Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Archive 4
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
Animal Cruelty Databases
Arzel has removed a sentence regarding the Seamus incident being listed in two animal cruelty databases: Because of the 1983 incident, Romney is listed in the National Animal Cruelty Registry, and the Pet-Abuse animal cruelty database.
The National Animal Cruelty Registry has existed since 1986, is run by a group of volunteers, and lists over 20,000 cases. Many animal shelters will not sell a pet to a person listed in the database. I consider this a legitimate source of information. The Pet-Abuse database is newer (2001), and contains less cases. http://services.dlas.virginia.gov/User_db/frmvscc.aspx?ViewId=1989 (read page 6 of link).
Based on this information, I am restoring the part of the sentence regarding the National Animal Cruelty Registry, and I'm also including a brief explanation of the registry so that it's understood that it is a private database, and not one run by law enforcement. Here is the revised sentence: Because of the Seamus incident, Romney is listed in the National Animal Cruelty Registry, a privately-operated database started in 1986 that documents alleged acts of animal abuse. Debbie W. 01:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ideally you would be able to provide a reliable external source that reported on Romney's inclusion in this database. The argument for notability is diminished if nobody outside of the organization has noted it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since Debbie has not addressed this I have removed it again as not notable. Arzel (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Actual duration of the trip, and some other issues
The original Boston Globe article mentions "the annual 12-hour family trek from Boston to Ontario." On that basis, virtually all articles on this subject (including this article) uncritically refer to the duration as 12 hours.
Swidey and Ebbert apparently heard that number from one or more people they interviewed. However, the number is probably wrong. According to Google Maps, the driving distance from Belmont MA to Beach O' Pines Ontario is 648 miles. (The distance from Boston would be a little greater, but they lived in Belmont, not Boston.) Google Maps indicates a driving time of 11:31. That implies an average speed of 56.3 mph. The route is mostly roads that are currently posted at 65 mph.
However, speed limits were lower in 1983. The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) of 55 mph was in effect. If a maximum legal speed of 65 mph implies an trip average of 56.3 mph, then a maximum legal speed of 55 mph probably implies a trip average of 45-50 mph. If the trip average is 50 mph, then the trip would take 13 hours, not 12 hours. If the trip average is 45 mph, then the duration would be 14.4 hours.
The claimed duration (12 hours) for this distance (648 miles) implies an average speed of 54 mph. But since the legal maximum was 55 mph, it's doubtful that an average of 54 mph would be achieved.
There are other reasons to be skeptical about the implied average speed (54 mph). This was an underpowered vehicle, by current standards. The vehicle was a third-generation Chevy Caprice wagon. It probably had 120-140 hp. The loaded weight was probably about 4800 lbs. This implies a weight-to-power ratio of about 37 lbs/hp. For comparison, note that a Prius has about 23 lbs/hp. A vehicle much less powerful than a Prius has a hard time maintaining high speeds. (All those numbers are easily documented.)
Also take into account that this trip is not flat. Google Earth can be used to show an elevation profile which indicates an elevation gain of 10,251 feet. That's a lot of climbing, which reduces speed. Also reducing speed are the poor aerodynamics of a dog crate (and possibly other items) on the roof.
So taking all this into account (the maximum legal speed at the time, the power, weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle, and the elevation changes) the average speed was probably 45-50 mph, not the 54 mph implied by the original article. Which means that the actual duration was probably 13-14 hours (or more), not the 12 hour figure that is widely reported. That's not an enormous difference, but it's big enough to be material, so it should not be overlooked.
A few related points. Everyone talks about the trip to Canada, but no one ever mentions coming home. Even though the dog exhibited signs of distress on the westbound trip, it was apparently subjected to another 13-14 hours of this treatment on the return trip.
Something else that's widely overlooked. 13-14 hours in a crate is abusive, even if the crate is sitting in a quiet room (let alone on the roof of a car at highway speeds). Notice: "an adult dog can be crated for as long as eight hours on occasion." So it's not just a problem that the dog was on top of the car. It's a problem that the dog was in a crate for 13-14 hours.
Something else that's widely overlooked. Because it's summertime, no one thinks the dog is cold, but wind chill and wetness need to be considered. (Yes, I know Romney said it was "a completely airtight kennel," but that's absurd; it that statement was true, the dog would have suffocated.) Assuming wind speed of 50 mph and air temperature of 50 degrees (F), the wind chill factor was 25 degrees (F). If the air temperature was 60, the wind chill factor was 41. 25-40 degrees (F) is pretty cold. Also, he washed the dog with a hose (using cold water, apparently). An Irish Setter has a long coat. Seamus was almost certainly still quite wet when he was put back on the roof to resume the trip. Putting a wet dog in a 25-40 degree environment is itself a form of abuse.
Something else. There was no reason the dog couldn't fit inside the car. This vehicle has a rear-facing third-row seat. It has seats for 8 adults. It was apparently carrying two adults and five boys, ranging in age from 2-13. This means there was a seat available for the dog. If there was excess luggage in the car, it could have fit on the roof inside (or instead of) the dog crate. By definition, the crate was able to hold a volume of luggage equal or greater in volume than the space required by the dog inside the car.
One more thing. If the car was too crowded, then they should have been using a larger vehicle, such as a full size van. A contemporary example would be the 1979-82 Ford Econoline Club Wagon Chateau (photo). This vehicle has at least 8 seats, and a much larger interior. Romney was a VP at Bain, and it was certainly within his means to buy, rent or borrow such a vehicle.
This story is supposedly about Romney's "crisis management" skills. What's remarkable is that this crisis could have been easily avoided (for example, by using a larger vehicle or by leaving the dog at home). Rather than demonstrating good "crisis management," the story reflects poor planning. Compounded by an inability to see, even in retrospect, that the "crisis" was highly avoidable and was caused by poor planning. This is aside from the issue of animal cruelty, and it's another important aspect that's generally overlooked.
Before editing the article I'm interested in hearing what people think of these various issues. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- You bring up a number of good points. I will also address here the comments that you recently added to other sections of this talk page.
- 1. If Tagg was sitting back there for 13-15 hours without a seat to sit on, then Romney was committing not just dog abuse but also child abuse. It would also be exceptionally stupid for someone with a large family to buy the 2-row model when they could obviously afford the 3-row model.
- In the past, families routinely jammed a large number of people in a car for family vacations. It not entirely clear what model of station wagon the Romney's owned, but we could add to the article that they were driving a Chevy Caprice Wagon.
- 2. Also, GM cars were equipped with seat belts for all passenger positions starting in 1971 or earlier. So if this car had the 3rd row seat, it had seat belts for (at least) 8 passengers. (Some GM wagons of the era had seat belts for 9, which meant an additional passenger position in the center of the 3rd row.)
- In 1983, most cars had seat belts, but a lot of people didn't wear them. I can remember growing up that my family insisted that I always wore a selt belt, but many other kids did not.
- 3. An observer might be able to notice that there's a crate up there, but they wouldn't know what's inside. According to Romney it was "a completely airtight kennel." That means I can't see what it contains. If I saw you drive by with such a thing on your roof, I would assume that you're transporting an empty crate, or that the crate is being used as a container for inanimate objects, such as your luggage. It would not occur to me that you actually put an animal in there.
- We really don't know what the crate looked like. You make a good point though. I never understood Romney's "air tight kennel" comment. I'm now thinking that he may have meant that it was enclosed. We really don't know, but perhaps it wasn't possible for an observer to see the contents of the crate, and so nobody realized that they were transporting a dog on their roof.
- 4. I wish someone would show another example of anyone, ever, transporting a dog this way. I've looked, and can't find any such example. I think that's because normal dog owners have enough sense to never do such a thing. And also have enough sense to know that they should never talk about it or brag about it, if they ever did it. This is true now and it was also true in 1983.
- Normal pet owners did not transport dogs on their car roofs in 1983. I have heard about people years ago transporting their dogs for short distances (e.g., driving to the store) in the bed of pickup truck, but I have never seen or heard of anyone other than Romney transporting a dog on the roof of a car.
- 5. Boston Globe article: "She [Jane] says he was such a social dog that he often left Mitt Romney's Belmont home to visit his dog friends around town. He kept ending up at the pound, she says. They were worried about him getting hit crossing the street. So a few years after Seamus's ride to Canada, Mitt sent Seamus to live for a time with Jane and her family in California. We had more space, so he could roam more freely, she says." It should be pointed out that allowing a dog to wander near traffic is itself an indication of significant neglect. Get a fence. Also, a dog that often left the owner's home could be an indication that the animal is being abused and is trying to escape. The one documented instance of abuse probably indicates that there were other incidents (of this form of abuse, or other forms of abuse) that are undocumented (especially since they cheerfully admit that this wasn't the only time they did this). Also, in the normal course of events a family doesn't give their beloved dog away (especially to someone who lives thousands of miles away). Giving a dog away usually indicates that for one reason or another the family was incapable of caring for it properly, or just didn't like the animal. Trouble is, it's irresponsible to own a dog if you're not committed to caring for it properly and forever. Sending Seamus away is another indication that something is wrong with this picture.
- Agreed. I'm thinking they got that dog, and then realized that they don't have the time to take care of it. I had not seen the story before that Romney gave Seamus to his sister because the dog kept ending up at the pound, but if you want, add that to the "supplimentary information" section of the article.
- 6. So taking all this into account (the maximum legal speed at the time, the power, weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle, and the elevation changes) the average speed was probably 45-50 mph, not the 54 mph implied by the original article. Which means that the actual duration was probably 13-14 hours (or more), not the 12 hour figure that is widely reported. That's not an enormous difference, but it's big enough to be material, so it should not be overlooked.
- I'm not sure on this one. In 1983, few people actually observed the 55-mph speed limit on major highways. We'll never really know, but Snopes states that Romney made it clear to his sons that there would be no unplanned bathroom breaks, so I'm figuring that he probably drove around 60 mph for most of the trip with a few stops, resulting in a 12-hour trip. All our references say 12 hours, so unless there is evidence to the contrary, I think we need to stay with the 12-hour time span.
- 7. Everyone talks about the trip to Canada, but no one ever mentions coming home. Even though the dog exhibited signs of distress on the westbound trip, it was apparently subjected to another 13-14 hours of this treatment on the return trip.
- Excellent point. I have never seen anything about how they transported the dog when coming home, or on any other trip. Don't be surprised if some reporter asks Romney this at some point this year.
- 8. Something else that's widely overlooked. 13-14 hours in a crate is abusive, even if the crate is sitting in a quiet room (let alone on the roof of a car at highway speeds). ASPCA reference: "an adult dog can be crated for as long as eight hours on occasion." So it's not just a problem that the dog was on top of the car. It's a problem that the dog was in a crate for 13-14 hours.
- Good point.
- 9. Something else that's widely overlooked. Because it's summertime, no one thinks the dog is cold, but wind chill and wetness need to be considered. (Yes, I know Romney said it was "a completely airtight kennel," but that's absurd; it that statement was true, the dog would have suffocated.) Assuming wind speed of 50 mph and air temperature of 50 degrees (F), the wind chill was 25 degrees (F). If the air temperature was 60, the wind chill factor was 41. 25-40 degrees (F) is pretty cold. Also, he washed the dog with a hose (using cold water, apparently). An Irish Setter has a long coat. Seamus was almost certainly still quite wet when he was put back on the roof to resume the trip. Putting a wet dog in a 25-40 degree environment is itself a form of abuse.
- I have never seen an exact date listed for the trip, but the National Animal Cruelty Registry says that it took place in June 1983. The Beach O' Pines cottage is in Grand Bend, Ontario, and based on what I've read, average June temperature might be 75F in the day, and 55F at night. Regardless of the ambient temperature, I'm sure it was very unpleasant for the dog.
- 10. Something else. There was no reason the dog couldn't fit inside the car. This vehicle has a rear-facing third-row seat. It has seats for 8 adults. It was apparently carrying two adults and five boys, ranging in age from 2-13. This means there was a seat available for the dog. If there was excess luggage in the car, it could have fit on the roof inside (or instead of) the dog crate. By definition, the crate was able to hold a volume of luggage equal or greater in volume than the space required by the dog inside the car. This story is supposedly about Romney's "crisis management" skills. What's remarkable is that this crisis could have been easily avoided (for example, by using a larger vehicle or by leaving the dog at home). Rather than demonstrating good "crisis management," the story reflects poor planning. Compounded by an inability to see, even in retrospect, that the "crisis" was highly avoidable and was caused by poor planning. This is aside from the issue of animal cruelty, and it's another important aspect that's generally overlooked.
