Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Discussion

Based on decision by closing admin Phantomsteve to change Seamus AfD from merge to no consensus, I restored this article. Wikipedia's policy on no consensus for an AfD is that the article is kept.Debbie W. 18:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Material removed by Arzel

Arzel has removed two passages that are properly sourced to mainstream media. I'm restoring them.

Arzel ES: "Remove POV push, unprovable conjecture." The article quotes professors of physics and engineering at respected universities. If there are similarly reputable authorities who disagree with these conclusions, or who label them "unprovable conjecture", then those views should also be quoted, but we are not going to suppress experts' opinions on the unverifiable say-so of a pseudonymous Wikipedian. Although I'm not aware of any reputable dispute concerning the conclusions about the problems in putting Seamus on the roof, the cited news story does note a countervailing consideration about the problem of having him inside the car. I'm restoring the previous material, but rewriting it to provide a better summary of the linked article, including the "pro-Romney" information.

Arzel ES: "Remove merchandise plug." It is not a "merchandise plug" to quote someone who is selling merchandise related to the event, when the link is to a newspaper article (Boston Herald), when the URL of the merchandise site is not given, and when merchandise is mentioned only to disclose the perspective of the person being quoted. JamesMLane t c 17:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The first section should not be included. It is all conjecture. Do these scientists know all of the attributes of the container, speeds being driving, weather conditions, on any of the other important aspects? No, they make general assumptions without any knowledge of the specifics and this generalization is then used. It is pure politiking. Arzel (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ironic as usual to see a notoriously activist editor attempting to lecture others about NPOV. El duderino ^(abides) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As before, Arzel, if you find an opinion to that effect, coming from a prominent spokesperson and reported in a reliable source, we could certainly include it. JamesMLane t c 05:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What an inane arguement. I suspect there will not be much of a response to a little read article of stupidity. Perhaps you might explain what the difference between this and the thousands of motercycle riders that have their dogs ride with them. This is only a story for political reasons, and frankly is a huge diservice to see WP editors using WP for political posturing. Arzel (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally have never seen such a motorcyclist, but that's immaterial. The fact is that this has received widespread attention. That the attention was generated for political reasons is (a) probably not true (the story was first revealed by a Romney son, not an opponent, and there's at least one RS saying that the story gets attention because people consider it revealing about a politician who otherwise seems somewhat unknowable), and (b) irrelevant even if true. Yet again, Arzel, your personal opinion that you know better than everyone else, and that the peasants shouldn't be concerned with this, doesn't change the fact that people actually are concerned with it, and it's attracted considerable attention. I personally don't think that Whitney Houston's funeral should be the lead story on tonight's eleven o'clock news, but I'm sitting here watching precisely that. JamesMLane t c 04:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Arzel has removed additional material that was properly sourced to mainstream media. I'm restoring it.

‎Arzel edit: "(WP:NOTNEWS)" removing a passage discussing a Dogs Against Romney protest at the Westminster Kennel Club in New York. The WKC is possibly the most prestigious dog show in the US, and the protests were covered by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Boston Herald, and just about every other major media source in the United States. The protests are a legitimate part of the political response section on the Seamus article.Debbie W. 03:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There were 10 protesters and there were more reporters than protesters, and there probably would not have even been ten protesters if the two origianl protesters had not gone on a protest panic to try and get some more protesters there when the media showed up to cover it. Seriously, what is the mindset of the left media "Hey there is some guy protesting Romney, lets go cover it!"? Now just because the left media is in a tizzy about this story and is ready to jump on anything to try and make it look like more than it is, does not mean that we have to include it here as well. Now if this were an actual protest with some real number of people, than it might be worth including. However, we are not a newspaper, and we don't repeat everything reported in the news. Arzel (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I have to agree. I don't see a handful of people protesting is in any way significant. If it is going to stay in, it should mention that the initial protest was two people, who were joined by a few more eventually. "Small," in the context of protests, could mean dozens or hundreds. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

News leak

"Days before the election, Seamus, who has been kept in suspended animation by the Democratic Machine, gives a nationally televised tell-all press conference with Gloria Allred."---New York magazine--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Dogs Against Romney

