Talk:List of hoaxes/Archive 1

Topics
How about the big hoax in Belgium yesterday. (Google News: belgium independence, in a few hours or on Belgian websites if you read French/Flemish)

Hoax n. &mdash; Lexico Publishing Group, LLC / Fair use
 * 1) An act intended to deceive or trick.
 * 2) Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

Removed The War of the Worlds broadcast October 30, 1938 This wasn't a hoax (not even by Wikipedia definition of a hoax), it was a radio show, and wasn't necessarily meant to cause the re-action it did. Note the program warnings CBS broadcast before and during. Calling it a hoax, would categorize all fictional works to be deemed hoaxes. &hellip; G u y M &hellip; (soapbox) 07:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Could the recent (2005) Czech fake-supermarket "event" be included? Jackiespeel 18:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think so. If you mean that students project Český sen.

How is the "Apollo 11 moon landing" a 'Probable Hoax'?

It seems kind of strange to me that Steorn is listed under "probable," but John Titor is only "possible." Just sayin'. Nleseul 21:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel "crop circles" should be changed to "some crop circles". Many crop circles have not been proved false

Game Infarcer should be on here, if only for comic relief. This annual parody featured in Game Informer has fooled many a reader. Classic. brickdude 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a reference to Snopes?
www.snopes.com, hoax debunkers.


 * This is just a list of hoaxes, removed from the article hoax because it was overwhelming it. The article talks about debunkers. - DavidWBrooks 02:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Communion
I'm once again moving Communion from debunked hoaxes to probable hoaxes because unless there's evidence to prove that Streiber actually lied, we only have his word for it either way. While I don't think he was really abducted by aliens, I can't prove he wasn't and no one else has either, to my satisfaction. Please do me the courtesy of at least saying why you're moving it back to debunked hoaxes if you do so, because, in my opinion, someone needs to have actually debunked it before it can actually be considered debunked.--Reverend Distopia 20:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Patterson-Gimlin film
I've moved this from "debunked" to "probable" since the (fairly exhaustive) Wikipedia page doesn't contain any mention of conclusive debunking. The point of comparison I'm using here is the Loch Ness "surgeon's photo." In that case, one of the original hoaxers provided a first-hand account of faking the "evidence." This hasn't happened with the Patterson-Gimlin film, and though a number of people feel that the film is a hoax, there has been no conclusive proof of its inauthenticity. Docether 21:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are a few things not in WP:
 * "In October 1997, upon the thirtieth anniversary of the Patterson film, new reports surfaced to confirm that Chambers had concocted the creature. This time, movie director John Landis stepped forward to verify what he said had been known among Hollywood make-up artists for years. "That famous piece of film of Bigfoot walking in the woods that was touted as the real thing was just a suit made by John Chambers," Landis said. The director said that Chambers had revealed this secret to him when they worked together on Beneath the Planet of the Apes in 1970." - From


 * "there is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind." -


 * "According to Michael Wallace, Bigfoot is a hoax that was launched in August 1958 by his father Ray L. Wallace (1918-2002), an inveterate prankster. Shortly after Ray’s death, Michael revealed the details of the hoax, which were reported widely in the press." - and  and  Bubba73 (talk), 01:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm using the Loch Ness "surgeon's photo" as the closest analogy. In that case, two of the original people who brought the photo to the public's attention later testified that the photo was a fake, and related physical evidence (an uncropped version of the photo, discovered 50 years later) corroborates their stories and their involvement - . That's a pretty decent standard for "debunked," all things considered.


