Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Archive 5

Parody EL
Is a parody sketch video really appropriate as an external link? What purpose does it serve other than to lambast Romney? Also, does it violate our copyright policy to link to a coprighted work being hosted by a third party? S Æ don talk 21:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe a parody sketch may be appropriate if it gets a lot of coverage in secondary sources.  However, I think WP:COPYLINK prevents linking to the video unless it is hosted by the owner (SNL or parent company) because the site currently hosting may be in violation of copyright law. 72Dino (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We previously had this discussion about the parody video. The argument in favor of the video was that Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia, and can include material from popular culture.  Look at External Link & Diane Sawyer Interview section of this talk page. Also, look at WP:IPC. Debbie W. 22:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the video, not because of content, but because of a potential copyright violation per WP:COPYLINK. The user agreement of the hosting site, Mediaite, indicates it may not be the copyright holder for all content. 72Dino (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I agree that WP not being a traditional encyclopedia means we can include things that others wouldn't, but that's not a reason why we should. What are the actual reasons to link to this if not to make Romney look foolish (and I'm not saying this is your motivation, only that I can't think of what purpose it might serve otherwise)?  Looking over the section you linked, I see arguments that it's ok (but not a reason to include it) and I see you pointing to other examples where articles reference pop culture or parodies, but again, this is not a reason to include it.   S Æ don talk 22:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Saedon, I did not add the SNL parody video, and I don't have strong feelings about it either way. I was just pointing out that there was a previous discussion about it. Hodgdon's secret garden added it. Debbie W. 04:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not think you added it, but I assumed that you supported its inclusion when you responded to my call to remove it with a link to a previous discussion. I read into your statement, my apologies.   S Æ don talk 07:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Diane Sawyer Interview
During the Diane Sawyer interview, she says to Romney. "You said it was the most wounding thing in the campaign-- --so far.". This is repeated by a number of other sources that I could find referencing back to the story. However, I have been unable to find a source that has him actually saying that. It is not anywhere within the transcript of him saying it. He doesn't even acknowledge the statement as being true in the interview. I have made it more clear as to who made the statement per WP:MOSQUOTE. It would be nice if we could actually find the source where he is to have made this statement. Regardless, we can certainly not quote him as having said it in the DS interview unless we have a clear quote of him making the statement. Arzel (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Debbie, this source which has the following passage. Mitt Romney told Sawyer that the Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign “so far,” but Anne Romney insisted the dog loved traveling that way and looked forward to trips. Cannot be used to quote Romney because it does not contain an exact quote.  To be clear, I am not saying he did not say it, we just have to be positive that he actually made that statement before quoting him.  This is not something that we can budge on.  Arzel (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Arzel, You are correct that the ABC news article is a little bit unclear about the quote. What is very clear from the ABC transcripts is that Romney agreed with Diane Sawyer's comment that "it was the most wounding thing in the campaign so far."  I think we can include the quote, but we need to say that 'Romney agreed' or 'Romney acknowledged', rather than 'Romney said'.  I attached the text from the transcript below for everyone to see. Debbie W. 05:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * DIANE SAWYER: As we move away from this primary campaign into the next phase-- again, on Yahoo, we got two questions most often, first about Seamus-- which as you know is out there forever-- would you do it again?
 * MITT ROMNEY: Certainly not with the attention it's received.
 * DIANE SAWYER: You said it was the most wounding thing in the campaign--
 * ANN ROMNEY: It's crazy.
 * DIANE SAWYER:--so far.
 * ANN ROMNEY: The dog loved it. The dog was, like--


 * You still cannot use quotes to infer that he made that statement as stated. The only time you can use quotes for a person is if that person is quoted in the source as such.  I agree that some of the sources imply that he agreed with Sawyer, but the primary source used for those sources does not make that explicit.  My version is the most close to what the actual source says.  Also, Cider's opinion is undue weight.  What makes his opinion so notable?  He has nothing to do with the incident other than his personal crusade against Romney.  Arzel (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm seriously mistaken I don't see anything in what you've posted that indicates agreement unambiguously. I understand how you could conclude it, but there are other interpretations that are valid as well.  If Romney didn't say it himself, and if we don't have a secondary source discussing it, it would be WP:OR at best and a WP:BLP violation at worst.   S Æ don talk 06:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama tie-in?
I'm not sure why the Obama eating dog story is relevant to the Seamus article, other than the fact both Obama and Romney are rival US politicians (which would make the addition appear politically motivated itself). The Obama story may be noteworthy, but it doesn't belong in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.150.176.78 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This entire article is a political motivation. The Obama story is a political reaction to this story.  If this article were mearly about the dog than it would have no relation to this article.  Unfortunately, this article is about the incident and the political aspects relating to that long ago incident.  Arzel (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * How can you not include the Obama dog-eating tie in? It powerfully became a part of this "how the candidates treat dogs" narrative. Totally worth a "see also" section too. JettaMann (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about "how the candidates treat dogs" it's about how one specific person treated one specific dog and it exists because of the mass amounts of reliable sourcing. If there is enough sourcing to establish notability of how FDR or Bush treated their dogs then you can build those articles.  Creating a "how the candidates treat dogs" article would be WP:SYNTH unless reliable sources have discussed that specific topic (candidates in general, not just specific people).  Lastly, this has been discussed ad nauseum in the above sections, feel free to read over them for the relevant arguments.   S Æ don talk 20:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the subject actually doesn't have reliable sourcing.  The whole article is primary source information about what Romney's opponents (e.g. newspapers) are trying to make out of what they heard about a long-dead dog riding on a roof 29 years ago.  North8000 (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm reading what you wrote wrong you appear to be confusing WP:PRIMARY sources with WP:SECONDARY sources. A primary source would be something like a Romney campaign memo, while a secondary source would be a newspaper or expert blog that covers it.  S Æ don talk 20:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Double checking the sourcing I'm seeing the Washington Post, Time Magazine, ABC, the LA Times, etc, all secondary RSs. The only thing that really sticks out as a primary source to me is Ann Romney's blog,  S Æ don talk 20:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't even sources on the subject of the article. The only real source on the subject of the article (a long dead dog) is a few sentences spoken by Romney. And if the subject is the "controversey" then those are participants / subjects, not sources. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time following you. Are you saying that ABC, et al, are primary sources while what Romney said is a secondary source?  Are you contending that the LA times, Washington Post, et al, are primary sources? That seems to be the first proposition you made, and now you're saying that they aren't about the subject of the article.  I don't mind discussing that but can you clarify your first proposition first please?   S Æ don talk 21:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "The only real source on the subject of the article (a long dead dog) is a few sentences spoken by Romney."


 * Obviously you mean Mitt Romney? That's incorrect. The original reporting, done by Swidey in the Boston Globe (6/27/07), was not based on any statements by Mitt Romney. It was based mostly on statements made by Tagg Romney, and it was not just "a few sentences." The interviewing was apparently quite extensive. Swidey "insisted that Tagg poll his mother and brothers and persisted until I had confirmed every last fact." (And just to clarify: these words of his I just cited appeared in a subsequent Swidey article, not his article of 6/27/07.) Jukeboxgrad (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, answering your question, with an update to include the correction supplied by Jukeboxgrad, (thanks Jukeboxgrad!) the point is that it varies with the answer to the question "what is the subject of this article?" If it is the long-dead dog, (or what the dog did for those few hours 29 years ago) the the only real source of information is the Romneys. Regardless of the wiki-characterizations of the food chain after that, other sources are not really a sources of information on the subject; they are really just adding their opinions to those tidbits from the Romneys. If the real subject (as some suggest) is the "controversey" (essentially, what Romney's opponents have done with this tidbit) then all of the media "reports" which people are claiming are "sources" are really the subject of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article is inappropriately titled and have supported moving it to something like Mitt Romney dog transportation controversy but I don't agree that the sources are merely opinion, nor that opinion (in the form of reaction) is irrelevant. It's true that the initial sources of information are the Romneys, but this article is about more than just the literal physical actions in which Romney partook, but also about the public response, as I would expect for similar articles as well (this is generally how secondary and primary sources are used).  This article really is about the controversy, and Seamus is only notable in this regard. If this articles survives AFD, hopefully people that don't like it will accept its existence (they won't really have a choice for a while at that point) and we can work on figuring out the title details.  I hope that once the AFDs are settled that you'll support a move to a more neutral title.   S Æ don talk 23:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "It's true that the initial sources of information are the Romneys"


 * Just to be painfully clear about this: the reporter who wrote the original story about this (Swidey) first heard about the incident not from the Romneys, but from a friend of the Romneys. Swidey became interested and then pursued the story further via Tagg Romney. (And this is why above I said "it was based mostly on statements made by Tagg Romney.")


