Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Archive 7

Obama Eating a Dog

To clear up confusion. Is there consensus that Obama Eating a Dog when he was young is not to be included here even though it was brought up in response to the 30 yr old story about Romney and his dog? And is there consensus that Obama Eating a Dog should not be a separate Wiki article? ChaseRocker (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And this article was brought up in response to Romneys rise in Republican politics. The reasons behind both articles are nothing more than American political fodder.69.60.103.171 (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

ChaseRocker, There previously was an article Obama Eats Dogs. It was subject to a AfD which determined that the article should be deleted -- see WP:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs.

There was a consensus to not have the subject as a standalone article (the second question by ChaseRocker). As far as the first question, there is not a consensus that I can see for not briefly mentioning the OED subject at all when the president himself referred to both OED and Seamus (linking both topics) at the WHCD, which has now been deleted even though referenced and having much coverage. 72Dino (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand how Romney's trip with his dog over 20 years ago gets its own Wikipedia page when it made the news, yet Obama eating dog meat doesn't get it's own page when it also makes the news NOR is it even allowed to be mentioned in relevant articles, such as Audacity of Hope. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a"protect Obama and attack Romney" website. It's supposed to be a site for housing notable information. JettaMann (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no rational choice but to include a sentence about other dogs in this hunt. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Which would make sense if this article was about dogs, and not one specific dog and an incident in which he was involved in 1983. Yes, the right would like to deflect the attention Romney is getting over this onto Obama because he's the president and thus an easy target, but as an encyclopedia we should be smarter than to fall for the red herring and feed out readers a logical fallacy. Further, the situations aren't even comparable. Romney was a grown man who made a conscious decision to transport a dog in a way that many people feel is unethical; Obama ate dog meat as a 6 year old in an area where it is not socially taboo. Aside from the fact that both situations include dogs, they are incomparable. Unless our article on oranges has a section describing apples we shouldn't do the same thing here. SÆdon^talk 22:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Romney was a grown man who made a conscious decision to transport a dog in a way that many people feel is unethical; Obama ate dog meat as a 6 year old in an area where it is not socially taboo." Obama bragged about this in a book as an adult. Are you a liberal or a Democrat? You seem especially interested in protecting the president and attacking the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.97.190 (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as requested – As I said in my relisting comment, a move away from a title containing Seamus has some legs. Consensus around the requested title is split, primarily on the neutrality of the new title. Given the timing of this RM, the question of neutrality is legitimate and I am confident that to some the Incident title is not neutral given current politics and to others it is inherently neutral because other incident articles exist. Both sides have their own opposing biases and an ojective determination of neutrality is impossible. Other than for WP:NPOV reasons, there were no other WP:AT policy/guideline arguments to move this title. Absent any other acceptable alternatives and the need to move away from a Seamus title, I moved the title as requested to Mitt Romney dog incident Mike Cline (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Seamus incident → Mitt Romney dog incident – I'm not sure if opening a new move request discussion is the best way to handle this; if consensus seems to be that this is needlessly tedious or inflammatory, or that another process to reconsider the name should be used, I will withdraw. But I disagree that Seamus incident is a good title and that it had a consensus of support. (It is, however, a better title than Seamus (dog).) It looks to me like a title using Mitt Romney's name had the most support, but that a minority of users objected to using Mitt Romney's name, and because most people in favor of a title using his name didn't go out of their way to argue in support specifically of using his name, it was mistakenly perceived that everybody would be just as happy with NOT using his name. The problem with Seamus incident is that, I believe, very few people who are aware of this topic would identify it by the name of the dog, but virtually anyone who is aware of the topic would be able to identify it by reference to Mitt Romney's dog. Our article naming policy says: "the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and be recognizable." I don't agree that invoking the name "Seamus" meets these ideals anywhere near as well as the name "Mitt Romney" does. I also don't see any basis for claiming that using Romney's name would be any sort of BLP violation. While the debate over naming Campaign for "santorum" neologism obviously springs to mind (especially since the closer of the RM discussion here used the word "neologism" in his closing rationale despite absolutely nobody on either side of the actual discussion using that word), that topic bears little resemblance to this one, because that article is about a campaign, developed independently of Rick Santorum, seeking to associate his name with something disgusting, and this article is about something that Mitt Romney inarguably, undeniably did, and how people feel about it. A precedent that prevents us from titling articles about political incidents in a way that allows people to identify what the article is about would be a very bad convention to adopt. relisted (See comment below) -- Mike Cline (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I've seen it done before, but I think using a politician's name and "incident" or "controversy" implies a problem caused by that politician, which is why I suggested that we don't include the name "Mitt Romney." For example, Wikipedia uses the terms Jeremiah Wright controversy, Lewinsky scandal, and Chappaquiddick incident, not Barack Obama religion controversy, Bill Clinton sex scandal, and Edward Kennedy driving incident. Although Obama, Clinton, and Kennedy are far more notable than Wright, Lewinsky, and Chappaquidick, these articles all avoid using the name of the politician. Debbie W.

One obvious rejoinder would be Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Also, it's not as if WP:BLP only applies to politicians; of the three examples you provide, two are titled with names of living people, so I don't see them as arguments against using Romney's name here. I haven't read whatever discussions led to the titles of those three articles, so I don't know what/whether competing arguments were made, but from my perspective, those three titles that were chosen all seem to meet our article-naming principles as well as, or even better than, the alternate titles you suggest could have been used. For example, Jeremiah Wright controversy seems to be at least as good a title as Barack Obama religion controversy, while Seamus incident is not as good as Mitt Romney dog incident, and therefore Jeremiah Wright controversy does not support that we should use an inferior title simply to avoid including a politician's name. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

With the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, the words 'incident', 'controversy', or 'scandal' are not used, and thus it doesn't imply that Obama did something wrong. It would be very different if it was called the Barack Obama birthplace controversy. You make a good point that Wikipedia's BLP policy covers all people, and that neither person associated with an incident should be subject to a POVTITLE. However, considering that he is deceased and non-human, Seamus isn't covered by BLP. There is one point of your argument that I do not understand -- why do you believe that Jeremiah Wright controversy is a good title, but Seamus incident is not? Obama is far better known that Wright, and give it about a decade, and Jeremiah Wright's name will be barely known. Debbie W. 11:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that the name of a dead dog has nothing to do with our policies related to living persons; I'm not saying that the current title violates WP:BLP, just that the proposed title doesn't violate it, either. To answer your question, two points: I think Jeremiah Wright's name is much better known than Seamus' name, and much easier to associate with the topic of that article than Seamus' name is with the topic of this article. Also, your suggested alternate, Barack Obama religion controversy, would be poor because there have been multiple controversies related to Obama and religion; it could easily be referring to accusations that Obama's a secret Muslim. The fact that it uses Obama's name is not why we don't use that title, and the fact that my proposed title uses Romney's name is not a reason to avoid using that title. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I'd support a move to Gail Collins obsession, but Mitt Romney dog incident is too specific and too vague; too specific, because it's not really about Seamus or Mitt Romney, but about a political obsession with Mitt Romney, and too vague, because I'm sure Mitt has had more than one dog, and there have undoubtedly been "incidents" relating to more of them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This is clearly more about Mitt Romney than about Seamus. People seem to be using this as a smear campaign towards Mitt Romney, the dog is just an innocent victim. If Mitt Romney weren't such a public figure this whole incident wouldn't perhaps be notable. JIP | Talk 20:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Totally neutral I'm ok with almost any title so long as said title refers to the controversy/incident and not the dog himself. SÆdon^talk 20:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. "Seamus incident" is not recognizable, though it has been referred to by the name in some media sources. However, "Mitt Romney dog incident" makes everything clear and is a name accessible to readers. Colipon+(Talk) 00:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Titles should be the subject. Let's stop messing with this. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support per Colipon; media sources won't use "Seamus incident" without appropriate context. Also support per JIP; this isn't really about the dog. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In case anyone else finds this interesting: According to [1], in April 2012, there were over 17,000 views for Seamus (dog). Yet Seamus only drew about 2,000 views, a fairly modest increase from the previous April, when it drew about 1,500 views. I believe this indicates that relatively few users interested in this topic associated it with the name "Seamus". Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of the web traffic statistics. For example, in April 2012, there were 17,000 hits for the Seamus (dog) article, 600,000 hits for Mitt Romney, but only 5,400 hits for Public image of Mitt Romney. So, the "Mitt Romney" name is not necessarily a good generator of website hits. I'm not sure how users are finding this Wikipedia page, so I'm not sure what title would generate the most hits. Furthermore, while we want a common name that is easy for user to find, search engine optimization is not one of the criteria in naming an article. Debbie W. 21:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming you misunderstood my point, because I really don't understand what you're talking about. My point is that, if this topic were widely known as "the Seamus incident" or otherwise associated with the name Seamus, a lot of the people seeking this topic would probably search for the term "Seamus". Since the pageviews indicate a lot of people seeking the topic, but relatively few people searching for the term "Seamus", that supports my belief that this topic is not widely known as "the Seamus incident" or similar. Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure of exactly how users find this article. If people are coming to Wikipedia first, and then typing "Seamus" "Romney dog" or something like that in the Wikipedia search box, then your point is correct that low web traffic for the Seamus article is indicative of people not searching for the dog by the name "Seamus". However, I thinking that many users are getting to the article directly from Yahoo, Google, or other search engine. For example, if I type in just "Seamus" in Yahoo, the first hit is the Wikipedia Seamus article with the accent mark, and the third article is the one for the dog. A semi-intelligent user looking for the dog incident will go the Seamus dog article skipping the Seamus name article. Debbie W. 03:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean now. You're right that we can't know for sure; I think the data we have indicates something, but I only mentioned it as a tertiary point. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This should be moved to something like "Romney and Obama dog controversy" and both should be mentioned. William Jockusch (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Support move to Mitt Romney dog incident. Like I said in the AFD and the first move request, the dog himself is NOT notable, but the fact that he was involved in an incident involving his notable owner Mitt Romney is. I doubt most people know the dog's name anyway and therefore would NOT look him up as such. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I did a Yahoo News search to try to gauge what terminologies are being used by the media for this incident. I typed in "Seamus incident" and then "dog incident" (both in quotes), and counted how many of the matches related to Mitt Romney's 1983 road trip. The former resulted in 28 recent news hits, whereas the latter got 3 hits. I don't necessary think that we should name articles based on search engine results, but I think that this quick test shows that "Romney dog incident" is not necessarily more recognizable than Seamus incident. There is no single term that all of the media or all of the public uses to describe this event. "Romney dog incident" and "Seamus incident" are both terms that users would recognize.

