Jump to content

Talk:Springfield pet-eating hoax

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) at 05:18, 25 September 2024 (→Neighbor in the lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Removal of AI-generated image

An AI-generated image shared on social media by the United States House Committee on the Judiciary on September 9, and later Elon Musk, with the caption "Protect our ducks and kittens in Ohio!"

I'm puzzled by the removal by Magnolia677 of an image added by Belbury:

  • [1] claiming MOS:OMIMG.
  • [2] claiming the image is "degrading" toward a "living person." I'm not sure who the claimed living person is supposed to be, given that the image depicts Donald Trump and the article prose and image caption explain it was produced in support of him.

I'm ambivalent on its inclusion in the article altogether – it does demonstrate the House Judiciary Committee's support, which helps the article prose. But I detest AI art and don't like looking at it. This doesn't however make it MOS:OMIMG as claimed, so its removal puzzles me and I object to Magnolia677 misusing MOS guidelines to remove content. Dan • ✉ 22:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d support keeping it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be the main reason used for its exclusion. It serves a purpose to illustrate (the propaganda) how people supported spreading the hoax, while also being legally clear to use. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also support Keeping, no issues with copyright are in play and it's relevant to the article at hand. I'm getting Guy Standing Sitting flashbacks right now. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent. Certainly with current article content, it doesn't adequately illustrate what's written in the body, but there is sourcing out there about these memes that could be added for more justification. I don't think it's an offensive image issue, but a question of WP:DUE as one of the only images representing the subject. Genuinely not sure. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the degrading meme of a living person; its only purpose is to belittle someone edit summaries I assume that Magnolia677 has misread this as being a satirical image created by a Trump critic after the debate and shared by people to mock him, when it's actually from his supporters the day before. That's partly on me for not making the context clearer in the caption.
In retrospect a screenshot of the full tweet at https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1833154509222129884 would be better for setting the social media context and drawing the reader in. Belbury (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep it NotQualified (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as i see it a consensus has been created to keep the image Nohorizonss (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still ambivalent about the image in general, but definitely support the screenshot over the raw image. Good call, Belbury. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also support having the full screenshot of the post on X. This image screams AI and so it feels very out of place on here by itself, even with the caption. However, the complete uncropped image with the X post, better supports the overall inclusion of the image. TiggerJay (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really appropriate to classify this as a hoax?

While, personally, I'm inclined to believe that this probably hasn't been happening (i.e., Haitians in Ohio eating people's pets), or even if it has happened, it was likely just an isolated incident, from what I understand a "Hoax" is an intentional lie/deception of some sort. And I'm not quite sure if this situation falls into that category (at least not yet). Because while there's been no definitive proof that this has been occurring, there's also no proof that anyone was out to intentionally deceive.

Or, for that matter, that it's even untrue. While perhaps unlikely, it's not outlandish that this could actually be happening/has happened. Especially when we factor in the various "stories" told by residents that haven't been delved into and found to be false or fact-checked. Or the situation with the call to police from a man who allegedly saw a group of Haitians stealing geese.

Again, none of these incidents have been proven to be true but, in their defense, they do align with each other. Perhaps so many stories are floating around that area due merely to the original rumor getting out of hand and capturing imaginations/paranoia, but, as of yet, that's not confirmed and we shouldn't be so readily jumping to that conclusion, in my opinion. I see no reason to believe that it's not equally likely that this has happened/been happening and no one's yet to prove it.

This isn't a situation involving flying saucers or unicorns, after all, where it's so beyond the realm of possibility that defaulting to "it's a lie" is the safest bet. As far as I'm aware, we don't have enough information to go on either way. I see little information about the origin of the original Facebook post, for instance, or why we're to default to the assumption that it's untrue (let alone an outright hoax). And nor can we make such a claim about any of the other reports as of this time. While the police of the area, the city manager, and the mayor all saying that they've found no concrete evidence of this having occurred, or having received no "credible" reports of it is certainly a point against it, that seems hardly enough to warrant calling it a "false claim".

