Category talk:Hoaxes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hoaxes category.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles

Alternative views

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles

earlier comments

Remove Melchisedek from this list because it is based on the Bible, and therefore according to the statement on this category it should not be mentioned as a hoax, especially since it has official recognition from at least one UN member state, according to the Washington Post.

What about cults based on hoaxes that died out long ago? Don't think anyone would care. I added Glycon, but take it out if you want. Mjk2357 17:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the statement on the Category page, especially in regards to religious figures. —Viriditas | Talk 23:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find Rickyrab's comment below to be inappropriate and unneccessary. --Schroeder74 04:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone had removed my comment, which recommended placing a host of religious materials from various religions in the same category; however, it was obviously a POV comment anyway and I'm not even sure of the truth or falsehood of some of them anyhow. Just setting the record straight, even if belatedly. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting rid of 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. It's definately not established as a hoax. 71.232.30.121 15:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, having read the heading, I know that I shouldn't delete the Duke Lacrosse case. However, I'm not sure what purpose this category serves, since it includes even "possible" hoaxes. So anything that might have happened but also might not really have happened should be categorized as a hoax? If so, why not put in all of Rickyrab's suggestions? Hell, why not put in the Holocaust? If you include hoaxes that are "possible" as opposed to establish, you're only taking away from the authenticity of these events. Remember, anything in this article is listed at the bottom of the page as a hoax. 71.232.30.121 15:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should only include "proven" (not necessarily in the legal sense) hoaxes, not merely "possible". "Hoax" is such a charged term that putting something in this category disparages its credibility, disclaimers notwithstanding, and for unproven hoaxes this is just POV-pushing. Djcastel 01:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust wasn't a hoax. There's too much evidence showing that it occurred for it to be a hoax. The Bible, Qu'ran, etc. happened so long ago that a lot of the evidence for their truth relies on their words and on the fact that people tell others to believe their words. This does not necessarily mean that they were hoaxes, and if Jesus or Allah were to show more concrete evidence of what they allegedly said they were, I'd probably believe more of it. Same goes for the Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Adonai, whomever wrote the Kojiki, Krishna, etc. I'm wasting time by saying this anyhow. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that

Not. Meanwhile, why is the Voynich Manuscript listed here? Garrick92 12:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judo do and his sub-pages list of Judo-do techniques

The article Judo do and his sub-pages list of Judo-do techniques will reach the Category:Wikipedia articles with sourcing issues|Hoax articles, suspected BUT ARE NOT A HOAX so deleting Judo do for G3: Blatant hoax and buried the text of list of Judo-do techniques in the edit history of draft:Judo do is ridiculous!--Aikikai45 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]