Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

UNDUE tag

What is this tag referring to specifically? SÆdon^talk 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It might help if you read my [1] summary when I put it up. Or you could probably figure it out since there is only one issue really being discussed. Arzel (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering that you didn't add an UNDUE tag it wouldn't make much sense to look at your edit summary. SÆdon^talk 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing coverage on the largest aspect

This obviously isn't just about the dog, it's about what has happened with it. Including "who gave this story legs, and why?" This aspect is completely missing from the article. I was one of others who put up the POV tag which folks have been working at warring out, and that was the reason I gave in the edit summary. The "reason" given for removal after my placement was apparently that the given reason was in the edit summary rather then the talk page. So here it is. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"Supplementary information"

Ugh. This heading is awful. We might as well call it "A bunch of crap that doesn't fit anywhere else." And as far as I can see, the edit summary that created this heading (misspelled) has no mention of or justification for its creation, and there's nothing on this Talk page to explain it, either.

Can we move the Gail Collins sentence back to the "Political commentary" section and change "Supplementary information" back to "Later life"? Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Support this and moving Later life to below the incident section. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 11:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The supplementary info section violates WP:TRIVIA. Unless someone seriously objects, I think that we should move the Collins sentence to the political commentary section. Debbie W. 01:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of placement, the Gail Collins comment needs to say more than "she mentioned it 50 times", if it is to be included. It needs context or it needs to be snipped. -- Avanu (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What sort of context do you want? I reluctant to add too much more about Ms. Collins, as it will cause the article to deviate off topic. Debbie W. 03:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, if, as seems to be the case, Ms. Collins is responsible for keeping the meme alive, she should be given more prominent placement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Currently, the sentence reads, "As of March 2012, New York Times columnist Gail Collins had mentioned the car trip more than 50 times." What changes or additions are you proposing? Debbie W. 05:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion above titled "My Rant" -- Avanu (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, Do you have a reliable source that states more about Gail Collins and Seamus, other than that she wrote 50 articles? Debbie W. 05:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

From WP:Verifiability, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. .... It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; ...." Point being, I'm telling you this sentence is inadaquate. It is biased and provides no context. Find a real source that talks about how this 'fact' relates to the story at large or leave it out. I've explained this over and over, and I'm not sure why you think that it is OK to add material without providing context for it being in the article. I could also say "Romney has had 5 dogs in his life." But how does that relate to this article? -- Avanu (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Biased??? It's a factual statement with a reference to a reliable source. It doesn't show any favortism to any one opinion, and it definitely doesn't damage anyone's reputation. I know of at least four other reliable sources (see below) that discuss Gail Collins fascination with Seamus, but I'm not sure why you find the current sentence so objectionable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/gail-collins-mitt-romney-dog-seamus_n_1331625.html

http://www.observer.com/2011/12/dogged-times-op-ed-columnist-gail-collins-will-not-let-crate-gate-drop/

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/12/gail-collins-will-not-stop-mentioning-romneys-dog-no-matter-what-you-say/46478/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/20/144004616/why-is-times-columnist-gail-collins-so-obsessed-with-mitt-romneys-dog

Debbie W. 05:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Keyword was "might", not "will". Anyway, I've explained over and over that it is a standalone 'fact'. You don't seem to understand why this is a bad thing. Why don't we mention that Seamus ate Alpo food? Or that he was allergic to pears? I'm sure you can recognize why. So again, WHY IS IT IMPORTANT THAT GAIL MENTIONED THIS 50 TIMES? Answer that question and then you can leave it in the article because you have established a reason for it to be there. Fail to answer that question, and it should be left out. This is not rocket science. I've NEVER disputed that you can find reliable sources for this. What I have been repeatedly asking is for you to explain (via sources) WHY it should be mentioned. -- Avanu (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a source that it's significant for inclusion in the article; it might be WP:UNDUE weight to include it, but even the raw fact is more relevant to both the dog and the controversy than the opinion of the presidents of the MSPCA and PETA. (Note, the opinion of the president of the MSPCA is now incorrectly attributed to the organization.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, there are many problems with the article. I went on about it all in 'My Rant' above. -- Avanu (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Article deserves deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Recent AFD closed as keep. The WP:HORSEMEAT is about as tender as it's gonna get. SÆdon^talk 21:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

---

There is virtually no point in this article. Romney strapped Seamus to the top of his car. That is an incident blown out of political proportion that says NOTHING about his ability to govern. If this article is allowed to exist because you're upset about Romney being a potential candidate against Obama why don't you allow the Obama eats/ate dogs article?