Until we know more, I'm partly wondering if this article even warrants being here at this time. But, if so, could we consider renaming it to reflect the uncertainty of the situation? Perhaps to 'Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating rumor' or something of the like? TheGutterMonkey (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only other word I can think of is "myth" or maybe "canard", which get away from the "intentional deception" bit, but that's a bit more awkward (and I don't know how accessible "canard" is). Rumor gives it far too much credibility, though. There is actually more evidence of flying saucers and unicorns out there than there is that a bunch of Haitian immigrants are "eating people's pets in Springfield". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else suggested "claim" which sounds more accurate, really, as that's all it actually is so far. We run into similar implications with both the words "myth" and "canard" which, again, jump the gun on giving the impression that we're sure the claims are false. Which, regardless of what one's gut feeling may be, we're not.
And I don't mean that in a Russel's teapot kind of way, where "anything is possible". We don't have a previous history of claims of unicorns or flying saucer sightings turning out to be true or having any basis in reality. We do, however, have plenty of evidence that people eat cats, dogs, and geese, and/or that animal sacrifices are a common part of many people's culture/religion and that Haitian's, in particular, practice Haitian Vodou (according to the Wikipedia article, "an often used joke about Haiti holds that the island's population is 85% Roman Catholic, 15% Protestant, and 100% Vodou"), where animal sacrifices are apparently a very common part of the religion. Within the article, there's even an entire section devoted to the topic of "Offerings and animal sacrifice" and how important it is to the people. "Offering food and drink to the lwa is Vodou's most common ritual, conducted both communally and in the home," the text says.
Considering the situation we're talking about in Ohio, where thousands of Haitian people (many of which who, if we go by what the Vodou article states, likely have a statistically high probability of having this religion) have migrated from their usual environment to a new one that has a completely different culture than their own, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that they, for example, may be looking for stray animals in order to practice their religion. And in a town like Springfield, perhaps stray cats, dogs, geese, etc. are the only convenient option. People in the town may then begin noticing their pets going missing, animal carcasses, or strange sights like a group of Haitians walking down the street holding dead geese. These are hardly murders, however, so it's not as if hard-hitting detective work is going into validating/invalidating these claims. Hence, it would make perfect sense for the authorities to have not yet had "evidence" of this occurring even if it has been. So I don't think that's a good enough rebuttal for classifying the rumors as untrue (let alone an outright lie with the intent to deceive).
Obviously, again, I'm not saying this is the case. But such a claim is perfectly feasible and a far stretch from unicorns or flying saucers. Not only wouldn't it be shocking (as far as how realistic it is) if it were to turn out that these rumors were to be true, it would actually be very in line with the other information we have. Which I'll list out:
1. A significant number of Haitians apparently practice a religion where animal sacrifice seems to be somewhat of a norm.
2. Multiple residents of an area where Haitians have flooded in have began making mention of animals going missing and/or being found dead.
3. At least one person has reported to police that Haitians were spotted walking down the street, each carrying a dead animal.
The fact that this claim is being immediately dismissed as an obvious 'hoax', 'myth', or 'lie' seems, in my opinion, very unjustified and largely motivated by an argument from incredulity. From a cultural perspective unfamiliar with these practices, it might seem outlandish. However, when considering the full context, this claim isn't as far-fetched as believing in flying saucers or unicorns. It's merely an unverified rumor that deserves a more nuanced examination rather than outright dismissal. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proving something didn't happen is impossible. The best we can do is the official statements from the police and from the city manager rejecting the rumors. I disagree that there's also no proof that anyone was out to intentionally deceive given that Trump's and Vance's claims came after the aforementioned denials from the city officials. Vance's "It's possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false" followed especially by "don't let the crybabies in the media dissuade you" is pretty damn close to intentional deception. At the very least it's an example of poisoning the well. Dan • ✉ 02:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that (oftentimes, at least) "proving something didn't happen is impossible", I don't believe this justifies classifying this particular situation as a hoax. An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, after all.
As I mentioned to @Rhododendrites, this isn't a Russell's Teapot scenario where we're entertaining any fantastical claim. We're discussing allegations of animal killings, potentially for consumption or ritual, which, given the cultural context involved and other information, isn't outlandish, but a reasonable possibility (I went further into this in my reply to Rhododendrites).
From what I understand, the authorities merely said there was no evidence to prove the claim, not that the claim was untrue. If we were to accept official statements such as that as evidence that claims were a "hoax" or a lie, then there's be no limit to the number of things on here that we'd be prematurely mislabeling as lies and hoaxes.
Just like with the "eating pets" claim, calling something a "hoax" is, in itself, a very strong claim that comes with a burden of proof. And proof, as far as I can tell, hasn't yet been brought forth either way on this matter. Hence why I'm suggesting that it may be better that this article (if people think it warrants existing at all) take a more neutral stance. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have similar concerns with using the word "hoax" in the title and throughout the article. At present, this article uses the word "hoax" 10 times (7 in the body & title, and 3 categories). Guess how many references used explicitly call these claims a hoax? ZERO! The source articles variously mention "unfounded claims" or "false claims" or "baseless allegations". Using CTRL-F, the only mention of "hoax" I found in any reference is in a direct quote referring to a different subject in The New Republic. Thus, I feel this Wikipedia article is out of line with every reliable source it cites, as it is using stronger, more loaded language than any other source. Perhaps an honest mistake or oversight, or perhaps a commendable desire to "call out lies wherever they exist!", but if no other reliable sources call this a hoax, then Wikipedia is violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:CONTENTIOUS, and other policies and guidelines by continuing to do so (and please, no one better accuse me of condoning or amplifying the false claims merely because I object to the way Wikipedia alone characterizes them). --Animalparty! (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't choose the name, but as I wrote above there's not an obvious alternative. I threw out myth and canard, but I doubt any/many of the sources use that exact phrasing either. Do we try to come up with a descriptive title? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Claims" is more in line with current sources. "Myth" and "canard" are not used as well. We should not be bashing readers over the head, nor subtly whispering into their ears, what we think the issue should be called, even if the title becomes slightly less pedantically, semantically, "correct". --Animalparty! (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxes and lies can also be claims. Calling it just a claim is too neutral when the event is supposed to be widespread, and where the claim has no basis and where the authorities of the locality have directly refuted the claim. A hoax is a false claim perpetrated in order to obtain some benefit to the one making the claim, so the name fits. Neonkow (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rumor is rooted in several unsubstantiated claims. One of which being a Facebook post from a source who shared unverified claims about abuse happening to several different animals, including cats, dogs, ducks, and geese (the situation with the cat was gone into in the greatest gruesome detail, thus seems to have gotten the biggest spotlight). There's also unverified claims about abuse happening to ducks that were made in a widely circulated Aug. 27th Springfield City Commission Meeting. Then there was an Aug 26th phone call to police claiming that Haitians were stealing geese. There are other claims from residents as well, but these are some specific ones that I'm aware of being mentioned in the sources within this article.
As far as I'm aware, none of these situations which the rumor appears to have stemmed from have been either proven or disproven. Jumping to the conclusion that they therefore must be falsehoods is completely unjustified, in my opinion. Being "baseless" doesn't equate to being "disproven" (with this mentality, we may as well also be confidently classifying God or every other sexual abuse allegation that occurred during the Me Too movement as a falsehood). Who are we to make these determinations?
Claims are determined to be a "Hoax" or a "lie" when evidence reveals them to be such (both a "hoax" and a "lie" are positive claims in themselves that require evidence, whereas "rumor" and "claim" are merely neutral terms that acknowledge the question without asserting claims of their own). As of yet, no such evidence has come forth that determined that any of these particular claims are "hoaxes" or "lies". They're merely baseless rumors.
The most we have that's in support of calling this situation a "hoax" (or a falsehood) is some sources which label it as such in their headlines yet don't substantiate that label within the body of their content (where they typically just refer to it as "unsubstantiated" or "baseless" or "unverified" or a "rumor", etc., while directing to sources such as the local authorities who classify it similarly). Furthermore, these sources aren't consistent with each other, either. Take the fact-checking website, Snopes, for example, which simply determines the rumor to be "Unfounded" (accompanied by a big question mark icon) rather than "False". A more neutral title, it seems to me, is more accurate and appropriate in reflecting the reality of the situation. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So wouldn't claim be the best option then, if it's truly neutral? We aren't saying it's a "hoax", (with the problems that come about from above), nor a fact. Because "claim" is middle of the line it means we aren't affirming one side or another, and using a broad word to be safe from doing that. I agree hoax should not be used merely because it attributes malice, which there is no evidence for. JungleEntity (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wider objections to the title:
(1.) I sincerely doubt that most of the X posters currently retweeting many of these memes are entirely serious. I also doubt that they are all somehow connected to the neo-Nazi that supposedly began the frenzy. Trump and Vance might have meant it, but the general "phenomenon" seems to be first and foremost that of a meme.
(2.) There is no mention of Haiti yet. The meme explicitly addresses Haitian immigrants.
(3.) It's not just about cats but in the very least also geese. Biohistorian15 (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to suggest this article shouldn't even exist. The "cat hoax" exists within the context of a larger issue which has seen significant coverage over the past week, that is to say, we should consider merging this article into 2024 Springfield, Ohio, migrant crisis.[3][4][5]. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, nice try, but it is absolutely appropriate for its own article, the fact that you mentioned it to be merged with the migrant crisis article suggest something. Benfor445 (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no migrant crisis article, which by itself suggests something. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating allegations" is my suggestion. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump, Vance, Loomer, etc., have been clearly told that this is false. They keep doing it anyway, for political gain. A hoax is defined by its intentionality: this was a rumor, now it is a hoax. Maykiwi (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the rumor has been substantiated is false. The rumor itself, however, is merely unsubstantiated. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And asserting unsubstantiated rumors as fact is perpetrating a hoax, or at least, RSes are calling it a hoax in this case. Feoffer (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s neither the definition of a hoax nor how a hoax is commonly referred to colloquially. Without evidence that the perpetrators are intentionally lying with the intent to deceive, it shouldn’t be considered a hoax. This is true regardless of some cherry-picked sources erroneously using the term in their headlines without substantiating that claim within the body of their content. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with claims, even though I think that lends just a bit too much credence to the initial report.PRRfan (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus to move. Many agree the current title may not be perfect, but there was no agreement on a preferred alternative, though 'pet-eating' was supported by multiple later participants. Editors may wish to discuss possible alternatives as a common name develops in reliable sources. Valereee (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax → Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating rumor – Per WP:NDESC and WP:RS. Reliable secondary sources predominantly describe this topic as a "claim", "rumor", or "conspiracy theory" rather than a hoax, and describe it as baseless or unsubstantiated rather than false. (As I write this, the only major WP:RSPSS I've found describing it as a "hoax" is New York.) Although the definitions of "hoax" and "rumor" overlap to some degree, the word "hoax" insinuates a deliberate and malicious trick, and the supposed event has not been and potentially may never be definitively proven as such. Per my older edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, one definition of "rumor" is "a statement or report current without known authority for its truth", which I think summarizes the topic better than "claim" or "conspiracy theory". Carguychris (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 23:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - "Rumor" lends far too much credibility to the subject. Rumors are often based on unofficial communications about something true before it's formally announced, among other meanings that entertain -- contrary to all reliable sourcing -- the idea that we might be talking about a real phenomenon of immigrants eating your pets. "Hoax" is not ideal in this case because it isn't mentioned explicitly in enough sources, but at least it isn't harmfully misleading (we are, fundamentally, talking about something that became notable for its spread after it was debunked). "Myth" is a possibility. Otherwise possibly a descriptive title (though I can't think of a good one at the moment). Adding later: My preference, among the variables presented below, is "Springfield pet-eating hoax". There just hasn't been a good alternative to hoax presented, I agree that Ohio isn't needed to disambiguate, and this story took off with the allegations about pets. FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A rumor is "a statement or claim of questionable accuracy, from no known reliable source, usually spread by word of mouth" which is exactly what this story is.
    It hasn't been "debunked", as you say. It's quite literally just an unsubstantiated claim (subsequently, I feel the article jumps the gun in repeatedly referring to it as a "false" claim, as well). The authorities have stated they've had no evidence confirming the allegations, not that the allegations themselves are untrue or that anyone has been caught/admitted to lying. The only thing that has been debunked is some specific photos and videos people have shared on social media which, from what I understand, came about after the rumor had already spread.
    Words such as "claim", "rumor", and "allegation" seem to be the most appropriate for the topic, as these both accurately describe what it is and retain a neutral tone. Terms such as "hoax", "myth", and "conspiracy theory" are all baseless claims in themselves which are just as unverified as the original rumor being discussed. I'd also suggest changing the "cat-eating" portion of the title as I don't feel that properly conveys the full scope of the rumor. "Springfield, Ohio, Animal Consumption Rumor" or something of the like would be more accurate. Or even maybe "Springfield, Ohio, Unverified Claims of Animal Consumption" if one wants to emphasize more the lack of verification rather than the rumor itself. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on most points, although I'm more open to the term "conspiracy theory" because it's supported by sources. The term "myth" is just as loaded with insinuation as "hoax". I likewise think the article goes overboard in describing the rumor itself as false, as it's more accurately unproven, unsubstantiated, or baseless, but we're veering off the topic of the RM. All that being said, I have another alternate suggestion: Springfield, Ohio, animal-eating rumor to reflect its spread from cats and ducks to dogs and geese. I like "eating" because the word "consumption" has other possible meanings, so "eating" is more WP:CONCISE. "Claims" and "allegations" come across as clumsy and didactic to me, personal preference. Carguychris (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The cat-eating really is integral. "animal eating rumors" would be meaningless: people in Springfield really do eat ducks and geese and other animals, some of which can be pets. Feoffer (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworded the article to remove language stating that the rumor is outright false or is a hoax, unless there is clear attribution, which I've notated more clearly. Carguychris (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a move to "Springfield, Ohio, migrant conspiracy theory" or something like that. There's more to this then the (ridiculous) cat-eating part of this. Support moving to conspiracy theory, Oppose moving to "rumor". -1ctinus📝🗨 15:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. suggests to strongly that it may be true. In the absolute off chance that the story does have truth to it, we can move it then. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 16:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 'Cat-eating conspiracy theory', thats what sources say NotQualified (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose “Conspiracy theories” have tendencies of becoming true or partially true at a later date. (ie declassified cases that have come to light decades later such as Operation Paperclip). There is no truth to the target group here in any capacity with motives to slander while taking multiple situations that appear to be related and spun together to create an outcome for reactionary purposes that made the crossroads of a political debate. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment it is unclear what group is allegedly conspiring, what its goals are, or who is alleging that the group is conspiring. A conspiracy theory typically features all three; some conspiracy theories feature competing narratives about the first two points, but my overall thrust is that there must be a coherent narrative, even if it seems puerile, false, or absurd to most. There seems to be no clear narrative in this case. It seems more like an unfounded, generalized political attack. For these reasons and the reasons you state, I withdraw my support for calling this a conspiracy theory. Carguychris (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support move from 'Cat-eating' to 'Pet-eating' or 'Animal-eating', Strong oppose move from 'hoax' to 'rumor'. Pet eating is a more accurate characterization of the hoax. 'Rumor' would give WP:UNDUE credit to the hoax's truthfulness. A move from 'hoax' to 'conspiracy theory' as suggested elsewhere in this discussion might work and would be inline with other similar topics, but IMO hoax is also accurate. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fine with changing the word "cat-eating" to "pet-eating." I think even "conspiracy theory" might be giving the hoax too much credit, since there's been a handful of conspiracy theories proven correct. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A rumor is something that it is still unproven one way or the other. A hoax is something confirmed false. This page is about an incident which did not happen. 85sl (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Rumour" seemingly implies that its origins are unclear, which is not the case here. I also agree that it is somewhat misleading in implying that the claims might be true, when they are plainly not so. I can't think of a better word to use than "hoax", including "conspiracy theory". (That is because "conspiracy" seems to imply a small, nebuluous group of people is behind the supposed acts, which is not what the claims make). Groot42 (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The origins are unclear, however, and the sources don't include evidence that the referenced rumors are conclusively false (they're repeatedly referred to as "baseless", "unverified", etc.). According to the article, it stemmed from an "early September" Facebook post which includes hearsay from unidentified sources whose stories have been neither confirmed nor disproven. Meanwhile, the article mentions an earlier phone call to local police on August 26th where a man claims to have seen geese stolen from Springfield Park. Again, this incident has neither been confirmed nor disproven. There are various other claims, as well, oftentimes unverified hearsay and from unknown sources. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the sources don't include evidence that the referenced rumors are conclusively false (they're repeatedly referred to as "baseless", "unverified", etc.). Well that's where WP:ASSERT comes in. Absolute metaphysical certitude is never the standard. RSes universally say "hoax" or "false claim" or "debunked allegations" or similar. This Mysterian argument from ignorance could just as easily malign Jewish folks by alleging they eat babies, and to be blunt, we can't have it here. Repeating unfounded, baseless rumors is perpetuating a hoax, per RSes. Feoffer (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that readers would benefit from a more fulsome investigation of this issue. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? 2601:1C0:717E:4C0:CC12:FA40:6BB9:DAD6 (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you referring to with the "Russian disinformation fairytales" comment? AusLondonder (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hoax is one hundred percent bullshit, let's not entertain it by calling it a "rumor." HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This subject has become an official point in the policies proposed by the Republican candidate to the Presidency of the United States - not to speak about the very real bomb threats.
    This thing "was" a rumor, it became a hoax when Trump and Vance were told by journalists that it was unfounded, that they were wrong in spreading it, and they keep doing it anyway until now.
    This has gone way beyond a faux pas in a debate. It became policy, and violence.
    Wikipedia is meant to serve, and that includes to point out at misinformation being misinformation. Maykiwi (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
watch your language. If you can’t post without resorting to cuss words maybe you should take a time out before posting. 216.8.165.252 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC) — 216.8.165.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia is not censored and bullshit is an accurate description of this hoax. AusLondonder (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
there is a clearly partisan bias to using the word “hoax”, which has the implication that people are lying or intending to dupe people with this rumour. writing this off as a hoax within a week of it becoming a major discussion topic seems to be jumping the gun in to push a narrative. In my opinion, the jury is still out there and as others have said we may never know the full truth. 216.8.165.252 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC) — 216.8.165.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I would support @1ctinus's suggestion of Springfield, Ohio, migrant conspiracy theory over "crisis", because "conspiracy theory" is more consistent with what reliable secondary sources call it, and doesn't implicitly lend WP:UNDUE weight to the idea that these events constitute an actual crisis. Carguychris (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would also support "conspiracy theory" if opinion tilts that way; I just think "rumor" is a bit tidier, and "conspiracy theory" implicitly raises the question of who is conspiring to consume household pets or to cover up the fact it's happening, which may lead to some WP:UNDUE discussion of tinfoil hat fringe "theories". Carguychris (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Cat-eating conspiracy theory' sounds like the "conspiracy theory" is itself eating cats. Paul H. (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. Carguychris (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Springfield, Ohio pet-eating hoax": It seems to extend to other domesticated animals such as dogs and domestic geese too. Sergei zavorotko (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that rename (to “pet-eating hoax”). Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this as well, as it more accurately covers the scope of the hoax. Groot42 (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It started with cats, the AZ GOP is doing cat billboard and politicians are doing cat memes. We could add dogs to the title, but 'pet' alone is too vague: people have pet ducks and pet geese and pet goats. Feoffer (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The initial Facebook post which the article credits as being what the rumor stemmed from specifically mentions cats, dogs, ducks, and geese. Ducks are also mentioned in the widely circulated footage from the Aug. 27th Springfield City Commission Meeting. Trump, in his debate with Kamala Harris, mentioned both dogs and cats. When the police addressed the claim, they said "pets". When the mayor addressed it, he talked about "geese or ducks". The attorney general referenced livestock. The Aug 26th phone call to police claimed that Haitians were stealing geese. Zeroing in on pets isn't only more appropriate, it's technically not broad enough.
    That being said, I'd nevertheless support the word "pets" due to Trumps use of the phrase ("they're eating the pets") becoming so associated with the rumor. Cats, as well, due to memes, have become very associated with it, but between the two options "pets" is more accurate to the broader scope of the rumor. However, I'd still oppose any title utilizing the word "hoax" in regard to this rumor, as the rumor hasn't been substantiated as being a deliberate lie with the intent to deceive. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that rename (to “pet-eating hoax”). MattFry7 (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But is it a hoax? What sources meeting WP:RSPSS other than New York are calling it that? And are the ducks and geese pets, farm animals, or ornamental? Sources mention that the ducks in early versions of the rumor were ornamental. If anything, "cat" should be changed to "animal", not "pet". Carguychris (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"animal-eating" is a non-starter, that's diluted beyond all meaning. Feoffer (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, most people (except vegetarians) eat animals. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose-isH. “Rumour” implies it might be true, when it’s clearly not true. “Hoax” is better. I could live with “conspiracy theory”. I’d be OK with replacing “cat” with “pet”: it started with a supposed cat, but it has gone further. That said, the references to ducks are not to pets, but to wild animals, so I don’t know how to include ducks. Bondegezou (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Rumour” implies it might be true, when it’s clearly not true. Which news outlets meeting WP:RSPSS says it's clearly not true, outside of the opinion section? And they were domestic ornamental ducks according to sources. The make and model of geese is unclear, but geese aren't very cuddly, so I can't imagine they were pets. Carguychris (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As of the time of writing this, there's yet to be any evidence that this rumor was/is a lie. Let alone an intentional lie. By definition, it's simply not qualified to be classified as a hoax. It's an unfounded, baseless, unverified rumor (or claim or allegation).
    As far as the word "rumor" giving credence to the mere possibility that it may be true... I'm somewhat unclear as to what the problem is with that or why so many seem so adamantly opposed to it. While there's certainly no evidence that it is true, it's very feasible that it could be true. There's multiple residents in the area, for instance, all making similar/related claims. Their claims have never been determined to be untrue or a lie. And the claim involves people from a country where animal sacrifices aren't only not unusual but are apparently a significant aspect to their religious rituals (Haitian Vodou). None of this, mind you, is good evidence that the rumor has any validity to it. They are indicators, though, that the claim isn't so outlandish or outside the realm of reality (i.e., Bigfoot, Flying Saucer, or Leprechaun sightings) as to warrant being so casually dismissed as an absolute falsehood, completely unworthy of being considered a possibility. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless on whether or not this is true it would be extreme bias to assume that this is true of all the people of Haiti and its diaspora. Similar claims can be said of various cultures especially in the Americas and you are essentially adding a rumor on top of a rumor while Wikipedia is not… “a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions”. (See WP:RUMOR) Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing was mentioned about assuming anything of all the people of Haiti. I brought up the apparent common practice of a widespread religion in the area in order to emphasize that there was a larger degree of plausibility to the rumor than some are allowing for (instead, they're claiming that it's "clearly not true" and that words such as "rumor" mustn't be used because they allow for the mere possibility that it could be true). I was simply giving reason why the claim wasn't utterly beyond the realm of reasonable plausibility and shouldn't be so quickly dismissed due to an argument from incredulity. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GutterMonkey's words, no doubt representative of many readers, highlight the need for a title that makes it clear the claims are false. Feoffer (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you're adding a valid (and civil) rebuttal to your implications about me and/or my words, I don't know how your response here is constructive to the conversation. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me be more direct: above you characterize these claims as more plausible than UFO conspiracy theories, but the opposite is true. Promoters of CTs are not, in the whole, baldfaced liars. People really did report "flying saucers" in a mass hysteria outbreak in 1947, Kennedy really was assassinated in Dallas in 1963 -- but nobody in 2024 is eating cats in Springfield. This is a hoax or a 'false claim", the title needs to reflect that. Feoffer (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These rumors are more plausible than the things which I listed (which were Bigfoot, flying saucers, unicorns, and leprechauns, by the way). There’s never been any well-substantiated evidence that bigfoot, flying saucers, unicorns, or leprechauns have ever existed. There has, however, been plenty of evidence that people killing and eating cats and dogs occurs quite regularly. And there’s evidence that this is a more normalized thing to do in some regions than it is in others. Subsequently, the claim that someone saw evidence of a person killing or eating an animal is objectively more plausible than the claim that someone saw evidence of Bigfoot.
