The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
It is requested that an image or photograph of Haitian immigrant community, involved politicians, affected buildings, demonstrations, police activity related to the bomb threats, etc. be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
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!"
[2] claiming the image is "degrading" toward a "living person." I'm not sure who the claimed living person is supposed to be, given that the image depicts Donald Trump and the article prose and image caption explain it was produced in support of him.
I'm ambivalent on its inclusion in the article altogether – it does demonstrate the House Judiciary Committee's support, which helps the article prose. But I detest AI art and don't like looking at it. This doesn't however make it MOS:OMIMG as claimed, so its removal puzzles me and I object to Magnolia677 misusing MOS guidelines to remove content. Dan • ✉22:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d support keeping it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be the main reason used for its exclusion. It serves a purpose to illustrate (the propaganda) how people supported spreading the hoax, while also being legally clear to use. -1ctinus📝🗨23:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 \\ 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.
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 \\ 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 \\ 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.
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]
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]
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]
@Biohistorian15: I see you've twice removed part of the article summary that covers the extent to which sources call this hoax (or whatever we want to call it) racist. If your objection is to the wording, what's your alternative? Certainly a lead that omits an element present in a significant portion of sources is failing NPOV. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the duplicate sentence, please note that the first time I kept it in the lede, and only the second time did it go into the "Reactions" section. Please no crass redundancy like that, especially if the fragments concerned have a clear POV... Biohistorian15 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point regarding which was removed. Nonetheless: If your objection is to the wording, what's your alternative. They're not duplicate sentences, but yes they're similar and mean the same thing. Agreed that's not ideal, so what's your suggestion? In the meantime, let's not violate NPOV with a lead that fails to summarize the body on account of a stylistic objection. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove redundant use of exact same phrase and sources and Again, duplicating the exact same paragraph and sources like this is not supposed to be done and Please no crass redundancy, but then I haven't objected to the wording at all. Strange indeed. Ok, so I'll ignore all of that and focus on the only other clue, above, where you reference "clear POV" with no other explanation. Is that the real issue? If so, can you tell me in what way was the sentence you removed failing to represent the cited sources, and provide an alternative to adequately provide that summary? — Rhododendrites \\ 02:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... Well this is frustrating. You're repeatedly removing content while citing only stylistic issues (repeated/redundant wording/sources), then saying it's about POV and not related to wording at all, but refusing to actually say a word about what that POV issue actually is. If you're going to edit war, you have to actually back up what you're doing with arguments on the talk page. I made no objections to that to what? Are you saying you're not calling it POV? So it's not wording and it's not POV? I'm grasping here... — Rhododendrites \\ 03:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no need to include the exact same statement with the exact same sources two times over. The "POV" merely makes this more pertinent. And now you are accusing me of edit warring. I don't get it. Biohistorian15 (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences may have a POV while articles must not. Including (almost exactly) duplicate sentences is generally a bad idea, and especially so if they are politically one-sided... Biohistorian15 (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax → Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating rumor – Per WP:NDESC and WP:RS. Reliable secondary sources predominantly describe this topic as a "claim", "rumor", or "conspiracy theory" rather than a hoax, and describe it as baseless or unsubstantiated rather than false. (As I write this, the only major WP:RSPSS I've found describing it as a "hoax" is New York.) Although the definitions of "hoax" and "rumor" overlap to some degree, the word "hoax" insinuates a deliberate and malicious trick, and the supposed event has not been and potentially may never be definitively proven as such. Per my older edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, one definition of "rumor" is "a statement or report current without known authority for its truth", which I think summarizes the topic better than "claim" or "conspiracy theory". Carguychris (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts>23:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "Rumor" lends far too much credibility to the subject. Rumors are often based on unofficial communications about something true before it's formally announced, among other meanings that entertain -- contrary to all reliable sourcing -- the idea that we might be talking about a real phenomenon of immigrants eating your pets. "Hoax" is not ideal in this case because it isn't mentioned explicitly in enough sources, but at least it isn't harmfully misleading (we are, fundamentally, talking about something that became notable for its spread after it was debunked). "Myth" is a possibility. Otherwise possibly a descriptive title (though I can't think of a good one at the moment). Adding later: My preference, among the variables presented below, is "Springfield pet-eating hoax". There just hasn't been a good alternative to hoax presented, I agree that Ohio isn't needed to disambiguate, and this story took off with the allegations about pets. FWIW. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC) — Rhododendrites \\ 14:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A rumor is "a statement or claim of questionable accuracy, from no known reliable source, usually spread by word of mouth" which is exactly what this story is.
It hasn't been "debunked", as you say. It's quite literally just an unsubstantiated claim (subsequently, I feel the article jumps the gun in repeatedly referring to it as a "false" claim, as well). The authorities have stated they've had no evidence confirming the allegations, not that the allegations themselves are untrue or that anyone has been caught/admitted to lying. The only thing that has been debunked is some specific photos and videos people have shared on social media which, from what I understand, came about after the rumor had already spread.
