Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

PETA

Also gentlemen, please simmer down about the PETA statement even if it's a personal opinion of the President of PETA. It's no different from James Carney / Barack Obama. Please do leave it in. ViriiK (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. I've removed this before; the opinions of the president of PETA are not necessarily representative of PETA, and are not notable unless they represented an official statement of PETA. The same applies to Nadia's confusing statement as to whether a law was violated; it's not notable unless it's an official staement of MaSPA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, Nadia does not have a notable POV. Ingrid does. Big difference. It doesn't matter if Ingrid's opinion is not PETA's official opinion. Arcandam (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ingrid does have notability since the media has used her for statements for PETA consistently. Google News Search reveals this. However I'm a member of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) so please do not assume I'm defending Ingrid here. ViriiK (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point; however, the undue tag should remain until this entire matter is resolved. It applies to this discussion as well as to the question of whether Ingrid's opinion should remain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You are abusing a template. Template abuse can be reverted. Arcandam (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. For those curious about my personal opinion, Maddox wrote something funny.

108: I do not think it's appropriate of you to be filing an Administrator Intervention without giving 3RR warning to Arcandam. I will be opposing your report. ViriiK (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I did provide a 3RR warning.108.18.174.123 (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Kinda funny, that IP hasn't even read WP:3RR before filing a report. Stop wasting our admins time. Arcandam (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@108, No, you did not. You gave a small personal notice. You must use the template. ViriiK (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any requirement at the noticeboard to use a template. The template conveys the same basic message as the personal notice, and Arcandam is an experienced editor (who should know better).108.18.174.123 (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you would've been an experienced editor too you would've known you should read WP:3RR before filing a report. Arcandam (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's a requirement according to the report page where you filed, not the help page that Arcantum linked.. You did not make it a serious notice in your diff. Especially it's very questionable when you are in a current debate with him over an UNDUE piece. If he gets blocked, I will remove your piece. ViriiK (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you carefully check the edits you'll see that the chance of me being blocked is close to zero. And if it happens a trouting, unblock, desysopping, and retrouting will follow. Arcandam (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's a relatively new requirement that the subject be notified of the report. As you since templated me with a 3RR report, it's assumed you're familiar with 3RR. I tend to agree that 108's notice is not adequate, although it does point to WP:3RR. However, if you revert again, in whole or in part, any edit made in that article, in the next 23 hours or so, you should be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Dude, before you say anything else, check the diffs and the 3RR noticeboard archives and read WP:3RR. Arcandam (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is on our side. Arcandam (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent) Anyway, I tend to agree that the opinion of the President of PETA, as reported in a reliable source, is notable and not undue weight, especially if we give Romney's response (as we do).108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Which that's not the debate at all here. We're talking about your ASPCA sentence. I don't care about the PETA stuff. ViriiK (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The PETA stuff is what Arthur Rubin has been arguing with Arcandam about. I disagree with Arthur Rubin about it.108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at the header of this category. I suggest you gentlemen start a new category. ViriiK (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I inserted the "PETA" header above, just prior to when you started talking about it.108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Section title POV

"Commentary and analysis" is neutral. "Politicization" is not. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. "Commentary and analysis" avoids the obvious current context and is much less accurate, going to such lengths to avoid that is certainly POV. "politicization" is the sky-is-blue most accurate summary of the contents of the section. North8000 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea that this dog incident has been politicized is POV. We can report an attributed opinion calling in politicized (if you can find a reliable source, of course), but we can't call it that ourselves. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This entire article is the result of politicization! Support North's section title. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

North's action is a step in the right direction, but it actually does not go far enough. "Politicization" implies that it was not political to begin with, and that's not the case. Maybe "political use of the incident?"William Jockusch (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Democrats transition away

I added this material into the article:

“ Supporters of President Obama initially promoted the Seamus story, but Democrats mostly transitioned away from dog-based attacks on Romney, as it became known that Obama too was vulnerable in the dog department. See Tim Blair. "Ruff times for both sides as elections go barking mad", The Daily Telegraph (April 30, 2012). ”

This seems pretty straightforward, and a key part of the subject.108.18.174.123 (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems out of place. It's definitely out of place where it was inserted. Is there not a spot on the Obama campaign page where it might fit in? It seems more relevant in that context. I thought the main reason this article is still alive is for historical purposes, no? Belchfire-TALK 06:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is how Obama supporters responded to the Seamus story, and why they backed away. It seems extremely relevant to me. I'm not sure I get your meaning regarding "historical purposes".108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously relevant; let's not pretend this story exists in a vacuum. The entire story was created for political uses, and therefore, its political use should be covered.William Jockusch (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, you have convinced me. It's useful context. Belchfire-TALK 21:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with including the extremely broad statement that "Democrats mostly transitioned away from dog-based attacks on Romney, as it became known that Obama too was vulnerable in the dog department" based on a single source. If several reliable, objective sources made that same observation, I'd be okay with including it, but as presented this is one guy's opinion, and by all appearances he's not a serious commentator of any sort -- he's writing a jokey installment in his UK newspaper column about the wacky goings-on in the American election. In an article that's been under so much scrutiny, I cannot believe anyone would find that source to be acceptable justification for such a huge statement. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It never hurts to beef up the sources. Other sources confirm that Republicans pointed out the president's vulnerability in the dog department in order to fight back against Seamus-gate, and this new front in the dog wars tended to show that "the entire debate has been dumb". See, e.g., Grace Wyler. "Conservatives Fight Back: BARACK OBAMA ATE A DOG", Business Insider (April 18, 2012).108.18.174.123 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Story changing with retelling

One interesting aspect of this is how the story was changed in successive retellings:

The initial story contained the following sentence: "He'd built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog." Interestingly, much of the subsequent coverage dropped that sentence. So the retellings made Romney's actions appear more cruel to the dog. For example, I looked at several of the NYT stories, and none of the ones I looked at contained the above sentence. Similarly, the PPP poll did not mention it. Nor did the various attack ads.

It feels like this should be worked into the article somehow. But I'm unclear on the right way to do it.William Jockusch (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To cover the real story, we need to cover the coverage. That is the gorilla in the living room that is missing from th article. North8000 (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Note of time span between the "event" and its "publicity"

Folks keep trying to remove the time span note. This is useful and informative. Just having dates elsewhere does not communicste this. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Which note is that, exactly?108.18.174.123 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Decades later" note. not that exactly those words are needed, but noting the time span is informative and relevant. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply mentioning the dates is NPOV, let people draw their own conclusions. Emphasizing it happened a long time ago is POV pushing. 1 YFixed Arcandam (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. BTW: The claims in the article were not supported by the reference that was used, that is more important than the POV pushing.

(Undent)North8000, is it okay with you the way it reads now in the lead? "Later, in both the 2008 and the 2012 presidential election campaigns, this incident became the subject of negative media attention and political attacks against Romney." It's okay with me, and it seems okay with Arcandam.108.18.174.123 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Arcandam (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, seems informative and also a good compromise. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of "Animal welfare advocate response" section

The page is protected for a few days, because of the edit war about deleting the section titled "Animal welfare advocate response", and whether to put a POV tag in that section. I was not involved in that edit war, but I tend to support keeping the section, and removing the tag. Arthur Rubin contends that the the statement of Ingrid Newkirk (President of PETA) was attributed falsely to PETA, and is unimportant and irrelevant.