 * But the friend was not an eyewitness, and had heard about the story via the Romneys. So in that sense your statement is correct.


 * More details about the origins of the reporting can be found via here and here. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:DUE.... weight of certain points...
Do the editors purporting that this article deserves a home in Wikipedia have any other history on how Romney treated Seamus or how Romney treated his other pets?

I feel this is entirely out of proportion to the whole of Seamus' life or the lives of Romney's other pets and other animal-related interactions. The way this article comes off is implying that Romney is the fabled Evil Dog-wraith of Clucotu, who lies in wait near kennels and trees to gobble up the unsuspecting, chewing on the bones of his victims, his fabled battle cry being "let there be no treats!".

Is there ANY documentation whatsoever to show the timeline of Seamus the Innocent's life under the ghoulish doglord Romney, or is this pretty much it? (Yes, I know I'm being a little over the top, but the question is legit.) -- Avanu (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is documentation that Romney saved a dog from drowning (along with a family of six) - should that be included here or does it not fit the point of the article? Kelly  hi! 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Avanu, I don't think those in the media that are pushing this story really care about anything nice that Romney has done regarding Seamus or any of their other pets they may have had. Arzel (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with adding other information about Romney's pets in the supplimentary information section if there is a reliable source that ties it to the Seamus incident. Debbie W. 18:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Azrel, comments like that are completely unnecessary and just stink of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. As I have already explained at AFD and ANI, I am apolitical, I don't have a bias here one way or the other except towards reliable sources and WP policy.  I have fought to include the article but at the same time have pushed to remove things like the "Neologism" section (now removed), yesterday I brought up the parody video in the external links that you yourself unsuccessfully tried to remove (now removed), and I agreed that the title was misleading and supported a move to a more honest and neutral title...so for you to insinuate that I would try to keep favorable material out of the article based on some personal bias of mine, or that I think this article should be here for any other reason than the fact that it's reliably sourced, is rude and ridiculous.
 * Please keep the focus of your comments on the content of this article and not on the contributors. For one, it doesn't help at all, and for two it makes you look like a POV pushing partisan which just undermines your credibility.  If you want to argue politics there are plenty of forums on which to do so, but this is a talk page to discuss improvements to an article.  And yes, I know that you did not mention me specifically, but your comment applies to me since I am an editor who is "pushing" this story.  S Æ don talk 19:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I was referring to the media sources that were pushing this story, such as Gail Collins. My response was to Avanu regarding additional information regarding Seamus hence my single :.  However, I can see how it could be viewed as directed to editors here.  Arzel (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies. S Æ don talk 22:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. I have tried to make my initial statement a little more clear. Arzel (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I had struck my paragraph but it appears it was accidentally restored, striking again. S Æ don talk 22:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the dog rescue: I would like to see a source (either primary or secondary should work) making the connection between the Seamus incident and this story. IOW, if Romney responded to allegations of animal abuse by pointing to some history of showing respect to animals it would be a valid entry in the article.  I could imagine something like "In response to criticisms of his animal rights record by X organization, Romney pointed out that he had blah blah blah."  But the source Kelly provided is from 2003 and isn't connected to this story either by Romney or a third party, so for us to do so would be a synthesis problem at best and the introduction of a loosely associated statement at worst .  S Æ don talk 20:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, that story has nothing to do with this incident even if it is an interesting story. Arzel (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is all over the news right now. Just one example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-a-private-man-in-a-public-world-is-silent-on-tales-of-altruism/2012/04/10/gIQA1DQ38S_story.html
 * Go to Google News Search and type "Mitt Romney Jet Ski" -- Avanu (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I read this article, and I see little connection between this issue and the Seamus article. To start out, Romney and his sons are rescuing a family on a boat, including their dog.  It's not just a dog rescue.  Second, I question the notability of this story considering its only briefly mentioned in the Washington Post article.  I agree with Saedon that you need a story about Romney or one his major supporters connecting the dog rescue and the Seamus incident.  Otherwise, this is a case of undue weight being given to a story. Debbie W. 20:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be a supporter of Romney, just an article from an RS or a statement from the Romneys themselves. S Æ don talk 21:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Kelly: "Romney saved a dog from drowning"


 * That depends on what you mean by "Romney." The dog was saved by Josh Romney, not Mitt Romney. Josh gets credit for saving the dog, and he also gets credit for this memorable quote: "one of the daughters had a pretty good set of lungs on her."


 * Debbie: "It's not just a dog rescue."


 * Correct, and it's also not a dog rescue by Mitt Romney. It's a dog rescue by Josh Romney.


 * Various people are wondering why the Romney campaign isn't pushing this story. I think this is the answer. If it was a story about only a dog being rescued by only Mitt, that would be stronger, and I think they would use it. That's the story that's implied by various headlines and statements that we're seeing (e.g., "Romney saved a dog from drowning"). But then when you read the details it's a letdown to discover that it wasn't only a dog, and it wasn't only Mitt, and the dog was actually rescued by the wrong Romney. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Avanu: "Do the editors purporting that this article deserves a home in Wikipedia have any other history on how Romney treated Seamus"

The information we have regarding "how Romney treated Seamus" does indeed extend beyond the story of what happened on that one day in 1983.

Apparently there were many other similar days. Hardly anyone ever mentions this, but they apparently carried him home (from Canada to Boston) the same way, so he spent another 12-15 hours up there on the return trip (despite the difficulty on the first trip). Also, Ann Romney said "we traveled all the time," which seems to indicate that there were many similar trips. As far as we know, this was their standard way of transporting him on all trips (e.g., the trip home from Canada, and also other roundtrips between Boston and Canada). It's not as if they're saying 'we did it just that one time.'

We also know that the dog had a history of running away from home, which is a sign of neglect. Dogs and traffic don't mix, and it's the responsibility of the dog owner to prevent that from happening. Either give your dog proper training, or get a fence. The running away is a definite indication of neglect, and it's also a possible indication of abuse (i.e., the dog might be trying to escape).

Aside from being prevented from running into traffic, dogs also need to be prevented from eating things that make them sick, like the "turkey" Mrs. Romney mentioned. It's telling that Mrs. Romney seems oblivious to the fact that the "turkey" anecdote itself reveals neglect, in that the dog was not properly supervised and trained. Maybe this happened just once, but that seems unlikely. The same circumstances that made it possible on that one occasion were probably also present on other occasions.

We also know that they 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. A normal dog owner would never give their dog away, unless there's some kind of serious problem.

I have already explained all this elsewhere on this page. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Mitt Romney kicks himself every night for not instilling better values in his kids. If only he had gotten to the dog first, he could have stuck it in a crate and made it poop itself on the way back to shore. Mr. Jukebox, you'd probably find a way to take the shine off the sun if we gave you a chance. Point is, the Romney family worked together and instantly set out to help these people, including their dog, despite Mitt Romney's best efforts at snuffing the little thing out of existence. No one talks about how the hole got in the boat in the first place.... but I bet we can't verify his whereabouts earlier in the day. -- Avanu (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "I bet we can't verify his whereabouts earlier in the day."

As I've already said elsewhere, when you resort to gratuitous sarcasm that's a good way of letting everyone know that you've run out of actual arguments.

You asked a factual question and I gave you a factual answer. If you can identify any problems with the facts or reasoning I presented, that would be helpful. As it is, it seems as if you weren't really interested in hearing a serious answer to the question you asked. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You gave me a biased interpretation of his motivations and downplayed his role in the rescue. If you're not going to deal with things neutrally, then it just leads to the idea that nothing is serious. I get the impression that after Prometheus brought fire, you would snarkily chime in, yeah well why didn't he bring it sooner? -- Avanu (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "You gave me a biased interpretation of his motivations"

I have no idea what you're talking about. Where did I do that? Please cite the words I used and explain what was "biased" about them.


 * "downplayed his role in the rescue"

No, I haven't "downplayed his role in the rescue." Unlike the people who are saying "Romney saved a dog from drowning," I'm describing the events accurately. Mitt Romney was present at a scene where a dog was rescued by his son Josh. As far as we can tell, Mitt never touched that dog.


 * "If you're not going to deal with things neutrally"

I can't find the part of your comment where you demonstrate any failure on my part "to deal with things neutrally." This is one of many examples of you failing to understand the difference between an assertion and an argument.


