Talk:Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax

Canton, Ohio

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

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

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

WSWS?

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2024

It is not a hoax you lying, evil, manipulative, destructive, stupid, left-wing nuts. Shame on you, shame on the media. 38.142.135.26 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Find us proof from reliable sources that this is not a hoax. Don't peddle conspiracy theories on an encyclopedia talk page. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Dan • ✉ 18:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

As a left-wing nut myself, how about we find sources that actually call this a hoax (without cherry-picking). You might be be surprised to learn that NONE of the sources we currently use the word hoax at all to describe this controversy. Wikipedia is currently out of touch with even the 'lying, liberal media' on a political issue. We should fix it. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No one in authority has corroborated this claim. It's clearly a hoax to demonize immigrants in general and Hattians in particular, which, if you cared about the truth, should be offensive to you. Instead, here you are trying to defend it. You obviously have no idea how a proof standard works and seem only interested in defending disinformation with more ridiculous demands for "proof." of a negative, which is not possible. You claim it's not a hoax because the word is not part of its description elsewhere. Correct. Hoaxers don't generally out themselves at first go. However, no one in authority has corroborated it either. (I suspect you'll have a handy conspiracy theory to explain that as well.) Ergo, the absence of authoritative sources being the case, what that leaves is the claim being untrue. And no amount of name calling and badgering here will change that. Cite your authoritative sources to substantiate that the claim is true. So far, you have produced none. Acolvin2021 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 11 September 2024

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

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

---

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

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

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

Comment

There is no proof, there can be no proof, because it's not happening. It's not happening because I said it's not happening. Stop being a chud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.38.89 (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of AI-generated image

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

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

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

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

I’d support keeping it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be the main reason used for its exclusion. It serves a purpose to illustrate (the propaganda) how people supported spreading the hoax, while also being legally clear to use. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is it really appropriate to classify this as a hoax?

While, personally, I'm inclined to believe that this probably hasn't been happening (i.e., Haitians in Ohio eating people's pets), or even if it has happened, it was likely just an isolated incident, from what I understand a "Hoax" is an intentional lie/deception of some sort. And I'm not quite sure if this situation falls into that category (at least not yet). Because while there's been no definitive proof that this has been occurring, there's also no proof that anyone was out to intentionally deceive.

Or, for that matter, that it's even untrue. While perhaps unlikely, it's not outlandish that this could actually be happening/has happened. Especially when we factor in the various "stories" told by residents that haven't been delved into and found to be false or fact-checked. Or the situation with the call to police from a man who allegedly saw a group of Haitians stealing geese.

Again, none of these incidents have been proven to be true but, in their defense, they do align with each other. Perhaps so many stories are floating around that area due merely to the original rumor getting out of hand and capturing imaginations/paranoia, but, as of yet, that's not confirmed and we shouldn't be so readily jumping to that conclusion, in my opinion. I see no reason to believe that it's not equally likely that this has happened/been happening and no one's yet to prove it.

This isn't a situation involving flying saucers or unicorns, after all, where it's so beyond the realm of possibility that defaulting to "it's a lie" is the safest bet. As far as I'm aware, we don't have enough information to go on either way. I see little information about the origin of the original Facebook post, for instance, or why we're to default to the assumption that it's untrue (let alone an outright hoax). And nor can we make such a claim about any of the other reports as of this time. While the police of the area, the city manager, and the mayor all saying that they've found no concrete evidence of this having occurred, or having received no "credible" reports of it is certainly a point against it, that seems hardly enough to warrant calling it a "false claim".

Until we know more, I'm partly wondering if this article even warrants being here at this time. But, if so, could we consider renaming it to reflect the uncertainty of the situation? Perhaps to 'Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating rumor' or something of the like? TheGutterMonkey (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Someone else suggested "claim" which sounds more accurate, really, as that's all it actually is so far. We run into similar implications with both the words "myth" and "canard" which, again, jump the gun on giving the impression that we're sure the claims are false. Which, regardless of what one's gut feeling may be, we're not.

And I don't mean that in a Russel's teapot kind of way, where "anything is possible". We don't have a previous history of claims of unicorns or flying saucer sightings turning out to be true or having any basis in reality. We do, however, have plenty of evidence that people eat cats, dogs, and geese, and/or that animal sacrifices are a common part of many people's culture/religion and that Haitian's, in particular, practice Haitian Vodou (according to the Wikipedia article, "an often used joke about Haiti holds that the island's population is 85% Roman Catholic, 15% Protestant, and 100% Vodou"), where animal sacrifices are apparently a very common part of the religion. Within the article, there's even an entire section devoted to the topic of "Offerings and animal sacrifice" and how important it is to the people. "Offering food and drink to the lwa is Vodou's most common ritual, conducted both communally and in the home," the text says.

