Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Formating

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

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

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)

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

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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.109.219 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Croatia Polytechnic

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

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)

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)

Tuba (mythology)

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

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)

|- | 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Apollo 11? Why don't you mention it here (on the talk page) first? Ayla (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] Gimmetrow 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Matt Jaeger? Yes, the hoax probably deserves a mention in the list then. Ayla (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Tuatafa Hori

• Tuatafa Hori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

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)

Beans

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

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)

gut feeling about beans, heh. Shentino (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Liquid extraction quotient

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for the link to his more recent escapades. —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Thanks —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Candidate

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

The Armenian Tokgrum enclave in Azerbaijan

[[4]]

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

A fake nation created by User: Lilidor. It’s mentioned on [[5]] --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)

And on these pages-

[[6]] [[7]] --86.29.254.174

[[8]]--86.29.254.174 20:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Some more

• Jacques Marnier Companie
• Seigneur Maret de Bassano (no AFD)
• Giovanni Francesco di Caspará
• Gyuszi Mészáros
• Zapihanha
• Brian Jamal Read

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

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)

One more

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

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)

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)

Created 31 Dec 2004, last revision 16 May 2005, deleted 21 May 2005.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 02:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Deletion of entry by Court order"

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• It's on the French and Antillies wikipedias too, anyone wanna delete it there? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

Like Good idea. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

Found the problem. You'll need to remove |class=whatever from the call to that template. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Whoops, I see Morton is on the list already, its just not restored yet.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Jum sum

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

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)

Agreed, the list is getting too long. Andrew³²⁷ 17:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Any volunteers to select the best for an elite list? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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

• 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

Word. I wish 3-month hoaxes were included, even if boxed. --Lexein (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

@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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

It certainly could - first created 5 August 2006. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Done, and added. Dcoetzee 02:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I found an email and requested an image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Spectacular. Nice to see the hoax in its original form. Dcoetzee 20:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

OTRS just approved the licence. Did anyone have any luck interviewing the good doctor?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I emailed him, and he did not respond. Dcoetzee 20:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed, in my opinion it belongs in the "obviously made up" category. Not a true hoax. --JamesMoose (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

I agree. Not a hoax, but rather neither notable nor verifiable. JulesH (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Antón de Palategui

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard's Law

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

Coati (Brazilian aardvark)

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

• This is more of a case of WP:MADEUP than a hoax, despite its substantial coverage and long life. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Nobkirelch

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Good advice, and good work!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefalstar (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

• See Arsène Lupin, Gentleman Burglar and Arsene Lupin vs. Herlock Sholmes, there's even a reference to Lupin in the Pontillas article which he forgot to change.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

BTW-Milowent-might as well as put your vote on the AFD! Wgolf (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Its been deleted-can someone add it to the list? Thanks. Wgolf (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Apparently not a hoax. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

1Potato2Potato3Potato4: Can we propose an AFD for both for now if it's possible? The Snowager-is awake 18:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm not sure a deity is the same as a person without parents. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's their way of saying "primordial being". Not a hoax, just horribly mangled context. Renata (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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:

• Bhanote
• Alsayed Ali Ahmad Alshaykh

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

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)

Should this protozoa be added to the list?

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

Article from 2008-Desportivo Tete

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Almost 10 years

The Doggs has been tagged as a hoax after having been here for almost a decade (created Dec. 25, 2005). I think it should be added to this list if it is deleted. Everymorning (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the third article hoax I discovered and have taken down, and it's one of the oldest ever detected. The earlier two are Little Adventures of Bruno and Mendaxi. I'm guessing a fourth one is in the pipeline (It's All Bad: Greatest Hits). TheGGoose (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Jack Robichaux

According to Calamondin12, the user who identified this as a hoax, "At 10-plus years, this would be the longest-lived hoax on Wikipedia known so far." I think, then, that if it really is a hoax (seems probable) that it should be added to this page. Everymorning (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Another one

St Angeline--tagged for speedy deletion, created October 4, 2007. Everymorning (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

An extra one - Doni Kochev created January 2007 (someone find the precise date please). These are two more suspected hoaxes I found. TheGGoose (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Chad Berryman hoax

Could someone add Chad Berryman to the list? This article was made in 2010 and only recently deleted as a hoax. Thanks --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Delicate slender opossum (fictitious material)

