Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia

Problem shaping (currently appearing as the longest-lasting hoax) and Method of focal objects aren't hoaxes. They are more like WP:OR or fringe science - in the USSR there seems to have been a tradition of talking about methods of creativity (Genrich Altshuller and TRIZ), but outside the USSR attention given to these questions did not have especially clear focus. The pages were badly referenced, but could have been better referenced. I don't see any intent to deceive in them at all. The judgment by Carchasm that Method of focal objects was a hoax because Friedrich Kunze (a Thuringia schoolteacher who wrote on education and quasi-philosophical matters) and Charles S. Whiting (the American writer of Creative Thinking, a 1958 book; pp.55ff deals with the 'focal objects technique') did not exist is just mistaken. Dsp13 (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't judge the details, but I agree that unless we have very solid evidence that they were deliberate hoaxes rather than mere attempts at covering a fringe and maybe misunderstood topic, it seems better to remove them from this page. Gawaon (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

OK. I'll remove those two rows then. Dsp13 (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Those articles probably would've been deleted for lack of notability/WP:OR regardless, but still interesting that they were apparently falsely accused of being hoaxes? I guess it can be hard to tell between a very obscure/fringe topic and a hoax at times. ApexParagon (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I need help with two "false statement" entries that have previously been discussed here, but which I never added to the list. Both of them are music-related:

• Misinformation on James Brown's article (found by Cahlin29, full range uncovered by me)
• Archive 4#Eric "Nealante" Phillips (User:Tbhotch found the already existing entry about the Beyoncé song "Halo", which I extended further)

The two incidents have a complicated but interesting history, as detailed in those posts. Most of the relevant edit differences are listed there. Only some of the most recent removals are missing. It's just a matter of properly summarizing the situation, and of formatting it (proper wiki syntax). I am struggling with both. Renerpho (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Archived version here. Article was around since at least 2015, then nominated for deletion by @RosePickfair: here. While it does have an IMDb page, IMDb has also listed other confirmed hoaxes, such as Rough Crossing. There are zero results on newspapers.com, JSTOR, or GBooks for "Edith's Shopping Bag" when searched alongside Laurel Douglas, Peter Koper, or Charlie Ludlow. Even just "Peter Koper" in the 1970s turns up nothing but false positives or obviously unrelated people. Every hit on regular Google is IMDb or other directories copying from them. While it is mentioned in this obit of Peter Koper, it also lists it as "Edith's Shopping Bags" with a release date of 1973, which to me suggests the obit writer just checked IMDb and/or Wikipedia and then worsened the sloppy research with a typo. If a film had Peter Koper, John Waters, Mary Vivian Pearce, Mink Stole, and various other people who have Wikipedia articles involved in it, then surely something would exist to prove it exists, but I've come up completely empty.

Also pinging @Explicit:, the admin who deleted the article, and AFD participants @Khalitate:, @NYC Guru:, and @Yesterday, all my dreams...:. If the article is indeed a hoax, then I think it should be added to the list with its creation date preserved and content moved to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Edith's Shopping Bag. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed assuming we can confirm that it is in fact a hoax. Khalitate (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The deletion discussion doesn't seem to say so, though. Only WP:V and WP:GNG are mentioned. Gawaon (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there's enough evidence here to confirm a hoax, and the fact it wasn't brought up in the AFD is immaterial. I did ask RosePickfair if they thought it was a hoax and they invited me to say so in the AFD, unaware of my topic ban from participation in XFDs beyond filing one per 24 hours. I'm kind of surprised the utter lack of information didn't lead anyone to thinking it was a hoax either, but to me it's abundantly clear and deserves a spot on the list. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Absence of evidence (reliable coverage) is not, as far as I can tell, evidence of a hoax or anything else. What positive evidence for a hoax do you see? Gawaon (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The only reference to the film even existing is IMDb, which has been known to propagate hoaxes, others of which are on this page. I refuse to believe that a film with this many notable names attached to it, one of them being as big a name as John Waters, has left literally no footprint. I also think it's fishy that Peter Koper would have had a writing/directorial credit in 1976 and then no other film credits until the 1990s, and that neither Charlie Ludlow nor Laurel Douglas has any other credits on IMDb or any other evidence that they even existed. Furthermore, the IMDb page lists the release date as 2005, and the poster is obviously an ad for the store and not the film itself. Between this, the Baltimore Sun obit fudging the title and purported release date, and the lack of even the most superficial mentions anywhere, things just don't add up to an alarming degree.

