Talk:List of common misconceptions about history

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Pyramids of Egypt and Slave Labor

[edit]

Given that the topic is still under debate by Egyptologists, I think that listing this as a "common misconception" is misleading.

Corvee labor can, in my opinion, be plausibly described as slavery, though it isn't the same as chattel slavery that modern Americans might be most familiar with.

Sources that support the idea that slavery was used for the construction of the pyramids:

Edward Frank Wente and Edmund S. Meltzer, Letters from Ancient Egypt, vol. 1 of Writings from the Ancient World (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), 74. (Primary source)

Mazzone, David. “The Dark Side of a Model Community: The ‘Ghetto’ of El-Lahun.” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architecture 2 (2017).

Miers, Suzanne. “Slavery: A Question of Definition.” The Structure of Slavery in Indian Ocean Africa and Asia. Edited by Gwyn Campbell. Studies in Slave and Post-Slave Societies and Cultures. Portland, OR: Frank Cass Publishers, 2005.

Langer, Christian. “Forced Labour and Deportations in Ancient Egypt: Recent Trends and Future Possibilities” 2.19 (2020).

I am drawing from the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpyWYcNP0Rw AbeAllowed (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move this discussion to the main page, Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions, where presumably it will get more attention.
Please continue the discussion there. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese as the language of the Republic of China

[edit]

There is a misconception that Cantonese was proposed as the national language of the Republic of China, losing a narrow vote to Mandarin.[1] This misconception doesn't have a page of its own, but is quite similar to the Muhlenberg legend, and many online speculate this myth was inspired by the Muhlenberg legend. Would this be a valid topic for inclusion? I propose the following wording:

  • There was probably no such vote in the Republic of China on the national language where Cantonese lost by a small margin (often purported to be of one vote) to Mandarin. This myth is often told by Cantonese speakers who boast of its proximity to Middle Chinese in comparison to Mandarin, and is likely influenced by the Cantonese origins of Chinese revolutionary Sun Yat-sen. This myth may have been inspired by the similar Muhlenberg legend, which mythologises that German lost by one vote to English in a vote on the national language of the United States.

