Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Archive 3

Protected edit request on 14 November 2021 (Hoaxes that should be added here)
In addition, here are some hoaxes that should be added here:
 * Articles_for_deletion/Haji_Saeed_Samadodot_Bambaras
 * Articles for deletion/Youssef Darbaki
 * Articles for deletion/Nupont
 * Articles_for_deletion/Nimism
 * Articles for deletion/Nauru Amateur Soccer Association
 * Articles for deletion/Cocos (Keeling) Islands Soccer Association
 * Articles for deletion/Christmas Island Soccer Association wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  06:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

A few more:
 * Articles for deletion/Al-Rabt
 * Articles for deletion/John Locke High School

wizzito &#124;  say hello!  06:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 November 2021
Add Above As regrettable as it is, this hoax seems to have been in the article Yardley, Pennsylvania for 5 years 3 months. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 01:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Claim the "Yardley Wolf" was a local myth/there was documentation for such wolf.
 * data-sort-value="503" | 5 years, 3 months
 * July 4, 2013
 * November 25, 2018
 * November 25, 2018
 * Claim that the "too slow" variant of a high five incited a war in the rebooted Planet of the Apes film series
 * data-sort-value="503" | 5 years, 3 months
 * August 8, 2014
 * November 5, 2019
 * ,, The first attempt to remove this was reverted by the original editor because the information came from a seemingly reliable source, but the source was making a joke.
 * ,, The first attempt to remove this was reverted by the original editor because the information came from a seemingly reliable source, but the source was making a joke.
 * , Can you discuss the research that went into establishing this is a hoax? Was there any discussion anywhere, or is it just your conclusion (based on what?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor who removed it claimed it was a hoax put there themself. Other than a few non-reliable sources, such as a hair salon and a car dealership mentioning it – likely copied from the wikipedia article when it had that information in it, I cannot find any reference of it. It is possible that the editor who removed it is not the actual editor who inserted it, but the lack of any real evidence of the Yardley Wolf from my research plus the editors claim in the removal that it was a hoax leads me to believe that this very likely was a hoax. Furthermore, I was unable to find any reference to the photograph supposedly taken in 1978 anywhere in, the news, news archives, or even on crytid websites. Having said that, upon doing deeper research to debunk it does seem the Yardley Yeti, not mentioned in this and seemingly wholly unrelated to the Yardley Wolf myth that was sourced out of nowhere, is a somewhat known, but not particularly notable cryptid that does look like a wolf, but absolutely none of the "story" matches the one in the article, with there being some local news coverage and a few mentions on cryptid boards, but nothing has this story going back before 2006 like claimed in the edit that stayed up for this long and an editor who tried to steer it in the right direction by changing the title of the section (although not changing anything written within the section) was reverted back to the Yardley Wolf. If this is not a hoax, then it's unbelievably poor researching + a neologism invented for wikipedia. I can see why with the "existence" of the Yardley Yeti this might be a borderline case, but as the article appeared, it at no point mentioned the covered Yardley Yeti other than a reverted edit (revert: ). snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 14:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Snood1205 Thanks for taking the time to elaborate! I think we can include this, but would be good to provide a more detailed analysis, see also the typology of errors, with hoax at the extreme spectrum, used in some entries now and proposed above (see the RfC section). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * reading the RfC above I'm finding it hard to determine myself whether or not this qualifies as a hoax, mostly because it relies somewhat upon the removal statement Removed a story I made up in 2013 to teach my brother not to quote wikipedia.. being accurate. The information is certainly inaccurate and does not really seem to relate in any way to the Yardley Yeti, but also to be extremely charitable it could be possible that there was a false derivation story made up for the Yardley Yeti added by someone to the story who also had the name incorrectly. I think the so-called existence of a cryptid by the name of the Yardley Yeti that shares tiny, tiny bits of similarity with the Yardley Wolf, but not enough to realistically say that the two are really linked makes it just a hard determination. I personally want to lean towards hoax, but if someone else overrides that I'm fine with that. I will also participate in the RfC above, thank yo for alerting it to my existence. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 21:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Snood1205 What do you think about classyfing it sas a likely, but not proven hoax? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense! I know this technically is no longer an WP:ER, but at this point it's useful for guidance anyways. Would you advise type 3 which is Possible hoax but with room for doubt? Thanks so much for all your help with this. I really appreciate it. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Objection to erasure of sourced material by WP:COI users
This is unacceptable. Find a consensus first. Let nonpartisan editors opine.--Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC) strike sock Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek
 * You’re in violation of the 500/30 restriction account with name that translates as “Poland is greatest” .  Volunteer Marek   20:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Let nonpartisan editors opine." But they did. There was an RfC and majority of participants concurred that problematic entries (the Warsaw one is just one of many) can be removed (although I still prefer saving them, preferably by splitting them into a list of long standing errors or such). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure I recall an RfC. Link? - Ryk72 talk 21:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they're referring to this one. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Qwaiiplayer@Ryk72 I don't think that was an RfC. I meant above, which was listed at RfC for several weeks (notice removal by bot). Note that the Warsaw case is just one of numerous problematic entries in the current article (as in, errors that are not meeting our definition of what constitues a hoax, i.e. "deliberate attempt to mislead"). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  23:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah... that is indeed an RfC. It is disappointing that it was not better attended by editors uninvolved. "Nonpartisan" is, charitably, a stretch. - Ryk72 talk 23:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * While I consider the accusations of COI to be absurd to begin with... as a reminder, WP:COI only applies to article space anyway (read WP:COIEDIT and WP:ARTICLE.)  It doesn't apply on an internal Wikipedia page like this one in any case. Piotrus and VM could literally be getting paid by the government of Warsaw (or somesuch) to edit Wikipedia and they would still be allowed to edit this page, since it's not in article space. --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hoax wave
In the table for 10+ year hoaxes, sorting on the 'Deletion date' column, by count: Any ideas why it's so asymmetrical when long-term hoaxes were discovered? -- Green  C  06:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2021: 20
 * 2020: 11
 * 2019: 7
 * 2018: 3
 * 2017: 1
 * 2016: 2
 * 2015: 1


