Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.82.89.253 (talk) at 03:15, 22 July 2015 (→‎Snappy & friends). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rope Theory

I can't find a deletion page, but wasn't there once an article on an expansion of string theory called Rope Theory? Lurker 14:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the deleted archive. Ashibaka tock 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rope theory is mentioned here http://bjaodn.org/wiki/Special/Funny_vandalism/#Current_Record_for_Longest_Unspotted_Vandalism but not as a full article. There are a few ghits on the term, mostly outside Wikipedia. The term "rope theory" is also validly used in the context of search-and-rescue training classrooms where instructions on how to pull someone out of an awkward position using a rope as lifeline are provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.80.212 (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hoax in question seems to be that of Josiah Kwokstradamus; created here, deleted here, the "rope theory" part (as well as, apparently, the actual article) only surviving for a day or so in the middle. Not sure if it merits inclusion, though (it technically does by the rules, but there might well be thousands of similar cases). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.144.161 (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beans

Deep in my gut I get a bad feeling about this page. Durova 15:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it might encourage Herostratus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-21 17:30Z
The thing is, people already do this anyway. I felt we needed a central archive so we can see what kind of articles get vandalized, and what to look for. Ashibaka tock 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
gut feeling about beans, heh. Shentino (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formating

Bravo! But this format extends under the left-hand links in some skins. Septentrionalis 16:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... I will try to re-format. Ashibaka tock 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax band

All the relevant articles have been deleted, but I recall them being around for quite some time before the band and its albums were discovered as a hoax. See here. An admin could take a look at it and find out the length/dates/notes info. --Fang Aili 16:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like most hoaxes, it was detected within a few hours. Thanks for suggesting it, though! Ashibaka tock 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New hoax: Gordon Balera

My friend and me was just kidding. We are wrote this article. This is just a hoax test in hungarian wikipedia. Next time we will not writing hoax article. Cheers. Nyikita 10:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indochine ?

I don't see what is a hoax on Indochine page (the band exists, the french film exists, and "the French name for Indochina" exists i must say i 'm french but my english allready told it :p

Croatia Polytechnic

This bit of nonsense has been around since February. --Fang Aili talk 19:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Le Gray

Recently deleted, but it was subtle enough. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Le Gray. Lasted a few months. Admin will need to check for exact dates. Hoaxers still at large, admin will need to check history for that as well. heqs 09:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilartikel

Can that really be considered a hoax article? Granted it had a made-up name, but the concept it addressed is clearly not a hoax. I'd have to say that was a genuine article, titled with a neologism. - Bootstoots 19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuba (mythology)

I think it's a hoax. see talk page. Udi Raz 22:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Arminian Tokgrum enclave in Azerbijan

[[1]]

14 days. --86.25.51.168 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)(March 3- 17).[reply]

A fake nation created by User: Lilidor. It’s mentioned on [[2]] --86.29.255.68, so the hoax is caching on. 12:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC) It's still going on.--86.29.253.15 19:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And on these pages-

[[3]] [[4]] --86.29.254.174

[[5]]--86.29.254.174 20:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD page is here for hoax history Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tokgrum.86.16.1.182 (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian National Movement

A small group with that name does exist, but has nothing to do with this article, which is a clever hoax. 193.40.5.245 12:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

|- | 8 months already | August 2006 - (May 2007 ???) | Fictitious Estonian political party |-

Just added: Lustfaust

Lustfaust survived for 21 months, before User:Spazure spotted the problem and AfD'd it. But because the hoax had been debunked in reliable sources, a couple of us decided to rewrite the article instead of let it be deleted. Notably, the NYT article on the subject (used in the new version's references) commented that Wikipedia had fallen for the hoax, but nobody bothered fixing it. JulesH 17:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aliquota

Just found this one, and hopefully it's deleted before its upcoming one-year anniversary (created 2006-10-19). Looks like a chemist in-joke with borrowed information about lions. J. Spencer 19:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What counts as a hoax?

Does it have to be originated by the article creators? What if it comes from a book written in 1930, which is universally considered a hoax by people familiar with it, but some "facts" from which have seeped out into the popular consciousness (because some people believed it in 1930), occasionally appearing unattributed as "obscure" information in modern writings.--Pharos (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I when I call an article a hoax, I mean that its contents are 100% invention, & did not exist before the original author or authors wrote the Wikipedia article. An example is General Florentius, which was a plausible name but entirely fictitious article. There are a numberof existing articles about famous hoaxes like Orson Welles' "The War of the Worlds" radio broadcast or Spaghetti trees. -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not about a hoax per se; it repeated an extremely obscure hoax which appeared in a secondary source unattributed to its first published source (which, if the name of the first published source had been known, any google search could turn up as a hoax), and which the original article creator added in good faith.--Pharos (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore: intent and extent

Obviously, one of the reasons this list is maintained is to document the repercussions hoaxes have made. Purportedly some also consider it possibly useful in studies of the phenomenon. I argue that it is also important to recognize the difference between hoaxes and attempts at humor, surreal or nonsense, for at least the latter rationale.
Take, for example,

  • the change of the MESSENGER probe's destination from Mercury to Canada: it is quite supposable that this wasn't an attempt to deceive, but merely some inane kind of joke; it was mentioned outside of WP, but not in any serious context. I do not see any reason it has for which to be on this list.
  • Ladedaism. This one lasted longer than a year, but it was a dead-end page which probably started because someone thought that Dadaism was a funny word. I highly doubt that they were out to achieve any notoriety, and it seems that they had none.

It would be much more beneficial to keep a list of occurrences where the Wikipedia process has demonstrably failed, would it not? It is possible that someone wrote a term paper citing Functional Temporalism, but such an incident hoax or farce is no more pragmatic than inventing a fictional one to provide hypothetical examples.
So, in conclusion, I think that the severity of repercussions and discernible attempt at notoriety, whether to further some goal or as a sociopathic gesture for its own sake, should at least be a part of this list, if not an amendment to the inclusion criteria.
Well, that being said, I ask that you not read this as an effort of pomposity, and I hope I avoided a diatribe. JamesEG (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hoax at Aría?