    Mind you, I wouldn’t be supporting calling rumors of bigfoot, flying saucers, unicorns, or leprechauns a “hoax” or a “falsehood” either without proper evidence to indicate that they actually were. If someone asked me whether flying saucers exist, I’d say “there’s yet to be any evidence of that” or that those are “unverified claims” or that those are “just rumors”. While I’d certainly be more readily dismissive of such claims (than I would be of accusations of a crime that’s been documented to occur sometimes) and demand especially strong evidence before believing them, I’d still be in the wrong to prematurely classify them as “hoaxes” or “falsehoods” without reasonable proof of my own. Because when you call something a hoax or a falsehood, you're making a claim that saddles you with a burden of proof.
    My reasoning for bringing up my "outlandish" examples was merely a response to someone claiming that we shouldn't even be toying with the possibility that these rumors could potentially be true (and, subsequently, that we shouldn't be using a neutral — and accurate — term like "rumors" to describe them). For who I was responding to, it seemed, the possibility that this could be true was so beyond the realm of plausibility that we should inexplicably be defaulting to the stance that they aren't only a falsehood, but they're a deliberate falsehood (which, as of yet, there's no evidence of). Me bringing up actual cases of animal killings/consumption, cultural differences, and religious rituals was just an attempt to drive home my point that the rumors weren't as implausible as was being implied. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Conspiracy theory" is a pejorative, but Springfield cat-eating isn't even worthy of that lowly title. It's not about sincere believers in hats made of tinfoil, it's about purveyors of snake oil. At least, that's what RSes are universally saying. Feoffer (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the creator of the article who wrote the original title, I'll explain my rationale for using "hoax" here. I used it for the same reasons that the Litter boxes in schools hoax article is called that: it's a series of unsubstantiated claims that were passed off by prominent politicians and media figures as fact despite thorough fact-checking from reliable sources. I felt using a descriptor like "rumor" would lend undue weight to the claims. "Conspiracy theory" might be fine for this article.
As to why I titled it "cat-eating"; when I created the article on the 10th, it was mostly cats being talked about (this was before the former president uttered "they're eating the dogs".) If I had written the article today, I probably would have called it the "pet-eating hoax." LV ✉ ✎ 23:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose absolutely not. Per Bondegezou, "rumor" suggests it might be true. Nor is there even a theory of a 'conspiracy' to eat cats. It's a hoax. Similarly, "pets" is no good, as ducks,geese, chickens, and other food animals that are kept as pets. Feoffer (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used it for the same reasons that the Litter boxes in schools hoax article is called that: it's a series of unsubstantiated claims that were passed off by prominent politicians and media figures as fact despite thorough fact-checking from reliable sources. The litter box story is easier to disprove because there are fewer people who would need to be asked for verification. Also, reliable sources now describe it as a hoax.
The topic of this article raises a Russell's teapot type question. It seems likely that additional sources will eventually start calling it a hoax, but as I write this, major media outlets are still using words like "baseless".
I felt using a descriptor like "rumor" would lend undue weight to the claims. "Rumor" and "claim" are the descriptors reliable sources are using today. Carguychris (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a single cherry-picked opinion article. Per WP:RSEDITORIAL Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces... are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Do an unbiased survey of the fact-based sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The Hill article headline explicitly refers to "a debunked conspiracy theory," also "a lie." I didn't list this article in my analysis subpage, see below, because it isn't in the article (but feel free to add it). thanks. ProfGray (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have pretty good concensus here on not using the word "hoax". And we are largely in agreement on using a broader term than "cats". It seems to me that the best alternate terms are "pets" and "rumors" - note that it's pluralized.
First, to repeat the definition of rumor: "a statement or claim of questionable accuracy... usually spread by word of mouth". The point being, these are not just "claims". The reason this has come to our attention is precisely because of the viral spread of rumors through social media - not just ONE rumor, but multiple rumors that added to the seeming credibility of the original story. That is how rumors operate: formerly it was by word of mouth, nowadays the process has been accelerated by social media. So now the rumors have, shall we say, metastasized.
Next, the term "pets" broadens to include cats and dogs, as well as domesticated geese and chickens, imo. Whereas "animals" is nearly meaningless, since most people do eat meat. Also, I think it's worth noting that, after Donald Trump said during the debate, "They’re eating the dogs. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets... ", the Associated Press chose the word "pets" for their headine ("Trump falsely accuses immigrants in Ohio of abducting and eating pets") - which was undoubtedly the most widely seen article on the subject immediately following the debate.
Lastly, reference to "migrants" is crucial, because this whole story would not have taken off the way it has if not for the Haitian immigrants who have settled in Springfield. They are the very reason the claim was brought up during the debate by Donald Trump. And note again, the AP headine made a point of referencing "immigrants" in their headline.
Anomalous+0 (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carguychris, Longestview, TheGutterMonkey, Animalparty!, and ProfGray: I have made an Alternate rename proposal - please rejoin the discussion. Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My sense from the sources is that this is a false claim, not a rumor/claim that needs to become more accurate. Adding Haitians or migrants might be fine, or wordy. ProfGray (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC) ProfGray (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding "migrant. Your overall reasoning agrees with mine regarding why this is a rumor, not merely a claim (which may or may not have become widespread), or a hoax (implies unambiguous falsehood and a deliberate trick, and both are unclear in this case). However, you forgot the MOS:GEOCOMMA after "Ohio". Carguychris (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cat-eating is pretty essential to the title, particularly in understanding the responses. We could maybe add dogs, but this isn't about duck hunting or foie gras Feoffer (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After further consideration, I think that "cat" and "pet" both get the point across, since it started with cats and most versions of the story include cats. "Animal" may be too general. I'm vacillating. Carguychris (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I also agree that the word “migrant” is important to the topic and is a good inclusion for the title. "Rumor", as I’ve mentioned previously, is a perfectly acceptable neutral term that comes with no claims of its own (such as "hoax", which comes with its own unmet burden of proof) and, by definition, "Rumor" it fits exactly what this claim is, despite anyone's personal feelings, beliefs, or gut instincts on the matter. While I understand that many appear to be very resistant to using a middle ground word in regard to this rumor, the fact of the matter is that there is of yet no conclusive evidence that the rumor is either a deliberate lie or a falsehood. In order to remain intellectually honest and unbiased, a non-committal term like this is required, in my opinion.
TheGutterMonkey (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haitians in Springfield are immigrants, not migrants. Feoffer (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the time being. It is vitally important not to allow for WP:CITOGENESIS. this kind of naming convention is concrete and matter-of-factly enough not to.
Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things. First, to be clear, oppose all instances of titles based on "rumors" or "claims" per my !vote above. Second, "pet-eating" is what makes the most sense to me since "pets" is what a lot of the sources talk about. It would also mean we could focus the article more, because it sounds like there are a variety of other accusations which, while they're relevant to racial tensions in Springfield, are not relevant to the core of this subject, which is the extraordinary claim that migrants are eating pets. The talk of duck and geese, for example, does not tap into the same "they're coming for your family" rhetoric -- people eat ducks and geese. Sounds like there was never any evidence of that either, and some sources cover them together, but if we were clear that this is about pets those claims could be summarized in a single paragraph is related but not central to the story. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The evidence, or lack thereof, clearly points towards this being a hoax. Hence the title of the article should remain the same. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- premature page move -- The page was moved to a new title ("pets") without apparent reference to this discussion, and without closing this by User:LuanLoud. Was that inappropriate? I'm not seeing an obvious consensus around "pets" and it was not in the original RM wording. ProfGray (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was inappropriate. Carguychris (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two elements to this move request: "hoax" and "cat". "Hoax" has obviously not been resolved, but I don't see anyone arguing for "cats" being preferable to "pets" (several argue the opposite, though). As such, unless folks want to argue that "cat-eating" is better backed by the sourcing than "pet-eating", I see no reason not to move it and continue with this move request. If anything, it allows the move request to more easily focus on "hoax" and its alternatives. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Since "pets" was not in the proposal, most !votes or comments don't mention it. I don't think it's helpful to try to do moves during an RM, except to close the RM. To close the RM, an disinterested party should read thru all the responses and tally up the various views here, right? Note also: the RM should be allowed to go for '''seven days'''. See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. Since the move to "pets" was not done properly, I have Moved this back. ProfGray (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely argue cat in title is integral, especially to understand the response. We could maybe do "cat and dog eating", but we can't go "pet" or "animal"; This hoax is NOT "pets" which can include chickens, ducks, geese, etc. Feoffer (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose as premature and inaccurate (or at least inexact). As plenty of editors have noted, 'hoax' is a problematic term at the best of times and absolutely does not describe the situation we face here. A hoax is something perpetrated to deceive. There is zero evidence that Ms Lee had any such intention. Right now, this is best described as a 'rumour' (or 'rumor', since it's in the US where English is deprecated). I expect that this will end up in List of urban legends alongside all the other stories based on someone's best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors (with apologies to Mr Bueller). As such, I think we should leave it with the current title and move on. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please clarify what you're strongly opposing. The RM is to move the article from "hoax" to "rumor" and it seems like you support that. Carguychris (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise. I was very unclear. I oppose ANY move right now. Yes, rumour is much closer to what we have, but that puts us afoul of the Wikipolicy of the same name. Even if the encyclopaedia did house rumours, I'm not convinced it is a rumour. It's a meme, a racist trope, an urban legend, a sadly-transparent xenophobic myth. History will tell us which when folks start writing RS about it, if it even remains in public discourse (which I doubt). If it does, I'd put my money on 'trope' at the moment. By decade, it was cats in oriental restaurants, then Santorini priests with pet sacrifices, then dog-fur Chinese-import coats, and now Haitians are eating the cats. I'm sure we'll have goldfish sushi when next the Japanese become the political bogeymen of America's right-wingers. I guess I'm suggesting that we don't bother with the title as one is no worse than the next; just let it sit and contemplate all the actual, encyclopaedic subjects we could be editing instead. CheersLast1in (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial oppose Given the conspiracy theory doesn't only apply to cats, the "cat-eating" part should be changed to "pet-eating". Otherwise, I think "hoax" is the most accurate way to describe it as of right now. Isthmus55 (t • c) 21:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose rename due to WP:RUMOR and what Wikipedia is not; a collection of unverified facts. Furthermore, there is no “theory” either as it has been debunked as the county police department said there was no such activity among its immigrants. In a statement on Tuesday (10 September 2024), a Springfield police spokesperson said, “In response to recent rumors alleging criminal activity by the immigrant population in our city, we wish to clarify that there have been no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”
    • Oppose Strongly Rumour suggests something may or may not be true while hoax is a deliberately crafted false story which this so obviously is, a random Facebook post by a layperson has been amplified and crafted into a dog, cat, domestic geese eating hoax, Furthermore i support the title Springfield, Ohio pet-eating hoax as it seems the most logical and appropriate in this case Nohorizonss (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Ferrell (not a Haitian immigrant) was booked and arrested in Canton, Ohio, which is about 3 hours away from Springfield, Ohio and the infamous black man walking the goose down the street not only was not a Haitian immigrant but was taken on 28 July 2024 by a man in Columbus, Ohio by a reddit user who posted it and now regrets doing so.
In lieu of this, what would be most appropriate when social media takes videos out of context and ties a particular group of people to it to the point it catches onto political figures who would potentially use these false claims to win over votes? A hoax. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted below, WP:RUMOR does not apply, because it concerns speculation about unverified future events, not discussion of the real-world effects of past events. Lastly, @Savvyjack23, I'm blanking out the Canton, Ohio, woman's name in your response due to WP:NPF. No hard feelings. Carguychris (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I object to removal (albeit partial) of my comment as per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS and I do not give you permission to do so as per WP:MUTUAL. The former states, to “Cautiously [edit] or [remove] another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. WP:NPF applies to WP:BLP, not talk pages. No hard feelings taken Carguychris}. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose 'pet' in title Per my !vote and comment above, "cat" really does need to be in title to understand the absurdity of the claim and the automatic reactions of laughter and mockery. People keep all sorts of food animals as pets: ducks, geese, goats, sheep, chickens, etc. The hoax is not about over-zealous duckhunters straying onto their neighbors land, it's about the idea of kidnapping and eating cats for food. Feoffer (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - It's being discussed in RS as a hoax, it's commonly spoken about as a hoax. Moving it to "rumour" would amount to diluting the clarity of it being untrue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 15:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support - Great care must be taken to prevent any personal loathing for Trump and Republicans from poisoning an encyclopedia, which simply MUST be neutral 100% of the time. YouTube is bristling with first-person testimonials by Springfield residents, including a black native of Springfield (who hardly fits the "neo-Nazi" or "white supremacist" profile), reporting these incidents. THIS IS NOT A HOAX. If it's a deliberate hoax, it is extremely sophisticated, it's got Big Money behind it, and it's hiring crisis actors from across the racial spectrum. Which means that the chances of it actually being a hoax are microscopic. "Rumor" is a much better descriptive term for what I'm seeing. Cheers mates. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC) — 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    WP:NPOV explicitly rejects applying a false balance, and your personal opinions are not outweighed by the overwhelming weight of RS declaring it to be false. Cpotisch (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "False" is very, very different from "unverified." And when you drill down into each and every one of of those WP:RSes, if you read past the headlines into the fine print, the truth is that it is "unverified." Not "false." This is very different from flying saucer hoaxes, or Bigfoot hoaxes, or Loch Ness Monster hoaxes. People have actually eaten cats. This is a fact. In other words, it's a plausible rumor. If proven false, then it was a hoax; but that hasn't happened yet. That isn't personal opinion. I refuse to allow my personal distaste for Trumpian politics to colour a WP:NEUTRAL encyclopedia. Cheers mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RSes describe the cat-eating claims as "false" [9][10]. Feoffer (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oi right. Scroll down, mate. I'm making the same argument on two separate threads. When you drill down past the word "false" in the headline, in the media that so very obviously loathe Donald Trump, you will find (in the fine print in the 17th paragraph of the article) that the word "unverified" is far more accurate. Do you need examples? Do I need to post them here for you, in exquisite detail, or can you look for yourself? 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your linked article in the Washington Post, a left-leaning newspaper that hasn't endorsed a Republican for president in my very long lifetime, uses the word "rumor" twice. It doesn't use the word "hoax" at all.
    Your linked article in The Guardian, which is openly, proudly left-wing and regularly hosts op-eds from flaming left-wing partisans who loathe everything conservative, uses the word "rumor" four times. It doesn't use the word "hoax" at all.
    I rest my case. Cheers, mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you're citing RSes that explicitly call the claim "false" to demonstrate that we shouldn't call it false? No, I don't think further examples of this will be helpful. Feoffer (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat: when you read past the headline of the article, which may explicitly (but erroneously) use the word "false," and get down into the facts (which are finally explained in the 5th, or 12th, or 19th paragraph), you find that police cannot prove it to be either true or false. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose. No evidence of this being real. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence of it being false either. The police haven't had any "verified" reports. "Rumor," to me, seems the best descriptive term because it MIGHT turn out to be true. Cheers. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC) — 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    This is absurd. You can't prove a negative and the burden of proof is on the one making the allegation. Cpotisch (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Take that up with the Trump campaign, then. Trump is the one making the allegation. As a Wikipedia editor, I'm just reporting it as neutrally as I can. What WP is SUPPOSED to do is report the allegation NEUTRALLY, without the spin-doctoring that is always present in the media that so very obviously loathe him, and are licking Kamala's boots. If the allegation has been proven to be false, then it's a hoax. If it hasn't been proven false, then it's a rumor. People have eaten cats before. So this is not in the nature of a Bigfoot hoax. It's plausible. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By your logic anything is plausible. The cat-eating scandal is in fact a hoax, by definition. It has been completely manufactured, as there is no veracity to any of the baseless claims put forward. Trump said he "saw something about it on television", give me a break. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong, of course. Bigfoot reports and flying saucer reports are implausible, because neither one has provided physical or (authenticated) photographic evidence of any type. There are no experts agreeing that Bigfoot definitely existed, or that we've definitely been visited by flying saucers, at any time. Quite the opposite for people eating cats. It's happened, numerous times. In fact, if you were stranded on an island in the middle of the ocean, with nothing but 100 cats and unlimited firewood, I daresay that after seven days, the cat population would be less than 100. No offense, mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. People have eaten cats before. However, Haitian immigrants have not eaten cats in Springfield before. BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 23:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because "it has happened somewhere at some point in time" does not make the Springfield cat hoax any less of a hoax. You are literally arguing in favor of perpetuating the disinformation campaign, which is pointless and not contributing to the Wikipedia project in any way whatsoever.
    If you have sources that can show this is not a hoax, please do so. Otherwise, enough is enough. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BombCraft8 @72.14.126.22 Here, watch this video. [[11]] As I said, this is an authentic "open mike" video from meetings of the Springfield City Commission. These are Springfield residents. The gentleman in the red hoodie doesn't fit the "white supremacist" profile. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is the evidence that his claim is true? As a simple example, re: his claim that they're eating ducks they catch at the park, do you think they're eating raw duck that they plucked (or left unplucked) at the park and he watched this all happen at the park, or do instead think that he followed them home and watched them pluck and then cook the ducks there? Neither one strikes me as plausible. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for your YouTube channel link, per Wikipedia: The Daily Caller is a conservative website founded by Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel in 2010. It covers politics, culture, and media, and has been criticized for publishing false stories and white supremacist content.
    Not a reliable source. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 00:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. Do you think the video has been doctored? Do you think it's AI-generated? There is no commentary by Tucker Carlson or anyone else. Everybody speaking in that video is a resident of Springfield, Ohio. All of them, even the last one who seems quite sympathetic to the Haitians, agree that the Haitians are causing a lot of problems. And if you'd like to see the original, unedited video on the official Springfield, Ohio city government website, I'm sure I can post a link. The video is authentic. Some irrelevant material has been edited out, same as any news organization would do. Cheers mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the article quotes this citizen's unfounded claim of supposed duck hunting in city parks, but no amount of duck or goose allegations will make the cat-eating claims anything but a hoax. Feoffer (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. Do you think the video has been doctored? Do you think it's AI-generated? That has nothing to do with it. Please see WP:DAILYCALLER. They are considered generally unreliable by Wikipedia's standards, and have been deprecated. Furthermore, we generally can't use YouTube videos as a source. We'd need something written by a credible secondary source. Hope that helps. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already got two reliable secondary sources, mate. The Guardian uses the word "rumor" four times, but doesn't use the word "hoax" at all. The Washington Post uses the word "rumor" twice, but doesn't use the word "hoax" at all. Use the term that the reliable sources are using. Avoid the term that the reliable sources are not using. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh by the way mate, here's the very same video (unedited) at RealClearPolitics. [12] The City of Springfield, Ohio has its own official YouTube channel, and here's the very same video from their August 27, 2024 meeting. [13] Clicking on the "Watch a Commission Meeting" link on the city's official website [14] takes you straightaway to the city's YouTube channel. Please stop complaining that Daily Caller is unreliable. In this instance, they've proven to be 100% reliable. Cheers mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even disregarding your source, a town hall video isn't proof of anything besides a rumor being widespread. You can go into Washington state and New York and find plenty of town hall meetings discussing bigfoot, it doesn't mean bigfoot exists. Sourfillet (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... a town hall video isn't proof of anything besides a rumor being widespread. Thanks for making my point for me. This is a "rumor being widespread." A rumor, not a hoax. Cheers mate. Have some coffee. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that law enforcement looked through months of call logs and did not find any reports about pets being stolen is, in fact, evidence of it being false. Just what kind of evidence of falsity are you looking for? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The fact that no one has reported any missing pets does not prove that none have gone missing. Cheers, mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, but if no one has reported any missing pets, then if there are missing pets, we don't know about them BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 23:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's noteworthy that you couldn't bring yourself to answer the question, so I'll ask you again: Just what kind of evidence of falsity are you looking for?
    Also, absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence. It depends on the claim, the bounds of the set being explored, and more. You're also ignoring the behavioral contradiction: if someone has evidence that their pet was stolen and eaten, you think that they're going to say that to a neighbor but NOT report it to the police? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just what kind of evidence of falsity are you looking for?
    Just right off I do not enjoy discussing hypothetical cases. But if some Springfield resident reported on 6 Sep her cat was missing, then reported on 8 Sep that she saw some Haitian immigrants skinning and eating her cat, then the Springfield police recovered her cat alive and well on 10 Sep, that would be proof that the report was false. Vague rumors like this one are difficult to prove one way or the other. That's why they're called "rumors," which are neither "facts" nor "hoaxes." Cheers mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a hypothetical case. Trump is accusing people, and you said that there is "No evidence of it being false," so it's totally fair to ask you what evidence you're looking for. Is there anything that would convince that the claim itself (rather than one person's report) is false? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, you seem to think that there is no such thing as a factual "gray area." Either it's definitely proven to be true, or it's definitely false, a hoax, a hideous lie, whatever.
    Since you enjoy discussing hypothetical cases, do you feel that Trump is definitely guilty of all the crimes with which he has been charged? Including the charges which were dismissed, or delayed until after the election? If I were to claim (in a Wikipedia article title) that the Florida classified documents case, the Georgia election interference case, and the DC insurrection incitement case are all "hoaxes," because they haven't been proven yet, it appears you would agree with me.
    Conversely, if some Red State Republican files a lawsuit for $50 million against Kamala on Monday for "public nuisance" prostitution in his neighborhood, dating back to 1989, right after the GOP-controlled state legislature changed the statute of limitations to allow such a lawsuit, would you be screaming on the Talk:Kamala Harris page that it's all a hoax?
    Can you understand now that there is a factual "gray area" here? And why I refuse to call it either "black" or "white"? (I think I'll be signing off now, Saturday night is date night ...) 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, you're projecting beliefs onto me that aren't mine, and the talk page for this article isn't the place to discuss things that have nothing to do with this article. I haven't asked you to call anything "black" or "white." I asked you about your claim that there's "No evidence of it being false either." Apparently you're unable to say what you'd take as evidence of it being false. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that "You can't prove a negative" is a pet peeve of mine. One can prove some negative claims but not others, just as one can prove some positive claims but not others. An example of a negative claim that can be proven: a largest prime number does not exist. Another example of a negative claim that can be proven: there are no plums in my refrigerator. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ones calling this a falsehood, however, are the ones making an allegation. And they're doubling down on this allegation by also alleging that it was deliberately concocted with the intent to deceive (a hoax). That's, in fact, two allegations. Both of which place burdens of proof on the accusers:
    1. They have to give proof that the rumors are untrue.
    2. They have to give proof that the rumors were intentionally made up with the intent to trick people.
    Proof of these two claims have still yet to come forth. The accusers are simply giving their personal opinions and cherry-picking from a pile of sources that are all inconsistently defining this aspect of the situation. "Ignore those labeling it a rumor or fact-checkers calling it 'unfounded' rather than 'false,'" they argue, "we must only side with the hand-picked article's that say the word 'hoax,' disregarding the article's body which fails to substantiate how it's a hoax."
