Talk:Springfield pet-eating hoax

hoax-adjacent claims

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

I see the pet-eating hoax as the central discussion around which various other stories and allegations revolve. When Vance/Trump made the claims, we saw unrelated claims about a photo of a man carrying a goose and a US-born woman arrested for eating a cat in Canton, both tied directly to the pet-eating hoax through misinformation. Trump's promise to deport the Haitians came directly out of the pet-eating narrative. Trump and his supporters are now throwing various other claims at the wall to see what sticks, revolving around the same community. I mean there's absolutely a bigger subject of ~"demonization of immigrants/anti-immigrant rhetoric during the 2024 Trump campaign" (though that subject is covered in multiple other places already), but it's hard to tell what doesn't belong here.
IMO we don't need to cover every detail of e.g. the weapons allegations, but insofar as the media reports on it being part of a doubling-down on the pet-eating hoax it would be worth summarizing here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

<soapbox> This is why chasing the news is such and incredibly bad idea for an encyclopaedia. If we would (or even could) wait for real WP:SECONDARY sources to be created, there would be far fewer speculative claims, hysterical-talking-head theories and rhetorical rabbit holes in which to get lost. In an post-truth age, when sources like Wikipedia and Snopes are some of the rare, (reasonably) neutral resources working to distill fact from the political bollocks, we don't always have that luxury. </soapbox> There is not a strong, recent precedence for this phenomenon, thus there is no useful guide to follow from another article. 'I am not a crook' and 'I can see Russia from my house!' do not have dedicated articles; Ich bin ein Berliner was not a hoax, and bigger than a simple phrase; 'Mission accomplished' did not have the direct, societal impact and was more a bog-standard political lie; and 'Let them eat cake' was not recent and was somewhat an opposite case (an accurate summary of the situation, but never actually said by Marie Antoinette). For now, I think we fight to keep the article as trim and focused as possible by excising things that are not direct-line associated to the debate claim. We'll fail as the winds of the culture wars push things around, but it gives us at least a way forward. With that said, I think the ancillary facts about the impacts belong in the article (goose-man, deportation, vilifying Haitians), but not those related to follow-on phenomena (legality of temp protected status, etc.). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

the whole "should wikipedia cover current events as they unfold" debate is a tough one. I prefer too err on the side of WP:DELAY more than WP:RAPID, but at the same time I think what we have here is probably the best single source on this subject out there. In the long term, yeah it will involve adding a bunch of tangential stuff, working to better integrate it, and eventually paring back parts as the discrete subjects become clearer in hindsight. For now, and probably until the election, IMO keep going as we have been, then reassess. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

To use an historical American political trope from the far right that has (thankfully) fallen out of fashion, Ditto. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Eurabia conspiracy theory/White genocide conspiracy theory

How are these two articles related again? Trade (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Trade, you could remove those from See also, asking in the edit summary for an explanation of why they're related. Obviously if someone reverts, come back here and ping them rather than reverting again. Valereee (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't add them and don't feel strongly, but the connection doesn't seem too tenuous: Popular 21st century right-wing race-based conspiracy theories, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we need List of conspiracy theories involving race and ethnicity? Or just add Template:Conspiracy_theories? I feel like there are too many subcategories at Category:Conspiracy theories involving race and ethnicity to just add random articles to See also sections. Valereee (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur with the removal. If we listed every race-based conspiracy theory in the See Also section, the bottom of the list would read, "continued on next article." Eurabia is one of the more tenuous connexions, since Haitians do not tend to be a Muslim-leaning group (Islam doesn't even make the chart of religions in their country of origin), and Eurabia is an Islamophobic concept. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Related question: Like Eurabia, Great Replacement is rooted in Islamophobia, and is largely focused on European ethno-nationalism. Should we replace that See Also link with one to White genocide conspiracy theory? The latter is far more targeted at the anti-immigrant white nationalism prevalent in the US, and much of the article focuses on ideologies and groups that are perpetrating this latest panic/hoax/canard. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Last1in and @Valereee that the connections to Eurabia and Great Replacement seem tenuous. For better or worse, most American Islamophobic conspiracy theories focus on terrorism rather than immigration, because few areas of the U.S. have seen the type of massive, concentrated Islamic immigration like that in Europe. In fact, some GOP figures have made overtures to court Islamic voters because the demographic is socially conservative and includes an outsized percentage of small business owners—in other words, they're similar to the traditional GOP core constituency. Trump has muddied this effort by courting Laura Loomer, but I digress. Carguychris (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Photo and caption edits

The photo used in this topic can be updated with the understanding that official photos should be used during the election period. The current official photo is provided for reference.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

thumb |thumb Related content 1) STATUSQUO's_Infobox_photo image, [[1]] 2) Wikipedia administrator's advice that the general consensus is to use official photos for US presidential election photos, [[2]] 3) Related RfC official photo usage information. [[3]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think more RS need to be updated on this controversial topic. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources , incorrect claim about Haitian immigrants eating pets. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Disagree with using official photos. This isn't the election article or even a candidate's article. It's about things various people -- politicians, candidates, influencers, law enforcement, journalists, etc. have said. There is no obligation to use an official press photo in every instance when we want to depict someone who's running for office. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

BTW what does that BBC ref, which is already cited in the article, have to do with photos/captions? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I also was skeptical about using official photos, thanks for restoring the older ones. The statements were made in their capacity as candidates, not office-holders. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Since this was a photo used during the election period, I thought we should use an official photo. I updated caption with WP:RS.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Content suggestion on related article

I was trying to update information at dog meat about its legal status in Canada and noticed that information about the United States is quite scarce as well. I was trying to find sources about pet eating stereotypes and mostly came across coverage of this hoax instead. Given its prominence, maybe someone here would be willing to add some content to that article? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request from WP:Requests for page protection/Edit

I would like to request that a change be made for accuracy under the subhead Origin and spread: Other events. There is a reference to a photo of a man carrying two dead geese, but it is actually only one goose. Footnotes 54, 58, and 59 all state that there is one goose in the photo. Footnote 60 says two geese, but this is evidently a mistake on TMZ's part as the photo itself clearly shows only one goose.

I suggest that the wording "man carrying two dead Canada geese" be changed to "man carrying a dead Canada goose".

In the next sentence I suggest that the wording "The geese were roadkill" either be changed to "The goose was roadkill" or that this part of the sentence be eliminated since the only source for the goose being roadkill is the TMZ article which may be unreliable and perhaps should be removed as a reference? It's possible the official quoted by TMZ was referring to a different incident altogether involving two roadkill geese and TMZ mistakenly linked this to the Columbus photo.

Then I suggest in the following sentence the wording "stealing geese" be changed to "stealing a goose".

Also, I would like to suggest that the semi-protected status be lifted from the Talk page of this article. 2600:100A:B10A:4AA1:0:21:7E13:E301 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The talk-page protection cannot be reversed here; either contact El C or appeal at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to get it lifted. (I will note, however, that the semi-protection is set to lift 16 December.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

(Jéské Couriano, AE is limited to autoconfirmed users.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. FifthFive (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)