Jump to content

Talk:Springfield pet-eating hoax/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

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)

Now that the above RM is closed, discussions on the specifics other than "hoax"

Boldly closing this, since we have a new RM below. No need to carry on parallel discussions — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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

The move request above was closed without action. We have at least four elements of the title that people have argued to change: the comma after Ohio, the inclusion of "Ohio" at all, the "cat", and the "hoax". Most of the previous RM appeared to focus on "hoax", with no clear resolution, but several other issues were raised there and elsewhere and I thought it might be helpful to separate them into subsections. Depending on the outcome here, this discussion may lead to another RM, or if anything is sufficiently uncontroversial it can just be enacted through normal consensus-building procedures. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: As of 23:36 UTC on September 17th, the move request was reopened following this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC) (Amended: Closed again as of 13:37 UTC on September 22nd.) Amended at 19:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
It looks like now the original poster of the RM has now asked for it to be closed as no-consensus by an admin, and regardless of the decision it will not likely be moved. And I think this discussion has a lot of merit since it removes the most contentious part of the prior RM. TiggerJay (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Kinda? Regarding when, he asked for it to be closed on Monday and which did happened, before the closer reversed the closing on Tuesday following additional discussion. That makes this title and his initial comment no longer accurate, so I just added a tiny note as a heads up for everyone. Guess it didn't work as intended since it wasn't clear enough. (And yes, this header can be changed, but at this point it likely would be disruptive to both the edit history and this discussion.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Carguychris (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Pinging El_C, who indicated a willingness to revisit this. Neither change is unanimous, but also not terribly controversial either. We can do a formal RM, but it seems clear enough that perhaps not worth it? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    Considering the rather... fascinating discussion above, I think it would be wise to do this through the formal process. Anything less will be tagged as part of the lib-dem/pinko-commie Wikicabal's war on conservative values (or the rabid-right/neo-con Wikicabal's ideaocidal mania, depending on your politics). I'm felling a bit flamed out, so let's just move the rock one more time and see what else crawls out, shall we? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Rhododendrites, I agree with Last1in. I think we need to do another formal RM; a boldmove, even by an admin, is liable to get reverted and lead to more bad blood. The main reason for my response is that I'm concerned it may be too soon to propose another RM. I didn't mean to suggest that we shouldn't propose one at all. Carguychris (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't follow the logic of why removing "Ohio" and changing "cat" to "pet" would have any ideological alignment? Making a change after several people discuss something and come to near unanimity on the talk page is the opposite of a bold move. Curious to hear what El_C (or someone else unvinvolved) thinks. This certainly isn't something I'd dig my heels in on, though -- it just seems like it'll either be a waste of time or invite unnecessary conflict (the formalized procedures that can be easily linked to from off-wiki sites are what tend to generate the aspersions you're referring to rather than assuage them, at least in my experience). YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    I honestly don't think that the move will evoke an ideological reaction. I think that making the move without having the full process will be seen as an ideological attack by whichever side is feeling more aggrieved on that given day. No, that is not the WikiWay, and it's neither efficient nor logical. As a survivor of the Jesus Wars in the early days of the encyclopaedia and any number of various ludicrous battles since, 'the process' seems to generate less angst for someone who feels they 'lost' whatever argument failed to reach consensus. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ohio

Without expressing support or opposition to other elements of the title, should Ohio be removed? Absent consensus to change other parts of the title separately, this would change the title to "Springfield cat-eating hoax". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep Ohio, in my experience "Springfield, Ohio" is the common term used to refer to the town in reference to the hoax. Additionally it is helpful to know what the state is as it provides additional valuable context.
Lord Beesus (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

*Remove "Ohio" per @Last1in. Carguychris (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

See my follow-up Talk post here. Perhaps Springfield should be omitted and Ohio kept. Pinging users @Feoffer, @Rhododendrites, @Last1in. Carguychris (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove Ohio, not needed for disambiguation, constantly being referred to just as Springfield in common usage. Bestagon ⬡ 15:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)

@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)

