Talk:Hoax/Archive 1

message: "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)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criminal charges? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  probable hoaxes 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Protocols of the Elders of Zion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Fortitude a hoax?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ''Da Vinci Code''

message: 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)
thread_title: Advertising

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Rosie Ruiz

message: 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)
thread_title: Virus Hoaxes

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

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Ok then, if it wasn't a hoax. Totnesmartin 11:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston - NOT A HOAX 

message: 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)
thread_title:  9/11 Celebrations - Not a Hoax 

message: 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)
replies: text: You have obviously never seen the uncropped photo. Wahkeenah 02:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surgeon's Photo ([[Loch Ness Monster]]) 

message: e.g. Snake oil? Bit random, maybe?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but snake oil is not a forgery. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Snake Oil? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Email Hoax 

message: 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)
thread_title:  South America reference 

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