However, the statement by Newkirk was not attributed directly to PETA: "In 2007, it was reported that Ingrid Newkirk, president of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), labeled the incident...." This is supported by the cited Time Magazine reference, which says: "Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was less circumspect. PETA does not have a position on Romney's candidacy per se, but Newkirk called the incident...."

The section that Arthur Rubin wishes to delete also includes a blockquote from Mitt Romney, in which Romney says, "PETA was after me when I went quail hunting in Georgia, and they're not happy that my dog likes fresh air." My question for Arthur Rubin is this: what is Romney replying to here if not the statement by Newkirk? The Boston Globe strongly suggests he was replying to Newkirk.[1] Frankly, I do not understand the argument that this section of our article is POV or should be deleted. The Romney quote was widely reported, and so were the Newkirk quote and the quotes from the ASPCA people.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The article as a whole is kind of lame, but strangely enough, previous consensus has decided to leave out a part of Ingrid's remarks where she essentially dismisses this whole affair and says there are a lot bigger real issues to deal with than this 15 year old story. -- Avanu (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please point to those left-out remarks? What is your opinion about leaving out those remarks, or deleting the section? I would like to stabilize this admittedly lame article, because the main editor of the Mitt Romney article is insisting that this dog article's instability is a good reason to include much of this lame article's detailed material (e.g. poop running down the windows) in the main Romney article as a "Note", rather than simply including a wlink to this article.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If he was referring to PETA, he shouldn't have been replying to Newkirk. And he wasn't. Newkirk may have inspired the statement, but only the last clause was replying to her. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, he wasn't replying to her, even though he was? Quote (emphasis mine): "If he was referring to PETA, he shouldn't have been replying to Newkirk. And he wasn't. Newkirk may have inspired the statement, but only the last clause was replying to her." Arcandam (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Arcandam that Arthur Rubin's comment is very ambiguous. I do not understand why Arthur Rubin has sought to delete Romney's blockquoted response to PETA.108.18.174.123 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a page that explains why people do that kind of stuff and why it is a bad idea: WP:POINT. Arcandam (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you withdraw that comment, or it's time for a WP:RFC/U. In any case, only the last incomplete sentence of Romney's comment is related to this incident (or, to be precise, Newkirk's comment on the incident). The rest is related to PETA's attacks on him, in general, and would not be appropriate in this article, except for context. My first comment that his quote shouldn't be related to the incident is irrelevant, because, in fact, it isn't. He was referring to PETA, and only the last partial sentence relates to Newkirk (attributing it incorrectly to PETA). Romney's block quote is related to politics and PETA, but not much to this incident. I don't see how most of the quote relates to this article. If Newkirk's statement is here, then Romney's reply should be here, but I really don't see how it can be written so as not to include irrelevant material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the last sentence (and block quote) should be replaced by:

During the 2008 presidential primaries, Romney replied that PETA was "not happy that my dog likes fresh air."

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I think we found something we agree on! If I understand you correctly, please correct me if I am wrong, you want to remove the qoutes Romney made about PETA that are unrelated to the dog incident, right? Maybe someone disagrees because they think that that context is important, but it seems like a good idea to me. Arcandam (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict x3) Yep. That's part of it. But, also, the Time article gives Branca's comments more prominent placement, and, unless we have other references for Newkirk's comment, so should we. I'm not convinced that comments by non-notable representatives (probably not officially spokespersons) for "animal welfare" organizations should be here, but, if they are, the relevant facts and replies should also be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm going to be offline for the next few hours, so perhaps we can suggest stable wording for an {{editprotected}} request here. I still think it's UNDUE to include Newkirk and not Branca, unless we have other sources for Newkirk's comment, but I think we can agree on trimming Romney's reply. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Trimming Romney's reply seems like a good start to me. I'll try to have my next comment ready by the time you get back. Arcandam (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The full story is 2976 characters. 456 about Nadia, 508 about Stacey and 561 about Ingrid. Nadia is mentioned before Stacey and Ingrid are, but I don't think the Time-journalist has really made the decision to give Branca's comment a more prominent placement because he/she thinks Nadia is more notable than Stacey or Ingrid. The sentence immediately after that part about Nadia is about Stacey, and Googling "Nadia Branca" (about 1300 results) and "Stacey Wolf" (about 16k results, mostly about different people with the same name) and "Ingrid Newkirk" (over half a million results) gives a clear indication that Ingrid is a bit more (in)famous and that the names are not mentioned in order of importance. It wouldn't surprise me if the order is chronological, or even somewhat random. I think the best way to determine how much "weight" each opinion has is by looking at a couple of reliable sources, not just one. Let's check a couple of reliable sources and make a list of which sources mentiones which opinion. Based on that list it should be easy to determine which opinion is more important according to the sources. Arcandam (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: its kinda annoying, but it seems that all sources are based upon that one story. Arcandam (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)How about: "In 2007, it was reported that Ingrid Newkirk, president of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), criticized Romney regarding this incident.[23] Responding to PETA, Romney claimed that 'my dog likes fresh air'.[24]" This does not need a separate section or subsection.108.18.174.123 (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My version is very similar, the difference is that I mentioned the fact she labeled it as "torture", because I think it is interesting to see how radically different the two points of view are. Another difference is that I did not say that Romney was responding to PETA. I would replace that section with the following text:

In 2007, it was reported that Ingrid Newkirk, president of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), labeled the incident as torture.^[1] Romney responded to the criticism by saying "my dog likes fresh air".^[2]

What do you guys think? Is it time to make an editrequest? If you prefer 108.18.174.123's version that is fine with me. Arcandam (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.108.18.174.123 (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

@Arthur: Your choice. Feel free to make an editprotected request. Arcandam (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that without some context, the use of the word "torture" is unfair to Romney and, frankly, to actual torture sufferers. Newkirk assigned that label based on two assumptions:

• There was no windshield.
• Severe trauma is the only cause of diarrhea.