I undid the following edit on the grounds that it seems too far removed from the topic of the article, which is about Seamus: In February 2012, a Dogs Against Romney protestor was Terry stopped by police on suspicion of animal abuse, but he only had a stuffed animal in the carrier on top of his motor vehicle. While I understand the interest of this story among animal lovers, I think the story has more to do with the campaign against Romney than it has to do with Seamus, or the original 1983 incident. If people disagree with my decision, feel free to restore the edit, or possibly rewrite the sentence so that it is more closely tied to the rest of the article. Debbie W. 04:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The tie-in is that a cop who thought he saw a dog in a crate on the roof judged the situation to be a violation of animal cruelty laws. That fact strengthens the argument that there's a substantive basis for concern. As against that, the laws in 1983 might have been substantially different from what that cop was applying. As against that, even if the conduct was legal in 1983, evidence that it was illegal in 2012 would be taken by some people as confirmation that it was a bad idea. I don't know if we can report the 2012 police stop in a way that accommodates all these considerations. JamesMLane t c 05:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that we already say that Romney's actions probably violated animal cruelty laws: The Massachusetts American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) stated that Romney's actions were probably illegal under Massachusetts law, but that the statute of limitations has passed. I'm not sure that an illegal act committed today in Colorado by someone unconnected to Mitt Romney should be referenced in an article which discusses an similiar illegal act committed by Romney in 1983 in Massachusetts. If a person who is not a politician drove off a bridge with a young female in the car who drowned, would we add it to the Edward Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident article? If people want to add supplimental info about the illegality of the 1983 act, I'd be okay with that. Debbie W. 12:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We did say that, but it's not supported by the references. The reporter columnist (clearly incorrectly) summarized the SPCA's officer's statement that, "it's definitely something I'd want to check out," but the officer is quoted as declining to say it was "probably illegal". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Seat belt sentence

I removed this sentence: "As against that, a dog riding inside the car would be exposed to hazards by virtue of not having a seat belt." with the edit summary "This sentence doesn't make any sense in itself, and it makes even less sense in context." Someone brought it up on my Talk page so I thought I'd respond here. My feelings aren't terribly deep, I just found this to be a badly-written sentence expressing an incoherent thought. First, I'm not familiar with the phrase "as against that", and took it to be merely someone's clumsy attempt to communicate "in contradiction." A Google search suggests this may be my mistake and that "as against that" is in fact a phrase; I still dislike it. Beyond that point, the sentence still doesn't make sense in context:

Three scientists who evaluated the event stated that Seamus could have possibly had around ten pounds per square foot of air pressure pressing against his head during the trip. The veterinarian wife of one of the scientists said that she was worried that the air flow could cause fatigue and dehydration of the eyes. As against that, a dog riding inside the car would be exposed to hazards by virtue of not having a seat belt.

First, the fact that the dog wouldn't have a seat belt inside the car doesn't contradict, or negate, or have anything really to do with, the effects of the air flow/pressure if the dog rides outside the car. Second, the dog obviously wouldn't have a seat belt whether he's in the car or outside the car. The intent of the sentence seems to be to defend putting the dog outside the car by saying, well, if you put him inside the car, there are still hazards, which is also the meaning of that sentence in the cited reference (which I did read before removing the sentence). But it's written as if the lack of seat belt inside the car presents a hazard equal to the air pressure from riding outside the car, so really it's a toss-up which method is safer, which is ridiculous. The article says in an accident he might be equally endangered by either method, but the effects of the air pressure would be felt constantly regardless of whether there's an accident.