Words such as "claim", "rumor", and "allegation" seem to be the most appropriate for the topic, as these both accurately describe what it is and retain a neutral tone. Terms such as "hoax", "myth", and "conspiracy theory" are all baseless claims in themselves which are just as unverified as the original rumor being discussed. I'd also suggest changing the "cat-eating" portion of the title as I don't feel that properly conveys the full scope of the rumor. "Springfield, Ohio, Animal Consumption Rumor" or something of the like would be more accurate. Or even maybe "Springfield, Ohio, Unverified Claims of Animal Consumption" if one wants to emphasize more the lack of verification rather than the rumor itself. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on most points, although I'm more open to the term "conspiracy theory" because it's supported by sources. The term "myth" is just as loaded with insinuation as "hoax". I likewise think the article goes overboard in describing the rumor itself as false, as it's more accurately unproven, unsubstantiated, or baseless, but we're veering off the topic of the RM. All that being said, I have another alternate suggestion: Springfield, Ohio, animal-eating rumor to reflect its spread from cats and ducks to dogs and geese. I like "eating" because the word "consumption" has other possible meanings, so "eating" is more WP:CONCISE. "Claims" and "allegations" come across as clumsy and didactic to me, personal preference. Carguychris (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cat-eating really is integral. "animal eating rumors" would be meaningless: people in Springfield really do eat ducks and geese and other animals, some of which can be pets. Feoffer (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the article to remove language stating that the rumor is outright false or is a hoax, unless there is clear attribution, which I've notated more clearly. Carguychris (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a move to "Springfield, Ohio, migrant conspiracy theory" or something like that. There's more to this then the (ridiculous) cat-eating part of this. Support moving to conspiracy theory, Oppose moving to "rumor". -1ctinus📝🗨15:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose “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]
Comment - I wish I had a nickle for every "hoax" I've seen on Wikipedia, like Hunter's laptop and so many "Russian disinformation" ferry tales. Yesterday, the Attorney General for Ohio accused the media of ignoring resident's complaints about this. Other residents are preparing a petition to recall their city council. Calling this a "Hoax" is premature, and focusing on just cats is...weird. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:57, 12 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]
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]
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]
It started with cats, the AZ GOP is doing cat billboard and politicians are doing cat memes. We could add dogs to the title, but 'pet' alone is too vague: people have pet ducks and pet geese and pet goats. Feoffer (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial Facebook post which the article credits as being what the rumor stemmed from specifically mentions cats, dogs, ducks, and geese. Ducks are also mentioned in the widely circulated footage from the Aug. 27th Springfield City Commission Meeting. Trump, in his debate with Kamala Harris, mentioned both dogs and cats. When the police addressed the claim, they said "pets". When the mayor addressed it, he talked about "geese or ducks". The attorney general referenced livestock. The Aug 26th phone call to police claimed that Haitians were stealing geese. Zeroing in on pets isn't only more appropriate, it's technically not broad enough.
That being said, I'd nevertheless support the word "pets" due to Trumps use of the phrase ("they're eating the pets") becoming so associated with the rumor. Cats, as well, due to memes, have become very associated with it, but between the two options "pets" is more accurate to the broader scope of the rumor. However, I'd still oppose any title utilizing the word "hoax" in regard to this rumor, as the rumor hasn't been substantiated as being a deliberate lie with the intent to deceive. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose-isH. “Rumour” implies it might be true, when it’s clearly not true. “Hoax” is better. I could live with “conspiracy theory”. I’d be OK with replacing “cat” with “pet”: it started with a supposed cat, but it has gone further. That said, the references to ducks are not to pets, but to wild animals, so I don’t know how to include ducks. Bondegezou (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Rumour” implies it might be true, when it’s clearly not true. Which news outlets meeting WP:RSPSS says it's clearly not true, outside of the opinion section? And they were domestic ornamental ducks according to sources. The make and model of geese is unclear, but geese aren't very cuddly, so I can't imagine they were pets. Carguychris (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of the time of writing this, there's yet to be any evidence that this rumor was/is a lie. Let alone an intentional lie. By definition, it's simply not qualified to be classified as a hoax. It's an unfounded, baseless, unverified rumor (or claim or allegation).
As far as the word "rumor" giving credence to the mere possibility that it may be true... I'm somewhat unclear as to what the problem is with that or why so many seem so adamantly opposed to it. While there's certainly no evidence that it is true, it's very feasible that it could be true. There's multiple residents in the area, for instance, all making similar/related claims. Their claims have never been determined to be untrue or a lie. And the claim involves people from a country where animal sacrifices aren't only not unusual but are apparently a significant aspect to their religious rituals (Haitian Vodou). None of this, mind you, is good evidence that the rumor has any validity to it. They are indicators, though, that the claim isn't so outlandish or outside the realm of reality (i.e., Bigfoot, Flying Saucer, or Leprechaun sightings) as to warrant being so casually dismissed as an absolute falsehood, completely unworthy of being considered a possibility. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless on whether or not this is true it would be extreme bias to assume that this is true of all the people of Haiti and its diaspora. Similar claims can be said of various cultures especially in the Americas and you are essentially adding a rumor on top of a rumor while Wikipedia is not… “a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions”. (See WP:RUMOR) Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was mentioned about assuming anything of all the people of Haiti. I brought up the apparent common practice of a widespread religion in the area in order to emphasize that there was a larger degree of plausibility to the rumor than some are allowing for (instead, they're claiming that it's "clearly not true" and that words such as "rumor" mustn't be used because they allow for the mere possibility that it could be true). I was simply giving reason why the claim wasn't utterly beyond the realm of reasonable plausibility and shouldn't be so quickly dismissed due to an argument from incredulity. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GutterMonkey's words, no doubt representative of many readers, highlight the need for a title that makes it clear the claims are false. Feoffer (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're adding a valid (and civil) rebuttal to your implications about me and/or my words, I don't know how your response here is constructive to the conversation. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be more direct: above you characterize these claims as more plausible than UFO conspiracy theories, but the opposite is true. Promoters of CTs are not, in the whole, baldfaced liars. People really did report "flying saucers" in a mass hysteria outbreak in 1947, Kennedy really was assassinated in Dallas in 1963 -- but nobody in 2024 is eating cats in Springfield. This is a hoax or a 'false claim", the title needs to reflect that. Feoffer (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These rumors are more plausible than the things which I listed (which were Bigfoot, flying saucers, unicorns, and leprechauns, by the way). There’s never been any well-substantiated evidence that bigfoot, flying saucers, unicorns, or leprechauns have ever existed. There has, however, been plenty of evidence that people killing and eating cats and dogs occurs quite regularly. And there’s evidence that this is a more normalized thing to do in some regions than it is in others. Subsequently, the claim that someone saw evidence of a person killing or eating an animal is objectively more plausible than the claim that someone saw evidence of Bigfoot.
