Talk:Springfield pet-eating hoax/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Canton, Ohio

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2024/09/fact-check-haitian-immigrant-was-not-charged-with-eating-a-cat-in-ohio-in-2024.html

https://www.kptv.com/2024/08/21/woman-arrested-allegedly-killing-cat-eating-it-front-neighbors/

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/haitians-eating-pets-row-who-is-allexis-telia-ferrell-ohio-woman-behind-viral-animal-cruelty-case/ar-AA1qiHqn Kire1975 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

WSWS?

Is World Socialist Web Site considered to be a reliable source? One of the references on this page links there, however, that site has been widely criticized for its stances on other issues besides this one (such as its tendency to cozy up to dictators like Putin and Assad).2604:2D80:7186:600:0:0:0:1CAD (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

WSWS is listed at Perennial Sources as possibly reliable, and there is no consensus on it for factual reporting. Given that there are two other sources cited in the same paragraph that substantiate the claims of WSWS, its use here seems acceptable to corroborate the claims of the paragraph. Dan • ✉ 18:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Truly bizarre seeing a Kremlin mouth-piece being listed as a Perennial Source. 162.222.63.62 (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's reliable in some situations, it is not an ideal source for this, and there is not a shortage. If there's a claim that's only in one source like the WSWS, it's probably not WP:DUE to include. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This article^[22][23][17] has way too many redundant citations as is. Many can, and should be, pruned.^{[5][6][7][8][9][10]} If the purpose of this article is to be actually read and comprehended by readers, and not merely demonstrate the Googling prowess of Wikipedians,^{[17][37][38][23][39]} then we need to seriously condense citation overkill.^{[1][2][3][4]1][2][3][4]1][2][3][4]1][2][3][4]1][2][3][4]} --Animalparty! (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a current event article. There will be people insisting that everything have tons of cites and an inclination to add every cite as it comes out. Such is Wikipedia. The important thing is to go back when things calm down and make sure it's more readable. In the meantime, if you want to combine multiple cites into single footnotes or remove those which aren't necessary to either verify or show WP:WEIGHT (i.e. the most contentious claims are best accompanied by multiple sources), go ahead and fix it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Daily Dot, which still isn't the best but a better source than WSWS, covered the same story. No need for both, so I removed WSWS. I think we can call this one resolved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 11 September 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. Uncontroversial MOS:GEOCOMMA fix. (non-admin closure) Dan • ✉ 18:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Springfield, Ohio cat-eating hoax → Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax – MOS:GEOCOMMA makes it pretty clear that there should be a comma here, saying that Geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions, a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by terminal punctuation or a closing parenthesis. My attempt to fix this was reverted. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh you're right my bad. Dan • ✉ 18:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Fake News - Not a hoax.

Proven true but a number of witnesses & police body cam. Videos & eyewitness accounts are being put forward. This page should be deleted or makes ad fake news. 2600:100A:B1C4:2E20:5C24:A45F:2A3D:C288 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Sourced video evidence of migrants in neighboring Dayton cooking cats. This whole page is and the entire discussion is semantic arguments based on what classifies "Pets" "Haitian" and the location of described events. It's purposefully been dissected to remove the truth underneath of an observable problem within Ohio communities and is bad faith "fact checking."

https://christopherrufo.com/p/the-cat-eaters-of-ohio 174.102.26.250 (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

omg crazy far right stuff you are spreading, wikipedia talk page is not 4chan please note Nohorizonss (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The videos were of people who did not live in Springfield who also did not have any relation to Haiti. Xomegas (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Read the article. All those ""proofs"" have been found as false. That's the point of the article, which is correctly sourced. Sorry, but your candidate earned a whole Wikipedia article on his lying only that has been growing for years now. You should check that one too. Maykiwi (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2024

The text incorrectly claims that Erika Lee told an interviewer, “I’m not sure I’m the most credible source because I don’t actually know the person who lost the cat,” and cites a NewsGuard article.

