Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Archive 2

Is Warsaw number a hoax?
Re: (also ping User:Icewhiz). I think that a fringe theory (even one we can all agree is wrong) is not a hoax. A hoax is something that is fake and invented for Wikipedia. This is not the case here, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not just the false number - but the size (e.g. Kolo and the Kolo death wall which didn't exist (built after the war)) and purpose of the camp (not an extermination camp, no gas chambers). The information is patently false, was inserted to Wikipedia and presented as fact. Furthermore, we don't have to debate this as we have a WP:RS stating:"'...the more Trzcińska’s claims were challenged, the more determined her supporters became. Marches, demonstrations, public meetings and religious ceremonies were held, bogus maps circulated, false testimonies promoted, Wikipedia entries amended.'" which is rather straightforward reporting on the matter. A hoax need not be invented specifically for Wikipedia for inclusion here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Try again. You are not answering my question. I am saying that this clearly is not a WP:HOAX, just a WP:FRINGE, like a flat Earth theory. Hence, this does not belong here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia were to state in the lead of Earth - "The Earth is flat." as fact - that would belong here. Likewise if here were to state that Hillary Clinton adopted an "alien baby" (UFO alien) - either without a source (as was done here - no source was cited for these false claims on Wikipedia) - or citing this source (Weekly World News) - it would also belong here. In plenty of the examples on the list Wikipedia was one of several outlets in which the hoax was promoted.Icewhiz (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you examine the entries here, they are not about small fringe or wrong pieces of information that made it to some articles, they are about an entire fake topics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Warsaw concentration camp was an entire fake topic - the entire article was in conspiracy turf - every single section - it arguably belongs in the "Hoax articles" section. Regardless - you assertion is wrong - List of hoaxes on Wikipedia (where this is placed) is about "Besides entire articles, there have also been false statements that were added to otherwise authentic pages." - and contains such blurbs as diff - adding "crocodile" to a list of pets held by Lord Byron. The hoax here is far larger than a 1-word fake pet. As your assertion above is clearly incorrect - I am restoring this. Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that crocodile single word should be here, neither. May I suggest, once again, that you ask for WP:30 or WP:RFC, since we can't seem to reach an agreement here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've actually started multiple RfCs previously. You've failed to articulate your concerns here. The List of hoaxes on Wikipedia section already includes mere statements (one-worders and one-liners) - this is far larger. We have a WP:RS stating that Wikipedia entries were amended by Trzcińska’s supporters - covering intent. What is your objection currently? Are you are objecting to the entire "Hoax statements in articles" section present in this entry for years? You seem to be disagreeing on various grounds here - moving the goalposts once each concern has been addressed. Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that including one-word hoaxes in our tabulation here is fine; WP:NOTPAPER and all that. It also seems to me that the Warsaw business also belongs. A hoax on Wikipedia being part of a larger misinformation effort may be unusual, but it's still a hoax on Wikipedia. Omitting it worsens the quality of our documentation about Wikipedia's failure modes. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If we were to include single words or and such, every error introduced here would fit. Further, confusing FRINGE and HOAX is a major issue. I'll ping User:Winged Blades of Godric who made some interesting comments about hoaxes at a relevant ArbCom pages, and I think we may need an RfC on what is a hoax if the confusion ensues (the def at WP:HOAX is not supper clear). I'll repeat that this is not the case of some vandal adding a fake number to Wikipedia, it is a case of an amateur scholar who published her fringe theory off-wikipedia, and then some editor(s) incorporated this into here. Again, I think this is a fringe theory, not a deliberate hoax. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A part of "New School" theories is either fringe or hoax. Icewhiz, please select...Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the question is about the definition in Wiki terms rather than placement on the scale of scientific validity, then it's clear that this is neither WP:HOAX nor WP:FRINGE, but a "real world" conspiracy theory - something for which we have no clear term. Under those circumstances, we might as well treat the whole thing as a HOAX. François Robere (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theory is a subtype of fringe theory. Something promoted/believed in by a small number of people (fringe), with the added part of it being framed as something that is being censored/surpressed on purpose. I don't think KLW fits as a conspiracy theory, as nobody is trying to suppress it, I don't think its proponents frame it as such anyway? Outside, of course, of the general view that 'everyone outside few Polish outlets is corrupt', etc., but this kind of paranoid viewpoint is hardly unique and relevant here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

These claims collectively appear to be an example of a notable hoax WP:NHOAX (see, e.g., Piltdown Man) and coverage of their falsity is more properly included at the article about the camp, Warsaw_concentration_camp, which, being in article space, is of more visibility and use to readers. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion seems to have gone off topic a bit. While some media have described it as hoax, WP:HOAX is clearly defining it as "an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real" and "It is considered a hoax if it was a clear or blatant attempt to make up something, as opposed to libel or a factual error". The Warsaw_concentration_camp is not a trick about something false, since the creator of this, Trzcinska, seems to sincerely believe this is true (she published two books about it, etc.). We all agree with the mainstream reliable historians that her theory is wrong, i.e. a "factual error". But it is not a hoax (which is generally a term restricted to Wikipedia only vandalism, i.e. false information made up for Wikipedia). As such, per NHOAX as mentioned by the anon above, it makes sense for this fringe theory to be discussed in article space (in the Wcc article linked above, for example), but it does not make sense for it to be included here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Und fake moon landing people believe that too. Still hoax.Gunter888 (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if it is true that "hoax" is generally a term restricted to Wikipedia only vandalism, i.e. false information made up for Wikipedia, "generally" does not imply an absolute rule. Any number of the hoaxes documented on this page could have been inside jokes within friend groups or Internet communities before they were added to Wikipedia; but if we found a prior history for them, they would still be hoaxes perpetrated on Wikipedia. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Verde Option
I believe the Wikipedia article option style may have listed a fake type of uncommon option for over six years. A so-called Verde option was added by an IP address at BNY Mellon in New York City in 2013, claiming it was invented by a John Young at Hapoalim Securities and is named because it is somewhere between a Canary and European option, reflecting Cape Verde's geographic location. This is geographically inaccurate - Cape Verde is NOT in between the Canaries and mainland Europe, but more importantly I could find no reference to a Verde option anywhere except this site and mirrors. I have yet to find any connection between Hapoalim Securities and BNY Mellon, but I really haven't looked that much. It's possible this is just something some random option trader made up as a hypothetical, but it could also be a complete hoax. Not that there's much difference between the two as far as we're concerned. In any case, I've removed it. Smartyllama (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible 11-year hoax: Lipid therapy
An article created on September 23, 2008 (would be 11th place on the list as of now, if added) was just deleted which may or may not be a hoax: Articles_for_deletion/Lipid_therapy

An archived version of the article can be found here.

It's possible that lipid therapy as described in the article is a real treatment that a non-zero number of doctors have actually tried, but no one has been able to find any reliable sources that talk about it, and a few users have noted that the bibliography at the bottom looks fictitious (i.e. the books were chosen to seem like they could plausibly be relevant, in an effort to cover up the hoax). However, I'm hesitant to add it myself due to the uncertainty in the deletion discussion. Ionmars10 (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Moufot portrait
The Jean Moufot hoax seems to have been "successful" enough for someone to have posted a photo of a painted portrait of the non-existent mathematician... :P Boud (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Medio Oriente
I found one earlier this year but it was never added to this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Medio_Oriente Cheers! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The Deadweights
Huge walled garden of hoax material here that somehow escaped untouched since 2007. The Deadweights, White Jimmy, First Wave Complete Destruction, The Deadweights (album), Crisis (The Deadweights album), Prophecies of Beautiful Regression, Recalled to Life (album), Animosity (The Deadweights album), New Oldspeak, Look at This Mess!, and From the Age of Doublethink. Clearly nonexistant albums claiming bogus Billboard chart positions, no results that aren't Wikipedia mirrors or letssingit.com. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not funny! Good job!--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A Meta-Hoax: The 2004 Harvard–Yale Prank
The 2004 Harvard–Yale prank is a 13 year old article that describes a prank Yale pulled at the 2004 Harvard-Yale football match. However, it would seem that the key documentation for this prank was doctored. I recently added a "controversy" section in that article describing this. I'm not sure if this article deserves to be listed among the hoaxes on Wikipedia, since some of the article is factual. However the end result was not truthful. Jdevor (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Wing Hon Theatre
This article, deleted via PROD, might have been a hoax. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Ford CE14 platform
Was this a hoax? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the PRODder noted that "the original author admits he was wrong in the comm", which seems to imply that this was a good-faith mistake by an otherwise constructive editor, rather than a deliberate hoax as is required for this list. Ionmars10 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Digital Radio Oceane hoax
This was a moderately successful hoax article which was deleted on 25 August 2010. There are also a few live pages on Wikipedia which still reference this hoax; they should probably be reverted. In addition, this presentation by a government department in Thailand copied the hoax when it was live.

I'm not sure of the exact date of creation; only admins would have access to that info. It was live for at least a year (perhaps two) before it was picked up by a digital radio enthusiast. It's an example of a hoax in a somewhat esoteric field so is possibly worth including here. --49.180.173.155 (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshin Moghaddam
Afshin Moghaddam and Parviz Maghsadi band are two hoaxes I recently found. The former has been around since 2014, and the latter since August. All evidence points to a hoax; see Articles for deletion/Afshin Moghaddam. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"Turra Coo" looks like a deliberate trolling/fake page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turra_Coo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because the links provided for the sources don't work doesn't mean the page is a hoax. Remember that link rot is a thing, and those links probably did work when they were first added. A quick Google search reveals more sources, for example this BBC article: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-25282555 Ionmars10 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That BBC page is dated after the articles creation and is direct rendition of what appears on the article it is not a source, it is clearly a derivative. You should follow the correct procedure for speedy duplication not just remove the tagging. That is unwarranted vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

John Major
I added this long-lived hoax. The user who did it seems to only have posted this one thing, however someone might wish to check out the IP address etc. (I'm not sure how to do this myself).WisDom-UK (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hoodie (Simple Plan song)
Hello. Could Hoodie (Simple Plan song) be added to the list? This was at least 2 years old when I nominated at AFD and it was determined to be a hoax. See Articles_for_deletion/Hoodie_(Simple_Plan_song). Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Milan (Pakistani TV series)
I just deleted Milan (Pakistani TV series) by PROD. The nominator suggested that the article was unverifiable and may have been a hoax. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I've web archived a page, but the archive broke. Can someone restore the page and move it to hoaxlist?
Created in 2008. Lasted for 12 years, Groove Radio. Is on list, but my save broke on the archive. Can an admin restore and move to HOAXLIST? -- BlueCrab RedCrab   00:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hoaxes not on the English Wikipedia
What about hoax articles that were not in the English-language version of Wikipedia, but on other language version? For example, in the German-language Wikipedia, there was an article about "Designer of Death", an alleged German heavy metal band which was deleted because it was spotted as a hoax. Same applies for their alleged albums-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We have links to the foreign language versions of this page via the languages bar on the side. I don't see one for German, so it may not exist there - it would be good to start one. Also, it may be worthwhile to make a very short section stating that other language WPs have their own version of this page. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Kotahi" / Manawa Bradford
https://cf.geekdo-images.com/original/img/LWDWeml1ny1v3b3BcjBeEaPc65M=/0x0/pic3945513.png