I just happened to come across Aría. It is now a redirect but, according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aría, was deleted as a hoax. Any admin want to look into how long the article has been around?  :-) --Iamunknown 04:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lasted 8 days. Gimmetrow 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old hoax

Came here from WP:HOAX. In 2006 I discovered a prank/hoax that had existed in an article since 2001. Although the page grew considerably over the years, when the misinformation was originally added, it made up half the text. This is not some obscure page, either; it routinely gets more than 5k hits per day. Is that worth listing here? Gimmetrow 04:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 11? Why don't you mention it here (on the talk page) first? Ayla (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[6] [7] [8] Gimmetrow 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sure did escape detection for a long time... It's hard to perform any googling on the subject since mirrors have propagated the (mis)information to the rest of the web. I did find one related untainted source, but it does not shed any light on the veracity of the claims made. My reservation is that it might have been some obscure research, rather than a hoax; the main argument against that seems to be that Boston-based John Garabedian is a "radio personality and disc jockey" rather than a researcher. But if you add it to the list (as the longest-running hoax, at that), maybe we could get someone offering more insight on the matter. Ayla (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm quite sure it was a hoax, or probably more accurately described, a college prank. "Extensive studies" would not correspond to obscure research. This text survived over 1000 revisions before it was discovered. Another name associated with this text had an article which survived for a few days short of five years, but had very few edits and was probably rarely viewed. Gimmetrow 01:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Jaeger? Yes, the hoax probably deserves a mention in the list then. Ayla (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory

This isn't really a hoax, but a non-notable topic. The term was in use on the Internet prior to the article being written. <eleland/talkedits> 20:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ussuri republic

It was a false rebel nation in the Russian Far East during 1920, see the AfD for historical data and the note that it was spreading to at least 1 other Mirror cite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ussuri republic. It ran between January 18 and 27 March, 2008.86.16.1.182 (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lonny Fame and the Belltones

A possible hoax at the (now-deleted) Lonny Fame and the Belltones? See also WP:AN (permanent link). --Iamunknown 07:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Thomas

This had an AfD in September 2007, but was recreated one month later and lasted till the 22nd February 2008 without being noticed. Alex Muller 08:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Copeman

If this is a hoax, it is about 10 months old - Lonely Planet Guide to Micronations states that Nick Copeman's real name is Henry Michael King Nicholas, but an IP address here changed the name and it has remained that way for 10 months (for 2 months the correct name was used November - December). Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Nobby Norton

Percy Nobby Norton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Percy "Nobby" Norton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Percy Norton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This one kept coming back for a long time, doubtless a few iterations have been forgotten above. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuatafa Hori

Bogus Sigavan princess, again took some nuking due to WP:AGF over a purported book source which turned out not to be verifiable. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spring family

This was an elaborate hoax (or collection of hoax articles) which has only just been discovered and deleted, having existed for almost four months. The relevant articles are listed at the CFD here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 11#Category:Spring family. Robofish (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair (TV series) and Sarah Houston

I've seen these two short-lived hoaxes. Sinclair never existed. Nor Sarah Houston. Nor Andrew Williams. Or David Willis. The only real thing about this TV series is that it's a fake. I was hoping you could put it up, even though it didn't last long. It's currently being listed for deletion. —Coastergeekperson04's talk@May/10/09 01:18

Longevity, ticklish situation

Where are the level-headed hoax-watchers today? What we know:

  1. In 2005 (mostly 22 Nov), User:Ryoung122 inserted significant unsourced content into the article longevity myths, also completely changing the stated scope of the article, and creating several previously unheard-of categories and examples of these alleged "longevity myths".
  2. In 2008, Robert Young, a longevity researcher who has apparently had some good recognition in this narrow field, stated in his master's thesis (page 34, footnote 55) that "Parts of this are based on an essay by Robert Young (i.e., me) and then posted to Wikipedia on Nov 22, 2005." Most of the text of the previous link was present, somewhat edited, but still with very few citation footnotes.
  3. On 24 April 2009, I proposed moving the article longevity myths as being in clear violation of WP:WTA#Myth and legend. Early responses were in favor, later responses from article regulars hotly contested the move, claiming that the article only needed a couple more sources to be in compliance.
  4. On 10 May 2009, I identified over 70 sentences and headings that originated in the 2005 "essay" and that had remained essentially unmodified over the four years since, fact-tagging them all.
  5. While some of this essay can be sourced, some of it does not have any online sourcing beyond this 2005 insertion and its many mirrors. For instance all of the following phrases are completely Google-populated with mirrors of WP: "longevity myth phenomenon", "nationalist longevity myth", "village elder myth" (which is always the "second longevity myth"), "barnum myth of longevity", "spiritual myths of longevity", "myth of southern longevity", "patriarchal longevity myth", "patriarchal matriarchal myths", "racist and familial", "motivation for age exaggeration", "reasons for age exaggeration", "societal respect for aging", "other longevity myths" (of course), and several others. (Of course "barnum longevity myth" and "spiritual longevity myth" and "southern longevity myth" and "racist longevity myth" are unpopulated, while "familial longevity myth" turns up a WP talk page.) Even phrases of wide application, when coupled with the phrase "longevity myth", yield only mirrors, such as "fountain of youth myth", "shangri-la myth" (note Shangri-La is fiction not myth), "patriarchal myth", "spiritual myths", "religious myths" (includes one keywordlist), "example-ism", "dannon yogurt". After making this list and without changing it, repeating all queries above in both Books and Scholar yielded absolutely nothing except 3 hits for "reasons for age exaggeration" and 1 for "racist and familial", with some relation to longevity claims, but none to longevity myths or folklore.
  6. Don't get me started about evidence from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People.

I present the evidence in detail because I unintentionally became a partisan in favor of applying policy and style guides to this article in the face of an apparent circling of wagons mostly by its regular editors, and then further stepped into the discovery of this unsourced research, the biggest original chunk of which is the idea that everything in that article has been discussed by sociologists or mythologists as being "longevity myths" in the "inoffensive, technical" sense (WP:WTA again), and that these myths neatly categorize into the thoroughly original categories sprinkled throughout the article. My own POV is that if this level of egregious original research, the worst in my experience, had been discovered while its author was on indefinite block for 9 months for "inserting unverifiable information", there would be nothing whatsoever to prevent the original research sections of it from being listed here as a patent hoax; and the fact that Young has now published his thesis and a book selling for $101.00, with significant sections based thoroughly on this unsourced essay, does not exempt him from naming his sources for these categorizations. Now would you generally well-balanced editors please comment on whether I am going crazy about this? JJB 03:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Masters theses are generally not reliable sources, although they are a borderline case and may be acceptable in some situations. The book was published by "VDM Verlag Dr. Müller". Since this is a publisher of dissertations, this does not give the thesis any additional weight. It's still self-published. I can't say much about the other aspects. Hans Adler 13:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, additional views are still solicited. Discussion right now is at WP:FTN and mediation. JJB 13:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Slow Blind Driveway

