stringtranslate.com

Talk:Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax

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:

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

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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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 - 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]
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]
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]
  • 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]
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]

Idea relating to recent RM

I am strongly considering creating an article titled Conspiracy theories and hoaxes in the 2024 United States presidential election as a centralized "directory" for topics such as this one and the JD Vance couch thing. I think this would address many editor's WP:BLP concerns about WP:UNDUE weight in Wikipedia biographies of the public figures involved. I'm not sure I'll have time to do it today, so I would welcome others' attempts to tackle it. Pinging users @Kcmastrpc @1ctinus @Rhododendrites @Magnolia677 Carguychris (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if this could just have it's own section on 2024 United States presidential election for now, and if it gets crazy we could split out the article. I'm open to either at this point, because it's obvious editors are going to be dealing with an unprecedented election over the next few months. AI, deepfakes, hoaxes, viral memes. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding adding a subsection in the main election article, I'm already concerned that it will immediately balloon and turn into a knock-down, drag-out WP:UNDUE editorial fight like the "couch thing" in the JD Vance article. Hence making it separate from the outset. Carguychris (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm largely in agreement that it'll need to be it's own article, or maybe even a list. "Conspiracy Theories and hoaxes" is an incredibly broad topic that will quickly become too much to handle if already attached to a larger article. Trump and JD, for better or worse, say plenty of wild stuff that'll probably qualify. Anti-vax, sharks/batteries, eating cats, transgender inmates, etc, and that's just the debate. Please don't remind me about what this election will inevitably bring, I can already envision the mess at WP:GAR that'll likely ensue.🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have a better idea (slept on it). Memes in the 2024 United States presidential election. @Kcmastrpc @Rhododendrites @1ctinus thoughts? Carguychris (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Memes is incredibly broad. If you want to do that, fine, but it's a different subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I thought about doing exactly that a week ago. Might be worth drafting an outline to see how much it could be built up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carguychris: I still don't know if this will work, but I started throwing together a really rough outline, per above, to see what it could include. I got as far as User:Rhododendrites/Misinformation in the 2024 United States presidential election. Misinformation is in line with other similar existing articles and would encompass both hoaxes and false/unfounded claims. The big questions are (1) how do you articulate clear inclusion criteria for such an article, so as to avoid every bogus claim a politician makes (or about a politician) being added, and (2) whether this subject has become notable enough on its own that there would even be support for a merge (though two is secondary, of course). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really like your draft. I suggest clarifying in the lead that the article is about misinformation that emerged during the election, in contrast to preexisting misinformation that never went away (e.g., most stories concerning Hunter Biden). I definitely think former candidates warrant inclusion given the rumors about Biden secretly being in hospice care or regularly sleeping until late morning. Carguychris (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work Rhododendrites! In all honestly this article should merge into that one. We shouldn't have an article (and its title) centered around a rumor. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, there's been a new development with this story every day and Trump's debate quote in particular will likely be one of the most repeated lines of the election season. Even if my draft gets developed as a home for the less notable stuff like the JD Vance couch thing, this stand-alone article is probably here to stay. Not that anyone couldn't propose a merge/deletion and see what happens... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

This idiotic claim could be mentioned on Trump's bio and other notable people involved in spreading the myth, but it is unlikely that it deserves its own page. A frequently ignored rule on here is that this isn't a news site, and certainly not a 'breaking news' site. It is unlikely anyone will still be talking about this in a month. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a notable part of the 2024 United States presidential election, and could certainly have an influence of the election and on the people of Springfield. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem to match this article. We can't know if people will still talk about it in a month, they might, they might not. win8x (talking | spying) 01:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many books will be written about the 2024 US presidential election, including some by respected historians. It is highly likely that quite a few of these books will discuss this bizarre hoax. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I agree that it still meets WP:NOTE regardless. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a notable part of anything much less the election -Trump's a troll who frequently lies for shock value and to distract people from real issues. NOTNEWS is NOT simply to prevent us from creating articles about local people winning awards, but also to prevent editors from creating articles about daily or weekly fascinations in the press. Wikipedia is specifically designed to be "behind the curve" and so there's no way of telling how notable this topic will be in a month. Odds are it'll be completely forgotten about as a dozen other things will have happened by then. Trump's attempted assassination stayed at the top of the news for less than a month and you guys think an inane myth about Haitian migrants will outlive that? Really? Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; I think there will be books written about memes, rumors, and hoaxes in this election. WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable to a widely covered national story like this; the policy covers stories like "Local lawyer wins award", "Small plane crashes, killing local businesswoman", "Sunrise Heights Shopping Center damaged in mysterious fire", or "Is Brad Pitt house-shopping in our town? Agent's cousin's hairdresser has juicy new info". Carguychris (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except it is applicable to national news -there are many "widely covered national stories" that don't meet article criteria on here. NOTNEWS is not just about local news, but also to prevent editors from making instant-articles about the latest media obsession. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason to have it on one page instead of placing it on several different pages is that it contains a lot of interconnected information which would be hard to split up. For example: if one is talking about just Trump's statements in the debate, then it's relevant how his VP talked about it before, where the rumor came from, which parts were true or false, history of immigrants in Springfield, etc. It would be hard to choose which parts to keep. Paditor (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I have been adding information to the articles about Trump's campaign, and the False or misleading... This subject must also be mentioned in the bios of Vance, Loomer, etc. Having the whole story in one well-sourced article is better - and better for the public who are wondering whether there is any truth in that rumor. By the way, since Trump and Vance (and others) have been clearly told is false and they keep promoting it, it evolved from rumor to hoax. Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Facebook user's name and WP:NPF

I think it's a violation of WP:NPF to post the names of the Facebook user and the user's neighbor, so I've edited the article accordingly. I am willing to discuss putting the names back if they make further statements to the press, if it turns out that the original user did in fact intend to perpetrate a hoax, or if other significant new circumstances arise. Carguychris (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that person would surely be an “intentional perpetrator” as per Last1in, whether or not this point was even valid. Just saying. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding support for erring on the side of omitting the names of private people who found themselves at the center of this. She did do some press, I guess, but we should really have more to justify adding her name. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:21, 14 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]

  • Not a bad idea, though IMO entirely word-based images are often better just displayed as text. Another idea while we're throwing out non-free options: a clip like this? Not sure it'd get by WP:NFCC, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This [28] is from Springfield, Ohio, and certainly reflects the quality and nature of this whole endeavour. </sarcasm> Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:00, 18 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]

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)[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]

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]

@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]

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]

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 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]

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:

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]

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.

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:
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]