Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/ASPCA guidelines

ASPCA guidelines with regard to crating duration and distress
Azrel has just made yet another tendentious edit. I added this:


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * I think that the content should be included in the article text, but there may be a problem with wp:synthesis. I.e, we would need a source which ties the ASPCA view specifically to the Romney case. El duderino (abides) 08:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That, also. Even if ASPCA views were expert, we would need a source which would tie the expert views at the time with the incident, even if a present source.  Current expert views are irrelevant.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * "Current expert views are irrelevant."


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


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


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


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

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


 * You said this to me: "Seriously, GET OVER IT." And to someone else you said this: "What a load of BS, you simply want to get that website out there so you can use it to promote a political point of view." Therefore I think you're in a poor position to make a judgment about what is "uncalled for."


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

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

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

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


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