It looks like the jig is up for that great blues master, Slow Blind Driveway. I never edited the article, but I've been aware of it for almost two years now. It has been there for me every time I've needed a laugh. So yes, I'm guilty of looking the other way and even of asking on the talk page about a mysterious harmonica player heard on some of his "songs." SBD's once detailed biography has been cut to a single sentence and is likely to soon face deletion. Maybe some of you can find a way to preserve the article and history in the way others here have been preserved. It's a good study. Several times well-intentioned newbies have blanked the page only to get their hands slapped in the form of vandalism warnings. Numerous editors have visited the page to correct spelling and adjust categories apparently unaware of the article's other issues. The article has been discussed at times in forums elsewhere on the web. Collectors have been looking for his albums. I don't know who put him there, but I'm going to indeed miss him. -MrFizyx (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid extraction quotient

About to reach its fifth anniversary. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite a hoax, but

New World Religion, an article about an invented concept made by a persistent vandal called the "Suki vandal", lasted 5 years. Shii (tock) 05:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SUKI (tm), The New World Religion (tm) is not a hoax. Its a well known major international religion with over two million members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.53.178 (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpallen

I believe Earl of Amersham and Fürsts of Schwarzenberg existed for some months at least, but don't know how to find out. —Tamfang (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Earl of Amersham was deleted after only a day, and Fürsts of Schwarzenberg after 18 days, so neither of them survived long enough to qualify. Johnpallen was one of many identities of one Stefan Roberts, a serial hoaxer who kept promoting himself to the peerage and eventually metamorphosed into Stefan de Rothschild, but I don't think any of his numerous hoaxes lasted long enough to make it here. JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I'm the one who tagged Amersham as a hoax, and it seems to me now that it took more than a day ... but maybe that was just a very slow day for me. —Tamfang (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to his more recent escapades. —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted page history (admin only link) of Earl of Amersham says:
Deletion log
    * (del/undel) 10:27, 19 June 2006 JzG (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Earl of Amersham" ‎   (Vandalism (hoax)) (view/restore)
Page history
    * (del/undel) (diff) 04:13, 19 June 2006 . . Srikeit (talk | contribs | block) (nomination for deletion)
    * (del/undel) (diff) 20:19, 18 June 2006 . . Tamfang (talk | contribs | block)
    * (del/undel) (diff) 19:32, 18 June 2006 . . Johnpallen (talk | contribs | block)
    * (del/undel) (diff) 19:31, 18 June 2006 . . Johnpallen (talk | contribs | block)
    * (del/undel) (diff) 19:31, 18 June 2006 . . Johnpallen (talk | contribs | block)
    * (del/undel) (diff) 19:30, 18 June 2006 . . Johnpallen (talk | contribs | block)
PrimeHunter (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to restore hoax pages for educational use

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_restore_hoax_pages_for_educational_use. Direct all comments to that page. Dcoetzee 08:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not on page linked. It would be nice if everything deleted from WP were stored in a namespace inaccessible to search engines or references outside of WP. David Spector (user/talk) 20:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can read the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive 67#Proposal_to_restore_hoax_pages_for_educational_use. I remain opposed to it for the reasons given. And all deleted content is stored by Wikipedia -- but access must be requested from an administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate

Good likely candidate: Upton H. Pennyworth. Evidence suggests a hoax, lasted about 4 years. Rehevkor ✉ 16:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - added. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson Cowan

As far as I can tell, essentially everything in the article created in December 2007 down to today was complete nonsense. The company and its products exist, but I don't believe there is such a thing as "third-generation" cooker technology, working on "either civil or military gas", giving "an economic boost for the 35-40 year-old households in meridional Europe". Does this count as a hoax article if the products actually exist? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't call it a hoax. It was a poorly conceived article with what appears to be some muddled original research. The article should never have been written about a single appliance anyway. As you say, the company existed. It was a significant manufacturer of heating appliances some decades ago and requires a more complete history than a stub about a single product. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Longest Hoax?

Hi! I added what I think is a new longest hoax to the list (the AfD closed a few weeks back, but I didn't know this list existed. I hope I formatted everything correctly?--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that was a deliberate attempt to create a hoax. The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higgby Act was deletion, not because it was found to be a deliberate falsehood, but rather because the subject of the two sentence stub could not be identified. Sources found at the AFD [9], [10], [11] show there was some kernel of truth to the article -- but that the name was either mistaken or mis-attributed and certainly not notable. Sorry, but this is not a clear hoax case and doesn't belong on the list. — CactusWriter (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's what happened. We found possible other things that could have been related to a potential Higgby Act, but proved without a doubt it never existed. The closest we came was a man with a different spelling of Higgby speaking in congress, but that's a far cry from it being real.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't see is any proof that this was a deliberate attempt to mislead -- which is the defining characteristic of a hoax and for items on this list. (Peruse some of the hoaxes on this list and you will see the rather obvious and elaborate methods used to dupe.) Higgby appears to be an unverified mistake -- and, unfortunately, quite common among the pages and text I delete every day. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed from list. Comments from the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higgby Act on March 8 indicate there is considerable doubt that there was a clear attempt to make something up rather than a mistake -- the requirement for inclusion on this page. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Kuan pha na dum (an article about a Lao folk hero I found) turned out to be a soap opera character whose description was added here by a graphic novel author who made him a character, so he's not a hoax. Same with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Olechowski

Joseph Evers

Joseph Evers was listed as the owner of Encyclopedia Dramatica for at least a year if I remember correctly. That was definitely a hoax (He was only CEO, not owner). --24.63.88.164 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Evers was listed as its owner from March 2010 to December 2010 (with some edit wars in between). This would make a fine addition to the list. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. This does not qualify as a blatant attempt by a Wikipedia editor to perpetrate a hoax. If an editor confuses the differences between CEO, Owner, Founder, Chairman, etc. -- that is not a hoax, but simply a factual error of which there are millions on Wikipedia. In this case, there was also considerable discussion on the talk page ([12] or [13]) from the start about determining whether the sources which gave that information should be considered reliable. That the editors in the discussion made a bad decision to use anything associated with Encyclopedia Dramatica as a reliable source was an error in judgement but not a deliberate attempt to deceive. There was no hoax on the part of Wikipedia. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccans with Disabilities Act of 1992

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moroccans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1992 – Would this qualify for inclusion? It lasted for three years. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Moufot

Imho another top contender for the list:

This alleged french philosopher and mathematician got articles in all large wikipedias and survived for many years, even being copy edited by mathematicians not realizing that he was a fake. He finally got deleted around 2008, when in de.wp and en.wp some editors got suspicious. He is still around in various WP clones and other derivative work though: [14], [15], [16], [17].

