Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads from Talk:Common English usage misconceptions. |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Common English usage misconceptions) (bot |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 71:
:You cite O'Conner and Kellerman to say that preposition stranding was in use in Anglo-Saxan times. Doesn't that mean my addition was supported by sources? Anyway, it did sound a bit awkward so I'm not going to make a big deal about this one. [[User:Connor Behan|Connor Behan]] ([[User talk:Connor Behan|talk]]) 22:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
::I didn't remove the sentence. I just delinked it from sources that didn't necessarily say support it. And Mr Swordfish moved the sentence to a ___location where it fits in the prose nicely. If I might say, that's what improving articles here is all about. Thanks. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 04:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
== Dictionaries ==
It might be useful at this point to add a separate portion to the references section called "Dictionaries" since they are listed in the notes section but not in the reference section. Short citations with ref tags will bring the new entry in line with the rest of the article. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 03:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:I'm not sure I follow. Do you want the dictionaries that were combined into a single reference to again be separate references, just in a different section? And should we cite "irregardless", "funnest", "conversate", etc as all coming from that dictionary? Or just cite the dictionary and let the reader figure out what words are in it?
:I misunderstood another thing too. It seems that while I was waiting for you to edit my sandbox (Mr. Swordfish), you were waiting for me to give permission or something. I don't have a problem with most of the edits you performed in the end. What you called "pejorative verbiage" I think is just a statement of a fact, and some of the citations you removed would've been enjoyable reads for people who look at cited blogs in depth, but these aren't important. What's important is that the reader now has appropriate context before reading a bold statement like "irregardless is a word". If "irregardless" and not "regardless" were a word in Anglo-Saxon, this would be truly surprising and would justify a point-blank statement like that. However, when I first read the entry, all it did was repeat what I knew about "irregardless" while adding that my point of view (that there is a place for prescriptivism) is pretentious. [[User:Connor Behan|Connor Behan]] ([[User talk:Connor Behan|talk]]) 07:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
::I think the current version, as adjusted, is fine. "Irregardless" fits well in the prose as it stands. The misconception is noted and follows immediately with an example to clarify. And irregardless seems to serve that purpose well.
::As far as the dictionaries, the formatting of the references is now uneven. It's not a showstopper, but it degrades the quality of the article, if only slightly. To be consistent, the same sources are used, but edited to be "short cites" in the text, e.g., <nowiki>[[#CK09|O'Conner and Kellerman 2009]]. p. 21.</nowiki> For that to work, the full citations for the dictionaries should be added to the Bibliography section with a reftag added at the end of the citation template, e.g., <nowiki>|ref=CK09}}</nowiki>.
::The dictionaries could simply be added to the Bibliography in alphabetical order; but, I suggest it might be a bit better to add a separate sub-section to the Bibliography called "Dictionaries" to separate them into their own categories. That's not unprecedented here at Wikipedia and I think it would be useful for readers to see what dictionaries are used to reference this article without having to sort through the Bibliography. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 08:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Ok, I created the relevant bibliography section. Just to be clear... you think the two "mega-citations" we have now should be replaced by six citations? One refers to the 11 dictionaries that include "irregardless", one refers to the 9 dictionaries that include "thusly", etc? [[User:Connor Behan|Connor Behan]] ([[User talk:Connor Behan|talk]]) 00:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm in favor of lumping citations under one endnote separated by a colon in the manner of footnotes 4 and 14 of [[Sentence spacing]]. I'd recommend adding the word referenced in quotation marks after the short cite. It might look like the below, with the title hyperlinked by the short cite formatting to the Bibliography entry.
::::*Oxforddictionaries.com, "Mentee"; Collinsdictionary.com, "Mentee"; Allwords.com, "Thusly"; etc.
