Talk:Hoax/Archive 1

Archive 1

Etymology

"The word hoax came from the common pretend magic spell hocus pocus. "Hocus pocus", in turn, is commonly believed to be a distortion of "hoc est corpus" (= "this is the body") from the Latin Mass. Many etymologists dispute this claim."

Which claim is disputed by etymologists?

68.78.126.129 02:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

While I and I'm sure a large number of people believe that crop circles are hoaxes, and indeed various methods of making crops circles, without supernatural or alien intervention, have been demonstrated, I think there are a significant number of people who believe that they are not hoaxed. So, I'm not sure crop circles belong in the proven hoax section. Mintguy

Currently it reads "The word hoax is said to have come from the common magic incantation hocus pocus. "Hocus pocus", in turn, is commonly believed to be a distortion of "hoc est corpus" ("this is the body") from the Latin Mass. Many etymologists claim that this is a hoax." I'm skeptical of the claim that etymologists have described this theory as a "hoax". The earlier "Many etymologists dispute this claim" is more reasonable but still needs referencing, as does the hocus pocus/hoax theory. I'm going to change the last sentence to "Many etymologists dispute the second claim" and add fact tags.--Eloil 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

War of the Worlds

Is it fair to call the War of the Worlds broadcast a hoax? It was a dramatic presentation, it was not intended to get anyone to believe it was true... --Dante Alighieri 19:45 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No responses for two weeks, so I took it out. I'm archiving it here. --Dante Alighieri 20:00 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

• The 1938 War of the Worlds radio broadcast by Orson Welles

Dante, The War of the Worlds broadcast was widely regarded as a hoax in its day and in the literature since. While those who listened to it in its entirety would realize that it was theater, the broadcast was written and produced deliberately to fool the casual listener who tuned in partway through the broadcast. Once the broadcast was well under way, there were few clues to the listener to indicate it was fiction, and there were no announcements or disclaimers to allay the fears of listeners. I suggest that it be added again. It surely ranks as one of, if not the, greatest media hoax of all time.

Also, if you search with google, there are many sites on the web that consider it a hoax.Kat 03:01 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't intended to fool listeners who casually tuned in. There were constant breaks during the broadcast where it was reiterated that it was a theater production. The true hoax in all of this is that people believe it was a hoax and that there was mass hysteria. There never was. In reality, very few (if any) people believed the broadcast was real. A casual look out the window would show that there are no giant aliens destroying the world. IrishGuy 17:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's already been re-added, and it now has some context which marks it as distinct from your garden-variety hoax. --Dante Alighieri 06:03 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Regardless of what sites listed on Google say, the War of the Worlds broadcast was not a true hoax. "Hoax" implies malicious intent; in this case there was none. The broadcasters had no idea the public would be so gullible. - Hephaestos 06:07 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A hoax certainly implies intent to deceive, and that was completely absent from the Welles broadcast... -- Someone else 06:10 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand that the "no intent to deceive" response was given by Welles and others involved in the broadcast when the resulting bruhaha began. But it really is a doubtful thesis; Welles certainly intended to snooker a few people, though perhaps he was surprised by the extent of the response. I studied it some back in the 1970s and don't have my notes any more, but I remember that there was little doubt as to the intent of the broadcast.

A hoax does not have to be characterized by "intent to deceive" or "malicious intent". There are other possible motives, and there are even unintended hoaxes borne out of gossip. Mdoc7 14:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

My father once told me that he and his parents happened to stumble across it on the radio, and it wasn't long before there was an announcement that this was a theater presentation. Of course, my father and his parents were of above average IQ and not inclined to just accept such a wild premise like some of the audience supposedly did. Wahkeenah 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody ought to research on the question on whether the War of the Worlds really created hysteria in the USA (abeit the hysteria was larger in S. America) or the hoax was itself a hoax used as justification for UFO and related secrecy/cover-up by the government. Mdoc7 18:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Criminal charges?