Considering the situation we're talking about in Ohio, where thousands of Haitian people (many of which who, if we go by what the Vodou article states, likely have a statistically high probability of having this religion) have migrated from their usual environment to a new one that has a completely different culture than their own, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that they, for example, may be looking for stray animals in order to practice their religion. And in a town like Springfield, perhaps stray cats, dogs, geese, etc. are the only convenient option. People in the town may then begin noticing their pets going missing, animal carcasses, or strange sights like a group of Haitians walking down the street holding dead geese. These are hardly murders, however, so it's not as if hard-hitting detective work is going into validating/invalidating these claims. Hence, it would make perfect sense for the authorities to have not yet had "evidence" of this occurring even if it has been. So I don't think that's a good enough rebuttal for classifying the rumors as untrue (let alone an outright lie with the intent to deceive).

Obviously, again, I'm not saying this is the case. But such a claim is perfectly feasible and a far stretch from unicorns or flying saucers. Not only wouldn't it be shocking (as far as how realistic it is) if it were to turn out that these rumors were to be true, it would actually be very in line with the other information we have. Which I'll list out:

1. A significant number of Haitians apparently practice a religion where animal sacrifice seems to be somewhat of a norm.

2. Multiple residents of an area where Haitians have flooded in have began making mention of animals going missing and/or being found dead.

3. At least one person has reported to police that Haitians were spotted walking down the street, each carrying a dead animal.

The fact that this claim is being immediately dismissed as an obvious 'hoax', 'myth', or 'lie' seems, in my opinion, very unjustified and largely motivated by an argument from incredulity. From a cultural perspective unfamiliar with these practices, it might seem outlandish. However, when considering the full context, this claim isn't as far-fetched as believing in flying saucers or unicorns. It's merely an unverified rumor that deserves a more nuanced examination rather than outright dismissal. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Proving something didn't happen is impossible. The best we can do is the official statements from the police and from the city manager rejecting the rumors. I disagree that there's also no proof that anyone was out to intentionally deceive given that Trump's and Vance's claims came after the aforementioned denials from the city officials. Vance's "It's possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false" followed especially by "don't let the crybabies in the media dissuade you" is pretty damn close to intentional deception. At the very least it's an example of poisoning the well. Dan • ✉ 02:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that (oftentimes, at least) "proving something didn't happen is impossible", I don't believe this justifies classifying this particular situation as a hoax. An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, after all.

As I mentioned to @Rhododendrites, this isn't a Russell's Teapot scenario where we're entertaining any fantastical claim. We're discussing allegations of animal killings, potentially for consumption or ritual, which, given the cultural context involved and other information, isn't outlandish, but a reasonable possibility (I went further into this in my reply to Rhododendrites).

From what I understand, the authorities merely said there was no evidence to prove the claim, not that the claim was untrue. If we were to accept official statements such as that as evidence that claims were a "hoax" or a lie, then there's be no limit to the number of things on here that we'd be prematurely mislabeling as lies and hoaxes.

Just like with the "eating pets" claim, calling something a "hoax" is, in itself, a very strong claim that comes with a burden of proof. And proof, as far as I can tell, hasn't yet been brought forth either way on this matter. Hence why I'm suggesting that it may be better that this article (if people think it warrants existing at all) take a more neutral stance. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I have similar concerns with using the word "hoax" in the title and throughout the article. At present, this article uses the word "hoax" 10 times (7 in the body & title, and 3 categories). Guess how many references used explicitly call these claims a hoax? ZERO! The source articles variously mention "unfounded claims" or "false claims" or "baseless allegations". Using CTRL-F, the only mention of "hoax" I found in any reference is in a direct quote referring to a different subject in The New Republic. Thus, I feel this Wikipedia article is out of line with every reliable source it cites, as it is using stronger, more loaded language than any other source. Perhaps an honest mistake or oversight, or perhaps a commendable desire to "call out lies wherever they exist!", but if no other reliable sources call this a hoax, then Wikipedia is violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:CONTENTIOUS, and other policies and guidelines by continuing to do so (and please, no one better accuse me of condoning or amplifying the false claims merely because I object to the way Wikipedia alone characterizes them). --Animalparty! (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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