I believe many readers would consider those to be bad assumptions, and so they should be mentioned if we're going to repeat the "T" word. I vote we avoid the issue by using the "Newkirk criticized" wording. Spiel496 (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

We could write: "In 2007, it was reported that Ingrid Newkirk, president of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), strongly criticized Romney regarding this incident.[1] Romney responded to the criticism by saying that his dog liked fresh air.[2]" Readers who want details can click on the link in the footnote. To say "strongly criticized" seems like a fair characterization.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem being whether or not it was a fair characterization. The problem is that it's a characterization. Can you objectively show us where the line is drawn between "criticized" and "strongly criticized", and make an empirical case that isn't a matter of POV? Belchfire-TALK 16:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I cannot objectively draw that line, but we don't need to. If calling someone a cruel torturer is not strong criticism, then nothing is.198.228.200.158 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Another option is to write something like this:

In 2007, it was reported that Ingrid Newkirk, president of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), labeled the incident as "a lesson in cruelty".^[1] Romney responded to the criticism by saying "my dog likes fresh air".^[2] Arcandam (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the "cruelty" assertion also was based on Newkirk's belief that the dog was unprotected from the wind. It's likely that the reporter neglected to fill her in on the details when asking her opinion, in which case Newkirk comments aren't really relevant to the Romney incident. It's enough just to say she criticized (or strongly criticized if that means something). Spiel496 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed consensus version

What do you guys think about 108.18.174.123's proposal dated 02:22, 2 August 2012? Arthur said it "looks good", I think it is OK, 108 proposed it, and I hope Spiel496 and Belchfire think it is acceptable too. If I understand it correctly 108's idea was to replace the whole section (including the header and template) with: "In 2007, it was reported that Ingrid Newkirk, president of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), criticized Romney regarding this incident.[23] Responding to PETA, Romney claimed that 'my dog likes fresh air'.[24]" Arcandam (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm agnostic. A valid point was made above, that "animal cruelty" and "torture" are, in fact, "strong criticism". Since Newkirk actually said those things, I think we can leave them in the article and let the reader decide how "strong" the criticism is, along with the proviso that the woman was speaking out of turn, without knowing the facts. That all works for me.

Where I jumped in on this before was when we had animal welfare advocates offering opinions about legalities under the canard that this was somehow an "Expert opinion". That was just messed up, but it's been corrected. Belchfire-TALK 19:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• That version I suggested is still okay with me. The best thing is that it's short. If it is lengthened to include details, then I don't see how we can avoid including the ASPCA opinions too.108.18.174.123 (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with 108's version. Spiel496 (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please change this (without the nowiki tag):

===Animal welfare advocate response=== {{undue-section|date=August 2012}} In 2007, it was reported that [[Ingrid Newkirk]], president of the [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)]], labeled the incident as [[animal cruelty]] and [[torture]]. Her conclusion was based on the assumptions that the dog was exposed to the wind and weather, and that extreme stress is the primary cause of diarrhea.<ref name=Time>{{cite web|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html|title=Romney's cruel canine vacation|publisher = Time Magazine|author = [[Ana Marie Cox]]|date = June 27, 2007}}</ref> During the 2008 presidential primaries, Romney responded to the accusation from PETA: <ref>David Folkenflik. "[http://www.npr.org/2011/12/20/144001605/why-mitt-romneys-dog-is-getting-a-lot-of-press Why Mitt Romney's Dog Is Getting A Lot Of Press]", [[NPR]] (December 20, 2011).</ref> <blockquote>You know, PETA has not been my fan over the years. PETA was after me for having a rodeo at the Olympics, and very, very upset about that. PETA was after me when I went quail hunting in Georgia, and they're not happy that my dog likes fresh air.</blockquote>

into this:

In 2007, it was reported that Ingrid Newkirk, president of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), criticized Romney regarding this incident.<ref name=Time>{{cite web|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html|title=Romney's cruel canine vacation|publisher = Time Magazine|author = [[Ana Marie Cox]]|date = June 27, 2007}}</ref> Responding to PETA, Romney claimed that 'my dog likes fresh air'.<ref>David Folkenflik. "[http://www.npr.org/2011/12/20/144001605/why-mitt-romneys-dog-is-getting-a-lot-of-press Why Mitt Romney's Dog Is Getting A Lot Of Press]", [[NPR]] (December 20, 2011).</ref>

per the consensus above. Thanks in advance, Arcandam (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, although I could have let it go... the protection expired 1 hr 15 min ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL, thanks. Arcandam (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

why is this article necessary?

Does WP need an article about every dog poo topic? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a necessary thing, and the case for keeping the article is legit, IMO. But, for entertainment value, you might enjoy seeking out the discussions from when somebody created Obama eats dogs. There is much to be learned about Wiki culture in that. Belchfire-TALK 18:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If readers want a neutral point of view this may be the best place to get it as other sites and media may slant it either way.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the existence of this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The country roads of the USA are full of pickup trucks with dogs riding on the back, and other vehicles with dogs hanging their heads sideways out of the windows. This article serves no purpose other than to amplify a politically motivated attack with undue attention. It makes Wikipedia look lame and childish. This article should be deleted, for the same reason that the article about Obama haven eaten dog meat was deleted -- its existence serves no reasonable encyclopedic purpose, only a political one. I see the discussion that hangs on Mitt's every word about it being "airtight" and calculating how long a dog could survive in a hermetically sealed container, and all I can think is, "Really?" Wookian (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe, but that's not the real reason Obama eats dogs got deleted. Belchfire-TALK 00:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

At least the title of this article is not obnoxious. :) But I think my point remains, though. Wookian (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there's nothing stopping you from nominating this thing for deletion. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 01:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw so much discussion on the talk page that it seemed courteous to raise the suggestion here first. Wookian (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It would help save Wikipedia's credibility to report on what all of the sources really cover, the efforts of various people to USE the dog ride decades later. North8000 (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a place for mention of the dog thing, because Obama's surrogates have used it to attack Romney and it's a notable part of the presidential politics. But to give it its own article fails the sniff test. Wookian (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs to be removed. Wikipedia is not a partisan source of information, and rumored events, heresay, tall tales, gossip, etc. are not in the interest of the integrity of this site. This article should be removed in its entirety. (Virtuallyironic (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC))

This page reflects the prominence given the topic by the media. The incident has been used to question Romney's suitability as a presidential candidate. The topic gets lots of mileage outside Wikipedia; if we did not cover it we would be falling down on the job. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we must not let down the DNC. We must make sure that this Democratic attack is front and center! Arzel (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If there was a chance it would work, you would have already taken the article to AfD. There is no chance. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the article has survived a deletion fast track and two regular AfD attempts, so I'm skeptical that a new AfD would succeed. Whether an AfD would succeed after the election is a different question. Wookian (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be good information to have in the talk page header with links to the AfD discussions. That may help in future talk page discussions so the same items aren't brought up again. 72Dino (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I see a sort of tan colored box floating on the right of the Talk page labeled "Archives" that gives a topical summary of lots of archived discussions. A couple of those are links to the AfD's and such. Did you have something more than that in mind, or does that already fit the bill? Wookian (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a separate banner that is added by the closing admin with a link and the result of the AfD per WP:AFD/AI. Something along the lines of Template:Old AfD multi, but with a link to the discussion. 72Dino (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If one looks closely at what the coverage is about, and recognizes that many of the "sources" are actually participants, not sources, one sees that the real topic is actually "Politicization of the Mitt Romney dog incident" and the article should be renamed. North8000 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The AfDs should be noted above, if you go to "Article milestones".71.88.58.198 (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:POPCULTURE

We have a trivia item here posing as pop culture.

I quote from the policy... "When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader.

And...

When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:
Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference?
Did any real-world event[clarification needed] occur because of the reference?
If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia. Get all three and you're possibly adding valuable content.