Sorry, a day or two is not enough. Maybe there'd objections on the basis of Ohio being in the WP:COMMONNAME (or not, I dunno). I'm willing to cut the 7 days by half for this due to likely WP:SNOW, but you're at half of the half presently. Feel free to ping me here again in a couple of days and we can go from there. Thank you. El_C 11:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, any admin should feel free to act on this immediately. I am just erring on the side of caution because I, personally, have a poor grasp of the material and how it's presented in reputable media. El_C 16:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Given Carguychris striking his !vote and changing his opinion, good call El_C. No hurry at all. Feoffer (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Remove Ohio. Not needed to disambiguate from any other Springfield cat-eating hoaxes, and leads to a clunky double comma. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove Ohio as per above, it is precise enough without it. TiggerJay (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Ohio. There are many, many Springfields in the United States. Needed for future years when people might not know what Springfield it was referring to. MarkiPoli (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Ohio. There are so many Springfields that The Simpsons built their world on it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    There are. There are also several dozen between Australia, South Africa, Canada, Ireland, Belize, New Zealand and the UK. But how many (in or out of the US) have cat-eating hoaxes? If the article described the town, more specificity would be essential. The article is about the hoax, however, and whilst there may be additional cat-eating hoaxes (not that I've ever heard of one outside the hysteria around Chinese restaurants in the 80s and 90s), I can't imagine that someone would come to this page expecting to read about cat-eating hoaxes in the capital of Illinois or a suburb South Australia's capital (which, for those scouring WikiTalk pages for travel inspiration, is really rather charming for a Springfield). Per policy, we need to as concise as possible as long as a reader can differentiate between similarly-named articles. Imho, 'Springfield {cat/pet}-eating {hoax/canard/myth}' accomplishes that. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Trailing comma

If the word "Ohio" is retained in the title, should the trailing comma after Ohio be removed? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Don't personally care. Content to defer to those with stronger stylistic opinions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    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)
    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.)
    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)
  • 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)
    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)
  • If we keep "Ohio", we need the trailing comma per [[MOS:GEOCOMMA]. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support removal. So, I know what MOS:GEOCOMMA says. But in this case I'd overrule it. There are several sources both ways. Compare the Cincinnati Enquirer: "Trump claims Springfield, Ohio migrants are eating pets. Local officials say it's not true"[1] to New York Magazine: "How Vance and Trump’s Lies About Springfield, Ohio, Migrants Continue to Unravel"[2]. The first one looks a lot more readable to me. The manual will likely lead us to a different answer, but I think readability counts a lot.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I know I said above that we should remove the comma, but I hadn't read MOS:GEOCOMMA at that time, and that page pretty clearly spells out that Wikipedia style requires the comma. I think using a comma here is both ugly and confusing, and I have no idea why that policy exists, but I'm not going to fight it. I withdraw my previous objection. Wehpudicabok (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    Neutral on this issue. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Cat