This is obviously a pathetic political smear. I read the whole article wandering when the page would be over. Are you guys expecting us to laugh about the joke on how you ride with a dog in a car? What about the conservative counter-joke: it must have been a chilling memory for him to look a dog in the eye like that. Why is that joke missing from the article?

I find the dirty tactics you attempt only prove you're wrong.98.154.101.143 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see "Article milestones" at the top of this page. It's been through 2 deletion discussion, one was last week. IOW: not gonna happen anytime soon. SÆdon^talk 22:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. 98.154.... um yeah, 2 deletion discussions and one JUST ended. I agree with your points, but you need to drop it now. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right that the incident has no relation to Romney's ability to govern and is a pathetic political smear. However that doesn't automatically mean it has to be deleted. The incident seems to have gained enough fame and recognition in the United States to be notable. Wikipedia has no political agenda, nor does it maintain any viewpoint about what is "right". JIP | Talk 07:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit protection

{{editprotected}}

1. Move Seamus (dog) to Seamus controversy or Seamus incident. Based on the discussion under Requested move section, just about everyone has reached a consensus that current name needs to changes, and of the suggestions, these two seem to have no objections. Titles containing the words "Mitt Romney" were also popular, but there were some concerns about BLP violations with these titles.

2. Move the sentence about Gail Collins in the "Supplementary information" section to the "Political commentary" section, and retitle "Supplementary information" as "Later life". Based on the Supplementary information section, everyone agrees that "supplementary information" is an inappropriate title for an article section.

3. Extend article protection for a few more days. I think that some of the other edit disputes could be resolved with a few more days of talking. HHIAdm (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I supported titles that had Romney's name in them but I am not adverse at all to any of the above propositions, they're all equally ok with me, no first choice. SÆdon^talk 00:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

HHIAdm, I'm not sure there's consensus for this new name of "Seamus incident". Sounds like a book title. Whatever happened to "common name"? Maybe the idea that there isn't a really common name other than "that thing where romney had his dog on his car" should tell people how standalone this article should be? -- Avanu (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

I set up archiving a week ago so there's no need to manually archive anymore (and I changed it from 20 to 10 days). As it stands it's incredibly annoying that archives aren't split according to custom (/archive_1, /archive_2, etc) and I'm probably going to do it manually eventually, but please don't make things worse! Thanks. SÆdon^talk 05:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

ASPCA guidelines with regard to crating duration and distress

Azrel has just made yet another tendentious edit. I added this:

ASPCA states that "an adult dog can be crated for as long as eight hours on occasion." They also say "don’t crate your dog if you see signs of anxiety when she’s crated, such as … urination or defection in the crate."

References

Azrel removed that, with the following comment: "Selective quoting of the source. NPOV violation. There is no evidence that the result was because of anxiety like you wold suggest."

Trouble is, it is not my POV that "the result was because of anxiety." That POV is what is stated by ASPCA. It is ASPCA, not me, which lists "urination or defection in the crate" as one of several "signs of anxiety when she’s crated." ASPCA is expressing this expert view: urination or defection in the crate should be considered a sign of anxiety.

This is an expert view that is highly relevant to a reader's evaluation of the matter, and it should not be removed. According to ASPCA, it was wrong to put the dog back in the crate after noticing "urination or defection in the crate."

Likewise for their expert view regarding the matter of duration. Everyone here and elsewhere is focused on the fact that the dog is on top of a car moving down a highway. This is obviously an important fact, but another more basic fact is being ignored: the dog was in the crate for much too long, even if the crate had been sitting in a quiet room.

ASCPA expressed the expert view that a dog should not be in a crate for more than 8 hours. We are appropriately citing experts expressing their view regarding whether or not a dog should be transported on top of a car. It is a problem that we are ignoring something more basic: expert views regarding whether or not a dog should be in a crate for 12-15 hours, regardless of the location of the crate. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ASPCA is not expressing expert views as to the maximum time dogs can be crated; they are expressing conservative views. In other words, if you follow their guidelines, you are safe from any possible claims of maltreatment. If you don't, then you're on your own, but it's not even prima facia grounds for a claim of maltreatment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the content should be included in the article text, but there may be a problem with wp:synthesis. I.e, we would need a source which ties the ASPCA view specifically to the Romney case. El duderino ^(abides) 08:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That, also. Even if ASPCA views were expert, we would need a source which would tie the expert views at the time with the incident, even if a present source. Current expert views are irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis is "[combining] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion." I believe what I wrote is not synthesis because it does not necessarily imply a conclusion. What I wrote is relevant information that can be used to support either conclusion. A reader might say this: '12 exceeds 8, so Romney did something wrong,' but they could also say this: '12 exceeds 8, but not by much, especially taking into account that the ASPCA would be inclined to lean in a certain direction; therefore there's no problem here.' (The fact that I personally believe the former isn't relevant, because I didn't express that in what I wrote.) I think it's helpful for a reader to know that the ASPCA number is not, say, 1, or 100. They can decide for themselves what the number tells them about this incident.

