Jump to content

Talk:Springfield pet-eating hoax

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Carguychris (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
  • Remove Ohio, not needed for disambiguation, constantly being referred to just as Springfield in common usage. Bestagon ⬡ 15:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Ohio: just "Springfield" is enough to "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, which is what our precision criterion requires, and it adds that titles "should be no more precise than that". We should be as concise as possible. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: In both this section and the above move discussion, multiple editors express a preference for removing "Ohio" from the title. So far, no one has objected. Feoffer (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a day or two is not enough. Maybe there'd objections on the basis of Ohio being in the WP:COMMONNAME (or not, I dunno). I'm willing to cut the 7 days by half for this due to likely WP:SNOW, but you're at half of the half presently. Feel free to ping me here again in a couple of days and we can go from there. Thank you. El_C 11:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, any admin should feel free to act on this immediately. I am just erring on the side of caution because I, personally, have a poor grasp of the material and how it's presented in reputable media. El_C 16:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Remove Ohio as per above, it is precise enough without it. TiggerJay (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Ohio. There are so many Springfields that The Simpsons built their world on it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Don't personally care. Content to defer to those with stronger stylistic opinions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually mentioned this above; it should definitely be removed. "Springfield, Ohio" in this phrase is functionally an adjective (to be linguistically precise, an appositive, or as our page on the topic calls it, a noun adjunct), so it should not be followed by a comma. Though, as others pointed out above, it might be best to remove Ohio from the title altogether, in which case there should be no comma at all. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want the comma because I don't want Ohio in there at all. However, I disagree with your conclusion (he says, throwing down a linguistic gauntlet). I think that Springfield is a restrictive appositive to the subject ('hoax', or whatever the bleep we decide to call it) along with cat-eating. That would make 'Ohio' a non-restrictive appositive since it adds specificity to the adjective instead of the subject, thus would require the comma. "I'll see you and your second in Battersea Fields at dawn. We shall settle this with gerunds at twenty paces!" :D Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC) (PS: Just cuz these days it seems one needs to specify, that was humour... or possibly humor. There was no exchange of adjectival projectiles intended.)[reply]
    You are definitely correct in clarifying that nonrestrictive appositives do require commas, but I'm not sure that adding "Ohio" makes this particular appositive nonrestrictive. In my experience, nonrestrictive appositives almost always follow, not precede, the nouns they modify (except perhaps in the case of false titles, though even those usually lack commas). However, we do seem to be approaching a consensus that "Ohio" isn't necessary in the title in the first place, so the point is perhaps moot. (And don't worry, I got that you were joking at the end there.) Wehpudicabok (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the title to “Cat-eating hoax in Springfield, Ohio“ and let the controversy about trailing commas be resolved elsewhere by people who care a lot about it. We just care about cats at this talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where else there is to talk about the title of this article other than this talk page, nor what would be gained by separating the conversation. If we're talking about moving to a new title, that conversation should be here, regardless of which aspect of the title we're discussing. Wehpudicabok (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we keep "Ohio", we need the trailing comma per [[MOS:GEOCOMMA]. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Neutral on this issue. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • I'm mildly incline to agree, based in large part on "pets" featuring prominently in most of the high-profile instances of this subject, but I'm not sure. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to "pet" – In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there. – DJT. This now-infamous quote suggests we've clearly moved beyond cats in the popular discourse. Carguychris (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toss-up. 'Cats' is more accurate if we decide the article is about the impetus for our current political nightmare. If, however, the article is supposed to be about turning that short post into a xenophobic dog-whistle (and the accompanying media circus), then it needs to be 'pets'. The nucleus of the original story was very specific: They ate somebody's cat. The right's champions amplified that into pets generally, thus the option. I think both clearly pinpoint the article's WP:PRECISE subject, so both meet wikistandards. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cat in title - Cat was the original claim, cat is essential to understanding the absurdity and instant reactions of laughter and dismissal. The topic is about cats and dogs, not 'pet' ducks which really do get shot and eaten every duck season. Feoffer (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just want to acknowledge this point. I get it, but I've never heard anyone who owns livestock (i.e. to be eaten) refer to the animals as pets, and I don't think there's much confusion there. Just a city slicker, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, it's a whole thing in the country, or at least, it was decades ago. An ornamental duck with a name and backstory flies across a property line and becomes fair game. Sometimes hunters will get a little too overzealous and actually cross property lines on their own. Obviously, we can't go on my OR memories, but even outside of hunting, pet ducks do get 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)[reply]
  • Change to pets, the Trump quote and subsequent usage by reliable sources supports pets (I'm seeing a lot of dogs too in RSs, so this is more inclusive as well). Bestagon ⬡ 15:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to "pet". Since the debate, the inclusion of "dogs" is a feature of national and international coverage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to "pet" – It pretty clearly isn't making the headlines as just "cat", it's either cats and dogs or pets in general. Better to have the inclusive title given the scope of this hoax. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to "pet" - The presidential debate mentioned "the dogs", "the cats", and "the pets". News headlines since make it clear that the rumor has grown beyond just cats. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Change to “pet” – as Donald Trump did explicitly mention dogs too. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Immigrant, migrant, or Haitian

