Jump to content

Talk:Springfield pet-eating hoax/Archive 2

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

Requested move 12 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: not moved. No consensus to move. Many agree the current title may not be perfect, but there was no agreement on a preferred alternative, though 'pet-eating' was supported by multiple later participants. Editors may wish to discuss possible alternatives as a common name develops in reliable sources. Valereee (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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) — Relisting. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 23:36, 17 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). Adding later: My preference, among the variables presented below, is "Springfield pet-eating hoax". There just hasn't been a good alternative to hoax presented, I agree that Ohio isn't needed to disambiguate, and this story took off with the allegations about pets. FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC) — 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)
Oppose move. suggests to strongly that it may be true. In the absolute off chance that the story does have truth to it, we can move it then. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 16:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Support 'Cat-eating conspiracy theory', thats what sources say NotQualified (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose “Conspiracy theories” have tendencies of becoming true or partially true at a later date. (ie declassified cases that have come to light decades later such as Operation Paperclip). There is no truth to the target group here in any capacity with motives to slander while taking multiple situations that appear to be related and spun together to create an outcome for reactionary purposes that made the crossroads of a political debate. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Further comment it is unclear what group is allegedly conspiring, what its goals are, or who is alleging that the group is conspiring. A conspiracy theory typically features all three; some conspiracy theories feature competing narratives about the first two points, but my overall thrust is that there must be a coherent narrative, even if it seems puerile, false, or absurd to most. There seems to be no clear narrative in this case. It seems more like an unfounded, generalized political attack. For these reasons and the reasons you state, I withdraw my support for calling this a conspiracy theory. Carguychris (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Support move from 'Cat-eating' to 'Pet-eating' or 'Animal-eating', Strong oppose move from 'hoax' to 'rumor'. Pet eating is a more accurate characterization of the hoax. 'Rumor' would give WP:UNDUE credit to the hoax's truthfulness. A move from 'hoax' to 'conspiracy theory' as suggested elsewhere in this discussion might work and would be inline with other similar topics, but IMO hoax is also accurate. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm also fine with changing the word "cat-eating" to "pet-eating." I think even "conspiracy theory" might be giving the hoax too much credit, since there's been a handful of conspiracy theories proven correct. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. A rumor is something that it is still unproven one way or the other. A hoax is something confirmed false. This page is about an incident which did not happen. 85sl (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. "Rumour" seemingly implies that its origins are unclear, which is not the case here. I also agree that it is somewhat misleading in implying that the claims might be true, when they are plainly not so. I can't think of a better word to use than "hoax", including "conspiracy theory". (That is because "conspiracy" seems to imply a small, nebuluous group of people is behind the supposed acts, which is not what the claims make). Groot42 (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
The origins are unclear, however, and the sources don't include evidence that the referenced rumors are conclusively false (they're repeatedly referred to as "baseless", "unverified", etc.). According to the article, it stemmed from an "early September" Facebook post which includes hearsay from unidentified sources whose stories have been neither confirmed nor disproven. Meanwhile, the article mentions an earlier phone call to local police on August 26th where a man claims to have seen geese stolen from Springfield Park. Again, this incident has neither been confirmed nor disproven. There are various other claims, as well, oftentimes unverified hearsay and from unknown sources. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
the sources don't include evidence that the referenced rumors are conclusively false (they're repeatedly referred to as "baseless", "unverified", etc.). Well that's where WP:ASSERT comes in. Absolute metaphysical certitude is never the standard. RSes universally say "hoax" or "false claim" or "debunked allegations" or similar. This Mysterian argument from ignorance could just as easily malign Jewish folks by alleging they eat babies, and to be blunt, we can't have it here. Repeating unfounded, baseless rumors is perpetuating a hoax, per RSes. Feoffer (talk) 08:49, 14 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)
What? 2601:1C0:717E:4C0:CC12:FA40:6BB9:DAD6 (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
What are you referring to with the "Russian disinformation fairytales" comment? AusLondonder (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose The hoax is one hundred percent bullshit, let's not entertain it by calling it a "rumor." HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose This subject has become an official point in the policies proposed by the Republican candidate to the Presidency of the United States - not to speak about the very real bomb threats.
    This thing "was" a rumor, it became a hoax when Trump and Vance were told by journalists that it was unfounded, that they were wrong in spreading it, and they keep doing it anyway until now.
    This has gone way beyond a faux pas in a debate. It became policy, and violence.
    Wikipedia is meant to serve, and that includes to point out at misinformation being misinformation. Maykiwi (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment
watch your language. If you can’t post without resorting to cuss words maybe you should take a time out before posting. 216.8.165.252 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC) — 216.8.165.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Wikipedia is not censored and bullshit is an accurate description of this hoax. AusLondonder (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Support.
there is a clearly partisan bias to using the word “hoax”, which has the implication that people are lying or intending to dupe people with this rumour. writing this off as a hoax within a week of it becoming a major discussion topic seems to be jumping the gun in to push a narrative. In my opinion, the jury is still out there and as others have said we may never know the full truth. 216.8.165.252 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC) — 216.8.165.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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)
'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)
    I second that rename (to “pet-eating hoax”). Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    I support this as well, as it more accurately covers the scope of the hoax. Groot42 (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    It started with cats, the AZ GOP is doing cat billboard and politicians are doing cat memes. We could add dogs to the title, but 'pet' alone is too vague: people have pet ducks and pet geese and pet goats. Feoffer (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    The initial Facebook post which the article credits as being what the rumor stemmed from specifically mentions cats, dogs, ducks, and geese. Ducks are also mentioned in the widely circulated footage from the Aug. 27th Springfield City Commission Meeting. Trump, in his debate with Kamala Harris, mentioned both dogs and cats. When the police addressed the claim, they said "pets". When the mayor addressed it, he talked about "geese or ducks". The attorney general referenced livestock. The Aug 26th phone call to police claimed that Haitians were stealing geese. Zeroing in on pets isn't only more appropriate, it's technically not broad enough.
    That being said, I'd nevertheless support the word "pets" due to Trumps use of the phrase ("they're eating the pets") becoming so associated with the rumor. Cats, as well, due to memes, have become very associated with it, but between the two options "pets" is more accurate to the broader scope of the rumor. However, I'd still oppose any title utilizing the word "hoax" in regard to this rumor, as the rumor hasn't been substantiated as being a deliberate lie with the intent to deceive. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I second that rename (to “pet-eating hoax”). MattFry7 (talk) 17:07, 14 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)
yeah, most people (except vegetarians) eat animals. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:20, 13 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)
    Regardless on whether or not this is true it would be extreme bias to assume that this is true of all the people of Haiti and its diaspora. Similar claims can be said of various cultures especially in the Americas and you are essentially adding a rumor on top of a rumor while Wikipedia is not… “a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions”. (See WP:RUMOR) Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    Nothing was mentioned about assuming anything of all the people of Haiti. I brought up the apparent common practice of a widespread religion in the area in order to emphasize that there was a larger degree of plausibility to the rumor than some are allowing for (instead, they're claiming that it's "clearly not true" and that words such as "rumor" mustn't be used because they allow for the mere possibility that it could be true). I was simply giving reason why the claim wasn't utterly beyond the realm of reasonable plausibility and shouldn't be so quickly dismissed due to an argument from incredulity. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    GutterMonkey's words, no doubt representative of many readers, highlight the need for a title that makes it clear the claims are false. Feoffer (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Unless you're adding a valid (and civil) rebuttal to your implications about me and/or my words, I don't know how your response here is constructive to the conversation. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Let me be more direct: above you characterize these claims as more plausible than UFO conspiracy theories, but the opposite is true. Promoters of CTs are not, in the whole, baldfaced liars. People really did report "flying saucers" in a mass hysteria outbreak in 1947, Kennedy really was assassinated in Dallas in 1963 -- but nobody in 2024 is eating cats in Springfield. This is a hoax or a 'false claim", the title needs to reflect that. Feoffer (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    These rumors are more plausible than the things which I listed (which were Bigfoot, flying saucers, unicorns, and leprechauns, by the way). There’s never been any well-substantiated evidence that bigfoot, flying saucers, unicorns, or leprechauns have ever existed. There has, however, been plenty of evidence that people killing and eating cats and dogs occurs quite regularly. And there’s evidence that this is a more normalized thing to do in some regions than it is in others. Subsequently, the claim that someone saw evidence of a person killing or eating an animal is objectively more plausible than the claim that someone saw evidence of Bigfoot.
