Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelis Hendrikus Elleboogius

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is agreement that this article is a hoax and should be deleted. An argument is made to retain it as an article about a hoax but no reliable sources are presented that discuss the subject as a hoax. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelis Hendrikus Elleboogius

Cornelis Hendrikus Elleboogius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was browsing some twitter threads when the name of Elleboogius came up in the context of some people wink-nudging eachother that he may not be real, and that the English wikipedia "had not caught on yet" (e.g. the replies here: [1]). This was surprising as the page is fairly well sourced as far as appearances go, but upon searching the web further I found this forum discussion that claims that this is a fairly well-known hoax in certain circles perpetrated by someone named Richard Muller - [2]. I do not know any more about this matter, but if this is true then the page needs to be deleted or at least seriously updated - although seeing as I could barely find any evidence for the hoax, it would seem unlikely that it would be notable as such. People more knowledgeable on Dutch theologians or the culture of potential hoaxes surrounding them could maybe uncover more. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep CommentDelete Well, this has been a timesuck. If it's a hoax, it's beyond me and WP standards, to be honest.

DeGruyter

• Mylius on Elleboogius: A Fatal Misinterpretation - Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism. Pub: Godfried Quaedtvlieg 2013
• In the Steps of Voetius. Synchronic Contingency and the Significance of Cornelis Elleboogius' "Disputationes de Tetragrammato" to the Analysis of his Life and Work Scholasticism Reformed. Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, hrsg. v. Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, Willemien Otten

Google Books

• Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard Mylius Edited by Jordan Ballor, David Sytsma, Jason Zuidema (Page 657)
• Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt Edited by Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, Willemien Otten (Page 102)
• Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism : Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition by Jordan Ballor
• [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273350672_Would_Christ_Have_Become_Incarnate_Had_Adam_Not_Fallen Would Christ Have Become Incarnate Had Adam Not Fallen? Paper by Stefan Lindholm references Elleboogius DOI

10.1163/15697312-00901016]

