Talk:Racial hoax

Globalize

At the moment all the examples cited are from one country. The article needs expansion, or possibly renaming to Racial hoaxes in the United States. Darth Sitges (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Two years later, this is still true. I have added a cleanup template. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Severe conflict of interest and bias

Nearly all of the edits since October 24 have been by 2 editors, User:Sharmekamoffitt and User:Moffittsharmeka, with a couple of IP editors with similar views filling in most of the rest. Through their editing, the article has become a minutely detailed exposition of every "black people are liars" case they could find. According to referenced statistics somehow left in the article, over 70% of racial hoax cases are white-on-black, which is no longer evident both from the large number of examples added and the notable examples of white-on-black that were removed. Combine the apparently biased editing with the fact that one of the examples added was of Sharmeka Moffitt, from October 23, and two of the user names ar based on hers, and the COI is obvious.

I propose that the article be rolled back to the 21:52, 3 September 2012 version to start. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I never knew that there are people who wish to delete cited examples of racial hoaxes. Should well-cited information be sacrificed for the sake of political correctness? Perhaps it would be best if more examples of white-on-black and black-on-white hoaxes were added instead of deleting them.

If you'd like to add any examples of racial hoaxes then feel free to add them.

As for my username, I've already requested a username change so once that's fixed it'll no longer be an issue.

I also reject any accusation that any editing is motivated by racism as I've only posting incidents which have been properly cited.

Your claim that "70%" of racial hoaxes are white-on-black was made by someone named Russell-Brown who documented 67 racial hoaxes between 1987 and 1996 and nothing prior to or past those years. Should any examples before and after 1987 and 1996 be listed at all? Are racial hoaxes documented between 1987 and 1996 the only relevent incidents worth mentioning?

Lastly, I CHALLENGE you to mention what content regarding white-on-black hoaxes was removed. Go ahead, because anyone capable of viewing the article's history will find no such thing. Your accusation that any content regarding white-on-black incidents was removed is unbelievably baseless and you ought to provide evidence if you wish to support such an accusation.

Now, how about seeking instead to expand the article instead of censoring it out of political correctness? Moffittsharmeka (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Why are you listing every single possible case, with particular emphasis of black on white? This article,if it is to exist, should be talking about "racial hoaxing" , not listing them, regardless of questionableness. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  "According to referenced statistics somehow left in the article, over 70% of racial hoax cases are white-on-black, which is no longer evident both from the large number of examples added and the notable examples of white-on-black that were removed."

  The assertion that "over 70% of racial hoax cases are white-on-black" is a baldfaced lie by racist professor Katheryn Russell-Brown. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:1401:C743:1FAD:AFA4 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevent content

Hi! I'm only an anon editor but I thought I'd help clean up this article a little, it was requested that I discuss my edits in talk so I'm doing so. The article has an extremely long list of news articles detailing various accusations or hoaxes, which as previously noted on this talk page were added by a single editor under multiple accounts. However the vast majority of these stories do not appear to be instances of racial hoax as defined in the opening paragraph of the article. For most of them, no specific individual was blamed for a crime. For the few that do involve blame of a specific individual or individuals, there was no indication that it was because of their race. In addition, even if these were instances of racial hoax, it would be synthesis to claim them as such without them being described specifically in those terms in the cited sources, which they are not. Hope this helps. --86.157.228.209 (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, have well-cited facts challenged a person's politically-correct views and thus that person desires censorship to affirm his or her narrow-minded and politically-correct views?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. 99.27.42.234 (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• So, do you have an answer to 86.157.228.209's statements? Other than throwing around the tired political-correctness censorship card, that is? Unless an incident is discussed in reliable sources as being a racially-motivated hoax, you can't be including it here. If you want to synthesize a narrative which supports your version of the truth, free blog space is available, or maybe you could get peer-reviewed articles published, or maybe you could write letters to the editors of newspapers -- but you can't include such synthesis here in Wikipedia. Please note that the burden is on you to justify inclusion. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• hi, this is 86.157.228.209 here, I decided to make an account. To 99.27.42.234, I have to say I agree with ArglebargleIV. I am not sure how you are addressing the concerns I have about this article. You are right that the additions are cited, but their relevance to this article is unfortunately not at all clear. Russell-Brown, quoted in the opening paragraph, defines racial hoax in the following terms:

"when someone fabricates a crime and blames it on another person because of [their] race or when an actual crime has been committed and the perpetrator falsely blames someone because of [his or her] race".[1]