The French WP has preserved moved the French version of the hoax in a humor section: fr:Wikipédia:Pastiches/Jean_François_Moufot

The author of the hoax has preserved the original dutch article and some background information on his personal website: [18] --Kmhkmh (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Definitely! I've added your info to the list. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Format

There is awkward white whitespace and cramped text, at least to me. The "Length" column is wider than it needs be, and should be retitled to "Duration". The "Dates" and "Links" columns should be wider. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table's sortability ought to be fixed or turned off. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some more

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki link?

On the German Wikipedia is a similar list in userspace at de:Benutzer:Gestumblindi/Fakemuseum. I suppose a formal interwiki link in the article is out of the question? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more

[19] --95.115.10.227 (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate:a series of articles

The parent article is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BradTraylor/Battle of Imizu and the children articles are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Spears of Imizu. Oda Mari (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Toadstool

Sailor Toadstool was on the encyclopedia for, IIRC, six months, but isn't listed on this page. I can't get the exact dates b/c I'm not an admin. I fondly remember this article which was created by a friend of mine when we were teenagers. --✶♏✶ 00:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Created 31 Dec 2004, last revision 16 May 2005, deleted 21 May 2005.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 02:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion of entry by Court order"

Or, so this edit claimed. YAH! Yet Another Hoax! Reverted. --Lexein (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kisorsa & Marcus J. Blatter

There was an article on a fictional Hungarian village called Kisorsa. I don't know how long it existed but it was deleted in March 2011 and by that time the author has been absent from wikipedia for more than a year. Kisorsa was described as a village whose primary livestock is the llama, which is somewhat odd for a Central European country.

Also, fictional Hungarian politician Marcus J. Blatter had an article for more than two years, without anyone getting suspicious about the fact that a statesman described as having "strong conservative values" has, apparently, a foul mouth befitting a drunken sailor, as the quote in his article testified. – Alensha talk 12:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date Format

Would it not make sense to have two separate columns for date? One for start and one for date of discovery. That way you could sort each independently. Does anyone know of a way to automate this? Winston Spencer (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Peninsula War

Really surprised to find this hoax missing from the list: User:Ned_Scott/Upper_Peninsula_War

It's difficult to determine the date range / length of time that this was up before it was discovered, as the linked page is an archival copy kept for humorous purposes. This hoax definitely deserves to be on the list, though. Wingman4l7 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was moved, so the user subpage has its original history. It's not eligible for inclusion here though because it was deleted after only 13 days and has no media coverage. Dcoetzee 21:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The hoax is notable. Perhaps its exclusion is a red flag that the criteria for this list have been arbitrarily narrowed a bit too far in order to remove valid info about the history of the project? K7L (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we included every hoax that was present for 2 weeks we'd have thousands and the list would be entirely unmanagable. Although it'd be nice if hoaxes were caught immediately, the system still worked pretty well in this case. Dcoetzee 21:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ocular citrosis

I've added ocular citrosis. I think it was an April fools day prank but one that lasted nearly 3 years Aspheric (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new long term hoax should be added

I found a hoax that had been on here for over four years, if any admins want to verify this. Manao was created in 2007 and only deleted in 2011. I believe any admin can look up the exact stats. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dcoetzee 21:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Coleman

There actually is a American Football player named Martin Coleman: he was a relatively obscure offensive lineman for the University of Southern California Trojans, who played from 2007 through 2011. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant of Venice, musical version

Drat; I forget what other actor's biography also listed this movie as a credit with additional made-up details, but after it was questioned by a non-Wikpedian friend I removed it in this edit Jim.henderson (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Kennedy, criminal of the Old West

A long-term hoax may have been identified at Colin Kennedy, now facing a proposed deletion after remained in mainspace for nearly 4 years since its creation on 8 April 2009. This Colin Kennedy was supposedly a notorious criminal who murdered John Sutter's brother in San Francisco on April 9, 1853. Good story, but unfortunately no sources have been found to verify any of this. (Previously, we had an article about a real person of the same name, a Scottish film director[20], but this was deleted on 8 December 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Kennedy.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nagoochee Frog

Nagoochee Frog, created on 24 November 2009, has been prodded by an IP editor, who states in the edit summary that "This does not exist and was created explicitly to demonstrate fake Wikipedia articles." An editor made a similar statement on the talk page on 13 June 2012: "The article was a class project for a university art class in new media back in 2009". And on 8 October 2012 another IP editor inserted the notation "(Fake article)" into the infobox. Apparently no steps were taken to delete the article at either of those times. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring hoaxes to project space

I've been restoring all deleted hoax articles and their talk pages as subpages of this page so that we can research them, understand them, and hopefully detect and prevent more hoaxes in the future. I remove cats from them, add the {{hoax demo}} tag, and full protect them. So far I've done the first 11 in the table - I linked the article titles in the first column directly to the archived copies. Dcoetzee 10:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Like Good idea. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done one. {{WikiProject Biography}} complained about being in the wrong namespace - it categorizes pages into an error category, which obviously we don't want for pages that are indefinitely locked. I couldn't find a way to render the template without the category (it really, really doesn't like being substituted), so ended up commenting it out. I suspect this will be the case for a few of them. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found the problem. You'll need to remove |class=whatever from the call to that template. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! If you ever encounter a template that you're not sure how to remove categories from, feel free to just put <pre> around it. Dcoetzee 08:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts by Sp33dyphil

In this edit, JohnCD added a link to an AFD for a hoax, "Jonathan L. Langer". That edit got reverted without explanation by Sp33dyphil; I restored it, as it was a legitimate addition to this list, leading me to suspect that the reversion was accidental. However Sp33dyphil has just undone that again, with the comment "accidental". That doesn't make sense - what was accidental? If it was his original revert, then my assessment was correct. But all of the succeeding edits were purposeful.