 * "I get the impression that after Prometheus brought fire, you would snarkily chime in, yeah well why didn't he bring it sooner?'

It would be better if you addressed the things I have actually said, and not hypothetical statements of mine that exist only in your imagination based on some "impression." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is my last attempt in this section to reason with you. 1. 'biased interpretation of his motivations': You said "If it was a story about only a dog being rescued by only Mitt, that would be stronger, and I think they would use it." You're implying that Mitt Romney doesn't talk about this because it isn't self-serving enough. 2. 'downplayed his role in the rescue': You said "when you read the details it's a letdown to discover that it wasn't only a dog, and it wasn't only Mitt, and the dog was actually rescued by the wrong Romney". What exactly is the wrong Romney? The actual story on this says "We tore out of there and my dad hopped on the other Jet Ski and came out right after us." See, it was a group effort, and for some reason if we're talking about Mitt, you say "Mitt Romney was present at a scene where a dog was rescued by his son Josh." That is a distortion of events. The three of them, along with some bystanders helped this family of people. It wasn't the heroic Josh on his own any more than it was Mitt on his own. You add bias every time you talk about Mitt Romney, and you don't need to be editing this article if you can't deal with things in a neutral tone. Things can be strictly factual and at the same time be deceptive. We don't need that in any article. We need an honest article, not simply 'factual'. -- Avanu (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "You're implying that Mitt Romney doesn't talk about this because it isn't self-serving enough."

You can choose to look at it that way, but it's not what I said. What I said, essentially, is that he refrains from presenting this as a story about him personally rescuing a dog because it's not a story about him personally rescuing a dog. In a way, I'm complimenting him, by pointing out that he's less dishonest than his supporters (who are indeed implying that he directly, personally rescued a dog that was directly, personally rescued by someone else).


 * "What exactly is the wrong Romney?"

From the perspective of the people claiming that Mitt rescued the dog, then Josh is the wrong Romney. Because the fact that he is the actual, direct rescuer makes their claim wrong.


 * "See, it was a group effort"

Exactly. Which is one of the reasons that it's not particularly honest to say "Romney saved a dog from drowning." That statement paints a picture of a solo effort. A less dishonest statement would be 'Romney was part of a group that saved a dog from drowning.' Or perhaps 'Romney helped save a dog from drowning.' On the other hand, a fully honest statement would be this: 'Romney was part of a group that saved six people and a dog from drowning.' (And that's essentially the same as the statement you finally came up with: "the three of them, along with some bystanders helped this family of people.") That statement accurately describes what happened, and it gives him the credit he deserves, instead of giving him more than the credit he deserves.

Mitt was not the only rescuer, and the dog was not the only party rescued. These facts are important, and we're seeing lots of statements and headlines that seem designed to paint a false picture: that these two were the only parties present. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Image
There's an interesting discussion here: Talk:Checkers_speech--about whether an article about an event involving a pet (Nixon's Chechers Speach) can feature a fair use image of the animal. (I.e., if this article gets moved, can the image of Seamus stay, even w respect to its Fair Use licensure?)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Insignificant topic, potential POV fork - delete the article, merge material into the Mitt Romney article
Merge this article into the Mitt Romney article under a section titled "Seamus incident", the dog itself is of no historical significance, it appears to be Romney's actions involving the dog that are significant. Also, this article may be being used as a POV fork.--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Category: animal rights
I added a link to Category:Animal rights. This category includes many incidents of alleged animal rights violations (e.g., Primate experiments at Columbia University). Debbie W. 04:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence of a violation of animal rights with regard to this story. This is really going too far.  Arzel (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a matter of opinion, and being in this category does not mean that something is a violation of animal rights, just that it's a controversy within the realm of animal rights. Read the primate experiments at Columbia University article, which documents a case where clearly no laws were broken.  A lot of people would not consider the Columbia case an animal rights violation, but some people did, and so it's included in the animal rights category.  The same is true here.  Some people consider the Seamus incident an animal rights violation, and some don't.  Debbie W. 04:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That is an entirely different situation. You have animals that are being used for experimental drug testing.  Looking at the entries into that list they are a much different class of incidents.  The Michael Vick incident is much more severe and not included in that category.  Arzel (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note, I had to refractor your initial edit because you added the talk page to the category by doing so. Arzel (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Arzel, I did some research, and you are correct. The correct category is not Category:animal rights, but Category:animal cruelty incidents.  The Michael Vick incident, and many less severe cases are included in that category.  The category states, '"Articles pertaining to individual incidents that have been described by sources as involving cruelty to animals. Please note that pages here do not necessarily involve actual animal cruelty in the legal definition of the word. Rather, they are pages that deal with the subject of animal cruelty and the associated controversies."' Debbie W. 05:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I question whether this is an actual animal cruelty event. I would like some additional input.  Arzel (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Animal rights is plausible; Category:Animal cruelty incidents is a clear WP:BLP violation. No potentially reliable source, except one columnist misquoting his sources, has said it was a cruelty incident.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It is ridiculously clear that this is an animal rights issue, even if it isn't "proven" that Romney violated the rights of an animal. It is exactly because he treated an animal the way he did that this is an issue; if it had been a rock, his luggage or a plant no one would raise an eyebrow. S Æ don talk 07:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actaully noone really cared until he ran for president, ergo, the only reason it is an issue is because he is a presidential candidate. One wonders why it wasn't an issue when he was govenor....Arzel (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "One wonders why it wasn't an issue when he was govenor"


 * Romney was governor from 1/2/03 until 1/4/07. The story of Seamus on the roof was not reported to the public until 6/27/07. The story came out because a family friend mentioned it to a reporter. Hopefully that solves the puzzle of "why it wasn't an issue when he was govenor."


 * "the only reason it is an issue is because he is a presidential candidate"


 * The reason it's an issue is because he's a public figure. There would be a similar reaction if a famous non-politician had done this. I have already explained this elsewhere on this page. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Then why did it disapear after the 2008 primaries? Arzel (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It disappeared because Romney didn't run for office between 2008 and 2010. If Romney had say hypothetically run for governor or senator between the two presidential elections, then the issue would have been publicized.  If you're are a public figure, you'll be under a lot more scrutiny.  Bill Clinton can have as many sexual affairs as he wants now, and it probably won't make the news because he's no longer President. Debbie W. 20:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to emphasize what Debbie said: a story like this has interest because it's about a public figure, and it's going to be in the news to the extent that the person himself is in the news. This is true regardless of the person's field: politics, sports, entertainment, whatever. This story is in the news right now because Romney himself is in the news right now. "After the 2008 primaries," not so much. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is an animal cruelty issue, please show the negative effect to the dog. According to the Romney's the diarrhea was caused by turkey. Also there seems to be the idea it was 12 straight hours, in one drive, no stops, with kids. I highly doubt this. Zaggs (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Archives
Debbie, what exactly are you doing with the archives? If you continue on this path (assuming the page is not deleted) we will have a long list of archive links, some of which are minor. Why not just archive via the standard archive method? Arzel (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Arzel, It's a topical archive. Wikipedia allows for either a chronological archive, or a topical archive.  Personally, I prefer a topical archive as it makes old discussions easier to find.  How_to_archive_a_page Debbie W. 03:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You should also make chronological archives, so that threads appear both chronologically and topically. It'd make reviewing them easier depending on why you want to read old archives. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * conduct vs. content - To be irritating (as may be my habit? heh - people seem to think the poll I set up immediately above is a bit): I think we should tend to question in specific a single fellow editor or group of fellow editors with suspicion about who edited (commented/&c.) what, when, where, how not on the article's talkpage but (if necessary) (1) on each others' talkpages, if we've good enough mutual rapport, or else, especially if not (2) on certain of WP's many applicable bulletin board pages. So, instead of saying, "Arzel! WTF?" or "Debbie, what--in--the--heck?" we would simply say, addressing nobody in particular, "Hey, do you other editors think we should choose ____x option____ or ___y option___?" (Although I may not make a lot of sense. Been up all night.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC) [Strike comment.]--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Titling and organizing an archive by an editor's name "Material removed by Arzel" seems nasty at best. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As requested, I added a chronological archive. Debbie W. 11:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, can you now delete the links to the "topical" archive.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This page is blatant political smear.
This page is blatant political smear. This incident is no more notable than the controversy over Obama eating dogs and writing about it fondly in his autobiography, but leftist editors ensured that page was deleted. Where is the "bitter clinger" page? Where is the "I was never proud of America until they nominated Barack" page? Where is the "I can be more flexible with America's security after the election" page? Disgraceful, but pretty much par for the course. Leftist editors own wikipedia and ensure any propaganda against conservatives is preserved and anything detrimental to liberals is suppressed (see Glenn Greenwald sockpuppet incident, repeatedly scrubbed by leftists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.173.151 (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard discussion
There is discussion going on about the Seamus article at the administrators' noticeboard Debbie W. 02:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The histories of this article and the Obama Eats Dogs article proves that there is no liberal bias on Wikipedia.
No left-wing bias at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Eats_Dogs_meme The NYT wrote about Seamus a bunch, so it's notable. Obama eating dogs got enough traction that Obama joked about it to defuse it, but that doesn't make it notable; just enough support to mention it at the very end this article, I guess. Glad things are so NPOV around here. William Jockusch (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If there wasn't a liberal bias on Wikipedia and in the news media, this article wouldn't exist. (Whether or not the previous comment was sarcastic.)  06:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, per WP:TROLL. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, only a troll would bring up the possibility of left-wing bias on Wikipedia. After all, the policies clearly state that we are NPOV. William Jockusch (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether there is left-wing bias on Wikipedia in general may be relevant to blogs, but it's not relevant to this article. Let's reserve the "Talk" discussion for issues that actually pertain to this article, please.  Your thoughts on whether an encyclopedia such as Wiki should retitle or move this article (as discussed in point 9 above) would be relevant here; general political views about Wiki are not. -- AyaK (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 May 2012
Since the Diane Sawyer interview of Mitt Romney on April 16, 2012, this article has been subject to repeated vandalism by unregistered users. I am requesting semi-protection for one week. Debbie W. 12:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Debbie W. 12:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For this request to be granted you need so clear evidence of vandalism. For example, this edit which you tagged as vandalism is not vandalism.  Arzel (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Previous deletion discussion templates
I was just wondering -- is there a way to note at the top of this Talk page that the article was deleted by speedy deletion, prior to the deletion review? Right now it looks rather confusing: "Huh? What did they vote to overturn -- the article hadn't been nominated for deletion yet." I don't think you should have to go to the deletion review discussion just to figure out what happened. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Test case - can we do better?
I weighed in for "delete" on this. I thought of saying "keep", thinking, OK it's a joke what has been made of this in the US, but then, it it has gotten big, maybe Wikipedia will provide a place to find out the real scoop. Then I came to my senses and remembered, no, Wikipedia is a failure on all controversial articles. Either one band one band of wikilawyer warriors tag teams to prevail and uses policies such as wp:npov to POV the article, or if there is a balance of wikilawyer warriors, then the article is just a mess.