However, for most of the examples that have been added there is no mention of another person being specifically blamed for a crime. For the few where there is specific blame there is no evidence that this was because of the accused's race. Most crucially, the term or concept of "racial hoax" is not mentioned or even alluded to in any of the cited sources, as far as I can tell. As ArglebargleIV mentioned there are plenty of places where you could advance the position that this collection of news articles describe examples of racial hoax as defined by Russell-Brown or other academics. However an encyclopedia is certainly not the place to do this, as it constitutes synthesis. See WP:SYNTHESIS. --EminentCluster (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

After a week with no further replies on the part of 99.27.42.234/Moffittsharmeka/Sharmekamoffitt/Sharmeka-winnsboro etc. etc. I'm going to assume that he or she has no legitimate objection to the removal of the content for the reasons stated above, and as such I have removed it from the page. P.S. I had a "loss of session data" causing me to unexpectedly sign out and make the edit under an IP address, but the change was mine. --EminentCluster (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

List of cases

Re: Andrewaskew (Undid revision 567345548 by Staszek Lem (talk). Multiple grouping methods are encouraged by WP:CLNT.)

I would agree with this opinion, if this list of cases is kept as a list of wikipedia articles (or potential wikipedia articles) (WP:LIST), rather than a potentially endless list of criminal cases it used to be in near past. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Balance of examples?

The article indicates that racial hoaxes have been most frequently performed against black people by white people, but two of the three examples show the reverse. This suggests that the examples are lending undue weight to racial hoaxes against white people. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I was mistaken, there are actually five examples, three of which show accusations against black people, the other two of which show accusations against white people. So it might be ok as is. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Seeming bias in article...

The article states that "A racial hoax can be performed by a person of any race, against a person of any race. However racial hoaxes against African Americans are most likely to receive media attention and create a more acute social problem due to the criminal black man stereotype.[1]"

The link just refers to a page from Katheryn Russell-Brown's book The Color of Crime: Racial Hoaxes, White Fear, Black Protectionism, Police Harassment and Other Macroaggressions.

This seems to me to be tantamount to citing as fact an assertion by Russell-Brown, which seems totally wrong to me. 

2600:1003:B11C:DD32:E5B7:B9E2:DC2E:4A4E (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed it. 4-13-2015

70.199.192.71 (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Racial hoax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723151811/http://www.ncatregister.com/2.7915/woman-behind-duke-lacrosse-scandal-speaks-out-1.1143513 to http://www.ncatregister.com/2.7915/woman-behind-duke-lacrosse-scandal-speaks-out-1.1143513

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

fakehatecrimes.org

http://www.fakehatecrimes.org lists many documented examples if more are needed in the article or if such lists are deemed suitable for the exlinks section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.188.95 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Tawana Brawley

Nowhere in the section on Tawana Brawley is her ethnicity made explicit. Given the nature of the article, her possession of a nonwhite ethnicity may be implied; but it is not until and unless one clicks on the hypertext link to Brawley's own page that her ethnicity is revealed by photograph. Nuttyskin (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Other examples

Having stumbled across something which might be relevant for this article, I thought I would mention it though it is not a hot topic for me.

I just happened to notice this removal of a description of an apparent incident of a false claim of a racial hoax from another article. The edit summary said, "undue, minor event", and that is fair enough for that article. This incident probably still has undue weight to be detailed here, but I thought I would mention it.

Googling a bit, I came across other similar incidents (e.g., [[1]), also probably individually of undue weight, but I thought I'd mention having stumbled over them. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that article is definitely not worth removing from the main university page, as that's international news and to most non-American's would be the only notable reason they'd know the university in question. It definitely deserves inclusion here too. Also there was a guy busted today, an Israeli-American citizen, who was responsible for at least 10% of the entirety of anti-semitic hate crimes of 2017 with only 2 weeks of work. Michael Ron David Kadar is his name. It came up in hoax hate crime of the week. These hoax hate crimes are more common than real hate crimes, yet seem to fly under the radar even though they're pretty serious. 10% of ALL hate crimes of 2017 by one man is insane! 121.210.33.50 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

An excellent additional example of a racial hoax is the episode that took place at Harvard Law School. https://royallasses.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/0-relax/

Hate Hoax is more encompassing than Racial Hoax

If it is a Hate Crime, the a hoax of that crime would be a Hate Hoax

I suggest that we rename the article and open up the discussion - Jussie Smollett if it pans out as a hoax, is a prime example b/c he covered several typical groups, is a perfect example

the hate crime would have target him for being in several categories - here is a good article that covers the failure of journalism that wiki relies on as a credible source

Thoughts?