I've restored the link again and have asked Sp33dyphil to explain here before removing it again. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morton

Morton Schwartz was another hoax we unearthed during the Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue Project that might be worth adding. See Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_BLP_Rescue/Archive_1#Can_Morton_be_saved.3F. Like the recently unearthed Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Yuri Gadyukin, it was fairly elaborate, with fake film clips online and a German wikipedia version too.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Length

Isn't this list getting kind of rediculously long? It might be better if the cutoff was 1 year for otherwise unnotable hoaxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.45.112 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the list is getting too long. Andrew327 17:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any volunteers to select the best for an elite list? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the suggestion to keep hoaxes which were discovered after one year or more is reasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jum sum

Once the AFD closes, it looks like there will be another one for the list. Andrew327 18:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Balding taste buds"

From 04 October 2009 to 18 April 2013 on taste bud: "Some early experimental studies (Kirk and Grills, 1992) showed that subjects who were genetically predisposed to baldness were found to be 78% more likely to experience taste loss sensations in 5 out of 5 taste trials. It was hypothesized that this was due to 'balding' of the tongue." The "experiment", of course, doesn't exist. Is something like this notable enough for this article? Silenceisgod (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, four years is sufficient for inclusion in the list.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Only include hoaxes that were live for at least one year

This list has become unwieldy, as has been pointed out by several editors in the past. I propose only including hoaxes that meet one of the following two criteria:

  1. Article was not found out to be a hoax for at least one year after publication.
  2. Article received substantial coverage in secondary sources, similar to WP:N requirements.

Andrew327 02:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Silenceisgod (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current statement of criteria at the beginning of the list is: "It is considered notable if it evaded detection for more than one month or was discussed by reliable sources in the media." I don't have a problem with changing "one month" to a longer period. I don't agree that we should require "substantial coverage in secondary sources"; that would be the test for whether a particular hoax can support its own Wikipedia article, not for what belongs on a list one of whose functions is to collect outside commentary about Wikipedia hoaxes. I also think the reference to "notable" at the beginning of the quoted sentence is confusing. I suggest rewording the sentence as follows: "This list includes hoaxes that evaded detection for more than one year or that received coverage in an independent reliable source." --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support Arxiloxos's proposal. In the past the list was much shorter and one month seemed like a reasonable period. I also agree that substantial coverage is not needed - even if the hoax were merely the subject of an external forum thread I think it's useful to note that here. The only exception I would make is that secondary sources that are based on this list or a past revision of it, and don't add any additional information beyond what this list already provides, really shouldn't count. I'm going to be bold and execute on this. Dcoetzee 09:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking at the hoaxes I'm loathe to merely remove them, so I'm going to put them on a subpage instead. Dcoetzee 09:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New long-term hoax that could be added?

I recently stumbled across this AfD discussion for Olimar The Wondercat, where the nominator mentions that the article survived for seven years, and it was deleted for being a blatant hoax. I don't know when it was first created, but it was deleted on 9 July 2013. Could this be eligible for addition on the hoaxes existent for at least one year list? If so, it appears that it would be either the second or third longest lasting hoax on the site. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly could - first created 5 August 2006. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would admin like to undelete it to hoax article space? I am not sure how that is done.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and added. Dcoetzee 02:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dcoetzee. Is http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/02/1/5/8/05907181172627895.jpg a copy of the deleted image? If so we may be able to recreate an artist's conception and label it so in the caption of the image. Then readers would know that it was a real cat image and not a cartoon one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed. I'm pretty sure the original image was a copyvio, but at the least we could place a short description of the image in the caption (done). Feel free to recreate if you have the time and inclination. :-) Dcoetzee 07:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The hoax was apparently created by a neuroscientist who tweeted "RIP, Olimar the Wondercat (wikipedia page for my cat; it survived 7 years )".[21] Maybe it is a photo of his cat. Other tweets: [22][23]. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found an email and requested an image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The good doctor sent me the image for public domain use. I forwarded his email to commons OTRS. It should pass license muster soon. Admin may wish to fix the caption.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacular. Nice to see the hoax in its original form. Dcoetzee 20:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS just approved the licence. Did anyone have any luck interviewing the good doctor?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed him, and he did not respond. Dcoetzee 20:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deny recognition

Could someone please explain to me why Wikipedia:Deny recognition doesn't apply here? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IMHO, it's not super public, as a WP: article. If we don't acknowledge our failures, and our victories in rooting out hoaxes, how will we learn to recognize them? If we don't have a sense of humor with a dash of humility about it (such as acking Reddit and other eagle-eyed informers), we'll just be Citizendia or some other grim fascist shadow of our ebullient selves. --Lexein (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxes on Wikipedia have been the subject of innumerable media reports and scholarly works. The people who labor to improve our understanding and detection of hoaxes, and who will inevitably help us uncover many more, cannot conduct their work without systematic and complete access to this data. Moreover, with every new generation of Wikipedians, there arrive many users who have had no exposure to hoaxes of prior years, and are thus handicapped in their ability to successfully recognize new ones. For every hoax that is spurred on by the thought of being ensconced upon this list, many more will ultimately be destroyed by the illumination it casts on their structure and methods. In short, "know thy enemy" supersedes "deny recognition." Dcoetzee 08:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Word. I wish 3-month hoaxes were included, even if boxed. --Lexein (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that deletion would be the Wrong Thing To Do. I was thinking more along the lines of making the lead a bit more disproving and possibly managing the wikiinks to this page. A quick look showed me:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia clones: I like this one. Very much disproving in tone, mentioning how hoaxes live on in seldom-updated Wikipedia clones.
Wikipedia:Silly Things: (newly added link) This is a page of things that we think are funny, and the link kind of implies that hoaxes are funny as well.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia records: I think that this link encourages hoaxers. "Slip in a subtle hoax and set a new record!"
Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia: This one sends mixed signals. First it lists Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes and Category:Suspected hoax articles, which are very useful pages for new editors; one says don't hoax and the other helps the new editor to figure out what to do if you see a hoax. Then it links here with the comment "notable hoaxes". IMO That link doesn't do anything to help anyone to edit. If anything, it gives people ideas and acts as a tutorial as to how to hoax without being detected.
I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Lexein: They are, see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Less than one year.
@Guy: The main reason that Silly Things linked here is that it was where hoaxes lived before this page existed. But I went ahead and removed the link along with any hoaxes already listed here - if you want to discuss completely removing the Hoaxes section from Silly Things (which contains only a couple short-lived ones now), I think Wikipedia talk:Silly Things is the best place to ask. I edited the Editor's index to describe the list as "hoaxes that have been discovered and removed" rather than "notable hoaxes", but feel free to amend that. I feel like including the link is potentially useful because seeing examples of hoaxes helps new editors detect similar hoaxes in the future. For the records page, several records are problematic in the same way - I asked about it at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia_records#Encouraging_bad_behavior.3F. Please feel free to edit the lead of this page yourself. Dcoetzee 21:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, missed it. Side note: this block-of-text multi-editor-reply comment style is not great. IMHO it's best to reply in-thread, indented (maybe double indented) directly under the person's last comment. I don't care if the thread ends up partially out of date order - the discussion itself is more important than the chronology. I'd like to quash text-block-multi-reply style ASAP before it becomes popular - see grotesque example here.) --Lexein (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you would, but some of us prefer it. Your time would be better spent on other things than attempting to "quash" other people's conversational styles. — Scott • talk 13:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dcoetzee's use above is not egregiously bad, and I do not see it as abusive. But did you even look at the example screenshot? At its worst (see screenshot), the massive multi-response block style is disruptive, disrespecting threading and indentation, interrupting discussion flow, visually demanding attention, and appearing to start over discussion. There are places on Wikipedia where such a non-indented style seems to have been adopted: disciplinary discussions, not article and user talk pages. Note that I'm not the only editor objecting to textblock style abuse. See also WP:Talkpage, and {{Talkpage}} where cooperatively participating in discussion, without disrupting it, is advocated. So, gosh, no thank you for advising how I should spend my time. --Lexein (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at the screenshot, which bears no relevance to anything that has happened here, on this page, in this conversation, where you have gone out of your way to lecture people irrelevantly about things they are not doing. — Scott • talk 20:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely use this style. In this case it was useful because there was no simple way to reply in-line without the reply becoming lost due to its short length and indentation being the same as the comment right next to it. Of course none of this would be an issue if we had real discussion forum software. Dcoetzee 00:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving milestone