Sorry, but the book "Dog on the Woof" is nothing but opportunist partisan cruft. There is NO notability. Nobody's ever heard of it, and nobody's ever mentioned besides HuffPo. It's trivia. It doesn't belong in this article. Belchfire-TALK 08:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly why I removed it for that specific reason because it is indeed a trivia section. It's a forked off category but with more strict requirements of adding it. I never even heard of the book. Is it as notable as Harry Potter? Tom Clancy? ViriiK (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

After a search on Google [2] I have to agree this work is not notable enough to be mentioned. Cavarrone (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

When a book's chief claim to notoriety is the fact that it's mentioned on Wikipedia, there is no question at all that it shouldn't be here. Case closed. Belchfire-TALK 09:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Devo

A Google search for "Don't Roof Rack Me Bro" gets a lot more hits than "Dog on the Woof"108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It still fails the Trivia guidelines. Perhaps the song will become a hit because of this, as of now it is simply an aging band (which I like) trying to capitalize off the issue. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the song has not even been released yet. Devo only annouced that they would when Obama made a reference to Seamus in Iowa, which makes the issue WP:NOTNEWS as well. Arzel (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you may have a point there. Perhaps we should wait a little bit and see how well the song does. Of course, it doesn't have to make the top 40, but we don't need to cover it if the song ends up in the bottom 40. I never much cared for Devo, anyway.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how a notable band, over the hill or not, releasing a song, which is getting lots of press, based on this event is trivial. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• With all this highly reliable, significant coverage ([3], the song is not only worthy of mention but probably also worthy of a separate article (per WP:NSONG and WP:GNG). WP:TRIVIA is just part of the manual of style guideline and refers to the visual organization and presentation of the page, not to its content. It specifically says: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations". It basically require to "integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate" to avoid trivia section that are indiscriminate in its contents (eg a thing about a personal life's subject, a mention of a song, a reference to a similar event and the citation of a book). It does not say, in any place, that a notable song by a notable band that is based on the main topic of the article should be deleted as trivia. And "In popular culture" sections are an usual standard of Wikipedia, used in thousand of articles ([4]). Cavarrone (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not your average, run-of-the-mill song. Lyrics include this: "Your master’s story seems air-tight, but somethin’ about him isn’t right. He’ll say anything to win the race. Wish you could rise up from your grave and tell the world how his smile hides the soul of an angry little man." We need to look beyond the standard guidelines for songs. If that quote were not set to music, how would we deal with it?108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • ?? Notability does not require that a thing should be an "average" thing, nor we should analyze its contents and judge whether we like it or not. A thing, if notable, should be simply reported in a neutral way, even if it is non-neutral in its contents. Here we are called just to mention the song and to document its notability through multiple reliable sources, we do not need to quote part of lyrics nor to comment/endorse/confute them (otherwise it would be a WP:UNDUE case). I don't see where is the problem here. Cavarrone (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

By my reading of the trivia guidelines, if the song doesn't have sufficient notability on its own merits to have a standalone article, then it doesn't warrant a mention here. It's relationship to the dog story is purely derivative. It's not part of the dog story. If there was no dog story, there would be no song. That's what makes it trivia, IMO. My suggestion for someone who really just must see it added here would be to create an article and see if it survives the almost inevitable AfD nom, then bring it back for discussion if it does. Belchfire-TALK 09:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

679 news articles are not enough for a claim of notability? Reilly? How many other songs that have an article on WP have such coverage? 5%? I would expect you nominate all the rest for deletion... However, the suggestion for an article about the song is a good suggestion... Cavarrone (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If Madonna were to announce a new song "Mitt is a Jackass", I think at the very least we'd wait and see if the story has any staying power, per WP:NOTNEWS. This kind of thing from Devo may belong at the Devo article, but I'm not convinced that it belongs at this article.108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A song is a song, not a "story". And I don't see how a song based on an event could be unrelated to the same event. At any rate, I think we should wait the official release of the song before mentioning it here. (ops, noticed now it was already released.) Cavarrone (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, we need to wait until it clears the criteria you see in italics in the next section above this one. "Unrelated" and "doesn't belong here" aren't quite the same thing. Belchfire-TALK 09:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is not a guideline nor a policy but just an essay I read the above criteria (and even the others that you have not quoted) and the song pass them, so... what's your point? Cavarrone (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What's your point? How is a Devo song in any way an essential part of the Mitt Romney dog story? In what way would this article be less complete without it? And while the essay may only establish a common sense guideline that suggests against inclusion, which core content policy can you point to that suggests in favor of inclusion? Do you really think you can marshal a consensus of editors that will assent to this? [shrug] That's what it will ultimately come down to, if you can't be talk out of it. Belchfire-TALK 09:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Which policies and guidelines? What about WP:GNG? WP:SONGS? WP:V? How a notable song by a notable band about a notable event does not deserve a mention in the article about the event? And where the essay "suggests against inclusion"? Opinions, to have a weight, should be based on policies/guidelines, not on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cavarrone (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Cavarrone, you say that this is "a song, not a 'story'." But I think it is both, and WP:NOTNEWS therefore applies here. Suppose VP Biden starts accompanying everything he says with music. Does that mean WP:NOTNEWS no longer applies to Biden? This Devo thing is a political attack set to music. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just don't think we should treat it as a typical song, vis a vis the guidelines.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The notoriety of the Devo song is building each hour since its release. Many newspaper, magazines and online commentaries have covered it: Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, Slate, SPIN, New York Daily News, the Washington Post, CNN blog written by CNN editorial staff, MSNBC blog "The Last Word", New York Magazine, the Atlantic Wire, Politico.com, The Daily Beast, Daily Kos, Hollywood Reporter, Raw Story, Breitbart, US News & World Report op-ed "Washington Whispers", Yahoo News, Guardian UK, all the way down to the Boise Weekly. The question is not whether it should be mentioned in this article but how it should be mentioned. I think it should be quantified by sales—a hard number indicating how many people have purchased it. I don't know of a source for that but we have the Rolling Stone piece saying that it already is more popular than Devo's 2010 album. When a source makes a statement about sales we should insert it. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Two sources regarding Obama's vulnerability

I have just inserted this:

In response to the Seamus incident, the media reported that President Obama too was vulnerable in the dog department.<ref>Grace Wyler. [http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-18/politics/31355959_1_dog-meat-dog-wars-president-obama "Conservatives Fight Back: BARACK OBAMA ATE A DOG"], ''[[Business Insider]]'' (April 18, 2012).</ref><ref>Tim Blair. [http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/ruff-times-for-both-sides-as-electio</ref>

The first of these two sources is a straight news article from Business Insider. The second is an opinion piece from the Daily Telegraph. No one has given any reason for deleting the Business Insider piece, much less both of them. See WP:Preserve. It's better to preserve reliable sources and rephrase, instead of deleting everything.72.51.126.49 (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you are interpreting the sources, rather than reporting what they said. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not find the Daily Telegraph piece to be a reliable source. It's simply one guy restating some very general news stories -- it contains no original reporting of any kind, and virtually no attribution to any other source's reporting. It was used because it included some extremely basic, and unsubstantiated, commentary about how "Democrats" were reacting to the Obama dog story, and someone wanted to incorporate that as information into this article. Because the source does not meet standards to support that fact, I removed both the fact and the source. If the DT source could be used to support any fact, it would be a fact that would also be supported by much, much stronger sources, so there's still no reason to use it.