 * The Patterson-Gimlin film doesn't hit that standard. First, all the currently available testimony is hearsay. Secondly, it's all hearsay about the purported roles of people who never claimed involvement with the film itself (and, in Chambers's case, actively denied involvement - see the Patterson-Gimlin article). The Seattle Times piece cited in the skepdic.com article above says "Michael Wallace said his father called the Patterson film "a fake" and said he had nothing to do with it." - So basically the best witness here is a guy who says that his father said that the film is a hoax, but that he didn't produce it. None of the principals in the case - ie, those who brought the possibly faked film to the public's attention - ever publicly stated that the film was a hoax. So, skeptic though I remain, I can't say that the film itself is debunked. It's a (highly disputed but) "possible" hoax, barring new physical evidence or an evidence-substantiated confession by one of the hoaxsters. Docether 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point - there is no first-hand confession or any physical evidence about the film being a hoax. So I don't strongly disagree with the move. You said "Michael Wallace said his father called the Patterson film "a fake" and said he had nothing to do with it."   The older Wallace is reported to have created the Bigfoot hoax in 1958.  The Patterson film was in 1966, and Wallace said that he didn't have anything to do with the film.  But if the whole Bigfoot claim is a hoax, then the film must be a hoax.  I think "Probable" is more appropriate than "possible".  CNN and others reported it as a fact that it was a hoax (when Wallace died).  Personally, I tend to believe Wallace about his father, unless he is seeking publicity or something.  Hmmm.  When my father dies, I'll announce that he killed JFK!  :-) One thing, though - the heading says you moved it from "debunked" to "probable", but it is actually in "possible".  Bubba73 (talk), 04:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your argument seems reasonable. Since the elder Wallace claimed to have produced the original Bigfoot tracks in the area, my rule of thumb should make the original tracks at least a "probable" hoax. Patterson only set out to look for a Bigfoot in that area because of those tracks and the subsequent publicity / rash of (probably hoaxed) sightings. If Wallace had made the tracks because he'd heard of Bigfoot sightings in the area, then it's possible that Bigfoot is real but the tracks were not, and thus the film could be authentic evidence of a real phenomenon. However, I can't find any evidence of this -- Wallace claims to have come up with the idea on his own, and there don't seem to be any reports of sightings in the area previous to his (probable) hoax. Thus, the film increasingly appears to be "fruit of a poisoned tree," and more like a probable hoax than a merely possible one. Sounds good to me.


 * Oh, and you're right. I did put it in the "possible" section because I'm an idiot. Moved to "probable." Case closed! ;)


 * This names a person who admitted to being in the suit.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * More and more probable? I think the Wikipedia article on Bigfoot mentions this claim. Still, I'm sticking with "probable" rather than "debunked" on this one. If Heironimus had more proof of his allegations (say, the suit itself, or other heretofore-unrevealed film from the event that confirms his role), then I'd definitely put it with "confessed by hoaxers". But I don't think this fits the "debunked" standard ... after all, I could say that the Zapruder film was faked because I was the guy driving the limousine in the footage, but that doesn't mean that it's so. In my view, the Patterson-Gimlin film is widely disputed -- and should continue to be investigated -- but is not yet verifiably debunked. Docether 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK for now. I've ordered the book "Museum of Hoaxes", and maybe that will give more details.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So it is not quite certain, but here is some more info and and . Bubba73 (talk), 03:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * All this belongs to the article Patterson-Gimlin film - Skysmith 12:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

suggestion - split section?
What do you think about splitting the debunked section into two: "confessed" and "debunked". Debunking usually means that they were shown to be bunk by others. Or even three sections, with the third being one that disprove themselves, such as Paul is dead which disproves itself by the fact that he is still alive.

Also, should Bigfoot itself be listed? (I think so).


 * Dividing the debunked section into "confessed (by the perpetrator)" and "debunked (by others)" might also encourage users to add details about the perpetrator or debunker, respectively. Self-evidently false hoaxes probably don't require their own category, since there will probably be relatively few of them. Also, self-evidently false hoaxes are certainly disproved on -someone's- evidence ("I saw Paul yesterday!") though the "debunker" may simply be "everyone" or "history."


