| The articleReddit serial killer hoax wasnominated fordeletion.The discussion was closed on23 September 2013 with a consensus tomerge the content intoList of hoaxes. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}. |
| This article is ratedList-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Archives |
| Index1,2 |
This page has archives. Topics inactive for90 days are automatically archived byClueBot III if there are more than5. |
I think we have to be more discerning here when defining a hoax. There's a fine line between hoax and outright fraud, and I think when placing an entry into this list, one has to be careful to distinguish between the two. The key, I think, harkens to the definitions below from Mirriam Webster, which includes the word "preposterous", and Cambridge and Collins, which includes "practical joke" and "trick". If a hoax is to be differentiated at all from a mere agenda-advancing fraud or career-advancing (among other) lies, I think that vein of understanding must be considered when deciding just what exactly a hoax is – and whether it should be included in this list.
Thoughts?GenQuest"Talk to Me"11:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cranberries for UTI was/is a hoax perpetrated in 1960 following the Great Cranberry Scare of 1959. Everybody still falls for it. Definitly fits the definition(s) of hoax; except that it is perhaps an outright fraud AND it was done for money.Richard8081 (talk)19:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/andrew-dawson-giant-on-mountain-sighting-tiktok-giant2600:1700:D150:17F0:189:CD08:626C:BB7E (talk)19:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax: "a plan to deceive a large group of people".Reactor to produce 500 MW heat for minutes, from 300..620 MW electrical power.Spreading myth that total toxic waste from fusion would be less than fission such as the fast-spectrum fissionIntegral fast reactor, but there isno scientific study about total waste volume per GWyear electricity production to back this up (the lack of this absolutely essential study alone proves that it is a deception ... deceiving a large group of people).
Considering the extreme size of 840 m3 reactor and relatively low power and short first-wall lifetime because of 14.06 MeV neutron damage, device waste (dominating nuclear fusion and fission energy production, more volume and more costly to handle compared to fission products having an extremely large value if processed). The scientific studies about fusion reactors, eg.Nuclear fusion–fission hybrid (plasma fusion reactor, practically tokamak) byHans Bethe in 1979 and LANL in 1980 correctly conclude that there is no advantage compared to fission only breeder reactors even if we allow fusion energy production to be negative (to breed fuel with or without energy production). It becomes worse if we demand positive energy production besides breeding fuel (it's own tritium or other nuclear fuel).— Precedingunsigned comment added by91.83.11.189 (talk •contribs)
Do any quality secondary sources describe theSloot Digital Coding System as a certain hoax? Most sources that do so seem to beWP:BLOGS.Carguychris (talk)14:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]