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    ...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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

NPOV editorializations such as "baseless" and "hateful"

"Baseless" ought not to appear in descriptions of claims, whether the author of the article believes they are baseless or not. "Baseless" is a decision to be made by the reader, which should be self-evident from the available evidence, and not reside in the "purposed domination of the author" (with apologies to Tolkien).

Also, "hateful conspiracy theories" is loaded language and editorialization when referring to the Facebook posting that started this hoax. The author's exact words should be quoted, or the language should be neutral, such as "expressed regret that her posting [may have] started this hoax."

Atrobinson (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Baseless': This is the appropriate word in context. If there is no factual basis for a claim, the claim is (by simple definition) baseless. It is not a matter of judgment that needs to be left to the reader. An encyclopaedia must present facts as they exist and are documented by reliable sources. The current vogue in US political discourse for "alternative facts" -- summed up best by Giuliani's quote, "Truth isn't truth" -- is not something an encyclopaedia should encourage or enable.
Absolutely disagree. "Baseless" assumes knowledge that we do not have. Even if all the knowlege available supports the claim of "baseless," then that renders the word redundant since anyone who has access to the available knowledge will arrive at that conclusion. If they do not, either because they are irrational or because they have knowledge that we do not, then the word "baseless" is either irrelevant (first case) or false (latter case). "Baseless" is a judgement, not a statement of fact. Much referred to as "alternative facts" are actually alternative interpretations of the same evidence. Such differences are the foundation of all political diversity, and claims of categorical truth as regards social, moral, and often economic questions is are (nearly always) arguments from ignorance (the fallacy). I do not withdraw my dispute. Atrobinson (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Baseless" assumes knowledge that we do not have... "Baseless" is a judgement, not a statement of fact. No, no, no. Please look up what the word means. From online dictionaries: "Not based on facts". "Without foundation in fact." "Baseless" is a straightforward, neutral term indicating that an assertion is unsupported by fact. Full stop. This should not be controversial.
Some things are inherently hard to prove or disprove, which is why the word "baseless" is different than the word "false". In this case, it's hard to prove that no Haitian immigrant in Springfield has ever eaten a stolen cat or goose. But that doesn't make the accusation true!
Much referred to as "alternative facts" are actually alternative interpretations of the same evidence. On the other hand, much referred to as "alternative facts" is complete bull hockey. Carguychris (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning and see your point. I still disagree. Baseless literally means (both from the root components and common usage) 'without a basis in fact'. As an example, if I had claimed in 1885 that the moon was made of granite with large, liquid-water seas, that would merely be false. It was based on science as it was known, the visual characteristics of the Earth extrapolated onto its satellite, and a reasonable set of assumptions (that other celestial globes are probably similar to our own); it was eventually disproved by examining the moon up close. It was wrong, but it was not baseless. If, in the same era, I had claimed the moon was made of green cheese and was the home of the blue fairies that paint the dew each morning, that would be both wrong and baseless. It has no grounding, no basis, in fact. It is based on nothing more that conjecture that happened to match my preconceptions, and maybe some statement from a man at the pub who claimed to have met the aforementioned fairies. This hoax -- and remember that the hoax was not Ms Lee's original post, but the use of that rumour by those who had already been informed by local officials that it was false -- falls into the second category. Next, you say it assumes facts not yet present int eh article. That is inaccurate. 'Baseless' as a term (and many related terms like 'falsehood' and 'lie') appears frequently in the reliable sources used. We (and more importantly the RS) have skads of info proving the claim to be baseless, including information from Ms Lee herself. The word is not an interpretation by an editor, not an opinion, not a judgment call; the word is part of a factual statement supported by valid, verifiable citations. The hoax is built on a baseless claim, and that claim will continue to be baseless regardless of one's political bent or personal belief system. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Hateful': I agree with you assessment. In the context of the sentence (and the section itself), I do not feel that the term can pass MOS:PEACOCK or MOS:LABEL. The two other instances in the lower Subsequent Violence & Threats section are appropriate. One is a direct quote, and other is supported by the text of the RS. At a stretch, you could base the disputed claim on the text of the WashPo article that repeatedly uses the term, but never in a way that I think would legitimately be used to support that particular sentence. If you would remove that particular word, the rest of the paragraph is supported by the citations. @Atrobinson, can you please remove that word and your tag? I am reluctant to remove another editor's disputation tags. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wilco, thank you. Atrobinson (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, it's wholly appropriate to use the phrase "baseless claims" to summarize what's said in the body. The body quotes officials saying things like "no credible reports," "disinformation," "no evidence of this at all," and "baseless." The body states that the claims have been "variously described as debunked, false, or a conspiracy theory." It's also easy to find RSs calling it "baseless," such as here, here, here, here, here and here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presenting it as possibly true (by removing modifiers like "baseless") would be a failure of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the navbox template Presidential Debates be added at the bottom?

I added a link to the template, with a portion of the viral phrase that Trump said to the Template. [3]

Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a full objection to it, but it is odd that it is the only phrase without a standalone article. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest we split out a subsection dedicated to the debate, point the redirects there, and MOS:BOLDREDIRECT the quote. I agree with @Last1in that Donald Trump's debate quote is likely to become the most historically durable aspect of this whole mess. Carguychris (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, but have literally no clue how one would do that. I have worked hard NOT to learn any admin tricks over the last couple decades. ☺ Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need a subsection? You can just redirect the quote to this article? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Variations of the quotes already redirect here. They're eating the dogs. They're eating the pets. They're eating the cats. Carguychris (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the subsection and editing the redirects is simple, no admin voodoo required. To view and edit a redirect, you navigate to the target page using the redirect, then click the "Redirected from [alternate term]" bluelink under the article title. Carguychris (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent addition. I agree with @Super Goku V that this is an outlier, as the phrase itself is the 'target' for other, similar subjects. I think there's a strong possibility that the historians that write the real RSes will end up referring to the episode as, "They're eating the pets!" Our Wikidescendants will probably end up changing the title of this article to that phrase (after 67 more RMs as we chase the news instead of waiting for actual secondary sources; something I've given up fighting against). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a strong possibility that the historians that write the real RSes will end up referring to the episode as, "They're eating the pets!" That is the best name I've heard someone propose for this article, but yeah, it's probably too soon to propose that. ...after 67 more RMs as we chase the news instead of waiting for actual secondary sources... You got that right. Unfortunately, another RM I've proposed proves that when a proposed RM doesn't seem serious and scholarly, its use by >95% of quality secondary sources isn't enough to convince Wikipedians. Heaven forbid we use lighthearted and catchy titles here! (gasp) Carguychris (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. I went ahead and added it (and remove {{2024 United States presidential election}}, because this article doesn't appear to be linked therein). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hoax-adjacent claims

