Talk:List of hoaxes

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)

We'd need WP:SECONDARY sources specifically identifying it as a hoax. For example, if multiple WP:INDY WP:RS sources identified it as a hoax, it would be notable enough for this list. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sloot Digital Coding System

Do any quality secondary sources describe the Sloot Digital Coding System as a certain hoax? Most sources that do so seem to be WP:BLOGS. Carguychris (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and removing it. The consensus among reliable secondary sources is that it was vaporware, and there is widespread speculation that Sloot was a charlatan, but Sloot's death and others' inability to reconstruct his work has prevented a consensus from forming regarding whether the system could have worked. Carguychris (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't let that let that last sentence go unchallenged.

That's like saying there's no consensus about any particular, individual perpetual motion machine.

Sloot's death may have meant that people don't care anymore, but there was never any serious disagreement among experts over whether it might work. It's wrong and against WP:FRINGE to imply otherwise. ApLundell (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)