For more: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1924167/what-ktahi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.225.238 (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Igorot societty
Igorot society was recently deleted by PROD. The PRODder characterized it as an apparent hoax article created in 2013 with sources that failed verification, and expanded with an unsourced and dubious history section in 2017. I need to know where, exactly, it should be listed in this list. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 00:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Salvadorian Magpie
Salvadorian Magpie stood for 9 years and was recently deleted. Articles for deletion/Salvadorian Magpie Plantdrew (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Letchfield Corset Riot
A sad omission from this list. This was a brilliant "historical" hoax, still visible on external mirrors, deleted many many years ago after quite some time in existence ... and probably the best of the bunch. Can't find any traces of it here, not via search not in logs. Retired electrician (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * woops, it was Letchworth: Articles for deletion/Letchworth Corset Riot. Retired electrician (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It only survived for a week before being deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Longest tenured hoax?
Another editor just found Krutzjass which has been around since September 2005 and is currently at AFD for being a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not convinced this is a hoax (i.e. I do not believe the content to be deliberate misinformation). The article was created by a Canadian IP and reasonably (with some misspellings very typical for native speakers of English) describes a plausible more-cards variant of Krüzjass / Kreuzjass / Schieber. I think the original author did encounter this game somewhere (from Swiss immigrants or their descendants?) and tried to describe it to the best of their ability. Most central European trick taking games have hundreds of variants and house rules, so it isn't too surprising to come upon some undocumented rules. Anyway, I'll remove it from the list of hoaxes (but as I said in the AFD, I do believe the page should be deleted). —Kusma (t·c) 21:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible hoax
Highest quality is lowest cost - no direct quotations of the phrase on Google that aren't copying the Wikipedia article, making this possibly the longest lived hoax right now. MSG17 (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * you might writing history with your prod  Asartea  Talk  undefined  Contribs  16:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For those interested: If this is proven to an hoax it would be 15 years, 4 months and 24 days old as of right now (3 January 2021), beating the previous longest hoax by a wide margin  Asartea  Talk  undefined  Contribs  16:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From a ProQuest search, I found an trade brochure(?) plagiarizing the article and record of use by Michael Neidorff in 2020. I'm not saying the latter source proves that this isn't a hoax - maybe it somehow made its way to a business executive - but there's a chance this is real. Mcrsftdog (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, although the second source just mentions Neidorff using the phrase often and not any other details such as its supposed Japanese origin or use in manufacturing. I think it is also relevant to mention that the creator seems to be a legitimate editor, although some of their articles have been deleted for lack of notability. MSG17 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , although this phrase itself is likely fake, this is a real principle in marketing. I would not object to adding it to this list. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 01:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have seen it pop up in my research, although mostly not for the claimed principle of manufacturing goods (with the exception of direct copies from Wikipedia and this Malaysian mushroom cultivation company). It is the origin story and that I can find no record of the phrase on Google (including Scholar and Books) from before the page was made makes me suspicious that the phrase was a hoax created on Wikipedia. MSG17 (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

5 year hoax
In an article about a traditional game (possibly unnotable and may be deleted anyway): The game was created by an African native named Richard Potts in 1992 but has only become popular in recent years.. Added by IP on October 15, 2016, spotted by me just now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 March 2021
Add hoax demo at the top. JsfasdF252 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

False statement added to The Ultimate Showdown Of Ultimate Destiny in 2010, removed today
This article mentioned Bandung Recordings, which... is not a real thing, at least not sourceable. Not sure how, but someone should add this to the "hoax statements in articles" section. added to article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ultimate_Showdown_of_Ultimate_Destiny&direction=next&oldid=339576878 removed from article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ultimate_Showdown_of_Ultimate_Destiny&oldid=1013990709 casualdejekyll (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Talleyrand partition plan for Belgium was a hoax
The Talleyrand partition plan for Belgium article was created on 5 September 2005. As the title suggests it claimed that Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord had created a plan to partition Belgium. In fact the plan was created by French diplomat Charles de Flahaut and Talleyrand was instrumental in it being scrapped almost immediately. I moved and rewrote the article today.--Catlemur (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Never Be Alone
Is Never Be Alone a hoax? Created September 2016. I get absolutely zero results for "Never Be Alone" "Carla Abellana" on Google except for Wikipedia mirrors or unrelated content that happens to also use the phrase "never be alone". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible 14-year hoax paragraph at Louvre Pyramid
See here; originally added here under suspicious circumstances. My research was enough for me to feel confident in removing the graf, but not enough for me to be able to prove the negative. Would anyone with more experience researching hoaxes be able to take a deeper dive and see if we can include it here? If so, I believe it would be the second-longest-lived hoax statement in a true article yet discovered. -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 11:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hippocratic Hoax
This blog post discusses some fake material that was added to the Hippocrates page in 2010 and stayed around until 2014, and which has ended up being cited as fact in a variety of print and online sources. I think this merits an entry. 24.43.123.70 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Addition to list
An admin may want to take the time to add Namik Haluk Baskinci to the list. See Articles for deletion/Namik Haluk Baskinci. Best.4meter4 (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * FYI. This was an 11 year long hoax.4meter4 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

New longest-lived hoax
Jang Ju-won, a fictitious South Korean jade sculptor, has overtaken Abu-Ali Urbuti as the longest-lived hoax article at 16 years, 2 months, 5 days. –Laundry<b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 18:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I will not oppose the deletion of this article, but is it really to be considered as a hoax? There are other sources outside of Wikipedia descriptions such as http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp?newsIdx=168635 or http://www.antiquealive.com/masters/Jade/Carvings_Chinese_Jade.html Takot (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a case of poor WP:BEFORE since the Korea Times article is literally the top result of a Google search of "Jang Ju-won" jade -wikipedia. The article contains lots of information not found in the Wikipedia article, and both sources seem to corroborate the existence of Jang Ju-won, even if he doesn't meet WP:GNG or warrant an article on Wikipedia. I'm for removing Jang Ju-won from the list of hoaxes if consensus can be established that this person actually existed. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also a television interview here on Heart to Heart on Arirang TV, and a 2012 newspaper interview in the Chonnam Tribune. These were easy to find, in English, on the first two pages of a Google search. Take it off the hoax list please, this is embarrassing. --Canley (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Several mentions of Jang in Korean Heritage, the quarterly magazine of the Cultural Heritage Administration. It does seem to confirm that the art of jade carving is "Important Intangible Cultural Heritage No. 100", not Jang, but names him as "Korea's designated master of jade carving". This is clearly not a hoax, and is starting to look like a bad deletion as well. In this discussion alone there are enough substantial sources to recreate the article and adequately source it. --Canley (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it from the table. The evidence for his existence is overwhelming. He might even meet GNG with all these sources! In the future, editors should do a quick WP:BEFORE to make sure that the article was properly deleted as a hoax before adding to the table, especially if there's no AfD. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also an article on the Korean Wikipedia which no one seems to have noticed: 장주원! --Canley (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have restored the (original, not "longest hoax ever on Wikipedia") page; it's still likely a mess, but any subsequent deletion needs to happen via AfD if at all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

New coverage on hoaxes in Haaretz
Haaretz published These Far-right Nationalists Didn’t Like What They Read Online About World War II – So They Rewrote History yesterday evening. It's on the probe into the Croatian Wikipedia but also has significant content on the English Wikipedia and the Holocaust.72.179.185.130 (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC) - blocked proxy — 72.179.185.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. :Including:"'For example, I previously reported on the longest hoax on Wikipedia, part of a major Polish disinformation effort on the encyclopedia. In that case, too, the far-right hoax was based around a wartime concentration camp: the thoroughly debunked claim that during World War II the Nazis operated an extermination camp in Warsaw for the mass murder not of Jews but of ethnic Poles.'"
 * "'Despite the lack of a historical record, Wikipedia contributors affiliated with the right-wing Polish narrative pushed out the falsehood that the Nazi gas chambers in the Polish capital were used to murder 200,000 ethnic Poles. The number 200,000 was based on a single eyewitness quoted by an amateur far-right historian.'"
 * "'Despite historical evidence showing there was no gas chamber in Warsaw, the false claim and death toll appeared as facts on English Wikipedia for almost 15 years. This false information spread to dozens of other articles and over a dozen languages.'"
 * "'In Croatian Wikipedia, a similar dynamic played out: The article for the Jasenovac concentration camp and others related to it not just rewrote history but disparaged academics who researched Croatian war crimes in the 20th century. This is almost identical to events in the Polish case. There, the article for the Jedwabne pogrom in 1941 was frequently edited, rewritten and distorted to minimize violence by Poles against Jews.'"
 * "'The article for the Polish historian investigating the Jedwabne massacre, Jan Tomasz Gross, was also targeted and his reputation tarnished. Articles about other historians researching Polish crimes against local Jews, like Jan Grabowski, were also reworked. Both historians have been prosecuted for their research by proxies of the Polish government, indicating an alignment between the targets of populist regimes and their ideological bedfellows on Wikipedia.'"
 * "'As with the Polish case, the Croatian camp was only one facet in a much wider disinformation effort: historical revisionism in the service of present-day populists. And that effort is at least implicitly endorsed by local politicians.'"
 * "'In both the Polish and Croatian cases, the nationalist narrative was enforced by portraying the two nations only as victims of the Nazis – not as possible collaborators – on top of a reworking of Wikipedia articles to fit contemporary political needs. In Poland, this historical revisionism is actually a policy of the ruling Law and Justice Party, which has attempted to ban research into Polish crimes and whose platform includes a section on countering what it calls Poland’s “pedagogy of shame” regarding the war. '"
 * 72.179.185.130 (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC) blocked proxy — 72.179.185.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 2019 article based on an interview with a banned Wikipedian . - Haaretz by Omar Benjakob
 * 2021 illustration and reference to the same article from 2019 based on an interview with a banned Wikipiedian - Haaretz by Omar Benjakob
 * This is nothing new regarding the issue under discussion above, but thank you for the new article's link. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Croatian Wikipedia scandal seems quite interesting, although not very relevant to this talk page. I just hope Omar hasn't made as many errors in reporting about it as he did about the Polish issues the quack-quack "anon" cited above, since they are like 80% fake news (well, we can just generously say errors, I guess)... <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

warsaw
I've removed this as it simply wasn't a "hoax". An article that was written on basis of old outdated and incorrect sources is crap, but it isn't the same as a deliberate "hoax". This was added to this list by an editor who used this to troll others and who since has been indefinetly banned. Should have been removed years ago.  Volunteer Marek  15:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The page on the article itself describes it as "a legend[13] or conspiracy theory" which again, is different than a "hoax".  Volunteer Marek  15:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a hoax (one of Wikipedia's longest-running hoaxes) according to the cited RS and thus should remain listed here. Levivich 21:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not a hoax by definition of what Wikipedia considers a hoax (or any other definition for that matter). There was no intent to deceive by anyone here. The article was just written in 2004 based on crap sources which didn't get debunked until many years later. You know this. You also know that the given source is compromised by the fact that it's based on false claims made by an indef banned user (in fact, he's globally banned from all Wikipedia projects for harassment and extreme threats). I know some people think this should be preserved as some kind of a "shrine" to User:Icewhiz but from the point of view of the encyclopedia that is exactly the OPPOSITE of what should be done. Remove it.  Volunteer Marek   21:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Levivich, you keep claiming that the idea that this was a "hoax" is well sourced, by aside from the Haaretz article that was essentially ghost-written by Icewhiz or its derivatives, there are no other sources calling it a "hoax". The other source provided, London Review of Books, only says that this was a "conspiracy theory" (which it was, after it got debunked several years after the article got created) and barely mentions Wikipedia. Calling it a "hoax" is WP:OR, and it's OR that was done by a now globally banned user. Again, not seeing why you would insist on keeping something like that in this list.   Volunteer Marek   22:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