That article attributes the quote to Kimberly Newton, not to Erika Lee. Dhemery (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You are correct and I have edited the article accordingly. I have also redacted their names in the article per WP:NPF. Carguychris (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Should a new history or historical origin heading be added for (see below)?

‘A very old political trope’: the racist US history behind Trump’s Haitian pet eater claim | Donald Trump | The Guardian

Trump’s false claim about immigrants ‘eating dogs’ invokes racist trope - The Washington Post

Rumor of immigrants eating cats, dogs in Ohio points to 'old racism' (usatoday.com)

that this is an old recycled trope first used to deride asian and specifically, chinese immigrants as pet eating? Nohorizonss (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 21:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)]]

It's easy (and intellectually lazy) to dismiss all of this as "racism," particularly when using an openly left-wing publication such as The Guardian as your first named source, followed by two left-leaning publications (Washington Post and USA Today). Springfield was a very stable, sleepy small town of 60,000 near Dayton. Suddenly, due to the Democratic Party's accommodation of all things Third World at the expense of American citizens, 20,000 immigrants from the other side of the world were virtually parachuted in within just a few years. They did the same thing to Aurora, Colorado with Venezuelans. (Oi right, it's legal because the Democratic Party made it legal. See above.) I don't care what colour they are. They can be precisely the same colour as the natives. And the natives can be the most culturally, racially tolerant and sensitive community on the planet. (Look at the reactions in New York and Chicago, for example, to illegal immigration starting to hit their communities a lot harder.) Those things don't matter when a crisis like this arrives on your doorstep. When you increase the size of a community by 1/3 within just a few years, with people who don't speak the language and have no clue about local cultural and social norms, it creates ENORMOUS stresses: social and cultural fractures, housing shortages, overwhelmed local services (such as health care, education and public aid). And it doesn't matter whether the original community is Springfield, Ohio in 2024, or a village in India housing a suddenly-arrived British cavalry brigade in 1824. It isn't racism, although some opportunistic racists (and a lot more opportunistic anti-racists, who are themselves racist IMHO against a different race) have seized this issue to support their own agendas. Plenty of blame here to go round, ladies and gentlemen. Let's just try to bury our biases, and run a neutral encyclopedia here. Cheers mates. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC) I don't think we're dismissing "all of this". The scope of this article is specifically the "they're coming for your dogs" stuff. In other words, it's an article about the claims those "opportunistic racists" have spread. The sources above explain that it's not a new tactic. We do cover that the large number of immigrants have put a strain on local resources already, but that's just background for this article (the main Springfield article might go into a little more detail?). In other words, there are unambiguously real strains in Springfield, but this isn't an article about that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done There's only going to be more of this, of course. Wasn't sure where it fit best, so put it in analysis. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

Under "Origin and spread: Other events" the text says the man in the Columbus photo is carrying two dead geese by the neck. He's actually carrying one dead goose by the feet, as reported in numerous sources and clearly visible in the aforesaid photo. 2600:100A:B11A:9E9:0:56:2D25:B701 (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the suggestion Feoffer (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2024

Remove the word baseless in the first sentence since the claim was based on the fact that major news outlets across the country were reporting it as true just days before the debate. Also multiple residence of the area claim it's true and there is video footage online if it happening. Madieraman (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 14:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead edit

@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 ^talk \\ 02:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 ^talk \\ 02:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't objected to the wording at all. Please review my edit again. This is a strange discussion. Biohistorian15 (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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 ^talk \\ 02:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This is getting tendentious. Sentences can have a POV. I made no objections to that (at this time). Biohistorian15 (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

... 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 ^talk \\ 03:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

So it is about wording and POV, and still no further explanation. Good stuff. Ok, throwing my hands up and logging out for tonight. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Translation

When the article stabilizes, it would be helpful to find translators to make versions in both French (to put on the French Wikipedia) and in Haitian Creole (to put on the Haitian Creole Wikipedia). Some Haitians prefer to use the former and some the latter. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but that should really not be rushed. I would wait at least 14 days before attempting either. Biohistorian15 (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Idea relating to recent RM