My preference for "Seamus incident" is that it is a completely neutral name whereas "Romney dog incident" has some implication of wrongdoing by Mitt Romney, though it's far better than "Romney dog scandal" or "Romney dog controversy". Since either "Seamus incident" or "Romney dog incident" is a descriptive name, rather than a common name, we are bound by WP:NDESC which states: "In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title (e.g., Population of Canada by year). These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title." Debbie W. 02:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never used Yahoo News before, but when I try to do the search you describe for "seamus incident", I get four results. Besides, I don't think that kind of search makes sense in this case. Logically, I'd think we could assume that ~100% of the articles about this topic are going to say that it's related to Mitt Romney's dog, while something less than 100% are going to include the name of the dog. And I still don't see, at all, why Mitt Romney dog incident is a less neutral name than Seamus incident, given that Seamus = Mitt Romney's dog. The argument seems to be that the name "Seamus incident" doesn't raise questions about Romney because the reader has no idea that Seamus is Romney's dog, so it's better to use a title that the reader won't understand rather than a title that the reader will understand is related to Romney. In which case we might as well just title the article "Incident 948492XABV" or somesuch, if our goal is to prevent the reader from understanding what the article is about. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Of course. First, the subject of this article has no common name, and, so, we must choose a descriptive title. Second, the particular dog whose name happens to be Seamus is not what's notable about this story at all. Romney's role in it is, and that should be reflected in the title. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I said above that I doubt that any encyclopedia would ever include Seamus's name. I think Debbie W. has made a good argument that most political controversies are known by a name that doesn't include the name of the politician involved (Watergate (Nixon), Tidal Basin (Wilbur Mills), Chappaquiddick (E. Kennedy), Monica Lewinsky (W. Clinton), going all the way back to Teapot Dome (Grant)), but I just don't see nearly as many references to Seamus as I do to "Romney's dog" -- as in, "Romney strapped his dog to the top of the car". While it's not a life or death matter by any means, I'll opt for the more common nomenclature that refers to Romney's dog. -- AyaK (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  "I doubt that any encyclopedia would ever include Seamus's name". Truer words have never been said.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Generally, I think we should always favor neutral language whenever possible -- avoid "calling out" the subject of a (subjective) controversy in the article title when possible (as long as the incident hasn't become clearly labelled using the subject's name). We can handle these on a case-by-case basis, but the default option should be to avoid using the name. I'm not !voting for Seamus as much as I'm !voting against using someone's name without significant cause. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The significant cause is that the person is what makes this topic notable. If his neighbor or brother had done it to his dog, or even to the same dog, there would be no article. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Admin relisting comment - While it's clear from the discussion that the Seamus dog name should not be in the title, it is not so clear on the neutrality of the proposed title. Because the title must be descriptive, and purely from an WP:NPOV basis, the title Mitt Romney's dog would be suitable, unambiguous and neutral. It is really a metaphor for the event instead of an absolute reference to any particular dog. It really doesn't matter how many dogs Mitt Romney has had, when one thinks about Mitt Romney + Dog it will always equal this event. Redirects can handle all the other alternatives on the neutrality scale. Other editors please weigh-in. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • How is Mitt Romney dog incident not neutral? Is Dick Cheney hunting incident not neutral in your view? How about the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident? Or the Jimmy Carter UFO incident? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC
  • The article was just moved from Seamus (dog) because everyone agreed the topic of the article was not the dog, but the event and reaction. A subsequent move to Mitt Romney's dog would frankly be comical. And, like Born2cycle, I continue to be mystified by the stance that titling the article in a way that establishes that something happened, and that Mitt Romney was involved, is not neutral. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - My main concern here remains the lack of balance. If we also have an article along the lines of "Barack Obama Dog Eating", I would change my "Oppose" to "Support." Both sides would have their respective attack pages, and it's fair. Alternatively, we could move it to something along the lines of "2012 campaign dog wars" [which would be appropriate, as several recent press articles have had titles along those lines], and again it is fair.William Jockusch (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Whether the Obama controversy has an article has nothing to do with deciding the best title for this article. (And as an aside, OH LOOK I ACKNOWLEDGED OBAMA BEING INVOLVED IN A CONTROVERSY OF SOME KIND I MUST REALLY HATE OBAMA.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Straw poll -- are the Seamus Incident and Obama dog-eating controversies related or not?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

An editor has asserted that these two controversies are unrelated. Or perhaps it was an assertion that Jim Treacher's "roof of mouth" tweet was unrelated to this controversy. I'm requesting a vote on that question.

• Yes They have been treated jointly by many news reports, such as William Jockusch (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. We don't vote here. SÆdon^talk 21:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, some people appear to be asserting that Treacher's tweet was "not related" to political controversy about the Romney crating Seamus. I find this interesting, in light of the articles I've found relating them. Perhaps those editors merely failed to notice those articles? Even more interesting, apparently David Axelrod's tweet is related, as it has been around without challenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 22:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We vote, sure enough, it's just that those votes don't necessarily determine any outcomes. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but it's thoroughly democratic. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Definitely related and relevant. (Note: The key is "relevance"; any two concepts can be related within 6 links....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously related, definitely not relevant anymore than mine or your dog habits are relevant. If we're going to include information about what other people have done with dogs this article is going to get really long, really fast. But of course this article isn't about dogs in general, or dogs in the 2012 presidential election, it's about a dog named Seamus and his owner Mitt Romney. And don't forget that Chewbacca is a wookie. SÆdon^talk 22:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, then why is Axelrod's tweet about Bo related, but Treacher's tweet not? Is there some difference I'm missing?William Jockusch (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I don't even want to talk about it anymore. I was typing up a response to this and I realized that I've repeated my points on this page so much over the past month that I must be annoying some folks here at least half as much as I'm annoyed by having to retype it. If you all really can't see that the Hawkins' stuff is a coatrack and an offense to logic I don't think I'll be able to convince you. Looking back over my contribs I'm happy with what I've helped to accomplish here and I wish you all the best of luck. I'll come check out the article in a couple months and see what kind of progress you've made. SÆdon^talk 22:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• No unless you get caught up in horse race journalism. Romney has a controversial incident involving a dog in his past, so some journalists are going to try to draw equivalence with one in Obama's. That doesn't mean both issues don't pass WP:N (they do), but in terms of substance, there is no connection between how the Romneys transported their pet and how a boy Obama ate dog meat in a foreign country. They're no more related than the Whitewater controversy and other political scandals involving real estate, or the 2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal and Watergate. Obama ate dog as a child, and this would be fine to mention on Wikipedia, but it would belong in Dreams from My Father#Controversy or some such section. To assert that the controversies are substantially related is absurd. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely not I am tired of dealing with this subject, but an AfD decided that the Obama Eats Dogs material should be deleted. During the AfD, there was a proposal to merge it with this article, but the proposal was rejected. The White House Correspondents Dinner comments were discussed during the AfD, and yet the decision was still delete. If you don't like the decision, go to deletion review. Debbie W.

Well, even leaving that aside, does any of the no voters want to defend the proposition that the Axelrod tweet is germane to this article, but the Treacher tweet is not? 98.222.48.17 William Jockusch (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

William, A similiar format does not equal similiar relevance. Just because Axelrod tweeted something doesn't mean that anything tweeted belongs in this article. Here's my final advice on this topic -- (a) open a deletion review for Obama Eats Dogs, and propose that OED be merged with the article; or (b) find someone who defends Romney without discussing dog eating, and add it to the article. Debbie W. 01:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The dog-eating "incident" is highly relevant to this "incident", regardless of the fact that neither is particularly relevant to Romney or Obama. Now, because of the deletion, we probably can not use the specific wording from Obama Eats Dogs without violating copyright, but we can certainly use any reference from that article to support the connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Debbie, the question of whether the Obama Incident is relevant is not the same as the question of whether the Axelrod and Treacher tweets have similar levels of relevance. Just as the Axelrod tweet was relating the subject of this article to the fact that Bo rides with Obama, the Treacher tweet was relating the subject of this article to the fact that Obama has eaten dogs. So I'll ask again -- do you have any support for the notion that one is relevant, but the other not? William Jockusch (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely There is no logical reason to claim otherwise. Arzel (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• No there is no logical connection between the two, one is eating something, the other is owning a pet. Is someone going to suggest that eating beef and carrying a dog on the roof of your car is related next? What's up with all this complaints about eating dog (a mammalian meat)? Most Americans eat beef (a mammalian meat), so what's the problem? 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Obviously No, no logical nor factual connection with the seamus incident. As far as I can see, this is only a reprisal against the outcome in the "Obama eat dog" AfD (in which I didn't voted), and in such cases the proper procedure is opening a deletion review about the AfD. Cavarrone (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• No: Totally irrelevant political sniping at Obama in retaliation for deletion of anti-Obama article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Related Of course they are. Their only context is the political maneuvers in the context of the election Obama vs. Romney. North8000 (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Definitely related. The Obama dog-eating stuff was the Romney camp's response to the Obama camp pushing the Seamus meme. Plenty of sources link the two. Kelly ^hi! 11:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note Since Obama himself made a joke about it, it is completely absurd to claim they are unrelated.

Aides to Obama and Romney traded jocular tweets about their

bosses' attitudes toward dogs for days until the president himself took up the issue at the April 28 White House Correspondents' dinner, an occasion presidents traditionally use to mock themselves (and others). Riffing off a famous sound bite from Sarah Palin, Republican candidate for vice president in 2008, Obama asked: "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?" A pit bull is delicious." Particularly with soy sauce.

Arzel (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• the incidents are unrelated to each other. The nexus between them, which is different than a relationship, is that some Romney defenders used the Obama matter as a defensive tactic. Thus, if the tactics of Romney defenders in response to the Seamus incident are covered, and due weight can be established, we could cover not that Obama ate dogs but that the passage in Obama's book describing eating dogs was mentioned. I'm of the opinion that this whole article should have been deleted as an absurdity in the first place, so I'm not terribly excited about loading it up with tangential points. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Note (these were comments from a non-admin closure that were removed)

There is consensus that the Obama dogeating controversy is not relevant to the Seamus incident , and should not be included. This consensus is based on an evaluation of Wikipedia guidelines regarding a neutral point of view (NPOV), deletion policy, event notability, inclusion policy, and coatracks. Besides the comments here, there was a simultaneous discussion among many of the same participants, about the same topic, on a dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN).

Your Opinion is duly noted and there is no consensus to make this claim, just as you have no concensus for the 1RR tag. Arzel (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Claims were made about NPOV and Wikipedia’s deletion policy that were not completely accurate. NPOV requires that articles be written fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, but an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject. A decision to delete an article, as in Obama Eats Dogs means that the article is removed from Wikipedia, but it doesn’t mean all references to that given topic are eradicated from all articles in Wikipedia.

A discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard about notability indicated that the dogeating meme may have had a wider scope of media publicity that originally thought. However, there is little evidence that the story about Obama’s childhood dogeating has had a lasting effect. There was an argument that the former inclusion of David Axelrod’s tweet about Obama’s dog Bo allows inclusion of Jim Treacher’s tweet about Obama’s dogeating. However, Wikipedia’s inclusion policy prohibits the inclusion of crap because crap was previously included: The presence of similar articles does not necessarily validate the existence of other articles, and may instead point to the possibility that those articles also ought to be deleted.