- Totally agree. Any normal person would have put the luggage on the roof, and the dog in the car. Even if Romney made a mistake by Seamus on the roof, after the dog got diarrhea, he should have then let the dog ride in the car, and put the luggage on the roof. To this day, Romney sees nothing wrong with what he did in 1983. Romney's book is titled 'No Apology'. While it's not about the 1983 trip, I think it explains his mindset. Debbie W. 11:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I think we should stay away from doing original research. The analysis is interesting, though it made a few bad assumptions. (For instance, windchill temperature is only defined for temperatures at or below 50 °F, and the dog probably wasn't experiencing the 55 mph wind directly anyway.) For the purposes of this article we should stick with what's reported in the sources. This analysis, though, would be good material for a personal blog or the like. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Besides Wikipedia's prohibition against original research, I don't think we know enough information to make any such calculations. We know that the trip was in June 1983, but we don't know the exact date, so we can't know the weather. We know the station wagon probably travelled at 50-60 mph, but we don't know the configuration of the crate. However, based on Jukeboxgrad's comment, I think we can add the type of car, and the information about the dog frequently escaping from their house. Debbie W. 17:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The type of car is listed as a station wagon in the article, which is what I've seen in the few articles I've read. Are you suggesting make and model? The running away bit might be good in the Supplementary information section, but note, the dog isn't notable for running away frequently, he's notable for being strapped on the top of a car in a carrier. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Besides Wikipedia's prohibition against original research, I don't think we know enough information to make any such calculations. We know that the trip was in June 1983, but we don't know the exact date, so we can't know the weather. We know the station wagon probably travelled at 50-60 mph, but we don't know the configuration of the crate. However, based on Jukeboxgrad's comment, I think we can add the type of car, and the information about the dog frequently escaping from their house. Debbie W. 17:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I think we should stay away from doing original research. The analysis is interesting, though it made a few bad assumptions. (For instance, windchill temperature is only defined for temperatures at or below 50 °F, and the dog probably wasn't experiencing the 55 mph wind directly anyway.) For the purposes of this article we should stick with what's reported in the sources. This analysis, though, would be good material for a personal blog or the like. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Debbie and Adjwilley, thank you for your prompt and thorough responses. I hope the consolidated answer that follows is not too much of a jumble. I'm also starting over at the left margin so the nesting doesn't get too crazy.
"The type of car is listed as a station wagon in the article, which is what I've seen in the few articles I've read. Are you suggesting make and model?"
The make and model is easy to know. A photo of the Romney car (the "white whale" referenced in the Snidey article) is here. (I don't know how to do it, but maybe that photo could be displayed as part of the article here, because it's quite relevant.) See here for hi-res scans of a 1979 Chevrolet Caprice brochure. See here for the page that includes a photo of a Caprice Classic Station Wagon. Compare this to the photo of the Romney "white whale." The match is obvious. For example, notice the distinctive badge at the base of the C-pillar. Another large and helpful photo is hosted by Wikipedia here. On this photo, notice the chrome trim going across the gas filler door, and compare this to the same detail on the "white whale" photo. For another large photo extremely similar to the "white whale" photo, see here.
A 'car person' (especially of a certain age) can simply look at the "white whale" photo and know that this car is a Caprice Classic Wagon. These other photos make the identification possible if you're not a 'car person.'
"In the past, families routinely jammed a large number of people in a car for family vacations."
I think the important thing to notice is that this was almost certainly an 8-passenger vehicle carrying only 7 humans, which means there should have been a seat available for the dog.
"the dog isn't notable for running away frequently, he's notable for being strapped on the top of a car in a carrier."
But there's a connection, as I explained. The dog running away could be an indication that it's being abused. Also, a dog that's allowed to run away is a dog that's being neglected. Get a fence. Train and supervise your dog properly.
"windchill temperature is only defined for temperatures at or below 50 °F, and the dog probably wasn't experiencing the 55 mph wind directly anyway"
This is a fair point. I agree. If the crate was almost fully sealed, then maybe the wind didn't matter much and the dog being wet didn't matter much, especially since these are summertime temperatures.
"Even if Romney made a mistake by Seamus on the roof, after the dog got diarrhea, he should have then let the dog ride in the car, and put the luggage on the roof."
This is a key point that deserves emphasis. Anyone can make a mistake, but a mature person admits the mistake and corrects it. What's remarkable is that even all these years later there is still no admission that a mistake was made. Refusing to admit mistakes is a serious character issue.
It was a mistake to put the dog back on the roof, post-diarrhea, but I think there's a tendency to overlook an earlier mistake: the failure to use a larger, more suitable vehicle (like a van). True crisis leadership means using proper planning to prevent the crisis in the first place.
"All our references say 12 hours, so unless there is evidence to the contrary, I think we need to stay with the 12-hour time span."
I think it's pretty clear that there's only a single ultimate source for that number: the Swidey/Ebbert Globe article of 7/27/07. The number is accepted as a solid, confirmed number because it's been repeated so many times, but those repetitions don't tell us anything about whether the original claim makes sense. I understand the importance of avoiding original research, but I think it's probably OK to simply state certain known facts. For example, the distance (648 miles), the national speed limit at the time (55 mph), and the average speed implied by the 12-hour claim (54 mph). A careful reader can look at those numbers and decide for themselves if they should be skeptical about the 12-hour claim.
Accepting the 12-hour claim is tantamount to Romney admitting that he counted on speeding to get there on time, and that he didn't mind letting his boys witness him doing this. Animal abuse is infinitely worse than moderate speeding, but the question of speeding (and teaching your kids to speed) is still relevant, since POTUS is supposed to be someone who respects the law.
I think it's also probably fair to make a statement observing that there is no original source for that claim (12 hours) outside of the Swidey/Ebbert article.
By the way, here's my speculation about why his source said '12 hours' to Swidey: the national speed limit was 55 mph during the period 1974-1995. Swidey published his article in 2007, probably soon after talking to his source. I believe that various family members still travel to this same destination, even now (after all, it's a family tradition that started with George). Since 1995, they have been traveling there on roads posted at 65 mph. Therefore they now think of this as a 12-hour trip. Trouble is, it was almost certainly not a 12-hour trip in 1983, when the speed limit was lower.
I'm open to suggestion about how to handle these various issues, and I think there's no hurry. Even if there are no changes to the article, I think it's helpful that these issues are now documented on this Talk page. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a suggestion. Drop it, WP is not a fourm and your original research is never going to be put into this article. Arzel (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's rules on original research and sourcing were pretty confusing to me when I started here... Basically, Wikipedia is supposed to follow what reliable sources say, and not go out on its own saying stuff they haven't said (even if it's true). In other words, if there's not a major newspaper saying that the trip took more than 12 hours, we can't say that it took more than 12 hours. If there aren't major newspaper reporting on experts who accuse Romney of speeding, than we can't do it here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- "if there's not a major newspaper saying that the trip took more than 12 hours, we can't say that it took more than 12 hours."
- I understand that. I agree that we shouldn't say that the trip took more than 12 hours. In fact, we don't know whether or not the trip took more than 12 hours.
- However, I think there's certain factual information that's relevant and currently omitted. For example, the distance traveled is relevant. I see a source here that reports the distance as 650 miles (which is close to the 648 miles that can be verified with Google Maps; I think the difference is caused by using Boston when it would be more accurate to use Belmont). There should be no question that referencing that distance via this source is not original research. This source and others are expressing a concern about the length of the trip, and the distance in miles is a fact that's obviously relevant to that concern.
- Also relevant is the national speed limit at the time (55 mph). This is obviously verifiable via reliable published sources, so it's not OR. It's also a relevant fact that does not promote a particular POV. After all, someone could argue that a low speed limit indicates that the dog was not subject to the greater distress of higher speeds.
- We are citing articles that claim the dog experienced distress. Facts regarding speed, distance and time are relevant to that claim. When we can cite reliable sources providing facts regarding speed, distance and time we should do so. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's no original research policy is confusing, but Wikipedia does not prohibit the use of primary sources, insofar as the information is from a reliable source and the material is presented with a neutral point of view. Even if no secondary source, such as a magazine or newspaper has published a piece of information, it's sometimes possible to use the information in a Wikipedia article.
- In terms of the distance from Belmont to Beach O' Pines, it would not violate Wikipedia's policies to list the distance based on a reliable source (e.g., Google Maps), as long as you keep a neutral point of view. However, without some other source of information, you cannot make the claim that the trip took more than 12 hours because that would constitute synthesis, which is a type of original research. WP:SYN gives some good examples of how primary source information may and may not be used. Debbie W. 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
External Links & Diane Sawyer Interview
I removed all of the external links as they were almost entirely additional articles about the story which added no additional information not already included in the main article, with the exception of one very POV violation of WP:EL. In general the section did not adhere to EL guidelines. Arzel (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Arzel, I think you went too far removing all the external links, and removing the quote by Romney during the Diane Sawyer interview. While 8 external links is a bit much, some of them added information that could not realistically be added to the body of the article. Wikipedia's external link policies supports the use of external links in the following cases:
- 1.Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.
- 2.An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided criteria apply.
- 3.Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
- 4.The recommendation to consider professional reviews as external links was repealed (see this archived discussion). The reviews should instead be used as sources in a "Reception" section.
- 5.Very large pages, such as pages containing rich media files, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.
- 6. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page.
- 7.Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
- Here's my feeling on the 8 external links.
- Tommy Christopher. "Newt Gingrich attack ad dogs Mitt Romney over putting pooch on roof". Redundant and unnecessary
- David Edwards. "Romney on Irish setter strapped to car roof: Love my dog". The Raw Story. Redundant and unnecessary
- Angie Drobnic Holan. "Mitt Romney and the dog on the car roof: one columnist's obsession". Valuable analysis of truthfulness of claim. Should be restored.
- Lara Marlowe. "Romney hounded by memory of Seamus the dog and 'Crate Gate'". Redundant and unnecessary
- Roni McCall "Mitt Romney animal cruelty casefile". National Animal Cruelty Registry. Controversial but unique information. Should be restored.
- Diane Sawyer. "Transcript: Mitt and Ann Romney's interview with Diane Sawyer (page 8)". Provides valuable info that is too extensive for article. Should be restored
- Jason Sudeikis. "Saturday Night Live sketch of Mitt Romney and his dog".
Not really appropriate for an encyclopedia.A widely-watched parody. Should be restored. - Hunter Walker. "Canine-loving protesters dog Mitt Romney outside Westminster Kennel Club show". Describes event in relation to Seamus incident. Should be added to body of article
- The Goldman and Friedman article quotes Mitt Romney as saying that the "Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign so far." I restored the quote.
- I was going to leave the politifact and Sawyer EL's but after additional examination the politicfact didn't really add much (there is no question about the story being true) and the Sawyer interview is already in the main space as a source which could be checked. That said I won't remove them again. Arzel (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- The NACR is a volunteer organization with no national notability. I've not seen them used as a source for this. Just because they created a page for this doesn't imply that it is important. It is a little more than a self-published source, and it is undue weight. Arzel (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am not seeing where Romney made that statement that the Seamus story was the most wounding. I know that Sawyer says to him that he said it was, but he didn't reply to that statement. Is there a better source that actually has him making the statement? Arzel (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Arzel, I will do more search on the Diane Sawyer interview. The Goldman & Friedman article by ABC News lists Mitt Romney making that quote, but it's not really in the Diana Sawyer transcript. When I read the Sawyer transcript, I get the impression that Mitt has previously said "Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign so far.", and she wants him to confirm it. Debbie W. 13:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Arzel, I did some research, and most media sites state that Romney either said or confirmed that "Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign so far." Katheleen Parker uses the word 'said' in her column about the Sawyer interview as does the Goldman & Friedman ABC News article, whereas the Daily Beast uses the term 'confirmed.'
- Kathleen Parker article
- Goldman and Friedman article
- Daily Beast article
- Arzel, I will do more search on the Diane Sawyer interview. The Goldman & Friedman article by ABC News lists Mitt Romney making that quote, but it's not really in the Diana Sawyer transcript. When I read the Sawyer transcript, I get the impression that Mitt has previously said "Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign so far.", and she wants him to confirm it. Debbie W. 13:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- We can stick with the 2 external links -- Politifact and the Sawyer interview. As for the National Animal Cruelty Registry, I have mixed feelings about it. Wikipedia's primary source policy allows us to use primary sources like quotes from books and information from databases as long as it is from a reliable source and is presented with a neutral point of view. By presenting it as an external link (as opposed to in the article), I think we do well in terms of neutrality, since we are not interpreting what the registry says about Mitt Romney. I'm like some input from other people, but I'm not sure whether the National Animal Cruelty Registry qualifies as a reliable source. The National Animal Cruelty Registry has existed since 1986, is run by a group of volunteers, and lists over 20,000 cases. Many animal shelters will not sell a pet to a person listed in the database. One government site lists it as a quasi-official register of animal cruelty cases -- Virginia State Crime Commission (read page 6 of link) . There are two Wikipedia article that use NACR as a reference -- Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation and Bhagavan Antle. However, I don't see the level of information about this group on the internet that you'd expect for an organization which has existed since 1986 and list 20,000 cases. With the highly controversial nature of a person being listed in a animal cruelty registry, I want to make sure that this is reliable source before we use it. Debbie W. 13:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It's amazing to me this is worthy of an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.91.100 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- comment - Per a careful perusal/parsing of wp:NOT, I disagree with an editor's assessment above that external links of such things as parody videos must be rejected out of hand as "not really appropriate for an encyclopedia." Various sections on the talkpage mention media mentions of this incident that prove it has become a so-called meme; thus IMO although deciding which items should be included should be done with respect to WP guidelines, there should not no campaign to remove them all. A look at wp:IPC--
--reveals the distinction of whether individual cultural reflections of a subject are a notable part of its public image or not--and this whether the same are "serious" or "pop." So, if the criterion by which editors previously had been abiding were "Pop is out; serious is in," it wd need be rethunk.[LEDE: ...S]ubjects with broad cultural impact [may have coverage possibly titled "Cultural references" and the like.... ...Such coverage] can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not. [...However, these] can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract non-notable entries, especially if they are in list format.