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

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)

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)

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)

I think I have a better idea (slept on it). Memes in the 2024 United States presidential election. @Kcmastrpc @Rhododendrites @1ctinus thoughts? Carguychris (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Memes is incredibly broad. If you want to do that, fine, but it's a different subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I thought about doing exactly that a week ago. Might be worth drafting an outline to see how much it could be built up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Carguychris: I still don't know if this will work, but I started throwing together a really rough outline, per above, to see what it could include. I got as far as User:Rhododendrites/Misinformation in the 2024 United States presidential election. Misinformation is in line with other similar existing articles and would encompass both hoaxes and false/unfounded claims. The big questions are (1) how do you articulate clear inclusion criteria for such an article, so as to avoid every bogus claim a politician makes (or about a politician) being added, and (2) whether this subject has become notable enough on its own that there would even be support for a merge (though two is secondary, of course). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Great work Rhododendrites! In all honestly this article should merge into that one. We shouldn't have an article (and its title) centered around a rumor. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

For better or worse, there's been a new development with this story every day and Trump's debate quote in particular will likely be one of the most repeated lines of the election season. Even if my draft gets developed as a home for the less notable stuff like the JD Vance couch thing, this stand-alone article is probably here to stay. Not that anyone couldn't propose a merge/deletion and see what happens... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Well, it is a notable part of the 2024 United States presidential election, and could certainly have an influence of the election and on the people of Springfield. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem to match this article. We can't know if people will still talk about it in a month, they might, they might not. win8x (talking | spying) 01:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Obvious WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I agree that it still meets WP:NOTE regardless. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Facebook user's name and WP:NPF

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

Well that person would surely be an “intentional perpetrator” as per Last1in, whether or not this point was even valid. Just saying. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Just adding support for erring on the side of omitting the names of private people who found themselves at the center of this. She did do some press, I guess, but we should really have more to justify adding her name. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of AI-generated image

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

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

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

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

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)

Also support Keeping, no issues with copyright are in play and it's relevant to the article at hand. I'm getting Guy Standing Sitting flashbacks right now. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ambivalent. Certainly with current article content, it doesn't adequately illustrate what's written in the body, but there is sourcing out there about these memes that could be added for more justification. I don't think it's an offensive image issue, but a question of WP:DUE as one of the only images representing the subject. Genuinely not sure. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

From the degrading meme of a living person; its only purpose is to belittle someone edit summaries I assume that Magnolia677 has misread this as being a satirical image created by a Trump critic after the debate and shared by people to mock him, when it's actually from his supporters the day before. That's partly on me for not making the context clearer in the caption.

In retrospect a screenshot of the full tweet at https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1833154509222129884 would be better for setting the social media context and drawing the reader in. Belbury (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

keep it NotQualified (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

as i see it a consensus has been created to keep the image Nohorizonss (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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)

The only other word I can think of is "myth" or maybe "canard", which get away from the "intentional deception" bit, but that's a bit more awkward (and I don't know how accessible "canard" is). Rumor gives it far too much credibility, though. There is actually more evidence of flying saucers and unicorns out there than there is that a bunch of Haitian immigrants are "eating people's pets in Springfield". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I didn't choose the name, but as I wrote above there's not an obvious alternative. I threw out myth and canard, but I doubt any/many of the sources use that exact phrasing either. Do we try to come up with a descriptive title? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Wider objections to the title:

(1.) I sincerely doubt that most of the X posters currently retweeting many of these memes are entirely serious. I also doubt that they are all somehow connected to the neo-Nazi that supposedly began the frenzy. Trump and Vance might have meant it, but the general "phenomenon" seems to be first and foremost that of a meme.

(2.) There is no mention of Haiti yet. The meme explicitly addresses Haitian immigrants.