In no particular order: This has been listed here for almost two years now. Start an RFC if you think it should be removed. Levivich 01:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) My opinion that Warsaw concentration camp is a hoax is based primarily on my own thorough (meaning: many hours) research of the article's history (reviewing all ~500 contribs, back to 2008) that I did two years ago, before the Haaretz story broke (Oct. 2019), but after the hoax allegations were first raised regarding this article (May 2019).
 * 2) Haaretz isn't the only RS that calls it a hoax. So does Times of Israel  and Deutschlandfunk Nova.
 * 3) London Review of Books might not use the word "hoax," but it does describe it as a deliberate attempt at misinformation by certain Polish activists:
 * 4) In 2009, you edited the hoax part of Warsaw concentration camp (the section about the tunnel), and changed "An extremely controversial fact remains" to "A remaining controversy centers around," which, in my view, is minimizing the controversy and thereby, albeit in a small way, helping to perpetuate this hoax.
 * 5) You say above  This is incredible, because you're the editor who removed the word "hoax" from Warsaw concentration camp, and in the edit summary, you reference Icewhiz as the reason, and you did this today, one minute before making the OP above! Incredible you'd remove the word "hoax" from the article and then argue the absence of the word justifies removing it from this list. I've reverted your removal and reinstated it, because it's per the source cited.
 * 6) I get that you think the Haaretz story is basically not true because Icewhiz was involved, but it's not true that the article was "ghostwritten" by IW. There were multiple sources for that story, including multiple on-the-record sources. These sources include Havi Dreifuss who called it, and Jan Grabowski, who called it . IW was just one source for the Haaretz article.
 * 7) Icewhiz is not the editor who discovered the hoax or first tried to remedy it. That was, see Special:Diff/895624424.
 * 8) It was actually a hoax, which is what matters to me the most. We judge RS to be RS or not based in part on how they handle corrections. The most important thing is that Wikipedia be transparent about this, and all, hoaxes. That's why this page exists.
 * The Times of Israel story is just a rewrite of the Haaretz story. So is this "deutschalnd funk nova" source.
 * LRoB does not describe it as a hoax. BTW, can you enumerate, by account name, WHICH "Polish activists" promoted this "hoax" (sic)? Cuz... sorry, but that's 100% bullshit, which your "hours of research" that you did "before the Haaretz story broke", should've made you realize.
 * I made one edit over the article's 15 years (remember, 15 years?) of existence in which I copy edited a badly worded sentence. This is one edit out of thousands that have been made to the article over the years. Your attempt to try and pretend that this involves me "perpetuating a hoax" is dishonest, insulting and false. This is precisely the kind of comment which discredits your attempts here to preserve Icewhiz's - whom you strenuously supported throughout the ArbCom case even as it became clearer and clearer that he was a sociopathic nutcase - remaining garbage.
 * Yes, I removed the word hoax. Because it isn't a hoax. It was a conspiracy theory. Why do you think this is "incredible"?
 * Havi Dreyfuss and Jan Grabowski were not used for any part of the Haaretz story which concerned this particular article (and frankly, both of their statements merely display deep ignorance of how Wikipedia articles work. Grabowski thinks that the Polish government has hired "hundreds" of editors to edit English wikipedia (lol), while Dreyfuss couldn't believe that "the article (different one) changed before my eyes"). The sole source in Haaretz for this being a "hoax" was Icewhiz.
 * You're right that it was K.e.coffman who discovered that the article had problems. Which it did. But it was Icewhiz who went around claiming that it was a "hoax". You know this, since you were quite involved in the drama at the time.
 * I don't care how long it's been listed. Garbage is garbage. And let's see. Who put it in there? Oh, Icewhiz,, now globally banned. Then another editor tried removing it. Who put it back? Oh, it was you . Did you "start an RfC" then? No? Why are you demanding one now? Hell, you didn't even comment in the discussion at the time . Just blindly reverted.
 * And I know that you know that the whole "it's a hoax" spin was just Icewhiz's way of trying to get revenge for the fact that he was getting topic banned (then banned from en wiki, then globally banned). Why exactly should Wikipedia nourish this editor's revenge tactics? Why are YOU nourishing them?
 * Quite simply it's not a hoax, and a single source based on the opinions of an editor who was globally banned from all WMF projects for making threats and abuse, is not enough to include it here, even if a couple other sources "reported that Haaretz reported" with derivative reposts.  Volunteer Marek   02:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * And actually, looking at Haaretz again, even that story doesn't call the article a "hoax" in it's own voice. It puts "hoax" in quotation marks in the headline (and headlines aren't RS anyway) and in the text only says that "Icewhiz claimed it was a hoax". Likewise neither Grabowski nor Dreyfuss call it a "hoax" either, they just say it was a conspiracy theory.  Volunteer Marek   03:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Times of Israel said, in its own voice, that Haaretz "established" that it "may have been the online encyclopedia's most enduring hoax". I don't speak German so no comment on the German source other than that it also uses the word "hoax."
 * I don't think you understood what I wrote. I'm talking about what the London Review of Books said (that's who I quoted in green), not the conclusions of my own research. I don't know which specific editors (described as Maria Trzcinska's "supporters") are responsible for --that's the London Review of Books' words, not mine. Ask them.
 * Yeah I think the fact that the only edit you made to that article in 15 years was an edit that minimized the controversy is evidence of your intent in making that edit (to minimize the controversy). But hey, I'll AGF that in 2009 when you made that edit, you didn't know that in 2007 it had already been debunked.
 * Incredible because you removed the word hoax from the article and then argued that because the article didn't call it a hoax, it shouldn't be listed on this page, without mentioning that you're the one who just removed the word from the article. That was an attempt at WP:FAITACCOMPLI.
 * The whole Haaretz article centers around this Wikipedia hoax. The headline is "The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax, Exposed." I mean, it's incredible, again, that you're denying that Dreifuss and Grabowski are sources for this article about this hoax.
 * The word "hoax" appears 10 times in the Haaretz article:
 * The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax, Exposed
 * Yet both claims appeared, almost without interruption, for 15 years on the English-language version of Wikipedia in what is said to be Wikipedia’s longest-standing hoax.
 * The nature of this falsehood – the fact that it’s a well-known conspiracy theory that was deliberately pushed out – alongside the scope of its impact on other articles and their longevity within Wikipedia are what turn the extermination camp at KL Warschau into the longest-running hoax ever uncovered on the online encyclopedia.
 * The person who first discovered the scale of the distortion – and is now arguing to have it recognized as Wikipedia’s longest hoax – is an Israeli editor dubbed Icewhiz, who refuses to be identified by his real name but agreed to speak with Haaretz.
 * The false facts that comprise the death camp hoax – the existence of gas chambers and the 200,000 death toll – managed to survive in Wikipedia because they were inextricably intertwined with real historical facts regarding the Warsaw concentration camp.
 * The centerpiece of the hoax – the one that supported the 200,000 claim – was the supposed existence of gas chambers in Warsaw during the war to systematically kill Poles.
 * Having a respected newspaper vet his claims and publish the story of the hoax plays a key role in his attempt to defend history.
 * Now, the Wikipedia community – the same one that is shunning Icewhiz – must decide on another question: Will it recognize the debunked version of KL Warschau as the longest-standing hoax in Wikipedia’s history.
 * Judging by the battle over Holocaust history, it is very likely that the existence of this hoax too will be struck from the annals of Wikipedia’s history.
 * He [User:Piotrus] argued that though he does not support the false narrative regarding the existence of a death camp at KL Warschau, he does not think it constitutes a “hoax” – but rather a "fringe theory."
 * Your consistent focus on Icewhiz is ... well, in the past, I've called it argumentum ad icewhiz. That comment I think was over a year ago. Still at it. At some point, you've got to move on and stop fighting Icewhiz. Levivich 03:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol. User:Levivich in the statement above you complaint about the argumentum ad icewhiz yet here you are making flimsy excuse for your own edit warring based on an ArbCom case from ... what? Twelve years ago? "It's okay for me but not for thee", right?  Volunteer Marek   05:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to move on when 1) he stops socking relentlessly and 2) some editors stop trying to preserve his messed up edits on Wikipedia, like here.
 * As to your quotes - they all (except headline, which is even more click bait than article as a whole) reference Icewhiz, explicitly or implicitly as the person who called it a "hoax".
 * I'd also appreciate it if you struck and apologized for your false insinuation in your #4 and #3 above that I had something to do with this "hoax", just because I made ONE MINOR COPY EDIT in an article over a period of 15 freakin' years out of thousands of edits that have been made to it. When you make claims like that... well, that just speaks for itself and does not reflect well on you.  Volunteer Marek   04:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * IMHO this is quite clear: regardless of the involvement of the indef-banned user here (which hardly helps...), the word hoax means, per our own definition, "a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth. It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment". Since this has been pretty well researched (re Signpost report etc.), we know this was not a deliberate falsehood; Haaretz made a vocabulary error (perhaps for clickbait-title reasons, perhaps the journalist misunderstood the details fed to him by the indef-banned editor, shrug). Since it was not a hoax, just an error, it doesn't matter what the newspaper wrote - we list real hoaxes here, not errors that someone mistakenly called a hoax. In fact, the inclusion of this entry here is more of a 'hoax' than the original example. Icewhiz invented this term in his original writeup, despite being experienced enough Wikipedian to know it was not true. If anything, we are dealing with a "hoax about a hoax" here. But at best, it lasted about 2-3 years, and is meta enough it doesn't belong here. Let's stop prolonging its life (and WP:DFTT...). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? Where in Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media does it talk about not being a deliberate falsehood? What's the "etc." you refer to? What's the evidence this was not a deliberate falsehood? Levivich 04:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The article about the Warsaw Concentration Camp was not created to produce a hoax. This allegation was made up by the globally banned user who ran to Haaretz after his ban. The report regarding the entire issue by one of the prolific users who abandoned Wikipedia due to the Icewhiz's activity explains it well here: “The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax” conspiracy theory invented by a banned Wikipedian. ---> - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * AFAIK no one has ever argued that the article was created to be a hoax. That wouldn't make sense because the article was created in 2004 but the hoax was debunked in 2006-2007 (by IPN at least). A little false content (the tunnel) was present at creation but more was added after the article's creation. (For those who don't know, there was a Warsaw concentration camp; the hoax content was describing it falsely as an extermination camp with a tunnel used as a gas chamber that killed 200,000 non-Jewish Poles.) Levivich 04:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Levivich - The estimated reading time of the complete account I linked above contains 1737 words and requires 8 minutes, 41 seconds to read.  You responded to me in 4 minutes that was needed to read my post only and type the response. I can safely assume that you didn't bother to read what I linked. Once again, the full and precise explanation (with additional reading material) that it was not a hoax is to be found here  -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already read what you linked. I disagree it is a complete presentation. Like I said above, I've done my own research. Levivich 06:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So you acknowledge that "no one has ever argued that the article was created to be a hoax" yet you still insist on calling it a "hoax" and are edit warring to keep this hoax-but-not-really-a-hoax-but-then-ill-say-its-a-hoax-but-maybe-not in the list. The later content that was added (NOT by a "Polish nationalist editor") was also added not to "hoax" anyone but simply because the editor was basing their edits on available sources (and yeah perhaps pushing a POV).
 * That reminds me, above you also asserted that your edit was "based primarily on my own thorough (meaning: many hours) research of the article's history" that the article was promoted "by certain Polish activists" - you want to name these "certain Polish activists" and how they promoted this hoax and back that up with diffs? No? Then strike it because it's false.  Volunteer Marek   04:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are blatantly misquoting me by combining two quotes from two different paragraphs talking about two different things, and I already explained this in a previous comment above. The first quote comes from a paragraph talking about my research and the second quote comes from a paragraph talking about a London Review of Books article. Levivich 06:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All the same you posted the explicit quote alleging there were "Polish activists" who supposedly promoted this hoax. Name them. Or acknowledge that that's nonsense.  Volunteer Marek   06:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not all the same. First of all, you might want to strike your blatant misquoting of me by combining two unrelated quotes (while we're asking each other to strike things). Secondly, as I already explained above, the LRB did not name the Wikipedia editors who the LRB said edited Wikipedia. You'll have to ask them who they were talking about. I specifically addressed this above, I don't understand why you're still on it. Levivich 06:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * but it does describe it as a deliberate attempt at misinformation by certain Polish activists <-- these are YOUR WORDS, not LRoB. Sorry, you can't hide behind a source on this one. Those words, yours, claim that there were "certain Polish activists". Name them.  Volunteer Marek   06:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I already addressed this above, let me repeat it: "I don't think you understood what I wrote. I'm talking about what the London Review of Books said (that's who I quoted in green), not the conclusions of my own research. I don't know which specific editors (described as Maria Trzcinska's "supporters") are responsible for --that's the London Review of Books' words, not mine. Ask them." I can't name them because the LRB didn't name them, they only identified them as Trzcinska supporters. Levivich 06:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You included this assertion in your comment and presented it as if it was factual and you did this in your own words. You also claimed you did extensive research on the article - hence my question of who these ostensible "activists" were. Now it seems ... you DON'T think there were any "activists" and the source is wrong? Why are you trying to use it then? You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Volunteer Marek   07:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The error was added by User:Halibutt (now deceased so sadly cannot defend himself). But, a), when Halibutt added this error, it was not universally recognized as such, Trzcińska amateurish conspiracy theory was debunked only few years later by scholars (see further info here) and b) there is no proof Halibutt carried out deliberate misinformation, to claim otherwise is a WP:BLP violation. All we have is a claim by Icewhiz, repeated by Haaretz, that it was a hoax (Icewhiz was the one who called it hoax first here and Haaretz just repeated their claims). It's a baseless claim that argues Halibutt misled people intentionally, for which, I repeat, there is no proof, and further, the dates don't match (when he added this info there was no way for him to know it was false, as it wasn't proven false until years later). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole point of including this article in this list was one big TROLL by Icewhiz, his parting gift to Wikipedia, and it's quite shameful that some editors insist on perpetuating this.  Volunteer Marek   05:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Trolls can still contribute valid content and if they do I actually defend them (as in, it's one of my personal pet peeves but I really dislike it when I see valid - reliable, due, etc. - content being removed from articles simply because it was added by someone who got indef banned or their sock). Even Icewhiz. But in this case, I don't think the content is valid at all; Icewhiz made a mistake calling this a hoax, Haaretz repeated it, but a mistake is still a mistake even if repeated by a newspaper, and hence this should not be listed here. That it was Icewhiz who made that mistake in the first place is just a coincidence, of tangential interest of us who had the (mis)fortune to know him. That's all. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well no, this was part of his overall strategy of general abuse. At the same time as he was talking to the Haaretz reporter he was concurrently doxxing aand threatening Wikipedia editors with his Twitter account and posting on reddit. As soon as the article came out he promoted it via those venues as well. The listing here is PART of that harassment. So the fact that it was Icewhiz is very very relevant.  Volunteer Marek 