Maybe no one thing is the smoking gun that irrefutably makes it a hoax, but the details are so dubious, and no one has presented even the most remote of evidence that it could have possibly existed, that I'm still convinced it's a hoax unless someone can provide evidence beyond IMDb of its existence. It just doesn't pass the sniff test, and again, the fact that this was not brought up in the AFD should not obviate the possibility of it being a hoax. I would also like @Explicit: to weigh in here if possible. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: You say you asked RosePickfair if they thought it was a hoax, and that they invited you to say so in the AFD. Do you have a link to that conversation? Renerpho (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Yes, the conversation can be seen here. I commented, Do you suppose Edith's Shopping Bag is a hoax? I get zero results on GNews, GBooks, JSTOR, or just IMDb and a bunch of mirrors. Something with this many supposedly notable names attached should at least turn up something legit. and RosePickfair responded, It's so strange that there's not much out there about it. I suspect it really does exist but that there's just not much to it. No formal screenings, a film made by friends for friends, that kind of thing. If you aren't seeing anything either, please vote on whether the article should be deleted. When I pointed out that I could not participate in the AFD, RosePickfair did not respond any further before archiving the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Thanks. That doesn't sound like they endorsed the hoax idea. Your argument about Peter Koper is strange. Koper's Wikipedia article explains how he started to work with John Waters and his group in 1968, and Koper's lede section says that he and Waters worked together on many of Waters's early films, apparently often uncredited. Looking at Dreamlanders and Peter Koper#Dreamlander years, I get the impression that the group did a lot of work in Baltimore that may not have left any traces. A short documentary about the opening of a store in Baltimore fits that description. I don't know if I'd call it "a film made by friends for friends", but I don't get the impression that this is necessarily a hoax. I mean, it could be, but then it would be a hoax on IMDb, not on Wikipedia, right? We don't cover that sort of thing here. Renerpho (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

If this is a hoax on IMDb then it qualifies as an April Fools' joke (the IMDb page gives April 1, 2005 as the re-release date for the film). How and why the film was re-released in 2005, it doesn't say. Not everything that happens on April 1st is a hoax, and not every hoax that makes it to Wikipedia qualifies as a hoax on Wikipedia.

The fact that the Baltimore Sun mentions it in their obituary for Koper would be quite odd if the film was a complete fabrication. The obituary doesn't seem to follow either Wikipedia or IMDb, giving a slightly different movie title ("Edith's Shopping Bags") as well as an original release year of 1973 (rather than 1976). That makes it more believable to me, because it suggests the newspaper based this on an independent source. I interpret RosePickfair's argument in the AfD discussion in the same sense.

All in all, this could be real, or it could be fake, but we're so far removed from its creation (either as a real film, or as a joke) that I don't think it's our (Wikipedia's) problem. Renerpho (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

By the way, Waters talks about the store in an interview published in 1988 ( A Critical Cinema, p.235). It was called "Edith's Shopping Bag" (not "Bags"), and arguably that's what the film would have been called as well, so the Baltimore Sun probably misspelled it. In The Rough Guide to USA from 2004 (, p.486), it says that "Edith's Shopping Bag" (the shop) was the inspiration for many of Waters's early films, and that it now was a novelty store specializing in John Waters memorabilia. The Baltimore Sun was also wrong about the release year, because the shop definitely opened in 1976. Goldberg's Collectible '70s provides physical proof of that (, page unnumbered), quote: "Edith opened her own thrift store/salon in Baltimore. Here's the rare 1976 flyer announcing the opening." The flyer features John Waters. How far fetched would it be that John Waters would have made a short film about the occasion, without a formal screening? Renerpho (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Other hoaxes begun on IMDb that spread to Wikipedia are counted on the list, such as Rough Crossing or Another Demonstration of the Cliff-Guibert Fire Horse Reel. So if it were a hoax propagated by IMDb, that alone would not preclude it from being on the list.

