stringtranslate.com

Talk:Litter boxes in schools hoax

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hello, the article should state that this was a hoax. Perhaps the title also..

Bruxton (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistory

There is some prehistory (if you will) to these rumors. For at least 10, maybe 15 years, stories have circulated online of attendees at furry conventions requesting litter boxes for their hotel rooms. These too are likely hoaxes that originated from and have been perpetuated by Internet trolls, as I'm not aware of any credible instances of it actually happening. However, nearly all such discussion took place on social media sites and website comment sections that wouldn't qualify as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, so it may be difficult to find references to back it up. As far as we know, these rumors were just furry haters doing Internet troll things and it's doubtful they were motivated by transphobia. mwalimu59 (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My statement was with respect to the early/older rumors. I'm not disputing that the recent episodes (since 2021) are likely rooted in transphobia. mwalimu59 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
mwalimu59, I just added this source from The Herald Journal that explains the possible early 2000s origin. It quotes a folklore researcher, so it has some credibility. If you find have other sources, please suggest it. Thanks! Minnemeeples (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 October 2022

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: SUPPORT for move to litter boxes in schools hoax. Minnemeeples (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Litter boxes in schools → Litter boxes in schools hoax – In order to correctly identify the subject as a hoax. The current title suggests that the article is about actual litter boxes in schools, not about the hoax. Surachit (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2022 (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.

The litter box photo

The photo of an actual normal litter box seems to me to somehow lend a sense of concrete reality to the idea that litter boxes were in schools. That doesn't seem like a good idea, given that it's a hoax. Novellasyes (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly removed the photo. It is of a "Japanese typical litter box". This article is about the hoax in North America. It does seem other hoax articles have a leading image more directly related to the hoax. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Novellasyes (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is writing this article?

Who is writing this article? The DNC? It's hyperpartisan, right-wing this, right-wing that. I don't fault anyone for believing anything when it's obvious that almost any lunacy can find political support these days. MurrayGreshler (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word "right" in the political sense only appears in the article 5 times. Well 4 times right now but it'll back to 5 after I revert that ridiculous edit of yours. Now, do you have any more specific issues with the article or are you just soapboxing because you don't like it stating the objective fact that this is a right wing conspiracy theory? --Pokelova (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MurrayGreshler, you removed content about Libs of Tik Tok with this edit that is from the Washington Post article already cited in the article. The author, Taylor Lorenz, stated, "Its content is amplified by high-profile media figures, politicians and right-wing influencers. Its tweets reach millions, with influence spreading far beyond its more than 648,000 Twitter followers. Libs of TikTok has become an agenda-setter in right-wing online discourse, and the content it surfaces shows a direct correlation with the recent push in legislation and rhetoric directly targeting the LGBTQ+ community." So far you're only flagging the article and deleting sourced content from reputable sources. If you feel there are tone issues, please be specific on talk. The many sources cited in the article describe the hoax as being pushed by far-right politics. Even conservative media sources, such as The Bulwalk in this article, have written about that context. Minnemeeples (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that "far-right" is mentioned three times in this article and "centre-right" is mentioned once, whereas there is only one instance of "right-wing". This is not too much considering the length of the article. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please no false equivalency. A US Senate candidate today:[1] Lunacy must be treated as such. O3000, Ret. (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax or myth?

The article starts saying "The Litter boxes in schools hoax is an urban myth". That seems strangely contradictory. Is it a hoax, a delibrately fabricated falsehood, or is it a myth, a false storie making the rounds? Worded like it is now it might even imply that there is an urban myth that there is such a hoax. Str1977 (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit to address that. I agree that it seems to be sort of a double-negative to say the hoax is an urban myth. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Hoax

I've done a dive into this out of an interest in hoaxes and mythology, and it appears several of the premises of the article are not accurate. The earliest mass/national press coverage of this that I could located actually was from August 2021, and came from Jezebel (https://jezebel.com/we-salute-the-teen-furries-taking-over-this-kentucky-hi-1847565515) which seems to publicize a claim from Meade County, Kentucky about this happening in Spring 2021. They were channeling a local news report based on an anonymous claim from a grandmother (so no direct knowledge, it would seem). I'll dive into this more, but I expect to make a significant text edit that will anchor the dates better and make it less politically-charged (which isn't helping this otherwise interesting hoax).Neptune1969 (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipeida article is about litter boxes in schools, not furries in schools. The Jezebel article makes absolutely no mention of litter boxes. The background section already explains the context of students dressing up creating tension between schools and students. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neptune1969. Please see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Use of Reddit discussions threads constitutes both original research and use of an unreliable source. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than engage what I wrote, you deleted all of it. The middle set of edits cannot be described as original research. On the cat-litter-in-the-classroom-for lockdown, here's a commercially available kit that was the first hit when I searched in a standard search engine:
https://www.sosproducts.com/Classroom-Lockdown-Kit-p/6401l.htm
So the Colorado story doesn't really belong in this article. Neptune1969 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with the anti-LGBTQ+ hysteria perpetuated by far-right politicians regarding their fantasies about furry accommodations in public schools. Zaathras (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 December 2022