    Mind you, I wouldn’t be supporting calling rumors of bigfoot, flying saucers, unicorns, or leprechauns a “hoax” or a “falsehood” either without proper evidence to indicate that they actually were. If someone asked me whether flying saucers exist, I’d say “there’s yet to be any evidence of that” or that those are “unverified claims” or that those are “just rumors”. While I’d certainly be more readily dismissive of such claims (than I would be of accusations of a crime that’s been documented to occur sometimes) and demand especially strong evidence before believing them, I’d still be in the wrong to prematurely classify them as “hoaxes” or “falsehoods” without reasonable proof of my own. Because when you call something a hoax or a falsehood, you're making a claim that saddles you with a burden of proof.
    My reasoning for bringing up my "outlandish" examples was merely a response to someone claiming that we shouldn't even be toying with the possibility that these rumors could potentially be true (and, subsequently, that we shouldn't be using a neutral — and accurate — term like "rumors" to describe them). For who I was responding to, it seemed, the possibility that this could be true was so beyond the realm of plausibility that we should inexplicably be defaulting to the stance that they aren't only a falsehood, but they're a deliberate falsehood (which, as of yet, there's no evidence of). Me bringing up actual cases of animal killings/consumption, cultural differences, and religious rituals was just an attempt to drive home my point that the rumors weren't as implausible as was being implied. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    "Conspiracy theory" is a pejorative, but Springfield cat-eating isn't even worthy of that lowly title. It's not about sincere believers in hats made of tinfoil, it's about purveyors of snake oil. At least, that's what RSes are universally saying. Feoffer (talk) 06:45, 14 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)
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)
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)
  • Support adding "migrant. Your overall reasoning agrees with mine regarding why this is a rumor, not merely a claim (which may or may not have become widespread), or a hoax (implies unambiguous falsehood and a deliberate trick, and both are unclear in this case). However, you forgot the MOS:GEOCOMMA after "Ohio". Carguychris (talk) 13:36, 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)
After further consideration, I think that "cat" and "pet" both get the point across, since it started with cats and most versions of the story include cats. "Animal" may be too general. I'm vacillating. Carguychris (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: I also agree that the word “migrant” is important to the topic and is a good inclusion for the title. "Rumor", as I’ve mentioned previously, is a perfectly acceptable neutral term that comes with no claims of its own (such as "hoax", which comes with its own unmet burden of proof) and, by definition, "Rumor" it fits exactly what this claim is, despite anyone's personal feelings, beliefs, or gut instincts on the matter. While I understand that many appear to be very resistant to using a middle ground word in regard to this rumor, the fact of the matter is that there is of yet no conclusive evidence that the rumor is either a deliberate lie or a falsehood. In order to remain intellectually honest and unbiased, a non-committal term like this is required, in my opinion.
TheGutterMonkey (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Haitians in Springfield are immigrants, not migrants. Feoffer (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support for the time being. It is vitally important not to allow for WP:CITOGENESIS. this kind of naming convention is concrete and matter-of-factly enough not to.
Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Two things. First, to be clear, oppose all instances of titles based on "rumors" or "claims" per my !vote above. Second, "pet-eating" is what makes the most sense to me since "pets" is what a lot of the sources talk about. It would also mean we could focus the article more, because it sounds like there are a variety of other accusations which, while they're relevant to racial tensions in Springfield, are not relevant to the core of this subject, which is the extraordinary claim that migrants are eating pets. The talk of duck and geese, for example, does not tap into the same "they're coming for your family" rhetoric -- people eat ducks and geese. Sounds like there was never any evidence of that either, and some sources cover them together, but if we were clear that this is about pets those claims could be summarized in a single paragraph is related but not central to the story. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose The evidence, or lack thereof, clearly points towards this being a hoax. Hence the title of the article should remain the same. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Question -- premature page move -- The page was moved to a new title ("pets") without apparent reference to this discussion, and without closing this by User:LuanLoud. Was that inappropriate? I'm not seeing an obvious consensus around "pets" and it was not in the original RM wording. ProfGray (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    I think it was inappropriate. Carguychris (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    There are two elements to this move request: "hoax" and "cat". "Hoax" has obviously not been resolved, but I don't see anyone arguing for "cats" being preferable to "pets" (several argue the opposite, though). As such, unless folks want to argue that "cat-eating" is better backed by the sourcing than "pet-eating", I see no reason not to move it and continue with this move request. If anything, it allows the move request to more easily focus on "hoax" and its alternatives. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    Hi. Since "pets" was not in the proposal, most !votes or comments don't mention it. I don't think it's helpful to try to do moves during an RM, except to close the RM. To close the RM, an disinterested party should read thru all the responses and tally up the various views here, right? Note also: the RM should be allowed to go for '''seven days'''. See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. Since the move to "pets" was not done properly, I have Moved this back. ProfGray (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    I absolutely argue cat in title is integral, especially to understand the response. We could maybe do "cat and dog eating", but we can't go "pet" or "animal"; This hoax is NOT "pets" which can include chickens, ducks, geese, etc. Feoffer (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as premature and inaccurate (or at least inexact). As plenty of editors have noted, 'hoax' is a problematic term at the best of times and absolutely does not describe the situation we face here. A hoax is something perpetrated to deceive. There is zero evidence that Ms Lee had any such intention. Right now, this is best described as a 'rumour' (or 'rumor', since it's in the US where English is deprecated). I expect that this will end up in List of urban legends alongside all the other stories based on someone's best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors (with apologies to Mr Bueller). As such, I think we should leave it with the current title and move on. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    Please clarify what you're strongly opposing. The RM is to move the article from "hoax" to "rumor" and it seems like you support that. Carguychris (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    I apologise. I was very unclear. I oppose ANY move right now. Yes, rumour is much closer to what we have, but that puts us afoul of the Wikipolicy of the same name. Even if the encyclopaedia did house rumours, I'm not convinced it is a rumour. It's a meme, a racist trope, an urban legend, a sadly-transparent xenophobic myth. History will tell us which when folks start writing RS about it, if it even remains in public discourse (which I doubt). If it does, I'd put my money on 'trope' at the moment. By decade, it was cats in oriental restaurants, then Santorini priests with pet sacrifices, then dog-fur Chinese-import coats, and now Haitians are eating the cats. I'm sure we'll have goldfish sushi when next the Japanese become the political bogeymen of America's right-wingers. I guess I'm suggesting that we don't bother with the title as one is no worse than the next; just let it sit and contemplate all the actual, encyclopaedic subjects we could be editing instead. CheersLast1in (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Partial oppose Given the conspiracy theory doesn't only apply to cats, the "cat-eating" part should be changed to "pet-eating". Otherwise, I think "hoax" is the most accurate way to describe it as of right now. Isthmus55 (t • c) 21:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Strongly oppose rename due to WP:RUMOR and what Wikipedia is not; a collection of unverified facts. Furthermore, there is no “theory” either as it has been debunked as the county police department said there was no such activity among its immigrants. In a statement on Tuesday (10 September 2024), a Springfield police spokesperson said, “In response to recent rumors alleging criminal activity by the immigrant population in our city, we wish to clarify that there have been no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”
    • Oppose Strongly Rumour suggests something may or may not be true while hoax is a deliberately crafted false story which this so obviously is, a random Facebook post by a layperson has been amplified and crafted into a dog, cat, domestic geese eating hoax, Furthermore i support the title Springfield, Ohio pet-eating hoax as it seems the most logical and appropriate in this case Nohorizonss (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Alexis Ferrell (not a Haitian immigrant) was booked and arrested in Canton, Ohio, which is about 3 hours away from Springfield, Ohio and the infamous black man walking the goose down the street not only was not a Haitian immigrant but was taken on 28 July 2024 by a man in Columbus, Ohio by a reddit user who posted it and now regrets doing so.