 * On the other hand, we could always just add a "confessed" marker of some sort, with a short explanation, to the "debunked" items where the hoaxster stepped forward (either to reveal the hoax, or to claim responsibility for an already-revealed hoax). This might be the best method, because "confessed" and "debunked" aren't necessarily exclusive of eachother. For instance, if I perpetrate a hoax, and you disprove it based on the evidence, and then I step forward and admit my responsibility for it, providing additional evidence to prove my role as the hoaxer ... well, you see where I'm going. Just a suggestion, though -- feel free to unilaterally make this decision. ;)


 * Re. Bigfoot -- How about adding specific Bigfoot evidence which turned out to be a hoax? That way, we can list specific events which were hoaxes (for example, the Wallace prints could be listed as a probable / confessed hoax), and remain agnostic about Bigfoot's existence on the whole. Docether 14:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Splitting the section seems like a good idea to me. As regards the overlap of "self-confessed" and "debunked by others", I'd suggest that since the hoaxer confessing is much stronger evidence that there's a hoax, items which are in both should be listed in the "confessed" section.  There might be an exception for hoaxes where the hoaxer confessed it was a hoax, then retracted the confession, but I think there's probably few enough of those cases to make the exceptions manageable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Monkeyfishing
God help me, I'm clarifying "monkeyfishing". As added by an anonymous user, the sport of "monkeyfishing," or fishing for monkeys, as described in a slate.com article by Jay Forman, is in fact a hoax. However (probably unbeknownst to Mr. Forman), "monkeyfishing" for -fish- does exist. Generally banned in most areas of the US, monkey fishing involves sending an electrical charge into the water, causing fish to attempt to escape to the surface where they can be scooped up with a net. Originally the electric current was produced with a small hand-crank generator, the operation of which is reminiscent of an organ grinder's hand-crank organ (hence, "monkey" fishing). And now you know. Docether 18:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now I know. (I just like to know things) brickdude 04:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Religious works and Hoaxes
I thought there used to be a note on this page saying that religious items were not acceptable as hoaxes. In any case, in the interests of heading off incipient POV arguments, I've removed "Book of Mormon" from "proven hoaxes". The basic argument is that religious beliefs are not falsifiable and thus cannot be proved "hoaxes" without an explicit admission by the "hoaxer". This seems fair enough to me. Whether an atheist would deem all religious texts to be hoaxes is perhaps another subject for another time, but in this instance I believe that including religious works as hoaxes (again, barring the hoaxer's confession) violates NPOV. A weaker form of this argument might lead to the conclusion that all religious works are possible hoaxes (in part because of their unfalsifiable nature), but none are proven. In either case, "Book of Mormon" should be removed from "proven hoaxes." Its inclusion in other hoax categories is up to those brave souls who wish to prod the proverbial hornets' nest. Docether 04:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In the same vein, should Lobsang Rampa be in confirmed hoaxes? It looks to me like he has not been proven to be a con-artist, only alleged. If there's something missing from the wikipedia article on him, it should be added. If there's nothing missing from his wikipedia article, i say move him to probable hoaxes. --The Sporadic Update 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (Look at me, i remembered to sign it!)

Majestic 12
Do these really belong in the Confirmed Hoaxes? I was under the impression-even with a skim of the wikipedia article on them-that there had been no absolute confirmation of a hoax. I'm not saying they're true-i'm just saying they should be in the Probable section. Yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sporadic Update (talk • contribs)


 * Interesting question, because I always forget which one is correct and which one is a hoax. MajestyTwelve is the correct one according to William Cooper. He was also the person who disclosed Majestic 12, however he said that it was a hoax. ( http://www.hourofthetime.com/majestyt.htm ) KittenKlub 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There certainly isn't any evidence proving them as a hoax PERIOD! In fact, there is strong evidence to support the thesis of authenticity. Every critique yet put forward has had a valid verfiable answer. The wikipedia article, as I stated in the discussion area of that article has loads of errors or lack of positive rebuttals. It's pretty funny how biased some people can be. MJ-12 was by NO MEANS a proven hoax; in fact, very far from it!

