Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Animal Cruelty Databases

Arzel has removed a sentence regarding the Seamus incident being listed in two animal cruelty databases: Because of the 1983 incident, Romney is listed in the National Animal Cruelty Registry, and the Pet-Abuse animal cruelty database.

The National Animal Cruelty Registry has existed since 1986, is run by a group of volunteers, and lists over 20,000 cases. Many animal shelters will not sell a pet to a person listed in the database. I consider this a legitimate source of information. The Pet-Abuse database is newer (2001), and contains less cases. http://services.dlas.virginia.gov/User_db/frmvscc.aspx?ViewId=1989 (read page 6 of link).

Based on this information, I am restoring the part of the sentence regarding the National Animal Cruelty Registry, and I'm also including a brief explanation of the registry so that it's understood that it is a private database, and not one run by law enforcement. Here is the revised sentence: Because of the Seamus incident, Romney is listed in the National Animal Cruelty Registry, a privately-operated database started in 1986 that documents alleged acts of animal abuse. Debbie W. 01:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ideally you would be able to provide a reliable external source that reported on Romney's inclusion in this database. The argument for notability is diminished if nobody outside of the organization has noted it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Debbie has not addressed this I have removed it again as not notable. Arzel (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Actual duration of the trip, and some other issues

The original Boston Globe article mentions "the annual 12-hour family trek from Boston to Ontario." On that basis, virtually all articles on this subject (including this article) uncritically refer to the duration as 12 hours.

Swidey and Ebbert apparently heard that number from one or more people they interviewed. However, the number is probably wrong. According to Google Maps, the driving distance from Belmont MA to Beach O' Pines Ontario is 648 miles. (The distance from Boston would be a little greater, but they lived in Belmont, not Boston.) Google Maps indicates a driving time of 11:31. That implies an average speed of 56.3 mph. The route is mostly roads that are currently posted at 65 mph.

However, speed limits were lower in 1983. The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) of 55 mph was in effect. If a maximum legal speed of 65 mph implies an trip average of 56.3 mph, then a maximum legal speed of 55 mph probably implies a trip average of 45-50 mph. If the trip average is 50 mph, then the trip would take 13 hours, not 12 hours. If the trip average is 45 mph, then the duration would be 14.4 hours.

The claimed duration (12 hours) for this distance (648 miles) implies an average speed of 54 mph. But since the legal maximum was 55 mph, it's doubtful that an average of 54 mph would be achieved.

There are other reasons to be skeptical about the implied average speed (54 mph). This was an underpowered vehicle, by current standards. The vehicle was a third-generation Chevy Caprice wagon. It probably had 120-140 hp. The loaded weight was probably about 4800 lbs. This implies a weight-to-power ratio of about 37 lbs/hp. For comparison, note that a Prius has about 23 lbs/hp. A vehicle much less powerful than a Prius has a hard time maintaining high speeds. (All those numbers are easily documented.)

Also take into account that this trip is not flat. Google Earth can be used to show an elevation profile which indicates an elevation gain of 10,251 feet. That's a lot of climbing, which reduces speed. Also reducing speed are the poor aerodynamics of a dog crate (and possibly other items) on the roof.

So taking all this into account (the maximum legal speed at the time, the power, weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle, and the elevation changes) the average speed was probably 45-50 mph, not the 54 mph implied by the original article. Which means that the actual duration was probably 13-14 hours (or more), not the 12 hour figure that is widely reported. That's not an enormous difference, but it's big enough to be material, so it should not be overlooked.

A few related points. Everyone talks about the trip to Canada, but no one ever mentions coming home. Even though the dog exhibited signs of distress on the westbound trip, it was apparently subjected to another 13-14 hours of this treatment on the return trip.

Something else that's widely overlooked. 13-14 hours in a crate is abusive, even if the crate is sitting in a quiet room (let alone on the roof of a car at highway speeds). Notice: "an adult dog can be crated for as long as eight hours on occasion." So it's not just a problem that the dog was on top of the car. It's a problem that the dog was in a crate for 13-14 hours.

Something else that's widely overlooked. Because it's summertime, no one thinks the dog is cold, but wind chill and wetness need to be considered. (Yes, I know Romney said it was "a completely airtight kennel," but that's absurd; it that statement was true, the dog would have suffocated.) Assuming wind speed of 50 mph and air temperature of 50 degrees (F), the wind chill factor was 25 degrees (F). If the air temperature was 60, the wind chill factor was 41. 25-40 degrees (F) is pretty cold. Also, he washed the dog with a hose (using cold water, apparently). An Irish Setter has a long coat. Seamus was almost certainly still quite wet when he was put back on the roof to resume the trip. Putting a wet dog in a 25-40 degree environment is itself a form of abuse.

Something else. There was no reason the dog couldn't fit inside the car. This vehicle has a rear-facing third-row seat. It has seats for 8 adults. It was apparently carrying two adults and five boys, ranging in age from 2-13. This means there was a seat available for the dog. If there was excess luggage in the car, it could have fit on the roof inside (or instead of) the dog crate. By definition, the crate was able to hold a volume of luggage equal or greater in volume than the space required by the dog inside the car.

One more thing. If the car was too crowded, then they should have been using a larger vehicle, such as a full size van. A contemporary example would be the 1979-82 Ford Econoline Club Wagon Chateau (photo). This vehicle has at least 8 seats, and a much larger interior. Romney was a VP at Bain, and it was certainly within his means to buy, rent or borrow such a vehicle.

This story is supposedly about Romney's "crisis management" skills. What's remarkable is that this crisis could have been easily avoided (for example, by using a larger vehicle or by leaving the dog at home). Rather than demonstrating good "crisis management," the story reflects poor planning. Compounded by an inability to see, even in retrospect, that the "crisis" was highly avoidable and was caused by poor planning. This is aside from the issue of animal cruelty, and it's another important aspect that's generally overlooked.

Before editing the article I'm interested in hearing what people think of these various issues. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You bring up a number of good points. I will also address here the comments that you recently added to other sections of this talk page.

1. If Tagg was sitting back there for 13-15 hours without a seat to sit on, then Romney was committing not just dog abuse but also child abuse. It would also be exceptionally stupid for someone with a large family to buy the 2-row model when they could obviously afford the 3-row model.

In the past, families routinely jammed a large number of people in a car for family vacations. It not entirely clear what model of station wagon the Romney's owned, but we could add to the article that they were driving a Chevy Caprice Wagon.

2. Also, GM cars were equipped with seat belts for all passenger positions starting in 1971 or earlier. So if this car had the 3rd row seat, it had seat belts for (at least) 8 passengers. (Some GM wagons of the era had seat belts for 9, which meant an additional passenger position in the center of the 3rd row.)

In 1983, most cars had seat belts, but a lot of people didn't wear them. I can remember growing up that my family insisted that I always wore a selt belt, but many other kids did not.

3. An observer might be able to notice that there's a crate up there, but they wouldn't know what's inside. According to Romney it was "a completely airtight kennel." That means I can't see what it contains. If I saw you drive by with such a thing on your roof, I would assume that you're transporting an empty crate, or that the crate is being used as a container for inanimate objects, such as your luggage. It would not occur to me that you actually put an animal in there.

We really don't know what the crate looked like. You make a good point though. I never understood Romney's "air tight kennel" comment. I'm now thinking that he may have meant that it was enclosed. We really don't know, but perhaps it wasn't possible for an observer to see the contents of the crate, and so nobody realized that they were transporting a dog on their roof.

4. I wish someone would show another example of anyone, ever, transporting a dog this way. I've looked, and can't find any such example. I think that's because normal dog owners have enough sense to never do such a thing. And also have enough sense to know that they should never talk about it or brag about it, if they ever did it. This is true now and it was also true in 1983.

Normal pet owners did not transport dogs on their car roofs in 1983. I have heard about people years ago transporting their dogs for short distances (e.g., driving to the store) in the bed of pickup truck, but I have never seen or heard of anyone other than Romney transporting a dog on the roof of a car.

5. Boston Globe article: "She [Jane] says he was such a social dog that he often left Mitt Romney's Belmont home to visit his dog friends around town. He kept ending up at the pound, she says. They were worried about him getting hit crossing the street. So a few years after Seamus's ride to Canada, Mitt sent Seamus to live for a time with Jane and her family in California. We had more space, so he could roam more freely, she says." It should be pointed out that allowing a dog to wander near traffic is itself an indication of significant neglect. Get a fence. Also, a dog that often left the owner's home could be an indication that the animal is being abused and is trying to escape. The one documented instance of abuse probably indicates that there were other incidents (of this form of abuse, or other forms of abuse) that are undocumented (especially since they cheerfully admit that this wasn't the only time they did this). Also, in the normal course of events a family doesn't give their beloved dog away (especially to someone who lives thousands of miles away). Giving a dog away usually indicates that for one reason or another the family was incapable of caring for it properly, or just didn't like the animal. Trouble is, it's irresponsible to own a dog if you're not committed to caring for it properly and forever. Sending Seamus away is another indication that something is wrong with this picture.

Agreed. I'm thinking they got that dog, and then realized that they don't have the time to take care of it. I had not seen the story before that Romney gave Seamus to his sister because the dog kept ending up at the pound, but if you want, add that to the "supplimentary information" section of the article.

6. So taking all this into account (the maximum legal speed at the time, the power, weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle, and the elevation changes) the average speed was probably 45-50 mph, not the 54 mph implied by the original article. Which means that the actual duration was probably 13-14 hours (or more), not the 12 hour figure that is widely reported. That's not an enormous difference, but it's big enough to be material, so it should not be overlooked.

I'm not sure on this one. In 1983, few people actually observed the 55-mph speed limit on major highways. We'll never really know, but Snopes states that Romney made it clear to his sons that there would be no unplanned bathroom breaks, so I'm figuring that he probably drove around 60 mph for most of the trip with a few stops, resulting in a 12-hour trip. All our references say 12 hours, so unless there is evidence to the contrary, I think we need to stay with the 12-hour time span.

7. Everyone talks about the trip to Canada, but no one ever mentions coming home. Even though the dog exhibited signs of distress on the westbound trip, it was apparently subjected to another 13-14 hours of this treatment on the return trip.

Excellent point. I have never seen anything about how they transported the dog when coming home, or on any other trip. Don't be surprised if some reporter asks Romney this at some point this year.

8. Something else that's widely overlooked. 13-14 hours in a crate is abusive, even if the crate is sitting in a quiet room (let alone on the roof of a car at highway speeds). ASPCA reference: "an adult dog can be crated for as long as eight hours on occasion." So it's not just a problem that the dog was on top of the car. It's a problem that the dog was in a crate for 13-14 hours.

Good point.

9. Something else that's widely overlooked. Because it's summertime, no one thinks the dog is cold, but wind chill and wetness need to be considered. (Yes, I know Romney said it was "a completely airtight kennel," but that's absurd; it that statement was true, the dog would have suffocated.) Assuming wind speed of 50 mph and air temperature of 50 degrees (F), the wind chill was 25 degrees (F). If the air temperature was 60, the wind chill factor was 41. 25-40 degrees (F) is pretty cold. Also, he washed the dog with a hose (using cold water, apparently). An Irish Setter has a long coat. Seamus was almost certainly still quite wet when he was put back on the roof to resume the trip. Putting a wet dog in a 25-40 degree environment is itself a form of abuse.

I have never seen an exact date listed for the trip, but the National Animal Cruelty Registry says that it took place in June 1983. The Beach O' Pines cottage is in Grand Bend, Ontario, and based on what I've read, average June temperature might be 75F in the day, and 55F at night. Regardless of the ambient temperature, I'm sure it was very unpleasant for the dog.

10. Something else. There was no reason the dog couldn't fit inside the car. This vehicle has a rear-facing third-row seat. It has seats for 8 adults. It was apparently carrying two adults and five boys, ranging in age from 2-13. This means there was a seat available for the dog. If there was excess luggage in the car, it could have fit on the roof inside (or instead of) the dog crate. By definition, the crate was able to hold a volume of luggage equal or greater in volume than the space required by the dog inside the car. This story is supposedly about Romney's "crisis management" skills. What's remarkable is that this crisis could have been easily avoided (for example, by using a larger vehicle or by leaving the dog at home). Rather than demonstrating good "crisis management," the story reflects poor planning. Compounded by an inability to see, even in retrospect, that the "crisis" was highly avoidable and was caused by poor planning. This is aside from the issue of animal cruelty, and it's another important aspect that's generally overlooked.

Totally agree. Any normal person would have put the luggage on the roof, and the dog in the car. Even if Romney made a mistake by Seamus on the roof, after the dog got diarrhea, he should have then let the dog ride in the car, and put the luggage on the roof. To this day, Romney sees nothing wrong with what he did in 1983. Romney's book is titled 'No Apology'. While it's not about the 1983 trip, I think it explains his mindset. Debbie W. 11:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I think we should stay away from doing original research. The analysis is interesting, though it made a few bad assumptions. (For instance, windchill temperature is only defined for temperatures at or below 50 °F, and the dog probably wasn't experiencing the 55 mph wind directly anyway.) For the purposes of this article we should stick with what's reported in the sources. This analysis, though, would be good material for a personal blog or the like. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Besides Wikipedia's prohibition against original research, I don't think we know enough information to make any such calculations. We know that the trip was in June 1983, but we don't know the exact date, so we can't know the weather. We know the station wagon probably travelled at 50-60 mph, but we don't know the configuration of the crate. However, based on Jukeboxgrad's comment, I think we can add the type of car, and the information about the dog frequently escaping from their house. Debbie W. 17:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The type of car is listed as a station wagon in the article, which is what I've seen in the few articles I've read. Are you suggesting make and model? The running away bit might be good in the Supplementary information section, but note, the dog isn't notable for running away frequently, he's notable for being strapped on the top of a car in a carrier. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Debbie and Adjwilley, thank you for your prompt and thorough responses. I hope the consolidated answer that follows is not too much of a jumble. I'm also starting over at the left margin so the nesting doesn't get too crazy.

"The type of car is listed as a station wagon in the article, which is what I've seen in the few articles I've read. Are you suggesting make and model?"

The make and model is easy to know. A photo of the Romney car (the "white whale" referenced in the Snidey article) is here. (I don't know how to do it, but maybe that photo could be displayed as part of the article here, because it's quite relevant.) See here for hi-res scans of a 1979 Chevrolet Caprice brochure. See here for the page that includes a photo of a Caprice Classic Station Wagon. Compare this to the photo of the Romney "white whale." The match is obvious. For example, notice the distinctive badge at the base of the C-pillar. Another large and helpful photo is hosted by Wikipedia here. On this photo, notice the chrome trim going across the gas filler door, and compare this to the same detail on the "white whale" photo. For another large photo extremely similar to the "white whale" photo, see here.

A 'car person' (especially of a certain age) can simply look at the "white whale" photo and know that this car is a Caprice Classic Wagon. These other photos make the identification possible if you're not a 'car person.'

"In the past, families routinely jammed a large number of people in a car for family vacations."

I think the important thing to notice is that this was almost certainly an 8-passenger vehicle carrying only 7 humans, which means there should have been a seat available for the dog.

"the dog isn't notable for running away frequently, he's notable for being strapped on the top of a car in a carrier."

But there's a connection, as I explained. The dog running away could be an indication that it's being abused. Also, a dog that's allowed to run away is a dog that's being neglected. Get a fence. Train and supervise your dog properly.

"windchill temperature is only defined for temperatures at or below 50 °F, and the dog probably wasn't experiencing the 55 mph wind directly anyway"

This is a fair point. I agree. If the crate was almost fully sealed, then maybe the wind didn't matter much and the dog being wet didn't matter much, especially since these are summertime temperatures.

"Even if Romney made a mistake by Seamus on the roof, after the dog got diarrhea, he should have then let the dog ride in the car, and put the luggage on the roof."

This is a key point that deserves emphasis. Anyone can make a mistake, but a mature person admits the mistake and corrects it. What's remarkable is that even all these years later there is still no admission that a mistake was made. Refusing to admit mistakes is a serious character issue.

It was a mistake to put the dog back on the roof, post-diarrhea, but I think there's a tendency to overlook an earlier mistake: the failure to use a larger, more suitable vehicle (like a van). True crisis leadership means using proper planning to prevent the crisis in the first place.

"All our references say 12 hours, so unless there is evidence to the contrary, I think we need to stay with the 12-hour time span."

I think it's pretty clear that there's only a single ultimate source for that number: the Swidey/Ebbert Globe article of 7/27/07. The number is accepted as a solid, confirmed number because it's been repeated so many times, but those repetitions don't tell us anything about whether the original claim makes sense. I understand the importance of avoiding original research, but I think it's probably OK to simply state certain known facts. For example, the distance (648 miles), the national speed limit at the time (55 mph), and the average speed implied by the 12-hour claim (54 mph). A careful reader can look at those numbers and decide for themselves if they should be skeptical about the 12-hour claim.

Accepting the 12-hour claim is tantamount to Romney admitting that he counted on speeding to get there on time, and that he didn't mind letting his boys witness him doing this. Animal abuse is infinitely worse than moderate speeding, but the question of speeding (and teaching your kids to speed) is still relevant, since POTUS is supposed to be someone who respects the law.

I think it's also probably fair to make a statement observing that there is no original source for that claim (12 hours) outside of the Swidey/Ebbert article.

By the way, here's my speculation about why his source said '12 hours' to Swidey: the national speed limit was 55 mph during the period 1974-1995. Swidey published his article in 2007, probably soon after talking to his source. I believe that various family members still travel to this same destination, even now (after all, it's a family tradition that started with George). Since 1995, they have been traveling there on roads posted at 65 mph. Therefore they now think of this as a 12-hour trip. Trouble is, it was almost certainly not a 12-hour trip in 1983, when the speed limit was lower.

I'm open to suggestion about how to handle these various issues, and I think there's no hurry. Even if there are no changes to the article, I think it's helpful that these issues are now documented on this Talk page. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion. Drop it, WP is not a fourm and your original research is never going to be put into this article. Arzel (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules on original research and sourcing were pretty confusing to me when I started here... Basically, Wikipedia is supposed to follow what reliable sources say, and not go out on its own saying stuff they haven't said (even if it's true). In other words, if there's not a major newspaper saying that the trip took more than 12 hours, we can't say that it took more than 12 hours. If there aren't major newspaper reporting on experts who accuse Romney of speeding, than we can't do it here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"if there's not a major newspaper saying that the trip took more than 12 hours, we can't say that it took more than 12 hours."