24.50.56.74 (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC) 24.50.56.74 (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the misconception here? Your cite says:
A great debate started between the delegates and eventually led to a formal vote. Cantonese lost out by a small margin to Putonghua (Mandarin) and the rest is history.
Is this incorrect? And are there reliable sources to establish that it is incorrect and widely believed? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article further says that the topic is debated by historians over its veracity, but nonetheless remains a popular myth.
While historians today still argue about the authenticity of the story, it is something Guangdong people love to tell. Many Cantonese speakers feel proud of their native language, saying it has more in common with ancient classical Chinese than Putonghua - which is a mix of northern dialects heavily influenced by Manchurian and Mongolian.
This is from the Hong Kong Chinese Language Society. It cites a linguist, Yao Dehuai, as saying:[2]
There has long been a popular belief in Hong Kong that when the "national language" was approved in the early years of the Republic of China, Cantonese lost to Beijing dialect by a single vote. An examination of historical facts reveals that this claim is unfounded and untrue. It's common and unsurprising for these and other popular beliefs to circulate. However, it is truly regrettable that such a legend has even circulated within Hong Kong language academic circles, and that some scholars, without any verification, have endorsed it out of their professional standing. The publication of this book will also facilitate careful research by Hong Kong academics to determine whether the "Cantonese dialect lost to the Beijing dialect by just one vote" scenario actually occurred.
This article gives the following citation,
姚德懷,“‘規範普通話’與‘大眾普通話’”,《語文建設通訊》第57期, 1998年10月。
This is the related citation on Google Scholar.
姚德怀. (1998). 规范普通话. 与 “大众普通话, 58.
24.50.56.74 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC) 24.50.56.74 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"...historians today still argue about the authenticity of the story..."
Unless and until there is broad consensus among historians, it doesn't belong here, although it sounds like a good topic for inclusion in another article. I'm not seeing anything about it at Languages of China; the inclusion criteria here requires mention in a topic article, so that would be a place to start, i.e. find an appropriate article to include this material and add it there. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add it to History of Standard Chinese. 24.50.56.74 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like given that the SCMP article doesn't provide any references on historians that believe this alleged vote and result took place, we should take the word of the academic document I provided, which says that it was a myth. 24.50.56.74 (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayclose, I do not owe you any consensus seeing as you just randomly appeared on this article to undo my edits without providing reason for anything. You later accused me of edit warring, which I have not done. The truth of the matter is that the only objection here was about three weeks ago, and everything here is sourced - the fact that it is a misconception. The second half of the point is a re-stating of the page lede of Muhlenberg legend, and does not need to be sourced any more than “water is wet” needs to be sourced. The only person edit warring here is you, as well as deliberately engaging in dishonesty by suggesting that because this network IP is partially blocked from editing pages totally unrelated topics, this somehow negates the validity of my arguments. This is unacceptable. 2605:8D80:1395:18AF:C01:9946:449F:5185 (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything on Wikipedia requires a source to verify. Take two minutes to read WP:V. Sundayclose (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, do I need to source “water is wet” or “a hydrogen molecule contains one proton”, or “Paris is the capital of France”? This is ridiculous. 2605:8D80:1395:18AF:C01:9946:449F:5185 (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sundayclose (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then wise guy, let’s see you provide analogous citations for these facts. I suppose when you greet people in real life do you cite your birth certificate before giving your name? Do you cite your Wikipedia password to prove you left a comment on a talk page? Do you cite a human anatomy textbook on lungs each time you take a breath? 2605:8D80:1395:18AF:C01:9946:449F:5185 (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Watch your tone. First of all, I'm not putting those "facts" in a Wikipedia article. Secondly, those "facts" have nothing to do with your edit. If you can't take this seriously, I'm finished here. My warning about edit warring stands. Sundayclose (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And interestingly you don’t seem to have the same fervour deleting the lede of the page Hydrogen, which also states that hydrogen consists of one proton (and provides no citation!) The lede of the article Muhlenberg legend literally states exactly what it is, and the same misconception I included here uses that same page lede. 2605:8D80:1395:18AF:C01:9946:449F:5185 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see MOS:LEADCITE which explains that the lead section may or may not have citations. If, after reading that you still have issues with the Hydrogen article, feel free to bring it up for discussion on the talk page there. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about you provide an actual reason for reverting my edit instead of “edit warring”, which it is not as that edit literally adds your requested citation? 2605:8D80:1395:18AF:C01:9946:449F:5185 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"...historians today still argue about the authenticity of the story..."
Until someone provides sourcing that can settle the matter one way or the other it doesn't belong here. That hasn't changed. And edit warring won't fix it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, keep playing the “edit warring” card, I am sure that by repeating it enough times it will become true.
And to respond, I have given you three weeks, above, to respond to me on the talk page. I made it clear what my reasoning was for including the topic, which was that an academic institution concluded in favour of it being untrue, whereas the SCMP article is an article documenting this phenomenon, but does not itself provide a citation for historians disagreeing on it. Interesting how no one ever seems to be interested in engaging in talk pages until someone actually makes an edit. 2605:8D80:1395:18AF:C01:9946:449F:5185 (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP, I agree that we shouldn't give much stock to a newspaper's account of events if academic sources contradict it; this page is founded on scholarly sources contradicting popular sources after all! Still, the sourcing you have provided, an academic org's newsletter, is weak. Can you find any better sources making the same claim? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 00:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response. I will look for one and provide it here in time. 2605:8D80:1395:18AF:C01:9946:449F:5185 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a quick search and found a few more:
  • https://www.indylanguagecenter.com/post/cantonese-is-not-only-a-language-but-also-represents-the-hong-kong-identity
    • Rumor has it that, at the time when the Republic of China was founded in 1912, Cantonese failed to be elected as the official language by a margin of one vote to Mandarin. Is that true? Let’s look at history. ... Therefore, Mandarin was selected, not elected, as the standard Chinese. There was no voting. More than a century later, the rumor of Cantonese being voted out still persists in many people’s minds nowadays. It is enough to say that Cantonese has a significant status in Chinese society.
  • https://globalvoices.org/2023/04/22/the-reasons-behind-the-myth-of-cantonese-as-a-more-authentic-chinese-language/
    • Cantonese or other languages from southern China were hence regarded as the more politically correct choice, as Mandarin was spoken by the Qing Imperial court, which the Chinese revolutionaries planned to revolt against. That’s likely why the ROC’s “standardization of pronunciation committee” could not reach a consensus on the official tongue, though eventually, the board reached a decision largely driven by the Chair.
  • https://thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_2037854
    • Translated from Chinese: First, the article "Native Accent" mentions that "it is said that in the early years of the Republic of China, many members of parliament came from Guangdong and proposed using Cantonese as the official standard accent," and so on. This claim has circulated widely online, leading some to create the joke that "Cantonese was just one vote away from becoming the national language." In reality, the question "____ language was just one vote away from becoming the national language" is practically ubiquitous online, and the place name in the blank is by no means limited to Guangdong. Everyone is "just one vote away." However, these are ultimately just "rumors," lacking any concrete evidence (because there isn't any).
Here are a few such articles discussing it. 2605:8D80:1395:18AF:C01:9946:449F:5185 (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully you can take some time to do a more in-depth look. These blogs/other news stories are generally less credible than the SCMP article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the same citation from the lede of Muhlenberg legend to the second part. Are you happy now? 2605:8D80:1395:18AF:C01:9946:449F:5185 (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Cantonese almost became the official language". 6 October 2009.
  2. ^ Hong Kong Chinese Language Society (October 2008). "紀念 國語普通話運動110周年". Hong Kong Chinese Language Society Language Development Newsletter No. 90.