Just reporting that all pages in the "Hoaxes extant for at least one year" section are now archived as subpages of this page. Feel free to browse through them - there's quite a variety in terms of topics, level of detail, how the hoax was ultimately detected, and so on. Dcoetzee 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been here in a while, so it's really neat to see. Thanks for posting. Andrew327 14:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Order of precedence in Northern Ireland

Recently "Order of precedence in Northern Ireland" was added as the oldest hoax in the list, but I'm quite skeptical that this was an intentional hoax or attempt to mislead, as opposed to merely a clueless user accidentally giving incomplete information. I'm suggesting it be removed. Thoughts? If there are no objections I'll remove it after a few days. Thanks! Dcoetzee 06:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like User:Mewulwe has already removed it, based on the same reasoning as above. Dcoetzee 22:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

add?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruy_Lopez,_Marshall_Attack,_Rombaua_Trap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.45.112 (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Dcoetzee 00:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it belongs on the list, but it's worth noting...

I've just removed a reference to "The Duke" as being the tenth member of the champion 1980 University of Otago coxed rowing eight (eight rowers, plus cox, plus...The Duke) in the article Hebberley Shield. So what? "The Duke" was added to the article on 6 September 2006 - meaning it had just passed seven years on Wikipedia before being removed. Since it's not an entire article, just one line in a list, it's probably not worth adding on this page... but it deserves mention here on the talk page at least! Grutness...wha? 13:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How Exactly are Hoaxes Studied??

I don't comment on wikipedia much anymore but I've just come across the hoax page and I was curious how you guys "study" hoaxes, per the banner that runs across the page of former hoaxes. 11kowrom 01:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the phrase and worded it to make more sense. 'Document hoaxes' as opposed to study purposes. I think the meaning will come across as the same.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I updated Template:Hoax demo correspondingly, which is what the OP was referring to, although I don't think the old language was incorrect. It said "for the purpose of studying them". That doesn't mean we study them, but documenting them enables others to do so. To more directly answer the question, I'm working on algorithms to detect hoax articles, and I have some ideas - one of them revolves around detecting copy-pasting with modifications within Wikipedia, which is often indicative of hoaxes. Dcoetzee 02:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly do study them by reading coverage about them in the cited reliable sources for clues as to how they were created, and how they got past our safeguards. As a result of knowing about this article and reading about a couple of humdinger hoax articles, I discovered one incompetent non-notable hoax article (a derivative of Shaun the Sheep) in its early stages, checked its alleged sources, and immediately nominated it for speedy deletion. --Lexein (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the words makes sense, but just to follow up the original question... Hoaxes come up in academic research about the relationship between Wikipedia, information literacy, knowledge production, truth/facts, etc. Seigenthaler and Colbert are the biggest examples, having received a huge amount of mainstream and moderate academic attention. --Rhododendrites (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting, 2013

Does anyone mind if, in Links, I use the official abbreviations for Wikipedia (WP), and Administrators noticeboard (AN)? Some of the links are force-widening the right column of the table needlessly. I'm going to boldly abbreviate one of the worst, as an example. Also removed some underscores. --Lexein (talk) 06:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with that. Andrew327 10:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure Island (Borger, Texas amusement park)

I've removed Pleasure Island (Borger, Texas amusement park) from the list[24] because it doesn't appear to have been a hoax, just a totally non notable entry. E.g. this 1960 source mentions it. Feel free to readd it if it turns out to be a hoax anyway of course. Fram (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Tea

I've found an article that I think could be added to the "Hoaxes existent for at least one year" list - Gold Tea. According to its deletion discussion, it survived for five years, and the comments suggest that it was deleted for being a hoax. If it could be added, could an admin add it to the list? Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you found a former hoax.
I just searched the web and there are still a few websites that have copies of the page even though it was deleted almost two years ago. Apparently, it read:

"Gold Tea is a brand of ice tea that is originally from the Confederate States of America in the 19th century. It was famous for containing large quantities of small flakes of gold in each cup. This was done not purely for aesthetics, but as a means of smuggling Confederate gold through Union blockades. The public became aware of this action during the trial of Colonel Ryan Mooney of Pennsylvania. Mooney was sentenced to death by firing squad for his role in smuggling the tea to the North on behalf of Colonel Jackson. Gold tea largely disappeared after the Civil War, as the Confederacy no longer required gold to issue money or bribe foreign governments. The idea lived on in the alcoholic beverage Goldschlager. This gold-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax with potential to be one of the longest-surviving hoaxes

See here. Beats Olimar The Wondercat and comes close to beating Gaius Flavius Antoninus. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Olechowski, some editors suggested the article was written about someone's grandfather and that it was a family story. They believed it to be probably inaccurate rather than a blatant attempt to make something up. Although it was unverified and unsourced for a long time, it doesn't rise to the level of hoax (as defined at the top of this list: a clear or blatant attempt to make up something, as opposed to libel, vandalism or a factual error.) — CactusWriter (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Who's Closest really a hoax?