I was stymied by the total lack of evidence for something with John Waters' name on it, combined with other details throwing me off the trail such as both IMDb and Baltimore Sun biffing the release date, and the other two writers seemingly not existing outside IMDb. However, your subsequent evidence in those books is tilting me away from "likely hoax" to "plausibly existed but lost to time". Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

If there are other hoaxes in the list that begun outside of Wikipedia, I suggest we remove those. Renerpho (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC) -- I've removed Another Demonstration of the Cliff-Guibert Fire Horse Reel, and nominated the entry for Rough Crossing (TV series) for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Rough Crossing (TV series). Link to the speedy deletion nomination (nominated by TenPoundHammer): User talk:Starkiller88#Speedy deletion nomination of Rough Crossing (TV series). Renerpho (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Eh. I'm of the opinion that, even if a hoax started elsewhere, it still counts if we had an article on it. Otherwise, that opens a Pandora's box of "did this hoax REALLY start here, or did it start offsite and come here?" After all, aren't Wikipedia articles supposed to be sourced to something anyway? Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: We can debate this, but I believe that, if there are independent, reliable sources that corroborate what the article says, it's not a hoax. "Reliable" in this case means something the author considered reliable; for instance, IMDB isn't actually a reliable sources, but it is often mistaken for one (hence why we have WP:IMDB). Such articles should be assumed to be honest mistakes unless proven otherwise. The bar is set high, because accusing someone of having created a hoax without strong evidence would be a violation of WP:AGF. Regardless, I don't think this list is too short and in need of a broader scope.

Actual hoaxes come in different flavors: Some are unreferenced (many of the oldest ones were discovered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives); some have vague references that are deliberately impossible to verify; some have fabricated references that sound plausible, but don't actually exist. And some link to real sources that just don't say anything about the subject.

There are edge cases, of course. For example, an elaborate hoax may involve the perpetrator setting up an external website that they can use to make the claim look more believable. Or they might also edit the IMDB. Whether those are considered "hoaxes on Wikipedia" depends on the circumstances: Was the Wikipedia article created as part of the hoax? Or was it created later by someone who got fooled? Was the Wikipedia article crucial for its spread? And so on... In the case of Rough Crossing, I see nothing of note.

You don't want to open a Pandora's box. If we included hoaxes, regardless of whether they started on Wikipedia or elsewhere, that's what we would do.

I'd be interested to hear what others think about this. Gawaon? Renerpho (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. If a Wikipedia article was deliberately created or modified as part of a larger hoax, i.e., by the same people, then I would still consider it a "hoax on Wikipedia". But if an editor was simply too trusting in accepting information from a not-so-trustworthy source, that is an error, not a hoax, so it does not belong here. This should not turn into a "hoaxes on the Internet" list. Gawaon (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Bomellida is very clearly a hoax that was attempted to be created on Wikipedia for some reason. Adillebom (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2026 (UTC)"

Apparently, according to non-WP:RSs, Bomellidas a hoax holiday. I don't know that we need to add Bomellida to this list at this time as Bomellida is a non-notable hoax perpetrated outside of WP that, it it was more notable, perhaps could be added to List of hoaxes. I see this list as being hoaxes perpetrated on WP. A WP page for Bomellida was deleted in February 2026, I'm not sure when it was created. Cxbrx (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Probably created in February 2026. I think it should be added to list of hoaxes. Who knows, maybe it's not a hoax, but me; and plenty of other people, are sure it is. Adillebom (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hoaxes should only be added if they "evaded detection for more than one month or [were] discussed by reliable sources in the media", so it seems doubtful that one qualifies, even assuming it was a hoax. Gawaon (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind apparently it was created in January 2026 or December 2025 according to the user Cooliglazeddonutzer's talk page. Adillebom (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Even though the article (and its history) are now invisible unless you're an admin, the meta data is still visible. Bomellida was created on 22 February 2026, 2:17:27 AM (UTC), with the edit summary tags "large unwikified new article, wikieditor, possible formatting issues". It was last edited at 9:58 AM that day, and deleted about half an hour later. Hoax or not, that's not long enough to qualify.

