Talk:Stubbs (cat)

This article isn't true!

This whole thing is hoax. Talkeetna doesn't even have a mayor. It fall under the jurisdiction of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough who's community council run it instead.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/alaska-towns-feline-mayor-myth-busting-another-internet-hoax

Icedog (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Well, that's disappointing. I suppose it's a notable hoax, though. DS (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly is - if it is a hoax, that's not enough to prove it a hoax. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The position is an honorary one, but that doesn't make it a hoax. Nongendered (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, a feature on NPR seems to support that. Question is, did this 15-year honorary mayoralty actually begin in 1997, or is it all a retcon? DS (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As someone who grew up in Talkeetna and saw Stubbs all the time, I can attest that it was never intended to be a hoax. It's just a small-town thing where we lovingly called him Mayor Stubbs. You'd go to the store and be like, "Oh hey there Mr. Mayor," but nobody meant anything by it. As far as the date is concerned, I have no idea when people started calling him that. I moved there in 2001 and it was already a thing, but anything before that I can't be certain of. I'll ask around. 172.76.142.90 (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, just talked to some people who lived there when Nagley's burned down. So there was an orange cat who belonged to the owner and lived in the store. It died in the fire (I don't know its name, sorry). They got a new cat, Stubbs, and he moved in. Someone jokingly called him mayor a few years later (at least one year, but up to 3 years), and then it just became a joke. Some tourists thought it was cute, and they joined in on the joke. Some of them probably didn't realize there was nothing more to it than that and it became a bigger thing than it is. That said, he became famous and written about across the country, so it makes sense that he would have a wiki article IMO. 172.76.142.90 (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's anyone who ever thought it wasn't just a joke. But as you said, it got a ton of media coverage, and that's what we use for articles. DS (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The article for the government of the town of Talkeetna addresses both the rumor and the claim that it isn't true. I have changed the article to reflect how the facts are presented in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.147.205 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would be useful to add the link Icedog mentioned 27 July 2012 as a reference for "One opinion writer for the Alaska Dispatch News insisted that the whole story was false, and that Talkeetna did not have a cat mayor." (currently #9). Mcljlm (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction

First line: "...was elected mayor of the town of Talkeetna, Alaska in July 1997, as a write-in candidate."

Mayor of Talkeetna section: "A popular rumor states Stubbs was elected following a successful write-in campaign by voters who opposed the human candidates. However, according to NPR, the cat could not have been elected as a write-in candidate because "The tiny town has no real mayor, so there was no election.""

So the first line states that he was elected as a write-in candidate, but the later section states that it's just a rumor. Which is it? Velyanthe (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Expanding on my complaints about this article

The coverage of this whole matter pretty much mirrors the manner in which Wikipedians chose to cover Levi Johnston's so-called "mayoral campaign": cherry-picking sources to make a publicity stunt appear instead to be something more legitimate than that. Listen, folks. The Alaska Constitution states that Alaska recognizes boroughs and cities as valid municipalities. Period. "Historical districts" (or census-designated places or townships or voting precincts or anything else you can possibly think of) have no legal standing as municipalities in Alaska, unless they take the steps to incorporate as boroughs or cities. Along those lines, the Talkeetna article offers the suggestion that Talkeetna is an unincorporated community BECAUSE it is a CDP. Which would mean that administrative fiat of the U.S. Census Bureau trumps a state constitution? Wow. I had to pinch myself to make sure I was still awake and standing on Planet Earth after digesting that one. Finally, as usual, we're once again missing the mark when it comes to notability. It's Nagley's General Store, or at the very least Horace W. Nagley, that's the real notable subject here. I wouldn't expect that to be corrected anytime soon, except perhaps as yet another trivial mention in an NRHP-related permastub. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 09:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this is a hoax (and from the detailed nature of your complaints, I'm willing to accept that it is), it's certainly a real hoax, with a lot of media coverage. As such we should cover it and also cover the debunking. DS (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a hoax as I don't think the people involved are trying to fool anyone. I can't see how the store or Nagley meet our notability requirements at WP:GNG or anywhere else, but maybe I've missed something. Of course there's no real mayor of a historical district. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm on my phone right now rather than a real computer, so it's a lot harder to do the necessary searching. I'm also not about to make a 550-mile round trip just to confirm this with my own eyes. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that Nagley's Store is part of the Talkeetna Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Many of the NRHP crowd on Wikipedia appear to be under the belief that a NRHP listing makes a place inherently notable. I'm afraid that you'll have to further pursue your argument with them, not with me, because I don't necessarily agree.