::::However, each of the current citations in the endnotes can be retained. Modifying them is just more consistent with the rest of the notes. Thanks. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 03:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::I changed endnote 53 to short cites as an example. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 03:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::I think that presentation is a good one. I'm in favor of whatever makes the article more readable and consolidating citations helps improve readability; when the ratio of text to footnotes reaches a certain threshold all those superscripts starts to obscure the prose. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 20:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
== Neutrality ==
There is no objective source of "correctness" in English, there are simply practices and opinions. This page affirms that position that the way some schoolchildren are taught English is actually incorrect. It would be more objective to say that these teachings are criticized or that the rules are disputed. It is also objective to point out cases where a majority accepts a certain practice in a given register, where widely accepted style guides all agree, and where professional practice in some or most cases runs against a minority opinion. The title is also non-neutral for similar reasons; I think it would be more object as "Disputes in English usage" just like we have [[Disputes in English grammar]] which should probably be merged. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 16:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
:Your first sentence is correct and is the foundation of this article. If there is no objective source of "correctness" in English (as you note), how can there be a "rule" that one shouldn't start a sentence with a preposition or one shouldn't split an infinitive, or people shouldn't start a sentence with specific conjunctions? There can't be. Yet, reliable sources have pointed out that there are misconceptions (or myths) that these rules can and do exist. One criterion for inclusion here is that the entry is reliably sourced as a misconception. It's not POV when reliable sources couch it in these terms. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 00:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
::I'd also offer that the concern about the title/content being POV is a larger issue than this article. See below:
::*[[List of common misconceptions]]
::*[[Misconceptions about tornadoes]]
::*[[List of misconceptions about illegal drugs]]
::*[[Misconceptions about HIV and AIDS]]
::*[[Common misunderstandings of genetics]]
::*[[Misconceptions about evolution]]
::Short of putting POV tags on all of these and related articles, you may want to raise your concern in a different Wikipedia forum. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 17:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
:::I propose to remove the neutrality tag on the article. Given that this article is similar to those listed above that do not have tags, I'd suggest that the problem, if there is one, needs to be resolved in a different forum than this talk page. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 19:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
::::The other articles you point out concern scientific, historical, etc. claims about what ''is'' or ''was'', which can be objectively assessed; this article concerns opinions about how people ''should'' speak. Apparently there is a dispute between a number of elementary school teachers and professional style guides, with the population of English speakers somewhat divided over which is correct. Is there any particular forum you would suggest in which to solicit more opinions, if you still feel that is necessary? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 02:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::I understand you think the article is about opinions regarding how people should speak or write. But it is actually a bit different. It starts out by pointing out that there is no "right" or "wrong" in English. However, misconceptions exists that there ''are'' firm rules about "right" and "wrong" in English. The inclusion criterions are listed at the top of the article.
:::::I don't think that the title is POV because each of the included entries have to be sourced as a misconception. The sources state these as misconceptions, not the article, and the title simply reflects that this is a collection of sourced misconceptions. I understand that you think they are only disputes, but our opinions here as editors are not relevant. Only the opinions of reliable sources are.
:::::Since you assert that the article violates [[WP:NPOV]], please refer the rest of us to the specific passages in that policy that this article violates so that your concerns can be addressed. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 03:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::I agree with you Beland. An article with "misconceptions" in the title purports to know what is right and wrong. This is rarely possible in something as subjective as the English language. I have voiced my concerns about how the "irregardless section" is grossly biased but this is a symptom of a larger problem which is that this article probably shouldn't exist in the first place. [[User:Connor Behan|Connor Behan]] ([[User talk:Connor Behan|talk]]) 02:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::: I admit that I have a bias towards linguistics as a science, but I get the impression that that's an acceptable bias to have in this sort of situation. I certainly think that this article walks a fine line, but I don't think that it's unreasonable to have a neutral article of this sort if it is totally descriptivist. People ''do'' have common misconceptions about English language and usage. People get the impression that the use of "they" as a gender-neutral, singular noun is a recent addition to the language, even though it has been in use since the time of William Shakespeare. That is a set of facts, not a set of opinions about what is "right" in English. As a general rule, I hardly think it's NPOV to explain the scientific consensus on the nature of language, even though I can imagine people will have strong opinions on the matter. [[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 17:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
== Hyphen/dashes section ==
Mr Swordfish, your point regarding the quotation marks entry was reasonable given the way it was sourced. However, I believe that the sources for the hyphen section support its inclusion here IAW the criterions at the top of the talk page. Thus I reinstated the entry. Since it currently has consensus, if you strongly feel that it should be removed, you should try to establish a new consensus. Thanks. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 18:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
:The consensus over at [[List of common misconceptions]] is "a misconception is something that people know, but is actually incorrect — not something they answer incorrectly when it is presented to them." By that consensus definition, the "misconception" about hyphens/dashes is not a misconception. I agree with that consensus definition, and think the entry needs to be removed or rewritten to bring it in line with what the source material actually says. In particular, I have yet to see a single source for anyone claiming "Hyphens and dashes have the same meaning", so the entry remains unsourced (Jury and Shriver do not make that claim and there are no other sources cited.) Per wikipedia standards, unsourced material is subject to removal. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 23:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
::I don't think it is necessary to source the misconception if it is explained, with sources, afterward. However, I duplicated the Jury source and replaced your tag with it. I also adjusted the wording of the misconception to wording that you might see as closer to what Jury means.