66.240.35.170 13:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the MJ-12 documents have been proven false. The signature of President Hoover on the documents were the exact same signature on one of his letters. I regret to say this because I am a ufologist, and I had hoped that these were authentic. But they are not. However, this MajestyTwelve KittenKlub mentioned may be real...brickdude 04:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actully they lifted president Truman's signature. Bubba73 (talk), 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Iffy Entries
I'm considering removing Sheng Long from the list, as the story was sparked by a misunderstanding/translation and an April Fools Joke. But apparently it grew beyond that, and i'm unsure of whether or not it should be counted as an actual hoax or as an april fools joke. Opinions?--The Sporadic Update 17:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Proven hoaxes section
I think it would be a good idea to break the "proven hoaxes" section into "proven hoaxes" and "admitted hoaxes". Bubba73 (talk), 02:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Estotiland
This text appeared under the heading Probable hoaxes in a place where it obviously did not belong:


 *  e.g., Estotiland, Drogeo, Podalida, Neome, or known to exist in rather different locations, e.g., Estland (Estonia) and Frisland (Friesland). 

I did not delve into the history deeply enough to figure out what this may have related to. If someone knows, they should add the information back under an appropriate place. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

lonelygirl
I noticed no mention of the whole "lonelygirl" thing from Youtube and wanted to add it until I realized that surely someone would have put it here already so I figured there was a reason for it not being on here. I came to the talk page to see no explanation, and I was just wondering why. Should it be on here? - Sardinas 00:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have considered this question myself alot. I am very very reluctant to call something a hoax if it is artistic in nature and seeks to express something subtle by not admiting its own "fictionalness". Surely we shouldn't call the "autobiography" of Chuck Barris a hoax because the book did not seek to pull off a lie but to be entertaining or to give a subtle metaphor. The you-tube actresses and the guy from the Opera book club shouldn't fall under the term "hoax" becuase it's not a given that they really wanted people to believe what they were saying...instead they were either entertaining or making a metaphor. We don't call a poet a hoaxer just because he didn't really "dance on a rainbow". We don't call Bill Cosby a hoax because his name isn't really Cliff Huxtable. These sort of things should come into question.--Gtg207u 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Probable vs possible
What are the differenes between the two sections? Must me explained in the article or merged. `'mikka 02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no one explained the difference so far, I am merging the sections. `'mikka 19:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Im my mind, a probable hoax is more likely to be a hoax than a possible hoax. Bubba73 (talk), 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

kidney reality show hoax
i can't remember the name, but what was that danish (?) reality show where they competed for a kidney transplant? shouldn't it be listed. i would list but i can't remember the name. --Idon&#39;texist 11:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Orson Welles - H.G. Wells
I suggest that the War of the Worlds hoax be added to the list, as it caused a huge panic when Orson Welles aired it. It is one of the most widely known hoaxes, as far as I know. DeftHand (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm an idiot. I just saw the reference earlier in the page and I agree with it. My apologies if you wasted your time reading my suggestion.DeftHand (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing
I'm about to start removing every item that is neither sourced nor has a reference to "hoax" in the article itself. For example, someone's been inserting Global warming, with neither a reliable source claiming it's a hoax nor with any mention in the article about it being a hoax. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and shall do the same. Obviously, inserting Global Warming into the article is an action solely based on someone's personal point of view, and it's an unverifiable claim, anyway. Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  03:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, wait. If a reliable source indicates that global warming is possibly a hoax, it can be included. The usage in the cited article, however, is just rhetoric. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the "about site" page on my source. It has a long reliable history. rossnixon 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So? Tell ya what, let's discuss it here rather than you repeatedly inserting it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

James Frey/A Million Little Pieces
Shouldn't the James Frey book A Million Little Pieces be in there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Million_Little_Pieces Ryratt (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Known pranksters, scam artists and impostors
I'd suggest that many of these would be better in a "hoax as a literary device" section. For example, Sacha Baron Cohen is primarily a comedian- does every word a comedian say have to be literally true? Then Jorge Luis Borges is accused of fraudulent references- as should be Arthur C. Clarke (Miskatonic University), Isaac Asimov (Thiotimolene) and Umberto Ecco (the fictitious material on which "Name of the Rose" is based). Benjamin Franklin. Johnathan Swift. Surely Daniel Defoe is a hoaxer since Robinson Crusoe didn't actually exist?

