![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Racial hoax article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 730 days
![]() |
![]() | A fact from Racial hoax appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 September 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Nearly all of the edits since October 24 have been by 2 editors, User:Sharmekamoffitt and User:Moffittsharmeka, with a couple of IP editors with similar views filling in most of the rest. Through their editing, the article has become a minutely detailed exposition of every "black people are liars" case they could find. According to referenced statistics somehow left in the article, over 70% of racial hoax cases are white-on-black, which is no longer evident both from the large number of examples added and the notable examples of white-on-black that were removed. Combine the apparently biased editing with the fact that one of the examples added was of Sharmeka Moffitt, from October 23, and two of the user names ar based on hers, and the COI is obvious.
I propose that the article be rolled back to the 21:52, 3 September 2012 version to start. -- ArglebargleIV ( talk) 02:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I never knew that there are people who wish to delete cited examples of racial hoaxes. Should well-cited information be sacrificed for the sake of political correctness? Perhaps it would be best if more examples of white-on-black and black-on-white hoaxes were added instead of deleting them.
If you'd like to add any examples of racial hoaxes then feel free to add them.
As for my username, I've already requested a username change so once that's fixed it'll no longer be an issue.
I also reject any accusation that any editing is motivated by racism as I've only posting incidents which have been properly cited.
Your claim that "70%" of racial hoaxes are white-on-black was made by someone named Russell-Brown who documented 67 racial hoaxes between 1987 and 1996 and nothing prior to or past those years. Should any examples before and after 1987 and 1996 be listed at all? Are racial hoaxes documented between 1987 and 1996 the only relevent incidents worth mentioning?
Lastly, I CHALLENGE you to mention what content regarding white-on-black hoaxes was removed. Go ahead, because anyone capable of viewing the article's history will find no such thing. Your accusation that any content regarding white-on-black incidents was removed is unbelievably baseless and you ought to provide evidence if you wish to support such an accusation.
Now, how about seeking instead to expand the article instead of censoring it out of political correctness? Moffittsharmeka ( talk) 07:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Fake hate crime currently redirects to Racial hoax.
I propose that Fake hate crime be its own article, because the phrase "fake hate crime" is used in the mainstream media far more often than "racial hoax," and because there are far more reliably sourced examples of fake hate crimes than there are of racial hoaxes.
Baxter329 ( talk) 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
How is a Fake Hate Crime different than a Racial Hoax? Is a Racial Hoax one specific time of Fake Hate Crime? Yousef Raz ( talk) 04:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I propose to strike at least the final phrase because it is argumentative. I would also propose to strike the whole section because it is a developing story and none of that section as any citation. 2600:4040:74A5:9500:EDE8:CC34:FB75:668 ( talk) 02:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I just re-added it with citations. It's no longer a developing story. There's plenty of evidence and motive to classify this as a hoax. While it's plausible she misheard the alleged slurs, her account of hearing them was unequivocal and she quickly used the allegations to push a narrative she and her godmother (Lesa Pamplin, who broke the story) advocates for. Gumbear ( talk) 17:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Far too many entries in the list of cases don't actually have sources calling them hoaxes. I've removed a few of the most egregious examples, but the list as a whole feels like it's inviting WP:OR / WP:SYNTH in the sense of serving as a dumping ground for random examples that editors feel represent racial hoaxes in some ways. One possibility would be to restrict it to things that are described as racial hoaxes specifically in multiple non-opinion sources, ie. only stuff that WP:RSes specifically indicates are significant to the concept of a racial hoax. As it is, the case list makes up something like 80% of the article, which seems unreasonable. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Racial hoax article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 730 days
![]() |
![]() | A fact from Racial hoax appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 September 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Nearly all of the edits since October 24 have been by 2 editors, User:Sharmekamoffitt and User:Moffittsharmeka, with a couple of IP editors with similar views filling in most of the rest. Through their editing, the article has become a minutely detailed exposition of every "black people are liars" case they could find. According to referenced statistics somehow left in the article, over 70% of racial hoax cases are white-on-black, which is no longer evident both from the large number of examples added and the notable examples of white-on-black that were removed. Combine the apparently biased editing with the fact that one of the examples added was of Sharmeka Moffitt, from October 23, and two of the user names ar based on hers, and the COI is obvious.
I propose that the article be rolled back to the 21:52, 3 September 2012 version to start. -- ArglebargleIV ( talk) 02:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I never knew that there are people who wish to delete cited examples of racial hoaxes. Should well-cited information be sacrificed for the sake of political correctness? Perhaps it would be best if more examples of white-on-black and black-on-white hoaxes were added instead of deleting them.
If you'd like to add any examples of racial hoaxes then feel free to add them.
As for my username, I've already requested a username change so once that's fixed it'll no longer be an issue.
I also reject any accusation that any editing is motivated by racism as I've only posting incidents which have been properly cited.
Your claim that "70%" of racial hoaxes are white-on-black was made by someone named Russell-Brown who documented 67 racial hoaxes between 1987 and 1996 and nothing prior to or past those years. Should any examples before and after 1987 and 1996 be listed at all? Are racial hoaxes documented between 1987 and 1996 the only relevent incidents worth mentioning?
Lastly, I CHALLENGE you to mention what content regarding white-on-black hoaxes was removed. Go ahead, because anyone capable of viewing the article's history will find no such thing. Your accusation that any content regarding white-on-black incidents was removed is unbelievably baseless and you ought to provide evidence if you wish to support such an accusation.
Now, how about seeking instead to expand the article instead of censoring it out of political correctness? Moffittsharmeka ( talk) 07:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Fake hate crime currently redirects to Racial hoax.
I propose that Fake hate crime be its own article, because the phrase "fake hate crime" is used in the mainstream media far more often than "racial hoax," and because there are far more reliably sourced examples of fake hate crimes than there are of racial hoaxes.
Baxter329 ( talk) 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
How is a Fake Hate Crime different than a Racial Hoax? Is a Racial Hoax one specific time of Fake Hate Crime? Yousef Raz ( talk) 04:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I propose to strike at least the final phrase because it is argumentative. I would also propose to strike the whole section because it is a developing story and none of that section as any citation. 2600:4040:74A5:9500:EDE8:CC34:FB75:668 ( talk) 02:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I just re-added it with citations. It's no longer a developing story. There's plenty of evidence and motive to classify this as a hoax. While it's plausible she misheard the alleged slurs, her account of hearing them was unequivocal and she quickly used the allegations to push a narrative she and her godmother (Lesa Pamplin, who broke the story) advocates for. Gumbear ( talk) 17:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Far too many entries in the list of cases don't actually have sources calling them hoaxes. I've removed a few of the most egregious examples, but the list as a whole feels like it's inviting WP:OR / WP:SYNTH in the sense of serving as a dumping ground for random examples that editors feel represent racial hoaxes in some ways. One possibility would be to restrict it to things that are described as racial hoaxes specifically in multiple non-opinion sources, ie. only stuff that WP:RSes specifically indicates are significant to the concept of a racial hoax. As it is, the case list makes up something like 80% of the article, which seems unreasonable. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)