An interesting subject for this article would be what criminal charges one would face for a hoax around the world. Or, more accurately, what sorts of criminal charges have been used in the past against hoaxters. My guess would be 95% go without any sort of criminal charges, and once in a while there's a charge of fraud or something like inciting to riot. Tempshill 19:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

George Bush National Guard letters

Under "Proven Hoaxes" there were separate entries for "George Bush National Guard letters" and "Killian memos." I think these are the same thing. "George Bush National Guard letters" did not link to anything, so I took it out. "Killian memos" leads to an article on the subject. TomTheHand 01:44, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

I've moved Shroud_of_Turin from Proven Hoaxes to Possible Hoaxes. As far as I know there's still debate about the authenticity of the Shroud. TomTheHand 06:26, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Fraudulent hoaxes

We should merge some content from Hoax and Fraud to Fraudulent hoax. --TheSamurai 23:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

probable hoaxes

I have some objections to the probable hoax section. Unless there is evidence to support that something might be a hoax, its just the author's opinion. For instance, Whitley Streiber's Communion is listed as a probable hoax for no reason I can discern other than that he claims to be abducted by UFOs. You can't prove a negative, (like you can't say "there is no god" or "there are no aliens". You can doubt these things but you can't prove them absolutely. Unless there are tapes of Whitley Streiber sleeping in his bed all night long during nights he's claimed to be abducted, you can't prove he hasn't been, you can only doubt him. Also, if he's just hallucinating, it isn't a hoax, it's a mental disorder.

If there is some evidence suggesting something might be a hoax but it is inconclusive, then maybe you could argue for listing as a probable hoax, but even so, it shows an obvious bias. I'm tempted to remove the listing, but I'm still new here so that seems a bit presumptuous. Anyone have any comments? Reverend Distopia

No responses for several weeks, so I'm going to move the link to possible hoaxes. Anyone who wishes to put Whitley Streiber's Communion back on probable hoaxes, feel free to do so, but please give a good reason for it. There's no evidence here whatsoever to prove it is or isn't a hoax. At best its a possible hoax and not a probable hoax. The shroud of Turin is listed as a possible hoax and there's evidence to back up the claim that it's a hoax, whereas, so far, no one has shown any evidence that Streiber is making this up. Reverend Distopia

I have just read something REALLY disturbing from a link that a friend posted--how can I find out if it is a hoax or not?

Hey¡¡..What happen with the Peter Lynds HOax and Bible code Hoax?, i think they should stay here, or at least being moved to possible HOax.

• Try Urban Legends References Pages - Skysmith 15:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

God as a possible hoax

I removed a poorly-written sentence stating that the existance of God could be considered a hoax because the piece is an opinion that can't be proven true or false.

All Hallow's Eve AKA Halloween

As an independent observer, I noticied April Fool's day on the page. Does Haloween also fit under this category. While not always malicious, they are a trick and intended to scare?? I wondered the regular people's opinion on this.?

Hoax traditions

• "A New Zealand tradition is the capping stunt, wherein university students perpetrate a hoax upon an unsuspecting population. The Acts are traditionally executed near graduation (the "capping")."

This is by no means an exclusively New Zealand tradition. It needs to be generalised.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Is it really correct to call this a hoax? A fraud or a libel, certainly, but (as the first paragraph of the article suggests) a hoax generally has an element of playfulness to it, and the word doesn't sit very well with something that is purely malicious in its intent. LeContexte 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• A hoax?, the protocols contents many topics already it carried out, and them have almost nothing of publicity, hoax would be to deny them completely.Kamui99 05:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In regarding to Attempt for china

I think we just need to show that Theoman attempted undermine the fact that there is only one china. I did not removed other non important facts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.234.102 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"One China" is not a fact; it is a point of view that not everyone shares. This article must remain neutral in its point of view. Eron 18:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope it is not too gauche of me to point out by way of counter-example that many people do feel that "One China" is a fact. We, I mean, many people would argue that the legitimate government of all of China resides on the last loyal province, Formosa, and that once the Communist insurgency is cleared out things will be much better. Some day you will be free. AND that's a fine counter-example (if I do say so meself) to show why your One-China edits are being erased. Haakondahl 13:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you define a fact, then, especially in terms of China? (Of course, it's people like you who strengthen China's propaganda, since we see you guys as attempting to invade china) 64.180.234.102 18:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't define facts for China. I'm just noting that there are well-known disputes over the Political status of Taiwan and the One-China Policy, which are covered in the articles I've linked to. Given the dispute, I think NPOV requires that neither position - Taiwan as fully independent or as an inseparable part of One China - be given primacy in this article. I think the article as written explains the situation without taking a stand one way or another - that is neutral.