"ASPCA is not expressing expert views as to the maximum time dogs can be crated; they are expressing conservative views."

No, they are expressing a maximum. I didn't mention that they also said this: "But during the day, neither puppies nor adult dogs should be crated for more than four or five hours at a time." They also said "Maximum time in crate" for dogs older than 17 weeks is "4–5 hours." I omitted that and only mentioned this: "an adult dog can be crated for as long as eight hours on occasion." So they are indeed presenting 8 as a maximum, and "4-5 hours" as a more conservative view.

"Current expert views are irrelevant."

No, they're not irrelevant. Yes, an expert view from 1983 would be more relevant, but that doesn't make a current expert view irrelevant (especially if it's the best expert view that's available, or the only expert view). Especially since there is no evidence of a radical cultural shift on such things, between 1983 and now. It was 1983, not 1883. I see no reason to believe that the text I cited wasn't written a long time, or that it couldn't have been written in 1983. Also, 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. One of the major problems with what he's doing is that he's now encouraging people to believe that doing such a thing is OK now. This is another reason why a current expert view is quite relevant.

Readers of this article are naturally wondering about this key question: 'how long is it OK to keep a dog in a crate?' As far as I can tell, everyone but me is expressing (or implying) opinions about that, without citing any sources to support that opinion. If you can find a better source, then we should include it. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, this is textbook synthesis. We cannot compare the recommendation to the situation ourselves, and nor can we just sort of sit them side by side and let people work it out themselves ("we report, you decide"). Any comparison must have been explicitly carried out by a secondary party and ideally then cited to a secondary source commenting on that party. When that happens, feel free to reintroduce the material. Until then it has no place in the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with others including CC here. This is irrelevant to the article unless some other RS considers it relevant (in which case we can discuss whether to include it) Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Jukeboxgrad, comments like this. "Azrel has just made yet another tendentious edit. I added this:" are uncalled for. Arzel (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You said this to me: "Seriously, GET OVER IT." And to someone else you said this: "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." Therefore I think you're in a poor position to make a judgment about what is "uncalled for."

There's just one thing about what I wrote that was uncalled for: I misspelled your name. Sorry about that. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The ASPCA info should be kept out unless it can be shown that it was widely available in 1983.Zaggs (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, dogs are routinely crated for transport - see airline rules, and the fact that many single flights are well over 8 hours, with low air pressure in the pressurized cargo areas. [2]. Cheers. This story is past its sell-by date. Collect (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH, since you are forgetting the only source for the story and speculating as to what did happen based on nothing. The Romney kids were remarking on how Mitt would not make pit stops when THEY asked for them, but was always attentive to whatever Anne wanted. Or Seamus. They did not say there were NO pit stops, nor that Seamus was not let out along the way.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. 209.6, do you think they pull the plane over and let the dogs out? Anyway, back on point, it does appear to represent a bit of OR to place a quote from a primary source into the article as commentary on how well Seamus was treated. We can't edit the article right now anyway, but whenever admins decide to allow editing again, it should be sourced not to a primary source, but a reliable secondary source if it is to be related to this article. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Collect:

"dogs are routinely crated for transport"

Not for a period of 12-15 hours. And responsible dog owners do not put their dog in a cargo hold, period. ASPCA says this: "Unless your animal is small enough to fit under your seat and you can bring him or her in the cabin, the ASPCA recommends pet owners to not fly their animal." (Google ASPCA Air Travel Tips.)

"many single flights are well over 8 hours"

The citation you offered says nothing to support this claim. Also, the relevant number is 12 (at least), not 8. Also, I am aware of no authority which says it's OK to crate a dog for more than 8 hours. On an airplane, on top of a car, or anywhere else. The site you cited does not say it's OK crate a dog for over 8 hours, either in or out of an airplane. So I don't know why you implied that it did.