(3.) It's not just about cats but in the very least also geese. Biohistorian15 (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to suggest this article shouldn't even exist. The "cat hoax" exists within the context of a larger issue which has seen significant coverage over the past week, that is to say, we should consider merging this article into 2024 Springfield, Ohio, migrant crisis.[3][4][5]. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

There is no migrant crisis article, which by itself suggests something. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating allegations" is my suggestion. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

The claim that the rumor has been substantiated is false. The rumor itself, however, is merely unsubstantiated. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

And asserting unsubstantiated rumors as fact is perpetrating a hoax, or at least, RSes are calling it a hoax in this case. Feoffer (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Links? For a rundown on what sources wikipedia consider reliable see WP:RS — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

@Traumnovelle: ? “The fact that the slur was directed at Haitians in some ways has confused a lot of people,” Ku said, “since Haitians, as far as I know, have never before been stereotyped as dog eaters.”. How does that fail verification? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It fails verification on the cat part. The original poster complained about the article expanding the original claim from dogs to dogs & cats. It is the cats part that is under the spotlight. MilkyDefer 13:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Oh, sorry. I understand now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a tradition of eating cat meat in Haiti and some sources refer to it as a delicacy. [6] "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)

Brainstorming: what would make a good lead photo?

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

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)

Sure. Though for the debate the article doesn't really mention Harris at all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

oh, we just gotta go with the Judiciary Committee AI pic. it encapsulates the abject insanity of this whole episode and beyond. soibangla (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You make a good point Feoffer (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Definitely opposed to that (at least two of us have removed it from the lead already). There's no text explicitly talking about that image in the article, and even if that were added I'm not a big fan of amplifying the memes rather than, as Feoffer suggests above, a real effect of this subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Trump is supposedly headed to Springfield sometime soon, so there should be plenty of good pics available at that point. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think including a locator map of Springfield in Ohio could be useful, maybe in addition to another photo TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

We can do that. Do you imagine it with a continent us map or a ohio map? Feoffer (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Agree that the Fox screen grab, while probably not passing WP:NFCC, might be effective. Maybe we could assemble a collection of the extreme social media posts covered by the media? The guy carrying the goose, though, would be a huge WP:BLP problem. It's also in the realm of bogus "evidence" to support the idea that people are stealing and eating pets (or just further demonize the group) rather than directly representative of the hoax itself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• There’s an image of the original Facebook post here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Not a bad idea, though IMO entirely word-based images are often better just displayed as text. Another idea while we're throwing out non-free options: a clip like this? Not sure it'd get by WP:NFCC, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  This [7] is from Springfield, Ohio, and certainly reflects the quality and nature of this whole endeavour. </sarcasm> Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

References

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)

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

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

@Anythingyouwant: I think I'm reading that differently. AFAIK she didn't say it was fake/false/a hoax. She acknowledged it was a rumor (which is already self-evident in a post about "my neighbor's daughter's friend..."). I don't think she changed her story -- she just expressed regret because of what happened. I didn't remove that line from the body, but removed it from the lead for WP:WEIGHT/concision reasons. After all, why have "she posted a rumor" followed by "she said it was a rumor". The only function seems to be to highlight her regret and let her off the hook a bit. That doesn't seem like a big enough deal in the course of the subject as a whole to justify in the lead IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