I understand that. I agree that we shouldn't say that the trip took more than 12 hours. In fact, we don't know whether or not the trip took more than 12 hours.

However, I think there's certain factual information that's relevant and currently omitted. For example, the distance traveled is relevant. I see a source here that reports the distance as 650 miles (which is close to the 648 miles that can be verified with Google Maps; I think the difference is caused by using Boston when it would be more accurate to use Belmont). There should be no question that referencing that distance via this source is not original research. This source and others are expressing a concern about the length of the trip, and the distance in miles is a fact that's obviously relevant to that concern.

Also relevant is the national speed limit at the time (55 mph). This is obviously verifiable via reliable published sources, so it's not OR. It's also a relevant fact that does not promote a particular POV. After all, someone could argue that a low speed limit indicates that the dog was not subject to the greater distress of higher speeds.

We are citing articles that claim the dog experienced distress. Facts regarding speed, distance and time are relevant to that claim. When we can cite reliable sources providing facts regarding speed, distance and time we should do so. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's no original research policy is confusing, but Wikipedia does not prohibit the use of primary sources, insofar as the information is from a reliable source and the material is presented with a neutral point of view. Even if no secondary source, such as a magazine or newspaper has published a piece of information, it's sometimes possible to use the information in a Wikipedia article.

In terms of the distance from Belmont to Beach O' Pines, it would not violate Wikipedia's policies to list the distance based on a reliable source (e.g., Google Maps), as long as you keep a neutral point of view. However, without some other source of information, you cannot make the claim that the trip took more than 12 hours because that would constitute synthesis, which is a type of original research. WP:SYN gives some good examples of how primary source information may and may not be used. Debbie W. 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

External Links & Diane Sawyer Interview

I removed all of the external links as they were almost entirely additional articles about the story which added no additional information not already included in the main article, with the exception of one very POV violation of WP:EL. In general the section did not adhere to EL guidelines. Arzel (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, I think you went too far removing all the external links, and removing the quote by Romney during the Diane Sawyer interview. While 8 external links is a bit much, some of them added information that could not realistically be added to the body of the article. Wikipedia's external link policies supports the use of external links in the following cases:

1.Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

2.An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided criteria apply.

3.Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

4.The recommendation to consider professional reviews as external links was repealed (see this archived discussion). The reviews should instead be used as sources in a "Reception" section.

5.Very large pages, such as pages containing rich media files, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.

6. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page.

7.Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Here's my feeling on the 8 external links.

Tommy Christopher. "Newt Gingrich attack ad dogs Mitt Romney over putting pooch on roof". Redundant and unnecessary

David Edwards. "Romney on Irish setter strapped to car roof: Love my dog". The Raw Story. Redundant and unnecessary

Angie Drobnic Holan. "Mitt Romney and the dog on the car roof: one columnist's obsession". Valuable analysis of truthfulness of claim. Should be restored.

Lara Marlowe. "Romney hounded by memory of Seamus the dog and 'Crate Gate'". Redundant and unnecessary

Roni McCall "Mitt Romney animal cruelty casefile". National Animal Cruelty Registry. Controversial but unique information. Should be restored.

Diane Sawyer. "Transcript: Mitt and Ann Romney's interview with Diane Sawyer (page 8)". Provides valuable info that is too extensive for article. Should be restored

Jason Sudeikis. "Saturday Night Live sketch of Mitt Romney and his dog". Not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. A widely-watched parody. Should be restored.

Hunter Walker. "Canine-loving protesters dog Mitt Romney outside Westminster Kennel Club show". Describes event in relation to Seamus incident. Should be added to body of article

The Goldman and Friedman article quotes Mitt Romney as saying that the "Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign so far." I restored the quote.

I was going to leave the politifact and Sawyer EL's but after additional examination the politicfact didn't really add much (there is no question about the story being true) and the Sawyer interview is already in the main space as a source which could be checked. That said I won't remove them again. Arzel (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The NACR is a volunteer organization with no national notability. I've not seen them used as a source for this. Just because they created a page for this doesn't imply that it is important. It is a little more than a self-published source, and it is undue weight. Arzel (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not seeing where Romney made that statement that the Seamus story was the most wounding. I know that Sawyer says to him that he said it was, but he didn't reply to that statement. Is there a better source that actually has him making the statement? Arzel (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, I will do more search on the Diane Sawyer interview. The Goldman & Friedman article by ABC News lists Mitt Romney making that quote, but it's not really in the Diana Sawyer transcript. When I read the Sawyer transcript, I get the impression that Mitt has previously said "Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign so far.", and she wants him to confirm it. Debbie W. 13:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, I did some research, and most media sites state that Romney either said or confirmed that "Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign so far." Katheleen Parker uses the word 'said' in her column about the Sawyer interview as does the Goldman & Friedman ABC News article, whereas the Daily Beast uses the term 'confirmed.'

Kathleen Parker article

Goldman and Friedman article

Daily Beast article

We can stick with the 2 external links -- Politifact and the Sawyer interview. As for the National Animal Cruelty Registry, I have mixed feelings about it. Wikipedia's primary source policy allows us to use primary sources like quotes from books and information from databases as long as it is from a reliable source and is presented with a neutral point of view. By presenting it as an external link (as opposed to in the article), I think we do well in terms of neutrality, since we are not interpreting what the registry says about Mitt Romney. I'm like some input from other people, but I'm not sure whether the National Animal Cruelty Registry qualifies as a reliable source. The National Animal Cruelty Registry has existed since 1986, is run by a group of volunteers, and lists over 20,000 cases. Many animal shelters will not sell a pet to a person listed in the database. One government site lists it as a quasi-official register of animal cruelty cases -- Virginia State Crime Commission (read page 6 of link) . There are two Wikipedia article that use NACR as a reference -- Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation and Bhagavan Antle. However, I don't see the level of information about this group on the internet that you'd expect for an organization which has existed since 1986 and list 20,000 cases. With the highly controversial nature of a person being listed in a animal cruelty registry, I want to make sure that this is reliable source before we use it. Debbie W. 13:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing to me this is worthy of an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.91.100 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• comment - Per a careful perusal/parsing of wp:NOT, I disagree with an editor's assessment above that external links of such things as parody videos must be rejected out of hand as "not really appropriate for an encyclopedia." Various sections on the talkpage mention media mentions of this incident that prove it has become a so-called meme; thus IMO although deciding which items should be included should be done with respect to WP guidelines, there should not no campaign to remove them all. A look at wp:IPC--

  [LEDE: ...S]ubjects with broad cultural impact [may have coverage possibly titled "Cultural references" and the like.... ...Such coverage] can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not. [...However, these] can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract non-notable entries, especially if they are in list format.

  --reveals the distinction of whether individual cultural reflections of a subject are a notable part of its public image or not--and this whether the same are "serious" or "pop." So, if the criterion by which editors previously had been abiding were "Pop is out; serious is in," it wd need be rethunk. --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

To Hodgdon's secret garden: After doing some research, I think that the Saturday Night Live parody is an appropriate external link. I had never read Wikipedia's 'in popular culture' guidelines before. Additionally, I did a search of political scandals and political gaffes on Wikipedia, and although they are not common, there are some examples of parodies being used as external links. For example, there is an external link for the infamous Howard Dean scream on his Wikipedia page, and in the Dan Quayle Wikipedia article, there is an external link to his foot-in-mouth quotations. I have put a strike-through on my comments above about the SNL external link. Debbie W. 15:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Debbie, you have to be careful about your additions in this article. There continues to be a slow WP:COAT creep. This article should be substantially about the dog and only the dog, not simply an avenue to introduce political coatracking against Romney. Arzel (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a blatant misrepresentation of this article. The dog is notable precisely because of Romney's mistreatment of him, what that says about his character and the press coverage which the issue has generated. El duderino (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Romney ever intentially mistreated Seamus, there is evidence that Gail Collins is obsessed with this story and wants to use it as a political hammer against Romney. There is also evidence that editors here wish to do the same thing. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Then your editorial opinion on 'mistreatment' is suspect. Just because you refuse to see the evidence doesn't make it go away. El duderino ^(abides) 19:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that Romney ever intentially mistreated Seamus"

According to the ASPCA, "an adult dog can be crated for as long as eight hours on occasion." Therefore, putting a dog in a crate for a period longer than that is fairly described as "mistreated." This is aside from the crate being on top of a car on a highway, which obviously makes the problem much worse. So your claim of "no evidence" is false.

And I don't know what you mean by "intentionally." No one is claiming that Mitt put the dog up there for the express purpose of mistreating it. However, he did "intentionally" put the dog in a crate, and it was in there far too long, according to the ASPCA. (As I explained elsewhere on this page, the duration was probably quite a bit longer than the "12 hours" that everyone accepts.) And he still insists there's nothing wrong with this, and that's an important part of the problem. It's not OK to give people the idea that doing this is OK. It's also not OK to refuse to admit a mistake. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bo photo

..."chilling"?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

past treatment of dogs by current presidential candidates

In the interest of fairness and covering this topic completely, does anyone know the name of the dog obama ate? I am searching for sources but so far am unable to find any that specifically note the name of that dog. 216.178.108.235 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that the dog had a name. Even in countries that eat dog, people are usually not eating their pets. Much like livestock in the United States, animals which are eaten have not usually been named. Debbie W. 21:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Neologism

Removed the section on Neologism because it is just somebody's blatant attempt to smear Mitt Romney. Wikipedia is no place to do that. JettaMann (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Neologism section appears to have been re-added. I googled/binged 'romney' and the neologism appears to have fizzled, its not on the first page on either engine. Recommend removal or modification to explain it was passing fad, however as a noob I'm not sure whether a link to the google results constitute original content. 87.113.225.247 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dogs Against Romney & About Mitt Romney

After doing some research on other articles, I restored the 'Dogs Against Romney' external link, and I added a link to the dog section of the 'About Mitt Romney' site. I believe that both qualify as quasi-official sources. Dogs against Romney has existed since 2007, and is heavily responsible for much of the publicity about Seamus. The About Mitt Romney site is sponsored by the Romney campaign, and defends Romney's actions relating to pets. Debbie W. 21:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about "Dog's against Romney" therefore it is not an official source. It is certainly not an official source about Seamus. One person's crusade against Romney is not an acceptable use of EL. In general WP should not be used to promote political advocacy, which is all that site is for. Arzel (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

WP should not be used to promote political advocacy -- except when it comes to your conservative activism, eh. El duderino (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you come here to actually make a useful contribution or just attack other editors? Arzel (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA -- mentioning an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not an attack. And my contributions include but are not limited to countering activists like you and Kelly, especially the hypocritical posturing. At least you admitted your bias at ANI. El duderino ^(abides) 04:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not so sure. There appears to be some precedent for advocacy groups being used as external links. In the article Campaign for "santorum" neologism, there is an external link (EL) for the highly controversial website 'spreadingsantorum.com'. In the article John Kerry, there is an EL to a article which accuses him of plagiarism. In the article for Eliot Spitzer, there is entire section of ELs (5 total) of groups critical of Spitzer. The article gun politics in the United States has multiple ELs to both pro-gun and anti-gun organizations. When you have a controversial topic, external links are where you want to put links to sites which advocate a particular view. I've seen a number of Wikipedia articles where they have ELs to both sides of a debate, so that the reader has access to multiple viewpoints.

There is a risk that external links could be used by websites as a self-promotion device, or that having multiple external links that all say the same thing could create a biased article. However, that's not the case here. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, I added two ELs -- one to 'Dogs Against Romney', and one to 'About Mitt Romney' -- which express very different views about the 1983 road trip. Additionally, I specifically chose these two sites because of their significance, thus ensuring that Wikipedia is not being used as a website promotional tool. Dogs Against Romney has existed since 2007 and is already in the news all the time. About Mitt Romney has a substantial amount of information about Mitt Romney, including a number of article about Seamus and his other pets. Debbie W. 04:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What a load of BS, you simply want to get that website out there so you can use it to promote a political point of view. You have been in direct contact with the site creator. You simply added the Romney EL because you had the false belief that it balanced out your violation of WP:EL Arzel (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what part of the EL guideline are you referring to? It's not policy, so there's no violation anyway. (Just interpretation, but you know that because you like to wiki-lawyer.) That's why another editor restored what you deleted. El duderino ^(abides) 04:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem incapable of reading what I have said I will mention it again. WP:EL#11 specifically refers to Blogs. This article as titled has nothing to do with the campaign of dogs against romney, therefore it is not possible for this blog to be the offical website related to this article. Arzel (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

In the same breath as (falsely) accusing me of personal attack (again, you need to review WP:NPA -- mentioning an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not an attack) you claim I am "incapable of reading" which is clearly a personal attack. Not agreeing with you is neither an incapability nor a personal attack. Stop conflating them. El duderino ^(abides) 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That being said, I think it is critical that we maintain a neutral point of view when editing. Arzel, you removed the Dogs Against Romney link, but left the About Mitt Romney link. I think that neutrality is extremely important especially in a article like this one where there may be markedly different points of views. I want to hear from other people, but until I get additional feedback, I am also removing the About Mitt Romney EL. -unsigned comment by Debbie W.

• Relevant discussion at WP:ANI currently. El duderino (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw the AN/I discussion, read the preceding, and chose to reinstate both links to "dogs agains romney" and "romney family pets" page, to reinstate, in effect, the 22:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC) version. I'd suggest that's a reasonable status quo, a reasonable compromise that people here should be able to live with, even if they don't especially like it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about Dogs against Romney, so I see no evidence that the site passes WP:EL. I find it ironic that the supposedly unbiased editors here feel that the only EL that is actually about the subject is too pro-Romney to be included unless the political attack page is also included. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

EL is a guideline so it's a matter of interpretation. No bright line threshold. El duderino ^(abides) 04:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is nice to see you ignore guidelines when they don't fit your point of view. Arzel (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the guidelines, I'm challenging your misuse of one. Over and Over. Round and round. I see you're still trying to get the last word. Good luck with that argumentative strategy in showing how right you are. El duderino ^(abides) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not actually challange it with a rational thought rather than personal attacks? Arzel (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your editorial opinion of rational thought is even less important to me than your too-easy conflation of disagreement with personal attack.El duderino ^(abides) 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Than we are in agreement, you have no argument. Arzel (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see how you might misread that. I've already stated my argument: your interpretation of WP:EL is wrong and your attempt to use it here is disingenuous. Furthermore, your transparent attempts at baiting other editors are getting more obvious and uncollaborative. To repeat what you so rudely said to another editor in a previous thread, Drop It. El duderino ^(abides) 03:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Stating that I am wrong is not an argument. I have pointed out that this article is about Seamus and the blog site DAR is not the official website about Seamus therefore it fails WP:EL#11. Please provide some reasoning why I am wrong. Arzel (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. The guideline says "one should generally avoid" which obviously means there is wiggle room. You know this. You need consensus for your interpretation. The site has been published in RS in reference to this incident. So perhaps we should shift to including it in the article text. But I imagine you'd be against that, too. El duderino ^(abides) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So I am wrong because EL says that these types of links are only generally to be avoided? Apparently to you "wiggle room" means, I don't like Romney so it is ok in this instance. Since the article is about the dog and not the incident than the site is not relevant to the article. Even then the website is not even really about the incident, the website is really about the political attack against romney. Arzel (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not just about the dog. I know you've tried that tack elsewhere but it doesn't stick. And when did I say I don't like Romney? You really shouldn't assume based on my posts here. I don't know him. I wouldn't make that sort of judgement, especially as an editor who's main task is to remain neutral, which to you I'm sure seems left-leaning. What I don't like is how you attempt to exert yourself upon these political articles. Does anyone else besides Kelly agree with you? Because you're not doing a very good job of persuading others. Perhaps if you approached these articles with less of a chip on your shoulder. But I don't see that happening. You seem to enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, so I'm here to counter that. I like to get the last word too. El duderino ^(abides) 05:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

After even more looking at the Blogsite Dogs Against Romney, it clearly fails. Not only is it a Blog, but it is clearly not an official website about Seamus. Additionally, on its very first blog post it clearly states that it is work of Satire writen from the satirical view of the fictional dog Rusty. Arzel (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree that "Dogs Against Romney" is a violation of WP:EL in this case. Kelly ^hi! 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

More poor word choice. WP:EL is a guideline not a policy, there no 'violation.' And Arzel is wrong about his interpretation of it, so what is yours? El duderino ^(abides) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Obama Eats Dog"