209:

"The Romney kids were remarking on how Mitt would not make pit stops when THEY asked for them, but was always attentive to whatever Anne wanted. Or Seamus."

This is a nice example of "speculating as to what did happen based on nothing." There is no statement from "the Romney kids" indicating that Mitt "was always attentive to whatever [Seamus] wanted." Your last two words ("Or Seamus") have no basis in any statement made by "the Romney kids." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Things to do

The article looks great, we have a new title, no weasel words, great attribution and incredibly well references. It was a pain in the ass by we managed to get it done.

So the question now is: what needs to be done to get this to GA status, and do you all think it's a good time to ask for a GA review? SÆdon^talk 05:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that asking for a GA review would be a good idea. I think that with the name change, the renaming of the supplementary info section, and the removal of the romney neologism section a few weks ago, this is much better article. Debbie W. 12:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a chance in hell is this going to be a GA, so you should just stop your attempt to push this liberal talking point into the 2012 election process right now. Arzel (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI to Debbie and Saedon. This article is hardly set up as a good article yet. I can tell that without much effort. It is a loose narrative of random mentions by various people. It lacks commentary from the majority, which seems to be 'yeah, who cares?' While a lot of people wouldn't personally do what Romney did, if you leave aside the obvious electioneering commentary, you are left with a lot of people saying it isn't great, but it isn't all that bad either.

In what you do have in the article, you leave out Ingrid from PETA saying its not a big deal compared to the real issues. You have an engineer and his veterinarian wife saying, 'maybe this or that', but no real evidence there, just implication, and we don't know why this particular couple weighed in or why they're in the article.

We have 2 comments from Mitt and his wife under "legal commentary", which is absolutely silly. Although Mitt Romney has a JD, he isn't a practicing attorney and since he is the guy at the center of this, it hardly makes sense to call his statements on it "legal commentary". Ann has a degree in French. Not sure how her statements qualify as legal commentary either.

Typical half-hearted Newt quote there; he almost never says anything concrete. The next quote about "how loving owners treat their dogs" should be followed up by the comment made from the political right on Obama's dog, but it isn't. This is the political section after all.

Mark Halperin opined it was serious for voters... in what way? How does he see this affecting the election? No mention of maybe women vs. men voters, no analysis whatsoever, just some guy saying some random quote.

Blah, I'm tired of dissecting this, but seriously, this isn't even close to a good article, we might not have weasel 'words', but we have a lot of weasely phrases and really a mucky soup of random quotes from the news. It is a crappy article. Give it a CA status. It could be fixed, it could be a good article, but it ain't that now. -- Avanu (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt and Ann Romney's response is under legal commentary because they are commenting on the legality of the event, basically saying they did not violate any laws. I'm not sure how we can discern the "commentary from the majority" but I do think that we should try to find commentary from another politician defending Romney's actions. We already have Ann and Mitt Romney's defense of their actions, and we have journalist Ruth Marcus's comments, but all the other politicians who we cite are criticizing the 1983 road trip. We should see if there is a major politician who has come to Romney's defense. That would be the only real change that this article needs before we apply for GA status. Debbie W. 17:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I took another look at the Vet comments after reading above. The source doesn't actually say what she (the Vet) said, it says what Cummings says that she would say. It is quite a bit different. Cummings supposition about what his wife might say is not notable, not to mention the fact that she is an anonymous vet. If we are going to quote a vet's opinion, we should probably; (1) know who it is and (2) quote what they actually say, and not what their husband says that they might say. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Although a vet's comments would be useful, we cannot use a second-hand quote from an semi-anonymous person. Debbie W. 21:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Av, perhaps you're right. I think I was overzealous in ascribing pride to us all for a job well done prematurely. Still, I am proud of us, we've accomplished a lot in the past month or so. I will comment on specifics later; lots of stuff to do atm. SÆdon^talk 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Avanu:

"Mark Halperin opined it was serious for voters... in what way? How does he see this affecting the election? No mention of maybe women vs. men voters, no analysis whatsoever, just some guy saying some random quote."

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." And this: "35% of voters would be less likely to vote for Romney because of the Seamus incident."

We know you are not part of that 35%, but only someone choosing to ignore this data would suggest there is no reason to see this "affecting the election."

You said this elsewhere: "This issue is not worth our time considering there are legitimate and serious issues facing the United States."