"Claims" is more in line with current sources. "Myth" and "canard" are not used as well. We should not be bashing readers over the head, nor subtly whispering into their ears, what we think the issue should be called, even if the title becomes slightly less pedantically, semantically, "correct". --Animalparty! (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Wider objections to the title:

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

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

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

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

No, nice try, but it is absolutely appropriate for its own article, the fact that you mentioned it to be merged with the migrant crisis article suggest something. Benfor445 (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Lead edit

@Biohistorian15: I see you've twice removed part of the article summary that covers the extent to which sources call this hoax (or whatever we want to call it) racist. If your objection is to the wording, what's your alternative? Certainly a lead that omits an element present in a significant portion of sources is failing NPOV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

If you mean the duplicate sentence, please note that the first time I kept it in the lede, and only the second time did it go into the "Reactions" section. Please no crass redundancy like that, especially if the fragments concerned have a clear POV... Biohistorian15 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Good point regarding which was removed. Nonetheless: If your objection is to the wording, what's your alternative. They're not duplicate sentences, but yes they're similar and mean the same thing. Agreed that's not ideal, so what's your suggestion? In the meantime, let's not violate NPOV with a lead that fails to summarize the body on account of a stylistic objection. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Remove redundant use of exact same phrase and sources and Again, duplicating the exact same paragraph and sources like this is not supposed to be done and Please no crass redundancy, but then I haven't objected to the wording at all. Strange indeed. Ok, so I'll ignore all of that and focus on the only other clue, above, where you reference "clear POV" with no other explanation. Is that the real issue? If so, can you tell me in what way was the sentence you removed failing to represent the cited sources, and provide an alternative to adequately provide that summary? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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

... Well this is frustrating. You're repeatedly removing content while citing only stylistic issues (repeated/redundant wording/sources), then saying it's about POV and not related to wording at all, but refusing to actually say a word about what that POV issue actually is. If you're going to edit war, you have to actually back up what you're doing with arguments on the talk page. I made no objections to that to what? Are you saying you're not calling it POV? So it's not wording and it's not POV? I'm grasping here... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There is really no need to include the exact same statement with the exact same sources two times over. The "POV" merely makes this more pertinent. And now you are accusing me of edit warring. I don't get it. Biohistorian15 (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Sentences may have a POV while articles must not. Including (almost exactly) duplicate sentences is generally a bad idea, and especially so if they are politically one-sided... Biohistorian15 (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Translation

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

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

Requested move 12 September 2024

Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax → Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating rumor – Per WP:NDESC and WP:RS. Reliable secondary sources predominantly describe this topic as a "claim", "rumor", or "conspiracy theory" rather than a hoax, and describe it as baseless or unsubstantiated rather than false. (As I write this, the only major WP:RSPSS I've found describing it as a "hoax" is New York.) Although the definitions of "hoax" and "rumor" overlap to some degree, the word "hoax" insinuates a deliberate and malicious trick, and the supposed event has not been and potentially may never be definitively proven as such. Per my older edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, one definition of "rumor" is "a statement or report current without known authority for its truth", which I think summarizes the topic better than "claim" or "conspiracy theory". Carguychris (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Rumor" lends far too much credibility to the subject. Rumors are often based on unofficial communications about something true before it's formally announced, among other meanings that entertain -- contrary to all reliable sourcing -- the idea that we might be talking about a real phenomenon of immigrants eating your pets. "Hoax" is not ideal in this case because it isn't mentioned explicitly in enough sources, but at least it isn't harmfully misleading (we are, fundamentally, talking about something that became notable for its spread after it was debunked). "Myth" is a possibility. Otherwise possibly a descriptive title (though I can't think of a good one at the moment). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  A rumor is "a statement or claim of questionable accuracy, from no known reliable source, usually spread by word of mouth" which is exactly what this story is.

  It hasn't been "debunked", as you say. It's quite literally just an unsubstantiated claim (subsequently, I feel the article jumps the gun in repeatedly referring to it as a "false" claim, as well). The authorities have stated they've had no evidence confirming the allegations, not that the allegations themselves are untrue or that anyone has been caught/admitted to lying. The only thing that has been debunked is some specific photos and videos people have shared on social media which, from what I understand, came about after the rumor had already spread.

