Talk:Hoax letter writers

Untitled
What's a lexilink? -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:18, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I imagine it is a link to a lexicon, so it is to an encyclopedia. --Martin S 07:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Donaldson was not Raddick
I know the real identity of Henry Raddick and while I can't reveal the info, I can tell you that it wasn't Donaldson.

I won't edit the page because I have no legit source other than my word, and it will just end in a nediting war in which I have no desire to be involved, but what I say is fact.

70.81.118.38 04:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons that Raddick is probably not Donaldson is that Donaldson died some time ago, but Raddick appears to be still posting. However, I doubt that Raddick passes the test of WP: Notability. Lexo (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, why is Henry Raddick redirected here, but no longer mentioned in this article? Not R (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well they were It was removed because of a lack of references, even though there were some links to use and a Google would have turned some up:          . Neil Gaiman has called him "the 21st century's Amazon-reviewing answer both to Charles Pooter and Henry Root" . So it should be easy enough to source a section on him. I'll work it up later if no one else has beaten me to it.
 * Amusingly he emailed me about the mention he got here but from his private account, so I know who he actually is. Which is not admissable here, of course, even if I hadn't also promised not to reveal his identity. {Emperor (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC))


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus for move due to very little participation. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Hoax letter writers → List of spoof letter writers — "List" should be added as this is primarily a list of names, rather than an article about the writers. Secondly, "spoof" is a more accurate and more frequently used term to describe this topic. "Hoax letter writers" implies malicious intent. "Spoof" is less ambiguous as it's clearly humourous. Googling "Hoax letter" confirms this: virtually all the results refer to criminal or terrorist hoax letters. Saikokira 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in opposition to the move

 * 1) Weak oppose. I don't like the word "spoof" here. To me that term would imply that the list consists of imitations, rather than pranks. I know that's not the only definition of "spoof", but I believe it to be the most common. I agree with changing the title to reflect that this is a list. Dekimasu よ! 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Francis Wagstaffe
Francis Wagstaffe is another pseudonymous author who has been removed from the main article. That was the name used by the Rev. Canon Toby Forward when he wrote spoof letters to Anglican bishops, in order to publish their replies as "The Spiritual Quest of Francis Wagstaffe." He has the distinction of having had his collection of short stories, "Down the Road, Worlds Away" by "Rahila Khan" (Virago Upstarts, 1987) withdrawn and pulped by the publisher. NRPanikker (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Letters of an Indian Judge to an English Gentlewoman
Other readers who are better informed than I may be able to help decide whether the epistolary novel "Letters of an Indian Judge to an English Gentlewoman" published in 1934 under a pseudonym by the romantic novelist Dora Black should be counted as a collection of hoax letters. It was obvious to me that it was a work of fiction, but the famous literary critic Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak was taken in by it in recent years. What should settle the question is how it was received at the time. I don't have ready access to bound volumes of literary magazines from the 1930's, or of the British and Indian newspapers where it may have been reviewed when it first came out. NRPanikker (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)