization reached all territories."

It doesn't quite sit right with me that a university department's webpage is taken as authoriatative over the personal blog of the academic who may well have written the academic texts being used that by very university? But I agree some sort of peer reviewed publication gives an added layer of confidence.

I think the issue with establishing that a misconception is widespread is that in general it's often easier to just find the misconception being promulagted over and over than it is to find an academic, peer reviewed, or properly editorialised source specifically stating the misconception is "popular".

Here for example is the BBC (usually a trusted source) getting exactly this topic wrong...

"When a Roman soldier, Constantine, won victory over his rival in battle to become the Roman emperor, he attributed his success to the Christian God and immediately proclaimed his conversion to Christianity. Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine then needed to establish exactly what the Christian faith was and called the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD which formulated and codified the faith.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/history_1.shtml

It may be that this misconception is _so widespread_ that even trusted sources are getting it wrong. At what point does that become sufficient evidence as to its pervasiveness??

I'm confident a suitable source will turn up when time permits, though I think there's a case to add some nuance to the criteria for addition? Rayguyuk (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't say that the rhodes.edu is the best source - it took me about five minutes to find two sources that confirmed the basic timeline of the Edict of Milan, Constantine I's reign, and Christianity becoming the "official" religion of the Roman Empire. I'd be more than happy to have someone provide a better source if this one is lacking.

Agree that otherwise reliable sources often get it wrong - it's up to us to use our editorial judgment to determine which version is "correct" (or to recognize that there is an ongoing dispute and "report the controversy" - but that's not what's going on here.) For instance, the equal transit time fallacy is repeated in many otherwise reliable sources, but the overwhelming evidence among "better quality" sources is that it is incorrect. There are also multiple sources describing it as a common misconception.

The issue here is that we haven't yet found a reliable source that clearly describes the misconception at hand as a common one. The fact that otherwise reliable sources repeat it (and that "better sources" say the opposite) is perhaps evidence that it is a common misconception. Likewise, several respected scholars stating it is a common misconception on their self-published or crowd-sourced blogs is also evidence. Is that enough? The inclusion criteria require a reliable source for it being a common misconception. If it's really that common, there should be a reliable source stating that fact. I think we have that for all the other entries on this page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of Christianity - Cambridge University Press?

"Christianity did not become the official religion of the empire under Constantine, as is often mistakenly claimed, but imperial hostility had turned into enthusiastic support, backed with money and patronage."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-christianity/constantine-and-the-peace-of-the-church/1D6492CD5ECB96174AAE1221F48DC56F Rayguyuk (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

That would seem to do it. I was wondering whether it might be found in one of Bart Ehrman's many published books, but this should suffice. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Great, I will add with your suggested wording shortly Rayguyuk (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Calcification

A common misconception is that calcification is caused by excess amount of calcium in diet. Dietary calcium intake is not associated with accumulation of calcium in soft tissue, and calcification occurs irrespective of the amount of calcium intake. Benjamin (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Benjamin (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Expansion to acne fact?

I noticed the acne misconception only mentions fatty and carbohydrate-rich foods. In my understanding, this is a bit of an oversimplification of the acne-food relationship, but I’m not sure whether or not this is worth elaborating on or clarifying and don’t personally have the medical expertise to properly summarize medical sources.

I found this source which may be useful if anyone more qualified wants to adjust that entry slightly: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33462816/ Catfrost (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed entry: primary colors

I was surprised there’s no entry here for the misconception that red, yellow, and blue are THE (as in only) primary colors. I’d say this is a fairly common one as it’s generally considered “common knowledge” that RYB are the primaries and they are regularly taught as such in early schooling. Most people tend to not know there are additional primary color models or controversy regarding these as the preferred subtractive model unless they take a color theory course or work with color in a career/hobby (printing, art, etc).

While I have relevant professional expertise (artist), I’m really not great at summarizing/wording things in an easy-to-understand way so I’m hoping someone else could add it if others agree it meets the inclusion criteria.

It is already discussed on the Primary color page. Multiple alternate models are discussed throughout the article (such as § Additive models) and the popular belief is mentioned under § Traditional red, yellow, and blue primary colors as a subtractive system and § Red, yellow, and blue as primary colors. The idea that this belief is an error is discussed under § Criticism.

It is also discussed within the specific articles for Subtractive color and RYB color model. Catfrost (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that this is overwhelmingly common (I'm more surprised to meet someone who does know this than doesn't) and that it meets at least the broad criteria of being a misconception. I think a simple wording like this could work:

"Red, Yellow, and Blue are not unique in their role as primary colors; many sets of colors exist which can be used to produce broad ranges of color, including RGB (Red-Green-Blue) and CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, 'Key' - black). Red, Yellow and Blue are noteworthy among the options for historical and social reasons, not inherent properties of the colors."

Obviously appropriate citations would need to be added before something like this could be placed on the list. Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Martial Arts Belts

In the "black belts" section, there is no reference to why there are different colors for these belts. My daughter took JuJitsu and it even states on most website, White is first level, then Yellow, then Green and so on. So what is the reason for these colors? 76.11.78.116 (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Entry for Mama Cass demise myth?

Article published in the NYT May 9 2024 entitled: Cass Elliot’s Death Spawned a Horrible Myth. She Deserves Better. The Mamas & the Papas singer was known for her wit, her voice and her skill as a connector. For 50 years, a rumor has overshadowed her legacy.