  Words such as "claim", "rumor", and "allegation" seem to be the most appropriate for the topic, as these both accurately describe what it is and retain a neutral tone. Terms such as "hoax", "myth", and "conspiracy theory" are all baseless claims in themselves which are just as unverified as the original rumor being discussed. I'd also suggest changing the "cat-eating" portion of the title as I don't feel that properly conveys the full scope of the rumor. "Springfield, Ohio, Animal Consumption Rumor" or something of the like would be more accurate. Or even maybe "Springfield, Ohio, Unverified Claims of Animal Consumption" if one wants to emphasize more the lack of verification rather than the rumor itself. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed on most points, although I'm more open to the term "conspiracy theory" because it's supported by sources. The term "myth" is just as loaded with insinuation as "hoax". I likewise think the article goes overboard in describing the rumor itself as false, as it's more accurately unproven, unsubstantiated, or baseless, but we're veering off the topic of the RM. All that being said, I have another alternate suggestion: Springfield, Ohio, animal-eating rumor to reflect its spread from cats and ducks to dogs and geese. I like "eating" because the word "consumption" has other possible meanings, so "eating" is more WP:CONCISE. "Claims" and "allegations" come across as clumsy and didactic to me, personal preference. Carguychris (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  The cat-eating really is integral. "animal eating rumors" would be meaningless: people in Springfield really do eat ducks and geese and other animals, some of which can be pets. Feoffer (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've reworded the article to remove language stating that the rumor is outright false or is a hoax, unless there is clear attribution, which I've notated more clearly. Carguychris (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I would support a move to "Springfield, Ohio, migrant conspiracy theory" or something like that. There's more to this then the (ridiculous) cat-eating part of this. Support moving to conspiracy theory, Oppose moving to "rumor". -1ctinus📝🗨 15:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

support 'cat-eating conspiracy theory' it's the clearest of option—blindlynx 14:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I wish I had a nickle for every "hoax" I've seen on Wikipedia, like Hunter's laptop and so many "Russian disinformation" ferry tales. Yesterday, the Attorney General for Ohio accused the media of ignoring resident's complaints about this. Other residents are preparing a petition to recall their city council. Calling this a "Hoax" is premature, and focusing on just cats is...weird. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  I made a comment about how this probably shouldn't even be an article above, but I could see a section in a new article called 2024 Springfield, Ohio, migrant crisis being WP:DUE. Sources are there to support such a creation.[6], [7][8] I might take a shot at it after work today. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that readers would benefit from a more fulsome investigation of this issue. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I would support @1ctinus's suggestion of Springfield, Ohio, migrant conspiracy theory over "crisis", because "conspiracy theory" is more consistent with what reliable secondary sources call it, and doesn't implicitly lend WP:UNDUE weight to the idea that these events constitute an actual crisis. Carguychris (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I would also support "conspiracy theory" if opinion tilts that way; I just think "rumor" is a bit tidier, and "conspiracy theory" implicitly raises the question of who is conspiring to consume household pets or to cover up the fact it's happening, which may lead to some WP:UNDUE discussion of tinfoil hat fringe "theories". Carguychris (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support 'Cat-eating conspiracy theory' Existing sources primarily refer to the incident as a conspiracy theory and per WP:COMMONNAME, it is the most appropriate title. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 18:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

'Cat-eating conspiracy theory' sounds like the "conspiracy theory" is itself eating cats. Paul H. (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

True. Carguychris (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support "Springfield, Ohio pet-eating hoax": It seems to extend to other domesticated animals such as dogs and domestic geese too. Sergei zavorotko (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

But is it a hoax? What sources meeting WP:RSPSS other than New York are calling it that? And are the ducks and geese pets, farm animals, or ornamental? Sources mention that the ducks in early versions of the rumor were ornamental. If anything, "cat" should be changed to "animal", not "pet". Carguychris (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"animal-eating" is a non-starter, that's diluted beyond all meaning. Feoffer (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support "cat-" → "pet-" and "hoax" → "rumor" based on what the sources are saying. "Conspiracy theory" is also mentioned. —Ashley Y 20:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose-isH. “Rumour” implies it might be true, when it’s clearly not true. “Hoax” is better. I could live with “conspiracy theory”. I’d be OK with replacing “cat” with “pet”: it started with a supposed cat, but it has gone further. That said, the references to ducks are not to pets, but to wild animals, so I don’t know how to include ducks. Bondegezou (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  “Rumour” implies it might be true, when it’s clearly not true. Which news outlets meeting WP:RSPSS says it's clearly not true, outside of the opinion section? And they were domestic ornamental ducks according to sources. The make and model of geese is unclear, but geese aren't very cuddly, so I can't imagine they were pets. Carguychris (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  As of the time of writing this, there's yet to be any evidence that this rumor was/is a lie. Let alone an intentional lie. By definition, it's simply not qualified to be classified as a hoax. It's an unfounded, baseless, unverified rumor (or claim or allegation).