Except that 35% of voters think this issue is sufficiently "legitimate and serious" to influence their vote. What you're doing is ignoring that data in favor of your own personal opinion regarding what's "legitimate and serious." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Animal infobox

My removal was not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is only an essay, not a policy, and one about deletion rationales at that. When I said it was redundant, I meant it was redundant with the other infobox at the top of the article, not just with the other text in the article. If that's not a valid rationale, we should be creating infoboxes for every subsection of every article, to properly document everything. Seriously, when the infobox includes the text "Known for 1983 incident (see text)", when the title of the article is "Seamus incident", and there's an infobox also titled "Incident", I really do think it's a bit excessive. Also, WP:INFOBOX links to a Wikiproject, not a policy either, so there was not necessarily a valid reason to undo my edit. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps the word "incident" is overused, but that is no reason to delete the infobox. I think that having both infoboxes makes sense. I will change the title of the first infobox to "event". Debbie W. 02:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes aren't required on articles hence are but stylistic choices. That said, reader surveys indicate that a fairly large portion of readers scan such things as sidebars' text and image captions before deciding whether they'll dive into an article's main text. So all-in-all, I think infoboxes improve articles. (As for multiple infoboxes, they likewise are neither encouraged nor discouraged but I think, FWthat'sW, in the present case the two infofoxes, taken together, nicely encapsulate the focus of the article.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason to have the animal infobox. It seems misleading, regardless of what the article is about (which is still subject to edit wars controversy, it's not about the dog. If there was a way to minimize the infobox.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep the event infobox, but remove the dog infobox. The dog infobox only provides a place to put the picture. The information in the infobox is either self explanatory (species: dog, nation from: United States, Occupation: seriously?) or covered better in the prose of the article (breed: actually in the section heading, sex: importance?, owner: covered). Visually, the picture would look better in the article not an infobox, and the infobox just clutters the article.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Cmt (or neutral !vote): - I think the indiv. dog infobox is kinda "cute" but agree little is lost w its replacement by a standard captioned pic, fwiw.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephanopoulos column

George Stephanopoulos, who has close ties to Democratic Party heavyweights, wrote this back on April 19. He explicitly tied the Obama- eats-dog thing to the Seamus incident, and downplayed both. I suggest using this column in the article, and letting it guide coverage of the Obama-eats-dog meme. Cheers, CWC 15:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC) who is not putting this page on his watchlist

This article is not about Obama eating dog and the seamus incident, it's about one specific man and one specific dog. Even if someone talks about both things, the scope of our article does not include Obama's actions as a 6 year old. The Obama stuff is a WP:COATRACK plain and simple. SÆdon^talk 21:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I generally respect your work, it would be WP:UNDUE not to include Obama and the connections made by pundits and by Obama himself. I have doubts that that column is a reliable source, but I could be wrong. He is an expert, after all, so his columns might fall under WP:SPS, as it doesn't really seem to be about a living person (or a dead dog). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Tag - (Added NPOV tag with the censorship of the Obama dog eating meme which is a response to this meme.)

I find it very distressing that editors remove the NPOV tag when it is abundantely clear why I put up in the first place. Apparently my edit summary is too abstract for concise understanding. So let me say it again. (Added NPOV tag with the censorship of the Obama dog eating meme which is a response to this meme.) I find it simply amazing that you have several editors using WP to push this political story on WP and refusing to even acknowledge the political response. This is going to be a very painful election year indeed. Arzel (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So it looks like there are multiple reasons for the tag. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source making the connection. Arzel (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you have failed thus far in explaining what is neutral about including unrelated statements about an entirely different person who is has nothing to do with this incident. As I have pointed out so many times now: the fact that the right has committed a logical fallacy in that they pointed to Obama to deflect attention from something Romney did does not actually mean that the incidents are related, it just means that those conservatives who have problems with logic will be persuaded to parrot the argument without ever realizing it doesn't make sense. I understand why this is: what Romney did is indefensible in the eyes of a lot of people, and rather than try to justify it it's easier to just change the subject and hope people will focus on something else instead. Fortunately WP is not the place where we change the subject like that.

Anyway, the more I think about this the more I start to think that it's a BLP issue, and so I will probably just raise the issue at WP:BLPN and see what they have to say. SÆdon^talk 20:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Repeated from above: Considering that this incident has been made a political football, and if Romney gets the GOP nomination, Obama will be his direct opponent, it is completely noteworthy and correct to include Obama's joke about "Dogs are apparently fair game." In fact, Obama is making the same point that many editors have been making here. BOTH of these stories are ridiculous political fodder. Neither of the stories deserve the attention they are getting, and neither of the stories are going to matter in any serious way to determine the outcome of this election.