Because of the nature of the article, it is hard to tell if he purposefully made it up or it was just a non-notable game he played. This is referred to in the AfD. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, in my opinion it belongs in the "obviously made up" category. Not a true hoax. --JamesMoose (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I think this is just something that Barnaby Dawson created in good faith, not "obviously made up". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexschmidt711 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Not a hoax, but rather neither notable nor verifiable. JulesH (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a particularly resilient case of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Fishal (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's closest]|nominator of the AFD]] and comments by contributors in the revision history suggested that this was just a local made-up game rather than a intentional hoax. As such, it doesn't qualify for inclusion on the list. Due to the consensus here, I am removing it. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antón de Palategui

This appears to be a long-standing hoax. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; no evidence that this is based on anything real, not even with variant search terms. Good catch. Fram (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I couldn't find any evidence either. And the sole reference listed in the article links to a different conquistador. I have added it to the list. — CactusWriter (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decoupling (mathematical analysis) and San Serriffe

These are interesting. The former lasted from 2012-2014, and the latter is an intricate example of a BJAODN hoax that, although it lasted around 12 hours, would have its own entry here. This is not my last name (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JohnCD's list

Jarble has discovered this goldmine of hoaxes assembled by JohnCD. Lots and lots to assess for this list. — Scott • talk 22:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to check them, but they are nearly all hoaxes I found while doing new page patrol, so not many of them survived for the month necessary to qualify here. JohnCD (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chihiro

The article formerly at Chihiro numbers reached the front page and caused a lot of internal controversy, despite only being posted for a week (?). It's also linked from Reliability of Wikipedia. Should it be listed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:EA00:104:1C00:5C13:6116:E063:3F89 (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not without being "covered in independent third-party sources", per the guidelines at the article. C679 12:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coati (Brazilian aardvark)

Insertion point; coverage in New Yorker: [25] [26] Andreas JN466 21:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard's Law

Newly deleted hoax, lasted at least 3-4 years. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate

A hoax that has been known for sometime, often misconstrued as whitewashing by special interest groups. There is still considerable discussion on just how this article came under the guize of Wiki:Feminism, but rest assured it is important to them that they maintain this ruse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.196.200 (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Lady

This hoax band was deleted after about five and a half years on Wikipedia. It should be included in notable hoax list. 66.177.64.39 (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Bedelia

I just added this, based on this article [[27] in which I was interviewed about Wikipedia hoaxes. (I'm not a real expert on hoaxes, in my mind, I just am fascinated by them). This hoax was 5.5 years old, and was cited numerous times in blogs, books, library lists, etc. even apparently by the descendant and successor of the book series creator at one point!--Milowent • hasspoken 13:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! The specific edit is this one from January 2009. The IP performed only one other edit, this one on Peggy Parish, which you recently reverted, making it another 5.5 year vandalism. Thanks for adding the report! Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobkirelch

"Nobkirelch" was an article about a fictitious species of monkey. Jarble (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little hoax tracking?

Is there any compendium of "little hoaxes" that last for a bit? I just saw an obviously fake album name removed[28] from Maynard Ferguson's discography; it had lasted 8 months. [29]. The same IP responsible for that did this [30] the same day, which I just reverted myself. Another obvious joke edit [31] lasted 10 days. The same IPs first edit was also vandalism, though quickly caught.[32].--Milowent • hasspoken 18:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's another one mentioned in the Daily Dot comments. For 8 months (March[33] - November 2010 [34], the napkin article stated: "The Napkin was invented by Madam Rebecca Waltermath, at her etiquette school for Formal Women in London, England around the 18th century." In fact, this person was the roommate of the editor, with nary a napkin invention to her credit. In that relatively short period of time this "fact" was picked up by a number of lesser websites and lurk around to this day [35] [36].--Milowent • hasspoken 20:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masal Bugduv?

A tricky one: Masal Bugduv. This past hoax article was significant enough to get its own article (as a known hoax) and attracted numerous mentions in reliable sources, including some that did not recognize the hoax: [37] [38] [39]. Should this article be added to the hoax list? 66.177.64.39 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snappy & friends

Snappy & friends has been around since March 2005 and seems to be a hoax flat on its face. Can someone verify its hoaxiness and add it to the list? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you just made the top of the list for the discovery of the hoax with the longest survival! I knew I should have waited a few more years before deleting Pīchi no Shiro de no Rokkuman to Pātī, which only rested for 10 months ;-) Fram (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why'd you not like the Rockman page? Is it because you bought too many games? 67.82.89.253 (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC) (NOW YOU'VE GOT TO PLAY THEM ALL)[reply]

E'tedalion Party

It will likely be deleted soon as it has had a prod tag on it for 7+ days. The deleting admin should be sure to move it to a subpage of this page. Jinkinson talk to me 19:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Summer Olympics closing ceremony flag bearers

Not really a hoax, but since its creation over two years ago, until I removed 95% of the article today, the list 2008 Summer Olympics closing ceremony flag bearers (not really an obscure topic) was completely and utterly wrong. It was deliberately created with incorrect information, as stated on the talk page: "the list which I have currently created is totaly wrong with the wrong flag bearers at the moment but the order to which the countries came in is correct, all that is needed to be done is the names need changing and the sports which they are assacited with." These changes were never made. I listed a few of the blatant errors on the talk page.

Does a page that has been knowingly created with wrong information, and survives in that state for two years, deserve an entry on our list of hoaxes? It certainly gives a very bad view of the reliability and crowd-sourcing aspects of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one

I recently tagged P. V. Rajan & Company as a possible hoax. Do others agree? I did so b/c of the lack of Google Books or Google results. If it is a hoax it is one of the longest-lived ones on Wikipedia, in the same neighborhood as Snappy & friends. Everymorning talk 18:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax Finding Strategy

While checking up on the latest antics of fictional person George P. Burdell, I found he had been busy overthrowing governments in Africa. After fixing that, I checked the User Contribution page of the antisocial vandal who inserted this imaginary exploit, and found six unrelated articles that were similarly vandalized on the same day back in 2009, five years six months ago. Some of the articles had been corrected over the years, but some had been enhanced in their incorrectness. In particular, one article had a false bit of body text innocently (I think) incorporated into an infobox.