According to the talkpage of this article, an older revision featured extensive false claims about these mammals being eusocial, living underground, and cultivating fungus. Though short-lived, these "facts" got picked up by many websites and can still be found online, for instance here and other "free essay" type sites. Is this worth including in our "Less than one month" section? 75.4.18.95 (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• The standard is "This section should list only hoaxes covered in independent third-party sources" -- sadly these mirror sites can last for a long time and no one seems to care. Loretta Scott Crew (which I guess should be added) will be the creator of s'mores in the dumb part of the internet forever.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Martin Coleman

There actually was a real college football player named Martin Coleman. He was an offensive lineman for the University of Southern California whose forgettable and injury-plagued career ran from the 2007 through 2011 seasons. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems a bit redundant...

...to include "fictitious", "nonexistent", etc. in the description of every item on the page. We know they are hoaxes. Equinox (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

2010-15 Hoax on John Chivington

See Talk:John_Chivington#Allegation_of_deliberate_hoax_re:_colorblindness. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a few articles are currently in the category of suspected hoaxes

Might want to check them out also! (I did find one about a year ago that I don't think was added here that was up for more then a year) Wgolf (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Jerome Rey-hoax page since 2007

Thank you Joe Decker for finding Jerome Rey-hoax page from 2007! (I happened to have this on my watchlist from a while back after finding a dead link on it) Wgolf (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Should add that its from February 6, 2007! Wow been there for over 9 years! Wgolf (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the longest I've seen in the wild, although I have fond memories of Morton Schwartz, too... --joe decker^talk 05:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I like it's deletion reason "blatant hoax for 9 years" LOL. Wgolf (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL! --joe decker^talk 05:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well someone should add it now to the page! Wgolf (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not yet added to the main page-I would do it but not sure how that would work, so yeah someone should add it soon. Wgolf (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How do you add these to the main page? There are a few others that I've seen that have never been added that have been around for years! (I did find one that almost qualified but it was around for 11 months) Wgolf (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Buck Rogers (Western)-around since 2005, possible hoax

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buck Rogers (western). I can't find any info at all for Buck Rogers (western). Wgolf (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this will have the new record for the longest hoax! Whoever updates these add this when its gone! Wgolf (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay go ahead and add it! Wgolf (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79:, well you can add this on to the list! (I am afraid I would mess it up if I added it!) Wgolf (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Wgolf: I'm somewhat hesitant to add it since Loriendrew made a good argument for this being an accident rather than a deliberate hoax, which is what's required for inclusion on this list. Anthony Appleyard also brought up that he'd heard this name thrown around in a few places, which gives this added weight. Part of me wants to list it since it's interesting that it's been around for so long, but it doesn't seem to have been purposefully done. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay-well there is a hoax mentioned right above this one of Jerome Rey that has not been added here yet. Wgolf (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It could have been a hoax. My thoughts on being an accident was based on the similarity on the names, and that it was based on recollection and memory which tend to be unreliable sources. I would rather give the benefit of doubt and call it an honest unsourced mistake than accuse an admin of hoax creation.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The Doggs hoax status debunked

According to a User_talk:Wasted_Time_R#The_Doggs discussion with the creator of The Doggs article, the band actually existed. Any classification of the band as a hoax will be reversed as much as possible. I was prompted by the Buck Rogers discussion above to contact the creator of the alleged hoax. TheGGoose (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There are at least three webpages mentioning the Doggs as a hoax. One is a Skillzone newsletter, but recently I contacted the website to fix the error. The others consists of a single article, one of the websites is Russian called Geek Times, and the other one is an English translation of the Russian article. TheGGoose (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Dinger McCloud

Can I add Dinger McCloud to the list (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinger McCloud) as it was a probable hoax? Greenshed (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Fake Confucius quote

I have tried many times to remove this one from Wikiquote, but it keeps coming back There is a fake quote in Wikiquote article on Confucius: "A man living without conflicts, as if he never lives at all". Let's hope posting here will help. Yitzhaks (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Chen Fang End Date

Uhhh the length is 6 days yet it falls under extant for at least a year. Wondering if this is an error in the end date or if it is placed in the wrong section? Funkyman99 (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC) The purpose is to show the first time the page appeared.--Alexschmidt711 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Formatting

I suggest that, just to make things even more clear, all the text in the example hoaxes be struck through. Comments? DS (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

JohnCD's list

I've just noticed that JohnCD (RIP) compiled a list of hoaxes here. They may not all be on this list, I don't currently have the time to check.  — Scott • talk 01:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Glenn O'Brien

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenn_O%27Brien&diff=prev&oldid=453627713

Looks like this made into print from Wiki. Anmccaff (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hoax off (and on) Wiki?

