Fake footnotes?

[Epictetus]

In response, French forwarded me his essay, “Tinkerty-Tonk!” from the October 2006 issue of The Literary Review. In it French discusses literary hoaxes and his own experiences with dubious sources as a biographer. He admits that in his 2003 book, Tibet, Tibet, he “tried hoaxing himself” with a fake footnote. “Convinced that nobody ever reads them, I added a transparently bogus note in the hope that someone would spot it and question me,” he wrote...

The hoax citation: “Hungerwood, Dennis P, Early Tibetan Inscriptions on Hedge Sacrifice, Novzhgyet Teklat Insteur, Bishkek Dot, Vol 19, Spring 1977, pp117–139.” French writes that in the three years since the book was published, nobody noticed.

The Tyranny of Footnotes

You know, I have on occassion come across footnotes that seemed a bit odd to me, but I never imagined that someone would put in joke citations. Now I'm beginning to wonder.

Has anyone ever come across any fake footnotes in ancient history books?

[ValentinianVictrix]

I'm not sure, but I know many, many authors and scholars who include books in the reference and bibliography section they have not read, which I feel is on the same level.

[Jona Lendering]

Has anyone ever come across any fake footnotes in ancient history books?

Yes. I am currently discussing one. Because it is may be an intended fraud, I cannot now offer details.

I am also aware of a medieval archaeologist who quoted fake articles from non-existing journals to prove that the so-called Castle of Amsterdam was not as old as it was (according to everyone else).

On a les serious, well, note: in a paper about Apollonius of Tyana for a small group of scholars, I included a reference to Rowlingerus, J.K. (1897), De Philosophi Lapide, which was recognized.

During my study, I wrote another paper about Apollonius and included, in a list of references to articles by Ewen Bowie, another fake reference. After discussing the paper, my teacher, Jaap-Jan Flinterman, just dryly noted that he was under the impression that I had not quoted Bowie, D. (1972), Z. Stardust and the Spiders of Mars.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Apart from fake notes, which academically is a sin, as well as books you have not read on the literature list, as Jona says, the most ridiculous thing I have seen are scholars quoting themselves and then in the notes refer to their own books...

If that is not arrogance what is...



M.VIB.M.

[Lyceum]

Apart from fake notes, which academically is a sin, as well as books you have not read on the literature list, as Jona says, the most ridiculous thing I have seen are scholars quoting themselves and then in the notes refer to their own books...

If that is not arrogance what is...



M.VIB.M.

Often an insanely useful practice, particularly in the more theoretical fields? especially when you're writing on something that is affected by your early works? It's just good academic practice.

[Lyceum]

Has anyone ever come across any fake footnotes in ancient history books?

Yes. I am currently discussing one. Because it is may be an intended fraud, I cannot now offer details.

I am also aware of a medieval archaeologist who quoted fake articles from non-existing journals to prove that the so-called Castle of Amsterdam was not as old as it was (according to everyone else).

On a les serious, well, note: in a paper about Apollonius of Tyana for a small group of scholars, I included a reference to Rowlingerus, J.K. (1897), De Philosophi Lapide, which was recognized.

During my study, I wrote another paper about Apollonius and included, in a list of references to articles by Ewen Bowie, another fake reference. After discussing the paper, my teacher, Jaap-Jan Flinterman, just dryly noted that he was under the impression that I had not quoted Bowie, D. (1972), Z. Stardust and the Spiders of Mars.

Oh I must be tired, I completely misread that, at first I thought you were saying Ewen Bowie didn't exist or something...I was thinking "hang on I saw him around here not too long ago!". It's cool that you were taught by Flinterman, I'm not exactly a fan of philosophy but I like some of his stuff I've come across on (imperial) identity and dream divinations.

[Epictetus]

I've seen a lot of scholars cite themselves. They might publish in a journal, later write a book, and cite their own journal article in it. I did it myself in a biography I wrote, citing a newspaper article I had written a couple of years previously. I eventually cut it out because the editor thought I had too many footnotes.

During the writing process I put in a fake footnote just to tease my editor, but I had no intention of leaving it there till publication.

[D B Campbell]

Have a free "Thank You", David! (I clicked it by mistake -- my browser is often infuriatingly sluggish to refresh, so clicks become a bit random -- but it would be churlish to take it back again!)

"French writes that in the three years since the book was published, nobody noticed."

I can imagine Dawson and Woodward congratulating themselves after three years, when nobody had noticed their hoax. But a random footnote in a popular book about Tibet?! What on earth was the author thinking of? :? And how does he know that nobody has noticed, in any case? Is it because nobody has posted it up on Amazon? Hmmm ... I don't think we need to condemn the entire Tibetology fraternity for resting on their laurels, on the basis of this rather bizarre occurrence.

... the most ridiculous thing I have seen are scholars quoting themselves and then in the notes refer to their own books ... If that is not arrogance what is...

"Self mentioning" is a complex area (see, for example, here). I know that it can be used simply for self-promotion, but it is often a useful means of avoiding the repetition of an argument which the author has stated more fully elsewhere.

[mcbishop]

Has anyone ever come across any fake footnotes in ancient history books?

I don't know about fake, I've come across far too many that were simply wrong or made up. As for spoof ones, Coulston and I nearly put in a withering one about leather segmentata in B&C2 but pulled it at the last minute, cowards that we are.

Mike Bishop

[Robert Vermaat]

I've come across far too many that were simply wrong or made up.

I've noticed over the years that it's necessary to always look up quotations when it comes to ancient sources. There are so many misquotes or perhaps writing errors around, which are then quoted again and again, it becomes silly. I fully understand that an author does not have the time, especially for a major article with, say, a dozen quotes per page, to look them all up again. But especially when you know the text but not the exact lines, mistakes are made.

I'm still looking for the actual text from Procopius when he allegedly wrote that a plumbata killed the cousin of the Vandal king in a battle against Belisarius. Yet it's re-quoted again and again...

[D B Campbell]

I fully understand that an author does not have the time, especially for a major article with, say, a dozen quotes per page, to look them all up again.

Do you? I don't. :!:

[Robert Vermaat]

Do you? I don't. :!:

Especially if you think you know where a certain passage is quoted, I think it's understandable that you don't look too closely. Sloppy, but understandable.

[Eleatic Guest]

In a Wikipedia article about early printing I spelled jokingly illiteracy "illilliteracy". It remained undetected for two years until I spotted it accidentally again it after having forgotten about it in the meantime.

In another article about a British sailing ship which was sunk by French warship I inserted "sunk by the perfidious French". Even though it was in the infobox it remained undetected for six weeks.