Is it possible to resolve to to better here? Being a narrower / simpler subject, possibly it would be a good place to try. Good facts, good sourced analysis of the whole thing. Recognizing that a big part of this story isn't the dog on the roof, it's what people & media etc. have done with it. And so real coverage woudl also inclde coverage of that. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
I plan on taking a somewhat aggressive approach regarding SPAs posting drive-by forum style posts. I already closed two above, and I'm hoping that you all will join me in quickly closing similar discussions in the future. If you don't know how to do it, you can use the template at the top of the discussion like so:. Then at the bottom of the post add the template. Keeping things on the topic of improving the article will keep the atmosphere here much calmer. Thanks! S Æ don talk 20:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I fully support this strategy. Debbie W. 21:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that the AfD is over...
As pointed out, this article needs cleanup to become a more neutral tone. We're not here to help people attack or protect Romney, we're here to present a neutral telling of the situation.

As such, I've removed the SuperPAC references entirely, because without analysis, it presents the implication that there is a massive groundswell grassroots movement around this incident. This isn't NPOV.

Also, I've removed the part about Gail Collins for much the same reason. So she mentions Romney 50 times... where is our secondary source analysis of that?

And finally, the two animal cruelty databases that list Romney. Essentially the same problem. It is an attack without analysis. What research do these databases do? Who can add material? Are the listings reviewed after they are added? etc etc. In other words, is this a legitimate addition that was placed in the database for legitimate reasons, or is it simply a political attack? Its just my opinion, but looking at the two sites, Pet-Abuse.com looks more like a legitimate website and Inhumane.org looks like someone's grandkid knocked it up in their spare time. But either way, if we are going to add contentious material about a Living Person or if we are going to place non-neutral material in an article, i.e. "Romney is cruel and unfit as a pet owner", then we need a WP:RS reliable, secondary source analysis of this, not just adding it because it 'rounds out' the story of alleged cruelty. -- Avanu (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. I recommended "delete" but think we should move on. A big part of the overall situation  is what Romney's opponents did with the story.  Wikipedia should cover that rather than participate in that. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In regard Gail Collins, we can't demand secondary sources as to the significance of aspects of the article, or we wouldn't have an article. In addition to the Washington Post article used as a reference, the PoliFacts article in the external links refers to her "obsession" with the subject. If that is reliable, she should definitely have a presence in the article.  As I said in the move discussion above, she may be among the most notable aspects of the subject.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I agree with your decision to remove the sentence about the non-attended protest, and I am ambivalent about the removal of information about Gail Collins. However, I disagree with the removal of the section on the super PACs, and the sentence about the animal cruelty databases. The super PACs were covered by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg News, while the databases were discussed in a New York Observer article. These are reliable sources. The concern about balance of coverage came up during the recent AfD for this article, and one of the other editors (Saedon) made an excellent comment: "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."

If there are super PACs which have been set up to defend Romney regarding his 1983 road trip, then we should include them in this article. But the lack of existance of such organizations does not mean that the two super PACs that currently exist should be removed from the article. If you look at Category:United States political action committees, you will see that 60 super PACs, many of whom have a limited impact, have their own Wikipedia page. I'm not suggesting that the super PACs which you removed should have their own page, just that they should be mentioned on this page because they are connected to the Seamus issue.

The same thing goes with the animal cruelty registries. One database was founded in 1986 (inhumane.org), and the other one (pet-abuse.com) about ten years ago. They are privately-run organizations (not law enforcement), but from what I've read, many animal shelters and pet stores use the database to screen out unsuitable customers. I agree with your goal of eliminating any bias from this article, but removing well-sourced and relevant information is not the way to do it. Debbie W. 18:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since those two organization do not have any authority we can not give the illusion that their opinion is that important. What some animal shelters do with their information is of little value.  It would be like me creating a website that tracks bad businesses, which other businesses then use to determine who they do business with.  Then list my website on the WP of a "bad" business saying that my private "bad business" registry says that they are bad.  Arzel (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Av and Az. If we get some serious secondary coverage of these issues then we can give them some WP:WEIGHT but without analysis there are too many possible interpretations that we as editors can not properly put in context.   S Æ don talk 20:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored the super PAC info, but reduced it to one sentence. The old verbiage gave undue weight to the super PACs, describing their whole agenda in detail. Now I just mention that two super PAC, which were created in response to the Seamus incident, exist. HHIAdm (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My rant

 * The main point that needs to be remembered is we don't include something in the article just because it casually relates to this story. Much of the tidbits in this story are presented as standalone nothings.


 * SuperPACs: For example, these two SuperPACs were mentioned, and as we see in the political race this season, SuperPACs play a HUGE role (for example, Mitt Romney's SuperPAC had $6.45 million at the end of March 2012 FEC ref). Stephen Colbert has widely publicized the influence that SuperPACs can have in elections by creating his own actual, but somewhat satirical, SuperPAC (link). In addition, he has shown that registering a SuperPAC with the FEC only requires a simple one page form (link).
 * So let's compare what Romney's SuperPAC has raised to what "Mitt is Mean" (FEC ref) and "DogPAC" (FEC ref) had brought in by March 2012. If you just followed those links, you will see ZERO. So the question is, what is the rationale for inclusion in this article for something that requires filling out a single sheet of paper, and has raised zero dollars?
 * The super PACS had just been founded as of the March 1 FEC reporting deadline, so I wouldn't expect them to report anything. I don't believe that we should have the extensive coverage of the super PACs that we previously had, with them having their own section and detailed description of their agenda.  However, I think that we need to acknowledge their existance, so I eliminated the Super PAC section, and just have one sentence in the political section about them.HHIAdm (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cruelty Databases: We need to ask ourselves similar questions when we look at the two animal cruelty databases. How does someone add material to these databases? Who reviews the material for accuracy? Did these two agencies follow the same process they normally do when they received the information on Mitt Romney, which was essentially copied from a newspaper article? PetAbuse has an online form for submitting cases (link). It states "Due to legal liability, we cannot consider adding any cases in which the requirements shown below are not provided. We MUST have court documentation ID numbers OR at least one media reference that we can verify." It does not state what steps are taken to ensure the accuracy of the information and the database currently has 18,819 cases listed. (By the way, looking through the lists will make your stomach turn and your heart pound much more, I think, than the Mitt Romney tale. There are some seriously messed up people in our world.) Inhumane.org works using a similar process; they claim over 20,000 cases and approximately 4,000 pending to be added. But emotional responses aside, the bar is obviously very very low for entry into these databases. The information about Mitt Romney is not in question, however, the characterization of Mitt being such a foul person that he is in NOT ONE, BUT TWO animal cruelty databases is not a reasonable characterization.