I've included a brief paragraph in the "Political Response" section about the "Obama Eats Dog" campaign launched by conservatives. My initial version was deleted, I've reincluded a revised version with expanded verbiage and sources to establish its notability and to make clear it's tied to the Democratic political point about Romney and Seamus the dog. Kelly ^hi! 17:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a called a red herring and is similar to a WP:COATRACK, though it's not the entire article. I ate dog as a kid too, but since no one is trying to beat me in an election no one blogs about it. However, it's equally relevant, which is to say that it's not. SÆdon^talk 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite getting your point here - are you saying the Republican counter is not a part of the political response to this controversy? Kelly ^hi! 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If the Republicans think that Obama eating dog as a 6 year old in Indonesia is somehow relevant to something Mitt Romney did in the US in 1983 they are welcome to use this logical fallacy to their political advantage with no comment from me, but as an encyclopedia we generally shy away from publishing logical fallacies. SÆdon^talk 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: the problem is that the Republican response is to the Seamus controversy, but it's not about the Seamus controversy, as this article is, and not about Obama. SÆdon^talk 19:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)An argument could also be made that Romney transporting a dog in 1983 has no logical relevance to his fitness for the presidency, however as editors we don't make those judgments. My belief is that, as an encyclopedia, we document what the reliable sources are saying about the issue. The deleted section included numerous reliable sources (and I could have included many more) that specifically tied the Obama dog-eating meme to the Romney dog-transporting meme. Why include one and not the other? Should we have a separate article on Obama Eats Dogs? With respect - Kelly ^hi! 19:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Your belief regarding the encyclopedia is spot on. Yes we publish what the reliable sources publish on a topic, but as I explained above: Obama eating dog is another topic. It's not this topic. This topic is about Romney transporting a dog, that Obama ate dog meat is wholly unconnected to this in anyway whatsoever, just as much as what you were doing in 1983 is irrelevant to this topic. If you think we should have an article about Obama eating dog then you are welcome to gather your sources that write that article, but that's not an argument to include it here. SÆdon^talk 19:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the sources I included directly linked the Obama dog-eating to this controversy, it wasn't any synthesis on my part. Kelly ^hi! 20:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point here - there is no link. That's not my opinion, that's a fact because Obama and Romney did not know each other when Obama was 6 years old - no one in American politics had anything to do with Obama as a 6 year old. Obama did not discuss eating dog meat with Romney; Romney did not make his decision to put Seamus on the roof because of anything Obama did or said. Creating a red herring (did you read that article?) does not actually link two concepts, it's just a rhetorical device used to focus peoples attention on another subject. They aren't linking the two, they're pointing to something else entirely to get the focus off of something Romney did. It's like when people on WP get blocked and point the finger at someone else. In essence, the Republican response is a WP:NOTTHEM violation, but in real life :). Romney did something that many people find to be morally wrong, and now there is a controversy about it - what Obama did is not part of that controversy but may be a controversy in its own right. SÆdon^talk 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, unfortunately I just don't agree with it. The two incidents were linked when the political camps started going back and forth on these issues, as reported by the sources. But I'm content to wait for others to weigh in. Kelly ^hi! 20:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to agree with it but you are wrong. You cannot create links between things when there was no link existed in the first place. Political camps going back and forth do not have the magical ability to alter the past nor the physical fact that the two situations were entirely independent of each other, did not cause each other, did not correlate to each other and were embarked upon completely separately by two men who had never heard of each other up until 10 years ago. Obama is in the spotlight because he is president, but him being president and eating dog is not the same subject as Mitt Romney putting a dog on his roof. If you can't understand this very simple fact of logic then I'm not sure how better it can be explained to you. SÆdon^talk 20:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You are mistakenly applying the link to Kelly, when the link was made by others. Liberals (well mostly Gail Collins) have been railing on Romney about Seamus for some time, and this is the result. You claim that Obama is in the spotlight because he is president, and you are correct that the fact that he ate dog would not be an issue if he were not, but by the same token Romney, transporting Seamus on the top of his car, would not be an issue either if he were not running for president. The fact that this came up during both presidential election periods is a pretty clear sign that this is only a story because of that. Additionally, one could easily make the argument that Obama eating dog would never have been an issue if the left had not made an issue about Romney. Like it or not, the two are now connected. As stupid as it is, the left has turned the election into a choice between transporting your dog on the top of your car, or eating a dog. Arzel (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The two may be connected in some media reports but that's not enough of an argument to connect them here. WP:Undue comes to mind. And again your analysis is clouded by your own bias. El duderino ^(abides) 03:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think something that has to be considered that you may not realize is that although this was blown into this proportion due to the election, the actual act itself would be considered ethically incorrect by most if not all ethicists. Peter Singer, for instance, tacked the subject of animal rights in such a way as to heavily influence the field of ethics at least as far back as 1975, and many other ethicists had tacked the issue before (though probably not with the same influence as Singer). My point being that this actually is a notable incident in some respect because it violated several ethical norms, even if it is being blown out of proportion due to the election. You just pointed out that this has been pointed out vis a vis Romney since at least 2007, so it's not just a product of the 2012 election (though that's obviously why it's such a focus now). Wrt Obama: the situations are simply not comparable. As I've pointed out before, there is a seriously fundamental difference between the cognizant actions of an adult and the submissive actions of a child; a child simply does not have the wherewithal to understand the difference, if any, between eating different animals. He was a kid living in Indonesia where eating dog was a normal occurrence and could not have been expected to understand that a few thousand miles away was a society that condemned the practice. So in the end there cannot be an ethical judgement of Obama the child for doing what was the norm where he lived, while there can certainly be an ethical judgement of the actions of a grown man. This is why what Romney did has negatively resonated with the public while baby Obama's actions have been subject to no scrutiny except in the context of defending Romney. SÆdon^talk 04:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Seamus even merits an article, imo, is silly. He doesn't in my mind. Neither does Obama's dog eating. However, as it has been collectively decided that this dog does need an article, the "Obama Eats Dog" campaign should definitely be mentioned here as it is a political response. The article already refers to the Dogs Against Romney website, a left political response; opinions from political analysts, and a "romney" neologism. The entire "Obama Eats Dog" campaign is a political response from the right vs the left, especially considering Treacher directly refers to this incident. It bears mentioning. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a response to a topic but about a different topic. It would be like you being accused of murder, but when you get up to the stage you point out that Charles Manson also murdered people, i.e. not relevant. SÆdon^talk 03:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This is wrong. The first sentence of the article "Hey, if we’re going to talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago, let’s talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago." - which in turn links to an article discussing Seamus. It is a direct response to Seamus. It's impossible to see this any other way. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a response to Seamus, yes, but it's not about Seamus, which is the point I've been making. This article isn't about how candidates treat their dogs, it's about one particular candidate and one particular dog. SÆdon^talk 05:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed text

Below is the text that I propose adding to the end of the "political response" section. Kelly ^hi! 20:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Blogger Jim Treacher of The Daily Caller responded to the Seamus story by pointing out a passage in Barack Obama's autobiography Dreams From My Father in which Obama recounted eating dog meat as a child in Indonesia. This resulted in tens of thousands of jokes and quips on the "Obama eats dog" story, responses from Obama and Romney campaign spokespeople, a statement from White House spokesman Jay Carney, and a response from 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain.The Daily Beast named the conservative "Obama Eats Dogs" campaign their "Meme of the Week". The founder of "Dogs Against Romney" defended Obama's eating of dog meat, saying that the Romney campaign "seems desperate".

So you're just going to completely ignore the very concise logical argument I presented above and pretend that this is somehow related without actually justifying your belief? Oppose for all the reasons stated above, as this has nothing to do with the subject of the article and is merely a political WP:COATRACK. SÆdon^talk 20:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Kelly, I think that the Obama dog meat story should be mentioned by Wikipedia, but this is an excessive amount of coverage for an indirectly related story. I would just use the first sentence: Blogger Jim Treacher of The Daily Caller responded to the Seamus story by pointing out a passage in Barack Obama's autobiography Dreams From My Father in which Obama recounted eating dog meat as a child in Indonesia. Any additional information should be added to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article. Debbie W. 23:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily object to the passage being tightened, but perhaps not quite that much - there should be some mention of the legs that the Obama puppy-munching meme got (it did reach as far as the White House press secretary). There was further commentary today - Keith Olbermann was on George Stephanopoulos' program today and said that the duelling dog controversies were "absurd".[1] Kelly ^hi! 23:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Kelly, I'm opposed to commentary about commentary in a Wikipedia article, especially when they are not directly about the main topic of the article. I'm marginally okay with Jim Treacher's comment about eating dog meat because it's someone defending Mitt Romney's behavior by comparing it to actions of Obama even if those actions are very different. However, the rest of the paragraph talking about how much media attention the comments got are irrelevant to this article. Debbie W. 00:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What Romney did can only be evaluated by the action in and of itself. What Obama has done is as relevant as what you or I have done. SÆdon^talk 03:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Opposed - agree with Saedon that the two are unrelated except their use as political fodder. Romney's mistreatment of his family dog is important in evaluating the man's character. What Obama did as a kid, not so much. El duderino ^(abides) 23:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Hmmm - well, Obama was an adult when he boasted reminisced about the dog-eating in his biography. Kelly ^hi! 23:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, the flavors, mouthfeel and texture of dog meat stuck with him for decades. Remembering a meal like that is certainly indicative of one's character. Either the meal was a traumatic experience, or an enjoyable one if Obama is capable of recalling it after many, many years. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Now who's reading into it? Obama didn't boast nor mention anything about it except "tough" while listing other odd things he ate. The crude Daily Caller piece doesn't even claim as much. El duderino ^(abides) 00:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I had listened to the tone of Obama's reading of the passage[2] about his dog-eating from the book, for which he won a Grammy. Probably subjective on my part, so I've struck that out. Kelly ^hi! 00:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@El_duderino: It very well may be the case that what Obama did with a dog is pertinent in some respect, but not in an article about Romney and his dog. Again, it's a totally different subject. Honestly I am surprised that anyone is having any trouble understanding this very simple logical fact. SÆdon^talk 03:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is about a political talking point, which necessarily includes the back-and-forth between the two camps. You can see the same thing in articles like Jeremiah Wright controversy. Kelly ^hi! 03:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You maybe treating the article as a political talking point but I think most of us are treating it as an encyclopedic article. SÆdon^talk 03:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe since this article is titled Seamus and is really about the political attack on Romney because of the incident. As a political argument, the Obama aspect is certainly relevant, or else the vast majority of this article is in the wrong coatrack. I am not sure how you can even make sure a clear argument of WP:COAT against this and ignore the current existance of WP:COAT already in the article. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should be retitled, as you can see I am the first person to support the move. This article is not a political argument; it is an article about something Romney did in 1983 and the backlash that followed during the 2012 election. Furthermore, whether this article is a WP:COATRACK is irrelevant to whether adding this information would also make it a COATRACK. Two wrongs do not make a right, and the proper course of action is to fix the problem with this article's title if there is one, not to add to it by introducing irrelevant information. SÆdon^talk 04:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to echo the other editors who have pointed out the difference between a 6 year old eating something that he is told to eat and a grown man putting a dog on the roof of his car. One is a submissive action of a child and the other a conscious decision by an adult. SÆdon^talk 04:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, I see that you were the first to support the move, although I would question the logic that there is substantially something different between the two events. Obama, as a child between the ages of 6 and 10, probably was clueless as to the ramifications of his actions to eat dog, although one does wonder why, as an adult, he would even bring it up. It is also clear that Romney did not feel that what he was doing was much of a deal. People transport their dogs in the back of their pickup truks all the time. People also transport Horses, Pigs, Cattle, you name it in open air containers all the time. What would be the difference between transporting a horse in a trailer being pulled behind a truck versus having the trailer be on top of the truck other than the location of the trailer? If the dog had not become sick from the turkey it had eaten before the trip the simple act of the trip would have been a non-story. However, the left seems to want to make a connection that Romney was torturing the dog which lead to the crapping. Arzel (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I explained the difference between Obama's actions and Romney's in my last response to you (that you probably haven't read yet because I think it was further down the page) but it appears you agree with me that Obama can't be held responsible for something he did at age 6 so I assume we can move on from that point? Romney may not have thought that there was anything wrong with what he did, but that's likely a big part of the issue here: that a grown man didn't know better when he should have.

Regarding why Obama wrote it in his book: no idea, I never read it and don't find the man particularly interesting so I doubt I will. My initial thought would be that he wrote it simply because it was a strange aspect of his life, but I don't know the context of the chapter so can't say for sure.

You bring up an excellent point regarding the way that livestock is treated on a regular basis. Since this isn't a forum it's probably not a good idea to get into the (very long) ethical conversation behind that, but suffice to say that you are right in that there is probably not a fundamental difference between transporting a horse like that vs. a dog per se, though there are likely regulations that pertain to equine transportation that hopefully afford them a certain level of comfort. Dogs, however, are rightfully or wrongfully elevated to a certain status in the West, hence the public backlash; I'm sure as the ethical arguments against treating higher functioning animals like horses propagate (as they already are), transporting horses in such a manner will also be more heavily condemned.

I think your attachment of significance to the fecal problem is probably too much, as it appears to me to be a non-fundamental part of the story, in that the ethics of transporting a dog like that are questionable with or without the poo. It may very well be the case that this aspect is especially blown out of proportion. SÆdon^talk 04:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Arzel: Your distorted analysis has no place here. Please see WP:Forum. El duderino ^(abides) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Since there seem to be objections to including the material here, I've created a stub article at Obama Eats Dogs (it could do with a little more work, will get to it tomorrow if I have time). I'll add a "see also" to this article - I still think a brief mention of this Romney camp response should be included though. Kelly ^hi! 05:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama never indicates that he was "told to eat" something. You make it sound like he was forced. A 6-year-old in the U.S. would likely demand chicken fingers when served something he had no interest in eating, or certainly express disinterest. This doesn't appear to be the case. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Do I really need to explain how child-parent relationships work or point out that civil societies have long known that 6 year olds are not culpable for their actions (nor mention that no six year old is capable of understanding the moral arguments regarding meat eating and the difference if any between animals)? SÆdon^talk 05:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rather than engaging in our own analysis, we should be following what the sources say. For instance, John Podhoretz says the "Obama Eats Dogs" response by Treacher and the Romney camp is a reductio ad absurdum response to the Obama camp's attack over the dog-transporting incident.[3] Kelly ^hi! 05:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should follow what the sources say, but since the source regarding Obama eating dog is about Obama eating dog, it doesn't belong in this article, which is about a dog named Seamus and his owner Mitt Romney. Furthermore, the fact it is not just myself but now a journalist pointing out that the Romney camp is committing a logical fallacy, it would be irresponsible for us to publish said logical fallacy as a serious encyclopedia. As an aside, Podhoretz is wrong about the fallacy involved, as this is ignoratio elenchi not reductio absurdum, but that's neither here nor there. SÆdon^talk 05:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is absurd to say that WP is a serious encyclopedia when this article exists at all. Furthermore, this article is not about Seamus. Seamus did nothing, and is irellevant to the story. This article is only about what Romney did. Arzel (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree as to whether this article hurts WP, I don't think it does but I'm not particularly interesting in arguing about it. As for the rest...well yeah, I already told you I agree and that I supported the article being moved to a title more reflective of the content, so no argument there. SÆdon^talk 04:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of proposed text. This is unrelated to the subject of the article and is a political WP:COATRACK. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 00:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Arzel said this: "What would be the difference between transporting a horse in a trailer being pulled behind a truck versus having the trailer be on top of the truck other than the location of the trailer?"

Notice what the ASPCA says about trailering a horse: "Stop at least once every four hours to give your horse’s legs and muscles a rest. If your horse is tied, untie him and let him drop his head to the ground (but don’t take him from the trailer), and offer him plenty of fresh water and hay."

Did Romney "stop at least once every four hours" to check on the dog, and to offer food, water, rest and relief? Apparently not. Even by horse standards, what he did is unacceptable. So your horse comparison fails.

Also, there is indeed a difference between being in a trailer behind a vehicle, as compared with being on top of the vehicle. Being further from the ground means the swaying motion of the vehicle is magnified, which adds to the stress and discomfort of the experience. Also, on top of the vehicle there is less protection from the wind. (I realize Romney supposedly created a "windshield," but its effectiveness is questionable.)

"People transport their dogs in the back of their pickup truks all the time."

A pickup truck is not a crate. In the truck, the animal can see its surroundings, and it's free to move around. In the crate, the dog is confined. And since (according to Romney) it was "a completely airtight kennel." the dog was able to see nothing, which would add to the fear.

A dog, especially if it's under stress, wants to be able to see (if not touch, smell and hear) its human family. A dog in the back of a pickup can see the owner, which is an important element in helping the dog feel safe. Seamus was able to see nothing.

And aside from that, no one puts their dog in the back of a pickup truck for a trip lasting 12-15 hours. If you can show an example of such a thing, that would be helpful. Likewise if you can show an example of anyone, anywhere, putting their dog on top of a car. For a trip of any duration at all, let alone 12-15 hours.

People like you who have trouble grasping the significance of this incident should consider these quotes:

"He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." -- Immanuel Kant

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." – Mahatma Gandhi Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Romney (neologism)

Is there reason to believe that this coined definition of "Romney" is anything more than a bit of non-notable WP:NOTNEWS? There is one article linked to CNN, which is of course a reliable source, but that doesn't mean that this is necessarily a definition which can be considered notable. I think there might be WP:BLP issues as well, though I am not as well versed as I should be in BLP policies so someone can correct me if I'm wrong...actually I think I'll ask User:Youreallycan because he knows his BLP policy well. In the Santorum case, Dan Savage was at least a notable person to begin with, but who is Jack Shepler and why is anything he says notable? SÆdon^talk 05:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Looked into the issue and would have to agree with the points you make - I'm not seeing that the attempt at creating a neologism ended up being at all notable. Kelly ^hi! 14:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, no long term notability - this whole article has partisan attack issues. Its incredibly bloated and wants stripping to a couple of sentences and wants merging not renaming imo - Youreallycan 18:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign for "romney" neologism. Community consensus was to delete, not merge, that material. Kelly ^hi! 21:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

Wow, that was quite a discussion. There were a few problems here with unhelpful comments - too much WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Comments on whether this events deserves so much coverage do not really have that much bearing - it may seem ridiculous for a newspaper to cover an event like this, but we need to decide whether their coverage is enough to make the event notable, not whether it was justified. There were also many comparisons made with other articles, which were not incredibly helpful. The Obama dog incident, often mentioned, bears little resemblance to this case. Other events were mentions, yet they were also insufficiently similar to make a useful comparison.

Those concerns out of the way, we come to two main issues: does the article pass the WP:GNG and, if it does, are there any other consideration which would require its deletion? It was established quite early on that the article did meet the GNG, and this was not opposed too strongly. The duration of the coverage and the depth of coverage in a wide range of sources were particularly strong arguments, and a good case was made for each of the WP:NEVENT criteria, strengthened by the impact this has had on the presidential campaign. Thus, there seems to be a general (though not unanimous) consensus that the event is notable.

The second contention was whether, if the article was indeed notable, any other significant factors should be taken into account. Key to this were the policies, guidelines and essays WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:COATRACK, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:GOSSIP. It was well noted that NOT#NEWS was summarising the news coverage that already existed; the contention was whether this went beyond routine coverage. Many of the GNG arguments were significant here: the depth and duration of coverage takes the article beyond routine news coverage. It was expressed that this events has enduring notability, rather than just being a one-off news report, as evidenced by the depth of coverage in multiple reliable sources. COATRACK was used in discussing whether the article served simply as a coatrack for smears or political campaigning. There were decent arguments about the neutrality of the article - it may be skewed against Romney - however, it was never demonstrated why deletion, rather than just improving the article was necessary. Again with reference to the GNG debate, the quality of sources, especially for contentious comments, seemed to resolve that issue. Nevertheless, there is no reason that the neutrality of the article cannot be improved. Finally, ADVOCACY and GOSSIP were generally presented together; the same points as applied to COATRACK apply in this case.

