Talk:Nikola Tesla electric car hoax

Added Notability Tag

Added a notability tag, this article seems nothing more than tertiary references to a dubious story of very little notability except perhaps to the occasional fringe theorist. This article is the wikipedia equivalent of; "I heard this crazy story from my friend, about this guys uncle who said maybe something weird happened, but I don't think so." This article should probably be deleted for multiple reasons including the general lack of notability, and a lack of reliable and notable sources. As the user Vinyasi noted there is nothing but a handful of anecdotes. --DogBiscut (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Blanket categorization of claims

How could "EVERY account of this purported demonstration automobile [be] based upon the 1967 story plus literary embellishment"? Who here investigated every account? jrun (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It took me 20 minutes of recherche to identify a potential nephew with similar name and position. Obviously, the 1967 story is not correct what concerns the proper name of the witness - but there is in fact a person with similar name which fits the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.161.248.25 (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That was original research, and I have removed it. Cardamon (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, we know wireless power transmission is doable with tesla's inventions, so how do competing anecdotes with no evidence either way result in the firm application of the word 'hoax'. At best I think one could take the position that there is no hard evidence tesla did this. As we all know: a lack of evidence is not, itself, evidence of anything. Fib0nacc11 (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Is fake

Please delete all this is fake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.141.77.69 (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla electric car rumor ...

To abuse language is to abuse one another. For when we misuse a word for some other meaning or intention, we spawn confusion (through lack of discerning judgement) and a loss of vocabulary.

Take the title, “Nikola Tesla electric car hoax” presented as a rumor.

This rumor has no evidence to discredit this gossip. Lack of evidence does not constitute a hoax. To be a hoax, there must be factual evidence which turns out – upon later analysis – to be fraudulent evidence. Then, and only then, is it a hoax. Otherwise, without evidence of any sort, it is strictly a rumor. And people who spread rumors turn the initial “tall tale” into gossip.

To be precise, no one knows how the “Tesla Hoax” of Peter Savo or his journalist buddy was pulled off for there is no evidence of their hoax – much less any evidence of Tesla's. All we have are anecdotes.

Either change the title, or start initiating inquiry into how this hoax was successfully pulled off to dupe some of us into believing that it was true – that it actually happened.

Or – Oh, my God! - start investigating how this event actually occurred.

Either way, correct this error of misrepresenting this purported, historical event and our misuse of language.

Want to know what I think? Vinyasi (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)