Are parables in The Bible hoaxes? Certainly they are literary devices, but I'm sure few people would like to see the authors tarred with the same brush as Soapy Smith. What about the Koran? Book of Mormon? Principia Discordia? MarkMLl (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing red links
I am removing red links and placing them here. If you want to write an article about any of them, please do. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Canadians "Crossing into United States by car" email hoax
 * The Five and a Half Minute Hallway by Will Navidson.
 * Audrey Seiler, 20-year-old woman who faked her own abduction in Madison, Wisconsin in 2004
 * Wyoming Incident, supposed videos of mysterious broadcast signal intrusions
 * Robert B. Stein, former UFO photographer and debunker of photographic hoaxes

Removed from "Hoax article", to be merged here
The following items are removed from Hoax article, to prevent it turning into a WP:COATRACK. From the below, only the notable and referenced ones are to be moved into the article. - 7-bubёn >t 18:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pre-19th century

 * The Pseudo-Isidore Decretals, a set of forgeries establishing false precedents in canon law. Includes The Donation of Constantine the Great, a document in which the Roman emperor Constantine I grants authority over certain lands to Pope Sylvester I and successors.
 * Wolfgang von Kempelen‘s construction of the chess-playing Mechanical Turk in 1770.

19th century

 * The Great Moon Hoax of 1835, which helped to establish the market position of the New York Sun.
 * The Cardiff Giant of 1869, which was created and "discovered", reputedly after an argument about the reality of giants.
 * In what became known as the Berners Street Hoax in 1810, Theodore Hook tricked hundreds of people into showing up at a random address in Central London.
 * The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ("Протоколы сионских мудрецов", or "Сионские протоколы") is an antisemitic literary forgery that purports to describe a Jewish plot to achieve world domination.
 * American con artist George C. Parker made his living repeatedly selling public monuments in New York City.