That said, I'm not sure that any of the stuff to do with Taiwan actually belongs in this article. The monochrom hoax was the creation of a fictional artist, Georg Thomann. The question is if the subsequent actions of that artist are part of the hoax. I don't know enough about the situation to be certain, but it seems to me that the actions regarding the Taiwan delegation were a legitimate and honest political expression by monochrom.

(And I'm not sure who "people like [me]" are; as I command no armies, I certainly can't invade China, nor do I have any desire to do so. I quite enjoy visiting there though.) Eron 20:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked at the pages for both monochrom and Georg Paul Thomann. They both cover the Taiwan situation, so I've removed it from this article. Eron 20:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fortitude a hoax?

The article refers to the wartime activities of Operation Fortitude building a fake army camp across from Calais; actually of course this was a grand plan involving thousands of dummy operations all over Southern England and participated in by more than 50,000 soldiers and civilians, including leading figures like General Patton. I wonder if this is really right in a "hoax page" context, since it's actually a deliberate wartime piece of counter-intelligence deception. If this is in, what about other deliberate wartime hoaxes like Hitler's use of fake Polish paratroopers to kick off the second world war, or the Gulf of Tonkin Incident incident used by the US to step up the Vietnam war? MarkThomas 08:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Blair Witch Project a hoax?

We were told before the movie came out that it was filmed as realistically as possible, as if done by a real student with poor camera skills. We were never told it was real. I thought it achieved the desired authentic look, but lacked any real sense of horror or suspense, because you knew it was fake, and there were no professional tricks like camera angles or music to create the necessary atmosphere.

Da Vinci Code

FFS, people. Fiction is fiction. Dan Brown markets DVC as such, and you don't have to believe in something to write about it. Look at Sartre... he was an atheist who wrote about Hell in No Exit. As much as I dislike DVC, we do need to give Brown more credit than that. 71.196.136.47 04:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, in some interviews Brown has stated that he believes in what he writes, but how much of that is publicity, I do not know - Skysmith 08:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The book was published and marketed as a novel. It is not a hoax. The work of fiction is partly based on a hoax, but that does not make it a hoax itself. 12.22.250.4 19:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

The whole "advertising hoaxes" sub-section was badly written and pointless; none of the things referred to actually seem to be hoaxes, just good quality commercials. So I removed it all. Previous edit attempt was worthy but didn't help remove the total chaos. MarkThomas 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

John Titor

Should John titors forums postings at least be touched upon in this article? Adamshappy 14:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Helius Project

I changed the external link in the body to an internal one of the page i just made for the Helius project, (it sucks so go help me fix it guys), i added the link to the website to the external links but im wondering if that is neccesary bc the page i made has the link Sublime2681 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the external links list to remove Helius, and several others. Eron 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Rosie Ruiz

Rosie Ruiz - How is the Rosie Ruiz incident a Hoax? A hoax is a form of a trick or joke. Hers was an actual attempt to defraud and cheat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.178.221.230 (talk • contribs) .

I want to raise the same question. Her intent was not to hoax but to win dishonestly. To call this a "hoax" requires a pretty broad interpretation of the definition. 12.22.250.4 19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Virus Hoaxes

somebody should write up a section on virus hoaxes, as it is prolific on some business networks over a one-year period. Some home computers might receive some, too. www.vmyths.com for a start. Mdoc7 04:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Famous musical hoaxes

What's that? How can the music you hear be a hoax? --Mdoc7 04:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Milli Vanilli was a fraud, a humbug. But someone was singing, so the music itself wasn't a hoax, just its performers. Wahkeenah 05:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot more could be put in here, such as, Fritz Kreisler, The Masked Marauders, etc.