Selectively ignoring that Axelrod and Obama threw themselves into this issue, which resulted in the response shows a clear lack of logic on your part. There was a clear belief that the Axelrod quote was valid....until the corresponding retort at which point it is the only way to keep out the offending information. I find this kind of tactic extremely deceptive, disruptive, and offensive to the WP project in general Arzel (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether the dogeating meme is notable or not, introduction of this material into the Seamus incident article is a coatrack. Rather than discuss the nominal subject, it is an attempt to include a tangentially related biased subject. Several editors correctly described the story as a Chewbacca defense wherein criticism of an opponent is used as a red herring to distract viewers from the original topic. No evidence was put forth that there was any precedent in Wikipedia for horse race journalism. The Obama dogeating story is already mentioned in the Wikipedia page for Jim Treacher, and possibly could be added to Dreams From My Father, but has no relevance to the Seamus incident article. HHIAdm (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Your Opinion is dully noted. Please do not close threads in this manner again in the future. You are not an Admim. Arzel (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

why are you Arzel removing others' comments? 64.134.183.120 (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And stop interjecting your replies in the middle of others' posts, it is disruptive and you've been asked before to not do it. 64.134.183.120 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi stranger drive-by IP. Do you have something to discuss or are you just trolling? FWIW I reverted an improper close by HHIAdm, I didn't even notice that he made any comments. Arzel (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be intentionally mischaracterizing the term 'trolling', or simplistically applying it to comments you don't like. A long-time edit warrior like yourself Claiming to not noticing another's comment is bullshit. And you've also been warned before at Wp:ANI about dismissing IP editors who are just as legitimate as (and no more anonymous than) regulars like you. 64.134.183.120 (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No I simply ignore longtime IP jumping Trolls that have nothing better to do than waste my time. If you want some respect pick a username and stick with it. There is a distinct difference between a random IP that actually contributes something to WP and people like you. I repsect the first, not the latter. Arzel (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody gives a damn about your 'respect' which you never extend to your anyone who opposes your POV pushing. Falsely attacking an editor's comments as trolling and anonymous doesn't address the points of you removing others' comments and disrupting the talkpage by your improper interjections. 76.17.120.94 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I already stated that I did not see the comment. I reverted the improper close without even reading HH1's additional comments. Arzel (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the IP-hopping editor is a troll. If he is, Arzel's second comment violates the guideline on feeding trolls. I do think the IP-hopping editor is an Obama-supporter, and cares more about Obama than writing an encyclopedia. On the whole, I agree that Obama is more important than Wikipedia, but anyone who edits based on that should be restricted from editing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This particular IP is similar to your "Friend" This IP sees something that I did that they don't like and make some off-hand remarks complaining about it. There are only two scenarios for how often this IP "encounters" my edits. Either they simply follow my edits or it is an editor that already has a user name and simply uses IP's to complain about me. Actually it is probably both. The comment regarding ANI above is evidence that it is the same IP. This IP has stated they have an account and are a long time editor. I have grown tired of trying to talk to this IP since they only seem interesting in getting me blocked. Arzel (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The straw poll question is poorly stated. The relationship between these two items is solely based on the two men being political figures and these things both being unusual and about dogs. You could create thousands of similar 'relationships' about anyone in politics or the public eye. The news media makes millions of dollars hyping up such connections.

A better question is, 'how should they be presented within this article?' I believe that has already been answered multiple times, and the answer is that only a brief mention is warranted, and that is solely based on Obama personally making that connection at the White House Correspondents' dinner. His remarks centered on this story, and related his personal tale. This makes the bridge that takes it beyond WP:GOSSIP into part of the article. It also introduces the ability for subsequent political remarks to be included in a political section that relate to either story. BUT the point is, it MUST still be a very brief mention.

Not sure why this is difficult to grasp. This article as currently titled and structured, has a goal of relating the story and political impact of Seamus the Dog's trip in a carrier on Mitt Romney's roof. It has and can have no other goal under these circumstances. I personally believe that this article relies far too heavily on sensationalism and current news and should be merged or trimmed extensively since no clear political impact can be shown. But if we are to have it, we must have it concise and accurate. We do not need extensive coverage of essentially unrelated events. We do not need broadly stretched analogies about what 'might have been'. -- Avanu (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Notes

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.

Starting this section for anyone who wants to assert that it is appropriate to include Axelrod's tweet but not Treacher's.

Seems absurd to me; how can you include a notable tweet from the Obama camp "This is how loving pet owners transport their dogs" without including the response from a Romeny supporter. Note that this is not the same as the above question. At any rate, if you want to defend that proposition, here is the place. William Jockusch (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see the response to this has been to remove both tweets from the article. The problem I have with that is that the Axelrod tweet has been around, unchallenged. So now that the equivalence is pointed out, you want to have your cake and eat it too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 16:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems no doubt as to the equivalence; but tweets, even by notable people, are still tweets. I'm generally opposed to including them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that, if Axelrod's tweet is restored to the article, so should the associated tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving screwed-up?

I wanted to look at a recently archived discussion, so I went to the last chronological archive listed in the box at the top of this page, which was Archive 5. The discussion wasn't there. I figured out that the bot had moved this discussion, along with several others, to Archive 6, but the new archive hadn't been included in the box, meaning that if a user didn't know to look for it, they would have had no way of accessing any discussions after Archive 5. I manually added Archive 6 to the box, but if I hadn't stumbled on the problem, who knows how long those discussions might have been inaccessible.

I'm pretty sure that under normal conditions, the archiving bot will automatically add a link to a new archive page when the page is created; I'm guessing that it didn't, in this case, because of the addition of the "topical archive". (I could be wrong on both those counts.) I have no inherent objection to including the topical archive, but if including it means that archived discussions will become totally hidden and inaccessible unless an experienced enough editor is paying enough attention to manually list new archive pages, I have a very strong objection to that. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove the topical archive it is not needed as many of the topics are extremely short. Arzel (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the chronological archives. Notice that there is now a title bar with the numbers 1 to 6. When the bot creates Archive 7, it should automatically be linked to this page. NJ Wine (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hate to tell ya but since the article has been moved to a new title all of the old archive pages will now have to be moved to the new name. The bot will mess up again if they're aren't. Brad (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; disregard. It's already been done. Brad (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The name Seamus for a dog

I don't think this article should be redirected from Seamus_(dog) as this is not the only notable dog named Seamus. A dog named Seamus also sings on the Pink Floyd song "Seamus" on the album meddle, which is quite a notable achievement for a dog. It's quite possible that Romney's dog was named after this Seamus. -Porky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porksoda1978 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 31 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Because the article had the name Seamus (dog) for a long time, and Pink Floyd dog doesn't have its own article, I think that the redirect must be retained. NJ Wine (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Further indicia of notability

The article has already survived AfD, but it's far too common that people who fail at AfD come back to try again later. In case anyone has doubts about notability, this thread on a progressive website compiles some (far from all) of the editorial cartoons that have used the dog-on-roof meme. Some of them comment on the incident itself. Others assume the reader's familiarity with it to comment about something else. JamesMLane t c 20:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Imagine that a far left website making fun of a Republican! Stop the presses! Arzel (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you had troubled to follow the link, or even just read my post, you would see that the website you disparage was merely presenting a compilation of material from other sources. Most of the sources are those beloved by Wikipedia policy: corporate-owned for-profit mass media.

Incidentally, I'm intrigued by your description of DU as "far left" -- its policy is supportive of Obama, and people have been banned for excessively criticizing him from the right and from the left. Given that Obama got more votes for President than anyone else in the history of the republic, he's certainly not "far left". What it makes me wonder, though, is what you would consider "left" but not "far left", either in websites or politicians or commentators. It seems like an automatic reaction by right-wingers that anyone who's at all progressive is "far left" or "ultra liberal" or the like. JamesMLane t c 07:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If he is getting criticism from the Left from the DU, then the DU is Far left. DK is another far left website. The Daily Beast is a good example of simply left. Your statement about the number of votes that Obama recieved as evidence that he is not far left is laughable, and frankly I am suprised that someone of your background would make such an inane logical connection. For starters, because the population of the US is continously rising, pretty much every elected president will recieve the most votes in the history of the republic. Somone will, in the near future, exceed Obama's vote total purely as a function of the size of our population. If you are using the percentage of the total you are most clearly wrong, as there are many that have exceeded Obama in pure percentage and it is clear that Obama will be lucky to win in 2012 much less win in a landslide like Regan. Also, if that is the metric you are going to use, than Clinton (who is far closer to the center that Obama) would be viewed as a left-wing extremist since he recieved just over 40% of the vote. Arzel (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose that this be moved to 2012 Presidential Campaign Dog Wars. Because Wikipedia is NPOV, I'm sure we wouldn't want to give a false impression of bias by having an article about Romney's dog problems that excludes Obama's dog problems, and not having a corresponding article about Obama's dog problems. The fact that this is currently the case must be an unintentional oversight and gives the false impression that Wikipedia promotes a certain POV. This move will correct that oversight, and will make sure our readers don't get an inaccurate impression that Wikipedia is biased. William Jockusch (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus said that it doesn't belong in Political gaffes, but perhaps a more general Political pet incidents?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding this this issue has been previously discussed, and many editors either didn't think the two issues were related, or believed that merger on these two topics would be difficult to do in an unbiased manner.[2][3] NJ Wine (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As showed by the same sources named in the article, this incident was not raised during the 2012 Presidential Campaign but previously, during his 1994 Senate run, and once again extensively during his 2008 Presidential campaign. Cavarrone (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comment alone is reason why this article should not even exist. It is purely a political attack piece from the left. The main promoter of this article has, btw, been blocked indef as a sockpuppet user. Arzel (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Mmmmm???? I was just stating that the controversy was not born in 2012 but almost twenty years before and it is not specifically related to the actual Presidential campaign. Who has been blocked? Cavarrone (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I am just saying that this only becomes an issue when he is running for office. It is nothing more than a political hit item. Arzel (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know who has been blocked, also. I'm not convinced that this article should exist, but, if it should, it's probably at the correct name. (Although, Obama's comment that "dogs are fair game" almost certainly should be in the article, whether or not directly related to the "Obama Eats Dogs" meme. He's the most notable commentator.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we stick to discussion of the proposed move in this section?William Jockusch (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Debbie was blocked for sock puppetry. Arzel (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources that treat the subject in a manner consistent with the proposed move:[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] William Jockusch (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

?? As said before, this incident was revealed and covered extensively in the past, especially in 2007, and not specifically in the actual election. Similar proposals were already discussed and rejected, this is not an article about the 2012 Election. If you want to create a different article that deal with the "Obama Eat Dog" controversity and its relationship with this incident in a nonpov perspective you are free to do it... this is a different matter. Cavarrone (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There was such an article. It was deleted. The general topic of connection has been discussed, but this proposed move has not been discussed. Your statement that it "has been discussed and rejected" is simply not true.William Jockusch (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yawn... I have already answered about why this move would be improper, the reasons are the same of the previous rejected proposals, the controversity raised almost 20 years ago, not now, this article is not about the 2012 Presidential campaign nor about the Obama's dogs, and your proposal is not a move, it is a total change of contents and of context of the current article. If you want create a new, different parent article 2012 Presidential Campaign Dog Wars you are free to do it... as far as I know, it was never created nor deleted. I have no prejudice against it. Cavarrone (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If this was sucha big controversy 20 years ago, then why was there not a push until 2012 for this attack article? Arzel (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Great point, and it hasn't ever made any difference to the campaigns. We just don't have enough consensus yet to smush this fork back into the main Mitt Romney article. -- Avanu (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Arzel. Wikipedia is being mis-used in this case. North8000 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not our job to judge why it's a big controversy today but wasn't 20 years ago. The point is the issue is getting a lot of attention today, and we owe it to our readers to cover it accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably should cover the current stuff more fully. Who resurrected the story, who has been working to give it legs etc.. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"We owe it", lol. Maybe if this were something of consequence, sure. At least North8000 has the right idea by focusing on why it is a big story now, but honestly we all know it is because Romney stands to be nominated by the Republicans more now than ever before. Some relatively small-time guy does this, it gets local coverage and little more. Nationally-known guy does it, it gets national attention. It is not worthy of a stand-alone article, and if you compare it to other similar events by well-known national people, you will see that most of those are in the person's actual article, not a separate one. -- Avanu (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