20th century

 * The sale of the Eiffel Tower for scrap, an elaborate scam run twice by the master con artist Victor Lustig.
 * Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre radio broadcast on October 30, 1938, entitled "The War of the Worlds" has been called the "single greatest media hoax of all time", although it was not — Welles said — intended to be a hoax. The broadcast was heard on CBS radio stations throughout the United States. Despite repeated announcements within the program that it was a work of fiction, many listeners tuning in during the program believed that the world was being attacked by invaders from Mars. (Rumors claim some even committed suicide.) Rebroadcasts in South America also had this effect even to a greater extent.
 * The 1934 "Surgeon's Photograph" of the Loch Ness monster, claimed some sixty years later to have been a plastic head and neck mounted to a toy submarine.
 * The Bathtub hoax, perpetrated by American journalist and satirist H. L. Mencken in 1918, which was cited as factual even after the hoax had been revealed by the author.
 * Jorge Luis Borges published "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote", a fantastic short story about an author who rewrites Don Quixote word by word, as a real biographical note in the Argentinian magazine Sur.
 * The Sokal hoax was a fake paper published in the journal Social Text, which was intended to reveal the uncritical misuse of scientific terms and ignorance of science in the field of postmodern cultural studies. It is recounted in Beyond the Hoax‎ and Fashionable Nonsense.
 * The Zinoviev Letter, said to have been concocted by British intelligence and printed by the Daily Mail to swing the outcome of a general election by claiming a Soviet revolution was about to occur in the UK. The hoax was successful in that a Conservative government was elected.
 * The Piltdown Man fraud caused some embarrassment to the field of paleontology when apparently ancient hominid remains discovered in England in 1912 were revealed as a hoax some 41 years later.
 * In 1970, Clifford Irving and Richard Suskind contrived to write an autobiography of reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes, believing Hughes would not come out of hiding to denounce it. Irving sent a manuscript to his publisher McGraw-Hill in late 1971. Authentication tests and Hughes's initial silence led some to believe the manuscript was genuine, but Hughes eventually gave a teleconference denying both participation in the book and knowledge of Irving. Weeks later, Irving confessed to the hoax and was later convicted of fraud. He served 17 months of a two and a half year prison sentence. Suskind, sentenced to six months, served five.
 * The Hitler Diaries, 1983 forgeries published by the Sunday Times.
 * The Cottingley Fairies, a series of trick photographs taken by two young British girls from 1917 to 1920.
 * The alien autopsy film, supposedly footage of the examination of an extraterrestrial being which had purportedly died in the Roswell UFO incident. The film, presented by Ray Santilli in 1995, was later revealed to have been faked by Santilli and Gary Shoefield.
 * In the late 1970s and early 1980s, photographer Robert B. Stein created convincing UFO photographs using only a Kodak Pocket InstaMatic camera and throwable discs, and claimed to be a contactee. His pictures appeared in many publications devoted to the paranormal. In 1985, he revealed how it was done.
 * Rosie Ruiz finished first in the women's division of the 1980 Boston Marathon by riding the subway to a point near the finish line and jumping back into the race. Her marathon title was revoked when the hoax was discovered.
 * In the 1970s the Philippine government announced the discovery of the Tasaday a supposedly uncontacted stone-age tribe. Revealed to the world in a cover story in National Geographic, much controversy has ensued as to whether the tribe is real, a hoax or something in between.
 * Our First Time, possibly one of the first major internet hoaxes, although some characterized it as a botched scam.
 * The story of a Priory of Sion (French: Prieuré de Sion) was fabricated in the 1960s by a French con artist, Pierre Plantard, as a secret society sworn to install the Merovingian dynasty on the throne of France; Plantard hoped to be perceived as the "Grand Monarch" prophesied by Nostradamus. False documents created as part of the hoax have been cited by others and represented as reliable evidence for non-fiction bestsellers including  The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, or woven into novels such as  Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

21st century

 * Bonsai Kitten, an Internet hoax consisting of a fictional domain of a company that sold kittens inside jars as ornaments.
 * In 2006, A. N. Wilson was the victim of a hoax when he included a love letter by Sir John Betjeman in his biography of the poet. It turned out to be a fake letter with an acrostic that said "AN Wilson is a shit".
 * De Grote Donorshow, a hoax reality television program which was broadcast in the Netherlands on Friday, June 1, 2007 by BNN. The program involved a supposedly terminally ill 37-year-old woman donating a kidney to one of three people requiring a kidney transplantation. Viewers were able to send advice on who they think she should choose to give her kidney to via text messages. 50 000 people subsequently requested an organ donor form.
 * "Cancer update from John Hopkins Hospital". Johns Hopkins internet hoaxes are numerous. One example - CANCER UPDATE FROM JOHN HOPKINS HOSPITAL - US, PLEASE READ - relates to cancer spread and treatment and contains some false and misleading information. One immediately noticeable cue to its falsehood is that the original spells Johns Hopkins as "John", which is a subtle enough difference to fool unwitting recipients. Johns Hopkins has denied any connection with the email hoax. The hoax can still be found on many alternative medicine health websites and in related newsgroups.

April Fool's Day

 * The April 1, 1985, issue of Sports Illustrated featured "The Curious Case of Sidd Finch" by George Plimpton. The article was about an eccentric pitcher said to be a prospect for the New York Mets who could throw a baseball 168 miles per hour. The hoax was perpetrated with the knowledge of the magazine and of the baseball team. Plimpton later reworked the material into a novel.