A brief discussion existed about the name of the article and a possible merger. However, it emerged that difficulties with the last attempt at this (edit warring and giving the issue undue weight on the Romney article) make this untenable. Merging with the Obama dog article, as noted, would not be correct as the two issues are very different in nature. The latter article has also been deleted. There was, however, a decent consensus for renaming the article to redefine the scope as the controversy, rather than the dog itself. No clear name emerged in these discussions, however. Therefore, although I have kept the article at its current name for now, I suggest that a RfC is opened regarding a potential move where this issue can be discussed more fully, without the distraction of a deletion discussion taking place simultaneously.

I appreciate that this article is and will always be contentious. I did not take this decision and spent a long time weighing all the arguments presented in the debate. If anyone has any questions or concerns, they are welcome to raise them at my talk page.

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Seamus (dog)

Also see Talk:Seamus (dog)#Consolidated survey

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog)
• Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination)

Seamus (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a dog once owned by U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Well, actually, it is almost entirely about a single day in that dog's life in 1983, when the dog was transported on a family vacation in a carrier tied to the roof of a station wagon, and about the fact that Romney's critics have attempted to repeatedly bring that up as a criticism of Romney in his 2012 campaign. The prior AfD in January and February closed as "no consensus". More recently, though, someone realized that Barack Obama, in his memoir Dreams from My Father, had mentioned eating dog meat in Indonesia when he was young. That prompted the creation of the article Obama Eats Dogs meme, which is itself up for deletion now. Perhaps Wikipedia editors who are not intent on using the encyclopedia to score points against rival political candidates can agree that neither of these articles is worthy of being a separate article. I recommend deletion for this one. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the political season is upon us, and our sometimes-reliable sources are covering issues like this with great depth and breadth. I recommend merging this article and Obama Eats Dogs meme into Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election, which seems to possibly be the consensus forming at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs. Kelly ^hi! 05:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no such merge target and there should be no such merge target — that proposed article is unencyclopedic, too. It would be nothing but a disruptive edit-war playground for POV warriors of both sides. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That target was suggested sarcastically [7] but Kelly jumped on it because it serves to equate the two unrelated incidents. El duderino ^(abides) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, regardless of why, Seamus is quite the notable canine. There is plenty of source material to sustain the article, and the incident has played a significant role in a US presidential race and is likely to continue to. This is not a flash in the pan incident, and regardless of one's personal views on it, it is an appropriate and sourced topic for an encyclopedia article. In conclusion, I'm unsure of the relevance of the Obama meme—that should also be considered on the basis of sourcing or lack thereof, not anything else, and not on the basis of anything else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The question at hand is not whether we think that the Seamus incident was serious or not, but whether the dog or the incident surrounding the dog has become notable under Wikipedia's policies. Considering the amount of media attention that this issue has received, I would say that it is notable. When Diane Sawyer interviewed Mitt and Ann Romney, Seamus was the issue that the most amount of viewers were submitting questions about. Debbie W. 11:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete And ban multiple people participating herein for violating WP:POINT Hipocrite (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• MergeNotable incident, but I don't know that the dog needs his (her?) own page. And, Hipocrite, should you now be nomiated for violating WP:AFG? Nothing said by the other editors evidences that they are trying to be disruptive, or trying to prove a point.JoelWhy (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment For the record, I meant it should be merged (or, at least, mentioned) in the Romney page. Why the heck is there a Dogs in the 2012 Presidential Race page? That's a page that should be deleted, IMO...JoelWhy (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So, there isn't a Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election page. Where you joking? Or gave the wrong title?JoelWhy (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just a bad idea that came up yesterday during the debate over the equally insipid Obama Eats Dogs page. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete both this article and Obama Eats Dogs meme which are the result of embarrassingly childish political posturing. They are not encyclopedic topics. (They are not even newsworthy topics, and the fact that the national media consider them so is proof of our nation's decline.) Ban everyone from Wikipedia who thinks these articles are a good idea. Peacock (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Merge These two memes (Seamus and #ObamaAteADog) belong as quickie blurbs in the general discussion for the 2012 U.S. presidential election article as parts of the campaign. They certainly do not deserve their own separate or even merged article. --McDoobAU93 14:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Or merge. Simple WP:NOTNEWS; dog tied to car, ideological foes make hay of it during political silly season. Give it a mention in Romney's campaign article if need be, the sources mentioned justify that much . Not a standalone. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, preferably, or at the least merge into the main campaign article. This and the Obama Eats Dogs nonsense are nothing more than stupid political posturing, and have little, if any, encyclopedic value. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Same Result as what ever the outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs is. The two dueling stories are unavoidably intertwined. If we decide one qualifies for NOTNEWS, then both do, and if one gets deleted and not the other it would rightly be seen as representing a partisan bias. Monty₈₄₅ 15:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles are not deleted on the basis of ideological pairing, each case must be argued independently on the basis of policy and precedent. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Both articles passes the minimum threshold for notability, which means that if we delete them we are doing so for prudential reasons. As such, I think avoiding bias or favoritism, and the virtue of treating like articles alike are valid considerations. Monty₈₄₅ 16:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I can respect one holding the same position for both pieces, keep or delete; it relates how one views the applicability of NOTNEWS. Regardless, though, the deletion processes are independent. Hopefully they'll both be appropriately nuked. Carrite (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Carrite in this line of reasoning. The Obama dog meme is a political reaction to the Romney dog controversy. I believe it's too easy, maybe even editorially lazy, to conflate the two because of political considerations. El duderino ^(abides) 03:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - This is 2012 American Presidential campaign fooliganism. The dog in the 1980s of an unelected candidate for office is important ONLY to his political opponents. It is not a topic for encyclopedic coverage. If the incident of putting pup on the roof of the BMW is significant in terms of historical importance, it should be part of the biography of the politician in question. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS and it is NOT a running chronicle of endlessly cycled and recycled campaign allegations of the two multimillion dollar Presidential propaganda campaigns of the two "old parties." And no, I'm not voting for the slimy position-shifting right wing religionist front man OR the golden-tongued-but-pyrite-programed corporate flack in the White House — I'm a third party to these shenanigans, if you will. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually many people believe you can judge someone's character by the way they treat animals. Especially as an adult. El duderino ^(abides) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can judge his character by what he did in 1983. But this matter is not just about what Romney did in 1983. It's also about what he's doing now. It's important to notice that Romney still maintains that what he did was not a mistake. Animal cruelty is a serious character flaw, and refusing to take responsibility for a mistake is a separate, and also serious, character flaw. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. He's still trying to excuse it. El duderino ^(abides) 22:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete wikipedia cannot be sucked into becoming a free voice for Superpac nonsense. If Checkers doesnt warrant his own page, this pup certainly dont either.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FART.-Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. It is already mentioned in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, and that's about the extent of what the notability of the topic deserves. Rorshacma (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Was there LSD in the water supply this morning, or am I actually, truly seeing that we have an article on this topic? No, no, it must be hallucinations confusing me. There's no possible way that we could have a standalone article on this. ... could we? Because if it really, truly is a real article, Delete the bloody thing instantly and include the material as a short (very short) bit in Mitt Romney if we absolutely, positively must. I know it's an election year down your way, Americans, and that there's a tendency to get insane with it, but Christ on a pogo stick there's absolutely no value to having this whatsoever. Yes, it's a controversy. No, it's not worth having a page for the goddamn DOG. Ugh. ... okay, I've said it, I feel better. Now off to the *other* stupid article's AFD... Tony Fox (arf!) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as per above - WP:NOT#NEWS. It is already mentioned in a couple of lines in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, and thats what the notability of the topic deserves. Creators and bloaters of such partisan NPOV content need topic banning to help avoid such creations/expansions.Youreallycan 17:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. For better or worse, this story took on a life of its own quite some time ago, and is independently notable because its coverage meets the GNG. That various partisan advocates are lately trying to capitalize on it should be recognized in the writing of the article. The article title doesn't reflect the substance of the underlying topic; note the form of Checkers speech, dealing with another prominent political canine. Wikipedia doesn't stick its head in the sand in covering political subjects, even though keeping the articles in proper form may be harder work than articles on uncontroversial animals like Socks (cat), Buddy (dog), and Fala (dog) -- especially since this one has been covered in the context of multiple campaigns. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete this utterly unimportant article about a single event in the life of a dog long since dead and buried. Wikipedia should have some standards of decorum and professionalism, and clambering down into the day-to-day political muck of U.S. Democrats and Republicans is really beneath us. At the very least, the article should be renamed to Mitt Romney dog controversary, since the dog itself is not notable per WP:SINGLEEVENT. Whatever the final result, the same needs to apply to the equally unimportant Obama Eats Dogs meme (or whatever its name is today) article. Honestly, both articles should be deleted. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we should not be adding articles for every single talking point Team Red and Team Blue use in their endless battles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS and per WP:COATRACK. The article is an example of trivial things being blown up as part of a US presidential campaign. The coverage is about what Romney did, not about anything the dog did. The references do not state that this was in any way a remarkable or noteworthy dog. It is adequately covered by one sentence in the Mitt Romney article. Edison (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I think the Romney incident is important as one example of the man's character. An adult abusing the family pet is alot different than a child eating what's given to him. Just because the latter is used as political retribution for the former doesn't mean we have to. El duderino ^(abides) 19:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  i.e. "I don't like Romney, so let's stick it to him good". Charming. Not really quality encyclopedic material, though. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As I've already said at the article talkpage( when another editor falsely accused me of this bias with no evidence except his own presumptions), I've never said such a thing. I think readers have a right to decide for themselves what Romney's actions mean about him. An unfortunate result of editing neutrally and countering conservative POV-pushers is being accused of left-leaning bias. Just like you've done at the Santorum pages.. So is it your contention that voters looking to learn more about Romney here should not be allowed to do so? El duderino ^(abides) 22:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I find your let the reader decide attitude here hard to reconcile with your attitude that we should delete the Obama dog eating article. Why shouldn't the reader "have a right to decide for themselves what" Romney's Obama's "actions mean about him" as well? Monty₈₄₅ 22:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Then I can only surmise that you didn't look closely enough. I gave tentative support to a rename of this one and possible inclusion of that one, after initially opposing the latter because of Kelly's proposed text and non-collaborative mien. Part of the overall problem with these various discussions, at least procedurally if not wiki-politically (?), is that Kelly has several different balls in the air, so to speak. El duderino ^(abides) 02:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Romney, have you stopped beating your puppy???? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete unless merged with Obama Eats Dogs, trimmed, and moved to Dogs in the 2012 US election (sorry, Michelle). Doesn't even deserve a paragraph in the Romney campaign article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

a better target is Stupid political nonsense of the 2012 Presidential campaign - gather all the crap into a single location that can be quarantined from the rest of the encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that is a pretty good idea, I mean we would need a slightly less pointy title, but creating one Controversies of the 2012 US Presidential campaign article would allow all the minor controversies that will inventiably crop up in the coming months to be merged to one place where we can keep the NPOV in check. Monty₈₄₅ 22:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Per NPOV my suggested title would need to be the one. I would also suggest an automatic editing ban of any other article for any editor who partakes in such a slimefest. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we subtitle it "Giant D__che vs. T__d sandwich?" Let me know when; have lots of nominations beyond dog gate aka dog-crate vs dog-gout (don't know the wiki for the French accent). If you wanted to make it Political memes of the 2012 election, large article.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - No notability other than the single incident, which has been dealt with appropriately in other articles. WP:NOTNEWS as others have pointed out. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLD1E. The suggestion of TheRedPenOfDoom sounds reasonable, too. --Conti|✉ 23:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete WOW, cooler heads have arrived. A few days ago, I did not see it as a possibility to get this mess cleaned up the way it should be, by deleting. Delete is the appropriate option and I am about to go change my compromise !vote on the other page, too. This is a flash-in-the-pan, election year, bashing topic which has been thinly (very thinly) disguised as a dog biography, of all things (see WP:POVFORK). It is here only to disparage its true subject and should have been deleted on first sight. This needs to go, forthwith; and I am glad to see that that is a real possibility.WTucker (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing notable about this one. It is entirely political propaganda. I almost nominated it myself a couple days ago and then forgot about it. If anything, this should be nothing more than a passing mention in the article on Mitt Romney. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with the Obama Dog meme. This is actually the third nomination. The first was a speedy delete, the second was a merge, and the review of the second was a no concensus. As I stated from the very beginning, the actual dog has done nothing to warrent an article. The actual incident itself and the corresponding response regarding Obama may be worthy of an article so long as care is taken for the article to not become a coatrack/POV fork. Arzel (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Original speedy delete (A7) and corresponding review. Arzel (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. This story, and subsequent grassroots campaign that has survived against all odds for years, aided by the rise in influence of social media, is a case study of the evolution of the American political process - as is the Obama dog-eating furor of late. While I can entertain the argument that neither deserves it's own page, the only fair, unbiased solution in my view is to document both fully. If they don't deserve individual entries they should be included within the 2012 Presidential Election page - perhaps under a "Dog Wars" heading, as the U.S. (and numerous International) media have dubbed it. Most importantly, neither story should be successfully suppressed - or perceived as having been suppressed - by an organized effort of political partisans. — CScottCrider (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

• Delete Undecided - This isn't a question of Wikipedia being 'fair' or not, it is a question of whether we are a gossip rag or a well-respected encyclopedia. This story and Obama story are not notable in their own right. Nixon's dog Checkers is noteworthy on its own because it helped Nixon win his party's support to run as Vice-President and win. A family trip with a dog in a crate is not. The president eating a bit of dog is not. Wikipedia needs to acknowledge its own policies, admitting that we are not a political soapbox or advocacy platform for any party, we're not here to spread the latest gossip, and while the standard of Wikipedia notability is met by both stories, it is worth reminding that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion", and our other policies and guidelines rail against unencyclopedic material being added. We're not TMZ and we're not Yahoo! OMG. We're supposed to be better. -- Avanu (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, Checkers on his own is not noteworthy for an eneyclopedia article, he is being referenced only as the coloquial name / subject mentioned in an important presidential speech.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously, the story should be kept, or perhaps change the title to "Romney dog story" or similar. Anything that is mentioned so often in a presidential campaign about a major candidate is likely to be researched by people trying to find out about it. This is one of those things that have to be reported, even though the story is relatively trivial (such as many murders that become notorious, even though there are thousands of murders every year: for example, Leopold and Loeb, OJ, etc.). Who brings up these deletion requests? They try to delete stories that are, if not important, media sensations, and influential because of that. People should spend their time filling up the articles that are deficient in facts, and yet deserve more attention and filling out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.236.56 (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. As is quite usual in AfD discussions, people are misunderstanding and mis-applying the deprecated WP:NOTNEWS wikilink, which no longer even exists as a separate shortcut. If you click on WP:NOTNEWS you land at a soft redirect which says, quite rightly, that it has been deprecated in favor of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ( that has significantly revised language ) "to draw attention to the actual policy, not just the potentially misleading shortcut". The following are the relevant policy considerations that correctly apply, however:

(1) This article is "is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", per WP:SIGCOV, also known as the General Notability Guideline, since it has "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

(2) Our WP:NTEMP policy, confusingly named as "Notability is not temporary", applies: "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." It's worth noting that there are other passages within our policy pages which express an opposing view in the "recentism versus significant coverage" debate, however.

(3) Here's a simple truth we can all agree on: "The fewer sources there are on a subject, the more a Wikipedia article takes on the qualities of a news source rather than an encyclopaedia." That's what NOTNEWS was trying to get at and prevent, but this article isn't making the news, it's summarising news, summarising significant coverage from independent sources, which is what we're supposed to do in our articles.

(4) It's tempting - and delightfully homely - to cite BLP1E in reference to a dog, but it's my opinion that the coatracky nature of that policy statement has, as it soundest basis, the reasonable preservation of privacy for a person who is thrust into the media spotlight over a single event. I doubt Seamus, may he rest in peace, cares much about his privacy at this point.

 – OhioStandard (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You do know that (1) is true for absolutely everything that is in the news, right? As soon as, say, AFP writes something, it takes a day and we have dozens of sources about a certain topic. Just go to http://news.google.com/, you could create an article out of any topic you find there that would satisfy our general notability guidelines. There's 222 sources on Obama appearing on some late night show[8], for instance. That sure as hell is enough to warrant an article, right? :) --Conti|✉ 15:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Conti's analogy is specious. If a person who didn't already have an article here was written about in 222 news stories, then, yes, that would satisfy WP:GNG for an independent article. A better comparison would be to our Susan (dog) article; the dog became independently notable by virtue of the media coverage she received from travelling with Queen Elizabeth. The basis is the same for Romney's dog, and Seamus' mode of travel was much more spectacular, besides.