In lieu of this, what would be most appropriate when social media takes videos out of context and ties a particular group of people to it to the point it catches onto political figures who would potentially use these false claims to win over votes? A hoax. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
As I noted below, WP:RUMOR does not apply, because it concerns speculation about unverified future events, not discussion of the real-world effects of past events. Lastly, @Savvyjack23, I'm blanking out the Canton, Ohio, woman's name in your response due to WP:NPF. No hard feelings. Carguychris (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I object to removal (albeit partial) of my comment as per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS and I do not give you permission to do so as per WP:MUTUAL. The former states, to “Cautiously [edit] or [remove] another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. WP:NPF applies to WP:BLP, not talk pages. No hard feelings taken Carguychris}. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose 'pet' in title Per my !vote and comment above, "cat" really does need to be in title to understand the absurdity of the claim and the automatic reactions of laughter and mockery. People keep all sorts of food animals as pets: ducks, geese, goats, sheep, chickens, etc. The hoax is not about over-zealous duckhunters straying onto their neighbors land, it's about the idea of kidnapping and eating cats for food. Feoffer (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - It's being discussed in RS as a hoax, it's commonly spoken about as a hoax. Moving it to "rumour" would amount to diluting the clarity of it being untrue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Agreed BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 15:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - Great care must be taken to prevent any personal loathing for Trump and Republicans from poisoning an encyclopedia, which simply MUST be neutral 100% of the time. YouTube is bristling with first-person testimonials by Springfield residents, including a black native of Springfield (who hardly fits the "neo-Nazi" or "white supremacist" profile), reporting these incidents. THIS IS NOT A HOAX. If it's a deliberate hoax, it is extremely sophisticated, it's got Big Money behind it, and it's hiring crisis actors from across the racial spectrum. Which means that the chances of it actually being a hoax are microscopic. "Rumor" is a much better descriptive term for what I'm seeing. Cheers mates. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC) — 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    WP:NPOV explicitly rejects applying a false balance, and your personal opinions are not outweighed by the overwhelming weight of RS declaring it to be false. Cpotisch (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    "False" is very, very different from "unverified." And when you drill down into each and every one of of those WP:RSes, if you read past the headlines into the fine print, the truth is that it is "unverified." Not "false." This is very different from flying saucer hoaxes, or Bigfoot hoaxes, or Loch Ness Monster hoaxes. People have actually eaten cats. This is a fact. In other words, it's a plausible rumor. If proven false, then it was a hoax; but that hasn't happened yet. That isn't personal opinion. I refuse to allow my personal distaste for Trumpian politics to colour a WP:NEUTRAL encyclopedia. Cheers mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    RSes describe the cat-eating claims as "false" [4][5]. Feoffer (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Oi right. Scroll down, mate. I'm making the same argument on two separate threads. When you drill down past the word "false" in the headline, in the media that so very obviously loathe Donald Trump, you will find (in the fine print in the 17th paragraph of the article) that the word "unverified" is far more accurate. Do you need examples? Do I need to post them here for you, in exquisite detail, or can you look for yourself? 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Your linked article in the Washington Post, a left-leaning newspaper that hasn't endorsed a Republican for president in my very long lifetime, uses the word "rumor" twice. It doesn't use the word "hoax" at all.
    Your linked article in The Guardian, which is openly, proudly left-wing and regularly hosts op-eds from flaming left-wing partisans who loathe everything conservative, uses the word "rumor" four times. It doesn't use the word "hoax" at all.
    I rest my case. Cheers, mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    So, you're citing RSes that explicitly call the claim "false" to demonstrate that we shouldn't call it false? No, I don't think further examples of this will be helpful. Feoffer (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I repeat: when you read past the headline of the article, which may explicitly (but erroneously) use the word "false," and get down into the facts (which are finally explained in the 5th, or 12th, or 19th paragraph), you find that police cannot prove it to be either true or false. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Opppose. No evidence of this being real. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    No evidence of it being false either. The police haven't had any "verified" reports. "Rumor," to me, seems the best descriptive term because it MIGHT turn out to be true. Cheers. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC) — 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    This is absurd. You can't prove a negative and the burden of proof is on the one making the allegation. Cpotisch (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    I see. Take that up with the Trump campaign, then. Trump is the one making the allegation. As a Wikipedia editor, I'm just reporting it as neutrally as I can. What WP is SUPPOSED to do is report the allegation NEUTRALLY, without the spin-doctoring that is always present in the media that so very obviously loathe him, and are licking Kamala's boots. If the allegation has been proven to be false, then it's a hoax. If it hasn't been proven false, then it's a rumor. People have eaten cats before. So this is not in the nature of a Bigfoot hoax. It's plausible. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    By your logic anything is plausible. The cat-eating scandal is in fact a hoax, by definition. It has been completely manufactured, as there is no veracity to any of the baseless claims put forward. Trump said he "saw something about it on television", give me a break. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Wrong, of course. Bigfoot reports and flying saucer reports are implausible, because neither one has provided physical or (authenticated) photographic evidence of any type. There are no experts agreeing that Bigfoot definitely existed, or that we've definitely been visited by flying saucers, at any time. Quite the opposite for people eating cats. It's happened, numerous times. In fact, if you were stranded on an island in the middle of the ocean, with nothing but 100 cats and unlimited firewood, I daresay that after seven days, the cat population would be less than 100. No offense, mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. People have eaten cats before. However, Haitian immigrants have not eaten cats in Springfield before. BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 23:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Just because "it has happened somewhere at some point in time" does not make the Springfield cat hoax any less of a hoax. You are literally arguing in favor of perpetuating the disinformation campaign, which is pointless and not contributing to the Wikipedia project in any way whatsoever.
    If you have sources that can show this is not a hoax, please do so. Otherwise, enough is enough. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    @BombCraft8 @72.14.126.22 Here, watch this video. [[6]] As I said, this is an authentic "open mike" video from meetings of the Springfield City Commission. These are Springfield residents. The gentleman in the red hoodie doesn't fit the "white supremacist" profile. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    And what is the evidence that his claim is true? As a simple example, re: his claim that they're eating ducks they catch at the park, do you think they're eating raw duck that they plucked (or left unplucked) at the park and he watched this all happen at the park, or do instead think that he followed them home and watched them pluck and then cook the ducks there? Neither one strikes me as plausible. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    As for your YouTube channel link, per Wikipedia: The Daily Caller is a conservative website founded by Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel in 2010. It covers politics, culture, and media, and has been criticized for publishing false stories and white supremacist content.