...most of those are in the person's actual article, not a separate one. Not true: Dick Cheney hunting incident, Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, Jimmy Carter UFO incident, ... --Born2cycle (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A move can modify the topic of the article, changing what the article ought to cover. That is the case with my proposal. The current topic makes this an attack page against Romney. As I said in my original proposal, I'm sure this apparent bias was accidental. But it needs to be corrected. I wouldn't want our readers to get a false impression of bias in Wikipedia. William Jockusch (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

These proposals were discussed and rejected. Please take the horse off the roof of your car and move on. While consensus can change you have to actually present new arguments, not just attempt to hammer old points that were rejected many times over in previous discussions; this is just WP:TE. SÆdon^talk 21:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. We have a one-sided article here. I'm going to AGF and assume you simply didn't notice that the subject has been defined in a way that promotes bias, because it includes a partisan point being made by one side, while excluding a partisan point being made by the other side. I am proposing moving it to a definition that does not promote bias, by allowing both sides to make their points. I'm sure there is some reason why you believe in good faith that this is tendentious, but I have to confess I'm drawing a blank. William Jockusch (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a "one sided article" it's an article about a specific topic; not Obama's dog, not dogs known for their politician owners, not dogs from mars, nor any other dogs - one dog, one man, one incident because for one that is how encyclopedias generally work, and for two because we have the sources to demonstrate the notability of the topic. This has already been explained to you ad nauseam both here and on DRN. What's WP:TE is refusing to drop the stick when your arguments have clearly failed to garner support - consensus does not mean that we keep arguing in circles until you wear down the patience of neutral editors. As has also been explained to you, WP is not a place to make points or to argue politics or promote anything and that's not what this article does, though it's fairly obvious that you would like it to. Unless you have something new to add that you haven't already repeated previously on this talk page or on DRN there is nothing to discuss; old unconvincing arguments do not become convincing arguments by virtue of you waiting a month or two to bring them up again. SÆdon^talk 06:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is what's new: 1) My list of sources above, which I did not include in my prior discussion. 2) Based on it, it's clear that the dog-eating angle has changed the tone of the media coverage, and Wikipedia should reflect that. William Jockusch (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The article should not be moved and it should not be recast as a two-part political game with Obama's dog brought in for "balance". The topic was notable before Obama's dog and it stands alone without it. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Binksternet. If one man abused his dog repeatedly over the course of a trip, and one boy ate a taboo food because he was fed it by his abusive step-father, there is no moral, political, or legal equivalency. Moving this article won't change the relative or absolute ethics of two disparate situations. Wikipedia does not exist to create false ethical equivalencies. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is this person that repeatedly abused his dog over the course of a trip? Please don't bring other unrelated parties into this discussion. Arzel (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Bearian. You write,one man abused his dog repeatedly and his abusive step-father. Really? That's your reality? --Mollskman (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Animal abuse registries

Arzel (talk · contribs) deleted the "Animal abuse registries" section with the following edit summary comment: "Please explain why these non-authoritive bodies are notable."

Notable? Really? Neither edits nor sections are subject to passing the Wikipedia:Notability test. Notability is a test to determine whether a given topic "can have its own article", not whether a given piece of information can be included in an article.

The relevant test here is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which this sourced and topic-relevant material clearly passes. I've restored it accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it fails WP:DUE and WP:V because these registries are easy as pie to get added to and do not have documented or rigorous checks. Completely undue for someone to use these as a source considering the lack of oversight. -- Avanu (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I should also mention that adding these in the manner they were added is simply biased and unencyclopedic. Neither registry actually takes a position on the Mitt Romney information, and adding these links implies something highly negative about Mitt Romney, when in fact, as I said, the standards for getting added are pretty lax. -- Avanu (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, these are basically selecting and including what someone or some organization thinks of Romney. They are not a source (except a primary source on what their own opinion is), they are an opinion. A notability (even though not wp:notability) criteria is certainly appropriate for inclusion, including as a weight to implement wp:undue.

A second test of "is it ABOUT the subject of the article" (not just somehow related to but about) is also suitable (even though not mandated by policy). North8000 (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the real question is whether there is reliable secondary source (e.g., major newspaper, magazine) that discusses Romney's inclusion in these databases. If such a source exists, then we should include them in this article. If no secondary source exists, then we should not include the registries. 71.255.95.125 (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If the "registry" is not notable, then Wikipedia should not consider inclusion in such a registry as being sufficiently notable for inclusion in a WP:BLP. En passant mentions do not make for strong sources. Collect (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we really want to build an effective "Attack Romney" article, we should really pick material just by whether or not it sounds negative. Anybody who says that that ride on the roof was really bad, or that that shows he would be a bad president should be quoted in the article. Try to put as much negative sounding stuff in as possible, and exclude as much positive sounding stuff as possible. Once those selections are made, then try to utilize policies and guidelines to try to make those selections stand. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The above comment makes no sense at all. Just because the effect of the article is to make Romney look like a clown, that doesn't mean that the article was written to make him look like a clown. The point of the article is to talk about how Romney took a dog and strapped it to the top of his hood and then drove across the country. No matter in what culture this is done it, it is unacceptable and totally unwarranted. I love how all the republicans are flocking to all the Romney webpages and trying to delete all his Negatives and Misgivings... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.87.3 (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

To North8000 (talk) and 12.129.87.3 (talk): Wikipedia articles must reflect coverage in reliable sources. Just because an article makes an individual look bad does not mean that it is an attack page. However, we cannot include material unless it comes from a reliable source. If the animal cruelty registries are discussed in a major newspaper or magazine, then we should include them in this article. However, it's inappropriate just to troll through databases to look for information for Wikipedia articles. 71.251.39.243 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I just decided to a search, and it looks like there are a few reliable sources discussing the databases, so I'm fine with them being included in this article.[12][13][14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.39.243 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Took a look at your sources there. The first source while it handles the information with a fairly neutral tone, it fails to explain the criteria for getting into these databases.

The second source makes it plain that this story is being exploited by political opponents of Romney, and doesn't discuss the databases as much as mention it in the lead:

"Did you know that Mitt Romney is listed in two national animal cruelty databases?"

The question appeared this week in yet another e-mail at my office from activists trying to exploit the GOP candidate's well-chewed-over incident

The third source is clearly anti-Romney saying:

Romney famously mistreated his dog Seamus so cruelly that he has been listed in two national animal abuse databases.

That's the only thing it says on it. No analysis and a very biased representation of it.

In previous discussions on this board we've discussed the criteria for things being added to those two databases. While each asks for supporting documentation, we are not given information on how much fact-checking is done, and there are disclaimers on each site. In this specific case, we're fairly certain the facts are accurate, but the question is how WP:DUE is the information. The question is how hard is it to add someone into these databases and what sort of analysis was done by our sources in their discussion of those databases. If all someone needs to do is provide a newspaper clipping or a personal testimony then how can we say it "matters" to be in these databases. It needs to be left out mostly because it is like saying "Bob Smith of Greenvale, North Dakota thinks this is awful". How is that WP:DUE? -- Avanu (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Change

A proposal to include a section about Mitt Romney being listed in two animal cruelty databases is being considered. 71.251.38.196 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the proposed language and references:

Because of the 1983 incident, Mitt Romney has been listed in several animal abuse registries.[15][16]

* Pet-Abuse.Com. Case ID 11676.

* The National Animal Cruelty Registry. MRomney case

• IncludeWithdraw proposal -- see comment below I initially was opposed to including this material because I thought it was a case of just trolling data from a database, which would violate Wikipedia's policy on original research. However, when I did an online search, I found a number of reliable secondary sources, including the Denver Post and New York Observer, discussing Romney's listing in these registries. While I can understand that this material is contentious, I am uncomfortable not including material which is relevant to the article, and can be verified to reliable sources. 71.251.38.196 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, what makes those sources reliable on this particular issue in this particular context? Please go back and read the policy on reliable sources and the importance of context, AS WELL AS, the fact that a reliable source (aka WP:Verifiability) is only the first step in something being suitable for inclusion, not the final step. This additions are not NPOV or specifically, DUE. -- Avanu (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I re-read WP:RS, and I think that we may be creating a false parity if we exclude this information. NPOV and DUE definitely do not mean that we omit material just because it casts an individual in a poor light. The NPOV guideline states the following: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Being listed in an animal cruelty database is inherently a bad thing, and any newspaper or magazine article covering this kind of story will overall not appear positive toward the person involved (in this case Romney). However, that doesn't make the article or references biased.

The NPOV guideline lists 5 principles for creating a neutral article.

(a) Avoid stating opinions as facts. The proposed text listed above contains no opinions, just factual coverage of two organizations listing Romney in their database.

(b) Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. The facts here are not contested. It is an undisputed fact that Pet-Abuse and the National Animal Cruelty Registry list Romney for animal neglect/cruelty. Some people may not agree with their decision to list him, but it is 100% fact that they list him.

(c) Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Nothing is being presented as an opinion in this section.

(d) Prefer nonjudgmental language. The language in the above proposal is not critical of Romney.

(e) Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. The databases are discussed in several well-known publications. If a reliable source is later found that criticizes Romney's inclusion in these database, we should also include that in this article. 71.251.38.196 (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What amazes me is how many times the WP:DUE and WP:NPOV policies have to be repeated for this article. While the article is presently much better than it has been in the past, it is still primarily a hit piece. Most of the US doesn't care about this story and there are tons of reliable sources out there that are dismissive of the story, including one you just quoted above as a rationale for including the animal registry links. The point is, in the "Commentary & Analysis" section, this article plays out like Romney was a villain. The point I'm getting at here is that material needs to be presented fairly. There are still the mentions of the two SuperPACs, which still don't show any revenue according to the FEC website. (As Stephen Colbert famously said, it takes almost nothing to set up a SuperPAC.) We have a similar issue with the two dog registry websites. Anyone in the world can submit something to be added. So, the question is, not whether the PACs or registries are reliably sourced, not whether they seem to be factual, but how significant are they --- really? If I don't like Mitt Romney and I want to make him look bad, I go set up a SuperPAC or add him in a cruelty registry to call attention to a potentially embarrassing thing. But there's little effort required, so what does it mean? Most of our sources haven't bothered to ask that or research that, they just copy/paste it into an article and move on. Our reliable source policy says that context matters. If you're using a source for the purpose of including the registries, it should discuss them somewhat, especially if it can be shown by other sources that inclusion in these registries is trivial to accomplish. We're not here to censor, but we're also not here to engage in scandal mongering. -- Avanu (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Leave it out For the many many reasons discussed above. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - What gives these lists any credibility? Do you have examples of multiple, independent, reliable sources referencing these facts to assert due weight? If not, it has no place on Wikipedia. Please paste the sources (not just say "I found some"), and the rationale for weight sufficient for inclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Blaxthos ( t / c ), Below are two independent reliable sources that discuss the registries in detail. The first article is from the New York Observer, and the other is from the Denver Post. In terms of the registries' legitimacy, I included a link from the Virginia State Crime Commission that discusses the two animal cruelty databases. The National Animal Cruelty Registry was founded in 1986, and lists 20000 cases of animal cruelty, whereas Pet-Abuse was founded in 2001, and list 17,500 cases.

http://politicker.com/2012/04/dogs-against-romney-asks-should-we-have-a-president-who-isnt-even-qualified-to-adopt-a-pet/

http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_20490663/romney-trapped-time-warp

http://services.dlas.virginia.gov/User_db/frmvscc.aspx?ViewId=1989 (read page 6) 71.251.38.196 (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the idea of something discussing the registries in detail. The first story is mostly focused on Dogs Against Romney and reports that "Dogs Against Romney, ... exists solely to highlight the 'crate gate' scandal". In other words, the article is mostly a piece that talks about DAR's role in all this, but it doesn't assert whether the cruelty registries are worth our attention, despite including the same links we have. It is saying explicity that DAR is pushing an anti-Romney agenda. In another article, the same author and another Politicker author highlight the partisan backing for Dogs Against Romney ( http://politicker.com/2012/02/whos-really-behind-dogs-against-mitt-romney/ )

The Denver Post article doesn't discuss the registries at all, but asks why is this even still being mentioned in the news: "How can this story still have legs, I wondered? Can anyone possibly consider it relevant?"