 * I am hardly disputing that Icewhiz was harassing editors, I am just saying that regardless of what he did, we are not removing all of his Wikipedia contributions en masse. His edits should be considered on their own merits, without considering who added them or why, unless they violate our policies. For example, if you are saying that this was part of the harassment, then it may merit removal under WP:HARASS and the related Trust & Safety WMF rulings which led to his account being globally banned (for harassment). Now that I think of it, you may be right, given that the Haaretz interview was part of his campaign to discredit his opponents by any means necessary. Anyway, we both agree that this should not be here, my main point was that it was factually wrong, but you make a good point that it is also part of WP:HARASS-like problem too. Anyway, DFTT. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, as far as his edits in article space go that's true - which is why I've never undone his "good" edits. But this here is not article space, it was part of his campaign/strategy of harassment.  Volunteer Marek   06:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, User:Levivich, I just noticed your edit summary here. Regarding your unfounded accusation of tag-teaming, I've requested an apology on your talk page per Casting aspersions. Regarding "Piotrus but with all due respect you are quoted in the Haaretz article saying it was not a hoax but a fringe theory, so that gives you a COI for this", first, I don't see how being quoted gives me any WP:COI (feel free to take this to WP:COIN), but since you mention this little fact anyway, then here you go: we have a reliable source (me, under my full name, and described as a professor of sociology, in Haaretz) saying this is not a hoax but a fringe theory. Hence, as far as reliable sources go, we have an erroneous assertion this was a "hoax", not backed up by facts (per the discussion above), and then an expert in a reliable source who says it is not a hoax (and I don't believe anyone ever challenged my claim, did they? So in this discussion, in reliable sources, I believe I had the "last word", which was "this is not a hoax but a fringe theory"). I wasn't going to tout my own proverbial horn, but since you brought up this up in the first place, here you go. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This again? This ist hoax. Pavel Richter's great book on Wikipedia, Die Wikipedia-Story, with big section on it. Campus Verlag published Richter.Richter writes how nationalists wove lies into existing article, hoax. This hoax on English Wikipedia, Dewiki was pure. Read book portion on https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/wikipedia-wie-sich-ein-erfundenes-vernichtungslager-15-jahre-lang-im-online-lexikon-halten-konnte-a-22f8b5f6-fc26-4794-b8a4-19bf8ab09638 or no so good translation https://newsrnd.com/tech/2020-11-26-wikipedia--how-an-invented-extermination-camp-could-stay-in-the-online-lexicon-for-15-years-.rJ-Itqb65D.html Gunter888 (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC) — Gunter888 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Das ist false!". Welcome back after two years of inactivity. How did you learn about this discussion? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources (including Haaretz, which was not uncritical of Icewhiz and certainly did not base its entire article solely on Icewhiz's claims) clearly refer to the supposed mass extermination of 200,000 non-Jewish Poles by poison gas at the Warsaw concentration camp as a hoax. Volunteer Marek and Piotrus have presented no reliable sources that dispute its characterization as a hoax (let alone that would attest to the accuracy of the original allegation); instead, they made semantic WP:OR arguments to the effect that the cited sources are wrong to use the word "hoax" because, in their opinion, "conspiracy theory" or "fringe theory" would be more appropriate (citing dictionary definitions as well as, in Volunteer Marek's words, personal knowledge "of how Wikipedia articles work"). However, such terms are not mutually exclusive. Notably, the London Review of Books article that Volunteer Marek cited in support of the "conspiracy theory" terminology makes clear that this was no innocent misunderstanding, but rather a deliberate attempt at falsifying history by "the Polish nationalist right," refuting a key tenet of Volunteer Marek's argument. (Volunteer Marek responded by aggressively asking Levivich to independently corroborate the London Review of Books's findings, but again, it is not necessary for Wikipedia editors to do so: We are not the arbiters of WP:TRUTH). In addition, Piotrus raised the objection that coverage of the Warsaw concentration camp article here is tantamount to a WP:BLP violation against the Wikipedian who created it, but that seems like a stretch to me. While I cannot disprove anyone's fear that continuation of the status quo (i.e., inclusion) might lead to violent threats or harassment directed against Volunteer Marek, Piotrus, GizzyCatBella, or other valued contributors, this does not seem like the appropriate forum to present evidence of an ongoing danger, and such charges should not be made lightly. In any case, I have had a contentious relationship with both Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz but I specifically ended up here as part of an outpouring of sympathy over Volunteer Marek's recent wholly unjustified (and since-retracted) block by Ymblanter—and, like Volunteer Marek, I cringe at Levivich's implausible disassembling on the subject of highly likely (WP:DUCK) sock– or meatpuppets of Icewhiz—yet my regrettable conclusion is that the arguments for exclusion/removal presented thus far by Volunteer Marek et al. do not withstand minimal scrutiny and generate far more heat than light.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's appreciated to see a neutral party weight in, even if it is not in support of my argument. Would you mind addressing the following arguments of mine: 1) Haaretz also cites ME, in my professional capacity, as going on record this is a NOT a hoax, but a fringe theory. As far as I know, nobody in a RS has challenge my criticism. Isn't my statement there a reliably sourced and unchallenged criticism of this term? 2) If you read the detailed analysis of this that User:Poeticbent posted on his talk page (and that nobody has ever challenged), he makes it pretty clear that the error was added by now-deceased User:Halibutt BEFORE anyone knew the theory was wrong. Is it really "semantics" to argue that dictionary definitions apply? How can this be a hoax when Halibutt had no way of knowing this was false or not when he added this? 3) As for claims of some still unidentified malicious Polish far righters or nationalists, nobody has ever identified anyone who propagated this claim, it's a pure conspiracy theory with no evidence. The facts remain that as soon as it was brought to our (English Wikipedia's community) attention that there was an error, it was swiftly corrected and nobody, even a sock or an IP, ever attempted to restore this error. In other words, there is zero evidence that this was ever intentionally added by anyone who was familiar with any criticism of this. To call it a hoax creates a misleading impression (based on zero evidence) that there was someone, somewhere, who tried to promote it (add or read it to Wikipedia) while knowing it is false. Since this has never been proven by reliable sources to be the case, all we have is effectively fake news, based on a clickbait heading, which is bad journalism (and as I noted above, with a link, the term hoax was, in this coined, coined by Icewhiz in his sandbox draft of the story that Signpost declined but Haaretz bought).Btw, you may be interested in reading my letter to Haaretz (sadly, Haaretz simply ignored my request for acknowledging even its receipt):here. Do note that both mine and Poeticbent's responses (and Icewhiz initial write up of the declined story) were mentioned in Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-10-31/In_the_media which probably is the best (most knowledgable) third party write-up on this (sadly, the journalists who wrote the story up didn't know that much about Wikipedia, and worse, they bought into a story by then already indef banned Icewhiz, for whom, as VM's makes a convincing case, it was all part of his harassment campaign against his on-wiki enemies).
 * Also, regarding "We are not the arbiters of WP:TRUTH)". When a reliable source makes a mistake, we may not always be able to say so (that would be OR), but when that mistake is obvious (as I believe is the case here), we should also stop repeating that error. We can use our editorial judgment to determine if a source made an error, and then remove it from our article space (we just cannot debunk it ourselves as it would be OR, and have to wait for another RS to debunk it). Here I'll also assert that as for debunking in RS, there's my claim printed in Haaretz about the fringe theory vs hoax.
 * Bottom line (TL;DR :D) I am saying that this was not a hoax (there is no evidence of any malicious acting, as in a deliberate attempt of disinformation on the part of anyone adding that information). Some journalists made an error by calling this incident a hoax, a term first used for this by indef-banned harasser. Propagating this error is propagating fake news, started with malicious intent. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that I am an uninvolved editor as to this content matter but I disclose that I have commented on some of the associated blocks of editors. In my view, this can be framed as a difference in views about how a "Wikipedia hoax" is defined by experienced Wikipedia editors as opposed to how journalists off-Wikipedia choose to define a hoax here. In the Wikipedia context, a "hoax" is a deliberate effort by a liar or a troll to create false but plausible content, for the purpose of discrediting the encyclopedia. Journalists may choose to describe any deeply crappy Wikipedia article as a "hoax" without regards to how Wikipedians define the term. That is their right. But here on Wikipedia, we should define things in Wikipedia terms. Unless evidence can be produced indicating that any major contributor to the article that some editors want to retain in this list article was a conscious disinformation operative, then this specific article should not be kept in the hoax list. That is how I see it, at least. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Well said. And in all honesty, this is a problem not limited to this hoax. I looked at some other examples. #2 after Warsaw is about a Louvre pyramid . But while nobody ever found a reference for this, can we be 100% this was an intentional hoax, attempting to mislead? Maybe that editor heard something or mistread it. Ditto here (example 2) or here (example 3). How are we to judge those were intended as hoaxes? Now, all of this - including the Warsaw case - could exist on a page about List of errors on Wikipedia. Nobody is disputing such information was an error, but claiming them as intentional hoaxes is problematic. Outside of a few cases where the author went on a record and said they mislead people on purposes, those are errors that may or may not be hoaxes. I have removed zillion of unreferenced claims which seemed like errors over my wiki years, and in general I always considered them to be non-intentional errors instead of purposeful hoaxes, since who am I to judge and assume bad faith on the part of the person who added it? This entire page is a major WP:AGF problem. And even those admissions are hard to prove, I checked the few we report - one (Olimar The Wondercat) is sourced to a deleted tweet admission, another (Cindy and the Halo Boy
 * ) to a page on Gawker that as far as I can tell doesn't even mention said hoax! (Could the addition of the fake hoax to this page be a meta-hoax itself...?). Third, about kiwifruit, claims that "Hoax only came to light after hoaxer admitted to it." but there is no evidence in the linked diffs anyone admitted to this. This entire page needs major pruning (with no prejudice to preserving this stuff on the aforementioned list of errors). Perhaps even an AfD, since I couldn't find a single confirmation of the hoax here that, beyond a reasonable doubt, shows it was an intentional attempt to mislead and not some random error. (I am not saying there are no haoxes here, but where's the proof? This article is really a List of errors on Wikipedia that someone claimed may be a hoax) <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is EXACTLY right. This isn’t a Wikipedia article about a subject where we “follow reliable sources”. This is non-article space about Wikipedia itself (as was repeatedly pointed out by several editors, including User:Levivich who now seems to be ignoring that part and contradicting themselves) where we use WIKIPEDIA TERMINOLOGY. So whatever that compromised article in Haaretz says doesn’t matter, because by Wikipedia definition, this was NOT a hoax. It was just a crappy article based on outdated sources.  Volunteer Marek   05:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @ Cullen328 - I agree %100 - A hoax is defined as a clear and deliberate attempt to deceptively present false information as fact. Libel, vandalism, and honest factual errors are not considered hoaxes. There are no evidences that this article was created or ever edited to produce a hoax. None. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How would one prove a "clear and deliberate attempt to deceptively present false information as fact" for 98% of the other entries on this list? In this case Haaretz is on-record saying that Piotrus "made the misleading claim" about "the EEML leak". Historian Jan Grabowski wrote extensively on the "technique of falsifying Polish history in Wikipedia" in several Wikipedia articles. On Warsaw concentration camp he wrote that it is a "falsification of the history of the Holocaust by Polish nationalists that lasted for over 10 years!" ( Polish: "W wypadku hasła „KL Warschau” zafałszowywanie historii Zagłady przez polskich nacjonalistów trwało ponad 10 lat!" .--185.127.21.114 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)  — 185.127.21.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. blocked
 * A hoax is an act intended to deliberately deceive or trick, or something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
 * For an act to be considered criminal, there must be demonstrable mens rea – guilty intent. No mens rea, no crime.
 * A conspiracy theory may be a misbegotten hypothesis, or even a frank delusion; but if its originator's intent was not to fraudulently disinform – to deliberately mislead, in the knowledge that he is spreading a lie for the purpose of gaining an advantage or causing a harm – then it is not a hoax.
 * So far there seems to be no evidence, in the case of the article in question, for the perpetration there of a hoax.
 * This item should be deleted from the "List of hoaxes on Wikipedia".
 * Nihil novi (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious what you think about my argument a bit above; I am coming to a realization that almost everything on this page may be about as bad. Next to no incident reported seems to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, the intent to "deliberately mislead". This entire page seems like a textbook WP:ABF (this is not a "list of hoaxes on Wikipedia" but rather a "list of errors on Wikipedia that someone claimed may be a hoax"). There's no way of knowing whether most of the incidents reported here were attempts to "deliberately mislead" or more honest mistakes or misunderstandings of the purpose of this project ("wait, what do you mean I cannot post my fiction/original research/speculation/100% genuine word of God I received in my dream yesterday here?", etc.). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nihil novi (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious what you think about my argument a bit above; I am coming to a realization that almost everything on this page may be about as bad. Next to no incident reported seems to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, the intent to "deliberately mislead". This entire page seems like a textbook WP:ABF (this is not a "list of hoaxes on Wikipedia" but rather a "list of errors on Wikipedia that someone claimed may be a hoax"). There's no way of knowing whether most of the incidents reported here were attempts to "deliberately mislead" or more honest mistakes or misunderstandings of the purpose of this project ("wait, what do you mean I cannot post my fiction/original research/speculation/100% genuine word of God I received in my dream yesterday here?", etc.). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