    Not a reliable source. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    That makes sense BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 00:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    LOL. Do you think the video has been doctored? Do you think it's AI-generated? There is no commentary by Tucker Carlson or anyone else. Everybody speaking in that video is a resident of Springfield, Ohio. All of them, even the last one who seems quite sympathetic to the Haitians, agree that the Haitians are causing a lot of problems. And if you'd like to see the original, unedited video on the official Springfield, Ohio city government website, I'm sure I can post a link. The video is authentic. Some irrelevant material has been edited out, same as any news organization would do. Cheers mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    And the article quotes this citizen's unfounded claim of supposed duck hunting in city parks, but no amount of duck or goose allegations will make the cat-eating claims anything but a hoax. Feoffer (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    LOL. Do you think the video has been doctored? Do you think it's AI-generated? That has nothing to do with it. Please see WP:DAILYCALLER. They are considered generally unreliable by Wikipedia's standards, and have been deprecated. Furthermore, we generally can't use YouTube videos as a source. We'd need something written by a credible secondary source. Hope that helps. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    You've already got two reliable secondary sources, mate. The Guardian uses the word "rumor" four times, but doesn't use the word "hoax" at all. The Washington Post uses the word "rumor" twice, but doesn't use the word "hoax" at all. Use the term that the reliable sources are using. Avoid the term that the reliable sources are not using. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Oh by the way mate, here's the very same video (unedited) at RealClearPolitics. [7] The City of Springfield, Ohio has its own official YouTube channel, and here's the very same video from their August 27, 2024 meeting. [8] Clicking on the "Watch a Commission Meeting" link on the city's official website [9] takes you straightaway to the city's YouTube channel. Please stop complaining that Daily Caller is unreliable. In this instance, they've proven to be 100% reliable. Cheers mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Even disregarding your source, a town hall video isn't proof of anything besides a rumor being widespread. You can go into Washington state and New York and find plenty of town hall meetings discussing bigfoot, it doesn't mean bigfoot exists. Sourfillet (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    ... a town hall video isn't proof of anything besides a rumor being widespread. Thanks for making my point for me. This is a "rumor being widespread." A rumor, not a hoax. Cheers mate. Have some coffee. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    The fact that law enforcement looked through months of call logs and did not find any reports about pets being stolen is, in fact, evidence of it being false. Just what kind of evidence of falsity are you looking for? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The fact that no one has reported any missing pets does not prove that none have gone missing. Cheers, mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    That is true, but if no one has reported any missing pets, then if there are missing pets, we don't know about them BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 23:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    It's noteworthy that you couldn't bring yourself to answer the question, so I'll ask you again: Just what kind of evidence of falsity are you looking for?
    Also, absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence. It depends on the claim, the bounds of the set being explored, and more. You're also ignoring the behavioral contradiction: if someone has evidence that their pet was stolen and eaten, you think that they're going to say that to a neighbor but NOT report it to the police? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Just what kind of evidence of falsity are you looking for?
    Just right off I do not enjoy discussing hypothetical cases. But if some Springfield resident reported on 6 Sep her cat was missing, then reported on 8 Sep that she saw some Haitian immigrants skinning and eating her cat, then the Springfield police recovered her cat alive and well on 10 Sep, that would be proof that the report was false. Vague rumors like this one are difficult to prove one way or the other. That's why they're called "rumors," which are neither "facts" nor "hoaxes." Cheers mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    It's not a hypothetical case. Trump is accusing people, and you said that there is "No evidence of it being false," so it's totally fair to ask you what evidence you're looking for. Is there anything that would convince that the claim itself (rather than one person's report) is false? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    With all due respect, you seem to think that there is no such thing as a factual "gray area." Either it's definitely proven to be true, or it's definitely false, a hoax, a hideous lie, whatever.
    Since you enjoy discussing hypothetical cases, do you feel that Trump is definitely guilty of all the crimes with which he has been charged? Including the charges which were dismissed, or delayed until after the election? If I were to claim (in a Wikipedia article title) that the Florida classified documents case, the Georgia election interference case, and the DC insurrection incitement case are all "hoaxes," because they haven't been proven yet, it appears you would agree with me.
    Conversely, if some Red State Republican files a lawsuit for $50 million against Kamala on Monday for "public nuisance" prostitution in his neighborhood, dating back to 1989, right after the GOP-controlled state legislature changed the statute of limitations to allow such a lawsuit, would you be screaming on the Talk:Kamala Harris page that it's all a hoax?
    Can you understand now that there is a factual "gray area" here? And why I refuse to call it either "black" or "white"? (I think I'll be signing off now, Saturday night is date night ...) 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    With all due respect, you're projecting beliefs onto me that aren't mine, and the talk page for this article isn't the place to discuss things that have nothing to do with this article. I haven't asked you to call anything "black" or "white." I asked you about your claim that there's "No evidence of it being false either." Apparently you're unable to say what you'd take as evidence of it being false. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    The claim that "You can't prove a negative" is a pet peeve of mine. One can prove some negative claims but not others, just as one can prove some positive claims but not others. An example of a negative claim that can be proven: a largest prime number does not exist. Another example of a negative claim that can be proven: there are no plums in my refrigerator. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    The ones calling this a falsehood, however, are the ones making an allegation. And they're doubling down on this allegation by also alleging that it was deliberately concocted with the intent to deceive (a hoax). That's, in fact, two allegations. Both of which place burdens of proof on the accusers:
    1. They have to give proof that the rumors are untrue.
    2. They have to give proof that the rumors were intentionally made up with the intent to trick people.
    Proof of these two claims have still yet to come forth. The accusers are simply giving their personal opinions and cherry-picking from a pile of sources that are all inconsistently defining this aspect of the situation. "Ignore those labeling it a rumor or fact-checkers calling it 'unfounded' rather than 'false,'" they argue, "we must only side with the hand-picked article's that say the word 'hoax,' disregarding the article's body which fails to substantiate how it's a hoax."
    Those of us proposing that this should be classified as a "rumor" are merely arguing against both of those unverified claims, as well as the unverified claims that these rumors are definitely true. We're not making a claim of our own, we're saying that their claim (that this is a hoax) is just as unfounded as the rumor itself. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    You're mistaken on both counts. The standard for inclusion is showing that RSes characterize it as a hoax or false claim -- easily met here. There is no requirement of intentional deception by the creator. cf Arthur Machen, Orson Welles, and John Keel for originators of accidental hoaxes. Feoffer (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    The standard for inclusion is showing that RSes characterize it as a hoax or false claim -- easily met here. For the third time, mate: when you drill down into the very same WP:RSes you are using, they don't use the word "hoax." And in the 6th, or 11th, or 18th paragraph of your own WP:RSes, the facts are actually laid out: the police cannot prove these claims. That doesn't mean the claims are false. It means they haven't been proven.
    The headline writers at your WP:RSes, in their rush to chop a point or two off of Trump's polling percentage, used the word "false" in the HEADLINE. But in the body of the article, they use the word "rumor," multiple times. And they DO NOT use the word "hoax."
    There is no requirement of intentional deception by the creator. cf Arthur Machen, Orson Welles, and John Keel for originators of accidental hoaxes. I've been marveling at the Orson Welles "War of the Worlds" broadcast, and the panic it unintentionally caused, for many years. But this is the first time I've seen it described as an "accidental hoax."