::I know you don't think that Jury's source supports the misconception. We simply disagree on that. But, according to [[WP:CONSENSUS]], "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." This entry achieved consensus when it was added and not disputed. However, consensus can change, so if you strongly feel that this article is better off without the entry, you can certainly pursue a new consensus. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 07:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
:::It is not our job as wikipedia editors to divine "what Jury means", all we have is what Jury has written, and he has not written "Hyphens and dashes are the same glyphs" or anything indicating anyone else is making that claim. You are ''interpreting'' his writing to mean something different than what it says, and while perhaps this interpretation may be correct in the sense of that's what he meant to say, it is not our place as wikipedia editors to interpret meaning like this.
:::Until you can find a source that says "Hyphens and dashes are the same glyphs" (not simply that many people don't know the difference, but that someone is actually claiming this) the entry warrants a citation needed tag. And if no one can come up with a source in a timely manner the entry should be removed. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 21:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
::::The source was not for the passage "Hyphens and dashes are the same glyphs", but for the passage, "Misconception: Hyphens and dashes are the same glyphs".
::::Wikipedia editors are allowed to paraphrase, and you appear to be taking an overly narrow view of Jury's words. But there's no sense in you and I debating this anymore since we simply disagree. If you'd like to leave the tag, fine. I'm not going to get in an edit war with you. But since I believe that the misconception is an adequate paraphrase of Jury's words, you will need to build a consensus that it does not. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 05:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}} In any case, I added some WP:RS web sources for the statement. There are more sources that say the same thing, but thought what I added should be sufficient. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 06:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
:Neither of the two added cites support the assertion: "Misconception: Hyphens and dashes are the same glyphs". It remains unsourced, and as near as I can tell there's only one person making this claim, despite all the claims of "consensus". Unsourced material gets removed. That's wiki policy, I've given you a month to find a source or reword the entry so that it reflects what the sources actually say. I'm restoring the citation needed tag, and if there's no source in a day or so the entry will be removed. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 11:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
::I guess I'm really confused at this point. Anyway, I added three sources, not two. Which of the two do you not like and which do you agree with? --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 13:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
:::I just reread your last sentence. Look, I don't really understand your annoyance with this particular entry, but you just stated that you intend to edit war in a few days. And I suspect that no source will satisfy you unless it uses the exact words "Misconception: Hyphens and dashes are the same gylph"; no paraphrasing allowed. Please refamiliarize yourself with WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Your opinion does not override mine on Wikipedia. Since there is an ''existing consensus'' for the material, you need to ''establish a new consensus'' before removing the material. However, I will not edit war with you; I'll simply report a further deletion of the material to an administrator for action.
:::I can offer alternative possibilities to edit warring. First, please read through [[WP:Preserve]], specifically the section after "Instead of deleting text, consider". There is no shortage of sources on the Internet as well as print regarding this topic. Why not try to improve or reword the entry with the ample material available? I can't help you at this point since I truly don't understand your objection anymore.
:::Finally, I'm not sure if you're familiar with other alternatives. First, as noted, you can try to establish a new consensus with editors here. If no other editors pitch in, you can seek a third party opinion. I've done that a number of times. It brings in a neutral editor to comment on a dispute. There are other options as well, but that should be enough to get you started. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 14:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
{|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;"
|[[Image:Searchtool-80%.png|15px]] '''Response to [[WP:3O|third opinion request]]''':
|-
|style="padding-left:0.6cm"|Hi, I'm here to give your third opinion. I think it's important to keep in mind that this article is titled "Common English usage misconceptions". It's not "Common English mistakes according to professional typography standards". It is clear - to me at least - that the hypen is often misused. There's no dash key on my keyboard. I know how to make a dash, however, —. But I do web dev and work for a printing company. And I just started a sentence with "but", and this one with "and". I know all these things are wrong - but they are convenient - and I'm writing this somewhat humorous third opinion for a few guys on an article talk page. So, in my mind, the question is whether this is a misconception, or just ignorance. I believe that to properly call something a misconception, it must be believed to be a rule, when in fact such a rule is not correct. I've never heard anyone say, "just use hyphens for everything". It has only become the default, because we have no dash keys. So I would lean toward excluding this entry, unless you want to change the scope of the list to include all common mistakes, not just misconceptions. Hope this helps. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 20:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
|}
:Thanks for your considered reply. The consensus over at the main article [[List of common misconceptions]] takes a similar narrow view of what is and is not a misconception, and we have for instance removed sections on the Monty Hall Problem and .99999... because these are things people get wrong (or don't know) when asked rather than incorrect notions that they are carrying around. I'm not sure what the policy is regarding consensus across article discussion pages, but applying that consensus here would imply removing the hyphen entry. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
:List article inclusion consensus is for that article only. That said, whatever arguments that lead to that consensus are probably valid here as well. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 03:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
::Personally, I didn't feel it necessary to apply a strict definition of "misconception" as used in another article. The hyphens/dashes entry as well as the quotation marks one removed were, IMO and others, useful and interesting additions to this type of article, which is not a general collection of diverse topics, but an article focused on the English language. I won't object further to the removal of the entry (although I will look for clearer sourcing in the future when I am able). However, I will state that it is rather unfortunate that these entries will no longer be available to interested readers who would learn the difference and clear up their lack of understanding. Their removal makes Wikipedia worse, not better.