RS say it was a hoax (and our longest-running hoax).Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you read the above conversation at all?? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Do RS say it, that is all that matters. RS say it, end of story. They say it was a Hoax, some do not so?Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of fake news or journalistic errors? This is not something we have to trust, this is based on claims we can easily verify since they are related to on wiki things, like diffs and such. The journalist made an error. We are not obliged to repeat it. Please read the discussion above for context to avoid needless repetition. (Also, news pieces like these are reliable up to a point - they are opinions of facts, not holy gosplels set in stone; see also WP:OPINION which notes that opinion pieces like this are WP:PRIMARY sources and those are accompanied by a warning note "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". And here we are dealing with such a misuse - an error being portrayed as a fact, primarily by indef-banned editor who is still commenting on this page right now... you may want to consider not taking their side, DFTT, etc.). PS. You are aware that there are hundreds of news stories (and even research pieces) from reliable sources about Wikipedia alone which are quite wrong about various topics?, or the stuff at Wikipedia Signpost/2021-07-25/In the media, Wikipedia Signpost/2021-07-25/Recent research, Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-28/Op-ed and zillion of others. If we had a penny for each error about Wikipedia made by mass media we could probably double WMF operating budget :P --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nor should we listen to nationlist sources seeking to justify or excuse a form of holocaust denial.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what you even mean. What nationalist sources? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven - What are you referring to ? Links and elaborate, please. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK< so what sources then have been presented that says its not a hoax, I assmed some had been. Otherwise we have RS saying it, and nothing but wp:or contradicting it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ... (?...okay let’s leave it there) .. so you didn't read the above conversation... just take your time Slatersteven and read the entire discussion please, okay? It is all explained above with details -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to what GCB said above, I have to conclude you didn't read my reply to you above, either. It's an interesting world you live in, in which "reliable sources" are never, ever wrong (unless this is said in another RS). I'll end with this. Britannica is a reliable source, yes? Well, this may shake your world, but there are Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia. Two of them were even reported by me 12 years ago. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So no then no RS have been proproduced chanellging it, its all OR. Of course RS can be wrong, but we can only say they are when other RS challenge them. We cannot do it, no matter how wrong we think they are. That is policy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn’t a Wikipedia article. WP:RS applies to Wikipedia articles, not non-articles about Wikipedia itself.  Volunteer Marek   16:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , You know, we actually agree here. I said the very same above. We cannot say the RS are wrong even if they obviously are, that's OR. We are on the same page here. But what we can do - and do usually, based on my experience - is to remove the wrong claims from the articles without saying such claims were a mistake. (And just to be clear, I am not even advocating the removal of the information about the WCC error from the article - it was an error, and it attracted media attention; I am fine with it being mentioned in the WCC - but as an error, not as a hoax. And as an error and not a hoax it does not belong on this page, i.e. Wikipedia's lists of hoaxes.). Lastly, if you want to enforce RS here, please note that 90% of content of the list here is unreferenced as I've shown above, most seem to be plainly wrong (someone removes an error and calls it hoax with no proof that the error was intentional...). PS. Regading "no RS have been proproduced chanellging it", how about this, from the original Haaretz report: : "Konieczny, who is a sociologist at Hanyang University, in South Korea... does not think it constitutes a “hoax.” I have been interviewed for that piece, they sadly ignored most of what I said (instead going with the narrative provided by then-already banned Icewhiz...) and misinterpreted some other parts (hence my letter to them here I encourage you to read), but at least they kept this part in. So here, we have an academic (me) going on a record in the RS and saying this term is wrong.<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Two wrong do not make a right, and no we do not wikilyawer with "we'll I have not said it is wrong, I am just removioeng it because it is". It is sources to RS it stayrs, if there is stuff that is unsourced, remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