And, yes, I'm well aware of the rubric saying "notability is not inheirited"; I've not claimed it is. Axl Rose's current girlfriend isn't notable simply because she's dating him. But if he strapped her to the top of his car and drove 12 hours to a vacation spot, I dare say she'd become independently notable due to the media attention that would be focused her way.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No she wouldn't, as such an article would be deleted on WP:BLP1E grounds. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, fair point, Tarc, but analogies only go so far. Please see (4), above.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that a human involved in only one event is not notable enough for an article, but a long dead dog is???? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

***Comment*** For the record, I voted MERGE, by which I simply meant the story should be included (1 or 2 sentences) on the Romney page and/or 2012 Presidential Election page, etc. Is there a formal definition of MERGE for Wikipedia? I just want to make sure I didn't vote to have the entire contents of this page merged into one of the other pages.JoelWhy (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not in question. It is the appropriateness of the article that was the issue raised by the nominator here. -- Avanu (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a vote. Your opinion will be taken into consideration by the closing admin. The close will be a weighted assessment of the arguments given and not just a tally of all the bold and uppercase words. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree that the story is sufficiently notable and should be kept. Kumioko (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So, again, the question as stated is not about notability. Do you have a rationale that addresses the point made by the nominator? -- Avanu (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep; breadth and duration of coverage by significant reliable sources have established notability. I don't understand what contrary argument is being made in the nomination, unless it's that we shouldn't have articles on topics that the nominator doesn't think are worthy of articles, which is not an argument I would find convincing.Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 1

• Delete, as stated above by many, per WP:NOTNEWS, unencyclopaedic, trivial and a one-time event in the life of the candidate/dog, which is already mentioned in the Romney article. Enough, already. As to Ohio's claim that people misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS, it clearly states:
  • While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion (my emphasis) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but read the very next sentence for what that clearly means: The examples it gives are, "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Seamus is hardly "routine news".  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not "clearly state" what the sentence I quoted covers. It just says, "for example, routine news reporting ... is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopaedia", it does not say that these are the only form of newsworthy events undeserving of an encyclopaedic article. In fact, it says most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. To clarify. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The next sentence gives examples of the kinds of things covered by the preceding one; it gives a sense of the scope and range of what is meant by the description, "most newsworthy events". Something that was first covered by Time, ABC News, and The Boston Globe in 2007, and that has been covered repeatedly since, and that has had dozens of articles written about it now, is hardly in the same category.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Most of the "Delete" !votes amount to people saying, "I personally would not give this incident much weight in deciding how to vote, therefore it's objectively not important and doesn't merit an article." Well, the objective standard is whether it actually is a matter of widespread interest, not whether it should be in some ideal world in which most people agreed with the judgments of a handful of Wikipedians. The extensive media coverage is by itself enough to demonstrate that this is notable. Further, although we usually have to make do with drawing inferences about notability from facts like that, here we have an impartial expert directly stating that it is notable: "Mark Halperin, the senior political analyst for Time magazine and MSNBC, opined that 'for a lot of voters' the incident was 'a serious issue'." (from [9]) We have standalone articles on comparable political attacks against Democrats, such as John Kerry military service controversy and Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. Both of these, IMO, were complete horseshit meritless attacks, achieving notability only because of the relentless blaring of the right-wing noise machine (the Kerry smear was contradicted by Navy records and by the prior statements of the liars recruited by the Republicans; the Ayers thing tried to attack Obama for all the past acts of someone with whom he had only a slight connection). Nevertheless, these articles are properly kept because the subjects achieved notability -- undeserved notability, but still notability. Finally, the support for "Merge" is unrealistic. It's a call for endless edit wars about how much information (if any!) gets merged into some other article. The standalone article is a correct application of WP:SS, with the Mitt Romney bio having a very brief mention plus a link to this more detailed article for the benefit of readers who want more information. JamesMLane t c 19:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think merger is a unmitigated disaster. In the first AfD for Seamus, initially the decision was for merger, and the closing admin merged Seamus (dog) with Mitt Romney. This led to 24 hours of severe edit warring between people who thought that the AfD's decision should be adhered to, and people who thought that the addition of the Seamus story to the Romney article was undue weight. Both sides were correct, and so the closing admin changed the AfD to no consensus. Likewise, there have been several proposals on the Seamus talk page about merging the article with another article, but no consensus could be reached. I agree that a standalone article for Seamus is the correct decision. Debbie W. 21:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A number of editors have cited WP:NOTNEWS as grounds for deleting this article. Everything in the news is not entitled to a Wikipedia article. However, the Seamus incident is not a one-time news story. It has been in the news repeatedly since 2007, it has been covered by foreign newspapers, it has been mentioned in books, two super PACs have been formed just around this issue, national polls have been taken on this issue, and when Diane Sawyer interviewed the Romneys, this was the issue that the most viewers inquired about. As I said in my earlier post, the issue is not whether we believe that the story should have so much media coverage, but whether it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia's policy on notability of news states that notability is based on depth of coverage, duration of coverage, the diversity of sources. Based on the vast number and types of sources discussing Seamus over the last five years, it is pretty clear that the article meets the notability standard. It would be unusual for a topic with as much popular interest and media coverage as Seamus (dog) not to have a Wikipedia article. Debbie W. 19:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Early articles:

Jennifer Parker (June 28, 2007). "Romney strapped dog to car roof". ABC News.

Neil Swidey & Stephanie Ebbert (June 27, 2007). "Journeys of a shared life". Boston Globe.

Ana Marie Cox (June 27, 2007). "Romney's cruel canine vacation". Time Magazine.

Blair Soden (June 29, 2007) "Dog on roof? What was it like for Romney's pooch?". ABC News.

Scott Helman (July 10, 2007). "Introducing Seamus Romney, 'Mr. Personality'". Boston Globe.

Foreign media:

Lara Marlowe (January 14, 2012). “Romney hounded by memory of Seamus the dog and 'Crate Gate'.” Irish Times.

Sonia Verma (February 16, 2012). “Treatment of family dog comes back to haunt Romney” Globe and Mail

Book:

The Real Romney by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman.

Super PACs:

Mitt is Mean - The Animal Lovers Against Romney Committee ::DogPAC

Polls:

Tom Jensen (March 20, 2012). "Polling on Romney's 'dog problem'". Public Policy Polling.

• Delete WP:NOT#NEWS applies here. The article is merely a WP:COATRACK for political campaigning - the entire article is about politics, not the dog. The issue is already appropriately covered at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. That may not be enough for political partisans, but that's plenty for an encyclopedia. Deli nk (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS has been deprecated. Click on it: we shouldn't be linking to it. It "has been deprecated ... to draw attention to the actual policy, not just the potentially misleading shortcut." Can you tell us what actual policy you think this violates, and how?  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I switched WP:NOTNEWS to WP:NOT#NEWS to prevent the use of a potentially misleading shortcut to our policy about routine news reporting. I can see how this must have been really confusing for you. My apologies. Deli nk (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, was that irony, Deli? But I was serious; the target of NOTNEWSPAPER - or its unfortunately-retained co-operative shortcut, NOT#NEWS - has changed. Is there some particular part of NOTNEWSPAPER that you think this article violates?, e.g. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopaedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."?  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's too bad that WP:DontbeaWP:POINTyWP:DICK as been deprecated. Deli nk (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see: You're in the third grade. You should have said so, as that lets you off having to provide any policy-based rationale.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete WP:COATRACK. It's nothing but shameless political WP:ADVOCACY. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly a notable event. Rename to Romney dog controversy to make scope clear per WP:BIO1E. SÆdon^talk 03:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

( Moved following top-posted comment to current end-of-thread, along with one reply. No one's comments rate special prominence. Retaining "big" font and alt color used by Avanu, as a courtesy, although that's stretching it. - Ohiostandard 04:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC) )

• COMMENT - While many editors seem intent on pointing out that the story of Seamus is notable, please be aware that notability is NOT in contention and is NOT the basis for which Editor Metropolitan90 nominated this article for deletion. The story clearly meets the General Notability Guideline, so it is kind of pointless to keep mentioning that as a point. Metropolitan90 essentially said this is a WP:ADVOCACY/ATTACK/GOSSIP piece, and that is the basis for deleting it. Thanks -- Avanu (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. The 'What Wikipedia is not' page states that advocacy and gossip articles are prohibited, but the Seamus (dog) article does not meet the definition of these prohibited articles.

WP:ADVOCACY: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.

WP:GOSSIP: Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy.

Substantial efforts have been made by a number of editors to ensure that the Seamus article is written with a neutral point of view and with a high level of verifiability. The article quotes people critical of Seamus incident and people who defend Romney's actions, and uses the most neutral language possible to describe the dog, the 1983 road trip, and the subsequent political response. Because of the potentially controversial nature of the material, everything is the article is referenced, and some sections of the articles are double referenced. The article has 27 references, with most of them being to major newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Boston Herald, etc. Unless the Seamus article is written in a non-neutral manner, is libelous, or invades a person's privacy, it does not meet the above definitions of advocacy or gossip, and thus is not prohibited. I challenge someone to show me how the Seamus article violates the WP:ADVOCACY or WP:GOSSIP as defined above. Debbie W. 03:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The attempt to characterise this as "gossip" or "propaganda" is just more "I don't like it" hand waving.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I see it as an attempt to downplay the standard criteria for inclusion here, which is a combo of WP:V and WP:RS and their various subpolicies. This article is well written and well sourced, meets WP:GNG and although it's a situation that makes Romney look bad in the eyes of many, it's not an attack or gossip piece. I don't think we should ignore the massive coverage of the issue on the grounds that it looks bad. WP is neutral, but it's not unbiased; neutrality is a bias towards reliable sources. SÆdon^talk 04:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: When I actually sat down and carefully read the entirety of this article (rather than skimming or having a kneejerk 'WTF why is this in Wikipedia' reaction), I learned something. I think there is something of value to be had here. The problem is, this is an election year and POV-pushing editors who have monopolized the article keep trying to expand it beyond all reason, and attack and rebel against and serve ANI notices on the brave editor(s) who tries to keep it NPOV. Another problem is that the article has spawned the clearly useless and egregious article Obama Eats Dogs, which in my view should not exist on Wikipedia by any stretch of the imagination, and people are actually suggesting that that patent nonsense should be treated as equal to this one and merged together? That I definitely disagree with. Lastly, the only reason I can think of for this Seamus article to exist, however, is if it doesn't fit in the Romney article. If the salient bullet points of this article can be fit in the Romney article, then I suggest it go there, regardless of the disappointment that ensues (yes, that means all of you editors who went wild when that was suggested at the first AfD). And then let's be done with it. Nothing more needs to be said about the dog than is already said here. Stop adding to this article, stop edit warring with those who try to NPOV it. Enough is enough. Softlavender (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment RE: "Perhaps Wikipedia editors who are not intent on using the encyclopedia to score points against rival political candidates can agree that neither of these articles is worthy of being a separate article." This is an unfair and inaccurate framing of the debate. To presuppose that all those who !vote keep are trying to score points against a "rival" politician is Poisoning the well. For the record, I don't give a shit about Romney, Obama or 99% of the world's politicians. I don't care who wins the next election - be it presidential or otherwise - I don't vote, generally don't watch or read political news and am not interested in the subject of politics in general. Believe it or not but neutral editing is possible on political subjects so long as one is apolitical, and not everyone has a "dog in the race," or so to speak. SÆdon^talk 04:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Debbie says this isn't ADVOCACY or GOSSIP, so I went through and counted sentence by sentence the bias in each. The intro is fairly neutral and matter of fact, so I have it listed as "statement of fact". Most of the sentences after that point seem to have some degree of bias, but it runs 6 to 17 sentences against Romney and while I can see that might be fair, the general tone of the article is not neutral as Debbie is trying to say.

• Statement of Fact (seems like intro is the only place this happens): 6
• Bias Neutral: 5
• Bias Pro Rom: 6
• Bias Anti Rom: 17

In short, the article exists to magnify the incident and provide a platform for advocacy. Its proper place is not within a standalone article. The General Notability Guideline is "a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion", and many editors have given reasons why this is not a suitable standalone article. The material might have a place in Wikipedia, but unless you are willing to respond on the basis of the argument given by the nominator, I don't see how we can effectively communicate on this point. -- Avanu (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

::I agree with everything Avanu just said. Merge it into Romney. Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean attaining a false balance, it means representing sources in proportion to their prominence. If RSs treat a subject negatively then our article will seem negative, the same holds true when coverage is positive. That being said, if the article is truly not neutral then it should be fixed, not deleted. Lastly, I don't know if you're relying on the acronym or the policy to make your point but nothing as written in those policies applies here imo. Even if your bias analysis were accurate, it wouldn't necessary follow that the article violates WP:NOT because it could be the case that it's a legitimate article with a bias problem which, again, should be fixed. SÆdon^talk 04:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with User:Saedon. The neutrality of articles means that it reflects reliable sources. Read George W. Bush military service controversy, Gennifer Flowers, and Chappaquiddick incident, and you'll probably find more negative sentences than positive ones. However, that doesn't mean that the articles are unfairly biased against Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy. Debbie W. 05:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how you can compare any of those articles with this one. A similar comparison would be to have an article about GWB and it be completely about his military service controversy. Gennifer Flowers actually did something, and her article also includes her other notable aspects of things that she did, granted it is focused on her most notable reason for having an article to begin with. Chappaquiddick is simply not comparable. The simple fact is that this article is about Gail Collins obsession with the story and her non-stop effort to bring it to national attention, and then of course the political talking points. Arzel (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(Reposted *mostly* from my Talk page) Under the WP:SOAP section where GOSSIP resides:

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda
• nor Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political,
• nor Opinion pieces
• Articles must be balanced to put entries ... in a reasonable perspective (this bit specifically mentions current events, but this event is 29 years old, so what is a 'reasonable perspective' for that?)
• nor for Scandal mongering,
• "Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person."

The Seamus article, as well as the Obama eating dogs article, and any of this ilk, exist to shine a light on a long ago issue in a way that promotes the very things that Wikipedia speaks against in the snippets above. Bill Clinton smoked marijuana at some point... does it deserve a standalone article? Herman Cain made unwanted advances with some women at work. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was alleged by Anita Hill to have sexually harassed her. Look at these things and see what has its own standalone article and what doesn't. Bill Clinton's sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky has a separate article: Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton, but the marijuana isn't even mentioned in his biographical article. Seamus, while an emotional and interesting story, does NOT rise to the level of being independently notable. It is notable because of its association with Mitt Romney, but spinning it out into its own article is the non-neutral act that makes it into ADVOCACY or GOSSIP. Leaving it as a part of the Mitt Romney article would be appropriate as a footnote in his rise to candidate for president, but beyond that, it is not THAT noteworthy. You may personally feel that it is, but if you look at the overall picture and the various sorts of scandals in politics, this is practically nothing. How has it affected Mitt Romney's career? If you can say "not much", then that is about how much it deserves its own article. -- Avanu (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert at these AfD discussions, but is it proper to try to re-frame the whole debate like that halfway through? Or is this just a crafty lawyerly tactic?Seems to me like a lot of intentional contortion and possible obsfucation there, so let me see if I understand the argument's chronology, based on your previous comments too: you're saying the main issue is not notability but rather advocacy/gossip (both?), but then you're saying notability is the issue because it's a separate article. Or it isn't because of the NOTNEWS arguments? Yet isn't this article considered a daughter of Mitt Romney because of the subsection on public perceptions there [10]? Articles get split up all the time when too long; their daughter articles are still de facto a part of the parent article, project-wise. Speaking of which, suggestions to merge this into the Romney article are unrealistic. I'm surprised that was even attempted after the first AfD. El duderino ^(abides) 06:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, El duderino, I am putting the debate back where Metropolitan90 began when he opened this AfD. "Perhaps Wikipedia editors who are not intent on using the encyclopedia to score points against rival political candidates can agree that neither of these articles is worthy of being a separate article. I recommend deletion for this one. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)" (my underlining there)

The fact is, Metropolitan never claimed it wasn't notable. 'Score points in politics' and 'worthy'. Implied points there are advocacy and triviality. I'm not claiming it isn't notable either. It is notable, per the presumption in GNG, but it has not had much impact. You associated that level of impact with notability, but its more about providing a rationale for spinning this off. Once you spin it off, it clearly has problems under the WP:SOAP guidelines, and ALL articles must follow a NPOV policy. You lose the balance that is found by leaving it within its parent article of Mitt Romney (IF it even deserves a mention there). Like I said, Bill Clinton's marijuana use is absent from his biography. The point is that context matters, and you guys keep focusing back on one thing -- General Notability Guideline -- and that guideline says it isn't a guarantee of inclusion, and further it is a GUIDELINE, not a POLICY. Policies generally trump guidelines if they conflict and since Metropolitan90 based his rationale on a POLICY, specifically "WP:What Wikipedia is not" (particularly the WP:SOAP section), I suggest you address that before taking a tangent toward GNG (which is not in dispute). -- Avanu (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Three points, Avanu: (1) Metropolitan90 didn't identify any policy basis at all for bringing this here. All he said, in effect, was "I don't like it, and I hope you don't either." (2) Concur with Saedon, who wrote, "To presuppose that all those who !vote keep are trying to score points against a 'rival' politician is poisoning the well." (3) This Afd has nearly depleted their reserves, and the Wikimedia Foundation is now critically low on bytes with boldface, color, & etc. Seriously, the repeated emphasis is beginning to seem rather shrill; can we please dial it back a bit?  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Metropolitan90 DID identify a policy basis. You shouldn't have to speak in Wiki-ese to know how to read what he said and apply it to policy. I re-quoted his opening to assist with that understanding. If you choose not to see it as having any relation to any policy or guideline, I suppose that's your choice. "I don't like this" is not an acceptable AfD criteria, and I'm guessing Metropolitan90 knows better since they are an administrator and has been editing for 7 years at least now. As far as using color, bold, and font size to differentiate text, firstly, I dislike 'walls of text', and considering that my Wiki-signature is plain text and yours is fancy and green.... well you infer what you like there. -- Avanu (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to address your 'poisoning the well' comment. I'm certainly not claiming that people who !vote keep or people who !vote delete are doing so only because they like or dislike Mitt Romney or his dog. I could honestly not give one whit about all that. I just think it is inappropriate to have as a standalone article because we aren't a tabloid or a 'Ripley's Believe It or Not'. -- Avanu (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep but rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy" or similar. I am in the UK and have no interest in US politics but the incident of the dog has been widely reported here (without identifying the dog by name). Oculi (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete A whole Wikipedia article about a dog riding in a cage on the roof of a car for a few hours 21 29 years ago is an attack piece and shouldn't be an article. The "re-elect Obama" campaign committee should put this in their ads, not try to game it into Wikipedia. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia (showing how easily gamed it is) that this article even exists. North8000 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It was 29 years ago, to nitpick. :) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I fixed. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Additional reason for deletion The required coverage of the article subject to meet wp:notability does not exist. The sources (and material)) are not about the subject, they are about what people tried to do with it. North8000 (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, the article is not about the dog per se, but about Romney's treatment of the dog and the extensive controversy that ensued, which has been widely reported and discussed in notable and reliable newspapers of record in the U.S. and overseas for over three months. The simple fix therefore for your objection is to change the title to ""Mitt Romney dog controversy". Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you are reinforcing my point on the current article. But under your idea, it would be circular/incestuous/primary sourced. The coverage by media opposed to Rommney trying to maximize this story is itself the topic of the article, yet such (which is the actual subject) is used as "sources". North8000 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"The coverage by media opposed to Rommney trying to maximize this story is itself the topic of the article," -- No, the topic of the article is the extensive public-reaction and political controversy that has ensued from the original 2007 news-story, which extensive controversy has been reported (and occasionally commented on) by international reliable-source newspapers of record. It's comparable (though to a lesser degree) to Monica Lewinsky, who has no notability outside of the scandal she was involved in. Both Lewinsky and the scandal have Wikipedia articles. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete It is already Romney's article then that is all it needs. If for some reason this has a long-standing stigma (for several months and post election season) then maybe it would deserve its own article. I see no reason for this to have its own article at this time; the media is often unreliable when it comes to election year gossip and this is clearly no exception. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - we don't need an article on every passing 'controversy' related to the 2012 election, given that there's a new one every week or so. This was and is a trivial story which has not yet proved significant enough to justify having an article on it. Robofish (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep but probably rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy" or similar. The controversy has definitely had extensive coverage in a wide variety of notable and reliable news sources for well over three months, from the January 14 Associated Press article through and beyond the April 17 LA Times article (and overseas as well, as mentioned by a poster above), and so on and so forth. Please do not equate this article with the trumped-up reactive meme Obama Eats Dogs, an obvious non-issue which lasted less than a week. Please do not give weight to those posters who created that article and who are promoting it here. The Mitt Romney dog controversy is not a meme, but a serious and enduring news item. I encourage those against this article to please (re)read it, slowly and carefully. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Widespread media coverage makes it pass WP:GNG. But rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy" or something similar because the media coverage is about the incident, not the dog. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy", as expressed in first AFD. Cavarrone (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Then all of the "sources" would still not be sources, they would be participants, and the only real sources would be sources that covered/ analyzed what those medias did with this story. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that if newspapers report something that ends up sparking a controversy then they are no longer reliable sources? So, for instance, all the newspapers reporting the Columbia secret service controversy can't be considered reliable after the public strongly reacts, and in the same vein because the Romney story ended up being controversial the newspapers that were once reliable can no longer be considered reliable because that somehow makes them "participants?" And from then on sources can only be considered reliable if they are reporting about the reporting? SÆdon^talk 21:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The analogy isn't applicable because the initial Columbia story has both substance and sources, whereas this case it has neither (only the Romneys themselves are real sources on the current subject). So folks that want to save the article are proposing renaming it to the "controversy" which consists primarily of what the media did with this story. My point is not about reliability, it is that the current "sources" would then be the SUBJECT of the article, not sources on the subject. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mitt Romney#Political positions and public perceptions. Otherwise, delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK. Rlendog (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This article provides great insight directly from the original Boston Globe reporter who brought this story up in 2007.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-08/news/30605151_1_romney-family-mitt-romney-dog