If it's a hoax, it's widespread, with a number of academics either willingly contributing or mistakenly taking the existence - and works - of Elleboogius seriously. It's a remarkable thing for a respected academic to have done, mind. By WP standards, he's notable, he has sources. So until we have a proven hoax (and a nice new WP page about it), I reckon we're keeping this onedeleting as per discussion below. Oh, BTW, the forum post that calls BS on Elleboogious isn't an RS!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we can't just pass a keep on a subject where the supporting sources are suspected to not be reliable simply because we don't have the personal expertise to confirm/deny that unreliability? I understand what you are saying but surely a circumstance like this warrants some deeper source investigation. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, if we can dig up any of the original sources, or references to them from before when Elleboogius was allegedly "rediscovered" in the 2010s, then that would be positive proof? If we cannot confirm they exist, then surely all subsequent worth would be shown to be unreliable? I don't think doing thorough source vetting would be OR as it wouldn't be an article contribution, just part of verification, and it might be warranted in this case. Initial searches don't look good - the original source on the existence of Elleboogius states that there had been a bibliography written by an "Egbert Neusbeen", but this name doesn't appear anywhere searchable on the internet except for that one passage from that one article attesting to Elleboogius. Also, does anyone here speak Dutch? Because I am starting to suspect that some of these names are etymologically suspect. "Egbert Nasal bone?" BlackholeWA (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to "Egbert Nasal Bone", "Elleboog" itself apparently means "Elbow". In fact, the Mylius paper also cites a Mr. van "Knee Joint" and a Mr. van "Asses". Every single referenced author in the stem article is named after a different body part. This is a blatant hoax. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi there, yes I speak dutch. The names of editors of the works are all suspect. Egbert Nasal Bone, H. Schouderblad (Shoulder Blade). The name Voetius is probably the reason why someone started to "pull a leg". Voetius is of course a well-known theologian and his name looks like the latinization of the dutch word for "Foot". Now Elbowius and Footius are "joined at the hip" according to the article? And all the books mentioned under works are published by editors named after bodyparts? The already mentioned Mr. Shoulder Blade and Mr. Eyebrow, Mr. Shank (Schenkel), Mr Skinbuyer (Huidekooper), Mr. Eardrum (Trommelvlies), Mr. Bonehouse (Beenderhuis). It is just too much. My Latin is not good enough but I suspect that the titles of the works are bogus too. No doubt this is a hoax. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I see... "In the Steps of Voetius", very amusing. Per Wikipedia's policies, I am hoping that we as editors are able to use some common sense judgement in this matter to confirm that these articles are contextually not reliable sources. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The very first time the name Elleboogius appears in Dutch-language newspapers and books is in 1776,^[1] in a satirical rhyme by Otto Christian Frederik Hoffman, for his friend Joris Lubbersz Struif, who just had obtained a degree in Theology. In his rhyme, Mr. Hoffmann advises his friend to add -ius to his last name to gain respectability. According to Hoffmann, the last name Struif would only be ridiculed. Better still, he suggests, he would adopt a last name, like the famous Voetius (Footius), for example Elleboogius (Ellbowius) or Halsius (Neckius), so he would have followers who could be called Elleboogianen or Halsianen. The satire in these names is that in Dutch, like in english, a sharp-elbowed person is an aggressive, ambitius person. Likewise, the term Hals (Neck) is used for a gullible person. So Mr. Hoffman´s satire from 1776 lives on in the form of a hoax on Wikipedia. Please deleteRuud Buitelaar (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If we do delete (and we should, per the above evidence), I wonder if this would have knock-on effects for the general reliabilities of the publications used as sources? Clearly the specific Elleboogius articles are being shown to be satirical (and thus not reliable sources of fact), however they seem to be part of larger works (journals? Essay collections?). If the content is similarly satirical or otherwise unverifiable throughout, it might be worth doing a search, because I did notice that Elleboogius himself is referenced in a few other articles and beyond him there may be further references to these sources. Someone(s) has gone to a lot of effort not only to perpetrate this hoax in academia but to integrate it seamlessly into English language wiki. Edit: See also, the attestations on the image used in the article, which if Elleboogius is false so must be its purported origin (which has copyright implications, as the image may be a modern forgery and thus its public domain rationale may be invalid!) BlackholeWA (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I checked what I could and yes, the specific essays on Elleboogius are clearly intended as jokes. Whether that means that the other essays or studies in these collections are also satirical, I cannot say. I believe it goes too far to dismiss these collections in their entirety as unreliable. The picture surely is fake and should be deleted. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's definitely a hoax, but probably not notable as a hoax. Yes, Muller's Festschrift contains a fake article, by a certain Godfried Quaedtvlieg. The list of contributors (p. xxii of that volume) describes him as "Professor of Psycho-Theology at Harvard Divinity School where he serves as chief Coptic papyrus manuscript writer for the Jesus' wife project." StAnselm (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This possibly deserves an entry in List of religious hoaxes, but we would still need a reliable source describing it as a hoax. StAnselm (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might also be a candidate for Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia at over 8 years, although I am not sure of the eligibility of multimedia hoaxes that then spread to Wikipedia. That said I am sure that the addition to Wikipedia was a deliberate component of the ongoing hoax. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but heavily amend If this is a hoax, it has got past some serious academic referees. Brill is a serious academic publisher. If this is a hoax, we should NOT delete it, but expose it as such by having an article that explains why his very existence is a hoax. Once something like this enters academic literature, it is liable to gain a life of its own. Muller's Festschrift certainly exists, but I have to confess that I have found it impossible to find any of the author's work on Eighteenth century books on-line or Early English Books on-line: I would have expected the two alleged works published on Britain to appear in one or the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In order to transform this article into "an article about the Elleboogius hoax" we need to have a reference that actually says it is a hoax, don´t we? If not, we would be doing some original research. I don´t think this article got "past some serious academic referees" but that two parodies were consciously published by Brill in the "Studies in the honour of" and "Essays in the honour of". The article does not contain any references apart from two parodies and an 18th-century satirical rhyme. Apparently some of our fellow-editors take these parodies to be serious academic works. I think the authors are laughing their heads off. Let´s put it on the List of hoaxes and get rid of the article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It would seem that the published articles are conveying a satirical tone that is plain to read on the part of those familiar with the subject matter (or who speak Dutch), but not to foreign outsiders. It could be argued that the satirical subtext is the true "content" of the published article, but I don't think that counts as clear sourcing as to the nature of the joke that is being carried out - it does, however, probably do enough to convey that the sources should not be regarded as reliable for their surface-level content. Given this I agree that the best way to proceed is probably to delete, unless an article or similar source emerges that clearly states the nature of the Elleboogius hoax, at which point the published satirical articles could be used as supporting documents in a transformed article written on the matter. I do not believe that any such article or other explicit source about the hoax currently exists, however... And I am not sure one will appear, unless in the unlikely event that this discussion and the deletion of the article brings enough attention to the matter for someone to write one. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.