After wading through much of the incredibly convoluted discussion above, I have arrived at the conclusion that we cannot justifiably claim that this article was a deliberate hoax. As such, it should be removed from the list. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note it's not listed as a hoax article. Levivich 21:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Lepricavark Thank you. But please see what levivich replied (without a ping, hence my ping). Can anyone translate this logic to me: 1) an incident is included on a "list of hoaxes". 2) an editor claims "it is not a hoax". 3) another editor claims "it's ok, it's not listed as a hoax article" [but it is listed on a list of hoaxes]. There's some exercise in advanced semantics here I seem to be drawing blank on. Help? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think Levi's point was that the article was listed in the 'hoax statements in articles' section instead of the 'hoax articles' section. It may appear to be splitting hairs, but I think Levi's response was reasonable given that my comment focused on the article itself not being a hoax. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 02:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Lepricavark Ah. Well, I see, but yes, splitting hairs, that is also the case. My point is that it does not belong to any section in any article about "hoaxes" (although I have no objection to including it in an article about "errors"; nobody is disputing it was a long-lasting error, the bone of contention is the term "hoax" which while used by a RS seems simply inaccurate, given no evidence of this being a deliberative attempt to mislead has been presented). Can I gather you agree with my sentiment? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes. I don't think it belongs on this page. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 03:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll capsulize roughly below what it is all about, for those who don't want to read through all the exchanges above :
 * The user produces an article utilizing information that at the time of the article creation was regarded as correct and sourced.
 * That user dies.
 * Some of the knowledge about the data the deceased user recorded grows.
 * Nobody expresses much interest in the article to update it to reflect the new scholarly consensus.
 * Finally, one user notices the outdated information.
 * Another user (now globally banned) starts to make claims that the article has been deliberately created to introduce "hoax” information and lists the article here.
 * This user gets a Topic Ban.
 * Runs to the press and confuses the journalist with his story who writes the article about it. The article is reprinted by a few newspapers.
 * Users are trying to change information recorded in bad faith on this page because there is no evidence the original data was recorded intentionally as a hoax.
 * You are here..- GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate. User:Halibutt created this article but--again--it's not listed as a hoax article, and I do not claim it was created to be a hoax article. It's listed as an article that has hoax statements, and Halibutt is not the user who added the hoax statements. This is discussed in more detail above. Levivich 00:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's accurate describtion from my readings. Who deliberately added false information to create a "hoax"? Links and evidence, please. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media, the error existed in the version created by Halibutt. Do you have any evidence/proof that Halibutt knew this information was false yet added it on purpose to mislead the readers? According to User:Poeticbent, who offers additional detail, "Trzcińska’s theory was not discredited until 2007, or three years after his new English article was uploaded". Unless we can prove Halibutt knew that information was false yet set out to deceive the readers, then all we can say is that he added an error (an error statement, if you prefer), not a hoax statement. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that any of the listed articles were deliberate attempts to mislead? The London Review of Books, Haaretz, and other sources describe it as a deliberate attempt to mislead. What evidence is there that disputes that conclusion? What evidence have you reviewed in determining that it wasn't a deliberate attempt to mislead? Are you taking the Signpost's conclusion or Poeticbent's conclusion over the RS? Or has anyone investigated the actual history of the article for themselves? If editors are waiting for me to lay out the evidence, then how could they form a conclusion about whether it's a hoax or not before I have done so? Levivich 05:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When sources describe things but fail to provide proof then they are bad journalism, fake news or hoaxes themselves. There's no defending this. Of course, nobody is questioning majority of the facts - there was an error, it got corrected after nearly 15 years. But no evidence that this is a hoax was presented. "Reliable sources" are not a carte blanche for saying whatever - as discussed above, reliable sources does not meet perfect or true, they make mistakes like everyone else. The onus is on you: show us the evidence this is a hoax, in the form of the admission of guilt from the editor or editors who added the error. Nothing more, nothing less. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:ONUS is to gain consensus which was gained by WP:SILENCE when I added the entry two years ago and no one objected until just now, when VM, GCB, and you all suddenly showed up here. I'm not sure why now. Sure, consensus can change, and here we are discussing it. The onus isn't on me to prove anything. Wikipedia doesn't operate by editors proving things to other editors. We follow sources. Asking for an admission of guilt is a stupidly-high bar, which none of the entries would meet. But for me this is close enough: Levivich 13:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What does this interview of an uninvolved editor has to do with anything? The ONUS is still on you to show us proof that this was a hoax. Once the possibility of an error in a RS has been raised, you need a better counterargument than "but the source is reliable so it cannot be wrong". PS. As for SILENCE, well WEAKSILENCE. I for one didn't realize this Icewhizhism was still here, and thought it was removed long ago. If I knew this was still here rest assured I'd have made my case earlier. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Really because you tried before to get consensus for your removal of it and no one agreed with you which is why I put it back two years ago., , Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Archive 2, . Now that I've looked I see that I was wrong about SILENCE, there was a talk page discussion. Levivich 12:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Levivich, you're linking to Icewhiz edit warring to keep this in the article and Piotrus removing it as proof that "no one agreed with (Piotrus)'s removal". Seriously? "A banned editor tried to edit war this into the article so that means there was no consensus to remove it, so I put it back, without discussing anything myself" How does that make any sense? If anything it shows that you edit warred to put it back in without bothering to even post on talk. And now you're claiming "WP:SILENCE"? Come on.  Volunteer Marek   18:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz was ArbCom blocked in December 2019 and WMF banned in June 2020. The edits were made in September 2019, when Icewhiz remained, ostensibly, an editor in good standing. Bans are not retroactive. And so, "A banned editor tried to edit war this into the article..." is misleading; they were not banned at the time. - Ryk72 talk 06:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is true - and I note that above saying that he obviously put it in before he was topic banned (which was in October 2019 - and honestly by September the fact that he was going to get a topic ban was pretty obvious).  Volunteer Marek   06:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. By way of suggestion, it might be better to focus on the nature of the content, and not its provenance. - Ryk72 talk 07:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Apropos: Once the possibility of an error in a RS has been raised, you need a better counterargument than "but the source is reliable so it cannot be wrong". No, I don't think this is a supportable viewpoint. The possibility of an error isn't sufficient; otherwise we'd be playing at epistemology all day like first year philosophy students. It would need to be demonstrated that the source was actually in error to override reliability. It is possible to do this; I've personally done so at least twice, both times with subsequent corrections from the referenced source. - Ryk72 talk 06:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The funny thing here is that actually everyone agrees that it wasn't a "hoax". Levivich agrees it wasn't a hoax. Francois Robere agrees it wasn't a hoax (but rather a "conspiracy theory"). Yet they both wish to keep it because ... ... ... ?
 * And again, WP:RS applies to article space. This here is about an internal Wikipedia definition.  Volunteer Marek   07:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that we benefit from establishing "WP:HOAX" as a term of art. And, hrm... "conspiracy theory" seems a little strange. Who are the conspirators? About what did they conspire? - Ryk72 talk 07:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course I think it was a hoax. Your misrepresentation of what I write knows no bounds. I listed it under "hoax statement" not "hoax article," that doesn't mean I don't think it was a hoax. Levivich 12:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Well, this has been done. As in, at the time the error was added, it was not yet discredited, so the claim that the editor who added it "must have known it was false" is not supported. Since no other proof suggesting any deliberate attempt to mislead has been added, and given that the claim that there was an attempt to mislead (i.e. terming this hoax) comes from an editor who is indef-banned for harassment, don't you think that the demonstration that the RS is in error is sufficient? The RS claim rests solely on repeating claim by said indef banned editor, a claim that has no evidence behind it. To me, one side of this argument is much weaker than the other... <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * is not supported by the sources cited (or my own research), and above I quoted one of the editors who added (much of) the discredited information apologizing for adding misleading Holocaust content to Wikipedia. As I said above, User:Halibutt is not the editor who added the hoax content, and the hoax content wasn't added by only one editor. Levivich 17:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , You say "As I said above, User:Halibutt is not the editor who added the hoax content" but the Haaretz article plainly says : Written by Halibutt, the username of the late Krzysztof Machocki, who was a well-known Wikipedia editor as well as also the spokesperson for the Polish branch of Wikimedia, the article also claimed that “the files of the camp were burnt [and] the railway tunnel in which the prisoners were gassed to death [were] blown up” – which purportedly explains why so little is known about it. The fact that it was a Polish editor who first wrote the article and included the falsehood, as well as the fact that it included the claim that the evidence that would establish the truth of the camp was destroyed, are part of what Grabowski calls the “competing victimology” of the Polish right. It's pretty clear Haaretz alleged that Halibutt was the original author of the error. This is also what Icewhiz said here: "Created as a hoax on 25 August 2004 and remained as a hoax until August 2019". If your investigation found that another editor (who?) later added more of the plausible hoax information, that's interesting and worth investigating further, but this is not what our RS say. And anyway, the quote you provide above is not an admission of a hoax but of an error (" I was well meaning but wrong"). The quoted editor - I am assuming here they are the one your investigation (diff lacking?) suggest added more errors to the article - admitted they made an error, but not deliberately. So we are missing evidence both for the claim (by Icewhiz, repeated by Haaretz) that the initial article was hoax, as well as for your own claim that someone else later added that hoax the article. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is described in https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v41/n09/christian-davies/under-the-railway-line as being a conspiracy to cover up the existence of the camp: "So, why was almost no one in Poland aware of the existence of this additional death camp in the centre of the country’s capital? The answer reads like a nationalist fever dream, in which all of the nation’s historic enemies play a role: the Germans covered it up because they didn’t want to pay reparations for Nazi crimes; the Jews covered it up because they didn’t want to give up their share of the global victims’ market; the Russians and Polish communists covered it up because they ran the facility after the war (in these circles, ‘Jew’ and ‘communist’ are often used interchangeably); Poles in the know covered it up because they were bribed or brainwashed by foreign interests." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianDWP (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It's probably correct to call it a conspiracy theory. That's a different thing that a hoax is. Compare hoax versus conspiracy theory. The LRB piece was a more solid piece of research (and argument) than the Haaretz one was, which is seen in the better use of logical descriptors (note that LRB never claims this was a hoax). I'd be fine with this incident being included on the List of conspiracy theories presented as fact in Wikipedia articles or such. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * See answer above by Christian. François Robere (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The broader question
Some of this others have said above, but I'm putting this under a new section header to hopefully save others the inconvenience of reading through this whole mess, the vast majority of which is re-hashing of yearslong grudges better suited to arbspace than to this page.

