Talk:Momo Challenge hoax/Archive 1

Archive 1

Information vs speculation

Hello everyone. Thanks to all those keeping an eye out for new info about this. I think we need to be extra cautious in the way we include information about tragic events that may be linked to that phenomenon. Some media will be tempted to attribute teen suicides to it based on speculation. We should stick with confirmed facts (police investigating vs confirmed link to Momo challenge). Thank you. Robincantin (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed suicides

There are two confirmed suicides according to news portals, one in France, one in Belgium

Well, the suicides did happen but the relationship with the Momo Challenge is a little shaky. In France, the statement comes from the father and has not been confirmed by authorities. In Belgium, we have one source from Luxemburg (I'm unable to evaluate its credibility) saying a Belgian prosecutor thinks there's a link, but no Belgian source. I submit that we'll need a better source (hopefully Belgian) to keep that statement in the article. Let's see if one appears in the next day or so. Robincantin (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I think if a parent has stated it as a cause, even if it is not actually the cause, it is significant and can be included if cited properly. It still shows the influence of the phenonenom, and demonstrates the outsized reputation. --Nessie (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Grieving parents, whilst under considerable strain and possibly talking to journalists shortly after the event are not reliable sources. Testimony "even if it is not actually the cause" should absolutely not be used in an encyclopedia where there is considerable risk of contributing to the hysteria. Mramoeba (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

We've had that debate with the Blue Whale Challenge page last year, with large numbers of complaints from citizens that ended up being unfounded - real, heartbreaking suicide cases but nothing to do with Blue Whale. Editors had to intervene every day to keep the page from sounding as histerical as the press coverage was. I'm not saying we're heading in that direction here, just happy we've been able to keep the page pretty clean so far. Robincantin (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

In the united kingdom, york highschool has made an article speaking about the dangerous challenge Lightning3240 (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

What's the article? Please include a full citation. --Nessie (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

We've had a lot of those local alerts over the past few months, I stopped referencing them as they only repeat whatever info they find on the web (and, sadly, the Daily Mail). The sentence "police forces and school administrations on several continents have issued warnings about the Momo Challenge and repeated common advice about Internet safety" covers these. Any further citations of that cite could perhaps be added to support that statement. I'll do that now with the York story, for which I found a source.Robincantin (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Already done DannyS712 (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of image of copyrighted work of art

Hello all, thanks for everybody's dedication to this page. I'm going to remove the image of Mother Bird. The reason given to put it on the page is that it correspond to one criteria found in the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. However, the Policy states that all 10 criteria must be met, not any one criteria - in this case, inclusion does not meet criteria 5 and 8, at least. "only where all 10 of the following criteria are met" is easy to miss, for sure. For a deep dive on including copyrighted material, I'm directed to Wikipedia:Non-free content. Robincantin (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Fail to understand how it doesn't comply with article 5 and the description of the statue below. The argument that it isn't "encyclopedic" is based on what? We have used meme images under fair use (ex: Seriously McDonalds). We have fair use images for character pages often (ex: Goku) so I'm not sure how this character would be any different. Nice4What (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The article's topic is the internet phenomenon known as the Momo Challenge, not Keisuke Aisawa's sculpture. Can the article be understood without the picture? Yes. The picture is peripheral to the topic. The article was intelligible for seven months without a picture that, again, is not an image of the topic (referring to criteria 8 here).

I agree the image of Goku belongs in the Goku article, but Mother Bird isn't Momo. Wikipedia insists we respect copyrights and it seems clear to me that its use in the context of this page in not justified under fair use as defined by Wikipedia:Non-free content. I dislike overriding the work done in good faith by other contributors, but it seems clear to me how the policy applies here.