 * To be on the site more than 10 years in 2015, the article would have to be created in 2005 or earlier, when there were far fewer total articles. Since the total number of articles has continuously increased, as has the public profile of Wikipedia in general, it doesn't seem surprising that the number of hoax articles would also increase over time. If the percentage of hoaxes that are unidentified is constant and the total increases, then the number surviving each year would increase. --RL0919 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's odd about 40% of the long-term hoaxes were discovered in a single year, 2021. It's lumpy. When the hoaxes were created is more homogeneous. -- Green  C  06:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Chloroorganic carrier


This article was recently deleted with a PROD rationale implying that it was an apparent hoax. Does it qualify as a hoax, and what year was the page created? –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 06:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The deleted version was made 21 December 2014 by a sockpuppet named .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: How to clean-up "Hoax statements in articles" section?
This page includes many entries about supposed hoaxes that do not meet the inclusion criteria (quoting from this very article: "For the purpose of this list, a hoax is defined as a clear and deliberate attempt to deceptively present false information as fact."). And from WP:HOAX "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real". Also, please note this is not a wiki-jargon issue: from Hoax: "a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth", CED "a plan to deceive someone". The key issue is that a hoax needs to be deliberate, but we don't have any proof that this is the case for many entries here, most of which are just various errors - but ones that could've been added in good faith. Calling them hoaxes violates WP:AGF and creates a misleading impression that many errors on Wikipedia are deliberate - a violation of Hanlon's razor, better known as the adage "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Please read below for a more detailed analysis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This is particularly true for the List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia section. While arguably an entire entry about an entity that doesn't exist (a hoax article as commonly understood) is more likely to be a deliberate joke, most of the entries in the 'hoax statements in the article' sections are very short. This is related to what User:Tamzin in the discussions above referred to as a "degree of elaborateness", a helpful concept that the longer the problematic piece is, the more likely it is an intentional hoax as the likelihood of it being some other form of error decreases.

Arguably worse is the issue that for the vast majority of entries here we have a total absence of evidence that the person who added it knew this was an error (which violates WP:AGF by assuming they indented some intentional deception; numerous good faithed alternatives for an honest mistake could be considered instead: they could've misread the source, used an unreliable source that is uncited/undigitized, were duped themselves or otherwise believed that the information they are adding is genuine, made a copypaste error such as adding a true fact but to a wrong article, saved an accidental editing experiment, or were not in full control of their faculties - just distracted, drunk, had mental issues, etc.).

I looked at over a dozen or so entries in that section, starting from the top. Most are just a case of a sentence or few added with without a reference and removed after some time when no reference has been found: Claim #2, Claim #3 , Claim #6 , Claim #9 , Claim #10 , Claim #12 ... . Vast majority is uncontroversial but plausible, some more, some less (Claim #10 ) but still within the realm of AGF that the editor who added it could be convinced this is true (ex. may sound funny but it is also a perfectly imaginably copypaste or 'brain freeze' error). Claim #1 is an example a fringe/conspiracy theory added before it was declared as such by reliable sources (Warsaw_concentration_camp/Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media), so despite being described as a hoax by some media it is clearly just an error (per discussion above, there is zero evidence that the editor who added it first knew it was not true and arguably it might have been even not possible for them to know that at this point). Claim #4 links to 1924_Democratic_National_Convention, a well-referenced section about a meme which doesn't even use the word hoax in our article nor in either of the two sources cited ; while arguably this "seems" like a hoax, there is again zero evidence it was added to Wikipedia in bad faith or that it originated here. So #1 and #4 are good examples of errors that did gain some media attention, but that neither originated on Wikipedia, not are likely to have been added here with the intention to mislead - both spread through various other platforms and did succeed in duping quite a few people in the general public before being debunked as hoaxes, and it is very likely that whoever added it here was mislead by other media into believing those claims (also, for neither there is proof that the original inventor of those ideas was attempting to intentionally mislead anyone anyway - both could be cases of some crappy but well-meaning research). Claim #7 is seemingly based on the assessment by the editor who removed it that "Bandung Recordings" label didn't exist but a quick search suggests that maybe it did (should we have a section for entries added to that list and then identified as actually correct? This claim existed on our list for about three weeks before it was removed).

Many entries here are no different from such as / Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Archive 2 above, the difference is that sometimes nobody cares to challenge another editor's claim that a minor error was a "hoax".

Claim #8 is interesting. Per - " The identity of that first Wikipedia user to write about it—with those completely unrelated sources—remains a mystery, but all available evidence suggests that it was a person having a laugh, nothing more." - although that article also stated that "the second Wikipedia editor—who perpetuated the earlier misinformation on Moose Boulder—had been “genuinely duped” rather than [being] a conspirator. " And even then that article has no "smoking gun" that the first editor who added it really was trying to mislead people. Maybe it was someone who heard a local urban legend or was duped into believing it, and then added it to Wikipedia?

The first foolproof hoax in that section seems to be #12 where a confession is linked. Another is here:. There are few others, including the famous Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, where we have reliable sources coverage of the hoaxter admitting that they added the error deliberately and apologizing. But those are exceptions. Most of the entries here are effectively a "bad faith" assumption that some uncited error was a hoax with no evidence that this was a clear and deliberate attempt to deceptively present false information as fact (the criteria of the list here).

Lastly, there are a few cases in that section where the hoax was lengthy enough to merit consideration of meeting the "degree of elaborateness". For example, Claim #5 is 346 words or pose, that's more than a WP:STUB criteria of 250 words - it's hard to believe someone can make an honest mistake with that many details, all that fail verification. But pretty much all others I've reviewed are just a few sentences, often only one or two at best.