    Regardless, the headline of this article uses the word "hoax" without the "accidental" qualifier. Thus it quite deliberately creates the impression that Trump was quite deliberately lying: deliberately creating a false perception or misunderstanding. Without proof of that intent, the word "hoax" must be removed and the word "rumor" seems the most accurate replace3ment. That's my final word on the matter. Cheers, mate. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Examples such as that with the War of the Worlds situation aren’t commonly referred to as a hoax, as they don’t meet the definition of a hoax. “Hoax” is not synonymous with “falsehood”. It is a specific thing which implies intent. “Accidental hoax” is an oxymoron.
    As far as the sources go, while I agree that many use the label “fake” to describe the rumor (most don’t refer to it as a “hoax”, however), as the other user has stated, none of them that do this substantiate that classification within the body of the source. Looking beyond the labels/headlines and reading the actual content repeatedly reveals descriptions of an unsubstantiated rumor and the point to sources such as the Springfield law enforcement who, as well, merely describe an unsubstantiated rumor. And sources such as Snopes, that specifically aim to fact-check the claims, choose to classify it as "unfounded" (accompanied by a big question mark icon) rather than the more definitive claim of "false". These various sources aren’t consistent with each other (or even sometimes themselves) in this regard. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Well said. This shouldn't be a question of which word ("hoax" or "rumor") gets the most votes. This should, in fact MUST be obedient to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and other policies. I am unaware of ANY WP:RSes that use the word "hoax," even once. Two sources that advocates of the word "hoax" have linked in this discussion (The Guardian and The Washington Post) use the word "rumor" repeatedly, but never use the word "hoax." Accordingly, we must follow policy, not votes. Cheers mates. 2601:245:4601:9940:102:F32E:3C1A:2BB7 (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    Hoax is NPOV -- many sources just call it a lie. [10] [11] [12] Feoffer (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    Agree, this appares to be a racist attck in order to generate hate against a group of people. Hoax is is the correct term to use as a neutral observer. 70.61.22.78 (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: While I agree that "Hoax" is not quite the right word, neither in my view is "Rumor". Does anyone have a thought about "Trope" or "Canard", similar to Antisemitic trope? Or perhaps Moral panic? KConWiki (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    The cat-eating hoax is also a racist dog whistle, not simply a political distraction. But are media sources describing it as directly as this? I know that neo-Nazi group Blood Tribe helped promote the false claims before Trump picked it up. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    The hoax is also tangentially connected to the Great Replacement conspiracy theory in the United States concept, and has been talked about as such by Trump and Vance, through their statements about migration allegedly benefiting Democrats vis-à-vis supposed "election fraud" and "illegal votes" by immigrants for Harris.
    So I think renaming the article using the words trope or canard would be illustrative, but would not necessarily be a common name, as currently described by the media, perhaps? Thoughts? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    How about "lie"? Moncrief (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    I think "canard" is probably the best choice, since it makes it clear the idea is false without the implication of intent that "hoax" carries. I'd also like to point out that, while we're discussing moving the page to a new title, it definitely shouldn't have a comma after "Ohio." The name of the city and state are an apposite noun in the phrase and thus the comma is unnecessary and incorrect. Wehpudicabok (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    I would agree with 'canard' were it not for the fact that the vast majority of US readers would never have been exposed to the term. It is exceptionally uncommon to see it in print, and I have honestly never heard an native-speaker of American English use it in conversation. If they have any inkling at all, most would think it refers to the stubby little fore-wings of an aircraft or a posh British cruise line (that is, if they knew the word 'posh'). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose both "rumor" and "conspiracy theory". "Rumor" suggests it's unclear if it's true, while "conspiracy theory" indicates some sort of conspiracy is being alleged. If someone steals a cat and eats it, they're not conspiring with anyone, they did it all on their own. Smartyllama (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's both malicious and deceptive, which makes it a hoax. I could support swapping "cat" for "pet" since even though the original hoax was about cats, Trump is lying about dogs too. Not essential, but possibly useful for completeness.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    'Pet' serves to elide the absurdity: there are pet goats, chickens, ducks, geese, and other food animals. We could add dogs to the title, but cat-eating is pretty essential to understanding the reactions. Feoffer (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's true. People eat ducks all the time. Leave it as is, then.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose hoax -> rumor. Conspiracy theory would be ok. NPOV does not demand we give equal weight to a hoax that started with “my neighbor’s daughter’s friend says…” I have a hard time taking any argument to the contrary as one made in good faith. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - this is nothing more than a hoax and deserves no remote amount of credibility. Home Lander (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - People are demonstrably mislabeling images to create false evidence. It's not an accident that a photo from a older news article about a non-Haitian in a different place got captioned as evidence. No matter how it started, a rumor that was turned into a hoax is still a hoax. And if anybody's pet had been eaten, they probably would have come forward by now. That's the kind of absence of evidence that really is evidence of absence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HonoreDB (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Piltdown Man being proven to be a hoax doesn’t mean that evolution is a hoax. Various UFO-related hoaxes don’t indicate that aliens are a hoax. Debunking a connected sub-claim doesn’t debunk the broader rumor or the possibility that the rumor could be valid. Especially considering that these debunked stories were, as far as we can tell, a result of that broader rumor, not the cause of it.
    As far as people not coming forward about anything happening to their pets, that really isn't evidence of absence. Just because you can't imagine what reason there'd be for such silence (claims have been made by residents, but for the sake of argument let's pretend they haven't) doesn't mean those reasons don't exist. Yet again, this would be an example of the logical fallacy, argument from incredulity. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
    Maybe we should pluralize it, then? Hoaxes, to emphasize that we're talking about several different cases of fraud meant to create a false belief that the rumor had been confirmed?
    Have there been people who have, themselves, credibly had their pets stolen coming forward? I thought it was all friend-of-a-friend stuff.
    On the meta level, evidence is not the same as proof. Absence of evidence is weak evidence of absence, but it is evidence, and it works cumulatively, the same as any other kind. In Bayesian reasoning, anything that is more probable when a statement is true is evidence for that statement, and certainly the current paucity of evidence would be less probable if it weren't a hoax. If you look around a room and don't see a tiger, that is evidence of the absence of a tiger, even if you forgot to check behind the sofa. HonoreDB (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Smartyllama. There is no conspiracy here, and there's no uncertainty that these accusations are false. I would support renaming the article to Springfield, Ohio, pet-eating hoax as the accusations have included dogs and ducks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I don't think any of the proposed titles, including hoax, is very good as this is fairly unique. But I do think the current title is the most appropriate. I Strongly Oppose Conspiracy Theory as the hoax does not allege a conspiracy. Unlike for instance the blood libel of anti-Semitism, which alleges a world-spanning Jewish cabal, this alleges the Haitians of Ohio to be the opposite of a cabal. They're not a conniving secret society out to eat pets; instead, they're dehumanized and described as animalistic, going out as individuals to forage for food and lacking the human dignity to respect pets. It's gross and evil and something very different from a conspiracy theory. Dan • ✉ 23:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Do we need "Ohio" in the name of the article? It looks wierd, and I don't think we need a distinction. It's not like people will confuse it with "Springfield, Illinois cat eating hoax" or something. I would personally argue to move it to just "Springfield cat-eating hoax" or something (idk what will be concensus on a final name yet). Or at the very least, I would lose the second comma after "Ohio" in the title.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose OP's suggested move. Reliable sources use the term "hoax" (New York Magazine [13] Politico [14] The Hill [15], see also borderline source Washington Examiner [16]) alongside close synonyms like "false, racist rumors" (The Guardian [17]), "baseless assertion" (Washington Post [18]), "false claims" (Washington Post [19]), and "debunked claims" (NPR [20] The Independant [21]) when discussing this topic. Note that when terms like "rumor" or "claim" are used in these sources, that noun is qualified with a descriptor like "false" or "debunked". Since we do not want to overburden the article's title with adjectives (WP:CONSICE is policy), "hoax" is the best fit. Support move to Springfield, Ohio, pet-eating hoax so as to include all the relevant examples in one article. I was alerted to this RfC at FTN if anybody cares. Generalrelative (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose changing title away from hoax. Support a title with pet-eating hoax in the name, per HonoreDB and Generalrelative. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose suggested move, Support move to a title that replaces "cat" with "pet". 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 08:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    Cat really needs to be in title to understand the absurdity of the claim and the instanteous reactions to it. This isn't about ornamental ducks or geese being shot by overzealous duckhunters straying onto neighboring property, it's about the claim that people in Springfield are eating cats (and later, eating dogs). Feoffer (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment this is far and away the most contentious RM I've ever submitted and there is clearly a lack of consensus. Furthermore, since I posted the original RM, more sources are describing it as a hoax. Furthermore, yesterday's highly publicized "If I have to create stories..." comment by JD Vance seems like a game changer; it's a clear de facto statement that he realizes he's perpetrating a probable hoax, even if he's not specifically calling it that, and he intends to continue perpetrating it regardless of future revelations. As the original poster, I formally withdraw my support for this RM.