Mind you, I wouldn’t be supporting calling rumors of bigfoot, flying saucers, unicorns, or leprechauns a “hoax” or a “falsehood” either without proper evidence to indicate that they actually were. If someone asked me whether flying saucers exist, I’d say “there’s yet to be any evidence of that” or that those are “unverified claims” or that those are “just rumors”. While I’d certainly be more readily dismissive of such claims (than I would be of accusations of a crime that’s been documented to occur sometimes) and demand especially strong evidence before believing them, I’d still be in the wrong to prematurely classify them as “hoaxes” or “falsehoods” without reasonable proof of my own. Because when you call something a hoax or a falsehood, you're making a claim that saddles you with a burden of proof.
My reasoning for bringing up my "outlandish" examples was merely a response to someone claiming that we shouldn't even be toying with the possibility that these rumors could potentially be true (and, subsequently, that we shouldn't be using a neutral — and accurate — term like "rumors" to describe them). For who I was responding to, it seemed, the possibility that this could be true was so beyond the realm of plausibility that we should inexplicably be defaulting to the stance that they aren't only a falsehood, but they're a deliberate falsehood (which, as of yet, there's no evidence of). Me bringing up actual cases of animal killings/consumption, cultural differences, and religious rituals was just an attempt to drive home my point that the rumors weren't as implausible as was being implied. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Conspiracy theory" is a pejorative, but Springfield cat-eating isn't even worthy of that lowly title. It's not about sincere believers in hats made of tinfoil, it's about purveyors of snake oil. At least, that's what RSes are universally saying. Feoffer (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the creator of the article who wrote the original title, I'll explain my rationale for using "hoax" here. I used it for the same reasons that the Litter boxes in schools hoax article is called that: it's a series of unsubstantiated claims that were passed off by prominent politicians and media figures as fact despite thorough fact-checking from reliable sources. I felt using a descriptor like "rumor" would lend undue weight to the claims. "Conspiracy theory" might be fine for this article.
As to why I titled it "cat-eating"; when I created the article on the 10th, it was mostly cats being talked about (this was before the former president uttered "they're eating the dogs".) If I had written the article today, I probably would have called it the "pet-eating hoax." LV23:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose absolutely not. Per Bondegezou, "rumor" suggests it might be true. Nor is there even a theory of a 'conspiracy' to eat cats. It's a hoax. Similarly, "pets" is no good, as ducks,geese, chickens, and other food animals that are kept as pets. Feoffer (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used it for the same reasons that the Litter boxes in schools hoax article is called that: it's a series of unsubstantiated claims that were passed off by prominent politicians and media figures as fact despite thorough fact-checking from reliable sources. The litter box story is easier to disprove because there are fewer people who would need to be asked for verification. Also, reliable sources now describe it as a hoax.
The topic of this article raises a Russell's teapot type question. It seems likely that additional sources will eventually start calling it a hoax, but as I write this, major media outlets are still using words like "baseless".
I felt using a descriptor like "rumor" would lend undue weight to the claims. "Rumor" and "claim" are the descriptors reliable sources are using today. Carguychris (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support move, to claims rather than "hoax" in the title, e.g. Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating claims. As I've demonstrated above, virtually ZERO reliable sources use the word "hoax". Thus, Wikipedia is currently way out of line with common usage (violating WP:DUE and WP:IMPARTIAL),. The vast majority of reliable sources use terms like "claims" or "unfounded claims" or "debunked claims" or "rumors". Per WP:NPOV and WP:POVNAME, Wikipedia should follow existing sources, language, and ideas, not drive or unduly promote terminology based on WP:SYNTH or moral panic to do something! Claims is not wrong or incorrect in this situation. Claims may be true or false, or debated, but they do not carry the same baggage of a term like hoax (which implies deliberate fabrication). From some of the oppose comments here I'm getting a sense of people wishing to wield loaded terms like 'hoax' or 'conspiracy theory' out of a noble but outraged desire to call out, label, and squash a dangerous idea (shades of the Great Replacement article move discussion). We can't just abandon our policies and guidelines and use loaded, cherry-picked terminology because a subject is controversial or condemned by a majority. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a single cherry-picked opinion article. Per WP:RSEDITORIALEditorial 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]
Analysis. I looked at 15 sources from the article, results on this subpage. They frequently use the word false, as in false claim, false rumor, false conspiracy. Claim is more common than rumor or conspiracy. I didn't notice "hoax." Rumors tend to be "inaccurate" but not always "false." Granted, "false rumor" is an option -- but I'd be wary because Vance characterized it as rumors. So, false claim appears to best reflect the common usage of reliable sources. ProfGray (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You added "intent" but that's not actually stated by the main sources. Maybe intent is to provoke, arouse anger, not to deceive?Social science usually doesn't claim to discern intent, so can it be encyclopedic? ProfGray (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC) ProfGray (talk) 09:00, 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.
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.
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.