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- To Hodgdon's secret garden: After doing some research, I think that the Saturday Night Live parody is an appropriate external link. I had never read Wikipedia's 'in popular culture' guidelines before. Additionally, I did a search of political scandals and political gaffes on Wikipedia, and although they are not common, there are some examples of parodies being used as external links. For example, there is an external link for the infamous Howard Dean scream on his Wikipedia page, and in the Dan Quayle Wikipedia article, there is an external link to his foot-in-mouth quotations. I have put a strike-through on my comments above about the SNL external link. Debbie W. 15:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Debbie, you have to be careful about your additions in this article. There continues to be a slow WP:COAT creep. This article should be substantially about the dog and only the dog, not simply an avenue to introduce political coatracking against Romney. Arzel (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's a blatant misrepresentation of this article. The dog is notable precisely because of Romney's mistreatment of him, what that says about his character and the press coverage which the issue has generated. El duderino (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that Romney ever intentially mistreated Seamus, there is evidence that Gail Collins is obsessed with this story and wants to use it as a political hammer against Romney. There is also evidence that editors here wish to do the same thing. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Then your editorial opinion on 'mistreatment' is suspect. Just because you refuse to see the evidence doesn't make it go away. El duderino (abides) 19:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- "There is no evidence that Romney ever intentially mistreated Seamus"
- Then your editorial opinion on 'mistreatment' is suspect. Just because you refuse to see the evidence doesn't make it go away. El duderino (abides) 19:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that Romney ever intentially mistreated Seamus, there is evidence that Gail Collins is obsessed with this story and wants to use it as a political hammer against Romney. There is also evidence that editors here wish to do the same thing. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's a blatant misrepresentation of this article. The dog is notable precisely because of Romney's mistreatment of him, what that says about his character and the press coverage which the issue has generated. El duderino (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Debbie, you have to be careful about your additions in this article. There continues to be a slow WP:COAT creep. This article should be substantially about the dog and only the dog, not simply an avenue to introduce political coatracking against Romney. Arzel (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- To Hodgdon's secret garden: After doing some research, I think that the Saturday Night Live parody is an appropriate external link. I had never read Wikipedia's 'in popular culture' guidelines before. Additionally, I did a search of political scandals and political gaffes on Wikipedia, and although they are not common, there are some examples of parodies being used as external links. For example, there is an external link for the infamous Howard Dean scream on his Wikipedia page, and in the Dan Quayle Wikipedia article, there is an external link to his foot-in-mouth quotations. I have put a strike-through on my comments above about the SNL external link. Debbie W. 15:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- According to the ASPCA, "an adult dog can be crated for as long as eight hours on occasion." Therefore, putting a dog in a crate for a period longer than that is fairly described as "mistreated." This is aside from the crate being on top of a car on a highway, which obviously makes the problem much worse. So your claim of "no evidence" is false.
- And I don't know what you mean by "intentionally." No one is claiming that Mitt put the dog up there for the express purpose of mistreating it. However, he did "intentionally" put the dog in a crate, and it was in there far too long, according to the ASPCA. (As I explained elsewhere on this page, the duration was probably quite a bit longer than the "12 hours" that everyone accepts.) And he still insists there's nothing wrong with this, and that's an important part of the problem. It's not OK to give people the idea that doing this is OK. It's also not OK to refuse to admit a mistake. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Bo photo
..."chilling"?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
past treatment of dogs by current presidential candidates
In the interest of fairness and covering this topic completely, does anyone know the name of the dog obama ate? I am searching for sources but so far am unable to find any that specifically note the name of that dog. 216.178.108.235 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt that the dog had a name. Even in countries that eat dog, people are usually not eating their pets. Much like livestock in the United States, animals which are eaten have not usually been named. Debbie W. 21:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Neologism
Removed the section on Neologism because it is just somebody's blatant attempt to smear Mitt Romney. Wikipedia is no place to do that. JettaMann (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Neologism section appears to have been re-added. I googled/binged 'romney' and the neologism appears to have fizzled, its not on the first page on either engine. Recommend removal or modification to explain it was passing fad, however as a noob I'm not sure whether a link to the google results constitute original content. 87.113.225.247 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Dogs Against Romney & About Mitt Romney
After doing some research on other articles, I restored the 'Dogs Against Romney' external link, and I added a link to the dog section of the 'About Mitt Romney' site. I believe that both qualify as quasi-official sources. Dogs against Romney has existed since 2007, and is heavily responsible for much of the publicity about Seamus. The About Mitt Romney site is sponsored by the Romney campaign, and defends Romney's actions relating to pets. Debbie W. 21:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- This article is not about "Dog's against Romney" therefore it is not an official source. It is certainly not an official source about Seamus. One person's crusade against Romney is not an acceptable use of EL. In general WP should not be used to promote political advocacy, which is all that site is for. Arzel (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP should not be used to promote political advocacy -- except when it comes to your conservative activism, eh. El duderino (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Did you come here to actually make a useful contribution or just attack other editors? Arzel (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please review WP:NPA -- mentioning an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not an attack. And my contributions include but are not limited to countering activists like you and Kelly, especially the hypocritical posturing. At least you admitted your bias at ANI. El duderino (abides) 04:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Did you come here to actually make a useful contribution or just attack other editors? Arzel (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP should not be used to promote political advocacy -- except when it comes to your conservative activism, eh. El duderino (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not so sure. There appears to be some precedent for advocacy groups being used as external links. In the article Campaign for "santorum" neologism, there is an external link (EL) for the highly controversial website 'spreadingsantorum.com'. In the article John Kerry, there is an EL to a article which accuses him of plagiarism. In the article for Eliot Spitzer, there is entire section of ELs (5 total) of groups critical of Spitzer. The article gun politics in the United States has multiple ELs to both pro-gun and anti-gun organizations. When you have a controversial topic, external links are where you want to put links to sites which advocate a particular view. I've seen a number of Wikipedia articles where they have ELs to both sides of a debate, so that the reader has access to multiple viewpoints.
- There is a risk that external links could be used by websites as a self-promotion device, or that having multiple external links that all say the same thing could create a biased article. However, that's not the case here. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, I added two ELs -- one to 'Dogs Against Romney', and one to 'About Mitt Romney' -- which express very different views about the 1983 road trip. Additionally, I specifically chose these two sites because of their significance, thus ensuring that Wikipedia is not being used as a website promotional tool. Dogs Against Romney has existed since 2007 and is already in the news all the time. About Mitt Romney has a substantial amount of information about Mitt Romney, including a number of article about Seamus and his other pets. Debbie W. 04:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- What a load of BS, you simply want to get that website out there so you can use it to promote a political point of view. You have been in direct contact with the site creator. You simply added the Romney EL because you had the false belief that it balanced out your violation of WP:EL Arzel (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly what part of the EL guideline are you referring to? It's not policy, so there's no violation anyway. (Just interpretation, but you know that because you like to wiki-lawyer.) That's why another editor restored what you deleted. El duderino (abides) 04:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since you seem incapable of reading what I have said I will mention it again. WP:EL#11 specifically refers to Blogs. This article as titled has nothing to do with the campaign of dogs against romney, therefore it is not possible for this blog to be the offical website related to this article. Arzel (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- In the same breath as (falsely) accusing me of personal attack (again, you need to review WP:NPA -- mentioning an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not an attack) you claim I am "incapable of reading" which is clearly a personal attack. Not agreeing with you is neither an incapability nor a personal attack. Stop conflating them. El duderino (abides) 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since you seem incapable of reading what I have said I will mention it again. WP:EL#11 specifically refers to Blogs. This article as titled has nothing to do with the campaign of dogs against romney, therefore it is not possible for this blog to be the offical website related to this article. Arzel (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly what part of the EL guideline are you referring to? It's not policy, so there's no violation anyway. (Just interpretation, but you know that because you like to wiki-lawyer.) That's why another editor restored what you deleted. El duderino (abides) 04:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- What a load of BS, you simply want to get that website out there so you can use it to promote a political point of view. You have been in direct contact with the site creator. You simply added the Romney EL because you had the false belief that it balanced out your violation of WP:EL Arzel (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- That being said, I think it is critical that we maintain a neutral point of view when editing. Arzel, you removed the Dogs Against Romney link, but left the About Mitt Romney link. I think that neutrality is extremely important especially in a article like this one where there may be markedly different points of views. I want to hear from other people, but until I get additional feedback, I am also removing the About Mitt Romney EL. -unsigned comment by Debbie W.
