Er, no. Nice try (I'm being kind) but do you really believe that portraying a £720,000 EU grant for researching new ways of thickening several food products, including yoghurt, as "£700,000 to stop yoghurt going runny" is as much of a misrepresentation as the way you mischaracterised Britain's 1939 declaration of war? No, of course you don't. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone can think of the yoghurt thing (and many other examples) as being any kind of misrepresentation, but the Commission certainly does, else such stories wouldn't be on its many lists of "myths", so I have to assume that you and other Wikipedians are being sincere when you see misrepresentation where I see only (justifiable) disrespect and ingratitude.

So let's start from the bottomthe top. The current article starts with a lot of tosh about urban legendsby stating that "Euromyths can be either wholly untrue or a deliberate distortion of the facts". Truth is unwelcome, as is accidental or ignorant distortion. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a Euromyth is always a deliberate calumny.

Now, that's certainly the way the word is used by a very large number of people. Trouble is, though, that this very large number of people is ignorant of the facts - the facts as presented by the arch-priests of this very large number of people, to wit the European Commission and its many propaganda outlets. To put it simply, any examination of any official list of Euromyths will throw up at least one Euromyth that is to myth, falsehood and misrepresentation what Plan D was to  democarcy, dialogue and debatenot mythical at all.

So the article is wrong to start as it does. Once you have conceded that, and all this tedious "urban legend" ping-pong has been banished, we can get on with sorting out the rest of it. (I currently see five categories ...)