Talk:Racial hoax

Severe conflict of interest and bias

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)

• Why are you listing every single possible case, with particular emphasis of black on white? This article,if it is to exist, should be talking about "racial hoaxing" , not listing them, regardless of questionableness. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  "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."

  The assertion that "over 70% of racial hoax cases are white-on-black" is a baldfaced lie by racist professor Katheryn Russell-Brown. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:1401:C743:1FAD:AFA4 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Rachael Richardson BYU Hoax

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)

I don't think there's sufficient sourcing to call it a hoax. We can't cite Twitter for controversial facts; and the byucougars website is clearly not an independent or reliable source. The remaining sources just say "no evidence", which is not enough to characterize it as a hoax - do you have a source calling it a hoax directly, either in as many words or in equivalent terms? --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Byoucougars is plainly not an WP:RS, but even if we allow it it also doesn't use the term "hoax" or anything else that would imply that this was intentional. Calling something a hoax is a BLP-sensitive statement; we need, at the very least, a high-quality source stating that they lied intentionally, which we don't currently have. --Aquillion (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I actually agree with that. As much as the facts read like a hoax (to me), the more I reflect on this it's hard to include it here without an authoritative source (e.g. law enforcement investigation or an admission) calling it a hoax. I'm good with removing it. Gumbear (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Should this article even have a case list? Or should we set stricter inclusion criteria for it?

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)

• As an example of the problem, here, for Paula Parks, the sources do not say she lied intentionally, just that no evidence was found. That is not sufficient to call it a "hoax" in the article voice (not that we even have any sources that would support calling it a hoax in an attributed manner, of course.) Also, the Daily Wire is not a suitable source for BL-sensitive claims; see its entry on WP:RSP. --Aquillion (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be great to have 3 to 5 examples of racial hoaxes. It's enough to help readers understand the topic, short enough that people might actually read them, and it means we can keep it to the best and most reliably sourced examples. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to have a few examples, I would suggest restricting ourselves to ones used as examples in the literature discussing the concept and putting them in one section in prose rather than breaking them apart into a list (which inherently invites people to put whatever they consider important examples into it.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

My concern with only putting in references in the literature discussing the concept is, currently, the references are dominated by one author with an obvious political/racial slant. But I do agree there need to be standards. Perhaps only those cases where a false allegation is substantiated by a court and/or a confession by the accuser? Gumbear (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It is definitely a problematic list. I think most of them should be cut, save for the most notable instances. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree that there are certain problems with the list as it exists. One entry I'm particularly concerned about is the Jason Stokes BLM arson, as the entry states that Stokes was ultimately acquitted when the case went to trial, making me question if we should really be calling it a "hoax" when the court clearly didn't feel this was proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, I certainly feel that there should be a list, if perhaps one shorter than it is now, as it is important to cite documented cases of the phenomenon in question actually taking place. Maybe limit it to cases with their own Wikipedia article?--Tulzscha (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, I think example's should be expanded to include many more cases from other countries other than the USA, and including any other examples from those of different races. 195.180.48.123 (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I would support including more case diversity, in terms of nation and race. The next step is to find sources about racial hoaxes that cover such cases. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)