Some of the "Continued spread" section is not about spreading the pet-eating hoax itself, but instead about adjacent claims (e.g., claims that immigrants in Springfield are causing other problems, Haitians have been shipped to Charleroi, Haitians need to be deported, temporary protected status isn't legal, Springfield and Aurora immigrants have military weapons). On one hand, these can be interpreted as Trump and Vance using the hoax as a hook to draw attention to the adjacent anti-immigrant claims; Vance said as much with "The American media totally ignored this stuff until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes." And RSs sometimes link them a bit, for example, saying "Donald Trump has made further allegations against migrants in Springfield." On the other hand, Vance and Trump were already making anti-immigrant claims, and these other claims are not about the hoax per se. I figured it's worth discussing whether we should keep these other claims in the article, and if so, how to bound which other claims are included. My own opinion is to keep them, and to bound them by limiting them to claims about Springfield or Haitians. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the pet-eating hoax as the central discussion around which various other stories and allegations revolve. When Vance/Trump made the claims, we saw unrelated claims about a photo of a man carrying a goose and a US-born woman arrested for eating a cat in Canton, both tied directly to the pet-eating hoax through misinformation. Trump's promise to deport the Haitians came directly out of the pet-eating narrative. Trump and his supporters are now throwing various other claims at the wall to see what sticks, revolving around the same community. I mean there's absolutely a bigger subject of ~"demonization of immigrants/anti-immigrant rhetoric during the 2024 Trump campaign" (though that subject is covered in multiple other places already), but it's hard to tell what doesn't belong here.
IMO we don't need to cover every detail of e.g. the weapons allegations, but insofar as the media reports on it being part of a doubling-down on the pet-eating hoax it would be worth summarizing here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<soapbox> This is why chasing the news is such and incredibly bad idea for an encyclopaedia. If we would (or even could) wait for real WP:SECONDARY sources to be created, there would be far fewer speculative claims, hysterical-talking-head theories and rhetorical rabbit holes in which to get lost. In an post-truth age, when sources like Wikipedia and Snopes are some of the rare, (reasonably) neutral resources working to distill fact from the political bollocks, we don't always have that luxury. </soapbox> There is not a strong, recent precedence for this phenomenon, thus there is no useful guide to follow from another article. 'I am not a crook' and 'I can see Russia from my house!' do not have dedicated articles; Ich bin ein Berliner was not a hoax, and bigger than a simple phrase; 'Mission accomplished' did not have the direct, societal impact and was more a bog-standard political lie; and 'Let them eat cake' was not recent and was somewhat an opposite case (an accurate summary of the situation, but never actually said by Marie Antoinette). For now, I think we fight to keep the article as trim and focused as possible by excising things that are not direct-line associated to the debate claim. We'll fail as the winds of the culture wars push things around, but it gives us at least a way forward. With that said, I think the ancillary facts about the impacts belong in the article (goose-man, deportation, vilifying Haitians), but not those related to follow-on phenomena (legality of temp protected status, etc.). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the whole "should wikipedia cover current events as they unfold" debate is a tough one. I prefer too err on the side of WP:DELAY more than WP:RAPID, but at the same time I think what we have here is probably the best single source on this subject out there. In the long term, yeah it will involve adding a bunch of tangential stuff, working to better integrate it, and eventually paring back parts as the discrete subjects become clearer in hindsight. For now, and probably until the election, IMO keep going as we have been, then reassess. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To use an historical American political trope from the far right that has (thankfully) fallen out of fashion, Ditto. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Springfield_pet-eating_hoax&oldid=1249073755"