Several people have suggested changing "cat" to "pet". Is this something we should do? Is there a viable additional option? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  • 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 talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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 talk \\ 18:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
      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 eaten all the 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)
  • 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)
  • Change to "pet". Since the debate, the inclusion of "dogs" is a feature of national and international coverage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Change to "pet" as RS include more than just domesticated cats in their reporting. cats seems too narrow. TiggerJay (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Could we do "cat and dog" instead of "pet"? Hoax is very strong language, and 'pet'/ornamental ducks really do get eaten in that region. Cat and dog eating is a hoax, but I promise you, duck-eating is entirely normal in Ohio and it's not as if ducks wear collars. Feoffer (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the average person understands "pet" to mean (mostly) " companion animal not kept to be eaten for meat or consuming other products". For example if you have a chicken coop, you probably wouldn't say they are your "pets" without qualifying it. MarkiPoli (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@MarkiPoli It's not about chickens in coops, it's about ducks in ponds. My family's 'pet duck' is my neighbor's fair game the second it flies over the property line. "Pet Ducks" aren't "marked" for hunters to ignore. "Ever shoot a pet duck while hunting?" gets answers like "Guilty", "Too many to count", etc.
The phrase Cat and dog-eating hoax is PRECISE and absurd. Don't dilute it to pets when ducks are in the mix. Feoffer (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Change to "pet" the hoax refers to both cats and dogs. Additionally the Trump debate line that caused the hoax to become notable enough to even have an article makes specific primary reference to dogs. Lord Beesus (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Change to "pet": there's been all sorts of wild claims beyond dogs and cats, we can't have the title expand every time someone makes a new claim. MarkiPoli (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Change to "pet". I saw and understood the suggestions that "pet" allows for ducks, as mentioned in the hoax, and people eat ducks all the time. But I think if the hoax were limited _only_ to wild waterfowl, this thing would never have taken off. It's Trump's "They're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats" lie that sent this stratospheric, and we should cover both. So, with acknowledgment that we might be taking a little punch out of the title, I'd go with "pet."--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep "cat". The original Facebook posting, the only thing with the slightest chance of being true, was about a cat - subsequent extension to other animals is pure speculation even among those who may be inclined to believe it. Tevildo (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    Well said. Dogs, geese, and later ducks were added at later stages of the hoax to lend an air of plausibility, because no one in Springfield is ever so hungry for food as to butcher and eat a cat, whereas waterfowl is entirely regular fare. This hoax isn't about imported dogmeat or duck season, this is people killing and eating their neighbors pet cats, and its an absurd hoax. Precision is important. Feoffer (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Change to "pet" - Once the addled Republican nominee uttered the immortal lines, "THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS! THEY'RE EATING THE CATS! THEY'RE EATING THE PETS OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE!" on the national debate stage, this fabrication expanded beyond its original focus. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    Change to “pet” – as Donald Trump did explicitly mention dogs too. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Immigrant, migrant, or Haitian

All are supported by sources. Carguychris (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Word order

"Pet-eating immigrant hoax" suggests that immigrants who eat pets are perpetrating the hoax, with or without the dash. Springfield immigrant pet eating hoax is nice and WP:CONCISE (intentionally sidestepping debate about the nature of the event). Carguychris (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

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

The Haitian Times, BIN News, the word "attacks", and WP:NPOV

Per the revision 1246535299 of the article:

Haitian Americans and Haitian immigrants have faced race-based attacks due to these claims. Haitian residents – some of whom have lived in the town for years – have since had windows broken and acid thrown on their cars as a result of the hoax.

Four sources are cited. The only one alleging actual physical assaults is this story in The Haitian Times. The story states that one resident (not several), who chose to remain anonymous, has experienced two incidents of vehicle vandalism and broken windows in the middle of the night. BIN News describes a Haitian business owner "seeking legal help after several baseless attempts to evict her from her place of business", with few additional details; the remainder of the story largely parrots The Haitian Times, with full attribution.

  • The single Springfield resident whose home and vehicle have been vandalized seems to be speculating regarding the motive for the incidents of vandalism. The identity of the vandal(s) seems to be unknown. She and The Haitian Times cite no evidence that the vandalism is connected in any way to the highly publicized pet-eating claims. (Furthermore, a single person is a "resident", not "residents" as the article says.)
  • The situation with the business owner is similar. Without further evidence, connecting the eviction to the pet-eating claims seems specious.
  • Neither The Haitian Times nor BIN News are discussed in WP:RSPSS nor the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

