Er no Nice try Im being kind but do you really believe that portraying a  EU grant for researching new ways of thickening several food products including yoghurt as  to stop yoghurt going runny is as much of a misrepresentation as the way you mischaracterised Britains  declaration of war No of course you dont 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 wouldnt 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 lets 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 thats 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 archpriests 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 pingpong has been banished we can get on with sorting out the rest of it I currently see five categories