 * Gail Collins: Moving on, the article states that "Gail Collins had mentioned the car trip more than 50 times." OK, so what? This doesn't tell the reader much at all. It does not explain, why, how it was mentioned, the impact or potential impact of her mentioning it; it is merely a standalone fact that has been given no context, even being so vague as to be called "Supplementary Information". The same could be said about the mention of Seamus' nickname being mentioned. The reader should be asking 'Why does it matter? How does this relate to the story?'
 * Gail Collins should be mentioned because she is one of the people heavily responsible for the development of this story. Even though her actions are excessive, she is a notable journalist who writes for a major newspaper who heavily wrote about this story. It is relevant. HHIAdm (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * PETA: Let's continue and look at the opening a little where we quote PETA saying how it was "animal cruelty" and "torture". Who is the person saying this? Her name is Ingrid Newkirk. For sake of balance, let's see if she said anything else....


 * Quoting from Salon.com - Mommy Wars give way to Doggy Wars in Twitterverse


 * Interestingly, one person who doesn’t seem to take it too seriously is the president of PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.


 * “As an individual, it irritates me when there is any talk of anything that doesn’t settle on the core issues,” said Ingrid Newkirk, stressing that she was speaking for herself . “And if we want to talk about treatment of animals in this country,” she added, “there are far more serious issues to talk about.” (my underlining there)


 * OK, so as 'official' spokesperson she says its horrible, but as Ingrid, she says this isn't really a serious discussion topic. Should we include the fullness of her statements on this? YOU FREAKING BET WE SHOULD. But have we? No.


 * In Closing: It is about being responsible, people. Even if you disagree with Romney on this issue, the article is in a crappy state and needs some SERIOUS review and less partisan "crap editing".


 * I can keep going, but I think you get the point. Either edit this thing in a responsible manner or go edit something else. I personally agree with what many of the commenters said in the Salon article, including Ingrid Newkirk. This issue is not worth our time considering there are legitimate and serious issues facing the United States. However, that won't stop me from making sure that we all follow a reasonable course here. End of rant. -- Avanu (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are areas in this article that can be improved, but compared to many articles that I have seen, this article is not in such crappy shape. It has a lot of references, and quotes people with differering opinion. HHIAdm (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In regard Gail, I believe that she was responsible for keeping the issue alive until Newt ran with it. I can't yet find a reliable source to that effect, but she needs to be kept here if a reliable source is to be found.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also think Gail Collins should be included - on a quick look, here's a secondary source discussing her keeping this story going. I believe I also read a secondary source connecting her coverage to Gingrich's use of the story, but I am not sure where. Will look too. Tvoz / talk 07:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On a quick look, there is this one. Tvoz / talk 07:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't care whether or not these things are kept in the story. I care about the neutral presentation of the article. If we're going to have Gail Collins mentioned, it needs to have a basis, not just "some lady mentioned this a lot". And in looking at those two stories it seems clear that generally people find her behavior a bit obsessive and even problematic. From that NPR link, Dartmouth political science professor Brendan Nyhan said "But I do think it's representative of the way that the media focuses on trivia, things that are so inconsequential." In the PolitiFact article, they say "lest we be accused of utter frivolousness, we asked Swidey what aspects of Romney's biography might be more relevant to voters considering Romney for president." Point being, we have no mention of what impact she had, nor do we have how she is perceived by others because of this obsessive fixation on this story. -- Avanu (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've spent some time reading articles about Seamus and PETA, and I'm okay with the sentence as it currently stands. PETA is highly critical of Romney's treatment of the dog, which is not a surprise considering the ideology of PETA.  Read the following article which is on their website.  I'm not sure of the context of Ms. Newkirk reply in the Salon article (i.e., what question did they ask her), and I think to commingle her personal opinion with her her organizational opinion is wrong. We quote her because of her official role, and PETA has officially criticized Romney.  HHIAdm (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So, despite the fact that she (and many others) believe this is pretty much a non-issue when compared with more serious issues that are also present, you believe we should only mention things that present a very biased attitude against the incident? -- Avanu (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I believe that maintaining a neutral point of view requires that we don't take quotes out of context, or don't distort an organization's opinion. The material that you wish to add has no real context, in that I'm not sure what Salon asked Ingrid Newkirk.  More importantly, to add it would give the impression that PETA does not really care about this issue.  I will tell you that I am no supporter of PETA, but they very much care about this issue.  The Seamus issue is on their website.HHIAdm (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the point. Obviously they care. The point is are we presenting a legitimate representation of how much they care, and where actual opinion sits? The same woman characterizing it in very strident language such as "torture" also said that personally there are bigger fish to fry (not that she would fry fish, being a PETA person). This sentiment lines up with a lot of other comments in the media and to present this as it has been is not a realistic view. -- Avanu (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 White House Correspondents Dinner - Obama's jokes
The reference to 2012 White House Correspondents' Dinner included Obama making a joke about "We have all agreed that families are off-limits. Dogs are apparently fair game." This is correctly sourced/cited.

To give context to his "Dogs are apparently fair game.", I'm simply noting that Obama, at the same sourced and cited event, made jokes about the revelations he once ate Dog as a child. Obama jokes that dogs are fair game because both political parties, including himself, are using them.