Linguistic divide between Anglo-Saxon words for animals and French words

[edit]

The following entry was recently added:

  • The Norman Conquest of 1066 did not create an immediate linguistic divide between Anglo-Saxon words for animals and French words for their meat; beef, pork, mutton and similar terms entered English centuries later, and they continued to refer to the animals as well as their meat until the 18th century. The myth was popularized by Sir Walter Scott's 1819 novel Ivanhoe.[1][2]

Looking at the first source, it states "This is probably partially true." Since this is not the list of things that may only partially be true, it doesn't seem like the source supports inclusion.

As for the second source, it's over 400 pages long and a text search for "beef", "mutton", or "pork" finds no mention.

And while I'm not sure what the topic article might be, I don't see any mention in any that I've looked at.

So, it appears that this entry fails the inclusion criteria. I'm removing it pending further discussion here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The relevant topic article would appear to be Influence_of_French_on_English#Food_and_cooking and I don't see this "misconception" mentioned. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr swordfish: re. the first source, this continues with: "The true part is that the words cow, sheep, and pig are all derived from Old English while beef, mutton, and pork are all from Norman French (or Anglo-Norman it’s complicated). It also follows that the old French derived words were more likely used by the nobility as that was the courtly language of high medieval England. However..." This part is not in question, and isn't part of the myth. Read further. The myth itself is described starting with the next paragraph.
Regarding the second source, there are page numbers (p. 205-206) for a reason. The relevant part is the beginning of section "5.5.1 Lexical borrowing: French". Renerpho (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To quote again from the first source: "The proposed explanation is that the food words are all derived from Norman French because that was the language of the medieval nobility who ate the meat. The words for the animals are derived from the Anglo-Saxon or Old English spoken by the peasants who tended the herds. As such the the division is a consequence of conquest and colonisation. This is probably partially true." I've highlighted the true part. Note that the myth is only about the rest. Renerpho (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong in Influence of French on English, but you're right the misconception is not mentioned. The subsection about food and cooking discusses the etymology and first time of being attested, some of which is part of the myth -- like the fact that words like beef and pork actually entered the English language only in the 13th century, two centuries after the Norman Conquest. That problem is discussed in the first source linked above, and is contrary to the version of history presented by Scott. More relevant as a "topic article" is the newly created Norman culinary myth. Renerpho (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source is Medium, which being crowd sourced is not a WP:RS. The second source fails to mention anything about this at all.
I've looked at your newly created article Norman culinary myth and I can't determine whether the sources support the text since there are no inline quotes or sufficient pointers to where the claims are substantiated. Perhaps you could supply the relevant quotes from the cited materials? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr swordfish: Maybe you'll find this discussion useful: Talk:Beef#Etymology -- It comes with a lot of quotes from the sources that have been cited here. Renerpho (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the relevant quote from the 2nd source that you can't seem to find (page 206): Scott’s view of the 12th century, and of Saxons and Normans as distinct races, is shaped more by 19th-century nationalism than by historical fact. In any case, nothing like the episode with Gurth, Wamba and the word-pairs could possibly have happened, because Middle English porc ‘pork’, beof ‘beef’ and motoun ‘mutton’ are recorded as borrowings for the first time around 1300. Even more importantly, during the Middle English period these words didn’t just refer to the meat, but could also refer to the animals themselves – as could the inherited words for pig, cow and sheep. It’s only much later, after 1500, that the sharp distinction between inherited animal-words and French meat-words was established (see Őrsi 2015). Still, the fact that this distinction was established at all is a testament to the enduring prestige of the French language in England, many centuries after the Norman Conquest. Renerpho (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer to the beef etymology discussion. I would agree that removing the "popular" oversimplification was the correct call.
As for the quote above, agree that Scott's historical fiction vignette is anachronistic and wouldn't have happened that way. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An observation here about Walter Scott. While he was probably the most influential historical novelist of his era and an antiquarian in his own right, his sources while researching his novels were often limited in scope or poor in quality. Per the main article, his depiction of Medieval England and its speech patterns are primarily modeled on "Elizabethan and Jacobean drama." I suspect that he was using Shakespearean history as an inspiration. Dimadick (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: Possibly; although even Shakespeare provides counterexamples to Scott's version of history (like A pound of man's flesh / Is not so estimable or profitable, / As flesh of muttons, beeves, or goats -- Merchant of Venice I.iii.165-7). Renerpho (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent some time reading the cited source, "A History of English" Cite error: Unknown parameter "history" in <ref> tag; supported parameters are dir, follow, group, name (see the help page)., and it seems like the issue is aptly described as

One commonly-mentioned case study involves words for animals (e.g. pig/swine, cow, sheep) and the corresponding meat (pork, beef, mutton). In each of these cases, the word for the animal is inherited from Old English, and the word for the meat is a borrowing from French (porc, boeuf, mouton).

