Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

User avatar
El Jefe
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:26 am

Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by El Jefe »

Hey has anyone heard that chestnut "Rosa Parks was arrested for sitting in the white section of the bus?" I was thinking about this and that bad "Abraham Lincoln was a supporter of equality for blacks" meme recently. Wikipedia has an entertaining list of misconceptions here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... onceptions

Any other favorites or common peeves for folks here? Mine might be the 'lemmings' comparison, simply because of how frequent (and horrific!) it is, with 'ostriches bury their heads in the sand to escape enemies' a close second (and one of the oldest).

(insert plug for James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Taught Me" here)
TenPoundHammer

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by TenPoundHammer »

If I see "a duck's quack doesn't echo" on one more trivia list, someone's getting whacked with a wet trout.
Vanya
The support is non-zero
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by Vanya »

That page has its own inaccuracy (I am going to start calling it the TRD rule): the Hells Angels (at least they got the no apostrophe part right) did not serve as security for the Rolling Stones at Altamont.
User avatar
El Jefe
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:26 am

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by El Jefe »

Vanya wrote:That page has its own inaccuracy (I am going to start calling it the TRD rule): the Hells Angels (at least they got the no apostrophe part right) did not serve as security for the Rolling Stones at Altamont.
Maybe 'equipment security' or just 'staff' is a better term? Certainly 'security' doesn't mean just 'personal security' but I can see it being interpreted that way. The Talk section on the Altamont page has a longer discussion- it was at most a deal on a handshake, though when bad things go down, failure is an orphan...
User avatar
Magna
Hooked on Jeopardy
Posts: 3079
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:37 pm

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by Magna »

Boy, whoever wrote that page was pretty confident. A lot of the entries are along the lines of "We used to think...but we now know...."
User avatar
Rackme32
Three-time Failer Of The Online Jeopardy! Test
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:16 am

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by Rackme32 »

Here's one I see all the time...

Q: "How many dimples are there on a regulation golf ball?"

In the various games I've played all over, the answer given as "correct" is usually 336... or 342... or 300... or 380, or 400... You get the idea. None of these are even close to correct; there IS no regulation number of dimples listed in the Rules of Golf. Dimples themselves aren't even MENTIONED in the Rules of Golf.

Minimum size, maximum weight, and symmetry are the only dimensions mentioned in the rules, plus a maximum initial velocity and an overall distance standard.

Manufactureres are always twiddling with the dimple size, array, and number on various ball models. Of course, each manufacturer proudly makes a firm point that THEIR design is best; I have seen 'em with as few as 250 dimples and as many as 500.

This is one question I'd love to see hit out-of-bounds forever...
UiscePreston
Valued Contributor
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:59 pm

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by UiscePreston »

Why people think the term Great Britain refers only to a single insular landmass is beyond me. It has had valid synecdochic connotations for at least three centuries.
User avatar
Budphrey
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 720
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:29 pm

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by Budphrey »

UiscePreston wrote:Why people think the term Great Britain refers only to a single insular landmass is beyond me. It has had valid synecdochic connotations for at least three centuries.
Connotation but not denotation. To be sure, Great Britain will never be negged on Jeopardy, or any other game show with reasonable practices, when the intended response is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — any more than Rhode Island would be negged, etc. etc. But in terms of the strict geographic definition, Great Britain always has been a single island.

Edited to add: OK, politically, Great Britain is considered to include a scattering of nearby small islands, I'll give you that.
Poo-tee-weet? So it goes.
bpmod
Rank
Posts: 5424
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:26 pm
Location: Hamilton Ontario

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by bpmod »

I am just looking for the list of contestant interview segments that have been totally based on non-facts given as fact.

I can only remember two off the top of my head, one where Alex made up the story and the other where the contestant made up the story. But I do remember it happening far more often than that.

Then there are things misspoken, but I'm not counting those.

Brian
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity.

If I had 50 cents for every math question I got right, I'd have $6.30 by now.
UiscePreston
Valued Contributor
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:59 pm

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by UiscePreston »

Budphrey wrote:
UiscePreston wrote:Why people think the term Great Britain refers only to a single insular landmass is beyond me. It has had valid synecdochic connotations for at least three centuries.
Connotation but not denotation. To be sure, Great Britain will never be negged on Jeopardy, or any other game show with reasonable practices, when the intended response is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — any more than Rhode Island would be negged, etc. etc. But in terms of the strict geographic definition, Great Britain always has been a single island.