The question for this forum to decide is, above all else, "What constitutes a hoax for the purposes of this list?" If editors feel that the answer is "Something where you can show that there was intentional deception", then it seems to me it would be much better to have a discussion about that broader question, rather than promoting a double standard for one of the most infamous and sensitive entries on this list.

Because we don't really have an answer to that general question, and maybe we should. If this entry is removed from the "hoax claims" list, then my find of the Louvre Pyramid spire hoax will top that list. But, as Piotrus notes above, I can't say conclusively that added that claim in bad faith. The best I can do is say that the initial diff looks shady and that the editor turned out to be a sock, which is closer to definitive than can be said for a lot of entries, many of which have no conduct-based evidence.

I don't think we can come up with a 100% clear-cut definition of "hoax". Take the content I removed from Matt Sorum. Some of it was demonstrably false. Some fails verification but could be true. Part of the reason I didn't list it here is that, based on a few things I found while researching the claims, I surmise that at least some of it may be oral history from Sorum's hometown. Is it a hoax to repeat the cool story your band teacher told you about what a famous musician did back when he went to this school? A story that may well be true, or at least resemble the truth, but was just never written down anywhere? If someone added the Sorum claims to this list I probably wouldn't revert them, but personally I didn't feel it worthy of listing. What about size of source? James Packer definitely didn't accuse any "Mr. Heaney" of misconduct; does that four-word false claim merit inclusion in this list? If so, that's our new second-oldest.

So if people think it's time to have a discussion about how broad and how intentional (or seemingly intentional) a hoax has to be in order to be included here, that may be a worthwhile discussion. Likewise something like Piotrus' suggestion of making this the list of errors on Wikipedia. Bickering over the Warsaw Concentration Camp in particular, though, just seems like a good way for this to wind up at AE. -- Tamzin [cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Tamzin Since I am quite interested in documenting and preserving history of Wikipedia (including stuff like WP:BJAODN and many others), my recommendation, per above, would be to vet each entry to see if we can find confirmation that it was a hoax (deliberate misinformation without any realm for a doubt). All entries that we are not sure about can be recorded under a "list of errors" which does not presume to guess what was the reason for that error. And we certainly have document cases of undisputable hoax, such as the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident where the hoaxter that "admitted that he had posted the false biography because he believed Wikipedia to be "some sort of joke website"." I find the current low standards for "was this a hoax" on this page detrimental to those who really want to study Wikipedia's history by likely inflating the number of hoaxes, and misattributing various honest mistakes to some malice. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think hoaxes can be divided into roughly the following levels of certainty:
 * Confessed hoax: e.g. the Seigenthaler case or the Amelia Bedelia case
 * Provable beyond a reasonable doubt due to:
 * Degree of elaborateness: e.g. Bicholim conflict or Vanda Varvara
 * User conduct history: hard to find an example since this list avoids talking too much about hoaxes' creators, but I'm sure that there's some that fit the bill
 * Evidence of intentional deception: e.g. [ctrl+f "source" in the list]
 * Strong circumstantial evidence (in any of the above three categories), but where the possibility of good faith can't be entirely dismissed. This would cover the Louvre Pyramid example, IMO, although perhaps I'm biased.
 * Clearly made up by someone, but not necessarily the one who added it: e.g. "Klanbake", John Major, etc.
 * Possible oral history, urban legend, etc.: e.g. my Sorum example or, on this list, the Franklin Avenue Station claim
 * Potentially an undocumented true statement: Broadly this could apply to anything shy of the "provable" category, but with many of these we can at least say that it's unlikely that no source would have picked up a given claim. But this is especially applicable with local-history stuff and claims about people who died within living memory. We see this all the time with BLPs, and may be biased against claims that just sound a bit more improbable than your standard unsourced "John Doe is married to Jane Doe" added by someone from John's hometown. But like, to pick a random example from my own life experience, I was at an event once where Sarah Stillman mentioned that she'd attempted a doctorate but changed paths after her laptop (and thus dissertation) was stolen on a train. That's the exact kind of unsourced claim, never repeated in any reliable nor unreliable source, that someone might want to add to this list because of how specific and unverifiable it is. But it does happen to be true (at least according to her).
 * Still thinking on what a good way forward would be (or whether a way forward is needed, compared to the status quo) but those are just some thoughts. One option would be requiring consensus to list anything not in the first two categories, although that could get a bit bureaucratic. Another option would be spinning off the hoax claims list (maybe as "false claims"), since that naturally tends more toward the lower categories on this list. -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think those are all good criteria. I would add "described by RS as a hoax" to the list. But I'm not sure that we need to change anything. AFAIK, this is the only entry on the list that has ever generated anything close to this level of controversy about whether or not an entry should be included. I'm not sure we need "new rules" as it were just because there is a dispute over one entry. Levivich 17:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Aha, no, described by RS as a hoax is sidestepping the issue. What we care here is what evidence did the RS has. Here's an academic paper on hoaxes on Wikipedia: and it clearly states that "Hoaxes are delibirately fabricated falsehoods made to masquarade as truth." Not "hoaxes are articles that someone called a hoax". --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The question is how fool-proof we want this list to be. Right now it is erring on the side of being too inclusive and containing entries that might not have been "deliberate attempts to mislead". I'd suggest cutting it only to cases where we are sure the intent was to mislead and splitting out others to a side list. Consider the case of a mentally ill individual creating an article about Moon being made out of green cheese. It is "Provable beyond a reasonable doubt to be false", but from their perspective, it is not a hoax, they honestly believe this is the case. Their article still misleads the readers, bt their intention was not "to deliberately misinform". In other words, we have to focus on the case of whether we can prove it was a deliberate attempt to misinform (the creator knew the information was false, but added it on purpose) or not. Everything else is obviously an error (well, there's also the "Potentially an undocumented true statement" as you note, another headache, which arguably is a third type of category here). Anyway, I think this page (list of hoaxes) should be only for category 1 (no doubt based on admission). Everything else goes to errors (or the third list of undocumented but potentially true statements on Wikipedia?). PS. Thinking about this more, I am willing to agree that admission of guilt is not the sole criteria. You make a valid point with the examples based on the "Degree of elaborateness". After all, in a court of law, admission is not always needed for conviction, evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is fine too. I looked at the "Bicholim conflict or Vanda Varvara" examples and you are right, it's hard to imagine them being anything else but hoaxes (however, please consider my example of the mentally ill individual fully believing that their submissions are correct, even if their sources are mental disorders... this does muddle the water, if the hoaxer refuse to say what their intention is, sigh...). I'd therefore suggest making it clear for each entry, however, whether it was added based on admission or based on other evidence (admission is 100% proof, solid evidence is just 99% - after all, in real life and court of law, verdicts have been overturned when the once solid evidence was found lacking; I think we can at least safely discard the choice that any admission of hoax was false, nobody is torturing or otherwise pressuring people to give false confessions here :P). As for "User conduct history" or "Evidence of intentional deception" I am not sure I fully follow - until we find specific examples to discuss I am not sure I can comment yay or nay here. Once we get to the "where the possibility of good faith can't be entirely dismissed" level, I think WP:AGF takes precedence and such an entry cannot be qualified as hoax, but just an an error. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to think more about some of your bigger points, but just to answer your question: Regarding "evidence of intentional deception", I'm thinking of cases where there's clear misrepresentation of a source. Some source misrepresentation may be accidental, but there's many cases where you can say beyond a reasonable doubt that it was intentional, for instance if someone cites a news article that doesn't even mention the subject, or cites a book that in fact contradicts the claim being made. Other considerations might be something like a trollish edit summary ("added TOTALLY TRUE facts about John Doe"). And as to "user conduct history", I'm thinking of something like an editor who was proven to have engaged in other hoaxes, or has otherwise forfeited the protections of AGF. This is arguably true of Dereks1X/VK35, of Louvre infamy, since they were banned for, among other things, "calculated deception", and then kept socking for over a decade. Not necessarily entitled to the same AGF as if it turned out that a decade ago you or I inserted an error somewhere due to a misunderstanding.
 * I'll also say, I think the mental illness angle is too niche to worry much about. I'm sure we've all seen our fair share of users trying to list themself somewhere as a prophet or messiah. And there we can say "Yeah, ill, not hoaxing." But if the author of Vanda Varvara really believed she was real, I think for our purposes as Wikipedians trying to study hoaxes—not doctors or therapists—that doesn't really matter. -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Tamzin, I agree. Here though I don't think there's any evidence of intent to mislead. It's not "misrepresenting sources", it was just relying on bad and outdated sources back in the very early days of Wikipedia.  Volunteer Marek   06:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * VM, just a note that you are talking about the "warsaw" case, I think, and in this section we are looking at the big picture (this entire page and its purpose), not just this particular example we are kicking about in the section above. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No hurry. Let me however keep playing the devil's advocate (with AGF in mind). 1) "if someone cites a news article that doesn't even mention the subject" -> this could be a simple copy paste error... 2) "cites a book that in fact contradicts the claim being made" -> ditto, or a comprehension error (bonus points for remembering not everyone contributing to English Wikipedia is fluent in English...). 3) "a trollish edit summary" -> the example given is fair, but where do we draw the line? 4) "an editor who was proven to have engaged in other hoaxes" -> ok, that's pretty reasonable, fool me once, shame on me, etc. 5) "or has otherwise forfeited the protections of AGF" - ekhm, mind entertaining me and considering this: how about an editor who engaged in offline harassment that was proven to a point he got himself banned not just by ArbCom but also by WMF? Would you trust any controversial claim they'd make based on more or less "trust me, I know" rationale? 6) regarding the case of Dereks, this is the WP:DUCK grounds. It is almost certainly a hoax, given the account has been shown to be a vandal (faking credentials, etc.). But is this something that a court of law would say has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? How strict do we want to be? And yes, the mentally ill angle is similar. In the end, the category for "very likely hoax" is pretty much a question of do we want to err on the side of caution or not. I expect that for every 10 "likely hoaxes" we find, 9 will be hoaxes, 1 will be something else. In the court of law, 1 bad sentence out of 10 would be too serious; better to let 9 criminals walk than have one innocent man behind bars (I guess?). On wiki, hmmm. As a scientist working with data, I hate "bad data", but mhm, what is better from the perspective of someone interested in accurately describing the history of Wikipedia? Let's see what others think. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't get into everything that was said here so excuse me for being brief, but I do want to state for the record that while I agree that the WCC can be more accurately described as a "conspiracy theory", until such time as we have a "list of conspiracy theories..." or "list of evidence-free and/or pseudoscientific claims...", I strongly object to removing it from this, or any other list. The semantics of it are less important than the fact that it was a substantial and persistent error, and should serve as a glaring warning of the failings of our editorial system. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @François Robere Seriously, Francois, you know I don't think the interaction ban you guys have is the best idea but you really need to stop playing with fire and commenting on the edges of topic that GCB is involved in. First ANI, now here. Surely there are things the two of you can do that do not involve one another? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your subtle attempts at getting me blocked, but just so you remember who submitted this to The Signpost back in September 2019: User:François Robere/sandbox/KL Warschau . Also, I'd be wary of a COI since the piece that exposed this mentioned you by name. François Robere (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @François Robere Yes, I remember you submitted Icewhiz's essay to Signpost, even through Icewhiz was banned at that point; hence he needed a proxy. Proxying for an indef banned harasser is not something I'd be particularly proud of if I were in your shoes (and Signpost rightly rejected the submission). As for COI, well, being cited (or miscited, mostly, as the case here is) as an expert by a piece is not COI, although you are welcome to take it to COIN. And no, I don't indent to report you to AE or such for borderline violations of a restriction I generally consider silly in the first place, but you really should consider that not everyone here may be as fond of AGF and such as I am; I have you two friendly warnings that you are, IMHO, really skirting the restriction. You are welcome to disregard my warnings - it's your head, not mine, on the line here. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd rather if you stuck to the facts, Piotrus. I commented on Icewhiz's version on September 6th; I started reworking the piece on September 17th (IIRC you made some suggestions of your own ); I submitted it to the Signpost on September 19th; Arbcom banned Icewhiz and VM on September 22nd; and Icewhiz was blocked on October 1st, after the Signpost discussion had concluded. So no, I did not "proxy for an indef banned harasser", and you should strike that.
 * Regarding your involvement - again, please stick to the facts: you weren't cited as an expert, you were cited as a Wikipedian, and not in a very favorable light. IIRC you were pretty shook up when it was published (which is unfortunate), claiming that you were misquoted and at some point even publishing a reply to a followup piece published by another interviewee. I don't envy your experience after this was published, but it does present you with a COI which you should've disclosed.
 * And I know you never report anyone yourself, Piotrus. No worries. François Robere (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think making a point here will be anything productive. – The Grid  ( talk )  02:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how much useful improvement the encyclopaedia would have received if the editors who have contributed to the above discussion had instead put 10% of the time they have spent on work towards improving the encyclopaedia. JBW (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I *have* spent time on works towards improving the encyclopedia (for example expanding the article on Stanislaw Aronson). Some of us can walk and chew gum at same time. But yeah, this is an unnecessary time sink and the problem can be easily solved by simply removing this silly entry.  Volunteer Marek   21:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thing is some people (not naming names) are here first and foremost to push narratives, building the encyclopedia comes second.--Catlemur (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

