Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Categories

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)
 * I just removed the category. --Mollskman (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)