As for Horace Nagley? He could arguably be considered "the father of Talkeetna". There's probably a gap in understanding here, as I've been actively studying and researching Alaska history for nearly 2/3 of my life (I'm 47, if you can't be bothered to go to my user page and figure that out for yourself). I realize that I'm dealing with a lot of people whose body of knowledge pales in comparison, either due to youth and inexperience, or due to relying strictly upon whatever falls into their lap via a Google search. Still, the sort of broad declarations of non-notability I see on here, based upon limited knowledge of a subject backed by whatever they've scavenged off of the web, reminds me of people who furnish their home strictly with whatever they come across at an auction: "even Ray Charles can see" a random, half-assed assemblage of whatever and that there's something clearly missing. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, look. Although the cat is not actually the mayor of Talkeetna, there is substantial legitimate international media coverage which calls him the mayor. That's notability pretty much by definition. As long as the article makes clear the actual circumstances – Talkeetna has no mayoral position in and of itself, there's a city/town council, the whole cat thing was a publicity stunt or whatever – then what's the problem? Nobody thinks Tama actually runs a railroad station. DS (talk)

I believe that was my point, too. I'm not doubting the cat's notability, since there clearly is "significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources" yada yada. The problem is with a fanciful story based upon slavish devotion to THOSE sources, all the while throwing things such as factual accuracy out the window along with the baby and the bath water, over items which can also be resolved through reliable sources. This may not necessarily be the case here, but: if a 23 year old reporter fresh out of college writes a story riddled with factual inaccuracies, because they simply don't know any better and their editor failed to catch it, the factual inaccuracies are irrelevant and its still your duty to parrot that source on here? That's the impression I'm getting from these comments. I'm not so sure I buy it. I'm also not so sure that the media is in lockstep, either. As I pointed out to another editor on their talk page, KFAR's morning news program reported on the dog attack and followed up by reporting on the death of John T. Kelsey, an important figure in the history of Valdez. The segue was "And now a story about a real mayor". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any dispute that the "mayor" title is anything else but "honorary". Most of your "complaints" could be applied to articles such as Piltdown man, Cardiff giant, etc. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E465:CA4F:4607:5398 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

GUYS THERE TOTALLY WAS A VOTE

In 2001 there was an incorporation vote:

http://www.elections.alaska.gov/ei_sle_results.php

NOTE: Actually it was 2002, Also, the Division of Elections revamped their website some months back, leaving a lot of dead links in the process. The current link is below. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

http://elections.alaska.gov/Core/Archive/02incorp/02tali.htm

The second question was, "if we DO incorporate who should be mayor?" The incorporation plan was very unpopular, so Stubbs won the write-in.

Source: I'm a Talkeetnan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.181.53.2 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There was merely two lines on this subject and considering the amount of national press this item has recently received I felt additions were needed. Some improvement could still be made, however I feel as though my additions give it a start; are accurately written and are legitimately cited from reputable sources.(Legitreport (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC))

The link doesn't mention a vote or the name Stubbs. The only references to Talkeetna are a failed vote 'Shall Talkeetna be incorporated as a Home Rule City?' which failed. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. It's been the long-standing practice of the Alaska Division of Elections that write-in candidates only get a line item in published results if they've declared their candidacy and have a campaign organization, and even then a separate line item is not guaranteed. Regardless, the results of the mayoral election clearly show that 392 votes were cast in the election for mayor, with 298 going to the two (presumably human) candidates on the ballot, 46 going to write-ins and 48 ballots left blank. This renders the numerous claims of "Stubbs won the election by write-in vote" moot without even considering the legality of the election itself, which I addressed in the AFD. Summary version: the failure of the main question renders the results of the rest of the ballot null and void, just like with any incorporation or annexation election. These are FACTS. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to trade in facts. What we're doing here amounts to turning Wikipedia into merely another news site, and evidently a fake news site at that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions

Subtitle

Should the article be called Stubbs (mayor or other position) so as not to define Stubbs by species, but rather by accomplishments?96.242.126.129 (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No. This question came up during the AFD (what a scam that was!). As was amply demostrated during that discussion, this "mayoral position" is completely fictitious, and the whole thing is in fact one big steaming heap of fake news. Folks can't just keep mindlessly drumming the mantra of "reliable sources" when it's been proven that no fact checking took place and therefore there's nothing "reliable" about those sources. Just because they can't tell the difference between an encyclopedia and a news site doesn't mean that it's my duty to cram that POV down the throats of those who do know better. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever any point where anyone considered that the 'mayoral position' wasn't fictitious. The article already cited TIME, NPR , and the Alaska Dispatch News as explaining why the whole thing was impossible anyway. There's no mayor. There was no election. None of it happened. Anything more specific than that would be original research. DS (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)