Should this article include hoaxes which originated off Wiki, but that Wiki has substantially amplified? Anmccaff (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Pushing eight years, looks like it's some highschool classmate....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaiah_Oggins&diff=prev&oldid=277776521

Anmccaff (talk) 27 March 2017

Personally, I don't think old vandalism becomes a hoax unless it makes its way into the media. I know that this page is more inclusive than that. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's in some other sources, but they seem to be the usual Wiki ripoffs, or in some Cyrillic language ("but I repeat myself...") Anmccaff (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Nine-year WikiHoax. John_Pelham_(officer)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pelham_(officer)&diff=prev&oldid=247185843

Made in into print -granted, only Arcadia. Alabama and the Civil War: A History & Guide Jones, Robert C., Arcadia Publishing, Jun 12, 2017 pp31&33. Anmccaff (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Radio Disney Music Award for Best Band hoax

Greater than one year hoax if someone wants to add it to the list. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Disney Music Award for Best Band. There are still 32 articles which link to the deleted article as well.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Blue wikilinks

Why are many of the titles of articles still blue wikilinks? Surely if these articles were hoaxes, they should have been deleted from Wikipedia and only be red wikilinks now. Vorbee (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Other Wikis

Do hoaxes on other Wikis count? Because I've discovered a possible hoax on another Wiki that's lasted nearly as long as Bine. jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 02:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

"Hairy Bush Fruit"

The name for the Kiwi known as The Hairy Bushfruit is 100% fake. It's a very longlasting hoax. The guy who did it admitted it on reddit... 3 years ago.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/249rd9/whats_your_best_story_that_is_100_real_but_nobody/ch4zpbp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nungimelheshin (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hans Geiger, aka "Gengar"?

Until recently, our article on Hans Geiger claimed that he was nicknamed "Gengar". Hans Geiger was the physicist who invented the Geiger counter. Gengar is a Pokémon.

The claim was added in March 2009, then removed, then added again in December, then removed again after an 8-month delay, then added again on 30 September 2010 and not removed until 18 November 2017. (In fairness, it was tagged with a "citation needed" back in May.) A Google Books search turns up a few "sources" for the claim, but they turn out to post-date its inclusion in Wikipedia, or they are just repackagings of Wikipedia articles. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wrong ordering

I'm sorry for posting on this page, but I don't really know how to report this to developers: This problem might exist on a greater scope than only this page. Could someone show me how to fix this type of problem, please?

Trying to order the hoaxes on this page, I noticed that the ordering was wrong.

The second column, named "length", sorts the amounts of time the hoax has been out alphabetically.

For instance, "12 years, 4 months" is placed between "6 days" and "4 years" (and other items in between).

The problem is probably caused by a wrong format of this data, set to 'text' instead of 'date'.

Krypton Mingling (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Decoupling (mathematical analysis) and Eugene Paul Curtis

I think the first lasted around 2 years from 2012 to 2014, but I don’t know about the second. The second was a fictitious mathematician and was G3’d; the first was PRODded. Also something in the history of truncated icosahedron about it supposedly modeling plate tectonics. 165.91.13.204 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, Lukatwi and many others have been removed from the “at least one month” section. 165.91.13.204 (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Bad Harbour

The suspected hoax page Bad Harbour was just deleted. It lasted at least 9 years. 108.210.218.199 (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Michael Merz

I’d like to announce that Michael Merz, created in 2015, is being speedied as a blatant hoax. 108.210.219.2 (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hokl/EB Films

Hi, I found an article, Hokl/EB Films, that was created in 2012, that appeared to be a hoax article as it has no listing on IMDb, not for any of its supposed films. Since “Chicago Stories” supposedly won an unspecified award, I concluded G3. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Arturo Villavicencio

A 7-year-old article, Arturo Villavicencio, has been nominated for G3. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Also, Casquito has been PRODded as a possible hoax. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC) And Latin Christmas, Vol. 1 & 2. Both this and Casquito date back to 2006. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

3 Stones

I remember seeing this on CSD in 2011 with {{Db-g3}} which dated from 2007. Should this be on? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverse Laffer