  As far as the word "rumor" giving credence to the mere possibility that it may be true... I'm somewhat unclear as to what the problem is with that or why so many seem so adamantly opposed to it. While there's certainly no evidence that it is true, it's very feasible that it could be true. There's multiple residents in the area, for instance, all making similar/related claims. Their claims have never been determined to be untrue or a lie. And the claim involves people from a country where animal sacrifices aren't only not unusual but are apparently a significant aspect to their religious rituals (Haitian Vodou). None of this, mind you, is good evidence that the rumor has any validity to it. They are indicators, though, that the claim isn't so outlandish or outside the realm of reality (i.e., Bigfoot, Flying Saucer, or Leprechaun sightings) as to warrant being so casually dismissed as an absolute falsehood, completely unworthy of being considered a possibility. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - As the creator of the article who wrote the original title, I'll explain my rationale for using "hoax" here. I used it for the same reasons that the Litter boxes in schools hoax article is called that: it's a series of unsubstantiated claims that were passed off by prominent politicians and media figures as fact despite thorough fact-checking from reliable sources. I felt using a descriptor like "rumor" would lend undue weight to the claims. "Conspiracy theory" might be fine for this article.

As to why I titled it "cat-eating"; when I created the article on the 10th, it was mostly cats being talked about (this was before the former president uttered "they're eating the dogs".) If I had written the article today, I probably would have called it the "pet-eating hoax." LV ^{✉ ✎} 23:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose absolutely not. Per Bondegezou, "rumor" suggests it might be true. Nor is there even a theory of a 'conspiracy' to eat cats. It's a hoax. Similarly, "pets" is no good, as ducks,geese, chickens, and other food animals that are kept as pets. Feoffer (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I used it for the same reasons that the Litter boxes in schools hoax article is called that: it's a series of unsubstantiated claims that were passed off by prominent politicians and media figures as fact despite thorough fact-checking from reliable sources. The litter box story is easier to disprove because there are fewer people who would need to be asked for verification. Also, reliable sources now describe it as a hoax.

The topic of this article raises a Russell's teapot type question. It seems likely that additional sources will eventually start calling it a hoax, but as I write this, major media outlets are still using words like "baseless".

I felt using a descriptor like "rumor" would lend undue weight to the claims. "Rumor" and "claim" are the descriptors reliable sources are using today. Carguychris (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support move, to claims rather than "hoax" in the title, e.g. Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating claims. As I've demonstrated above, virtually ZERO reliable sources use the word "hoax". Thus, Wikipedia is currently way out of line with common usage (violating WP:DUE and WP:IMPARTIAL),. The vast majority of reliable sources use terms like "claims" or "unfounded claims" or "debunked claims" or "rumors". Per WP:NPOV and WP:POVNAME, Wikipedia should follow existing sources, language, and ideas, not drive or unduly promote terminology based on WP:SYNTH or moral panic to do something! Claims is not wrong or incorrect in this situation. Claims may be true or false, or debated, but they do not carry the same baggage of a term like hoax (which implies deliberate fabrication). From some of the oppose comments here I'm getting a sense of people wishing to wield loaded terms like 'hoax' or 'conspiracy theory' out of a noble but outraged desire to call out, label, and squash a dangerous idea (shades of the Great Replacement article move discussion). We can't just abandon our policies and guidelines and use loaded, cherry-picked terminology because a subject is controversial or condemned by a majority. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  The Hill: "It’s easy to trace the growth of the cat-eating hoax". It's not a claim, it's not a theory -- it's just a hoax. Feoffer (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a single cherry-picked opinion article. Per WP:RSEDITORIAL Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces... are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Do an unbiased survey of the fact-based sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. The Hill article headline explicitly refers to "a debunked conspiracy theory," also "a lie." I didn't list this article in my analysis subpage, see below, because it isn't in the article (but feel free to add it). thanks. ProfGray (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Analysis. I looked at 15 sources from the article, results on this subpage. They frequently use the word false, as in false claim, false rumor, false conspiracy. Claim is more common than rumor or conspiracy. I didn't notice "hoax." Rumors tend to be "inaccurate" but not always "false." Granted, "false rumor" is an option -- but I'd be wary because Vance characterized it as rumors. So, false claim appears to best reflect the common usage of reliable sources. ProfGray (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  "False claims of Springfield, Ohio cat-eating" would certainly work. Feoffer (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Now only if there was a single neat word for false claims spread with the intent to deceive 2604:4080:1303:8170:F9E4:927:5005:749 (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hi. You added "intent" but that's not actually stated by the main sources. Maybe intent is to provoke, arouse anger, not to deceive?Social science usually doesn't claim to discern intent, so can it be encyclopedic? ProfGray (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC) ProfGray (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Per ProfGray, "intent to deceive" isn't a requirement. Feoffer (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Alternate rename proposal -> Springfield, Ohio migrant pet-eating rumors