The event and Obama's comments were allowed to be cited, I'm simply clarifying the context of his remarks. ChaseRocker (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ChaseRocker, We previously discussed the Obama dog eating issue, and decided not to include it in this article. It's a separate issue. See Talk:Seamus_(dog)/Obama_eats_dog. Debbie W. 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No such decision was made. Not sure how you can argue to include all of the political aspects of the Seamus political attack and rationally argue that the response is unrelated.  Arzel (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At the end of those discussions there were no good objections to the points that I and others had raised regarding the response from the right being a red herring and so WP:SILENCE applies. Nonetheless this appears to be a different matter entirely; it's not about the response from the right, but rather a comment from Obama.   S Æ don talk 22:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An AfD decided that the Obama Eats Dogs article should be deleted, not merged. While the comment from Obama came after the creation of the Obama Eats Dogs article, this seems like an attempt to import the OED material into this article. Additionally, I'm not sure how we include this material without the existance of the OED article, or some other article in Wikipedia to explain what OED is.  Debbie W. 22:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the difference now is that Obama himself has commented on the issue. One of the big problems before was that the Obama situation was brought up by rightist commentators in order to distract from the Seamus incident.  I'm not sure how I feel about this addition one way or the other, I'll have to think about it.  S Æ don talk 21:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because it was decided an article about Obama Eats Dogs should not exist, that doesn't mean all mention of it should be excised from all articles, especially when President Obama connected his eating of dog meat with Seamus at the White House Correspondents Dinner. A mention, particularly just a phrase, of the connection appears appropriate here.  If more information about OED is necessary, it can be included in a footnote. 72Dino (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply absurd. You cannot have a political reaction section and not have the corresponding retort from the right regarding Obama eating dog.  Arzel (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please reread all the arguments made against your position by me the last time we had this discussion. As was pointed out, the response from the right was a red herring that only attempted to distract from the issue at hand.  While the right is free to use as many logical fallacies as they want in order to convince people to vote for their candidates, we as a serious encyclopedia cannot republish logical fallacies and act as though they are not.  What Obama did is a separate issue in its entirety.  I'm OK with the aforementioned addition because Obama opened the door himself, but we're not going to start including the stuff that, for instance, Kelly tried to add a few weeks ago.   S Æ don talk 23:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? This whole issue about Romney is a red herring by the left and somehow Obama is immune from the same?  Arzel (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the White House Correspondents Dinner comments by Obama were allowed. His comments of "Dogs are apparently fair game" were allowed. His comments can ONLY be seen in the context of the political discussion and his own jokes about himself having eaten a dog meat. Why does he joke about Dogs being fair game? Because of the dog stories in the political arena about Romney and himself. He made jokes about himself too, not just Romney. Before he even showed the Seamus video, he joked about himself. In order to keep with NPOV...the entire context should be given. Unless there's still disagreement, I will add that reference back in. ChaseRocker (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't object. As I said above, it's an entirely different context than republishing logical fallacies.  This is kind of like a "as an aside, when the president commented here is what he said" kind of thing.  It doesn't strike me as a BLP problem, nor do I feel it is undue and honestly it's kind of funny :).   S Æ don talk 23:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm adding it back for context. What I find even more amusing, aside from all the jokes, is the attempt by some to wipe any talk of Obama Eating a dog from the political discussion, despite Obama himself talking about it on numerous occasions. Just because you try and erase it from Wikipedia or hide it in an archive isn't gonna erase the event from history. Obama is on tape/vid talking about it. Stop trying to rewrite history, ppl. ChaseRocker (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh, look, Obama eating dog as part of a very normal practice in Indonesia as a six year old is not relevant to an article about Mitt Romney doing something to a dog in 1983. They are completely separate topics and have nothing to do with each other.  This isn't an article about people and their dogs, it's about one particular dog and one particular person.  If we're going to include a section about this then we should also include a section about the time I accidentally spilled grease on my dog while I was cooking some eggs as an adolescent; it is equally relevant.  Please read over the discussions on this subject in the archives.  S Æ don talk 00:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you came up with that statement, other than it is a red hering being used to excuse what he did. The consumption of dog meat is not common in Indonesia.  Dog meat is considered haram by Muslims, and with over 85% of Indonesia being Muslim it is not common.  Our own article here on the subject states as much.  Arzel (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thaks, Arzel. Here's a quote from the above Wikilink:"...dog meat is usually associated with the Minahasa, an ethnic group in northern Sulawesi, and Bataks of northern Sumatra, who consider dog meat to be a festive dish....---WIKIPEDIA"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Azrel, I do not need to excuse what Obama did as a 6 year old, you are focusing on the wrong aspect of my argument and perhaps I should not even have mentioned the social acceptability of dog consumption, so my apologies for misleading you unintentionally. Even if it was not a socially acceptable practice to eat dog in Indonesia (which it is, as HSG pointed out; as an aside I have spent a large portion of my life in the East and it is not an alien concept to me in the least), the crux of my argument is that an article with the very specific scope of a dog named Seamus, his owner Mitt Romney and the controversy surrounding their reaction has nothing to do with an unnamed dog being consumed at a much earlier date by an entirely different man.  Let me try to make this more clear: if a news report came out tomorrow stated that Obama had killed and mutilated 500 dogs in a ritualistic satanic sacrifice, it would still have absolutely nothing to do with this article.  This article is not about dogs in the 2012 election - again, it is about one dog, one man, and their interaction.  The crux of the conservative response has been akin to "Oh yeah?  Well Obama hurt a dog too!," which is not actually about the subject at hand.   S Æ don talk 08:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you accept that this is a political article, making a political talking point? If you do not than what is the point of all the political responses?  Arzel (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, of course I do not accept that. This is an article in an encyclopedia about a political controversy, that doesn't make it a "political article."  We're not here to push a POV, we're here to report about a controversy - a controversy that is not about something Obama did as a child, but rather about one particular man and one particular dog.   S Æ don talk 20:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm against any part of Obama's comments at the White House Correspondents Dinner being part of this article. The issue is not bias, but encyclopedic quality.  Jokes told at a dinner by the President add nothing of substance to this article, and are not meant for an encyclopedia. HHIAdm (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Saedon, I've read all the discussion by ppl who want to keep any mention of Obama eating a Dog from showing up anywhere in Wikipedia. Trust me, your bias doesn't go unnoticed. But the fact is, the WHCD remarks by Obama were added AND accepted. He remarked about Dogs being fair game in the context of making fun of Himself and Romney. That is a fact. You cannot include Obama's comments without context. To do so is POV and wrong.
 * CR, you're going to be cut a bit of slack here because you're new, but I'm going to tell you right now that comments such as "Trust me, your bias doesn't go unnoticed" are inappropriate on WP. They may fly on forums across the internet, but if you make accusations on WP you need to be able to support them with strong evidence; repeated violations of this policy can lead to topic bans or blocks.  You also couldn't be more wrong; I am probably the most neutral editor currently dealing with this page, and I'm sure that other editors here would agree that I've annoyed both those on the right and the left (which is a good sign that I'm neutral).  For your own edification, please know the following about me: I do not vote, I think politics is a boring subject, I have no opinion whatsoever on who should be the next president (or congressman, senator, etc).  I really just don't care, but what I do care about is building an awesome encyclopedia.  So here are your options: if you think I am editing in a biased manner you should file a report at WP:ANI and request a block or a topic ban, OR, you should never again mention that I am editing in a biased manner.
 * Now, onto the topic at hand. Despite your misinterpretation of my statements above that obviously agree with your position that the aforementioned context of Obama's statements is topically relevant...actually I have no "but" there, I agree with you completely.  Obama's response to the matter is in my opinion relevant, and I have no objections whatsoever to the edit you introduced and I never objected in the first place.  How's that for bias?   S Æ don talk 07:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * HHIAdm, You say, "The issue is not about bias". You know that's wrong. People here are not only trying to keep the Obama eating a dog incident from this article, but from anywhere in Wikipedia. That IS bias. ChaseRocker (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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

In reality, the irony here is that the stories are so overhyped that they are almost a joke. And so Obama tells his joke, admittedly to make his tale less serious, but also to make the valid point that we actually could be talking about serious problems.

Why should we do that when being stupid is so much easier....? -- Avanu (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE tag
What is this tag referring to specifically? S Æ don talk 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It might help if you read my summary when I put it up.  Or you could probably  figure it out since there is only one issue really being discussed.  Arzel (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that you didn't add an UNDUE tag it wouldn't make much sense to look at your edit summary. S Æ don talk 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Now that the AfD is over...
As pointed out, this article needs cleanup to become a more neutral tone. We're not here to help people attack or protect Romney, we're here to present a neutral telling of the situation.

As such, I've removed the SuperPAC references entirely, because without analysis, it presents the implication that there is a massive groundswell grassroots movement around this incident. This isn't NPOV.

Also, I've removed the part about Gail Collins for much the same reason. So she mentions Romney 50 times... where is our secondary source analysis of that?

And finally, the two animal cruelty databases that list Romney. Essentially the same problem. It is an attack without analysis. What research do these databases do? Who can add material? Are the listings reviewed after they are added? etc etc. In other words, is this a legitimate addition that was placed in the database for legitimate reasons, or is it simply a political attack? Its just my opinion, but looking at the two sites, Pet-Abuse.com looks more like a legitimate website and Inhumane.org looks like someone's grandkid knocked it up in their spare time. But either way, if we are going to add contentious material about a Living Person or if we are going to place non-neutral material in an article, i.e. "Romney is cruel and unfit as a pet owner", then we need a WP:RS reliable, secondary source analysis of this, not just adding it because it 'rounds out' the story of alleged cruelty. -- Avanu (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. I recommended "delete" but think we should move on. A big part of the overall situation  is what Romney's opponents did with the story.  Wikipedia should cover that rather than participate in that. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In regard Gail Collins, we can't demand secondary sources as to the significance of aspects of the article, or we wouldn't have an article. In addition to the Washington Post article used as a reference, the PoliFacts article in the external links refers to her "obsession" with the subject. If that is reliable, she should definitely have a presence in the article.  As I said in the move discussion above, she may be among the most notable aspects of the subject.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I agree with your decision to remove the sentence about the non-attended protest, and I am ambivalent about the removal of information about Gail Collins. However, I disagree with the removal of the section on the super PACs, and the sentence about the animal cruelty databases. The super PACs were covered by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg News, while the databases were discussed in a New York Observer article. These are reliable sources. The concern about balance of coverage came up during the recent AfD for this article, and one of the other editors (Saedon) made an excellent comment: "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."

If there are super PACs which have been set up to defend Romney regarding his 1983 road trip, then we should include them in this article. But the lack of existance of such organizations does not mean that the two super PACs that currently exist should be removed from the article. If you look at Category:United States political action committees, you will see that 60 super PACs, many of whom have a limited impact, have their own Wikipedia page. I'm not suggesting that the super PACs which you removed should have their own page, just that they should be mentioned on this page because they are connected to the Seamus issue.