Two things. First, to be clear, oppose all instances of titles based on "rumors" or "claims" per my !vote above. Second, "pet-eating" is what makes the most sense to me since "pets" is what a lot of the sources talk about. It would also mean we could focus the article more, because it sounds like there are a variety of other accusations which, while they're relevant to racial tensions in Springfield, are not relevant to the core of this subject, which is the extraordinary claim that migrants are eating pets. The talk of duck and geese, for example, does not tap into the same "they're coming for your family" rhetoric -- people eat ducks and geese. Sounds like there was never any evidence of that either, and some sources cover them together, but if we were clear that this is about pets those claims could be summarized in a single paragraph is related but not central to the story. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- premature page move -- The page was moved to a new title ("pets") without apparent reference to this discussion, and without closing this by User:LuanLoud. Was that inappropriate? I'm not seeing an obvious consensus around "pets" and it was not in the original RM wording. ProfGray (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two elements to this move request: "hoax" and "cat". "Hoax" has obviously not been resolved, but I don't see anyone arguing for "cats" being preferable to "pets" (several argue the opposite, though). As such, unless folks want to argue that "cat-eating" is better backed by the sourcing than "pet-eating", I see no reason not to move it and continue with this move request. If anything, it allows the move request to more easily focus on "hoax" and its alternatives. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Since "pets" was not in the proposal, most !votes or comments don't mention it. I don't think it's helpful to try to do moves during an RM, except to close the RM. To close the RM, an disinterested party should read thru all the responses and tally up the various views here, right? Note also: the RM should be allowed to go for '''seven days'''. See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. Since the move to "pets" was not done properly, I have Moved this back. ProfGray (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely argue cat in title is integral, especially to understand the response. We could maybe do "cat and dog eating", but we can't go "pet" or "animal"; This hoax is NOT "pets" which can include chickens, ducks, geese, etc. Feoffer (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose as premature and inaccurate (or at least inexact). As plenty of editors have noted, 'hoax' is a problematic term at the best of times and absolutely does not describe the situation we face here. A hoax is something perpetrated to deceive. There is zero evidence that Ms Lee had any such intention. Right now, this is best described as a 'rumour' (or 'rumor', since it's in the US where English is deprecated). I expect that this will end up in List of urban legends alongside all the other stories based on someone's best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors (with apologies to Mr Bueller). As such, I think we should leave it with the current title and move on. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. I was very unclear. I oppose ANY move right now. Yes, rumour is much closer to what we have, but that puts us afoul of the Wikipolicy of the same name. Even if the encyclopaedia did house rumours, I'm not convinced it is a rumour. It's a meme, a racist trope, an urban legend, a sadly-transparent xenophobic myth. History will tell us which when folks start writing RS about it, if it even remains in public discourse (which I doubt). If it does, I'd put my money on 'trope' at the moment. By decade, it was cats in oriental restaurants, then Santorini priests with pet sacrifices, then dog-fur Chinese-import coats, and now Haitians are eating the cats. I'm sure we'll have goldfish sushi when next the Japanese become the political bogeymen of America's right-wingers. I guess I'm suggesting that we don't bother with the title as one is no worse than the next; just let it sit and contemplate all the actual, encyclopaedic subjects we could be editing instead. CheersLast1in (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial oppose Given the conspiracy theory doesn't only apply to cats, the "cat-eating" part should be changed to "pet-eating". Otherwise, I think "hoax" is the most accurate way to describe it as of right now. Isthmus55 (t • c) 21:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose rename due to WP:RUMOR and what Wikipedia is not; a collection of unverified facts. Furthermore, there is no “theory” either as it has been debunked as the county police department said there was no such activity among its immigrants. In a statement on Tuesday (10 September 2024), a Springfield police spokesperson said, “In response to recent rumors alleging criminal activity by the immigrant population in our city, we wish to clarify that there have been no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”
Oppose Strongly Rumour suggests something may or may not be true while hoax is a deliberately crafted false story which this so obviously is, a random Facebook post by a layperson has been amplified and crafted into a dog, cat, domestic geese eating hoax, Furthermore i support the title Springfield, Ohio pet-eating hoax as it seems the most logical and appropriate in this case Nohorizonss (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Ferrell (not a Haitian immigrant) was booked and arrested in Canton, Ohio, which is about 3 hours away from Springfield, Ohio and the infamous black man walking the goose down the street not only was not a Haitian immigrant but was taken on 28 July 2024 by a man in Columbus, Ohio by a reddit user who posted it and now regrets doing so.
In lieu of this, what would be most appropriate when social media takes videos out of context and ties a particular group of people to it to the point it catches onto political figures who would potentially use these false claims to win over votes? A hoax. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted below, WP:RUMOR does not apply, because it concerns speculation about unverified future events, not discussion of the real-world effects of past events. Lastly, @Savvyjack23, I'm blanking out the Canton, Ohio, woman's name in your response due to WP:NPF. No hard feelings. Carguychris (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I object to removal (albeit partial) of my comment as per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS and I do not give you permission to do so as per WP:MUTUAL. The former states, to “Cautiously [edit] or [remove] another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. WP:NPF applies to WP:BLP, not talk pages. No hard feelings taken Carguychris}. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose 'pet' in title Per my !vote and comment above, "cat" really does need to be in title to understand the absurdity of the claim and the automatic reactions of laughter and mockery. People keep all sorts of food animals as pets: ducks, geese, goats, sheep, chickens, etc. The hoax is not about over-zealous duckhunters straying onto their neighbors land, it's about the idea of kidnapping and eating cats for food. Feoffer (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - It's being discussed in RS as a hoax, it's commonly spoken about as a hoax. Moving it to "rumour" would amount to diluting the clarity of it being untrue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support - Great care must be taken to prevent any personal loathing for Trump and Republicans from poisoning an encyclopedia, which simply MUST be neutral 100% of the time. YouTube is bristling with first-person testimonials by Springfield residents, including a black native of Springfield (who hardly fits the "neo-Nazi" or "white supremacist" profile), reporting these incidents. THIS IS NOT A HOAX. If it's a deliberate hoax, it is extremely sophisticated, it's got Big Money behind it, and it's hiring crisis actors from across the racial spectrum. Which means that the chances of it actually being a hoax are microscopic. "Rumor" is a much better descriptive term for what I'm seeing. Cheers mates. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC) — 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:NPOV explicitly rejects applying a false balance, and your personal opinions are not outweighed by the overwhelming weight of RS declaring it to be false. Cpotisch (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"False" is very, very different from "unverified." And when you drill down into each and every one of of those WP:RSes, if you read past the headlines into the fine print, the truth is that it is "unverified." Not "false." This is very different from flying saucer hoaxes, or Bigfoot hoaxes, or Loch Ness Monster hoaxes. People have actually eaten cats. This is a fact. In other words, it's a plausible rumor. If proven false, then it was a hoax; but that hasn't happened yet. That isn't personal opinion. I refuse to allow my personal distaste for Trumpian politics to colour a WP:NEUTRAL encyclopedia. Cheers mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oi right. Scroll down, mate. I'm making the same argument on two separate threads. When you drill down past the word "false" in the headline, in the media that so very obviously loathe Donald Trump, you will find (in the fine print in the 17th paragraph of the article) that the word "unverified" is far more accurate. Do you need examples? Do I need to post them here for you, in exquisite detail, or can you look for yourself? 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your linked article in the Washington Post, a left-leaning newspaper that hasn't endorsed a Republican for president in my very long lifetime, uses the word "rumor" twice. It doesn't use the word "hoax" at all.