::Delete away.
::If I might add, Mr. Swordwfish, that was rather a more reasonable path than the one you suggested above. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 03:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
:::And one final request since we have a third party here. What wording is required to adequately source the hyphens-dashes misconception? I'm fairly confident that there is one regarding this topic--based on personal experience—and there is a great deal of published information regarding the magnitude of confusion/errors regarding hyphens and dashes. But, when I do eventually get time to reengage this, I'd like to know what wording is needed to be acceptable to all parties here. Thanks. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 07:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
::::For example, is the following sourcing adequate? "''Many people think that dashes and hyphens are the same'', but, in fact, dashes are used to structure sentences, while hyphens are used to connect the parts of compound words and between some prefixes and root words" (emphasis added), from the [http://www.uhv.edu/ac/grammar/pdf/hyphens.pdf University of Houston-Victoria Education Center]. Similar wording is found in a [[Cerritos College|Cerritos]] college document available online called "Punctuation 6: How to Use Dashes and Parentheses": "Many people think dashes and hyphens are the same, but dashes are used..." --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 09:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::As I've stated above, I have two issues with this entry:
:::::1) The cited sources do not clearly support the assertion. However, with the addition of the U of Houston & Cerritos cites, we do have sources clearly stating "''Many people think that dashes and hyphens are the same''"; if these cites are added to the article it will meet the minimum standard of verifiability and will not be subject to deletion as unsourced.
:::::2)Even with the addition of these two sources, I still don't think it meets the criteria for a ''common misconception''. This is an editorial judgment call, and I can see why reasonable people will differ. I agree with Gigs which makes it 2-1 in favor of removal, but the article should be guided by consensus not a straight vote. If other editor(s) weigh in in favor of removal, then I think we can say we've arrived at consensus and remove it. Until then, I'm not going to remove it myself, assuming the cites are added. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 13:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::Mr. Gigs has not commented on the above sources, so it's only 2-1 regarding the entry as sourced without them. He would have to weigh in on the sources for us to determine how he feels about the entry with the sources added. (I will add them.)
::::::I'm also not sure why it's an editorial judgment call. By your own criterion, it is "clearly" sourced as a misconception. The use of the words "many people" in conjunction clearly identifies it as a ''common'' misconception. But you didn't say why you think the addition of these sources still doesn't meet the criterion for a common misconception and why it requires judgement by editors. Perhaps you could clarify?
::::::In any case, I'm glad I was able to find sources with wording acceptable to you. I'll add them to the article. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 15:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I believe that the sources frame it more as a common error, rather than a common misconception. Sort of like misuse of "there/their", or "its/it's". Things like two spaces after a sentence, ending with a proposition, etc, those are commonly believed "rules" that are either wrong, unnecessary, or lead to awkward writing. That to me is more of a true misconception. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 18:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}The reason why I question whether it meets the criteria for a ''common misconception'' are two: 1) I still haven't seen anyone actually saying or writing it. We now have two cites of someone claiming that it's common, yet we can't seem to find an example of someone actually saying or writing "hyphens and dashes are the same". Contrast that with, for example, the Equal Transit Time fallacy where there are over a hundred published examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr_swordfish/List_of_works_with_the_equal_transit-time_fallacy). If it's so common, why aren't there any examples? Granted, the two recently added cites meet the minimum of wiki standards of verifiability, but I doubt either source has any evidence to back up their claim. Most likely, they are just repeating something they heard somewhere (see the cites from Missouri University of Science and Technology, University of Notre Dame, and the University of Texas at Austin for examples of university styleguides getting it wrong on "irregardless").
2)As Gigs says, the question is whether this is a misconception, or just ignorance. The two of us seem to agree that it is the latter and not a misconception, so it doesn't belong in the article. If we're going to start including every topic where many people are just ignorant it will be a very looooong article.
So my view is that it's not a misconception, and it's only common in the sense that many people are ignorant, not that they have an incorrect notion. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 18:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
:That's rather surprising. I can't think of a clearer way of saying there is a false belief besides "many people think abc is the case, but in actuality, xyz is the case." This is not a mistake or an error that's described. The sources describe a false ''belief''. If this doesn't descibe a misconception for the entry, I cannot fathom what would.