    Those of us proposing that this should be classified as a "rumor" are merely arguing against both of those unverified claims, as well as the unverified claims that these rumors are definitely true. We're not making a claim of our own, we're saying that their claim (that this is a hoax) is just as unfounded as the rumor itself. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're mistaken on both counts. The standard for inclusion is showing that RSes characterize it as a hoax or false claim -- easily met here. There is no requirement of intentional deception by the creator. cf Arthur Machen, Orson Welles, and John Keel for originators of accidental hoaxes. Feoffer (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard for inclusion is showing that RSes characterize it as a hoax or false claim -- easily met here. For the third time, mate: when you drill down into the very same WP:RSes you are using, they don't use the word "hoax." And in the 6th, or 11th, or 18th paragraph of your own WP:RSes, the facts are actually laid out: the police cannot prove these claims. That doesn't mean the claims are false. It means they haven't been proven.
    The headline writers at your WP:RSes, in their rush to chop a point or two off of Trump's polling percentage, used the word "false" in the HEADLINE. But in the body of the article, they use the word "rumor," multiple times. And they DO NOT use the word "hoax."
    There is no requirement of intentional deception by the creator. cf Arthur Machen, Orson Welles, and John Keel for originators of accidental hoaxes. I've been marveling at the Orson Welles "War of the Worlds" broadcast, and the panic it unintentionally caused, for many years. But this is the first time I've seen it described as an "accidental hoax."
    Regardless, the headline of this article uses the word "hoax" without the "accidental" qualifier. Thus it quite deliberately creates the impression that Trump was quite deliberately lying: deliberately creating a false perception or misunderstanding. Without proof of that intent, the word "hoax" must be removed and the word "rumor" seems the most accurate replace3ment. That's my final word on the matter. Cheers, mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples such as that with the War of the Worlds situation aren’t commonly referred to as a hoax, as they don’t meet the definition of a hoax. “Hoax” is not synonymous with “falsehood”. It is a specific thing which implies intent. “Accidental hoax” is an oxymoron.
    As far as the sources go, while I agree that many use the label “fake” to describe the rumor (most don’t refer to it as a “hoax”, however), as the other user has stated, none of them that do this substantiate that classification within the body of the source. Looking beyond the labels/headlines and reading the actual content repeatedly reveals descriptions of an unsubstantiated rumor and the point to sources such as the Springfield law enforcement who, as well, merely describe an unsubstantiated rumor. And sources such as Snopes, that specifically aim to fact-check the claims, choose to classify it as "unfounded" (accompanied by a big question mark icon) rather than the more definitive claim of "false". These various sources aren’t consistent with each other (or even sometimes themselves) in this regard. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. This shouldn't be a question of which word ("hoax" or "rumor") gets the most votes. This should, in fact MUST be obedient to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and other policies. I am unaware of ANY WP:RSes that use the word "hoax," even once. Two sources that advocates of the word "hoax" have linked in this discussion (The Guardian and The Washington Post) use the word "rumor" repeatedly, but never use the word "hoax." Accordingly, we must follow policy, not votes. Cheers mates. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoax is NPOV -- many sources just call it a lie. [15] [16] [17] Feoffer (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, this appares to be a racist attck in order to generate hate against a group of people. Hoax is is the correct term to use as a neutral observer. 70.61.22.78 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I agree that "Hoax" is not quite the right word, neither in my view is "Rumor". Does anyone have a thought about "Trope" or "Canard", similar to Antisemitic trope? Or perhaps Moral panic? KConWiki (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The cat-eating hoax is also a racist dog whistle, not simply a political distraction. But are media sources describing it as directly as this? I know that neo-Nazi group Blood Tribe helped promote the false claims before Trump picked it up. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The hoax is also tangentially connected to the Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United States concept, and has been talked about as such by Trump and Vance, through their statements about migration allegedly benefiting Democrats vis-à-vis supposed "election fraud" and "illegal votes" by immigrants for Harris.
    So I think renaming the article using the words trope or canard would be illustrative, but would not necessarily be a common name, as currently described by the media, perhaps? Thoughts? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "lie"? Moncrief (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "canard" is probably the best choice, since it makes it clear the idea is false without the implication of intent that "hoax" carries. I'd also like to point out that, while we're discussing moving the page to a new title, it definitely shouldn't have a comma after "Ohio." The name of the city and state are an apposite noun in the phrase and thus the comma is unnecessary and incorrect. Wehpudicabok (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with 'canard' were it not for the fact that the vast majority of US readers would never have been exposed to the term. It is exceptionally uncommon to see it in print, and I have honestly never heard an native-speaker of American English use it in conversation. If they have any inkling at all, most would think it refers to the stubby little fore-wings of an aircraft or a posh British cruise line (that is, if they knew the word 'posh'). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both "rumor" and "conspiracy theory". "Rumor" suggests it's unclear if it's true, while "conspiracy theory" indicates some sort of conspiracy is being alleged. If someone steals a cat and eats it, they're not conspiring with anyone, they did it all on their own. Smartyllama (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's both malicious and deceptive, which makes it a hoax. I could support swapping "cat" for "pet" since even though the original hoax was about cats, Trump is lying about dogs too. Not essential, but possibly useful for completeness.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'Pet' serves to elide the absurdity: there are pet goats, chickens, ducks, geese, and other food animals. We could add dogs to the title, but cat-eating is pretty essential to understanding the reactions. Feoffer (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's true. People eat ducks all the time. Leave it as is, then.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose hoax -> rumor. Conspiracy theory would be ok. NPOV does not demand we give equal weight to a hoax that started with “my neighbor’s daughter’s friend says…” I have a hard time taking any argument to the contrary as one made in good faith. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - this is nothing more than a hoax and deserves no remote amount of credibility. Home Lander (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - People are demonstrably mislabeling images to create false evidence. It's not an accident that a photo from a older news article about a non-Haitian in a different place got captioned as evidence. No matter how it started, a rumor that was turned into a hoax is still a hoax. And if anybody's pet had been eaten, they probably would have come forward by now. That's the kind of absence of evidence that really is evidence of absence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HonoreDB (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Piltdown Man being proven to be a hoax doesn’t mean that evolution is a hoax. Various UFO-related hoaxes don’t indicate that aliens are a hoax. Debunking a connected sub-claim doesn’t debunk the broader rumor or the possibility that the rumor could be valid. Especially considering that these debunked stories were, as far as we can tell, a result of that broader rumor, not the cause of it.
    As far as people not coming forward about anything happening to their pets, that really isn't evidence of absence. Just because you can't imagine what reason there'd be for such silence (claims have been made by residents, but for the sake of argument let's pretend they haven't) doesn't mean those reasons don't exist. Yet again, this would be an example of the logical fallacy, argument from incredulity. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should pluralize it, then? Hoaxes, to emphasize that we're talking about several different cases of fraud meant to create a false belief that the rumor had been confirmed?
    Have there been people who have, themselves, credibly had their pets stolen coming forward? I thought it was all friend-of-a-friend stuff.
    On the meta level, evidence is not the same as proof. Absence of evidence is weak evidence of absence, but it is evidence, and it works cumulatively, the same as any other kind. In Bayesian reasoning, anything that is more probable when a statement is true is evidence for that statement, and certainly the current paucity of evidence would be less probable if it weren't a hoax. If you look around a room and don't see a tiger, that is evidence of the absence of a tiger, even if you forgot to check behind the sofa. HonoreDB (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Smartyllama. There is no conspiracy here, and there's no uncertainty that these accusations are false. I would support renaming the article to Springfield, Ohio, pet-eating hoax as the accusations have included dogs and ducks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I don't think any of the proposed titles, including hoax, is very good as this is fairly unique. But I do think the current title is the most appropriate. I Strongly Oppose Conspiracy Theory as the hoax does not allege a conspiracy. Unlike for instance the blood libel of anti-Semitism, which alleges a world-spanning Jewish cabal, this alleges the Haitians of Ohio to be the opposite of a cabal. They're not a conniving secret society out to eat pets; instead, they're dehumanized and described as animalistic, going out as individuals to forage for food and lacking the human dignity to respect pets. It's gross and evil and something very different from a conspiracy theory. Dan • ✉ 23:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need "Ohio" in the name of the article? It looks wierd, and I don't think we need a distinction. It's not like people will confuse it with "Springfield, Illinois cat eating hoax" or something. I would personally argue to move it to just "Springfield cat-eating hoax" or something (idk what will be concensus on a final name yet). Or at the very least, I would lose the second comma after "Ohio" in the title.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose OP's suggested move. Reliable sources use the term "hoax" (New York Magazine [18] Politico [19] The Hill [20], see also borderline source Washington Examiner [21]) alongside close synonyms like "false, racist rumors" (The Guardian [22]), "baseless assertion" (Washington Post [23]), "false claims" (Washington Post [24]), and "debunked claims" (NPR [25] The Independant [26]) when discussing this topic. Note that when terms like "rumor" or "claim" are used in these sources, that noun is qualified with a descriptor like "false" or "debunked". Since we do not want to overburden the article's title with adjectives (WP:CONSICE is policy), "hoax" is the best fit. Support move to Springfield, Ohio, pet-eating hoax so as to include all the relevant examples in one article. I was alerted to this RfC at FTN if anybody cares. Generalrelative (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing title away from hoax. Support a title with pet-eating hoax in the name, per HonoreDB and Generalrelative. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose suggested move, Support move to a title that replaces "cat" with "pet". 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 08:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cat really needs to be in title to understand the absurdity of the claim and the instanteous reactions to it. This isn't about ornamental ducks or geese being shot by overzealous duckhunters straying onto neighboring property, it's about the claim that people in Springfield are eating cats (and later, eating dogs). Feoffer (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is far and away the most contentious RM I've ever submitted and there is clearly a lack of consensus. Furthermore, since I posted the original RM, more sources are describing it as a hoax. Furthermore, yesterday's highly publicized "If I have to create stories..." comment by JD Vance seems like a game changer; it's a clear de facto statement that he realizes he's perpetrating a probable hoax, even if he's not specifically calling it that, and he intends to continue perpetrating it regardless of future revelations. As the original poster, I formally withdraw my support for this RM.
I respectfully suggest that this RM be closed as "no consensus". Carguychris (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping an admin BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 16:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Rumour implies that people are spreading gossip, as in the original Facebook post, either not knowing its false or being negligent to find out if its false. "Hoax" means that people actually know its false but are spreading it anyway, as Vance has admitted. However I would support a change to pet-eating hoax instead of cat-eating as its not just cats people are talking about. MarkiPoli (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the conversation between Dana Bash and JD Vance where he "admitted" to knowing the rumor was "false", he never actually stated that those rumors are false (the section of this article that says that should subsequently be changed, I believe). Both Bash and Vance repeatedly referred to the rumor as a "rumor", in fact. Vance even went on to explain, "It comes from firsthand accounts from my constituents. I say that we're creating a story meaning that we're creating the American media focusing on it." I.e., he was repeating unverified information that he was told by residents of the area. And the story he was "creating" was him bringing up this rumor in a very public space so that the media would report stories on it, as well, thus bringing more attention to the larger situation in Springfield.
    Those behaving as if this is an admittance of lying (or "knowing it's false") are either not looking into the direct quotes of the primary source or are consciously or unconsciously spin doctoring what was actually said in the source material in order to confirm a pre-established belief.
    As it remains, this story — while most certainly unsubstantiated — remains to be up in the air as far as to whether or not it's true. Thus, the situation warrants a more neutral term ("rumor" or "claim", probably) that reflects this. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say that it "remains to be up in the air as far as to whether or not it's true," what would convince you that it's false? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Proving that no immigrant in Ohio has ever eaten a cat is impossible, hence the right's smug obsession with the idea, "You can't prove I'm wrong which proves that I'm right." It is the core of every conspiracy theory out there, and (whist this is not a CT per se) it is being applied to this issue across the alt-right echo chamber. Since we have a significant percentage of Americans who believe the Earth is flat (~10%^ according to Carsey), and over a third believe that there was a multi-million-person conspiracy to change results in the last election -- regardless of endless counter-evidence from anyone who has taken the time to research it -- I can confidently predict that you will never win that argument, @FactOrOpinion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Last1in, I was hoping that the question would push @TheGutterMonkey to deal with the problem with his claim that it remains up in the air. Agreed that that's likely a losing battle. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's neither relevant nor is it my place to speculate on "what would" convince me that it's false (as far as my personal beliefs go, I'd likely agree that it probably is false; however, it's of no ultimate consequence to me either way). I'm merely pointing out what the current situation is in reference to these allegations and suggesting that we remain intellectually honest and speak about that situation accurately as opposed to picking a side and taking a stance based on what our guts/biases/partisan feelings tell us.
    The fact of the matter here is that there are two groups that are making positive claims, each who have a burden of proof on their hands to substantiate these claims:
    1. A group who claims that these rumors are valid.
    2. A group who claims that these rumors are a lie/hoax (this is technically two claims).
    Neither of said groups, as is apparent from the sources (as well as the debates over the matter), have been successful in validating their claims. Subsequently, the topic is still "up in the air". It's still just a rumor, despite what anyone here may want to believe. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheGutterMonkey, it's not about what our "guts" tell us, but about what all of the evidence says. And yes, given that you are the one claiming that "the story ... remains to be up in the air as far as to whether or not it's true," it's absolutely relevant what you would take as evidence of it being false. Now you are saying "Neither of said groups ...have been successful in validating their claims." That's your judgment. So again, what would you take as evidence of the second claim being validated? If you cannot say, then perhaps you are not in a good position to assess whether that group has "been successful in validating [its] claims." FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Give it up, mate. The purple fairies (some say blue, so it's up in the air) that paint the dew on each morning have still, after hundreds of years of so-called liberal "science", never been disproved. All this nonsense in "reliable sources" about humidity and suchlike is just more wacko-leftie fake news. Until you can find a purple fairy who can prove that none of her mates have done the dew-painting, I'm leaving it in the article. After that, of course, we'll have to nail down the blue ones. This is a gish gallop and you're falling for it. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, at this point, I'm just finding myself going around in circles over and over again, having people repeatedly dismiss the majority of what I've said in favor of cherry-picking sources, moving goal posts, and utilizing what I, at least, perceive as mental gymnastics to rationalize why they think it's okay to refer to unverified claims as verified hoaxes (something of which I've always understood to be the reasonable route for most topics).
    Going by the language I repeatedly see being used on here (I'm not making that accusation about you, per se, as I don't really pay attention to most of the user ID's of people I've responded to) and what seems to be an inordinate amount of undisguised distaste of conservatives I see being espoused all over this Talk page, I'm inclined to believe this space is somewhat of an echo-chamber where basic critical thinking only applies when it aligns with a particular partisan bias (I, mind you, am not a conservative). And, subsequently, these requests I'm making for neutrality are ultimately futile. I may as well be arguing for not jumping to conclusions about the existence of God on an Answers in Genesis forum.
    So, barring a drastic change in mood, I believe I may just give this argument a rest. While I'd like for the website to remain more objective in its articles, I just don't care enough about this topic to continue making the same arguments to deaf ears every day. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so you know, it really isn't about US political partisanship. Wikipedia deals with all sort of fringe content: Chiropractors can cure cancers, Golden Plates containing bible stories were found in New York State, Atlantis was a lost continent, 9/11 was caused by planted explosives, Aliens crashed in 1940s New Mexico, etc. These aren't "partisan" issues, they're boring old cases where we have to just roll up our sleeves, look at what RSes are saying and follow that.
    When we started, fact checkers and all RSes were crystal clear that the rumor was false. Since then, many prominent proponents of the rumor have actually admitted it was false. Our hands are tied, we can't just pretend the RSes aren't calling a hoax. Feoffer (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the long post. I want to be thorough in responding to @TheGutterMonkey.
    There is a lot of unpack in your response, not all of which applies to Fact's question (which I'll get to after we solve the 'hoax' problem). First, though, is this a hoax at all? From the lede of that article: A hoax is a (1) widely publicised (2) falsehood so fashioned as to (3a) invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance... [H]oaxers are (3b) confident, justifiably or not, that their representations will receive no scrutiny at all. They have such confidence because their representations belong to a world of notions (4) fundamental to the victims' views of reality, but (5a) whose truth and importance they accept without argument or evidence, and (5b) so never question.
    1: 'widely publicised' -- After Vance's assertion went viral and Trump expanded on it in the debate, I think we can put a giant tick on that box.
    2: 'falsehood' -- Is this a falsehood? The original poster has recanted publicly and repeatedly, including directly to the people who continue to spread this lie. Vance's staff was informed on 09 Sept (the day he started amplifying the claim) that the report was inaccurate. I am unable to find a mainstream media RS that does not consider the original claim on which it is based to be inaccurate, nor one that denies (whether or not someone, somewhere might have eaten a cat) that the continued use of that known-inaccurate foundation makes this a falsehood. Ms Lee might have just been mistaken; Vance and Trump are proven to have known this to be inaccurate and kept spreading it, thus it is a falsehood.
    3:'invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance' and 'confident' et al -- I think this is also well established. The campaign staff itself and various inner-circle members (specifically Giuliani) have openly said that their base understands that they have 'different facts' on which they rely, and their supports 'know to ignore fake news' that presents factual information that contradicts their narrative.
    4: 'fundamental to... reality' -- The narrative over whether immigrants are animalistic is central to the current reality of the campaign. One said says they are, the other that they are not. The pet-eating is well-tailored to reinforce the narrative that immigrants are destroying what American's value most.
    5: 'accept without argument or evidence' and 'never question' -- This is the obvious intersection of (3) and (4). The continued lies about the 2020 election result proves pretty conclusively that the Trump campaign is comfortable leveraging this behaviour amongst American voters.
    Summary: There is literally no part of the definition of 'hoax' that is not satisfied by the body of the article and its supporting RS.
    "What would it take" discussion:
    Your concerns seem to hinge on this not being a verified hoax, hence Fact's pressure on your to explain what criteria you would accept as proof. The Piltdown Man and the Fiji Mermaid are the poster children for hoaxes, but they are poor analogies to this. Each is 'experimentally' or 'scientifically' verifiable -- we can find physical evidence that each was fabricated at a certain time, and often by a certain person in a certain place. Those are physical hoaxes. Far better parallels would be Bananadine, Sokal's hoax and the Taxil hoax. This is more of a 'memetic' hoax, a hoax with no physical, tangible basis. One reason such hoaxes are so prevalent is the simple fact that they cannot be proven wrong. They are still hoaxes.
    What makes this especially amusing (to me) is that I was unconvinced that hoax was the right word right up until I had to put this post in words. My argument was, "Since the original claim was was not intended to deceive, this wasn't a hoax". When I did the research, though, I realised that the hoax was not the post by the poor, unsuspecting Ms Lee; it was the actions taken afterwards by political operatives to weave that post into a xenophobic narrative about pet-eating immigrants.
    The hoax is what happened after she posted, and people deliberative, knowingly, with planning used a claim they knew to be false in order to (in paraphrase of the article on hoaxes) 'fashioned a falsehood to invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance that they were confident would receive no scrutiny because it fits a world of notions fundamental to their base's view of reality, and the truth and importance of which the right would accept without argument or evidence and never question.'
    Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your excellent breakdown. @TheGutterMonkey, suggest you read the the David French NYT opinion piece that I referenced in the article. I think Mr. French makes an excellence case for calling this a hoax without ever explicitly using the word. His basic argument is that Vance and the larger MAGA movement are using this controversy in a manner that reminds me of the U.S. legal term, actual malice: "reckless disregard of whether it [is] false or not." The fact that it upsets people who are concerned with truthfulness is an integral reason they're pushing it: it gets people talking. I agree with Last1in that it arguably wasn't a hoax originally but it has clearly become one. Per Mr. French: "They like to 'trigger the libs.'" "...they are having a good time and hey, the people they’re making mad, they don’t like them anyway." Carguychris (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's close this RM with the consensus as "Don't move" since the RM is more than seven days old BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 16:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sooooo onboard with that! First off, I think we need to leave the naming to historians when real WP:SECONDARY sources get published in peer-reviewed journals and/or academic texts. Until then, whatever the article is called (as long as it is distinguishable) is just fine. Second, the only thing left are quibbles over wording. Third, we have an entire thread dedicated to such quibbles for the next round of this naming nightmare. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (+BombCraft8) Not possible to my understanding of procedure. This discussion was relisted just before the 18th when reopened. That means that this discussion should remain open for seven days or just before the 25th. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: Nope, this is intentional. Trump, Vance, and other republicans who spread this have repeatedly denied that things such as bomb threats and such have risen, while ignoring, dodging, and denying proofs multiple times. They've also claimed that diseases and all have spread too due to these immigrants. Throughout their campaign, they've dehumanized and demonized immigrants, and Trump even said some months ago that they "aren't humans" and that they're "animals". Here's the link for that btw: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-expected-highlight-murder-michigan-woman-immigration-speech-2024-04-02. This is literally what the Nazis did in Germany before coming to power, spreading rampant hoaxes and conspiracy theories against Jews and another minorities, such as reviving the blood libel and the well-poisoning libel. This Springfield thing is very malicious but it is also more than just about the cat-eating hoax, as it also includes a lot of other completely false statements, such as, as stated previously, the migrants who've arrived to Springfield spreading diseases. I support renaming this page to something like Springfield Migrant Libel, but calling this a rumor i absolutely oppose.EarthDude (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move to rumor but support potentially changing to pet-eating hoax or conspiracy theory. It seems weird the title specifies cats only given the hoax/conspiracy theory has involved other animals, particularly dogs. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • support general name change. political figures have stated that such claims have been made by their constituents. That doesn't mean that said claims are accurate or that they are misstated (it very much seems they were not accurate and were misstated), but from start to end, it was about 3 days. Labeling it a "hoax" implies malfeasance and the term "hoax" is not widely used amongst media. Its use implies an intended malice where none is in evidence. The chosen title is unnecessarily political. Tons of principles apply WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POLITICS, WP:NDESC, and WP:RS but none more than WP:N. "Claims" or other neutral terminology should rule the day as a default in such contentious political matters. Buffs (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An article in French has been created, using the word "mystification." The Collins dictionary gives "hoax" as its first translation to English. Given that the Republican amplification persists in signaling the Haitian migrants as "illegals," Vance insists in that they do eat pets, and Trump pledged to deport them - making of this situation part of his political platform, and possibly/eventually, part of the Foreign Affairs policy of the United States of America, whatever this thing ends up being called, definitely is not a "rumor." Maykiwi (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per reasons stated above. This has no evidence and is a hoax. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 01:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See Talk:Litter boxes in schools hoax for a virtually-identical situation from 2022 - an unsubstantiated, highly implausible, story which was picked up by the right-wing media in order to attack a marginalized group (trans people, in that case). The discussion there supported "hoax" over both "rumor" and "canard". Tevildo (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Rumors may be substantiated by providing evidence while this story obviously can't. If we have to use the word "rumor" at all, it would have to be qualified with a world like "unsubstantiated" or better: "false", which would make it almost synonymous with "hoax". I think the infamous Vance quote "If I have to create stories ... then that’s what I’m going to do”, when asked about the Springfield story, should also be taken into consideration when we decide how to characterize this. --Proofreader (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:♠—call it what it is. — D. Wo. 16:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The original reporter (a Trump-supporting woman with a cat named Miss Sassy) has recanted and the Republican VP nominee has admitted in a nationally televised interview on CNN that the entire "meme" has been fabricated to highlight the immigration issue for political gain. Calling this a rumor just because a segment of Trump Cultists believe it is true gives it far too much credence. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose calling it a 'rumor' is passive and lends undue credence to something that is manufactured and provably false. Mason7512 (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Springfield, Ohio pet-eating hoax". Oppose moving to "rumor". The post that began it talked about cats, and it may perhaps be classified as starting a rumor ("talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source" according to Merriam-Webster), but the much more famous speech about it talked about "dogs, cats, pets". It was quickly debunked and denounced by many trusted authorities. Whoever keeps presenting it as a possible truth is perpetuating a hoax ("something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication"). So it should be called a hoax. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 01:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should this be closed? More than seven days have passed and it's snowing. Feoffer (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rumor, not hoax

