Talk:List of hoaxes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Myth of the Flat Earth

The misconception that people in the Middle Ages believed in a flat earth was promoted by Andrew Dickson White, the founder of Cornell University, and also by Washington Irving the beloved storyteller who loved to write historical fiction under the guise of history. [1]

I'd like to include this in the list of hoaxes. If that's okay, what's the best section for it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This item is on List of common misconceptions, which seems like a better place. -- Beland (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Charles Socarides accuses the APA of a "hoax" regarding their claim that it was a review of scientific evidence that prompted them to rule that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. He says rather that they gave in to political pressure.

Should we:

1. not touch this issue with a ten-foot pole
2. list it as a "possible hoax" or "hoax claim"

Or maybe the issue of reparative therapy which Dr. Socarides and the APA disagree on needs more writing in its article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'd leave it out. Some people in the real world throw around the word "hoax" when what they mean to say is that someone is exaggerating or engaging in uncomplicated lies as opposed to true hoaxes. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

sectioning

This list is pretty long, anyone got any ideas on how it might be sub-divided further for easier navigation? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be batter ordering it chronologically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.99.233 (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's either chronological or by topic, I think, and chronological might be easier to do consistently and objectively? -- Beland (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Abiogenic petroleum origin

The first article is not a proven hoax, as stated. I'm removing it from the list. Erobinson55 (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Known pranksters, scam artists and impostors

Two names -- Robert Hastings and Robert Salas -- were added to this list in recognition of their work and due service regarding the "The Echo Flight UFO Incident (March 16, 1967)" and "The Oscar Flight UFO Incident (March 24, 1967)" UFO hoaxes. Citing is complete; further details can also be noted at Malmstrom Air Force Base, under the section "Alleged UFO incident," and List of UFO-related hoaxes under the section "Hoaxes involving military incidents." Separate recognition of "James Klotz" of CUFON, co-author with Robert Salas of the book "Faded Giant," was not considered necessary due to his relatively inactive role in the presentation of these hoaxes. Although co-author with Salas of the book initially bringing together disparate details of these hoaxes, it is believed that his role was merely that of a publisher, proof reader, and researcher. The primary claims themselves were presented by Robert Salas and, at a later date, Hastings alone. Signed, James Carlson

I understand the gravity of using an IP address system as opposed to registering my name as an editor, but I have made my associated email address easily available to all members of the public through my own research and writings, and have already been targeted by numerous scams and individuals attempting to slander my name through that email address. The only way to keep my discussions on Wikipedia free from that sort of retaliatory conduct is to make changes from my IP address alone. In this way, anything authored by others using my name can easily be determined as false. I've discovered under similar conditions throughout the internet that this can't be done safely under any registration associated with my email address, and since I now have only one computer, the IP address seems easiest to confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.70.229 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

IRT the signing of additions; I understand now and I appreciate your help.--69.247.70.229 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Corrected online.--69.247.70.229 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert Salas restored

I have restored the entry for Robert Salas. It was removed by User: WalterHuston without discussion. The material is properly sourced. MrBill3 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of Robert Salas is discussed in the section aboveTalk:List_of_hoaxes#Known_pranksters.2C_scam_artists_and_impostors. Rather than repeated removal discussion on this talk page is appropriate per Wikipedia:Notability (people) the level of notability for inclusion on a list is substantially different than that for an article. This subject warrants discussion and there is already a section on this talk page to reach consensus before editing particularly once an edit has been performed and reverted per WP:BRD. Regarding the sources provided, the first is published by a notable source National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena, the second is a thoroughly sourced article although not published the article itself is well supported, the second is similar, as to the third whether it (and the other sources cited) is a reliable source for the this subject is a question that can be raised on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard after some discussion and attempt to reach consensus here. Let's talk about this here rather than edit warring per WP:EW. MrBill3 (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi MrBill3, the material cited to "www.theufochronicles.com" and scribd.com documents don't meet WP:RS no matter what the threshold for notability is. Also the Nicap.org source mentions nothing about Salas or any hoax. I've asked for opinions at WP:FTN here. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings LuckyLouie and thank you for your contributions to WP. If the items in question should be removed from the list I have no issue with that. My involvement came about only because the material was removed without discussion. Having looked at the history of this list it seems there has been some back and forth editing in the past without discussion. I think there are two issues that warrant discussion, is Robert Salas a notable enough "Known pranksters, scam artists and impostors" to be on this list is the first. The second, only needed as a follow up, is if the references cited meet WP:RS. The RS guideline has some flexibility I don't know if the references might squeak by. Of note much of the list lacks references. That the first source cited does not support the information is pretty convincing. The lack of publication of the scribd sources makes them tenuous at best. I am not sure what has been discussed about the source for the fourth ref, but I suspect it falls short of RS even for a specific topic. The inclusion of Robert Salas does not seem strongly supported and if there is no further objection on this talk page I will not contest it's removal nor restore it again. MrBill3 (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. After looking into the article history, it appears to have been an individual posting under the IP 69.247.70.229 strongly wishing to get their original research about an allegedly UFO related incident onto various Wikipedia articles, including this one. See:

69.247.70.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unfortunately their personal research posted at scribd.com does not meet our requirements for reliable sources, and their habit of posting abusive rants to Talk pages such as this one didn't help their case. Of course, if their research is ever published in multiple, reliable sources we would be happy to include it. But until then, it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Material removed without discussion

The following two items were removed without discussion here:

• The Priory of Sion, a made-up secret society that plays a prominent role in The Da Vinci Code
• The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book instrumental in the surge of antisemitism during the last hundred years.