I feel like labeling these claims is "attacks" violates MOS:LABEL and is giving WP:UNDUE weight to incidents whose relationship to the topic is unverified, and is based solely on potentially partisan sources that may violate WP:NPOV. At the very least, I think the language needs to be toned down. I am tempted to excise the broken windows and acid claims altogether. The other two sources, Reuters and Yahoo! News, are considered "generally reliable" per WP:RSPSS, but they only describe verbal harassment, bullying, and threats. Carguychris (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Regarding reliability, while I don't have any prior experience with Haitian Times or BIN News, not being listed at RSP doesn't mean anything. That said, would it resolve this to just reword it to replaced "race-based attacks" with "verbal abuse and vandalism"? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    ...not being listed at RSP doesn't mean anything. Understood, which is why I'm seeking consensus. I reworded the "attacks" sentence. I tagged the other one as "disputed" and I'll leave the topic open for discussion for a day or so. Carguychris (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    The Washington Post treats The Haitian Times as legit here. On the other hand, the Yahoo article is actually sourced to a site called Blavity that struck me as questionable for news. Perhaps the sentence about the car could be changed to something like "One resident reported her car having been vandalized twice, and believes it was motivated by the hoax." FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    One resident reported her car having been vandalized twice, and believes it was motivated by the hoax. This language is more neutral, but are the unfounded conclusions of one resident whose car has been vandalized truly notable? Carguychris (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Here is what I have found overall with a note here that some of this is likely covered in the article:
Examples collapsed by default due to length
The Haitian Times: White supremacist’s “warning” against Haitians in Ohio triggers fear and calls for action
  • "During the Jazz and Blues Fest on Aug. 10, Blood Tribe members wore black pants, red jackets and black ski masks. The group brandished white supremacist paraphernalia, including a black flag emblazoned with a white swastika. Some Haitians said the group also shouted, ‘If you’re Black, go back to Africa’ during their demonstration."
  • "“I’ve come to bring a word of warning. Stop what you’re doing before it’s too late,” Berentz said in the video reviewed by The Haitian Times. “Crime and savagery will only increase with every Haitian you bring in, and with it, public frustration, threat and anger.”"
  • "“We feel unsafe,” said J.D., a married father of two whose full name The Haitian Times is withholding for his security. “They’re saying online that they’re going to hunt Haitians."
Haitian families in Ohio under attack as racist claims spread
  • "Aside from the anxiety caused by Tuesday night’s debate, the woman also said her cars have been vandalized twice in the middle of the night. She woke up one morning to broken windows and another to acid thrown on the vehicle."
  • "P.P., a Haitian business owner, is among them. That morning, she was on her way to see an attorney about attempts to evict her from the place of business. The multi-service store owner told The Haitian Times she was seeking counsel because she suspects the eviction attempt was due to rising anti-Haitian sentiment."
Bomb threats following false claims targeting Haitians continue to disrupt Springfield
  • "'Some families have reported feeling unsafe, with incidents of online bullying, intimidation and physical harassment occurring in recent days. “It’s very scary. I blocked comments on my page,” said S.P., a community activist who wished to remain anonymous due to fear. “People are calling me from block IDs, I don’t know who they are. It’s scary.”"
“You are not alone,” leaders from across U.S. tell Haitians in Springfield | VIDEO
  • "Leaders with the NAACP, representatives of Haitian American groups from across the U.S. and local Ohio activists vowed during a community Saturday to organize and support Haitians in rejecting baskets and racist claims about Haitians harming animals. (...) Originally planned as an in-person community town hall, the meeting, part of an ongoing series organized by The Haitian Times, was moved to Zoom after the city received bomb threats tied to white extremists."
  • "Even as they spoke, a ruckus broke out outside the community center from which a few participants logged into the Zoom when a strange truck appeared in the parking lot carrying white occupants acting cagey."
CNN: The Haitian Times covered the false claims targeting Springfield. Now it’s also facing attacks
  • "Macollvie Neel, editor of the Haitian Times, was ready to start her workday from home on Monday when her doorbell rang. What she thought might be a delivery turned out to be more than a half-dozen police officers. “I looked and there were police cruisers outside my house,” Neel recalled Tuesday in an interview with CNN. When she opened the door, Neel said officers explained that “someone had emailed an [organization] saying they had killed their wife for being racist toward Haitians at my address.” The hoax report that sent officers rushing to her home, known as a type of swatting, left Neel feeling alarmed and worried for her safety as well as for the staff of The Haitian Times, where she serves as executive editor."
  • "“People who are anti-Haitian, anti-immigrant, just felt like they had carte blanche to just call or email or go on people’s Facebook pages and just ratchet up the harassment,” Neel said."
  • "Reports began pouring into the publication’s newsroom of Haitian immigrants receiving harassing phone calls and children and teens bullied. Parents were fearful to send their children to school. Dozens of bomb threats later shut down schools and municipal buildings in Springfield following Trump’s promotion of the false claims."
  • "Within the past week, Neel said she received an email “with a subject line that was just ‘N-word’ — that’s literally what the subject line was.”"
  • "Other prominent Haitians have also been the target of police swatting attempts, Neel said. “The message is pretty clear that they know where we live. They can get to us if they really want to,” Neel said. “It’s just an intimidation, fascist tactic to silence people.”"