Reverse Laffer was speedily deleted as a blatant hoax. Profit efficiency is proposed for deletion as a creation by the same user. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

George K. Broomhall

George K. Broomhall has been nominated for speedy deletion; see the talk page for explanation. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted the article and restored it to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/George K. Broomhall. I did not add it to this parent list, but if someone wants to, it has been around since 2006. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Tong Seal

Tong Seal has been tagged for PROD as an apparent hoax. It was created on June 15, 2006. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Irmãos Coragem

Irmãos Coragem, a supposed remake of Irmãos Coragem (telenovela), has been PRODded as an apparent hoax. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Gomez das Mariñas

Gomez das Mariñas was flagged as G3. It was created on October 16, 2004. I believe that’s 13 years, 3 months, and 2 days. We have a new record! LaundryPizza03 (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't removed as a hoax, but as a name variant. Anmccaff (talk)

Battle of Pęcice

Battle of Pęcice has existed since January 5, 2008. A quick Google search shows absolutely no results that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. Also from the same author is Żaglowiec Group, around since February 5, 2008. Can anyone prove that these are unquestionably hoaxes? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere, this is quite real; the limited cites easily available are much more a reflection on Google and Wikipedia itself than on the subject. Anmccaff (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cliff Padgett

Cliff Padgett has been prodded as a possible hoax. It was created on 22 March 2007. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC) ...and, as simply checking the easily available cites shows, it isn't. Anmccaff (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool Zone

Cool Zone appears to be a hoax. It's been around 2/25/06 with no proof that it actually exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The article has been deleted now, and since it lasted nearly 12 years it should be restored and moved here. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Merz

I wanted to add Michael Merz (deleted as G3 on 25 Dec 2017) to the list, but wasn’t sure exactly when it was created. I think it was some time in 2015. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Kōtahi and Sea-bee

We should probably add this. (A fictitious entry from List of legendary creatures from Japan that was taken seriously and incorporated into a board game.)

Also, last month I found a dubious article on a supposed heraldic creature called the sea-bee, which was deleted. The article existed for over ten years, and had only one source from a very hard-to-find academic journal. It was suspected of being a hoax but not confirmed, as the supposed source couldn't be checked (as far as I know). Should it be added? 169.228.164.250 (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Punctuation - a period

Should the annotation in the Hoax column end with a period or nothing? It's widely inconsistent.--Adûnâi (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

More data

In the wikipedia in Spanish, a user put a possible sequel to a movie released on 4th March, 2016 called “Zootopia” (from more information)

Maybe I should add this edition of the article “Zootopia” in the Spanish Wikipedia.

--SoyLunano23 (Go to play and eat Krabby Pattys) 22:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)User:Soylunano23

The Gaveltons

The Gaveltons was just deleted per G3. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gaveltons. It lasted over 10 years. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, The Gaveltons is real. I have no idea why it was G3'd and so far the deleting admin has not responded to me. See [40], [41], and [42]. IMDB also has an entry for it, but the summary appears to just be a copy of the former Wikipedia article. (Edit: That summary appears to have been removed when the article here was deleted, but it still has a full cast, which was never in our article. I know IMDB is not a reliable source, but it alone is enough that it shouldn't have been G3'd as a blatant hoax. And the others prove it's not a hoax at all.) I created the article a while ago, before I really understood GNG, and I'm not sure it's notable, but it's definitely not a hoax. Smartyllama (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Spanish Tickler/Cat's Paw torture device: incorrectly listed

I don't think the "Spanish tickler" device belongs here. I have seen it in older print sources, and I found this reference from a magazine in 1996, well before the article existed: https://books.google.com/books?id=1XgxAQAAIAAJ&q=Spanish+tickler&dq=Spanish+tickler&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1qIGmn_zbAhVQHqwKHTUODPQQ6AEIUjAI This 1973 book also comes up in Google Books, though no preview is available: https://books.google.com/books?id=0XSRSQAACAAJ&dq=Spanish+tickler&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO8_6ZoPzbAhWo6IMKHRx0CVs4HhDoAQhNMAg The device in question may well be fictitious, but it appears that the concept of it predates our article by at least a decade, and as such it should not be considered a "Wikipedia hoax." 2602:304:B041:C79:6088:AE34:7BEE:3165 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

William Stirrat

A little over 10 years ago, there was an article about a man named William Stirrat who claimed to be the author of the song Unchained Melody. The article linked to some local publications, and eventually found itself to the song’s main article. The hoax propogated to imdb, yaho, and even the New York Times. Wikipedia editors, using wp:rs, corrected this.