The same thing goes with the animal cruelty registries. One database was founded in 1986 (inhumane.org), and the other one (pet-abuse.com) about ten years ago. They are privately-run organizations (not law enforcement), but from what I've read, many animal shelters and pet stores use the database to screen out unsuitable customers. I agree with your goal of eliminating any bias from this article, but removing well-sourced and relevant information is not the way to do it. Debbie W. 18:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since those two organization do not have any authority we can not give the illusion that their opinion is that important. What some animal shelters do with their information is of little value.  It would be like me creating a website that tracks bad businesses, which other businesses then use to determine who they do business with.  Then list my website on the WP of a "bad" business saying that my private "bad business" registry says that they are bad.  Arzel (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Av and Az. If we get some serious secondary coverage of these issues then we can give them some WP:WEIGHT but without analysis there are too many possible interpretations that we as editors can not properly put in context.   S Æ don talk 20:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored the super PAC info, but reduced it to one sentence. The old verbiage gave undue weight to the super PACs, describing their whole agenda in detail. Now I just mention that two super PAC, which were created in response to the Seamus incident, exist. HHIAdm (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My rant

 * The main point that needs to be remembered is we don't include something in the article just because it casually relates to this story. Much of the tidbits in this story are presented as standalone nothings.


 * SuperPACs: For example, these two SuperPACs were mentioned, and as we see in the political race this season, SuperPACs play a HUGE role (for example, Mitt Romney's SuperPAC had $6.45 million at the end of March 2012 FEC ref). Stephen Colbert has widely publicized the influence that SuperPACs can have in elections by creating his own actual, but somewhat satirical, SuperPAC (link). In addition, he has shown that registering a SuperPAC with the FEC only requires a simple one page form (link).
 * So let's compare what Romney's SuperPAC has raised to what "Mitt is Mean" (FEC ref) and "DogPAC" (FEC ref) had brought in by March 2012. If you just followed those links, you will see ZERO. So the question is, what is the rationale for inclusion in this article for something that requires filling out a single sheet of paper, and has raised zero dollars?
 * The super PACS had just been founded as of the March 1 FEC reporting deadline, so I wouldn't expect them to report anything. I don't believe that we should have the extensive coverage of the super PACs that we previously had, with them having their own section and detailed description of their agenda.  However, I think that we need to acknowledge their existance, so I eliminated the Super PAC section, and just have one sentence in the political section about them.HHIAdm (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cruelty Databases: We need to ask ourselves similar questions when we look at the two animal cruelty databases. How does someone add material to these databases? Who reviews the material for accuracy? Did these two agencies follow the same process they normally do when they received the information on Mitt Romney, which was essentially copied from a newspaper article? PetAbuse has an online form for submitting cases (link). It states "Due to legal liability, we cannot consider adding any cases in which the requirements shown below are not provided. We MUST have court documentation ID numbers OR at least one media reference that we can verify." It does not state what steps are taken to ensure the accuracy of the information and the database currently has 18,819 cases listed. (By the way, looking through the lists will make your stomach turn and your heart pound much more, I think, than the Mitt Romney tale. There are some seriously messed up people in our world.) Inhumane.org works using a similar process; they claim over 20,000 cases and approximately 4,000 pending to be added. But emotional responses aside, the bar is obviously very very low for entry into these databases. The information about Mitt Romney is not in question, however, the characterization of Mitt being such a foul person that he is in NOT ONE, BUT TWO animal cruelty databases is not a reasonable characterization.


 * Gail Collins: Moving on, the article states that "Gail Collins had mentioned the car trip more than 50 times." OK, so what? This doesn't tell the reader much at all. It does not explain, why, how it was mentioned, the impact or potential impact of her mentioning it; it is merely a standalone fact that has been given no context, even being so vague as to be called "Supplementary Information". The same could be said about the mention of Seamus' nickname being mentioned. The reader should be asking 'Why does it matter? How does this relate to the story?'
 * Gail Collins should be mentioned because she is one of the people heavily responsible for the development of this story. Even though her actions are excessive, she is a notable journalist who writes for a major newspaper who heavily wrote about this story. It is relevant. HHIAdm (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * PETA: Let's continue and look at the opening a little where we quote PETA saying how it was "animal cruelty" and "torture". Who is the person saying this? Her name is Ingrid Newkirk. For sake of balance, let's see if she said anything else....


 * Quoting from Salon.com - Mommy Wars give way to Doggy Wars in Twitterverse


 * Interestingly, one person who doesn’t seem to take it too seriously is the president of PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.


 * “As an individual, it irritates me when there is any talk of anything that doesn’t settle on the core issues,” said Ingrid Newkirk, stressing that she was speaking for herself . “And if we want to talk about treatment of animals in this country,” she added, “there are far more serious issues to talk about.” (my underlining there)


 * OK, so as 'official' spokesperson she says its horrible, but as Ingrid, she says this isn't really a serious discussion topic. Should we include the fullness of her statements on this? YOU FREAKING BET WE SHOULD. But have we? No.


 * In Closing: It is about being responsible, people. Even if you disagree with Romney on this issue, the article is in a crappy state and needs some SERIOUS review and less partisan "crap editing".


 * I can keep going, but I think you get the point. Either edit this thing in a responsible manner or go edit something else. I personally agree with what many of the commenters said in the Salon article, including Ingrid Newkirk. This issue is not worth our time considering there are legitimate and serious issues facing the United States. However, that won't stop me from making sure that we all follow a reasonable course here. End of rant. -- Avanu (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are areas in this article that can be improved, but compared to many articles that I have seen, this article is not in such crappy shape. It has a lot of references, and quotes people with differering opinion. HHIAdm (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In regard Gail, I believe that she was responsible for keeping the issue alive until Newt ran with it. I can't yet find a reliable source to that effect, but she needs to be kept here if a reliable source is to be found.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also think Gail Collins should be included - on a quick look, here's a secondary source discussing her keeping this story going. I believe I also read a secondary source connecting her coverage to Gingrich's use of the story, but I am not sure where. Will look too. Tvoz / talk 07:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On a quick look, there is this one. Tvoz / talk 07:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't care whether or not these things are kept in the story. I care about the neutral presentation of the article. If we're going to have Gail Collins mentioned, it needs to have a basis, not just "some lady mentioned this a lot". And in looking at those two stories it seems clear that generally people find her behavior a bit obsessive and even problematic. From that NPR link, Dartmouth political science professor Brendan Nyhan said "But I do think it's representative of the way that the media focuses on trivia, things that are so inconsequential." In the PolitiFact article, they say "lest we be accused of utter frivolousness, we asked Swidey what aspects of Romney's biography might be more relevant to voters considering Romney for president." Point being, we have no mention of what impact she had, nor do we have how she is perceived by others because of this obsessive fixation on this story. -- Avanu (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've spent some time reading articles about Seamus and PETA, and I'm okay with the sentence as it currently stands. PETA is highly critical of Romney's treatment of the dog, which is not a surprise considering the ideology of PETA.  Read the following article which is on their website.  I'm not sure of the context of Ms. Newkirk reply in the Salon article (i.e., what question did they ask her), and I think to commingle her personal opinion with her her organizational opinion is wrong. We quote her because of her official role, and PETA has officially criticized Romney.  HHIAdm (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So, despite the fact that she (and many others) believe this is pretty much a non-issue when compared with more serious issues that are also present, you believe we should only mention things that present a very biased attitude against the incident? -- Avanu (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I believe that maintaining a neutral point of view requires that we don't take quotes out of context, or don't distort an organization's opinion. The material that you wish to add has no real context, in that I'm not sure what Salon asked Ingrid Newkirk.  More importantly, to add it would give the impression that PETA does not really care about this issue.  I will tell you that I am no supporter of PETA, but they very much care about this issue.  The Seamus issue is on their website.HHIAdm (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the point. Obviously they care. The point is are we presenting a legitimate representation of how much they care, and where actual opinion sits? The same woman characterizing it in very strident language such as "torture" also said that personally there are bigger fish to fry (not that she would fry fish, being a PETA person). This sentiment lines up with a lot of other comments in the media and to present this as it has been is not a realistic view. -- Avanu (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 White House Correspondents Dinner - Obama's jokes
The reference to 2012 White House Correspondents' Dinner included Obama making a joke about "We have all agreed that families are off-limits. Dogs are apparently fair game." This is correctly sourced/cited.