I'm 100% certain that both the Keep and Delete sides will find fodder for arguments, but regardless, its an interesting read. -- Avanu (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons that should be self evident, but they seem not to be, so: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:COATRACK, WP:SOAPBOX, and Biographies of dead dogs known for one event.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article meets the general notability guidelines; there are a number of citations indicating significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and the incident is notable enough in the public memory for it not to fall under WP:IINFO. An article of this quality should have never been listed for deletion in the first place, since it is neither advocacy nor gossip. Miniapolis (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep but Rename to "Mitt Romney dog controversy" or similar. As a "bio" page, the subject fails WP:BLP1E. But as an article about an event, the event is notable. The POV-related issues should be worked out through the normal editing process, not through AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. A further note in support of my Keep !vote: One legitimate role of Wikipedia is to help readers understand things they find mentioned elsewhere. There've been a slew of editorial cartoons on various points that use the dog-on-roof idea as a reference to Romney. Some involve dogs getting angry at Romney for his treatment of Seamus. Most, however, simply assume that the reader knows about Seamus, and comment on some other topic. Examples that I've seen: Seamus on the roof, kid in car explaining that he's there "because he asked to see Dad's tax returns". Elephant in crate on roof, begging Bachmann or Perry or Cain to free him from Romney. Romney in crate on roof while Tea Partier in tricorn hat drives car. In the same vein, we now have the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, and this report of Obama's remarks: "The highlight was a spoof Romney ad showing the former governor at the door of Air Force One with a dog cage on top of the aircraft." ([11]) People who dismiss this article as a mere political attack are ignoring the distinction between perpetrating an attack and reporting on an attack. There is no reason for Wikipedia, in reporting on the real world, to ignore those aspects of it that some editors find distasteful for one reason or another. JamesMLane t c 11:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The "attack" is trying to make the largest possible deal out of a small incident. In this current configuration and title, Wikipedia is participating in that, not covering it. 99.135.170.19 (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This story originally gained currency not as an attack, but because a reporter thought the anecdote was revealing about Romney -- see the original Globe story. The characterization of "attack" is more clearly applicable to the subjects of numerous other Wikipedia articles, such as John Kerry military service controversy, Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. In each of those cases, a neutral Wikipedia article about a widely covered subject does have the side effect of giving a little more publicity to a partisan attack against a Democrat. Should those articles be deleted? JamesMLane t c 16:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

@JamesMLane, You've given me something to think about. I think it is important to be fair in our coverage of such things, and I think it is important for people to get accurate information somewhere if they are getting told about such things. I guess the question is, when have we crossed the line from being honest reporters of worthy encyclopedic subjects, to simply following a media that doesn't mind digging things up whether they are worthy or not? Some of these so-called controversies are just political games to see what will make their opponent bleed. Others are legitimately important and serious concerns. I don't see it being a good idea for Wikipedia editors to decide that standard, but at the same time, we are asked to determine what is encyclopedic. I'm hesitant to say Keep on an article that really is so fleeting and so old, but I've, for the moment, removed my Delete. Who knows.... -- Avanu (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If Romney did a loud fart during a May 3rd appearance, media hostile to Romney would cover it as much as possible. Then the Obama re-election committee (who has been hard at work on Wikipedia) would create the "May 3rd 2012 Romney fart" article. And seriously point out that the fart meets wp:notability as it is written due to coverage in sources. Maybe we need this article about what a long dead dog did for a few hours 29 years ago to exist to show how messed up the Wikipedia system is in certain areas.  :-) North8000 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If your "loud fart" hypothesis were correct, then Wikipedia would have articles on Romney's $10k bet, on his new mansion with the car elevator, on his stated fondness for being able to fire people, on his disparagement of a popular bakery's cookies, on his tepid response to Rush Limbaugh's latest outrage ("not the language I would have used" or some such is all Romney could muster), etc. Each of these things is a campaign incident that's generated some bad publicity for Romney. Do we lack articles about them because none of them has achieved the level of ongoing media coverage of the Seamus incident, or because George Soros is late with his check this month and we in the Liberal Cabal are petulantly deferring our planned edits in retaliation? You might try AGF and go with the former explanation. JamesMLane t c 00:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your later comments, I never made any of those straw-man statements like "cabal", or high level or organization as you inferred. I did say that the O'Bama re-election committee is hard at work on Wikipedia articles. While the "committee" word is a bit of hyperbole, the rest isn't. I've run into some pretty severe cases of this. At the O'Bama Presidency article, they are not only warring out any criticisms, they are even warring out / deleting talk page notices of the severe npov problems there. So yes, I'm a bit jaded at the moment of Wikipedia being tilted for political purposes, and when I see a whole article on a long dead dog spending a few hours on the roof of a car 29 years ago, it certainly smacks of such. On your former ones, I don't have the time to run it down but I'll bet that the same folks are working for maximum coverage of those events. And a few of those are real topics and I'd say say "rightly so". I was also pointing out how easily wp:notability is gamed on things like this. Even the most non-notable event by someone in a political contest will get covered by opposing media in which case it technically meets wp:notability. (although this one, as titled, does not have that coverage of the actual topic, the only real sources on that are the Romneys.) So if Romney does a loud fart, that will end up technically meeting wp:notability for a separate article on that fart. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete The only merit in this whole sad saga is that it reassures me, as a non-American, that the sort of garbage that pretends to be sensible politics in my country is equally matched by garbage in the USA. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. One point that turned my opinion about the article is that I had previously thought the dog was on the car roof for maybe 4 to 5 hours max. Someone mentioned, on one of the discussions, that the article "is about 12 hours of a dog's life". That astounded me because I hadn't read the article carefully. Twelve hours is an entire day, from sun-up to sun-down, and clearly a time period that would have a massive affect on anything and anyone on a car roof for that long. That's when I changed my mind about the article and read it thoroughly. I don't think this is a trivial incident that is being overblown here. I think it's a notable incident that has affected public perception even beyond whatever political ammunition Romney's opponents in both parties have made of it, and that it is a legitimate topic of encyclopedic exploration (even if only, as a poster above noted, to get all the salient facts laid out in one NPOV and verifiable place, something that's not otherwise available to people who want to learn more about this legitimate topic of discussion, even beyond the fact that this is an election year). Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I would argue that its been the most lasting political controversy that Mitt Romney has had. Although Romney has had some other controversies (e.g., $10,000 bet, 'I like to fire people', cookiegate), they all have been transitory in terms of their news coverage and popular influence, and thus do not warrant a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's policy on the notability of news states that notability is based on depth of coverage, duration of coverage, the diversity of sources. An incident which has coverage on cable news shows for a few days is not entitled to a Wikipedia article. However, the Seamus incident has been in the news for the last five years, has been covered by foreign media sources, and has been the topic of national polls, and has led to the formation of super PACs. That's clearly notable. Overall, I see Seamus as having the same influence as Jeremiah Wright, who has his own article. Debbie W. 04:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And that's where the nonsenical POV attitudes of people here come to the fore. How on earth can what Romney did to the dog be a political controversy? Just describing it as political is POV. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If your neighbor did this, people might talk about it and move on. Its political because its about a politician. Its just one of those things. Like trying to pull a duck out of a quack. -- Avanu (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think an even better expansion on that thought is, "I don't like my neighbor, and now he is running for a political office. One time 25 years ago he transported his dog on the roof of his car so I am going to use that to attack his character in order to make sure he doesn't get elected." Arzel (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Mitt Romney per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ONEEVENT. Article isn't even about the dog, just the controversy from 30 years ago involving its owner who is running for President. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's about the continued and ongoing controversy, which is still occuring now and which has been reported, discussed, and publically responded to continually and internationally since January 2012, not to mention the reportage/controversy in 2007 and beyond. Softlavender (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to Mitt Romney dog controversy. I concur with Saedon's view that we've seen unfortunate attempts "to downplay the standard criteria for inclusion here, which is a combo of WP:V and WP:RS and their various subpolicies. This article is well written and well sourced, meets WP:GNG and although it's a situation that makes Romney look bad in the eyes of many, it's not an attack or gossip piece. I don't think we should ignore the massive coverage of the issue on the grounds that it looks bad. WP is neutral, but it's not unbiased; neutrality is a bias towards reliable sources." This has been covered repeatedly, and broadly, since 2007, and polls show people's concerns over this will exert some meaningful influence on how they vote. There's no way we cannot have an article about it; like it or loathe it, it's a significant issue.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - WP is not made of paper. The event and its attendant controversy is already more than merely some random, passing news story and/or minor web meme (such as acccording to my view would be to-date say the fact that the Romneys' San Diego beachhouse planned addition's architectural design is to include a car elevator - CNNLINK); rather, per the sources, it must be rocognized as a notable controversy involving a public person and be provided coverage according to WP's guidelines.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reason we have kept the santorum controversy. As other have noted,the AfD is not about whether the subject meets GNG, it obviously does. If the article was called How Mitt Romney abused his dog then I would clearly advocate for a name change.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 2

• Merge to Mitt Romney, the dog is important as it relates to Mitt Romney, not as its own entity. There is plenty of info in the article that could stand to be consolidated as well. Ducknish (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I think the best way to evaluate the notability of controversial articles is via rigorous analysis using Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia's policy on the notability of events gives 5 factors in evaluating an event -- (1) lasting effect, (2) geographic scope, (3) depth of coverage, (4) duration of coverage, and (5) diversity of sources. So lets look at the Seamus article.

(1) Lasting effect -- "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects." Uncertain Two super PACs have been founded with the solely as a result of the 1983 road trip, and a Public Policy Polling survey indicates that 35% of Americans are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney because of the Seamus incident. However, it remains to be seen how much influence this issue will have on the US presidential election or Mitt Romney future political career.

(2) Geographical scope -- "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it. By contrast, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." Pass There is a substantial amount of US media coverage of this topic, and the story has been reported repeatedly and in-depth by the foreign press (e.g., Globe and Mail, Irish Times).

(3) Depth of coverage -- "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK)." Pass The Seamus incident was discussed in the book The Real Romney by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, and had a feature story in Time Magazine. Furthermore, there have been a number of articles analyzing what the Seamus story indicates about the role of pets in American culture[12][13].

(4) Duration of coverage -- "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." Pass The Seamus incident has been in the news extensively since 2007, and will likely be in the news continuously for the rest of the year.

(5) Diversity of sources -- "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." Pass There is significant domestic and international media coverage of this incident. The Seamus story been covered by the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, International Business Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Irish Times, Guardian, Globe and Mail, and many other newspapers and media sources.

Overall Different people may come to different conclusions using the Wikipedia notability of events guidelines. However, I think that the Seamus article meets most of the criteria for notability, and should be kept. Debbie W. 03:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note, this has not been "extensively" in the press since 2007. While it is true that Gail Collins has been "extensively" obsessed with it since then, one persons extreme dislike of Romney does not matter much. Most of the covereage has been a mirror of Gail Collins obsession with the story. It probably would not even be a story if she did whine about it every time she typed up a story. I would say that 4 and 5 Fail, what is a story, however, is Gail Collins obsession with Seamus. Arzel (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. If the article pertained to pretty much anywhere other than the US would there be so many people calling for the article to be kept? Somehow I doubt it. (Note that this isn't intended to be a delete argument, just an observation.) --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Tyrannus Mundi, You bring up a good point but I think that we must focus on what news coverage and impact the Seamus story has had, not whether we believe it should have received so much news coverage. Each country has its own concept of what is acceptible or unacceptible for politicians. In some countries, the president or prime minister having a mistress is a non-issue, whereas it's big issue in English-speaking nations. In some countries, espousing the wrong religious beliefs or being from the wrong tribe is political career-stopper, whereas in many countries it's not. Whether the Seamus incident would be viewed the same way in a foreign country is not really relevant. In the end, I think our job at Wikipedia is to determine whether a topic is notable, not whether it should have become notable. Debbie W. 20:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about whether it's acceptable or not. It's whether it's significant or not. And it's only significant to the Romney's opponents and the tabloid media on their side. For Wikipedia to even be mentioning it is playing into the hands of those playing a political game. It's taking sides politically. We should not be doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this assessment, HiLo (although I still maintain my delete/merge vote). We are not here to subjectively judge whether it's significant -- the issue is whether it has obtained notability based upon the coverage. To illustrate, we don't have a Wiki page on every person who has ever disappeared. However, we do have a page on Natalee Holloway , not because she is more important than the other (perhaps less white and/or attractive) people who have disappeared, but because the 'tabloid media' covered the case ad nauseum. If this story were to really have legs, then yes, we would have to include it as a Wiki page. The story wouldn't be any less asinine, but something that catches the attention of the public at large for a substantial amount of time is noteworthy. I do think it's ok for us to judge the liklihood of a story really sticking around and impacting the media. I suspect that this entire issue is little more than a flash-in-the-pan meme that deserves a footnote on the 2012 election page and/or the Romney page. However, if I am wrong and this is THE story of the 2012 election, it is not for us to exclude the article because it demonstrates all that is wrong with our political system.JoelWhy (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

And I respectfully disagree with that. Wikipedia should not be driven by the tabloid media on any topic at all. We are not a tabloid outlet. If part of the more serious and responsible media described the hype surrounding this matter (and we all know that's all it is), then we could include something paralleling that reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you if the sources for this article were Gawker or the New York post, but that's not the case. Our sources are not tabloids, they're impeccable; major newspapers and news stations across the world over a period of at least a year. I don't think there's a major paper that hasn't done a story (though I suppose it's possible). Perhaps you mean that the subject is only worthy of a tabloid, which may be the case but that's not for us as editors to decide. We don't give weight and ascribe notability based on our feelings as editors, we do so based on the reliability of the sourcing, and that's one thing this article is not lacking. SÆdon^talk 04:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. And normally, while coverage is an actual gauge of notability, in this case coverage merely means that there is media opposed to Romney attempting to give even the most trivial negative thing regarding him legs. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