In reality, the irony here is that the stories are so overhyped that they are almost a joke. And so Obama tells his joke, admittedly to make his tale less serious, but also to make the valid point that we actually could be talking about serious problems. A reasonably small mention is appropriate for this article. -- Avanu (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Av, I have no problem with that addition, I have said so explicitly at least three times above. What I'm talking about here is regarding not the WHCD but the conservative red herring sourced to some less than logical commentators. SÆdon^talk 20:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I shall open my eyes better. :) And yes, in this article, we don't need unreliable commentators or a long expose of Obama's dog eating or the commentary on it. -- Avanu (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth. SÆdon^talk 21:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP...Really? Under what line of reasoning would you invoke BLP on this when Obama himself is making jokes about it. Did you even read my source??? My guess is not. To save your some clicking here you go.

On Monday morning, MSNBC's First Read noted that Obama had seized on the Saturday dinner as an opportunity to bring up Seamus. "Yes, Obama made fun of himself and eating dog, but they'll take that to get the Seamus story mainlined; They've been trying for months." You betcha.

*** A way to bring up Seamus: Don’t overlook the fact that the White House used the opportunity of the White House Correspondents Dinner -- when they knew they’d get lighter coverage for what they did – put a story that they’ve struggled to put into the mainstream, quietly trying to do for months, the Seamus story. It was frankly a way to get Seamus out there. Yes, Obama made fun of himself and eating dog, but they’ll take that to get the Seamus story mainlined; They’ve been trying for months.

Please explain to me again how they are completely unrelated. Arzel (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Azrel, perhaps you and I are having a different conversation. I will say now, again, for maybe the 7th or 8th time that I have no problem with the WHCD info being in there. I never opposed it to begin with. There is not that much opposition to it, so much so that I don't doubt that at this point we have close enough to consensus to include it. I oppose the following: having a section, a la Kelly's version, discussing Jim Hawkins' (and his ilk's) Chewbacca defense. I have been under the impression that that is what you and North would like included. I have been under this impression because I don't know why you would argue with me about the WHCD stuff when I didn't oppose it in the first place. SÆdon^talk 22:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, I am opposed to the inclusion of comments regarding Obama eating dog on the grounds that the AfD deleted Obama Eats Dogs for lack of notability. Hypothetically, let's say there was an article about a given person or event which was not notable, and that article was deleted. It would be in violation of Wikipedia policy to turn around and then add that material to another article. I've seen this issue before, particularly with Wikipedia pages for colleges, where people who are not notable add their name to the famous alumni section of the page of their alma mater. It's completely illegitimate.

I'm not convinced that the comments at the WHCD make the dog-eating notable, if the original week of publicity about the meme did not make it notable. There was far less news coverage of Obama's comments about dog-eating than there was about Jim Treacher's original 'Obama Eats Dog' story. Furthermore, the WHCD was discussed three times during the AfD, and the decision was still to delete. Can anyone show me another case where an article was deleted (not merged) by AfD, and then the material from the deleted article was subsequently added to a different article? Debbie W. 05:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Debbie, please see WP:NOTABLE#Notability_guidelines_do_not_limit_content_within_an_article. Notability doesn't apply to article content, it only applies to whether a topic is worthy of its own article. SÆdon^talk 20:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable or opinionated on this. My post is in the previous section and my note here is that this makes it multiple reasons for the POV tag. North8000 (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - As always any additions to the encyclopedia--separate article or detail supplied to an existing one--must be according to the standard wp:EDITing and CONTENT (wp:RS, etc.) guidelines. What particular contribution is being proposed? If we think it can stand on its own merits within the context, in particular, of this article, then it can stay; otherwise, not.

  In any case, an AfD consensus for a merger of the Obama/dogmeat meme stand-alone article to shoehorn it in entirety into say the Obama 2012 campaign article would have presented issues of UNDUE or the like. So any "merge" result was out by basic logic and hence no consensus materialized to support that option; but a procedural argument to disallow mention of this meme/controversy here ITSELF is be opposed to accepted WP procedures, in this instance. Only a consensus on this talkpage holds sway--since there was no consensus in the AfD in favor of nor opposed to mere mention of the youthful happenstance/alleged indiscretion outside of a stand-alone treatment. (Heck, one can even recreate an article already deleted, if one wants--as long as the new material is backed up by better sourcing, etc., than the one that was deleted, or if one can convincingly demonstrate that new events, or overlooked circumstances, or whatever, now hold sway (speaking entirely theoretically, of course).)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that using the POV-tag -- say, as a "badge of shame" -- is a common ploy of activist-minded editors who don't like an article's existence, especially those fighting for its deletion. 12.159.5.249 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Stale tag: no discussion in over a week. No apparent attempt at improving article to remove NPOV tag. Think editors like North8000 and Arzel just want to keep the tag in place. 64.134.183.120 (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Misc.