The page may have been purged, because there is no record of it or its edits. The man had passed away some time ago so not sure why records would have been purged. Work permit (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Zechariah Seal

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zechariah Seal. Zechariah Seal appears to be a hoax that's been around for over three years. Should we list it here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: As best as I can tell from looking at the article, it does not necessarily seem to be a hoax as much as an article about a subject completely lacking in notability. I am guessing this is just the creator of the page's family seal and he or she probably just created the page for promotional purposes. I do not think we have sufficient evidence that that particular article was produced with any deliberate intention to deceive. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see positive evidence that it was a hoax, rather than just an absence of evidence for notability, before listing it here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Vandella

Vandella, deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandella in July of this year, is not mentioned here. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Include other hoax torture devices: Heretic's fork, Knee splitter, and Mask of infamy

After seeing that the "Spanish Tickler" was a long-lasting hoax I found that the Mask of infamy, Heretic's fork, and Knee splitter which all came from the same hoax sources. They were all deleted on 20 July 2018.

• "Heretic's fork" had existed since at least July 2006. This archive shows that it was in the category of "Articles lacking sources from July 2006" [43]. That means it lasted at least 12 years.
• "Knee splitter" had existed since at least February 2009. This archive shows that it had been an "orphaned article" since February 2009 [44]. That means it lasted at least 9 years.
• "Mask of infamy" had existed since at least 2008 since it had a source retrieved then. [45]. That means it lasted at least 10 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaBaron (talk • contribs) 04:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Dik-dik pronunciation

Starting from at least 2012, users have vandalised the page dik-dik to say that the animal's name is pronounced 'xylophone'. This erroneous information became an Internet meme because the vandalism was left on for so long. Should this merit an entry? --Corsican Warrah Israeli Pika 13:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ludwig Heidler

This can be added. I don't remember how long it was on here for but was deleted as a hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ludwig_Heidler Valenciano (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Albaina

There is an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albaina for Albaina which dates back to September 2004, I don't think this is a (deliberate) hoax but simply confusion with Armenia, Belize but it could go on the hoax list if it doesn't exist. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd point out that it appears that this was actually "Armenia, Belize" so it never technically contained any incorrect information other than the name so it indeed seems that it can't go on the list. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Homa Shaibany-article from 2006 (!), possible hoax?

Okay I just put up a new AFD for this lady Homa Shaibany, I can't find ANY info about her outside of mirror sites. Wgolf (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a hoax apparently, it was tough to find refs though. Wgolf (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible hoax

A guy on 4chan claims he made a hoax article on a genocide. Says its' about 2 years old. Probably a stub with few links and likely only a few edits. I don't know where to report potential hoaxes, so I am posting this here. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hoax list candidate

The article mentioned in this AfD discussion claimed that a person in Galway, Ireland lived to be 280 years old, dying in 1580. The article was added about 9 years ago with little subsequent editing. It also mentioned an Irish historian as the source; the historian's article listed a book on the history of Galway. I found the book's full text online, and the late-1500s section had nothing related. Although the article is deleted, is there a way to get it onto the hoax list? RobDuch (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a good candidate, but we need to find out the exact date it was created. - Alumnum (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Can an admin determine that date after deletion, or is the article's history "lost to history"? RobDuch (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The article was created 14 December 2009, and from the very beginning it had the statement in 280 years. I am not sure it this a hiax though - the article had four references, and was presumably more about a legendary character than about a real person. The creator of the article is btw around and edited Wikipedia last two days ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the online references and they had nothing about a 280-year-old man, especially the Irish historian linked and "quoted" in the article, whose book about Galway was presumably a source. RobDuch (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added it to the list. It would be also helpful to inform how long the article was. Could you look it up, Ymblanter? - Alumnum (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

1,427 bytes before it was nominated for deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added that info to the table. - Alumnum (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Tim Hayes (screenwriter)