- Relevant discussion at WP:ANI currently. El duderino (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I saw the AN/I discussion, read the preceding, and chose to reinstate both links to "dogs agains romney" and "romney family pets" page, to reinstate, in effect, the 22:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC) version. I'd suggest that's a reasonable status quo, a reasonable compromise that people here should be able to live with, even if they don't especially like it. – OhioStandard (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- This article is not about Dogs against Romney, so I see no evidence that the site passes WP:EL. I find it ironic that the supposedly unbiased editors here feel that the only EL that is actually about the subject is too pro-Romney to be included unless the political attack page is also included. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- EL is a guideline so it's a matter of interpretation. No bright line threshold. El duderino (abides) 04:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is nice to see you ignore guidelines when they don't fit your point of view. Arzel (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring the guidelines, I'm challenging your misuse of one. Over and Over. Round and round. I see you're still trying to get the last word. Good luck with that argumentative strategy in showing how right you are. El duderino (abides) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why not actually challange it with a rational thought rather than personal attacks? Arzel (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your
editorialopinion of rational thought is even less important to me than your too-easy conflation of disagreement with personal attack.El duderino (abides) 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)- Than we are in agreement, you have no argument. Arzel (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can see how you might misread that. I've already stated my argument: your interpretation of WP:EL is wrong and your attempt to use it here is disingenuous. Furthermore, your transparent attempts at baiting other editors are getting more obvious and uncollaborative. To repeat what you so rudely said to another editor in a previous thread, Drop It. El duderino (abides) 03:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Stating that I am wrong is not an argument. I have pointed out that this article is about Seamus and the blog site DAR is not the official website about Seamus therefore it fails WP:EL#11. Please provide some reasoning why I am wrong. Arzel (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's your interpretation. The guideline says "one should generally avoid" which obviously means there is wiggle room. You know this. You need consensus for your interpretation. The site has been published in RS in reference to this incident. So perhaps we should shift to including it in the article text. But I imagine you'd be against that, too. El duderino (abides) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- So I am wrong because EL says that these types of links are only generally to be avoided? Apparently to you "wiggle room" means, I don't like Romney so it is ok in this instance. Since the article is about the dog and not the incident than the site is not relevant to the article. Even then the website is not even really about the incident, the website is really about the political attack against romney. Arzel (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- This article is not just about the dog. I know you've tried that tack elsewhere but it doesn't stick. And when did I say I don't like Romney? You really shouldn't assume based on my posts here. I don't know him. I wouldn't make that sort of judgement, especially as an editor who's main task is to remain neutral, which to you I'm sure seems left-leaning. What I don't like is how you attempt to exert yourself upon these political articles. Does anyone else besides Kelly agree with you? Because you're not doing a very good job of persuading others. Perhaps if you approached these articles with less of a chip on your shoulder. But I don't see that happening. You seem to enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, so I'm here to counter that. I like to get the last word too. El duderino (abides) 05:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- So I am wrong because EL says that these types of links are only generally to be avoided? Apparently to you "wiggle room" means, I don't like Romney so it is ok in this instance. Since the article is about the dog and not the incident than the site is not relevant to the article. Even then the website is not even really about the incident, the website is really about the political attack against romney. Arzel (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's your interpretation. The guideline says "one should generally avoid" which obviously means there is wiggle room. You know this. You need consensus for your interpretation. The site has been published in RS in reference to this incident. So perhaps we should shift to including it in the article text. But I imagine you'd be against that, too. El duderino (abides) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Stating that I am wrong is not an argument. I have pointed out that this article is about Seamus and the blog site DAR is not the official website about Seamus therefore it fails WP:EL#11. Please provide some reasoning why I am wrong. Arzel (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can see how you might misread that. I've already stated my argument: your interpretation of WP:EL is wrong and your attempt to use it here is disingenuous. Furthermore, your transparent attempts at baiting other editors are getting more obvious and uncollaborative. To repeat what you so rudely said to another editor in a previous thread, Drop It. El duderino (abides) 03:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Than we are in agreement, you have no argument. Arzel (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your
- Why not actually challange it with a rational thought rather than personal attacks? Arzel (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring the guidelines, I'm challenging your misuse of one. Over and Over. Round and round. I see you're still trying to get the last word. Good luck with that argumentative strategy in showing how right you are. El duderino (abides) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is nice to see you ignore guidelines when they don't fit your point of view. Arzel (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- EL is a guideline so it's a matter of interpretation. No bright line threshold. El duderino (abides) 04:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- This article is not about Dogs against Romney, so I see no evidence that the site passes WP:EL. I find it ironic that the supposedly unbiased editors here feel that the only EL that is actually about the subject is too pro-Romney to be included unless the political attack page is also included. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
After even more looking at the Blogsite Dogs Against Romney, it clearly fails. Not only is it a Blog, but it is clearly not an official website about Seamus. Additionally, on its very first blog post it clearly states that it is work of Satire writen from the satirical view of the fictional dog Rusty. Arzel (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would have to agree that "Dogs Against Romney" is a violation of WP:EL in this case. Kelly hi! 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- More poor word choice. WP:EL is a guideline not a policy, there no 'violation.' And Arzel is wrong about his interpretation of it, so what is yours? El duderino (abides) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"Obama Eats Dog"
I've included a brief paragraph in the "Political Response" section about the "Obama Eats Dog" campaign launched by conservatives. My initial version was deleted, I've reincluded a revised version with expanded verbiage and sources to establish its notability and to make clear it's tied to the Democratic political point about Romney and Seamus the dog. Kelly hi! 17:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is a called a red herring and is similar to a WP:COATRACK, though it's not the entire article. I ate dog as a kid too, but since no one is trying to beat me in an election no one blogs about it. However, it's equally relevant, which is to say that it's not. SÆdontalk 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not quite getting your point here - are you saying the Republican counter is not a part of the political response to this controversy? Kelly hi! 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- If the Republicans think that Obama eating dog as a 6 year old in Indonesia is somehow relevant to something Mitt Romney did in the US in 1983 they are welcome to use this logical fallacy to their political advantage with no comment from me, but as an encyclopedia we generally shy away from publishing logical fallacies. SÆdontalk 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify: the problem is that the Republican response is to the Seamus controversy, but it's not about the Seamus controversy, as this article is, and not about Obama. SÆdontalk 19:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)An argument could also be made that Romney transporting a dog in 1983 has no logical relevance to his fitness for the presidency, however as editors we don't make those judgments. My belief is that, as an encyclopedia, we document what the reliable sources are saying about the issue. The deleted section included numerous reliable sources (and I could have included many more) that specifically tied the Obama dog-eating meme to the Romney dog-transporting meme. Why include one and not the other? Should we have a separate article on Obama Eats Dogs? With respect - Kelly hi! 19:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your belief regarding the encyclopedia is spot on. Yes we publish what the reliable sources publish on a topic, but as I explained above: Obama eating dog is another topic. It's not this topic. This topic is about Romney transporting a dog, that Obama ate dog meat is wholly unconnected to this in anyway whatsoever, just as much as what you were doing in 1983 is irrelevant to this topic. If you think we should have an article about Obama eating dog then you are welcome to gather your sources that write that article, but that's not an argument to include it here. SÆdontalk 19:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually the sources I included directly linked the Obama dog-eating to this controversy, it wasn't any synthesis on my part. Kelly hi! 20:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are missing the point here - there is no link. That's not my opinion, that's a fact because Obama and Romney did not know each other when Obama was 6 years old - no one in American politics had anything to do with Obama as a 6 year old. Obama did not discuss eating dog meat with Romney; Romney did not make his decision to put Seamus on the roof because of anything Obama did or said. Creating a red herring (did you read that article?) does not actually link two concepts, it's just a rhetorical device used to focus peoples attention on another subject. They aren't linking the two, they're pointing to something else entirely to get the focus off of something Romney did. It's like when people on WP get blocked and point the finger at someone else. In essence, the Republican response is a WP:NOTTHEM violation, but in real life :). Romney did something that many people find to be morally wrong, and now there is a controversy about it - what Obama did is not part of that controversy but may be a controversy in its own right. SÆdontalk 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your point, unfortunately I just don't agree with it. The two incidents were linked when the political camps started going back and forth on these issues, as reported by the sources. But I'm content to wait for others to weigh in. Kelly hi! 20:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- You don't have to agree with it but you are wrong. You cannot create links between things when there was no link existed in the first place. Political camps going back and forth do not have the magical ability to alter the past nor the physical fact that the two situations were entirely independent of each other, did not cause each other, did not correlate to each other and were embarked upon completely separately by two men who had never heard of each other up until 10 years ago. Obama is in the spotlight because he is president, but him being president and eating dog is not the same subject as Mitt Romney putting a dog on his roof. If you can't understand this very simple fact of logic then I'm not sure how better it can be explained to you. SÆdontalk 20:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are mistakenly applying the link to Kelly, when the link was made by others. Liberals (well mostly Gail Collins) have been railing on Romney about Seamus for some time, and this is the result. You claim that Obama is in the spotlight because he is president, and you are correct that the fact that he ate dog would not be an issue if he were not, but by the same token Romney, transporting Seamus on the top of his car, would not be an issue either if he were not running for president. The fact that this came up during both presidential election periods is a pretty clear sign that this is only a story because of that. Additionally, one could easily make the argument that Obama eating dog would never have been an issue if the left had not made an issue about Romney. Like it or not, the two are now connected. As stupid as it is, the left has turned the election into a choice between transporting your dog on the top of your car, or eating a dog. Arzel (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- You don't have to agree with it but you are wrong. You cannot create links between things when there was no link existed in the first place. Political camps going back and forth do not have the magical ability to alter the past nor the physical fact that the two situations were entirely independent of each other, did not cause each other, did not correlate to each other and were embarked upon completely separately by two men who had never heard of each other up until 10 years ago. Obama is in the spotlight because he is president, but him being president and eating dog is not the same subject as Mitt Romney putting a dog on his roof. If you can't understand this very simple fact of logic then I'm not sure how better it can be explained to you. SÆdontalk 20:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your point, unfortunately I just don't agree with it. The two incidents were linked when the political camps started going back and forth on these issues, as reported by the sources. But I'm content to wait for others to weigh in. Kelly hi! 20:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are missing the point here - there is no link. That's not my opinion, that's a fact because Obama and Romney did not know each other when Obama was 6 years old - no one in American politics had anything to do with Obama as a 6 year old. Obama did not discuss eating dog meat with Romney; Romney did not make his decision to put Seamus on the roof because of anything Obama did or said. Creating a red herring (did you read that article?) does not actually link two concepts, it's just a rhetorical device used to focus peoples attention on another subject. They aren't linking the two, they're pointing to something else entirely to get the focus off of something Romney did. It's like when people on WP get blocked and point the finger at someone else. In essence, the Republican response is a WP:NOTTHEM violation, but in real life :). Romney did something that many people find to be morally wrong, and now there is a controversy about it - what Obama did is not part of that controversy but may be a controversy in its own right. SÆdontalk 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually the sources I included directly linked the Obama dog-eating to this controversy, it wasn't any synthesis on my part. Kelly hi! 20:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your belief regarding the encyclopedia is spot on. Yes we publish what the reliable sources publish on a topic, but as I explained above: Obama eating dog is another topic. It's not this topic. This topic is about Romney transporting a dog, that Obama ate dog meat is wholly unconnected to this in anyway whatsoever, just as much as what you were doing in 1983 is irrelevant to this topic. If you think we should have an article about Obama eating dog then you are welcome to gather your sources that write that article, but that's not an argument to include it here. SÆdontalk 19:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)An argument could also be made that Romney transporting a dog in 1983 has no logical relevance to his fitness for the presidency, however as editors we don't make those judgments. My belief is that, as an encyclopedia, we document what the reliable sources are saying about the issue. The deleted section included numerous reliable sources (and I could have included many more) that specifically tied the Obama dog-eating meme to the Romney dog-transporting meme. Why include one and not the other? Should we have a separate article on Obama Eats Dogs? With respect - Kelly hi! 19:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not quite getting your point here - are you saying the Republican counter is not a part of the political response to this controversy? Kelly hi! 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- The two may be connected in some media reports but that's not enough of an argument to connect them here. WP:Undue comes to mind. And again your analysis is clouded by your own bias. El duderino (abides) 03:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think something that has to be considered that you may not realize is that although this was blown into this proportion due to the election, the actual act itself would be considered ethically incorrect by most if not all ethicists. Peter Singer, for instance, tacked the subject of animal rights in such a way as to heavily influence the field of ethics at least as far back as 1975, and many other ethicists had tacked the issue before (though probably not with the same influence as Singer). My point being that this actually is a notable incident in some respect because it violated several ethical norms, even if it is being blown out of proportion due to the election. You just pointed out that this has been pointed out vis a vis Romney since at least 2007, so it's not just a product of the 2012 election (though that's obviously why it's such a focus now). Wrt Obama: the situations are simply not comparable. As I've pointed out before, there is a seriously fundamental difference between the cognizant actions of an adult and the submissive actions of a child; a child simply does not have the wherewithal to understand the difference, if any, between eating different animals. He was a kid living in Indonesia where eating dog was a normal occurrence and could not have been expected to understand that a few thousand miles away was a society that condemned the practice. So in the end there cannot be an ethical judgement of Obama the child for doing what was the norm where he lived, while there can certainly be an ethical judgement of the actions of a grown man. This is why what Romney did has negatively resonated with the public while baby Obama's actions have been subject to no scrutiny except in the context of defending Romney. SÆdontalk 04:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that Seamus even merits an article, imo, is silly. He doesn't in my mind. Neither does Obama's dog eating. However, as it has been collectively decided that this dog does need an article, the "Obama Eats Dog" campaign should definitely be mentioned here as it is a political response. The article already refers to the Dogs Against Romney website, a left political response; opinions from political analysts, and a "romney" neologism. The entire "Obama Eats Dog" campaign is a political response from the right vs the left, especially considering Treacher directly refers to this incident. It bears mentioning. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is a response to a topic but about a different topic. It would be like you being accused of murder, but when you get up to the stage you point out that Charles Manson also murdered people, i.e. not relevant. SÆdontalk 03:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is wrong. The first sentence of the article "Hey, if we’re going to talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago, let’s talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago." - which in turn links to an article discussing Seamus. It is a direct response to Seamus. It's impossible to see this any other way. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is a response to Seamus, yes, but it's not about Seamus, which is the point I've been making. This article isn't about how candidates treat their dogs, it's about one particular candidate and one particular dog. SÆdontalk 05:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is wrong. The first sentence of the article "Hey, if we’re going to talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago, let’s talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago." - which in turn links to an article discussing Seamus. It is a direct response to Seamus. It's impossible to see this any other way. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is a response to a topic but about a different topic. It would be like you being accused of murder, but when you get up to the stage you point out that Charles Manson also murdered people, i.e. not relevant. SÆdontalk 03:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Proposed text
Below is the text that I propose adding to the end of the "political response" section. Kelly hi! 20:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Blogger Jim Treacher of The Daily Caller responded to the Seamus story by pointing out a passage in Barack Obama's autobiography Dreams From My Father in which Obama recounted eating dog meat as a child in Indonesia. This resulted in tens of thousands of jokes and quips on the "Obama eats dog" story, responses from Obama and Romney campaign spokespeople,[1] a statement from White House spokesman Jay Carney, and a response from 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain.[2][3][4][5]The Daily Beast named the conservative "Obama Eats Dogs" campaign their "Meme of the Week".[6] The founder of "Dogs Against Romney" defended Obama's eating of dog meat, saying that the Romney campaign "seems desperate".[7]
- ^ Rachel Weiner (18 April 2012). "David Axelrod and Eric Fehrnstrom, Twitter frenemies". The Washington Post. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
- ^ Noveck, Jocelyn (20 April 2012). "Mommy Wars give way to Doggy Wars in Twitterverse". Associated Press. Retrieved 21 April 2012.
- ^ John Podhoretz (19 April 2012). "A really ruff race - Behind the dueling dog tales". New York Post. Retrieved 21 April 2012.
- ^ John Cassidy (19 April 2012). "From "Nugent Goes Nuts" to "Bam Bites Dog": The Phoney War of 2012". The New Yorker. Retrieved 21 April 2012.