North8000, I find your argument most unusual. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but are you basically saying that we should ignore Wikipedia's notability of events guideline which puts a strong emphasis on the depth, duration, and diversity of news coverage? If you believe that media coverage should not a factor for assessing the notability of this article, what should we use as the standard of notability? Debbie W. 04:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I very much doubt that there is much depth and diversity in the media coverage. Most of it would come from shallow, tabloid style outlets which don't want Romney elected. That's neither a deep nor diverse cross-section of the media. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to trust my word or doubt it, you can check for yourself. Just pasting what Debbie wrote above (removing the last two as they actually are tabloids): New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, International Business Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Irish Times, and the Guardian. Are you going to contend that's not a deep or diverse cross section of the media? SÆdon^talk 05:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Debbie W, my comment was about the coverage criteria in wp:notability which folks keep saying is a basis for keeping this. And and how it misfires / is easily gamed in cases where the media is a player in the event (trying to give a non-notable story legs as a part of their advocacy against that candidate) rather than a coverer of it. North8000 (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a Wiki rule that allows for the exclusion of articles if conservative editors decide that the stories are all part of a liberal media conspiracy.JoelWhy (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that this comment might be misplaced. It's under mine but bears no relationship to anything I said. 14:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You are advocating that the article should not be included because the media is perpetuating a story in order to advocate against Romney. That sounds a whole lot like 'it's a liberal media conspiracy' to me.JoelWhy (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Who said anything about a conspiracy? (or did you mean that as just a straw man revision of what I actually said?) No "conspiracy" or even-co-ordination of actions is needed for this to occur. It just needs a few newspapers etc. opposed to the person, behaving naturally, in a way that further promotes their preference. A simple lack of objectivity standards will accomplish that; no conspiracy is required. North8000 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep You can rename it the Seamus Dog Incident perhaps. Massive media coverage, used against him in his campaign, and "As of March 2012, New York Times columnist Gail Collins had mentioned the car trip more than 50 times.[29]" You hear about this in the media everywhere regularly. Dream Focus 03:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Gail's obsession with the story doesn't mean much other than she really dislikes Romney, if anything her obsession proves just how non-notable the story really is. For years, she made sure to whine about it every time she wrote a story. The fact that it never got much attention until Romney appeared likely to be Obama's opponent in 2012 only shows you just how much this is a product of the election and is purely a political talking point being used by the left to attack the character of Romney. Arzel (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic behind the idea that because an even is notable due to political issues it is therefore not notable. The fact that this story is notable because Romney is a well known politician and possible Republican nominee doesn't reduce the notability of the subject one bit - that's exactly why it's notable. Of course if you or I did such a thing it would never even make the news, but that makes sense because we're not national candidates. Politics has the ability to make issues and events notable that would otherwise not be, this isn't an argument against inclusion. If we decided to limit the encyclopedia to articles that were notable but only when not because of politics we would loose a lot of articles on obviously notable subjects. SÆdon^talk 04:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. This is shallow, tabloid, POV garbage. There may be a lot of it, but it is still shallow, tabloid, POV garbage. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion on the content of most of the major newspapers of the US and many internationally. Our opinions, however, do not matter one bit here. SÆdon^talk 05:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - looking at the comments and the coverage, I tend to have to come down that this is notable (significant press coverage). Thus if it is notable, it should stay. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep albeit with some regret. On a personal level, I think this is not important enough to be included - but the coverage in the press is significant, and the subject meets the criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone article - my personal opinion is not relevant here, the notability criteria is, however! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Merge - there is NO WAY that this article can ever be anything but ADVOCACY and GOSSIP. Not much possible debate that it is NOTABLE in the sense of media attention. EXACTLY the same as "Obama eats dogs". The only people who have any actual factual knowledge of either story are either Romneys or Obamas, and neither set has given out any ACTUAL FACTS or BACKGROUND that is in any way negative. EVERY other pseudofact that puffs up either article is, by definition, POV. ALL commentary is political (let's just quit the fiction that there is ACTUAL Science), and should be treated as such; merger of the two unsubstantive pseudoissues as competing political memes, which is what they are, is the appropriate action.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Please read the article before you make bizarre assertions. All the negative facts on the Romney case came from the Romney family. Not to mention, the article is about the continuing and lasting and very substantive controversy surrounding those negative facts revealed by the Romney family. Are you going to delete the articles on Monica Lewinsky as well? This is no meme; please actually read the article. Softlavender (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. - Fwiw, I do remember an article about Zhirinovsky's ass in recent Russian elections, and that page is apparently still around. That being said, maybe it is not a bad idea to set up one article for such "election elephants" (ELE-ELE) and just keep them all in one place (per election). That will help with NPOV. Invariably there are trivia and gossip that gets blown up by supporters on both sides. If they get standalone articles they just seem to get bigger and bigger. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Nomination for deletion (?)

Pasted from the Obama canivore talk, since the original poster – while lambasting all such non-NOTABLE articles – apparently forgot to include a copy here: <DELETED TEXT - SEE BELOW++>

As a side note, why does WP:TPOC view removing needless cursing as controversial and inappropriate, given WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL? 116.233.8.6 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

++replacing pasted text with a link to it: Talk:Obama Eats Dogs meme#You know....Tvoz/talk 18:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems improper at the least, per WP:TPG. I don't think you can format your post here as though Avanu is posting here. You could quote him here, but leave off the signature and include a link to his original post. And it should be folded into an existing thread. El duderino ^(abides)

I agree with El duderino. Avanu did not post this here, and I am doing what was suggested - removing it and putting a link, which is also questionable and Avanu is welcome to remove as well. This is unacceptable talk page behavior. Tvoz/talk 18:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that Tvoz. I didn't post here because I didn't. I don't think I need to post the same message countless times in order for my point to be made. And incidentally I don't think it was 'needless' cursing. It was to make the point that sometimes this stuff is so base and so lame that it lowers Wikipedia when we stoop to include it. Would I put my dog in a crate on top of a car for a 12 hour ride? No. Would I make a big deal about someone else doing it? Well, I have seen dogs riding in the back of pickup trucks and not minding a bit. Do I care if Obama eats a little bit of dog in a country where they consider dogs just another animal to be eaten? No. I love dogs, but I'm thinking there are much bigger and more serious issues in the campaign, and this sort of crap is a complete distraction from real issues, and I'm thinking its somewhat hypocritical to judge either of these guys given how we treat other animals. MAYBE these incidents deserve a small mention in the PETA page, but their own full fledged pages.... that's just bs. And the same rationale goes for any of the other campaign 'trivia' crap that the media loves to titillate with. IP guy who re-posted my message, do it again and I'll see to it that an admin pays you a nice visit. Don't move people's words around deceitfully. -- Avanu (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"I have seen dogs riding in the back of pickup trucks and not minding a bit"

This is being mentioned a lot, in various places, although it's a comparison that doesn't add up. I explained why in the section "Proposed text," above.

"Would I put my dog in a crate on top of a car for a 12 hour ride? No."

It's not just that you wouldn't do it. It's that virtually no one would do such a thing. That's why no one can present an example of anyone else putting a dog on top of a car, even for a much shorter trip. The story is getting attention because what he did is quite unusual, and for good reason. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah and most people don't wear pink and green together. It isn't "getting attention" like you say. Some people have nothing better to do than stir the pot, and if I HAD to I would put a dog in a crate on a car. It is inane that there is any defense of a standalone article on this. It is not extensively or enduringly covered, and we don't need to treat it like it is more than it is. If I had a staff of encyclopedia writers and they wanted to include crap, I would fire them. If I wanted to create Ripley's Believe It or Not, this kind of muck would fit right in. -- Avanu (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Yeah and most people don't wear pink and green together."

You might not understand that treating animals poorly is a lot worse, and a lot more important, than dressing poorly, but I think there are a lot of people who do.

And it isn't just that "most people" wouldn't put their dog on top of a car. It's that virtually no one would. That's why no one can present another example of someone doing this.

"It isn't 'getting attention' like you say."

If the story wasn't "getting attention" then certain people wouldn't be putting so much effort into trying to bury it. This talk page alone is a strong indication that the story is "getting attention." And the article has been viewed about 10,000 times in the last week. I think that's another indication of "getting attention."

"if I HAD to I would put a dog in a crate on a car"

Yes, and if I "HAD to" I would rob banks and steal candy from children. It's important to understand that Romney did this even though it was definitely not something he "HAD to" do.

"we don't need to treat it like it is more than it is"

You've expressed your opinion that it's comparable to talking about someone who decided to "wear pink and green together." That's your opinion of how important "it is," but you shouldn't be surprised that not everyone has the same opinion.

"this kind of muck"

It would be "muck" if it was untrue, or if someone could show that this was/is a normal practice, and not a bizarre act of cruelty. Trouble is, it was a bizarre act of cruelty. That's been demonstrated. The story is getting attention because the attention is warranted. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but I don't see how you know for certain that it is an act of cruelty. Are you a veterinarian? Are you any kind of licensed professional in animal care? Do you have a degree or have you extensively studied this? Eskimos live in the coldest and harshest part of the world and we don't go drag them into the temperate zone. So do wolves and foxes. People in remote tribes live in huts with only a couple of skins to wear. Honestly where do you get the idea that your opinion trumps everyone else's here? A dog having to endure some wind and potentially some cold. He's got fur and apprently loved the idea of traveling with their family. Get your head out of your heart or wherever it is and look at this article objectively, not as a passionate defender of animal rights. We don't need crusaders writing this stuff out of personal bias, we need people who can objectively look at sources and write real articles. -- Avanu (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"I don't see how you know for certain that it is an act of cruelty."

Have you paid attention to what's been said on this page by various people, including me? I cited ASPCA indicating that a dog shouldn't be in a crate for more than 8 hours. And that's a crate that's standing still, not on a car going down the highway. If a dog shouldn't be in a (stationary) crate for more than 8 hours, then it's obviously cruel to put a dog in a crate for 12-15 hours, on top of a car on a highway. Everyone is focused on the car and the highway, without bothering to realize that the duration alone would be a problem, even if the crate was in a nice quiet room at home.

If you have another reputable authority which indicates that exceeding 8 hours is OK, then I'll be interested in seeing it.

"A dog having to endure some wind and potentially some cold."

According to ASPCA, a dog exposed to no wind or cold at all should not be in a crate for more than 8 hours.

"Honestly where do you get the idea that your opinion trumps everyone else's here?"

Unlike you and lots of other people, I'm not offering an opinion. I'm making a factual statement based on clear guidelines by a reputable authority.

"He's got fur and apprently loved the idea of traveling with their family."

The idea that he "loved the idea of traveling with their family" has no support outside of self-serving claims by people who are not in a position to be objective. The claim also means nothing because even a dog that's being abused is going to want to always be with its family. The claim also means nothing because it's not an excuse for putting the dog on the roof. The "traveling with their family" could have and should have been accomplished in some other way. As I have shown elsewhere on this page, there was room for the dog inside the car.

Also, the dog had a history of running away, which is an indication that he was neglected. And the family gave the dog away a few years later, which tends to indicate that they weren't too attached to him, which is consistent with the apparent pattern of neglect and abuse.

"Get your head out of your heart or wherever it is and look at this article objectively, not as a passionate defender of animal rights."

You seem to be taking the position that only "a passionate defender of animal rights" would respect ASPCA guidelines and take them seriously. Really? I am citing ASPCA, not PETA.

The one who needs to "get your head out of your heart or wherever it is and look at this article objectively" is you. I'm making factual statements backed by independent sources. You're not.

What if it had been 15 hours, or 20, or 25, or 30? Still OK with you? Where do you draw the line? I told you how I decided where the line should be: by checking with the ASPCA. Who did you check with? Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it isn't a perfect world. ASPCA is not an unbiased source. I respect and appreciate the role they play in prevent true cruelty to animals, but I hardly see how a dog in a crate for a day is cruelty. The problem is people who don't see animals as animals. Somehow we forget that dogs have fur, especially these bigger dogs and they have no problem being outside or in cold weather. Somehow human beings all over the planet manage without lovely things like central heat and air and fluffy pillows, but yet its somehow cruel to keep a dog in a crate for a day. If you have actual unbiased sources that show that somehow this is truly harmful to a dog, let's see them, but ASPCA has an agenda of preventing cruelty and I doubt they would do more than request the dog stay in the crate less. Have you actually seen real animal cruelty and the things that some people do to their animals? Have you seen the flesh and fur abraided down to the bone because an owner chains a dog with a simple chain for years at a time? This stuff with Romney is nothing but political bs, and I'm disappointed in my fellow editors for allowing this stuff to become this entrenched. -- Avanu (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

While I agree about the entrenchment, Romney's defenders are guilty of this too. Nonetheless, the ASPCA is certainly notable for their opinion on dog treatment. We use biased sources all the time when their expert opinion is reliable. I'm not quite sure how relevant your anthropomorphistic analysis is here. And while we're discussing an editorial take on the incident: simply crating a dog is nothing compared to transporting a crated dog at highway speed for 12 hours. El duderino ^(abides) 06:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Avanu said: "Have you actually seen real animal cruelty and the things that some people do to their animals? Have you seen the flesh and fur abraided down to the bone because an owner chains a dog with a simple chain for years at a time?"

That's precisely the same logic used by the people who said our torture wasn't torture because some other torturer did something worse. It's also the same as saying this: 'even though I robbed your house, it's not fair to call me a thief because I stole less than Bernie Madoff.' Or this: 'Buffalo got 18 feet of snow in 1974, so the 1/2" of snow we got this morning should not be called snow.' Those arguments are invalid for the same reason that your argument is invalid: something that fits the definition of X does not become not-X merely because you can find a more extreme example of X.

"Sorry, it isn't a perfect world. ASPCA is not an unbiased source."

Because it isn't a perfect world, there's no such thing as a perfectly unbiased source. If the rule was to cite only perfectly unbiased sources, then we would cite no sources at all, since no such sources exist. Citing imperfect sources is the best we can do, and it's much better than citing no sources at all. I'm doing the former. You're doing the latter. You're expressing personal opinions (example: "I hardly see how a dog in a crate for a day is cruelty") supported by no source whatsoever.

ASPCA has been around since 1866, and claims to have "more than 1 million supporters." A reader is free to decide that they are bleeding-heart animal-rights extremists who should be ignored, but I don't think that's how they are generally viewed. I have seen no evidence that they are not reputable and respected. They should be viewed as a reliable source, and they made a statement highly relevant to this article. If you can find another reputable organization which contradicts what they said, you should cite that.

You should answer the question I've already asked you. What if it had been 15 hours, or 20, or 25, or 30? Still OK with you? Where do you draw the line? Is there no line at all, because you consider any number acceptable? I doubt that you do. Which means you can pick a number based on your own feelings, or you can consult a relevant authority to obtain a number. You've done the former. I've done the latter.

"The problem is people who don't see animals as animals."

Like most aspects of human behavior, standards for how to treat animals are highly culture-specific. Our culture doesn't view all animals the same way, and different cultures have their own set of attitudes with regard to various animals. A fair analysis of any such incident requires considering the context. The relevant context here is USA, 1983. Given that place and time, how common was it for someone to put a dog in a crate for 12-15 hours? Was that considered normal or acceptable? And how common was it to transport a dog on top of a car? Any information from a reputable source (like the ASPCA) that helps address those questions is relevant to the article.

I have seen zero examples, from then or now, of anyone else doing either of those things, let alone both together. The lack of examples demonstrates that this act was highly unusual. That's precisely why the story is important, and getting attention. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it was common enough to have laws written against it. Considering how many different ways dogs are carried in pickups and cars it is unlikely that Romney is unique. I suggest you stop looking at the past through the prism of today. There a great number of actions that have taken place in the past that today are viewed in a much different light. The only evidence we have is that Seamus absolutely loved riding in that crate, and rode in it all the time. Arzel (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Considering how many different ways dogs are carried in pickups and cars it is unlikely that Romney is unique."

Then you should be able to show an example of anyone else, ever, doing what Romney did. You haven't, you won't and you can't, because what he did is highly unusual.

If it was so highly unusual then why did it take 20 years to be an issue? Have you not seen dogs riding in motercycle side cars? What is the difference? Arzel (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"I suggest you stop looking at the past through the prism of today."

This reasoning is entirely bogus, and I have explained why elsewhere on this page. Romney isn't taking this position: 'it was OK to do it back then, but it's something that shouldn't be done now.' He's taking the position that it was OK to do it then, and it would still be OK to do such a thing now. Therefore "the prism of today" is entirely relevant. Also, you've shown no evidence whatsoever that "the prism" of 1983 was materially different, regarding such a matter.

How do you know that? He never made such a statement. Your revisionist history has absolutely no place her. You seem to believe that what Romney did was with malice, my guess is that he loves dogs far more than many of those that wish to crucify him for this one act.

"The only evidence we have is that Seamus absolutely loved riding in that crate"

Where is your citation to a reliable source for that claim? Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Diane Sawyer interview. Obviously you don't believe them, but it matters little. The only evidence we have says that Seamus loved it. Arzel (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"If it was so highly unusual then why did it take 20 years to be an issue?"

Because Romney has not been running for president for 20 years. The story is not important because someone did this. The story is important because someone did this who wants to be president. Also, the story did not become public until 2007. Also, I don't know where you got the number 20, because it didn't happen 20 years ago.

Fine 26 years ago, at least you admit that this story is purely political in nature. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the sentence Obama wrote about dog meat was published in 2004. Why did it take 8 years to become an issue?

Obama eating dog was not an issue until his surogates on the left made Romney's dog story an issue. I suppose trying to make a choice between transporting a dog on your car versus eating a dog. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Have you not seen dogs riding in motercycle side cars?"

For a trip that last 12-15 hours? No, and neither have you. Also, a dog in a sidecar is not remotely comparable, for most of the same reasons that the pickup truck example is not comparable. I already explained those reasons to you (look for where I said "a pickup truck is not a crate") and you did not respond. Instead, you continue to mention pickup trucks, as if I had not already explained why they are not comparable. When you repeatedly ignore arguments that have been presented this tends to create the impression that you are not arguing in good faith.

Your reasoning for why they are not the same is really without any merit. Speed....same, Exposure to Air pressure....same, Exposure to elements....probably less for Romney's example. The only real difference is the impression. As for my expierence you have no idea what I have seen. I grew up in a rural farming community, dogs riding the in the back of a pickup truck was a common experience. I drove to Alaska, and while I cannot quarentee that the dogs (or other animals that I saw transported) traveled the whole 11200+ miles of the ALCAN, I saw pretty much everything, including dogs on crates on top of vehicles. I have also had dogs as pets, real dogs, the ones that prefer to play outside with you all day if they could. Play fetch in freezing temps, and swim in cold water. People seem to have this misconception that dogs are people. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"How do you know that? He never made such a statement."

They have taken the position that there's absolutely nothing wrong with what they did. This plainly indicates their belief that it wasn't just perfectly fine to do such a thing in 1983, but that it would also be perfectly fine to do such a thing in 2012. Therefore your claims about "the prism of today" are irrelevant.

That is a misrepresentation of what they said. Your extrapolation of their statment into the world of today is without basis. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If they think it was OK to do this in 1983 but not OK to do this in 2012 (which is what you're implying), then they need to speak up and say so. As it is, they are encouraging others to do what they did. This is a serious problem. This story is not just about them exercising poor judgment in 1983. It's about them exercising poor judgment now.

"Your revisionist history has absolutely no place her."