You've done plenty of good work on this page, hoping you will continue to contribute.Robincantin (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Robincantin: / @Nice4What: The picture should be returned to the article. The above dissent is asking the wrong question: of course the article could exist without the picture. The question is if the picture improves the article in a fashion sufficient to qualify for a WP:NFCC exemption. And the answer to that is yes. We have reams of news stories with critical commentary on "Mother Bird", and these news stories have all used the fair use exemption themselves to include a picture, so they clearly feel it is relevant. A search of Google for "momo challenge mother bird" returns 9 million hits. We even have stories devoted to Mother Bird picture itself being scary, like this: https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Momo-Challenge-Hoax-Peppa-Pig-YouTube-Internet-Mother-Bird-Scary-506498381.html . With all of this, it's clear that including "Mother Bird" improves the article. There's no free equivalent (the statue has even been destroyed!), there's no impact on commercial opportunities, there's contextual significance. SnowFire (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I did not know about the {ping} code, thank you for that!

I still think including it is a loose interpretation of the policy, criteria 5 (a bit hard to pin down, I admit) and 8 (a lot clearer, I think). The test for criteria 8 is not merely that it improves the article, but that it "increase readers' understanding of the article topic". By reading the section on the picture, I think readers have all the information they need, considering the appearance of the statue is not the topic of the article. Similarly, Blue Whale Challenge does not use the picture of a bloody forearm with incisions in the shape of a whale that appeared all over the media - and that arm is not even a copyrighted work of art. As for the fact that the media used Mother Bird repeatedly, they have their own rules and their ways of getting around copyright and they're often using it for its shock value, not encyclopedic value. Wikipedia has its own policies. I'm not presenting this as an ironclad, black-or-white argument, but as a plea to prudence and respect when dealing with copyrighted images.

Finally, if somebody is adamant about using such a picture, it seems to me it should go through Wikimedia Commons, which is better equipped to deal with copyright issues.Robincantin (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What about a derivative work, like a fan drawing? I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there would be willing to contribute a sketch. It would provide the basic features that make the image so striking. StigmaOfTruth (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hoax?

The article states that this is a hoax cited to many charities, but my mum is insisting that it's real. And it was real on the news she saw. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! According to the best information we could find, nobody committed suicide or seriously harmed themselves as a result of interacting with "Momo". That's the part that is a hoax: the stories about suicides. What is real (but not as common as some media are saying) is that some young people receive messages from people saying they are Momo and acting creepy. That gets parents worried and police is reminding people to be careful about strangers on the internet or on their phones, which is good advice in any case. But as far as we know, that doesn't push people to acts of violence.

Thanks for asking :) Robincantin (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Why would you want to go on this momo thing anyway its creepy asf — Preceding unsigned comment added by The real momo88 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Umm, this is not a hoax...this has been reported by multiple, reliable news outlets. I think those words should be removed from the article. https://abc13.com/5-year-old-boy-calls-police-on-momo-challenge-/5165137/ https://www.foxnews.com/tech/creepy-momo-suicide-challenge-hoax-resurfaces-what-you-need-to-know 2603:9001:3C03:5400:578:B048:BE95:DF9C (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a hoax because the way it's portrayed is that it's a large scale phenomenon where numerous children are harming themselves or committing suicide, whereas in reality it's a thing that rarely occurs, and the incidents that are reported show that nobody was harmed in the end. Additionally, there is no actual "Momo", there are only trolls and predators that use it as a masquerade to fulfill their desires using a panic.

Those sources can be used, however, and I suggest that you include them. puggo 18:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bug2266 (talk • contribs)

All evidence currently points towards this being a hoax, at least in its current form. It should be noted that there are other examples of hoax challenges 'becoming real' through unironic participation, but as it stands, this challenge is little more than a hoax that may well have been whipped up into a moral panic by the media for cash, feeding off the fears of people questioning as to whether this exists or not. But that last part is just speculation, of course. --BrayLockBoy (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it was real. Reports of Peppa Pig and YouTube Kids. It might have been sensationalized but it doesn't mean it was nonexistent. Some trolls.72.76.163.6 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

He's this is just a hoax. Thank goodness Cornstalks (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Scare quotes

Are all the scare quotes on this article okay? Not meaning to start an argument, it’s just a question of style. Iokerapid (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph in Background and reaction? Probably not, a bit of rephrasing needed. I'm going to bed now, surely somebody else could fix it ;o) Robincantin (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Good opportunity to review the text to make sure it's up-to-date.Robincantin (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

On the Europe section

Should those be bullets? The UK's information seems to be the most in depth, which causes me to think it deserves its own spot, but if it's the only European country to get that treatment, it might look weird. Also, should other countries be grouped by continent? puggo (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point, puggo. I originally grouped the European countries together because little information was coming out of them and it looked silly to put one line of text below a subsection title. I think your suggestion of grouping other countries by continent has merit. I might do that tonight unless somebody else comes up with a better idea, or does it before I get to it. Robincantin (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Finally got to it, puggo.Robincantin (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Props, man. puggo (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 March 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus to retain the current title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Momo Challenge hoax → Momo Challenge – This was actually the original name, from the creation in August 2018 until March 4.