Hate Crime Hoaxes: The Bad and the GoodRedtobelieve (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not a source that we should use, full of nonsense and conspiracy theories. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

References

The insertion of the above popped this up on my watchlist because of a recent edit I made to the article. The article is outside of my usual range of interests but, since I saw this, I did some googling which turned up what looks like a somewhat related book that might be of interest here. I have not looked any further than seeing that a WP article on the author exists and reading some of the book's Introduction online but, FWIW, see Reilly, Wilfred (2019). Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War. Regnery Publishing. ISBN 978-1-62157-893-2. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett

It's inappropriate to describe something, factually, as a "racial hoax" when the issue is uncertain and unclear. Perhaps there should be an article entitled "Alleged racial hoaxes," which Smollett's incident certainly could go under — but it's problematic to make unambiguous statements that something is true when it's unclear that it is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Uncertain and unclear? Certainly you jest. An incident doesn't have to have convicted criminal to be a race hoax. Bachcell (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Erica Thomas incident

This edit caught my eye. I think I've seen this removed previously, but did not go back and check. A bit of googling turned up "The Erica Thomas story was a hoax, but it never should have mattered outside Georgia anyway". Washington Examiner. July 23, 2019. There are lots of other articles out there on this incident but I chose to cite this one because of the word "hoax" in the title, in view of the stated reason for removal of the content I've restored. I've reverted the removal and added a cite of the source mentioned above, but this may need further discussion and I don't think discussion at talk:Erica Thomas as suggested in the edit summary of the edit I've reverted would really go to the point of mention of this incident here. The cite I've added is of an opinion piece, and source-supported alternative viewpoints would go to the question of whether this has due weight for inclusion here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: as much as I respect you, this is the wrong way around. We should always err on the side of caution with BLPs. Not only is it an opinion piece in a conservative media source, ouf perennial sources page says "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline." I don't think you've followed the appropriate guideline. Doug Weller talk 11:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Raised at WP:BLPN#Should we use an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner for a BLP issue at Racial hoax? Doug Weller talk 12:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly unacceptable - we can't call something a "racial hoax" unless it can factually be said to be a racial hoax. This page isn't "List of times people have claimed something is a racial hoax" - it's an opinion column making partisan claims about a political figure. I've removed it per WP:BLP and WP:BRD until and unless there's consensus for its sourcing and appropriateness. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Please see my comment at BLPN. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Lack of racial motivation in Duke lacrosse case

Nothing in the section referring to the Duke lacrosse case (or on the page for the case itself) indicates to me that the accusations were racially motivated -- despite the racially charged nature of the case. I propose it be removed from this list. JSutton93 (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm... The lead para of this article defines racial hoax as, "when someone fabricates a crime and blames it on another person because of [his or her] race or when an actual crime has been committed and the perpetrator falsely blames someone because of [his or her] race".

This section says, "Many people involved in, or commenting on the case, ...[not the accusers or the accused]... called or suggested that the alleged assault was a hate crime." That is supported by cited sources, e.g., in [2]:

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I saw them all come out, like, a big frat house, and me and my black girlfriend were walking by, and they called us (DELETED).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Racial slurs that were involved are relevant to show the mindset, I guess, that was involved in this particular attack.

It looks to me as if (1) the definition needs to be extended, (2) this section needs to be removed, or (3) the inclusion of the section needs to be clarified. As this case is likely to come to the mind of readers of this article, I think that last alternative is the best of the three. See also e.g., "Duke Lacrosse Scandal Stirs Racial Divide". NPR.org. April 6, 2006. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response! I think there is line to be drawn between alleged crimes (which have claimed racial motivation) and racially motivated false allegations of such crimes. It seems that the sources you refer to support the claim that the alleged crime was racially motivated, but not the allegation itself. However, I broadly agree with your recommendation that the section is better clarified than remove, and will update the article accordingly. JSutton93 (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Missing section: anti-Semitic hoax

Since this seems to be the only article about hate crime hoax why is this section missing? There have been a lot of fake crimes against the Jewish community by Jews. If there is an article why Jane it linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.40.86 (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Emmett Till

This addition of a section on Emmett Till caught my eye. I added a bit of clarification here, but it strikes me that this section might not meet the inclusion criteria described in the article's lead section. As I understand it, Till was not accused of a crime and his murder, though apparently racially motivated, was not a hoax. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yasmin Seweid - remove?

This article has a section on Yasmin Seweid. The case was widely reported, but all the articles simply say she was muslim ... there is essentially no mention of race or racism. Apparently she did say her attackers were "white", but unless there is some source that describes her race as non-white, I'm not sure it belongs in this article. I'm not saying eliminate it from WP entirely, but maybe it belongs in another article; or "see also". Noleander (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Khawlah Noman

.... ditto for Khawlah Noman. Muslim is a religion, not a race. Noleander (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I propose that Fake hate crime be its own article, instead of a redirect to Racial hoax

Fake hate crime currently redirects to Racial hoax.