Your linked article in The Guardian, which is openly, proudly left-wing and regularly hosts op-eds from flaming left-wing partisans who loathe everything conservative, uses the word "rumor" four times. It doesn't use the word "hoax" at all.
So, you're citing RSes that explicitly call the claim "false" to demonstrate that we shouldn't call it false? No, I don't think further examples of this will be helpful. Feoffer (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: when you read past the headline of the article, which may explicitly (but erroneously) use the word "false," and get down into the facts (which are finally explained in the 5th, or 12th, or 19th paragraph), you find that police cannot prove it to be either true or false. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Take that up with the Trump campaign, then. Trump is the one making the allegation. As a Wikipedia editor, I'm just reporting it as neutrally as I can. What WP is SUPPOSED to do is report the allegation NEUTRALLY, without the spin-doctoring that is always present in the media that so very obviously loathe him, and are licking Kamala's boots. If the allegation has been proven to be false, then it's a hoax. If it hasn't been proven false, then it's a rumor. People have eaten cats before. So this is not in the nature of a Bigfoot hoax. It's plausible. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic anything is plausible. The cat-eating scandal is in fact a hoax, by definition. It has been completely manufactured, as there is no veracity to any of the baseless claims put forward. Trump said he "saw something about it on television", give me a break. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, of course. Bigfoot reports and flying saucer reports are implausible, because neither one has provided physical or (authenticated) photographic evidence of any type. There are no experts agreeing that Bigfoot definitely existed, or that we've definitely been visited by flying saucers, at any time. Quite the opposite for people eating cats. It's happened, numerous times. In fact, if you were stranded on an island in the middle of the ocean, with nothing but 100 cats and unlimited firewood, I daresay that after seven days, the cat population would be less than 100. No offense, mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because "it has happened somewhere at some point in time" does not make the Springfield cat hoax any less of a hoax. You are literally arguing in favor of perpetuating the disinformation campaign, which is pointless and not contributing to the Wikipedia project in any way whatsoever.
And what is the evidence that his claim is true? As a simple example, re: his claim that they're eating ducks they catch at the park, do you think they're eating raw duck that they plucked (or left unplucked) at the park and he watched this all happen at the park, or do instead think that he followed them home and watched them pluck and then cook the ducks there? Neither one strikes me as plausible. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for your YouTube channel link, per Wikipedia: The Daily Caller is a conservative website founded by Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel in 2010. It covers politics, culture, and media, and has been criticized for publishing false stories and white supremacist content.
LOL. Do you think the video has been doctored? Do you think it's AI-generated? There is no commentary by Tucker Carlson or anyone else. Everybody speaking in that video is a resident of Springfield, Ohio. All of them, even the last one who seems quite sympathetic to the Haitians, agree that the Haitians are causing a lot of problems. And if you'd like to see the original, unedited video on the official Springfield, Ohio city government website, I'm sure I can post a link. The video is authentic. Some irrelevant material has been edited out, same as any news organization would do. Cheers mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the article quotes this citizen's unfounded claim of supposed duck hunting in city parks, but no amount of duck or goose allegations will make the cat-eating claims anything but a hoax. Feoffer (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Do you think the video has been doctored? Do you think it's AI-generated? That has nothing to do with it. Please see WP:DAILYCALLER. They are considered generally unreliable by Wikipedia's standards, and have been deprecated. Furthermore, we generally can't use YouTube videos as a source. We'd need something written by a credible secondary source. Hope that helps. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've already got two reliable secondary sources, mate. The Guardian uses the word "rumor" four times, but doesn't use the word "hoax" at all. The Washington Post uses the word "rumor" twice, but doesn't use the word "hoax" at all. Use the term that the reliable sources are using. Avoid the term that the reliable sources are not using. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh by the way mate, here's the very same video (unedited) at RealClearPolitics. [12] The City of Springfield, Ohio has its own official YouTube channel, and here's the very same video from their August 27, 2024 meeting. [13] Clicking on the "Watch a Commission Meeting" link on the city's official website [14] takes you straightaway to the city's YouTube channel. Please stop complaining that Daily Caller is unreliable. In this instance, they've proven to be 100% reliable. Cheers mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even disregarding your source, a town hall video isn't proof of anything besides a rumor being widespread. You can go into Washington state and New York and find plenty of town hall meetings discussing bigfoot, it doesn't mean bigfoot exists. Sourfillet (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that law enforcement looked through months of call logs and did not find any reports about pets being stolen is, in fact, evidence of it being false. Just what kind of evidence of falsity are you looking for? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's noteworthy that you couldn't bring yourself to answer the question, so I'll ask you again: Just what kind of evidence of falsity are you looking for?
Also, absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence. It depends on the claim, the bounds of the set being explored, and more. You're also ignoring the behavioral contradiction: if someone has evidence that their pet was stolen and eaten, you think that they're going to say that to a neighbor but NOT report it to the police? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just what kind of evidence of falsity are you looking for?
Just right off I do not enjoy discussing hypothetical cases. But if some Springfield resident reported on 6 Sep her cat was missing, then reported on 8 Sep that she saw some Haitian immigrants skinning and eating her cat, then the Springfield police recovered her cat alive and well on 10 Sep, that would be proof that the report was false. Vague rumors like this one are difficult to prove one way or the other. That's why they're called "rumors," which are neither "facts" nor "hoaxes." Cheers mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a hypothetical case. Trump is accusing people, and you said that there is "No evidence of it being false," so it's totally fair to ask you what evidence you're looking for. Is there anything that would convince that the claim itself (rather than one person's report) is false? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you seem to think that there is no such thing as a factual "gray area." Either it's definitely proven to be true, or it's definitely false, a hoax, a hideous lie, whatever.