:In any case, (to respond to Gigs), Mr. Swordfish asked for a very precise sourcing of the misconception—descibing a false belief—as it is written now. I have done that in Mr. Swordfish's own words ("we do have sources clearly stating 'Many people think that dashes and hyphens are the same'"). All three of us know that thought (or belief) is false. Thus the misconception is sourced exactly as it was requested to be sourced.
:I'm also quite surprised at this new requirement for the entry—that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]] is not sufficient at this Wikipedia article, whereas it is outside of this article. Mr. Swordfish, the entry is now sourced exactly as you requested. But now you are changing to add a new requirement that doesn't appear in Wikipedia's policies. It's not enough that a WP:RS states it is a misconception, but you, as a Wikipedia editor have to agree with that WP:RS? Sorry, but this is not Wikipedia policy. "So my view is", and "I doubt either source has any evidence" are views that are irrelevant in the face of a reliable source. We don't decide what misconceptions are. We just report what WP:RSs say are misconceptions.
:Finally, you mentioned above that a simple vote is not enough here and a consensus is required. I agree. There are various possibilities for you to move on in your effort to remove this material (which is now sourced as you requested). First, please give an example of the wording from a source that you would accept as describing a misconception. Second, we can wait for more editors to weigh in. Third, if you are really bent on removing this entry as soon as possible, you can begin an RfC. That will certainly bring more editors in to achieve a clear consensus. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 19:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
::Verifiability is a ''necessary'' but not ''sufficient'' criteria for inclusion. And since [[WP:RELIABLE|reliable sources]] can sometimes conflict with one another, sources must be weighed in context. In short, just because you can find a cite for something, doesn't mean it automatically merits inclusion in wikipedia. "Pasta is made out of wheat" is a true verifiable statement, but it doesn't belong in this article. "There's a sea monster in Loch Ness" can be easily sourced, but that doesn't mean we should uncritically re-state it, even though many sources say this. In other words, it may not be our job to determine what's a misconception and what isn't, but it ''is'' our job to weigh reliable sources.
::From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources:
:::The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it...
:::Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
::Here, we have two style-guides from minor universities making a claim. Who actually wrote the articles? Were they peer-reviewed, or otherwise edited? Or were they just posted by a part time summer intern? We have no way of knowing. Meanwhile, we can't turn up even a single source of someone actually making the claim "hyhens and dashes are the same". Again, I ask the question: if this misconception is so common, why are there no examples of it? That's truly puzzling, don't you think? The Loch Ness Monster analogy above is apt - we have two sources saying that something exists, but nobody can come up with an example in the wild.
::So, I question the reliability of the sources, but not strongly enough to remove the entry as unsourced.
::To answer your questions: 1) Unlike the previous cites, the two new cites contain wording that is sufficient to base the article on. I question whether these sources are sufficiently ''reliable''. 3) I am not "bent" on removing this section; before today I thought it was unsourced since it required interpretation to get from what was written in the source to what was in the article, now I think it is sourced but question how reliable those sources are. Aside from the verifiability issue, there's the editorial decision of whether the entry makes sense in the context of the rest of the article - my view as an editor is that it sticks out like a sore thumb as distinctly different than the other entries on the page. An Rfc makes sense, since it doesn't appear the 3rd opinion got us very far. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 21:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
::: In response to the RfC over at List of Common Misconceptions, I'd like to chime in and say that, having never read this article before, the hyphens-dashes thing ''does'' stick out like a sore thumb to me for a few reasons:
::: 1.) I agree with Mr. Swordfish that I see no evidence that people will have ever been told, "hyphens and dashes are the same thing", nor do I imagine they've ever really encountered the problem, except in the context of Word auto-correcting a hyphen to an em-dash or en-dash, or someone saying that hyphens and dashes are used differently. Under the List of Common Misconceptions definition (which I strongly advocate as a general rule for these sorts of articles), this would clearly fall under the "you answer wrong if someone asks you" question. Put another way, no one would ever say, "Actually, hyphens and dashes are the same thing" like they would say, "You shouldn't split an infinitive" or "Don't end a sentence with a preposition." No one's telling people the wrong rule here, and as such it's very unlikely that this is a common misconception. If anything, I would even go so far as to say that people likely assume that dashes and hyphens have different grammatical uses, even though they don't know what they are.
