Talk:Springfield pet-eating hoax

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)

GAN

Thinking about nominating this for GA. Any thoughts/suggestions? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Title Article has POV issues

The title of this article is accusatory in tone and goes against Wikipedia NPOV. A more neutral Title is needed. Something along the lines of Springfield Pet-Eating Allegations would better fit. MannyG9345 (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It is a lie. It never happened. It never will happen. That is called a hoax. There are no NPOV issues with any of this article. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 17:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Whether it is a hoax or a lie is secondary to how the subject is characterized in reliable sources. Neutral on Wikipedia is however a subject is characterized in reliable sources about the subject. In this case, they're pretty well unanimous that the central claim ("Haitians in Springfield are eating pets") is was a hoax/lie/false claim/whatnot. If you think that's incorrect, you'd probably want to present a counter-argument showing consensus among reliable sources is something different (or proposing an alternative to "hoax" that similarly doesn't leave room for "maybe it's true", since that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with what Rhododendrites wrote, and please search the Talk page archives and review the previous WP:RM proposal and other title-related discussions. Arguments have already been made in favor of "allegations", "claims", "rumors", and "conspiracy theory", but the general consensus was that "hoax" is the most WP:CONCISE description, and this characterization has been increasingly backed up by WP:RELIABLE sources as it became more and more clear that the claims have no factual basis, but were being exploited as a right-wing political springboard regardless of that. Carguychris (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Nah, hoax is accurate. Also, a discussion on this has already happened and the consensus was to have it be called a hoax EarthDude (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE. "Allegations" might occasionally be appropriate for covering allegations that have yet to be adjudicated i.e. where an allegation is still "live". That is not the case here. This has been investigated and it was found to be a complete hoax. "Hoax" is the most polite description open to us. "Conspiracy theory", "disinformation campaign", "false claims" or "racial defamation campaign" might also fly but I think "hoax" is the best option as it gets the basic idea across and leaves the article to explain the nuances. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)