Talk:Common English usage misconceptions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Preposition entry

I reverted the change to the lede sentence of the preposition entry. It was changed from "A sentence must not end in a preposition" to "Ending a sentence is not how prepositions were intended to be used." It seems like a concise description of the misconception as worded by the sources was changed to a wordier and more convoluted way of saying a slightly different misconception. But since the sources directly support the first statement (e.g., Fogarty says it's a "myth" that "You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition"), the first sentence seems better on multiple levels. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this reversion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hyphens, dashes, quotes - misconceptions vs simply not knowing

In discussing two entries above (Misconception: Hyphens and dashes have the same meaning and Misconception: Straight quotation marks (or "dumb" quotes) are the same as quotation marks.) it came out that these entries have the following problems:

1)There is no citation given indicating that anyone is actually making these assertions. (And I can't find any by searching the web.)

2)The consensus (so far) is that the general public just doesn't know about these issues as they are part of the fairly specialized field of typography.

My view is that these are not actual misconceptions. As Mark Twain put it, “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” To label something as a "misconception" it should be an example of the latter, not the former. If it's just something where the general population lacks specific knowledge, it's not a misconception and it doesn't belong in this article.

Since neither entry is adequately sourced (who, exactly, is claiming that hyphens and dashes are the same? Anybody?) and since neither is really a misconception I propose removing those two entries. Airborne84 asked that I wait for other editors to weigh in before removing the items, and I agreed to wait long enough to give other editors a chance to state their opinions. So, who agrees or disagrees with the removal of these two items? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of retaining the hyphen/dash one. I think the material supporting it is sufficient. The quotes entry is borderline, so I understand the objection. I favor retaining for this only because I think it might be of interest to the general reader, who probably doesn't understand the difference. But, if other editors feel strongly that deleting this entry improves the article and Wikipedia, I won't argue. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I performed a Google search on the phrase "Hyphens and dashes have the same meaning" Results are at https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Hyphens+and+dashes+have+the+same+meaning%22 Every single hit ultimately originates from this article. Nobody is claiming "Hyphens and dashes have the same meaning" other than this article. This is a case of Wikipedia driving a meme instead of following and reporting, and that's a clear violation of wiki policy. At the very least, we should rephrase the misconception to reflect what someone other than us is actually claiming. I'll give it another day or so for another editor to weigh in and/or change the entry to something supported by a reliable source, but the entry cannot stand in its present form. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It's very possible that the misconception may be better reworded to reflect the sources. What do you suggest? --Airborne84 (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I'm not overly concerned about a web search not coming up with anything verbatim. Web searches turn up what's on the web. I paraphrased from Strizver's and Jury's books for this entry, so even if they are available through Google books or another web venue, a search isn't going to match these words. But Jury and Strizver describe a misconception. Jury descibes a lack of knowledge driving people to use hyphens in place of dashes. Strizver notes that, even though they have different meanings, people confuse and misuse them. This could be phrased very precisely to match their words, but I think the paraphrase of the misconception is reasonable and an accurate reflection of what they are stating. If you think the misconception is phrased better another way though, please send it. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If your sources describe it as a misconception, please cite the quote where they say it is a misconception. Lack of knowledge does not equal misconception. If it does then so would every other factoid, and we'd be looking at entries like:

Misconception: An SM-58 is the same thing as an MD-421

Misconception: An Albacore is the same as a Jet-14

Misconception: Stilton is the same as gorgonzola

Misconception: Javascript, Java, and J# are the same language

Misconception: John Roberts is not the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

Granted, most people can't tell the difference between one microphone or sailboat and another. Few people know a lot about cheese or computer languages. Survey after survey says most Americans can't name the Chief Justice. But are these misconceptions? No, it's just stuff most people don't know. I agree that the distinction between hyphens and dashes is interesting and useful material, I just don't think it belongs here.

Bottom line: this is not a misconception, neither of your sources call it a misconception (at least from what I've seen), and jumping from "lack of knowledge" to "misconception" is a logical leap that we as wikipedia editors shouldn't be making. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems like it would be similar to the misconception about "irregardless." People don't know it's not a word because they have a lack of knowledge that it exists in dictionaries. It sounds like you've experienced this lack of knowledge contributing to that particular misconception personally, so I'm not sure why it's a leap.