The article clearly describes the pet-eating as a rumor and uses the word, "rumor." A rumor is something repeated widely based on hearsay without concrete evidence that may or may not be true. A hoax, by contrast, is a deliberate fabrication, such as Jussie Smollet's lynching hoax. A hoax requires an intentional perpetrator, and there is currently no evidence that anyone deliberately fabricated a story about Haitians eating pets for comedy, malice, or any other reasons. Currently, the story has all the hallmarks of a rumor, see this article in the Daily Mail of all places:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13847277/social-media-springfield-ohio-haitian-migrant-pet-eating-rumor.html

"She said the cat's owner was 'an acquaintance of a friend.' Newton originally heard it from her friend, who had heard it from a 'source that she had' before she told Lee, who then posted about it."

That's a rumor, not a hoax. The title of this article is speculative editorializing.

To whoever wrote the above, I'd say that is a valid comment that should be discussed above in the RFD. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well a rumor would not get an article Last1in, as it violates what Wikipedia is not as per WP:RUMOR! Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RUMOR concerns hearsay about anticipated future events, not the real world, tangible results of the general public and notable public figures discussing unverified past events. (Most of the discussion on this talk page seems to stem from different understandings about the meanings or insinuations of the words "rumor", "hoax", and "claim".) Carguychris (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions.” —Just because something caught national attention does not mean it wasn’t what it was, “speculation, a rumor, and/or presumption” which we are giving credence to and could potentially have negative implications on the morrow. It is also being spoken of in the future tense by these rumor mills and politicians, ie, “the immigrants are coming for your pets!) The very meaning of speculation is “the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence”. It is to be avoided. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually the point I am trying to make in the mainline discussion above. I suggested that @whoever participate in that thread since the idea is already being addressed up there. I have been fighting for many years against adding an article for every shooting, protest, bombing and conspiracy theory (like this one) that makes a one-news-cycle splash, with virtually no success. Since I used Ferris Bueller above, I'll go for a more classic movie this time (with apologies to Victor Laszlo): "Welcome to the fight. This time I know our side will win." ...nah. Not a chance. Nice dream, though. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I misunderstood your post. Thank you for upholding the integrity of the space time and time again. Articles like these and the ones you mentioned are like a trojan horse and a total waste of our time all because of a couple of out-of-context video shares... Love the movie reference by the way . Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings.
This article is not a waste of your time, unless you are collaborating with the edition.
This subject is of importance/relevance/notability, since it has become an official point in the policies proposed by the Republican candidate to the Presidency of the United States - not to speak about the very real bomb threats.
This thing "was" a rumor, it became a hoax when Trump and Vance were told by journalists that it was unfounded, that they were wrong in spreading it, and they keep doing it anyway until now. You just take a look at their social media accounts - and most importantly, at the answers they get from followers, or the comments of people under every YouTube video on this subject, even more in Fox.
This has gone way beyond a faux pas in a debate. It became policy, and violence.
The article is well sourced, and its factuality is undisputed.
Wikipedia is meant to serve, and that includes to point out at misinformation being misinformation. If not paying attention to it were a norm here, the articles "Moon landing conspiracy theories," or "Flat Earth" shouldn't exist. The "Haitians are eating cats in Springfield" hoax has already caused more damage than those other "rumors" combined. Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant to emphasize. Due to social media and the rapid rate of how disinformation can spread, we must cover it all ad nauseam opposed to other articles at an arguably higher priority. It is tiresome. That is all. Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that, and I don't think it's necessarily WP:TOOSOON for an article, but it is definitely too soon to be arguing over the title. If this thing becomes an historical watershed in US politics (gods help us all), historians will decide whether it's a hoax, rumour, psyop, conspiracy theory, misinformation, urban myth or xenophobic trope (I've still got money on 'trope'). We should keep improving this page with the best-available and least-involved news sources until actual secondary sources become available. Then we can argue over the title; until that point, we need to 'Keep Calm and Carry On' editing this encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest difference between these two seems to be "intent" and that is a very difficult thing to substantiate. It really depends on what your own personal opinions and OR into this topic leads you to believe, as well as your own perspectives of the characters of those involved in these claims. It is clear from the effectively failed (no-consensus) RM above, that as lot of people are BUTITSTRUE. While rehasing both dictionary definitions, as well as other WP reference material seems helpful. The underlying problem is peoples biases towards this topic. Those are clearly getting in the way of objective evaluation of how this article should be titled. And as a result those of conflicting opinions will feel like it is UNDUE weight by having it titled opposite of their own beliefs of the subject. TiggerJay (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a hoax and not a rumor. Plus, it has actually had a negative effect on the town. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible AfD?

Rambling Rambler, I would love to hear your take on this article’s creation. Would it not violate what Wikipedia is not according to WP:RUMOR as you so pointed me to in the past with the Haiti article regarding unverifiable and speculative claims stirred up by social media and warrant a discussion for deletion? Thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the user you tagged, but it doesn't fit that policy. What the policy is saying is an article can't contain only rumors. That's different from having articles about [widely rejected] rumors. seefooddiet (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so, what is the article about and the discussion above over the article’s title name? A rumor [v. “hoax”]. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I wasn't clear enough (hard to communicate). The article is about a hoax and contains analysis from reliable sources about the hoax. WP:RUMOR is about when there's any topic (not necessarily just rumors) and all there is in the body is rumors and speculation. E.g. an upcoming movie, listing out rumors and speculation about its cast is not allowed. But describing hoaxes using reliables ources is fine. seefooddiet (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is an article about the Conspiracy Theory and academically discussing why it's fraudulent.
What you did was take the main article on Haiti itself and shove it into the lead for an article about an entire country.
Notice how the article for Springfield Ohio itself doesn't make a mention of it in the lead. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for clarifying @Seefooddiet, Rambling Rambler. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, this is legitimately WP:NOTABLE. Donald Trump mentioned it in his opening rant, during a presidential debate. It has WP:NOTABLE spray-painted all over it. There are dozens of WP:RS which are themselves noteworthy, that have reported on this event and the fallout. This is not WP:AFD material. It is, however, experiencing labour pains and growing pains. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ambiguity has already been resolved. Mind assuming gender; there are female Wikipedians too seefooddiet (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to say that I am very strongly opposed to nominating this for deletion. This is not just a rumor (as some on here claim); but this is very clearly a hoax perpetrated by Donald Trump; and his hoax has had a negative impact on the town of Springfield. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ku Comments Misrepresented

Robert Ku stated Haiti was not stereotyped as eating dogs in the provided citation. This article weasel words and implies he said both cats and dogs. There is a wealth scholarly sources that show cat eating in particular is as common, if not moreso, in modern Haiti than China -- and there is physical evidence in social media . Serious neutrality problem. 73.120.157.167 (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links? For a rundown on what sources wikipedia consider reliable see WP:RS — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the paragraph attributed to Robert Ku by The Guardian: 'Chinese people may have been the first immigrant group to be widely profiled as “dog eaters”, but the slur was soon directed at other Asian communities, said Robert Ku, author of Dubious Gastronomy: The Cultural Politics of Eating Asian in the USA.'. So you are correct that the comments are misrepresented. I have removed the sentence as it failed verification. I have not looked into the latter claims in your comment. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: ? “The fact that the slur was directed at Haitians in some ways has confused a lot of people,” Ku said, “since Haitians, as far as I know, have never before been stereotyped as dog eaters.”. How does that fail verification? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It fails verification on the cat part. The original poster complained about the article expanding the original claim from dogs to dogs & cats. It is the cats part that is under the spotlight. MilkyDefer 13:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the sentence was unverifiable based on the source. His university for example isn't mentioned in the article. If you edit the sentence to support what is actually stated it would be fine I guess. I just saw the talk page request and obliged the IP. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I understand now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a tradition of eating cat meat in Haiti and some sources refer to it as a delicacy. [27] "Cats are conspicuously absent from the streets, and the reason is mildly chilling: the people eat them. There are various schools of thought as to the best method of serving cat meat [...]" (p. 359). "Cat meat [in Haiti] is considered far too precious to waste on foreigners" (p. 360). Journal of Infectious Diseases article recording case history of Haitian-American patient who acquired a parasitic infection from eating undercooked cat meat. GeebaKhap (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorming: what would make a good lead photo?