This is true of modern English. So, how did it come to be this way? The origin would appear to be the Norman Invasion of 1066, after which the ruling classes spoke French (or the Norman variation of French). For about 400 years, the ruling class of England were not speaking or writing Middle English, meanwhile written Middle English was "limited in certain important ways."

"Traditional scholarship has often stated (or at least implied) that English as a written language died out entirely after the Norman Conquest, later rising phoenix-like from the flames during the 13th and 14th centuries." (page 179)

As the Normans and Saxons lived in proximity to one another, a great influx of French terms entered the English language, including the ones above for meat. While the earliest written examples of those terms don't appear until sometime in the middle of the Norman-rule, it's unclear when they began to be used in spoken language. It is clear, however, that the French terms were used more or less interchangably with the English terms in the written examples from the period.

The "rigid" distinction between the live animal and the meat thereof didn't appear until later, sometime after 1500.

It’s only much later, after 1500, that the sharp distinction between inherited animal-words and French meat-words was established (see Őrsi 2015). Still, the fact that this distinction was established at all is a testament to the enduring prestige of the French language in England, many centuries after the Norman Conquest.

Moreover, use of the French term "Beef" for the living animal persisted until the late 19th century. ("The sense ‘living animal’ all but fell into disuse at the end of the 19th century. - Tibor Őrsi)

IOW, the ~400 year rule by French-speaking elites resulted in a long-term attitude of French being a "prestige" language, ("French was a high-status language during the Middle English period, and so it’s not surprising that prestige motivated many borrowings.") and this attitude survives to some extent today. The throughline from the Norman Conquest to today's English usage is a bit complicated, and the pat presentation that the terms were somehow "fixed" after the Norman Conquest and afterwards unchanged is historically inaccurate.

That said, I think it's an over reach to declare it a "Myth". I'd say the status is similar to that of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny - not quite scientifically/historically correct but not actually "wrong" enough to be described as a myth or misconception. So, I don't think it belongs as an entry on this page. I do think the topic should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia, and Influence_of_French_on_English would seem to be the place hence the merge proposal. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr swordfish: I'm fine with that. I'm not sure if I'll have time to rewrite the article and incorporate it into the influence of French article before next week; I'll try.
I'd like to say though that the standard you apply seems to disqualify some of the existing items in the list. For example: The familiar story that Isaac Newton was inspired to research the nature of gravity by an apple hitting his head is almost certainly apocryphal. All Newton himself ever said was that the idea came to him as he sat "in a contemplative mood" and "was occasioned by the fall of an apple." -- So, that "myth" is basically true then, isn't it (minus a little embellishment)? Renerpho (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the arbiter of what gets included here - its done by consensus of the participating editors - so I'm not going to reflexively stick-up for every entry. With regard to the Apple/Newton entry, it concerns one very specific alleged incident (i.e. the apple hit him on the head) for which there is zero evidence while there is a fair amount of contemporaneous evidence that he was inspired by watching an apple fall. i.e. the part about being hit on the head is pretty clearly false.
With this proposed entry, it is true that at one point there was a ruling class who used the French terms for the meat on their plate, while the farmers who tended the animals used the English words. Agree that this arrangement changed over the ~950 years between the Norman Conquest and today as the language evolved, and while the "popular story" is an oversimplification it's not entirely without evidence like Newton being hit on the head is.
One of my criteria for this page and it's two sister pages is that entries that are somewhat gray or subject to ongoing dispute don't belong here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see -- thanks for the explanation. Renerpho (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Williams, Dana T. (25 November 2022). "The Conquest of Beef". medium.com. Retrieved 6 October 2025.
  2. ^ Hejná, Míša; Walkden, George (2022). A history of English. Language Science Press. pp. 205–206. doi:10.5281/zenodo.6560337. ISBN 978-3-96110-346-1.

King Canute

[edit]

The intentions presented in this point don't match the source, and it's pretty bland compared to the source's telling anyway.

Point:

  • In the tale of King Canute and the tide, the king did not command the tide to reverse in a fit of delusional arrogance. According to the story, his intent was to prove a point that no man is all-powerful, and that all people must bend to forces beyond their control, such as the tides.

Source:

According to the story, the king had his chair carried down to the shore and ordered the waves not to break upon his land. When his orders were ignored, he pronounced: "Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless and there is no King worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven and earth and sea obey eternal laws," (Historia Anglorum, ed D E Greenway). The account shows Canute setting out to demonstrate that the tide would come in regardless, says Professor Simon Keynes of the department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic at the University of Cambridge. Badvpnuser (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]