The Business Insider source could theoretically be used to support some kind of statement about the Obama dog controversy, although, again, any fact supported by the BI source could also be supported by countless better sources. Given the massive earlier controversies about including or merging information about the Obama controversy in this article, I feel no need to allow that information to be "slipped in" that way, and I don't think consensus supports including it. If you want to include it, I would urge you to start a new section here, with the proposed text, and ask for opinions. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)I am fine with dropping the Daily Telegraph source, since it is opinion rather than news. That leaves the Business Insider article (though I could find more), which says:

The conservative blogosphere is fighting back against Seamus-gate, pointing out that while Mitt Romney may have strapped his family dog to the roof of his car, President Obama has actually eaten man's four-legged best friend. … The Romney campaign also had a little fun with the story — and who can blame them? Democrats have relentlessly hammered the Seamus story, and seized on it again today after Ann Romney told Diane Sawyer that "the dog loved" riding on top of the car.

I think a fair summary of this is as follows:

In response to the Seamus incident, reports indicated that President Obama too had some vulnerability in the dog department.<ref>Grace Wyler. [http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-18/politics/31355959_1_dog-meat-dog-wars-president-obama "Conservatives Fight Back: BARACK OBAMA ATE A DOG"], ''[[Business Insider]]'' (April 18, 2012).</ref>

This is a very basic and concise summary. If someone disagrees with it, would you please offer an alternative summary? Briefly mentioning this seems like an extremely appropriate thing for this Wikipedia article to do. Please note that this subject was previously discussed above at this talk page, where two other editors (besides myself, when I was commenting as 108.18.174.123) supported including something about this (and that was before I found the better source from Business Insider).72.51.126.49 (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm a bit caught between a rock and a hard place; I really don't want to help you in adding a sentence about the Obama dog thing, because I don't want to take a position on that either way. I only became involved in this because of my adamant opposition to a different statement that was not acceptably supported by sources. But I am of the position that the wording you've proposed is awkward and strange and vague. So I will suggest, without endorsing that any wording be added at all, that a better sentence, supported by that particular source, would be: "Some conservatives drew an equivalency between the Seamus incident and Barack Obama sampling dog meat as a young child in Indonesia, where it is a local delicacy." Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting an alternative. The sentence you suggest might work, except for two things: (1) the word "some" is generally avoided at Wikipedia because of its vagueness, and (2) the quoted material does not focus solely on conservatives and instead explains that Republicans drew the equivalence in response to Democrats relentlessly hammering the Seamus story. So, I'd tweak your alternative version like this: "Responding to Democrats who emphasized the Seamus story, Republican bloggers drew an equivalency between the Seamus incident and Barack Obama sampling dog meat as a child in Indonesia, where it is a local delicacy."72.51.126.49 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It has not been my experience that "the word 'some' is generally avoided at Wikipedia because of its vagueness"; "some" is much less vague than simply saying "Republican bloggers", which at best means "some" and at worst means "all". Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the particular Wikipedia guideline that frowns upon phrases like "some people say" is here. However, maybe this is better: "Responding to Democrats who emphasized the Seamus story, the conservative blogosphere drew a comparison between the Seamus incident and Barack Obama sampling dog meat as a child in Indonesia, where it is a local delicacy." Cheers.  :-)209.59.87.230 (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read Arthur's comment dated 18:16, 7 August 2012 and read WP:OR. Arcandam (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL is talking about a completely different matter. It is not providing the directive that the format "Conservative bloggers did this" is preferable to, or less vague than, "Some conservative bloggers did this," or that "some" is uniformly discouraged. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)I have inserted the first sentence of the cited source verbatim:

In April 2012, a report in Business Insider observed: "The conservative blogosphere is fighting back against Seamus-gate, pointing out that while Mitt Romney may have strapped his family dog to the roof of his car, President Obama has actually eaten man's four-legged best friend."[24] That happened when Obama was a boy in Indonesia, sampling exotic local delicacies.

209.59.87.230 (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Business Insider is a terrible source, but regardless, the topic seems peripheral even in this peripheral article. This is about Romney, not Obama. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the Romney dog incident and responses to it. One of the main responses was pointing to the Obama incident. Why don't you think Business Insider is a reliable source?209.59.87.230 (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt, this article is a POV fork intended to minimize mention of the dog incident in the main article. As for Business Insider, it's the National Enquirer of tech periodicals. It's known for linkbait article titles and shoddy journalism. In particular, note Business_Insider#Contributors. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added ABC News and Reuters as sources. Feel free to nominate this article for deletion if you think it's a fork. It certainly has not prevented the subject from being mentioned in the main Mitt Romney article.209.59.87.230 (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't help with WP:UNDUE. I'm also going to point out that you've been reverted twice and there's no indication that you have any sort of WP:CONSENSUS. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you about consensus. William Jockusch, Belchfire, and myself have supported inserting something about this. The OldSparkle has suggested some language to accomplish that. Arcandam and Arthur Rubin objected that I was not adequately tracking the sources, so I inserted a direct quote instead of trying to paraphrase. As far as I know, Still-24-45-42-125, you are the only editor who wants to remove this material completely despite reliable reports by ABC News, Reuters, et cetera.209.59.87.230 (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, this conversation isn't going to tell us much about consensus until others comment, so I'll stop for now. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried to make this clear before, but to be explicit: I am not endorsing or offering my support to the position that this article should include mention of the Obama dog controversy; do not count me as a supporter of that position. I also don't particularly oppose including a limited mention of the Obama dog controversy. [My opinion has changed; see below.] In a poll about whether to include it, I would not offer my vote; I am happy to defer to the consensus of others on the matter. I thought there was a standing consensus against including it, but since the recent Talk page discussion hasn't shown such, I'm not opposing its inclusion. My interest is that if such a statement is included, that it be written decently and fairly with appropriate sourcing.

