Talk:Death hoax

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, July 4, 2009, see discussion.
speedy keep, July 1, 2009, see discussion.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Andy Kaufman#Claims of resurfacing|Andy Kaufman]] The anchor (#Claims of resurfacing) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

RFC - what is Wikipedia policy on "death hoaxes"

Should this page even exist?
Does engaging in the reporting of celebrity death hoaxes actually encourage such hoaxes?
Where should Wikipedia draw the line between reporting of a phenomenon (which indisputably exists) and avoiding being part of the problem? Manning (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome of RFC - That the community either proceed to develop this article appropriately, or use this RFC as a de facto AFD and delete.

Opening argument - I created this page with considerable self doubt, hence the article currently exists as a one line stub. I do not see the value of expanding the article until there is consensus that the activity is even worthwhile.

There are arguments both for and against this subject.

Arguments for:

Extensive evidence of the existence of the term. See here and here. Also a Museum of hoaxes article that is worth a look.
Wikipedia has (at least in the past week) adhered to a policy of not acknowledging these hoaxes (see Talk:Rick Astley and Talk:Jeff Goldblum). Editors have raised the (potentially valid) objection that we are are ignoring noteworthy information as a consequence. (eg, see this reversion.
Bad information is even worse than a lack of information on a topic, especially when a hoax is involved. Even major media organization fall victim to hoaxes, somehow asserting the (hoaxed) death of a celebrity as real and creating a lot of confusion. When a rumor gets to this level -- that false reports are circulating in significant news organizations -- I think Wikipedia can be as useful at providing evidence that a celebrity death is a hoax (like Jeff Goldblum), as providing information on bonafide celebrity deaths (like Michael Jackson). --Chibiabos (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An explicit mention of a death hoax of a improves wikipedia article stability. A well-intended Wikipedian who sees/reads/hears a report of a celebrity's death might come to an article, see no mention of it and think "aha! I've got new and vital information, this person has died!" and edit the article. Another wikipedian, knowing its a hoax, might revert it ... but then its back at its original state, and the original poster or yet another wikipedian who also heard the report might put it back in ... because there's no acknowledgment of the hoax in the "standing" article, well-intended Wikipedians might unintentionally get in an edit war. Granted, the more bull-headed variety still might, but I think its fair to state that including mention of "significantly spread" hoaxes might at least reduce unintended editwars. --Chibiabos (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against:

As noted here, the modifying of Wikipedia pages is an established method of perpetuating a hoax. By creating this article we may be exacerbating the problem.
Covering of this subject will require covering Wikipedia's role, and as a result possible reporting of the vandalism that must be dealt with. How quickly will we cross the navel-gazing limit? (It is worth noting that Wikipedia is often discussed by external sources when covering this topic.)

Please feel free to expand the above criteria. Manning (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hemlock Martinis

I'll try to reply to these in order. First of all, this page should exist. Celebrity death hoaxes may not always be individually notable, but as a whole the phenomenon has been widely reported on and discussed (a quick Google News search for "Rick Astley" brings up articles about his hoax by the San Francisco Chronicle and Baltimore Sun) by a number of reliable sources over a lengthy period of time. Celebrity death hoaxes didn't just start in the past week; as I recall, Abe Vigoda has been falsely reported dead so many times that a website exists for the sole purpose of keeping people informed as to his alive/dead status. I'd find it hard to believe that such a social phenomenon does not merit an article on Wikipedia.
Second, you ask us to analyze whether or not Wikipedia should report celebrity death hoaxes. Judging by some of the comments on the talk pages for the Rick Astley and Jeff Goldblum articles, I assume you're asking whether or not we should be pro-active in combating death hoaxes. While I don't think it's necessary to put a banner at the top of the article that says, "Jeff Goldblum is still alive. You suck at the Internet.", other measures can be taken. For instance, when a celebrity death hoax is disseminated, people flock to Wikipedia in droves to see if it's true. Worse still, if the reader believes it is true, they will try and edit the article so they can claim to be the first one to report so-and-so's death on Wikipedia. Such action is incredibly disruptive and, while not warranting preventive measures such as blocks for the misinformed reader, does warrant swift page protection and monitoring by administrators.
Sometimes we forget that the edits we make are actually read by thousands of people. As a top ten website, we need to be aware of our actions and the impact they can have on the offline world. That said, I strongly disagree with any assessment that we bear any responsibility for the perpetuation of celebrity death hoaxes. We do the best that we can do. We should not scrub the encyclopedia of any mention of celebrity death hoaxes; to do so would be the editorial equivalent of covering one's eyes like a child and pretending that if you can't see something, it's not there.
These things happen, they're widely reported on, and they're frequently (though not always) notable. The community should exercise more caution as to how much weight we give them in articles (the aforementioned Abe Vigoda example, for example, should carry more weight within Abe's article than George Clooney's death hoax should in George's article), but we should not make a concerted effort to weed them out of our articles. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article should be treated like any other WP article. No special policy needs to be developed. Dlabtot (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article development