The third link is an interesting discussion, but it is a primary source for the most part. A couple of interesting points from the summary page on the two registries: "The National Animal Cruelty Registry includes individuals not charged, alleged abusers, and convictions. Maintained by volunteers." and "Pet‐Abuse.com also maintains an informal registry. Information is not always verified."

Let me say, I'm not trying to discredit the account that each of these sites has about Mitt Romney. What I am trying to say is that it isn't all that hard to get added to either site, and the level of fact-checking is subject to whether someone feels like following up. So in saying "Mitt Romney is in TWO animal cruelty databases" what will the average reader think? Oh my goodness, this guy is a monster on the loose! He's beating dogs left and right! But the real facts are that I could add my next door neighbor to the database because I think he's mean to his dog by keeping him in a cage. Almost anyone with an axe to grind could add someone they dislike to these two databases, and considering that Dogs Against Romney "exists solely to highlight the 'crate gate' scandal" (and is partnered with high-powered Democrats), it isn't hard to see how it might have gotten added to these databases. Such specifics are merely conjecture, but Wikipedia is at the very least supposed to take a neutral tone in these articles. Adding these two links without the many sources that mention how easy it is to get on these databases is not a neutral approach. The problem is that by mentioning and then backtracking, are we being more neutral or less? I'd rather we just leave the links out and have a more neutral approach than have to include the links and then spend a bunch of words explaining how you could take them seriously, but probably shouldn't, but still the registries aren't so bad, so don't distrust them too much.... etc etc. -- Avanu (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I think that are some legitimate questions about the registries, but I seriously doubt that you could get your neighbor listed just by making a phone call. These are not fly-by-night organizations. The National Animal Cruelty Registry appears to have a group of volunteers that review each case before they add it. I would agree that the operation of the second organization, Pet-Abuse, is a bit questionable in that its only run by one person. 71.251.38.196 (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

If their neighbor is in a political race, and the people at the registry are rooting for their opponent, I'll be you could. So it would be easy to shop registries to find one that did. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's indicative that the opinion of an organization run by one person could have even gotten as far as it did here. North8000 (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I read a paper published by Lewis and Clark law school that describes the Pet-Abuse and the National Animal Cruelty Registry (also known as TTE) in detail. The article both supports the legitimacy of the organizations, but also highlights potential problems with the databases. https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/11154-171-nowicki (read pages 229-234). I have included the 6 pages below, which can be unhidden to expand it. 71.251.38.196 (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Large amount of information 71.251.38.196 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Because there are currently no public statewide animal abuser registries and no public national animal abuser registry, two animal interest organizations have taken data-gathering into their own hands. The resulting resources range from a fairly simple website to a sophisticated database and contain a bevy of public information about animal abuse cases throughout the United States. In addition, the ALDF Criminal Justice Program maintains a nationwide database of animal cruelty cases, but this information is available only to prosecutors, judges, legislators, and researchers.282 1. Overview In the absence of a national animal abuser registry, two independent animal abuse databases have surfaced that track and maintain cases of animal abuse. For instance, Through Their Eyes (TTE), The National Animal Abuse Registry is a nonprofit organization based in New Hampshire.283 Founded in 2002, TTE is an entirely volunteer-run organization that maintains a database of information about animal cruelty cases throughout the United States.284 President Roni McCall is also a member of the New Hampshire Governor’s Commission on the Humane Treatment of Animals.285 She began the database in 1986, and it currently contains over 20,000 records.286 It is in a simple spreadsheet layout where users can browse by abuser’s last name. The database includes the abuser’s name, a description of the abuse, date and place of the abuse, and case status (alleged, dismissed, convicted, or not charged).287 The information in each entry originates from news articles and court reports.288 TTE sometimes includes these articles in the abuser’s database record with a photo of the abuser.289 Similarly, Pet-Abuse.com maintains a database with over 15,600 records of animal abuse cases from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and Spain.290 Using the Animal Abuse Registry Database Administration System (AARDAS), 291 Pet-Abuse.com aims to help advocates stay informed about animal cruelty.292 Alison Gianotto, a software developer, formed Pet- Abuse.com in 2002 after a friend’s cat was tortured and killed.293 Organizations like the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, numerous pet-adoption groups, and law enforcement agencies use the Pet-Abuse.com animal cruelty database.294 In 2004, only two years after its founding, Pet-Abuse.com received over 1.5 million hits per month; by 2006, the site received over 3 million hits per month.295 A more sophisticated site than TTE, Pet-Abuse.com also offers updates through Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, RSS feeds, and e-mails of daily case digests.296 Users can search the Pet-Abuse.com abuser database by the form of abuse, animal species, gender of abuser, year, and other criteria.297 Each record includes animal abuse case details as well as the abuser’s profile with the name, age, offense history of each abuser, and sometimes photographs.298 The oldest case in the database reaches back to 1940.299 In addition, the website contains statistical information and graphs of animal cruelty cases by year and state, animal mortality, state ranking by cruelty type, as well as statistical breakdown of offender demographics and interactive animal cruelty maps.300 Like TTE, Pet-Abuse.com relies on volunteers to enter cases in the database.301 Pet-Abuse.com does purport to have information safeguards in place.302 For example, before a volunteer submits a case, the organization verifies the case’s validity through court records, local law enforcement, animal control, or a district attorney’s office.303 2. Challenges to Existing Solutions Pet-Abuse.com and TTE provide an invaluable service to organizations and law enforcement agencies fighting animal cruelty.304 Even so, these sites are problematic because of their reliance on volunteers, financial accountability, funding, and data accuracy. For instance, both TTE and Pet-Abuse.com rely on volunteer labor and are governed by unpaid leaders.305 Though volunteers can certainly be effective workers, there is a difference in commitment and performance between volunteers and employees.306 Volunteers are motivated differently than paid workers, may have limited loyalty to an organization, and are less dependent on the organization for which they volunteer than an employee would be.307 Volunteers may also feel more independent from organizational standards and may not receive evaluations like a paid worker.308 For Pet-Abuse.com and TTE, each of which relies on a small number of volunteers, the nature of volunteer commitment and performance may impact the quality and quantity of the work they do. The financial accountability of these sites is also problematic because of the nature of reporting funding for nonprofit organizations. Nonprofits focused on animals rely more heavily on private contributions from individuals, foundation grants, and corporations than on government grants, fees for services and goods, or investment income. 309 In fact, private contributions accounted for 48% of total revenue for environment and animal nonprofits in 2005.310 Both TTE and Pet-Abuse.com solicit donations through their websites.311 But only TTE is currently a registered nonprofit organization.312 TTE is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.313 This means that TTE is exempt from federal income tax and donations to TTE are taxdeductible. 314 TTE is theoretically more accountable for its funding since, as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, it must file information returns (IRS Form 990 or 990-N) with the IRS and make them available for public inspection.315 But even this accountability system is flawed:316 A search for Form 990s for TTE revealed that the IRS has no Form 990 (or its counterpart Form 990-N for organizations whose gross receipts are $25,000 or less) on file for TTE.317 Even though TTE is a nonprofit organization, its use of funds is unknown and it is not being held accountable to its donors. Pet-Abuse.com is also not directly accountable to its donors, but for different reasons. Pet-Abuse.com registered in 2001 as a nonprofit organization in California.318 Its website also states that it is a “registered California non-profit organization”; however, according to the California Secretary of State website, the status of Pet-Abuse.com is currently “suspended.”319 As a private nonprofit corporation, Pet- Abuse.com has no obligation to disclose financial details about its organization. The Pet-Abuse.com website states that its funds are used for research and court fees, investigations, technology, advocacy, bedding and food for special abuse situations, outreach, rewards, and press releases.320 But because the use of funds within Pet-Abuse.com is not publicly documented through the IRS, the public cannot know whether it is properly using its financial assets.321 Further, TTE and Pet-Abuse.com are not accountable to any governing body for data accuracy or security. For instance, TTE is only as reliable as the news sources it quotes, and not every entry cites a source.322 There are no safeguards that ensure the accuracy of the information on the TTE site. It is also unclear from the TTE website how much TTE volunteers check the accuracy of information. Similarly, Pet-Abuse.com relies on the media for animal cruelty information.323 Pet-Abuse.com allows the public to e-mail animal abuse information to its volunteers for possible inclusion in AARDAS.324 The site asks for specific information, including court docket numbers or media references, in order to follow up on the accuracy of the submission.325 But because Pet-Abuse.com is not accountable to any governing body, it is impossible to know how thoroughly its volunteers follow up on submitted information. Because volunteers must gather facts from secondary sources, Pet-Abuse.com only contains information that is already public. 326 Gathering animal abuse information from the media is potentially problematic because that approach captures only the cases that have “risen to the level of media awareness” and does not capture all animal cruelty cases in the criminal justice system.327 Existing alternatives to animal abuser registries lack the adequate staffing, financial accountability, funding, and accuracy of data that would make them consistently reliable. These shortcomings can be remedied by absorbing current efforts into an accountable, economically stable national animal abuser registry system managed by well-trained employees.