• Mr. Personality wasn't Seamus's "nickname," per se. Swidey's interview material w Jane Robinson does not say Seamus had the nickname Mr. Personality; rather it says that "this dog was mister personality" as a figure of speech. By way of comparison, she also terms him "a Houdini." LINK--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• @Animal infobox: per Politicker LINK, Jane married in the 1950s and her surname is Robinson.Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OK Jane owned the dog when she was Robinson nee Romney and--if she owned it after the incident, that is--after she was again (divorcee) "Jane Romney"(?)--Ben Smith link--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Halperin, in his 2007 tome, The Undecided Voter's Guide to the Next President, names Jane "Jane Romney Robinson." LINK--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Dr. Robinson:

  "we took care of Seamus, a beautiful, magnificent dog. We had three other dogs of our own, but we had an acre of property overlooking the American River, so we had lots of land to take care of these dogs and for them to roam around in"---(Quoted by Hunter Walker in-- ) Politicker (link above)

  --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As an actress, Jane got roles c. 1987 in The Young and the Restless and Capital. Sacramento Bee LINK

A Jane Romney was in an episode of Days of Our Lives in 1993. IMDb--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Co-wrote/performed adaptation of the Brownings' correspondence ["How do I love thee? Let me count the ways" &c.] April 25, 2008 Washington, Penn. Oberserver-Reporter--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Jerry Brown, California's former two-term governor, was sworn in as mayor Monday.... Brown's star quality lured some out-of-town fans, among them Jane Romney, an actress, writer and daughter of former Michigan Gov. George Romney, a one-time Republican presidential candidate."---January 4, 1999 S.F.Examiner--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Hinckley Robinson's father, O. Preston Robinson, was "a former professor of marketing and retailing at New York University and at the University of Utah, where he was also chairman of the Department of Retailing...." LINK

Here is the blurb from the back jacket from a tome by Bruce H. Robinson, published in 2007:Biomedicine: A Textbook for Practitioners of Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine:

Bruce [Edited: Hinckley] Robinson was a board-certified surgeon. Graduating with high honors from the Univ. of Mich. School of Med. [Edited: in 1962], he completed another five years of post-graduate internship and residency at the university and a research fellowship at St. Bartholomew's Med. Coll. in London. During his 30 years medical and surgical practice, Bruce treated over 80,000 patients. Now that he is no longer in practice, he has dedicated his professional career to bridging the gap between Western medicine and Chinese medicine. ... ... He serves on the board of dir.s of the Nat'l Board of Internal Medicine for Acupuncturists and Acupuncture and the Acupuncture and Integrated Med. Coll. in Berkeley...."

The book is dedicated to his [new?] wife "Jayne." Page 11 eulogizes his father, Preston. A 2009 book by the same author is Western Physical Exam Skills for Practitioners of Asian Medicine.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The changes look good. Debbie W. 00:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who has no real idea why any of this is relevant to the "Seamus incident"? Is it all supposed to be about figuring out the proper name for Mitt's sister? Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Research has an odd habit of leading down unsuspected avenues. (Heaven forbid! I know, I know, what is most popular on WP is to spend hours of time arguing points that could perhaps be settled by a few seconds' use of Google; however, above indeed is a short paragraph reporting the actual results of a handful of such very quick searches. My sincere hope is that readers may be able to recover from such a shock.) In any case, the answer is essentially--perhaps I should say largelly, in the affirmative; i.e., yes (1) the mister personality item's w/rgd that phrase formerly w/in Seamus's bio section, followed by (2) research into Mitt's sister Jane's present surname [as an actress she went by Romney but in some books she is credited as Robinson], interspersed with (3) info about Bruce Robinson incl. his joint-caretaking/ownership of Seamus, this in rdg to the article's animal infobox text that previously noted but Jane.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV - Obama eats dogs