If you really must raise the point in the article I would recommend something like: "One scientist pointed out that even inside the car, a dog would still be exposed to hazards in an accident by virtue of not having a seat belt." Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your point that the failure to seatbelt a dog is not as serious a hazard as driving with a dog on the roof of a car. Furthermore, there is the legality issue. In 1983, no law existed that mandated that a dog wear a seatbelt. On the other hand, driving with a dog on the roof of your car was illegal in 1983. That being said, one of scientists did bring up the seatbelt issue, and if we totally ignore it, it would violate Wikipedia's NPOV policies. I'm fine with your poposed rewrite.Debbie W. 12:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't know that it was illegal, the source only says "probably" illegal. I find that dubious since he drove for 12 hours with that dog in a kennel on the roof, and apparently did it many times which puts into question the illegality of the action. Either that, or not a single highway patrol or local police ever saw him driving with the dog on the roof, which I find all but impossible to believe. And that not a single person even reported his action to a police authority for putting that poor dogs life in jepordy. Furthermore, in 1983 there were no seat belt laws for anyone. I find it ironic that the left is more upset about the dog riding on top of the car than that Romney's kids were riding in the back of the station wagon facing backwards not wearing seatbelts (which incidentally I did as a kid as well and it was the most comfortable seat in the car!) Those kids were certainly not wearing seatbelts back there since there were no seats. I doubt anyone in the car was wearing seatbelts with the possible exception of those in the front seats. Please stop viewing historical events through the prism of today. Arzel (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Romney's actions were definitely illegal in Massachusetts in 1983. You imply that because Romney drove 12 hours with the dog on the roof, and police didn't stop him, that it must have been legal. In my home state, until the early 1980s, people routinely drove drunk without consequence even though drunk driving was illegal. Likewise, domestic violence was illegal for a long time but rarely enforced. Being against the law, and being enforced are two totally different matters.

You should really temper your responses about something being definately illegal, since you do not know. Driving drunk is not noticable until you do something that would let others know. Driving with a dog kennel on the roof of your car would be noticble at all times. Your analogy is misplaced. Arzel (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Massachusetts has a long history of strict animal cruelty laws. It has been illegal in Massachusetts since the 19th century to carries it [an animal] or causes it to be carried in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner The present-day statute is similiar but has a little bit more comprehensive definition of cruelty: carries it or causes it to be carried in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon.Debbie W. 12:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If that were the case here, or even the view at the time it is unlikely he would have been able to transport the dog in that manner as he did. I find it highly unlikely that this mode of transportation was viewed as either cruel or inhumane at the time. By the wording of your source, it would matter little the location of the animal, only the manner in which they were transported in that location. Arzel (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither of your sources fully back up your position. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I know this goes back a while, but there are a few statements that should be corrected.

"Those kids were certainly not wearing seatbelts back there since there were no seats."

The car was a Chevy Caprice Wagon. It was sold with either 2 or 3 rows of seats (the 3rd row was rear-facing). It's quite unlikely that Romney owned the 2-row model. 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.

Also, you shouldn't say "kids" since there was only one kid riding behind the second row of seats. The Globe article indicates that "Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon." The other six occupants (mom, dad, and 4 kids ages 2-12) could easily fit in the first and second rows. The first row was a bench, not buckets.

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.)

"I doubt anyone in the car was wearing seatbelts with the possible exception of those in the front seats."

We don't know if the belts were worn, but we know that every passenger position was equipped with seat belts.

"I find that dubious since he drove for 12 hours with that dog in a kennel on the roof, and apparently did it many times … Either that, or not a single highway patrol or local police ever saw him driving with the dog on the roof, which I find all but impossible to believe. And that not a single person even reported his action to a police authority for putting that poor dogs life in jepordy. … it is unlikely he would have been able to transport the dog in that manner as he did … Driving with a dog kennel on the roof of your car would be noticble at all times"

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.

Also, even if I did know there was an animal inside, I would assume you're going a short distance, and therefore be less inclined to speak up and report you to the police. There would be no way for an observer to know that you're on a trip lasting 13-15 hours. Doing it for just a few minutes is also wrong, but not nearly as wrong as doing it all day long.

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. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge of new material

There is some discussion at WP:AfD to merge the Campaign for "romney" neologism even before that discussion ends, which is not prohibited. It may be the best outcome: they'll only be one target for vandalism and trolling. Would anyone object if a short, sourced paragraph about that topic were selectively merged into this article? Bearian (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Doubtful. I think it would be undue weight for that stuff to be included anywhere. What did you have in mind? Arzel (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be okay with it. I propose the following info be added to the Seamus article:

In 2012, in response to Mitt Romney’s road trip, web designer Jack Shepler created the neologism 'romney' which means 'to defecate in terror'. The neologism was inspired by the neologism 'santorum', which gay rights activist Dan Savage had created in 2003. Shepler stated that he created the new word in order to draw attention to Mitt Romney's "mistreatment of a family pet" and his personal judgement. According to Google, the romney neologism's web listing is due to the website's popularity, and not because of Google bombing or search engine optimization.Debbie W. 21:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, but please confirm that the sources say what is cited. Any further discussion? Bearian (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)