- ^ Natalie Jennings (19 April 2012). "Obama, Romney dog fight: Carney and McCain enter the fray". The Washington Post. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
- ^ "Meme of the Week: Obama Eats Dog". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
- ^ James Crugnale (18 April 2012). "Dogs Against Romney Defends Obama Over Dog Consumption Revelations". Mediaite. Retrieved 22 April 2012.
- So you're just going to completely ignore the very concise logical argument I presented above and pretend that this is somehow related without actually justifying your belief? Oppose for all the reasons stated above, as this has nothing to do with the subject of the article and is merely a political WP:COATRACK. SÆdontalk 20:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Kelly, I think that the Obama dog meat story should be mentioned by Wikipedia, but this is an excessive amount of coverage for an indirectly related story. I would just use the first sentence: Blogger Jim Treacher of The Daily Caller responded to the Seamus story by pointing out a passage in Barack Obama's autobiography Dreams From My Father in which Obama recounted eating dog meat as a child in Indonesia. Any additional information should be added to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article. Debbie W. 23:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't necessarily object to the passage being tightened, but perhaps not quite that much - there should be some mention of the legs that the Obama puppy-munching meme got (it did reach as far as the White House press secretary). There was further commentary today - Keith Olbermann was on George Stephanopoulos' program today and said that the duelling dog controversies were "absurd".[1] Kelly hi! 23:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Kelly, I'm opposed to commentary about commentary in a Wikipedia article, especially when they are not directly about the main topic of the article. I'm marginally okay with Jim Treacher's comment about eating dog meat because it's someone defending Mitt Romney's behavior by comparing it to actions of Obama even if those actions are very different. However, the rest of the paragraph talking about how much media attention the comments got are irrelevant to this article. Debbie W. 00:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- What Romney did can only be evaluated by the action in and of itself. What Obama has done is as relevant as what you or I have done. SÆdontalk 03:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Kelly, I'm opposed to commentary about commentary in a Wikipedia article, especially when they are not directly about the main topic of the article. I'm marginally okay with Jim Treacher's comment about eating dog meat because it's someone defending Mitt Romney's behavior by comparing it to actions of Obama even if those actions are very different. However, the rest of the paragraph talking about how much media attention the comments got are irrelevant to this article. Debbie W. 00:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't necessarily object to the passage being tightened, but perhaps not quite that much - there should be some mention of the legs that the Obama puppy-munching meme got (it did reach as far as the White House press secretary). There was further commentary today - Keith Olbermann was on George Stephanopoulos' program today and said that the duelling dog controversies were "absurd".[1] Kelly hi! 23:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Kelly, I think that the Obama dog meat story should be mentioned by Wikipedia, but this is an excessive amount of coverage for an indirectly related story. I would just use the first sentence: Blogger Jim Treacher of The Daily Caller responded to the Seamus story by pointing out a passage in Barack Obama's autobiography Dreams From My Father in which Obama recounted eating dog meat as a child in Indonesia. Any additional information should be added to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article. Debbie W. 23:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Opposed - agree with Saedon that the two are unrelated except their use as political fodder. Romney's mistreatment of his family dog is important in evaluating the man's character. What Obama did as a kid, not so much. El duderino (abides) 23:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm - well, Obama was an adult when he
boastedreminisced about the dog-eating in his biography. Kelly hi! 23:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm - well, Obama was an adult when he
- Clearly, the flavors, mouthfeel and texture of dog meat stuck with him for decades. Remembering a meal like that is certainly indicative of one's character. Either the meal was a traumatic experience, or an enjoyable one if Obama is capable of recalling it after many, many years. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now who's reading into it? Obama didn't boast nor mention anything about it except "tough" while listing other odd things he ate. The crude Daily Caller piece doesn't even claim as much. El duderino (abides) 00:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry - I had listened to the tone of Obama's reading of the passage[2] about his dog-eating from the book, for which he won a Grammy. Probably subjective on my part, so I've struck that out. Kelly hi! 00:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- @El_duderino: It very well may be the case that what Obama did with a dog is pertinent in some respect, but not in an article about Romney and his dog. Again, it's a totally different subject. Honestly I am surprised that anyone is having any trouble understanding this very simple logical fact. SÆdontalk 03:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- The article is about a political talking point, which necessarily includes the back-and-forth between the two camps. You can see the same thing in articles like Jeremiah Wright controversy. Kelly hi! 03:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- You maybe treating the article as a political talking point but I think most of us are treating it as an encyclopedic article. SÆdontalk 03:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I find that hard to believe since this article is titled Seamus and is really about the political attack on Romney because of the incident. As a political argument, the Obama aspect is certainly relevant, or else the vast majority of this article is in the wrong coatrack. I am not sure how you can even make sure a clear argument of WP:COAT against this and ignore the current existance of WP:COAT already in the article. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be retitled, as you can see I am the first person to support the move. This article is not a political argument; it is an article about something Romney did in 1983 and the backlash that followed during the 2012 election. Furthermore, whether this article is a WP:COATRACK is irrelevant to whether adding this information would also make it a COATRACK. Two wrongs do not make a right, and the proper course of action is to fix the problem with this article's title if there is one, not to add to it by introducing irrelevant information. SÆdontalk 04:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would also like to echo the other editors who have pointed out the difference between a 6 year old eating something that he is told to eat and a grown man putting a dog on the roof of his car. One is a submissive action of a child and the other a conscious decision by an adult. SÆdontalk 04:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct, I see that you were the first to support the move, although I would question the logic that there is substantially something different between the two events. Obama, as a child between the ages of 6 and 10, probably was clueless as to the ramifications of his actions to eat dog, although one does wonder why, as an adult, he would even bring it up. It is also clear that Romney did not feel that what he was doing was much of a deal. People transport their dogs in the back of their pickup truks all the time. People also transport Horses, Pigs, Cattle, you name it in open air containers all the time. What would be the difference between transporting a horse in a trailer being pulled behind a truck versus having the trailer be on top of the truck other than the location of the trailer? If the dog had not become sick from the turkey it had eaten before the trip the simple act of the trip would have been a non-story. However, the left seems to want to make a connection that Romney was torturing the dog which lead to the crapping. Arzel (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I explained the difference between Obama's actions and Romney's in my last response to you (that you probably haven't read yet because I think it was further down the page) but it appears you agree with me that Obama can't be held responsible for something he did at age 6 so I assume we can move on from that point? Romney may not have thought that there was anything wrong with what he did, but that's likely a big part of the issue here: that a grown man didn't know better when he should have.
- Regarding why Obama wrote it in his book: no idea, I never read it and don't find the man particularly interesting so I doubt I will. My initial thought would be that he wrote it simply because it was a strange aspect of his life, but I don't know the context of the chapter so can't say for sure.
- You bring up an excellent point regarding the way that livestock is treated on a regular basis. Since this isn't a forum it's probably not a good idea to get into the (very long) ethical conversation behind that, but suffice to say that you are right in that there is probably not a fundamental difference between transporting a horse like that vs. a dog per se, though there are likely regulations that pertain to equine transportation that hopefully afford them a certain level of comfort. Dogs, however, are rightfully or wrongfully elevated to a certain status in the West, hence the public backlash; I'm sure as the ethical arguments against treating higher functioning animals like horses propagate (as they already are), transporting horses in such a manner will also be more heavily condemned.
- I think your attachment of significance to the fecal problem is probably too much, as it appears to me to be a non-fundamental part of the story, in that the ethics of transporting a dog like that are questionable with or without the poo. It may very well be the case that this aspect is especially blown out of proportion. SÆdontalk 04:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Arzel: Your distorted analysis has no place here. Please see WP:Forum. El duderino (abides) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct, I see that you were the first to support the move, although I would question the logic that there is substantially something different between the two events. Obama, as a child between the ages of 6 and 10, probably was clueless as to the ramifications of his actions to eat dog, although one does wonder why, as an adult, he would even bring it up. It is also clear that Romney did not feel that what he was doing was much of a deal. People transport their dogs in the back of their pickup truks all the time. People also transport Horses, Pigs, Cattle, you name it in open air containers all the time. What would be the difference between transporting a horse in a trailer being pulled behind a truck versus having the trailer be on top of the truck other than the location of the trailer? If the dog had not become sick from the turkey it had eaten before the trip the simple act of the trip would have been a non-story. However, the left seems to want to make a connection that Romney was torturing the dog which lead to the crapping. Arzel (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would also like to echo the other editors who have pointed out the difference between a 6 year old eating something that he is told to eat and a grown man putting a dog on the roof of his car. One is a submissive action of a child and the other a conscious decision by an adult. SÆdontalk 04:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be retitled, as you can see I am the first person to support the move. This article is not a political argument; it is an article about something Romney did in 1983 and the backlash that followed during the 2012 election. Furthermore, whether this article is a WP:COATRACK is irrelevant to whether adding this information would also make it a COATRACK. Two wrongs do not make a right, and the proper course of action is to fix the problem with this article's title if there is one, not to add to it by introducing irrelevant information. SÆdontalk 04:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I find that hard to believe since this article is titled Seamus and is really about the political attack on Romney because of the incident. As a political argument, the Obama aspect is certainly relevant, or else the vast majority of this article is in the wrong coatrack. I am not sure how you can even make sure a clear argument of WP:COAT against this and ignore the current existance of WP:COAT already in the article. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- You maybe treating the article as a political talking point but I think most of us are treating it as an encyclopedic article. SÆdontalk 03:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- The article is about a political talking point, which necessarily includes the back-and-forth between the two camps. You can see the same thing in articles like Jeremiah Wright controversy. Kelly hi! 03:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- @El_duderino: It very well may be the case that what Obama did with a dog is pertinent in some respect, but not in an article about Romney and his dog. Again, it's a totally different subject. Honestly I am surprised that anyone is having any trouble understanding this very simple logical fact. SÆdontalk 03:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry - I had listened to the tone of Obama's reading of the passage[2] about his dog-eating from the book, for which he won a Grammy. Probably subjective on my part, so I've struck that out. Kelly hi! 00:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now who's reading into it? Obama didn't boast nor mention anything about it except "tough" while listing other odd things he ate. The crude Daily Caller piece doesn't even claim as much. El duderino (abides) 00:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly, the flavors, mouthfeel and texture of dog meat stuck with him for decades. Remembering a meal like that is certainly indicative of one's character. Either the meal was a traumatic experience, or an enjoyable one if Obama is capable of recalling it after many, many years. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since there seem to be objections to including the material here, I've created a stub article at Obama Eats Dogs (it could do with a little more work, will get to it tomorrow if I have time). I'll add a "see also" to this article - I still think a brief mention of this Romney camp response should be included though. Kelly hi! 05:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Obama never indicates that he was "told to eat" something. You make it sound like he was forced. A 6-year-old in the U.S. would likely demand chicken fingers when served something he had no interest in eating, or certainly express disinterest. This doesn't appear to be the case. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Do I really need to explain how child-parent relationships work or point out that civil societies have long known that 6 year olds are not culpable for their actions (nor mention that no six year old is capable of understanding the moral arguments regarding meat eating and the difference if any between animals)? SÆdontalk 05:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Rather than engaging in our own analysis, we should be following what the sources say. For instance, John Podhoretz says the "Obama Eats Dogs" response by Treacher and the Romney camp is a reductio ad absurdum response to the Obama camp's attack over the dog-transporting incident.[3] Kelly hi! 05:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, we should follow what the sources say, but since the source regarding Obama eating dog is about Obama eating dog, it doesn't belong in this article, which is about a dog named Seamus and his owner Mitt Romney. Furthermore, the fact it is not just myself but now a journalist pointing out that the Romney camp is committing a logical fallacy, it would be irresponsible for us to publish said logical fallacy as a serious encyclopedia. As an aside, Podhoretz is wrong about the fallacy involved, as this is ignoratio elenchi not reductio absurdum, but that's neither here nor there. SÆdontalk 05:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is absurd to say that WP is a serious encyclopedia when this article exists at all. Furthermore, this article is not about Seamus. Seamus did nothing, and is irellevant to the story. This article is only about what Romney did. Arzel (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- We can agree to disagree as to whether this article hurts WP, I don't think it does but I'm not particularly interesting in arguing about it. As for the rest...well yeah, I already told you I agree and that I supported the article being moved to a title more reflective of the content, so no argument there. SÆdontalk 04:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is absurd to say that WP is a serious encyclopedia when this article exists at all. Furthermore, this article is not about Seamus. Seamus did nothing, and is irellevant to the story. This article is only about what Romney did. Arzel (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, we should follow what the sources say, but since the source regarding Obama eating dog is about Obama eating dog, it doesn't belong in this article, which is about a dog named Seamus and his owner Mitt Romney. Furthermore, the fact it is not just myself but now a journalist pointing out that the Romney camp is committing a logical fallacy, it would be irresponsible for us to publish said logical fallacy as a serious encyclopedia. As an aside, Podhoretz is wrong about the fallacy involved, as this is ignoratio elenchi not reductio absurdum, but that's neither here nor there. SÆdontalk 05:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose inclusion of proposed text. This is unrelated to the subject of the article and is a political WP:COATRACK. Gobōnobo + c 00:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Arzel said this: "What would be the difference between transporting a horse in a trailer being pulled behind a truck versus having the trailer be on top of the truck other than the location of the trailer?"