Now that the page has been moved, and it is clear it is regarding the political aspects of the incident it is time to discuss how to incorporate some aspect of the Obama eating dogs political response to this political event. We already have a couple os sections discussing the Obama campaign use of this issue, it should be quite easy to incorporate some small section which illustrates the response to their attacks. We have sources that meet WP:RS, and it is a violation of WP:NPOV to not mention is at all as if it never even happened. Arzel (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should incorporate the dog-eating issue into this article. The recent AfD decided that the material is not notable, and should be deleted (not merged). Contrary to some previous discussions on this Talk page, the White House Correspondents Dinner comments were discussed during the AfD. That being said, please describe the verbiage that you want to use if we are going to include this material. Debbie W. 15:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That is not a genuine view of the AfD. I will put forth a proposal shortly. Arzel (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do. I think a lot of the bickering on this page can be traced to the lack of specific wording being introduced. If it's anything like Kelly's version I'm opposed, but it's theoretically possible to include something so long as it's not simply the Chewbacca defense. SÆdon^talk 20:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish attempt at diminishing the incident of dog abuse to a political attack by equating it to the Obama meme. Pro-Romney POV-pushers didn't get what they wanted at the AfD discussions so they continue pushing here. Shameless. 12.159.5.249 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OOPS, I missed that. Pro-Obama IPs shouldn't have their way in this article; it's clear that it is WP:UNDUE not to have the reference to the "Obama Eats Dogs" incident here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

MSPCA and PETA

I don't see why the opinions of the presidents of the Massachusetts SPCA (although our article presently attributes it to the association) and PETA are relevant to this article. They certainly don't fit in the "legal" or "scientific" opinion section, as there is no evidence the speakers are lawyers or scientists. I think, perhaps, those statements should be moved to the "political" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. And PETA is so far fringe/nutty that news reports cover what they say only as entertaining comedy North8000 (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This is called "legal" commentary because they are discussing the legality of the 1983 road trip. SPCA and PETA and well-known animal rights organizations (the former being more mainstream), so we quote them. We also quote Mitt Romney and Ann Romney defending the legality off the trip. Debbie W. 02:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What they have to do with "legal"? And in Peta's case, about 1/3 of the coverage of them is when they are breaking laws to pursue their agendas. On the first you may be mixing up ASPCA (national org with similar problems as PETA but not quite as bad) and the local organization quoted in the article. North8000 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with you that PETA has its own issues, they are listed because they are commenting on the legal issues of the incident. If some other group comes out and his differering comments about the 1983 road trip, we will add them. Debbie W. 12:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I differ with you (as above) as to whether it should be included, it's clear it should be under "political" rather than "legal" if included at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Imagine

If all the energy put into this talk page on this silly article was applied equally to rest of WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.203.61.179 (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but (except for the outnmbered few) this is the energy of the Obama re-election folks. It would not go to the rest of Wikipedia, it would just shift to another article Obama or Romney article towards that end. And this is all occurring in what is striving to be be an encyclopedia rather than a campaign instrument. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

|}

Don't forget the pro-Romney pushers. 64.134.183.120 (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Name one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of information

Arzel has removed another editor's comments from the straw poll on this talk page, and has removed a tag about edit warring that another editor had been placed on the Seamus incident page. Because of the highly controversial nature of this issue, I think we need an admin to close the straw poll. However, I am restoring HHIAdm's comments to the straw poll, but instead listing them as a note in the straw poll rather than a closure of the straw poll. Wikipedia allows users to add tags to articles, and the edit warring tag should not have been removed. I have restored the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwainwr123 (talk • contribs)

That was a 1RR tag, it is a different thing all together, and HHIAdm claimed there was concensus for the tag. Please show me this before accusing me of inappropriate removal of information. It is your attitude on these kinds of issues that causes the problem to begin with. Arzel (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirm. There is no support for a 1RR restriction. Controversial closes, and closes mandating admin action, should not be made by non-admins. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

One-Revert Rule

In order to discourage edit warring, I am proposing that we go to a voluntary one-revert rule. What this means is that with the exception of clear instances of vandalism, we agree not revert any change to this article more than once in a 24-hour period, and we agree that all reverts should be discussed on this talk page. WP:1RR states that editors can also voluntarily agree to abide by a stricter standard on reverting such as 1RR or 0RR, either in response to problems in a particular area, or as a general editing philosophy. HHIAdm (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. <!Vote removed> Furthermore, a 1RR restriction requires a stronger consensus than consensus on the article content. The section you're quoting suggests only those who agree are bound by the restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)