Regardless of whether you think this is a hoax or not the most common name isn't "Momo Challenge hoax". Most of the recent news articles still use the name "Momo Challenge".

• Momo challenge: The anatomy of a hoax N
• Momo Challenge: Hoax or Horror? How to protect your children from scary or dangerous internet content N You see the colon? They are not calling it "Momo Challenge hoax".
• The maker of the sinister suicide puppet ‘Momo’ insists the beast has been destroyed N "Hoax" does not appear any where in the title or body.

To see all the dozens of recent news article that not only don't call it "Momo Challenge hoax", the word "hoax" doesn't appear anywhere in the article, search "momo challenge" -hoax.

Because of Wikipedia:Recentism and because Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial states "There has been any past debate about the best title for the page" and "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move." This page should be moved back to the original title and then people can make the case on why it should now be titled "Momo Challenge hoax". Їис́єӏ (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nice4What and BrayLockBoy: Regardless of what you think the appropriate title is, the recent move to "Momo Challenge hoax" is controversial. Whether or not you agree that it was a controversial move, do you acknowledge that the page Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial states that "The move is potentially controversial if... there has been any past debate about the best title for the page" and "someone could reasonably disagree with the move." Can one of you change it back to the original title? Їис́єӏ (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose move based on the idea that the challenge is a "hoax" and having such in the title best clarifies. The article is about a hoax, not an online challenge. Nice4What (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not unanimously called a "hoax". March 3 The New Zealand Herald does not call it a hoax. March 4 Post-Journal does not call it a hoax. March 5 Pacific News Center does not call it a hoax. March 5 The Independent does not call it a hoax. March 5 Fox56 PA State Police warns public of "Momo Challenge". Їис́єӏ (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. We have two types of article titles on WP - titles for topics with names and descriptive titles for topics that don't have names. So what is the topic of this article? I agree with Nice4What, the topic here is a hoax, not a mythical online challenge named Momo Challenge. The current title is clear about that; the proposed title is not. --В²C ☎ 02:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. The title "hoax" best describes the phenomenon this article is about. As previously mentioned on WP:REF, most press articles are not considered notable. The topic being mentioned here is a social phenomenon - a hoax. This title entirely suits both the topic of the article and WP:NCE,CAT:WNC. 2A02:1811:527:2400:FDE8:5CB5:F7A2:D35D (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, your actions are clearly based on your opinion, claiming that it is not a hoax as seen here. Other people have called you out on the history tab about this before. The article and all the evidence clearly state that it is a hoax. 2A02:1811:527:2400:FDE8:5CB5:F7A2:D35D (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Complete lack of WP:COMMONNAME for the "hoax" title. Reliable sources call it "Momo Challenge" or "Momo challenge" and even the title of the Know Your Meme article does not contain "hoax". wumbolo ^^^ 09:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: As has been pointed out by numerous other Wikipedians on the talk page thus far, your decision to insist that the challenge is not a hoax, and forcibly rename the page to your liking without seeking insight from others first is a highly opinionated decision. This social phenomenon has been all but proven to be a hoax, so it would be best to include 'hoax' in the title.