::: 2.) Almost everything else on this page supports the now prevalent thinking among linguists that usage ''defines'' language, and as such if enough people use dashes and hyphens interchangeably, then the rule is that they can be used interchangeably, end of story. Every other entry here is consistent with this ''and'' the concept of prescriptivism is a known bugbear of the linguistic community, which is the one scientific community that would even be bothered with making a consensus about this. Almost every other entry here is saying, "The rule you are learning is archaic and not a part of common english usage", whereas this one is trying to ''re-introduce'' a forgotten rule. I strongly recommend removal. [[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 23:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I do understand the points made by editors here. On the average, to look critically at an entry in a Wikipedia article, some of them are fair. A few thoughts and then I'll simply let the RfC play out and I will accept the consensus from that.
::::1. All of the assumptions by editors here above seem to lean toward [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]], or, at the least, unfavorably toward retention. We are apparently assuming that the two WP:RSs were interns and not seasoned professors? We are also ignoring that a work by a novice writer who gets published by the Oxford University Press gets credibility and oversight from that publisher. It's the same in this case. The school provides oversight for its publications. So, an intern is not likely to have a school publish her random and ill-considered thoughts on its website. Publishers are covered under WP:RS. Second, "if this misconception is so common, why are there no examples of it": there are plenty of potential examples of this sourced in the entry right now, and many more available. It's just that the editors here choose to interpret those described mistakes and "errors" as the result of ignorance rather than a falso belief. Why? Why are we ''assuming'' that 100% of these plentiful errors described in numerous sources are from ignorance and zero percent are from a misconception described by two reliable sources? The evidence is only lacking if you simply assume it away.
::::2. I haven't mentioned it before, but people keep referencing [[List of common misconceptions]]. They are not the same articles, although the themes are the same. Last I saw, [[List of common misconceptions]] was a massive and still-expanding article where editors have had to take a narrow view of misconceptions in order to keep the article from ballooning to massive proportions. We don't have that problem here. This article is a fraction of the size of that article and entries are added rarely. I don't see this article ever expanding to the size of [[List of common misconceptions]]. Thus, we are projecting the solution to a problem from another article to this article where the problem doesn't exist. Since the entry would no doubt be of interest here to someone who would read that far into this article, there's a strong case to not be overly [[WP:bureaucracy|bureaucratic]] here and even to [[WP:Ignore all rules]] (although this entry actually meets the rules). Of course, the way the sentiments are going now, the entry may be deleted. That will shave this article which doesn't have a size problem to 22% of the size of List of common Misconceptions to 20% and remove a potentially interesting entry. Is that a "win" for Wikipedia? I don't think so.
::::3. Finally, whenever another requirement has been levied on this entry I have attemted to provide it. First, I don't have the time now to do more research. Second, it appears that objections to this entry, even properly sourced, are more fundamental, and I don't have confidence that additional research efforts and evidence will be accepted.
::::I cannot devote any more time to this effort, and so will let the RfC run its course and accept the results. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
::::: I somewhat resent the thrust behind #1. My primary concern with the inclusion of hyphens vs. dashes is to do with the fact that it doesn't fit into what I see as the more appropriate definition of a misconception (i.e. incorrect knowledge you might harbor as opposed to simply not knowing something and having the wrong intuition if confronted with the question). That said, as for the citations - I see three citations here, two of which are university style guides which, whether or not they are reliable sources (we can even assume they are) are trying to convey something about the prescriptivist rules of typography in a specific setting. There are dozens of citations for the concept that any language is defined by usage (this point is underscored likely by most of the citations in this article alone), and what's an appropriate style for a graded university class is very likely stricter than the actual rules of English. The third citation is a book that I don't have access to at the moment called "Reviving the Rules of Typography", which ''in its title'' demonstrates the phenomenon that is a known bugbear of linguists - prescriptivist attempts to revive rules that have fallen out of actual common English usage. I don't doubt that the sources reliably explain the historical differences between en and em dashes, but by dictating that, in spite of the fact that the prevailing common use has changed, the rules of English typography continue to include a differentiation between hyphens and dashes, they are taking a specific non-objective stance in opposition to a strong linguistic consensus, which is unencyclopedic.