What "revisionist history?" Here's what has no place here: your unsubstantiated claims, like this claim of yours that I have posted "revisionist history." Here's another unsubstantiated claim that you've never taken responsibility for, even though it was challenged, and is almost certainly false: "those kids were certainly not wearing seatbelts back there since there were no seats." There are various similar examples.

In 1983 the probability that those children in back were wearing seatbelts is virtually zero. I grew up in that era, even rode in the back of similar vehicles, and while ours also had a back facing back seat we always put it down so we could lay down in the very back. It was the best seat in the car. Looking back it was probably not a safe thing to do, but that was simply the way things were at the time. I certainly don't judge my parents as being irresponsible with my safety, it is simply the way everyone (at least that I knew) rode around. Do you even remember the lap belts? They were uncomfortable as hell, so we never wore them. Today, however, it is a different story, everyone I know wears a seatbelt. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"You seem to believe that what Romney did was with malice"

You seem to believe that it's OK to make claims about what I believe that have no basis in anything I've actually said. Also, what I allegedly believe has no relevance. What's relevant is what I've actually said, most of which you have ignored. Instead of responding to what you imagine I believe, a better idea would be to respond to the things I've actually said.

I have tried to respond to everything you have said. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"my guess is that he loves dogs far more than many of those that wish to crucify him for this one act."

Speaking of things that have no relevance. Your unsubstantiated "guess" is a member of that category.

As is your claim of what I have seen. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Obviously you don't believe them, but it matters little. The only evidence we have says that Seamus loved it."

The only "evidence" we have is entirely worthless, so it's hard to understand why you would describe it as "evidence." Earlier you said this: "they brought their dog with them everywhere, and from all measures the dog loved it." If I understand correctly, by "all measures" you mean an uncorroborated statement made by Ann Romney 29 years later. "Measures" is plural, and implies multiple sources, presumably reliable ones. If all you have is this one obviously unreliable source, why did you say "measures?"

Also, Ann Romney's statement is contradicted by the fact that the dog defecated in the crate. According to ASPCA, defecation in a crate is a sign of distress. It's highly abnormal for a dog to defecate in its crate, and it amounts to tangible evidence that the claim "Seamus loved it" is false.

The dog got diarhea from the turkey the dog ate before the trip, but I imagine you don't believe that either. If the dog did not like the crate then the dog would not have jumped up into the crate as is reported. For as much as my dog loved the water, he hated to get a bath. He would not even go into the bathroom because of it. You try to get a dog the size of an irish setter to jump into a crate and see how easy it is if the dog really does not want to go. Both Mitt and Ann have stated that he loved the crate, therefore "Measures". You don't beleive them, that is fine, but without any proof to the contrary your opinion is less valuable than their statements. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, Ann Romney's "turkey" alibi doesn't add up. She is essentially saying that they knew that "he ate the turkey on the counter," and they knew (or should have known) that this could cause digestive distress, and yet they put him in the crate anyway, and didn't check on him until fecal matter was seen running down the window. Her "turkey" anecdote just makes the story worse.

Also, a dog should not be allowed access to food that's going to make him sick. Putting Seamus in that situation where he could steal the turkey is one of several signs that he was neglected. That she doesn't understand this, even today, and treats it as a joke, is another indication that they were and still are irresponsible pet owners. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You are really just reaching now and it is obvious by your statements that nothing they say will change your opinion. That is fine. It is your perogative to dislike Romney because of how he transported his dog 29 years ago. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"at least you admit that this story is purely political in nature"

To the extent that caring about the character of a presidential candidate is "political in nature," then this story is "political in nature."

Also, I already explained why this is not the only reason the story is important. Imagine if a non-political public figure (for example, someone from the world of sports or entertainment) had done this, rather than a politician. Imagine if this person said, as Romney essentially did, 'I have done this often, and there's nothing wrong with what I did, and I would happily do it again (if no one was watching), and anyone else inclined to do the same thing should feel free to do so.' There would indeed be a lot of interest in the story, even though it has nothing to do with politics. Here's one important reason for the interest: encouraging animal abuse is a serious matter, and someone who does so publicly needs to be vigorously challenged.

As various people have pointed out elsewhere, Romney might as well pick Michael Vick for veep.

Only someone who fails to understand this could claim that this story is "purely political in nature." Which means that you fail to understand this, even though I've already explained this several times. As usual, you're not actually paying attention to what I've actually said.

"Obama eating dog was not an issue until his surogates on the left made Romney's dog story an issue."

Except that the two things have nothing to with each other, because Obama's act does not shed any light on whether or not Romney's act was OK, and vice versa. But "at least you admit that [the dog meat] story is purely political in nature."

"I suppose trying to make a choice between transporting a dog on your car versus eating a dog."

I have no idea what the intended relevance or meaning of that statement is, because no one is "trying to make a choice between transporting a dog on your car versus eating a dog." Maybe one reason the sentence is not clear is that it is not a sentence.

"The only real difference is the impression."

I don't know what "the impression" is supposed to mean, and you are not responding to what I said. In a pickup truck or in a sidecar, the animal can see its surroundings. According to Romney it was "a completely airtight kennel." Therefore the dog was able to see nothing, which would add to the fear.

A dog, especially if it's under stress, wants to be able to see (if not touch, smell and hear) its human family. A dog in the back of a pickup (or in a sidecar) can see the owner, which is an important element in helping the dog feel safe. Seamus was able to see nothing.

It is indeed a quite "real difference" that Seamus could see nothing. Not his surroundings, and not his family.

"I grew up in a rural farming community, dogs riding the in the back of a pickup truck was a common experience."

And yet again you reference "dogs riding the in the back of a pickup truck" without lifting a finger to address what I have said about this, several times now. As I have already pointed out, when you repeatedly ignore arguments that have been presented this tends to create the impression that you are arguing in bad faith.

"I saw pretty much everything, including dogs on crates on top of vehicles."

I am still waiting for anyone, anywhere (including and especially you) to present a single proven example of anyone, anywhere (that is, outside the Romney family), ever transporting "dogs on crates on top of vehicles." For a trip of any duration, let alone a trip of 12-15 hours. Your unsubstantiated claims that you have ever seen such a thing are entirely worthless.

"People seem to have this misconception that dogs are people."

People seem to like making sweeping generalizations that are unsupported and that don't shed light on what's being discussed. And this is yet another argument that I have already addressed, and you are ignoring what I have already said about this.

Like most aspects of human behavior, standards for how to treat animals are highly culture-specific. Our culture doesn't view all animals the same way, and different cultures have their own set of attitudes with regard to various animals. A fair analysis of any such incident requires considering the context. The relevant context here is USA, 1983. Given that place and time, how common was it for someone to put a dog in a crate for 12-15 hours? Was that considered normal or acceptable? And how common was it to transport a dog on top of a car? (It's important to notice that each of these things, separately, is a problem, and Romney did both of them.)

Answer: not common at all. That's why the best you can do is give us unsupported claims regarding what you have allegedly seen, and you are entirely unable to show actual examples of actual persons actually doing such a thing.

"That is a misrepresentation of what they said. Your extrapolation of their statment into the world of today is without basis."

An assertion is not an argument. This is one of many examples of you presenting bare assertions as if they are a substitute for an actual argument.

And it's nonsensical to make a statement about my alleged "extrapolation of their statment into the world of today" because their statement was indeed made in "the world of today." You seem to be trying to imply that I'm talking about something they said a long time ago, even though that's not what I'm talking about.

"In 1983 the probability that those children in back were wearing seatbelts is virtually zero."

This is yet another unsubstantiated claim, and you are also disingenuously backpedaling. You didn't just say the kids weren't "wearing seatbelts." You said "those kids were certainly not wearing seatbelts back there since there were no seats." You said there were "certainly … no seats" back there. Why did you claim to know something was "certainly" true even though you don't actually know that?

"while ours also had a back facing back seat we always put it down so we could lay down in the very back."

And you preferred to travel that way even on a trip lasting 12-15 hours? I doubt it.

"Looking back it was probably not a safe thing to do, but that was simply the way things were at the time."

Yes, it was "not a safe thing to do," and therefore it was "the way things were at the time" only for people with poor judgment. So if Romney really let his kids ride that way on a trip lasting 12-15 hours, this is just another indication of his poor judgment.

"it is simply the way everyone (at least that I knew) rode around"

Then you needed to get out more.

"I have tried to respond to everything you have said."

You have provided no response whatsoever to most of what I have said, so I think you and I have a different concept of "tried." And "respond."

"As is your claim of what I have seen."

What you allegedly "have seen" has no relevance whatsoever unless you can prove that you have actually seen what you claim to have seen.

"The dog got diarhea from the turkey the dog ate before the trip, but I imagine you don't believe that either."

It doesn't matter whether or not I "believe that." What matters is that Romney admitted putting the dog up there despite knowing that it ate something it should not have eaten and would therefore probably get sick. The "turkey" anecdote makes the story worse, and this is yet another problem that you have failed to address.

"If the dog did not like the crate then the dog would not have jumped up into the crate as is reported."

There are many obvious problems with that argument. Here's just one of them: the dog would have no way of knowing that it was about to be confined for a period of 12-15 hours.

"Both Mitt and Ann have stated that he loved the crate, therefore "Measures". You don't beleive them, that is fine, but without any proof to the contrary your opinion is less valuable than their statements."

It is wrong for you to claim that there isn't "any proof to the contrary," because the fact of his diarrhea is indeed "proof to the contrary." And uncorroborated statements by the two people accused of animal abuse have no value.

"You are really just reaching now"

The "reaching" is all yours. This is yet another example of a bare assertion trying to take the place of an actual argument. True or false: a dog owner is responsible for making sure that his dog doesn't have access to food that will make him sick. Every dog owner should know the answer to this question, including and especially dog owners who "grew up in a rural farming community." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"It is your perogative to dislike Romney because of how he transported his dog 29 years ago."

This is yet another example of you not noticing, or pretending to not notice, what I have said. The problem is not just "how he transported his dog 29 years ago." I have also explained how his current statements are a problem. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I can it is utterly pointless to continue this discussion. You take Romney's word verbatium for those aspects which confirm your predetermined bias against him. For example; the container was said to be "airtight", however that can not be technically accurate for a number of reasons, yet you use that to support the absurd statement that Seamus was unable to see anything, which either tells me that you are ignorant to how dog carriers are designed or simply twisting what Romney says to prove your hypothetical. You acept the reason for Diarhea only if it means that the Romney's were abusive in some other manner. I won't sit hear and defend what Romney did 29 years ago through the prism of today, but at the same time I won't judge him for those same actions because the general view of people regarding vehicle transportation for themselves and pets was vastly different 29 years ago. And unless you can travel back in time to that incident you have simply no idea of what transpired and how it transpired, so get off your high horse. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"You take Romney's word verbatium for those aspects which confirm your predetermined bias against him."

I see that you don't understand the concept of admission against interest. Yes, it is entirely proper to "take Romney's word verbatium for those aspects" of the story that are not favorable to him. For example, his statement that he did this. Why should I believe that? Because he wouldn't say it if it wasn't true. He would have no possible motive to do so. So I "take Romney's word verbatium" for certain aspects for precisely the same reason that I believe Bernie Madoff when he admits that he stole a lot of money.

On the other hand, their uncorroborated statements about how happy Seamus was about being confined on top of a car for 12-15 hours are not to be taken seriously, because they do indeed have a motive to make that claim even if it's not true.

"You acept the reason for Diarhea only if it means that the Romney's were abusive in some other manner."

No, I don't necessarily "acept the reason for Diarhea." With regard to the "turkey" anecdote, it's hard to know whether or not that's true, but it doesn't matter. If it's not true, that makes them liars. If it is true, that makes them irresponsible for putting Seamus up there even though they had reason to anticipate that he was going to be sick. It also makes them irresponsible for letting him eat something he should not have eaten. So either way, there is a problem. If there's a way to explain these problems away, I hope you'll let us in on the secret and tell us what it is.

"For example; the container was said to be 'airtight', however that can not be technically accurate for a number of reasons"

Yes, Romney said it was "a completely airtight kennel," and this indeed "can not be technically accurate" if it's taken literally. The only reasonable interpretation (aside from treating his claim as a complete lie) is this: that the kennel was very close to being "completely airtight." Feel free to explain how a crate can be almost "completely airtight" while also allowing the dog to see its surroundings. Maybe it was made of Plexiglass?

"yet you use that to support the absurd statement that Seamus was unable to see anything"

As usual, you are glossing over important parts of what I have said. With regard to what Seamus could see, there are two separate issues. One is that he was not able to see his surroundings. The other is that he was not able to see (or smell, or hear, or touch) his family. The latter issue is more important than the former, and there is no doubt whatsoever regarding the latter issue.

"the general view of people regarding vehicle transportation for themselves and pets was vastly different 29 years ago"

One more in a very long list of claims for which you provide no support whatsoever.

"I can it is utterly pointless to continue this discussion."

Which means you're going to stop? Promises, promises. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"the general view of people regarding vehicle transportation for themselves and pets was vastly different 29 years ago"

And if that's true, they should say so. They should say 'it seemed like a good idea at the time, and people did such things back then, but no one today should think this is a good idea.' As I have already explained, they are taking quite a different position, and the position they have taken has the effect of encouraging people today to do the same thing.

So the problem is not just what they did "29 years ago." The problem is also what they're doing now. Doubling down on poor judgment is an additional act of poor judgment. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So what action is Mitt Romney "doing now"? Running for president? Beating dogs in his spare time? -- Avanu (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"So what action is Mitt Romney 'doing now'?"

Is that supposed to be a serious question? If so, I've already answered it, several times. He has adopted a position which has the effect of encouraging people to think that it would be perfectly fine for them to do to their own dog what he did to Seamus. That's wrong, because it's not.

His current behavior is giving us important information about his character, above and beyond what we learn by observing what he did in 1983. His current behavior lets us know that he has a problem admitting that he made a mistake. That's a serious character flaw. His current behavior also tells us that he lacks a sense of responsibility with regard to the way his statements might influence the behavior of other people. In a leader, this is another serious character flaw.

"Beating dogs in his spare time?"

Resorting to gratuitous sarcasm is a good way of letting everyone know that you've run out of actual arguments. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM for personal opinions of Mitt Romney's character and leadership. The talk page is to discuss ways to improve an article about a dog. 72Dino (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

@Jukeboxgrad: OK, so you lecture me for adding a bit of non-serious sarcasm but start your reply above with sarcasm too. How about we just say on track instead? It sounds like your definition of "what they're doing now" is that he doesn't caring too much about what happened 29 years ago. I'm gathering an impression from a lot of people that others feel sort of the same way. It isn't that people would encourage dog transport of this sort, but life isn't perfect, a dog isn't a human being, and so Romney said, yeah I wouldn't do it if I knew it was going to cause a fuss. You somehow take that to mean that he wouldn't do the 'right thing' today, but it sounds like someone willing to do what his community felt was right even if he personally doesn't see it being a big deal. You seem all too ready to portray Mitt Romney as the worst example of a human being because he doesn't care about dog comfort and safety as much as you claim to. I simply don't see how that is a reasonable stance to take given the overall picture. I get the impression that you want to 'gin this up' in every aspect you can, rather than taking a reasonable and neutral tone, like our Wikipedia guidelines suggest. The attitude you have here is one of a crusader, not of an editor of an encyclopedia. Quite of few of us keep asking for a neutral presentation, and that doesn't seem to appeal to you. A realistic answer to what Mitt Romney is doing now with regard to this is nothing at all. And most of the public's response to this is probably the same. If the political impact of this is negligible, and the public response pretty much the same, I don't see why you can substitute a minority view and make this into a bigger deal that it is. They didn't dump the dog at that moment out of shame. The kids don't seem scarred beyond seeing a little bit of diarrhea, the wife doesn't, you and I weren't there, cops weren't called, so I'm baffled by your insistence on the very small minority point of view here. -- Avanu (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

dino: "The talk page is to discuss ways to improve an article about a dog"

There would not be an article about this dog if the story was not relevant to evaluating "Mitt Romney's character and leadership." There are people who want this story to go away (including you, I notice), and they are essentially claiming that it has no such relevance. I have explained why they're wrong. If you can point out any problems with what I've explained, that would be helpful.

avanu: "OK, so you lecture me for adding a bit of non-serious sarcasm but start your reply above with sarcasm too."

No, I didn't start my reply with sarcasm. I was honestly asking you if you meant your question seriously. I didn't understand, and still don't understand, why you were asking a question I've already answered several times.

"It sounds like your definition of 'what they're doing now' is that he doesn't caring too much about what happened 29 years ago. I'm gathering an impression from a lot of people that others feel sort of the same way."

I have no idea why your vague and unsubstantiated "impression from a lot of people" has any relevance whatsoever. What has relevance is that ASPCA says a dog shouldn't be in a crate for more than 8 hours.

"It isn't that people would encourage dog transport of this sort"

Except that's exactly what he's doing by taking the position that he did it frequently and the dog loved it.

"so Romney said, yeah I wouldn't do it if I knew it was going to cause a fuss"

In other words, 'I have no regrets except for the fact that I got caught; so it's perfectly fine for everyone else to do this, but just be careful to not get caught, if you're a politician like me.'

"You somehow take that to mean that he wouldn't do the 'right thing' today"

Except that he isn't doing the " 'right thing' today," as I have explained.

"because he doesn't care about dog comfort and safety as much as you claim to"

My own standards regarding "dog comfort and safety" have no relevance. What has relevance are standards published by authorities such as ASPCA.

"I'm baffled by your insistence on the very small minority point of view here"

I'm baffled by the idea that your unsubstantiated claim about "very small minority" would have any importance or relevance.

It's fairly apparent that only a "very small minority" (approaching zero) of dog owners would ever do what Romney did. That's why it seems to be impossible for anyone to come up with an example of a non-Romney doing this. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, one more thing about "very small minority." I had forgotten that the article already says this: "74% of Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 63% of Republicans consider it inhumane to put a family dog in a kennel on the roof of a car."

I see no reason to assume that those numbers would be radically different if the poll had been done in 1983. It was 1983, not 1883.

The available evidence seems to indicate that the one expressing a "minority point of view here" is you. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge this article into the Mitt Romney article, the dog itself is of no historical significance, it appears to be Romney's actions involving the dog that are significant.--R-41 (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)