Based on this, I think that we need to consider cleaning this "list of hoaxes" up. We can arguably consider the following entries "safe": those which contain a clear admission of guilt by the editor who inserted the errors, and those where the content labelled as "likely hoax" is longer than then 250 words (in other words, longer than a classic "stub"). Due to "degree of elaborateness", the list of hoax articles is arguably mostly fine but due to much smaller "degree of elaborateness", most of the entries in the "Hoax statements in articles" are much likely to be so. I therefore suggest that we consider one of the courses of actions, listed below, for all entries in that section that do not meet one of the two exceptions above:


 * Option 1: Moved to List of errors removed from Wikipedia in articles
 * Option 2: Just discarded (as arguably trying to list all errors in Wikipedia articles could require a wiki that is even larger than Wikipedia itself...).
 * Option 3: Moved to a subpage List of possible hoaxes on Wikipedia or List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/candidates] or such, where each would need to be reviewed in a dedicated discussion to make sure that they meet criteria for inclusion and common-sense definition of what a hoax is.
 * Option 4: Kept, but instead rename the subsection "Hoax statements in articles" to something else (what?).
 * Option 5: Kept, no change is needed, move on.

Feel free to propose new options for solving this mess. Thank you for reading this :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, your analysis seems to me eminently sensible.
 * The word "hoax" is generally used in one of two senses: that of a joke (April fools), or that of a fraud (Piltdown man).
 * Either case requires conscious intent. The jokester means to amuse or to evoke some other response.
 * The perpetrator of a fraud must show "mens rea" (Latin: "a guilty mind"). In this fraud sense of "hoax", if there is no mens rea (guilty mind), then there is no hoax. It's as simple as that.
 * In the list of options above, I would only modify the verbs' past tenses to imperative mood: thus, "moved" to "move"; "discarded" to "discard"; and "kept" to "keep".
 * It is indeed time to rectify misnomers. (Another that comes to mind is the use of "nationalist", when "chauvinist" is clearly meant.)
 * Nihil novi (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nihil novi Thank you for your endorsement. Do you have a preference for solutions I listed above as "options"? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, you have identified two unequivocal classes of hoaxes – stories acknowledged as such by their originators, and stories elaborated to an extent that clearly indicates premeditated fraud. And, subtracting those two classes, what is left is run-of-the-mill errors.
 * I see no reason to treat such errors differently than other errors (unless an error has garnered such broad interest that it irresistibly demands preservation in, or as part of, a Wikipedia article or in a list).
 * So, in general, I think I would vote for choice 2: simply discard the error.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Some additional info that might be useful: The section in question originally didn't exist. Both entire articles and statements in articles were listed in the same table. In June 2019 I decided to make this separation (at the time using my old account) because I believed those short excerpts belonged to a wholly different category.


 * While I agree that the longer a false statement the more likely it is to be deliberate (and the opposite logic as well), what seems to matter more here is how long those false statements went on unchanged. Some persisted for years on those important, long articles, and the falsehoods were even replicated elsewhere, which is very different from a line of false information staying for one or two days on a recently-created stub. We already have a page for the much more numerable short-lived "hoaxes" (which, I agree, should be renamed to "errors" or something else). Additionally, I agree that the existence of intention (or mens rea) is difficult to assess is some cases.