The article Tim Hayes (screenwriter) has been around since May, 2011. This looks pretty much like a hoax article. If removed as a hoax-someone add it on here. Wgolf (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Can someone please add it to the project page? Thanks! Wgolf (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I would add this but not sure how to do the right format, this should be added though as it was a hoax listed for a long time. Wgolf (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Who usually adds them on here anyway? Wgolf (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Here @Alumnum:, article was from May 2011 and just recently deleted. It was a supposed screenwriter of Teen Wolf. Wgolf (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Well someone can add this one as I said before, I would but I don't want to mess up the table. Wgolf (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay this one should be added as it was here for a long time (From May 2011 to March 2019). Wgolf (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hoaxes that lasted under a year section (or rather page)

Was just looking over that-it seems there are not that many that have been added over the past few years-I'm sure there are some hoax articles that could go there if we can find them (I also looked on the archive articles and there are some that have been mentioned but never added-well there is also the one from 2011 I mentioned earlier that has yet to be added) But yeah getting back on this-someone might need to go over that page (the sort by date does not go by the date of them either) Wgolf (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

On another note there is a article in the 5-7 years section that actually only lasted 6 days that was placed there by mistake-I tried moving it but I messed up the table somehow! (Someone else can move it for me, thanks!) Wgolf (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hoax nominee: Synchronized Football

I just found another hoax: Synchronized Football. It was PRODed by an IP but, noticing this is 12 years old, I would like it moved to WP:LHWP. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That indeed looks like a total hoax. The only results I found on Google were Wikipedia mirrors and other unreliable sources. There is an entry on Urban Dictionary that was created on the same day as the article, probably to sustain the hoax. Besides the capitalization there are also some sentences with bad grammar throughout the article.

However, it seems that Nikkolamur's contribution on Pindar was in good faith, even though it was reverted shortly after. That edit had changed the subject's birth and death dates, but an IP recently re-added those dates previously inserted by Nikkolamur with references to existing sources. - Alumnum (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure if this really matters, but @FoxyGrampa75: you did not discover this hoax. User:CitizenKang414 did. 68.5.231.50 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• @68.5.231.50: I don’t think who discovered the hoax matters, only who brought up the hoax here. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Eric van Viele Hoax candidate from 2006!

Now while Eric van Viele apparently was a real person, the article about him is a hoax. The article was started April 14, 2006. And here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric van Viele. Wgolf (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC) @Alumnum:, here Wgolf (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Article was deleted today (June 30, 2019). It was about an actor who was in Nosferatu who apparently sent death threats to the director. Which never happened. Wgolf (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed interesting. But I'm unsure about whether it would go to "hoax articles" or "hoax statements in articles". - Alumnum (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Put it wherever you think be best. (This might be the longest one ever!) Wgolf (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

What would you think be better for it? Well either way hope to see it on here soon. (There was one I found on the archives on the talk page never added, actually a few, but since I don't know when they started...)Wgolf (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I will add it. But we would need to know the exact date of creation and, if possible, its size. - Alumnum (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I forgot you had already mentioned it. I'll add it right now! - Alumnum (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I'll ask an admin to check the size of the article as well. - Alumnum (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alumnum: Follow up: Size of article still missing 1+ month later. Also, in the summary, perhaps it should note that the hoax was found to originate from on a joke website from Australia (see link to abc.net.au in the deletion discussion), but listed no sources in the actual article.24.217.247.41 (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Steve Moertel

The entry for Steve Moertel is missing an archived link to the entry and to any deletion discussions. Is it possible to add these? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Why the hell do we have this list?

It can only encourage people to create hoaxes in order to see them listed here. WP:DNFTT would seem to apply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This has already been discussed twice, and on both times a decision was made to keep it. FirefoxLSD (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia_(2nd_nomination)

The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax, Exposed

The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax, Exposed - Haaretz

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-fake-nazi-death-camp-wikipedia-s-longest-hoax-exposed-1.7942233

For over 15 years, false claims that thousands of Poles were gassed to death in Warsaw were presented as fact. Haaretz reveals they are just the tip of an iceberg of a widespread Holocaust distortion operation by Polish nationalists

64.121.152.158 (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

One that would be near the top of the list!

Tim Verfaillie was deleted yesterday by User:Muboshgu. It looks as if it was created in or before early June 2006, which would make it (one of the) longest-surviving hoaxes on enwiki. Fram (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(Removed a superfluous "o" from the header) 2nd June 2006, to be exact. It was tagged as a potential hoax and the editor who did so pointed to nl:Tim Verfaillie which is being discussed for deletion. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)