:::::Even if I agreed that there is a "common misconception" among people on this issue (I don't think there's any conception, honestly), I would still oppose inclusion in the article because it's advocacy for a certain form of English, not a description of how English is actually used. If anything, the encyclopedic way to write it would be, "Although today most people make no differentiation between hyphens and dashes, there are actually three different glyphs represented by a straight horizontal line, differentiated by their length, which have historically had distinct uses." The problem for using that phrasing in this article, however, is that it admits that there is no misconception, but rather that a typographical rule is starting to fade away as hyphens and dashes have become interchangeable.[[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 17:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
== RfC: Hyphens/Dashes misconception ==
Does the hyphens/dashes entry meet the criteria for inclusion in the article? [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 21:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
: Summarizing my above statements, I'm going to say no, this does not meet the criteria for inclusion because I've seen no evidence that people actively harbor an active misconception about the usage of hyphens and dashes. [[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 23:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
::30654 brings up another good point, one I thought of when formulating my third opinion but did not articulate well. Many of the other entries are based on normative "rules" that should not necessarily be followed since they have a weak, irrational, or groundless basis, this one is the opposite in a lot of ways. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 00:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
:::It would be useful to list the criterions for the article (listed at the top of this talk page) in this RfC. I invite editors to determine if the entry meets these criterions and not bring in additional requirements that are in place at other articles. The criterions for inclusion are that an entry:
:::*(1) show that the misconception is widespread
:::*(2) focus on the misconception, not any dispute on usage
:::*(3) be supported by at least one reliable source that outlines both 1 and 2 above
:::A source from the University of Houston-Victoria Education Center states that, "Many people think that dashes and hyphens are the same, but, in fact, dashes are used to structure sentences, while hyphens are used to connect the parts of compound words and between some prefixes and root words". A second source makes a very similar statement. These appear to meet the criterions for inclusion. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 04:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I think everyone agrees it's a common error. The problem is that there is no "rule" saying "use hyphens everywhere", that is widely taught, repeated, or believed, which to me is the essence of a misconception. Error from ignorance is not the same thing as a misconception. Airborne I know you created this article and did the majority of the work on it, but at some point you need to let your baby leave the nest. It seems to me that the inclusion criteria need to be refined a little, since now you have three editors agreeing that a common error and a common misconception are not the same thing. [[User:Gigs|Gigs]] ([[User talk:Gigs|talk]]) 13:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I support removal, for all the reasons given above. I also think this page should adopt the convention agreed to at [[List of common misconceptions]] that distinguishes between misconception and simple ignorance. ("a misconception is something that people know, but is actually incorrect — not something they answer incorrectly when it is presented to them.") [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 14:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
:I don't think the opinions here unreasonable; I just think we're being overly bureaucratic to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist at this article. There are definitions for misconceptions that don't require a "rule" to be widely taught for a misconception to exist. For example, the Cambridge Online Dictionary (the first one I looked up) states that a misconception is, "an idea which is wrong because it has been based on a failure to understand a situation". The first example given is "We hope our work will help to change popular misconceptions about disabled people". "Failure to understand a situation" can happen from ignorance (and is likely the case for hyphen-dashes misuse), and I doubt people are taught "rules" or absolutes about disabled people. They are likely just ignorant. This dictionary definition is about a false idea based on ignorance. I understand why it was necessary to take a very narrow view of misconceptions at List of common misconceptions. But the problem which led to that requirement is not needed here.
:In any case, not to worry. I will adhere to the consensus. But I wouldn't mind getting the opinion of some editors who aren't used to trying to manage the [[List of common misconceptions]] article. The RfC is only a day old and there is no particular rush that I know of. I doubt that there's a reason to wait 30 days either, but why don't we give it some time? Thanks. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 15:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
:: Very strong points here. Definitely agree to letting it play out and seeing if we can get some other opinions in here.
:: As for your other concerns, I'm decently active in List of Common Misconceptions and I'd say that trimming the article down doesn't seem to be a significant concern of mine. I think that the operational definition of misconceptions that we use over there isn't specifically chosen to keep the article trim but to keep the article conceptually coherent, and I do think it should apply here. I don't think anyone's looking for a list of paradoxes or just poorly understood stuff when they come to a list like that - they're looking to weed out the stuff they ''thought'' they knew, but don't. I imagine a lot of people don't know when to use who/whom, but I would similarly not propose that for inclusion here because again I think that while people don't know how to use them, they aren't harboring mis-formed conceptions about them. I think the narrower definition of misconception is certainly appropriate here even though this list might not have as wide a scope as List of Common Misconceptions. [[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 17:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
:::(shrug) According to the sources, "Many people ''think'' that dashes and hyphens are the same, but [they're not]" (my emphasis). I don't see how that's different than what you just said. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 17:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
:::: Well, the difference is between not noticing that there are dashes with different length and thinking that the dashes of different length mean the same thing. If you showed me a picture of a bunch of penguins I might think that they're all the same kind of penguin, and if you told me, "Some of these are Emperor penguins and some are puffins" or whatever, I'd say, "Oh, I didn't know that." I never really would have formed an opinion as to how many kinds of penguin there were in the picture. If you asked me, I might even get it wrong, but I'm not actively harboring a misconception because I haven't really formed a conception in the first place. If instead you told me I could tell a male penguin from a female penguin because all female penguins have green feet, I'd think I knew how to tell a male from a female, but I'd be wrong. [[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 18:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::I think we can both agree that it would be nice to have someone (or something) available to let you know that "Some of these are Emperor penguins and some are puffins"...