That being said, the version that just quotes a full sentence from one news article doesn't meet that standard, in part because it's so awkward to just quote the whole damn sentence, and in part because it's not true that "news reports" said that, unless more than one news report included that exact sentence. I've inserted the previous version that was suggested here; I don't love it but it's fine. If other editors think it's not fairly representing the sources, I ask them to be more specific about their criticism, because I don't see that. (And I'm removing the elaboration about Obama's book, which doesn't seem necessary, and the sentence about Romney not responding because the article already contains detail about Romney's response to the whole thing, which has primarily been dismissive; I don't see why it's necessary to say he specifically didn't want to comment on this piece of it.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the big story here is the politicization, and significant exchanges in that area have paired the Romney and OBama dog items. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The mention of Obama's autobiography is necessary to explain where the information came from. It's important to explain that it wasn't just made-up. I think it's required to maintaion NPOV, if we're going to mention Obama's dog-eating at all. Belchfire-TALK 16:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is it necessary, in discussing the Romney dog incident, to explain how conservatives discovered the Obama dog incident? I wouldn't think that someone reading, in an encyclopedia article about incident X, "The incident was compared to incident Y," would have any reason to assume incident Y was made-up. I added "as mentioned in Obama's autobiography" in an attempt to pacify you but I don't see the necessity at all, any more than we need to explain why Obama was living in Indonesia. Also, as a general aside, I'm now opposing including anything about the Obama dog controversy because it's too much hassle. I'll continue trying to keep what's there from turning into a sprawling mess, but if anyone counts heads my vote's to take it out altogether. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

" Seamus-gate", "While Mitt Romney may have strapped his family dog to the roof of his car, President Obama has actually eaten man's four-legged best friend", seriously, what is this odd, non-neutral phrasing? The previous version ("he conservative blogosphere drew a comparison between the Seamus incident and Barack Obama sampling dog meat as a child in Indonesia, where it is a local delicacy") is clearly NPOV and says everything that is worth of mention in this contest, and says it in a decent form. This is Wikipedia, not a tabloid nor an attack piece in a political-extremist newspaper. Cavarrone (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The conservative retort vis-a-vis "Obama ate a dog" is relevant because it is a part of the overall story. It tells the reader where this ultimately wound up, politically, and it helps the reader understand why Seamus-gate suddenly fell out of public view. Attempting to edit this part of the narrative without arguing for full deletion of the article is just thinly disguised POV-pushing. And I will note that there is no consensus for removal, so I'm restoring it. Belchfire-TALK 20:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of this material was discussed more and more times, and never found consensus. As it does not have consensus now. Cavarrone (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nor is there any consensus for removal, and I shouldn't have to explain what is wrong with your edit-warring behavior. Belchfire-TALK 21:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not a "remover", the mention of "Obama ate dog" is still there, but now at least does not violate in that spectacular way WP:UNDUE. Your attempt to transform this article in "something else" is so explicit (citing the edit summaries, "This article is not about Obama eat dog", your reply "It is now.") that does not require further comments. Cavarrone (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You removed pertinent explanatory information that in no way affected the balance of the article and did, in fact, provide valuable context. But thanks for acknowledging and joining the consensus to keep the bare facts in the article. Now it's just a discussion about how much background information to retain. Belchfire-TALK 21:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's spectacularly undue to mention Obama's childhood precisely because he was a child. He had little control over what meats his family gave him. This is in contrast to an adult Romney, who is seen as having been careless with his pet dog's health. Look at how far people have bent over backwards to forgive the bullying that Romney engaged in as a young adult; Obama was even younger, and did nothing actually wrong. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In case arguments from policy and principle don't sway you, I took a count of the distinct number of people who've supported each of the two versions, and it's clear that the numerical advantage lies with those who oppose the inclusion of the Obama dog section. By your standards, that's a consensus against you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The Obama dog story.

I'm tempted to request full page protection right this minute, and if this edit war continues, I will. Cut it out, all of you. You're not going to get your way by forcing your view on the rest of us.

Since it's WP:BLP, we need to keep it out until there's a clear consensus to keep it. Now, I'm not neutral, but I'm not going to encourage this edit war. Let's talk it out. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The underlying problem here is that this entire article shouldn't exist. The "Mitt Romney Dog Incident" no doubt deserves a mention in article(s) about the political campaigns, but as a standalone article, only serves to make Wikipedia look childish and biased. Wookian (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article is childish and partisan, but the story is notable enough to warrant an article. Consensus has indicated that the conclusion of the story, ending with the Republican riposte of "Obama ate a dog," should also be included. Now we are merely haggling over how much to explain about the scope of that conclusion and the presentation of how it was covered in the media. It seems strange to me that those who would prefer the Obama angle not be included would edit against pointing out that the whole thing originated on a blog, but then it's probably also true that those edits aren't really based on content. Belchfire-TALK 19:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Wookiean, this article is a POV fork created by conservatives as a place to hide away the embarrassing dog story. This belongs in Mitt Romney and nowhere else, but it's here now and there's no consensus to merge.

Belchfire, Mitt's dog story is relevant, at least. It's a story Mitt tells about himself, it involves his voluntary actions as an adult, and concerns animal abuse. In contrast, what Obama was fed as a child is not his choice, nor is the use of dogs as food comparable to thoughtlessly abusing a pet. It was desperate and pathetic to drag it up in the first place and we are under no obligation to reward such actions by airing the claim here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea that putting a dog in a carrier on top of a vehicle protected by a windshield is animal abuse is fringe and doesn't deserve direct treatment in the article. But I'm not saying the incident doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It's a notable topic, but only in context of the political campaigns because it was used against Romney and reported widely in the media. So I don't blame whoever refused to allow it in the main Mitt Romney article, but I would suggest it deserves a mention in the Mitt Romney 2012 political campaign article instead. There are thousands of dogs riding on pickup trucks and hanging their heads out of car windows who will back me up on this, and they are all RS, I assure you. ;) Wookian (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)It appears that there have already been two AfD's for this article. See the milestones at the top of this talk page. The last paragraph of this article ("Responding to Democrats....") seems no more ridiculous than the rest of the article, so I'm for letting the matter rest.108.18.174.123 (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There was already discussion in regards to adding treacher's comment back in may, the archives are there, what is the reason for this being brought up for inclusion this time, what's different?27.252.4.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If Treacher was discussed as having "commented," therein lies your issue. He didn't just comment; he was the one who put the Obama side of this story out there in the public spotlight. I think it's a little silly to mention a meme and then suppress its origin. That's not very encyclopedic. Belchfire-TALK 16:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

External links

User:7&6=thirteen removed some external links with this edit. Understanding that we don't want a link farm, I was just wondering what criteria were used to determine what stayed and what was removed. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I moved them to "Further reading". I think they would be better used as sources, but parked them there until that happens. One I put in as a source. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks fine. 72Dino (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

These have all become references, and have been formatted accordingly. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This source and the comment belong here

Per your invitation:

The incident continues to inspire controversy and art.