 * Finally, I will propose one possible solution (I'm not strongly advocating it; just suggesting): Change everything that says "hoaxes" to "long-standing errors" or something similar to it (that would include, of course, renaming this page). In the lead we may say that the false statements might be hoaxes (thus respecting the "assume the good faith" rule) or even that the articles are likely hoaxes, citing the analysis that a longer and more elaborate falsehood is more likely to be a hoax. - Munmula (talk), second account of  Alumnum 09:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Alumnum How about adding a new table column, something like "evidence of deception", in which we would have the analysis/link of why we think a given entry is a hoax (such as 'admission' or 'degree of elaborateness'? All other entries could be moved or removed (per User:Alsee). Also, what do with entries like 'warsaw' or 'Boulder Island', where outside sources used the word 'Wikipedia hoax' but without actually providing any evidence that the initial error was added as a deliberate and intentional attempt to mislead? In the discussions above from last month or two, several editors thought that existence of an outside source that calls something a hoax is significant, even if no evidence of this really being a hoax exists. At the same time, I find this logic hard to follow, and it also reminds me of CITOGENESIS problem (we make an error, an outside source repeats it, the error can now be 'reliably referenced'). In those two cases it seems to be 'we have an erroneous statement in the article, an outside but generally reliable source assumes bad faith on the part of the editor who added it but without obtaining their confession, calls it a hoax, then the entry is "referenced" in our list to that outside, reliable source). Maybe we should have a third category here in addition to "admission" and "degree of elaborateness"? Something like "called a hoax by outside, reliable source, but without concrete proof"? We could color code this to be 'red', something like color coding in the Deprecated sources, perhaps? (Also ping User:Nihil novi, I think that's everyone  who participated in this thread so far?) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That would seem a pretty comprehensive solution to the problems discussed to this point. Perhaps implement it, then see whether further refinements may be needed?
 * Nihil novi (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and delete any dubious/useless items. They may simply be discarded - anyone who does see reason to copy anything to anywhere is free to do so. (At first I thought this was an article page and wrote an extended proposal regarding WP:LISTCRITERIA etc etc etc.) Alsee (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, go ahead and delete any dubious/useless items to start. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  07:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We have also page List of Wikipedia controversies in main... Dawid2009 (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dawid2009 That's a bit different beast, although may need fact checking too. Not all controversies are hoaxes (and vice versa). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 5: While I agree with the reasoning that “hoax” is tough to show and entries here are often flawed, my conclusion is that this means clean-up is not really needed as such a list just cannot get to cleaned-up.   If anything, I would suggest adding a disclaimer of being imperfect in the first few lines.  While I would like WP to show more restraint with WP:LABEL such as “hoax”, short of deleting the article or a disclaimer, I don’t think anything is needed.  Do cases if you wish - but no change really needed..   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2, or, failing that, Option 1, with Option 3 as a distant third. Strenuously oppose options 4 or 5 in strongest possible terms - categorizing something as a hoax absolutely requires deliberate intent; without that, listing something on this page has no meaning.  Remember, this is an internal page intended to help us track patterns and find deliberate hoaxes by Wikipedia editors.  It isn't an article; it is not informational in any other way and is not intended to serve as a general list of things people outside Wikipedia have described as hoaxes. Any entry that isn't a clear hoax by a Wikipedia user dilutes the list and weakens its already-tenuous purpose. --Aquillion (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 then Option 1 - per Aquillion. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  11:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 then Option 1 an error is hardly a hoax, unless a malicious intent is clearly demonstrated.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Malformed then Option 5, broadly per the reasoning of, above. Also per "NOT BROKEN". The question is neither concise nor necessarily neutral. Explicitly reject the reasoning in the "preamble"; we do not need separate, independent, proof positive of an intention to deceive. - Ryk72 talk 23:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on the above, I am starting a new column for entries, tentatively called "Error type", see List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia, which is short and seems to have four different errors, one fitting each of the four proposed type of errors I propose to use. I'll try to categorize entries (errors) into: 1) Type 1: Admitted hoax (no room for doubt) 2) Type 2: Obvious hoaxes (because of a, elaborateness or b, pattern of vandalism by the account added), 3) Type 3: Possible hoax but with room for doubt and 4) 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. Please let me know what you think. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 5: per above. But I also support the recently added column for an analysis of the type of hoax/error.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 19:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 seems fair to me. We have plenty of space, and sometimes an error is just that. If I wrote in 2008 that so-and-so was born in 1894, go back today with a better source and write 1895, that’s an example of an error rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. Might as well have a separate place for those. — Biruitorul Talk 12:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 6 (very similar to 1,3,4) This whole page should be renamed for semething like: "List of substantive errors which resulted in criticism of Wikipedia". If we have Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia then I do not see why we can not have page with "significant errors" on Wikipedia. We would mark, which are WP:hoax, which not, which were trying to add into signpost and which were rejected there etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 7. Delete this page even though this is not main space. This list is an example of meaningless pseudohistory. Checking a few AfD discussions linked from this page shows that all of that is basically internet garbage, unlike real life hoaxes, some of which are notable. Someone made a mistake or a stupid joke in WP space. It was fixed. Great. Who cares? My very best wishes (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, but I don't think an RFC can do that - we would have to go through WP:MFD. --Aquillion (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, MFD it is. But it seems unlikely to succeed. And perhaps it would be fine to keep as a project-related folklore, but this seem to be recently exploited and led to enormous waste of time by a number of participants. Still, this page looks to me as a self-attack page produced by WP. My very best wishes (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's at least worth a try. It's hard to articulate what useful purpose this page serves. Its stated reason for existence is to help us identify future hoaxes; but as far as I can tell it has never assisted in identifying a single one. And as an internal page it has no standards for sourcing or reliability, so it isn't a useful information resource to anyone - worse, there is some evidence external sources are treating it as meeting our editorial, sourcing, reliability standards even though it doesn't, since they presumably assume all pages on Wikipedia are equally reliable - an absolutely massive red flag to me that this page's purpose has drifted into something that goes against our purpose as an encyclopedia, serving as a sort of "loophole article" that is being used to post WP:OR / WP:SYNTH outside of our usual standards by slipping content that ought to be an article, and which external readers are treating as an article, into Wikipedia namespace. That alone would be bad enough, but it's also become a seemingly endless font of drama and wasted energy, turning it into a pure net negative with no useful purpose or upsides. Lots of people are tired of the useless drama this page has generated; it is possible that if these arguments are presented to a larger audience it can finally be condemned to its well-deserved grave. If people think it's really essential to document hoaxes on Wikipedia articles, the place to do it is in article space, where we can at least apply proper editorial, sourcing, and WP:DUE standards. --Aquillion (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. My very best wishes (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This page is vital, otherwise citogenesis of old hoaxes might not be recognised. Also it provides a useful reminder that WP can be a very unreliable source. No harm in that.Tullimonstrum (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Tastet
An article from 17 September 2011 was recently PRODded with evidence that it was a hoax created as a marketing ploy for a restaurant. It purports to describe a tradition in Catalan culture of serving small portions of food. If deleted, would it be eligible for inclusion on this list? –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Ruda Real/Kairuba Brown might have been real
Ruda Real is currently listed as the longest-lasting hoax on the English Wikipedia. However, I think he might have actually existed. All of the releases he has credits on on Discogs seem to exist, and I was able to find a full upload of the album How Cold Am I on YouTube. A listen reveals that the song You Don't Wanna F*ck With Me, which Ruda Real is credited with singing on on Discogs, does exist (listenable at 8:13). An obituary for Brown at Sysoon also exists, with more details about him (such as his apparent middle initial and ZIP code) than were covered in the deleted article, making it seem as though the details were not just copied from Wikipedia. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So perhaps real, just non-notable. I will remove it. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  12:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Pringles hoax
I was going to add this after being reverted by the hoaxer as I added it in the wrong place:


 * Claim that Julius Pringles is the full name of the Pringles mascot Mr. Pringle.
 * data-sort-value="1503" | 15 years 3 months
 * December 4, 2006
 * March 22, 2022
 * https://www.reviewgeek.com/113265/the-pringle-mans-name-is-an-epic-wikipedia-hoax/
 * The hoax was admitted to on Twitter in March 2022 - but due to citogenesis, Kelloggs officially adopted the name in 2013.
 * The hoax was admitted to on Twitter in March 2022 - but due to citogenesis, Kelloggs officially adopted the name in 2013.

The problem with the entry is that the name Julius Pringles became official in 2013, after 6 years, so the hoax was not removed but revealed. I'm not sure how to best log this. See Talk:Pringles for more info. Fences &amp;  Windows  21:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * (I meant to post this here, not at the other page). Sounds like it is by now a former hoax. (And we have only the editor's word that it ever was a hoax). —Kusma (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Mashable says "However, the internet never forgets, and in this case there are enough Julius-related breadcrumbs leading back to Platypus222 to lend some serious credibility to his claim." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent. We could add a new "Former hoaxes" subsection then. —Kusma (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It sort of fits under False statements in articles, though it may not be obvious when it stopped being false. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a hoax?
Articles for deletion/Victor Cannella The research conducted at this AFD seems to suggest that Victor Cannella might be a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hoax?
Kunlun Mountain Fist seems to be a hoax. I get only 50 results on Google, all Wikipedia mirrors. The article was created on November 5, 2009 by a user who only made one other martial arts article and narrowly avoided A1 deletion the same day. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a hoax in that it's presented as real but it's based on fiction. See Kunlun Sect. Which makes me think Kunlunquan this is also a hoax. PRAXIDICAE💕  18:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm positive the last one is a hoax or it's written entirely wrong because there are 0 results for it in zhwiki. PRAXIDICAE💕  18:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've got both at PROD. Think they're good to add once deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Pope Krav hoax
I have added the citogenesis incident of 'pope Krav' at List of citogenesis incidents, but I have not added it to List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. If you beliee this incident should be added here, feel free to do so. Veverve (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ruda Real/Kairuba Brown real?
I saw a previous discussion on this person/topic that supposedly unmasked the hoax of "Ruda Real/Kairuba Brown" being real and not a hoax. However, the sources that they cited (Discogs and Sysoon) have make me wonder if they are considered WP:RS or not. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