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. Clear consensus against the move. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 11:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Litter boxes in schools hoax → Litter box canard – WP:GOOGLE results for the phrase "Litter boxes in schools hoax" overwhelmingly show webpages that reference this Wikipedia page, and citing them would run afoul of WP:CIRCULAR. The name "Litter box canard" for this particular hoax is sourced.[1][2] I WP:BOLDly moved the page to this sourced name, but Valjean reverted to the previous name, citing WP:BRD. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word hoax is used many times in the article. Am I to understand that the word is totally unsourced? We need to discuss these things before considering if another title is needed at all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 08:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valjean: From Googling the phrase "litter box hoax", I can see that this name for the hoax is used in several sources. Perhaps the article should be moved to "Litter box hoax", but retain the note that it is also known as the "litter box canard". CJ-Moki (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retaining mention of canard as one of the many descriptions is fine, but they should be dealt with in the body, not the lead. The mention of schools is one of the most important aspects, therefore the title should remain as is.
The problems I mentioned need to be fixed. Why have references been removed? That's not good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 08:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valjean: That was me, sorry. References should be fixed now. This diff shows the changes I intended to make, compared to the version of the article as of Dec 16, 2022.
@CJ-Moki: For me, an exact search for "Litter box canard" returned this article, and the two articles we're currently citing. It may well be a more WP:COMMONNAME than ours, but most of our sources don't agree on an "official" name for this hoax. Purely subjectively, I'd consider our title more commonly recognizable than litter box canard. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 10:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Obradovich, Kathie (February 14, 2022). "Silly school litter box rumors front a darker agenda". News From the States. Retrieved December 9, 2022. The litter box canard also serves another political purpose: Trying to scare parents.
  2. ^ "LGBTQ+ youth are target of a massive fear-mongering campaign". Los Angeles Blade. October 31, 2022. Retrieved December 9, 2022. Yet, here we are playing whack a mole with the litter box canard.


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.

Claims of students identifying as cats, furries, etc., without the litter box

I'm aware of a couple of cases where claims have been made that schools or teachers are required to allow/acknowledge students who identify as furries or animals (usually cats), but without any mention of litter boxes.

One example occurred in a print newspaper sent to Illinois voters just a couple of weeks before the 2022 midterm elections. The one I received was called The McLean County Times, and they have website, but I couldn't find some of the more shocking stories from the print edition on their website. Note that the same publisher has more than thirty other similar publications with essentially the same content (at the above link, scroll down near the bottom to 'Other Publications'). What's available online indicates the site is heavily right-leaning, but the above-mentioned print content that's missing from the website would likely get a rating of questionable source/conspiracy theories. It's almost as if they knew keeping those stories off the website would make them harder to scrutinize.

Another recent story, caught George Takei's attention, involves an Arizona woman named Lindsey Graham (not to be confused with the South Carolina senator), who tried wearing a cat costume to a school board meeting, claiming to identify as a cat, the stunt intended to mock the school's policies on transgenderism.

In both of the above examples, there is no mention of litter boxes, but they are more direct about conflating gender identity and 'species identity'. Given that, would it still be okay to address claims such as these in this article? That's not either of these are well-sourced enough to merit inclusion, but even if not, most likely there have been other instances and they may continue to happen in the future. mwalimu59 (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has nothing to do with this, no. Zaathras (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This probably isn't useful if our goal is a larger, more nuanced discussion of the "furries in schools" moral panic (the Background section, particularly refs #29–31, seems to be just be uncritically repeating unsubstantiated rumors from this panic), but the NBC news article quotes three school-age furries. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative response - possible addition?

Might it be worth adding a mention of North Dakota HB 1522, which (as drafted) prohibits "providing a place, facility, school program, or accommodation that caters to a student's perception of being any animal species other than human", and Oklahoma SB 943, which prohibits "engag[ing] in anthropomorphic behavior commonly referred to as furries"[sic]? Neither explicitly mentions litterboxes, but the hoax would appear to have inspired these clauses. I appreciate that suitable reliable sources will be needed to support the connection - plenty of unreliable ones are available, so it's just a case of finding a source that meets WP:RS. Tevildo (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit to add context from an NBC News article from January 2023 about North Dakota. Is there reliable coverage of the Oklahoma bill that connects it to the litter box hoax? The Oklahoma school superintendent repeated the hoax during his campaign last year, which I also added to the timeline. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some legitimate but off-label uses of cat litter in schools

Just noting that there may be some legitimate uses of cat litter in a school to mop up spills of dangerous or bad-smelling liquids, for instance spilled oil or vomit. So schools may actually be purchasing it, just not for the purpose mentioned in the hoax. That might actually be the origin of the hoax.

Not sure if adding this to the article would improve it however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrosechapel (talk • contribs) 23:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would not. Zaathras (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that there litter boxes in schools near me.

It is true kids are dressing like cats. Uxbridge school district allows it. 159.250.11.207 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about original research on Wikipedia. Content suggestions must be from reliable sources. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I did in fact heard talk from students advocating for litter boxes in bathrooms, so I’m not sure why you’re all saying it’s a hoax if it’s happened at least once 2604:3D09:1585:7300:B066:F09D:9913:3DFA (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the article starts randomly running defense for furries in schools 'not being a sexual fandom' you know somethings up. 65.92.123.103 (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rye College

No literal litter boxes in the stories, but is it worth including the June 2023 story about pupils at a UK school supposedly identifying as cats (Rye College#Gender identity controversy)? Some of the commentary at the time (https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/06/23/pupil-identifies-as-cat-claims-denied/, https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/06/25/natasha-devon-lbc-cat-school-recycled-homophobia/) saw it as a continuation of the US hoax.

I wrote it up for this article in this edit in July, but it's since been removed. Belbury (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]