Edited to add: OK, politically, Great Britain is considered to include a scattering of nearby small islands, I'll give you that.
I don't need you to give me anything; since you made no point contrary to mine. Great Britain means more than just its narrowest geographical sense. It also means the combined countries of England, Wales and Scotland. This is easily discernible looking at the official name of the UK - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Yes, the Hebrides, Orkneys, Shetlands, Wight and Anglesey are not part of an isle called Great Britain. But they certainly are, by definition, part of the geopolitical unit called Great Britain - just as Hawai'i is part of America without being remotely close to either of the American continents. And similarly, America is a perfectly acceptable synonym for the United States, while Great Britain equates with the UK. Especially since that was the name of the Kingdom before the Irish annexation.

Sorry to tell you this, but "strict" denotations are not the only definitions that exist. In fact, even from dictionary to dictionary, their entries will vary. Whether in books or in natural usage, words and terms will acquire more than one meaning - it's called polysemy. The brilliance of human language is that it is not computer code that adheres to a rigid one-to-one sign-to-signified correspondence. What separates our language from all other forms of animal communication is that we can make lasting and transferable metaphorical connections. Dictionaries and English teachers do not dictate how language works, usage does.
Last edited by UiscePreston on Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lieph82
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by lieph82 »

Ah, linguists.
User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8789
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by dhkendall »

UiscePreston wrote:
Budphrey wrote:
UiscePreston wrote:Why people think the term Great Britain refers only to a single insular landmass is beyond me. It has had valid synecdochic connotations for at least three centuries.
Connotation but not denotation. To be sure, Great Britain will never be negged on Jeopardy, or any other game show with reasonable practices, when the intended response is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — any more than Rhode Island would be negged, etc. etc. But in terms of the strict geographic definition, Great Britain always has been a single island.

Edited to add: OK, politically, Great Britain is considered to include a scattering of nearby small islands, I'll give you that.
I don't need you to give me anything; since you made no point contrary to mine. Great Britain means more than just its narrowest geographical sense. It also means the combined countries of England, Wales and Scotland. This is easily discernible looking at the official name of the UK - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Yes, the Hebrides, Orkneys, Shetlands, Wight and Anglesey are not part of an isle called Great Britain. But they certainly are, by definition, part of the geopolitical unit called Great Britain - just as Hawai'i is part of America without being remotely close to either of the American continents. And similarly, America is a perfectly acceptable synonym for the United States, while Great Britain equates with the UK. Especially since that was the name of the Kingdom before the Irish annexation.

Sorry to tell you this, but "strict" denotations are not the only definitions that exist. In fact, even from dictionary to dictionary, their entries will vary. Whether in books or in natural usage, words and terms will acquire more than one meaning - it's called polysemy. The brilliance of human language is that it is not computer code that adheres to a rigid one-to-one sign-to-signified correspondence. What separates our language from all other forms of animal communication is that we can make lasting and transferable metaphorical connections. Dictionaries and English teachers do not dictate how language works, usage does.
So does this mean that we should no longer correct incorrect usages of their/they're, your/you're, to/too, etc. since they are now becoming "common usage"? (And of course, our spelling would have set intellectual teeth on edge 500 years ago, and 500 years from now - so should we not care?)
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

Follow my progress game by game since 2012
User avatar
Budphrey
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 720
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:29 pm

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by Budphrey »

UiscePreston wrote:Sorry to tell you this, but "strict" denotations are not the only definitions that exist.
Dude. Chill. I never said they were. I was merely trying to respect your original posting by responding directly to the point you said you were curious about, by positing what might be a rationale for insisting on the strict denotation (though perhaps I could have been clearer that was the spirit of what I wrote). And you did notice my response above recognizes cultural and political contexts that broaden the meaning, which you acknowledge is a point of agreement between us. I responded to begin with because I was puzzled and a little fascinated by your original post, as I can't remember ever coming across anyone who insists on using the name "Britain," with or without the "Great," only with that very narrow meaning, at least in normal discourse.