A few times, folks have added the Trump + kittens meme to the lead. Another time it was the Trump/Vance photos. Another time it was the Chick Fil'A spoof. None of these strike me as good for the lead, which should really try to represent the subject as best it can without placing undue emphasis on details. Obviously, since we're talking about a hoax (or whatever we wind up calling it), the literal subject isn't something that exists to be depicted. So what else? I was thinking some sort of photo of Springfield, maybe Haitian immigrants in Springfield, or something like that? I don't think we have such an image -- just trying to brainstorm what would be best. What do you all think? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right there with you. A pic of the City Hall that had to be evacuated or other good neutral pic of a Springfield landmark? A screenshot of the debate with the split screen showing both candidates? Feoffer (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Though for the debate the article doesn't really mention Harris at all. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, we just gotta go with the Judiciary Committee AI pic. it encapsulates the abject insanity of this whole episode and beyond. soibangla (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point Feoffer (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely opposed to that (at least two of us have removed it from the lead already). There's no text explicitly talking about that image in the article, and even if that were added I'm not a big fan of amplifying the memes rather than, as Feoffer suggests above, a real effect of this subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that either already was, or there will be soon, a protest somewhere with republicans holdings signs saying something like "stop eating our cats" etc. Would could use a picture of such protesters, and caption it as "people reacting to the hoax rummors" etc. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is supposedly headed to Springfield sometime soon, so there should be plenty of good pics available at that point. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think including a locator map of Springfield in Ohio could be useful, maybe in addition to another photo TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can do that. Do you imagine it with a continent us map or a ohio map? Feoffer (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that @Artemis Andromeda has the best idea so far, but that might take some time. The problem, as @Rhododendrites points out, is that this is a hoax/trope/rumour/whatever, and its amplification for political gain is not something that one can depict with a picture of a building. The reasons that this is a legitimate encyclopaedic subject are not complicated to explain, but awfully difficult to visualise: politics in a post-truth world, right-wing reactionism, media sensationalism and xenophobia/racism. The option that would best represent the body and focus of the article would be a meme. The ideal image at this stage would be a screengrab of Fox News (or similar) showing an egregious meme and a chyron about the evils of immigration. It would (1) show the subject through the meme itself, (2) show how it is amplified by the media, and (3) depict its use as xenophobic political motivator. The next-best alternative would likely be the poor guy carrying the goose in Columbus. That option would illustrate the extremes to which the reactionary right is going to find anything that might excuse the systemic racism of right-wing actors. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the Fox screen grab, while probably not passing WP:NFCC, might be effective. Maybe we could assemble a collection of the extreme social media posts covered by the media? The guy carrying the goose, though, would be a huge WP:BLP problem. It's also in the realm of bogus "evidence" to support the idea that people are stealing and eating pets (or just further demonize the group) rather than directly representative of the hoax itself. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope someone can quickly come up with an alternative to the current dreadful image. I still prefer the AI thing. soibangla (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know someone in/near Springfield? Also, I added {{Image requested}} to the top. Unclear who sees those, but :shrug:. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baselessness

I disagree with this edit which removed the following sentence from the end of the opening paragraph:

Following Trump’s amplification of the matter, the person who had ignited it on Facebook admitted it was just a rumor, and expressed remorse.[1]

References

  1. ^ Timotija, Filip. “Woman whose post ignited false Springfield cat claim says it was based on rumor”, The Hill (14 Sep 2014).

The edit summary said “trim lead” but the opening paragraph was not long. That paragraph labels the allegation as “baseless” so it would be useful to explain briefly how and when that baselessness was established. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I see it has been restored Feoffer (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhododendrites has now removed the last sentence of the opening paragraph, ““The person who made the original Facebook post has since admitted it was an unfounded rumor and expressed regret about its spread.”, giving no reason AFAIK. The best evidence that a hoax is a hoax is the hoaxer saying it was a hoax. That is a significant event, and the timing of that event is also critically important, so that readers understand who knew what and when. So I support restoring the sentence. It is not proper for Wikipedia to confuse chronology. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: I think I'm reading that differently. AFAIK she didn't say it was fake/false/a hoax. She acknowledged it was a rumor (which is already self-evident in a post about "my neighbor's daughter's friend..."). I don't think she changed her story -- she just expressed regret because of what happened. I didn't remove that line from the body, but removed it from the lead for WP:WEIGHT/concision reasons. After all, why have "she posted a rumor" followed by "she said it was a rumor". The only function seems to be to highlight her regret and let her off the hook a bit. That doesn't seem like a big enough deal in the course of the subject as a whole to justify in the lead IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence should say it was a rumor. The rest of the lead paragraph should make clear that it was not known or admitted that it was a rumor until after a bunch of (trigger-happy) politicians spoke about the matter. This chronology should not be controversial, User:Rhododendrites. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m also unclear as to why you changed “baseless” to “false” if you don’t think anyone admitted it was a hoax, but that’s another issue. You can check the sources as to when the person who started the rumor admitted it came from the neighbor’s daughter, et cetera. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the edit summary, baseless just seemed less direct/weaker than false, which seems like the consensus among reliable sources. No strong opinion on that, though. As for the rest, the original post itself said it was from the neighbor's daughter's friend; that's not a new admission. All that changed is she said she regretted it. i.e. Her interview didn't change anything about the nature of the claims. The simultaneous interviews with the neighbor, who clarified it was even further removed, might help, but that's a separate thing. But again, there might be sources I haven't seen.
This is the extent of the controversy in this section, as I understand it: There was a line in the lead about the original poster "admitting" that what she already presented as a rumor was indeed a rumor, without saying it was false. That didn't seem to add anything beyond the way we already characterize it. I haven't seen her admit it was a hoax/false, but she is not herself a WP:RS. The lead says false/baseless/hoax/whatever not because of what she said in an interview but because the body of reliable sourcing makes it clear. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s not all that changed. According to our article, “The neighbor later admitted that she did not know the person who lost the cat and heard the story ‘from a friend, who heard it from another friend, who heard it from an acquaintance’.[49][50] The person who posted the original message later said it was an unfounded rumor and expressed regret that it turned into hateful conspiracy theories.[51][52]” Anythingyouwant (talk)
At the end of the lead paragraph, can we please add: “The people responsible for the original Facebook post have since admitted it was unfounded and expressed regret about its spread.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did they say it's "unfounded"? Which citation is that? I see our article says so, but I don't see that in my quick scan of the cited sources. They just say it's a rumor, several steps removed, and that they express regret. While anyone applying a modicum of critical thinking will hear a story about a neighbor's daughter's friend that turns out to be a story about a neighbor's friend's friend's acquaintance and quickly conclude "oh, so it's BS", that's not the same as admitting it's unfounded. It's just admitting their distance from the story. At the end of the day, there's no shortage of RS that make very clear that the claims were, in fact, unfounded, so it's not like we're relying on her for that element of the article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original Facebook post said, “My neighbor informed me that her daughter’s friend had lost her cat…..” Subsequently, after it became a big national affair during the Trump-Harris debate, more information emerged. If the following description from our article is incorrect, just say so, but otherwise I’m assuming it’s correct: “The neighbor later admitted that she did not know the person who lost the cat and heard the story ‘from a friend, who heard it from another friend, who heard it from an acquaintance’.[49][50] The person who posted the original message later said it was an unfounded rumor and expressed regret that it turned into hateful conspiracy theories.[51][52]” Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the "unfounded" part of that line fails verification, as far as I can see. They admitted the rumor posted as a rumor was indeed a rumor and expressed regret is all. That didn't seem important enough for the lead per my original post above. FWIW. Heading back to work now; up to you how you/others how you want to handle it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, I changed “unfounded” to “lacked credibility” which is similar but more closely tracks the sources. As for the rest, I’ll try to sort it out. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Super Goku V, in this edit, you not only put nazis back into the lead paragraph, but also eliminated the last sentence of the opening paragraph. With not a word of discussion in this talk page section which is all about that last sentence of the opening paragraph. Why not collaborate a little? Why do you think it’s less significant that the source of the rumor admitted it was not credible, than that a bunch of fringe nazis commented on the matter just like they comment on just about every political matter (without going into the opening paragraph of every Wikipedia article about such political matters)? Here’s the sentence you deleted: “The person whose story was told on Facebook and started the controversy later admitted that she never knew anyone who spoke to the alleged cat owner and that the story lacked credibility.”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't get your ping here for some reason, but the intent was only to partly restore the one sentence as noted in a section below this. There was no intent to also remove the last sentence and I only noticed my error with your last article edit, hence my thanks in the edit summary. Sorry for the trouble and confusion on this matter. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, actually I can see the reason now. Will send you a private response. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection

I have protected the article to avoid further moves while #Requested move 12 September 2024 is decided. Also see the closed #Requested move 11 September 2024 which claimed to have settled the comma issue. Remind me or any admin to remove the move protection (but keep the current edit semi-protection) when consensus is reached. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the above RM is closed, discussions on the specifics other than "hoax"

The move request above was closed without action. We have at least four elements of the title that people have argued to change: the comma after Ohio, the inclusion of "Ohio" at all, the "cat", and the "hoax". Most of the previous RM appeared to focus on "hoax", with no clear resolution, but several other issues were raised there and elsewhere and I thought it might be helpful to separate them into subsections. Depending on the outcome here, this discussion may lead to another RM, or if anything is sufficiently uncontroversial it can just be enacted through normal consensus-building procedures. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As of 23:36 UTC on September 17th, the move request was reopened following this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC) (Amended: Closed again as of 13:37 UTC on September 22nd.) Amended at 19:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like now the original poster of the RM has now asked for it to be closed as no-consensus by an admin, and regardless of the decision it will not likely be moved. And I think this discussion has a lot of merit since it removes the most contentious part of the prior RM. TiggerJay (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda? Regarding when, he asked for it to be closed on Monday and which did happened, before the closer reversed the closing on Tuesday following additional discussion. That makes this title and his initial comment no longer accurate, so I just added a tiny note as a heads up for everyone. Guess it didn't work as intended since it wasn't clear enough. (And yes, this header can be changed, but at this point it likely would be disruptive to both the edit history and this discussion.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carguychris (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging El_C, who indicated a willingness to revisit this. Neither change is unanimous, but also not terribly controversial either. We can do a formal RM, but it seems clear enough that perhaps not worth it? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the rather... fascinating discussion above, I think it would be wise to do this through the formal process. Anything less will be tagged as part of the lib-dem/pinko-commie Wikicabal's war on conservative values (or the rabid-right/neo-con Wikicabal's ideaocidal mania, depending on your politics). I'm felling a bit flamed out, so let's just move the rock one more time and see what else crawls out, shall we? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites, I agree with Last1in. I think we need to do another formal RM; a boldmove, even by an admin, is liable to get reverted and lead to more bad blood. The main reason for my response is that I'm concerned it may be too soon to propose another RM. I didn't mean to suggest that we shouldn't propose one at all. Carguychris (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't follow the logic of why removing "Ohio" and changing "cat" to "pet" would have any ideological alignment? Making a change after several people discuss something and come to near unanimity on the talk page is the opposite of a bold move. Curious to hear what El_C (or someone else unvinvolved) thinks. This certainly isn't something I'd dig my heels in on, though -- it just seems like it'll either be a waste of time or invite unnecessary conflict (the formalized procedures that can be easily linked to from off-wiki sites are what tend to generate the aspersions you're referring to rather than assuage them, at least in my experience). YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't think that the move will evoke an ideological reaction. I think that making the move without having the full process will be seen as an ideological attack by whichever side is feeling more aggrieved on that given day. No, that is not the WikiWay, and it's neither efficient nor logical. As a survivor of the Jesus Wars in the early days of the encyclopaedia and any number of various ludicrous battles since, 'the process' seems to generate less angst for someone who feels they 'lost' whatever argument failed to reach consensus. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio

Without expressing support or opposition to other elements of the title, should Ohio be removed? Absent consensus to change other parts of the title separately, this would change the title to "Springfield cat-eating hoax". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ohio, in my experience "Springfield, Ohio" is the common term used to refer to the town in reference to the hoax. Additionally it is helpful to know what the state is as it provides additional valuable context.
Lord Beesus (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Remove "Ohio" per @Last1in. Carguychris (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my follow-up Talk post here. Perhaps Springfield should be omitted and Ohio kept. Pinging users @Feoffer, @Rhododendrites, @Last1in. Carguychris (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Ohio, not needed for disambiguation, constantly being referred to just as Springfield in common usage. Bestagon ⬡ 15:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Ohio: just "Springfield" is enough to "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, which is what our precision criterion requires, and it adds that titles "should be no more precise than that". We should be as concise as possible. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: In both this section and the above move discussion, multiple editors express a preference for removing "Ohio" from the title. So far, no one has objected. Feoffer (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a day or two is not enough. Maybe there'd objections on the basis of Ohio being in the WP:COMMONNAME (or not, I dunno). I'm willing to cut the 7 days by half for this due to likely WP:SNOW, but you're at half of the half presently. Feel free to ping me here again in a couple of days and we can go from there. Thank you. El_C 11:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, any admin should feel free to act on this immediately. I am just erring on the side of caution because I, personally, have a poor grasp of the material and how it's presented in reputable media. El_C 16:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given Carguychris striking his !vote and changing his opinion, good call El_C. No hurry at all. Feoffer (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Ohio. Not needed to disambiguate from any other Springfield cat-eating hoaxes, and leads to a clunky double comma. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Ohio as per above, it is precise enough without it. TiggerJay (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ohio. There are many, many Springfields in the United States. Needed for future years when people might not know what Springfield it was referring to. MarkiPoli (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ohio. There are so many Springfields that The Simpsons built their world on it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are. There are also several dozen between Australia, South Africa, Canada, Ireland, Belize, New Zealand and the UK. But how many (in or out of the US) have cat-eating hoaxes? If the article described the town, more specificity would be essential. The article is about the hoax, however, and whilst there may be additional cat-eating hoaxes (not that I've ever heard of one outside the hysteria around Chinese restaurants in the 80s and 90s), I can't imagine that someone would come to this page expecting to read about cat-eating hoaxes in the capital of Illinois or a suburb South Australia's capital (which, for those scouring WikiTalk pages for travel inspiration, is really rather charming for a Springfield). Per policy, we need to as concise as possible as long as a reader can differentiate between similarly-named articles. Imho, 'Springfield {cat/pet}-eating {hoax/canard/myth}' accomplishes that. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trailing comma

If the word "Ohio" is retained in the title, should the trailing comma after Ohio be removed? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't personally care. Content to defer to those with stronger stylistic opinions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually mentioned this above; it should definitely be removed. "Springfield, Ohio" in this phrase is functionally an adjective (to be linguistically precise, an appositive, or as our page on the topic calls it, a noun adjunct), so it should not be followed by a comma. Though, as others pointed out above, it might be best to remove Ohio from the title altogether, in which case there should be no comma at all. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want the comma because I don't want Ohio in there at all. However, I disagree with your conclusion (he says, throwing down a linguistic gauntlet). I think that Springfield is a restrictive appositive to the subject ('hoax', or whatever the bleep we decide to call it) along with cat-eating. That would make 'Ohio' a non-restrictive appositive since it adds specificity to the adjective instead of the subject, thus would require the comma. "I'll see you and your second in Battersea Fields at dawn. We shall settle this with gerunds at twenty paces!" :D Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC) (PS: Just cuz these days it seems one needs to specify, that was humour... or possibly humor. There was no exchange of adjectival projectiles intended.)[reply]
    You are definitely correct in clarifying that nonrestrictive appositives do require commas, but I'm not sure that adding "Ohio" makes this particular appositive nonrestrictive. In my experience, nonrestrictive appositives almost always follow, not precede, the nouns they modify (except perhaps in the case of false titles, though even those usually lack commas). However, we do seem to be approaching a consensus that "Ohio" isn't necessary in the title in the first place, so the point is perhaps moot. (And don't worry, I got that you were joking at the end there.) Wehpudicabok (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the title to “Cat-eating hoax in Springfield, Ohio“ and let the controversy about trailing commas be resolved elsewhere by people who care a lot about it. We just care about cats at this talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where else there is to talk about the title of this article other than this talk page, nor what would be gained by separating the conversation. If we're talking about moving to a new title, that conversation should be here, regardless of which aspect of the title we're discussing. Wehpudicabok (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we keep "Ohio", we need the trailing comma per [[MOS:GEOCOMMA]. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. So, I know what MOS:GEOCOMMA says. But in this case I'd overrule it. There are several sources both ways. Compare the Cincinnati Enquirer: "Trump claims Springfield, Ohio migrants are eating pets. Local officials say it's not true"[29] to New York Magazine: "How Vance and Trump’s Lies About Springfield, Ohio, Migrants Continue to Unravel"[30]. The first one looks a lot more readable to me. The manual will likely lead us to a different answer, but I think readability counts a lot.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I said above that we should remove the comma, but I hadn't read MOS:GEOCOMMA at that time, and that page pretty clearly spells out that Wikipedia style requires the comma. I think using a comma here is both ugly and confusing, and I have no idea why that policy exists, but I'm not going to fight it. I withdraw my previous objection. Wehpudicabok (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral on this issue. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

