::Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for inclusion.  And since 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.