That seems to report that the organizations are legitimate, but not credible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If the Politicker and Denver Post items linked above are the most prominent discussions, of Romney's inclusion in these databases, that can be found in reliable independent sources, I don't find that to be strong enough support for including the information in this article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I echo Arthur Rubin. The above RS casts enough doubt on the credibility, or reliable status, of the sites mentioned, that I do not believe the information can be included with the dearth of secondary references, let alone any that have done further vetting. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 01:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Withdraw proposal I have access to a nationwide newspaper database, and I could not find any other reliable sources other than the Denver Post and New York Observer that give this story significant coverage. Furthermore, while the DP and NYO discuss Romney's inclusion in the animal cruelty databases, no source discusses how the decision was made to include him (e.g., interview either organization). Based on that, I do not believe that there is sufficient information at this time to mention the registries in this article. 71.251.38.196 (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment: That is very big of you. Can we discuss my cat now?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:animal rights

It appears that the Category:animal rights keeps being removed from this article. This article is absolutely about animal rights, and how the media and public perceives Romney's treatment of his dog. Furthermore, this article is part of WP:WikiProject Animal Rights, so I don't see why the article wouldn't be in the animal rights category. 71.251.38.196 (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The BLP is not about Animal Rights, and that category is not used for people who have pets etc. in any case - placing Romney as a singular example is an intriguing but errant use of the category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a biography of a living person, Collect. Given the subject of this article is the controversy surrounding the treatment of Romney's dog, the category seems quite appropriate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the pages within that section it is clear that this particular page would be an abberation to the norm. Arzel (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blaxthos that this is not a BLP article. It's an article about an event. Furthermore, there are at least two BLP articles (Raymond Frey and Scott Plous} in Category:animal rights. 71.251.38.196 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Any article content that covers a living person, or recently deceased person, is covered by our Biographies of Living Persons policy. It can be an article about a person, place, event, tree, whatever, but if there is information about a living person, it must comply with the WP:BLP policy. NO EXCEPTIONS. This article is covered by that policy. -- Avanu (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is a BLP article, I just gave two examples (Raymond Frey and Scott Plous} of BLP articles in the animal rights category. This article is clearly within the realm of animal rights -- it's part of the animal rights wikiproject. 71.251.38.196 (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2012

WP:BLP applies to all articles making claims about living people. Fully. Collect (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The first sentence of the WP:BLP policy states that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." It does not matter that this article is about an event, it involves a living person (Romney in this case), so categorization in this article would fall under WP:BLP. 72Dino (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The BLP policy has nothing to do with the way you categorize the article. It applies to how we handle information about living (and recently deceased) people, nothing more. -- Avanu (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the talk page for BLP and note the extensive discussions wherein it is clear that categories do fall under that policy's purview. Including WP:BLPCAT etc.

Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

Shows clearly that WP:BLP applies to use of categories. Collect (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My fault for poor phrasing. There is the policy of WP:BLP, and then there is the idea that WP:BLP is a category of articles. It might be simpler to say Biographical Articles versus Everything Else. "Biographical Articles" could be a category, and the policy of WP:BLP obviously applies to articles in such a category. In addition, WP:BLP applies to "Everything Else" *if* it has information about living people in it or can have an impact on the way people view a living person. So, for example, if you add a category like "Racists" to the Twitter page, you *might* need to consider the WP:BLP implications of that. In addition, the actual names of categories might be rewritten so that they are less inflammatory or potentially able to cause problems with WP:BLP. Explanation good? -- Avanu (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that listing a person in Category:animal rights is harmful to the person's reputation. It would be different if we were talking about Category:animal cruelty incidents, but the term "animal rights" seems neutral. 71.251.38.196 (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: Although identified differently, the preceding comment was actually added by 71.125.72.85 (talk)

In looking at our article on Animal Rights, I would say that a slightly better category might be Category:Animal welfare, but animal rights is probably fine. I personally don't have a problem with what I think Mitt Romney did. It's a bit silly to look back at a story alone of what happened on a family trip and then infer all sorts of things about what exactly happened. We don't know. Some people might be arguing that Seamus needed to have more rights, but I think the general gist of the media commentary is that people were most concerned about his welfare. -- Avanu (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Avanu that animal rights is okay, but animal welfare would probably be better. I think in an objective view of the topic, the key issue has always been whether or not Seamus' welfare was harmed by how he was transported*, and thus it's not biased to acknowledge a connection between this debate and the issue of animal welfare. I can imagine that someone researching the issue of animal welfare by looking in that category would find it helpful to read about this controversy. (*Maybe I'd see more of a problem with that category if a significant camp had argued that the dog's welfare was irrelevant, but as far as I'm aware, the two prominent views have always been "the dog was okay" vs. "the dog was not okay," with both sides acknowledging that the dog should be okay, i.e. that his welfare was important.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that incident has nothing to do with either animal rights or animal welfare. This incident was not a rallying cry for new regulations or a change in how dogs are treated. If something is going to be tied to a category is should be integral to what that category is about. Now if there were a category of Political Attacks on Mitt Romney then this would a perfect addition to that category. Arzel (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a more general category for political attacks that does exist? North8000 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I would concur that Category:Animal welfare would be a better fit than Category:Animal rights. As for "political attacks", this article is already part of Category:Political controversies 71.125.72.94 (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Four Proposed Changes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There are four proposed changes to this article. 71.125.74.154 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a properly formed RfC, but I'll reply as if it is, for the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Has some issues, including a non-neutral / mis-defining of current, but, with such caveats, a good effort worth responding to. North8000 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Proposal 1: Change first sentence (Support or Oppose)

Currently: During a 1983 family vacation, Mitt Romney transported his family's pet dog, Seamus, in a windshield-equipped carrier on the roof of an automobile for 12 hours.

Proposed: During a 1983 family vacation, Mitt Romney drove for 12 hours with his dog Seamus on top of the car in windshield-equipped carrier.

• Support. "Transported" reminds me of sending (suspected) criminals to Australia, or of commercial transportation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, sounds better. As noticed in the edit summary, the current version seems suggesting that transporting the dog was the main point of the trip. Cavarrone (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Arzel (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Should be accepted for sure. Collect (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Arthur Rubin's comments. 71.125.74.154 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support for reasons given by Arthur Rubin. Belchfire (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support Main problem with the sentence is that the total DRIVING TIME was 12 hours, not the time the dog was in the carrier. All versions of the story also refer to the frequent breaks taken, particularly for Mitt's wife, Ann. The sentence and article, and references all make a WP:SYNTH not in the source material (aka the story).--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2012 (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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Proposal 2: Add statement about "political attacks" (Support or Oppose)

Currently: This incident became a subject of negative media attention for Romney in both the 2008 presidential election and the 2012 presidential election.

Proposed: This incident became the subject of negative media attention and political attacks on Romney in both the 2008 presidential election and the 2012 presidential election.

• Support. The attacks started before the 2008 presidential election campaign, but that's an improvement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support But I sort of like the middle ground "political use against Romney" version which I put in / is in now. But good to start covering the "gorilla in the living room" that is missing from the article. Who has been doing what with this story, and when and why. North8000 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Is that edit controversial for anyone? Cavarrone (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I like North's middle ground. This was something I added because the article really became an issue during the Republican primaries when the incident was being used to attack Romney from all sides. Arzel (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support and noting this is also stated in reliable sources Collect (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral Originally I was opposed to the term "political attack" on the grounds that it was not NPOV, but the way the proposed sentence is written, it's okay. 71.125.74.154 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support the entire thing was a contrived political attack and there is nothing non-neutral about saying so. Belchfire (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support no way this article can exist without reference to political attacks.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2012 (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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Proposal 3: Include article in Category:Animal welfare (Support or Oppose).

• Weak Oppose. Not really about "Animal welfare" in general, and only loosely about the welfare of a particular animal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is not about animal welfare, and the incident certainly wasn't a factor in any changes in the treatment of animals in general. If the incident had impacted the general welfare of animals at the time it happened or if some laws were written as a result I could see the inclusion. But since the incident had no historical impact on animal welfare and the current focus is politically based I don't see it to be connected. Furthermore, that category is primarily for broad articles and not specific incidents, unless that incident had some impact in general regarding the welfare of animals. This could change, however, if this incident does result in some general change on the transportation of animals, but considering there are now laws which forbid the action, seperate from this incident, I find that highly unlikely. Arzel (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a political article and not one specific to animal welfare in general (and I come from a strong HSUS background) Collect (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support per the comments in the above section. Article is related to animals, and "animal welfare" seems more neutral than "animal rights" or "animal cruelty". 71.125.74.154 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support The crux of the topic is whether Romney harmed or endangered the dog by putting him in the crate on top of the car, i.e. the welfare of the animal. As I see it, it's become one of the most prominent animal welfare issues in recent public cosnciousness. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't a legitimate animal welfare topic. Belchfire (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is political, pure and simple. There was no harm, all accounts relate that the dog never feared the carrier nor was harmed by it. Dogs like to stick their heads out of car windows, ride in pickups, and by all accounts Seamus liked to ride in the carrier. True, it may not have been as safe as is now expected, nor as advisable (dogs are sometimes not the best judges of what is good for them), but this is not an actual issue of animal care.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2012 (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.

The following discussion 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.

---

Proposal 4: Consolidate all four quotes from Mitt and Ann Romney into section called "Response from the Romney family" (Support or Oppose)

Proposed Section: When interviewed by Chris Wallace of Fox News, Romney stated that Seamus enjoyed being in the dog carrier, an "air-tight kennel", and that he was not aware of any violations of Massachusetts law. Ann Romney, Mitt Romney's wife, has stated that the news media exaggerated the severity of the incident, and compared traveling in the roof-top dog carrier to riding a motorcycle or riding in the bed of a pickup truck. During an April 2012 interview with ABC News, Diane Sawyer asked Mitt Romney about the Seamus story and if he would ever do it again. Romney replied, "Certainly not with the attention it's received", after which Sawyer stated, "You said it was the most wounding thing in the campaign so far", though it is ambiguous as to whether Romney agreed with this statement. During the same interview, Ann Romney stated that Seamus got diarrhea from eating turkey off the table before the trip, and that the dog loved the crate.

• Weak Support. It might be better to have the quotes in the specific sections to which they were replies, but most of them would belong in more than one section of the article, as it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. The Ann Romney statement is directly related to the incident and should remain in the seperate section. Assuming what she said is true, this would have not ever been an issue had Seamus not become sick. Arzel (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Althugh the entire article pushes UNDUE to the limits at this point. Collect (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Having all the quotes together gives the Romneys' response more prominence. Furthermore, the two quotes from the Diane Sawyer interview are currently separated, and it's not clear that Ann Romney quote took place during that interview. 71.125.74.154 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support The proposed revision is a more balance presentation and gives the reader a better opportunity to make up his own mind. Belchfire (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose You are advocating merging two different things. The Romney's descriptions of the trip and Seamus should be in the first paragraph, since they are the only source for what actually happened. Responses to the media speculation should be after the pundit speculation, to provide balance. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2012 (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.

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.

Repeats?

I just noticed that Mr. Romney's name seems to be used a lot when it could be replace with him, the family, the car etc. Instead of Romney, Romney's family, Romney's car etc. I don't really care and won't even weigh in any more on this issue. I am Canadian so I don't really care how others to the south deal with articles on their politician's. It just seems to not flow well as I read through the article. I don't even know how this article got on my watch list actually.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I re-read the article several times, and removed two instances of the name "Romney". I don't think we can remove the name anywhere else without changing the context of the article. 71.125.68.48 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

71.125.68.48 changes look good. SD (talk contribs) 00:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I waited patiently...

...as these months rolled by, waiting for the latest FEC filings to come out to show that the two SuperPACs listed in the article were just more BLP attack fluff. Finally, I see that the FEC has the latest information from these two groups.

DogPAC receipts were $1,385.00, cash on hand $991.87, debts $4791.45

Mitt is Mean, receipts were $248.00, spent $9.82, and have $238.18 left

As I said in our conversations months ago here, it is trivially easy to set up a so-called SuperPAC. I provided numerous sources to that effect and Stephen Colbert used several of his shows as well as creating a "Colbert Super PAC 'Super Fun Pack'" (link) -- "In it you’ll find all the necessary legal documents to create one…which is really just one sheet from the Federal Election Commission."