Interestingly, if a reliable source identified your above examples as misconceptions, they would be candidates for inclusion here. We don't decide what's a misconception; we just report what reliable sources say are misconceptions. I know you know this already though.

You've touched on a subject that we haven't covered here, but has been discussed at great length at List of common misconceptions. How to define "misconception"? There, and here, "myth" is synonymous enough to merit inclusion. As far as lack of knowledge, we can certainly discuss it, but I don't know that it's really a controversial idea that a lack of knowledge can contribute to a misconception (e.g., "irregardless" is in the dictionary). Consider also that Oxford Dictionaries defines misconception as "a view or opinion that is incorrect because based on faulty thinking or understanding". Is faulty understanding not very similar to a lack of knowledge? Faulty understanding could come from misinformation, of course, but it could also come from lack of information. For my part, I think this particular entry is sufficiently sourced. Perhaps a slight wording modification will make it better. If you disagree, however, we will need to (1) discuss how to further refine an inclusion criterion regarding "misconception", and/or (2) wait for other editors to weigh in to reach a consensus.

If you feel that a rewording won't work and that the entry is not sourced adequately, then we simply disagree and will need other editors to pitch in.

If I might, I've found that these issues are rarely bifurcated as much as they appear to be. There are likely multiple potential compromises and areas on which we can meet on common ground here. It doesn't have to be "delete" or "keep". I'd encourage you to consider and suggest a variety of possibilities. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a big difference between this and "irregardless" - there are multiple citations of people claiming "irregardless is not a word", and several are cited by the article. I have yet to see a single cite of anyone claiming "hyphens and dashes are the same" (or some variant - we don't need exact match, but something, anything close is required before it's adequately sourced.) It's not that people don't know that irregardless is a word, there are many people actively making the claim that it isn't. That's what qualifies it as a misconception. No one that I have observed is actively claiming "hyphens and dashes are the same". The article does not provide a source for this claim.

As for rewording, I can't come up with a rewording that works, but I haven't concluded that a rewording won't work; I'd encourage you or another editor to give it a try. If it's adequately sourced and reflects the source's content, the entry can stay. Agree that keep or delete are not the only options, but I don't see any easy way to reword it to wiki standards and still call it a misconception. As currently written, I think it is unsourced (or actually a misinterpretation of the source) and a violation of policy.

Perhaps it's time to ask for a third opinion? We appear to be at an impasse. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think we got into this conundrum because of the formatting or the entries. Each one starts with "Misconception: Statement X" which requires us to come up with a Statement X for each entry. For these two "problematic" entries coming up with a supportable Statement X is difficult if not impossible. If we relaxed the formatting convention then I think we could come up with a version for each of these two entries that would be acceptable. Something like:

Hyphens, em-dashes, and en-dashes all have different purposes, but they are often confused and misused. Although the hyphen is commonly used for all dashes, this is due to the technical limitations of typewriters and computer keyboards.

This follows the convention of the sibling List of common misconceptions article and states the correct information instead of the misconception, which I think is a better approach since you owe Orin Kerr a beer: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1190078746.shtml

Our choice should we adopt this convention for these items would be to either adopt them for just these two entries or to convert the entire page. I think it would be a bit strange to adopt it for just the two entries; changing the entire article is more than I'm comfortable doing without more buy in from the other editors. Your thoughts? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I'm fine with your idea of relaxing the formatting standard for these two entries, but I'm not necessarily in favor of removing the misconceptions for all. After massive confusion on the List of common misconceptions a couple of years ago, I strongly recommended there that each entry begin clearly with what the misconception was. The amount of confusion that arose from not doing that was staggering to me. What happened was people came across an entry, formulated in their mind what they thought the misconception was, and argued against the entry if it didn't match well. The problem was, that the misconception, as sourced, was actually something else. For example, people argued against the "end sentence with a preposition" entry because they thought it was saying that it was always ok to do so, or that it was the best choice, or various other things. What the sources stated (but wasn't necessarily clear in the entry) was simply that it's a misconception that a sentence cannot end with a preposition. To remove all of the clearly defined misconceptions (as sourced) here is to invite this confusion to this article. I'm ok with adjusting these two entries though. Perhaps placing them at the end of their respective sections and noting the consensus regarding the format change at the top of this talk page in a FAQ will be sufficient. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

