Talk:Springfield pet-eating hoax/Archive 3

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)

I removed it, with a pointer to this talk page section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Would you consider reverting following my comment below? There are reliable sources. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(EC) Just searching neo-Nazi provided two articles connected to this: (The Guardian) But the rumors, leaving Salomon and other Haitians in fear of being targeted for violence and discrimination, didn’t start with them. They were initially spread online in August on social platforms used by far-right extremists and by Blood Tribe, a neo-Nazi hate group. & (The Hill) “On July 12, we see Libs of TikTok — really the first, the first far-right account, a huge following — draw attention to migrants in Springfield, and about a month later, on Aug. 10, when the neo-Nazi Blood Tribe held a small rally in March to amplify baseless claims,” said Jeff Tischauser, senior research analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project. There are also other sources such as NBC News and NPR with similar coverage. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Opposed to this removal. It's in a lot of the sources and a key step in the dissemination of the claims.

NPR: "The claim, which local police say is baseless, was made by far-right activists, local Republicans and neo-Nazis before being picked up by Vance"

NBC: "Blood Tribe, a national neo-Nazi group, was among the early purveyors of the rumor in August"

cited by Politico

Guardian: "They were initially spread online in August on social platforms used by far-right extremists and by Blood Tribe, a neo-Nazi hate group."

Washington Post: "It started with a tragedy, gained momentum online with neo-Nazis and became Donald Trump’s message from the presidential debate stage."

Vox: "The origin story of the Haitian dogs and cats meme appears to be remarkably similar. Two reporters, Zaid Jilani and Kate Ross, traced the panic about Haitians in Springfield back to an August march staged by the nearby neo-Nazi group Blood Tribe"

MSNBC: "The claim was fostered in part by a neo-Nazi group that has waged a hate campaign against the community for months"

The Nation: "We also learned today that the neo-Nazi “Blood Tribe” had made a point of pushing these false Springfield allegations into the public sphere, and ultimately all the way to Trump and Vance."

And then, specifically on neo-Nazis directly taking credit for pushing the narrative:

Bangor Daily News: article about neo-Nazi who took credit for this

New Republic: about Nazis taking credit, and including "it was at least amplified and spread by the neo-Nazi group"

NYT: again about the neo-Nazi taking credit

Independent: "The compounding myths, which the leader of notorious neo-Nazi group Blood Tribe gleefully took credit for having helped popularize"

On the CNN interview (via The Wrap: Bash, in a question to Vance: "And in fact, neo-Nazis are now taking credit, frankly, for pushing these rumors mainstream"

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

amplified by mainstream media before leading Republican politicians amplified it more - which sources say this? (and which sources did this) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ll make a list. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Just change the date to prior to the present time. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is a link to a Google search for 'springfield haitian hoax' with the time range of August 1 to September 7. Use and modify that to find what you are trying to find. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Does anyone have any information that nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected what GOP politicians did, or affected mainstream media/online discussion about this matter? As far as I know, the nazis just talked among themselves. See WP:OPEN, which says, “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would refer you to the comment above with 13 sources about what they did and them taking credit for it. There is also the neo-Nazi armed march around August 10th that they did in Springfield and a neo-Nazi intentionally disrupted a city meeting on August 27th to threaten the mayor. I would say threatening civilians and officials would not be neo-Nazis just talking amongst themselves. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  ^ What exactly are you looking for, if not those sorts of claims? Also, As far as I know, the nazis just talked among themselves. - Why do you know that? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Most of the sources listed above say a nazi group called Blood Tribe helped to spread rumors about pet-eating in Springfield, including online at sites like Gab and Telegram, but it’s not clear they were involved in creating this particular rumor that resulted in a Facebook post, though they have taken credit for spreading such rumors. So they’re obviously bad actors, but I would still urge moving them out of the lead paragraph, and perhaps replace it with Governor DeWine’s very high-profile comment that this Facebook story was “garbage.” I won’t object if Blood Tribe is mentioned lower in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Blood Tribe ≠ Blood Tribe (neo-Nazi group)! El_C 19:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Still not sure I understand what your argument is. At the end of the day, we have a sprawling pet-eating hoax and tons of sources which say in no uncertain terms that the claims were spread among neo-nazis before being amplified by politicians. We have one neo-nazi group in particular involving itself in discussions about Haitian immigrants in Springfield. We have that same neo-nazi group prominently taking credit for spreading it. For the lead, what we need is for weight to be justified. It seems justified. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. The lede has a summary of info that highlights the original post, it's adoption as a cause célèbre by the neo-nazis, its amplification by Vance, its explosion into mainstream discourse after the debate, and its escalation to and by divers influencers thereafter. It's an accurate, chronological, duly-weighted pair of sentences that presents that facts clearly and succinctly. Removing the nazis would omit a critical link in the chain of events.

  I do have two issues I want to address in the above discussion, however: 'it’s not clear [nazis] were involved in creating this particular rumor' and 'Vance got the info straight from constituents (he intimates as much)'. There is no suggestion (in the article or the lede) that nazis were involved in Ms Lee's post, nor does it appear in any RS I've seen. Remember that the original claim was not the hoax; the hoax was taking the (arguably IGF) friend-of-a-friend post and twisting it into a racist and xenophobic dog-whistle. As for the other statement, Vance and his team have rather adroitly avoided saying that he got this information directly from constituents. He 'raised' or 'surfaced' or 'focused media attention' on the claim; he has never stated that he first heard of the issue from a constituent, nor that any constituent brought Vance their own claim of felonious feline-feasts. All current evidence suggests that he was going by social media reports, not direct info, and that neo-nazis were a critical link in spreading those social media claims. Last1in (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Update on translation

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

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