I respectfully suggest that this RM be closed as "no consensus". Carguychris (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Ping an admin BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 16:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Rumour implies that people are spreading gossip, as in the original Facebook post, either not knowing its false or being negligent to find out if its false. "Hoax" means that people actually know its false but are spreading it anyway, as Vance has admitted. However I would support a change to pet-eating hoax instead of cat-eating as its not just cats people are talking about. MarkiPoli (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    In the conversation between Dana Bash and JD Vance where he "admitted" to knowing the rumor was "false", he never actually stated that those rumors are false (the section of this article that says that should subsequently be changed, I believe). Both Bash and Vance repeatedly referred to the rumor as a "rumor", in fact. Vance even went on to explain, "It comes from firsthand accounts from my constituents. I say that we're creating a story meaning that we're creating the American media focusing on it." I.e., he was repeating unverified information that he was told by residents of the area. And the story he was "creating" was him bringing up this rumor in a very public space so that the media would report stories on it, as well, thus bringing more attention to the larger situation in Springfield.
    Those behaving as if this is an admittance of lying (or "knowing it's false") are either not looking into the direct quotes of the primary source or are consciously or unconsciously spin doctoring what was actually said in the source material in order to confirm a pre-established belief.
    As it remains, this story — while most certainly unsubstantiated — remains to be up in the air as far as to whether or not it's true. Thus, the situation warrants a more neutral term ("rumor" or "claim", probably) that reflects this. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    When you say that it "remains to be up in the air as far as to whether or not it's true," what would convince you that it's false? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    Proving that no immigrant in Ohio has ever eaten a cat is impossible, hence the right's smug obsession with the idea, "You can't prove I'm wrong which proves that I'm right." It is the core of every conspiracy theory out there, and (whist this is not a CT per se) it is being applied to this issue across the alt-right echo chamber. Since we have a significant percentage of Americans who believe the Earth is flat (~10%^ according to Carsey), and over a third believe that there was a multi-million-person conspiracy to change results in the last election -- regardless of endless counter-evidence from anyone who has taken the time to research it -- I can confidently predict that you will never win that argument, @FactOrOpinion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Last1in, I was hoping that the question would push @TheGutterMonkey to deal with the problem with his claim that it remains up in the air. Agreed that that's likely a losing battle. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    It's neither relevant nor is it my place to speculate on "what would" convince me that it's false (as far as my personal beliefs go, I'd likely agree that it probably is false; however, it's of no ultimate consequence to me either way). I'm merely pointing out what the current situation is in reference to these allegations and suggesting that we remain intellectually honest and speak about that situation accurately as opposed to picking a side and taking a stance based on what our guts/biases/partisan feelings tell us.
    The fact of the matter here is that there are two groups that are making positive claims, each who have a burden of proof on their hands to substantiate these claims:
    1. A group who claims that these rumors are valid.
    2. A group who claims that these rumors are a lie/hoax (this is technically two claims).
    Neither of said groups, as is apparent from the sources (as well as the debates over the matter), have been successful in validating their claims. Subsequently, the topic is still "up in the air". It's still just a rumor, despite what anyone here may want to believe. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    @TheGutterMonkey, it's not about what our "guts" tell us, but about what all of the evidence says. And yes, given that you are the one claiming that "the story ... remains to be up in the air as far as to whether or not it's true," it's absolutely relevant what you would take as evidence of it being false. Now you are saying "Neither of said groups ...have been successful in validating their claims." That's your judgment. So again, what would you take as evidence of the second claim being validated? If you cannot say, then perhaps you are not in a good position to assess whether that group has "been successful in validating [its] claims." FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    Give it up, mate. The purple fairies (some say blue, so it's up in the air) that paint the dew on each morning have still, after hundreds of years of so-called liberal "science", never been disproved. All this nonsense in "reliable sources" about humidity and suchlike is just more wacko-leftie fake news. Until you can find a purple fairy who can prove that none of her mates have done the dew-painting, I'm leaving it in the article. After that, of course, we'll have to nail down the blue ones. This is a gish gallop and you're falling for it. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    Honestly, at this point, I'm just finding myself going around in circles over and over again, having people repeatedly dismiss the majority of what I've said in favor of cherry-picking sources, moving goal posts, and utilizing what I, at least, perceive as mental gymnastics to rationalize why they think it's okay to refer to unverified claims as verified hoaxes (something of which I've always understood to be the reasonable route for most topics).
    Going by the language I repeatedly see being used on here (I'm not making that accusation about you, per se, as I don't really pay attention to most of the user ID's of people I've responded to) and what seems to be an inordinate amount of undisguised distaste of conservatives I see being espoused all over this Talk page, I'm inclined to believe this space is somewhat of an echo-chamber where basic critical thinking only applies when it aligns with a particular partisan bias (I, mind you, am not a conservative). And, subsequently, these requests I'm making for neutrality are ultimately futile. I may as well be arguing for not jumping to conclusions about the existence of God on an Answers in Genesis forum.
    So, barring a drastic change in mood, I believe I may just give this argument a rest. While I'd like for the website to remain more objective in its articles, I just don't care enough about this topic to continue making the same arguments to deaf ears every day. TheGutterMonkey (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    Just so you know, it really isn't about US political partisanship. Wikipedia deals with all sort of fringe content: Chiropractors can cure cancers, Golden Plates containing bible stories were found in New York State, Atlantis was a lost continent, 9/11 was caused by planted explosives, Aliens crashed in 1940s New Mexico, etc. These aren't "partisan" issues, they're boring old cases where we have to just roll up our sleeves, look at what RSes are saying and follow that.
    When we started, fact checkers and all RSes were crystal clear that the rumor was false. Since then, many prominent proponents of the rumor have actually admitted it was false. Our hands are tied, we can't just pretend the RSes aren't calling a hoax. Feoffer (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    Apologies for the long post. I want to be thorough in responding to @TheGutterMonkey.
    There is a lot of unpack in your response, not all of which applies to Fact's question (which I'll get to after we solve the 'hoax' problem). First, though, is this a hoax at all? From the lede of that article: A hoax is a (1) widely publicised (2) falsehood so fashioned as to (3a) invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance... [H]oaxers are (3b) confident, justifiably or not, that their representations will receive no scrutiny at all. They have such confidence because their representations belong to a world of notions (4) fundamental to the victims' views of reality, but (5a) whose truth and importance they accept without argument or evidence, and (5b) so never question.