Since you enjoy discussing hypothetical cases, do you feel that Trump is definitely guilty of all the crimes with which he has been charged? Including the charges which were dismissed, or delayed until after the election? If I were to claim (in a Wikipedia article title) that the Florida classified documents case, the Georgia election interference case, and the DC insurrection incitement case are all "hoaxes," because they haven't been proven yet, it appears you would agree with me.
Conversely, if some Red State Republican files a lawsuit for $50 million against Kamala on Monday for "public nuisance" prostitution in his neighborhood, dating back to 1989, right after the GOP-controlled state legislature changed the statute of limitations to allow such a lawsuit, would you be screaming on the Talk:Kamala Harris page that it's all a hoax?
With all due respect, you're projecting beliefs onto me that aren't mine, and the talk page for this article isn't the place to discuss things that have nothing to do with this article. I haven't asked you to call anything "black" or "white." I asked you about your claim that there's "No evidence of it being false either." Apparently you're unable to say what you'd take as evidence of it being false. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "You can't prove a negative" is a pet peeve of mine. One can prove some negative claims but not others, just as one can prove some positive claims but not others. An example of a negative claim that can be proven: a largest prime number does not exist. Another example of a negative claim that can be proven: there are no plums in my refrigerator. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ones calling this a falsehood, however, are the ones making an allegation. And they're doubling down on this allegation by also alleging that it was deliberately concocted with the intent to deceive (a hoax). That's, in fact, two allegations. Both of which place burdens of proof on the accusers:
1. They have to give proof that the rumors are untrue.
2. They have to give proof that the rumors were intentionally made up with the intent to trick people.
Proof of these two claims have still yet to come forth. The accusers are simply giving their personal opinions and cherry-picking from a pile of sources that are all inconsistently defining this aspect of the situation. "Ignore those labeling it a rumor or fact-checkers calling it 'unfounded' rather than 'false,'" they argue, "we must only side with the hand-picked article's that say the word 'hoax,' disregarding the article's body which fails to substantiate how it's a hoax."
Those of us proposing that this should be classified as a "rumor" are merely arguing against both of those unverified claims, as well as the unverified claims that these rumors are definitely true. We're not making a claim of our own, we're saying that their claim (that this is a hoax) is just as unfounded as the rumor itself. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken on both counts. The standard for inclusion is showing that RSes characterize it as a hoax or false claim -- easily met here. There is no requirement of intentional deception by the creator. cf Arthur Machen, Orson Welles, and John Keel for originators of accidental hoaxes. Feoffer (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for inclusion is showing that RSes characterize it as a hoax or false claim -- easily met here. For the third time, mate: when you drill down into the very same WP:RSes you are using, they don't use the word "hoax." And in the 6th, or 11th, or 18th paragraph of your own WP:RSes, the facts are actually laid out: the police cannot prove these claims. That doesn't mean the claims are false. It means they haven't been proven.
The headline writers at your WP:RSes, in their rush to chop a point or two off of Trump's polling percentage, used the word "false" in the HEADLINE. But in the body of the article, they use the word "rumor," multiple times. And they DO NOT use the word "hoax."
There is no requirement of intentional deception by the creator. cf Arthur Machen, Orson Welles, and John Keel for originators of accidental hoaxes. I've been marveling at the Orson Welles "War of the Worlds" broadcast, and the panic it unintentionally caused, for many years. But this is the first time I've seen it described as an "accidental hoax."
Regardless, the headline of this article uses the word "hoax" without the "accidental" qualifier. Thus it quite deliberately creates the impression that Trump was quite deliberately lying: deliberately creating a false perception or misunderstanding. Without proof of that intent, the word "hoax" must be removed and the word "rumor" seems the most accurate replace3ment. That's my final word on the matter. Cheers, mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Examples such as that with the War of the Worlds situation aren’t commonly referred to as a hoax, as they don’t meet the definition of a hoax. “Hoax” is not synonymous with “falsehood”. It is a specific thing which implies intent. “Accidental hoax” is an oxymoron.
As far as the sources go, while I agree that many use the label “fake” to describe the rumor (most don’t refer to it as a “hoax”, however), as the other user has stated, none of them that do this substantiate that classification within the body of the source. Looking beyond the labels/headlines and reading the actual content repeatedly reveals descriptions of an unsubstantiated rumor and the point to sources such as the Springfield law enforcement who, as well, merely describe an unsubstantiated rumor. And sources such as Snopes, that specifically aim to fact-check the claims, choose to classify it as "unfounded" (accompanied by a big question mark icon) rather than the more definitive claim of "false". These various sources aren’t consistent with each other (or even sometimes themselves) in this regard. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. This shouldn't be a question of which word ("hoax" or "rumor") gets the most votes. This should, in fact MUST be obedient to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and other policies. I am unaware of ANYWP:RSes that use the word "hoax," even once. Two sources that advocates of the word "hoax" have linked in this discussion (The Guardian and The Washington Post) use the word "rumor" repeatedly, but never use the word "hoax." Accordingly, we must follow policy, not votes. Cheers mates. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this appares to be a racist attck in order to generate hate against a group of people. Hoax is is the correct term to use as a neutral observer. 70.61.22.78 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hoax is also tangentially connected to the Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United States concept, and has been talked about as such by Trump and Vance, through their statements about migration allegedly benefiting Democrats vis-à-vis supposed "election fraud" and "illegal votes" by immigrants for Harris.
