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)

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)

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)

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)

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)