:::::But I think we've laid out our positions at this point. Let's see if anyone else cares to weigh in. Thanks. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 18:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::Since there doesn't seem to be any more interest in commenting on the RfC, I removed the entry. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 05:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
== Automatic archiving? ==
This page is getting a bit long - I didn't want to do anything out of turn, but maybe we should have the page archived by [[User:MiszaBot I]]? Not sure what the optimal parameters are for this, but maybe an incremental archive, 2 months with archive sizes of 70K looks good to me. the code for this is:
<pre>
<nowiki>
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(60d)
| archive = Talk: Common English usage misconceptions/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 70K
| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
</nowiki>
</pre>
It seems like [[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] and [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] are the people who have primarily been active in this page, so if you guys agree I'd say we should go ahead. --[[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 22:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
:I would support "plain vanilla" auto archiving, and was under the assumption that it was already in place. If it's not, then let's do. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 01:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
:: According to [[User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo|this]], it seems like the one I've posted above is the most common archive method. I don't see any archive code in the page, so I don't think it's implemented. Plus this page is huge, so even if it were implemented, the settings probably would need to be tweaked a bit. --[[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 01:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
::: Sounds fine to me. Thanks. --[[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 03:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
:::Then I'd say put these settings into place, as they are the most common. If someone feels the need to tweak the settings later, I'm ok with that too. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 15:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
:::: OK, I've put it at the top of the page. Not sure when it kicks in or if anything on the page qualifies yet because of the 2-month window. I'll check back in a week and make sure it's working. [[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 17:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::Now that the archiving has occurred, I see that the Guidelines section that opened the page is no longer there. We probably need to make that "sticky". [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk:Mr swordfish|talk]]) 01:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::: <strike>Good point. I'll see about doing that.</strike> Done. --[[User:0x0077BE|0x0077BE]] ([[User talk:0x0077BE|talk]]) 01:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
== Bizarre entry ==
A previous user had hidden the following text, commenting--sagely, I think--that "this needs to be re-written to be more understandable, or removed. Perhaps better examples would help, assuming this entire entry is not merely a hoax."
{{bq|'''Misconception:''' ''All phrases in speech that include a preposition are considered to be prepositional phrases''. This misconception originates from a misunderstanding of the word "preposition".{{citation needed|date=January 2012}} For a complement to be defined as a preposition, the word must be positioned before the other parts of speech in the phrase; e.g., "I walked home '''from the park'''". An [[adpositional phrase]], on the other hand, represents all complements of a phrase that the prepositional phrase is a subset of. [[Preposition and postposition|Circumpositions and postpositions]] also fall under the adposition category.}}
I've gone ahead and removed it, given its unsourcedness, its pedantry, and its (as far as I can tell) total irrelevance and lack of notability. Made me chuckle, though.--[[User:Lemuellio|Lemuellio]] ([[User talk:Lemuellio|talk]]) 04:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
: Ouch ... now that I read the above, I notice how mean it sounds in print. My sincere apologies to the writer of the entry!--[[User:Lemuellio|Lemuellio]] ([[User talk:Lemuellio|talk]]) 04:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
== Academic/Scientific Writing ==
Academic writing in the sciences such as dissertations and journal submissions follow many of these rules. For example double spacing sentences and not using contractions. You can check guidelines for submitting articles to Royal Society of Chemistry Journals. Scientific writing is also supposed to be written in passive voice. Furthermore Shakespeare was a poet? author? so why is his grammar being used to prove misconceptions? Authors have poetic license to do as they please it would similar to saying sentences do not need to be capitalized because e e cummings wrote without capitalizing his works.
[[Special:Contributions/163.118.206.80|163.118.206.80]] ([[User talk:163.118.206.80|talk]]) 06:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
:"Scientific writing is also supposed to be written in passive voice."
:The American Psychological Association prefers the active voice: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/15/ [[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 22:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
== Split infinitives ==
For the new editor adding the material to the infinitives section, please provide a source before adding the material again. Please also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:BRD|reverting and discussing]].
A relevant source is needed because many people have their opinions on English, but it may not be the case that a particular opinion is held in high regard by [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]], or that those sources think a particular fact has any bearing on a topic. As editors, we don't note our opinions here; only the opinions of reliable sources. Thanks for your interest. [[User:Airborne84|Airborne84]] ([[User talk:Airborne84|talk]]) 19:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
| |||