So I think renaming the article using the words trope or canard would be illustrative, but would not necessarily be a common name, as currently described by the media, perhaps? Thoughts? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "canard" is probably the best choice, since it makes it clear the idea is false without the implication of intent that "hoax" carries. I'd also like to point out that, while we're discussing moving the page to a new title, it definitely shouldn't have a comma after "Ohio." The name of the city and state are an apposite noun in the phrase and thus the comma is unnecessary and incorrect. Wehpudicabok (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with 'canard' were it not for the fact that the vast majority of US readers would never have been exposed to the term. It is exceptionally uncommon to see it in print, and I have honestly never heard an native-speaker of American English use it in conversation. If they have any inkling at all, most would think it refers to the stubby little fore-wings of an aircraft or a posh British cruise line (that is, if they knew the word 'posh'). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both "rumor" and "conspiracy theory". "Rumor" suggests it's unclear if it's true, while "conspiracy theory" indicates some sort of conspiracy is being alleged. If someone steals a cat and eats it, they're not conspiring with anyone, they did it all on their own. Smartyllama (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's both malicious and deceptive, which makes it a hoax. I could support swapping "cat" for "pet" since even though the original hoax was about cats, Trump is lying about dogs too. Not essential, but possibly useful for completeness.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Pet' serves to elide the absurdity: there are pet goats, chickens, ducks, geese, and other food animals. We could add dogs to the title, but cat-eating is pretty essential to understanding the reactions. Feoffer (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose hoax -> rumor. Conspiracy theory would be ok. NPOV does not demand we give equal weight to a hoax that started with “my neighbor’s daughter’s friend says…” I have a hard time taking any argument to the contrary as one made in good faith. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - People are demonstrably mislabeling images to create false evidence. It's not an accident that a photo from a older news article about a non-Haitian in a different place got captioned as evidence. No matter how it started, a rumor that was turned into a hoax is still a hoax. And if anybody's pet had been eaten, they probably would have come forward by now. That's the kind of absence of evidence that really is evidence of absence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HonoreDB (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piltdown Man being proven to be a hoax doesn’t mean that evolution is a hoax. Various UFO-related hoaxes don’t indicate that aliens are a hoax. Debunking a connected sub-claim doesn’t debunk the broader rumor or the possibility that the rumor could be valid. Especially considering that these debunked stories were, as far as we can tell, a result of that broader rumor, not the cause of it.
As far as people not coming forward about anything happening to their pets, that really isn't evidence of absence. Just because you can't imagine what reason there'd be for such silence (claims have been made by residents, but for the sake of argument let's pretend they haven't) doesn't mean those reasons don't exist. Yet again, this would be an example of the logical fallacy, argument from incredulity. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should pluralize it, then? Hoaxes, to emphasize that we're talking about several different cases of fraud meant to create a false belief that the rumor had been confirmed?
Have there been people who have, themselves, credibly had their pets stolen coming forward? I thought it was all friend-of-a-friend stuff.
On the meta level, evidence is not the same as proof. Absence of evidence is weak evidence of absence, but it is evidence, and it works cumulatively, the same as any other kind. In Bayesian reasoning, anything that is more probable when a statement is true is evidence for that statement, and certainly the current paucity of evidence would be less probable if it weren't a hoax. If you look around a room and don't see a tiger, that is evidence of the absence of a tiger, even if you forgot to check behind the sofa. HonoreDB (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't think any of the proposed titles, including hoax, is very good as this is fairly unique. But I do think the current title is the most appropriate. I Strongly Oppose Conspiracy Theory as the hoax does not allege a conspiracy. Unlike for instance the blood libel of anti-Semitism, which alleges a world-spanning Jewish cabal, this alleges the Haitians of Ohio to be the opposite of a cabal. They're not a conniving secret society out to eat pets; instead, they're dehumanized and described as animalistic, going out as individuals to forage for food and lacking the human dignity to respect pets. It's gross and evil and something very different from a conspiracy theory. Dan • ✉23:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need "Ohio" in the name of the article? It looks wierd, and I don't think we need a distinction. It's not like people will confuse it with "Springfield, Illinois cat eating hoax" or something. I would personally argue to move it to just "Springfield cat-eating hoax" or something (idk what will be concensus on a final name yet). Or at the very least, I would lose the second comma after "Ohio" in the title.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OP's suggested move. Reliable sources use the term "hoax" (New York Magazine[18]Politico[19]The Hill[20], see also borderline source Washington Examiner[21]) alongside close synonyms like "false, racist rumors" (The Guardian[22]), "baseless assertion" (Washington Post[23]), "false claims" (Washington Post[24]), and "debunked claims" (NPR[25]The Independant[26]) when discussing this topic. Note that when terms like "rumor" or "claim" are used in these sources, that noun is qualified with a descriptor like "false" or "debunked". Since we do not want to overburden the article's title with adjectives (WP:CONSICE is policy), "hoax" is the best fit. Support move to Springfield, Ohio, pet-eating hoax so as to include all the relevant examples in one article. I was alerted to this RfC at FTN if anybody cares. Generalrelative (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cat really needs to be in title to understand the absurdity of the claim and the instanteous reactions to it. This isn't about ornamental ducks or geese being shot by overzealous duckhunters straying onto neighboring property, it's about the claim that people in Springfield are eating cats (and later, eating dogs). Feoffer (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is far and away the most contentious RM I've ever submitted and there is clearly a lack of consensus. Furthermore, since I posted the original RM, more sources are describing it as a hoax. Furthermore, yesterday's highly publicized "If I have to create stories..." comment by JD Vance seems like a game changer; it's a clear de facto statement that he realizes he's perpetrating a probable hoax, even if he's not specifically calling it that, and he intends to continue perpetrating it regardless of future revelations. As the original poster, I formally withdraw my support for this RM.
I 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]
@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 \\ 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]
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 \\ 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]
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]
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:
"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.
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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 \\ 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]
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 \\ 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. MilkyDefer13:55, 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]
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 \\ 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]
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 \\ 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]
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 \\ 13:24, 16 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 \\ 20:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Baselessness
I disagree with this edit which removed the following sentence from the end of the opening paragraph:
Following Trump’s amplification of the matter, the person who had ignited it on Facebook admitted it was just a rumor, and expressed remorse.
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]
@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 \\ 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 \\ 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 \\ 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 \\ 20:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Super Goku V, in this edit, you not only put nazis back into the lead paragraph, but also eliminated the last sentence of the opening paragraph. With not a word of discussion in this talk page section which is all about that last sentence of the opening paragraph. Why not collaborate a little? Why do you think it’s less significant that the source of the rumor admitted it was not credible, than that a bunch of fringe nazis commented on the matter just like they comment on just about every political matter (without going into the opening paragraph of every Wikipedia article about such political matters)? Here’s the sentence you deleted: “The person whose story was told on Facebook and started the controversy later admitted that she never knew anyone who spoke to the alleged cat owner and that the story lacked credibility.”