That you claim the source is "artists for Obama" is wrong. On its face that is not the source. That you claim this is a partisan publication is unproven. And irrelevant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not stating the publication is partisan. The art is the subject of the paragraph, and the art is by a group called Artists for Obama and the proceeds go to the Obama Victory Fund (see here.) Having a partisan group bring up this topic is not notable. 72Dino (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Even if one assumed that a "partisan group" is involved and did what you say, that it is reported in a third party WP:RS is notable. Indeed, it is a continuation of the entire preceding article. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

That's exactly right. We are under no obligation to exclude partisan input. If we were, we'd have no articles about politics. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to simply want to make a personal claim that the issue is still a big issue and seem to be looking for sources to back up that claim. Find some real RS's that are talking about how this is an issue. Additionally it needs to be written from a historical point of view. To make a timely statement like "It continues to be in the news" is pointless without some context of when that fact is supposed to be true. Arzel (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to simply want to sweep this under the rug, notwithstanding the existence of this source. In any event, I WP:AGF, and you should do the same. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sweep what under the rug? How in the least is this statement of any value. "The incident continues to inspire controversy and art.[28]"? The incident was a controversy from the beginning, therefore it is impossible to say that it continues to inspire controversy and where is the initial art or the current art for that matter? Initially you stated "The kerfuffle continues to be reported in the media.[28]", which is an interesting word to use. Even the current interation is synthesis of material from what the article states, but I will fix that. Arzel (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to politely remind you both that, as an election-related article, this is under community probation so your behavior should be at its very best. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That would include following the WP:Consensus policy for including content in articles, rather than continuing to insert it after it has been reverted. 72Dino (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

72, you'll note that I addressed both of them. Now let's move on to sourcing. I found something distinct but related: http://feeddoo.com/n/701942-anna-jane-grossman-obama-raising-campaign-funds-by-selling-officially-branded-dog-apparel I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the issue: it's easy enough to find reliable sources showing the Artists-for-Obama drawing of a dog or the Obama campaign's dog-related merchandise, but it's harder to find reliable sources that identify these as being related to the Romney dog incident, even though they obviously are. The news blog that 7&6=thirteen found is not a particularly strong reliable source, but it's still sufficiently reliable so so obvious a connection, allowing us to avoid undue synthesis. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel appears to accept the inclusion of this material and has tried to work it in. However, some of his framing was decidedly non-neutral, so I did my best to fix that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with your edits. Wikipedia:SAUCE 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

While we're on that topic, the article currently has an unbalanced section presenting the accusation that Obama ate dog meat without the response. Here's the response: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/30/obama-ate-dog-seamus-romney_n_1464749.html I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've made an attempt to balance this out. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because you have a reference or article does not mean that automatically warrants inclusion of same. Turning articles into dog crap, pardon the pun, does not improve the article, still. --Mollskman (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We have to follow WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, so it's not acceptable to mention a criticism but silence the response. If you have any specific objections that you'd like to share, I would be glad to listen. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I put in a footnote with that as a reference and with a quote. FWIW. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

And I struggled to fix my citations. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. I think that this source still belongs in the article

It seems to have been dropped, when it is actually fairly dispassionate and analytical. I thought you had changed the content, but left this source, which frankly has some rather good information in it that will help our readers, if they want to bother going there.

I am trying to work toward consensus. I would appreciate dialog or WP:BRD so we can work this through. I am not interested in WP:Edit warring. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed by Mollskman[5] with the claim that the information was trivia. He didn't mention that he removed it, nor did he explain why he thought it was trivia, so I didn't notice until you pointed it out. In fact, I had already responded to himt to explain why we can't remove this sort of material, without realizing he had done so.

I think it's pretty clear from the fact that a few of us worked together to get that passage in good shape that there is a consensus to keep it, but I'm going to give Mollskman a chance to rebut my rebuttal. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with you. I was surprised by the intervention and surreptitious removal, even as we were (I thought) working this all out on this page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The strongest opponent was Arzel, but even he accepted the material, although he wrapped it up in some POV that we had to defuse. Mollskman's deletion does not seem consistent with consensus, BRD or common sense. But, again, let's try to give him some time to respond. The article can survive a little bit longer without this material, whereas an edit war can result in days of blocks or article protection. Or, given the community probation, topic bans or worse. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't give me that crap. I summarized the source appropriately. The sources clearly stated that they were Obama supporters using this to keep the story in news until the election, which is exactly what I said. Arzel (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

First, you need to immediately calm down and remain civil. You're allowed to disagree; you're not allowed to be abusive.

Second, the whole thing was deleted, so arguing over these details seems pointless. Let's wait until we've got Mollskman's explanation.

Third, be prepared to cite a reliable source that we can use to repeat these claims in Wikipedia's unattributed voice. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, based on this, I must conclude that Mollskman has declined to defend his edit. As such, there seems to be a consensus to restore it. Once I do, I suspect that Arzel will have some suggestions about changing it, but I'm asking him not to make those changes to the article yet.

In particular, I took a look at the "keep the story in the news" part and it's a statement of opinion, hence only acceptable if attributed. I don't recommend trying to bring it in, even with attribution, due to its weak sourcing and lack of relevance and neutrality. If Arzel disagrees, I encourage him to make a case here and get some buy-in from others. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we have a problem here. After refusing to come to the talk page, Mollskman just edit-warred to once again remove the section that we all agree should be here in some form. He did this with a dishonest edit comment: "per talk". Given that this article is under community probation, this is especially problematic. I'm going to ask him to self-revert. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. --Mollskman (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That's impossible, as I never started. There's nothing here that's a personal attack, although I certainly take issue with your edit-warring and insist that you revert yourself immediately. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this removal by Mollskman is beyond the final warning he got. He's headed for time out. Binksternet (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but that requires an admin to notice. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick talk page poll: Who thinks the article should mention topic-relevant art, music and merchandise?

• Support mention of well-cited facts including ones about art, music and merchandise. William Poundstone's art blog is an expert blog by a notable author who has been published by Macmillan, a scholarly imprint that does not suffer fools. Vanity Fair, ABC News and Rolling Stone are perfectly good sources for popular media facts. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons stated by Binksternet. It's all relevant, it's all cited. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Put the reference per discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Meh. The question is not relevant to the text in question, as it presumes it to be topic-relevant art. It probably should be included, but under commercial exploitation of the incident (i.e., merchandise). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Warning against edit warring

This article is subject to general sanctions as seen here: Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log. Please refrain from edit warring over content. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a general Wikipedia procedural question on general sanctions: There is no notice of general sanctions when a person edits this article, so how would an editor know this (unless they are one of the regulars)? I doubt very much if editors check out the link above before they edit articles. Is there a banner that can be put on this article to warn editors of the general sanctions? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

An administrator can put a loud pink warning box on the edit page, just like you see when you go to edit Mitt Romney. Is that what you were think of? Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, like that one on the Mitt Romney article. The tags you put on the talk page of the related articles recently are also very helpful. Thank you for doing that. 72Dino (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

72Dino: The sanctions require that a person be notified on their talk page (or another way of proving they have seen them) before the sanctions can be enforced on them except in very rare and extreme cases.--v/r - TP 03:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dogs Against Romney

I don't think we need to explain that this website is, in addition to being pro-dog and anti-Romney, pro-Obama.[6] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's using OR from a primary source to make a SYNTH with the secondary source. Please keep unnecessary editorializing out of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Um -- the site sells "Bark Obama" merchandise -- how can one view that as anyting other than as "pro-Obama"? "Bark Obama is a non-political slogan? Can one argue that with a straight face? Really? Collect (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to state that it's pro-Obama. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow -- so selling pro-Obama merchandise is not political to you? Amazing! In fact, Red Queen-worthy. Collect (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering that there are now several groups trying to capitalize on this issue, I moved the section down into the supporters paragraph. Additionally, Scott Crider is not nearly as notable as Devo so his opinion is now undue weight compared to the other supporters peddling their wares. This place removes the needs to state that he is an Obama supporter. Arzel (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I support most of your trimming and move, except for the pro-Obama sales mention. This topic is not about that, it is about Romney. I am in favor of the removal of the Scott Crider quote; Crider is not notable. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I trimmed it a little. It appears he is only selling anti-Romney t-shirts and the source only mentions that. Arzel (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That's good. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you mean "Dogs Against Romney" sells anti-Romney merchandise? Who would have guessed? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It also sells pro-Obama merchandise. In fact, it appears to be a bit of a commercial as well as political site. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My original research suggests that the "Bark Obama" shirts depict a dog barking. I'm pretty sure Barack Obama is not a dog, and it's not clear that barking at someone is any sort of endorsement. Sounds more like a play on words, with "bark" being what dogs do but also looking a bit like "Barack". There are also some red, white and blue portraits, but they're of Seamus, not Obama.