Several people have suggested changing "cat" to "pet". Is this something we should do? Is there a viable additional option? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm mildly incline to agree, based in large part on "pets" featuring prominently in most of the high-profile instances of this subject, but I'm not sure. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to "pet" – In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there. – DJT. This now-infamous quote suggests we've clearly moved beyond cats in the popular discourse. Carguychris (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toss-up. 'Cats' is more accurate if we decide the article is about the impetus for our current political nightmare. If, however, the article is supposed to be about turning that short post into a xenophobic dog-whistle (and the accompanying media circus), then it needs to be 'pets'. The nucleus of the original story was very specific: They ate somebody's cat. The right's champions amplified that into pets generally, thus the option. I think both clearly pinpoint the article's WP:PRECISE subject, so both meet wikistandards. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cat in title - Cat was the original claim, cat is essential to understanding the absurdity and instant reactions of laughter and dismissal. The topic is about cats and dogs, not 'pet' ducks which really do get shot and eaten every duck season. Feoffer (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just want to acknowledge this point. I get it, but I've never heard anyone who owns livestock (i.e. to be eaten) refer to the animals as pets, and I don't think there's much confusion there. Just a city slicker, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, it's a whole thing in the country, or at least, it was decades ago. An ornamental duck with a name and backstory flies across a property line and becomes fair game. Sometimes hunters will get a little too overzealous and actually cross property lines on their own. Obviously, we can't go on my OR memories, but even outside of hunting, pet ducks do get eaten all the time. I'll admit it's a bit odd to call something a pet that you intend to consume, but people do speak that way. Feoffer (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to pets, the Trump quote and subsequent usage by reliable sources supports pets (I'm seeing a lot of dogs too in RSs, so this is more inclusive as well). Bestagon ⬡ 15:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to "pet". Since the debate, the inclusion of "dogs" is a feature of national and international coverage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to "pet" – It pretty clearly isn't making the headlines as just "cat", it's either cats and dogs or pets in general. Better to have the inclusive title given the scope of this hoax. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to "pet" - The presidential debate mentioned "the dogs", "the cats", and "the pets". News headlines since make it clear that the rumor has grown beyond just cats. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to "pet" as RS include more than just domesticated cats in their reporting. cats seems too narrow. TiggerJay (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could we do "cat and dog" instead of "pet"? Hoax is very strong language, and 'pet'/ornamental ducks really do get eaten in that region. Cat and dog eating is a hoax, but I promise you, duck-eating is entirely normal in Ohio and it's not as if ducks wear collars. Feoffer (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the average person understands "pet" to mean (mostly) " companion animal not kept to be eaten for meat or consuming other products". For example if you have a chicken coop, you probably wouldn't say they are your "pets" without qualifying it. MarkiPoli (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkiPoli It's not about chickens in coops, it's about ducks in ponds. My family's 'pet duck' is my neighbor's fair game the second it flies over the property line. "Pet Ducks" aren't "marked" for hunters to ignore. "Ever shoot a pet duck while hunting?" gets answers like "Guilty", "Too many to count", etc.
The phrase Cat and dog-eating hoax is PRECISE and absurd. Don't dilute it to pets when ducks are in the mix. Feoffer (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change to "pet" the hoax refers to both cats and dogs. Additionally the Trump debate line that caused the hoax to become notable enough to even have an article makes specific primary reference to dogs. Lord Beesus (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to "pet": there's been all sorts of wild claims beyond dogs and cats, we can't have the title expand every time someone makes a new claim. MarkiPoli (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to "pet". I saw and understood the suggestions that "pet" allows for ducks, as mentioned in the hoax, and people eat ducks all the time. But I think if the hoax were limited _only_ to wild waterfowl, this thing would never have taken off. It's Trump's "They're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats" lie that sent this stratospheric, and we should cover both. So, with acknowledgment that we might be taking a little punch out of the title, I'd go with "pet."--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "cat". The original Facebook posting, the only thing with the slightest chance of being true, was about a cat - subsequent extension to other animals is pure speculation even among those who may be inclined to believe it. Tevildo (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Dogs, geese, and later ducks were added at later stages of the hoax to lend an air of plausibility, because no one in Springfield is ever so hungry for food as to butcher and eat a cat, whereas waterfowl is entirely regular fare. This hoax isn't about imported dogmeat or duck season, this is people killing and eating their neighbors pet cats, and its an absurd hoax. Precision is important. Feoffer (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to "pet" - Once the addled Republican nominee uttered the immortal lines, "THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS! THEY'RE EATING THE CATS! THEY'RE EATING THE PETS OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE!" on the national debate stage, this fabrication expanded beyond its original focus. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to “pet” – as Donald Trump did explicitly mention dogs too. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Immigrant, migrant, or Haitian

All are supported by sources. Carguychris (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Word order

"Pet-eating immigrant hoax" suggests that immigrants who eat pets are perpetrating the hoax, with or without the dash. Springfield immigrant pet eating hoax is nice and WP:CONCISE (intentionally sidestepping debate about the nature of the event). Carguychris (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Story as "a thing"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Sorry, but this is too unconventional to be a serious proposal. Please do better in keeping the righting of great wrongs (WP:RGW) and original research (WP:OR) in check. Thank you. El_C 12:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The story seems to have migrated from "being a thing as a hoax" to "being a thing as a narrative". That said, there are many narratives about ongoing structural and nonstructural violations of the rights of animals (through endemic cruelties that are built into "the way things are done" or "the way things are understood" (and this topic is being deftly avoided, perhaps in order to reinforce existing narratives - partisan, etc.). How "the story" is "told" by various "actors" across "the social distributions" (e.g. news media, disemopowered users of social media, et al.). I'd like to see this story told better, from the animals' perspective: (a) the cats and dog(s) in the (purportedly false) story AND (b) all animals who are victimized for "food" because they are deemed "food animals"MaynardClark (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me. Carguychris (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MaynardClark has ten, count 'em, ten vegan and vegetarian userboxes on their userpage. I certainly hope that this editor is not hoping to use this article to argue that nobody ought to eat any meat or any poultry or any fish or any shellfish of any species, no matter how it is obtained. Because that is simply not going to happen. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care about the userboxes, but no, we're not going to fabricate a narrative from a fictional animal's perspective and on behalf of every hypothetical animal that has nothing to do with this story. ????? WP:OR/WP:NOTAFORUM. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 16 September 2024

requested move/dated|Springfield, Ohio, pet-eating hoax|protected=Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax

Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax → Springfield, Ohio, pet-eating hoax – A lot of people who are perpetrating the hoax are claiming that it's not just cats being eaten but dogs and various other animals. Quote from the debate:

"In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there."

Cats are probably the most common animal mentioned in the hoaxes but they're far from the only animal. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately above there is a section addressing exactly this. No need for a formal RM on this yet. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note: agreed (striking), there is already a discussion that seems poised towards a new move request. This formulation can be added as an option at that time, but best to keep things focused for the time being and to avoid needless repetition. El_C 07:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADCITE

The current lead has a lot of citations. Too many, I think. Per MOS:LEADCITE (emphasis mine): Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Thoughts, in no particular order:

  • There is little dispute that Trump, Vance, Loomer, and Musk have backed the claims. This can be cited in the body.
    • Specific quotations from a public figure should have a citation.
  • A source describing the events using a contentious MOS:LABEL term such as "hoax" or "conspiracy theory" should have a citation.
  • I'm undecided about the bomb threats.
  • Also undecided about the laundry list of state and local officials debunking the claims.

Carguychris (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all sounds good. For the hoax/conspiracy and then for "racist", it may be a good idea to go with bundled refs (one footnote for several references). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. I would suggest that we likely only need a few references. In ¶1, I think we need only one reference, probably a bundle or BBC's summary article. In ¶2, I'd suggest that we need one for 'racist' and one for fact-checkers (probably Snopes since they are explicitly called out). I think the last sentence should never have been added (more in a minute). For ¶3, I'd think we need one for the resource strain of the new residents and another for the threats.
The Vance "create stories" sentence is accurate, but it's extremely contentious and probably overly simplified. Vance backpedalled in the next sentence during that interview, claiming he meant that they would amplify the stories and were only creating the atmosphere for the media to pick them up. It needs to be in the body, but it seems needlessly provocative in the lede. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about the "create stories" quote, WP:UNDUE in the lead, and I'm now thinking the same about the Haitian Times story about "attacks" that actually only references one instance of vandalism. I changed it to "vandalism", but given the inherent difficulty in ascertaining the vandal's motive, I'm now inclined to delete this entirely and reword the reference in the article body. Carguychris (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have them to hand, but I've seen a number of sources referencing an uptick of threats of violence, and hate speech is extremely well documented. The current wording, incidents of hostility towards the Haitian community... vandals targeted Haitian residents, and anti-Haitian messages... seems to be appropriate. The Haitian Times piece would never pass RS scrutiny, especially with the histrionic tone of their headline. That said, sourcing in the entire article is a dog's dinner -- there are no scholarly articles on any piece of this phenomenon yet, and only one or two truly WP:SECONDARY news accounts have been published. I keep hoping that BBC will build a 'What you need to know', but the nearest they have so far is [31]. -- but Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Include Dayton? Modify potential RM accordingly?

Copying text from version 1246195117 of JD Vance, see that page's history for full attribution: [Vance] then promoted conservative activist Christopher Rufo's allegation that African migrants were eating cats in Dayton, Ohio; Dayton authorities reported "no evidence to even remotely suggest that any group, including our immigrant community, is engaged in eating pets". Sources: [32] [33] It is unproven whether the animals on the grill in the video are in fact cats, and whether the people in the video are African immigrants. Does this new information warrant inclusion in this article? Should the potential RM be modified to Ohio cat-eating hoax (or pet-eating hoax, depending on consensus)? Carguychris (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's nearly enough WP:WEIGHT for that. The story seems to center on Springfield. The Daytonin meme emerged as supporting "evidence" to build on the Springfield story. Likewise nonsense, but not enough to affect the title or scope of the article IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's too soon to change that. The only stories that seem to have traction amongst the media still obsess over the Springfield claim about the mythical cat, and I don't really see the ancillary stories (Columbus, Dayton) catching any wind in the public sphere... yet. I think, if anything, we will eventually drop the location modifier entirely. I am seeing more chatter (no RS) about immigrants in general and Haitians in particular completely outside the context of Ohio. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis in the lead

The opening paragraph says, “then the rumor spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups.” I don’t think this is significant enough for the opening paragraph. It’s like saying in the lead of a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama state of the union speech, that some nazi somewhere was gratified that they spoke about the need for people to enter the USA legally instead of illegally. I don’t see any reliable source suggesting the nazis played any role in the original Facebook Post, or in the reactions of leading US politicians. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, with a pointer to this talk page section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant: Would you consider reverting following my comment below? There are reliable sources. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Just searching neo-Nazi provided two articles connected to this: (The Guardian) But the rumors, leaving Salomon and other Haitians in fear of being targeted for violence and discrimination, didn’t start with them. They were initially spread online in August on social platforms used by far-right extremists and by Blood Tribe, a neo-Nazi hate group. & (The Hill) “On July 12, we see Libs of TikTok — really the first, the first far-right account, a huge following — draw attention to migrants in Springfield, and about a month later, on Aug. 10, when the neo-Nazi Blood Tribe held a small rally in March to amplify baseless claims,” said Jeff Tischauser, senior research analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project. There are also other sources such as NBC News and NPR with similar coverage. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s still in the article body. The sourcing is .000001% of the sourcing of what remains in the opening paragraph. I hate nazis as much as the next guy, but this opening paragraph just isn’t the place for them. Incidentally, I heard about this rumor in mainstream sources before Trump mentioned it in the debate, so if we did include nazis in the opening paragraph (which we shouldn’t), it would be necessary to say that it got amplified by mainstream media before Republican politicians amplified it more. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to this removal. It's in a lot of the sources and a key step in the dissemination of the claims.
NPR: "The claim, which local police say is baseless, was made by far-right activists, local Republicans and neo-Nazis before being picked up by Vance"
NBC: "Blood Tribe, a national neo-Nazi group, was among the early purveyors of the rumor in August"
cited by Politico
Guardian: "They were initially spread online in August on social platforms used by far-right extremists and by Blood Tribe, a neo-Nazi hate group."
Washington Post: "It started with a tragedy, gained momentum online with neo-Nazis and became Donald Trump’s message from the presidential debate stage."
Vox: "The origin story of the Haitian dogs and cats meme appears to be remarkably similar. Two reporters, Zaid Jilani and Kate Ross, traced the panic about Haitians in Springfield back to an August march staged by the nearby neo-Nazi group Blood Tribe"
MSNBC: "The claim was fostered in part by a neo-Nazi group that has waged a hate campaign against the community for months"
The Nation: "We also learned today that the neo-Nazi “Blood Tribe” had made a point of pushing these false Springfield allegations into the public sphere, and ultimately all the way to Trump and Vance."
And then, specifically on neo-Nazis directly taking credit for pushing the narrative:
Bangor Daily News: article about neo-Nazi who took credit for this
New Republic: about Nazis taking credit, and including "it was at least amplified and spread by the neo-Nazi group"
NYT: again about the neo-Nazi taking credit
Independent: "The compounding myths, which the leader of notorious neo-Nazi group Blood Tribe gleefully took credit for having helped popularize"
On the CNN interview (via The Wrap: Bash, in a question to Vance: "And in fact, neo-Nazis are now taking credit, frankly, for pushing these rumors mainstream"
— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if we do include it in the opening paragraph, then we ought to also say there that it got amplified by mainstream media before leading Republican politicians amplified it more. And that woukd probably make the whole thing undue weight in the opening paragraph. How about later in the lead? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
amplified by mainstream media before leading Republican politicians amplified it more - which sources say this? (and which sources did this) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll make a list. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s kind of hard to search on Google because you can’t put in date restrictions. But Google’s all I have at the moment. It seems that Vance may have been the first DC politician to bring up this Springfield incident. This was likely because the people of Springfield are his constituents. Indeed, Vance says he was “surfacing” statements of his constituents. This is probably why I already knew about this stuff from mainstream media before Trump brought it up during the debate. If Trump got the inspiration from Vance (likely) and Vance got the info straight from constituents (he intimates as much), then we should be careful not to give the impression (in the lead or otherwise) that one or both of them were following and amplifying nazis. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to date-limit Google searches. Click on "Tools," then in the "Any time" pull-down menu, choose "Custom range." Vance made the claim before the debate (e.g., here), and Vance's claim was discussed on many news sources the same day. He referred to "reports," but doesn't elaborate on where they came from. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know about the “custom range” option, but every custom range ends at the present time. We can’t make it end just before the debate, or just before Vance spoke up about the matter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just change the date to prior to the present time. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to a Google search for 'springfield haitian hoax' with the time range of August 1 to September 7. Use and modify that to find what you are trying to find. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. For the moment, I have reverted your changes to the lede. It has been confirmed that neo-Nazis did indeed amplify the hoax. Currently, you have yet to provide a single source that the media was promoting the hoax which lead to Republican politicians promoting it, or anything similar to that. (The only thing I could find was unreliable sources that are listed as GUNREL at RSP.)
If you want to suggest a change to the wording outside of removing factual information, I am willing to consider it. At this time, I don't see any problems which how the lede was and now is. All it says is that the claims were amplified by those in the American right. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Super Goku V. The lead now says, “They were amplified by prominent figures in the American right….” Obviously, the “they” includes nazis. Is it really your goal to tell readers that when Trump and Vance discussed this matter, they were amplifying nazis? Why? All evidence suggests that Trump was amplifying Vance, and Vance was amplifying his Ohio constituents. You could put nazis into the lead paragraph without also putting in that GOP leaders were following the nazis. But as I said, if nazis are mentioned in the lead, it should go further down, because there’s plenty of stuff in the article body that has just as much RS sourcing but isn’t in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, but fine. "These claims were amplified by prominent figures in the American right..." Now it is crystal clear that what was amplified was the claims. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone have any information that nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected what GOP politicians did, or affected mainstream media/online discussion about this matter? As far as I know, the nazis just talked among themselves. See WP:OPEN, which says, “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would refer you to the comment above with 13 sources about what they did and them taking credit for it. There is also the neo-Nazi armed march around August 10th that they did in Springfield and a neo-Nazi intentionally disrupted a city meeting on August 27th to threaten the mayor. I would say threatening civilians and officials would not be neo-Nazis just talking amongst themselves. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ^ What exactly are you looking for, if not those sorts of claims? Also, As far as I know, the nazis just talked among themselves. - Why do you know that? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the sources listed above say a nazi group called Blood Tribe helped to spread rumors about pet-eating in Springfield, including online at sites like Gab and Telegram, but it’s not clear they were involved in creating this particular rumor that resulted in a Facebook post, though they have taken credit for spreading such rumors. So they’re obviously bad actors, but I would still urge moving them out of the lead paragraph, and perhaps replace it with Governor DeWine’s very high-profile comment that this Facebook story was “garbage.” I won’t object if Blood Tribe is mentioned lower in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blood Tribe ≠ Blood Tribe (neo-Nazi group)! El_C 19:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not sure I understand what your argument is. At the end of the day, we have a sprawling pet-eating hoax and tons of sources which say in no uncertain terms that the claims were spread among neo-nazis before being amplified by politicians. We have one neo-nazi group in particular involving itself in discussions about Haitian immigrants in Springfield. We have that same neo-nazi group prominently taking credit for spreading it. For the lead, what we need is for weight to be justified. It seems justified. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The lede has a summary of info that highlights the original post, it's adoption as a cause célèbre by the neo-nazis, its amplification by Vance, its explosion into mainstream discourse after the debate, and its escalation to and by divers influencers thereafter. It's an accurate, chronological, duly-weighted pair of sentences that presents that facts clearly and succinctly. Removing the nazis would omit a critical link in the chain of events.
    I do have two issues I want to address in the above discussion, however: 'it’s not clear [nazis] were involved in creating this particular rumor' and 'Vance got the info straight from constituents (he intimates as much)'. There is no suggestion (in the article or the lede) that nazis were involved in Ms Lee's post, nor does it appear in any RS I've seen. Remember that the original claim was not the hoax; the hoax was taking the (arguably IGF) friend-of-a-friend post and twisting it into a racist and xenophobic dog-whistle. As for the other statement, Vance and his team have rather adroitly avoided saying that he got this information directly from constituents. He 'raised' or 'surfaced' or 'focused media attention' on the claim; he has never stated that he first heard of the issue from a constituent, nor that any constituent brought Vance their own claim of felonious feline-feasts. All current evidence suggests that he was going by social media reports, not direct info, and that neo-nazis were a critical link in spreading those social media claims. Last1in (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to the lead

User:Carguychris, regarding these edits, please reconsider this change: “then byhis running mate Donald Trump”. Is there some reason why you don’t want to show the chronology? Vance made this an issue first, on September 9, and then Trump joined in later at the debate, on September 10. The two words “then by” don’t take up much space. Additionally, please reconsider this edit: “then spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups. These claims and were amplified by prominent figures in the American right, most notably Republican….” GOP politicians amplified the claims, as distinguished from amplifying the Nazis, and this was more clear from the previous language. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why you don’t want to show the chronology? Because it's not necessary in the lead, which is supposed to be a simple and direct summary of the topic as a whole. Trying to introduce the chronology makes the lead needlessly complex and turgid.
GOP politicians amplified the claims, as distinguished from amplifying the Nazis, and this was more clear from the previous language. Here's my edit of the sentence, with the list of names truncated.