Other musical hoaxes

 * Recordings by the pianist Joyce Hatto
 * The voices of Milli Vanilli
 * The "supergroup" The Masked Marauders

Email hoax
An example email hoax is a doctored image distributed via chain emails.

In 2001 an image, purporting to be the "National Geographic Photo of the Year" and depicting a shark leaping from the sea to attack a helicopter crew member, was widely distributed by email, prompting the magazine to publish an article uncovering the hoax. As the article revealed, the image had been composited from two photographs taken in entirely different locations.

Necronomicon?
Does it really qualify on this list? Lovecraft never claimed it was real. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

9/11
As I stumble upon this article for the first time, I am surprised to find out that what could be the most famous hoax of all time is not listed. The only two references to 9/11 are the WTC Tourist picture and the rendering of the 5-letter sequence of Q33 NY in Microsoft's Wingdings font. I do not believe these low-quality hoaxes were ever meant to be taken seriously, they are merely amusing.

The Terrorist attacks of 9/11, however, are obviously on an entirely different level. I strongly believe that they should be mentioned in either the "Hoax accusations" section or in the one dealing with "Possible hoaxes". I know for a fact that many editors would disagree with me and would instantly delete my contribution if I dared to add it to either of those two sections because they refuse to even consider the possibility that the events of 9/11 could have been part of a propaganda stunt. So I will wait to read what other editors have to say before proceeding. I am also wondering how it could be that this subject has never been discussed on this page. Eagerly waiting for some enlightenment. Oclupak (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not in here because it's not a hoax. And now stop your crusade and do something productive with your time. 95.157.3.4 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is overwhelming evidence that the official version is flawed. Even members of the 9/11 Commission are on record as saying that they feel they have been lied to by the Pentagon, the FBI and the White House. In spite of that, I do not propose that 9/11 be listed among the Proven Hoaxes, but rather in either the "Hoax accusations" section or in the one dealing with "Possible hoaxes". Once a thorough, impartial and independent investigation has determined what really happened on that day, we will be able to move the article among the Proven Hoaxes section or remove it altogether from this page, depending on the outcome. Oclupak (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Come off it. 9/11 wasn't a hoax even if it was an 'inside job' - the planes really did smash into the WTC and the Pentagon, unless you're an unhinged 'no planer'. Calling 9/11 a 'hoax' is so fringe that it is not worth mentioning it on this page. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody disputes the facts. It is the interpretation of the facts that is questionable. When, for instance, men in German Wehrmacht uniforms were murdered by soldiers in Polish uniforms on 31 August 1939 in Gleiwitz, the interpretation of that event is what mostly matters. In nazi Germany, that event was universally reported in such a way that it justified the invasion of Poland and the beginning of WWII. Such false flag events do occur from time to time and it is in that perspective that I propose to include the events of 9/11 among the POSSIBLE hoaxes until such a time that the theory is proven sound or irrefutably disproved. Oclupak (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read again what was already written above. You are conflating "false flag" and "hoax" in order to have 9/11 in this article. And you will not succeed. 9/11 is in no way a hoax, even if conspiracy theorists were correct. (Well, unless you think it was all simulation and there were neither planes, nor buildings. Fortunately, wikipedia is not about belief, but verifiablity.) So just stop. 134.106.41.28 (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the way Wikipedia deals with hoax claims like this, is to describe the situation as a conflict (or controversy) between those who assert the event happened, and those who deny that it happened. The prime example is The Holocaust and Holocaust denial. We also treat claims that the Apollo Moon Landings never occurred, in the same way: i.e., as hoax accusations. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 134.106.41.28 asks me to "Please read again what was already written above". I did. All I found were statements like these two:


 * "It's not in here because it's not a hoax. And now stop your crusade and do something productive with your time."


 * "Come off it. 9/11 wasn't a hoax"


 * ...interspersed by various insults such as "unhinged", "so fringe that it is not worth mentioning it on this page".


