Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:03, 1 August 2012 edit108.18.174.123 (talk) →Democrats transition away: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 07:04, 1 August 2012 edit undo108.18.174.123 (talk) →Nadia Branca or the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?: REplyNext edit →
Line 274: Line 274:


We can discuss here. ] (]) 06:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC) We can discuss here. ] (]) 06:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:Aside from 3RR, please see ], which advises to correct errors rather than just wipe everything out. Cheers.] (]) 07:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:04, 1 August 2012

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2012Deletion reviewOverturned
January 25, 2012Articles for deletionNo consensus
April 24, 2012Articles for deletionKept
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mitt Romney dog incident article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDogs Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAnimal rights Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives

Topical:

Chronological:


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Four Proposed Changes

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

I'm not sure this is a properly formed RfC, but I'll reply as if it is, for the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Has some issues, including a non-neutral / mis-defining of current, but, with such caveats, a good effort worth responding to. North8000 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Change first sentence (Support or Oppose)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Section: When interviewed by Chris Wallace of Fox News, Romney stated that Seamus enjoyed being in the dog carrier, an "air-tight kennel", and that he was not aware of any violations of Massachusetts law. Ann Romney, Mitt Romney's wife, has stated that the news media exaggerated the severity of the incident, and compared traveling in the roof-top dog carrier to riding a motorcycle or riding in the bed of a pickup truck. During an April 2012 interview with ABC News, Diane Sawyer asked Mitt Romney about the Seamus story and if he would ever do it again. Romney replied, "Certainly not with the attention it's received", after which Sawyer stated, "You said it was the most wounding thing in the campaign so far", though it is ambiguous as to whether Romney agreed with this statement. During the same interview, Ann Romney stated that Seamus got diarrhea from eating turkey off the table before the trip, and that the dog loved the crate.
  • Weak Support. It might be better to have the quotes in the specific sections to which they were replies, but most of them would belong in more than one section of the article, as it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. The Ann Romney statement is directly related to the incident and should remain in the seperate section. Assuming what she said is true, this would have not ever been an issue had Seamus not become sick. Arzel (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Althugh the entire article pushes UNDUE to the limits at this point. Collect (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Having all the quotes together gives the Romneys' response more prominence. Furthermore, the two quotes from the Diane Sawyer interview are currently separated, and it's not clear that Ann Romney quote took place during that interview. 71.125.74.154 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The proposed revision is a more balance presentation and gives the reader a better opportunity to make up his own mind. Belchfire (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose You are advocating merging two different things. The Romney's descriptions of the trip and Seamus should be in the first paragraph, since they are the only source for what actually happened. Responses to the media speculation should be after the pundit speculation, to provide balance. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Repeats?

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

I re-read the article several times, and removed two instances of the name "Romney". I don't think we can remove the name anywhere else without changing the context of the article. 71.125.68.48 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
71.125.68.48 changes look good. SD (talk contribs) 00:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I waited patiently...

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

DogPAC receipts were $1,385.00, cash on hand $991.87, debts $4791.45
Mitt is Mean, receipts were $248.00, spent $9.82, and have $238.18 left

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

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

Good catch/research. But rather than deleting it, this is more material and reason to cover the real topic on this: "who is trying to use this story and how are they trying to use it?" North8000 (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I suppose, but it has been covered rather scantily in our sources, and would probably require OR to fully flesh out. -- Avanu (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree, undue weight is sufficient, although it probably doesn't matter that much anymore. The left doesn't seem all that interested in this story anymore, apparently there are other lines of attack that they prefer. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wind pressure contradiction

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

The whole section is based off assumptions that don't make any sense. Seamus would have felt the same amount of air pressure as your average cow or pig or horse or whatever being transported in a covered trailer, but this "sounds" worse. Arzel (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Even the source contradicts itself. They asked two different experts and got two different answers, then one of the experts added commentary outside his area of expertise. The one guy says, "My wife is a veterinarian..." then proceeds to add his opinion about what he thinks his wife would say, as if that means anything. Why didn't ABC simply pick up the phone and call a veterinarian? It's not like they're scarce. I'm pulling that content, it's just TV network partisan piffle posing as news. Belchfire 17:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Presumably, they were talking about over-pressure, but who knows? It was a back-of-the-envelope calculation, at best. Then the next guy talks about "buffeting", without bothering to really explain that buffeting means "chaos", which is another way of saying "It can't be calculated". As I said in my edit summary, this is pseudo-science, and non-encyclopedic. Maybe it should be in the article about ABC News in a section called "Ridiculousness", but it doesn't belong here. Belchfire 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Unless someone qualified repeats the trip with pressure guages and the same carrier then we really have no way of knowing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It's clearly erroneous for the situation as described. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that we should offer less analysis unless we can back it up. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my reverting