The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered, then spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups, and were amplified by prominent figures in the American right...

"The claims" are obviously the subject of the entire sentence. This construction is more succinct than breaking the sentence up into multiple shorter sentences that all begin with "the claims". Carguychris (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent re: chronology, but why does it matter, Anythingyouwant? It's not like JD Vance broke the story -- he was repeating something that was already shared widely on social media. JD Vance amplified it, and Trump made it a national headline the next day. Are you saying it's important to say that Trump heard it from Vance? Do we know that he did? Just unclear. But agree with Carguychris on the second point. It's a pretty clear sentence -- Vance amplified a claim that had been posted to FB first and spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It matters because we are deliberately distorting the chronology in the opening paragraph. I do not believe that those tweaks to the lead had anything to do with the lead being ”turgid” or not. On CNN, for example, reporter Dana Bash said, “Before Donald Trump talked about eating dogs and cats on a debate stage, it was you Senator who first elevated this rumor, these are your constituents.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Arana Instagram video

I'm sorry I don't know how to do real editing, but this meme has been getting lots of distribution via e-mail, and it seemed to be at least as significant as the one the article already mentions: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C_5soI9OU70/ RichardSRussell (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Haitian Times, BIN News, the word "attacks", and WP:NPOV

Per the revision 1246535299 of the article:

Haitian Americans and Haitian immigrants have faced race-based attacks due to these claims. Haitian residents – some of whom have lived in the town for years – have since had windows broken and acid thrown on their cars as a result of the hoax.

Four sources are cited. The only one alleging actual physical assaults is this story in The Haitian Times. The story states that one resident (not several), who chose to remain anonymous, has experienced two incidents of vehicle vandalism and broken windows in the middle of the night. BIN News describes a Haitian business owner "seeking legal help after several baseless attempts to evict her from her place of business", with few additional details; the remainder of the story largely parrots The Haitian Times, with full attribution.

  • The single Springfield resident whose home and vehicle have been vandalized seems to be speculating regarding the motive for the incidents of vandalism. The identity of the vandal(s) seems to be unknown. She and The Haitian Times cite no evidence that the vandalism is connected in any way to the highly publicized pet-eating claims. (Furthermore, a single person is a "resident", not "residents" as the article says.)
  • The situation with the business owner is similar. Without further evidence, connecting the eviction to the pet-eating claims seems specious.
  • Neither The Haitian Times nor BIN News are discussed in WP:RSPSS nor the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

I feel like labeling these claims is "attacks" violates MOS:LABEL and is giving WP:UNDUE weight to incidents whose relationship to the topic is unverified, and is based solely on potentially partisan sources that may violate WP:NPOV. At the very least, I think the language needs to be toned down. I am tempted to excise the broken windows and acid claims altogether. The other two sources, Reuters and Yahoo! News, are considered "generally reliable" per WP:RSPSS, but they only describe verbal harassment, bullying, and threats. Carguychris (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding reliability, while I don't have any prior experience with Haitian Times or BIN News, not being listed at RSP doesn't mean anything. That said, would it resolve this to just reword it to replaced "race-based attacks" with "verbal abuse and vandalism"? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...not being listed at RSP doesn't mean anything. Understood, which is why I'm seeking consensus. I reworded the "attacks" sentence. I tagged the other one as "disputed" and I'll leave the topic open for discussion for a day or so. Carguychris (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Washington Post treats The Haitian Times as legit here. On the other hand, the Yahoo article is actually sourced to a site called Blavity that struck me as questionable for news. Perhaps the sentence about the car could be changed to something like "One resident reported her car having been vandalized twice, and believes it was motivated by the hoax." FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One resident reported her car having been vandalized twice, and believes it was motivated by the hoax. This language is more neutral, but are the unfounded conclusions of one resident whose car has been vandalized truly notable? Carguychris (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I have found overall with a note here that some of this is likely covered in the article:
Examples collapsed by default due to length
The Haitian Times: White supremacist’s “warning” against Haitians in Ohio triggers fear and calls for action
  • "During the Jazz and Blues Fest on Aug. 10, Blood Tribe members wore black pants, red jackets and black ski masks. The group brandished white supremacist paraphernalia, including a black flag emblazoned with a white swastika. Some Haitians said the group also shouted, ‘If you’re Black, go back to Africa’ during their demonstration."
  • "“I’ve come to bring a word of warning. Stop what you’re doing before it’s too late,” Berentz said in the video reviewed by The Haitian Times. “Crime and savagery will only increase with every Haitian you bring in, and with it, public frustration, threat and anger.”"
  • "“We feel unsafe,” said J.D., a married father of two whose full name The Haitian Times is withholding for his security. “They’re saying online that they’re going to hunt Haitians."
Haitian families in Ohio under attack as racist claims spread
  • "Aside from the anxiety caused by Tuesday night’s debate, the woman also said her cars have been vandalized twice in the middle of the night. She woke up one morning to broken windows and another to acid thrown on the vehicle."
  • "P.P., a Haitian business owner, is among them. That morning, she was on her way to see an attorney about attempts to evict her from the place of business. The multi-service store owner told The Haitian Times she was seeking counsel because she suspects the eviction attempt was due to rising anti-Haitian sentiment."
Bomb threats following false claims targeting Haitians continue to disrupt Springfield
  • "'Some families have reported feeling unsafe, with incidents of online bullying, intimidation and physical harassment occurring in recent days. “It’s very scary. I blocked comments on my page,” said S.P., a community activist who wished to remain anonymous due to fear. “People are calling me from block IDs, I don’t know who they are. It’s scary.”"
“You are not alone,” leaders from across U.S. tell Haitians in Springfield | VIDEO
  • "Leaders with the NAACP, representatives of Haitian American groups from across the U.S. and local Ohio activists vowed during a community Saturday to organize and support Haitians in rejecting baskets and racist claims about Haitians harming animals. (...) Originally planned as an in-person community town hall, the meeting, part of an ongoing series organized by The Haitian Times, was moved to Zoom after the city received bomb threats tied to white extremists."
  • "Even as they spoke, a ruckus broke out outside the community center from which a few participants logged into the Zoom when a strange truck appeared in the parking lot carrying white occupants acting cagey."
CNN: The Haitian Times covered the false claims targeting Springfield. Now it’s also facing attacks
  • "Macollvie Neel, editor of the Haitian Times, was ready to start her workday from home on Monday when her doorbell rang. What she thought might be a delivery turned out to be more than a half-dozen police officers. “I looked and there were police cruisers outside my house,” Neel recalled Tuesday in an interview with CNN. When she opened the door, Neel said officers explained that “someone had emailed an [organization] saying they had killed their wife for being racist toward Haitians at my address.” The hoax report that sent officers rushing to her home, known as a type of swatting, left Neel feeling alarmed and worried for her safety as well as for the staff of The Haitian Times, where she serves as executive editor."
  • "“People who are anti-Haitian, anti-immigrant, just felt like they had carte blanche to just call or email or go on people’s Facebook pages and just ratchet up the harassment,” Neel said."
  • "Reports began pouring into the publication’s newsroom of Haitian immigrants receiving harassing phone calls and children and teens bullied. Parents were fearful to send their children to school. Dozens of bomb threats later shut down schools and municipal buildings in Springfield following Trump’s promotion of the false claims."
  • "Within the past week, Neel said she received an email “with a subject line that was just ‘N-word’ — that’s literally what the subject line was.”"
  • "Other prominent Haitians have also been the target of police swatting attempts, Neel said. “The message is pretty clear that they know where we live. They can get to us if they really want to,” Neel said. “It’s just an intimidation, fascist tactic to silence people.”"
  • "After the neo-Nazi march in August, the Haitian Times planned to hold one of its regular town-hall style “community conversations” in Springfield for September. With the national spotlight on the community, the issue became even more paramount. But what was supposed to be an in-person gathering to discuss, reflect and support one another had to be moved to a virtual conversation due to ongoing threats targeting the community. Springfield’s city manager told the publication that it could not guarantee the safety of its staff, Haitian Times founder Garry Pierre-Pierre told CNN. “I’m angered but we’re very much resolved,” Pierre-Pierre said in the wake of the attacks. “We left Haiti under a fascist dictatorship, so we won’t let a fascist minority silence us. We will cover this story, we will take precautions, but we will not be silenced.”"
The Guardian: ‘This has to stop’: Biden condemns attacks on Haitian US immigrants
  • "The threat “used hateful language towards immigrants and Haitians in our community”, Rue told the Washington Post, and added that Springfield “is a community that needs help”. No bomb was found after the threat was made. But Rue told the local Fox outlet that, in the threat, “there was enough negative language toward immigrants, towards Haitian folks that would bring enough concern. And then when it followed up with … at the end, of a bomb threat … It was pretty much just the beginning of the conclusion that they’re going to threaten to harm people.”"
The Springfield News-Sun: UPDATE: Wittenberg moves to online classes Monday after pair of threats
  • "Wittenberg University canceled all activities, events and athletics contests Sunday due to a threat of a potential shooting on campus from an email sent Saturday. The university said the message especially targeted Haitian members of the community."
  • "Wittenberg University Police sent the following email to the school community at 1:32 p.m. in response to another threat received, this time a bomb threat utilizing a red Honda Civic: “The entire campus has been cleared of any suspicious vehicle and no threats found. The red Honda Civic located on Bill Edwards Drive was cleared and found not to be involved."
PBS: How life in Springfield has been disrupted by lies about its Haitian community
  • Hate groups like the Proud Boys have also been marching through the city. Residents last week found these fliers from a group affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan saying that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were — quote — "disease-ridden and filthy."
  • "Partly because of these threats, the city canceled a 20 year tradition in the city, its CultureFest. That's been canceled now. And there is an anti-immigrant march scheduled for the end of the month."
  • "She was followed around in her car by a man who followed her after a church service for several blocks. She tried to shake him, and she said he would only leave when she finally pulled up next to a police car and started talking to the police."
Slate: Fear and Hope in Springfield, Ohio
  • "The consequences were immediate. White supremacist groups have been seen in town distributing racist fliers and trying to latch broad grievances to nonwhite people living there. There has been vandalism and more than 30 bomb threats, and a steady stream of people from out of town arriving to tell the new locals that they don’t belong there."
  • "Not long after I got into town, I encountered a group of about 30 members of the Proud Boys, some with their preteens in tow, sporting custom-made yellow-and-black biker jackets emblazoned with the group’s logo. One I spoke to covered his face with a bandana and declined to give his name. He said there was nothing racist about opposition to Haitians here. “We want the government to prioritize Americans over immigrants,” he said. “If you want to come to our country and assimilate, we’ve got plenty of space. But you’ve got to do it our way, adopt our values. You can’t bring your culture here.” I asked another if she truly believed people were eating household pets in Springfield. “It’s possible they aren’t,” she said. “It’s just a meme. It’s just for fun at this point.”"
  • "Usually left unlocked, the door was now only opened for familiar faces or those with appointments. Earlier in the day, police had been called to review security footage showing three suspicious men seemingly casing the building. The executive director of the center offered me cake, but declined to speak on the record, citing concerns after recently being doxed online."
The New York Times: Threats Against Haitians Land at the Doorstep of The Haitian Times
  • "In recent days, a surge of remarks posted on the outlet’s site containing racial epithets led Mr. Pierre-Pierre to shut down the comment section."
  • "And a woman interviewed by The Haitian Times received threats after her quotes were published in an article, leading her to request that her name be removed."
  • "Ms. Neel, who has also received emails with racial slurs in recent weeks, said she thought the harassment and intimidation was aimed at preventing journalists from doing their work. “The strategy is to get folks so tied up in dealing with personal security and fear that they are distracted from even doing their own jobs,” Ms. Neel said."
This isn't going to be a complete list, but it does show some of what has happened. As for The Haitian Times, a very simple search shows coverage in The Washington Post and NPR, along with CNN and The New York Times listed above, giving an indication of some level of reliability. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I thought I was spending a lot of time working on this talk page! Hats off to you, @Super Goku V. I think we can agree that the Haitian Times is reliable. That being understood, I still think the inclusion of a single Springfield resident's seemingly unfounded conclusions about vandalism to her property is WP:UNDUE. Also, I support of removing the BIN News citation, because it adds nothing to the section that's not supported by the other sources, and it openly parrots the cited Haitian Times story. Carguychris (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As for the sentences, I think the first is fine, the second should be removed or at least significantly altered, and the BIN News citation should be taken out. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 September 2024

Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax → Springfield pet-eating hoax – See this Talk page discussion. (1) Consensus to omit "Ohio" per WP:CONCISE: although there are numerous other cities named Springfield in the United States, none have been subject to widely publicized claims that domestic animals are being stolen and eaten. (2) Consensus to change "cat" to "pet": although the hoax clearly began with cats, it almost immediately grew to encompass preexisting rumors of Springfield waterfowl being eaten, and Donald Trump's now-famous debate quote includes dogs and unspecified other pets. (3) Consensus NOT to include "immigrant", "migrant", or "Haitian" per WP:CONCISE: not strictly necessary to disambiguate the topic. (4) Changing the word "hoax" to "rumor", "conspiracy theory", or "claim": this was the most contentious part of the previous RMs and clearly failed to reach consensus. I respectfully request that we confine the RM discussion to the less contentious words in the article name. Carguychris (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Discussion

For this discussion, please bullet entries for a new topic and try to keep the discussion of that topic above the next bullet. The previous RM had several issues where the same general topic was being discussed in multiple 'silos'.

  • Cats v Pets -- I agree that the article is best titled with 'pets'. I think that 'cats' is indicative of the idea that the 'hoax' was the original (possibly IGF) post that turned out to be false, and that 'pets' more leans toward the actual hoax being the pan-species, xenophobic trope that the post was turned into on the political battlefield. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update on translation

A French version was now started, so people can carry over material to the French version.

There is not yet a Haitian Creole version of the article. When this stabilizes (it can take weeks), it may be good to seek a Haitian version. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbor in the lead

@Anythingyouwant: The lead now includes "Subsequently, the neighbor who had told the story that made its way to Facebook said that she was not a credible source, as she didn't know the cat owner." in the first paragraph followed by "The author of the original Facebook expressed regret and the user's neighbor who related the story admitted it was not their daughter's friend, but a rumor heard from an acquaintance of a friend". IMO the more specific context of the second made the first unnecessary -- kind of a lot for that particular detail -- but at minimum they shouldn't be disconnected in separate paragraphs, no? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of specificity in the opening paragraph is a feature, not a bug. See MOS:OPEN: “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” The opening paragraph is to the lead what the lead is to the whole article. If we say in the opening paragraph that the neighbor told this story, then we should also say in the opening paragraph that the neighbor later backtracked. And then this can be specified some more in the rest of the lead (and then ad nauseum in the article body!). Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Springfield_pet-eating_hoax&oldid=1247634451"