@Adillebom: Where on that user page does it say that this was created in January 2026 or December 2025? Renerpho (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been misreading. Adillebom (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Where can I find that meta data? only shows:

"There is no revision history for this page.

This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

10:25, 22 February 2026 DoubleGrazing talk contribs deleted page Bomellida (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11, G15) Tag: Twinkle (thank)"

Following the red link itself is not more helpful. Gawaon (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, found it! Open Special:Log, then set the article title as "Target". Gawaon (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gawaon: If you only want to see the creation and deletion, that will do it! Otherwise, there's a script by DreamRimmer that lets you view the times, user, and edit summary tags for all the edits made to a deleted page; see Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages#Viewing metadata of deleted revisions and User:DreamRimmer/DeletedMetaData. Renerpho (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Gawaon (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Though actually it seems the edit summaries are truly hidden and not visible even by script. Gawaon (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gawaon: Correct -- what is visible are tags, not edit summaries. Renerpho (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2026 (UTC) -- I've struck the false mentions of "edit summary" above. Renerpho (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Urban Umpires has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The page is still categorized. I propose to de-categorize it here, for the talk is also protected. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Should these two articles be added to the list?

O'Shúilleabháin clan was on Wikipedia for 10.6 years before it was redirected last year. As seen in a discussion at the Reference Desk, the family exists but no sources have been found for the story it tells.

Honda Sparta was created by Ajones2000 (who has few other edits) in 2008 and was on Wikipedia for 17.42 years. I nominated it for deletion last year. No evidence it existed. Likely hoax. RanDom 404 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Honda Sparta looks like a good addition. The O'Sullivan thing is less clear to me. Special:Diff/970040592 (the removal of that from the Bellewstown article) sadly doesn't have an edit summary that would explain why it was removed, and it was made by an anonymous user. It was added in January 2015, by the same user who created the O'Shúilleabháin clan article on the same day. There are sources that mention it, like from 2018, but I can find none that were published pre-2015. Renerpho (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Renerpho, those sources are probably citing Wikipedia. The timeline of the article's creation is quite suspicious:

• 12:27: The account FCOS99 is registered
• 12:32-12:34: FCOS99 edits the Bellewstown article to add the story
• 12:38: The account Vaep0r is registered
• 12:39-13:27: Vaep0r edits the Bellewstown article
• 13:40: FCOS99 creates the O'Shúilleabháin clan article
• 13:41: Vaep0r edits the new article. The account never edits again

The two historical figures mentioned in the article do not exist in any records you can find. Look them up. From what I've researched, the name "Darren" did not gain popularity until the 20th century, so it is a bit odd that there is a 15th century historical figure with that name in the article. RanDom 404 (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm with you there. Also, what is a Munster clan doing in Leinster? Are there even any records that the O'Shúilleabháin clan had any interests in that region in the 15th century? Renerpho (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Wrongfilter also thought the article looked "fishy". I'm going to ask for their opinion here. RanDom 404 (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Another article which I think might have been a hoax is Silviatti. At first it just sounds like it could be someone's obscure family history, but it doesn't even appear to be an actual surname, and most of the detail here seems like it should be verifiable, but no information regarding it can be found. JoeNMLC and AllTheUsernamesAreInUse had it deleted through PROD in January 2025, but no one suggested the possibility of a hoax. It was on Wikipedia for 19.13 years. RanDom 404 (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Looks quite elaborate. I'd be interested in the opinions of JoeNMLC and AllTheUsernamesAreInUse. Renerpho (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2026 (UTC)