fix lint errors in Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Curtis James
In List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Curtis James:

To fix Bogus file options lint errors and restore original lost content, please change (remove pipe):



to

and also change (remove pipe):

to

To fix Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4 and Special:LintErrors/stripped-tag lint errors, without changing appearance, please remove:
 * before
 * after

—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Grinzola
It looks like Lurking shadow and I reached the same conclusion about a few seconds apart, namely that the cheese probably exists but is just very obscure, based on this image of a label for it. I explained that on the article's talkpage, and LS explained that in an edit summary here. Contra your last edit summary, the onus is on those claiming a hoax to show that it was one. That's a matter of behavioral guidelines, since in this case the editor who created the article is in good standing (if inactive), and calling it a hoax is an allegation of misconduct on their part. In light of the image of a real-seeming label for grinzola cheese, do you have evidence that this is nonetheless a hoax? If not, please self-revert. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 15:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Aside from the single image of a piece of cheese, there are no other sources anywhere, including da sources to support its existence. PRAXIDICAE💕  16:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is a good point if this were AfD... But this is the list of hoaxes. We don't include things on this list that might be real. The image of a label for a wheel of grinzola suggests that it might be real. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 16:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The PROD has been challenged, so I've removed the entry from this list. Those still convinced it's a hoax can AfD it, although to list it here, we would need both a finding at AfD that it doesn't exist and a general consensus that the article's creator was intentionally hoaxing, per this list's lede: 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. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 16:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are saying that this is an elaborate hoax by the Wellcome Collection, a museum? The interpretation of this being an obscure brand of cheese is far more likely.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Praxidicae: The cheese was mentioned in a book pre-1998: https://archive.org/details/shoppersguidetoo0000brow/page/162/mode/2up?q=grinzola I don't see how it's notable, but if it is a hoax, it is a pretty big one. —Kusma (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Merritt method
Is Merritt method obvious enough to be considered a hoax? A Google search returns nothing but mirrors. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Rough Crossing (TV series)
Rough Crossing (TV series) seems like it may be a hoax. All of the actors, the production company, and everything else associated is a redlink. The only hits I can find are directory listings like IMDb and Wikipedia mirrors. For a show that aired from 1997-2005, you'd think there'd be some trace of it online, a plot synopsis, or info about the actors, but I haven't found a thing to prove that this even existed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There's A Wocket In My Pocket
Between January 21st, 2009 and February 12, 2014 the page for There's a Wocket in My Pocket claimed that the 1996 reprint of the book had removed several characters from the original, such as the "Vug under the rug", the "Red under the bed", and the "Burnace in the furnace", supposedly because they were too scary for children. The Vug is present in the book, and is still in the 1996 reprint, but the Red and the Burnace have never been in any version. Given that this misinformation survived on the page for over five years, I think it should be considered a notable Wikipedia hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.166.188 (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Shep Unplugged
I am about 99% sure Shep Unplugged is a hoax. It was created on September 22, 2007 by an editor who touched almost nothing else. The only hits on Google are for Wikipedia mirrors or false positives. No results on Newspapers.com, ProQuest, GNews, or GBooks. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Paul D. Lynn
PRODder notes that search engine returns no relevant results about this supposed Egyptologist, and at least two of the references appear to be fictitious. This page was created at 17:19, 29 December 2009. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 04:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Corporate censorship
Until today, the artile included an unreferenced claim about a supposed Saturday Night Live sketch that was allegedly removed from repeats at the request of General Electric. It was seemingly added in this edit on 10 May 2007. I could not verify that such a sketch existed; in particular, the quote from the lyrics returned zero non-mirror results, and none of the key quotes appear in Croteau and Hoynes (2006). –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 13:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Well it is in the March 14, 1998 episode. I have a copy of the original broadcast. You can view it here. None of those are acceptable sources, but it was mentioned in Live from New York:
 * Another week Smigel did a cartoon about global businesses, GE being one of them, and their connection to Ted Kaczynski, the serial bomber. The notion that global businesses were running the world was basically the theme of the piece. It was a very clever sketch. When I saw it, I immediately passed it on up the line, to whoever was in charge, because I wanted everyone to know what was going on. Standards tentatively okayed it, and we put it on, and it aired once. But then it got pulled from the repeats. And Smigel, I remember, was all upset about it being taken out of the repeats. I said, “Robert, it got on the air. You were not censored. It got on the first time.” It got on once—but never again.
 * You can search for the phrases above and find that it really is in the book here (sorry I'm not seeing a way to link to the page for this book). So the sketch itself is not a hoax, it definitely existed, but using it as an example of corporate censorship probably isn't justifiable. I'm not sure if Snopes is an acceptable source these days, but here's what they say about the issue specifically of whether it was corporate censorship (they list it as "mostly false" but again it's not in doubt that the sketch existed). --Here2rewrite (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ruda Real
the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Ruda_Real is not actually a hoax, the first link list the artist of keep moving as Ruda real and the 2ed link is the song keep moving uncredit on youtube