All told, I think the article is currently accurate when it calls the site anti-Romney. My concern is that, given the name of the site -- Dogs Against Romney -- it's rather redundant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Lol! Agree with StillStanding... and the previous version probably gave undue weight to Scott Crider's opinion, but the current version makes it appears the website as just a commercial site which main purpuse is selling t-shirts. Cavarrone (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I cut the description and changed the name of the site to a link. I think that's an improvement. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a commercial site? Still, StillStanding's edit seems an improvement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It is specifically a "commercial site" if by that we mean it is selling goods as the primary reason for the site. "Scott Crider" is a promoter of goods for sale (many pages of cafepress are his stuff) and owner of "scottcrider.com" - we are now promoting a commercial website on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Boston Herald wrote an article about this web site, which is why we're including it. Being mentioned as notable by a reliable source is sufficient basis for inclusion. The fact that it happens to sell stuff is about as relevant as the fact that http://barackobama.com/ sells stuff. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering how minor this is, I see no valid reason to give a promotional link to the site itself. If people really want to buy his stuff they can go to the source referencing the t-shirt website, besides if you link to the website for this guy, then you have to do the same for all the other supporters trying to make money off this issue. Arzel (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I cut it down even more. As I mentioned in the edit comment, the citation links to an article that contains the site's name and URL, so we don't actually need to specify it here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I edited boldly in hopes of immediate feedback, but the silence is so creepy that I self-reverted.[7] For that matter, I'd prefer to stay at 1RR on election-related articles, just to avoid even the hint of a semblance of a whiff of edit-warring. Please look at this diff and let me know if you support the shorter version (the "before"). If so, we can go with it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I restored your edit. As I said in the edit summary: "Looks okay to me. If the book title isn't given, it looked weird to give the website title."71.255.172.80 (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I just didn't want to go off on my own while other editors were silent. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war and maybe more?

It seems that some recent edits have been made to add/remove the phrase "selling anti-Romney related wares".  Most interesting is the latest edit by User:71.255.172.80, who claims to have made the following edit as a different ip user [8].  That ip geolocates to a Confirmed proxy server which sometimes may be used for sockpuppet edits.  I have concerns about whether this edit [9] is legitamate.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 

I don't know anything about that editor and can't vouch for them. But what they reverted to was just fine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is also interesting that you self reverted after you realized you edit warred, then this new ip comes along and reverts to content you prefer.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't edit-war, but I self-reverted to avoid any appearance. If you wish to claim that the IP was a sock puppet, feel free to waste SPI's time. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am reverting this edit only because there is strong evidence the ip user has been socking, though I'm not commenting on the content of the edit.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

So, bascially, you're edit-warring against my edit because some random IP supported it? Really?? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm removing an edit by a likely puppet.  The ip user can come back and explain why they were using a different ip that resolves to a closed proxy server if they wish.  And, I do think the information you and the ip were removing belongs in the article, as that is a very accurate summary of what the source is telling us.  It's the first sentance after all.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 

I'm the same person as IP 71.255.  If you point to the particular part of whatever policy you think I've violated, then I'd be glad to directly address it.  I use wikipedia from various different computers, sometimes via wireless connection at Starbucks, sometimes on my iPhone via AT&T (like right now), and sometimes via various landlines where I happen to be located.  I agree with Still Standing about this edit.  It's lopsided for us to give the name of the web site but not the name of the book.  I think Wikipedia would greatly cut down on acrimonious disputes if there were a firm and well-enforced policy against frivolous accusations, though perhaps you can substantiate yours. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you confirm having edited from User:71.255.172.80, can you also confirm whether or not you have edited from User:198.228.201.153 as well?  With regards to the content, I don't think the issue is the name of the book and/or the website, but the fact that the essence of the source states that the site is selling anti-Romney merchandise, and that the title of the URL alone is enough to convey that.  I've no problem with keeping both the site name and book name, but do have a problem with letting the title of a website speak for the RS.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If we can't link to it, we shouldn't state its name. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 

Yes, I edited this article as IP '153, but those edits had nothing to do with the present controversy about the dog website.  IP '153 is one of the IPs that was assigned to my iPhone.  What's the problem with it?  Other iPhone users sometimes use this same IP, but I would be amazed if any of them edited this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

@ISS, The Boston Herald is making this connection, not the website.   Since this seems to be the issue, and no one is likely to dispute this I will put this phrase back in.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

@Anything,  there is a question about User:198.228.201.153.  Why is this ip address resolving to a proxy server?  Proxy servers are generally a big red flag here at wikipedia-en.  Maybe you get around a lot, whether it is Kansas one day, MA the next and TX after that.  These concerns can be easily rectified by you signing in when making your edits as well as going back to sign your ip edits.  Especially for articles that are under sanctions and reversions are being made.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 

I already told you that this is what happens with an iPhone.  You show me a policy or administrative decision to back up your statement, and I will be glad to comply.  If using an iPhone is a red flag, then perhaps that means it is an indicator of the need to find some actual evidence of some actual misdeed before launching a personal attack.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

here Arkon (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 

That policy says: "Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked". That is pretty clear.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I already told you that this is what happens with an iPhone. -- Un, no, don't blame this on Steve Jobs. That is NOT what happens with an iPhone or any other network device using DHCP. In order to connect to a closed proxy you need to provide authentication and configure your device accordingly. An open proxy just requires configuration. Are you using a VPN on your iPhone?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, that's not exactly true. Many proxies are NATs or network access tunnels. They allow anyone on one side of a network (usually inside an intranet) to access the other side (the internet). A proxy service on AT&T iPhone users isn't all that surprising. iPhones are mostly inside one or two networks and NATing them isn't a big deal. A proxy and DHCP work seperately. DHCP only assigns addresses and it's very common to have DHCP servers that have very short reservation times. Anythingyouwant has admitted (freely) to being both IPs. I dont see a problem here. Let's carry on.--v/r - TP 20:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The game.

Mention of the exciting online video game was removed.[10] The reasoning is that we need a reliable source to establish weight, but that seems entirely inconsistent with our methodology for other sites, such as the Dogs Against Romney store. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't a Boston Herald article cited for the Dogs Against Romney? Unless I'm barking up the wrong tree, that seems much more reliable than the mere press release cited for the very exciting video game.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)