Talk:List of hoaxes

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 [1][2][3].) 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 [4] 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)

Definitions

I think we have to be more discerning here when defining a hoax. There's a fine line between hoax and outright fraud, and I think when placing an entry into this list, one has to be careful to distinguish between the two. The key, I think, harkens to the definitions below from Mirriam Webster, which includes the word "preposterous", and Cambridge and Collins, which includes "practical joke" and "trick". If a hoax is to be differentiated at all from a mere agenda-advancing fraud or career-advancing (among other) lies, I think that vein of understanding must be considered when deciding just what exactly a hoax is – and whether it should be included in this list.

Definition of hoax:

[Mirriam Webster]: transitive verb

to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous

[Cambridge Dictionary]: noun

a plan to deceive a large group of people; a trick:

{Collins}: noun

a trick, esp. one meant as a practical joke

Thoughts? GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 11:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The Wikipedia way to approach this should be to follow what reliable secondary sources have labeled as "hoax", however, the definition can be somewhat nebulous and I assume that even reliable sources are not entirely consistent with what they mean by "hoax". -Location (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I dislike "Proven hoaxes of exposure". Practical jokes maybe? - Zezen (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Practical jokes are typically small scale, played among friends. A hoax is a more elaborate ruse perpetrated on a large scale against the general public, often in an attempt to get wider publicity. Putting your sleeping friend's hand in water is a practical joke. Putting a dinosaur toy in a lake and sending photos to the newspaper (along with your story of the encounter) as evidence of the "Loch Ness Monster" is a hoax. - Kzirkel (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Cranberries for UTI

Cranberries for UTI was/is a hoax perpetrated in 1960 following the Great Cranberry Scare of 1959. Everybody still falls for it. Definitly fits the definition(s) of hoax; except that it is perhaps an outright fraud AND it was done for money.Richard8081 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you add this please?

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/andrew-dawson-giant-on-mountain-sighting-tiktok-giant 2600:1700:D150:17F0:189:CD08:626C:BB7E (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

ITER

Hoax: "a plan to deceive a large group of people". Reactor to produce 500 MW heat for minutes, from 300..620 MW electrical power. Spreading myth that total toxic waste from fusion would be less than fission such as the fast-spectrum fission Integral fast reactor, but there is no scientific study about total waste volume per GWyear electricity production to back this up (the lack of this absolutely essential study alone proves that it is a deception ... deceiving a large group of people).

Considering the extreme size of 840 m3 reactor and relatively low power and short first-wall lifetime because of 14.06 MeV neutron damage, device waste (dominating nuclear fusion and fission energy production, more volume and more costly to handle compared to fission products having an extremely large value if processed). The scientific studies about fusion reactors, eg. Nuclear fusion–fission hybrid (plasma fusion reactor, practically tokamak) by Hans Bethe in 1979 and LANL in 1980 correctly conclude that there is no advantage compared to fission only breeder reactors even if we allow fusion energy production to be negative (to breed fuel with or without energy production). It becomes worse if we demand positive energy production besides breeding fuel (it's own tritium or other nuclear fuel). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.11.189 (talk • contribs)