Jump to content

Talk:Miscegenation hoax

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article title

[edit]

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]
I get it. This article is about the whole hoax, including the Miscegenation Ball hoax etc., not just about the pamphlet. wumbolo ^^^ 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified it so that the title appears as Miscegenation hoax, making clear what its actual title was.--Pharos (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Underused source

[edit]

The Museum of Hoaxes entry is actually pretty comprehensive, and has much missing information, not sure how much of that is derived from the 1949 journal article.--Pharos (talk) 19:25, 22 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]