Talk:Edward Owens hoax

Edward Owens Genealogy
The article currently cites vague information about the place of birth of Edward, so I'm trying to come up with some information both on the web and following census records regarding the origin of Edward Owens. So far I've come across this genealogy website which cites a possible descendant, William Underwood. gen Dave (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Objection to Deletion
The article has now been updated with more source information as per the request of the Wikipedia editors. The authors of the original page hope that these additions will keep the page up and avoid its deletion. The authors would also like to point out that had they not voluntarily re-edited the article to reflect its status as a hoax, it might have remained in Wikipedia indefinitely. We hope that by voluntarily changing the page to reflect its true nature this will also argue against its deletion. That one of the most popular bloggers at USAToday ran with the story of the Last American pirate seems sufficiently notable.71.114.15.12 (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It also seems necessary to point out that Wikipedia is home to information about other hoaxes, for example the Sokal Affair openly says that it was a hoax and it gives information on the perpetrators. The authors of this entry have done the same admitting that they are students of George Mason University and explaining that this was part of a hoax. Another example is the Piltdown Man which openly states that the following information was part of a hoax. Bonsai Kitten is yet another example of a hoax that has been denounced that is on Wikipedia. For more examples please visit the page titled Hoax where one will find multiple examples of pages about hoaxes and while these pages are not up for deletion because they are articles about hoaxes and not hoaxes themselves it seems relevant to point out that this page was not up for deletion until it was edited and became an article about a hoax. According to the article Do not create hoaxes an author should not create a page in an effort to test Wikipedia and its editors, "Please do not attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with varying results. Most hoaxes are marked for deletion within a few hours after they are created. Some hoaxes are created simply to experiment with or test the system." The authors of this article were in no way trying to see how quickly their entry would be deleted, they were not trying to test the editors. Instead, according to the mea culpa the authors were encouraging readers to look carefully at the things they read online or are presented to them as fact because what they are reading may not be true. It seems as though Wikipedia would want the readers of this site to look at the information that they are being given and to check the facts themselves. One of the reasons stated on the page about the creation of hoaxes that would save a hoax from deletion is press coverage or attention in academic world. A reader can find information listed at the bottom of the article about the press and academic coverage they received as a result of the this hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.106.7 (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This article must NOT be deleted, even though the damage has already been done. Anyone who read this article, or any reference to it, prior to the revealing of the hoax will now have a set of false beliefs about the past. Only if a searcher returns to this article, or one derived from it, can the hoax be discovered. There remain other references to the so-called pirate, even within Wikipedia, that do not indicate that the story is false. The students may have thought what they were doing was instructive, but they quickly lost control of the information. So Wikipedia needs to retain the corrected article as at least a last resort attempt to correct the fraud and lead searchers to the truth of the matter. Eliphaletnott (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed
I've trimmed that article down per WP:DENY. All that needs to be recorded here (if anything) is the fact that the article was a hoax, and Owens, in the form described in the article, did not exist. -- The Anome (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The previous version of the article went into far too much detail, however, I have restored a brief summary. There is no reason, not even WP:DENY, why we should do our readers the disservice of failing to explain even the basic nature of the hoax. Mike R (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Edward Owens → Edward Owens (hoax) – The real person (Edward William James Owens) is unquestionably the primary topic, simply for being real. This person is fake, a hoax. After moving, Edward Owens should be made a redirect to the real person, with a hatnote to the hoax. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  23:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just because one is a real person and another is a hoax (one that is notable for inclusion as a Wikipedia article, and has survived an AFD discussion) does not automatically or necessarily make it the primary topic. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it usually more either based on usage (if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term), or importance (if it has significantly greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term). You have not made a case for either yet for the Canadian politician. Otherwise, if your proposal is accepted, Edward Owens may end up being converted from a redirect to a disambiguation page if someone decides that later on there should be no primary topic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, there already is a disambiguation page, but there shouldn't be, as there are only two people with the name. If a third one comes along, way can keep the disambig. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  05:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move I had previous made this same move almost three years ago, suspecting that a real life Edward Owens would eventually make an appearance on the pedia. I disagree with the assertion of User:Zzyzx11 above, since the hoax was simply limited to Wikipedia, and the real life figure has documentation in many verifiable RS. If the fictional subject were named, say Mickey Mouse, then I might agree with the editor's case, but since the entire hoax was limited to one very insignificant internet source (Wikipedia) then clearly the RL figure deserves to meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, based on both criteria, usage AND importance. BusterD (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is not moved, then the disambiguation page at Edward Owens (disambiguation) is unnecessary and should be deleted, possibly adding a hatnote link to the Ted Owens (disambiguation) page. Pam  D  08:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A moot point now, as someone found a couple other Edward Owens to add to it. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  03:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Did the minor Canadian politician actually go by Edward Owens? If not, should you move him? Isn't the purpose of disambiguation having distinct pages, which you have now? Subnumine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subnumine (talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- The subject is a NN fictional character. I think it would be best for the present title to be used for the dab page.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Update
As of 2013, according to a BBC radio interview I heard with Mills Kelly, the course had been stopped. How to spot an online hoax Widefox ; talk 12:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)