A list of hoax-like blunders
https://www.pcworld.com/article/170874/The_15_Biggest_Wikipedia_Blunders.html

I checked a few, none seem to be mentioned here. Some are ridiculous enough to be what we call "obvious" hoaxes, but of course, none seem to have a proof that they were hoaxes and not some mistakes/statements by mentally ill people/etc. If anyone cares to trace the diffs and such, some could be added here. Although frankly, per discussion above, the entire term 'hoax' is problematic, and I like 'blunders' more. We may need a Wikiedia:List of blunders of Wikipedia, perhaps? :)

Btw, the one about Hitler and Tony Blair got me thinking that the difference between this type of hoax and childish vandalism is pretty small. And something about Godwin's law... <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether the intensity and inconclusiveness of this debate – over whether the Warsaw Concentration Camp debunked "gas-chamber" story should be considered a "hoax" – may not partly be due to varying interpretations of the word "hoax".
 * "Hoax" is used in a range of meanings, from a humorous deception to an outright fraud.
 * Has the "gas-chamber" story been shown to be unequivocally a fraud ("a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain")?
 * If not, wouldn't an expression less fraught than "hoax" better fill the bill – perhaps something like "mistaken theory" or "debunked story"?
 * Nihil novi (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggested the simple term 'error' above. KISS. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In many cases, "error" may work.
 * But the present "Extermination camp conspiracy theory" section-heading – which is not really apposite (who is conspiring with whom?) – if changed to "Extermination-camp error", might read as a bit vague (what "error" was committed, by whom or what, in relation to the extermination camp?).
 * In this instance, "Extermination-camp debunked story", or something like that, might be a little clearer, because more specific.
 * Best,
 * Nihil novi (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Discredited story" would probably be better than "debunked story", because more neutral in connotation.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Suez triangle
Are we sure this article was really a hoax, rather than some fringe theory? It is at least mentioned in this paper from the East European Quarterly, with "Suez triangle" being the translated name of a Hungarian book. Opencooper (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Heh. Please see some discussions above. Setting aside the controversial case of the warsaw hoax (not a hoax IMHO...), quite a few presumed hoaxes on this page is 'arguably not a hoax'... I think some folks are way to quick to add entries here. Nothing wrong with recording Wikipedia history (and mistakes), but most of them are errors and not necessarily hoaxes... <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Some hoaxes last just a few days
See User talk:Wikigod8. Is there a way to count them all, to see how many do we catch quickly? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Horea (mythology)
Can some put [] in the list?CycoMa (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @CycoMa What's your evidence this error has been a deliberate and intentional attempt to mislead the readers, rather than just some form of a mistake? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * is that the requirement to be on the list?CycoMa (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @CycoMa From the very top of this list: "For the purpose of this list, a hoax is defined as a clear and deliberate attempt to deceptively present false information as fact. Libel, vandalism, and honest factual errors are not considered hoaxes." <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry.CycoMa (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @CycoMa No problem, but I am genuinely curious, what is/was your understanding of the concept of hoax? Why did you think the content you linked belongs here? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Super Bomberman R: New Adventures
This was in the Super Bomberman R article weeks ago. I remember seeing it, but it got removed due to the link in the citation going to a 404 page and no reliable source has been made for that sequel. Could it be a hoax? Plus, it doesn't appear via Google Search LucianoTheWindowsFan (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like either a hoax or some other unsubstantiated rumor. Regardless, it only lasted on the page for about 5 weeks (from 14 June 2021 to 21 July 2021) so it doesn't meet the threshold of this page (lasted at least 1 year or the hoax was covered in independent sources). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Verification needed for an admission to hoax claim by Michael Deacon
Our list claims that this was added by Michael Deacon who supposedly admitted to this here. The paywall defeats me (I tried IA and the Wikipedia Library, IA also seems paywalled or broken for this, and WL doesn't seem to include The Telegraph - or if it does, it's sufficiently user unfriendly to defeat my attempts to use it). Can anyone confirm this is claim is there? Or are we dealing with an amusing case of hoax on a hoax list? I am AGFing this is not the case since it was added by an editor in good standing, ping User:Fences and windows. TIA <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I quote: "Once, when I was working at a men’s magazine, a colleague was compiling a quiz about Muhammad Ali. As a test, I inserted a banal lie into Ali’s Wikipedia biography (I said a species of rose, rosa ali, is named after him). Innocently my colleague incorporated the lie into his quiz. Ten years later, on Ali’s frequently updated Wikipedia page, that lie is still there." I recorded this quote here at the time. The Telegraph article was discussed on the talk page. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think that's good enough. I think we can restore the quote to our list too --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC).  <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  14:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I also don't think the Warsaw camps and the "Klanbake" should be on this list, and other quibbles
I know this debate has raged before, but I still don't think it's been settled. Unlike other Wikipedia decisions I've had quibbles with, like page moves, no judgement ever had to be offered so I think it's appropriate to put my two cents in.

This list is for hoaxes that were first popularly disseminated by Wikipedia, not pre-existing falsehoods that got incorporated into Wikipedia by editors who thought they were true, even if said editors were biased. Neither the reports that non-Jewish Poles were gassed in Warsaw nor the claim that the press called the 1924 DNC the "Klanbake" originated on Wikipedia. The latter claim came from a sincere reading (albeit one likely motivated by bias) of a contemporary New York Daily News article that mentioned the term once, so it's just bad history and source checking, not bad Wikipedia editing. The Warsaw claim seems more like it originated as a hoax, as I can't identify where the theory's initial proponents got the idea that the tunnels were gas chambers, but it's not a hoax Wikipedia seems to have been the main disseminator of. This article's main concern should be citogenesis, not Wikipedia repeating older factual errors (although I must admit I'd like a list of such errors.) Also, I don't think sources calling it a hoax should be the guideline for what constitutes a hoax here since this isn't describing previous research the way mainspace articles do.

I don't think hoaxes have to be deliberate deception (or originate as such) to be put on this list, since the Swanson conversion one wasn't because it had been added in semi-good faith by Mr. Swanson's students, and I put that on the list myself. To be fair, I have previously expressed my opinion that WP:MADEUP cases don't belong on this list (I got the article "Who's closest" taken off this list because it was just obviously non-notable and it didn't affect anybody's knowledge about the subject). I similarly deleted an article someone made about a random quiz bowl trophy, but that doesn't go on the list since as far as I can tell no false claims were made. However, including the term "Swanson conversion" on an article about a pre-existing subject constitutes a falsification, especially since Mr. Swanson is confirmed to have left it up on purpose as a warning.

Something I myself am unclear of is how purposeless vandalism that alters existing facts should be handled. Some of the entries, such as the Saxon River being changed to the Sarah River, seem to have come from this (although it became notable since an article was created out of this vandalism). However, I discovered a 9-year old example of vandalism that appeared somewhat factual on the McDonald's article ([|added], [|removed]) and didn't consider it a hoax at the time.

As useful as it is, I also think the "hoax types" should be removed from the 8-9 years section since they're purely relics of an older discussion and these types don't get mentioned anywhere else.

In all fairness, this question might never be settled since there are no clear guidelines on what is a hoax versus other kinds of bad edit, and there usually doesn't need to be since a deletion of a unverified statement will happen no matter why it happened. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Alexschmidt711 I mostly agree with you. I see you have seen my proposed solution - categorizing of errors into types - above? From the perspective of the motivation of the person(s) who added then, Klondike and Warsaw should be "Type 4: False or unreferenced and dubious statement that may or may not be a hoax as it could arguably have been added as a mistake or in good faith". Would you concur? I am not sure if I understood what you think about it; do you think the categorization of errors in the types in unhelpful? It would allow us to organize the hoaxes by "quality" (i.e.  how likely is it that they are a real hoax), and possibly split some later into a list of long standing errors (that cannot be described as hoaxes, as we don't know the motivation of the editor who added them). I think we need to improve the list of hoaxes, most errors still don't have proper analysis, and entries mix obvious and confirmed hoaxes with various other types of errors. Removing most problematic errors is a simple solution, yes, but I'd rather preserve them somewhere else for the sake of future scholars and nerds of Wikipedia's history. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

minimum length required for a hoax/error to be listed here
I noticed that for stand-alone articles we have an arbitrary minimum of one month, but no such requirement for errors within articles, which list hoaxes/errors as short-lived as half an hour. This seems a bit too much - are we going to list all cases of slightly more advanced vandalism or errors here? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Little Typo
There is a typo in the following sentence in the section "False statements in articles."
 * "See discusion; with the only source pre-dating the Wikipedia entry being an Internet forum post from earlier that day."

Can someone correct discusion to discussion? -GoatLordServant ☂ (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Added the template for an edit request. – The Grid  ( talk )  18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ clpo13(talk) 18:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 November 2021
"Claim added by an anon to an infobox and removed fo being unreferenced over a decade earlier." The bolded word has a typo and should be "for", not "fo". Under the entry "Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny". wizzito &#124;  say hello!  06:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 12:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request - 11/20/21
The link to the archived version of Bessa Vugo is wrong and needs to be updated to. -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 12:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)