- Notice what the ASPCA says about trailering a horse: "Stop at least once every four hours to give your horse’s legs and muscles a rest. If your horse is tied, untie him and let him drop his head to the ground (but don’t take him from the trailer), and offer him plenty of fresh water and hay."
- Did Romney "stop at least once every four hours" to check on the dog, and to offer food, water, rest and relief? Apparently not. Even by horse standards, what he did is unacceptable. So your horse comparison fails.
- Also, there is indeed a difference between being in a trailer behind a vehicle, as compared with being on top of the vehicle. Being further from the ground means the swaying motion of the vehicle is magnified, which adds to the stress and discomfort of the experience. Also, on top of the vehicle there is less protection from the wind. (I realize Romney supposedly created a "windshield," but its effectiveness is questionable.)
- "People transport their dogs in the back of their pickup truks all the time."
- A pickup truck is not a crate. In the truck, the animal can see its surroundings, and it's free to move around. In the crate, the dog is confined. And since (according to Romney) it was "a completely airtight kennel." the dog was able to see nothing, which would add to the fear.
- A dog, especially if it's under stress, wants to be able to see (if not touch, smell and hear) its human family. A dog in the back of a pickup can see the owner, which is an important element in helping the dog feel safe. Seamus was able to see nothing.
- And aside from that, no one puts their dog in the back of a pickup truck for a trip lasting 12-15 hours. If you can show an example of such a thing, that would be helpful. Likewise if you can show an example of anyone, anywhere, putting their dog on top of a car. For a trip of any duration at all, let alone 12-15 hours.
- People like you who have trouble grasping the significance of this incident should consider these quotes:
- "He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." -- Immanuel Kant
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." – Mahatma Gandhi Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Romney (neologism)
Is there reason to believe that this coined definition of "Romney" is anything more than a bit of non-notable WP:NOTNEWS? There is one article linked to CNN, which is of course a reliable source, but that doesn't mean that this is necessarily a definition which can be considered notable. I think there might be WP:BLP issues as well, though I am not as well versed as I should be in BLP policies so someone can correct me if I'm wrong...actually I think I'll ask User:Youreallycan because he knows his BLP policy well. In the Santorum case, Dan Savage was at least a notable person to begin with, but who is Jack Shepler and why is anything he says notable? SÆdontalk 05:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Looked into the issue and would have to agree with the points you make - I'm not seeing that the attempt at creating a neologism ended up being at all notable. Kelly hi! 14:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, no long term notability - this whole article has partisan attack issues. Its incredibly bloated and wants stripping to a couple of sentences and wants merging not renaming imo - Youreallycan 18:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign for "romney" neologism. Community consensus was to delete, not merge, that material. Kelly hi! 21:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Requested move
Nomination for deletion (?)
Pasted from the Obama canivore talk, since the original poster – while lambasting all such non-NOTABLE articles – apparently forgot to include a copy here: <DELETED TEXT - SEE BELOW++>
As a side note, why does WP:TPOC view removing needless cursing as controversial and inappropriate, given WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL? 116.233.8.6 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
++replacing pasted text with a link to it: Talk:Obama Eats Dogs meme#You know....Tvoz/talk 18:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- This seems improper at the least, per WP:TPG. I don't think you can format your post here as though Avanu is posting here. You could quote him here, but leave off the signature and include a link to his original post. And it should be folded into an existing thread. El duderino (abides)
I agree with El duderino. Avanu did not post this here, and I am doing what was suggested - removing it and putting a link, which is also questionable and Avanu is welcome to remove as well. This is unacceptable talk page behavior. Tvoz/talk 18:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for catching that Tvoz. I didn't post here because I didn't. I don't think I need to post the same message countless times in order for my point to be made. And incidentally I don't think it was 'needless' cursing. It was to make the point that sometimes this stuff is so base and so lame that it lowers Wikipedia when we stoop to include it. Would I put my dog in a crate on top of a car for a 12 hour ride? No. Would I make a big deal about someone else doing it? Well, I have seen dogs riding in the back of pickup trucks and not minding a bit. Do I care if Obama eats a little bit of dog in a country where they consider dogs just another animal to be eaten? No. I love dogs, but I'm thinking there are much bigger and more serious issues in the campaign, and this sort of crap is a complete distraction from real issues, and I'm thinking its somewhat hypocritical to judge either of these guys given how we treat other animals. MAYBE these incidents deserve a small mention in the PETA page, but their own full fledged pages.... that's just bs. And the same rationale goes for any of the other campaign 'trivia' crap that the media loves to titillate with. IP guy who re-posted my message, do it again and I'll see to it that an admin pays you a nice visit. Don't move people's words around deceitfully. -- Avanu (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- "I have seen dogs riding in the back of pickup trucks and not minding a bit"
- Thank you for catching that Tvoz. I didn't post here because I didn't. I don't think I need to post the same message countless times in order for my point to be made. And incidentally I don't think it was 'needless' cursing. It was to make the point that sometimes this stuff is so base and so lame that it lowers Wikipedia when we stoop to include it. Would I put my dog in a crate on top of a car for a 12 hour ride? No. Would I make a big deal about someone else doing it? Well, I have seen dogs riding in the back of pickup trucks and not minding a bit. Do I care if Obama eats a little bit of dog in a country where they consider dogs just another animal to be eaten? No. I love dogs, but I'm thinking there are much bigger and more serious issues in the campaign, and this sort of crap is a complete distraction from real issues, and I'm thinking its somewhat hypocritical to judge either of these guys given how we treat other animals. MAYBE these incidents deserve a small mention in the PETA page, but their own full fledged pages.... that's just bs. And the same rationale goes for any of the other campaign 'trivia' crap that the media loves to titillate with. IP guy who re-posted my message, do it again and I'll see to it that an admin pays you a nice visit. Don't move people's words around deceitfully. -- Avanu (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is being mentioned a lot, in various places, although it's a comparison that doesn't add up. I explained why in the section "Proposed text," above.
- "Would I put my dog in a crate on top of a car for a 12 hour ride? No."
- It's not just that you wouldn't do it. It's that virtually no one would do such a thing. That's why no one can present an example of anyone else putting a dog on top of a car, even for a much shorter trip. The story is getting attention because what he did is quite unusual, and for good reason. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah and most people don't wear pink and green together. It isn't "getting attention" like you say. Some people have nothing better to do than stir the pot, and if I HAD to I would put a dog in a crate on a car. It is inane that there is any defense of a standalone article on this. It is not extensively or enduringly covered, and we don't need to treat it like it is more than it is. If I had a staff of encyclopedia writers and they wanted to include crap, I would fire them. If I wanted to create Ripley's Believe It or Not, this kind of muck would fit right in. -- Avanu (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Yeah and most people don't wear pink and green together."
- You might not understand that treating animals poorly is a lot worse, and a lot more important, than dressing poorly, but I think there are a lot of people who do.
- And it isn't just that "most people" wouldn't put their dog on top of a car. It's that virtually no one would. That's why no one can present another example of someone doing this.
- "It isn't 'getting attention' like you say."
- If the story wasn't "getting attention" then certain people wouldn't be putting so much effort into trying to bury it. This talk page alone is a strong indication that the story is "getting attention." And the article has been viewed about 10,000 times in the last week. I think that's another indication of "getting attention."
- "if I HAD to I would put a dog in a crate on a car"
- Yes, and if I "HAD to" I would rob banks and steal candy from children. It's important to understand that Romney did this even though it was definitely not something he "HAD to" do.
- "we don't need to treat it like it is more than it is"
- You've expressed your opinion that it's comparable to talking about someone who decided to "wear pink and green together." That's your opinion of how important "it is," but you shouldn't be surprised that not everyone has the same opinion.
- "this kind of muck"
- It would be "muck" if it was untrue, or if someone could show that this was/is a normal practice, and not a bizarre act of cruelty. Trouble is, it was a bizarre act of cruelty. That's been demonstrated. The story is getting attention because the attention is warranted. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry dude, but I don't see how you know for certain that it is an act of cruelty. Are you a veterinarian? Are you any kind of licensed professional in animal care? Do you have a degree or have you extensively studied this? Eskimos live in the coldest and harshest part of the world and we don't go drag them into the temperate zone. So do wolves and foxes. People in remote tribes live in huts with only a couple of skins to wear. Honestly where do you get the idea that your opinion trumps everyone else's here? A dog having to endure some wind and potentially some cold. He's got fur and apprently loved the idea of traveling with their family. Get your head out of your heart or wherever it is and look at this article objectively, not as a passionate defender of animal rights. We don't need crusaders writing this stuff out of personal bias, we need people who can objectively look at sources and write real articles. -- Avanu (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- "I don't see how you know for certain that it is an act of cruelty."
- Sorry dude, but I don't see how you know for certain that it is an act of cruelty. Are you a veterinarian? Are you any kind of licensed professional in animal care? Do you have a degree or have you extensively studied this? Eskimos live in the coldest and harshest part of the world and we don't go drag them into the temperate zone. So do wolves and foxes. People in remote tribes live in huts with only a couple of skins to wear. Honestly where do you get the idea that your opinion trumps everyone else's here? A dog having to endure some wind and potentially some cold. He's got fur and apprently loved the idea of traveling with their family. Get your head out of your heart or wherever it is and look at this article objectively, not as a passionate defender of animal rights. We don't need crusaders writing this stuff out of personal bias, we need people who can objectively look at sources and write real articles. -- Avanu (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Have you paid attention to what's been said on this page by various people, including me? I cited ASPCA indicating that a dog shouldn't be in a crate for more than 8 hours. And that's a crate that's standing still, not on a car going down the highway. If a dog shouldn't be in a (stationary) crate for more than 8 hours, then it's obviously cruel to put a dog in a crate for 12-15 hours, on top of a car on a highway. Everyone is focused on the car and the highway, without bothering to realize that the duration alone would be a problem, even if the crate was in a nice quiet room at home.
- If you have another reputable authority which indicates that exceeding 8 hours is OK, then I'll be interested in seeing it.
- "A dog having to endure some wind and potentially some cold."
- According to ASPCA, a dog exposed to no wind or cold at all should not be in a crate for more than 8 hours.
- "Honestly where do you get the idea that your opinion trumps everyone else's here?"
- Unlike you and lots of other people, I'm not offering an opinion. I'm making a factual statement based on clear guidelines by a reputable authority.
- "He's got fur and apprently loved the idea of traveling with their family."
- The idea that he "loved the idea of traveling with their family" has no support outside of self-serving claims by people who are not in a position to be objective. The claim also means nothing because even a dog that's being abused is going to want to always be with its family. The claim also means nothing because it's not an excuse for putting the dog on the roof. The "traveling with their family" could have and should have been accomplished in some other way. As I have shown elsewhere on this page, there was room for the dog inside the car.
- Also, the dog had a history of running away, which is an indication that he was neglected. And the family gave the dog away a few years later, which tends to indicate that they weren't too attached to him, which is consistent with the apparent pattern of neglect and abuse.
- "Get your head out of your heart or wherever it is and look at this article objectively, not as a passionate defender of animal rights."
- You seem to be taking the position that only "a passionate defender of animal rights" would respect ASPCA guidelines and take them seriously. Really? I am citing ASPCA, not PETA.
- The one who needs to "get your head out of your heart or wherever it is and look at this article objectively" is you. I'm making factual statements backed by independent sources. You're not.
- What if it had been 15 hours, or 20, or 25, or 30? Still OK with you? Where do you draw the line? I told you how I decided where the line should be: by checking with the ASPCA. Who did you check with? Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, it isn't a perfect world. ASPCA is not an unbiased source. I respect and appreciate the role they play in prevent true cruelty to animals, but I hardly see how a dog in a crate for a day is cruelty. The problem is people who don't see animals as animals. Somehow we forget that dogs have fur, especially these bigger dogs and they have no problem being outside or in cold weather. Somehow human beings all over the planet manage without lovely things like central heat and air and fluffy pillows, but yet its somehow cruel to keep a dog in a crate for a day. If you have actual unbiased sources that show that somehow this is truly harmful to a dog, let's see them, but ASPCA has an agenda of preventing cruelty and I doubt they would do more than request the dog stay in the crate less. Have you actually seen real animal cruelty and the things that some people do to their animals? Have you seen the flesh and fur abraided down to the bone because an owner chains a dog with a simple chain for years at a time? This stuff with Romney is nothing but political bs, and I'm disappointed in my fellow editors for allowing this stuff to become this entrenched. -- Avanu (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- While I agree about the entrenchment, Romney's defenders are guilty of this too. Nonetheless, the ASPCA is certainly notable for their opinion on dog treatment. We use biased sources all the time when their expert opinion is reliable. I'm not quite sure how relevant your anthropomorphistic analysis is here. And while we're discussing an editorial take on the incident: simply crating a dog is nothing compared to transporting a crated dog at highway speed for 12 hours. El duderino (abides) 06:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Avanu said: "Have you actually seen real animal cruelty and the things that some people do to their animals? Have you seen the flesh and fur abraided down to the bone because an owner chains a dog with a simple chain for years at a time?"
