# Talk:Alan MacMasters hoax

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alan MacMasters hoax/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Bennett1203 (talk · contribs) 03:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 09:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I aim to complete this review within the next few days. Steelkamp (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


### Good article criteria
#### Well written
Several problems in this article stem from self references to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid says that you shouldn't have any links that wouldn't make sense on copies of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia article about toasters should be changed to Wikipedia article about toasters, because the page that is linked talks about "toasters", not the "Wikipedia article on toasters". Additionally, pretty much all links to non-mainspace pages should be removed, and if they are absolutely necessary, they should be in an external links section, stylised as an external link as per WP:WAWI. The links to non-mainspace pages that I could find are:

not to use Wikipedia as a source. I would change this to not to use Wikipedia as a source.
blocked. I would change this to blocked.
Archived article and Deletion discussion on Wikipedia. These should be external links in an external links section.
Citogenesis. I would just wholly remove this link or change it to Circular reporting.
List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. This should also be in an external links section.
Some other things I noticed:

The lead needs to be expanded, as the template there says.
It's good that the lead has been expanded, but it needs to be rewritten. The first sentence should introduce what the topic is, and then the following sentences go into more detail from there. Readers shouldn't have to reach the third sentence to work out what the article is about.
Some links are to common terms, such as photography, Britain, newspapers, encyclopedias, government agencies. This should not be linked due to MOS:OVERLINK, as most readers would already know what photography is and its not directly pertinent to the subject.
MacMasters is misspelled as "MacMaster" in some cases.
Since there are many places named Stillwater, it should be changed to Stillwater, Oklahoma.
Does Maddy Kennedy need to be mentioned by name. She is not a public figure, and so I think she does not need to be mentioned by name as per WP:BLPNAME.
...he was nominated to appear on a £50 note at the request of the Bank of England. This kinda implies that the Bank of England did the nominating, but the source says that someone else made the nomination after the Bank of England requested nominations. I think this sentence could be reworded to be clearer.
Charles Strite does not need to be linked in the "See also" section as per MOS:SEEALSO because that page is already linked in the "Discovery" section.
I would replace "photoshopped" with "manipulated".


#### Verifiable with no original research
Wikipediocracy is not a reliable source, and that reference seems redundant anyway, so it can just be removed. Maybe the Wikipediocracy article can be included as an external link since it is discussed in this article.
The sources identify Alex as the "mastermind" behind this hoax, not Alan. Therefore, the article should put more emphasis on Alex rather than Alan. For example, the first two paragraphs of the "Origin" section centre on Alan, while I think they should be recentered on Alex. Same goes for the lead.


#### Broad in its coverage
Sources go into more detail on how Adam discovered the hoax. Sources say that he noticed the image was manipulated and not an old image.
Is there anything that can be said linking this hoax to the broader reliability of Wikipedia?


#### Neutral
#### Stable
#### Illustrated, if possible
The licensing for File:Image of the hoax article Alan MacMasters.jpg needs to be changed to Commons:Template:Wikipedia-screenshot, so that the UI and logo are licenced correctly.
Why does File:Photoshopped image that was once on the Alan MacMasters Wikipedia page.jpeg need to be a non-free use image? Presumably, it was originally uploaded under a free use licence and the original image can just be undeleted, unless there is something I'm missing?
Those two licences can't be used together. Either the image is free use, and it can be uploaded to commons under the licence it was originally uploaded as, or it is not free use, and Template:Wikipedia-screenshot should be removed.
This is not required under the GA criteria, but I recommend adding alt text to both images.