I propose that Fake hate crime be its own article, because the phrase "fake hate crime" is used in the mainstream media far more often than "racial hoax," and because there are far more reliably sourced examples of fake hate crimes than there are of racial hoaxes.

Baxter329 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

How is a Fake Hate Crime different than a Racial Hoax? Is a Racial Hoax one specific time of Fake Hate Crime?Yousef Raz (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hate crimes are a subset of racial hoaxes. The current article seems to jumble everything together. There are enough fake hate crimes for it to be its own article. And the phrase "fake hate crime" is used in the news far more often than the phrase "racial hoax."

Wikipedia has an article called Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax. Please note that that title includes "hate crime," not "racial hoax."

An example of a "racial hoax" would be what was carried out by Rachel Dolezal. She pretended to be a diffferent race, but she never accused anyone of committing a hate crime against her.

Baxter329 (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Rachel Dolezal fit the article's definition. "when someone fabricates a crime and blames it on another person because of [their] race or when an actual crime has been committed and the perpetrator falsely blames someone because of [their] race"."Yousef Raz (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion here. A 'Fake Hate Crime' is an incident that appears to be a hate crime but is actually a hoax (often, but not always, staged by the alleged victim). Many of the incidents in this page do noto qualify. For example in the Susan Smith case, she claimed a black man had committed a crime, but the crime was not a hate crime, it was a kidnapping without stated motivation. The first one on the list that would definitely qualify as a fake hate crime is the Albany Bus Attack, because if it had been real, it would have been a hate crime. That is the criteria. LastDodo (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Rachael Richardson BYU Hoax

I propose to strike at least the final phrase because it is argumentative. I would also propose to strike the whole section because it is a developing story and none of that section as any citation. 2600:4040:74A5:9500:EDE8:CC34:FB75:668 (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I just re-added it with citations. It's no longer a developing story. There's plenty of evidence and motive to classify this as a hoax. While it's plausible she misheard the alleged slurs, her account of hearing them was unequivocal and she quickly used the allegations to push a narrative she and her godmother (Lesa Pamplin, who broke the story) advocates for. Gumbear (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's sufficient sourcing to call it a hoax. We can't cite Twitter for controversial facts; and the byucougars website is clearly not an independent or reliable source. The remaining sources just say "no evidence", which is not enough to characterize it as a hoax - do you have a source calling it a hoax directly, either in as many words or in equivalent terms? --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Byoucougars is plainly not an WP:RS, but even if we allow it it also doesn't use the term "hoax" or anything else that would imply that this was intentional. Calling something a hoax is a BLP-sensitive statement; we need, at the very least, a high-quality source stating that they lied intentionally, which we don't currently have. --Aquillion (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I actually agree with that. As much as the facts read like a hoax (to me), the more I reflect on this it's hard to include it here without an authoritative source (e.g. law enforcement investigation or an admission) calling it a hoax. I'm good with removing it. Gumbear (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Should this article even have a case list? Or should we set stricter inclusion criteria for it?

Far too many entries in the list of cases don't actually have sources calling them hoaxes. I've removed a few of the most egregious examples, but the list as a whole feels like it's inviting WP:OR / WP:SYNTH in the sense of serving as a dumping ground for random examples that editors feel represent racial hoaxes in some ways. One possibility would be to restrict it to things that are described as racial hoaxes specifically in multiple non-opinion sources, ie. only stuff that WP:RSes specifically indicates are significant to the concept of a racial hoax. As it is, the case list makes up something like 80% of the article, which seems unreasonable. --Aquillion (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• As an example of the problem, here, for Paula Parks, the sources do not say she lied intentionally, just that no evidence was found. That is not sufficient to call it a "hoax" in the article voice (not that we even have any sources that would support calling it a hoax in an attributed manner, of course.) Also, the Daily Wire is not a suitable source for BL-sensitive claims; see its entry on WP:RSP. --Aquillion (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be great to have 3 to 5 examples of racial hoaxes. It's enough to help readers understand the topic, short enough that people might actually read them, and it means we can keep it to the best and most reliably sourced examples. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to have a few examples, I would suggest restricting ourselves to ones used as examples in the literature discussing the concept and putting them in one section in prose rather than breaking them apart into a list (which inherently invites people to put whatever they consider important examples into it.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

My concern with only putting in references in the literature discussing the concept is, currently, the references are dominated by one author with an obvious political/racial slant. But I do agree there need to be standards. Perhaps only those cases where a false allegation is substantiated by a court and/or a confession by the accuser? Gumbear (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)