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 \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of this as the text makes it clear which Springfield we're talking about and there's no other similar Springfield hoax to disambiguate between. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that 'Ohio' should be omitted. Since there are no (currently known) accusations of feline gastronomy known in other Springfields, the addition is not useful. We should lean toward WP:CONCISE. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Ohio: just "Springfield" is enough to "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, which is what our precision criterion requires, and it adds that titles "should be no more precise than that". We should be as concise as possible. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: In both this section and the above move discussion, multiple editors express a preference for removing "Ohio" from the title. So far, no one has objected. Feoffer (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, a day or two is not enough. Maybe there'd objections on the basis of Ohio being in the WP:COMMONNAME (or not, I dunno). I'm willing to cut the 7 days by half for this due to likely WP:SNOW, but you're at half of the half presently. Feel free to ping me here again in a couple of days and we can go from there. Thank you. El_C11:06, 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_C16:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually mentioned this above; it should definitely be removed. "Springfield, Ohio" in this phrase is functionally an adjective (to be linguistically precise, an appositive, or as our page on the topic calls it, a noun adjunct), so it should not be followed by a comma. Though, as others pointed out above, it might be best to remove Ohio from the title altogether, in which case there should be no comma at all. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want the comma because I don't want Ohio in there at all. However, I disagree with your conclusion (he says, throwing down a linguistic gauntlet). I think that Springfield is a restrictive appositive to the subject ('hoax', or whatever the bleep we decide to call it) along with cat-eating. That would make 'Ohio' a non-restrictive appositive since it adds specificity to the adjective instead of the subject, thus would require the comma. "I'll see you and your second in Battersea Fields at dawn. We shall settle this with gerunds at twenty paces!" :D Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)(PS: Just cuz these days it seems one needs to specify, that was humour... or possibly humor. There was no exchange of adjectival projectiles intended.)[reply]
You are definitely correct in clarifying that nonrestrictive appositives do require commas, but I'm not sure that adding "Ohio" makes this particular appositive nonrestrictive. In my experience, nonrestrictive appositives almost always follow, not precede, the nouns they modify (except perhaps in the case of false titles, though even those usually lack commas). However, we do seem to be approaching a consensus that "Ohio" isn't necessary in the title in the first place, so the point is perhaps moot. (And don't worry, I got that you were joking at the end there.) Wehpudicabok (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change the title to “Cat-eating hoax in Springfield, Ohio“ and let the controversy about trailing commas be resolved elsewhere by people who care a lot about it. We just care about cats at this talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where else there is to talk about the title of this article other than this talk page, nor what would be gained by separating the conversation. If we're talking about moving to a new title, that conversation should be here, regardless of which aspect of the title we're discussing. Wehpudicabok (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mildly incline to agree, based in large part on "pets" featuring prominently in most of the high-profile instances of this subject, but I'm not sure. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change to "pet" – In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there. – DJT. This now-infamous quote suggests we've clearly moved beyond cats in the popular discourse. Carguychris (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toss-up. 'Cats' is more accurate if we decide the article is about the impetus for our current political nightmare. If, however, the article is supposed to be about turning that short post into a xenophobic dog-whistle (and the accompanying media circus), then it needs to be 'pets'. The nucleus of the original story was very specific: They ate somebody's cat. The right's champions amplified that into pets generally, thus the option. I think both clearly pinpoint the article's WP:PRECISE subject, so both meet wikistandards. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cat in title - Cat was the original claim, cat is essential to understanding the absurdity and instant reactions of laughter and dismissal. The topic is about cats and dogs, not 'pet' ducks which really do get shot and eaten every duck season. Feoffer (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to acknowledge this point. I get it, but I've never heard anyone who owns livestock (i.e. to be eaten) refer to the animals as pets, and I don't think there's much confusion there. Just a city slicker, though. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's a whole thing in the country, or at least, it was decades ago. An ornamental duck with a name and backstory flies across a property line and becomes fair game. Sometimes hunters will get a little too overzealous and actually cross property lines on their own. Obviously, we can't go on my OR memories, but even outside of hunting, pet ducks do get eatenallthe time. I'll admit it's a bit odd to call something a pet that you intend to consume, but people do speak that way. Feoffer (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change to pets, the Trump quote and subsequent usage by reliable sources supports pets (I'm seeing a lot of dogs too in RSs, so this is more inclusive as well). Bestagon ⬡ 15:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change to "pet" – It pretty clearly isn't making the headlines as just "cat", it's either cats and dogs or pets in general. Better to have the inclusive title given the scope of this hoax. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change to "pet" - The presidential debate mentioned "the dogs", "the cats", and "the pets". News headlines since make it clear that the rumor has grown beyond just cats. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding "immigrant" – a "migrant" could be from the United States. Although most versions of the story are clearly aimed at Haitians, it is part of a broader anti-immigrant narrative. Carguychris (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The current word order is valid and matches the way many sources are currently reporting this. It's also less ambiguous on which words modify which others. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:06, 17 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_C12:47, 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]
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 \\ 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.
"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."
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_C07:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LEADCITE
The current lead has a lot of citations. Too many, I think. Per MOS:LEADCITE (emphasis mine): Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.
Thoughts, in no particular order:
There is little dispute that Trump, Vance, Loomer, and Musk have backed the claims. This can be cited in the body.
Specific quotations from a public figure should have a citation.
A source describing the events using a contentious MOS:LABEL term such as "hoax" or "conspiracy theory" should have a citation.
I'm undecided about the bomb threats.
Also undecided about the laundry list of state and local officials debunking the claims.
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 \\ 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 [28]. -- 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: [29][30] 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 \\ 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]
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"
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:
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"
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 \\ 22:51, 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]
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]
. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Done I see it has been restored Feoffer (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
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)