Given the trivial amount of effort needed to set up a SuperPAC, and the level of activity of each of these... "Mitt is Mean" has $238 on hand, and DogPAC has somehow managed to dig itself $3,800 in the hole (which is still VERY VERY VERY minor in the presidential race), I'd say mentioning these two is more than drastically overstating their importance in the picture. -- Avanu (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Good catch/research. But rather than deleting it, this is more material and reason to cover the real topic on this: "who is trying to use this story and how are they trying to use it?" North8000 (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose, but it has been covered rather scantily in our sources, and would probably require OR to fully flesh out. -- Avanu (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, undue weight is sufficient, although it probably doesn't matter that much anymore. The left doesn't seem all that interested in this story anymore, apparently there are other lines of attack that they prefer. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wind pressure contradiction

The article contradicts itself. In the Commentary and analysis section, the sentence "Seamus could have had around three pounds (ten pounds per square foot) of air pressure pressing against his head during the trip", clearly assumes the dog is feeling the full force of the airstream (at 60 mph, 1/2 ρ v^2 works out to about 10 lbs/ft^2). However, the lead describes "a windshield-equipped carrier". It's reasonable to assume that a windshield would eliminate this force. Because my search through the archives was somewhat brief, I refrained from deleting the "pressure" sentence outright.

The whole section is based off assumptions that don't make any sense. Seamus would have felt the same amount of air pressure as your average cow or pig or horse or whatever being transported in a covered trailer, but this "sounds" worse. Arzel (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Even the source contradicts itself. They asked two different experts and got two different answers, then one of the experts added commentary outside his area of expertise. The one guy says, "My wife is a veterinarian..." then proceeds to add his opinion about what he thinks his wife would say, as if that means anything. Why didn't ABC simply pick up the phone and call a veterinarian? It's not like they're scarce. I'm pulling that content, it's just TV network partisan piffle posing as news. Belchfire 17:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Normal air pressure is ~14 psi so the one statement would have the dog in a partial vacuum.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Presumably, they were talking about over-pressure, but who knows? It was a back-of-the-envelope calculation, at best. Then the next guy talks about "buffeting", without bothering to really explain that buffeting means "chaos", which is another way of saying "It can't be calculated". As I said in my edit summary, this is pseudo-science, and non-encyclopedic. Maybe it should be in the article about ABC News in a section called "Ridiculousness", but it doesn't belong here. Belchfire 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Unless someone qualified repeats the trip with pressure guages and the same carrier then we really have no way of knowing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly erroneous for the situation as described. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should offer less analysis unless we can back it up. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my reverting

I pressed the wrong button that was the vandalism button on TW. So it wasn't vandalism per se. ViriiK (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What excuse do you offer for reverting my attempt at responding to criticism with a constructive edit? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This. source is misused. no dog survives for 12 hours in an "air-tight" kennel. seek consensus before proceeding. Feel free to ask for consensus now. ViriiK (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Which was addressed: "Thank you for your original research. Let's just attribute the exact phrase to Mitt and let people decide what was intended."

I then changed the words so that it was clear that Romney used that phrase, as opposed to us endorsing it as true. Now, whether the kennel was truly air-tight is an interesting question, but not a relevant one here. We just report what Romney says. If you'd like to add a reliable source explaining that it wasn't really air-tight, I'm totally fine with that. Until then, you need to restore the well-cited attribution to Romney. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Could we use a phrase like "He referred to it as 'air-tight'" type thing? He probably meant vented, wind-tight same as people get water-proof and water resistant mixed up. Watches used to say water-proof and now they say water-resistant to 100 feet type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but I think that's what I was already doing with:

Romney stated that Seamus enjoyed being in the dog carrier which he called an "air-tight kennel"

See? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No: It isn't relevant. He's already given sufficient response to this incident and more isn't necessary even with a YouTube link. Also you're still cherry picking out of a phrase to use the term "air-tight kennel". Also there was little changes between the two additions so the point still stands of Belchfire's. My opinion in this consensus will be no. Now understand, I'm not obligated to do what you demand. Just because you are a Yes and I'm a No does not mean it's a Yes given your habits of interpreting things to your viewpoint. ViriiK (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Why say that? The container was clearly not air-tight. The only conceivable purpose for including that phrase in the article is to spin the POV against Romney. The article already explains that the kennel was built to keep the wind out, which may well be what Romney was referring to, but it doesn't matter - "air-tight" is a non-starter. It's not relevant in any meaningful way. Belchfire-TALK 03:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

We should say it because he did. It's not our job to embarrass him and also not our job to cover for his gaffes. In fact, this whole article is about a gaffe. You're basically admitting that you refuse to follow WP:NPOV, much less WP:RS. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Again with accusations. Do not accuse people of ignoring policies here on Wikipedia. Belchfire is correct about the POV pushing which you are currently engaging in. ViriiK (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

2. A carrier which he considered would protect Seamus from wind?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's too far from our source. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

How so? ViriiK (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

3. A carrier that was modified to protect Seamus from wind? Use this instead of the windshield line?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, same problem. This is our description, rather than Mitt's. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The suggestions are appreciated, Canoe, but I'm afraid that overlaying our own better judgment could only be seen as OR, even if it does appear to mitigate the content dispute. Really, the better, more reasonable - and policy compliant - solution is to simply ignore the source, on the grounds that it makes the article less accurate, which is a perfectly good reason. Some editors need to be reminded that verifiable sourcing is the threshold for inclusion, not a guarantee of inclusion. Belchfire-TALK 04:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What Mitt actually said, as recorded on YouTube, is the absolute best source for what Mitt actually said. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You are quite correct about that. Where you go off the rails is thinking that means it automatically gets included in the article. WP:BIT, in case you care. Belchfire-TALK 04:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Your grasp on the rules is weak. WP:BIT points out that it has to be verifiable, not just true. In this case, it's true, verifiable, and entirely uncontroversial. Nobody doubts that he said this because we can see him doing so in the interview. What you should be arguing against is that it's not relevant, yet you have no basis for such a claim, so you're reduced to throwing random WP:TLA links at me in the hopes that I'll just cave. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

For example, here's NPR reporting on the story and explicitly using the "airtight kennel" quote[17]. If NPR thinks it's important, maybe we should pay attention. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem about objecting to my suggestions. I am just thinking that the readers may wish to know how 'wind-proof' the carrier was. I do realize we need RS to answer this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that there's a place for this, but that's in addition to reporting on what Romney said. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot support changing diarrhea to gastroenteritis, which is substituting a factual description to a presumed and probably wrong diagnosis, or excrement which is accurate to liquid which is vague euphemism. μηδείς (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Diarrhea is defined by the World Health Organization as having three or more loose or liquid stools per day, or as having more stools than is normal for that person.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What do we have to go on? Anything? In principle I support using an accurate description. But I have to caution against making a veterinary diagnosis based on bits and pieces that we gather ourselves. So... do the reports actually say diarrhea? Can dogs even get diarrhea, technically, or is it a human-only condition that is called something else by vets? (Which is another concern I have with saying "gastroenteritis".) Don't get me wrong, Canoe, I appreciate your diligence. I just don't want us to make any leaps. Belchfire-TALK 07:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Although it may seem like OR. I worked on two of the most notable pig farms in Canada for close to 7 years. The Merck Veterinary Manual was our guide and bible. We shipped animals in weather as cold as -40C for over 400 miles in unheated 40 foot livestock trailers. We never lost a head from wind nor cold. I have dealt with the 'runs' in many of its animal forms as well. If anyone thinks they know these subjects better than I because they own a few pets then find an RS to back up your BS!--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.merckmanuals.com/vet/digestive_system.html RS if you want to cite it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• dog 'runs' section--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ingrid Newkirk analysis

I'm no fan of Romney's dog transport method, but the analysis by PETA's Ingrid Newkirk seems based on a misunderstanding and flawed logic. In the source [18], regarding the diarrhea she says "that alone should have been sufficient indication that the dog was, basically, being tortured". In other words, "loose stool implies torture". By that logic, everyone's dog has been tortured a few times, usually after eating weird stuff.

Newkirk also bases her conclusion on "the wind, the weather, the speed, the vulnerability...". We've already established that exposure to wind and weather was probably minimal. And to suggest the dog could sense absolute speed violates Galilean invariance. Piling on "vulnerability", I suspect Newkirk was told the dog was strapped to the roof without any protection at all. Impossible to know, but I don't feel this analysis really belongs in the article. Spiel496 (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, can you find any reliable sources which question Newkirk's analysis? Her views are, uhm, a bit extreme, so it may well be that there have been responses to it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Animal digestion - reliable source
• One of the 'diarrhea' sections

See if you can find the term 'torture' in them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Layman version Probably not as clinical but it may help as well. I took a quick look and couldn't find the term 'torture' in it either. Is there a medical term for torture that I may have missed?--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

'Expert commentary' is problematic

I changed this section heading because it lends undue credibility that is unsupported by the section's contents. Here we have an animal welfare organization commenting on the legality of transporting a dog on top of your car, and then we say this is "expert commentary". Um, no. They aren't lawyers. But both The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and PETA are animal welfare groups, so the new section heading fits well and covers both orgs. Belchfire-TALK 09:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and I'm the one who put it in. I was just trying to pure politicization stuff from the stuff that could probably pass muster that isn't under politicization. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I can appreciate what you were trying to do, there's no question that a reorganization under neutral section headings was called for. Really, I think there is a solid case to be made for giving space to the opinions of the animal orgs. But to call them "experts" should be viewed with skepticism, doubly so when they are speaking outside their area of competence. Belchfire-TALK 18:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

'Commentary and analysis' is problematic, too

'Commentary and analysis' is something that pundits do. But I see information about politicians making hay with the story, to score political points. I also see website operators making hay with the story, to score political points. I see public opinion polls, registering how the story is seen by different political factions among the public. I see mention of how many times it was mentioned by an op-ed columnist at the nations largest liberal newspaper. It's almost like they're... politicizing the whole thing. I wonder if we could come up with a better section heading than what we have now? Ideas, anybody? Belchfire-TALK 09:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone wanna vote for 'Reaction and response'?--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really feelin' it. But... I have a very strong hunch that somebody is gonna nail it by the end of tomorrow. Belchfire-TALK 09:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

'Views by others'. Hmm. I give you style points for crafting something potentially consensus-worthy. Good job. You've probably figured out that it isn't what I was driving at, but it might be something we can live with. Belchfire-TALK 10:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I just thought it may be neutral enough for most until consensus on something. Are there any similar articles we can compare and copyvio section titles from?--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Politicization is what 3/4 of what this is about. We need to acknowledge and cover it. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I supported this in the above section and I support it here too. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

