Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelis Hendrikus Elleboogius

Cornelis Hendrikus Elleboogius

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Cornelis Hendrikus Elleboogius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I was browsing some twitter threads when the name of Elleboogius came up in the context of some people wink-nudging eachother that he may not be real, and that the English wikipedia "had not caught on yet" (e.g. the replies here: [1]). This was surprising as the page is fairly well sourced as far as appearances go, but upon searching the web further I found this forum discussion that claims that this is a fairly well-known hoax in certain circles perpetrated by someone named Richard Muller - [2]. I do not know any more about this matter, but if this is true then the page needs to be deleted or at least seriously updated - although seeing as I could barely find any evidence for the hoax, it would seem unlikely that it would be notable as such. People more knowledgeable on Dutch theologians or the culture of potential hoaxes surrounding them could maybe uncover more. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Well, this has been a timesuck. If it's a hoax, it's beyond me and WP standards, to be honest.

DeGruyter

• Mylius on Elleboogius: A Fatal Misinterpretation - Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism. Pub: Godfried Quaedtvlieg 2013
• In the Steps of Voetius. Synchronic Contingency and the Significance of Cornelis Elleboogius' "Disputationes de Tetragrammato" to the Analysis of his Life and Work Scholasticism Reformed. Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, hrsg. v. Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, Willemien Otten

Google Books

• Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard Mylius Edited by Jordan Ballor, David Sytsma, Jason Zuidema (Page 657)
• Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt Edited by Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, Willemien Otten (Page 102)
• Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism : Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition by Jordan Ballor
• [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273350672_Would_Christ_Have_Become_Incarnate_Had_Adam_Not_Fallen Would Christ Have Become Incarnate Had Adam Not Fallen? Paper by Stefan Lindholm references Elleboogius DOI

10.1163/15697312-00901016]

If it's a hoax, it's widespread, with a number of academics either willingly contributing or mistakenly taking the existence - and works - of Elleboogius seriously. It's a remarkable thing for a respected academic to have done, mind. By WP standards, he's notable, he has sources. So until we have a proven hoax (and a nice new WP page about it), I reckon we're keeping this one. Oh, BTW, the forum post that calls BS on Elleboogious isn't an RS!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Surely we can't just pass a keep on a subject where the supporting sources are suspected to not be reliable simply because we don't have the personal expertise to confirm/deny that unreliability? I understand what you are saying but surely a circumstance like this warrants some deeper source investigation. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

For instance, if we can dig up any of the original sources, or references to them from before when Elleboogius was allegedly "rediscovered" in the 2010s, then that would be positive proof? If we cannot confirm they exist, then surely all subsequent worth would be shown to be unreliable? I don't think doing thorough source vetting would be OR as it wouldn't be an article contribution, just part of verification, and it might be warranted in this case. Initial searches don't look good - the original source on the existence of Elleboogius states that there had been a bibliography written by an "Egbert Neusbeen", but this name doesn't appear anywhere searchable on the internet except for that one passage from that one article attesting to Elleboogius. Also, does anyone here speak Dutch? Because I am starting to suspect that some of these names are etymologically suspect. "Egbert Nasal bone?" BlackholeWA (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• In addition to "Egbert Nasal Bone", "Elleboog" itself apparently means "Elbow". In fact, the Mylius paper also cites a Mr. van "Knee Joint" and a Mr. van "Asses". Every single referenced author in the stem article is named after a different body part. This is a blatant hoax. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hi there, yes I speak dutch. The names of editors of the works are all suspect. Egbert Nasal Bone, H. Schouderblad (Shoulder Blade). The name Voetius is probably the reason why someone started to "pull a leg". Voetius is of course a well-known theologian and his name looks like the latinization of the dutch word for "Foot". Now Elbowius and Footius are "joined at the hip" according to the article? And all the books mentioned under works are published by editors named after bodyparts? The already mentioned Mr. Shoulder Blade and Mr. Eyebrow, Mr. Shank (Schenkel), Mr Skinbuyer (Huidekooper), Mr. Eardrum (Trommelvlies), Mr. Bonehouse (Beenderhuis). It is just too much. My Latin is not good enough but I suspect that the titles of the works are bogus too. No doubt this is a hoax. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, I see... "In the Steps of Voetius", very amusing. Per Wikipedia's policies, I am hoping that we as editors are able to use some common sense judgement in this matter to confirm that these articles are contextually not reliable sources. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)