Note: this oppose !vote was left by the editor who moved the article to the current title. wumbolo ^^^ 21:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. It is commonly called "Momo Challenge". Even if it is a hoax that doesn't change it. The article can still point out that it is a hoax. JIP | Talk 13:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, the name 'online challenge' does not really conveys what the article is about. The article is about a hoax and not a challenge. Calling it a challenge would create ambiguity and may imply other significance to the atricle. Calling it a 'hoax' describes exactly what it is. the title should stay like that. I agree with all of the above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.62.37.72 (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support as it is universally referred to as Momo or Momo Challenge. Most people aren't disputing that it is a hoax, but the policy is clear: WP:COMMONNAME. Plenty of clear hoaxes don't have it in the title: Loch Ness Monster, Piltdown man, Cottingley fairies, Cardiff giant list goes on. Point to bear in mind, move shouldn't have been made in the first place without a consensus. I know we have BOLD but clearly this is a controversial page based on previous talks. Mramoeba (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NPOV trumps WP:COMMONNAME with help from WP:DESCRIPDIS. This is a hoax, not a challenge, similar situation to Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Ribbet32 (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  It does not trump it, that's a lie. See WP:CRITERIA. And this is not similar to Pizzagate, where a primary topic does not exist. wumbolo ^^^ 16:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  You need to brush up on Wikipedia policy before throwing around accusations of lies. NPOV applies throughout Wikipedia, including to the CRITERIA. (Also, civility is one of the 5 pillars too; again, you should read up on our policies and guidelines before engaging in policy discussions). Ribbet32 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  I might have misspoke there, but I know about 5P. You should recognize that WP:CRITERIA is also a policy. With regards to this discussion, here's an excerpt from the policy WP:POVNAME – When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). wumbolo ^^^ 21:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, for reasons already mentioned by Ribbet32 and others. I too would have appreciated a conversation in this space before moving to "Momo Challenge Hoax", but it does make some sense. Beyond the policy points already made, I will add that it was not clear whether it was a hoax or not when I first created the page this summer, but the balance of good sources point that way now.Robincantin (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated above. Yes, "Momo Challenge" is undoubtedly the most common name for the topic, but a lot of that coverage was before it was widely known to be a hoax, which was only revealed (fairly) recently. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It’s a hoax, as cited sources conclude. We’re an encyclopedia and we reflect the context of a subject, not just the headlines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose calling a hoax a challenge. We could, however, call it "Momo Challenge (medieval Viking cuisine)". That should satisfy the urge to call something something else which it is not... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

So are you wanting to call it Momo hoax, because that hasn't been suggested yet. Mramoeba (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should add image of Momo or no?

Should an image of the supposed Mother Bird be added? 68.50.116.194 (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

That issue has been discussed above, the conclusion is no. The picture you're probably thinking about is not of "Momo", but one of a sculpture by a Japanese artist. Please create an account and sign your posts.Robincantin (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

POSSIBLE HOAX

This page is biased because it's title believes that the challenge was indeed a hoax. Many factors say that no, this WAS a hoax, but y'know, there's some evidence saying it's true. 68.50.116.194 (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

What we need to test here is whether or not the "Momo Challenge" caused a string of suicides, or at least a few. There doesn't to be any solid evidence that it has, therefore the narrative that this internet phenomenon caused suicides is a hoax, more akin to a moral panic. Please create an account and sign your posts.Robincantin (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Article rewrite

Hello all. The article was written as an evolving issue, which influences its structure. Now that we're able to write about it as a past event, there's an opportunity for a major rewrite: basically paring down the Spread section with a lot less details about each region, but keeping all the sources to support more general statements about, for example, police response. If that makes sense for involved editors, that is something I could probably do in the next couple of weeks. Robincantin (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Finally got around to it. Feedback and corrections most welcome. Robincantin (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Momo

i wanted to find out 41.115.34.115 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

kailen 41.115.34.115 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Upload mother bird image under fair use?

The photograph of the sculpture is most likely copyrighted, but can we just put upload it as fair use? We can then illustrate the article, while also complying with Wikipedia's policies. SuperFeral (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! We had that discussion when the article was built a couple of years ago. For a picture of a copyrighted work of art to be included, it would need to satisfy to all 10 criterias outlined in Wikipedia:Non-free content. In this case, it fails to meet no.8. It's perfectly possible to understand the article without the article, which is not about Mother Bird, but about an internet hoax where the image is sometimes used. Cheers. Robincantin (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

This is why my parents when I was like 6 or 7 asked me if I was talking to online with a person named Momo

I was confused when I was young 2600:1700:2100:21E0:B836:B539:B9D6:42BC (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)