This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article 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
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
I think this article should be titled Miscegenation (pamphlet) because the pamphlet is not a forgery itself, as the authorship of the pamphlet is not disputed. Describing it in the article as a "hoax pamphlet" seems accurate to me. wumbolo^^^20:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The pamphlet is a hoax, published under the false pretense that it was written by abolitionists. So, the title is accurate. I considered other names, and made some redirect, but I thought it would be better to have the title under a common name likely to be found from search engines.--Pharos (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was confused. I still think it should be titled differently, per WP:ATDAB, perhaps "Miscegenation (hoax)"? Because this article is about the pamphlet, which is titled Miscegenation. "Miscegenation hoax" doesn't seem to be a WP:COMMONNAME for the pamphlet. "Miscegenation (hoax)" makes clear that "Miscegenation" is the title of the pamphlet which is a hoax. wumbolo^^^20:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you search, I think "Miscegenation hoax" is actually a fairly common name in books. I don't think adding parentheses around the second word of what is already a a perfectly reasonable phrase is helpful. Also, I think aspects of the hoax extended beyond the pamphlet, although that was the main form of it.--Pharos (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharos: I bet 100% of it is derived from the 1949 journal article. In my opinion, while the journal should be used as a source, the MoH entry should be left in the External links section because not all readers have JSTOR (me neither). wumbolo^^^21:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