So ... clearer? :)

Edit to add: Though as an additional parting thought, my Irish-descended in-laws might have good reason to resent any connotation that Great Britain is an umbrella term that envelops all or part of Ireland -- which is one more of many reasons that it is often pretty darn useful to be aware of strict denotations. :shock:
Last edited by Budphrey on Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Poo-tee-weet? So it goes.
User avatar
El Jefe
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:26 am

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by El Jefe »

Hah! As if (my affiliate of) NPR read my mind (about this thread) last night an episode of "To The Best of Our Knowledge" called "Lies That Last" was on. Among other topics, they talked about the Oklahoma basement myth, crack babies, and cow tipping...

http://www.ttbook.org/book/lies-last
User avatar
MDaunt
Weighed in the balance and found wanting
Posts: 748
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by MDaunt »

Moo.
User avatar
skullturf
Married to a Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:34 am
Location: Miami

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by skullturf »

dhkendall wrote:So does this mean that we should no longer correct incorrect usages of their/they're, your/you're, to/too, etc. since they are now becoming "common usage"?
It depends how common, and it depends on who uses those alternate spellings, and in what contexts.

If enough people in formal and professional contexts use a particular spelling, that is evidence that it has become correct. Now I don't think this has happened with the distinction between their/they're, your/you're, and to/too. Respected major newspapers maintain the distinction.

On the other hand, the words "apron" and "umpire" and "newt" used to be "napron" and "numpire" and "ewt". (What happened was reanalyzing "a napron" as "an apron", etc.) Those particular changes have already happened. In those cases, what counted as "correct" has, in fact, changed over time.

And then, of course, there are some things that are somewhere in the middle, where authorities are divided as to whether a particular change in the language has already happened or not.
User avatar
dhkendall
Pursuing the Dream
Posts: 8789
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contact:

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by dhkendall »

skullturf wrote:
dhkendall wrote:So does this mean that we should no longer correct incorrect usages of their/they're, your/you're, to/too, etc. since they are now becoming "common usage"?
It depends how common, and it depends on who uses those alternate spellings, and in what contexts.

If enough people in formal and professional contexts use a particular spelling, that is evidence that it has become correct. Now I don't think this has happened with the distinction between their/they're, your/you're, and to/too. Respected major newspapers maintain the distinction.

On the other hand, the words "apron" and "umpire" and "newt" used to be "napron" and "numpire" and "ewt". (What happened was reanalyzing "a napron" as "an apron", etc.) Those particular changes have already happened. In those cases, what counted as "correct" has, in fact, changed over time.

And then, of course, there are some things that are somewhere in the middle, where authorities are divided as to whether a particular change in the language has already happened or not.
I'm wondering how apostrophe-s to pluralize words stand, it seems to be most prevalent of "mistakes" that grind my gears.
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me

"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings

Follow my progress game by game since 2012
User avatar
El Jefe
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:26 am

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by El Jefe »

dhkendall wrote: I'm wondering how apostrophe-s to pluralize words stand, it seems to be most prevalent of "mistakes" that grind my gears.
My style guides only ever recommended it for pluralization of single letters (which is still understandable and appropriate) and pluralization of unfamiliar acronyms- the 1980s examples were CD's and VCR's. Certain those errors aren't as glaring as the greengrocer's apostrophes sprinkling common words on our social feeds now. Clearly the unfamiliar plurals of yesteryear are plenty familiar now. Apostrophes for plurals should be avoided whenever possible, remaining only the province of pluralizing letters.

Image
Bamaman
Also Receiving Votes
Posts: 12897
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by Bamaman »

El Jefe wrote:Hey has anyone heard that chestnut "Rosa Parks was arrested for sitting in the white section of the bus?"
I haven't. Maybe its because for me it is state history and not just history, but I've always heard the correct story that the driver was moving the white section back and she would not give up her seat. She was in the black section to begin with.
davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 6030
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Historical Inaccuracies / Bad Info

Post by davey »

skullturf wrote:
dhkendall wrote:
If enough people in formal and professional contexts use a particular spelling, that is evidence that it has become correct. Now I don't think this has happened with the distinction between their/they're, your/you're, and to/too. Respected major newspapers maintain the distinction.
If we're going to go by "respected major newspapers," then there's less controversy about many of the issues discussed in a recently active thread, like the spelling of "minuscule" or the matter of a pronoun's agreement with its antecedent.
Post Reply