https://www.discogs.com/ko/release/7502811-Adolesent-Kingpin-Bout-Dat-Drama

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQDEBZkho5s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefloormat (talk • contribs) 13:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. The article was awful and the subject was non-notable, but it looks to me like a garden variety "use Wikipedia to make a page about my garage band / music career" deal.  That's not the same as a hoax.  I think it should be removed from this list.  SnowFire (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, Kairuba Brown's death was reported by the Social Security Death Index, so he was definitely a real person. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah this seems more like a non-notable musician article that was formatted properly so it didn't get noticed for a long time. The article listed as Wikipedia's longest-running hoax should probably be an unambiguous hoax, not something that can be called a hoax only if you think everything without proper sourcing is a hoax. Many of them are perfectly true, just not notable. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Discogs is unreliable, someone could've uploaded without merit on youtube. Neither of those debunk the hoax. I cannot verify the SSDI index, can anybody confirm if it says his date of death? Place of death? 204.144.15.9 (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, we don't know 100%. But there's major reasons to doubt this is a hoax.  The threshold for inclusion here should be being pretty darn sure it's a hoax, like 90%+ sure.  Ruda Real is, generously, a 50% chance of hoax that involves multiple fake uploads after the fact.  And more generally, the fact pattern isn't that interesting.  The Ruda Real article didn't claim he was a CIA assassin or something, just that he was a minor singer who died in a car accident.  If it turns out that's incorrect, that's more like garden variety exaggerations in non-notable topics deleted every day, not a hoax.  Also, agree Kairuba Brown was a real person,  this obituary of his mother mentions him (wayback machine confirms this was uploaded way back by 2013).  SnowFire (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * At this point I think we need an entirely separate page to discuss this issue. This portion has been removed and re-added so many times that I don't see any other option besides this. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies SnowFire, I didn't mean to reply to you. My point was that I believe there needs to be a consensus regarding this sort of thing, hence why I'm proposing taking this issue to a separate page to discuss further. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC).
 * Can anybody tell me where I can go to make a discussion thread about this? 100.7.36.213 (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no need to make such a separate thread. Please read WP:NOTBURO.  SnowFire (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree there's no need to make one when I could just make an RfC. In fact, it was an RfC that I was originally thinking of, it just didn't properly register in my head. However, after narrowly avoiding an edit war suspension and reading up on the "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" category over at WP:RFCCAT, I'm not sure I even want to make an RFC anymore. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering you removed this entry yourself earlier (diff), before restoring it now and demanding a big discussion first, I'm inclined to think you're just a troll trying to draw attention and start a fight. On the off chance you are not a troll, this is not a big issue, it is a standard issue resolved by editing and talk page discussion (aka here).  Especially for hoaxes, the goal is to prevent them, not to celebrate them or draw attention to them.  You seem to want to draw attention to this which is the opposite of the goal here.  SnowFire (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That edit was reverted by 204.144.15.9, who expressly believed it was a hoax. The possibility that there are people like them out there who share that opinion, who naturally would disagree with people like you who believe otherwise, combined with two back-and-forth reverts happening over a three-month period between March and May of this year, inspired me to come here and try to resolve the issue. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

(un-indent) If you want to play bureaucracy simulator, go to another site; again, please read WP:NOTBURO. 99.9% of things on Wikipedia are decided by standard back-and-forth bold editing, 0.09% involve talk page discussions, and 0.01% decided by RFCs. People add, edit, and remove entries all the time with only edit summaries. If you want to make an affirmative case yourself that this should be restored (and can explain your mysterious shift in opinion), fine, let's hear it, but proxy editing on someone else's months-old opinion - an IP editor no less - is not something needed nor appreciated. This will be my last comment assuming any good faith. SnowFire (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, fine. I'll drop it for now. However, if at any point in the future I see that Ruda Real has been re-added and removed from the hoax museum again, I'll be back here to further discuss this issue. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking back at this wall of text, I see what the problem was. I determined there was no consensus regarding whether Ruda Real was a hoax, so I wanted to make an RfC to establish consensus. However, I wanted to put it under the "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" category, and WP:RFCCAT said I shouldn't apply them to a specific case. So I decided to request permission to publish the RfC before I did so, but I did not communicate this very well, which led to a miscommunication between me and SnowFire. I apologize if I came across as a troll, but that was not my intention.
 * To clear up a few things: 1) I did not restore the removal I made in the link provided by SnowFire, it was the IP that did that. 2) I wasn't at all trying to "make an affirmative case that this should be restored", my case was that a consensus should established as to whether or not it should be in the museum to begin with. Like I said, I did not communicate this very well, and for that, I apologize. 3) To explain my mysterious shift in opinion, I read the first four comments made by Thefloormat, SnowFire, Alexschmidt711, and Here2rewrite and removed the page with the reason "See talk page," referring to their comments. Then the IP reverted the edit and, in the process, prompted me to reconsider my stance. This, combined with a series of edits that occurred between March and May of this year, was the straw that broke the camel's back. The moment I realized this, I came here, and the rest is history.
 * If there's anything specific I need to apologize for, please let me know and I'll do just that. However, I would like to specifically apologize to SnowFire for being rude, impatient, and obtrusive. I did not communicate my intentions very well, which led to a massive argument between us that easily could've and should've been avoided. I still want to make the RfC, but I will not be doing so anytime soon. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

SPA blocking request (resolved - wrong place)

 * Archiving in a collapsible. It's just for cleaner browsing, open if you want. --WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't every single hoax article archived?
Persistent hoaxes are an interesting topic ever since I discovered the page a month ago, but I wonder why every single article wasn't archived. Lack of time, maybe? Just curious. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, for a while I was listing every single newly-tagged hoax article that was more than a year old and confirmed to be a hoax, but at one point I got tired of doing that. Also, sometimes people won't bother with the hoax tag, and just mark the article for deletion, making it much harder to find. Ionmars10 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you (sorry for late reply). I was wondering since some hoax articles weren't archived on the Wayback Machine. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no accepted policy for "saving" hoaxes. Perhaps an ovvereaction to WP:BJADON days. A while ago I tried some cleanup here, but I run out of steam. There's a ton of problems here, accidental mistakes that are called hoaxes, etc. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I guess we should only archive articles if we really want to (Wayback Machine or not). WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. it's okay. You don't need to clean it up if it means you'll run out of steam. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Need help adding a hoax in "false statements" correctly
I got hasty and added something that irritated me for a while, as it's implausible (voice actor hoax for a silent slapstick cartoon, Oggy and the Cockroaches), but how do you do it? You can see my addition in the edit history. I need to figure stuff out because it got bad when that rumor spread.