SPCA legality comment

Sorry if I've overstepped, but I removed the phrase in which the SPCA "noted that it is illegal in Massachusetts to transport a dog in a way that endangers it". It strongly implies that the SPCA officer knew enough details to conclude that Romney endangered the dog in this incident. The real quote is "if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal" [19]. That's a big "if". The officer was making a safe content-free statement to a pushy reporter, essentially "If the action was against the law, then it was illegal". Surely there is a more definitive statement.Spiel496 (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Your inference is pretty much completely off the mark. His statement 'strongly implies' that the SPCA officer didn't have anything but a second-hand account of a 15-year-old incident and so couldn't really say anything because it wouldn't be based on facts. The officer made a general statement because the situation was so far removed from him that it was the only reasonable thing he could do. The determination of whether something was endangering the dog would be very subjective in some cases, and without facts, the officer couldn't say much more than what he did. -- Avanu (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I phrased that badly. I meant to say that the officer, having no firsthand evidence about whether a crime occurred, did the reasonable thing by making a hypothetical statement. Hovever, by quoting the statement this article implies to the casual reader that an expert is calling Romney's behavior illegal. Spiel496 (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the "and" is used incorrectly: "it's against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, and if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal" Should it be an "or"?: ''"it's against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, or if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal" Are we allowed to use contentous quotes on en:wp from people who can't speak English? They are saying that the dog would have to be in a pickup at the same time?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't figure out how we should be able to stretch the timeline. It happened in 1983, the dog died in 1993, the interview was in 2007, and this is 2012. The dog is dust, the carrier was firewood, the car is probably part of my beer can now. If we don't have any sources from the time (papers only) how can we justify stuffing 30 years into a few paragraphs and make it all seem like it happened all within a week?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I put the years (1983 and 2012) into the headings to emphasize the long time lag between pooping on the car and piling on Romney. That should be adequate. Of course, if the details remain in the main Romney article, then there's no point in having this article, really. Seamus has achieved a sort of immortality that time cannot erase.108.18.174.123 (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit war on time frame

There is and edit war going on by a new editor to the article. I invite all to seek consensus here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The dates were already mentioned. Emphasizing the fact the controversy happened decades later seems like povpushing to me. Arcandam (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. See also: User_talk:72Dino#Hi_72Dino

(Undent) Here's the lead as it stands right now:

“ During a 1983 family vacation, Mitt Romney drove for twelve hours with his dog Seamus on top of the car in a windshield-equipped carrier.[1][2][3][4] Decades later, this incident became the subject of negative media attention and political attacks against Romney in both the 2008 and the 2012 presidential elections. ”

The point of contention is use of the words "decades later". The lead already says that the years were 1983, 2008, and 2012. If using the words "decades later" is wordy or redundant, then they should not be used regardless of whether they have a pov effect. I don't think it's wordy or redundant enough to matter much, but I could support rewriting it like this if you want:

“ During a 1983 family vacation, Mitt Romney drove for twelve hours with his dog Seamus on top of the car in a windshield-equipped carrier.[1][2][3][4] In both the 2008 and the 2012 presidential elections, this incident became the subject of negative media attention and political attacks against Romney. ”

108.18.174.123 (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me! Arcandam (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel it should be left in, and input from editors who have been discussing this article far longer than those who decided to start an edit war on it should have the majority of the input. I feel that Arcandam only ended up at this article from my edit history. He has never not edited the article before,recently, comes and starts and edit war with limited edit summaries, etc, etc. He seems to be focused on me as editor instead of improving the project. He filed a failed ANI against me, hinted that I had a sock, bothers me on my talk page, etc, etc. I still can't see what point he is trying to make. If you look at his edit history you may form your own opinions. I don't feel his input on this talk page will improve the article at all. I repeat that this is only my opinion and will let others judge for themselves.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Lying won't help you, we have a log of almost every edit that was made. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#User:Canoe1967_2 & this link. Arcandam (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain how that improves this article? I can see how this in going to turn into antics that will not really improve the article. The dog is dead and dust, I live in Canada and don't care who wins down there, I only came to help moderate a dispute in the article, etc, etc. I will probably just take it off my watch list and see if I find another article to work on and see if that talk page gets corrupted as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I told you many times to drop your stick. Actually I saved you from getting blocked, you should be thanking me. 1 & 2. An admin explained you that your pointy disruptiveness is the fast-track to getting blocked. Arcandam (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. This makes it kinda obvious what you are trying to do.

Clarified.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)I've rephrased the lead slightly. I don't think it was POV before, and it certainly isn't now.108.18.174.123 (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Good work, thanks! Arcandam (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nadia Branca or the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?

We can discuss this here. Arcandam (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Aside from WP:3RR, please see WP:Preserve, which advises to correct errors rather than just wipe everything out. Cheers.108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected plenty of errors on Wikipedia. If I would've been a native speaker I would've been bolder. First I removed the words "Decades later" twice. Then I removed the phrase "In 2007, 24 years after the incident". Then I removed the sentence: "Also in 2007, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declined to comment on the legality of Romney's actions." Then I deleted another version of that sentence: "Also in 2007, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declined to call Romney's actions illegal." Arcandam (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nadia Branca's personal opinion is not necessarily the MSftPoCtA's official viewpoint. And there is no evidence it happened in 2007. Arcandam (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that none of this violates 3RR since he is removing that has nothing to with content in order to improve quality rather than reverting. ViriiK (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)Have you looked at WP:3RR? How about WP:Preserve? Here is the material you most recently deleted:

“ Also in 2007, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declined to call Romney's actions illegal. ”

This was well-supported by the source:

“ An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying "it's definitely something I'd want to check out." The officer, Nadia Branca, declined to give a definitive opinion on whether Romney broke the law but did note that it's against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, and "if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal." And while it appears that the statute of limitations has probably passed, Stacey Wolf, attorney and legislative director for the ASPCA, said "even if it turns out to not be against the law at the time, in the district, we'd hope that people would use common sense...Any manner of transporting a dog that places the animal in serious danger is something that we'd think is inappropriate...I can't speak to the accuracy of the case, but it raises concerns about the judgment used in this particular situation." ”

If you like, we can say "It was also reported in 2007...." but that is not really necessary. Newspapers report news, and when something is not news they say so. The article in Time Magazine was published on June 27, 2007.108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You can safely assume I have read every single policy and guideline, and over 75% of the essay's. If you want to include that claim in the article you need to find a source that supports your claim. So far we have a source that says that 1 person who worked for the MSftPoCtA declined to give her personal opinion on whether Romney broke the law. We do not have a source that says that the MSftPoCtA declined to give a definitive opinion on whether Romney broke the law. That is a big difference. Arcandam (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

When an officer of a corporation speaks as an officer of the corporation, then the officer is speaking on behalf of the corporation. Ditto the attorney and legislative director for the corporation. If you like, the deleted material can be modified to your liking. But deleting the whole thing is silly when you can instead make a minor modification. Do you disagree with WP:Preserve?108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I have fixed an incredible amount of errors on Wikipedia. Do you have a source that supports your claim that Nadia Branca was expressing the official viewpoint of the organisation? If you do, please let me know. If not you may be able to find a source that supports that claim via Google News. Arcandam (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If no one has made a statement on whether Romney has broke the law, then it should not be noted. Just because an organization declines from making a comment does not make it notable at all. Should we start going through all the animal organizations out there such as The Humane Society?

Also I've removed the popular culture section because it is basically a trivia section. It's unnecessary and we should always avoid trivia sections especially on a historical event. ViriiK (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Both Nadia Branca and Stacey Wolf were expressing the viewpoint of the organization, which is 100% clear from the long quote above. But if you like, we can slightly modify the deleted material so that it says: "It was also reported in 2007 that officers of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declined to call Romney's actions illegal."108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be true either! Read that quote again, very carefully. Officers is plural. Stacey Wolf is an attorney and legislative director for the ASPCA, not an officer for the MSftPoCtA. And Nadia's personal opinion is given undue weight. If you want to include a claim about the organizations viewpoint you'll have to find a source that mentions it. Arcandam (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, the legislative director of the ASPCA is an officer thereof. But if you like: "It was also reported in 2007 that at least one officer of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declined to call Romney's actions illegal."108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The ASPCA is not the MSftPoCtA. There is a difference. Read your own comment above dated 07:29, 1 August 2012. You wrote: "officers of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals". Nadia is an officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Stacey Wolf is an attorney and legislative director for the ASPCA. We shouldn't give Nadia's personal opinion undue weight. Arcandam (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Arcandam makes a good point. Is there a Reliable Source that the state organization is allowed to make a statement for the national organization? For example, if someone other than Carney like a State Democratic Representative makes a statement for Obama, does that mean that is the official position of Obama? Of course not. ViriiK (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent) Instead of me repeatedly suggesting fixes, how about if you do so? Surely, you can discern something in that deleted sentence that has truth in it, supported by the cited source. Anyway, given my relentless efforts to understand exactly what it is that you're objecting to, I would surmise that the following language might address the concerns you have raised: "It was also reported in 2007 that representatives of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declined to call Romney's actions illegal."108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read that source. Would you be so kind to quote the sentence that says that an officer whose name is not Nadia declined to do anything? Arcandam (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, in the source they declined to say it is illegal but we're not allowed to push a POV to imply that it is indeed illegal. Let the reader make that determination themselves when they read the source. Are you going to mention that there is a statute of limitations? The reason for this is because it would be implying that Romney is still responsible for committing a crime and should be arrested / fined. ViriiK (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent) If you are not satisfied that Stacey Wolf declined to say that what Romney did was against the law, and also declined to speak to the accuracy of the case against him, then perhaps this version will be satisfactory: "It was also reported in 2007 that an officer of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declined to call Romney's actions illegal." Instead of me playing pin the tail on the donkey, how about if you say what modification suits you?108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be giving undue weight to the personal opinion of a nonnotable person who is an officer for the statewide organization. The edit I made, removing the false claim, is the best solution. Arcandam (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No, still WP:UNDUE as per my reasons above. It implies that that Mitt Romney is possibly breaking the law today. ViriiK (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)It's true that the article does not say exactly what office Nadia Branca holds. A decent reporter would not cite her as an officer if she was not authorized to speak on behalf of the corporation. I don't think there is any undue weight problem, because there aren't any other officers of that organization who have gone on record with an assessment of the Seamus thing, so we aren't giving them short shrift. Please feel free to paraphrase the material in the source quoted above, instead of just shooting down every attempt by others to paraphrase it. Thanks.108.18.174.123 (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It is simply impossible to do what you want based on that source. So, if you want something like that to be included, you gotta find another source. Arcandam (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The president of PETA's opinion is also not notable; PETA's official opinion might be, but we don't have any source for that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, you are just trying to make a WP:POINT, which is considered disruptive. If you continue you'll probably be blocked (again). Arcandam (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

ASCPA and it's affiliate organizations are responsible to the public since they are empowered by state law to enforce the law so they become public officials. They are answerable to the public for their actions and can be solicited for personal opinion but if they refuse to give either their personal opinion or professional opinion, they should have referred to PR. However it is still an UNDUE problem due to the fact that you are still implying that Mitt Romney broke the law and is still breaking it today. Why? You omitted the part where the statue of limitations has expired making the entire line of questioning irrelevant. ViriiK (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarification that 108 is apparently getting the impression that I'm going to retaliate against him. I oppose him inserting an WP:UNDUE sentence until there is a consensus coming to an agreement either to keep the sentence in it's current form, modifying it's current form, or omitting the sentence as a whole. I support omitting since it is an WP:UNDUE statement that gives the wrong impression. ViriiK (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not seeking to jam anything back into the article now. Instead, I have been trying rather valiantly to seek consensus. The statute of limitations is entirely irrelevant to whether Romney was breaking the law at the time.108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)