  • "After the neo-Nazi march in August, the Haitian Times planned to hold one of its regular town-hall style “community conversations” in Springfield for September. With the national spotlight on the community, the issue became even more paramount. But what was supposed to be an in-person gathering to discuss, reflect and support one another had to be moved to a virtual conversation due to ongoing threats targeting the community. Springfield’s city manager told the publication that it could not guarantee the safety of its staff, Haitian Times founder Garry Pierre-Pierre told CNN. “I’m angered but we’re very much resolved,” Pierre-Pierre said in the wake of the attacks. “We left Haiti under a fascist dictatorship, so we won’t let a fascist minority silence us. We will cover this story, we will take precautions, but we will not be silenced.”"
The Guardian: ‘This has to stop’: Biden condemns attacks on Haitian US immigrants
  • "The threat “used hateful language towards immigrants and Haitians in our community”, Rue told the Washington Post, and added that Springfield “is a community that needs help”. No bomb was found after the threat was made. But Rue told the local Fox outlet that, in the threat, “there was enough negative language toward immigrants, towards Haitian folks that would bring enough concern. And then when it followed up with … at the end, of a bomb threat … It was pretty much just the beginning of the conclusion that they’re going to threaten to harm people.”"
The Springfield News-Sun: UPDATE: Wittenberg moves to online classes Monday after pair of threats
  • "Wittenberg University canceled all activities, events and athletics contests Sunday due to a threat of a potential shooting on campus from an email sent Saturday. The university said the message especially targeted Haitian members of the community."
  • "Wittenberg University Police sent the following email to the school community at 1:32 p.m. in response to another threat received, this time a bomb threat utilizing a red Honda Civic: “The entire campus has been cleared of any suspicious vehicle and no threats found. The red Honda Civic located on Bill Edwards Drive was cleared and found not to be involved."
PBS: How life in Springfield has been disrupted by lies about its Haitian community
  • Hate groups like the Proud Boys have also been marching through the city. Residents last week found these fliers from a group affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan saying that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were — quote — "disease-ridden and filthy."
  • "Partly because of these threats, the city canceled a 20 year tradition in the city, its CultureFest. That's been canceled now. And there is an anti-immigrant march scheduled for the end of the month."
  • "She was followed around in her car by a man who followed her after a church service for several blocks. She tried to shake him, and she said he would only leave when she finally pulled up next to a police car and started talking to the police."
Slate: Fear and Hope in Springfield, Ohio
  • "The consequences were immediate. White supremacist groups have been seen in town distributing racist fliers and trying to latch broad grievances to nonwhite people living there. There has been vandalism and more than 30 bomb threats, and a steady stream of people from out of town arriving to tell the new locals that they don’t belong there."
  • "Not long after I got into town, I encountered a group of about 30 members of the Proud Boys, some with their preteens in tow, sporting custom-made yellow-and-black biker jackets emblazoned with the group’s logo. One I spoke to covered his face with a bandana and declined to give his name. He said there was nothing racist about opposition to Haitians here. “We want the government to prioritize Americans over immigrants,” he said. “If you want to come to our country and assimilate, we’ve got plenty of space. But you’ve got to do it our way, adopt our values. You can’t bring your culture here.” I asked another if she truly believed people were eating household pets in Springfield. “It’s possible they aren’t,” she said. “It’s just a meme. It’s just for fun at this point.”"
  • "Usually left unlocked, the door was now only opened for familiar faces or those with appointments. Earlier in the day, police had been called to review security footage showing three suspicious men seemingly casing the building. The executive director of the center offered me cake, but declined to speak on the record, citing concerns after recently being doxed online."
The New York Times: Threats Against Haitians Land at the Doorstep of The Haitian Times
  • "In recent days, a surge of remarks posted on the outlet’s site containing racial epithets led Mr. Pierre-Pierre to shut down the comment section."
  • "And a woman interviewed by The Haitian Times received threats after her quotes were published in an article, leading her to request that her name be removed."
  • "Ms. Neel, who has also received emails with racial slurs in recent weeks, said she thought the harassment and intimidation was aimed at preventing journalists from doing their work. “The strategy is to get folks so tied up in dealing with personal security and fear that they are distracted from even doing their own jobs,” Ms. Neel said."
This isn't going to be a complete list, but it does show some of what has happened. As for The Haitian Times, a very simple search shows coverage in The Washington Post and NPR, along with CNN and The New York Times listed above, giving an indication of some level of reliability. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Wow, I thought I was spending a lot of time working on this talk page! Hats off to you, @Super Goku V. I think we can agree that the Haitian Times is reliable. That being understood, I still think the inclusion of a single Springfield resident's seemingly unfounded conclusions about vandalism to her property is WP:UNDUE. Also, I support of removing the BIN News citation, because it adds nothing to the section that's not supported by the other sources, and it openly parrots the cited Haitian Times story. Carguychris (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. As for the sentences, I think the first is fine, the second should be removed or at least significantly altered, and the BIN News citation should be taken out. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 Resolved With the Subsequent violence and threats section being significantly rewritten, I would say that this is resolved. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Neighbor in the lead