I removed my old thread regarding this too, just to put my addition in (aside from lack of activity), not knowing how rows worked. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I know, I keep talking about this show. But trust me, I'm just glad Zig & Sharko is SOMEHOW lucky from all this voice cast nonsense. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, this is just because I realize things like a hoax I archived needing to be moved to the miscellaneous list of hoaxes that lasted less than one year. History looked messy cause of it, but I just need to know how things work. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Admitting I made a little mistake
So I added a draft article that was moved under 1 month in List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Less than one year, I'll probably add that back once 1 month has passed. P.S. it's okay to delete some of the things I archive. At least the IP who made all those weird WP:MADEUP drafts got blocked now. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Alan MacMasters
Seems very likely that Alan MacMasters, supposed inventor of the electric toaster and extant on Wikipedia for over 9 years is a hoax. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but we will need an admin to determine the exact date it was created. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 03:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was created 08:30, 17 February 2013 by Gustave.iii. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And a couple minutes later Gustave.iii linked to it from the toaster article, which cited the Daily Mirror. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mirror article was written ten years ago today, 1 September 2012, and still claims MacMasters invented the toaster – no correction has been posted to the story yet. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Jemal Thompson
Could someone add Jemal Thompson, a made-up football player for the Toronto Argonauts (deleted at AFD here), to the list? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @BeanieFan11 Feel free to, but since the article was made in 2011, you may use a duration calculator to put the article in the correct category. You may ask for editors of the article to help make the addition be organized correctly... just tech-y Wikipedia stuff. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Mount Malaueg
See Articles for deletion/Mount Malaueg appears to have existed for at least 10 years.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The Rock Gang
I know The Rock Gang was a G3 blatant hoax, but do you know if it’s archived anywhere? I need a good laugh. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

International Drift Championship Racing
I just deleted this article in a PROD and when I looked at the page history and talk page, editors who know something about racing claim it was a hoax and the drivers listed on the article were in other locations during this time period. The article was created in 2006. But how can you know for sure when content that some brand new editors say is false, is an actual hoax article? How do you prove a negative, that something didn't happen? Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Fier Fair Football Tournament
This was a hoax article that had been on wikipedia for years! Should have been added to the list. Govvy (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Atwan Al Atwani
I suspect this supposed Iraqi politician is a hoax. Atwani is a meme in Iraq to describe metrosexual boys 2600:100C:A210:2BB2:6D3F:47BC:67EA:EFF0 (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The sources do back up his name and that he's the governor; I suppose the uncited claims in the article could plausibly be fake (that he was born in 1973 and that he has an engineering degree), but I wouldn't worry that he's entirely a hoax. I suppose he just has an unfortunate name. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Ruda Real archive copy deletion request
I request that List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Ruda_Real be deleted due to not being a hoax. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You can vote for a deletion request at Miscellany for deletion? It's not in the mainspace, so... I may be wrong. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's fully protected, and I prefer to remain anonymous at the moment, so that's a no-go. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I was looking at the wrong section of the page. My bad. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have no idea what I'm looking at. I can't create a template because the page is fully protected, but I also can't add the page to the Current discussions section without doing so, so what gives? 100.7.36.213 (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I filed the nomination for deletion on your behalf. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 100.7.36.213 (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we please remove Ruda Real once and for all? As the person who originally thought this was a hoax and added it to the list, I'm convinced based on obituary mentions and YouTube music uploads that this was likely a real person - not just one of note. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  07:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm the person behind the previous IP address, which got changed recently. I made an Mfd to remove the archive copy but botched it, so I was wondering if you could do a better job with another Mfd. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll think about it. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  19:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just want to note on the MfD, provided a valid argument on that this might be a hoax. If the article existed for 17 years, it's no question WP:CITOGEN would be inevitable when looking up "Ruda Real". –  The Grid  ( talk )  18:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been almost a month, Wizzito. If you haven't made a final decision, you are free to continue deliberating. If you have, please say it now. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Let’s summarise the case here. Kudos to everyone who did all this research.
 * Fact: Kairuba Brown is listed in the Social Security Death Index as having been born on 5 June 1977 and having died on 29 January 2006 (exactly as stated in the deleted article).
 * Fact: There was an extremely obscure singer/rapper called Ruda Real (also rendered Ru Da Real) who made a few songs from 1997–1999. The Discogs biography appears to have been copied from the deleted article.
 * Fact: The late 90s Ruda Real linked above sang three songs produced by the also-obscure rapper Cold Blooded (based in New Orleans and died in 2013).
 * Fiction: He was not discovered by Boyz II Men. They would have stated so if they had.
 * Fiction: He did not sing "Bounce Ya on My Pole" in 1999 (nor in any subsequent year), nor has anyone else made a song of that name. It did not have a low-budget video starring a girl of 14 called Nichole. (I strongly doubt if that would have even been legal!)
 * Fiction: Magic (again, based in New Orleans and died in 2013) did not collaborate with him. Again, he would have said so prior to his own death (in a traffic collision, like the deleted article stated for Brown).
 * Fiction: Brown did not die in Houston (Texas), but rather Louisiana. Deaths are registered where they occur.
 * The question remains: were Kairuba Brown and Ruda Real the same person? I can’t find out if Brown actually was reported missing during Hurricane Katrina.
 * Oddly enough, there is a rapper of the same name from Baton Rouge who made a whole album on YouTube in 2018, twelve years after Brown’s death.
 * An entire article could be written elsewhere about this controversy, but there’s no question that the article that lasted from 2005–2021 was bogus. It was unsourced ab initio ad finem, anyway.
 * As a similar case, John Seigenthaler was a real and notable person, but the 2005 hoax copy of his article (tellingly titled John Seigenthaler, Sr.) was archived at the hoax museum. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * People are inevitably going to bring up Discogs being unreliable. Your response? 100.7.44.80 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No response, huh? Ok then. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that an article on a non-notable rapper with some exaggerated facts is a hoax. BTW, here's a screenshot of the death entry if anyone needs it. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  06:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So it's been several months since the last time I brought this matter up, but I still want the page to be deleted - nothing has changed on that front. It's an archive of an alleged hoax article about a person who isn't really a hoax, so I see no reason to continue to keep it. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not gonna lie, I am getting SUPER pissed at the lack of attention being paid to this situation. I have no idea why nobody is giving even the slightest crap at this, but it's making me really angry. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have since mellowed out significantly, but my stance is unchanged. I still believe the page needs to be deleted, and the fact that nobody has taken one for the team and made another MfD about this in the half-year since I made this talk section is quite concerning. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Jack Stacey
It's deletion log links to an actual article and not a hoax. Daveman115 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The current Jack Stacey article is a person with the same name and was created a few years after the hoax was deleted. I've changed the link here to the deletion log record. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Worth including?
I just came across a case of a hoax at Zevo-3 where someone (looks like one person using several IPs) added mention of a non-existent musical episode of the show. Another IP removed it, initially without explanation, but explained it on their talk page. After searching, no other episode lists or site mentioned the episode, so I removed it. Is this the sort of thing that would go on it? It looks like it would be a type 2a. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

