Talk:Hampstead hoax

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hampstead hoax article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

The tap blog

If anyone can confirm the existence of this 'tap blog' or Henry Curteis with a real world link that would be great. I've gone as far as I care to and, after ten pages of Google results about plumbing, I've given up. Articles linked from here mentioning the same blog and author are similarly unforthcoming in substantive detail. Savvo (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The footage of the interview

Have you seen the interviews with Alisa and Gabriel? There is NO WAY that thay all made it up. Ofcourse they didn't find evidence. That is how they work! And the people who are behind it are involved with the case. Open your eyes, do research. (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPoV?

That title is a complete violation of NPoV, show me any cold hard evidence disproving those 2 young girls. Jaybainshetland (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources corroborating the claims? There are plenty describing it as a hoax. Spike 'em (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources corroborating counter claims ? Jaybainshetland (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources on there saying the police found no evidence of abuse. See WP:FRINGE. Spike 'em (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to change article title to "Hampstead Case"

Hello editors,

I propose changing the title of this article from "Hampstead hoax" to "Hampstead case" in order to comply with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

The current title implies a definitive judgment — that the events and claims were a hoax — whereas in reality, no criminal court ruled that a deliberate hoax had occurred, and no individuals were convicted of fabricating the claims. The use of the word "hoax" imposes a non-neutral narrative and prevents readers from engaging with the complexity and controversy of the topic.

A more neutral title like "Hampstead case" would allow for balanced presentation, while still enabling inclusion of all relevant content — including the court’s findings and the surrounding media discussion.

Thank you for considering this request. Erhustudio (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone was sent to prison for 9 years for continuing to repeat the claims. Spike 'em (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. If someone was imprisoned, the key legal question is "what specific law was violated" — was it defamation, harassment, or dissemination of private information? None of those necessarily equate to fabricating a hoax.

My point remains that the use of the word "hoax" in the article title makes a categorical and irreversible judgment, which conflicts with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Even if courts ruled on harassment or contempt of court, that does not mean the original case was proven false beyond complexity.

Changing the title to "Hampstead Case" would still allow for full discussion of all legal actions and findings, while respecting Wikipedia’s standard for neutrality in controversial topics. Erhustudio (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about a judge stating I am able to state with complete conviction that none of the allegations are true. I am entirely certain that everything Ms Draper, her partner Abraham Christie and the children said about those matters was fabricated. The claims are baseless. Those who have sought to perpetuate them are evil and / or foolish? [1]. Many UK news sources describe this case as a hoax or conspiracy theory, and I've found none that take the claims seriously. I think the title could be expanded to be more descriptive, but "hoax" is far more in line with what the sources say than "case". Spike 'em (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quote. If a judge issued such a statement, the context matters: was it part of a criminal conviction, a family court ruling, or a civil judgment? None of these automatically justify using the term "hoax" in a neutral encyclopedia.

Also, the word "hoax" is a very specific accusation — it implies an intentional, coordinated effort to deceive the public. If there was no criminal conviction for fraud, conspiracy, or fabricating evidence, then applying "hoax" as a title crosses the line from reporting to editorializing.

Wikipedia’s NPOV policy suggests we avoid using conclusory language in article titles, especially for controversial cases. "Case" would still allow full inclusion of all judicial findings — including that quote — but without presuming reader agreement with one side of a very complex issue. Erhustudio (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Hoax" is the word used by most, if not all of the press in relation to this occurrence. WP follows the sources. Spike 'em (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This confirms the core of my concern: if Wikipedia adopts language based primarily on what the press says, rather than what is legally or academically verifiable, it risks reflecting media bias rather than offering a neutral account.

Media outlets may use strong or sensationalist terms — especially in cases involving children and alleged abuse — but Wikipedia’s NPOV policy was created precisely to offer an alternative to that kind of framing. Neutrality requires resisting the urge to adopt the most frequently repeated media language when that language presumes a final verdict.

“Case” still allows for full inclusion of all legal decisions and media interpretations — including the term “hoax” — but avoids presenting any one interpretation as the article’s title itself. Erhustudio (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality doesn't exist in a vacuum - Wikipedia is not based on the most neutral possible language, it's based on a neutrally presented view of what reliable sources say. If reliable sources call it a hoax, then Wikipedia's title calling it a hoax instead of a case is, in fact, in line with policy. EasyAsPai (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I agree that Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources say, not on purely abstract neutrality.

However, in contentious cases — especially those involving children and alleged abuse — "reliable" press sources may still reflect institutional or societal bias, especially in the absence of any criminal conviction for hoax or fabrication.

The term "hoax" implies deliberate deception, and if no legal or criminal judgment confirmed such intent, labeling the entire case as a hoax risks going beyond summarizing sources and into interpretive framing.

Using a more neutral title like "Hampstead case" would still allow full inclusion of all source-based content — including statements that label it a hoax — without letting one interpretation dominate the title itself.

This approach aligns better with the spirit of NPOV, especially in complex and unresolved matters. Erhustudio (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable sources describe this as something other than a hoax, or in any way support the mother's contentions? Spike 'em (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the follow-up.

My suggestion to use the title "Hampstead case" is not based on supporting the mother’s claims or arguing that the events occurred — but rather on separating the article’s title from a verdict-like conclusion.

Even if most reliable sources describe it as a "hoax", Wikipedia policy encourages neutral and descriptive titles that do not themselves take sides — especially in legally unresolved or controversial matters.

The article text can and should fully include coverage of sources calling it a hoax, including the judge’s statements and press consensus. But labeling the title itself as “hoax” frontloads a judgment that may not be legally or academically final.

That’s why “Hampstead case” allows both views to be explored inside the article without presuming one in the title. Erhustudio (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]