    1: 'widely publicised' -- After Vance's assertion went viral and Trump expanded on it in the debate, I think we can put a giant tick on that box.
    2: 'falsehood' -- Is this a falsehood? The original poster has recanted publicly and repeatedly, including directly to the people who continue to spread this lie. Vance's staff was informed on 09 Sept (the day he started amplifying the claim) that the report was inaccurate. I am unable to find a mainstream media RS that does not consider the original claim on which it is based to be inaccurate, nor one that denies (whether or not someone, somewhere might have eaten a cat) that the continued use of that known-inaccurate foundation makes this a falsehood. Ms Lee might have just been mistaken; Vance and Trump are proven to have known this to be inaccurate and kept spreading it, thus it is a falsehood.
    3:'invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance' and 'confident' et al -- I think this is also well established. The campaign staff itself and various inner-circle members (specifically Giuliani) have openly said that their base understands that they have 'different facts' on which they rely, and their supports 'know to ignore fake news' that presents factual information that contradicts their narrative.
    4: 'fundamental to... reality' -- The narrative over whether immigrants are animalistic is central to the current reality of the campaign. One said says they are, the other that they are not. The pet-eating is well-tailored to reinforce the narrative that immigrants are destroying what American's value most.
    5: 'accept without argument or evidence' and 'never question' -- This is the obvious intersection of (3) and (4). The continued lies about the 2020 election result proves pretty conclusively that the Trump campaign is comfortable leveraging this behaviour amongst American voters.
    Summary: There is literally no part of the definition of 'hoax' that is not satisfied by the body of the article and its supporting RS.
    "What would it take" discussion:
    Your concerns seem to hinge on this not being a verified hoax, hence Fact's pressure on your to explain what criteria you would accept as proof. The Piltdown Man and the Fiji Mermaid are the poster children for hoaxes, but they are poor analogies to this. Each is 'experimentally' or 'scientifically' verifiable -- we can find physical evidence that each was fabricated at a certain time, and often by a certain person in a certain place. Those are physical hoaxes. Far better parallels would be Bananadine, Sokal's hoax and the Taxil hoax. This is more of a 'memetic' hoax, a hoax with no physical, tangible basis. One reason such hoaxes are so prevalent is the simple fact that they cannot be proven wrong. They are still hoaxes.
    What makes this especially amusing (to me) is that I was unconvinced that hoax was the right word right up until I had to put this post in words. My argument was, "Since the original claim was was not intended to deceive, this wasn't a hoax". When I did the research, though, I realised that the hoax was not the post by the poor, unsuspecting Ms Lee; it was the actions taken afterwards by political operatives to weave that post into a xenophobic narrative about pet-eating immigrants.
    The hoax is what happened after she posted, and people deliberative, knowingly, with planning used a claim they knew to be false in order to (in paraphrase of the article on hoaxes) 'fashioned a falsehood to invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance that they were confident would receive no scrutiny because it fits a world of notions fundamental to their base's view of reality, and the truth and importance of which the right would accept without argument or evidence and never question.'
    Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your excellent breakdown. @TheGutterMonkey, suggest you read the the David French NYT opinion piece that I referenced in the article. I think Mr. French makes an excellence case for calling this a hoax without ever explicitly using the word. His basic argument is that Vance and the larger MAGA movement are using this controversy in a manner that reminds me of the U.S. legal term, actual malice: "reckless disregard of whether it [is] false or not." The fact that it upsets people who are concerned with truthfulness is an integral reason they're pushing it: it gets people talking. I agree with Last1in that it arguably wasn't a hoax originally but it has clearly become one. Per Mr. French: "They like to 'trigger the libs.'" "...they are having a good time and hey, the people they’re making mad, they don’t like them anyway." Carguychris (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    Let's close this RM with the consensus as "Don't move" since the RM is more than seven days old BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 16:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    I am sooooo onboard with that! First off, I think we need to leave the naming to historians when real WP:SECONDARY sources get published in peer-reviewed journals and/or academic texts. Until then, whatever the article is called (as long as it is distinguishable) is just fine. Second, the only thing left are quibbles over wording. Third, we have an entire thread dedicated to such quibbles for the next round of this naming nightmare. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
    (+BombCraft8) Not possible to my understanding of procedure. This discussion was relisted just before the 18th when reopened. That means that this discussion should remain open for seven days or just before the 25th. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: Nope, this is intentional. Trump, Vance, and other republicans who spread this have repeatedly denied that things such as bomb threats and such have risen, while ignoring, dodging, and denying proofs multiple times. They've also claimed that diseases and all have spread too due to these immigrants. Throughout their campaign, they've dehumanized and demonized immigrants, and Trump even said some months ago that they "aren't humans" and that they're "animals". Here's the link for that btw: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-expected-highlight-murder-michigan-woman-immigration-speech-2024-04-02. This is literally what the Nazis did in Germany before coming to power, spreading rampant hoaxes and conspiracy theories against Jews and another minorities, such as reviving the blood libel and the well-poisoning libel. This Springfield thing is very malicious but it is also more than just about the cat-eating hoax, as it also includes a lot of other completely false statements, such as, as stated previously, the migrants who've arrived to Springfield spreading diseases. I support renaming this page to something like Springfield Migrant Libel, but calling this a rumor i absolutely oppose.EarthDude (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to rumor but support potentially changing to pet-eating hoax or conspiracy theory. It seems weird the title specifies cats only given the hoax/conspiracy theory has involved other animals, particularly dogs. AusLondonder (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • support general name change. political figures have stated that such claims have been made by their constituents. That doesn't mean that said claims are accurate or that they are misstated (it very much seems they were not accurate and were misstated), but from start to end, it was about 3 days. Labeling it a "hoax" implies malfeasance and the term "hoax" is not widely used amongst media. Its use implies an intended malice where none is in evidence. The chosen title is unnecessarily political. Tons of principles apply WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POLITICS, WP:NDESC, and WP:RS but none more than WP:N. "Claims" or other neutral terminology should rule the day as a default in such contentious political matters. Buffs (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment An article in French has been created, using the word "mystification." The Collins dictionary gives "hoax" as its first translation to English. Given that the Republican amplification persists in signaling the Haitian migrants as "illegals," Vance insists in that they do eat pets, and Trump pledged to deport them - making of this situation part of his political platform, and possibly/eventually, part of the Foreign Affairs policy of the United States of America, whatever this thing ends up being called, definitely is not a "rumor." Maykiwi (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Strong Oppose per reasons stated above. This has no evidence and is a hoax. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 01:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See Talk:Litter boxes in schools hoax for a virtually-identical situation from 2022 - an unsubstantiated, highly implausible, story which was picked up by the right-wing media in order to attack a marginalized group (trans people, in that case). The discussion there supported "hoax" over both "rumor" and "canard". Tevildo (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Rumors may be substantiated by providing evidence while this story obviously can't. If we have to use the word "rumor" at all, it would have to be qualified with a world like "unsubstantiated" or better: "false", which would make it almost synonymous with "hoax". I think the infamous Vance quote "If I have to create stories ... then that’s what I’m going to do”, when asked about the Springfield story, should also be taken into consideration when we decide how to characterize this. --Proofreader (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:♠—call it what it is. — D. Wo. 16:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The original reporter (a Trump-supporting woman with a cat named Miss Sassy) has recanted and the Republican VP nominee has admitted in a nationally televised interview on CNN that the entire "meme" has been fabricated to highlight the immigration issue for political gain. Calling this a rumor just because a segment of Trump Cultists believe it is true gives it far too much credence. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Strong Oppose calling it a 'rumor' is passive and lends undue credence to something that is manufactured and provably false. Mason7512 (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Support "Springfield, Ohio pet-eating hoax". Oppose moving to "rumor". The post that began it talked about cats, and it may perhaps be classified as starting a rumor ("talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source" according to Merriam-Webster), but the much more famous speech about it talked about "dogs, cats, pets". It was quickly debunked and denounced by many trusted authorities. Whoever keeps presenting it as a possible truth is perpetuating a hoax ("something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication"). So it should be called a hoax. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
True BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 01:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment should this be closed? More than seven days have passed and it's snowing. Feoffer (talk) 11:38, 22 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.

