Jump to content

Talk:Springfield pet-eating hoax

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content suggestion on related article

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

GAN

[edit]

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

Title Article has POV issues

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Lede is mislede-ing

[edit]

in the lede the arbitrary addition of "... and spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups" is unnecessary broad and unsubstantiated. It is clearly not there for information. Wikipedia:IMPARTIAL and Wikipedia:Citation

A better phrasing would be: "and spread spread quickly among conservative media outlets." or just get rid of it entirely.

None of the sources of the lede even mentions any far-right or neo-Nazi groups. Skyrant (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEADCITE we should generally avoid adding citations to the lead, which is why none of the citations in the lead back it up - but sources in the body back this up. As there is an exception for contentious material, I'll add the body citations backing up these claims to the end of the sentence. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the citations. From my understanding reading the articles it would be better to "... originating from far-right and neo-Nazi groups." but it is a small issue. Have a nice day! Skyrant (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]