New one for "Extant for 4–7 years" in articles
Pending any objections, I think we have a new one for 4 years. February 1, 2019, IP adds what seems to be an invented person, "Krzywióra Thallschoodbem (Ksawera)", to Adam Mickiewicz; few minutes later they change the name to "Krzywióra Dahlschödstein". This hoax remained in the body for four years until I spotted it and removed it just now. As far as I can tell, neither "Krzywióra Thallschoodbem" nor "Krzywióra Dahlschödstein" (very unique names) exist outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Based on the unlikely name, I think we can classify this as a likely intentional hoax (Type 2a (Obvious hoax due to elaborateness)). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Added. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

A Century of Cinema
Hello, I cannot access the log/page history. But I think A Century of Cinema, deleted earlier this year, was a hoax. The only thing is that it may not have originated from WP. Just mentioning that in case it is helpful. Best, — MY, OH, MY ! 23:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mushy Yank That rings a bell. If the origin is not WP, then it is not really a concern for us. We can have article on notable hoaxes (occasionally, even notable on-wiki hoaxes, ex. Zhemao hoaxes). And an occasional article about an off-wiki non-notable hoaxes can get deleted. The purpose of this page, as I undertand it, is to document hoaxes that originated on Wikipedia. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood, thank you. But I didn't think about checking that then and cannot do it now. Thank again. — MY, OH, MY ! 07:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mushy Yank An article can always be restored to your userspace (see WP:REFUND). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Why January 21ST?
Recently I made an edit to this page that changed ‘January 21st’ on the There’s a Wocket in My Pocket hoax to ‘January 21’ to fit with the other dates. My edit was then reverted by @NinjaRobotPirate and it has not been reverted back since. Please can you tell me why only the There’s a Wocket in My Pocket hoax date has the ordinal suffix at the end of the day number and every other date doesn’t? If there is no reason whatsoever, I think it would be best to change it back to January 21. Imasus (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I used an edit summary when I made those edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like edit was inadvertently caught up in cleaning up additions from a vandal. I've restored the (valid) edit of 21st to 21. &mdash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your help. Imasus (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is a hoax, but please be careful
Obviously false information was in the lead of the November 2015 Paris attacks from 14 November 2015 until I removed it today (see the talk page discussion) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible hoax? - Upstate NY flag
A tumblr post highlighted a flag on the Upstate NY wiki. This edit is when it was added. I've been unable to find any sources even hinting at its existence beside the uploaded wikipedia image. Does this qualify as a hoax? ArcWand (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Table sorting
Although the tables are sortable, if you try to sort by date created or deleted the dates are sorted alphabetically, which has limited utility. Perhaps these could be made to sort chronologically, instead. pburka (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Fake village created by a bot
Not a hoax, presumably, just some case of data error: Articles for deletion/Zielony Gaj, Mrągowo County. ~15 years. Sigh. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible hoax image at Lucretius by known offender?
This list already mentions the article Philodoppides, created in 2020 and deleted in August 2023. There is a possible second case of a hoax edit/creation by the same user, dating back to 2015. If it actually turns out to be fake then we may have to think about looking at all their edits, going back to 2009. Renerpho (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Potential hundreds of hoaxes on Year articles
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years ☾Loriendrew☽   ☏(ring-ring)  23:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * To summarize what I already posted on the WikiProject Years talk page, this is no hoax. In Rome, for centuries the normal way of indicating which year was which was to give the names of the consuls who served in that year. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Pretty likely hoax in article (vandalism): 1+ year
Added and removed by IP. Added:. Removed: <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  11:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Al-Ṭurfa al-Šahiyya fī aḫbār al-ʿAʾila al-Swīsiyya
This is not a hoax. This book actually exists. See. MSMST1543 (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @MSMST1543 But the claim was about a film, not a book. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It was not originally classified as a film when it was added. Its classification as a film was just an error that was made when reorganizing the article. MSMST1543 (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

10+ year fake etymology on Miccosukee article (2a)
this is an older one, being removed dec. 22 2017 [1 ], and was added sept. 26 2007 [2 ]

the claim is that Miccosukee derives from "micos sucios", Spanish for "dirty monkeys". this claim is from the "Journal of Etymological Studies", a (seemingly) nonexistent journal, and no credible source backs up the "micos sucios" claim. all sources spreading the "micos sucios" come after the addition to wikipedia.

if there was any truth to the "micos sucios" claim, it should be easy to find, since it claims to be backed up by a journal by Juan Ponce de Leon.

the same user who added the "micos sucios" claim also added an unsourced "Death" section to Daddy Yankee's page [3 ], which they themselves would delete shortly after [4 ], made a medicinal claim on the Pouteria sapota article which lasted 2 years [5 ] [6 ], and another etymological claim for Ciguatera fish poisoning that lasted 3 years [7 ][8 ] &#34;greenzig&#34; (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)