I suggest when you find a hoax that you track back to see who put the garbage in there, and then see what else shown on their User Contribution page might need fixing.

Megapod (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haď Čarém

Someone should probably archive the Haď Čarém page, deleted 29 January 2015. This hoax, extant for a year and ten months, describes a supposed Czech-Hungarian merchant, economist, and influential Muslim convert in the early 10th century. It approaches Bicholim conflict and Upper Peninsula War among the most elaborate hoaxes constructed here. Calamondin12 (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fisah Ketsi / Joe Jacks

A hoax 'ghost ship' FISAH KETSI which still returns top google results from the paranormal community. Discovered to be an anagram of 'This is fake' when the user's other submissions were also exposed as fabrication, e.g. abstract artist and Pollock-influence JOE JACKS. Both articles were popular in my high school and survived deletion requests for some time by using fabricated scholarly citations and referencing. Would be worthwhile editions from the archive?

The Babysitter Battle (TV series)

Well found this one-has been around since last July and is not a real tv show at all! Wgolf (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well someone can now add it to the list! Wgolf (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible one from 2008-Daniel Pontillas

Daniel Pontillas-I can't find ANY proof that this is a real fictional character. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Pontillas Wgolf (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Okay-I'm almost positive this is one-someone add this to the list sometime. Wgolf (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe it was never caught till now! I just noticed it also says "born in the late 20th century". Well looks like we have a new one to add to our wonderful list! Wgolf (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW-Milowent-might as well as put your vote on the AFD! Wgolf (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can believe it was never caught, because it probably wasn't linked anywhere. I enjoy the growing sport of spotting old hoax articles, there are certainly many more to be found I am sure.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So true! I mean if its something like "the guy won 2 Oscars, a Noble Peace Prize...ect." then we know it is a hoax but then there are these bizarre ones that you can't believe nobody caught till now! Wgolf (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its been deleted-can someone add it to the list? Thanks. Wgolf (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And another one from 2008-O-Ha!

O-Ha!, one that is very hard to tell if this is real or not. Its tough to find a title like O-Ha! when searching due to how the words can come up with a bunch of stuff. Given the creator of the article was blocked for creating hoaxes though....Wgolf (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one can someone add it to the page? I would but I am afraid of messing up the layout! Wgolf (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnandan Sahay-article from 2011

Okay this article Krishnandan Sahay, I am having a hard time making things of it-check the AFD page. I'm not even sure if this is real. Wgolf (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add this one? I would but I'm afraid of messing the table up! Wgolf (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax?

Wgolf: I have just opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alsayed Ali Ahmad Alshaykh, but I would appreciate a second, more experienced pair of eyes to check it please? Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mikagehama-looks li ke the all time record for the longest listed hoax!

Thanks to a few people for this one Battle of Mikagehama looks like a hoax! All the way from, are you guys ready??? 2003! Wgolf (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a hoax, but I think that it was created by TakuyaMurata in good faith, but that the source was incorrect, whether deliberately or not. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not a hoax. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

I have a couple of articles that have been deleted recently, but I didn't note the creation date (I think they were over 5 years), and I would be grateful if an admin could spare a minute to tell me or add them to the list. They are:

Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanote: created on 21 November 2009 and prod'ed the same day. Re-created on 17 April 2015 and prod'ed the same day.
Alsayed Ali Ahmad Alshaykh: created on 7 July 2006
Renata (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One I found listed as a prod of a article from 2008-Mop wedding

Mop wedding, looks like a hoax! Wgolf (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hoaxes older than Jar'Edo Wens?

Two articles I nominated for PROD would be the oldest hoaxes that could have ever existed on Wikipedia.

  • ʿĀd Was created on May 6, 2005 and so is older than Jar'Edo Wens, 9 years and 11 months.
  • I also proposed ‘Ad for deletion as it was a suspected hoax and it already has been 10 years since that article was created.

The Snowager-is awake 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snowager: I'd had a look to see about deleting, but found "Ubar was the pride of a prideful king—Shaddad, son of King Ad, grandson of Noah" in this, which is given in one of the articles. I'm not sure they're hoaxes. The transcript also states "There were other clues in the library's climate-controlled vaults, tantalizing hints in the Koran, references in the Arabian Nights and Greek and Roman histories, and the works of Islamic geographers. In some books, Ubar was mentioned, but had a different name. Or the Ubarites were called "the People of Ad." But nothing gave Ubar's exact location, or proved it was real." These are likely not hoaxes in our sense, but either not notable or things believed to have existed in some theologies. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowager: I have removed the PRODs for now. Perhaps a merger may be a better option. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1Potato2Potato3Potato4: Can we propose an AFD for both for now if it's possible? The Snowager-is awake 18:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowager: Go ahead, I was only removing the PRODs because I don't think it's a hoax. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bec dilxil xastin

Hoax? I think so, but not 100%. Article dates from 20:26, 11 February 2005‎ written by 216.107.36.38 . If it is a hoax, it's old, if it isn't a hoax, I can't see any references... 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New longest hoax

We have a new longest hoax, which lasted 10 years and 2.5 months, another deity. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the hoax even got into a book from 1918: https://books.google.de/books?ei=k049VazYJ8KAU7q2gMgO&id=4AgkVgc0-SMC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=xastin Mewulwe (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a deity is the same as a person without parents. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's their way of saying "primordial being". Not a hoax, just horribly mangled context. Renata (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Should this protozoa be added to the list?

Please see this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article from 2008-Desportivo Tete

Desportivo Tete it has the hoax tag on it-thoughts? Wgolf (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Cannito

Can Giancarlo Cannito get added to this? It was an article that lasted for about a year and a half on a largely fictitious professional Call of Duty player.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old hoax from 2004 - Demomotus Suggestion

I remember a hoax page about a Greek philosopher named Demomotus that was live in the early 2000s. It looks like it was deleted around October 2004. Archive.org has a copy of the page from July 31, 2004 which would make it old enough to include in the list, but if I remember correctly, it was actually much older, somewhere around 2002. I wasn't able to find any page history for it, but I imagine the admins might be able to still see it. Daniel (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia&oldid=672523234"