Rumor, not hoax

The article clearly describes the pet-eating as a rumor and uses the word, "rumor." A rumor is something repeated widely based on hearsay without concrete evidence that may or may not be true. A hoax, by contrast, is a deliberate fabrication, such as Jussie Smollet's lynching hoax. A hoax requires an intentional perpetrator, and there is currently no evidence that anyone deliberately fabricated a story about Haitians eating pets for comedy, malice, or any other reasons. Currently, the story has all the hallmarks of a rumor, see this article in the Daily Mail of all places:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13847277/social-media-springfield-ohio-haitian-migrant-pet-eating-rumor.html

"She said the cat's owner was 'an acquaintance of a friend.' Newton originally heard it from her friend, who had heard it from a 'source that she had' before she told Lee, who then posted about it."

That's a rumor, not a hoax. The title of this article is speculative editorializing.

To whoever wrote the above, I'd say that is a valid comment that should be discussed above in the RFD. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Well a rumor would not get an article Last1in, as it violates what Wikipedia is not as per WP:RUMOR! Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:RUMOR concerns hearsay about anticipated future events, not the real world, tangible results of the general public and notable public figures discussing unverified past events. (Most of the discussion on this talk page seems to stem from different understandings about the meanings or insinuations of the words "rumor", "hoax", and "claim".) Carguychris (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
”Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions.” —Just because something caught national attention does not mean it wasn’t what it was, “speculation, a rumor, and/or presumption” which we are giving credence to and could potentially have negative implications on the morrow. It is also being spoken of in the future tense by these rumor mills and politicians, ie, “the immigrants are coming for your pets!) The very meaning of speculation is “the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence”. It is to be avoided. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
That is actually the point I am trying to make in the mainline discussion above. I suggested that @whoever participate in that thread since the idea is already being addressed up there. I have been fighting for many years against adding an article for every shooting, protest, bombing and conspiracy theory (like this one) that makes a one-news-cycle splash, with virtually no success. Since I used Ferris Bueller above, I'll go for a more classic movie this time (with apologies to Victor Laszlo): "Welcome to the fight. This time I know our side will win." ...nah. Not a chance. Nice dream, though. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
My apologies if I misunderstood your post. Thank you for upholding the integrity of the space time and time again. Articles like these and the ones you mentioned are like a trojan horse and a total waste of our time all because of a couple of out-of-context video shares... Love the movie reference by the way . Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Greetings.
This article is not a waste of your time, unless you are collaborating with the edition.
This subject is of importance/relevance/notability, since it has become an official point in the policies proposed by the Republican candidate to the Presidency of the United States - not to speak about the very real bomb threats.
This thing "was" a rumor, it became a hoax when Trump and Vance were told by journalists that it was unfounded, that they were wrong in spreading it, and they keep doing it anyway until now. You just take a look at their social media accounts - and most importantly, at the answers they get from followers, or the comments of people under every YouTube video on this subject, even more in Fox.
This has gone way beyond a faux pas in a debate. It became policy, and violence.
The article is well sourced, and its factuality is undisputed.
Wikipedia is meant to serve, and that includes to point out at misinformation being misinformation. If not paying attention to it were a norm here, the articles "Moon landing conspiracy theories," or "Flat Earth" shouldn't exist. The "Haitians are eating cats in Springfield" hoax has already caused more damage than those other "rumors" combined. Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant to emphasize. Due to social media and the rapid rate of how disinformation can spread, we must cover it all ad nauseam opposed to other articles at an arguably higher priority. It is tiresome. That is all. Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with all that, and I don't think it's necessarily WP:TOOSOON for an article, but it is definitely too soon to be arguing over the title. If this thing becomes an historical watershed in US politics (gods help us all), historians will decide whether it's a hoax, rumour, psyop, conspiracy theory, misinformation, urban myth or xenophobic trope (I've still got money on 'trope'). We should keep improving this page with the best-available and least-involved news sources until actual secondary sources become available. Then we can argue over the title; until that point, we need to 'Keep Calm and Carry On' editing this encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The biggest difference between these two seems to be "intent" and that is a very difficult thing to substantiate. It really depends on what your own personal opinions and OR into this topic leads you to believe, as well as your own perspectives of the characters of those involved in these claims. It is clear from the effectively failed (no-consensus) RM above, that as lot of people are BUTITSTRUE. While rehasing both dictionary definitions, as well as other WP reference material seems helpful. The underlying problem is peoples biases towards this topic. Those are clearly getting in the way of objective evaluation of how this article should be titled. And as a result those of conflicting opinions will feel like it is UNDUE weight by having it titled opposite of their own beliefs of the subject. TiggerJay (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely a hoax and not a rumor. Plus, it has actually had a negative effect on the town. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible AfD?

Rambling Rambler, I would love to hear your take on this article’s creation. Would it not violate what Wikipedia is not according to WP:RUMOR as you so pointed me to in the past with the Haiti article regarding unverifiable and speculative claims stirred up by social media and warrant a discussion for deletion? Thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the user you tagged, but it doesn't fit that policy. What the policy is saying is an article can't contain only rumors. That's different from having articles about [widely rejected] rumors. seefooddiet (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay so, what is the article about and the discussion above over the article’s title name? A rumor [v. “hoax”]. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I think I wasn't clear enough (hard to communicate). The article is about a hoax and contains analysis from reliable sources about the hoax. WP:RUMOR is about when there's any topic (not necessarily just rumors) and all there is in the body is rumors and speculation. E.g. an upcoming movie, listing out rumors and speculation about its cast is not allowed. But describing hoaxes using reliables ources is fine. seefooddiet (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Because this is an article about the Conspiracy Theory and academically discussing why it's fraudulent.
What you did was take the main article on Haiti itself and shove it into the lead for an article about an entire country.
Notice how the article for Springfield Ohio itself doesn't make a mention of it in the lead. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying @Seefooddiet, Rambling Rambler. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Gentlemen, this is legitimately WP:NOTABLE. Donald Trump mentioned it in his opening rant, during a presidential debate. It has WP:NOTABLE spray-painted all over it. There are dozens of WP:RS which are themselves noteworthy, that have reported on this event and the fallout. This is not WP:AFD material. It is, however, experiencing labour pains and growing pains. 2601:245:4601:9940:5DD9:C23A:743C:8C70 (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
The ambiguity has already been resolved. Mind assuming gender; there are female Wikipedians too seefooddiet (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I would just like to say that I am very strongly opposed to nominating this for deletion. This is not just a rumor (as some on here claim); but this is very clearly a hoax perpetrated by Donald Trump; and his hoax has had a negative impact on the town of Springfield. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Springfield_pet-eating_hoax/Archive_2&oldid=1249071743"