We seem to have pretty good concensus here on not using the word "hoax". And we are largely in agreement on using a broader term than "cats". It seems to me that the best alternate terms are "pets" and "rumors" - note that it's pluralized.

First, to repeat the definition of rumor: "a statement or claim of questionable accuracy... usually spread by word of mouth". The point being, these are not just "claims". The reason this has come to our attention is precisely because of the viral spread of rumors through social media - not just ONE rumor, but multiple rumors that added to the seeming credibility of the original story. That is how rumors operate: formerly it was by word of mouth, nowadays the process has been accelerated by social media. So now the rumors have, shall we say, metastasized.

Next, the term "pets" broadens to include cats and dogs, as well as domesticated geese and chickens, imo. Whereas "animals" is nearly meaningless, since most people do eat meat. Also, I think it's worth noting that, after Donald Trump said during the debate, "They’re eating the dogs. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets... ", the Associated Press chose the word "pets" for their headine ("Trump falsely accuses immigrants in Ohio of abducting and eating pets") - which was undoubtedly the most widely seen article on the subject immediately following the debate.

Lastly, reference to "migrants" is crucial, because this whole story would not have taken off the way it has if not for the Haitian immigrants who have settled in Springfield. They are the very reason the claim was brought up during the debate by Donald Trump. And note again, the AP headine made a point of referencing "immigrants" in their headline.

Anomalous+0 (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Carguychris, Longestview, TheGutterMonkey, Animalparty!, and ProfGray: I have made an Alternate rename proposal - please rejoin the discussion. Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My sense from the sources is that this is a false claim, not a rumor/claim that needs to become more accurate. Adding Haitians or migrants might be fine, or wordy. ProfGray (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC) ProfGray (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Cat-eating is pretty essential to the title, particularly in understanding the responses. We could maybe add dogs, but this isn't about duck hunting or foie gras Feoffer (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Idea relating to recent RM

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

I was wondering if this could just have it's own section on 2024 United States presidential election for now, and if it gets crazy we could split out the article. I'm open to either at this point, because it's obvious editors are going to be dealing with an unprecedented election over the next few months. AI, deepfakes, hoaxes, viral memes. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding adding a subsection in the main election article, I'm already concerned that it will immediately balloon and turn into a knock-down, drag-out WP:UNDUE editorial fight like the "couch thing" in the JD Vance article. Hence making it separate from the outset. Carguychris (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm largely in agreement that it'll need to be it's own article, or maybe even a list. "Conspiracy Theories and hoaxes" is an incredibly broad topic that will quickly become too much to handle if already attached to a larger article. Trump and JD, for better or worse, say plenty of wild stuff that'll probably qualify. Anti-vax, sharks/batteries, eating cats, transgender inmates, etc, and that's just the debate. Please don't remind me about what this election will inevitably bring, I can already envision the mess at WP:GAR that'll likely ensue.🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Fake News - Not a hoax.

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

Notability?

This idiotic claim could be mentioned on Trump's bio and other notable people involved in spreading the myth, but it is unlikely that it deserves its own page. A frequently ignored rule on here is that this isn't a news site, and certainly not a 'breaking news' site. It is unlikely anyone will still be talking about this in a month. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Many books will be written about the 2024 US presidential election, including some by respected historians. It is highly likely that quite a few of these books will discuss this bizarre hoax. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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