When you talk about "confusion that arose", do you mean "confusion that is still arising"? As far as I know, List of common misconceptions still begins each entry with the correct statement, not the incorrect one. I definitely support this change. Not only for a more uniform style, but also because it could alleviate many objections to the tone that I have raised. That's not to say that careful wording is no longer needed. In the preposition ending example I would write a heading similar to "it is acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition". Connor Behan (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would also be acceptable to clearly state the misconception as sourced in a positive manner. Why don't you propose a first sentence for the entries in the first (or another) section and we can discuss if it is an improvement? --Airborne84 (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that words like "misconception" and "myth" should be used minimally unless you are prepared to ever say that something is incorrect. The thesis of this article is that everything is correct. Start as many sentences with conjunctions as you want. End as many sentences with prepositions as you want. Say irregardless as many times as you want. Indent as few paragraphs as you want. Use one space after as many periods as you want. Use contractions as many times as you want. Split as many infinitives as you want. Say "healthy breakfast" as many times as you want. A better title for this article would be "list of manifestations of the misconception that English has rules" but that wouldn't roll off the tounge. Connor Behan (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we're still talking past each other. You keep using words like "you are prepared to ever say" or "we say". We only report what reliable sources say the misconception or myth is. If you disagree with their use of those terms, the remedy lies outside of Wikipedia, perhaps in contacting those authors or their publishers directly or even writing your own works on the subject. For example, Cutts and the Oxford University Press included an entire section in the Oxford Guide to Plain English on English "Myths". If you feel that this term is simply wrong and brings the wrong tone, you should contact the Oxford University Press or Cutts and explain your concerns. We simply report what these reliable sources say. You and I can disagree or agree with them, but our opinions as editors are simply not relevant in identifying misconceptions and myths here at Wikipedia.

And the thesis of this article is not that "everything is correct." It's that there are no firm rules in English, but people erroneously think there are.

We apparently aren't going to agree on the "tone" of this article since you seem to assert that the editors here are identifying these as misconceptions rather than reporting that reliable sources say they are. Given that, we will have to work to find common ground on the entries themselves. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I'm fine with your idea of relaxing the formatting standard for these two entries, but I'm not necessarily in favor of removing the misconceptions for all.

I can go either way on reformatting all the other entries. That said, I tried recasting the hyphen entry to use a format other than "Misconception: Statement X" and it didn't work visually - without the bold "Misconception" leading the paragraph it looked like a continuation of the previous entry. If we're going to go with a different approach to those entries we need a way to signal that it's a different topic than the previous paragraph. Ideas?

BTW, since I think the statements as written are incorrect and unsourced there is some urgency to fixing it. I'd like to see something better in a week or so. I've refrained from removing the entries thus far, but I feel pretty strongly that they must change or go. Let's put our heads together and try to come up with text/formatting that works. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a requirement for urgency on the hyphens entry since you and I are in disagreement on whether the sources support it as a misconception. However, I don't mind working to reformat that as well as the quotes entry. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Adjustments to entries

I didn't have an issue with most of Connor Behan's recent changes. However, please be careful when editing passages that are already sourced if you have not read the sources. For example the passage "It is a myth that it is incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition" was replaced by "Preposition stranding was in use long before any English speakers considered it to be incorrect." The three sources to support the former did not necessarily say the latter. I kept the latter sentence, but reinstated the former. Cutts, for example explicitly uses the word "myth." Since that is central to the entry's inclusion in this article, it should remain. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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. 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. --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. --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. 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., [[#CK09|O'Conner and Kellerman 2009]]. p. 21. 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., |ref=CK09}}.

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. --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? 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. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I changed endnote 53 to short cites as an example. --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. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)