Taxil Hoax

May I suggest adding the Taxil hoax? The claims made are still repeated in some circles. Blueboar 20:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Religions

Why isn't there more discussion of religious hoaxes? Most religions were started as a hoax. Gigs 17:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Meow! Wahkeenah 00:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ossian

Perhaps a sentence or two about the non-existent poet Ossian? Totnesmartin 19:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Boston - NOT A HOAX

Please can we ensure that no mention of the Boston incident be included here - because the ads were not meant to be seen as a threat, it is not a hoax. Thanks. Snusinow 07:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, if it wasn't a hoax. Totnesmartin 11:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Celebrations - Not a Hoax

I am deleting this claim: "Islamic festivities hoax on September 11- aired from a tape immediately after September 11 attacks to grab attention. The channel that aired it retracted the tape and apologized. The festivities actually took place on Id day." This is not correct. I remember (vividly) seeing the celebrations accompanied by brief interviews with some of the celebrants explaining why they were celebrating the attacks of 9/11. The references were un-ambiguous. It ran on more than one channel, but the claim does not identify a single channel, much less cite an apology. I cannot cite a source for my own recollection, but then the portion which I am deleting is sourced only to a restricted site. I did attempt to see what backing this claim (that the 9/11 celebrations were a hoax) could muster, but the whole thing looks fishy to me. Not only is the cited source unavailable, and no verifiable facts are stated, but the claim runs counter to my own clear memory. Of course, I could be wrong, but a claim such as this should be well-sourced. --Haakondahl 15:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Surgeon's Photo (Loch Ness Monster)

I removed this. It was not a hoax. 60 years after the photo was taken, a reporter claimed that he had spoken with a man who had faked the photo, who conveniently had died minutes before the reporter said this, and had no connection with the man who did take the photo. Perhaps we could say it was a hoax to say that this was a hoax. It's taken in a lot of people! Chamale 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• And I put it back. In addition to the testimony, anyone who has seen the complete photo and not the cropped version can tell immediately that it's a tiny object floating in the water. Wahkeenah 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Edited to reflect the controversy regarding whether or not this photo is a hoax. What you think you can see obviously could very well be something you yourself are imagining. DestradoZero 21:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You have obviously never seen the uncropped photo. Wahkeenah 02:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Snake Oil?

e.g. Snake oil? Bit random, maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but snake oil is not a forgery. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite being random, snake oil isn't a forgery as far as I know. It never immitated anything. But forgery has nothing to do with the snake oil hoax. May you find a better example, I can't hehe.

Vghistorian (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL...

May we add {{hoax}} template to article? xD... Yes, it is ^(about) hoax! Kubek15 ^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul is dead

This seems more suitable for the conspiracy theories page. thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.253.231 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed it w/o knowing the question was already raised. The description itself makes it out to not be a hoax in the article's terms. The article Paul is dead offers no evidence of a hoax. Don't call it even a possible hoax on the accompanying page until that possibility is supported with refs, at least in Paul is dead.

Idaho

I removed this:

* Idaho was named as the result of a hoax. Lobbyist George M. Willing introduced the name, claiming it was a Native American term meaning "gem of the mountains." It was later discovered that Willing had made up the word himself. As a result, the original Idaho Territory was renamed Colorado. Eventually, the controversy was forgotten and the made-up name stuck.

bcz it has no refs, and seems to contradict Idaho Territory.

Philadelphia Experiment?

Should the Philadelphia experiment be included here? A U.S. navy investigation unearthed many factual errors in the story as have many other investigtions by other groups. For example at the dates the experiment took place the ship was overseas and no where near montuak or Norfolk and there documented proof of this. User:Bentley4 (Talk) 1:31, 5 August 2008 (EST)

Email Hoax

This section contains the following.....

"An example email hoax is a doctored image distributed via chain emails, as pictured here."

Yet there is no picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.118.215 (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As no one has replied or corrected this I have deleted most of the section as it made no sense whatsoever without the actual picture referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.79.212 (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I put the picture there, along with that statement. Too bad the pix needed to be deleted because it was thought to infringe copyright. :/ Mdoc7 (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

South America reference

The reference about the big impact it had in South America is a hoax itself. Not a single reference, other than a link to a page where this is not even mentioned, and a page with an article suposedly from an Argentinian paper -though that paper section was inexistent at the time, and the dates does not match at all with the forged text. Please, take the South America line out, it is completely made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.178.90 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object...

If I put a hoax template at the top of this article, just for fun? Jonathan321 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• As funny as it would be, I don't think it fits in with Wikipedia's ethos to do something like that. I also appreciate you're probably joking, anyway. - RD ^(Talk) 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)