- That's precisely the same logic used by the people who said our torture wasn't torture because some other torturer did something worse. It's also the same as saying this: 'even though I robbed your house, it's not fair to call me a thief because I stole less than Bernie Madoff.' Or this: 'Buffalo got 18 feet of snow in 1974, so the 1/2" of snow we got this morning should not be called snow.' Those arguments are invalid for the same reason that your argument is invalid: something that fits the definition of X does not become not-X merely because you can find a more extreme example of X.
- "Sorry, it isn't a perfect world. ASPCA is not an unbiased source."
- Because it isn't a perfect world, there's no such thing as a perfectly unbiased source. If the rule was to cite only perfectly unbiased sources, then we would cite no sources at all, since no such sources exist. Citing imperfect sources is the best we can do, and it's much better than citing no sources at all. I'm doing the former. You're doing the latter. You're expressing personal opinions (example: "I hardly see how a dog in a crate for a day is cruelty") supported by no source whatsoever.
- ASPCA has been around since 1866, and claims to have "more than 1 million supporters." A reader is free to decide that they are bleeding-heart animal-rights extremists who should be ignored, but I don't think that's how they are generally viewed. I have seen no evidence that they are not reputable and respected. They should be viewed as a reliable source, and they made a statement highly relevant to this article. If you can find another reputable organization which contradicts what they said, you should cite that.
- You should answer the question I've already asked you. What if it had been 15 hours, or 20, or 25, or 30? Still OK with you? Where do you draw the line? Is there no line at all, because you consider any number acceptable? I doubt that you do. Which means you can pick a number based on your own feelings, or you can consult a relevant authority to obtain a number. You've done the former. I've done the latter.
- "The problem is people who don't see animals as animals."
- Like most aspects of human behavior, standards for how to treat animals are highly culture-specific. Our culture doesn't view all animals the same way, and different cultures have their own set of attitudes with regard to various animals. A fair analysis of any such incident requires considering the context. The relevant context here is USA, 1983. Given that place and time, how common was it for someone to put a dog in a crate for 12-15 hours? Was that considered normal or acceptable? And how common was it to transport a dog on top of a car? Any information from a reputable source (like the ASPCA) that helps address those questions is relevant to the article.
- I have seen zero examples, from then or now, of anyone else doing either of those things, let alone both together. The lack of examples demonstrates that this act was highly unusual. That's precisely why the story is important, and getting attention. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently it was common enough to have laws written against it. Considering how many different ways dogs are carried in pickups and cars it is unlikely that Romney is unique. I suggest you stop looking at the past through the prism of today. There a great number of actions that have taken place in the past that today are viewed in a much different light. The only evidence we have is that Seamus absolutely loved riding in that crate, and rode in it all the time. Arzel (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Considering how many different ways dogs are carried in pickups and cars it is unlikely that Romney is unique."
- Then you should be able to show an example of anyone else, ever, doing what Romney did. You haven't, you won't and you can't, because what he did is highly unusual.
- If it was so highly unusual then why did it take 20 years to be an issue? Have you not seen dogs riding in motercycle side cars? What is the difference? Arzel (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Then you should be able to show an example of anyone else, ever, doing what Romney did. You haven't, you won't and you can't, because what he did is highly unusual.
- "I suggest you stop looking at the past through the prism of today."
- This reasoning is entirely bogus, and I have explained why elsewhere on this page. Romney isn't taking this position: 'it was OK to do it back then, but it's something that shouldn't be done now.' He's taking the position that it was OK to do it then, and it would still be OK to do such a thing now. Therefore "the prism of today" is entirely relevant. Also, you've shown no evidence whatsoever that "the prism" of 1983 was materially different, regarding such a matter.
- How do you know that? He never made such a statement. Your revisionist history has absolutely no place her. You seem to believe that what Romney did was with malice, my guess is that he loves dogs far more than many of those that wish to crucify him for this one act.
- "The only evidence we have is that Seamus absolutely loved riding in that crate"
- Where is your citation to a reliable source for that claim? Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Diane Sawyer interview. Obviously you don't believe them, but it matters little. The only evidence we have says that Seamus loved it. Arzel (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
"If it was so highly unusual then why did it take 20 years to be an issue?"
Because Romney has not been running for president for 20 years. The story is not important because someone did this. The story is important because someone did this who wants to be president. Also, the story did not become public until 2007. Also, I don't know where you got the number 20, because it didn't happen 20 years ago.
- Fine 26 years ago, at least you admit that this story is purely political in nature. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the sentence Obama wrote about dog meat was published in 2004. Why did it take 8 years to become an issue?
- Obama eating dog was not an issue until his surogates on the left made Romney's dog story an issue. I suppose trying to make a choice between transporting a dog on your car versus eating a dog. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
"Have you not seen dogs riding in motercycle side cars?"
For a trip that last 12-15 hours? No, and neither have you. Also, a dog in a sidecar is not remotely comparable, for most of the same reasons that the pickup truck example is not comparable. I already explained those reasons to you (look for where I said "a pickup truck is not a crate") and you did not respond. Instead, you continue to mention pickup trucks, as if I had not already explained why they are not comparable. When you repeatedly ignore arguments that have been presented this tends to create the impression that you are not arguing in good faith.
- Your reasoning for why they are not the same is really without any merit. Speed....same, Exposure to Air pressure....same, Exposure to elements....probably less for Romney's example. The only real difference is the impression. As for my expierence you have no idea what I have seen. I grew up in a rural farming community, dogs riding the in the back of a pickup truck was a common experience. I drove to Alaska, and while I cannot quarentee that the dogs (or other animals that I saw transported) traveled the whole 11200+ miles of the ALCAN, I saw pretty much everything, including dogs on crates on top of vehicles. I have also had dogs as pets, real dogs, the ones that prefer to play outside with you all day if they could. Play fetch in freezing temps, and swim in cold water. People seem to have this misconception that dogs are people. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
"How do you know that? He never made such a statement."
They have taken the position that there's absolutely nothing wrong with what they did. This plainly indicates their belief that it wasn't just perfectly fine to do such a thing in 1983, but that it would also be perfectly fine to do such a thing in 2012. Therefore your claims about "the prism of today" are irrelevant.
- That is a misrepresentation of what they said. Your extrapolation of their statment into the world of today is without basis. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
If they think it was OK to do this in 1983 but not OK to do this in 2012 (which is what you're implying), then they need to speak up and say so. As it is, they are encouraging others to do what they did. This is a serious problem. This story is not just about them exercising poor judgment in 1983. It's about them exercising poor judgment now.
"Your revisionist history has absolutely no place her."
What "revisionist history?" Here's what has no place here: your unsubstantiated claims, like this claim of yours that I have posted "revisionist history." Here's another unsubstantiated claim that you've never taken responsibility for, even though it was challenged, and is almost certainly false: "those kids were certainly not wearing seatbelts back there since there were no seats." There are various similar examples.
- In 1983 the probability that those children in back were wearing seatbelts is virtually zero. I grew up in that era, even rode in the back of similar vehicles, and while ours also had a back facing back seat we always put it down so we could lay down in the very back. It was the best seat in the car. Looking back it was probably not a safe thing to do, but that was simply the way things were at the time. I certainly don't judge my parents as being irresponsible with my safety, it is simply the way everyone (at least that I knew) rode around. Do you even remember the lap belts? They were uncomfortable as hell, so we never wore them. Today, however, it is a different story, everyone I know wears a seatbelt. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
"You seem to believe that what Romney did was with malice"
You seem to believe that it's OK to make claims about what I believe that have no basis in anything I've actually said. Also, what I allegedly believe has no relevance. What's relevant is what I've actually said, most of which you have ignored. Instead of responding to what you imagine I believe, a better idea would be to respond to the things I've actually said.
- I have tried to respond to everything you have said. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
"my guess is that he loves dogs far more than many of those that wish to crucify him for this one act."
Speaking of things that have no relevance. Your unsubstantiated "guess" is a member of that category.
- As is your claim of what I have seen. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
"Obviously you don't believe them, but it matters little. The only evidence we have says that Seamus loved it."
The only "evidence" we have is entirely worthless, so it's hard to understand why you would describe it as "evidence." Earlier you said this: "they brought their dog with them everywhere, and from all measures the dog loved it." If I understand correctly, by "all measures" you mean an uncorroborated statement made by Ann Romney 29 years later. "Measures" is plural, and implies multiple sources, presumably reliable ones. If all you have is this one obviously unreliable source, why did you say "measures?"
Also, Ann Romney's statement is contradicted by the fact that the dog defecated in the crate. According to ASPCA, defecation in a crate is a sign of distress. It's highly abnormal for a dog to defecate in its crate, and it amounts to tangible evidence that the claim "Seamus loved it" is false.
- The dog got diarhea from the turkey the dog ate before the trip, but I imagine you don't believe that either. If the dog did not like the crate then the dog would not have jumped up into the crate as is reported. For as much as my dog loved the water, he hated to get a bath. He would not even go into the bathroom because of it. You try to get a dog the size of an irish setter to jump into a crate and see how easy it is if the dog really does not want to go. Both Mitt and Ann have stated that he loved the crate, therefore "Measures". You don't beleive them, that is fine, but without any proof to the contrary your opinion is less valuable than their statements. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, Ann Romney's "turkey" alibi doesn't add up. She is essentially saying that they knew that "he ate the turkey on the counter," and they knew (or should have known) that this could cause digestive distress, and yet they put him in the crate anyway, and didn't check on him until fecal matter was seen running down the window. Her "turkey" anecdote just makes the story worse.
Also, a dog should not be allowed access to food that's going to make him sick. Putting Seamus in that situation where he could steal the turkey is one of several signs that he was neglected. That she doesn't understand this, even today, and treats it as a joke, is another indication that they were and still are irresponsible pet owners. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are really just reaching now and it is obvious by your statements that nothing they say will change your opinion. That is fine. It is your perogative to dislike Romney because of how he transported his dog 29 years ago. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- "at least you admit that this story is purely political in nature"
- To the extent that caring about the character of a presidential candidate is "political in nature," then this story is "political in nature."
- Also, I already explained why this is not the only reason the story is important. Imagine if a non-political public figure (for example, someone from the world of sports or entertainment) had done this, rather than a politician. Imagine if this person said, as Romney essentially did, 'I have done this often, and there's nothing wrong with what I did, and I would happily do it again (if no one was watching), and anyone else inclined to do the same thing should feel free to do so.' There would indeed be a lot of interest in the story, even though it has nothing to do with politics. Here's one important reason for the interest: encouraging animal abuse is a serious matter, and someone who does so publicly needs to be vigorously challenged.
- As various people have pointed out elsewhere, Romney might as well pick Michael Vick for veep.
- Only someone who fails to understand this could claim that this story is "purely political in nature." Which means that you fail to understand this, even though I've already explained this several times. As usual, you're not actually paying attention to what I've actually said.
- "Obama eating dog was not an issue until his surogates on the left made Romney's dog story an issue."
- Except that the two things have nothing to with each other, because Obama's act does not shed any light on whether or not Romney's act was OK, and vice versa. But "at least you admit that [the dog meat] story is purely political in nature."
- "I suppose trying to make a choice between transporting a dog on your car versus eating a dog."
- I have no idea what the intended relevance or meaning of that statement is, because no one is "trying to make a choice between transporting a dog on your car versus eating a dog." Maybe one reason the sentence is not clear is that it is not a sentence.
- "The only real difference is the impression."
- I don't know what "the impression" is supposed to mean, and you are not responding to what I said. In a pickup truck or in a sidecar, the animal can see its surroundings. According to Romney it was "a completely airtight kennel." Therefore the dog was able to see nothing, which would add to the fear.
- A dog, especially if it's under stress, wants to be able to see (if not touch, smell and hear) its human family. A dog in the back of a pickup (or in a sidecar) can see the owner, which is an important element in helping the dog feel safe. Seamus was able to see nothing.
- It is indeed a quite "real difference" that Seamus could see nothing. Not his surroundings, and not his family.
- "I grew up in a rural farming community, dogs riding the in the back of a pickup truck was a common experience."
- And yet again you reference "dogs riding the in the back of a pickup truck" without lifting a finger to address what I have said about this, several times now. As I have already pointed out, when you repeatedly ignore arguments that have been presented this tends to create the impression that you are arguing in bad faith.