I have restored them with the following references.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember The 13th NASA Hoax?

A countdown website that went viral on October 3, 2013, they had a special announcement for the world and everyone thought it was NASA. It was covered by major news outlets around the world. http://gooutside.uol.com.br/2434 http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/512195/20131008/nasa-rememberthe13th-fake-announcement-hoax-website.htm#.UlypUvLD-xn http://www.chron.com/news/article/Suspicious-website-cites-NASA-in-hyping-4869314.php It was a large trend on social media for a while. NASA was unable to comment due to government shutdown. Days later, It ended up being a hoax. Remember The 13th was mentioned on Alex Boese's Museum of Hoaxes. http://revistagalileu.globo.com/Revista/Common/0,,EMI343457-17770,00-DE+NOVEMBRO+O+MISTERIOSO+HOTSITE+DA+NASA+E+LEGITIMO.html http://news.ameba.jp/20131010-306/ http://technologie.gazeta.pl/internet/1,104530,14724944,Zapowiedz_najwiekszego_odkrycia_NASA_okazala_sie_byc.html http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/10/05/2013100502548.html?news_Head1 http://www.zdnet.co.kr/news/news_view.asp?artice_id=20131005225305 http://technologie.gazeta.pl/internet/1,104530,14724944,Zapowiedz_najwiekszego_odkrycia_NASA_okazala_sie_byc.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/04/remember_the_13th_viral_marketing_silliness.html http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/remember_the_13th_the_big_reveal

The same people behind this hoax was the same people involved in Brian's Announcement which can be found in the Brian Griffin article. http://www.dailydot.com/business/socialvevo-family-guy-hoax-company/ http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/the-mysterious-internet-marketing-of-socialvevo/story-fnjwmwrh-1226778110305 SocialVEVO is the name of the viral company who created these 2 viral sites and more. Many people also reported that remember the 13th could've been a phishing site to steal emails but it was never confirmed. The hoax is ranked as one of the top 10 best hoaxes of 2013. http://www.dailydot.com/lol/best-hoaxes-2013/

The hoax is mentioned even long after it was over. It is considered a notorious NASA hoax compared to the recent ones. http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/nasa-letter-hoax-fake-jamie-jones/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.162.190.150 (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A "hoax" that isn't a hoax

Hey, what do I do if a "hoax" is scheduled for deletion but I happen to know it's NOT a hoax: indeed, I can even provide one or more scholarly references therefor?

What do I do?

Oodly ooh? Bing bing bing bing BruceDavidWilner (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Providing more specifics generally gets you better advice, but based purely on what you have said here, providing third party, reliably published sources that discuss the subject in a significant manner is generally what needs to be done to save a page from deletion. :Personal knowledge of Wikipedia editors doesnt count. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Taured

"Taured" redirects here but there is absolutely nothing in the article about it 74.90.214.164 (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Nomenclature

Many of the examples given do not fit the accepted definition of a hoax. That is, a lie perpetrated simply to demonstrate the gullibility of the victim, with no intention to benefit financially, and with the joke being revealed voluntarily by the perpetrator after a relatively short time. Many of the cases mentioned were outright frauds, or were lies which the perpetrators never admitted to be lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.146.107 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ysolo (Albanian eggplant festival)

Since 2012, our article on List of harvest festivals has included a mention of Ysolo, purportedly a “festival marking the first day of harvest of eggplants in Tirana, Albania”. I believe this is a hoax. I will shortly delete it from that article, but it might be deserving of mention here, because it seems that its appearance on that page has led to a mountain on Ceres being officially named Ysolo Mons after the spurious festival. (See [2][3][4].) The hoax would seem to have been remarkably successful. —Mark Dominus (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

A higher level of evidence is needed to add a new fact to Wikipedia than to remove a dubious fact. Your search for evidence of the Ysolo festival probably justifies its removal from List of harvest festivals, but it does not justify its inclusion here as a hoax. We would need to cite a source to confirm that it is a hoax. Your USGS source [5] cites this blog. This would not be a good source for Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course, and I am not planning to introduce it here without a reliable source. I am only bringing it to your attention as an item of possible interest. —Mark Dominus (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting. It is a possible candidate for Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents. You could follow it up with whoever was responsible for naming the mountain (possibly NASA or USGS). Verbcatcher (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have mentioned it at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_citogenesis_incidents#Ysolo_Mons. —Mark Dominus (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: I just received email from USGS that they agree with my assessment and that they are changing the name of the mountain to Yamor Mons. —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, good. Dinero y amor is better than dinero y solo. Still, an eggplant is better than nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylax30 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Johann Hari added

Corrected the remarkable state of affairs which resulted in the most significant case in modern times of journalistic fraud, fabrication and plagiarism (alongside Jayson Blair) was missing. 82.10.117.175 (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it as it's unsourced and qualifies under WP:BLP - although feel free to re-add once you've collected some sources to support the addition. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've re-added it. It is sourced at the article, like every other entry on this list. The case of Jayson Blair is similar, again, sourced at the article, not here. cagliost (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The source states that "he plagiarised and embellished quotes" and does not mention the term "hoax". I think "hoax" has a certain context to it and not all lies, fabrications, or deceptive statements are considered hoaxes. -Location (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)