For years, the origin of the story that Elliot died from choking on a ham sandwich — one of the cruelest and most persistent myths in rock ’n’ roll history — was largely unknown. Then in 2020, Elliot’s friend Sue Cameron, an entertainment journalist, admitted to publicizing it in her Hollywood Reporter obituary at the behest of Elliot’s manager Allan Carr, who did not want his client associated with drug use. (Elliot died of a heart attack, likely brought on by years of substance abuse and crash dieting.) But that cartoonish rumor — propagated in endless pop culture references, from “Austin Powers” to “Lost” — cast a tawdry light over Elliot’s legacy and still threatens to overshadow her mighty, underappreciated talent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/09/arts/music/cass-elliot-mamas-and-the-papas-death.html

It's not mentioned in the topic article though. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Trotsky was killed by an ice pick

"Leon Trotsky was not killed with an ice pick (a small, awl-like tool for chipping ice), but with an ice axe (a larger tool used for mountaineering)"

My dictionary gives two definitions for the term "ice pick":

1 a small pick used by climbers to traverse ice-covered slopes.

2 a sharp, straight, pointed implement with a handle, used to break ice into small pieces for chilling food and drinks.

It seems that the first definition of "ice pick" matches with the article's definition of an "ice axe", and therefore Trotsky was indeed killed by an ice pick. It's just that the term "ice pick" has two meanings. Perhaps in technical contexts the term "ice axe" is preferred, but this is not a technical context.

So this is not really a misconception, it's an ambiguity in the English language. If you say "ice pick" without qualification then some people will imagine the mountaineering tool, others will imagine the tool for breaking ice for food and drinks. It has nothing to do with Trotsky per se, this ambiguity will arise any time the English term "ice pick" is used out-of-context, it just so happens that Trotsky's demise is one example of that. Alextgordon (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

And to further complicate matters, there's the tool/weapon called the pickaxe.

Looking at the Trotsky article, I'm not seeing anything about this misconception i.e. that he was killed with an ice pick (in the sense of your definition 1), but if a substantial number of people think he was killed with that device then it would count as a misconception. Maybe I'm missing something, but this entry seems to fail the inclusion criteria by 1) not being mentioned in the topic article, and 2) not having a reference that establishes it as a common misconception. Unless another editor sticks up for it by producing evidence that it satisfies the inclusion criteria I'm in favor of removal. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It's based on the pedantic. I agree with removing it. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

If a significant number of people were confused by one word having two different meanings (which a huge number of English words do) it's not really pedantic to clarify. But I'm not seeing any reliable source stating that this is a common misconception, so I'm going to remove the entry. We can always put it back if sufficient sourcing is obtained. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Entry: There is no King or Queen of England

The monarch of Great Britain is frequently erroneously referred to as the King/Queen of England but this title hasn't existed since 1707. The actual title is King/Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [etc.]

Am checking sources to meet the inclusion criteria. Anecdotally it seems to be a frequent misconception among Americans.

If it were to meet those requirements which section is it best located in? Rayguyuk (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The "misconception" (if there is one) would be that England is the same thing as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it is not specific to the King or Queen. I'm not seeing anything in the topic articles that mention this misconception so the proposed entry would fail the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, many non-Britons incorrectly call the UK "England", which is course only one of its constituents. I am not sure whether this is a misconception, an error in terminology, or sloppiness. I suspect for most people it's an error in terminology. They call it England, but are actually referring to the UK, and many are probably not aware of the nature of the UK. Of course, this is annoying/upsetting to people from Wales, Scotland, and N. Ireland. Similar things happen with Holland/Netherlands (where the name Holland is widely used and even accepted as a name for the Netherlands), America/United States of America (where US people consider them synonyms, but many South Americans consider this incorrect and even offensive), Bosnia/Bosnia and Herzogovina, Macedonia/North Macedonia, formerly Russia/USSR/RSFSR, historically Turkey/Ottoman Empire, etc. Heck, the UK of GB and NI is often called Great Britain (which technically excludes Northern Ireland) in addition to being called the United Kingdom (and ISO 3166-1 uses GB rather than UK). Is that a misconception?

As for the monarchy, the sovereign of the UK also functions as the sovereign of the other UK countries (royal assent, appointment of prime/first minister, etc.), but without the title King of Scotland, etc.. And then there are the crown dependencies which are not part of the UK -- it's very messy.

Is this a misconception for our list? I don't think so. --Macrakis (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both for your thoughts. I agree with what you're both saying. Rayguyuk (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Line

People think line go down but actually line go up. Many such cases! [2] Benjamin (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Astrology

I think, if you really squint, 75.27.37.89's reason for removing the astrology section was somewhat compelling. While astrology is widely believed, and the scientific consensus is that it is utterly devoid of merit, I wouldn't call it a misconception in the sense that the other entries of the list are. The other items presented are overwhelmingly simple matters of history (was this name an acronym for this phrase, was this cookie based on this other cookie, or directly observable phenomena (is this food safe to eat after it's expiration date). People believe otherwise because they erroneously believe there is a 'scientific' reason to do so (they assume the expiration dates are determined by biologists, the cookie appeared subsequently to the popularity of the other, etc.) which could be verified by new investigation or review of the extant literature. Believers in astrology, generally, do not have a misconception about the evidence for astrology, they disagree with the scientific community about how different kinds of evidence should be weighted in evaluation of a claim (giving undue merit to individual personal experiences or the age of a belief over measurable data).

This section feels comparable in some ways to including an entry like 'Jesus did not rise from the dead. There is no scientific evidence that anyone has ever recovered after an extended period of death', or 'Muhammad did not receive revelatory visions from angels. There is no scientific evidence that angels exist, and purported revelations have been repeatedly shown to be human inventions.'

In other words, I think that this list is for things that people believe because they are unaware of the scientific evidence, not things people believe because they don't care about (or give primary importance to) the scientific evidence. Most astrologers will tell you scientists think astrology is fake; very few people who believe the Great Wall is visible from space would tell you astronauts think otherwise. Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A much better argument than the squint-needing edit summary [3]. Elliptically reasoned. I could be persuaded that the entry doesn't warrant inclusion. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)