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

What excuse do you offer for reverting my attempt at responding to criticism with a constructive edit? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This. source is misused. no dog survives for 12 hours in an "air-tight" kennel. seek consensus before proceeding. Feel free to ask for consensus now. ViriiK (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Which was addressed: "Thank you for your original research. Let's just attribute the exact phrase to Mitt and let people decide what was intended."
I then changed the words so that it was clear that Romney used that phrase, as opposed to us endorsing it as true. Now, whether the kennel was truly air-tight is an interesting question, but not a relevant one here. We just report what Romney says. If you'd like to add a reliable source explaining that it wasn't really air-tight, I'm totally fine with that. Until then, you need to restore the well-cited attribution to Romney. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Sure, but I think that's what I was already doing with:
Romney stated that Seamus enjoyed being in the dog carrier which he called an "air-tight kennel"
See? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
No: It isn't relevant. He's already given sufficient response to this incident and more isn't necessary even with a YouTube link. Also you're still cherry picking out of a phrase to use the term "air-tight kennel". Also there was little changes between the two additions so the point still stands of Belchfire's. My opinion in this consensus will be no. Now understand, I'm not obligated to do what you demand. Just because you are a Yes and I'm a No does not mean it's a Yes given your habits of interpreting things to your viewpoint. ViriiK (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Why say that? The container was clearly not air-tight. The only conceivable purpose for including that phrase in the article is to spin the POV against Romney. The article already explains that the kennel was built to keep the wind out, which may well be what Romney was referring to, but it doesn't matter - "air-tight" is a non-starter. It's not relevant in any meaningful way. Belchfire-TALK 03:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
We should say it because he did. It's not our job to embarrass him and also not our job to cover for his gaffes. In fact, this whole article is about a gaffe. You're basically admitting that you refuse to follow WP:NPOV, much less WP:RS. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Again with accusations. Do not accuse people of ignoring policies here on Misplaced Pages. Belchfire is correct about the POV pushing which you are currently engaging in. ViriiK (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I think that's too far from our source. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
How so? ViriiK (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Again, same problem. This is our description, rather than Mitt's. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The suggestions are appreciated, Canoe, but I'm afraid that overlaying our own better judgment could only be seen as OR, even if it does appear to mitigate the content dispute. Really, the better, more reasonable - and policy compliant - solution is to simply ignore the source, on the grounds that it makes the article less accurate, which is a perfectly good reason. Some editors need to be reminded that verifiable sourcing is the threshold for inclusion, not a guarantee of inclusion. Belchfire-TALK 04:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
What Mitt actually said, as recorded on YouTube, is the absolute best source for what Mitt actually said. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
You are quite correct about that. Where you go off the rails is thinking that means it automatically gets included in the article. WP:BIT, in case you care. Belchfire-TALK 04:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Your grasp on the rules is weak. WP:BIT points out that it has to be verifiable, not just true. In this case, it's true, verifiable, and entirely uncontroversial. Nobody doubts that he said this because we can see him doing so in the interview. What you should be arguing against is that it's not relevant, yet you have no basis for such a claim, so you're reduced to throwing random WP:TLA links at me in the hopes that I'll just cave. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

No problem about objecting to my suggestions. I am just thinking that the readers may wish to know how 'wind-proof' the carrier was. I do realize we need RS to answer this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I agree that there's a place for this, but that's in addition to reporting on what Romney said. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I cannot support changing diarrhea to gastroenteritis, which is substituting a factual description to a presumed and probably wrong diagnosis, or excrement which is accurate to liquid which is vague euphemism. μηδείς (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

Ingrid Newkirk analysis

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

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

Hmm, can you find any reliable sources which question Newkirk's analysis? Her views are, uhm, a bit extreme, so it may well be that there have been responses to it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
See if you can find the term 'torture' in them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

'Expert commentary' is problematic

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

Agree, and I'm the one who put it in. I was just trying to pure politicization stuff from the stuff that could probably pass muster that isn't under politicization. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I can appreciate what you were trying to do, there's no question that a reorganization under neutral section headings was called for. Really, I think there is a solid case to be made for giving space to the opinions of the animal orgs. But to call them "experts" should be viewed with skepticism, doubly so when they are speaking outside their area of competence. Belchfire-TALK 18:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

'Commentary and analysis' is problematic, too

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

Anyone wanna vote for 'Reaction and response'?--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really feelin' it. But... I have a very strong hunch that somebody is gonna nail it by the end of tomorrow. Belchfire-TALK 09:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
'Views by others'. Hmm. I give you style points for crafting something potentially consensus-worthy. Good job. You've probably figured out that it isn't what I was driving at, but it might be something we can live with. Belchfire-TALK 10:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I just thought it may be neutral enough for most until consensus on something. Are there any similar articles we can compare and copyvio section titles from?--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Politicization is what 3/4 of what this is about. We need to acknowledge and cover it. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

SPCA legality comment

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

Wow. Your inference is pretty much completely off the mark. His statement 'strongly implies' that the SPCA officer didn't have anything but a second-hand account of a 15-year-old incident and so couldn't really say anything because it wouldn't be based on facts. The officer made a general statement because the situation was so far removed from him that it was the only reasonable thing he could do. The determination of whether something was endangering the dog would be very subjective in some cases, and without facts, the officer couldn't say much more than what he did. -- Avanu (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I phrased that badly. I meant to say that the officer, having no firsthand evidence about whether a crime occurred, did the reasonable thing by making a hypothetical statement. Hovever, by quoting the statement this article implies to the casual reader that an expert is calling Romney's behavior illegal. Spiel496 (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the "and" is used incorrectly: "it's against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, and if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal" Should it be an "or"?: ''"it's against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck, or if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal" Are we allowed to use contentous quotes on en:wp from people who can't speak English? They are saying that the dog would have to be in a pickup at the same time?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Edit war on time frame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOL. Lying won't help you, we have a log of almost every edit that was made. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#User:Canoe1967_2 & this link. Arcandam (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you explain how that improves this article? I can see how this in going to turn into antics that will not really improve the article. The dog is dead and dust, I live in Canada and don't care who wins down there, I only came to help moderate a dispute in the article, etc, etc. I will probably just take it off my watch list and see if I find another article to work on and see if that talk page gets corrupted as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. I told you many times to drop your stick. Actually I saved you from getting blocked, you should be thanking me. 1 & 2. An admin explained you that your pointy disruptiveness is the fast-track to getting blocked. Arcandam (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. This makes it kinda obvious what you are trying to do.

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

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

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

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)

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

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

Aside from 3RR, please see WP:Preserve, which advises to correct errors rather than just wipe everything out. Cheers.108.18.174.123 (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident: Difference between revisions Add topic