### General
That's all my review, except for the source review, which I will do after all the above is addressed. Steelkamp (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I made the edit(s) with your suggestions, and I’m ready for it to be sent off to be declared whether or not it is GA acceptable! If so, I would like to thank you, as this is my first GA acceptable article! Bennett1203 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I've added a few more comments and struck through the comments I consider addressed. Steelkamp (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Something about the second bulleted one under the Verifiable with no original research section: both of them are equally as important, and to remaster the article to circulate around Alex would not follow the citations. I followed the citations as strictly as possible. Bennett1203 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, what do you mean by this: "Is there anything that can be said linking this hoax to the broader reliability of Wikipedia". Furthermore, I checked what you meant in the first one under Broad in its coverage, and checked the citations and tried my best to cherry pick all instances of Adam, however there was only a mean count of 4 instances of Adam. I’m very sorry if I misunderstood or didn’t do as what was told. Additionally, I am taking a 3 day holiday for my birthday, so I might not be as active. Bennett1203 (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
No worries if you might not be as active. I will have some more to say tomorrow, but for now, I will says that the lead is now too long. The whole article is already quite short so a one paragraph lead is all that is needed. The additions made to the lead don't fix the underlying issue either, which is that the first sentence doesn't introduce the topic. Steelkamp (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
You know, I’m probably going to call it here. This is all I can do in my willpower. The GA nomination may come to a rest. I am doing this as means of ensuring I get other personal and Wikipedia business done. Bennett1203 (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok. Although we didn't get all the way to GA status, this article has definitely improved since I started the review. If you want to improve it further, I recommend making a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, where someone can help improve the article's writing. Steelkamp (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Did the lecture happen on 10 February 2012 or 6 February 2012? Is this another hoax? 120.18.53.5 (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. According to the BBC and other sources, it's 6 February 2012. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Minnesota resident James Lileks states here that it is Stillwater, Minnesota. 
http://lileks.com/bleats/archive/24/0824/13.html 2600:1700:44F0:35EF:254E:8355:50A4:75DD (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it is indeed Stillwater, Minnesota - not Oklahoma. Here is another source attesting to it being in Minnnesota: https://www.thegazette.com/history/time-machine-an-iowan-invented-the-pop-up-toaster/. Concchambers (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Those who know: 💀 49.245.83.91 (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Is Alan really a photography and ICT student? If no, where did this come from, and what subject did Alan really study at the time? 120.18.191.25 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The article has attracted a substantially larger number of visitors in the last couple of days. Do we know where this traffic is coming from? Nardog (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It crops up from time to time on social media. I don't do social media now, but there are posts on Reddit in the last week. Could be that? Knitsey (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
A bunch of those spam AI-with-gameplay-in-background posts (you know, those brainrot looking ones) have posted on this topic recently. i know because i just unfortunately came across one, which led me here, and in the past i have seen that these videos are posted in spam amounts on many, many accounts... the one i found currently has 1.9 million views. I guess people show up because they'd like to see what is left of the article..
hmph. i usually dont watch these stupid attention grabbing videos... damn it! I'm turning into a mindless zombie! XD
Even stranger, when i opened my laptop (im not signed into google or youtube on it) and typed in 'alan mac', the result for alan macmasters was at the very top... google really is always watching LOL 121.45.113.76 (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Great, brainrot skibidi, yipee ki yay, algorhymical and whatever else the yoote say these days. This type of interest is usually down to social media attention. Knitsey (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I believe it's  this short from YouTube, which was released the day when the article started getting an unusually high amount of visitors. Gained (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I guess that's it. Already over two three eight ten million views. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
how do they even find these topics to talk about lol...? i wonder how much of the process is now made with AI. 121.45.113.76 (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

They are not External links.  They are WP links.  Even though that are in WP namespace they should be in See also. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

An {{srlink}} is used in articles about Wikipedia to link to a Wikipedia page in the form of an external link, so that the link will still work on mirrors and forks of Wikipedia. "Srlink" is short for "self-reference link".--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I removed the link to List of hoaxes on Wikipedia from the See also section, since it's a redirect to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia and also occurs in the External links section. I hope that's ok. Does the WP:MOS have something to say about where such special cases belong? — Chrisahn (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