I expected a greater response to the RFC, but oh well. As a result I have commenced article development regardless of policy. I'm most concerned about crossing the line into WP:NOR, so will tread carefully. Manning (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CNN is now running a story on celebrity death hoaxen on the front page. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Blaxthos. Some additional links here. Livenews.com.au and ABC Media Watch, both relating to the National Nine News gaffe in reporting the death of Jeff Goldblum. Manning (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be aware of bias towards recent events, for example the wave of hoaxes following the death of Michael Jackson may be notable in 50 years time, but will anyone care precisely which celebrities were the subject of the hoaxes? I'm curious right now about the list, but that's only because it's current. — PhilHibbs | talk 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree. Although I think the subject itself is notable and worthy of discussion, I have ZERO desire for this to turn into an indiscriminate list of the latest hoaxes in the media. That's too short a distance away from reporting which nightclub Paris Hilton was last seen at. We are not a newspaper and we are definitely not a tabloid. Manning (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's good stuff on a google scholar search. If you expand the article to include what the literature seems to consider the full range of death hoaxes (ie. usually the type of "Elvis is alive" myths and "Courtney Love did it" types of rationalizations that occur after actual deaths as well), you have a lot of material to deal with this as a socialogical phenomenon. In particular, there's a book that looks like it examines this in great detail. I also found some material about the Paul is Dead phenomenon, which might discuss other instances as well. There's definitely room for development here. --Gimme danger (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good input Gimme danger. Feel free to dive in yourself. I've got a busy RL schedule this weekend and have no time to edit. Otherwise I'll follow-up on your suggestions later next week. Manning (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recent article by Fox News. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the New York Times chimes in:"Death by Cliff Plunge, With a Push From Twitter", by Monica Corcoran, New York Times, July 10, 2009.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — PhilHibbs | talk 20:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the flood of death hoaxes in late June 2009?

Why did the real deaths of McMahon, Fawcett and Jackson in quick succession encourage so many people to make false claims that other celebrities had just died? That a similar thing was done when FDR died only tells us that the phenomenon is not unique; it tells us nothing of the motivation of the hoaxers, nor why real famous deaths would make many people want to spread lies that other, living celebs have died. I would have though that the opposite would be the case - that when no famous people had died for weeks / months that people would be bored that no-one famous had died, so might falsely delcare a death to get readers and public attention by pretending they are the first to break news of a celeb death after such a long time since the last real one. Surely people in the media and those interested in celebrities and death would have been much busier than usual in late June 2009, documenting real famous deaths, so would not have time to make stuff up, nor would want to prioritise bullshit, when there is a great deal more real reporting to be done than usual. Biographies 2 (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed causes of death in hoaxes

When a person is falsely declared dead, why is it so often an unusual cause, such as drowning or falling off a cliff / mountain? Why don't the hoaxers claim much more common causes, such as heart disease, stroke or lung cancer? Biographies 2 (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll give them ideas! 152.91.9.219 (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is going on with this articles sentence structure?

I thought I was having a stroke while reading the intro paragraph. And there are other places throughout that are just a bizarre jumbled mess of words. I dont even want to begin trying to correct this. Is someone vandalizing or making a legit attempt to contribute here? lethalenoki (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]