@Anythingyouwant: The lead now includes "Subsequently, the neighbor who had told the story that made its way to Facebook said that she was not a credible source, as she didn't know the cat owner." in the first paragraph followed by "The author of the original Facebook expressed regret and the user's neighbor who related the story admitted it was not their daughter's friend, but a rumor heard from an acquaintance of a friend". IMO the more specific context of the second made the first unnecessary -- kind of a lot for that particular detail -- but at minimum they shouldn't be disconnected in separate paragraphs, no? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Lack of specificity in the opening paragraph is a feature, not a bug. See MOS:OPEN: “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” The opening paragraph is to the lead what the lead is to the whole article. If we say in the opening paragraph that the neighbor told this story, then we should also say in the opening paragraph that the neighbor later backtracked. And then this can be specified some more in the rest of the lead (and then ad nauseum in the article body!). Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm familiar with MOS:LEAD. It's not an especially objectionable change by the content -- just seems like too much detail for the lead and bad writing to split it like that. Would appreciate additional opinions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
You mentioned that there’s “more specific context” about this later in the lead. That’s as it should be. However, if you’d like even more brevity in the opening paragraph, maybe that can be accomplished. But it would be just plain misleading to say in the opening paragraph that she provided the story for Facebook, without also mentioning in the opening paragraph that she later backtracked from it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I've pared it down. This was one of the aspects of the article that has been bugging me. There are only two pieces of information about the FB post that are significant enough to explain in the lead: (1) The claims originated from a local FB post, and (2) the author of the post and the person who told her the story later admitted the it was a rumor, and they had zero firsthand knowledge about it. That's all! The intricate detail about who told what to who and when belongs in the article body, along with the pair's expressions of regret. The reader doesn't need to understand these details to see the proverbial big picture. Carguychris (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 24 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. There is a general consensus to move per WP:CONCISE. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax → Springfield pet-eating hoax – See this Talk page discussion. (1) Consensus to omit "Ohio" per WP:CONCISE: although there are numerous other cities named Springfield in the United States, none have been subject to widely publicized claims that domestic animals are being stolen and eaten. (2) Consensus to change "cat" to "pet": although the hoax clearly began with cats, it almost immediately grew to encompass preexisting rumors of Springfield waterfowl being eaten, and Donald Trump's now-famous debate quote includes dogs and unspecified other pets. (3) Consensus NOT to include "immigrant", "migrant", or "Haitian" per WP:CONCISE: not strictly necessary to disambiguate the topic. (4) Changing the word "hoax" to "rumor", "conspiracy theory", or "claim": this was the most contentious part of the previous RMs and clearly failed to reach consensus. I respectfully request that we confine the RM discussion to the less contentious words in the article name. Carguychris (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

For this discussion, please bullet entries for a new topic and try to keep the discussion of that topic above the next bullet. The previous RM had several issues where the same general topic was being discussed in multiple 'silos'.

  • Cats v Pets -- I agree that the article is best titled with 'pets'. I think that 'cats' is indicative of the idea that the 'hoax' was the original (possibly IGF) post that turned out to be false, and that 'pets' more leans toward the actual hoax being the pan-species, xenophobic trope that the post was turned into on the political battlefield. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:07, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Springfield_pet-eating_hoax/Archive_3&oldid=1250582763"