 * To top it off, 134.106.41.28 states that "wikipedia is not about belief, but verifiablity".


 * ________________


 * From the definition of "hoax" on Wikipedia:


 * "A hoax is a deliberate attempt to deceive or trick an audience into believing or accepting that something is real, when the hoaxer (the person or group creating the hoax) knows it is false. In the instance of a hoax, an object or event is not what it appears or is claimed to be [...] Some governments have been known to perpetrate hoaxes to assist them with unpopular aims such as going to war".


 * It follows that the 9/11 attacks meet the requirements of a hoax if one "believes" that some elements from within the U.S. government deliberately attempted to deceive or trick the entire world into believing the conspiracy theory that involved 19 muslim hijackers defeating the trillion-dollar a year defense apparatus of the most technologically advanced nation on earth with nothing more than boxcutters.


 * If one "believes" the Official Version, then it cannot be a hoax. It is therefore, for the moment, strictly a matter of "belief". What is clearly needed is an impartial and thorough investigation to determine what really happened on that day. Even the members of the 9/11 Commission readily admit that they felt they did not receive the cooperation they were entitled to and that in some cases, they were misled and even lied to. Until such a time as the events of that day are properly investigated, 9/11 assuredly belongs in the "Possible hoaxes" category. Oclupak (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of belief, but a matter of reliable sources. It doesn't matter what you happen to believe. The rest is just spin. RxS (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You'd have to show that 9/11 is percieved as a hoax by numerable portion of the public. Whilst some people believe it to be an "inside job", a "false flag" and whatnot, a hoax is not what CTs see it as. 87.166.59.134 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all. "Hoax", "inside job" and "false flag" are interchangeable in describing what happened on 9/11. "Hoax" is actually the term used in the | Washington Post of March 8, 2010 when referring to the belief of "an influential member of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan" who "seems to think that America's rendering of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, is a gigantic hoax." As could be expected, the rest of the article spews a lot of insults to discredit Mr. Fujita's views but the fact remains that the term used to describe them was none other than "hoax".  Oclupak (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming
This should go in as a possible hoax. There are plenty of reliable sources that show public opinion on this. And here is a US Senate Committee report that reports on the scientific skepticism. URL was very long, so this is shorter URL is.gd/9cv5l
 * It's not a hoax, it might be wrong (or it might be right), but it's not a hoax. RxS (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's mighty close to a hoax. Especially when most of the lead scientists that the IPCC cites indulged in such flagrant abuses of the scientific process. rossnixon 01:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I question the editorial value of using the word "hoax" to describe the Anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW). Let's be guided by our coverage of the controversy over evolution, in which evidence presented in favor of the theory was exposed - in a couple of cases - as a hoax (see Piltdown Man). But the exposure of these hoaxes has had no effect on the outcome of the controversy.

We might possibly describe the Hockey Stick Graph as a hoax, but since there are still quite a number of scientists who defend that graph it's premature for us (i.e., contributors to Wikipedia) to label it that way. At most, we could quote significant published authors who have called it that.

In any case, I'm not sure that List of hoaxes is the right place to mention the controversy over AGW evidence, even if there was a documentary with "hoax" in its title. It's such a contentious issue, and the controversy has gone on for such a long time that IMHO we ought not do much more than provide a link to Global warming controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no way it is anything but a fringe view that global warming is a hoax. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, this thread isn't going to help improve this article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand the strong requirements for something to be categorized as a hoax. And I understand that a fringe view should not be even put in under possible hoax, but what if the fringe view becomes a much largely, albeit minority, view? We are getting close to that position now, if you look at survey results even among scientists only. rossnixon 01:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of hoaxes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223165416/https://mysteriesexplored.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/saturn-and-lord-shaneeshwara-part-one/ to https://mysteriesexplored.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/saturn-and-lord-shaneeshwara-part-one/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)