To give context to his "Dogs are apparently fair game.", I'm simply noting that Obama, at the same sourced and cited event, made jokes about the revelations he once ate Dog as a child. Obama jokes that dogs are fair game because both political parties, including himself, are using them.

The event and Obama's comments were allowed to be cited, I'm simply clarifying the context of his remarks. ChaseRocker (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ChaseRocker, We previously discussed the Obama dog eating issue, and decided not to include it in this article. It's a separate issue. See Talk:Seamus_(dog)/Obama_eats_dog. Debbie W. 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No such decision was made. Not sure how you can argue to include all of the political aspects of the Seamus political attack and rationally argue that the response is unrelated.  Arzel (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At the end of those discussions there were no good objections to the points that I and others had raised regarding the response from the right being a red herring and so WP:SILENCE applies. Nonetheless this appears to be a different matter entirely; it's not about the response from the right, but rather a comment from Obama.   S Æ don talk 22:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An AfD decided that the Obama Eats Dogs article should be deleted, not merged. While the comment from Obama came after the creation of the Obama Eats Dogs article, this seems like an attempt to import the OED material into this article. Additionally, I'm not sure how we include this material without the existance of the OED article, or some other article in Wikipedia to explain what OED is.  Debbie W. 22:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the difference now is that Obama himself has commented on the issue. One of the big problems before was that the Obama situation was brought up by rightist commentators in order to distract from the Seamus incident.  I'm not sure how I feel about this addition one way or the other, I'll have to think about it.  S Æ don talk 21:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because it was decided an article about Obama Eats Dogs should not exist, that doesn't mean all mention of it should be excised from all articles, especially when President Obama connected his eating of dog meat with Seamus at the White House Correspondents Dinner. A mention, particularly just a phrase, of the connection appears appropriate here.  If more information about OED is necessary, it can be included in a footnote. 72Dino (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply absurd. You cannot have a political reaction section and not have the corresponding retort from the right regarding Obama eating dog.  Arzel (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please reread all the arguments made against your position by me the last time we had this discussion. As was pointed out, the response from the right was a red herring that only attempted to distract from the issue at hand.  While the right is free to use as many logical fallacies as they want in order to convince people to vote for their candidates, we as a serious encyclopedia cannot republish logical fallacies and act as though they are not.  What Obama did is a separate issue in its entirety.  I'm OK with the aforementioned addition because Obama opened the door himself, but we're not going to start including the stuff that, for instance, Kelly tried to add a few weeks ago.   S Æ don talk 23:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? This whole issue about Romney is a red herring by the left and somehow Obama is immune from the same?  Arzel (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the White House Correspondents Dinner comments by Obama were allowed. His comments of "Dogs are apparently fair game" were allowed. His comments can ONLY be seen in the context of the political discussion and his own jokes about himself having eaten a dog meat. Why does he joke about Dogs being fair game? Because of the dog stories in the political arena about Romney and himself. He made jokes about himself too, not just Romney. Before he even showed the Seamus video, he joked about himself. In order to keep with NPOV...the entire context should be given. Unless there's still disagreement, I will add that reference back in. ChaseRocker (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't object. As I said above, it's an entirely different context than republishing logical fallacies.  This is kind of like a "as an aside, when the president commented here is what he said" kind of thing.  It doesn't strike me as a BLP problem, nor do I feel it is undue and honestly it's kind of funny :).   S Æ don talk 23:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm adding it back for context. What I find even more amusing, aside from all the jokes, is the attempt by some to wipe any talk of Obama Eating a dog from the political discussion, despite Obama himself talking about it on numerous occasions. Just because you try and erase it from Wikipedia or hide it in an archive isn't gonna erase the event from history. Obama is on tape/vid talking about it. Stop trying to rewrite history, ppl. ChaseRocker (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh, look, Obama eating dog as part of a very normal practice in Indonesia as a six year old is not relevant to an article about Mitt Romney doing something to a dog in 1983. They are completely separate topics and have nothing to do with each other.  This isn't an article about people and their dogs, it's about one particular dog and one particular person.  If we're going to include a section about this then we should also include a section about the time I accidentally spilled grease on my dog while I was cooking some eggs as an adolescent; it is equally relevant.  Please read over the discussions on this subject in the archives.  S Æ don talk 00:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you came up with that statement, other than it is a red hering being used to excuse what he did. The consumption of dog meat is not common in Indonesia.  Dog meat is considered haram by Muslims, and with over 85% of Indonesia being Muslim it is not common.  Our own article here on the subject states as much.  Arzel (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thaks, Arzel. Here's a quote from the above Wikilink:"...dog meat is usually associated with the Minahasa, an ethnic group in northern Sulawesi, and Bataks of northern Sumatra, who consider dog meat to be a festive dish....---WIKIPEDIA"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Azrel, I do not need to excuse what Obama did as a 6 year old, you are focusing on the wrong aspect of my argument and perhaps I should not even have mentioned the social acceptability of dog consumption, so my apologies for misleading you unintentionally. Even if it was not a socially acceptable practice to eat dog in Indonesia (which it is, as HSG pointed out; as an aside I have spent a large portion of my life in the East and it is not an alien concept to me in the least), the crux of my argument is that an article with the very specific scope of a dog named Seamus, his owner Mitt Romney and the controversy surrounding their reaction has nothing to do with an unnamed dog being consumed at a much earlier date by an entirely different man.  Let me try to make this more clear: if a news report came out tomorrow stated that Obama had killed and mutilated 500 dogs in a ritualistic satanic sacrifice, it would still have absolutely nothing to do with this article.  This article is not about dogs in the 2012 election - again, it is about one dog, one man, and their interaction.  The crux of the conservative response has been akin to "Oh yeah?  Well Obama hurt a dog too!," which is not actually about the subject at hand.   S Æ don talk 08:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you accept that this is a political article, making a political talking point? If you do not than what is the point of all the political responses?  Arzel (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, of course I do not accept that. This is an article in an encyclopedia about a political controversy, that doesn't make it a "political article."  We're not here to push a POV, we're here to report about a controversy - a controversy that is not about something Obama did as a child, but rather about one particular man and one particular dog.   S Æ don talk 20:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm against any part of Obama's comments at the White House Correspondents Dinner being part of this article. The issue is not bias, but encyclopedic quality.  Jokes told at a dinner by the President add nothing of substance to this article, and are not meant for an encyclopedia. HHIAdm (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Saedon, I've read all the discussion by ppl who want to keep any mention of Obama eating a Dog from showing up anywhere in Wikipedia. Trust me, your bias doesn't go unnoticed. But the fact is, the WHCD remarks by Obama were added AND accepted. He remarked about Dogs being fair game in the context of making fun of Himself and Romney. That is a fact. You cannot include Obama's comments without context. To do so is POV and wrong.
 * CR, you're going to be cut a bit of slack here because you're new, but I'm going to tell you right now that comments such as "Trust me, your bias doesn't go unnoticed" are inappropriate on WP. They may fly on forums across the internet, but if you make accusations on WP you need to be able to support them with strong evidence; repeated violations of this policy can lead to topic bans or blocks.  You also couldn't be more wrong; I am probably the most neutral editor currently dealing with this page, and I'm sure that other editors here would agree that I've annoyed both those on the right and the left (which is a good sign that I'm neutral).  For your own edification, please know the following about me: I do not vote, I think politics is a boring subject, I have no opinion whatsoever on who should be the next president (or congressman, senator, etc).  I really just don't care, but what I do care about is building an awesome encyclopedia.  So here are your options: if you think I am editing in a biased manner you should file a report at WP:ANI and request a block or a topic ban, OR, you should never again mention that I am editing in a biased manner.
 * Now, onto the topic at hand. Despite your misinterpretation of my statements above that obviously agree with your position that the aforementioned context of Obama's statements is topically relevant...actually I have no "but" there, I agree with you completely.  Obama's response to the matter is in my opinion relevant, and I have no objections whatsoever to the edit you introduced and I never objected in the first place.  How's that for bias?   S Æ don talk 07:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * HHIAdm, You say, "The issue is not about bias". You know that's wrong. People here are not only trying to keep the Obama eating a dog incident from this article, but from anywhere in Wikipedia. That IS bias. ChaseRocker (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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

In reality, the irony here is that the stories are so overhyped that they are almost a joke. And so Obama tells his joke, admittedly to make his tale less serious, but also to make the valid point that we actually could be talking about serious problems.

Why should we do that when being stupid is so much easier....? -- Avanu (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)