We need to remove Wikipediocracy and all other unreliable sources, per the discussion at WT:DYK. (I was trying to get this DYK hook added to the April Fool's set on the main page, but editors are rightly saying that the 4-source version of this article overrelying on unreliable sources never should have passed GA and possibly could get nominated for AfD.)  Happy to have the ProQuest links replaced with direct links to paywalled sites if that's the preference, just please don't remove them completely. The fix is still in progress. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I have no issue with removing Wikipediocracy for claims that can be backed up with another source or fail to meet WP:ABOUTSELF. However, I would like to ask, other than Wikipediocracy, which sources are unreliable? I've used Inverse before and I consider them situationally reliable for internet culture topics, and I wasn't sure about IFLScience but B33net argued it was and I could not find any conclusive discussion on the issue. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the discussion. Please don't add these sources before we can discuss them. The FT source only has one paragraph about the hoax, and the paragraph is a rehash of the BBC article. The MIT Technology Review seems to be this article [2] (not paywalled). If I understand correctly, its sole mention of the hoax is this: "If you believe that Alan MacMasters invented the first electric bread toaster, I’m sorry to inform you that you’ve fallen for an elaborate online hoax." What did I miss? These sources might be useful in AfD to show notability, but they don't seem to provide any additional information. They're hardly more than links to the BBC article. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Similar source from September 2024: [3] Might help in an AfD, but doesn't add any info beyond quoting the BBC article. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
By 20 Minuten, 2022: [4] (no additional info, quotes BBC, but shows some international notability). — Chrisahn (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipediocracy: It's a WP:PRIMARY source. It's not usable as a source for our article, and as far as I can tell it never was used in that way. But a link to the Wikipediocracy page is useful for our readers. Doesn't have to be in a ref, maybe an external link section would be more appropriate. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
If we have to remove the Wikipediocracy link, then that will limit it down to 3 references on a GA. If we can add articles that we’ve suggested I’m pretty sure we could get this done overnight. I also suggest looking into the Zhemao hoaxes which is another article explaining a hoax that is a GA with very little citations (about 5 of them). Even though most of the references are reliable, the limited citation count is a factor in its un-GA-like nature. 🐝 B33net 🐝 04:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
For my part, I didn't see anything regarding the number of sources in the Good article criteria; only that it was verifiable. It seemed to be, and it seemed to pass WP:THREE (to me, at the time) so that's why I passed it. I should have given the review more consideration, but I'm sure that the addition of the sources below will help the article's case. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I think there are enough (British and international) sources to support notability. I'm not too worried about a possible AfD. And if someone decides that GA status should be retracted, so be it. In my opinion, it already was a good article before it was a Good Article, and that's not going to change. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
The article currently exists in seven Wikipedia editions, which is another indication of the subject's notability. The French version looks like it's been created independently from this one. I guess some of the others might be translations of this one, I haven't checked. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
The article also sustains notability due to its popularity through multiple videos using the article as a source. A discussion talked about how the article gained a lot of views following a YouTube Shorts video. It seems that this subject is very popular and interesting to people. 🐝 B33net 🐝 04:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Ten million views is a sizable audience. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
You are both new to Wikipedia, so you may not be aware, but "views" is not a notability criteria for anything on Wikipedia. That doesn't contribute to notability or is a source for anything. SilverserenC 16:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
@Silver seren: You're new to Wikipedia, so you probably misunderstood what I was trying to say. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I was just explaining it’s worldwide interest, not its notability involving simple views and clicks on YouTube. 🐝 B33net 🐝 19:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Similarly for the list of nominations from the Bank of England. [5] Primary source, but might be useful for readers, should be OK in external link section. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to join in the conversation. My intent to create this article came from a YouTube video I saw explaining the hoax. I nominated this for a Good Article with the intent of securing my first GA. This has also been my most successful article. If I have done anything wrong, I am very sorry. I will leave it up to you guys to secure finding additional sources, and possibly, nominate it for deletion if that is the last option. 🐝 B33net 🐝 04:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I found two additional citations we could use as well:
Inc.com link
The New Daily link
Edinburg News link
These are the only other articles possible for retaining this articles reliability. 🐝 B33net 🐝 04:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Those are much more significant at least than the FT, Telegraph, and MIT pieces. You should incorporate them into the article. SilverserenC 04:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Added them 🐝 B33net 🐝 04:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
@Silver seren @Chrisahn What is wrong with the FT.com citation? It adds some additional concrete detail about the impact of the article that doesn't appear anywhere else. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I tried to find the FT source on their site, but couldn't. Could you link to it there? silviaASH (inquire within) 04:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
[6] Not really an article, more like a list of links with some commentary. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. If you think the FT paragraph contains some additional information, please quote it. If you mean that the existence of the FT paragraph supports the notability of the subject, I agree. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I have to agree, I don't see anything significant here that isn't mentioned elsewhere. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I see that as well now. It is just citing facts from the BBC News article. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
In general: It's unlikely that there will be additional, well-researched secondary WP:RS sources any time soon. But the BBC article is very good, has lots of details, and is as reliable as it gets. Lots of other sources quote it, unfortunately without adding any research of their own, as far as I can tell. The only other source I found that actually did more research is this YouTube video by the fern channel. It has 2.7 million views at the moment. Unfortunately it's not a WP:RS per our rules, but the video contains detailed interviews with the authors of the hoax, and I see no reason to doubt any of its info. We should add it as an external link. (de:Simplicissimus (YouTube-Kanal) has some info about the channel.) — Chrisahn (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It was initially a source in the article, but it was removed after I suggested removing or replacing it in the GA. I support adding it to the ELs. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
The Hagley Museum's website has a page about the history of the toaster [7], dated 19 June 2017. Here are some archived versions of the page:

18 February 2019 (oldest version on archive.org) [8]: "The first electric toaster was invented in 1893 by Alan MacMasters in Scotland."
20 October 2022 (last archived version that mentions MacMasters) [9]: "The first electric toaster was invented in 1893 by Alan MacMasters in Scotland."
18 December 2022 (first archived version that doesn't mention MacMasters) [10]
Of course, these are WP:PRIMARY sources, but they should be admissible for the simple fact that the museum had the claim on its website (at least from 2019 to 2022, probably 2017 to 2022), in case that fact is deemed notable enough for inclusion in the article. — Chrisahn (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chrisahn That's great. Add it back. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
A few more cases where people affiliated with a reputable organization perpetuated the hoax:
Chicago History Museum, 2020 [11]: The first-ever electric toaster was invented by Alan MacMasters in 1893.
Purdue University, 2021 [12]: "Toasting" started to change in 1893 when Alan MacMasters from Edinburgh, Scotland, invented the first electric toaster.
A blog hosted by the Association for Computing Machinery, 2023 (after the hoax was exposed) [13]: When Scotsman Alan MacMasters invented the electric toaster in 1893, all that began to change.
— Chrisahn (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
ThoughtCo is of below average relevance and reliability, but in case anyone's interested, they have a page titled "The History of Your Toaster". It says "Updated on November 21, 2022".

Archived October 2017 [14], archived October 2022 [15]: The first electric toaster was invented in 1893 by Alan MacMasters in Scotland.
Archived February 2023 [16] and current version [17]: For several years, an Internet hoax claimed that the "real" inventor of the toaster was a Scottish inventor by the name of Alan MacMasters. In 2022, an investigation revealed that the purported piece of history was a prank, originating from a false Wikipedia entry posted in 2012.
— Chrisahn (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

So far I haven't found any substantive academic sources. This book is probably unusable as it appears to be self-published for promotional purposes, but it likely isn't the only source discussing the fact that ChatGPT continued to answer that Alan MacMasters was the inventor of the electric toaster well after the hoax was exposed. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Alan MacMasters hoax article on the 19th of July 2022.png
Photoshopped photo of Alan MacMasters.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

How do we know that the interview with Alex from Wikipediocracy is real and not also completely made up? The interviewer does not specify how they established contact with Alex 87.183.169.234 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)