- "I saw pretty much everything, including dogs on crates on top of vehicles."
- I am still waiting for anyone, anywhere (including and especially you) to present a single proven example of anyone, anywhere (that is, outside the Romney family), ever transporting "dogs on crates on top of vehicles." For a trip of any duration, let alone a trip of 12-15 hours. Your unsubstantiated claims that you have ever seen such a thing are entirely worthless.
- "People seem to have this misconception that dogs are people."
- People seem to like making sweeping generalizations that are unsupported and that don't shed light on what's being discussed. And this is yet another argument that I have already addressed, and you are ignoring what I have already said about this.
- Like most aspects of human behavior, standards for how to treat animals are highly culture-specific. Our culture doesn't view all animals the same way, and different cultures have their own set of attitudes with regard to various animals. A fair analysis of any such incident requires considering the context. The relevant context here is USA, 1983. Given that place and time, how common was it for someone to put a dog in a crate for 12-15 hours? Was that considered normal or acceptable? And how common was it to transport a dog on top of a car? (It's important to notice that each of these things, separately, is a problem, and Romney did both of them.)
- Answer: not common at all. That's why the best you can do is give us unsupported claims regarding what you have allegedly seen, and you are entirely unable to show actual examples of actual persons actually doing such a thing.
- "That is a misrepresentation of what they said. Your extrapolation of their statment into the world of today is without basis."
- An assertion is not an argument. This is one of many examples of you presenting bare assertions as if they are a substitute for an actual argument.
- And it's nonsensical to make a statement about my alleged "extrapolation of their statment into the world of today" because their statement was indeed made in "the world of today." You seem to be trying to imply that I'm talking about something they said a long time ago, even though that's not what I'm talking about.
- "In 1983 the probability that those children in back were wearing seatbelts is virtually zero."
- This is yet another unsubstantiated claim, and you are also disingenuously backpedaling. You didn't just say the kids weren't "wearing seatbelts." You said "those kids were certainly not wearing seatbelts back there since there were no seats." You said there were "certainly … no seats" back there. Why did you claim to know something was "certainly" true even though you don't actually know that?
- "while ours also had a back facing back seat we always put it down so we could lay down in the very back."
- And you preferred to travel that way even on a trip lasting 12-15 hours? I doubt it.
- "Looking back it was probably not a safe thing to do, but that was simply the way things were at the time."
- Yes, it was "not a safe thing to do," and therefore it was "the way things were at the time" only for people with poor judgment. So if Romney really let his kids ride that way on a trip lasting 12-15 hours, this is just another indication of his poor judgment.
- "it is simply the way everyone (at least that I knew) rode around"
- Then you needed to get out more.
- "I have tried to respond to everything you have said."
- You have provided no response whatsoever to most of what I have said, so I think you and I have a different concept of "tried." And "respond."
- "As is your claim of what I have seen."
- What you allegedly "have seen" has no relevance whatsoever unless you can prove that you have actually seen what you claim to have seen.
- "The dog got diarhea from the turkey the dog ate before the trip, but I imagine you don't believe that either."
- It doesn't matter whether or not I "believe that." What matters is that Romney admitted putting the dog up there despite knowing that it ate something it should not have eaten and would therefore probably get sick. The "turkey" anecdote makes the story worse, and this is yet another problem that you have failed to address.
- "If the dog did not like the crate then the dog would not have jumped up into the crate as is reported."
- There are many obvious problems with that argument. Here's just one of them: the dog would have no way of knowing that it was about to be confined for a period of 12-15 hours.
- "Both Mitt and Ann have stated that he loved the crate, therefore "Measures". You don't beleive them, that is fine, but without any proof to the contrary your opinion is less valuable than their statements."
- It is wrong for you to claim that there isn't "any proof to the contrary," because the fact of his diarrhea is indeed "proof to the contrary." And uncorroborated statements by the two people accused of animal abuse have no value.
- "You are really just reaching now"
- The "reaching" is all yours. This is yet another example of a bare assertion trying to take the place of an actual argument. True or false: a dog owner is responsible for making sure that his dog doesn't have access to food that will make him sick. Every dog owner should know the answer to this question, including and especially dog owners who "grew up in a rural farming community." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- "It is your perogative to dislike Romney because of how he transported his dog 29 years ago."
- This is yet another example of you not noticing, or pretending to not notice, what I have said. The problem is not just "how he transported his dog 29 years ago." I have also explained how his current statements are a problem. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I can it is utterly pointless to continue this discussion. You take Romney's word verbatium for those aspects which confirm your predetermined bias against him. For example; the container was said to be "airtight", however that can not be technically accurate for a number of reasons, yet you use that to support the absurd statement that Seamus was unable to see anything, which either tells me that you are ignorant to how dog carriers are designed or simply twisting what Romney says to prove your hypothetical. You acept the reason for Diarhea only if it means that the Romney's were abusive in some other manner. I won't sit hear and defend what Romney did 29 years ago through the prism of today, but at the same time I won't judge him for those same actions because the general view of people regarding vehicle transportation for themselves and pets was vastly different 29 years ago. And unless you can travel back in time to that incident you have simply no idea of what transpired and how it transpired, so get off your high horse. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- "You take Romney's word verbatium for those aspects which confirm your predetermined bias against him."
- I see that you don't understand the concept of admission against interest. Yes, it is entirely proper to "take Romney's word verbatium for those aspects" of the story that are not favorable to him. For example, his statement that he did this. Why should I believe that? Because he wouldn't say it if it wasn't true. He would have no possible motive to do so. So I "take Romney's word verbatium" for certain aspects for precisely the same reason that I believe Bernie Madoff when he admits that he stole a lot of money.
- On the other hand, their uncorroborated statements about how happy Seamus was about being confined on top of a car for 12-15 hours are not to be taken seriously, because they do indeed have a motive to make that claim even if it's not true.
- "You acept the reason for Diarhea only if it means that the Romney's were abusive in some other manner."
- No, I don't necessarily "acept the reason for Diarhea." With regard to the "turkey" anecdote, it's hard to know whether or not that's true, but it doesn't matter. If it's not true, that makes them liars. If it is true, that makes them irresponsible for putting Seamus up there even though they had reason to anticipate that he was going to be sick. It also makes them irresponsible for letting him eat something he should not have eaten. So either way, there is a problem. If there's a way to explain these problems away, I hope you'll let us in on the secret and tell us what it is.
- "For example; the container was said to be 'airtight', however that can not be technically accurate for a number of reasons"
- Yes, Romney said it was "a completely airtight kennel," and this indeed "can not be technically accurate" if it's taken literally. The only reasonable interpretation (aside from treating his claim as a complete lie) is this: that the kennel was very close to being "completely airtight." Feel free to explain how a crate can be almost "completely airtight" while also allowing the dog to see its surroundings. Maybe it was made of Plexiglass?
- "yet you use that to support the absurd statement that Seamus was unable to see anything"
- As usual, you are glossing over important parts of what I have said. With regard to what Seamus could see, there are two separate issues. One is that he was not able to see his surroundings. The other is that he was not able to see (or smell, or hear, or touch) his family. The latter issue is more important than the former, and there is no doubt whatsoever regarding the latter issue.
- "the general view of people regarding vehicle transportation for themselves and pets was vastly different 29 years ago"
- One more in a very long list of claims for which you provide no support whatsoever.
- "I can it is utterly pointless to continue this discussion."
- Which means you're going to stop? Promises, promises. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- "the general view of people regarding vehicle transportation for themselves and pets was vastly different 29 years ago"
- And if that's true, they should say so. They should say 'it seemed like a good idea at the time, and people did such things back then, but no one today should think this is a good idea.' As I have already explained, they are taking quite a different position, and the position they have taken has the effect of encouraging people today to do the same thing.
- So the problem is not just what they did "29 years ago." The problem is also what they're doing now. Doubling down on poor judgment is an additional act of poor judgment. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- So what action is Mitt Romney "doing now"? Running for president? Beating dogs in his spare time? -- Avanu (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- "So what action is Mitt Romney 'doing now'?"
- Is that supposed to be a serious question? If so, I've already answered it, several times. He has adopted a position which has the effect of encouraging people to think that it would be perfectly fine for them to do to their own dog what he did to Seamus. That's wrong, because it's not.
- His current behavior is giving us important information about his character, above and beyond what we learn by observing what he did in 1983. His current behavior lets us know that he has a problem admitting that he made a mistake. That's a serious character flaw. His current behavior also tells us that he lacks a sense of responsibility with regard to the way his statements might influence the behavior of other people. In a leader, this is another serious character flaw.
- "Beating dogs in his spare time?"
- Resorting to gratuitous sarcasm is a good way of letting everyone know that you've run out of actual arguments. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- The talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM for personal opinions of Mitt Romney's character and leadership. The talk page is to discuss ways to improve an article about a dog. 72Dino (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Jukeboxgrad: OK, so you lecture me for adding a bit of non-serious sarcasm but start your reply above with sarcasm too. How about we just say on track instead? It sounds like your definition of "what they're doing now" is that he doesn't caring too much about what happened 29 years ago. I'm gathering an impression from a lot of people that others feel sort of the same way. It isn't that people would encourage dog transport of this sort, but life isn't perfect, a dog isn't a human being, and so Romney said, yeah I wouldn't do it if I knew it was going to cause a fuss. You somehow take that to mean that he wouldn't do the 'right thing' today, but it sounds like someone willing to do what his community felt was right even if he personally doesn't see it being a big deal. You seem all too ready to portray Mitt Romney as the worst example of a human being because he doesn't care about dog comfort and safety as much as you claim to. I simply don't see how that is a reasonable stance to take given the overall picture. I get the impression that you want to 'gin this up' in every aspect you can, rather than taking a reasonable and neutral tone, like our Wikipedia guidelines suggest. The attitude you have here is one of a crusader, not of an editor of an encyclopedia. Quite of few of us keep asking for a neutral presentation, and that doesn't seem to appeal to you. A realistic answer to what Mitt Romney is doing now with regard to this is nothing at all. And most of the public's response to this is probably the same. If the political impact of this is negligible, and the public response pretty much the same, I don't see why you can substitute a minority view and make this into a bigger deal that it is. They didn't dump the dog at that moment out of shame. The kids don't seem scarred beyond seeing a little bit of diarrhea, the wife doesn't, you and I weren't there, cops weren't called, so I'm baffled by your insistence on the very small minority point of view here. -- Avanu (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- dino: "The talk page is to discuss ways to improve an article about a dog"
There would not be an article about this dog if the story was not relevant to evaluating "Mitt Romney's character and leadership." There are people who want this story to go away (including you, I notice), and they are essentially claiming that it has no such relevance. I have explained why they're wrong. If you can point out any problems with what I've explained, that would be helpful.
- avanu: "OK, so you lecture me for adding a bit of non-serious sarcasm but start your reply above with sarcasm too."
No, I didn't start my reply with sarcasm. I was honestly asking you if you meant your question seriously. I didn't understand, and still don't understand, why you were asking a question I've already answered several times.
- "It sounds like your definition of 'what they're doing now' is that he doesn't caring too much about what happened 29 years ago. I'm gathering an impression from a lot of people that others feel sort of the same way."
I have no idea why your vague and unsubstantiated "impression from a lot of people" has any relevance whatsoever. What has relevance is that ASPCA says a dog shouldn't be in a crate for more than 8 hours.
- "It isn't that people would encourage dog transport of this sort"
Except that's exactly what he's doing by taking the position that he did it frequently and the dog loved it.
- "so Romney said, yeah I wouldn't do it if I knew it was going to cause a fuss"
In other words, 'I have no regrets except for the fact that I got caught; so it's perfectly fine for everyone else to do this, but just be careful to not get caught, if you're a politician like me.'
- "You somehow take that to mean that he wouldn't do the 'right thing' today"
Except that he isn't doing the " 'right thing' today," as I have explained.
- "because he doesn't care about dog comfort and safety as much as you claim to"
My own standards regarding "dog comfort and safety" have no relevance. What has relevance are standards published by authorities such as ASPCA.
- "I'm baffled by your insistence on the very small minority point of view here"
I'm baffled by the idea that your unsubstantiated claim about "very small minority" would have any importance or relevance.
It's fairly apparent that only a "very small minority" (approaching zero) of dog owners would ever do what Romney did. That's why it seems to be impossible for anyone to come up with an example of a non-Romney doing this. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, one more thing about "very small minority." I had forgotten that the article already says this: "74% of Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 63% of Republicans consider it inhumane to put a family dog in a kennel on the roof of a car."
I see no reason to assume that those numbers would be radically different if the poll had been done in 1983. It was 1983, not 1883.
The available evidence seems to indicate that the one expressing a "minority point of view here" is you. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Merge this article into the Mitt Romney article, the dog itself is of no historical significance, it appears to be Romney's actions involving the dog that are significant.--R-41 (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)