As I said in the edit summary, baseless just seemed less direct/weaker than false, which seems like the consensus among reliable sources. No strong opinion on that, though. As for the rest, the original post itself said it was from the neighbor's daughter's friend; that's not a new admission. All that changed is she said she regretted it. i.e. Her interview didn't change anything about the nature of the claims. The simultaneous interviews with the neighbor, who clarified it was even further removed, might help, but that's a separate thing. But again, there might be sources I haven't seen.
This is the extent of the controversy in this section, as I understand it: There was a line in the lead about the original poster "admitting" that what she already presented as a rumor was indeed a rumor, without saying it was false. That didn't seem to add anything beyond the way we already characterize it. I haven't seen her admit it was a hoax/false, but she is not herself a WP:RS. The lead says false/baseless/hoax/whatever not because of what she said in an interview but because the body of reliable sourcing makes it clear. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Did they say it's "unfounded"? Which citation is that? I see our article says so, but I don't see that in my quick scan of the cited sources. They just say it's a rumor, several steps removed, and that they express regret. While anyone applying a modicum of critical thinking will hear a story about a neighbor's daughter's friend that turns out to be a story about a neighbor's friend's friend's acquaintance and quickly conclude "oh, so it's BS", that's not the same as admitting it's unfounded. It's just admitting their distance from the story. At the end of the day, there's no shortage of RS that make very clear that the claims were, in fact, unfounded, so it's not like we're relying on her for that element of the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Right, the "unfounded" part of that line fails verification, as far as I can see. They admitted the rumor posted as a rumor was indeed a rumor and expressed regret is all. That didn't seem important enough for the lead per my original post above. FWIW. Heading back to work now; up to you how you/others how you want to handle it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I changed “unfounded” to “lacked credibility” which is similar but more closely tracks the sources. As for the rest, I’ll try to sort it out. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• User:Super Goku V, in this edit, you not only put nazis back into the lead paragraph, but also eliminated the last sentence of the opening paragraph. With not a word of discussion in this talk page section which is all about that last sentence of the opening paragraph. Why not collaborate a little? Why do you think it’s less significant that the source of the rumor admitted it was not credible, than that a bunch of fringe nazis commented on the matter just like they comment on just about every political matter (without going into the opening paragraph of every Wikipedia article about such political matters)? Here’s the sentence you deleted: “The person whose story was told on Facebook and started the controversy later admitted that she never knew anyone who spoke to the alleged cat owner and that the story lacked credibility.”

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

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

Ah, actually I can see the reason now. Will send you a private response. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Move protection

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

Story as "a thing"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Sorry, but this is too unconventional to be a serious proposal. Please do better in keeping the righting of great wrongs (WP:RGW) and original research (WP:OR) in check. Thank you. El_C 12:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

---

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)

You lost me. Carguychris (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Don't care about the userboxes, but no, we're not going to fabricate a narrative from a fictional animal's perspective and on behalf of every hypothetical animal that has nothing to do with this story. ????? WP:OR/WP:NOTAFORUM. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 16 September 2024

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

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

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

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

Immediately above there is a section addressing exactly this. No need for a formal RM on this yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 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)

MOS:LEADCITE

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

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

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

Yep, all sounds good. For the hoax/conspiracy and then for "racist", it may be a good idea to go with bundled refs (one footnote for several references). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [8]. -- but Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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: [9] [10] 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)

I don't think there's nearly enough WP:WEIGHT for that. The story seems to center on Springfield. The Daytonin meme emerged as supporting "evidence" to build on the Springfield story. Likewise nonsense, but not enough to affect the title or scope of the article IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Recent edits to the lead

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

Is there some reason why you don’t want to show the chronology? Because it's not necessary in the lead, which is supposed to be a simple and direct summary of the topic as a whole. Trying to introduce the chronology makes the lead needlessly complex and turgid.

GOP politicians amplified the claims, as distinguished from amplifying the Nazis, and this was more clear from the previous language. Here's my edit of the sentence, with the list of names truncated.

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

"The claims" are obviously the subject of the entire sentence. This construction is more succinct than breaking the sentence up into multiple shorter sentences that all begin with "the claims". Carguychris (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Indifferent re: chronology, but why does it matter, Anythingyouwant? It's not like JD Vance broke the story -- he was repeating something that was already shared widely on social media. JD Vance amplified it, and Trump made it a national headline the next day. Are you saying it's important to say that Trump heard it from Vance? Do we know that he did? Just unclear. But agree with Carguychris on the second point. It's a pretty clear sentence -- Vance amplified a claim that had been posted to FB first and spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It matters because we are deliberately distorting the chronology in the opening paragraph. I do not believe that those tweaks to the lead had anything to do with the lead being ”turgid” or not. On CNN, for example, reporter Dana Bash said, “Before Donald Trump talked about eating dogs and cats on a debate stage, it was you Senator who first elevated this rumor, these are your constituents.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Keith Arana Instagram video

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